There is harm in belittling those with legit concerns about our country and party.

[madfloridian]

There are many of us in a gray area right now. No one is quite sure how to handle those of us who question the continued move to the right by our party leaders. There is no real consensus on what to call us either.

Are we liberals? Those of us who see that our party is willing to continue long wars while breaking the country financially?..those of us who see our Democrats willing and even eager to start the attacks on Social Security while calling it something else? Are we liberals? Progressives? We really don't have a name. The Left? And what do you call those of us who question the massive onslaught on public schools and their teachers?

Whatever we are, those of us who feel strongly and deeply that we are not doing right for the country...there are plenty of Democrats ready and eager to go on TV and to forums to make sure we are made to feel uninformed, unworthy, and less than intelligent.

Not a good situation for our party in the long run. There is danger in alienating these people who might be liberals, the left. Pretending we are wrong, when we are right...not wise. We have been right on most of the major issues of the last decade, yet we have been treated with derision.

I was raised in a fundamentalist culture among Southern Baptists, and I am recovering from that. I was raised around mostly a Republican family who did not like unions, and called those of us who became Democrats "bleeding heart liberals." Most of them have seen now what is happening to the country and are worried, but they don't know their place either politically.

Our family's Republicans don't relate to the teabaggers, they are moderate Republicans. They feel they don't belong, and they don't really understand it. We can communicate better with them now than we could for years on things political, because we are also confused.

I have said before that I came to DU in 2002 as a pretty moderate person, often shocked at some of the ideas tossed about here. Each year I find myself becoming more outspoken about the sharp right turn of our party. Each year I move more to the "left" because of what I see happening.

I keep remembering what a former candidate said..that you can not "compromise with extremists." Yet we keep on doing that very thing. And every time our leaders compromise more with the right, those same leaders lecture us more loudly to fall in line.

On every major issue our party leaders have taken compromising stands beyond what was necessary. Compromise of course is sometimes necessary, but it is not supposed to be the very first thing done...fighting should come first.

The other day our president used the words "purity" and "sanctimonious" when he referred to those of us who questioned his tax compromise. He was angry at being crossed, and that was a strange thing to me.

I keep remembering all the petitions we have signed, the causes we stood for, the money we donated believing that what happened in 2006 and 2008 was going to give our country a chance to recover from what George Bush and his corporate cronies had wrought. We were excited then, and we felt we had made a huge difference. Now we are not so sure about many things.

There should be caution in putting down those who care about issues that Democrats have stood for traditionally.

The right wing will never vote for Obama no matter how much he compromises with them. Most of our party are likely to vote for him, yet we are the ones treated condescendingly.

The bipartisanship, post-partisanship that are going on now are not healthy for our country. It means that in effect one party could be running the country. That gives the leaders too much power over the people because they do not feel an obligation to serve them or please them. If there is no opposing party, no one will be the winner.

[snot]

1. I think we shd treat everyone with respect

-- possibly even Cheney, believe it or not.

[roguevalley]

13. some other thread has people defending Obama's cut of the

2.2 bn from food stamps. apparently, Obama will pull 2.2 BN out of his butt some place else with a congress that hates him to death. Anyone with a problem with that is 'not a real dem' and should shut up. I find it hilarious that people are defending Obama as if deleting 2.2 bn out of food stamps is okay considering the money he is giving to billionaires. This country is upside down now, you bet. I am just glad I'm old and don't have to live Bladerunner as long as some of you. :(

[Skittles]

31. CORRECT

cutting food stamps (I don't give a fuck how much he raised it earlier) while giving tax cuts to the obscenely rich and continuing senseless wars is a DISGRACE.

[whistler162]

52. Did you even read when the 2.2 billion is being cut.....

probably not!

[jtuck004]

77. The increase was raised with the stimulus, and ends with fiscal 2011. n/t

[Mafia Killer]

89. NO

if everyone forgives and forgets.
we lose.

respect? what's that?

you have to get respect in order to get it.
I for one will never forget or forgive what the right wing have done to us.

I've spent 8 years during Bush/Cheney being made out to be everything bad......worse than the Taliban.
Fox News and O'Reilly and Beck have been calling us the enemy and treating us as such....that continues even today.

