I AM NOT going to apologize for criticizing the President and the Dem Establishment.

[Stoic]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

I guess I'm going to have to provide my bona fides here else I get called a repuke troll.

I used to run a website called FightingDemocrat.com. I was a regular poster (and financial contributor) here under the nom de guerre of "fightingdem" (with which I had over a thousand posts) since at least 2002. When I shut down that site I changed my handle here to "stoic" and started from scratch. I guess my point is I have been posting here for over 8 years in one capacity or another.

I was the Dean Meet-up coordinator for my county in 2003 and 2004. I went to Iowa for Dean, Ohio for Kerry and ran for my county Democratic Central Committee in 2004. I was on the ballot in 2008 as a delegate for that son-of-a-bitch John Edwards.

I have donated thousand of dollars and hundreds of hours to Democratic committees, candidates and causes. I had, while Gov. Dean was chairman, donated $50 a month to the DNC. I was a card carrying member for the DNC for over 8 years. I have also been a voting Democrat since I turned 18 almost 36 years ago.

And yet, around here, when I criticize the President and the Democratic Leadership, I am routinely treated as a repuke troll, disloyal to the cause, unhelpful and a leading contender for undermining our control of Congress and the Presidency.

It was all good and well when I was going hyperbolic against the Repukes but heaven for-fend I bring a little of that when criticizing our side (and believe me when I say I bite my tongue here quite often).

Many of us have been vocal about the direction President Obama and the Leadership was taking the country when it became apparent within months of his taking office. This Third Way, New Democrat, Punch-The-Hippies-At-Every-Chance style for many of us was going to bring disastrous consequences for the Party and for the country. And now that they've dug themselves into a hole the knee-jerk response is to blame the critics for not being sufficiently loyal to the cause and for undermining the Party and the President.

Yeah, right.

As for all the "victories" the President has achieved, well, you might be impressed by these crumbs but they're not enough to overcome the failures of leadership, of policy and of getting the right job done.

Yeah, the Republicans are monkeywrenching the government, but Obama's response was more compromise and to continue to try to find those few "rational" Republicans to sign on to his "middling" policies before everything collapsed. Dear Mr. President, ain't working. You need to make a full-throated, uncompromising argument for policies that will bring jobs that not only provide a decent living wage but treat people not making a million dollars a year with dignity. You need to protect us from the environmental depredations of, well, just about every corporation in the country and, please GET US THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

AND UNLESS you, dear reader, are prepared to criticize and yell and make a nuisance of yourself and stop closing your eyes to the direction our leadership has brought us to you will be complicit in what is to come.

And frankly, servility is just not my style.

[trumad]

1. Uh---OK.

[Orsino]

239. I must have missed that post that demanded apologies. n/t

[tridim]

2. That's just super. nt

[VMI Dem]

3. Woodchucks smell peanuts in the water.

[Hawkowl]

87. Woodchucks in the water?

Can we get them out? Woodchucks generally aren't swimming by choice. Also we need to keep them away from peanuts. Peanuts are not healthy for woodchucks.

[Leopolds Ghost]

163. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

...well, no. I never thought it was safe to go in the water.

Not with all those tyrannowoodchucks and velociphants.

[Canuckistanian]

178. And the antelopes are nibbling on the croquet hoops

But the rooster always crows at midnight

[Hekate]

198. Where the buffalo roam

the significant owl hoots in the night

[Javaman]

227. Floating goats don't always do the backstroke.

John has a long mustash.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

238. the lion sleeps tonight.

it is hard for democrats to unite and fight the GOP, especially when we have DINOs stalking our every move.

[ixion]

4. I've watched the list of 'acceptable' topics decrease over the last 8 years

I personally believe there should be an OPEN forum for discussion.

[defendandprotect]

246. Agree --

too many taboo subjects here piling up and clogging discussions --

[gratuitous]

5. I don't know that all of the administration's accomplishments are crumbs

But yes, many of the "victories" look pretty hollow, and continuing to prosecute two illegal wars and occupations, while keeping the concentration camps open, sure isn't what I voted for in 2008. If I'd wanted my country to keep engaging in that that kind of criminality, I would've voted for John McCain. I thought I was voting for a fundamental change from the "Hulk Smash" school of foreign policy.

[RainDog]

8. exactly n/t

people did not vote for democrats - not just in the presidential election - but also in the earlier mid-terms -

to see a continuation of right wing policies across the board in American political life. it's not just Obama - Pelosi took "impeachment off the table." Still makes me want to puke.

Because Democrats are not willing to FIGHT FOR the right thing to do, they get disillusioned voters. Then they BLAME the voter.

that's total bullshit.

[Enthusiast]

218. That is right!

The American electorate didn't vote Democrats into office while under the impression that Democrats would preserve the direction of the Bush Administration. How could anyone think this. The elections of 2006 and 2008 illustrate this for us. This is why the "base" is disappointed. Voters wanted a completely new direction! They did not expect more kiss the corporate ass.

[xiamiam]

9. most of us as well as the world as well..doubt very much if obamas

speeches would be received the same in germany, for example, as initially..and the nobel peace prize?..for what?

[Lasher]

211. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for not being George W. Bush

He is the third person to be honored in this way for exactly the same reason.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

11. In my 9 years here, I've been called a lot of things, but until yesterday

I was never called a right winger, freeper, or a Limbaugh Dittohead. I was called all 3 in 2 "conform or be cast out" threads.

[Mithreal]

56. It's the New Normal. Sorry you had to experience it.

[liberation]

73. The only apparent change I have seen in the past 2 years is:

During Bush, I was called pinko commie bastard by the same "pragmatist" moderate conservatives who now call me a "teabagger."

So I went from extreme left to extreme right without moving. Fancy that!

[Touchdown]

It's that invisible hand of the astronaut and his...

private, for profit space agency that give you away!

[liberation]

83. Well, that...

... and my inability to be a good cheerleader. It all goes back to high school .

[Mithreal]

117. Cheering isn't for everyone, no doubt there.

If they saved it for game day, I might be able to stomach it.

[liberation]

121. I understand...

... it is just that I am sick and tired of being blamed by the jocks that they lost because I did not cheer loudly enough, not because their playing sucks. Which is funny, because I was nowhere near the football field that Friday night.

[Mithreal]

124. Agree 100% - We're In This Together

It's so hot here, I'm glad I can find a place in the shade.

Good chatting with ya

[liberation]

126. Likewise

make sure you get plenty of hydration. Now if the summer made it finally to Nor Cal that would be peachy....

[LostinVA]

74. I missed those -- I would have backed you up

I was called all of this, along with a arcist and few other nasty bits, the last three years.

[Touchdown]

77. What's an "arcist"?

Is that something bad?

Racist typo? That would be bad.

[LostinVA]

81. hahahaha

"Racist." I'm eating and typing with one hand.

[Touchdown]

86. That's awful.

Was the poster our friend that threw around the word 'Bigot' all the time? Whoever it was, should have had their post deleted.

Come to think of it. I was just called Pat Buchanan for wondering if Oliver Stone actually said those anti-semitic things which came from a truncated quote. Turns out he actually did, as was corroborated with a second magazine, but still... Pat Buchanan?

[LostinVA]

91. Yes

I know -- quite shocked at Oliver Stone, unless he REALLY meant it a different way and misspoke.

But yeah, BUCHANAN!? He's a NAZI.

[Bonobo]

128. I was called a "neo-nazi" today!

If only they had known last time I did an aliyah, I probably wouldn't have been called to the Torah.

[Touchdown]

135. Eh' you'll get used to it.

I suppose we should all get used to it.

[Subdivisions]

171. "conform or be cast out"

Um...you rang?

[Touchdown]

216. Hahaha

[Sheepshank]

7. okey dokey then.

so where were you going with this? Just a rant...which I think I understand, so no defensive, rude, assumptive apologies needed. Or were you going to add, or something constructive, a plan of action maybe? Maybe even tell us that this is resulting in your vote going elsewhere?

All of Obama's accomplishments were crumbs? I'm not seeing it, but seriously where were you going with this...calling the other half of the DU'ers blind? Nice.

[Stellar]

233. To me it sounds like a rant with no where to go.

And usually it's from fans of others that ran in the last election and failed.

I'm not totally happy with some of the things that have transpired under the Obama administration, but to dismiss those things that he has done as crumbs is laughable.

It makes me ask, then why weren't these crumbs done under any past democratic president since it was so simple to do. And we all know that Republi'cons, want nothing for the American people...not even those crumbs.

[TheKentuckian]

254. Easy, we've walked away from arguably better compromises.

We could have certainly adopted Bob Dole's health insurance scam when he offered it as a counter to the Clinton plan or Nixon's in it's time. I think we used to care about getting real solutions to structural problems rather than "putting points on the board" or whatever belt notching plan so many are enraptured with now that is roughly like punting on 2nd or 3rd down and calling it a win.

The student loan deal was good though even if it was mostly to hit the budget target.

