Eli in the evening!

Hiya!

Ds don’t need money to make them stoopid. They are stoopid by their very nature.

And there’s also a lot of anti-progressive stuff they do that *isn’t* money-driven. Which makes me think that maybe it’s not so much that they’re just doing what the corporate money tells them, so much as that that’s the type of people who are attracted to the corporate money chase in the first place. But the net result is the same.

Thanks, Eli. No power = No money. The Dems just don’t get it.

And now they’ve failed so miserably, sold out so blatantly, demoralized their base so completely, and ceded the populist ground so thoroughly to the Tea Party, that they’re on the brink of losing the House and maybe even the Senate.

Is it even possible that had Democrats actually planned it this way, that they could have been more successful at it?

But at least they’ve ensured themselves of nice soft landings after they get voted out.

They probably could have talked *more* about cutting Social Security and preserving all the Bush tax cuts. But they still have a couple more months yet.

(I’m glad Obama came out against extending the tax cuts for the rich, but I was glad when he came out for the public option too)

Good illustration of the point. Ds, since they castrated unions (certainly during Clinton, but prolly earlier; a lot of premature rejoculation over post-Watergate D victories, but I suspect there should be some reevaluation of the party during those years). The anti-labor, anti-small peeps trend has been around for a long time. Often it is money driven, but often it seems gratuitous. For example, O’s tendency to try to get the camel thru the eye of the needle satisfies no one on either side.

Eli-
You just gave me one of those “ah ha” moments. That’s exactly why dems don’t fight for anything and prefer to be in the minority. They can claim that they have no power, can’t change anything, and still get the money and pretend to still stand for progressive principles.

Because it is possible to fuck up so badly…

Yes, it is possible indeedy…! ;-)

Aloha, Eli…! Awesome post…!

Alternatively… I had a post a while back about the DLC where I theorized that all the corporatist Democrats’ other conservative positions were merely camouflage so that their corporatism would *look* like it was just one component of an overall centrist political strategy.

But they’re still corporatist sellouts either way.

I’m not totally sure they prefer to be in the minority – I think they get more money when they’re in the majority, but you’re definitely right that it’s a lot easier to pretend to be helpless when you’re in the minority or a narrow majority.

As long as no one remembers how successful the Republicans were at either stopping the ball or moving the ball when they were in comparable situations.

Aloha, CTut…! And thanks!

Well said, Eli.

Though most folks haven’t yet begun to consider that the D’s want to lose the House and/or Senate.

Having Congress and the WH under their total control exposes the obvious lie of the Democrats’ intentions, of what they say versus what they actually do.

So losing the House or Senate returns them to the safe political haven where they can once again stand in front of their voters and claim “gee, we’d love to do all those things for you, and we would – but those mean Republicans won’t let us.”

Nothing has changed in our national dysfunctional family except co-dependent Mommy has realized she prefers to live in her own denial and needs to be able to tell the kids (and herself) the family problems are all because of Daddy.

It’s time to leave home and take care of ourselves.

Great post!

Succinct and accurate assessment. I’m sending this post along to my friends. Especially the ones who were/are seduced by Obama.

I can no longer imagine any reason for voting D. From someone who never voted any other way. Not economics. Not foreign policy. Not anything else I could think of. Certainly won’t vote this year, for the first time in nearly half a century, unless I can think of a clever write-in, like Alfred E. Newman.

Oh, that’s brilliant. Where ya gonna go…tea partying??

Possibly/probably it’s a question of (lots of) money makes PEOPLE stupid… Which might be why revising the tax code might be in order. But I guess that makes me a socialist, right?

Very good.
But, but, but — while the the Dems with Obama didn’t have all that Repub money they had the PEOPLE who wanted the CHANGE that was advertised, and with the people behind you don’t need money, if you’re honest and you know how to work with people.
ooops. There I go mentioning people again.

I’ve voted for Nader before, I’m willing to do it again…! ;-)

Jon Stewart shaved his beard.

Come on, it was clear the fix was in when they didn’t lift a finger to pass campaign finance reform.
http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/pages/fair-elections-now-act

I don’t disagree, and more than anything I wanted Obama and the Democrats to tap into that. But they either decided that it was a safer bet to rack up the big bucks and use the money to hoodwink enough voters to eke out a victory, or they simply *prefer* that approach (which also offers much more lucrative post-government job prospects).

There is admittedly a lot of ambiguity about whether the Democrats are former progressives who got corrupted, or if they were corrupt to begin with and saw politics as a great opportunity to accumulate money and power.

This is why we need public financing of elections. The only thing is that it may be too late since we have only enough actually committed people to count on two hands now. Certainly not enough to really do anything. How anyone who had ever run for anything more than dog catcher could not have seen that to be on the same side as the Banks was suicide is beyond me. Yet Obama got on the side of the banks and stayed there except for a few tepid speeches. And for that the Bankers trashed him every chance they got. So now he has no base, no principals worth a fight, and no corporate money. And this was the crew who had so much success getting money from the “wider” public. If that was true why do we still have this wimp in chief and not a crusader?
As far as why you still vote Democrat. Well is smart better than willfully ignorant, is somewhat progressive better than john birch society, is able to see reality better than delusional? Is the man who knows better but caves, better than the man who is too stupid to know when they both end up at the same place?

“Democrats can’t do that, because there’s simply no way to spin pro-corporate, pro-wealth policies as congruent with progressive values.”

That’s a joke, right? The Dems have been doing exactly that for decades.

I have no doubt about that. Keep diggin’ maybe you’ll hit something good. Then again, you’ll probably just end up in a dark, desolate hole. But, hey, far be it from me to impose on your free will.

…Which very strongly suggests that they’re corrupt bastards who *like* being well-paid corporate tools. Because if they were frustrated progressives playing along to survive in hopes of doing a little good here and there, they would be all about campaign finance reform.

Exactly. That’s one of my hobbyhorses, the way corporate money completely distorts our government’s priorities, to the point where the well-being of the country isn’t even a *consideration*.

There was also an alternate version of this post where I start by marveling at Obama and the Democrats’ amazing penchant for choosing bad policy that’s *also* unpopular.

Because I can understand principled politicians placing the public good ahead of their own job security, and I can understand unprincipled politicians placing their own job security ahead of the public good… but the Dems have managed to sacrifice their job security without doing much for the public good at all.

But then, I guess that depends on what job we’re talking about…

Oh, that’s brilliant. Where ya gonna go…tea partying??