I vote to give the same "Respect" to Bush/Cheney that was given to Saddam.

get a rope.

[BeFree]

2. Nader said:

There wasn't much different between the two parties anymore.

He is right. It is one Big Money party now.

Obama is catering (cratering)to that party.

Heh, it was fun while it lasted: The hopes, the dreams, the action. Pissing in the wind.

[Warpy]

11. It was like this in the 20s and early 30s. Ordinary people were suffering

while it was party time for anyone with enough money to get into the Wall Street feeding frenzy, even if they did it with a 4% down payment and a 96% debt on whatever they "bought." Agriculture was particularly hard hit and housing prices declined all through the 1920s, meaning the major asset of most families was losing a tremendous amount of value as Wall Street seemed to absorb every cent out there. When the crash happened and all that Wall Street instant wealth went with it, politicians stood around with their thumbs up their butts for years wondering if they should do something about it.

Even FDR was seen as a safe choice, an east coast plutocrat who wouldn't rock the boat or derail what was left of the gravy train for the big boys at the top. It was only when everybody started to get a little nervous about poor people organizing that things started to change for the better.

I'm enough of a cynic to think that government will always do the wrong thing until it becomes more afraid of its citizens than it is of the rich men writing the checks.

I was hoping Obama cared enough about this country to tell the plutocrats "NO!" for once. Alas, he's not afraid of us yet and neither is Congress.

Until that happens, we can only expect more of the same.

[BeFree]

15. "No" for once would have been great.

Audacious, even. Would have given us hope!

I recall a certain poster here, Purity of Essence, who I battled with for some time, oh, a year ago.

That person was claiming that Obama, in my words now, was a "wolf in sheep's clothing".
Hell, PoE, I hereby apologize. You may have been all too correct.

It's as if Obama was elected to placate the left and get us to forget about bush. It worked.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. That's very nice

No need for that; we're all trying to sort this out.

I don't think I ever used that term, but I've certainly used worse. He red-lined my radar in the fall of '06 when he aggressively courted Religion Incorporated for his candidacy, and upon subsequent analysis, I soured immediately and seriously. The realizations that depress and anger the once-swayed are sad to watch, and I feel for those whose hero doesn't measure up, but what really worries me is a sweeping fecklessness coupled with the virulent backlash of the blinded.

This will get so much worse, and the potential damage that can be done by this man is terrifying.

The apparatchiks will fight mightily against anyone even trying to mount a primary challenge, and he will accommodate 'til the cows come home. The reactionaries will do everything in their power to enrich themselves by the glowing embers of a dying empire and blame the resultant misery on the President, even when the House really controls the purse strings. Still needing universal love, Obama will cling to his pathetic and needy schtick of beseeching all quarters for their affection, and we will be dragged even more to the right.

Certain Democrats will continue to slag any serious questioning of him be a race issue, while others who are so ego-involved and unable to be an adult shriek endlessly about how he really is everything that he continually proves he isn't. We'll be bullied into accepting this lily-livered incrementalism and full-on flight as some kind of best possible alternative, and we'll be hectored with continual calls for feeble "hope" and other cynical vagueness.

We're in big trouble. He's a problem. It's not just "naivete" or "amateurishness", although there's plenty of that, too, it's greedy personal ambition, deeply compromised alliances and some serious moral flaws at play. We are being boxed into a corner where we dare not even attempt to bring any influence against the headlong lockstep chorus-line to lemming peak. It's an abusive outrage how certain people hammer down any voices of reason and moral culpability.

Once again, thanks, and please continue to use your energy to cajole some sense into the blockheads who are enabling our ruin. I'm too much of a lightning rod and am on too many "ignore" lists, and when the screeching acolytes swarm any decent dissenters with a piranha-like feeding frenzy, it's nightmarishly akin to religious zealots stoning heretics.

My work schedule is pretty torturous, though, but I'm still going to do what I can to remind people with a lick of sense that they're not alone and to harass the brutes of peer-pressuring idiocy.

[whoopingcrone]

88. I think you may have answered my question

I've been wondering since the 2008 primaries how come the 2 candidates we voters were offered
to choose between were both so unlikely to be elected in the generals.

