FLAIT

Last October I sent an email to a blogger of a widely known liberal blog but didn't get a response.

I wanted to post the email because it summed up my feelings toward President Obama and the Democratic Party just prior to the election (my feelings weren't any different in 2010, here, here, here and here). I've left the email intact, but removed the ending.

Updated comments are below it.

I emailed you a couple of years ago about something you wrote about the gun control movement. Since I'm one of the few who is very much for it, I knew there wasn't any gun control movement to speak of. We also got into the Democrats who allowed Republicans to walk all over them.

I still read (your blog) and you (and your writers) have clearly shown your frustrations with Obama and the Democrats the last couple of years. But with the election coming up, it seems you've backed off a bit this year. But I haven't. And that's why I wanted to write (not so much about guns).

From the stimulus at the beginning of Obama's term, through last summer's fiasco and total surrender surrounding the debt ceiling, Obama and the Democrats have been pathetic. Every time Republicans took a hostage and demanded more, Obama and the Democrats caved.

What I can't believe is that Obama has continued to receive solid support from Democrats and liberals. What have they been watching? Obama's a Republican. Why is the left so afraid to admit it? He swept Bush's war crimes under the rug, continued or even expanded Bush's terrorism policies including warrarentless wiretapping (why is okay when Obama does it?), sent more troops to Afghanistan, twice, tried to keep troops in Iraq (and has the nerve to take credit for pulling them out), is conducting secret wars in Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and now looking to branch out in North Africa after the attack in Benghazi, bombing (innocent) people via drone without even knowing who they are, labeling adult-age Muslims killed in these attacks as "militants" so they can't be categorized as "innocent civilians," increased military spending, froze discretionary spending (in a recession), cut taxes three times, including extending the Bush tax cuts which Democrats blasted for ten years (and wants to extent them again for those making under $250,000/yr.), agreed to provisions in the 2009 Banking bill that allowed guns in federal parks and on Amtrak trains, never intended to put the public option into the health care bill, hasn't said a word while abortion is practically being banned in some states, supports off-shore drilling (a lot of it), put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, and allowed the bailed-out bankers responsible for the biggest theft of the American Treasury in history to not only get away with it, but get rich off it, while turning his back on the economy and the millions of Americans who lost their jobs and homes.

Whatever good Obama has done - and that's being kind - is so weak, microscopic and watered down that it gets wiped out by the rest of his conservative record. He's taken the GOP's side practically every time. By a lot. And if you want to give him credit for DADT, look how much time and effort it took to get it done. And for Obama to come out for gay marriage after all this time seems to be politically calculating to me. He got to raise money off it and out of the way before the election. Perfect timing.

So as far as I can tell, DADT and now gay marriage are the only liberal things he's done. If not, name another (the auto bailout began under Bush and, let's face it, there was no other choice. Besides, corporate welfare is what the GOP is known for.). I guess you could say he's changed his immigration policy and won't be deporting young illegals anymore who've spent their entire lives here. But that too looks to be more election year pandering.

And this notion that the left can now rejoice because Obama decided to stand up to the Republicans and tax the wealthy is also too little too late as far as I'm concerned. Where was this in 2009 when the country needed him to be a liberal Democrat? So when he needs to sure up his base heading into his re-election, then he decides to toss a few crumbs to the left? And we're supposed to fall in line? I don't think so. And remember, he's still intimidating and indicting reporters and whistleblowers (under the Espionage Act), still wiretapping without a warrant, and still using indefinite detention to keep terrorists - some of whom aren't terrorists at all - locked up without due process. He's also assassinating American citizens, also without due process, and now has the power, as will future presidents, to militarily lock up Americans indefinitely without charges (although a New York court has barred it from being enforced, for now). Had George Bush did those things the left would have had a fit.

Also, for the left, and Democrats, to be ecstatic that the Republicans blinked on the payroll tax cut extension, goes to show how inept, incompetent and conservative the Democrats have been. Because if a tax cut - a tax cut the country can not afford (regardless of who benefits), that takes from the Social Security Trust Fund - is something to celebrate as a great political victory for Democrats, that says it all (but I thought tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy that much; at least not as much as repairing a bridge would. At least that's what the left and Democrats said when the GOP calls for tax cuts.).

