The Consequences of Allowing Oneself to Be Taken for Granted

[Time for change]

Allowing oneself to be taken for granted can have adverse consequences in many spheres of life. Here I’m focusing just on the political sphere.

Let’s suppose that your national political system primarily involves two political parties, a “Right” Party and a “Left” Party. Before I go any further with this, I need to make a distinction between each party’s leaders and members. The leaders are the ones who run for elective office, and the members are the ones who vote – or not – for the leaders.

Suppose that the most vocal and active members of the “Right” Party are predominantly partisan fanatics. In fact, suppose that they are fanatical enough to make it clear to their leaders that that unless they consistently adhere to a far right agenda they will withdraw their support for them.

And suppose that the “Left” Party members are in many ways is the opposite of that. The Left Party is composed predominantly of civic minded people who care about their country and their fellow citizens. They see the leaders of both parties drifting more and more to the right, and that worries many of them a great deal. Many of them frequently communicate with their leaders about their concerns. But the rightward drift continues. The members of the Left ponder what to do about that. On the one hand, they are appalled by the rightward drift of their own Party. They believe – correctly – that many of their leaders are being essentially bribed, co-opted and corrupted by wealthy and powerful people and corporations that become more and more wealthy and powerful the more they co-opt our nation’s elected leaders. So the idea of rewarding their co-opted and corrupted leaders by voting for them is repugnant.

But on the other hand, being the public minded citizens that they are, they reason that it would not be logical or even morally responsible to sit out an election or support an independent candidate who may reflect their own views much better than their own Party’s leaders, but who has no chance of winning an election any time in the near future. So they announce that they will fully support and vote for their own Party’s leaders no matter what: no matter how far right they drift; no matter how little they reflect their own views and interests; no matter the evidence of co-optation or corruption by the powers that be. As long as their own Party’s leaders remain to the left of the Right Party, they announce, they will continue to support and vote for them – because after all, they are at worst the lesser of two evils.


The members of the Democratic Underground as an example

Well, enough talking about hypothetical scenarios. As we all know, the scenario described above is not just hypothetical. Members of the Democratic Party, including members of the Democratic Underground, represent both points of view (and everything in between) – the view that it’s better to abandon your party when they fail to represent your ideals and interests, and the point of view that it is best to remain loyal to your party as long as they represent the lesser of two evils. And there is a lot of tension between those two points of view among Democrats and other leftists/progressives/liberals. Those who recommend abandoning the Democratic Party often accuse the others of being blind followers who lack the ability to think independently or are simply “selling out”. And those who recommend remaining loyal to the Democratic Party often accuse the others of being “purists” (in the pejorative sense), who would rather remain “pure” than attempt to benefit their country by seeking compromises where necessary. Though such criticisms sometimes fit – on either side – my own view is that the good majority of us on both sides of the divide are trying hard to struggle with a very complex issue.

In the abstract, both points of view are reasonable and justified to some extent – depending upon the specifics of the situation. The issues are complex. And that’s why many or most of us – myself included – represent both points of view at least to some extent.


Some words on the “Half a Loaf” argument

Nevertheless, I find myself moving more and more towards the ideas of the side that would rather find an alternative to continuing to support leaders who repeatedly demonstrate their unworthiness of that support – notwithstanding the fact that they remain slightly to the left of the Republican Party and so in a sense represent “the lesser of two evils”.

Perhaps the most frequently used argument from those who recommend continued support of their party under almost any circumstance is the “half a loaf” argument. That argument states that it is better to have half a loaf than none at all. Therefore, so the argument goes, there is no point in not continuing to support and vote for the lesser of two evils.

In the abstract, that argument makes a lot of sense. Who could argue that no loaf is just as good as half a loaf? But the way I see it, the premise of that argument has largely become invalid. Are we really talking about half a loaf? Or are we talking about 1% of a loaf. I think that in many cases today it is much closer to the latter. Let’s consider a few examples:

Climate change
It was widely recognized by climate scientists prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference of December 7-18 in Copenhagen, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, that failure would likely portend world-wide disaster. And failure is basically what we got. Markus Becker sums up how most climate scientists assess what happened:

The global climate summit in Copenhagen has failed. There will be no concrete goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized countries extended no concrete offers of hope to developing countries…

In the run-up to the conference, scientists, environmentalists and politicians alike called it one of the most important in history. But now it's just a missed opportunity. Likewise, it might just be one of the last of its kind in the battle against climate change. It took governments from around the world 17 years to come together for this summit in Copenhagen… And this is what we're left with. Many of the hopes that had been building up since 1992 have now been shattered.

The accord that the 30 leading countries agreed upon dropped the goal of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 and made no mention of a mid-term goal in greenhouse gas reduction, despite the fact that scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid catastrophe. It retained a (non-binding) commitment to reducing global temperatures by 2050, but contained no concrete plans for achieving that goal. Consequently:

Many countries almost immediately tore to shreds the compromise plan that the group of 30 countries presented in the main hall…. And the consequences of this holdup will primarily be felt by the poorest of the poor. Experts anticipate that they will be subjected to storms and flooding stronger than ever before. Their crops will wither. Melting glaciers might deprive several million people of their water supplies and deprive them of their livelihoods.

Later, the United States committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe. Not quite half a loaf. A 4% reduction compared to the 80% which is “necessary in order to avoid catastrophe” is 5% of a loaf, not 50%. The catastrophe is well on its way. And for what reason? Basically it’s because powerful and wealthy interests don’t want to see their profits cut. And it’s because our Party – not all its members, but our Party as a whole, and especially our president – failed to stand up to those interests. Is that compromise?

Relief for homeowners vs. Wall Street
President Obama’s solution to the home foreclosure crisis was a program called “Making Home Affordable”. William Kuttner explains in his book, “A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future”, that this program had several fatal flaws, most fundamentally that it was voluntary for the banks. Kuttner comments on the contrast between the President Obama approach and the approach of President Franklin Roosevelt, whose first and third presidential terms demonstrated the two largest average annual increases in job growth of all presidential terms from 1921 to the present:

The contrast was all too vivid – several trillions in loans and loan guarantees for the banks, and a grudging $3 billion for the homeowners who had been the banks’ victims (resulting from Obama’s program). As a consequence of the administration’s half measures and failure to move boldly, the mortgage foreclosure crisis is continuing to drive millions of Americans from their homes, depress housing prices… and retard the recovery… Refinancing underwater retail mortgages is comparatively easy. It just requires political will.

