If liberals would only shut up and stand 100% behind Obama ...

[Onlooker]

... then Geithner, the Blue Dog Democrats, the DLC, the corporate Democrats, the lobbyists, the Republicans, the MSM, and the financial interests would be heard that much more clearly by him.

If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama, then he wouldn't have to spend as much time thinking about progressive issues.

If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama, he wouldn't have to waste time listening to sound economic principles with a strong track record.

If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama, he wouldn't have to worry about them giving him the political cover and backbone to stand up to the powerful vested interests.

If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama, then the status quo could be preserved.

If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama, they would be just like the conservatives who gave Bush a free ride and put our economy into a free fall.

[Occam Bandage]

1. If liberals would only screech their heads off and oppose Obama 100%...

...then he wouldn't have the support base necessary to accomplish anything in office.
...then his term will be a disastrous failure.
...then it will be a decade before we have another liberal President.

Fortunately, nobody is calling for or is doing either.

[ErinBerin84]

4. "Fortunately, nobody is calling for or is doing either."

Yep

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Okay, and remember, there are Republicans in DU posing as Dems

In my opinion, we need to focus on what a bunch of shitheads Republicans are, and how they all belong in prison.

[LakeSamish706]

9. I agree with you... Pick out the Repugs. and drive them nuts instead of Democrats picking...

at each other.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. I agree there! nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

59. Obama is doing a great job

and I really have no major problems with him. But I refuse to rubber stamp everything he does and just automatically agree and think everything is okay just because he is a Dem and he is Barack Obama. Sorry not going to do that.

[tomp]

58. it's about policy, not party affiliation. grow up.

address the issue raised from whomever.

[Zenlitened]

3. K&R.

I think you get it. :thumbsup:

[Jennicut]

5. Overall I think Obama is doing a good job.

The stimulus was good as are his budget ideas. On the banking issue I think he does not have a really good handle on it yet.

[FreakinDJ]

6. At least Obama is addressing REAL Issues

and YES he deserves our support 100% - more then I can say about the last 8 years which got us in this mess.

Universal Healthcare would eliminate the coming budget crisis RATpubliCONs are attempting to use to put the working class back in the "Stone Ages" with

[truedelphi]

22. Due to the weird scenario created by this BailOut mess, I don't think

We will see any meaningful health insurance comeabout.

And if resembles the AIG/Goldman Sachs giveaway, it will only benefit the Big Boys and Girls at the Big HMO's and Insurance firms.

Please get informed about what this Bailout really means. Excellent articles over at the "Economy" site. And Matt Taibbi kncked himself out over at Rolling Stone, explaining to the most economically illiterate of us (including me) what the BailOut means.

[FreakinDJ]

45. Not because the amount of money - but because the way

House and Senate Dems have decided to spend it - Those stupid fucking earmarks have disolved Obama's political capitol.

Not that Obama is not correct and this should be a "High Priority" issue to resolve

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Oy...

:eyes:

[jody]

8. "Obama, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Paraphrasing

Senator Carl Schurz's remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872.

[Demi_Babe]

10. just be careful not to shout so loud that you make it easy for republicans to become relevant again

[Two Americas]

51. no danger of that

Expressing left wing points of view never has and never will help the Republicans.

[truebluedemz]

54. Never Again

The Pukelicons will never be relevant again. They shot their wad when after 50 years they were put in charge of both Houses and the WH and sent the country to hell in a hand basket.

Obama will get us back on the right track. The country didn't go down the toilet in a day and it will take longer than a couple months or even a couple years to undo what the last bunch of yahoos did to this country.

[JohnnyLib2]

11. Your last sentence.................

sums it all up. :thumbsup:

[WhiteTara]

12. then we would be publicans

so I guess he'll just have to hear it.

[terisan]

13. That is great!

[Phx_Dem]

14. This is a stupid, strawman argument.

No one is saying you have to blindly follow the President or stand behind him "100 percent" without questioning anything.

