Opportunities to volunteer with Obama campaign in DC

[Anonymous]

P.S. I don't think Obama is "in over his head". I think his problems have mostly come from the fact that he is faced with most intransigient opposition party we've seen in modern American politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow

was not expecting to see these answers, I am not sure if OP "planted" this post but is this how people really feel?

I don't think the OP planted her post, and there are clearly a lot of disappointed Dems but it's also true that Republicans have been known to pretend to be Democrats online in an effort to try and cause trouble for the Dems.

Why didn't you say that members of both parties "pretend" online "in an effort to try and cause trouble," or do you think only Republicans would engage in such behavior?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:P.S. I don't think Obama is "in over his head". I think his problems have mostly come from the fact that he is faced with most intransigient opposition party we've seen in modern American politics.

That's absolutely true if you date modern politics as beginning in 2008. Otherwise crack a history book or two. It's not that the opposition is tough, it's that he's so bad at playing politics with other power players. He's a lightweight in a heavyweight league. His first term has been the most public on the job training in history. Don't blame him though. He only voted once. It's the "thrill up their legs" faction that got carried away with his narrative. Anyway, it's all mute at this point. He will lose in 2012. His only vision is a redistributive one. Instead of making a bigger pie, he wants to argue about the size of pieces of the welfare state pie. He has no ideas on how to make a bigger tastier pie. On the big issues of the day, he is largely adrift. Global warming? Energy independence? Entitlement reform? Fair trade? Lowering the debt? This should come as no surprise though. His greatest area of expertise before being elected was...himself. Two books about...himself. "Profiles in Barack" . His world is actually quite small and so is his vision and political skill set.

[Anonymous]

19:04 please! He is a republican in democratic drag. It is great to talk about "redistribution" and "welfare state", but these are talking points. The US has the lowest tax rate in modern history and of developed nations..16% Where are the jobs? They are in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries. What do their governments look like? OB did everything you conservatives wanted, including the healthcare thing(a republican plan) and look a the state of this country.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P.S. I don't think Obama is "in over his head". I think his problems have mostly come from the fact that he is faced with most intransigient opposition party we've seen in modern American politics.

That's absolutely true if you date modern politics as beginning in 2008. Otherwise crack a history book or two. It's not that the opposition is tough, it's that he's so bad at playing politics with other power players. He's a lightweight in a heavyweight league.

I don't think that you are correct in ignoring how obstructionist the Republicans have been. Even prominent Republicans are starting to lose patience with the party. However, I do agree that more could be done to confront them. I used to think that Obama was poor in this regard (much as you do). But, I've come to realize that Obama is no idiot. He is getting exactly what he wants. The fact that he is able to blame it on the Republicans is the icing on the cake for him. He is playing Clinton's triangulation strategy to a "T". He screws the left wing of the party by saying the Republicans won't negotiate with him, gaining independent support in the process, and then dares the left wing not to vote for him. This worked for Clinton who famously attacked Sister Souljah and put Ricky Ray Rector to death, but still became known as America's first black president. He stepped all over black people on the way to the presidency -- gaining white support as a result -- while expecting (correctly it turned out) that blacks would have no alternative but to vote for him. Gore tried the same trick (just not on racial issues) but just enough potential voters were tired of the game and voted for Nader. It remains to be seen whether Obama will be a Clinton or a Gore.

[Anonymous]

I typically vote Republican. I did not vote for Obama. But when he was elected, I was excited about the change and urged people to give him a chance. Bush had made such a mess of things, I figured maybe someone completely different could at least start to lead our country in the right direction.

Like many Democrats, I have been disappointed. To me, things seem worse.

The really depressing thing is that I just don't see any candidates, Republican or Dem, that stand out. I won't vote for Obama. I would vote for Hillary Clinton were she to get the nomination.

[Anonymous]

I am the PP 23:26 with the first response. First, I am not a Republican plant. The Republican base is much worse than the moderate Republican Obama. I am happy to give Obama this point.

My purpose in voting third party is to have some kind of voice in the debate and possibly send a message to Obama and the Dems to pay attention to Democratic Party pillars. Furthermore, I would rather the Republicans bring the country down quickly and under their own brand then have some false Democrat slowly inching us towards an inevitable disaster. Let's just get this over with, so we can start the rebuilding process sooner. I personally don't mind if my candidate has to make compromises with the opposition, but I certainly don't want the candidate to mimic the opposition's arguments.

Finally, I don't want socialism. I want a social safety net, I want health care system that has costs/outcomes that line up with the rest of the world, and I want reasonable regulations to keep markets fair, I want the government to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects/aid to local governments/unemployment extensions. To do this, we probably need to cut defense some and raise taxes. It just happens that relatively few people have all the wealth, so they are going to have to pay. I actually believe it is in the interests of big business and the wealthy to implement these kinds of policies. By the way, these are not new ideas as some of them have been around and working since the depression. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the PP 23:26 with the first response. First, I am not a Republican plant. The Republican base is much worse than the moderate Republican Obama. I am happy to give Obama this point.