The false, infantile hope that if we just find the right lever to pull, the right candidate and party to vote for, then someone else will take care of us is our part of the national family dysfunction.

While one can certainly argue with what “they” may want (the tea partiers are no more monolithic in what they want than “liberals” are), the thing the tea partiers have really right is getting off their whining asses and doing something.

The canard that there’s nowhere else to go is simply the Democrats’ version of playing to people’s fears.

The R’s terrorize their base with visions of people who are different than they are. And the D’s terrorize their base exactly the same way – as one can see from the constant left-wing demonization of tea partiers (and Republicans in general), the D equivalent to the right’s demonization of immigrants and Muslims. “Better vote for us or those scary immigrants/Muslims/Tea Party are gonna gitcha!”

And to take the point all the way to its conclusion, there’s nowhere we need to “go.”

We’re already where we need to be. What needs to change is how we see ourselves, how we act, and how we choose to take responsibility for ourselves and care for those around us.

If where you intended to go is where you are, then all that’s left for you to do is wallow. Enjoy.

So… Obama is doing an imitation of Otter? “You fucked up… you trusted us!”

I mean how bad do you have to be to cede the populist mantle to a bunch of reactionary, racist, plutocrat ass-kissing jingoists?

“Then again, you’ll probably just end up in a dark, desolate hole.”

That’s where we are now thanks to Obama and the Democrats. When people were losing their jobs left and right Obama wanted to spend a year on healthcare instead of the economy so that he could pass massive corporate welfare to benefit PhRMA and the insurance companies and now Obama’s big economic proposal to the tune of hundreds of billions is something that will just add to the corporate bottom lines without creating jobs or doing anything for the average person. If you’re not in the top 1% of the population, Obama and the Democrats are acting like you don’t exist.

You’re soaking in it.

Obama was all about rejecting campaign finance reform. Obama was the first major party candidate since Nixon (which public campaign finance was passed because of Nixon) to reject public campaign financing during the general election.

The cognitive dissonance sets in when looking at the values that Dem leaders like Obama and Congress pretend to believe versus what they actually believe in. But you’re 100% right that the DLC and New Democrat fuckers running the party only care about their neo-liberal corporate masters.

Sometimes this all seems like the culmination of way too many humans on this orb. We have fucked ourselves into a really big mess and the crazies have taken over. I am going to go hide down by the river now.

…Against McCain and a crazy person, in the middle of a Republican-created recession.

He would have won with just the public financing, but perhaps it wouldn’t have been a landslide. Which, ironically, made his wishy-washy bipartisan act all that much harder to swallow.

So… Obama is doing an imitation of Otter? “You fucked up… you trusted us!”

…that’s probably the best description of the disconnect existing between the Obama campaign and his administration. Mind if I borrow it for future use?

Here come the brownshirts…it’s actually happening. say goodnight, dick

I mean how bad do you have to be to cede the populist mantle to a bunch of reactionary, racist, plutocrat ass-kissing jingoists?

A question also to be asked of those who voted for Obama and the Democrats in 2008.

….but the Dems have managed to sacrifice their job security without doing much for the public good at all.

Wrong and wrong. Neither point is valid. You want to project the idea that the Dems have jeopardized their jobs and that they have done nothing to better the situation, but, if you were honest, you could not say that.

So, what? Do you expect them to not take corporate money? Are you suggesting not spending money on campaigning, while Republicans spend millions? Are you trying to say they should alienate corporations? I’m not seeing any proposals in this post, so what is the point of this?

There are obvious suggestions that can be made, but you aren’t making any of them. You’re just posting another Democrats-fucked-up-beyond-repair story, which doesn’t help in (a) fixing whatever problem you see, or (b) getting Democrats re-elected. In fact, it quite clearly does the opposite of getting Democrats re-elected.

Rather than run with all the little clever quips why don’t you back some of your snide statements up with solutions and/or philosophy.

It really doesn’t matter what the motive is, whether Obama and co. were genuine progressives who lost their way or whether they never were to begin with. The key word you mentioned is “corrupt”. That is what his administration has become, and any dictionary will primarily define that word as “evil”. For all the Obamabots who fell for his cult of personality, get over it. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So, you prefer voting for a Republican.

Long before the 2008 election Obama was exposed as a seducer – just like Otter.

But the target’s part of the dance is the willingness to deny reality and blindly believe and hope. One can’t be seduced unless one wants to be seduced.

The question isn’t whether Obama and Otter will ever change.

The question is whether we will.

(In the largest view of things, the seduction is what brings awakening. Does the evil snake seduce Eve, or does the healing and transformative snake bring to Eve an awareness of life she needs? It’s all American as apple pie…. ;-) )

I prefer voting for an honest person.

These “Democrats” are not worth re-electing. If they go down, and they will, it’s because they turned their backs on the values they claimed to believe and the people they pretended to represent. As someone who called strangers and knocked on doors and gave money I didn’t have this last election so these SOB’s could represent me and the millions of people like me who are one paycheck away from ruin they not only failed me, but they failed you as well.

Well, if you don’t consider any Democrat currently running ‘an honest person’, then I’ve got news for you: there are no honest people. However, you have the choice between a lying Democrat or a lying Republican, and a vote not cast for a Democrat is the same as a vote cast for Republic.

Your undies will be in a bunch until you come to the realization that you’re going to have to pick the lesser of two evils. I don’t see it as two evils. I only see one evil entity, but I know most of you see evil on either side of you. Don’t you understand that the teabaggers are a photo negative of the extreme left? Go ahead. Go out there and start your extreme left party. You’ll end up just like the baggers. Jesus, use some fucking common sense for once. Don’t cut your noses off to spite your faces. Not every D is a neolib, a corporate whore, a spineless, quivering fool. There are some, yes, but most are not, no matter how badly you want to generalize that idea. Providing charity and opportunity for the less fortunate, leveling the playing field as much as possible, supporting hard work, respecting diversity and on and on…these are Democratic priorities and those things are what most Democrats strive to achieve.

Maybe they aren’t worth re-electing. But is Sharron Angle worth electing over Harry Reid? Fiorna more than Boxer? Get over yourself and look at reality.

Throw your hat in the ring, then we’d have someone honest to vote for, right? You haven’t seen snide.