Note the ratio of several trillion dollars for the banks – paid for by American taxpayers – compared to $3 billion for homeowners, is more than a thousand to one. That’s not half a loaf. It’s more like 0.1% of a loaf.

Health care “reform”
The heart of the health care reform promised by candidates Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates for president in 2008 was what is commonly referred to as the “public option”. It would have provided subsidies that any American citizen could have used to purchase health insurance from the U.S. government, as an alternative to purchasing it from the predatory health insurance industry. But that idea was dropped without a fight. President Obama rationalized his refusal to fight for the public option he promised with the claim that the votes aren’t there. So somehow, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president and huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, somehow, the votes just weren’t there.

Consequently we got the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Consequently, in contrast with Obama’s campaign promise, the health insurance industry is allowed to maintain control of health care in our country. Not only do these acts omit the promised source of competition with the health care industry, but they mandate that Americans purchase health care from the health care industry. The primary purpose of these reforms was to make health care insurance – and therefore decent health care – affordable to millions of Americans who couldn’t previously afford it, through the provision of federal subsidies. However, because of the lack of adequate controls on the health insurance industry, they are already substantially raising their rates to compensate themselves for any losses they have to endure as a result of the federal regulation in the health care reform bills.

It is common knowledge that the health insurance industry is nothing but an unnecessary parasite that has insinuated itself with monopoly control between American citizens and the health care that they need. Will the end result be that health care is actually more affordable? Or will the rising costs of private health insurance actually make health care less affordable to most Americans? And what will be the long-term consequences of leaving health insurance in the hands of the predatory health insurance industry, additionally bloated by the fact that purchase of their product is now mandatory for the good majority of Americans? Is this half a loaf? I don’t think anyone knows yet – though I tend to doubt it. And in any event, with a Democratic President and Congress, and the good majority of Americans favoring a universal health care system, what was to prevent us from getting a full loaf?


The role of the media

Any discussion of this issue that leaves out the role of the media is incomplete. I’m 60 years, so I’ve been around for a while. And I’ve never seen our elected leaders, of both parties, so far to the right – at least with respect to economic issues and issues of violent imperial conquest. Indeed, our leaders are way to the right of the American people. How else to explain a multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street and health care “reform” that leaves control of health insurance in the hands of the private health insurance industry, despite widespread contempt of the American people for both Wall Street and the health insurance industry?

I strongly believe that the underlying reason for our leaders’ consistent and deep move to the right in recent decades is the consolidation of the media into the hands of a relatively small cadre of wealthy, powerful, and very conservative individuals and corporations – made possible largely by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This has given our media the power to confuse the American people on a number of crucially important issues. They managed to convince many tens of millions of Americans that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on our country, thus drumming up public support for our illegal invasion of Iraq. They also have managed to convince many tens of millions of Americans that Barack Obama – perhaps the most conservative Democratic president since the 19th Century – is a socialist. Consequently, when the failure of our elected Democratic leaders to stand up to the wealthy and the powerful results in catastrophe for the American people, the media can easily blame this catastrophe on the “Socialism” of our elected leaders, thus paving the way for a Republican takeover of Congress and the presidency. And instead of shining light on these issues by providing the American people with facts, our media present us with opinion polls that confirm that most Americans believe what they’ve led us to believe. And then they use their obscene amounts of wealth and influence to bribe our elected leaders into allowing them to continue their monopoly control over our public airwaves. Our national news media is nothing but a big joke.


The political consequences of allowing oneself to be taken for granted

Thus it is that our country has drifted far to the right in recent decades, with great assistance from a wealthy, powerful, and very conservative media, which gains wealth and power with every further drift to the right, which enables further accumulation of wealth and power in a vicious cycle that often seems to have little prospect of ending any time soon.

To the extent that the left proclaims that it will continue to support the Democratic Party no matter how far they turn to the right, no matter how small the distance between them and the Republican Party becomes, then they are essentially broadcasting to Democratic leaders that they can be taken for granted without fear of retribution. What effect do you think that is likely to have on the actions of our Democratic leaders? If enough of our Democratic leaders were mostly inclined to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing, then it would be no big deal. In that case, even knowing that they could safely ignore us, they would nevertheless represent the interests of the American people, as against the wealthy and the powerful. They would do that because that is what they were elected to do. And maybe that would even benefit them politically as well.

But if you believe, as I do, that too many of our Democratic leaders are much too concerned with political expediency, then when we invite them to take us for granted by giving them our unqualified support and votes, they will gladly accept our invitation. Knowing that they have nothing to lose by alienating the left, they will continue to move to the right in the hope of picking up votes from the center-right. I think that Robert Gibbs’ recent outburst against the so-called “professional left” is a good example of that. So is the appointment by our Democratic president of a far-right Republican wing nut whose great ambition is to dismantle Social Security to co-chair a commission that is likely to try to do just that.

When a party’s leaders fail to respond to the interests and ideals of their constituents, the normal course of events is that even the constituents of their own party tend to lose interest in supporting them. That is as it should be. If not for that, the political need of the party’s leaders to respond to their own base diminishes to the point that they feel safe in moving to the center – or beyond.

We are really between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There is no easy or simple solution to this. I do not know what the solution is. But I doubt very much that inviting our current Party’s leaders to take us for granted is a viable strategy. Neither is doing nothing a viable strategy. A much more viable strategy would be to assertively challenge the bias and lies of our media and call out our own Party’s leaders for their political machinations and their favoring the wealthy few over the many – in other words to attack them from the left if and when they deserve it. If pursued widely and diligently, such a strategy could provide a political climate for the viability of leaders who would put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. Our current leaders would then at least feel some pressure to represent our interests, lest we focus our energies on electing those who will.