Joining the Republicans in a public pile-on only 60 days into his presidency hurts the progressive agenda more than anything because it's not seen as a progressive uprising, it's seen as a bipartisian pile-on that weakens the President. A weak President can't accomplish much, let alone the sweeping progressive agenda that he has already set out.

But, hey, knock yourself out. You sound like someone who lives to bitch.

[azmouse]

16. Oh brother....

:eyes:

[kestrel91316]

17. With friends like you, Obama doesn't need enemies, does he?

Have you and your buddies EVER supported him? At all? I see large numbers of relative newbies bitching endlessly about every single thing the man does, but I don't recall seeing the same people here prior to the election.

Very curious.........one would ALMOST think you people are just fascist operatives trying to undermine his support......

Thank you for your concern.

[anonymous171]

18. We stood by during the Clinton years and look what happened. We need to keep the pressure on.

That being said, attacking Obama over stupid gaffes (and other nontroversies, like the cost of the Inauguration) is incredibly counter-productive.

[Phx_Dem]

29. Who stood by during the Clinton years? The liberals didn't support

Clinton 100% of the time. He had his share of battles, and deservedly so. But the Dems didn't start knifing him 60 days into his Presidency. And Clinton didn't inherit the disaster that Obama has.

[Kolesar]

19. You sound bored...eom

[FLyellowdog]

20. I gave President Obama 100% of my support on Nov. 4.

That vote stood for and continues to stand for my belief that he has the vision to do what he can to improve our country. If I had had any doubts as to his ability to make the best decisions for me and my family, I would not have voted for him. If he stumbles, for whatever reason, I will continue to have faith that he will pick himself up and make another attempt to right what is wrong with America.

While my support remains steadfast at 100%, I also know that on occasion I may not clearly understand his decisions and may in fact disagree with them, but I will not leave his side. I know that he will listen to those who find his ideas in contrast to their own and he has already demonstrated that he can change his position based on sound criticism (re: veterans health care).

I can't explain why it scares me when good Democrats are so easily enraged by what the President does, but I'm guessing it's because I fear that they are giving credence and energy to the Right Wing portion of our country. And to give even the slightest appearance of support to that faction is horrendously scarer to me.

Yes, the Conservatives did give 100% of their support to Bush. But he didn't deserve it, he didn't know what to do with it, and the results were without question disastrous. But in case you haven't noticed, President Obama is not George W. Bush. The differences are too many to be listed here, but trust me, he IS NOT BUSH.

So I guess I am an "Either with him or against him" Liberal. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter because I can't help it. I will continue to forgive his frailties, try to understand positions I may disagree with, but first and foremost, I will support him 100% of the time.

I made that commitment when I chose him to be my President.

[BeFree]

21. 100% against

Any post which compares us to the conservatives.

Quote:....they would be just like the conservatives...

[truedelphi]

23. Economically speaking: Bush created a BailOut scenario that helped

AIG and Goldman Sachs, and Obama continued the same policy. He has pretty much used the same people.

So economically speaking, I don't see any difference.

On other fronts yes, the Dems differ from the Repugs, but the eoconomy tends to trump other fronts.

[BeFree]

24. Economically speaking

Obama could have crashed the whole thing by now. And what would we look like today if he had?

Obama was handed a bag of ticking time bombs. He had to have someone who knows how the bombs were wired in order to keep 'em from blowing.
----------

Still, the OP equated us with the cons and that shit don't fly around me.

[truedelphi]

27. Please get an education about how

An actual recovery would work.

FDR is known for the folowing quote: "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob" MAdison Square Garden Fall of 1936.

FDR did throw a great deal of money at recovery but he DID NOT throw those sums of money irresponsibly.

Obama has indeed sided with Organized Money. He is aiding and abetting the Goldman/Sachs and AIG capitalists. We are now handing over the last penny held on Main Street to the bankers on Wall Street.

