Democrats Threaten to Protest Themselves!

[piasabird]

President O'Bamma had a chance to create jobs and he is a big fat failure.

 

[sandorski]

Neither of you are. I regret typing that this morning. I should have kept that information private. But what's done is done.

hehe, ok.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

You are used to the lock-step Rpublican corruption and can't make sense of intra-party disputes eh?

It's not that the republicans are in lock-step. The republicans are a fairly unified party with a widely accepted platform. The Dems are basically a coalition party made up of many disparate groups whose only real connection is that they are not republicans.

Gays
Unions
Catholics
Pro-Abortion groups
Environmentalists (and even inside this group there are combative factions)

Just a few examples of groups with very different, often conflicting, agendas who tend to ally themselves with the Dems. So it's not suprising to see that the Dems have so much internal strife.

 

[jman19]

It's not that the republicans are in lock-step. The republicans are a fairly unified party with a widely accepted platform. The Dems are basically a coalition party made up of many disparate groups whose only real connection is that they are not republicans.

Gays
Unions
Catholics
Pro-Abortion groups
Environmentalists (and even inside this group there are combative factions)

Just a few examples of groups with very different, often conflicting, agendas who tend to ally themselves with the Dems. So it's not suprising to see that the Dems have so much internal strife.

Not even close to being true. Most conservatives I know swallow their vile and pull the lever for big gov't Republicans, just as they have for the last two decades. What the Republicans represent and what true economic conservatives want does not reconcile in reality.

 

[Ausm]

A few more quotes for those that won't read the article.









Hmm, protest? This looks more like an implosion. It's going to be virtually impossible to buy off 139 members of Congress.

That wouldn't happen in your wildest wet dream.

 

[Mani]

From "The, you just can't make this stuff up file".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/02/obama-takes-heat-from-democrats-over-jobs/Obama takes heat from Democrats over jobs

What an amazing time we live in. Democrats are poised to protest their own policies.



What's even more amazing, is that it's truly a bi-partisan effort. At this time the "Jobs Now Caucus" is made up of 112 Democrats and 17 Republicans.

It's not business as usual anymore in DC, cannibalism is taking over. Time for Obama to take an overseas trip.

Which is better - a party that has internal disagreements or one that forces a single line through purity tests and intimidation, making themselves more and more irrelevant in the process?

Dems built a majority by building a more diverse coalition - it's going to cause them to have internal disagreements but it's also what will keep them in power, even in 2010.

 

[First]

You're a better man than I am. I had no intentions of explaining this to them.

rofl, wow, now it's just kind of sad.

 

[Rainsford]

Democrats don't all march in lockstep or all believe the same thing, obviously. I'm not sure why this should be news to anyone, unless THEIR political party behaves differently...

I should also point out that this is a big reason I consider myself a Democrat. I like the idea of supporting a party because I agree with a lot of their views without having to agree with all of them. You know the old saying...if everyone is thinking the same, then somebody isn't thinking.

 

[Vic]

President O'Bamma had a chance to create jobs and he is a big fat failure.

He did? When was that? About the same time he forced the BofA/Merrill merger which occurred before he took office?

 

[Vic]

Democrats don't all march in lockstep or all believe the same thing, obviously. I'm not sure why this should be news to anyone, unless THEIR political party behaves differently...

I should also point out that this is a big reason I consider myself a Democrat. I like the idea of supporting a party because I agree with a lot of their views without having to agree with all of them. You know the old saying...if everyone is thinking the same, then somebody isn't thinking.

"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers, 1935

 

[werepossum]

It's not that the republicans are in lock-step. The republicans are a fairly unified party with a widely accepted platform. The Dems are basically a coalition party made up of many disparate groups whose only real connection is that they are not republicans.

Gays
Unions
Catholics
Pro-Abortion groups
Environmentalists (and even inside this group there are combative factions)

Just a few examples of groups with very different, often conflicting, agendas who tend to ally themselves with the Dems. So it's not suprising to see that the Dems have so much internal strife.

That's a valid analysis of the Democrat Party, but the Republican Party has its own problems. There are social values Republicans and fiscal conservative Republicans, and they are at war. A fair amount of American believes in both, but nowhere near enough to win elections. Many Republicans are strictly single-issue voters, usually on abortion. Other Republicans cannot stomach the thought of voting for a candidate whose major plank is abortion.