[AndyTiedye]

29. Anyone Who Couldn't Tell the Difference Between Bush and Gore is Senile

[bluestate10]

67. Agree. nt.

[defendandprotect]

63. Differences between the two parties are fading .... quickly ....!!!

[sasha031]

87. I see that more than ever, he is correct

[Hannah Bell]

3. kr. the entire political class manipulates the public. all too ready to go on tv & make them feel

"uninformed, unworthy, and less than intelligent."

A bunch of shyster whores.

[elleng]

4. Belittling is ALWAYS bad, madflor, and questioning is always good.

[emilyg]

5. k

[Nite Owl]

6. K&R

Thank you.

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I hate to say it, but what you are seeing is the

break up of a social contract... (the social base), and when most people wake up it will NOT be pretty.

And one reason is the increased right ward slant in DC, in a country that is NOT center right, no matter how many times Eric Cantor says that.

It is just that the propaganda has been very strong.

[eridani]

10. The contract used to be that if you played by the rules, you'd survive OK

That hasn't been true for quite some time.

[madfloridian]

19. Agreed.

It used to be that way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Exactly and why it will not be pretty

The contract also included social security, medicare and a modicum of security in old age.

This is getting dismantled.

Of course the playing "by the rules" change by centuries, but that is another story. The last time it was broken this badly in a Western society we had a revolution... no not this one... but the Bastille comes to mind.

[Hardrada]

27. Aristocracies can be ended in a really short span of time.

Months, I think, for the Russian one. And, since we have had wars and revolutions in our history we don't need a 1905 for educational purposes.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Let them eat yellowcake.

[patrice]

47. Hell, even people who "know" what's going on are disoriented!! nt

[Taverner]

54. My plea: Stay in the Democratic Party, and join the Socialist Party

Let's build the Socialist party to what it could be.

The greens and Nader are bad choices because they are entirely unrealistic, and they would be just as bad for this country as the GOP.

"Oh and working for the SOCIALISTS is realistic?" you might add. We all know Socialism is the only economic system that can save us. Any other iteration of Capitalism just pushes more $$$ into the hands of the wealthy, and takes more $$$ from you. Elect the Greens and the same thing will happen.

Its going to take a lot of work, and we may not see the fruits of our labor, but we have long passed the time for Keynesian Solutions. It is time to seize the means of production, or in our case, REBUILD the means of production and start rebuilding this economy.

[kentuck]

9. They don't need you anymore.

You are not like them. They are trying to win the centrists, not the left. You are taken for granted.

[upi402]

12. and the center is now Goldwater Republican. We're easy to fool! n/t

[madfloridian]

42. And sometimes even right of "centrist"

At least it seems that way on some issues.

[hlthe2b]

14. K & R

I truly wish your post might change things...

[PurityOfEssence]

16. He's angry; he's used to getting his way, he feels he deserves a second term, and he needs adulation

I, too, am falling into the trap of focusing on one individual, but this is somewhat understandable: his campaign was, upon any analysis, about his beatific character and wondrousness.

Interesting leading man though he is, the problem is as you say: a corporatist creep of selfishness that's accepted. Selfishness was always the dark side of the American character of the lone cowboy on the prairie standing tall and being responsible for himself. This is the soul of objectivism and liberarianism, but it wasn't crowned as a virtue until Reagan.

The greatness of the American Dream is its groupthink peer-pressure of embarrassment fear. Given the (false) premise that this is the land of pure opportunity, where nothing stands in one's way but one's own lack of imagination or hard work, it's an admission of gross personal defectiveness to admit failure. People will keep up appearances forever, and will never grouse about the way things are rigged against them because it's their own fault if they don't succeed. You couldn't have devised a better engine for willing peasantry if you tried.

The vapid, surfacy showbizzy funk of it all stinks to high heaven, and we're condemned to listen to academics who pose as creative writers like Ishmael Reed gush vulgar love for the man for the great personal achievement of being "the coolest man in the room". Bring on the athletes, and let's hark forth the flowering of civilization.

There is no real left anymore, and there's not really much of a center; the fight now is for moderate corporatism or full-blown primitive neo-feudalism. Thanks to our pal Barry, we can even count on some more religion being tossed into the ugly stew, and that's where it gets really scary.