My purpose in voting third party is to have some kind of voice in the debate and possibly send a message to Obama and the Dems to pay attention to Democratic Party pillars. Furthermore, I would rather the Republicans bring the country down quickly and under their own brand then have some false Democrat slowly inching us towards an inevitable disaster. Let's just get this over with, so we can start the rebuilding process sooner. I personally don't mind if my candidate has to make compromises with the opposition, but I certainly don't want the candidate to mimic the opposition's arguments.

Finally, I don't want socialism. I want a social safety net, I want health care system that has costs/outcomes that line up with the rest of the world, and I want reasonable regulations to keep markets fair, I want the government to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects/aid to local governments/unemployment extensions. To do this, we probably need to cut defense some and raise taxes. It just happens that relatively few people have all the wealth, so they are going to have to pay. I actually believe it is in the interests of big business and the wealthy to implement these kinds of policies. By the way, these are not new ideas as some of them have been around and working since the depression. Go figure.

I could have written most of the above myself, except for the part about the third party. Before equating Obama with the GOP, think of SCOTUS. An Obama appointee might not be a liberal, but he or she would probably not be dedicated to overturning Roe v Wade, to extending Citizens United, etc, etc. There is a big difference between an Obama who disappoints us by not fighting for things we believe in, and a Bachmann fighting to destroy those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the PP 23:26 with the first response. First, I am not a Republican plant. The Republican base is much worse than the moderate Republican Obama. I am happy to give Obama this point.

My purpose in voting third party is to have some kind of voice in the debate and possibly send a message to Obama and the Dems to pay attention to Democratic Party pillars. Furthermore, I would rather the Republicans bring the country down quickly and under their own brand then have some false Democrat slowly inching us towards an inevitable disaster. Let's just get this over with, so we can start the rebuilding process sooner. I personally don't mind if my candidate has to make compromises with the opposition, but I certainly don't want the candidate to mimic the opposition's arguments.

Finally, I don't want socialism. I want a social safety net, I want health care system that has costs/outcomes that line up with the rest of the world, and I want reasonable regulations to keep markets fair, I want the government to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects/aid to local governments/unemployment extensions. To do this, we probably need to cut defense some and raise taxes. It just happens that relatively few people have all the wealth, so they are going to have to pay. I actually believe it is in the interests of big business and the wealthy to implement these kinds of policies. By the way, these are not new ideas as some of them have been around and working since the depression. Go figure.

I could have written most of the above myself, except for the part about the third party. Before equating Obama with the GOP, think of SCOTUS. An Obama appointee might not be a liberal, but he or she would probably not be dedicated to overturning Roe v Wade, to extending Citizens United, etc, etc. There is a big difference between an Obama who disappoints us by not fighting for things we believe in, and a Bachmann fighting to destroy those things.

Me again. I think SCOTUS is a good argument. Overall, I also think it is rational to vote for Obama in our situation. That really is Obama's only hope to get re-elected. My decision comes down to this. I literally do not hear any debate supporting what I think are reasonable and well-tested policy choices. NONE. Instead, I am considered a socialist, radical outcast for thinking that SS and Medicare/Medicaid are worth supporting and that those that benefit from this country need to pony up and pay for the multiple wars, obscene defense budget, and government bailouts that they enjoy. Naturally, I live in MD where I am pretty sure Obama will get electoral votes no matter how I vote. Virginia is more of a close call. Still, I would give up the presidency if I could have my party back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the PP 23:26 with the first response. First, I am not a Republican plant. The Republican base is much worse than the moderate Republican Obama. I am happy to give Obama this point.

My purpose in voting third party is to have some kind of voice in the debate and possibly send a message to Obama and the Dems to pay attention to Democratic Party pillars. Furthermore, I would rather the Republicans bring the country down quickly and under their own brand then have some false Democrat slowly inching us towards an inevitable disaster. Let's just get this over with, so we can start the rebuilding process sooner. I personally don't mind if my candidate has to make compromises with the opposition, but I certainly don't want the candidate to mimic the opposition's arguments.

Finally, I don't want socialism. I want a social safety net, I want health care system that has costs/outcomes that line up with the rest of the world, and I want reasonable regulations to keep markets fair, I want the government to stimulate the economy with infrastructure projects/aid to local governments/unemployment extensions. To do this, we probably need to cut defense some and raise taxes. It just happens that relatively few people have all the wealth, so they are going to have to pay. I actually believe it is in the interests of big business and the wealthy to implement these kinds of policies. By the way, these are not new ideas as some of them have been around and working since the depression. Go figure.

I could have written most of the above myself, except for the part about the third party. Before equating Obama with the GOP, think of SCOTUS. An Obama appointee might not be a liberal, but he or she would probably not be dedicated to overturning Roe v Wade, to extending Citizens United, etc, etc. There is a big difference between an Obama who disappoints us by not fighting for things we believe in, and a Bachmann fighting to destroy those things.

And that's the Republican problem right now. We now have Bachmann and Santorum making pledges to introduce legislation against gay marriage, you know how they will be about abortion, and a number of social/religious topics. This keeps them from being interchangeable with Dems and other moderates. There is just too much on their list of requirements and there aren't enough future (2020-2030) voters to support such a broad agenda. Hopefully they realize this. I thought that was the point of the Tea Party to begin with - limited government, limited agenda. But as Bachmann has proven, this is not the case.