I think it is easier for the Democrats to corral their factions simply because their party is so many factions. Therefore while the candidate that emerges may not be from their faction, it's not going to be from a diametrically opposed faction. No Democrat national candidate is going to be anti-abortion, or anti-union. (This breaks down a bit with gays.) With Republicans, on the other hand, there are two main camps, so if the candidate that emerges isn't from your faction, he's from the other. Only Republicans who are both social values and fiscal conservative voters will be happy with the majority of Republican candidates, the others are going to be disappointed half the time. Democrats are just happy their candidate isn't a Republican.

 

[Red Dawn]

It's not that the republicans are in lock-step. The republicans are a fairly unified party with a widely accepted platform. The Dems are basically a coalition party made up of many disparate groups whose only real connection is that they are not republicans.

Gays
Unions
Catholics
Pro-Abortion groups
Environmentalists (and even inside this group there are combative factions)

Just a few examples of groups with very different, often conflicting, agendas who tend to ally themselves with the Dems. So it's not suprising to see that the Dems have so much internal strife.

Of course they are mkuch more divise than the examples you gave.

 

[Zebo]

What jobs? World has an over capacity of stuff as it is. And China will work even cheaper to keep it. And it's not like there is any money out there to create lasting jobs with reputable and competitive companies since the crooks at the banks got it all.

The banks in turn are stifling businesses. My Business CC was slashed from 35K to 15K with no change in credit history. My advanta business card was flat out canceled.

 

[seemingly random]

...
With an added bonus;

More posters in this thread on my ignore list than not - priceless
...

Aww, that's cute - making lists.

If only you could sanitize your world by having it populated exclusively with tea-baggers.

 

[werepossum]

Aww, that's cute - making lists.

If only you could sanitize your world by having it populated exclusively with tea-baggers.

Silly bear, even the Democratic Party isn't populated exclusively with tea-baggers (except for weekends at Barney Franks' condo.)

 

[seemingly random]

Silly bear, even the Democratic Party isn't populated exclusively with tea-baggers (except for weekends at Barney Franks' condo.)

Hadn't realized that was the majority. I guess this explains why they clean up so well after their functions.

 

[Rainsford]

"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers, 1935

Hehe, indeed. I think at least half the reason I'm a Democrat is that I'm naturally pretty suspicious of large groups of people who all appear to be thinking the same thing. I know plenty of Republicans who are individually highly intelligent people who think for themselves, but the party as a whole (particularly the public commentary originating from the GOP) reminds me of being at an Amway "meeting".

 

[PJABBER]

The Black Caucus War Against Obama
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Saturday, December 05, 2009

Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race."

A civil war is breaking out within the left of the Democratic Party pitting the Congressional Black Caucus against the first African-American president.

The battle began when California Rep. Maxine Waters complained publicly about the administration's failure to do more to help minority-owned businesses in the current recession. (Translation: In the new stimulus of "jobs" bill making its way through Congress, they want a larger take.) It continued yesterday when 10 members of the Black Caucus refused to participate in a meeting of the House Banking Committee that was considering the bill to restructure financial regulations, forcing Chairman Barney Frank to push the bill through by the uncomfortable margin of only 31-27.

The latest shot in the battle was fired by Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., a card carrying regular of the Black Caucus. Faced with the need to investigate the gate-crashing at the White House during the recent state dinner for India, he chose to embarrass the administration by subpoenaing White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers rather than quietly negotiating for her appearance.

That Thompson's action was a deliberate slap in Obama's face is obvious (even though the media have missed it). Since when does a liberal Democratic committee chairman embarrass a liberal Democratic president by forcing a liberal Democratic social secretary (from Chicago no less) to resist a subpoena to appear at a hearing? Since he wanted to send a message to Obama and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the Black Caucus did not like being taken for granted.

The merits of the controversy are obvious. What possible reason would a social secretary, for goodness sakes, have for the assertion of executive privilege, usually reserved for issues of national security? Obviously, none. But Thompson chose his target well. He struck at the social core of the Chicago Mafia that runs the White House, probably striking within the Obama family as well.

You don't do that to a president of your own party, your own ideology and even your own race unless you want to make a point.

