MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Hats off America to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who is trying his damndest to save the country and stop the rotten deal the Republicans and Obama are trying to foist upon the nation!
I urge one and all to call his office in Washington or in Vermont and literally voice your support for his effort to save the New Deal from it's longtime enemies and from the corporate/centrist Democrats.
The number in DC is: 202-224-5141
The number in Burlington is: 802-862-0697.
Then call your own Senators and demand they join in the filibuster and that they refuse to vote for cloture should it come to that! Then call your member of Congress and tell them to come out in support of Bernie's effort in the Senate!
You can contact Bernie's office online by going to his site which is:
You can also watch him filibustering live on his site.
He deserves our support and gratitude so give Bernie all your love!
Thanks Bernie! We love you!
Go Bernie GO!
Comments
Thank you Oleeb, for bringing this some attention, which it richly deserves. I've been watching and listening on and off all morning and have been a bit surprised hardly anyone has mentioned it.
The question I can't find the answer to is why now and not Monday when it might in fact delay a vote? Do you know what the strategy is?
by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:39pm
I don't know the strategy unless it is to hold the floor and not give it up. "Old style" real filibustering! I pray to God there are some other Senators with principles and cajones who step up and give the man a hand. Russ Feingold, for example, should have nothing to lose by so doing unless he's gonna get a job with the Obama admin, but that's a different issue. Apparently a couple of others have assisted to some degree already.
by oleeb on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:46pm
Mary Landrieu and Sharrod Brown helped out earlier.
Huffpo finally reported. Of course their corny headline--Weekend at Bernie's--is accompanied by the mention of Sanders reading from Huffington's book. What a crack-up.
I hope he can keep it up a bit longer. He's looking tired.
by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:06pm
Sanders seems to be the only one in Washington who understands what's at stake here in attempting to gain some degree of fairness and equity in Washington on behalf of the working stiffs and the poor.
He needs our support:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/419?t=eshare
by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:03pm
Just got home and had an email from a friend who told me to turn on C-Span 2 and watch Bernie prove he's a national hero. I'm about to cry, I'm so moved by him. I'm off to tell the world. . .
(Thanks, Oleeb, for starting this.)
by Ramona on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:10pm
Just a suggestion, but I've been making a few calls to other Senators. I love the fact that there's no long distance on my cell phone! I'm going to call a few more Democratic Senators and I urge everyone else to do so.
Since he's the other Vermonter, I called Leahy's office. They told me Leahy has pledged not to vote for cloture and not to vote for Obama's deal. The language seemed a bit like there was a shard of waffle room so I added that he should not vote for ANY deal that includes the tax cuts for the rich, the inheritance tax cut OR the Social Security Payroll Tax "holiday."
Dial away friends! It may just save your country!
by oleeb on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:21pm
Just got off the horn with both Senators Murray and Cantwell from the great stat of Washington to urge them to reject the Obama/McConnell compromise and to not vote for cloture. Neither seemed like they'd vote for cloture if and when Sanders yields the floor, but no pledges. And neither is eager to support the compromise, but no decision yet.
As for strategy, one aid thinks Sanders is in fact delaying a vote on the measure, though I'm not sure how that works for something scheduled more than 48 hours from now.
by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:46pm
I think it has something to do with the calendar and peculiar rules of the senate ... as long as he's doing this, they sure can't do all the other stuff on their list. I can't remember the exact procedure, but I think anyone on the schedule has to waive their allotted time in order for business to move forward to the vote without messing up the schedule ... or something along those lines.
Were they already planning on working all weekend? I haven't really been paying attention.
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:57pm
Oleeb, thanks for your post. I am proud to say I have voted for Bernie--who in Vermont is an institution. I simply can't believe how clearly he is spelling out the issues. Really, I don't think anyone in memory has spoken with such conviction about the absurdity of the wealth distribution in this country. The thing I like the most is his indignation, a quality that most cooperative Democrats don't seem to possess.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:29pm
My computer is acting weird and so this was a double post. Sorry bout that folks!
by oleeb on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:27pm
The Cspan link is a loop, I think. Is it over? Here's Bernie on the class war; I'd been saving it for a stand-alone, but here it is.