[ProSense]

10. Hmmm

"As for all the "victories" the President has achieved, well, you might be impressed by these crumbs but they're not enough to overcome the failures of leadership, of policy and of getting the right job done."

Yeah, I'm impressed by the crumbs.

Wall Street reform bill a win for farmers and rural communities

crumbs and more crumbs.

"Yeah, the Republicans are monkeywrenching the government, but..."

You have every right to criticize the President, but like it or not, this election is about us. It's our agenda that's at stake.

[VMI Dem]

13. What miniscule portion of DU'ers do you think click on all the links you post?

And why the fuck should I care about a centrist agenda?

[ProSense]

14. You cared enough to respond to the post. n/t

[VMI Dem]

15. Responding to your post means I care about your centrist drivel?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

32. Well, as I understand it

progressive doesn't mean bitter, inflexible and the willingness to cut off ones nose to spite ones face.

[sabrina 1]

125. It doesn't mean being a criminal war-supporter

It doesn't mean accepting the exoneration of Karl & Co. for illegally politicizing the DOJ when there is already so much evidence that they did just that.

It doesn't mean lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling...
or choosing to let War Criminals go free.

It also doesn't mean supporting torture, announcing that a U.S. president has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. In fact we have laws against political assassinations and slammed the Bush administration when it was suspected that is what they were doing.

It doesn't mean supporting genocidal leaders of rogue countries who terrorize their own citizens.

It does mean restoring Habeas Corpus and the rule of law, not taking advantage of the anti-constitutional laws put in place during the Bush administration.

And it doesn't mean not supporting equal rights for all citizens, including Gays.

It most especially doesn't mean privatizing Social Security and the Public School system.

Mostly, it doesn't mean accepting the votes of a majority of the American People who threw out Republicans and their ideas, and then turning around and promoting Republicans to positions of power. No one who helped get the Dem Party a majority, would ever dream of voting for the Republicans this administration has asked for advice from, or put in positions of power.

It doesn't mean bailing out corrupt corporations, and refusing to prosecute those responsible for the collapse of this economy, worse keeping some of them in positions of power.

I don't want Republicans in office. But this administration apparently does.

There's more, but since you appear to be so bitter about people having actual, legitimate disagreements with this administration, I thought I would try, once again to enlighten you as to why and what needs to be done about it.

Because if this party and its supporters don't get that message, they will be responsible for a Republican majority in November.

I will repeat that. If Democrats do not start acting like Democrats, respecting those who put them in power, THEY will be responsible for a Republican majority in November.

Do you get that? So don't waste anyone's time with the 'you want Palin' nonsense, Democrats will decide if THEY want Palin or if they want to stay in power. It is entirely in their hands.

[ProSense]

142. "It most especially doesn't mean privatizing Social Security and the Public School system."

It doesn't mean hyperbole.

[rhett o rick]

174. I some times wish it was hyperbole. The President apparently supports the Patriot Act, do you? nm

[sabrina 1]

187. Your response tells people far more about you than

you probably intended. Clearly, having Republicans, bent on privatizing Social Security in positions of power, rather than protecting the American people from their avaricious, corrupt, long wished for access to the huge Social Security fund, asking THEM rather than Democrats for advice, is okay by you. Got it.

For me, I did not work to keep Republicans in power, I worked to get rid of them.

I hope you do not represent the strategy to keep Republicans out of power in November or the worst nightmare of Progressive Democrats, those who put them in power, will come true. A Republican victory will be assured if sticking their fingers in their ears and covering their eyes as you are doing, is the strategy. And millions of Progressive Democrats will never forgive them for that.

[Kalun D]

195. That's Not Hyperbole

wake up and smell the coffee

can I loan you some money to buy a vowel?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

156. Bravo!!! ...and... Right the Fuck ON!!

Your whole post is righteous but this part needs to be driven home every time some asshole wants to blame the voters, instead of the flim-flam, 3-card monte elected politicians that don't walk-the-walk.

I don't want Republicans in office. But this administration apparently does.

There's more, but since you appear to be so bitter about people having actual, legitimate disagreements with this administration, I thought I would try, once again to enlighten you as to why and what needs to be done about it.

Because if this party and its supporters don't get that message, they will be responsible for a Republican majority in November.

I will repeat that. If Democrats do not start acting like Democrats, respecting those who put them in power, THEY will be responsible for a Republican majority in November.

Do you get that? So don't waste anyone's time with the 'you want Palin' nonsense, Democrats will decide if THEY want Palin or if they want to stay in power. It is entirely in their hands.

[ProSense]

159. That's rich:

"Because if this party and its supporters don't get that message, they will be responsible for a Republican majority in November."

Not a supporter? Plan on sitting back and relishing being the winner of an "I told you so" moment?

[sabrina 1]

199. Not a supporter of using a Democratic Victory

to put Republicans in power. How about you?

Are you happy with dragging former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson out of retirement and making him co-chair of a Democratically appointed Commission which will deal with Social Security? How about Republican Pete Peterson? Erskine Bowles? To get 'their ideas'? We KNOW their ideas, they are enemies of Social Security. That's WHY we did not vote for them. So what are they doing in a democratic administration?

How about seeking advice from Republican Lindsey Graham? Or keeping on Bushmen like Gates in one of the highest cabinet positions? Are there no Democrats who could fill these positions?

The list of Republicans in this administration is long. I won't waste this space posting it here, although it does need to be posted. A question any Democrat running for office from now on needs to be asked 'are you planning on having Republicans in your cabinet?'

Did YOU vote for these Republicans and their ideas? Is THIS what you support, sharing the Democratic Majority victory with Republicans? You have yet to express having any problem with putting Republicans in positions of power without them even having to run. Thank YOU Democratic Leadership!

I do not want Republicans in government. And if they win in November, the Democratic Leadership WILL be blamed. I will blame them. Millions will blame them. You can count on that.

Still waiting for you to explain your support for putting Repubicans in powerful positions after a resounding victory against them.

[laughingliberal]

200. Let's not forget President Obama's first choice for Secretary of Commerce was Judd Gregg.

[sabrina 1]

208. Yes, he's on my list. Although he efused, he is apparently

still being sought out for advice by this administration.

I want to know why these Repubicans are part of a Democratic administration. Maybe Prosense can explain? Are there no Democrats whose advice Obama values?

[snagglepuss]

228. Hear. Hear. Many would love to hear Prosense defend that move.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

160. Evidently, 'ignored' had something to add... too bad

I stopped listening to their drivel a while back.

[bobburgster]

230. Let me get this straight.

Not trying to be sarcastic either, just understanding your thinking.

If I'm reading this correctly, and I'm hoping I am not, you are saying that because the Obama administration is not doing what ______, (fill in the blank with your label here, because I'm lost with all the terms being used to describe different democratic factions) want fast enough, and to the degree you expect, you will undermine, and not support him. Here is where I get lost, because somehow it won't be your fault when the Republicans win a majority in November or beyond.

[tomp]

234. trust me....

....the democrtaic party would rather have palin in power than to actually represent the interests of poor, working, and middle class people, instead of representing the interests of the rich.

the democratic party will go as far as it can go throwing bones to the masses while handing the wealth of the nation to the rich. and whatever they give us will be taken back, one way or another, as soon as possible.

when the people get dissatisfied with crumbs and bones they will allow the republicans to take over and make a pretense of opposing them.

that's the way it is and the way it has always been. if you don't know that you don't know anything. if it weren't the case, democrats would NEVER be defeated.

[defendandprotect]

190. +1000% --

[Kalun D]

197. EXCELLENT POST!!!!

this should be an OP

[Enthusiast]

219. Yeah! And I would like to know

what could be worse than torture and politicizing the DOJ. Seems to me these are just about the very worst of crimes.

[rhett o rick]

173. So you support the Presidents decision to continue the Bush domestic spying? nm

[leeroysphitz]

225. Well, as I understand it

centrism means a willingness to bend over and smooch as much republican ass as is humanly possible.

[rhett o rick]

243. And how would you know what "progressive" means? nm

[CreekDog]

271. i get worried that the compromise will be to cut one's face off to spite one's nose

given the political direction I've been seeing lately.

[SunsetDreams]

35. LOL

sure...

This from the meme, I know your not a Liberal/Progressive, because I don't agree with your posts, and I hold the definition for what is true and right about just who a Liberal/Progressive really is.

Not all Progressives/Liberals think alike, and they do disagree, unless you subscribe to group think.

Kind of interesting this meme is picking up here in the last few days, it's almost as if it were...nevermind.

[LooseWilly]

201. "Not all Progressives/Liberals think alike"... ?

I'm confused... are you trying to say that "Progressive/Liberal" isn't a label for where one's political/economic opinions/loyalties fall?... or are you trying to say something really wacky—like "not supporting Progressive/Liberal policies doesn't mean I'm not a Progressive/Liberal"?

Because... "thinking alike" may not be relevant, but sharing a set of opinions on politics/economics... that kind of is required to be a Progressive/Liberal. I mean... think what you want... but think something else, and you will have to turn in your "Progressive/Liberal" registration card.