[Fumesucker]

1. Chorus of "Why do you hate Obama you spiteful magical thinker?" in 3.. 2.. 1..

More seriously, well written piece and you raise some very good and troubling points.

We need more discussions of where the fault lines lie within the general liberal/progressive movement or it's going to end up cracking wide open at some point.

Recced..

[Time for change]

3. Thank you -- I guess the most troubling point of all is that the Democratic Party --

not all of it, but a good part of it -- has abandoned its base. I guess it would be fair to say that a good part of the reason for that is fear of the media. But that's not a sufficient excuse IMO.

[nashville_brook]

14. the media is less a reason, and more a tool, like any form of marketing

what we're calling conservative economic policy is just a polite way of saying that those with the means to determine policy, get policy determined in their way.

another super-awesome post, btw!

[GreenArrow]

35. Exactly. The media, like a hammer,

is a tool, and requires a hand to manipulate it. It does not strike of its own accord, and it strikes where it is directed. The media at this point, is little more than an instrument of propaganda and social control.

[Time for change]

44. Thank you. Yes, the media is most certainly a tool

And that's a damn good definition of "conservative economic policy".

But there must be some Democratic Congresspersons who really want to do the right thing, but are scared to because they know they will be lambasted by the media.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. By the media? How about by their own party?

Ever hear of a guy named Kucinich?

[Fumesucker]

58. +1

[rhett o rick]

20. An excellent OP. You describe closely how I feel. But I am not sure I agree with this post.

To me it's hard to say that Democratic leaders have abandoned their base when it's not clear who "their base" is. I believe the Democratic leaders have sold out, not only their base, who ever that is, but all Democratic and American principles for a few pieces of gold. Some of them think it necessary to remain in power and others undoubtedly are just greedy. I dont think these "leaders" can be salvaged by any means.

Without sounding too negative, I dont see a way out. Corporate control is increasing all the time and the Democratic leaders* are moving "right" along into oligarchy. How can this be reversed? The left is screaming the water is too hot! but the centrists are living in the fog of "it's better than.....", fill in: Bush, a dictatorship, slavery, and then finally death. The water is getting warmer under the centrist frogs, but not enough so they will jump. I think they will stick it out until boiled.

Some idealists fantasize for a revolution that will never come. And even if it did, IMO things would get worse.

*Of course not all Democratic leaders are shifting right but IMO the majority are.

[Time for change]

28. I pretty much agree with everything you say here

It's true that at this point in time it's difficult to say who the base of the Democratic Party is. The Party as a whole has come not to stand for very much. And the Obama administration certainly doesn't treat us as if we were its base. But I think it's fair to say that in the not too distant past the base of the Democratic Party was liberals/progressives.

[rhett o rick]

31. Because the republicans have shot themselves in their Palin, the leaders of the Democratic Party

see that by moving to the right they can make our political system into a one party system or three party system, depending on how you look at it. The DLC/centrist will go for the middle 60% of the voters, giving up most Democratic principles, leaving the left on their own and the wacko right on their own.

The quandary I think you allude to in your OP, is, does the left stand alone to fight, or join the centrist party (New Democrats) and hope to influence (fight) the leadership.

I am strongly leaning toward standing alone to the end. But we must decide. I read posts like yours all the time that recognize the quandary but so far, I have seen no posts offering a direction, a strategy. We must choose and then fight like hell.

We desperately need a leader and a strategy, before the frog is boiled.

[Time for change]

43. Here's something I posted a few months ago on third party challenges

It was eventually locked because, I was told, it could be construed as "third party advocacy":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7051161

I think we desperately need a 3rd party from the left.

[rhett o rick]

51. I am beginning to feel the same way. In any case we need to decide and get going. nm

[rhett o rick]

112. I think that the left needs to support the reelection of the Pres

Because there really isnt any other choice at this time. However, I think that the left should work hard to elect progressive candidates at all other levels and never support a Blue Damn Dog at any cost. If that requires a third party vote, so be it.

[Time for change]

113. It's more than two years prior to the 2012 elections

There could easily be one or more additional choices by then.

[Raster]

22. Following the money, my friend. They're just following the money.

[molly77]

15. Perspective

Maybe it is not the parties? Maybe we are a fascist nation now and it does not make any difference who is elected anymore. After all, the far right wing of the republican party bushes / cheney and clinon/ rahm wing of the democratic have destroyed any vestiges of party. Policies are the same.

TARP comes to mind. The money given to the banks ..and the tax payers have no right to know what happened to it. The end of social security as we know it..calling it an entitlement. There are many other examples.

It was evident in the democratic primary that MSM favored Hillary . She just wasn't popular enough to pull it off. So the administration was clinton retreads.We complain about people. It is the foundation of the country that is sick and needs healing.Bottom up.

[rhett o rick]

26. Well put Molly. I would say we are in an oligarchy headed for fascism.

If they are different and if it makes a difference. Please read my post 20 above.

[emilyg]

2. k/r

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I recently wrote a post--much shorter than this--taking the

opposite tack, suggesting that there is something to be gained from the half-a-loaf (.5% of a loaf if need be) voting, a sort of harm reduction model. My view was that the time and place for the expression of "purism" was in the primaries.

The very thoughtful responses I got to that post started giving me real qualms about my position. The ultimate outcome of the policy of going along with the slightly less corrupt alternative is a form of complicity with the drift toward ever-greater corruption. This masterful post of yours may have completed my conversion to the "Mad as hell and not gonna take it any more" club. Tomorrow I'm going to the annual Fighting Bob Fest (named in honor of Robert LaFollette), where your view will no doubt be the majority opinion. (To give you a sense of the crowd, in 1983 the majority attending were Kucinich backers). Exposure to that gang, the cream of Wisconsin Progressives, may very well solidify my conversion.

Fortunately for me in 2010, I don't have to worry about how to vote. From Feingold on down to my local Assemblyperson, I have a solid raft of good liberals and progressives to support and vote for. But 2012 is of course another story. Unless I see some real changes in the direction of this Administration, I may well decide that no piddling sliver of a loaf is worthy of my vote, that the evil has grown too great, and "just a little more" of it is intolerable.