[lildreamer316]

21. Great post

and check upthread, someone mentions you ;)

[Bluebear]

35. Well done. nt

[sasha031]

17. ...

:kick:

[madfloridian]

41. Great pic of Sam Seder.

I had not seen that.

[sasha031]

86. I listen to him everyday, He knows what he talking about

brilliant, articulate and accurate on what is happening with this tax deal.

http://majority.fm/

[nc4bo]

18. Truth. K&R with a thank-you tossed in. nt

[patrice]

22. If there is such a thing as a right to oppose, which must be respected, then it applies to

ANYONE who does so respectfully, in good faith, and honestly.

And, yes, those last 3 are pretty stringent criteria, limiting "ANYONE", but the nature of a right is such that it cannot be denied to anyone, even those with whom I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they disagree, as long as they meet those 3 criteria.

If a right (to oppose - in this instance) is denied to anyone who qualifies for it, even those with whom we disagree, it is no longer a right that you are claiming, but a privilege, something that I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they reject.

I'm just trying to point out an aspect of the Golden Rule, that what you said works both ways, or not at all. No one can claim a right to oppose and not yield that same right to others who disagree with them. Is the opposition just supposed to die, go away, disappear? Knuckle under and not oppose that which they honestly think is wrong? If they are not supposed to oppose, why would I have a right to oppose them, unless I'm claiming, not a right, but some kind of privilege over them? How do we solve this problem?

Perhaps the real issue here is about fairness, i.e HOW opposition is mounted and whether it is respectful, in good faith, and honest. There is a great deal about our position that is not fair. We have not been dealt with respectfully, honestly, and in good faith (not just by Obama but for a VERY long time), but betraying our own rights by violating those criteria in our opposition ourselves only reaps the whirlwind and does nothing to further the cause of Economic & Social Justice.

[madfloridian]

23. I deprive no one of that right. But I expect elected leaders...

to treat those who elected them with full respect...and yes, honesty. They have not been treating us honestly.

[patrice]

26. I keep thinking about those obnoxious Tea Partyers out there whom we KNOW have to be with us on

Medicare, which is coming up for reform btw, and those Tea Partyers, from what I was around them, think we oppose their right to oppose, when in fact, all most of us want is to not be shouted at and stereotyped and mischaracterized and treated dishonestly and if we could figure out how to oppose one another respectfully, we could do with the Tea Partyers and Medicare, what the President is doing with Republicans and Tax Cuts.

It would be nice to get out ahead on just one issue for a change, but it appears to me that there are too many people around who are claiming a privilege to oppose that they are not granting to others, and we're never going to get to make this about honesty and respect as long as we are either doing that or are perceived as doing that.

All of us need to talk about process more; maybe that's where we should start with everyone, because when people mistakenly assume that you deny their rights, you can't demand that they respect yours and everything goes to fuck from there.

[kentuck]

24. It is two different ideas in conflict..

One side feels that their position is superior and the other side is destructive. Because the facts back it up.

But the two ideas are put side by side as if they were equal.

But it has to work both ways. And those that we oppose have just as much right to believe what they believe as do we. We must yield to others the same right we claim for ourselves, that is true.

But when you feel strongly that their ideas are wrong and harmful to the American people, then there is an obligation to put up a fight for so long as it takes to light the path...

[patrice]

28. It IS a burden of those who actually are in a more valid position that their responsibility for

that fact (i.e. the higher degree of validity infers on them a higher degree of responsibility), as I was saying, their responsibility for that validity requires that they take the higher road for the sake of the solution(s). When you can see better than others, more is required of you that entails more self-sacrifice for shared goals. Like good teachers do in a classroom, you don't fight with the kids, because you have higher responsibilities.

We should take the high road about all of this conflict, make it all about Honesty, Respect, Integrity, the Truth and do what we can to assure people that we have no intention to shut anyone up or oppress them. It's scaring heck out of me how often I'm seeing andhearing references to Orwell's 1984 from relatively well educated Middle and Upper Middle Class types and they're referring to the "Left" controlling the government. HA!!! Like that's ever going to happen.

[madfloridian]

30. Who is it you think we are trying to shut up? Not following you.

Not sure what you mean. The ones in office have the power to do things, we the common people do not.