I don't mean to piss on your ambiguity parade... but there it is. Get a metaphorical umbrella if you don't like it...

[SunsetDreams]

247. It's not group think

You can remain under the "Umbrella" as you call it, and still have a different opinion on certain issues.
This is what iritates me the most about Republicans, they can't think for themselves, it's all about group think and group attack.
I like the individuality of the Democratic party, whether it's Liberals/Progressives. While we adhere to the same Principles, when you get into the nuts and bolts about policies, there may be debate. It doesn't mean the Policy as a whole, is in question, just the nuts and bolts.

I reject, the idea that we all have to agree, on every single topic, in order to be a Liberal, or a Democrat for that matter. Individuality on ideas should be fostered, not hammered.

[sabrina 1]

252. 'You can remain under the "Umbrella" as you call it, and still have

a different opinion on certain issues.'

True, everyone knows that.

But can a progressive live in a tent where war crimes are exonerated? Where politicizing the DOJ, abusing the Rule of Law is not prosecuted?

These are not things we have to be patient about 'getting around to'. Those decisions have already been made. War criminals go free and firing US attorneys for political reasons who refuse to violate the trust of the American people is okay because that's not the same as trying to influence them?

Can a progressive stay in a tent where torture victims are denied justice. Where child soldiers are ordered to be tried under the vile, unconstitutional Habeaus-destroying Military Commissions Act, an Act we were told would be rescinded if we would just have patience?

I am not a Republican because these are some of the ideas Republicans forced on this country. Were you opposed to them also? Is torture not still a horrible war crime?

And how about Social Security? How can a progressive support lies about SS such as 'it has contributed to the deficit?'

Should progressive set aside conscience (other countries have done so but history has not been kind to them) for 'pragmatic' reasons? And what is pragmatic about supporting war crimes?

Somehow these issues have to be resolved before November, because to ask people to support torture, to support the politicization of our DOJ and to accept the MCI as constitutional law may work for people capable of blinding themselves to justice, but not everyone can or will do that.

[sufrommich]

29. I have a feeling all Democrats are "centrist" to some here. nt

[Hawkowl]

89. Your post is nonsensical. nt

[YOY]

30. Um...no.

Not even in Bizarro World.

[ProSense]

34. Want to see what "Bizarro World"

looks like

Nothing progressive about taking a stand on property taxes and ignoring the ramifications of not voting just to make a point.

And guess what: There will be no rebate checks issued this year. We won?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

38. sarcasm not needed

noted in "of course you do"

Really? and "the gays"? Please tell me that's not a swipe at homosexuals, because I've heard that used in a bigotted way.
If it's not, then please correct it.

What fresh hell is this?

[YOY]

42. It's just me correcting myself because I was so very wrong!

Pro truly is a card carrying liberal!

Why...there was no sarcasm intended! Why would you ever think in such a way???

[SunsetDreams]

45. If I misunderstood,

please understand where I am coming from. I've seen and heard that as an insult, and since your post was sarcasm, it led me to question the use of it. If that is not what you intended I accept that.

Thank you for clarifying, I really appreciate it.

[liberation]

122. Woooosshhhhhhhh

[Hannah Bell]

103. whoops, now you're a gay-basher. have you noticed how they always go to that kind of thing?

racist, gay-basher, teabagger --

identity politics & its uses.

[YOY]

129. Any little thing...the slip of a word...a poorly misphrased sentence...even a mispelling...and BAM!

Insta-bigot! Now that's a recipe for fun! Woodchuck style!

Let's face it! Maybe I was very wrong...and Prosense is so very very very right.

[Hannah Bell]

136. could you have ever doubted it? the side of power is always "right".

[Ignis]

137. Our chief weapon is surprise! Surprise and Fear! Fear and Surprise! Our two weapons are...

It's like driving through Arizona with a suntan, some days.

[YOY]

140. Nobody expects the Woodchuck Inquisition!

Now that calls for a photoshop!

[ProSense]

144. "You really are progressive cuz you like the gays!!! Of course you do!"

No, I'm really progressive because I don't see anything admirable in voting against ones interest to prove a point. See, going backward on civil rights isn't progressive.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

158. "That's DLC crappola all the way. NO principles whatsoever."

You mean voting against ones interest is progressive? Isn't that what people slam Republicans for doing all the time?

Good friggin bye to you too, but first: Who are you?

[rhett o rick]

241. I want to be free of corporate control of my party. What do you want? nm

[rhett o rick]

175. I want to vote for my interests. I want to vote to stop the wars you seems to love. nm

[MrMickeysMom]

147. Isn't that what you wanted?

Yup.. I think it was.

[G_j]

151. I know I mentioned once

that I wish you wouldn't hide your links.
I have no idea what I'd be clicking on, so I don't.

[laughingliberal]

202. +1 nt

[Lasher]

214. Right click, properties

Then you can see the URL

[G_j]

259. cool

never knew that

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

43. It's Prosense, and it's rather sad

you would ignore someone like them. They post lots of information, with links. Why on earth would they not use links? It would be a locking offense to not give credit to the authors.

Did Prosense attack you with information? Is that why you are ignoring them?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

46. All party message/DLC slanted info ALL the time.

Talking points are talking points no matter if they're Dem or Puke.

[SunsetDreams]

48. Do you have a problem with

positive messages, or is it just the negative ones that you like?

I can understand the DLC, however your use of All party messages has me baffled.
Let me ask you, if you were debating a Republican, and needed some quick "talking points" as you call them, wouldn't you want something readily to refer to? Like a positive post about policy?

As far as DLC, I have yet to see that from ProSense, maybe I missed it, that's possible.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

47. What's really sad is that even innocuous posts ,like the...

one you responded to, now get deleted here. TFF

[SunsetDreams]

49. if you check the rules and reflect on

what you posted, you might learn why.

[LostinVA]

76. Google ProSense n/t

[ProSense]

123. What is that supposed to mean? n/t

[SunsetDreams]

130. Why would I want to do that?

[YOY]

262. After all curiosity killed the cat!!! Best to not!

n/t

[ProudDad]

65. My "agenda"

End all of the wars -- Iraq, Afghanistan, drugs, "terror", the 175 occupied countries, the war against the public Commons...

Universal, Comprehensive HEALTH CARE -- not obligatory, inadequate, overly-expensive "health insurance"...

Justice...

Peace...

Re-purposing the treasure of the Commons from war, financial ponzi schemes and propping up dying industries (coal, oil, nuclear, gas) and supporting long term Sustainability...

Nope, none of that...

We got a glib-tongued spokesmodel for corporate USAmerika and a few crumbs riddled with loopholes that will be easily utilized by any serious corporate lawyer...

[ProSense]

69. Here's your agenda with a Republican Congress:

[Hannah Bell]

105. no difference from his agenda with a democratic congress. ending all the wars & universal health

care are a big no-no for both parties.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

256. Hmmm

same as the Dems...

[RetroLounge]

99. Ladies and Gentlemen, It's the amazing blue links!

You know, the ones that no one ever clicks on...



RL

[SunsetDreams]

112. That is just downright funny

[ProSense]

146. "You know, the ones that no one ever clicks on..." Fear?

Why click on the comment to respond that you're not going to click on the link?

[RetroLounge]

162. 195 recs and on the front page...

Please, more links!



RL

[ProSense]

164. And still nothing accomplished. n/t

[RetroLounge]

170. Don't be so hard on yourself

RL

[cottonseed]

12. you're fighting du, not for any of the causes you claim to care about

that's in this post of course. doesn't seem to do any good if you ask me.

[NorthCarolina]

16. The DLC New Dems have moved the party, and now even DU, to the right

Long time Dems such as yourself represent a threat to the new pro-corporate politics that is being pushed by the new controlling forces within the party, and therefore must be stifled. What better way than to call you out as something other than a "good Democrat". The DLC New Dems have no use, and little tolerance, for those that cling to a Democratic party that advocates for the people. The people can be controlled and manipulated through the media and slick talking points. Personal wealth and power lies with the corporate interests, and is far more lucrative than chasing the gratitude of a nation.

[peace frog]

109. Exactly so

well put, thanks.

[Myrina]

138. +100

Thank you.

[DeSwiss]

154. +1000!

Very well put.

[Lorien]

155. +1. nt

[madrchsod]

165. yup....

[progressoid]

17. yup

"...as a delegate for that son-of-a-bitch John Edwards"

God, how I know that unpleasant feeling.




Keep fighting the good fight.

[Touchdown]

19. K&R

"And frankly, servility is just not my style. " - Excellent post.

[Bitwit1234]

20. You don't have to apologize BECAUSE

as of right now, that's one of the freedoms we still have. We can criticize the president and congress all we want. Now we just regained that freedom, if you will note during the last stolen eight years of the presidency it was fraught with jail some times if you dared criticize the king and his court.

[grasswire]

21. you're speaking generally, of course

and not specifically to Internet forums.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. What a quint thought. That you think we should hold politicians accountable. Tsk, tsk. K&R

[EstimatedProphet]

23. Go for it

I don't have a problem with rational criticism of the president, only irrational criticism.