Also, general elections are not the time for judging if a Democrat is pure enough for you. That’s what primaries are for. You vote in a primary to change the party; it’s why they were created, for Christ’s sake. When it comes to a general election, you don’t vote for a Democrat, you vote against a Republican. Voting third party does nothing to defeat the Republican, so you can just drop that tired old idea already.

was an Edwards supporter at first, (sigh) then went for Obama because he sounded like a progressive. I wasn’t totally naive though. Concerned after the FISA filibuster that wasn’t. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the too small Stimulus package and TARP bailout. Final straw was the HCR kabuki.

The man is consistent. Since FISA, he hasn’t failed to never disappoint.

LOL – well said – I agree

nicely written article.

Like eCAHNomics and others my voting this time for the first time in 50 years will not be solid “D” – The Mass Gov Deval is a fellow that I like a lot – sort of an Obama that has ethics and backbone and does not sell out (he is also black and a lawyer – but what a difference from Obama). I’ll also return Barney as I read the Fin Reform as a progressive bill that is more than I expected and it doesn’t sell out to the banks (too much) – but below that the ticket will be blank. Relatives in Florida are doing write-ins, as are relatives in Illinois, California, Ohio, Maine, Wisconsin and Arizona. Seems to be a family consensus – at least among the old – that a message must be sent to the “they have no place to go – and F–k the UAW” Whitehouse.

Rachel says that Obama saying he now knows the GOP would disagree if he said “fish live in water” was a call the base would hear as him sayting he now knows the GOP are the enemy and the base will return when they hear that call. I don’t think so. Words no longer matter.

dylanh & kdh22,
Disclaimer: I do not yet know the answer to the question I ask both of you…

The Dems suck. The Goopers suck. But the Dems are ‘our’ suck, and we didn’t even get a polite kiss before they drilled us.

So, in the face of the terrible choice between Dems who suck and Goopers who suck so much more –

Please offer a solution to the terrible choice we face, other than

“Wait it out, the Dems will learn the error of their ways, they will return to the fold.”

, or

“If you think the Democrats are bad, wait until the Republicans regain control.”

Because what you are really saying is that since no one here has offered a brilliant strategy to right the ship, we have to keep doing what got us here in the first place. And that is NOT a strategy – it is a concession.

John F. Kennedy wrote (or edited) and published a book when he was a junior senator in 1956, “Profiles in Courage.” It was about eight senators who deliberately took a stand of conscience, which they knew would be unpopular with their constituents and likely cripple their political careers, and the personal price they all paid as a result of choosing to do what they felt was right.

Have we had any senators recently who placed principles above personal profit?

My, my, not only are the trolls out but they’re actively pissing in the punchbowl. Must have struck a nerve here, Eli. Well done.

“Pay no attention to that other political possibility behind the curtain!”

Eli, excellent essay.

My concern is that losing the majority isn’t a big deal to Obama- in fact he may prefer running against a Republican majority for 2012. It’s certainly much easier for him to run the triangulation strategy with real Republicans than having to rely on the blue dogs for his cover.

Now, the rest of the Democrats, that’s a different story. You know how much they are going to hate giving up those corner offices and nice parking spaces…

The man is consistent. Since FISA, he hasn’t failed to never disappoint.

Sad that we’re dim enough students we need that kind of painful lesson beaten into us, over and over and over, isn’t it? :-/

That is what’s going on here. Life’s trying to teach us something – not just about “them,” but about ourselves.

Life (i.e., the other part of us) will be able to stop beating us when we finally wake up.

P.S. Sorry to hear about your personal disappointment. Like learning about death, losing one’s innocence can be painful. The later value is it brings us a possibility for real, not fantasy, life and happiness. But in the moment of the piercing of the veil it usually just hurts. Again, my sympathies.

It’ll get better. ;-)

If you’re a Democrat and believed the same polls that said before the last two elections Republicans would win and their voters were more interested in voting then you are a Moron.
Just look at the polls before the last two elections.
Remember this.

Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama
Updated 9/8/2008 5:33 AM
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend show
McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote

How’d that work out for Republicans ?

It’s too hard to believe any Democrat would sit this next one out or vote Republican. If too many Democrats do that it will prove they are as stupid as 60% of the Republicans who believe Obama is not an American or in Death Panels and the few intelligent ones left might as well move to Canada or Europe because America is done !

This is in large part about our corrupt campaign finance system. I have posted repeatedly about the need for public financing so that politicians *only* have to weight the public good vs. the politically expedient, without that additional big-money thumb on the scale.

I don’t have an answer. All I know is where, for what and for whom I stand. I voted Republican for a long time because my parents did. I worked for the IL Republicans when they held majorities here. Then I grew up and was exposed to ideas and people that I had never known before. It was an extraodinary and violent metamorphasis. I learned a great deal and am a better person for having seen the other side. I guess that’s why I feel the way I do about this President and the Democrats in general. I understand politics and governing and the conflict that is produced when an elected official has to navigate both. It’s not pretty nor precise. It’s a crapshoot 90% of the time. I could go on for hours about the things I learned during that time of my life, but I won’t. :)

My suggestion: don’t wait until the general election to get upset that there aren’t any liberals to vote for. Primaries didn’t used to exist. They were created as a way for people other than party bosses to change a party. Use what was given to you and elect liberals in primaries.

And, after you’ve tried so hard, if voters simply don’t want liberals this time around, suck it up. Don’t get dejected. The United States isn’t a place for weak liberals who can’t compromise now for a better party later. You have two choices (and only two): vote for a Democrat or vote for a Republican. I don’t need to get into the reasons why a Democrat is the better choice.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. America isn’t a liberal country. We are the minority, and we have to work with what we can get. Want to change that? Get the message out there; change minds.

You can’t do that, however, by staying home and not voting, or even worse, voting third party. We _need_ the support of a big party.

Sharron Angle won’t survive her re-election, and having a crazed loon as an opponent allows a progressive a better chance at winning down the road. As for reality, when you see no substantial differences between Republicans or Democrats in practice (and not rhetoric) then choosing one or the other does not matter. What does matter is power.

Neo-liberal Democratic leadership relies on the base to volunteer, phone bank, GOTV and contribute, but does not respect our power within the party nor share our values. This November, when Dems lose Congress as a result of their pro-corporate, anti-people policies they will either have to change their policies to enlist our support, or purge us from the Party itself. I look forward to the fight, because if the Democratic Party doesn’t rediscover the values of FDR, JFK, LBJ and Truman, and soon, it will become as relevant as the Whigs.

Those are great posts and public financing is what I believe to be the answer.