[Time for change]

16. Your "conversion" was similar to mine

It seems that the more I learn the worse the picture becomes.

I'm hoping that Feingold or someone like him will challenge Obama in 2012. Maybe that's just a desperate hope, with no chance of being successful. Certainly all the forces of the corporatocracy would be arrayed against him. And if their propaganda doesn't work to derail his candidacy, there's always the Wellstone approach.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. It won't be Feingold.

Or at least I'd be very surprised if it were. For one thing, apart from a very brief flirtation with the idea in about 2006 he's never shown much interest in national office, and I doubt wants to subject himself to the agony of the run. For another, he's a twice-divorced, now-single Jew.

[Time for change]

46. Well, I'd hate to wish that on him. But I think it is at least possible that he could be drafted,

so to speak. Whoever it is would have to have a great deal of courage.

[earcandle]

37. what are the benefits of withholding one's vote? Does it affect the election?

[Jackpine Radical]

47. If I were to go the protest route, I wouldn't withhold my vote.

A non-vote is a non-message. I would vote Green or Socialist or something, depending on who is on the ballot.

[earcandle]

105. what about a new democratic candidate?

[Jackpine Radical]

108. Of course--

presuming said candidate convinces me they are a member of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" to quote Paul Wellstone.

[earcandle]

109. Who is most like Paul Wellstone? That we can protect? And serve?

[Jackpine Radical]

110. That's the question, isn't it?

Here's a highly improbable answer:

Al Franken.

For other possibilities, check out the various Dem governors, maybe.

[madfloridian]

5. Outstanding post.

:kick:

[AnArmyVeteran]

6. Great OP, we'll continue to be sold out till we are told to our faces we are slaves.

It's just a matter of time before all pretense is discarded and our masters call us slaves to our faces. Our planet is riddled with past civilizations, which after succumbing to a victorious conquerer, become totally owned by them. No honest or brave man will ever ascend to a leadership position because they will either be killed or become corrupted by our new masters.

No systems can ever be designed to overcome the evils of greed and power. At this moment in our history capitalism is the vehicle in which the corrupted few run over the many. Our government, military, media and leaders are all mere tools the wealthy use to control and manipulate us. Even our religions are controlled by a handful who use it as just another tool in the arsenal of weapons used to divide, brainwash and controls us.

[rhett o rick]

27. Damn, I hate to hear that. But, I am afraid you are right. nm

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. Sorry, that was my cheerful thought of the day. :)

[earcandle]

38. I see your point but it is too defeatest to me. I think we need to view our numbers as our strength

and then find someone we can protect and support to overcome
this idiocy.
The constitution is on our side.

[earcandle]

39. or we pull the plug on paying taxes any and all taxes boycott sales, etc.

lie on the floor at work and refuse to work. 

[Time for change]

45. Thank you. I think that they will continue with the pretense even after it is quite obvious the

good majority of people that it is a pretense. As long as there is some doubt, or as long as it is not acknowledged, people can make themselves believe something that is more palatable to them. Once the legitimacy of the system is acknowledged to be a fraud I think it will be a lot harder to control people. That is why, for example, it is so damn important, even nearly a half century later, to continue with the myth that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. To admit otherwise would be to really call into question the legitimacy of our system.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateboomer]

8. My thoughts almost exactly. K&R

[Altoid_Cyclist]

9. I'm not quite awake yet so I'll keep this succinct.

I have to say (sadly) that you paint an all too accurate picture of what's gone wrong with our country.

This was a sobering way to start the day, but very well presented.

[xchrom]

10. Recommend

[madrchsod]

11. my dad told me a long time ago.. give a dollar to a republican...

they`d keep it. give a dollar to a democrat they`d give you back 50ct.

[TheKentuckian]

12. The exchange rate has not remained fixed since your wise father gave that sound advise

[BeFree]

13. Democracy is limited

When so limited, just a few make all the decisions.

The elite have the time and money to become one of the few decision makers. Elites are very well represented, and us small people are not. Hence, we get screwed.

The solution is more democracy meaning more representation meaning more representatives.

Right now, one representative represents 600,000 people. Impossible to do and as we see results in failure.

Until that changes, until we have mo' better representation via simple numbers, we will get more than a mere pinch of the loaf.

[rhett o rick]

21. Political reform requires those in power to reform themselves. Not likely. nm

[KakistocracyHater]

111. I continue to think of the unemployed as possible politicians, as well as

some of our newest veterans. I think we need to vote in younger people, or at least redesign how we as a voting block evaluate our wannabe leaders; Obama has amply demonstrated that he would say anything to get in & then it's FU to those who voted me in. I've commented in the past about psychological profiles being required of each candidate & something more than a mere popularity contest, which is what voting boils down to; I'd want very intelligently crafted simulations where each candidate HAS to show what they'd do, & these tests would reveal any psychopathic & sociapathic tendencies in each candidate.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. A fascinating and persuasive description of the dilemma. While I

don't possess the wherewithal to write the scholarly articles of Time for Change, like others, too, I'm sure, I felt that Obama's credibility would primarily rest on his re-instatement of the former Fairness Doctrine by which the MSM were bound, and a radical cleaning-up and reform of your voting system (federal, State and local); neither of which, of course, has eventuated.

I'm not sure whether I included the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, indeed a radical reform of regulation in all areas of public and private activity - at the very least, restoring them to pre-Bush status - but it is obviously another priority, as indictated by Time for Change's comments on the extraordinarily menacing problem posed by the rising level of greenhouse gas emissions. But the list is long, and TFC has cited some of the others - not least, jobs and affordable housing.

Another great article, Time. Keep'em coming.

[calimary]

24. Oh Dear God, the Fairness Doctrine!!! We need it now more than EVER!!!!

And the Equal Time provisions, AND the restrictions on media ownership in any one market. We need those back - IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

32. Sorry but you cant get those in power to reform themselves. They will not agree with implementation

of the Fairness Doctrine.