[Radical Activist]

24. And if you make weak, poorly reasoned criticisms then you should expect to be called on it.

You wrote: "This Third Way, New Democrat, Punch-The-Hippies-At-Every-Chance style for many of us was going to bring disastrous consequences for the Party and for the country."

Many people disagree with this characterization. When people respond it doesn't mean you're being silenced or asked to apologize or that people think you shouldn't speak out. It means you need to defend your opinion with substance.

For example, I believe Obama publicly reaching out to Republicans is what will save the Congressional Democratic majority this year. People saw that Republicans have no plan and are still part of the problem. I don't think you're paying attention if you think that's why bills were watered down. They were watered to get the support of conservative Democrats in the Senate, not the Republicans. I think you're letting the real culprits off the hook when you decide that everything is about Obama.

Not everyone who disagrees with you has closed eyes or a subservient attitude. You should drop your condescending attitude and consider that some of your arguments may be based on foolish assumptions.

[Bryn]

26. Yes, for example: Blanche Lincoln!

She would not vote for health care bill unless the public option was killed! Hers was 60th vote needed to pass it. It got watered down. She took money from health insurance companies (blue cross blue shield) to kill the public option. This is the reason I am not voting for her this November.

[Radical Activist]

41. I wouldn't

vote for her either. The party leaders have to learn somehow.

[Spheric]

58. And then the president campaigned for her. Because she was blocking his agenda. Yeh, right.

That is so "sensible" I can't stand it.

You can only keep your powder dry for so long. Eventually you have to shoot back, or you will be overcome.

[Bryn]

209. And ruined it for us in Arkansas

We wanted so badly for Bill Halter to win. I couldn't believe it when Obama backed her. Same with Bill Clinton! Right after she won that runoff she turned around and voted against the Clean Air Act that Bill supported. She was stabbing their backs and ours so she's going down in November. I cannot wait to say ding dong the witch is dead!

[liberation]

78. LOL... as usual you never disappoint.

[sendero]

96. Yeah..

.... our president GUTS any meaningful reform to please a couple of dipshit losers that any other president would have made walk the plank.

That's a nice story, I'm not buying it for one second.

[Radical Activist]

251. We have a Senate

that gives a few dipshit loser conservative Democrats a lot of power.

Do you know why Republicans block every bill? So that people like you will get angry at the lack of progress and turn against Obama. It's a smart strategy and it's working for them.

So we could respond by...
1) Getting more progressive Democrats in the Senate to take that power away from two or three dipshit losers, or...
2) Stew in bitterness while we imagine what evil thoughts are going through Obama's conservative mind. bwahaha!

I know which option I've chosen and it doesn't make me less radical. It makes me more effective.

[theFrankFactor]

97. Why Che? You can't possibly have any good reason.

[liberation]

118. Of wolves and sheep's clothing, come to mind as to the why.

Wether the reason is good or not though, that is a completely different matter.

It is always funny to see the wolf cry foul when the sheepdog catches him though.

[spoony]

116. Yep, reach out to Republicans, that's how Radicals do it.

You and Obama, two Radical peas in an Active pod.

[tomp]

236. you really should be forced to change your screen name and your avatar.....

...to suit your political positions. if you were in business it would be fraud.

frankly, it seems to me that you are purposefully perpetrating a fraud by subliminally connecting your screen name and you che avatar with the dlc.

sort of a reverse agent provocateur.

for the record, conservative democrats ARE republicans, and any left-oriented radical activist/che supporter would know that.

[Radical Activist]

250. Obama consistently proposes agenda items to the left of what the Senate passes

Focusing attention on the main obstacle to progress (US Senate) is a strategy to accomplish more progressive goals. The simple-minded focus on belittling everything Obama does lets the conservative Senate Democrats who are responsible off the hook for stopping progress.

I'm not in a competition to see who can criticize Obama the most. That's an idiots way to define how radical someone is.

[tomp]

260. i don't see what it is about your stance that is radical.

and this straw man about who can criticize obama the most....? i would love to criticize him less, he just has to do better.

and the main obstacle to progress being the senate...? first of all, the "main obstacle" is subject to debate. if you don't see how the players work together to obstruct progress you're missing everything, and you certainly need some "radical" reorientation.

and i only belittle what needs belittling. it's not simple-minded, it's actually advanced political thinking. but if you don't understand the political forces and how they work, you're going to belittle the wrong things--like you, belittling the belittlers. the main political forces are "them" against "us". which side are you on? if you don't see obama as "them" you're no radical, unless it's as a radical rightist.

and how does criticizing obama from the left let the republican dems (sic) off the hook? it should make him look better to the republicans and the republican dems.

frankly, i think you're just making shit up as you go along. no one who actually understands something about radicalism is going to be convinced by your "you're criticizing the president too much" crap. your logic leads inexorably to "obama is radical", which is obviously crap.

[Radical Activist]

261. You think Obama is "them."

That mindset is what leads the left to form circular firing squads. No, Obama isn't a radical. But, he does present the best opportunity for taking the movement forward that the US has seen in at least 30 years. I intend to take advantage of it.

There are half a dozen conservative Democratic Senators most responsible for watering down everything that goes to the Senate. Putting the focus on that fact leads to the movement putting our effort into something productive like getting rid of those conservatives and putting more progressives in the Senate. Focusing exclusively on attacking Obama keeps the blame, focus, and response misdirected away from where it belongs.

The rest of your comment is too vague and cryptic to merit response.

[tomp]

263. so the 6 conservative senators...that's the "them"....?

once again you fail as a radical.

your position is straight duplicitious democratic party line. you're either a paid operative or a fool, and either way, dangerous.

real (left) radicalism is about showing the people that the democratic party is not their friend.

p.s.: find a new anti-left cliche. "circular firing squad" has been overused. if you're going to bash the left at least be creative and entertain us.

[Radical Activist]

264. Then why are you at this message board?

Are you only hear to tell everyone how they're wasting their time getting involved with the Democratic Party?
It's about issues to me. I'm happy to use any vehicle to advance causes I care about, whether it's direct action or a somewhat sympathetic Democrat. Every bit of real progress the left has made in US history has involved radicals and center-left liberals eventually helping each other reach a common goal.

You sound like you're more interested in the self-defeating dogmatic battles that usually keep the left from being effective. It's a great attitude for academic arguments on campus and splintering the left into meaningless oblivion.

[tomp]

265. yes, that's exactly what i'm here for.

and you can demean that position all you want, but your way, of working within the democratic party, has proved ineffective over the last century.

Any real progress, as you put it, are mere bones and crumbs thrown to the non-rich. thanks to your vaunted "radicalism" we make about $1 more per hour than we did in 1963.

there is no question of dem/repub collaboration in maintaining the welfare of the rich.

i still can't see your self-proclaimed radicalism. you can fight for bones and crumbs. i will fight to change the paradigm of the fight.

[Radical Activist]

266. How many progressives have the Greens elected to Congress?

How many progressive Democrats are in Congress?

Yeah, it's not hard to see which strategy is more effective assuming you want to pursue an electoral strategy. And 9/11 finally refuted the idiocy of believing it doesn't matter who we elect to office. Of course Democrats aren't going to push for everything I want. But we could at least have a Democrat who won't exploit a crisis to kill millions of people like Bush did. Who was in the White House made a huge difference on 9/11.

Even comparing the energy policies of Carter and Reagan makes it obvious why we have to make an effort. We were set back 30 years by Reagan and we don't know how many communities will be destroyed or how many people will die as a result from climate disasters because we didn't take action soon enough.

Ideological bullshit doesn't mean much to me when we're talking about the lives of millions of people. I know I'd rather organize with Obama as President than under someone like Bush or Nixon who used the powers of the FBI and CIA against us. It creates a better opportunity to grow the movement. Do you really think the presence of an aggressive program like COINTELPRO doesn't make a difference to the movement's ability to organize? That alone was worth getting Obama in the White House.

Letting millions of people die because you were too self-righteous to help get a sympathetic Democrat elected isn't radical. It's just fucking stupid.