Anyway, I'd like to know what Obama would have had to do - or not do - for liberals to turn their backs on him and the Democrats. I did a couple of years ago because I'm tired of voting for Democrats and getting Republicans. Conservative Republicans. And despite never giving liberals the time of day (at least not heterosexuals and non-hispanics), Obama has received their support and contributions and will get their votes on Election Day. But not mine. I'd be a hypocrite if I voted for him. I'll either vote for the Green candidate or not at all. And I don't care how scary a Mitt Romney administration would be.

This we're-easy-to-please-because-we'll-take-whatever-we-can-get-even-if-it's-a-kick-in-the-shins support of Obama that has come from the left allowed him and the Democratic Party to move further to the right (of Ronald Reagan's GOP of the 1980s). Therefore, coming out for higher taxes on the wealthy and gay marriage isn't just too little to late, but a patronizing bribe to the left. And I'm not taking it.

The impression I get from the left - Americablog, Daily Kos, Rachel Maddow, etc. - is that despite his conservative record and consistent caving and capitulating to Republicans, and despite giving liberals nothing but the back of his hand, the left still very much likes Obama and will gladly vote for him without hesitation. And Romney and the Republicans aside, I don't know how that's possible. It's not even a close call.

There's another point I'd like to make.

Look at how hard the left works, every day, for years, calling out Republican hypocrisy and lies. You know because you're part of it. But what has it accomplished? Absolutely nothing.

Despite George Bush and the GOP running the country into the ground with their disastrous conservative policies, "liberal" is still a dirty word and Republicans cleaned up in the 2010 mid-terms (at the state level as well). So minds have not changed one bit. So regardless of what happens on November 6, the flag on the rope in this tug-o-war is firmly on the Republican side. Speaks volumes about how incompetent, and conservative, Democrats are.

I had to laugh a few months ago when I read on one of the sites that the DCCC was putting up this "great ad" someplace. Yeah, that'll move the needle...about half a percentage point...for a day. Or at least until the RCCC puts up an ad of their own.

So Democrats and the left are just spinning their wheels...towards the right. Of course, Obama and the Democratic Party are to blame for this because they had a golden opportunity to put the GOP out of business - just like Republicans would have put the Democratic Party out of business if Bill Clinton did 1% of what George Bush did (can you imagine what Republicans would have done to Clinton if he lied the country into an unnecessary war that turned into a colossal disaster?). But Obama and the Democrats didn't even try. Instead - and incredibly - they ran to the right and continued to implement the same conservative policies that were responsible for running the country into the ground in the first place: tax cuts, endless war, bullying the world, encroaching on civil liberties and appeasing Wall Street and the health insurance industry. And I'm supposed to vote for more of that? What the hell for?

Had Obama been the President he could have been, he could have put the final nail in the GOP coffin by winning the election by 25 points. At least. Instead, barring voting machine shenanigans and/or voter suppression and disenfranchisement on Democratic voters, he'll win a close race (at least he should) against a extremely ignorant, exponentially hypocritical, pathological liar who couldn't give a crap about anyone but corporations, the wealthy and gun owners. What does that tell you about Obama and the Democratic Party? Tells me that Democrats can't argue themselves out of a paper bag. A wet paper bag. Want proof? Obama was such wimp in the October 3 debate that he allowed Romney to come off as the pro-regulating, progressive Democrat who's going to save Medicare and help the middle class. Since when has a Republican been for government regulation? Hell, Democrats have to avoid a label like that! And since when have Republicans cared about Medicare and helping the middle class? Obama let him get away with that too.

He was a bit better in this week's debate but it wasn't enough. Not for me. He had so many opportunities to call Romney, Ryan and the Republican Party out but failed to do so. Actually, the one time Romney was called out, sort of, was when a woman asked him how he was different than George Bush. And what did Obama do? Instead of pointing out that a majority of Romney's economic and foreign policy advisers are former Bush officials, he made a case that Bush and Romney are different!

And early in the debate, while he was trying to out "drill baby drill" Romney on oil, coal and gas, Obama failed to mention the words "environment" or "fracking;" nor did he bring up the Clean Water Act waivers that George Bush gave to the fracking industry. What a sap. (I guess he didn't mention fracking because he's all for it. This is a Democrat?)

But this is nothing new. Democrats have always had a mountain of facts and logic on their side that could destroy the GOP. But they never fire a shot. On the contrary, they've become Republicans. And saps. Meanwhile, Republicans, who don't have a leg to stand on, are on the attack 24/7. And we wonder why Romney has a chance to win this thing, and why the GOP gets so much support despite their disastrous record.