[calimary]

49. Yeah, I know. It's infuriating!

[Time for change]

25. Thank you Joe -- The list is indeed long

Someone should put it all together and publish it.

[indepat]

18. It's a great sense of relief to read that you, the most important voice on this board imo,

are moving toward the ideas of the side who would rather find an alternative than continuing to support those just slightly to the left of the Republican Party, especially after having been crucified yesterday following my OP on what if the president had pursued a progressive agenda rather than having ratified so much of junior's agenda, et al: I had earlier opined it was not enough just to be not quite as far to the right of center as pubs, that we needed a new deal to undo some of the harm caused these past some 30 years since the gipper first foisted his version of voodoo economics on us. After having been scathed unlike anything ever before, I continue to firmly stand by my OP and your considered thoughts and reasoning as always. :applause:

[Time for change]

19. Thank you -- We do need a New Deal, or at least a resurrection of the old one.

I've been scathed pretty bad on this board a few times myself. If someone wants to argue a point, that's fine, that's what a discussion board is for. But too many people just like to insult people, even without offering up an argument. That kind of stuff should be banned IMO. In fact, it is banned in the DU rules, but it's not enforced very well. And once it starts happening, some people just like to pile on.

[Raster]

23. A fine example was the "KOS Troll Bust" thread, which degenerated into cyber lynch mob

targeting anyone that didn't drink or piss the kool-aide. Not the DU I joined almost 8 years ago. And worse, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue for 48 hours. Not DU's finest hours.

I suppose the secret to a bountiful fund drive is to chum the waters first.

[earcandle]

41. Good for you! Thanks so much for taking the heat and not bending.

[indepat]

102. Thanks: I needed that

:thumbsup:

[rhett o rick]

30. The frog is being boiled. What I see that happened is that Bush and esp Cheney

turned up the water temp too high and the frog (main stream voting public) started to panic and consider jumping out of the water.

So those in power, let’s call them CorpAmerica decided to let the Democrats turn the water temperature down enough to keep the frog in the water.

As I see it, we are almost done, literally, figuratively and rhetorically.

[Time for change]

40. Lately I've been thinking something right along those lines.

If true (And I really believe it is), I wonder if Obama knows it. Maybe at a subconscious level?

[rhett o rick]

50. I believe he knows. Whether he wants to do anything about it is the question.

I believe he does but it may be totally beyond his control.

[TriMera]

33. Rec. n/t

[earcandle]

36. You are so right about being in between a rock and a hard place. I suppose the place to start would

be to have a more Democratic contender to run for president in
2012.

Someone like Grayson, or Kucinich or Feingold or Weiner.

Any chance of something like that happening?  

They are on such a buddy system once in office. 

[Time for change]

42. I was hoping for just that.

It's happened before. Why not now? I think that Feingold or Grayson would stand a reasonable chance of winning. But they would be castigated to hell by our media.

[Melissa G]

48. When Candidate Obama ran, we had the illusion that The Left of the party

to the right of Kucinich was getting in. I did not personally believe this to be actually true, but the words he was using were appealing to that faction of the party. Those of us who wanted to end the war(s) voted for him and the language he used spoke to us. He was saying many of the more reasonable things about health care during the debates. There was the delusion that liberal ideas were on the table.

Then President Obama started making all the DLC appointmentsts and the writing was on the wall. I still believe the energy of the anti war/anti Shrub liberals was what got Obama into office, but he dumped us at the door and has been way too busy with his DLC friends to pay us any mind. Especially since all his gatekeeper/mouthpieces like Rahm and Gibbs think liberals are something stinky to be scraped off the bottom of Obama's shoes before entering the White House.

[earcandle]

103. Well put. Remember, the ability to deal with ambiguity is a sign of mental health. Lets get

someone more healthy and guarantee he or she wins.

How about Elizabeth Warren for Prez?  With Burris (who seems
to be doing a good job)
as VP, and Grayson, or Kucinich or Feingold as Speaker of the
House?

That would change things a bit!  

[rhett o rick]

52. You will not get a decent primary challanger. It would be political suicide.

A good tactic is the get as many progressive Reps and Senators as possible.

[Odin2005]

54. KICK!

[slipslidingaway]

55. kick - too late to recommend, my vote is no longer guaranteed ... n/t

[BzaDem]

56. The problem with your magical imaginary reality is that it assumes "large majorities" matter.

In the actual reality, large majorities actually don't matter. What matters (for non-budgetary legislation) is 60-vote super-majorities. Once you correct for that, your entire post dissolves. Of course we didn't pass a public option -- Lieberman was dead set against it, and he was the 60th vote. A 59-vote "large majority" is actually equivalent to a 1-vote minority in most cases.

Sitting out an election to "send a message" only works if you get enough votes to enact your policies in some future election. Of course, that would never happen, because sitting out an election reduces the number of Democrats in power. Due to the incumbency advantage, this has an effect over many elections into the future -- not just the instant election. Furthermore, the "message" received by Democrats (if any) is that they were too far to the left -- NOT too far to the center. So they move to the center, and pick up independent votes, who (regardless of their policy stances) are at least rational enough to vote for the best viable candidate on the ballot.

[depakid]

57. The problem with your fault finding is that your wing of the party always gives us FAIL

Always.

Every time.

And you never learn.

[BzaDem]

59. Hmm. Which wing of the party gave us FAIL in the 2000 elections?

Which wing of the party single-handedly allowed Bush to enter power, and start a war in which thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died?

If your argument dissolves faster than salt in water (as yours does), it is probably a sign that you don't have a very good argument.

[Fumesucker]

60. The wing that didn't even win their candidate's own home state..

The wing that had Joe "Droopy Dog" Lieberman as their VP candidate..

The wing that had that VP candidate agree with Dick fucking Cheney in his debate far more than he disagreed.

[BzaDem]

61. The problem with your argument is that the wing you referred to actually did their part to prevent

Bush from entering office. They voted for the viable candidate other than Bush.

On the other hand, the other wing of the party didn't do their part. If this other wing had done their part, hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today that would not be otherwise.

You are blaming exactly the wrong people. When someone's house gets robbed, you are supposed to blame the robber. Not the homeowner.

