Reply #232: "You're either with us or against us."

[Efilroft Sul]

Binary choices aside, ClarkUSA, I'd like to turn your bold-text statement on its head: Is the Democratic Party still a friend of the people? Numerous examples abound that suggest it is simply not so.

Many people went to the mat for Democrats and candidate Obama in 2006 and 2008, but we didn't get a similar sense of workmanship or a dedicated sense of what the Democratic Party used to stand for from our elected representatives in return. And before some other poster replies with a half-finished Subject line followed by a cut-and-paste post suggesting otherwise or being given yet another reminder of how slowly change comes in politics, let me ask you to reconsider the valid opinions of union workers, especially public school teachers. Listen to a merchant on Main Street instead of your Wall Street-affiliated financial advisor. Renew your acquaintances with the liberals who are still anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and still to the left of today's false center that is actually right-wing. Unless you're living in a privileged community or posting here on behalf of the Party itself, it's almost hard to believe that the Democratic Party is our friend and fighting as hard for us as we did for it (or, more truthfully, against Bush's policies) in 2006 and 2008.

A few years ago, this site ran rampant with anti-Bush fervor, and one quote bandied about on a frequent basis was "Dissent is patriotic." It still is, even when many here disagree with the policies and half-hearted efforts of the President and the Democratic Party. If we are indeed to ever become a more perfect union, it would serve Democratic politicians well to not chastise those of us who got them to where they are in 2006 and 2008 as whiners, or as members of the professional left. We are still their employers, and many elected Democrats have displayed a tremendous need for improvement, indeed replacement by someone better.

Will I vote to re-elect President Obama in 2012? At this point, yes. But it's not a vote supporting his overall performance, which has been for the most part lackluster. Rather, it's a vote as a form of insurance in case there is a vacancy or three on the Supreme Court. We need liberal justices appointed to the Court, pure and simple. It's a long-view vision of politics on behalf of the people which, sadly, most Democratic politicians don't seem to have.