[patrice]

43. You have to be either pro-Obama or anti-Obama on this board and you are punished if you don't

take one of those positions, punished by both sides.

It appears that EVERYTHING is being subjugated purposefully to that single question and other exquisitely fundamental questions are being held meaningless or less relevant than whether you are for or against this President, for which you WILL be punished one way or the other.

One factor that is more powerful than anything else going on anywhere is the Bush Crash of 2008. OUR BANKS ARE HOLLOW. Why does no one appear to factor that into their estimations of this President? Disagree with him as I DO, I DO also recognize the importance of an environment in which the EQUITY of this nation is up for international auction (e.g. google financier meetings in Basel, Switzerland a couple of weeks ago, in which they began to make decision amongst themselves about levels of EQUITY that they will deal with and how and what they won't CREDIT) . . . I know that making decisions in such an environment is profoundly different from doing so in that which preceded its advent and, yet, it looks as though so much that is going on AGAINST or FOR Obama completely discounts this environment as not being a causal factor at all, because it is, apparently, much more important to be either for Obama or against Obama, than it is to deal with what is in fact happening to the U.S. economy.

It appears to me that ALL Social and Economic Justice goals are being subjugated to an invalid criteria, Obama-ness, rather than THE thing that drives EVERYTHING else and with which our President, WHOEVER that might have been at this particular moment in our history, is JUST a bit player.

We've been had and now Obama is the new "shiny thing" distracting us from driving toward our OWN independent functional responses to this situation, responses, say in regards to Medicare Reform for example, that could be about and for us rather than about and for the thing that did this to us.

I wonder why that is.

[madfloridian]

44. I am neither of those things.

[patrice]

46. I am both and neither. I want to deal with the facts on the ground of our experience and fight from

that position FOR that stuff and not be limited in how I can fight by whether I am for or against Obama or anyone else overall. All I want to know is how is X concretely affecting Y and Z. And more suffering and ignorance is absolutely un-acceptable. No matter what the "ends", the means do not justify them. HOW should be a justification unto itself and I think we'll find if we respect HOW things are done, the ends will take care of themselves if we are diligent, completely honest, committed and strong.

[laughingliberal]

25. K & R nt

[David Zephyr]

32. Bravo!

K&R.

[cali]

33. What you're saying is that there's harm in people here

having opinions that differ from yours.

Ugh.

[madfloridian]

40. Oh, my...I said THAT? Really, did I?

[chervilant]

71. No

you did not.

[Raine]

34. Two BIG Thumbs Up!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

36. Recommended.

The lectures are old and lacking substance. If they have no intention of representing us except in only marginal terms, they need to be honest with us. But could they win by being fully honest?

[sabrina 1]

37. Excellent post, Madfloridian,

Our family's Republicans don't relate to the teabaggers, they are moderate Republicans. They feel they don't belong, and they don't really understand it. We can communicate better with them now than we could for years on things political, because we are also confused.

This is exactly what has happened in my family. Back in 2004 I could barely speak to members of my family and nearly ended up never speaking to them again because I could not convince them not to vote for Bush. I cried many times after spending time with them.

But now, it is very different. We CAN talk. They are now aware that the party they chose to support does not represent them. We don't talk about wedge issues anymore. We have agreed to disagree on those, because there are far, far more important issues now that effect all of us.

Since Obama preaches bi-partisanship, maybe it's time for us to practice a little of it because divided they win, Corporate America, whoever is controlling things here. But united the American people would be a formidable force.

:kick: and rec'd which didn't register. I guess there are some who are not yet ready to accept that people actually do have legitimate causes for concern over how this administration is handling things.

[old mark]

38. The Democratic Party USED to be a "big tent", but I see less of that now, and

much less room for diverse opinions and pragmatism...I'm NOT defending "bipartisanship", either - it takes 2 parties for that, and we have been the only ones compromising for several years now...
But I would like to see less internal fighting.

mark

[myrna minx]

39. K&R n/t

[bigtree]

45. that's can't just be true for folks who share your own opinion

If it's true for you, then it's true for the folks you disagree with in our party. We denigrate Democrats all of the time on this board at the moment we disagree. The denigration isn't any prettier when liberals are attacking other Democrats than it is when other Democrats are attacking liberals.