If you don't get it now, I can only think you are either one of those bankers, or you are not aware of a salient fact about economic life: Mismanaged BailOuts favor only the banking class, and destroy, through inflation, the working capital of small time business owners and citizens.

Witness what Clinton's "mere" 20 Billion dollars of Bailout offered to the Mexican bankers and see what it did to the Mexican economy in the 1990's. The results: the average worker saw within fifteen months, a loss of his daily net worth - that average worker received an average salary of 47 cents after the Bailout compared to 87 cents before the Bailout money.

If you think that economic realities will somehow be different if they occur north of the US/Mexican border, you will find yourself severely mistaken.

[BeFree]

28. Granted

I am not an expert on this matter. But I see no other alternative than to trust that Obama is doing what he feels is the best. He was handed that bag and he's held it for 60 days now. The plan is coming out in the next few days.

We shall see.

As to the shit you flung at me saying:"...think you are either one of those bankers..." you are sorely mistaken and the shit sticks to you, not me. I will have a bit of patience and see what plan comes out before I sling shit like that. You might be wise to follow suit, or you may end up eating it. I hope you don't, but you made your bed.

[truedelphi]

30. I don't know how to answer your reply.

This thing of blindly trusting Obama, when he has chosen the same people with the same policies and the same approach, this "blind trust" thing doesn't sit well with me.

he has indeed had sixty days. I now believe that Obama is like many other monied Dems I have known over the years. they are part of the Money Party, and they "want" to help the little person in America, but first they will take care of their own. And this tactic means that the little person will not be taken care of.

As far as making a bed, in the sense you mean, I cannot make my bed. I have NO control over the Bailout funds. I have no control over the incestuous relationship between Geithner, Paulson, Kashkari, And the Criminal firms of AIG and Goldman Sachs. What I post here at DU has unfortunately proven right. Believe me, I wish that right now I was eating crow over my past forty five days of criticizing Geithner. I wish it were possible to make an OP "Obama, I sincerely apologize for saying your economic appointees would be your Bay Of Pigs."

But unfortunately I have been right. I'd rather eat crow or the Teeshirt I am wearing than know this fact: that Obama's aligning himself with organized money will bring about an untenable situation in this country's economic history. I hear the sound of the toilet flushing, and it will not only limit Obama to one term, it will probably mean longer bread lines, More foreclosures, and banks buying up local utilities like crazy. Coming soon, a three hundred dollar bill to Citigroup Local Water. For many of the average citizens among us.

I can wish I had control but I don't. There is the possibility that he will change, and divert himself from the disastrous course that he has embarked upon. I doubt it though - he will read this weekend's NYT and hear how every word in almost every article praises his people, and he will continue his course into a very long, very horrible economic nightmare.

[BeFree]

32. Just don't sling shit at me

You should know better, I don't take kindly to it unless deserved.

Here is what I see happening and what you must consider:

Our economic system is built upon a house of cards. Chief among that house is the mortgaging system. That system has been severely abused. Yes? Well, that is where the band-aid is being applied. Rates are as low as they'll go. Idea is that people in trouble will refinance and wipe some of the problems away.

Since Big money controls the mortgage dole-outs, and the banks are hurt by their house of cards falling and are claiming they can't mortgage things, the fed is giving them money to do just that.

The idea is to prop up the house of cards. That's the way it is. Yes, I saw it coming, but like you have no control. Thing is, if the house falls, we're in even worse shape. The only way we fix it is LONG term.

For now, the immediate problem is the mortgage crisis. Obama is working to solve that by helping the housing industry recover. Yes, the housing industry is BIG money. I don't have a mortgage, but millions of us do. If you do, you are playing in their park and by their rules, eh?

[truedelphi]

33. Again, you need to read up on this.

The mortgage crisis is the tip of the iceberg. The crisis is NOT about the homes that were sold to people who should not have been offered those mortgages. There are not enough poor people who obtained mortgages in the entire history of the world to have had the kind of economic collapse we now have.