The friction between the Black Caucus and Obama escalated when Waters berated the administration for failing to rework a business loan from Goldman Sachs to the Inner City Broadcasting Corp. Inner City is run by Pierre Sutton, son of Percy Sutton, the longtime media giant in the African-American community. Two weeks after she raised the issue in a meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Emanuel, Goldman saw the light and restructured the loan.

Coming on top of liberal angst with the decision by the "peace" president to escalate the war in Afghanistan, this split with the Black Caucus comes at an awkward time.

But you pay a price when you mess with the African American Caucus and the Suttons. The Obama administration is feeling it. Its kind of fun to watch!

 

[seemingly random]

The Black Caucus War Against Obama
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Saturday, December 05, 2009

...

I give morris as much credence as mr. "shoe tapper" craig. Next, we'll find out this was in the washington times.

 

[Vic]

I give morris as much credence as mr. "shoe tapper" craig. Next, we'll find out this was in the washington times.

Google says http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/12/05/the_black_caucus_war_against_obama

There are 2 reasons why I think Pjabber is an idiot, and neither are directly related to his politics. The first is that I have never once seen him post a thread with his own original content. For obvious reasons, I look down on anyone who can't think for themselves, or manage to express their own original opinions. The second is that he is dishonest when he suits his agenda. Many white groups opposed GW Bush, but I bet he never posted anything about a white civil war. That would be silly. But if some blacks oppose Obama, what else (in his opinion) could it be, right? Forget that being black is a skin color, and not a political ideology!

Oh well, I suppose the 2nd is just a representative symptom of the 1st. A person can be made to believe most anything when they never form any of their beliefs on their own.

 

[seemingly random]

Google says http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/12/05/the_black_caucus_war_against_obama

There are 2 reasons why I think Pjabber is an idiot, and neither are directly related to his politics. The first is that I have never once seen him post a thread with his own original content. For obvious reasons, I look down on anyone who can't think for themselves, or manage to express their own original opinions. The second is that he is dishonest when he suits his agenda. Many white groups opposed GW Bush, but I bet he never posted anything about a white civil war. That would be silly. But if some blacks oppose Obama, what else (in his opinion) could it be, right? Forget that being black is a skin color, and not a political ideology!

Oh well, I suppose the 2nd is just a representative symptom of the 1st. A person can be made to believe most anything when they never form any of their beliefs on their own.

One thing I've noticed about pj (could this be a reinvented profjohn?) is his inability to use the commonly accepted forum quote system for differentiating between something written by the poster and others. Now, I'm thinking that he is perfectly aware of how and why to quote and doesn't use quotes because he's basically dishonest.

Trying to respond to his individual statements is worthless since I believe he's just fucking with people. Why? - I don't know and don't want to waste any time trying to figure it out. I imagine, when the refined posing is stripped away, he's just an old, bitter, white guy who thinks people are ignoring his self-perceived special qualities. His all-caps user name speaks volumes.

 

[PJABBER]

Google says http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/12/05/the_black_caucus_war_against_obama

There are 2 reasons why I think Pjabber is an idiot, and neither are directly related to his politics. The first is that I have never once seen him post a thread with his own original content. For obvious reasons, I look down on anyone who can't think for themselves, or manage to express their own original opinions. The second is that he is dishonest when he suits his agenda. Many white groups opposed GW Bush, but I bet he never posted anything about a white civil war. That would be silly. But if some blacks oppose Obama, what else (in his opinion) could it be, right? Forget that being black is a skin color, and not a political ideology!

Oh well, I suppose the 2nd is just a representative symptom of the 1st. A person can be made to believe most anything when they never form any of their beliefs on their own.

Why, Vic and seemingly random, I post plenty of my own comments, and do so with great humour and humility! When I first started posting here I was jumped on by your peers for not including third party reference material. Now you are jumping on me for including plenty of third party references and material quotes. With guys like you, anyone with an independent viewpoint just can't win!

As you well know, I wasn't posting in this forum when GWB and my main man Cheney were in office. Even with plentiful time in the US of A I was working overseas for a good part of the last 20 or so years. Anyway, I tend to like to pick out the foibles of those in power. Sorry I missed all of the action back then, but for the past six months I have seen no lack of continued criticism of Bush, Cheney and my other main man, Ronnie Reagan. They are not in power right now, RIP RR, so I have little personal interest in re-visiting the arguments it seems everyone here was so passionate about and can't seem to Move On from.