[tomp]

267. i'm running out to work now, but i'll answer your illogical drivel later if you're still around. nt

[tomp]

268. okay, with as little enmity as i can.

i don't know how many greens have been elected to congress.

i don't know how many "progressives" are in congress.

but here's what i know: the system is the problem. even a cursory look at campaign financing and the voting irregularities of recent years should be enough to convince an objective observer that the system is thoroughly corrupt. so, no, i do not subscribe to an electoral strategy in the same way that you apparently do. i subscribe to educating people on the most fundamental issues and letting the chips fall where they may.

as for 9/11, i draw nothing like the conclusions you do from the fallout of that tragic event in my home city. you think al gore would not have invaded afghanistan and/or iraq? well, you have more faith in him than i do, but perhaps we can review the the history of the democratic party and war. not a pretty picture, i assure you. in addition, you speak of 9/11 as if we know anything about it. it does not surprise me that you are unaware of the many hundreds of key questions that remain unanswered regarding the event, that both dems and repubs have steadfastly refused to explore. the only thing that is clear about 9/11 is that its deepest cause is u.s. imperialism, that system which you are trying to work within. also, hypocritically, you fail to hold obama's feet to the fire on the issue of (among other things) pursuing the crimes of bush/cheney, inc, which in my considered opinion would lead right back to 9/11. no, you would rather go on with democratic party business as usual.

the fact that carter was not allowed to be re-elected (and if you think that election was honest i have a bridge to sell you) shows the effectiveness of your political strategy. the fact is that he and whatever progressive aura you ascribe to him were summarily ushered from office by the puppeteers of the system. his purportedly progressive energy policies could not be allowed by the system. take any issue you want and an objective examination will show that the system allows, at best, ever, a bone or a crumb in the right direction to diffuse the movement toward real change. i can only see you as a cheerleader for that system.

it is very easy, and lazy and/or disingenuous, to dismiss my position as" ideological bullshit". to suggest that because i hold a different viewpoint on the possible way forward, that i am somehow uncaring about and even responsible for these millions of deaths you speak of is not just personally offensive, but the icing on the cake of the proof that you are squarely behind the system you so claim to be so radical about. if it weren't so dangerous it would be utterly laughable, at least to any "radical", that you don't think democratic presidents are authorizing and/or working within cointelpro-like secret policies. remember obama voting for retroactive immunity on the telecom's collusion in illegal surveillance? no, i didn't think you did.

unless you are ready to make concessions to my arguments, i won't be responding further, as you have thus far proved immune to the logic of reality. all i ever hope for is that someone with an open mind will have been reading exchange like ours.

[Radical Activist]

269. Zero Greens have been elected to Congress.

You wrote: "i subscribe to educating people on the most fundamental issues and letting the chips fall where they may."

I do political action. I do direct action tactics. At least I do something. What you write here doesn't sound like real organizing to me. It sounds like doing half the job and avoiding the hard work it takes to actually accomplish something tangible. I was just participating in another thread about how the peace movement is ineffective because groups keep engaging in the same old tactics to educate and "raise awareness" but most don't follow it up with anything more concrete. That's why the movement is largely irrelevant when it comes to exercising real power.

Yes, the system sucks and Democrats do plenty of lousy things. Using that as an excuse to not participate sounds like a lazy, cowardly way out to me. I'm not going to disregard the progress I've seen happen as a result of my own electoral activism just because I didn't get everything I want.

No, I don't let Obama off the hook for failing to pursue Bush war crimes, and I don't stop fighting for an issue just because Democrats throw a few crumbs. Just because someone participates in the political system doesn't mean they must become zombie puppets of a political party.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist so your vague insinuations about puppet masters doesn't appeal to me. I believe conspiracy theories are fundamentally dis-empowering because they make the enemy more powerful than they are and it makes effective action seem hopeless.

Even Che thought a Cuban style armed revolution in the US would fail and be a waste of time. I'm going to use the tactics that have proven to accomplish the most within the US until I see a better alternative that will produce results. For most successful movements, that has been a combination of electoral action, direct action, legal action and other tactics that all support each other.

[tomp]

272. well, you're obviously beyond educating. nt

[ProSense]

25. More on the politics of "crumbs"

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

link

Some of those excluded:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

link

[Aramchek]

28. ask yourself, what victories have you achieved???

[Bryn]

31. K&R

[t0rnado]

33. Foreign Policy

Politics is about compromising. To be honest, there weren't any candidates in 2008 that wanted to "GET US THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN" besides Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul. They had no chance of winning anyways.

[ProudDad]

67. War is NOT a viable "foreign policy"

War has NO place in "compromise"...

It's the ultimate abject failure...

As we are seeing thanks to the patriots who released the recent documents on Wikileaks!

[LWolf]

145. +1

[LostinVA]

79. Gravel and Paul?

[liberation]

82. "Politics is about compromising."

And there we go, doing what conservatives do best: when reality gets in the way, make up your own. So when concepts and their definition don't help your point, simply redefine them! Voila!

[bobbolink]

37. Control by ridicule isn't working out very well for them .

I guess the stocks are next.

[Yuugal]

63. +1

[laughingliberal]

204. +2 nt

[SaveOurDemocracy]

40. A GREAT BIG K&R! n/t

[bvar22]

44. Righteous Rant.

Harry would approve.
"I just tell the truth, and they think its hell!"---Harry Truman, from back when Democrats were "DEMOCRATS!"

another good Truman:

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone


K&R

[pleah]

50. K&R

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Good quote.

[Eyerish]

51. K&R

[amborin]

52. K&R

[ChiciB1]

53. Stoic... THANK YOU... I'm On YOUR Side & Will Stand With You! I Only

WISH we could combine FORCES in some way to get THIS message out LOUD & CLEAR!! To find some way to ORGANIZE and SHOUT out loud enough that we will not only be HEARD, but UNDERSTOOD!!

Or at least taken seriously as REAL TRUE DEMOCRATS, many of us who have been in the trenches since Viet Nam and many even earlier! Some of our BEST Democrats, hard workers and dedicated Union workers are now either approaching 60 and so many more over 60 who KNEW what it meant to have our voices heard!

TRUE, we NEVER got everything we pursued, but we DID have a feeling that at least there were those who LISTENED and took our pleas to heart! Many people of the past who now look like Alan Grayson today!! We are in such a MINORITY when it comes to the type of fighter that Grayson is! There are several more, but for the most part, it's PITHY POOR and DLC'ers have run roughshod, or perhaps run AWAY from what so many of us OLD TIME Democrats always believed in!! WE THE PEOPLE, FIRST!!

[JohnnyLib2]

54. K & R

[panzerfaust]

55. Ah, Teddy.

I am not (quite) far enough left to want to join the Socialist Party - but I would like it if there was something left of the progressive (ie left) wing of the Democratic Party.

Why have we not unequivocally reestablished habeas corpus (a part of English - thus of American - legal protections dating back to 1215), ended illegal wiretaps and surveillance, repudiated the previous administration's attack on the poor and middle class, stood up for education, established 'universal' health care, prosecuted those who destroyed our financial system (vs 'shaming' them!!), prosecuted those who violated the Geneva Convention and disgraced our nation by using secret arrests, kidnappings, and torture ... oh, and why have we not ended our two illegal, horribly expensive and morally bankrupting wars of choice (also why have we not prosecuted those who committed treason in order to start them)?

What separates the actions of the current administration from that of the previous?

Myself, I am a complete loss as to how to tell.

[ProudDad]

68. A slicker spokesmodel? (n /t)

[earth mom]

57. Great post! Thanks for speaking the truth!

Hope the trolls don't get it locked on ya.

[Blue Owl]

59. Let's have some real alternatives to the GOP

None of that GOP Lite shit.

[Spheric]

60. K&R /nt

[Blue_In_AK]

61. A huge K&R

Thank you, Stoic.

[Greyhound]

62. Indeed.

Hear, hear! and a
& R, too

[Jester Messiah]

64. Ok... so don't. Moving on... [nt]

[asdjrocky]

66. Good post.

More people hear you than don't.

[MissDeeds]

114. +1

Spot on, Rocky.

[TBF]

70. GET US THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

That just bears repeating a couple hundred times or so. Good rant, though I doubt the children are listening. I met them on the campaign (where I walked door to door and called folks re Obama). Twenty-somethings with their laptops. Obama was their guy to pull us out of the doldrums, and he's young-ish, attractive, and articulate so that appealed to them. But some days I fear he's just as inexperienced as they are. He is getting beat over the head at every turn by trying to compromise with idiots. It's not working.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

71. You were never for him!

[Stoic]

75. I donated both to his senate and presidential run...

...urged both my parents, who live in Chicago to vote for his Senate run and volunteered for the campaign at my county Democratic Committee for the 2008 general election. I supported the Democratic candidate. It's only what came after he was elected that draws my criticism.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

153. I'm sorry....

I should have also used this tag with my original post:





** I didn't really assume you never supported him **


edit - double negative above, but I'll leave it. you get my point.

[pam4water]

72. I criticize Obama. I just make it a point to not stick aroudn and read the angry replies any more.

Ah sue me! Seems like the fan girls left the Republicans and join the Democrats. And god love you if you criticize the object of a fan girls affection obsession. (Though to be far to the fan girls Obama is way hotter.)

"Punch-The-Hippies-At-Every-Chance" giggles XD

Seems like all we can count on Obama for is to not make things worse. Which considering our current situation just is enough.

[LostinVA]

80. Yup

[John Agar]

84. Why would someone have to apologize for criticizing a politician?

It's a long tradition with us Dems anyway, isn't it?

[Skittles]

100. "us Dems"

[John Agar]

167. Huh? Anyway, I do remember the line from Will Rogers.

"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

I was thinking of that.

[burnsei sensei]

85. Perhaps the democratic establishment

is not clear about a few things.