What is at fault for the economic collapse is the "derivatives" that were spun out of the banks and financial investments firms. Those derivatives were bets placed on packages involving the sub prime mortgage.

A WEEK AGO, I wouldn't know how to suggest that you get up to speed. But over the last few days, reporter Matt Taibbi's article on "The Big Takeover" has come out. It's a long article but it can be read page by page. I am currently on page five.

The URL for the article is here:

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print

Tens of millions of Americans blindly "trusting" their leader is not gonna help improve the situation. Again, Obama has only two choices -

One - to side with the Main Street interests and that of the average person.

Or two: to side with the organized money interests.

And like FDR said, supporting the interests of organized money is as bad for the Real America as supporting the mob's interests.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Actually, as long as Foreign Governments have trust in our leader as big a percent as possible.....

We might be able to save ourselves.

The banking crisis as a foreign policy issue

If we let A.I.G. fail, said Seamus P. McMahon, a banking expert at Booz & Company, other institutions, including pension funds and American and European banks “will face their own capital and liquidity crisis, and we could have a domino effect.” A bailout of A.I.G. is really a bailout of its trading partners — which essentially constitutes the entire Western banking system.

No one wants to say it, but essentially the Fed has been bailing out European banks.

The inflation-adjusted cost of the Marshall plan has been estimated at about $115 billion in current dollars. If we end up spending $250 billion on AIG, how much of that sum will go to European financial institutions and might it someday exceed the scope of the Marshall plan? (I do not, by the way, think that central banks ought to treat foreign creditors differently.)

One attempt to formulate a bailout plan for eastern Europe just failed. This is round one in a series of longer negotiations. As the European financial crisis worsens, and Germany asks itself whether it will bail out Ireland and Hungary and maybe others, it will become increasingly clear that major foreign policy crises are afoot.

The best actual marker of the progress of the financial crisis is not stock or real estate prices, but rather how well international cooperation holds up.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/the-banking-crisis-as-a-foreign-policy-issue.html

The fact that the counterparties are overseas means that out of the three options: bailout, bankruptcy, or nationalization — none are satisfactory.

A bailout means that the government makes good on the value of the securities, including the derivatives which are tied to the collapse of the U.S. economy. That means the worse things get, the more money flows out of the country. Not politically acceptable.

Letting insolvent banks go bankrupt is the option being pushed by some politicians, including John McCain. In some ways it would be the cleanest solution, allowing the bankruptcy courts and the FDIC to do the tough job of allocating the losses from the toxic securities.

The problem, though, is that they tried the bankruptcy option with Lehman, and they nearly broke the global financial system in the process. The Lehman bankruptcy backfired, creating new panic around the world. This reflects how much money many foreign investors had put into the U.S., and how many worried about losing it when Lehman went under.

Nationalization creates a political problem. Once the government buys a company, it is financially and morally resonsible for its debts. It puts the U.S. government in the position of either using taxpayer money to bailout foreign investors, or telling foreign investors, no, the richest country in the world is not going to pay its debts.

What’s the solution?
Conclusion: Sometime later this year we will have a massive global conference aimed at simultaneously resolving the banking crises in the major developed countries. The goal will be a political negotiation of the value of the toxic assets, and a clearing of the books.

If the conference succeeds, then it will be possible to fix the financial system relatively easily. But if it fails, then things get dicey.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/a_simple_guide.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+++analysis

That's why a G20 Summit is important..... because this is a global issue that need global regulations.

Obama discussed this issue.

"We've got two goals in the G20," Obama said during a meeting in the Oval Office with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

"The first is to make sure that there is concerted action around the globe to jumpstart the economy. The second goal is to make sure that we are moving forward on a regulatory reform agenda."
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52a4c4-us-obama-g20-goals/


more on this here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8281017&mesg_id=8281017

[truedelphi]

39. There is confidence and then there is CONFIDENCE

What I mean by that FrenchieCat is that to a certain degree the market is a perception of how people feel. However, the fact that our economy has been only several things over the last eight years.