My God, the Democrats couldn't even beat beat Scott Walker, the epitome of everything that's wrong with the GOP, in his recall election. And it wasn't even close. And I don't care how much more money he had then Tom Barrett. When being outspent in a campaign is used as an excuse, then what the losers are really saying is, "the voters are stupid for being conned by a massive TV ad campaign funded by the Koch Brothers and just don't 'get it'." Okay, the voters are stupid because if they don't understand what Scott Walker, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party is by now, then they'll never "get it." And whose fault is that?

And then there's the smart, articulate Elizabeth Warren, one of the few people in Washington that stand up to the banks, running for Senate in one of the most liberal states in the country. But she's in a tight race (at least she was as of last week) against a typical do-nothing, know-nothing Republican who gets most of his money from Wall Street. What does that tell you? Tells me that Democrats are more incompetent and pathetic then I thought.

So put the complicated issues aside. In order to get the bold, drastic change the country desperately needs, the left, and the Democratic Party especially, need to change direction, tone, tactics, strategy and minds (in that order). Until then, you'll continue to bang your head against the wall, "liberal" will remain a dirty word, and Republicans, with help from Democrats, will continue to run the country into the ground.

But there's a problem with this: since Democrats have been thoroughly intimidated and bullied into moving so far to the right, they're too frightened of Republicans to change direction, tone, tactics, strategy and minds.

A good example of the Democrat's timidness over the years can be seen on abortion. The left has had the law and the majority on their side on abortion decades ago. So it should never have become the contentious and controversial issue it's become. Same with guns (gun control's a loser politically? How the hell did that happen?).

Over the last few years, abortion rights and gun laws have been stripped at the state level without so much as a peep from Democrats and the left. They've allowed the right to dominate these issues - totally and viciously - to the point that Democrats are too afraid to even mention them, except of course when they go out of their way to say they "support Second Amendment rights" and gun ownership is "constitutionally protected" (even before the recent wrongly decided Supreme Court rulings). The next time a Republican says he/she "supports" or even "respects a woman's right to choose," or just admits that abortion is "constitutionally protected," it'll be the first time. (In debates, whenever guns come up, the first thing out of the Democrat's mouth is how much he "supports the Second Amendment;" see Obama in this week's town hall debate. But when abortion comes up, the Republican never says he "respects a woman's constitutional right to an abortion." See what I mean?)

To illustrate this even better, can you imagine Democrats being half as angry, passionate, selfish, obsessive, radical and extreme on abortion rights and gun control as every single Republican is on banning abortion and repealing gun laws? Neither can I. How about just one Democrat?

And can you imagine what Republicans and the right would be screaming if so many restrictions were put on gun sales that it wiped out all the gun stores in Montana? 'Nuff said.

So the right controls the narrative and the left is always - always - on the defensive. Another example is the birth control and contraceptive insurance "debate." It's the 21st century for Christ's sake. Why are they even an issue? Next thing you know the left will have to defend "death panels," climate change, evolution and Obama's birth certificate. Oh wait.

So it's been one-sided street fight that never ends. And Democrats are too afraid to admit, and too stupid to even realize, that they've been beaten to a pulp

Updated comments:

As this blog has proven, Republicans are political terrorists, period. And one of their goals - other than making sure Obama was a one-term President - is to sabotage the economy because they will never allow a Democratic President to get credit for a booming economy. That's why spending and deficits suddenly matter (unlike when George W. Bush was President); that's why the debt ceiling was held hostage in 2011; that's why we had the "fiscal cliff;" and that's why we have sequestration. And in the ensuing weeks and months it'll be the debt ceiling, again, which will put the country's credit at risk, again, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and hurt job creation, again (since Republicans can not, under any circumstances, allow Obamacare to work because it would prove them wrong and make Obama look good, they will try and muck up its implementation. Think I'm kidding about this? Republican Pat Toomey practically admits that the GOP will deny Obama victories. The hell with the country. They got a base cult to keep brainwashed and enraged!).

Every time the economy seems to perk up after its 2008 massive heart attack, it hits a Republican-manufactured road block and thrown down the stairs.

But I don't blame Republicans anymore. It's Obama's fault for enabling them and empowering them. When a wimp is thrown up against the cafeteria wall and has his lunch money taken away, it's the bully that's wrong. But when it happens every day, it's the wimp's.