1. We don't follow any set of leaders uncritically.
2. We live in a state where the 1st Amendment is in force. Not just in writing, but in force.
3. We will decide for ourselves what has been done for us and what has been done against us.
4. We owe loyalty to no one except those who serve us, even if that means betraying a cross-party, international elite that has decided that we should worship in the temple of globalism.

Don't expect perfect complexity from me.
I'm not perfect, and 10 years of virtual totalitarian rule has taught me that you have to be clear and directed in your views.
Foreclose the empire.
Re-negotiate every single international commitment this country made in the last 70 years.
Fund Amtrak.
Fund it completely, and now.
Subsidize local agricultural production-- address the problems with access to food, housing, employment.
Over-simplistic? No.
Are these things practical and practicable? Yes.
You Third Way sympathizers can take your complexity and shove it up your ass.
Less corporatism, more institutional and regulatory reform.

[Riley133]

88. Brava!

I have avoided coming here since I was chastised by another member for linking a site during the campaign that had Obama's middle name on it. I said nothing about the name and it had nothing to do with what I posted, but I was chastised none the less. (OK, I did the Edwards/Clinton route first. Obama was not my first choice.) But blind loyalty - at a democratic website? Weren't we supposed to be the independent and open-minded thinkers?

This is not the party I grew up in, campaigned for and donated to. My entire family is from Northeastern Ohio. All had decent jobs in blue collar, union environments. If not for that, we wouldn't have had the middle-class basics (remember those?) that we had. Until this year - when you could switch parties at the primary in Ohio - we were all registered Democrats. Always had been, thought we always would be.

I love what you wrote, especially about being complicit. Truer words were never spoken. It is good to know I'm not alone.

Thank you.

[branders seine]

90. 'typical hater' = principled Democrat

[DailyGrind51]

92. You have no reason to apologize!

The Party platform is more important than the person elected on the promise to fight for it.

[CreekDog]

93. And whatever you do, don't call Charlie Rangel names or accuse him of things

despite the mounting evidence against him, it's not allowed here.

[DCBob]

94. No need to apologize.. criticism is fine.. the problem is abandoning the party..

which many progressives seem to be ready to do.

[pam4water]

104. Fool me once. shame on you. Fool for 20 year - leave the party!

[DCBob]

106. So you were patient for 20 years and then after 18 months you give up?

weird.

[SunsetDreams]

113. ha ha NICE!

[liberation]

120. Camels, back, straws... Ha, ha... laugh now.

[SunsetDreams]

132. Ok I will

[Touchdown]

169. Ah. Ok. I see now.

The blind man sees.

[SunsetDreams]

224. The irony

"Ah. Ok. I see now.
The blind man sees."



looks like that backfired just a little. Nice try, maybe if you and a few others spent more time actually debating instead of attempts at snark on DUer's, that wouldn't happen.

[Touchdown]

253. Yeah. I knew you wouldn't get it

... But don't let that keep you from being a good guard dog to the swarm gang.

I hope you got your slab of meat.

[pam4water]

127. Been a Democrat since, I turned 18 in, gasp, 1981! What I'm not a conservative. So

at some point I decide things aren't working and try something else The D's have been on the downward slide since the 1990s

[DCBob]

141. Curious what your "something else" is? drugs, sex, alcohol, gardening??

surely not the GOP... yeah yeah, I know, stop calling you "shirley".

[freebrew]

240. 18 months? Try 18 years!

At every turn the dems have folded. Newt was made the voice of america. It was the fault of the dems. The dems let FDD lapse. The dems passed NAFTA(or rather let it pass). The dems helped reduce the taxes on the rich. The dems let * give away the Clinton surplus, the dems let * start a war in our name. Remember, they held the majority in 2000 - 2002.

Every time we thought they had grown some stamina, they let us down. They talked big and mighty and then slunk away in defeat.
And they still do it when they have a majority. They seem afraid to do anything for fear of losing their majority status.My local blue dog repug, Skelton, claims he must represent the conservatives in his district. I have to always remind him that it wasn't the conservatives in his base that voted for him. DEAF EARS! HE DOESN"T CARE!

And Obama and his staff act the very same way!

I whole-heartedly agree with the OP.

I seem to have gone radically left since 2000...with the same opinions.

[John Agar]

168. What are the alternatives?

I don't see a way out myself,

The Dems are disappointing, while the Republicans are insane.

[rhett o rick]

177. The "Party" is spitting in my face. I have tried and tried to work within the "Party" but

the corporatist's DLC has too much money. I dont see that it is possible to save the party.

[Mimosa]

205. The Party has been abandoning the people

Almost everybody can see it. Except those wearing blinders or who are paid to counter those who are speaking of our sense of betrayal.

[DCBob]

221. "everybody"?? Obama has over 80% approval and he is the leader of the party..

and I am sure this number will go even higher as the economy improves and jobs begin to come back.

[IndianaGreen]

95. What a great post!

K&R

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[RetroLounge]

101. K&R

to fight the nonsense

RL

[RBInMaine]

102. Well, at some point you have to do more than just criticize. It gets damn old. Are you happy

about anything? All this Obama/Dem bashing runs counter to the idea of what is supposed to be a Democratic site, and it becomes an endless purist bitch session. Plenty of us have had enough. Why not bitch about the RePUKElicans once in a while. There's a thought.

[flyarm]

115. seems to me the only ones that are bitching are those bitching about the" so called" bitchers!

most people at this thread are agreeing with the OP..and Add me to the agree column!
Thank you OP..for very truthful honest rant..You have many in your company..that is why there are some here that are Bitching about "so called" bitchers!!

They are getting very nervous ..but they are in a minority here..many people are angry or dissapointed..and they have good right to be!

Many many many of us haven't worked for years and years and years to put a democrat into office to only see said democrat sell us out on our values and democratic principles..and even more so, Our American Principles!

Thank you OP..for an excellent rant..

And for those who think they can continue to intimidate others in this party with their nasty names and their tag team bullshit..you are a big part of the problem and why we will lose seats in Nov if you continue your nonsense..you are alienating more dems than bringing us together..Your tactics are backfiring..because we all recognize those tactics from the former admistration..and Lifelong Dems don't take kindly to it. Many of us know bullshit when we see it.and we know bullies!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[boston bean]

157. That's the issue, people are bitching about Repukelican policies.

Just because a person has a d after their name doesn't mean they aren't foisting RW bullshit on us!

How's that for a thought?

[Kermitt Gribble]

107. K&R! n/t

[Gman]

108. You must have missed Al Franken's speech

conveniently or otherwise.

[flyarm]

119. did you ever listen to Al's radio show ? Did you when Bush was committing crime after crime..

Milktoast..he told half stories and half truths.

He would not rock the Bush boat..he constantly teetered in the fence.

He annoyed the ever living shit out of me and many Dem's because he stayed middle of the road ..when there was no middle of the road on the crimes that were committed to this country and the illegal wars Bush began!

So anything that man says I laugh at and not because he is funny..he is not ..he was part of the problems of this country..he had the bully pulpit and didn't use it ..he created passivity.

He should have stayed on Saturday Night Live...he would have more credibility with many of us,who have paid attention...he could have been as effective to educate people as Jon Stewart..but he was not and still is not.

[Gman]

133. Ummm... I must have listened to a different Al Franken who

was all over Bush and the republican corruption every day. I listened to the best liberal out of MN since Paul Wellstone.

Must be another on the radio somewhere. I don't remember anything like what you're saying about Franken and I listened to him every day. I remember his last broadcast when he left to run for the Senate.

[Touchdown]

172. He also said dick about Ohio in 2004.

and he knew there were shenanigans going on. He said nothing about it. In The Truth (with jokes) he devoted his first chapter to 2004, and said nothing about the Ohio vote count.

And now he's playing good cop in the extortion game with Rahm's bad cop. "Yeah! I know we didn't do much of what you sent us here for, but we promise we won't fuck it up next time. Just vote for us and nobody gets hurt. I know we say this is the most important election of our 200 years every election since 1980, but this time I promise, it's really true!"

Not saying I'm not going to vote, but I have a feeling that I'm going to come down with flat feet in September. I don't know how I know this, it's just a vibe. But without affordable health care, I'll can't risk aggravating it, so I'll just have to sit out the elections and not canvass neighborhoods or march in parades, or attend rallies, or pamphleteer, or walk into a room to make calls, or deliver signs, and who knows, it might extend to my fingers so I can't sign my name to checks. Maybe The CEO of Goldman Sachs can do those things in my place.

[Gman]

183. IIRC, he had several guests on at different times that talked about

Ohio. Been a long time ago now. Maybe he felt he'd already devoted enough time to Ohio to put more into the book. But like I said, this isn't the Al Franken I'm familiar with. It's too bad you feel that way.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

185. I listened to his show every day. You have no idea what I listen to

Oh and I have never listened to Fox ..it has been on child block in my home since 2000!

[rhett o rick]

182. I dare you to read his book, "The Truth". nm

[flyarm]

186. I read his book..he autographed it to me.

My opinion stands.

[rhett o rick]

189. Your opinion that he was easy on Bush? Then why did you have him autograph your book. Some thing

smells. Senator Franken is one of the good guys. Who do you like?