Oops; I just dialed up Cspan, but not with kgb's link; he's still speaking. Go Bernie!
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:49pm
My C-Span image has a current time signature. LIVE 1:49 pacific
by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:49pm
"We forget to talk about who is winning in this economy, and who is losing."
There is a reason the mainstream media and the Repubs castigate anyone who makes a Class War argument. After all, If the American people ever wake up and begin seeing that they are under assault in this Class War that is already visited upon them, suddenly everything in Washington begins making sense to them. And it ain't pretty!
Thanks for this clip, stardust. We need so much more of this, and we need to coalesce around the initiative Sanders has provided. Take off the gloves. It's time for a fight. Before it's too late.
by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:54pm
Goddam socialist! Still, I like Sherrod Brown, too. Must be a few others... But bloody hell, my IE won't boot the video, but Firefox will. WTH? Bernie was calling for us to get in the street, too, yesterday. I like old-style, I guess, even with the new internet mover-yer-money stuff. Gets your blood up better.
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:45pm
I *think* the link gave was the reular C-Span "daily feed" for when they're in session. It usually lets you start watching from the beginning ... the length just keeps increasing for as long as they are in session. It was the only way to access it a few hours ago. Looks like they the cut it off at hour 10ish and upgraded the situation to a "breaking alert" with a regular live stream on the home page ... I read somewhere that interest almost crashed the Senate servers. That's a good thing.
Bernie Sanders is also to thank for the "Audit the Fed" part of the FinReg bill. I'm glad he spent quite a bit of time going over some of the findings from the tons of documents released Dec 1. That's something that got totally buried by the Wikileaks saga (I can't help but wonder if maybe misdirection from that data release may be one reason for the Administration's overreaction/overemphasis/hyperventilation regarding Assange ... ). Hopefully public interest circles back around and we look at that information a bit more closely.
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:17pm
Thanks, kgb. I've got it now. Ron Paul got the job as chair of the Monetary Policy subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee. Ooooooooh! Might be fun!
And what crap: the message boxes of both Colorado Senators are full, so a person has to be able to email. Ya wouldn't want staffers to empty them, would you? Both of them have signed the letter endorsing major parts of the Catfood Commission recommendations. And they are both freakin' DEMS.
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:37pm
I get a kick out of him. Even more than Kucinich.
If there is one man who speaks what I think it is Bernie. I get his emails regularly.
God forgive me, but I wish he were President of the United States.
by Richard Day on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 5:03pm
Richard, I thought it was just that I lived in Vermont and voted for him that I am impressed. But seeing the comments here, I think this is a very significant turning point.
by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:37pm
I'm trying to recall anytime that this man has spoken against something I was for.
I make it a point to read his emails whenever I receive them.
Bernie Sanders represents what I think is good and clean and American to me!!!
by Richard Day on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:56pm
I emailed Jeanne Shaheen and just said, "I support Bernie."
by Dan Kervick on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:52pm
Hmmm...David Dayan has this up at FDL.
"Bernie Sanders has been speaking for almost four hours on the Senate floor, in what some are describing as a filibuster.
"It’s not a filibuster. Not unless he holds the floor until at least Monday and beyond.
There’s a set vote on the tax cut bill on Monday. Nothing else has been scheduled to move today. Bernie is not really blocking anything. This puts Sanders’ speech into the Congressional record; I’m not sure there’s an additional purpose.
But that’s not to say it isn’t important. Sanders is calling attention to the massive inequality in America, which will only be stratified further by a tax cut bill that raises taxes from current law for 25 million low-income workers and gives millionaires a tax cut of about $139,000 a person. He’s explaining America’s insane trade policies, which have cut out the American manufacturing base and hollowed out the middle class. He’s taking on corporate CEO pay, and the two-income trap, and basically making the progressive critique of an economy bought and paid for by the very rich.