But I’m weary of posts like these, that focus only and entirely too much on the negative. The last thing we need an echo chamber of sorrow and dejection. When Republicans do win, I don’t want to see another Frank episode (‘HCR is dead’), but a thousand times over.

You are right dylanh.
There is nothing to argue with. Sitting out or voting for a third party is nothing more than a vote for the Tea Party.

I was actually wondering recently whether he *wants* the Republicans to impeach him so he can ride the backlash to re-election. If so, he’s playing a very dangerous game…

There are significant differences between any Democrat and any Republican. I won’t even entertain the argument that there aren’t.

Also, on your last sentence: “… if the Democratic Party doesn’t rediscover the values of FDR, JFK, LBJ and Truman, and soon, it become as relevant as the Whigs.”

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States, if not the world. It has transformed many times over, and this was _before_ primaries and universal suffrage.

That’s a game Emmanual might like, but not Obama (or Axelrod or Plouff). Never.

The point that I really wanted to make was that this is a serious *structural* problem that makes it impossible for Democrats to align with their progressive base, because their need to chase corporate money always gets between them and forces them in the opposite direction.

Remove that pressure, and I think we might finally start seeing a forcefully progressive Democratic party. Or I could be dreaming. But at least we would know for sure whether the Democrats are genuinely hapless, or just faking it to advance a corporate agenda.

kdh22 and dylanh – I believe we have your answer – it reads like this:

‘I have no solutions to the conundrum, only dire warnings for what happens if you fail to toe the line.’

And dylanh – I never suggested not voting. That might be addressed to someone else, but not to me.
Further-

The United States isn’t a place for weak liberals who can’t compromise now for a better party later.

is precisely why we are where we are. Again, that is NOT a solution to the problem, or a prescription for how we might overcome it – it is the same warmed-over tripe the Democrats (yeah, I mean you Chris Van Hollen) have been shoveling that landed us in this jackpot in the first place.

I am not a 3rd-partier. But I still haven’t heard anything resembling a solution from those who wag their fingers and say “Don’t get discouraged.” or “Don’t be a sap and elect the Republicans.”

So while I appreciate the discourse, do not pretend that you have a plan.

Sometimes it’s like responding to a domestic disturbance call. The wife who doesn’t file charges because “he didn’t mean it, he was just drunk, and I started it” and she never leaves the SOB because “one day he’ll change”. It would almost be comical if it wasn’t so depressingly pathetic.

Hey, I’m one of those Democrats you’re talking about. I’m registered and I vote straight ticket in every election, and I’ll do it again in 2010, and that’s not the first time I’ve said this.

However, the truth is that neither you nor I have a better argument to offer the left of the party than “the other side is terrifying”. That’s enough for me; the Republicans want to see me in jail for who I am. But it’s not very convincing to a lot of people who want to know why the Democratic leadership got this astounding majority, with the votes of the left of the party, and didn’t implement basic aspects of our party’s platform. It’s not likely they’ll get the chance again. And we’re not talking about no single-payer, we’re talking about no universal health insurance. That’s a pretty important ball to drop. Again.

Without universal health care, we’re lagging behind civilization. I, for one, am sad enough that I’m going to reward the Democrats with my vote. Why am I doing that? Because voting for the Republicans would be incredibly stupid and our electoral system is unresponsive. That’s the best I’ve got.

And so I’ll be damned if I’m going to spin those really cynical and fearful reasons into cotton candy to convince the people around me that, no, really, this is the Democrats’ year for health care! They’re gonna do it this time! I’m not going to lie to them, any more than you can. You’re telling people here that they should vote for the Democrat because the Republican is likely to be absolutely horrific this time around. But the decision to vote for someone you disagree with is a matter of conscience – a moral choice as much as a pragmatic one.

You’re not offering a single shred of evidence that our party should be rewarded according to its own values. You can’t, and neither can I, because neither of us believes that. Without that proof, you can’t expect to convince anyone, and it’s neither of our fault that we don’t have that proof. It’s the fault of the people who want us to vote for them.

I gave you your solution: vote liberals through their primaries. Once a primary is over, you have no right or reason to complain. And you may not like it or see it as a solution, but, in fear that I’m repeating myself, you’re far better off voting for any Democrat than voting Republican.

Also, let me just reiterate, the United States has come a long way from the pre-Progressive era. ‘Here’ is not as bad as it was there. In the generation of instant gratification, it seems liberals are getting less and less patient and refusing to see two facts: how they have indeed changed things, and how they are still a minority.

agree with both of you on this. Even my dad, who’s voted for a Bush in every election that had one, agrees that public financing of all candidates is the answer.

In terms of economics, the Dems and Republicans represent 1% of the nation… combined.

What is needed is a broad economically populist movement. One capable of putting the Wall Street-Washington financial cabal behind bars.

well spoken thanos, peace

I definitely have a plan. It’s to vote in my best interest and in the best interest of those who cannot decipher what is in their best interest. I accept that responsibility because I know some won’t or can’t. I agree with dylanh, liberal leaners who sit out in November are not only voting Republican, but they are also casting a vote against their best interests and the best interest of the country.

Thirty-seven percent of the electorate stayed home in the least presidential. Why didn’t they vote? In fact, they did vote — for none of the above.

The two majors have stacked the deck to make it difficult for other parties to get on the ballot, participate in debates, get media attention, etc. And then the members of these parties denigrate the people who stay home on election day?

Some people say let’s send them a message that we disapprove of them, and they can’t do that if they vote for them. They have more than two choices. So they stay home.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a personal decision. Some people won’t do it, some will. There are more independents than there are D’s or R’s. They’re not beholden to either of the majors. They have no obligations. It’s a free country. So they exercise their franchise by staying home.

1) Are you going to deny that the system, as it exists, enshrines the two-party system so securely that Democratic voters will vote for people in primaries who don’t represent their views in order to get a candidate of any description who can peel off votes from a Republican?

2) Are you seriously arguing that we should reward the current Democratic Party for the advances of the Progressive Era? The middle of that was literally a century ago. I don’t think people were likely to give FDR credit for the Progressive Era back in 1932.

The truth, at long last.

Which Liberals are you speaking of?

Maryland elected Donna Edwards over the even more abysmal Al Wynn and guess what?

Dennis Kucinich got leaned on by the White House and guess what?

The House Progressive had health care legislation in their hands, and guess what?

You don’t have a solution – you have ‘Find yourself someone who represents your values and vote for them. Then when they get trounced by the DCCC-funded troll, you are in the clear because you didn’t betray your values.”