Had Obama been the (heaven forbid) liberal leader the country desperately needed in 2009, and stood up to these thugs and bullies from his first days in office, we wouldn't have had these GOP-manufactured economic road blocks every couple of months. And the economy would have recovered years ago.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to cut Medicare and Social Security - even though Social Security doesn't add a single penny to the deficit and is not "going bankrupt," and neither is Medicare, which is more cost effective then private insurance - while wealthy bankers who crashed the economy go free and got even wealthier via government bailouts. Good grief.

So yes, you can blame Republicans for paralyzing the government's ability to function; their obstinance, obstruction, irresponsibility and immaturity; their pathological lies, mountain of hypocrisy, exponential ignorance, incessant spin and constant attacks; and their 15th century agenda and scorched Earth/take-no-prisoners political "strategy." But Obama deserves the blame for that because he let them do it and get away with it.

Couple more points.

In regard to the Democrats and the left allowing "the right to dominate" guns "totally and viciously - to the point that Democrats are too afraid to even mention them..." look at what it took for them to finally mention gun control: 20 dead children and their six teachers.

It's obscene that it took a tragedy like Sandy Hook for Democrats to even mention guns. Where the hell have they been for the last twenty years?

It was that void capitulation and weakness cowering in fear over the years decades that allowed Republicans, the NRA and the gun nuts to not only take over the issue, hijack and rewrite the Second Amendment and stifle any and all talk of stricter gun laws, but weaken them, and repeal them. And post-Sandy Hook, they will not allow strong, weak watered-down full of loopholes any new national gun laws to pass; see the GOP's business-as-usual display of exponential insanity and ignorance in the Senate two weeks ago.

Only in a banana republic like the United States can a majority vote in the Senate on gun control legislation that vast majorities of the public support - 91% on background checks - go down in defeat.

But this is what happens when you whimper in the corner and allow bullies to steal your lunch money every day.

(Republicans also voted down a U.N. arms treaty in the Senate that would have prevented terrorists, drug cartels and third world militias from getting guns. Only Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against it in the U.N.

Why do Republicans and the NRA hate America and support the terrorists, drug cartels, third world militias, Iran, North Korea and Syria?

This came three months after the GOP voted down a U.N. treaty for the disabled that was modeled after the Americans With Disabilities Act. Why do Republicans hate the disabled?

I swear, if you combined a pile of insanity and a pile of ignorance, and loaded it with steroids, a spoonful would have more sanity and more intelligence than the entire Republican Party. I'm serious.)

But wait, there's more.

When sequestration cuts cut Meals on Wheels, Head Start, and cancer treatments, Republicans don't give a crap and nothing is done about it. But when Republicans have a problem with flight delays because of FAA sequestration furloughs, that must be fixed now, now, now. And it is. By Democrats! Just days after the flight delays began, they passed legislation in the paralyzed Senate that would allow the FAA to shift money - money that was earmarked for much needed and long overdue airport construction - to get the air traffic controllers back to work. Funny how that wasn't filibustered like everything else.

Why didn't Democrats, for once, act like ruthless Republican thugs, who have to get their way, always, and hold the flight delays hostage and use it as leverage to get Republicans to cancel the sequestration cuts altogether? Because they're either stupid or wimps. Probably Both.

The whole idea behind sequestration was to slash spending everywhere so that Democrats and Republicans would despise them so much it would force both sides to compromise on spending and taxes to get the deficit under control. But that hasn't worked (the deficit isn't really a problem at all. But since Republicans are such economic whizes when it comes to spending, budgets, deficits and jobs, and since they're listened to and Democrats are saps, they - Republicans - get to set the agenda; despite the fact that austerity has proven to be a disaster and we should be spending more, not less. So because Republicans will never admit they weren't just wrong but couldn't have been more wrong, as usual, on the deficit and the economy, and because they won't allow a booming economy while a Democrat is president, and because Democrats are saps, we wind up doing what they want. And that's how it is for every issue.).

So let me see if I have this straight: Democrats are going to re-fund sequestration cuts that Republicans despise by taking money from airport construction that Democrats presumably support and Republicans oppose. I see. So how will sequestration ever end if Democrats re-fund the sequestration cuts that Republicans oppose? Got me. Meanwhile, because they have no clout in Washington, seniors, children and cancer patients are still left to do without.

This is how things work these days: when Democrats have a problem with something, Republicans block any and all measures that would address it. But when Republicans have a problem with something, Democrats fix it as soon as possible.

This is what happens when you haven't eaten lunch in years.

June insert: For more, see my next post.