So yes, when an event occurs that causes the market to lose confidence, such as the Kennedy Assassiantion, on Nov 22 1963, then the stock market tanks.

But when there are overall indicaters that the entire US economy is a badly played game of "organized money mobsters" then the CONFIDENCE is gone.

These are the various notions that the foreign investment analyzers are aware of these days:

1) there was a US housing bubble
2) there was a US a ponzi scheme
3) The US banks and financial insitutions ran as though they were a huge casino, in which the casino owners and operaters did not even do the real work of casino owners and operaters. That real work is to decide how many and how much betting on what games can occur, and at what point the casino bank must step in and forbid any more bets. Please NOTE: Our banks and financial institutions were relying on computer models that did not even have as one of the "modelling scenarios" the all important scensario of collapse. in other words, the motto for the economy of 2000 to 2006, in terms of the hosuing market, was "It can only continue to climb in value and never go down."

The financial "heads" across the world "get" the fact that there is little in the US to be confident about.

But again, read Taibbi's article. Currently, many foreign governments HATE us. How much CONFIDENCE do you think people in Iceland have for us, now that our derivatives have taken down their entire economy? If you have spent some time reading up on the German Parliament and their denoucnement of the US economy, you wouldn't be so blithe about using the notion that wearing rosy colored glasses is all that matters. There are basic realities, and in the end those basic realities matter much more than the fact that Obama has a pretty wife and cute kids.

[BeFree]

37. Sure

It is the derivatives, and they crashed the system. My point is that the house of cards is held up by mortgages going to new house construction. If mortgages can't be made there is no construction, and the house of cards falls.

Educate me: just what does siding with main street and the average person entail?

[truedelphi]

40. For starters, siding with Main Street

Would mean that Obama would have selected appointees unblemished and untainted with any nefarious dealings with Wall Street.

He might have for starters, spent an afternoon with some in Congress who have been doing oversight on this issue. Kucinich and Issa, rather than Summers and Rubin.

Kucinich asked his staff to find out how many people, average Americans, were helped by the first tranch of 350 Billion dollars afforded Wall Street by the initial Bailout. Some 457 Americans had help with their mortgages. In other words, less than 500 homeowners were given help from 350 Billion bucks!! If Obama doesn't know this, it is because he hasn't spent time in the trenches asking people outside of Wall Street for their input. He might have talked to Maxine Waters, Clemmons, Wyden and others. In other words, Obama might have listened to those who doubt, just as FDR once doubted, that organized money interests were going to be helpful to America.

Look at how incestuous the AIG/Goldman Sachs situation is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x61003

And Obama has been right there helping it along. Geithner, Bernanke Paulson Kashkari and other people that Obama has listened to are much more about Goldman Sachs than about the average bloke in The USA - a majority of whom voted Obama in.

[BeFree]

49. He is listening to main street

Just saw him on CBS... I swear, he and I are on the same brain waves. He even mentioned some of the things I mentioned in this thread.

Man, is he great! This is gonna be a great 8 years!

[stevenleser]

56. Cause and effect?

If you are starving, and I give you $20, you could spend it on food, or you could spend it on comic books. That is even assuming a direct correlation which in your Mexican example isnt at all apparent.

Saying that giving $20 Billion to Mexican banks (not bankers, by the way), caused a near 50% reduction in salary to the average worker is a huge cause and effect problem that you would need a lot more than what you presented to prove.

[stevenleser]

57. Its also failed logic to say that everything the other guy did was wrong and needs to be overturned

FDR took several things that Hoover did and continued them to great positive effect in the Great Depression. Just because Bush did something doesnt make it wrong and thus it follows that just because Obama is continuing >some< things that Bush did doesnt make him wrong and anti-change.