That is not a plan, it is not even an idea.

And this: The comments you have left here would be precisely the comments I would make if I were a DCCC flack. I don’t mean that as an insult. Some of my very best friends work for the DCCC. I just wouldn’t want any of them marrying my sister.

You’re right, I can’t offer evidence the left will like, because I don’t think Democrats will enact all the liberal dream legislation we want. I didn’t think they would when they got 60 seats in 2008. I mean, I thought they get something passed. But I never had my hopes out for single-payer, Medicare-for-all, etc. Yes, I certainly did hope for the public option, but I think it was pretty clear, midway through, that it wasn’t going to happen. And, maybe I’m not a true progressive or something, but did I really feel so disappointed? No, not _really_.

Maybe it’s because I look on a more macro scale: the relative liberalism of the United States, as a whole culture. In my opinion — which, admittedly and obviously, isn’t one from a particularly important person or from an expert — we are not at a point yet, as a culture, for the liberal policies the left wants.

Why would I vote for a party that is actively trying to cut social security and has cut medicare? Why would I vote for a party that is actively lowering or maintaining the low taxes on the uberwealthy? Why would I vote for a party that is willing to let 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care? Why would I vote for a party that thinks it is just fine for the president to kill any American he chooses? Why would I vote for a party that is actively endangering a woman’s right to choose? Why would I vote for a party that supports a president that helped BP get away with the murder of humans and an ecosystem? And speaking of murders, why would I vote for a party that continues the wars in the middle east? Why would I vote for a party that had huge majorities and the presidency and did nothing with it?

If he is Eli, he’s either more hubris-tic or dumber than I thought. We stuck up for Bill, after NAFTA and DADT, because he at least “tried” with HillaryCare and the economy was humming (sorry, couldn’t resist) at full employment. By 2012 we are at best projected at 8% U3, which is nowhere close to Bill’s numbers at re-election. I just don’t see us having Obama’s back on impeachment with the economy in the toilet.

“Liberal dream legislation”, “single-payer”, “Medicare-for-all” – nothing you’re writing corresponds to anything that I just wrote. Where are you getting this?

All I can tell you, once again, is that health care is a human right, that it is guaranteed by all civilized societies but our own, that it is part of the Democratic Party platform, that the Democrats did not implement it in the most favorable environment for it to occur in some thirty years or more, and that this failure disarms convincing positive reasons to vote for the Democrat, and so what you are left with is that the Republicans have gone mad. And that’s no small thing. But we are going to have to do better than that to get elected, like every other party in the history of the country, and as long as the Democratic leaders continue to abandon their platform, they won’t get people out to vote, and they’ll lose.

You don’t have to vote Republican. I mean, I thought that’s what we’ve been talking about here tonight.

And I do not think this make me extreme. Except for extremely angry.

Um, Mary – kdh22 needs a clue…

Snidely Whiplash strikes again.

Uhhh, no I don’t.

Think about it. Or not. Whatever.

“There are obvious suggestions that can be made, but you aren’t making any of them. You’re just posting another Democrats-fucked-up-beyond-repair story, which doesn’t help in (a) fixing whatever problem you see, or (b) getting Democrats re-elected. In fact, it quite clearly does the opposite of getting Democrats re-elected.”

As long as you’re committed to B, you wont get A – you’ve shown that they’ve got your vote irrespective of what they do, so why should they do anything for you. You’ve got no leverage.

Just gettin’ warmed up. It gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective.

1. Are you tacitly admitting that a liberal candidate could be the weaker of the choices in a general election? If a liberal can’t win the general, then they shouldn’t win the primary.

2. Am I wrong in thinking that the progressivism of today is the descendant of the progressives of the Progressive-era? I’m saying the movement has come a long way, and it’s not impossible to keep it going through the Democratic Party, where it has arguably rested for a while now.

I’m not saying anything about ‘awarding’ anybody with anything. (Best alliteration ever, or worst?) I wouldn’t ever use that language, because I don’t see my vote as an award, but rather a tool.

Summed up very nicely.

Name for us please the things NOT done by Democrats under Obama, that are in Mary’s very comprehensive list.

Take your time. We have time.

Like my husband says “Don’t make my wife angry.”

thanos: “Liberal dream legislation”, “single-payer”, “Medicare-for-all” – nothing you’re writing corresponds to anything that I just wrote. Where are you getting this?

I’m getting it from the general reasons some of the left give for why they question voting Democratic… :

You know, if it weren’t 2010, if the Tea Party didn’t exist, if the economy wasn’t in shambles, if we weren’t so polarized, I might entertain the thought of punishing Democrats to get them to become more liberal. But I just don’t see the benefit in doing right now. I think it would be more harmful now more than ever.

You go, sister! That’s what I’m saying, and then some.

Your point is exactly what prompts me to comment about that “Republican-branded” crisis.

O brother, my Brother Eli, if only it were that easy, eh? Sad fact is, and of course you know this, Democrats did it to us, too. Greenwald made this point a few days ago, in his post The profound mystery of the “enthusiasm gap”.

And Robert Scheer made it today:

ROBERT SCHEER: Well, you know, you say a longtime journalist. I worked for the Los Angeles Times as a national reporter, and I covered these hearings in Washington when the Clinton Administration in the ’90s basically fulfilled the promise of the Reagan Revolution. Reagan was not able to reverse the sensible regulations of the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt designed to prevent us from getting into another depression. And those regulations of Glass-Steagall, which Feingold was against—was for keeping and against reversing, said that investment banks playing with supposedly rich people’s money should not be allowed to merge with commercial banks that were using the deposits of people that were insured by the taxpayers and that these were different activities. And Reagan could never pull off that kind of deregulation. In fact, because of the savings and loan scandal at the end of his term, he actually had to sign off on increased financial regulation. But when Clinton came in, he brought in one of the big players on Wall Street, Robert Rubin, who has been head of Goldman Sachs, and basically turned to him and said, “You know, what do I need to do to get Wall Street on my side?” And they said, reverse what they considered to be onerous financial regulation. And Clinton delivered on that. He brought in Rubin then to be his Treasury secretary, who was followed by Lawrence Summers, who’s now the top economics adviser in the Obama White House.
~~~EDITED FOR LENGTH HERE~~~

Why aren’t the very people who helped orchestrate what has to be one of the greatest Perkinsian economic hit jobs of all time doing more about it? (/s to epic proportions).

See also the February 3, 2010 Jeff Cohen/Paul Jay interview on TRNNI’m always quoting from at length. Oh what hell, here’s the money quote again.

COHEN: Yeah, right. And what’s interesting is that that memo to the US Chamber of Commerce—we look at the Scott Brown victory, where he takes Ted Kennedy’s seat, and everyone knows that the US Chamber of Commerce was a big player in getting Scott Brown elected as a populist. Alright. So, largely their goal was how do we take a mainstream party, the Republican Party, and turn it into an agency of the corporate right. And they did that over a period of decades. What’s not talked about as much is that there was a parallel movement that started in the 1980s, which was to take the other major party, the historic party of the people, the Democratic Party, and turn it more toward the corporate right. And what happened in the 1980s—and it was in fear of these same forces—labor unions, new left, antiwar, environmentalist, feminist. There was this sense that the Democratic Party was too allied with these movements, these social movements that were representing millions of people, so the Democratic Leadership Council was set up. It was set up, funded by oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, some of the biggest companies in the country. It was largely a corporate front inside the Democratic Party to fight the movements in the Democratic Party and move the leadership of the party toward corporate prerogatives. Who were the leaders of it? Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman.~~~EDITED FOR LENGTH HERE~~~

There’s the source of the so-called “enthusiasm gap” right there. What has the Democratic Party done for us lately, except compromise away every principle we hold dear?