The party has been a coalition of interests and motivations that don't always agree on issues, strategy, or tactics. What is different about self-identified progressives throwing down about views they feel don't represent the party and other Democrats throwing down about progressive views?

You want to move the party to the left, right? Nothing wrong with that ambition. But, you can't act as if that ambition isn't alienating to some lifelong Democrat somewhere.

It's perfectly fine to hold the views you want and still identify yourself as a Democrat. We don't take ideological tests at voting time. I'm not for alienating folks who want to align their views with our party. They'll either find it's an acceptable political vehicle, or not. That's happening right now with progressives on the internet. They're asking themselves if they want to be aligned with the Democratic Party as it stands.

That's fine to push off from the party, but I would think the party platform is best developed from a consensus of our Democratic coalition, not necessarily from any individual interest or concern. If you don't like the party as it stands, maybe there's something they can do to appease your concerns; maybe not. If not, you'll be challenged to find a replacement that has the potential for effectively advancing your concerns into action or law any better than the Democratic party does now. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find that replacement.

All that said, I'm sorry if anyone has made you (or anyone) feel unwelcome in our party by their politics or by their actions. I don't think that's productive or prudent to deliberately try and alienate someone. I do believe, though, there are bound to be policy differences we have with our Democratic coalition which are difficult to resolve. There are no easy solutions to all of that.

[madfloridian]

48. We are becoming a one-party country..

And that is very dangerous.

[bigtree]

49. I don't agree

. . . that we are becoming a 'one-party country'.

As much as you disagree with the scope and direction of our present party, the republican opposition disagrees infinitely more. They both may well have left you behind, but the republicans are racing away.

I look forward to eating my words on the emergence of a competitive progressive party. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. I've been surprised before, though, at the pace of political change.

[Dr.Phool]

61. They're fighting each other over K Street and Wall Street goodies. Nothing more.

It's all theater. And after the days performance is over, they go out and have dinner and drinks together.

[bigtree]

64. we don't actually segregate ourselves from folks we disagree with out here either

. . . most of us, that is.

Politics is performance, I'll grant you that. But, that doesn't obscure the policy differences which have real consequences that we can measure for ourselves. I can't make that judgment for you about what's important to you and how you regard their response to all of that. I see the differences, and they're stark enough for me to still remain engaged in advocating for the outcome of the ones that are most important to me.

If this were some sort of meaningless contest between the two, I suppose I'd find little to appreciate or dismiss about their efforts at all. It's consequential enough, though, for those differences between parties to have real and significant consequences that I believe are important.

[saracat]

57. We are indeed . Citizens United brought that into bold awareness.

And it is very dangerous.

[treestar]

50. There is harm in belittling anyone's efforts

Why are the perpetually concerned so special?

[madfloridian]

51. New term for us..."perpetually concerned"...good one.

There is a difference between "belittling" and offering honest criticism and concern.

The difference is in the attitude.

[Dr.Phool]

62. Is that the new jargon for "Pony Deprived"?

[saracat]

56. Why should the perpetually personality besotted be treated as special then?

The issues are what effect us and the issues are what should matter. Any "politician" who is not representing the people on the issues needs to be discussed and analyzed. Both sides of the issue discussion need to be respected.

[bertman]

72. "perpetually personality besotted"

:applause: :applause:


It don't get much better than that. Nicely done, saracat.

[me b zola]

53. K&R

:thumbsup:

[NNN0LHI]

58. Who do those moderate Republican family members of yours vote for?

Which moderate Republican politicians do they vote for? Did they vote for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden? Because I wouldn't consider those two rapture ready nuts moderates by a long shot. Do you think McCain/Palin are moderate Republicans? Do you believe that anyone who voted for those two whack jobs could be described as a moderate Republican?

Is there any chance these moderate Republican family members of yours may not be as moderate as you are thinking(hoping?), they are? What issues do you consider them moderate on?

Don

[madfloridian]

59. They laugh at Palin, are disillusioned by McCain.

They hate wedge issues as much as we do, they want what is best. They are fed up with Rush and Beck, no longer trust people like Malkin they used to trust.