[Fumesucker]

64. Once again you excuse the politicians from responsibility for their actions..

Not to mention you excuse the Felonious Five on the SCOTUS for their part in bringing us Bush II.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that Gore spent his entire campaign running as fast as he could away from Bill Clinton despite the fact that Clinton had a 65% approval rating in 2000..

[BzaDem]

65. Last I checked, politicians do not decide who wins elections. Voters do.

So if a wing of a party single-handedly allows Bush to take office through their votes, or lack thereof (or allows the election to be close enough to let a court do it), that wing of the party is at fault. There being other factors (such as a court decision) does not absolve the group of voters of fault, just as one robber is not absolved of fault because there were 4 other robbers involved.

Since voters make the ultimate decision, voters obviously need to be accountable for their decisions. Blaming other people at the exclusion of the voters in question is directing blame away from the people who actually made the decisions they made that resulted in the President we had.

[Fumesucker]

68. Politicians determine how people are going to vote by their actions..

Edited to add reference and quotes..

When the politicians do things that are unpopular people don't vote for them, when the politicians do things that are popular then then the voters reward that behavior.

Al Gore made the decision to put Holy Joe Lieberman on his ticket, a smoking hole in his foot right from the start. Al Gore decided to run away from Bill Clinton's 65% favorable rating because he found Clinton's peccadilloes personally distasteful.

Al Gore's lawyer in the Bush v. Gore SCOTUS trial, David Boies, was incompetent and never even argued major points in favor of Gore.

http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason

Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards. But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?

And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?

Gore's lawyer, David Boies, never argued either of the above points to the Court. Also, since Boies already knew (from language in the December 9 emergency order of the Court) that Justice Scalia, the Court's right-wing ideologue; his Pavlovian puppet, Clarence Thomas, who doesn't even try to create the impression that he's thinking; and three other conservatives on the Court (William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) intended to deodorize their foul intent by hanging their hat on the anemic equal protection argument, wouldn't you think that he and his people would have come up with at least three or four strong arguments to expose it for what it was--a legal gimmick that the brazen, shameless majority intended to invoke to perpetrate a judicial hijacking in broad daylight? And made sure that he got into the record of his oral argument all of these points? Yet, remarkably, Boies only managed to make one good equal protection argument, and that one near the very end of his presentation, and then only because Justice Rehnquist (not at Boies's request, I might add) granted him an extra two minutes. If Rehnquist hadn't given him the additional two minutes, Boies would have sat down without getting even one good equal protection argument into the record.

[BzaDem]

69. If a liberal voter wants to decide that Dick Cheney is BETTER than Joe Lieberman

or that Bush's opinion on Clinton policy was BETTER than Gore's opinion on Clinton policy, they are free to make that decision. But they are then accountable for that decision. If their decision swings an election, then they are responsible for swinging the election. (That is actually a tautological statement, so it is amazing how many people here deny it.)

[Fumesucker]

70. Why do you twist and turn so much to excuse politicians from responsibility?

Why are voters accountable but politicians are totally free of accountability?

That is the question you must answer to have any credibility.

Gore chose the odious Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, that was not the fault of the voters.

Gore chose to run away from a Democratic POTUS who left office with the highest approval rate in generations.

Why is Gore not responsible for these two utterly moronic decisions that clearly "lost" him the election?

Gore's actions are what "swung" the election (neglecting the treasonous role of the SCOTUS).

[BzaDem]

71. "Why are voters accountable but politicians are totally free of accountability?"

Because in an election, voters elect Presidents, not politicians.

When governing, the President is accountable for his actions. His choices determine policy, and he is accountable for those choices.

But when running, the voters are accountable, because they make the choice of which candidate is going to govern. After the campaign, Gore was clearly better than Bush. You can whine on and on about Lieberman's nomination for a largely powerless post (as you clearly love to do), but that doesn't at all change the fact that any reasonable liberal would observe that Gore was more liberal than Bush.

At that point, after the distinction is clear, it is in the hands of the voters. In particular, it is not in the hands of the politicians.

[Fumesucker]

72. Actually voters elect politicians..

One politician will be POTUS, another will be VP, some will be Representatives, some will be dog catchers..

In the end they are politicians.

And those politicians are responsible for the actions that cause people to vote or not vote for them.

Gore blew two smoking holes in his feet during his campaign, running away from the most popular Democratic president since FDR and choosing a running mate that has all the electrifying charisma of a bowl of cold haggis.

Perhaps you can excuse Gore's action as president of the Senate in gaveling down the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were trying to protest the irregularities of the 2000 election?

[BzaDem]

73. "And those politicians are responsible for the actions that cause people to vote/not vote for them"

This is only true insofar as they need to show why they are better (or not worse) than the other candidate. Because after all, an election is a choice between two candidates to govern -- not a "message-sending-exercise" or a way for someone to "vote their conscious."

For example, if Gore came out and said "I want to invade Iraq AND Iran, and North Korea for good measure. I will pay for my proposal by ending Medicare and Social Security," that would clearly indicate that Gore would be worse than Bush. Gore is then responsible for that perception among voters.

But that is not what happened. Gore's pick of Lieberman was NOT worse than Bush's pick of Cheney. Gore's stances on Clinton policies were NOT worse than Bush's opposition to Clinton policies. Therefore, those factors are NOT responsible for voters helping Bush over Gore, since they do not indicate to liberals that Bush is any better than Gore.

Since the factors you mention do not indicate that Gore is somehow worse than Bush, they are not responsible for a bunch of liberal purists in Florida helping Bush at the expense of Gore.

[Fumesucker]

76. BzaDem: "Of course we didn't pass a public option -- Lieberman was dead set against it"..

Lieberman may not have been worse than Cheney but he certainly was nothing for a liberal to get all excited about electing.

Politicians are responsible for what they do that either increases or decreases the number of voters willing to vote for them, it's really as simple as that..

I note that you had nothing to say about Gore gaveling down the Congressional Black Caucus..

[BzaDem]

77. "But he certainly was nothing for a liberal to get all excited about electing."