~~~ModNote: Out of consideration to the fine authors you quote, please keep excerpts short, and help FDL remain within Fair Use guidelines. Thanks.~~~

1) So you agree with me. Good to know we see eye to eye.

2) No, the progressivism of today is not the direct descendant of the Progressive Era, which was largely defined at the time as a reform movement to address problems of corruption and political machines at the end of the 19th century. We would expect progressives to oppose eugenics today, to give one example, or the related idea that we can genetically identify criminals, both of which were accepted as part of the ‘scientific’ realignment of policy toward experts and away from cronies.

Invoking the Progressive Era’s best contributions, such as the creation of the administrative bodies that help our democracy to function on such an immense scale, is a good way to steer current progressives in the right direction, as is invoking the legacy of abolitionists, or the civil rights movement. All of these were progressive movements, but they do not translate into support for the Democrats now.

Let me give some of you a clue !
If you want Progressive policies you need 65 or more Democrats elected in the Senate. As long as The Party tolerates Lieberman’s, Blanch Lincoln’s and Nelson’s we WILL be betrayed. We must either purge the party of Republican lights or have enough REAL Democratic Senators to make THEIR numbers irrelevant.
I haven’t given up hopes of Democrats picking up 1 or 2 Senate Seats. Charley Crist will caucus with the Democrats and I see a couple of other Republicans seats that could fall Democratic this time. Wouldn’t that irritate The Gallup Organization ?

That’s great, except you’re talking right past me about “some on the left” who I don’t know because you haven’t introduced us. It’s legitimate to question voting for the Democrats for exactly the reasons I enumerated. Why are you inventing new reasons that I didn’t advance?

Don’t forget Landrieu. gag.

I hope you are right. It would be funny if we held on to the Senate. The Senate can effectively stop the work of the House.

Yep, that’s why I said Republican-branded. As far as most voters were concerned, it was Bush and the Republicans who drove the economy into a ditch, which I think is mostly correct. But some Democrats most certainly helped dig that ditch.

Those are all Republican crimes. In 20 months, Obama and the Democrats have started turning back all of those to some degree, not to the degree or in the speed that you want, of course. But to say that he and they have expressly perpetuated any of that or have extended with malice those policies is delusional and dishonest.

So what have they extended those policies with, since it isn’t malice? Tickles and sunshine? Eye-rolling exasperation? A long-term game that will be ruined if it’s revealed? Another health care bill coming soon with a smaller majority? It doesn’t really matter, does it?

Please list the ways the current administration has helped the economy and with links if you have them.

actively trying to cut social security and has cut medicare

check

actively lowering or maintaining the low taxes on the uberwealthy

check

willing to let 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care

check

thinks it is just fine for the president to kill any American he chooses

check

actively endangering a woman’s right to choose

check

supports a president that helped BP get away with the murder of humans and an ecosystem

check

continues the wars in the middle east

check

had huge majorities and the presidency and did nothing with it

check

If you are a Progressive, this is your laundry list. If you are a DCCC flack, this is your mountain.

What matters is that he/they are trying to do something, something more that commanding a keyboard. You really don’t understand the magnitude of this chore. It seems like you think this undertaking is similar to the average person getting pissed off on a message board and typing his outrage, or going to a 9 to 5, or walking the dog or some shit like that. You cannot fathom the amount of work and elevated thinking that it takes to attempt this rescue. It’s disgusting that you critcize that which you are unwilling, and quite frankly, unable to pursue.

Although, I did chuckle at the ‘tickles and sunshine.’

Very interesting. Looks like I have some reading to do.

To say nothing of punting on DADT, letting EFCA die, and the climate reform bill get so gutted and compromised that we’re probably better off without it.

and O still thinks that Katrina was a natural disaster.

And the big one for me personally: Allowing the Justice Department to be Alberto Gonzales’ and John Ashcroft’s baby in the guise of Eric Holder.

I am well and truly pissed and horrified at the rest, but this one is simply unfathomable.

No. I have no desire to ‘link’. Why would I? I don’t work for you. I work for me. If you don’t like what I’m saying or the way I’m saying it, you have the option of not responding. Furthermore, if you’re so interested, the info is out there. You go find the links. whitehouse.gov

Why do I want to prove your point? I am just asking you to do your homework. Or you don’t have the answers.

Right back atcha!

The Dawn Johnsen sham really really pissed me off. If you don’t want Dawn Johnsen at OLC, then don’t fucking NOMINATE Dawn Johnsen for OLC and let her twist in the wind for a year.

I also like how he threw Van Jones over the side in a heartbeat but Alan Simpson, Rahm Emanuel, Timmy Geithner and Larry Summers can do no wrong.

Thanks for the tip, o mod my Mod. With all due respect for someone with the power to make me virtually disappear, I think your concern is misplaced.

Democracy Now! encourages the sharing of its material. So does TRNN, of which I’m a sustaining member. Salon? I’m not so sure about, so I only linked. I’m a very conscientious quoter.

In fact, I’ve posted this exact Cohen quote, as noted, many a time. You’re the first to express concern. After all, these are Creative Commoms-licensed materials, duly attributed and linked.