[loyalsister]

25. Maybe both and?

Surely there is a happy medium.
Criticism of our government is our right. It should also be expected... especially from the strongest supporters who hold the politicians to the high standards to which they aspire. If our Presidents are reasonable, they expect questioning and criticism.

In fact, it takes a narcissitic power grabber to claim to have all the answers and demand unconditional support from followers to be the kind of president some people want.

We just had a president who fits the bill except has the opposite policy.

Consider the differences... he took office under circumstances where it was virtually handed to him from day one..... some privileged individual who was handed everything yet reached high levels of cosmetic "success" despite a lack of interest and personal achievement.....

It may be tempting to allow the results of the prior presidency to color this one without taking into account some important factors.

The fact that we have a president whose success is real means he can take criticism. He is confident enough to screw up and admit it. And he is confident enough to take it from all sides.
That is a President who really and truly wants to find a workable solution that will accomodate as many people as possible.

In my opinion at any given time, there will always be both good reasons to criticize and good reasons to support President Obama's initiatives or actions.
And, there will be people who want to stand behind the president 100% and those of us who want to be free to be critical when he disapponts. Maybe we should just support each other as well?
... And mainly be pleased by how "President Obama" still has such a nice sound.

[cwcwmack]

26. rec'd nt

[rhett o rick]

31. A liberal that "shuts up", is oxymoronic. Just sayin'. nm

[omega minimo]

34. would be a continuation of the Reaganism that got us here...........

Reagan's supposed full support by "most" Americans was as bogus as his "landslides" where less than half of registered voters bothered............

We have to be able to commend, defend and criticize this president. He needs us to help him do the right thing.

[iamthebandfanman]

35. "shut up" , yah... thats real progressive thinkin'

nobody should blindly get behind anybody...
i dont care if its jesus christ himself...
youve got to stay on ur toes and hold people accountable when they screw up or make decisions you dont like that impact a whole nation...

after being told to shut up by so many republicans the last 8 years, its sick that any progressive or liberal would tell somebody else that...


i think weve all become to obsessed with labels tho if u ask me...

[Reterr]

38. What I don't get is

why bad intentions are ascribed to all of those who really think Obama is making some mistakes and want him to avoid that.

I can see how you may think that people can be wrong about what they consider his mistakes, but do you have to be a bitter PUMA, Freeper etc. to disagree with some of his policies/appointments? I like and support Obama-I like a lot of what I see on him related to scientific and environmental issues (barring the coal crap), but I think Geithner and these Goldman idiots are giving him some shitty advice.

People are worried 60 days in because the stakes are so high. It is unfortunate for him that he is receiving a higher level of scrutiny because he inherited a presidency in a crisis. But that is the unfortunate reality. He has less room for screwing up thanks to these disastrous last 8 years. People are paying more attention and missteps right now will probably be punished by the public via ballot boxes way more than Bush's disasters. Is it unfair? Of course. But is it the reality? I suspect so...

I REALLY want Obama to succeed and that is why some of this stuff is worrying. Because, if people lose faith in him, we will almost certainly have Palin/Plumber (or something equally nightmarish) in 2012 and that is fucking terrifying...

[truedelphi]

41. A simple reason for the scenario in which so many of us are worried

About Obama's missteps.

Right now, with the 2.1 Trillion in Toxic Asset Purchases coming online, the average man, woman and child is going to owe some $ 25,000 a piece for these BailOuts. And since the Bailouts are only enriching Wall Street, and not us, while we are the ones that are going to end up paying for it - what other response can the Average American have?

A recent political cartoon showed "A MASTER of the Universe" sitting down to pheasant under glass, only it wasn't a pheasant at the table,it was the head of a whimpering taxpayer who was saying "I HATE AIG getting bonuses!"

And the fat cat replies, "Why are you on such a witch hunt" With the little sidebar cartoon characters whispering - "maybe because the little guy would like to put the big guy off his feed?"