Your worldview is stunning. Last time I checked, voting is a responsibility of a citizen. It is not just something you do when you are "excited" or "thrilled." If a citizen chooses not to vote (or votes for a candidate that citizen knows cannot win), that is an abdication of their responsibility as a citizen (not the fault of a politician).

It is not the fault of Gore that a bunch of liberal purists were not "excited" enough. Voting is not just a responsibility if it suits your fancy. It is ALWAYS a responsibility. To the extent that there are voters that do not take this responsibility seriously and vote for crackpots who can't win, they have no one to blame but THEMSELVES.

[Fumesucker]

81. What about the near fifty percent who didn't vote at all then?

Why blame those who acted responsibly and voted?

If you want to put the blame on ordinary citizens then blame those who didn't vote at all.

[BzaDem]

83. People who didn't vote are also at fault.

The consequences of their actions though are unclear, since it is unclear how they would have voted. (Though this doesn't take away from their fault.)

"Why blame those who acted responsibly and voted?"

Going into the polling booth is only part of fulfilling one's responsibility. The other part is actually voting for a candidate you know has a shot at winning. Why? Because voting is about picking a candidate to govern. If you pick a candidate you know won't win, you are not picking a candidate to govern. You are trying to "send a message" or "soothe your conscious" or some other such bullshit. You are abdicating your responsibility to decide who our next actual (as opposed to imaginary) President will be.

The right to vote is the right to choose who governs. It was never anything other than that. Voting for a candidate who has no chance at actually governing is not choosing who you want to govern. It is abdicating your responsibility to do so.

[Fumesucker]

86. And who determines which candidates have a shot at winning?

The voters.

So if enough people vote for a long shot candidate, vote their principles rather than their fears, that candidate can win, we do not have absolute knowledge of the future much as you would like to say otherwise.

Your view is that nothing can ever change, it will be the same two parties from now on.

Parties are like any other organism, they are born, they live and they die.

Proof of this is the fact that we do not have the same parties now as when the Constitution was written.

[BzaDem]

87. Whether or not it is possible to get a viable third party, the fact remains that Nader WASN'T viable

the night before the election. That was obvious to any intelligent being with a pulse.

[Fumesucker]

90. You really hate the idea of politicians being responsible for what they do..

I think I know why but I'm going to leave it to the lurkers to come to their own conclusions.

[BzaDem]

91. The problem is that you are claiming politicians are responsible for the decision of a voter

not to be "excited" and therefore not to vote.

Politicians are responsible for governing once in office, and making the case to why they are better than the other guy during an election. Beyond that, they are not responsible for convincing voters to not abdicate their responsibility and vote for a viable candidate in the election.

[Fumesucker]

94. But you excuse those who didn't vote at all..

"We don't know how they would have voted"..

And yes, in the real world where there is no mandatory voting politicians are responsible for getting people to care enough to vote for them.

[BzaDem]

97. Do you have an inability to read English? "People who don't vote are also at fault."

That happens to be the title of post 83.

"And yes, in the real world where there is no mandatory voting politicians are responsible for getting people to care enough to vote for them."

Just because it is LEGAL to abdicate your responsibility as a citizen does NOT mean it is somehow not abdicating your responsibility as a citizen.

[Fumesucker]

100. You still come back to the idea that politicians aren't responsible for what they do..

And voters hold all the responsibility.

I know why a great many people don't vote, they think it won't make any damn difference anyway because the politicians are basically all the same.

It really doesn't matter whether that's true or not because the perceptions people have are what drives their behavior, not actual reality.

The Teabuggers perceive that the gooberment wants to mess with their Medicare and they get riled up about it, facts matter not one whit to them.

You keep talking theory, I keep talking reality and the reality is that perceptions are all important and reality means very little in driving the behavior of those who may or may not vote.

You can chide and wag your finger all you like, it won't change people's perceptions at all.

[BzaDem]

101. The people who voted for Nader knew the policy differences between Gore ane Bush.

And they chose to allow Bush to be elected. If even 5% of them voted for the viable candidate they knew to be better (rather than the one that maximizes the soothing of their conscious), Bush would not have been elected. That is pure, unadulterated REALITY. Not theory.

[Fumesucker]

74. For what i'ts worth, it was _you_ who brought up Lieberman first in this conversation..

BzaDem: "Of course we didn't pass a public option -- Lieberman was dead set against it".

Funny, he was Gore's choice for VP in 2000..

[BzaDem]

75. Again, how is that relevant? Lieberman might have been againt a public option, but Cheney was

surely against continuing Medicare at all.

Therefore, Lieberman was a better choice than Cheney, and to the extent liberals helped Cheney at the expense of Lieberman, they are accountable for their actions.

[Fumesucker]

78. A shit sandwich is a better choice than a shit sandwich with arsenic and cyanide...

Personally I'm not all that happy about eating either one.

Lieberman was a shit sandwich and we all know it, I mean he campaigned for McCain in 2008.

[BzaDem]

80. I guess that's the key question. Why is it AT ALL RELEVANT whether or not you are "happy"?

You are an adult (I assume). Adults make choices they aren't thrilled about ALL THE TIME. Voting is not just a responsibility if you are "happy" -- it is a responsibility regardless of whether or not you are happy. This responsibility has nothing to do with whether you are happy.

Not making such a consequential choice because you aren't thrilled about the choices is the behavior of a 5 year old, not an adult.

[Fumesucker]

82. Not wanting to eat a shit sandwich is the act of a five year old?

Bon appetit..

[BzaDem]

84. Choosing not to eat a shit sandwich, and then having a much shittier sandwich forcefed to you

because of that, is an action of a five year old.

[Fumesucker]

88. So you admit Lieberman was a shit sandwich..

But of course Gore had no responsibility for choosing the shit sandwich. :eyes:

[BzaDem]

89. No, I assume for the sake of argument that Lieberman was a shit sandwich, and then show that you are

wrong EVEN AFTER I assume it true for the sake of argument.

Eating a shit sandwich is better than being forcefed a shittier sandwich, by definition.

[Fumesucker]

92. Who did Lieberman campaign for in 2008?

Did he campaign for the Democratic candidate?