I feel like my mic was cut before my time was up.

Don’t forget Shirley Sherrod and Acorn.

I made a point of watching and reviewing the Bush DOJ hearings, including Gonzales’ 3 stunning appearances in 2007 at SJC.

I did not think it possible to be that lame again, but TeamObama is giving it the old college try.

Now that’s what I’m sayin’! (No copyrighted materials were harmed in the making of this comment.)

Since we earlier in the thread reminded ourselves of the dynamic between Obama/Otter and the D’s as seducer, and the voters as the willingly and gratefully seduced, note the beautiful way the exchange between marymccurnin and kdh22 illustrates the progression of that relationship.

Think of what happens when a woman who’s been seduced into a relationship starts to accept the truth about the man whose lies she willingly believed. Then re-read the exchange between marymccurnin and kdh22.

To paraphrase where we are now, using marymccurnin and kdh22 as our representatives tonight of the voters and the D’s:

Voters: I want someone who’s honest. You’ve lied to me and hurt me.

Dems: You can’t quit me, baby. You got nowhere to go. I’m the best you’ll get.

And the helpful thing about recognizing the pattern of our national relationship (again, what we’re seeing in the exchange tonight isn’t just about them, it’s an illustration of what we’re all caught in as a nation) is we can ask ourselves what we would counsel any woman do next, were she in the place of the Voters.

Stay and hope he’ll change? Or be brave, leave, and trust herself to be OK for a while without this man?

The one thing that’s essential in either case is to wake up and learn how to be honest with ourselves and how we created our present situation so this seduction can’t happen again in the future.

(Thanks for playing this out tonight for us, marymccurnin and kdh22.)

I can give Obama the benefit of the doubt that Ag overreacted before he even knew what was going on, but what the Democrats did to ACORN was truly disgraceful, and immensely harmful.

They walk on egg shells so as not to offend the Constitution the Bill of Attainder statutes the Republicans.

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget one of the biggest banksters of all time, he who never met a bank too big to blow up from within, nor an economy, Bob Rubin! Give it up for Bob, people.

Never has so much ever been stolen from so many by so few, who then got freakin’ promoted, not prosecuted, for their crimes.

(Forgive me waxing poetic, fellow firedogs. I have bad, bad, news. I broke my arm two weeks ago today, and I’m finally able to type again. ; } )

Wow.

Hurray!

Yep. Nicely expressed.
Wow is right.

That, and more of the same, is to be expected, from what Cohen was saying in that 02/03/2010 TRNN interview I quoted (sorta) @103.

From my non-partisan perspective, I see two party faces on the same class and (bogus, oh so bogus) holy wars. I’m seriously thinking of writing in “none of the above,” or maybe Mark Twain, for every race come November.

I may have to vote for Jerry Brown. eMeg drives me around the bend, over and over again.

Nice use of narrative and metaphors to make clear what ails us today. I esp. like the emphasis at the end, on waking up and being honest with ourselves.

It was by the power of “manipulating the media narrative” that we’ve been jacked into this Waste Land; just so, as you so nicely demonstrate, by reclaiming the power to define our own shared narrative of our own shared experience of being American today, we can see our way out of this hellscape.

I bow in your virtual direction (Coriolis correction requested.)

@marymccurnin

Thanks for the kindness. I love you guys! (says the half bottle of Gewurztraminer I’ve downed so far. Wonder what the other half has to say?)

EternalVigilance reminded me about the truism:

Wives try to change their husbands but they stay the same
Husbands want wives to stay the same but they change
and then: unchanging husbands learn to love changed wives
or not

and
Voters want Dems to stay the same but they change.
Dems want voters to change with them but they stay the same.
and then: unchanging voters learn to love changed Dems
or not

I’ll bet. Running gov’t like a business, golly, that’s sure to work, ‘cuz we all know The Market can do no wrong, right?

Good luck with the elections, esp. Prop. 19. Cali is my home state. I was born on the bad side of the Bay (ie, near Oakland), but moved here, to Washington state, when I was only 3.

As I leave the dems I am not running into the arms of the repugs.

We are giving great consideration to moving to Portland. I was also looking at Oakland but decided Portland was better.

Y’know what, I’ll say, apropos of drinking wine with virtual friends (with a h/t to Billy Joel)?

This is way better than drinking alone. In this light, the light of our common human awareness of all common human awarenesses, how can we ever truly be “alone,” when to be at all is to be together?

Portland! I love Portland. I even have a close friend, a photographer, there. If I leave WA, I’m going there.

Wow – first night here in a while, and it’s SO nice to see so many present who don’t have Democratic establishment blinders on (since I haven’t been around I don’t know whether the three exceptions may be known trolls or simply newcomers without a clue).

I’ve cheerfully been ignoring those who told me that I had only two choices (or really only one) since early 2004, voting for real progressives when they were available and otherwise leaving ballot slots blank. Things have now gotten bad enough that I’ll now be voting Republican (not because they’re better, but because evicting establishment Democrats is the ONLY remaining option for opening up possibilities for better representation later on) unless I have a real progressive to vote for.

Or have some other way to send an unambiguous message – e.g., writing in “Medicare for ALL!” as was just suggested in another thread. If a real movement developed around that I could justify joining it: it would halve the impact of my own vote in evicting establishment Democrats, but at the same time would likely entice some who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for them to do the write-in instead, so it would be something close to a wash tactically (and would help keep me from vomiting in the voting booth, something I’d be willing to do if necessary but would rather avoid).

I haven’t been around for a while because so many here seemed to be edging back into the ‘lesser of two evils’ mind-set (even while recognizing that the Dems indeed WERE evil, unlike our three establishment apologists tonight). Did something happen recently to make the situation more clear-cut for many than the support/acquiescence for decimation of civil liberties, the Iraq war, Medicare Part D, etc. under Bush and then the even more egregious sell-outs under Obama had managed to do?

Oh – I guess I’d should throw a hint to whoever suggested that the way to get the party to shape up was to get progressives nominated in primaries. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! First, the DCCC and DSCC actively discourage this (though they’re really not supposed to), so it’s a decidedly up-hill battle. The few times it’s won, as soon as the alleged (and possibly initially real) progressives hit D.C., they get sucked down into the establishment swamp (that’s what happened to our own newly-minted Rep. in 2006: within two months, she had broken a major campaign pledge at the behest of the leadership, and never lifted a finger over 4 years to support another; for additional evidence, see the capitulation of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 60+ House progressives who had pledged, in writing, to oppose any health-care ‘reform’ package that lacked a public option). So this kind of incremental reform of the party, while it might look reasonable on paper, simply doesn’t (and likely cannot possibly) work: next suggestion, please.