[Enthusiast]

220. Senator Franken sure is one of the good guys.

If he isn't one of the good guys our party has no good guys.

[flyarm]

249. I never said he was not a good guy..I like him well..I just think he was very soft on the Bush admin

and he didn't ever push for full truth..he always stopped short..and the majority of time he pandered to half the story and he knew it...and knows it.

[flyarm]

248. he sent it to me..I did not request it..he knows my hubby and I. eom

[MissDeeds]

110. Excellent post

We have indeed been given crumbs, and I suppose many here think that should suffice. I don't. Obama has failed to steer this country away from the disastrous policies of the past and has continued a policy that puts us at further peril. Obama was not my first, second, or third choice for Democratic candidate. I had huge reservations, but voted for him anyway, thinking any Dem would lead us out of the abyss. Not so. He has continued many of the former administration's policies, and his pledge of 'transparency in government' is a lie.

I am a baby boomer who has been a Democrat from the time I understood the concept of "We the people". I hate that this president has squandered an historic opportunity to turn this country around and put us on the path of true democracy for all. Many here have tried to excuse his actions, claiming that he is playing chess, hasn't had time to turn the country on the right path, that the Dem leadership is weak and has failed him... Bunk. He has failed us. It is time for true, decisive leadership. If Obama will not or cannot lead, he needs to get out of the way. There is simply too much at stake.

[Patriot 76]

111. Who asked you for an apology?

[Phlem]

131. Amen Brother

I 1000% stand with you.

-p

[SoxFan]

134. -

[WillyT]

139. Sweet K & R !!!

They work for us, dontcha know???

[davidwparker]

143. Criticize away. I do. Obama squandered his super majority

by trying to make friends with the people who want to slit his political throat.

He was given a mandate to reverse * policies, not play Lincoln trying to heal the great divide.

[Mimosa]

203. I watched it happen, couldn't do anything with no help from the President

Darn I was watching the long lines aon polling day, people proud and optimistic.

Obama should have kept talking to us, honestly. He could have done more of an FDR type approach. I knew conservatives who wanted single payer or expanded M edicare and they trusted the president to fight for us, stand up for us. And conservatives have also been sick of this wasteful expensive and ultimately useless war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan...).

Well, maybe the big banksters will 'let' Obama get reelected because he helped them out. Obama didn't betray them, did he? Are any going to be peosecuted?

[MrMickeysMom]

148. You don't have to apologize to me, for sure

In one of my missed intervals here it looks like I missed another war of words over the horrible reactions of the White House, something that never surprised some people in my family, but I initially had more hope for (after all, it was the change I was looking for).

Maybe it's difficult to remember what Teddy said after all these years.

[Butch350]

149. Your a registered voter? - next presidential election...

vote him out - and take your chances with the next guy.

I'll save your name STOIC and eagerly wait for your post after the next
presidential election and look for more of the same. C-Ya-Then.

Until then - whine on brotha.

[rhett o rick]

179. What a sad commentary. "You should be happy with what you got". I say bull-fucking-shit to you.

I want my fucking freedom back. I am not satisfied with a Democratic Party that bows down to the republicans, that kisses their asses. You must be.
You must love the Bush Patriot Act, Obama does. You must love the Bush domestic spying, Obama does. You must love the killing of children in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama does. You must love DADT, Obama does. I want change. I voted for change. If I dont get change I will vote him out and f you and the horse you rode in on. I am sick of taking it. Sick of you that want to go along with the corporatist DLC and republicans.

[Kalun D]

192. good post

my feelings exactly

Obama is turning out to be a big corporate phony

I'll add the biggest "you must love"

you must love, $700Billion for felony criminal bankers that intentionally caused the fabricated "problem" in the first place

a bush initiated bill that Obama fought tooth and nail to get through congress

you must love, appointing those same felony criminal bankers to positions of banking oversite, including the bush appointee Bernanke

[rhett o rick]

242. I wonder what the deal was to overlook the prosecution of Bush/Cheney for war crimes. nm

[Kalun D]

257. BFEE

Bush Family Evil Empire (Bush Crime Family)

probably agreed to let Obama live if he agreed not to prosecute.

[begin_within]

150. The overriding problem with the Dems is that they are too tied to corporate campaign donors.

Two things happened: the corporate power structure, which generally runs the economic apparatus of the country, decided to start donating to both sides in any election, guaranteeing them access to power no matter which side won. At the same time the Democratic party felt it had to start accepting massive donations from corporate interests, in order to be competitive in elections which became increasingly expensive to win. So in the deal with the corporate Devil, both sides got what they wanted: corporate America still got access to power and the ability to manipulate regulations and appropriations to their benefit, and the Dems got huge amounts of cash and therefore "electability." The losers in the deal were the American people and democracy itself. But hey, there's always some collateral damage, right?

[defendandprotect]

191. BRIBERY is the missing key to unlocking what's happening . . ..

Every day this website should be as a contest between END THE WARS posts and

END THE BRIBERY posts --

Most of us understand that --

what isn't get discussed here is how best to combat all this crap without going even

one step backwards -- !!

[Mimosa]

207. YES. Money makes the world go around

And some Dems will sell their souls for the money and status. As will many Republicans.

[eilen]

222. Discussion on how to fix it

is against the rules, if it involves not electing a democrat to office. I live in NY and have no illusions/delusions that corruption can be removed or otherwise voted out of a political party. So there you have it.

[defendandprotect]

244. We need to move Obama to the left -- or find another Democratic candidate who will end these wars ..

Where are the next Eugene McCarthy's -- Bobby Kennedy's --

George McGovern's -- ????

Somewhere in the Democratic Party!!

[MilesColtrane]

161. I AM NOT asking you to.

Maybe you should specifically take it up with who has.

[rpannier]

166. Thanks for sharing nt

[unkachuck]

180. K&R...n/t

[quiet.american]

184. You know, I find these kinds of posts amusing.

These kind of "outsider" posts at DU routinely gather up 200+ recs, while at the same time insisting that the poster is a "victim" of the norm - when actually "criticizing Obama" - often fact-free - is the mainstream on DU and has been for the last year or so.

I just have to laugh at this stuff.

[izzybeans]

188. It doesn't matter which way you go, you'll be stigmatized in some way.

Every time I criticize the president I get some half-assed comment and every time I celebrate an accomplishment I'm told I'm an Obamabot.

There is no room for rational debate these days. It's the only fact in town.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

193. Criticize as much as anyone wants to, as long as they turn up in November to put them office....

Anything else doesn't make sense. This particular site was established to elect Democrats, so not sure when some are here saying they won't. I've contributed financially to this site so also have room to say let's follow the objective of the site and elect them. I'm not saying you can't critique it helps improve policy but self dismantle is not something I can sign up to.

[defendandprotect]

194. Love the post -- and there isn't too much that's going on now that hasn't happened

somewhere else before now --

And love FDR -- usually you can find an answer in those archives --

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Good luck to us all -- there is a third war going on -- and it's on the people --

only some of us know that --

and we have a big battle ahead of us --

I really don't know if we can make it --

but I know this for sure . . . NATURE IS GOING TO PLAY THE FINAL CARDS

Capitalism is a war on nature and humans -- its suicidal and it has to come to an end --

[Hekate]

196. I'm impressed. Have you been saving that up for the past 8 years? Quietly fuming during Bush Years

... and only just now -- now that we have a Democratic president -- discovering your rage? That's a LOT of venom.

Please tell us how you demonstrated your lack of "servility" during the reign of Baby Caligula? I know what I was doing, and I know the difference between Gore and Bush, and Bush and Obama. I know it in my bones. And that has nothing to do with locksteppery or servility.

Hekate

[laughingliberal]

206. Huge REC! nt

[Senator]

210. K&+R

[Fruittree]

212. Just a question..

What are some policies that "bring jobs that not only provide a living wage but treat people not making a million dollars a year with dignity"? It's fine to criticize but one person is not going to solve everything and if you're going to criticize you have to have an alternative - not just a wish but how it would work. (I do agree with you that a quick retreat out of Iraq and Afghanistan is a good first step..)
I personally think that given the situation we were in, Obama has done a great job of turning things around. He hasn't solved everything but he has started to put policies in place that are gearing things in the right direction which needs to then be built on in the future. People need to be patient and work for what they want over time.

[LatteLibertine]

213. So

people who still support President Obama are really Republicans and people who aggressively criticize President Obama are also Republicans. Looks like they need to change the forum name. Apparently we're all in the GoP.

[tomp]

237. no, they are all in the gop.

and only some of us are.

[Enthusiast]

215. K&R

Obama said, "Make me do it." How else can we make him do it other than to scream and shout when he does the wrong thing or takes us the wrong direction.

It is often necessary to correct the ship of state. In light of the Citizens United decision and the amount of influence peddling we should all be up in arms, not going calmly along like sheep. This should be clear to everyone, even the cheerleaders.