That's it in a nutshell - our lives are being fed to Wall Street, while Obama aids and abets.

[azmouse]

42. I don't think anyone is ascribing bad intentions to ALL

just those that do nothing BUT bitch about Obama and every little thing he does. We do have some here on DU who really are not behind the President (and I will not name them because that is calling out and against the rules but when you read here enough it's easy to pick them out).

Criticism can be constructive.
Your post was very good and explained your point of view clearly and rationally. That is what is needed more here.

[Reterr]

43. Thanks

I know exactly what you mean about shit-stirrers who really have never supported Obama-the people who amplify and magnify everything he does into a controversy (like that recent Leno thing, which he apologized for and was really not intended in a mean-spirited way imo). On the other end there are the tireless (and tiresome) 24/7 cheerleaders, who trash everyone who doesn't agree with everything he does.


Discourse where some sort of middle ground exists is more interesting and DU is too often too binary for my tastes and at the end of the day on both sides it comes down to ad hominem attacks :thumbsdown:.


Really wish those who post here and are strong Dems but can see the greyish middles and don't predictably take this or that view on every single darn thing, were more audible but the controversial posters shouting on either side of any issue, drown that out.

[MzShellG]

44. Liberals seemed more supportive of Bush...

After 911 than they are of Prez. Obama during this economic crisis. I would expect this behavior from freepers but it disheartening to see our own party acting like turncoats.

[Political Heretic]

46. If true, which I don't think it is, they were wrong back then.

There is never a time or place to check critical scrutiny at the door. Never. It's our duty to question our leaders and challenge them to do and be more than they are.

[bvar22]

53. Liberals supporting Bush after 9-11?

No.
We were marching in the streets.
It was the "Centrists", Moderates, DLC, Blue Dogs who lined up behind Bush for the imperial wars.

[Igel]

47. If liberals would shut up and stand 100% behind Obama ...

... Then they'd have to renounce the slogan "Speak truth to power." Surely Obama has "power". Unless, of course, we believe that Obama, a mere mortal, has a monopoly on the truth and is infallible. Then there'd be no truths that power didn't utter and we could all rest assured in power's infallibility.

... Then they'd be showing they honestly didn't believe that "dissident is the highest form of patriotism"--instead marching in lockstep behind your leader is the highest form of patriotism. Or we have to believe that Obama is the personification of patriotism, the Spirit of '76 made flesh. Then it's not Easter that is all about Obama, but July 4.

... Then we'd have to say that critical thinking involves simply thinking thoughts that are critical of our political opponents, not evaluating ideas and proposals and challenging their logical and factual basis in order to see if they are false or could be improved. Now, many, no doubt, believe that they think not with their frontal cortex but with their amygdala and adrenal glands, and would whole-heartedly endorse the idea that critical thinking is merely thinking critical thoughts of our opponents--I've met some. I'll keep my critical thinking about them to myself.

... Then we'd form a very nice Party, over which our Leader has complete intellectual control as his followers abdicated any pretense of free will or individual responsibility. One must then merely toe the party line, asking at all times what is the correct policy that we all must hold. The very origin of "politicheski pravil'nyi" or, as usually rendered into English, "politically correct."

[Laelth]

48. Hear, hear.

We must hold his feet to the fire. We must make him be a progressive. He wants to be a progressive, I think, but we give him cover to be a progressive only when we ...

SCREAM OUR HEADS OFF!

-Laelth

[stillcool]

50. ah the 'liberals'..

that label is getting abused. There are too many 'liberals' that understand the government we have, that do not fall in line under your categorization. Anyone who is against this President qualifies to be a 'liberal'. You can keep your label.

[sampsonblk]

52. Hey, we liberals have to say "progressive" now, so as to help attract "moderates"

like Zell Miller to our party. LOL

[FlyingSquirrel]

55. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. eom