(I know that most of the rest of you are entirely familiar with this, but just in case that suggestion was made in good faith I thought it deserved a response.)

Hi Bill, I don’t know about FDL as I’m rather new here myself, but on another site I’ve noticed a few long-time Obamatons crossing over since the Deficit Commission’s true intent reared its head.

Obama is out there pretending to give a fck about working class people and the progressive media is eating it up. He finally has his mojo back! The dems are going to win or lose the midterms based on their performance while in office, and this is the part that scares them. Obama has spent his presidency pssing on his base and now his base is about to return the favor.

Anyone who believes Obama has an ounce of sincerity is a glutton for punishment.

Re: the DLC/Hamilton Project (see me @103), turning the Democratic Party’s back on it’s historical base (us, the party of the dissed part) while turning it into a right-of-center Trojan Whore of corporate interests (the party of the class and bogus holy wars part), Jon Stewart and crew nailed it just hours ago: in announcing that they’re going to “do triage” on the candidates, Stewart says melodramatically, the Dems are using death panels on themselves! (c.6:20 full episode, c.4:35 video)

Infrastructure, safety, and our ability to thrive therefrom may or may not be the cause of Obama’s Admin. but, Stewart points out, what we’re wondering is, what’s the effin’ effect?

Full episode: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-7-2010-tim-gunn

Video: Are you Ready For Some Midterms?

Even Obamatons must have a difficult time defending Obama’s Catfood Commission. Any that do worship at the altar of the cult of personality.

The Republicans only need 51 Senators to get their agenda passed.

They’re not all just Republican crimes. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was championed by Clinton. Rubin and Summers went out of their way to stop regulation of derivatives during the Clinton Administration. Bush almost invariably found Congressional Democrats to support his agenda (and not just Zell Miller).

It’s not delusional to point out that a Democratic President and Congress have renewed the Patriot Act, or that the Administration is continuing many Bush policies on civil liberties, or that Geithner actively opposed provisions that would have greatly strengthened the financial reform bill.

So who is allowed to criticize the Democrats?

Especially given the economic times with high unemployment and the inequities and corruption on Wall Street and in the Health Care Industry.

The Republicans only need 51 Senators to get their agenda passed.

They may lose their seats but they won’t lose their livelihoods. That’s the real problem, no painful consequences. If, for instance, Blanche Lincoln loses to John Boozman, as expected, she’ll settle in nicely to whatever well appointed corporate nest awaits her retirement. Every one of them knows there’s no financial hardship in losing an election: no houses imperiled, no pulling the kids out of private schools, no cutting back on anything. What’s the incentive?

Because it is possible to fuck up so badly and so obviously that all the money in the world can’t save you.

Yep.

So, your dime store psycho-analysis of me is that I have Daddy issues and I suffer from some form of battered woman syndrome? Pfffft. Thanks, [Edited by Moderator: no name calling, please. TY.

What about Russ Feingold? He is in a tight
race and could use some contributions
to help balance his millionaire opponent’s wallet.
There are probably a few others (including
Reps) who are good and could use some help.

I’ll fix it, Mod.

Thanks, keep the dime.

I don’t think that is what EternalVigilance is saying about you. You might want to reconsider the roles again.

what do you base these assumptions on? currently the D’s definitely have more money in their political coffers thant eh R’s, and if you look at the number of big money donors, the D’s have more, who have given more. That is if you look at the time frame 2004-2009.

Look at Wall Street Giving, look at corporate CEO giving,a dn it is all skewed to the D’s. So I have real problems understanding your hypothesis.

The super wealthy often vote agaisnt their wallet, becasue their vast wealth is so huge, and no matter what the tax code, they can afford the lawyers and accountants who will find a way around it, that they don’t notice things that would make them less wealthy.

Who are the ones who really buy the R talk…it is the 75k-500k a year crowd. They want a 4% lower tax rate, they want no inheritance tax…they want the $5million they have saved up to go to their kids when they die, and not have the government take it.

so let’s discount your scrooge McDuck characterisation of R’s….

And who are the people or entities with money that could be giving money to the D’s with favorable legislation in mind? Couldn’t be Unions, especially not ones pushing for Card Check, or Public Sector unions looking to make sure that their contracts continue to offer good benefits, job security and union mandate? It couldn’t be the Trial Lawyers who want to make sure there is a profitable system of liability law keeping them in good business on both sides of the aisle? Couldn’t be large corporations interested in subsidies for renewable energy going to GE Energy (I think it used to be called Enron Wind-Turbine).

Let’s be honest, no established politicians have much of a right to claim any sort of moral high ground. anyone who has been in washington for long, and isn’t considered fringe, is most likely absolutely comfortable and happy with the way the whole government machine runs.

That is why the feelign among the people here,a nd the feelign among those on the further right is so similar…a “throw the bums out” mentality. We want to see Sharon Angles and Joe Millers,a nd you like your Grayson’s Lamonts and so.

We generally don’t trust government in general,a nd would liek to see it have less influence on our everyday, so all these crooks and liars can’t do so much harm….so it isn’t someone in a backroom giving the insurance companies carte blanche, or handing our money to GE to do somethign with wind….anything involving government, especially with lobbying, petitioning, procurementcontracts or the like is not easy business, and those with more experience and more bankroll have a huge advantage….small and medium size business either are left out, or get the scraps through subcontracting.

Nice rebuttal, vagreen.

I just watched tonight’s TRMS. Maddow is asking, what’s too far in politics, regarding the vile, thuggish, hypocritical GOP candidate’s aide who tweeted the complete home addresses of his opponent’s staff.

Yes, that’s bad. How ’bout campaigning on hope and change, then delivering more of the same Wall Street friendly, war crimes-hiding, class war-waging policies we had under Bush/Cheney?

How ’bout selling out the public option while campaigning as if they supported it?

How ’bout turning a blind eye to our treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture?

How ’bout setting up a commission as a not-so-covert op targeted at cutting Social Security?

I doubt there’d be such an “enthusiasm gap” if the Dem wing of the National Security Party dared challenge their masters in the finance, defense, intelligence, and “contractor” communities. Maybe if politicians and their consultants tried being truly moral American human beings, instead of freakish political calculating machines, we wouldn’t be in this hellscape to begin with.