[democrank]

217. K & R

I`m older than you but have fought the same fight, starting before the war in Vietnam. One thing I learned was to pay attention to the difference between what politicians say and what they do. Any politician can hold a news conference to announce a big "move forward" but the devil is in the details....like loopholes written into a bill to accommodate big donors.

I did everything humanly possible to help get President Obama elected, only to find that he habitually confuses surrender with compromise.

[creon]

223. no reason to apologize

I have no problem with your criticism of Pres. Obama.
For good or ill, he was the one who was nominated and elected. In 2008, just about any Democrat would have beaten any Republican. No Republican wanted the job - they knew the country was in mess and that they would lose . There is not much difference between Clinton and Obama. They are both dedicated to 'tweaking the system' - do a liitle here and a little there. I think that progressives should have known that. There never was any serious prospect of 'big reform'. Neither ever intended to do it; Congress, especially The Senate, ever intended to do it.
Time will tell if this muddling through will improve matters.
People who want radical reform will have to get elected; elected to the HoR and the Senate. Then, and only then, will such legislation be passed.
We are not going to have a 'man on horseback' who will tell everyone else what to do and make it stick.

[Javaman]

226. "servility is just not my style." right there with you.

Cheers to you!

[upi402]

229. I will not STFU, not even for DU

ban my soashlisss ass
kick and recommend

my thread like this was locked, we'll see.
thank you for speaking for me!

[Peacetrain]

231. K&R.. Just like I will NOT APOLOGIZE for supporting the President and Democrats.

My way or the highway does not move this old Democrat either way..

[mstinamotorcity]

232. Personally

If the President does something that is not appealing to me,I look at the fact that what he is doing is based on critical thinking,facts,science,experts in the field,intel reports or any other factors that need to be examined before making a decision. His decision may not be the one I choose personally,but may be for the greater good. If he makes a mistake,then I must live with its consequences.I believe he is open to criticism,but not bashing.Criticize the policy issues,but not the office.And when you do have something to say about our President in the negative,we need to make sure that we are riding the right shoulders. Because most of his problems fall right at the feet of our beloved congressmen. Instead of reading them suckers the riot act a lot of us want to to place the burden on our President,who knows that the things we want the most must be legislated in to have some real meaning and depth.And if you made it through the years of Dubya/Shooter then we should at least support this President on legislation big and small to move forward. And I really don't care what anybody says about this President because it won't make me choose a repug.And those who got a bone to pick with him can always vote repug.And they have already told you what they will do as soon as they can get back into power.

[Stellar]

235. Bravo!!!!!!

They may stay home, but that another Republican vote, as far as I'm concerned.

[defendandprotect]

245. Did Congress set up the Cat Food Commission?

[Steely_Dan]

255. A Reasonable Post...

...for the most part.

But let me see if I can be just as reasonable in response.

I think that many people gave President Obama the benefit of the doubt very early even when he was making appointments that (even you might agree) were questionable at best. However, when the road that Mr. Obama was (is) on continued to raise even more questions, many of us began to wonder if we were being hoodwinked in the name of bipartisanship...an approach that smacked more of naivete than a sophisticated political strategy.

Yes, Congress is a major factor. However, the President has a bully pulpit. And for whatever reason, he has not successfully articulated a message that matches either literally or figuratively the speeches he gave during the campaign. The soaring rhetoric of the campaign which emphasized hope and change gave many of us the courage to say...Okay, one more time. It took a while, but now I believe him.

I can only imagine how some feel after giving so much to the President during the campaign only to see so many Bush policies continue taking our country down the wrong road. Okay, so some had unrealistic expectations. But can you blame them after the kind of campaign that Mr. Obama conducted. For many, that campaign now sounds more like a "sales" job appealing to our desire to "believe." Disappointment is necessarily tied to expectation. Is there any doubt that the author of our expectations was (to some extent) Mr. Obama himself.

In the President's defense, much of the fever during the campaign had a "life of its own." It became something even bigger than Obama himself. However, while he stated that it would take time, the "hope and change" mantra continued right through November.

There is a sense among some that what was left by the previous administration is so devastating that no single person could correct the ship of state in a mere 18 months. This is reasonable to consider. However, there is another school of thought that says what was left by the Bush administration is so devastating that only quick and decisive action commensurate to the problems we face is required.

It is my belief that people on the left (especially those who would frequent this board) are passionate about their beliefs. "Passion" runs hand-in-hand with being impatient...I'm one of those. I don't feel like we have the time to negotiate with the RW in the name of cooperation. The problems are too deep.

Many would love the rest of us to look at what has been accomplished in 18 months. And indeed, we should not discount the fact that some progress has been made. I "try" and remind myself of that everyday. However, some would argue that the progress that has been made is somewhat hollow. There is nothing worse than a half-ass attempt. It just doesn't feel right. It is analogous to how I feel towards the Repugs. There is very little that I agree with (policy-wise) with my friends on the Right. However (and this is important), I KNOW where they are coming from. I know what to expect from them and I am not surprised when they side with corporations to the debt of the rest of us. What angers me (and I believe many others) is when our own party does not act like the party we have supported and sacrificed for. This is far more devastating than anything the Right could do.

Because the President didn't grab the message right at the start and let the RW frame the arguments (which is just simply beyond my understanding), Mr. Obama has now been made out to be a Marxist, Socialist...the most Liberal President in history...etc.etc. Well...if the RW has successfully convinced the wingnuts out there that he is as extreme as they say, then you might as well make bold strokes towards what is fair for the "people" of this country and not bow to the right cowering and shaking at every Fox News report.

I will try and be patient. I will try and understand that what I thought would happen with Healthcare didn't happen, but someday it will. I'll try and understand for now, that it is still okay to listen in on my telephone conversations. I'll try and put behind me the fact that we committed horrible war crimes and no one was brought to justice. I'll give it go to accept that banks received bailout money with little or no regulation to insure that the money (at least a crumb or two) would make it to the people. I'll try and accept my new role on the "radical left" when it wasn't that long ago, I was considered just a Democrat. I'll try and give my "new" Democratic friends the time they need to show that they have not abandoned the essential planks that have served the Democratic Party for decades and made us the Party of the People.

-P

[mstinamotorcity]

258. I see your point

the people of this nation are hurting in a way that they haven't hurt before if you are under forty years old.And I am not saying that older people have not hurt in this recession. But those of us who are over forty have seen tough times before.I too have high expectations of our President.But it seems as soon as he puts forth an effort he has no one to back him up. Because they are too worried that they might upset the big corp donors. Even though we have made some strives in Congress there are still obstacles that haven't been removed yet. And you are right about faux media entertainment, they jumped ahead of our President because he wanted to foster bi-partisanship. Or maybe,he wanted those who had faith in the repug myths of tax cut heaven and religious fires of hell to see them for what they truly are. There are some who are just waking up to what has happened in their country. And as far as the bail outs are concerned as reported today the banks have been into laundering drug money. Now I may be from the hood but it seems as though the banks have gambled all of the drug cartel's money in those risky investment trying to clean it up and they fell short. But even if this is the case they used us to pay their debt.And now that they have taken the money and run (twenty four percent of America's wealth vanished,gone.) The money that they are sitting on is not being re-invested back in the workforce because they can get more for less money and they figure they can starve us and we will curtail to low wage jobs. My beef is we are not busting those chumps up and out of business. And with Congress showing us that they are bought and paid for. And the only way he can use the bully pulpit is to take some of their precious earmarks away or let us find the dirt to expose them. The latter works better.Don't worry November is coming.

[newspeak]

270. The thing is we've been spiraling downward for quite some time

The Reagan years really hurt the middle class and working poor--his big tax cut, especially for the wealthy and deregulation and anti-labor stance hurt most of Americans. I believe Reagan increased the deficit by 128%, and I have a list of companies that went bankrupt under his presidency--hostile takeovers were rampant, and gutting companies in the black did nothing for employees. It is Clinton who passes Poppy's NAFTA-GATT-who passes the welfare deform act, who does away with the fairness doctrine, and don't forget the Telecommunications Act.

We have had another eight years of nightmares with the "boy king" who felt the Americans love a war president, so he had to start wars-one tragically being initiated from fabrications. We have the Patriot Act, suspending habeas corpus, suspending posse comitatus, more deregulation, the Enron screw, Katrina debacle, oh, and don't forget 9/11 and that august PDB that seems to have been ignored.

And, now we have a president who's all into change, but it's not the change I was suspecting--it seems more like business friendly change, the further privatizing of America. It was easy to see the writing on the wall when he appointed his cabinet. And, some will eat shite and still call it cake. But, I'm an old democrat, not a "new democrat". From now on, I will vote my conscience--this is no football game. So, no greens are in congress--so what are you saying? I'm supposed to vote for the one that will win, even though it may not be in my best interest or the people's best interest?

Like I said, we are spiraling downward, sometimes rushing (under repugs) or slower (under new democrats). My entire family are democrats, except for one dittohead uncle. We have always been democrats, and I will still work within the party--but if I am given a choice for a more progressive candidate-I'll vote for them in a heartbeat be it independent, green or democrat (no way a progressive would come from repugs).