Actually, Bush DID get a lot of criticisms from the conservatives, and particularly from fiscal conservatives. So, though I wasn't around to participate, you would have seen the same from me, being a fiscal conservative as well as a classical liberal.

Since I decided to participate here, I see many people have what are nominally known as "rabbit ears." They love to bash but can't take it when their idols are being tweaked.

With the total domination of the executive and legislative branches of government by the Democrats that makes it easy for me - pick on the Democrats and the welfare liberalism they espouse! That I am opposed to big government, corruption in government, the running of extraordinary deficits to no result, the social nanny approach to governance and all the hilarious forms of political correctness I find HUGE opportunity to propose topics, arguments and perspectives, which, again, I find there is some kind of a rule here that a third party reference be made, at least in posting a new thread.

Honestly, I find most of the "unique" and self-attributed commentary made here from the leftish to be regurgitation of the rantings in the Huffington Post, DailyKos and the like and I would rather that anyone doing the regurgitation link the article or blog they are copying or paraphrasing. No original thought there at all. In the future, please, no Wall O' Text, just a link to the leftish sources of your stale opinion.

I do find it amusing that the Democrats are eating themselves up from within and that the CONGRESSIONAL Black Caucus, of all groups, is jumping on Obama. No middle ground for the left. Right? ;-)

Sorry for making you search, search, search for it in your oh so vain attempt to discredit what I always credit. As I was posting I was rushing, rushing, rushing to get to the National Gallery Of Art this afternoon for a showing of "Orfeu Negro" (Black Orpheus) in a restored 35mm print on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of this wonderful film. I have seen it four times and love it more each time!

The "correct" link for Dick Morris is -

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/12/04/the-black-caucus-war-against-obama/#more-683

Many thanks, though, for your own linkage to Townhall.com! They have lots of interesting opinion pieces that could be fodder for my posting!

Oh you natty little boys with your fixations on the inconsequentials! My अवतार here is a contraction of (Semi - I'm modest!) P(ro) JABBER, and simply refers to my misspent youth where I found using my fists as well as my head paid me more than using highfalutin' words. Those experiences served me well as I pursued higher eduvacation, years as an infantry officer (mech and airborne) and, finally, in the genteel world of international business. I like to capitalize the moniker as it was a CAPITAL EXPERIENCE!

Vai tomar no cu, babacas!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

 

[seemingly random]

Why, Vic and seemingly random, I post plenty of my own comments, and do so with great humour and humility! When I first started posting here I was jumped on by your peers for not including third party reference material. Now you are jumping on me for including plenty of third party references and material quotes. With guys like you, anyone with an independent viewpoint just can't win!

Poor, poor pj - so put upon. Maybe you should be treated as the exceptional retarded kid.

[... more drivel, self-congratulation and mental masturbation ...]

It seems that more than one person inhabits your account - either in separate human bodies or maybe in just one. I can visualize the maniacal gesticulations. Maybe you should search out the impostors and get pugilistic on them.

For one so worldly and erudite, it's a wonder you elect to spend time with us little folk. Sorry if I don't seem to be blessed or even a tad appreciative.

 

[PJABBER]

It seems that more than one person inhabits your account - either in separate human bodies or maybe in just one. ...

For one so worldly and erudite, it's a wonder you elect to spend time with us little folk. Sorry if I don't seem to be blessed or even a tad appreciative.

I never can understand this regular reference to other people. Isn't one of me enough for you?

I am not only worldly and erudite, I am generally quite polite. You should emulate that, if only for karmic reward.

I don't really spend time with little folk like you. This is likely the first and only time I have addressed you. You haven't posted anything of note and most everything you post is a personal attack or insult, and poorly done at that. It is a curiosity.

 

[seemingly random]

I never can understand this regular reference to other people. Isn't one of me enough for you?

I am not only worldly and erudite, I am generally quite polite. You should emulate that, if only for karmic reward.

I don't really spend time with little folk like you. This is likely the first and only time I have addressed you. You haven't posted anything of note and most everything you post is a personal attack or insult, and poorly done at that. It is a curiosity.

It's curious that what you seem to be able to see in others, you are unable to see in yourself. Maybe you should consult one of your other entities.