They came out of the Bush years with no illusions left.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

60. I cannot express how much I appreciate you. nt

[RegieRocker]

65. All that had to be done was

to insure ourselves. Some major corporations are already doing that. Obama could have proposed a government health insurance that was lower than any you could buy. More coverage and no restrictions. Tax breaks for doctors and hospitals who provided for insured. I am a strong proponent for all insurance by the government. Question: is any federal employee making 30 million a year? What does the Pres make? I feel we get a outstanding bargain with our government. But let's not give up any more freedoms and get some back.

[bluestate10]

66. Obama will one day be a former President. During the mean time

as democrats, we can't make horrible choices and allow a republican to be elected before we get a real democrat running during the 2016 election season. Patience, Obama is not turning out to be what we expected, but there are democrats that will come forward after Obama who are and will be what we expect. Setbacks are part of life, a bitter part, but part of life none the less.

[RegieRocker]

68. Well said!

[Kurovski]

69. K&R. (nt)

[creon]

70. need to be concerned

There is a lot that has to changed /fixed. First, is the economy; second, is Wall Street. Those two factors are front and center for me. It may not be that way for others; but it is that way for me.

Neither were done well at all. I think that is why the election was lost.

The Democratic members and Senators in Congress have to be more progressive. if we want progressive laws, we need a progressive congress.

The GOP seems to have gone off into cloud cuckoo land. I do not know if that is empty rhetoric or is real. if real, that is pretty chilling.

It is a pretty worrying time.

[gulliver]

73. The whining and growling at Obama must go.

I am always happy to see anyone whine and growl at Republicans. All liberal efforts to disempower anyone should be directed at Republicans first. Those folks have lost their minds politically.

But when we criticize or disagree with a Dem leader, we need to do it in a way that does not disempower them. That means, believe it or not, that the appropriate respect be shown. I'm speaking particularly of Obama, but the principle applies across the board. Very few liberals--if any--are qualified, in my opinion, to treat the Democratic President of the United States as if he were an unsatisfactory waiter. Sorry, but Joe the smirking keyboard commando (not you, madfloridian) doesn't get to treat my president that way. That sort of behavior belittles the president, and I just have a hard time stomaching that.

Times like these there have never been before. I don't see any written guarantees on any stone tablets that say everything has to get better instead of getting just a hell of a lot worse. Undermining the closest thing in the universe to a reasonably good president is foolhardy. Saying "Obama should" or "I wish Obama would" is more than fine with me. Taking an angry, dismissive, contemptuous position with respect to the Democratic president is a privilege that is not morally accorded to every blockhead with a keyboard. They have the right to do it and the means. But it's wrong.

[madfloridian]

76. "whining and growling at Obama".....I resent that very much.

I very much hate to see our becoming a party that doesn't allow dissent.

How do we disagree without using words, written or out loud? That is what Democrats do, what all parties should do.

Everyone in both parties marched just about lockstep to get us where we are. The GOP by refusing to give an inch on anything, the Dems by not wanting to hurt their feelings by disagreeing.

[niceypoo]

78. The hits keep coming

[bertman]

74. Excellent OP, and dialogue. Thanks, madflo. REC. nt

[snooper2]

75. message boards

are a huge (hugh?) way to reach the populace...

kick, as people who are in the middle of commercial break with Swamp Loggers are coming to read this...

:hi:

[BenzoDia]

79. As a newcomer to DU, I can say that the belittling works both ways.

And yes, we should all work together, even if we're all along different points of the democratic spectrum.

[madfloridian]

84. I think one side is belittling. The other side is fighting back.

There is a difference, a big one.

Our party's leaders are pushing GOP goals and talking down to those of us who dissent.

[hapkidogal]

80. Thought you would like to see this.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/rick-scott-florida-education-jeb-bush I couldn't send you a message directly. I knew you would want to read this article.

[madfloridian]

85. Thanks for the article. Yes, Scott and the legislators can now destroy public schools.

It's a scary thought. They don't care what anyone thinks. As soon as they get through suing the EPA for wanting clean water, they will get to schools.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

82. A growing percentage of people delight in being able to do harm.

[blackspade]

83. K&R!

I feel much the same.