Now, keep in mind that Lieberman was the Democratic VP nominee only eight short years before..

[BzaDem]

95. So voting for the ACTUAL Republican candidate 8 years earlier is BETTER?

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

98. Umm.. There were plenty of candidates who didn't belong to either major party..

And I note you didn't answer the question..

[BzaDem]

99. The question is not relevant to the topic at hand. It would only be relevant if it made Lieberman

WORSE than Cheney.

[fishwax]

85. +1

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[depakid]

62. Yours- beyond any question

Same pattern throughout the 90's and 00's.

You'll not only never learn but you'll give everyone in the nation repeated FAIL on problem solving and policy- then try to blame others for your own shortcomings.

Democrats had a historic opportunity to effect real, structural change and at the same time, relegate Republicans to the fringe for a generation.

And what did the Republicrat wing do?

Same thing that you've done for going on two decades now.

And now you're on the verge of losing to an even more sorriful bunch than 1994.

How pathetic is that?

[BzaDem]

63. As usual, you blame the homeowner whose house gets robbed, rather than the robber.

See, the wing of the party you are blaming actually did their part in preventing Bush from being elected. They voted for a viable candidate other than Bush.

The wing of the party you represent did not do their part in preventing Bush from being elected.

Rather than blaming the people that did not do their part, you are blaming the people that did do their part. (A robber will similarly do this: "He shouldn't have left the door unlocked! What did he expect would happen?")

As usual, this causes you to get exactly the wrong answer. We should not be surprised though, since a typical guide to the right answer is to take what you say and flip it.

[depakid]

66. That you're blind to the irony in that statement

really is quite telling.

[BzaDem]

67. Mmkay. n/t

[fishwax]

93. an apt metaphor there: one wing of the party are "owners," and voters are thieves to the extent that

they don't follow the direction of the owners.

[Fumesucker]

96. Good point..

The poster reveals his bias..

[BzaDem]

114. It is more of an analogy than a metaphor.

Voters who aide, abet, and enable right-wing candidates by not voting for Democrats are responsible for the actions of the right-wing candidates when they are in office. The people who voted for the Democrats (i.e. the people that locked the doors) do not share such responsibility. Not a hard concept.

You can try to make the analogy more than I am making it all you want, but that doesn't change the above.

[rhett o rick]

107. Easy, The side that rooted Bush on to war in Iraq, and supported the Patriot Act and MCA. nm

[rhett o rick]

106. Using the "we cant get 60 votes in the Senate" excuse to pass crappy leg is getting old.

The Pres didnt try hard to convince Lieberman. Reid didnt change the filibuster rule. The president didnt use reconciliation to pass a public option.

We didnt get a public option because the current administration didnt want it.

I dont think the Pres will even need the left come 2012.

Centrists are willing to stay in the hot water until they are boiled. Apparently as long as the water doesnt get too hot too quickly, they are ok with it.

[Overseas]

79. Yes, here we are again. And I'll be voting Democratic again.

Yes I've been having flashbacks to the 90's, when we got a "New Democrat" in office and the newness was old fashioned back then already. Democrats showing they could be like Republicans too by passing NAFTA and cutting welfare because right wing PR flashed around stories to highlight 5% cheating without a strong enough counterweight to discuss the 95% who really need the help for a while, and deregulating broadcast media and high finance, buying into the already discredited "the private sector can do better," argument.

Clinton did some good things we clung to, like reversing Reagan's tax cutting for the rich, which helped the economy then as it would today, and running a leaner, smarter military.

And he was under constant attack by the ugly right wing. http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/
Including sociopath Newt Gingrich, using his GOPac memo to teach his fellow Republicans how to slant their language to demonize their opposition, Language: A Key Mechanism of Control http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

The conservative media were a strong force back then even, and with the deregulation of our broadcast media allowing more consolidation into right wing ownership they have become even stronger, having methodically built up their influence for decades after having been outraged by not getting their dear Judge Bork onto our supreme court, as detailed in What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, www.whatliberalmedia.com

Some kind of Truth & Reconciliation Commission about the Bush Gang's torture and wars of choice could have given the country the wake-up call needed to get as serious as necessary about climate change and economic imbalances but we didn't get that. And even when the GOP was at 29% popularity, we didn't get a milder version of a strong, visible block of Democratic leaders delineating the ways in which the Modern GOP had strayed from its traditions by crashing our economy with its reckless wars and tax cuts. Instead we got too much eerie bipartisan outreach to the party that was abandoned by millions of voters crossing over to vote Democratic in 2008. Millions knew we needed millions of jobs and national health insurance after the Bush Crash but too many of our Democratic legislators had been co-opted by campaign support (bribes) from the multinational corporations that have taken charge of our government, so they didn't seize their mandate.

It is a lot easier for the GOP to seize their mandates when they win-- Let's cut taxes for the richest among us! Let's deregulate so industries can get millions more in their quarterly profits!

So here we are again-- the right wing has become the super ultra crazed edition and I don't want more wars or Christian theocratic rule-- so we will vote for Democratic candidates. I'm lucky because I want to vote for Senator Boxer and Jerry Brown, and against the oil companies' initiative to stop California's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

And while some may feel comfortable about the wacko teabaggers dividing the Republican party, it has has also given Republicans and Independents a reason to vote for the establishment Republicans on their tickets, if they've been fooled by the "socialist" demonization of our very moderate Democratic president.

So we do need all our Democrats to get to the polls and vote for Democrats in November. And as many as possible to get to the Jobs March in DC on October 2nd.

But yes, there are some sad reverberations in my brain-- Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Nuremberg and Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Copenhagen.

[earcandle]

104. Again: the ability to deal with ambiguity is a sign of mental health.

Remember, the ability to deal with ambiguity is a sign of mental health.

Lets get someone more healthy and guarantee he or she wins.

How about Elizabeth Warren for Prez?

With Burris (who seems to be doing a good job)
as VP, and Grayson, or Kucinich or Feingold as Speaker of the
House?

Then we get the woman's vote, the people of color vote and the progressive vote.

That would change up things a bit!