What’s more, he’s picked up support, not only from usual suspects by Sherrod Brown but from conservative Democrat Mary Landrieu, who acknowledged she doesn’t always agree with her colleague but said that he has “done his homework” about the tax cut deal. After slamming the deal as unfair to the poor and to minorities and giving a very cogent argument about inequality, Landrieu hilariously concluded by saying she might vote for the bill, but she’d be “loud” about it. Nevertheless, you’re seeing issues discussed on the Senate floor that almost never come up in any other context. Political theater is sadly one of the few ways to cut through the clutter in America, and that’s what Sanders is up to, I suspect."
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/10/bernie-sanders-long-speech-raises-attention-to-tax-cut-deal/
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:54pm
I'm not sure I get what the big to do is all about. Yeah, initially I was PISSED that Obama seemed to cave once again, but the tax cut extension for the rich is a very small portion of this bill. It seems to me that bottom line, the middle class gets the best of it by far...I saw Markos Moulitsas do an analysis and now this portrayal of "Obama's Swindle" and it seems to me like we got way more than we gave. If it costs a few billion for the rest of us to get all this, seems like a pretty good deal. What am I missing?
by stillidealistic on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 7:58pm
A hundred of the best ecomists can tell you, Stilli, but I am short of time, so at least look at Simon Johnson for now, okay?
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/12/09/8372/
Bugger. Or this:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/10/bernie-sanders-long-speech-raises-attention-to-tax-cut-deal/
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:40pm
Now it looks like the bill is getting turned into a hog farm, anyway....crap. Can't those bastards just once do something for the country that doesn't have graft and corruption attached to it?
by stillidealistic on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:00pm
Actually no Stilli, they can't. They are corrupt. They ALL need to be removed from power. Granted, that is impractical but the counterweight to official corruption is the active, informed citizenry. That's the genius of democratic government. But getting the masses informed and active is a difficult thing. That is what Bernie's long speech was about today... arousing the citzenry. It's now incumbent upon us to do what we can to increase the numbers of citizens who are awake and aroused and to defend our republic, because I can tell you that his "deal" is no deal at all but a full frontal assault on the middle class and working class of this country by a corrupt and evil political faction that intends to make serfs of us all.
by oleeb on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 10:42pm
Even Dean Baker admits he's getting religion:
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2010/12/10/the-obama-tax-deal-giving-the-hostage-takers-more-hostages/
by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:36pm
A few billion Stilli? More like a few hundred billions per year and over a trillion in ten years just on the inheritance tax cut alone. Setting a precedent for Social Security payroll taxes to be used as funny money in a pinch? That's no benefit to the middle class. It's an attack on the middle class. This entire stinking mass Obama has agreed to is a series of time bombs several of which will go off in the next election and none of this benefits anyone but the Republicans. These things are only part of what you are missing.
by oleeb on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 10:36pm
Okay, that's it. Let's cancel Christmas. Life sucks, the world is ending as we know it, and we're all living in hell anyway, so....f*ck it.
by LisB on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 10:47pm
Isn't that more of a reason to enjoy the living hell out of this Christmas as the last one we may ever get?
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:44am
Of course! I enjoy the living hell out of every moment, KGB....don't you?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:44am
It really is a critical moment for the nation LisB and if we recognize it as such and act we can avert the numerous crises that will flow from these bad acts in the future, particularly the pernicious effect this will have on the 2012 elections because that is what this is all about for the Republicans. If we stop this effort we will all be able to have a Merry Christmas this year and in the future. If the Democrats manage to give in to this genuinely diabolical move by the Republicans it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. That's why Bernie has done what he has done.
by oleeb on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:23am
We have now reached a point where Grover Norquist and the rest of the "drown gummint in a bathtub crowd" commit bold-faced extortion, and our President sells it to us as simply the way we do business. No one has argued credibly that a few hundred billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is good policy. It is, in fact, shown to be indefensible. Yet, it is the ransom price that must be paid to the extortionists, we are told, if we care to enact ANY policy in this Congress. (i.e. START Treaty (fer chrissakes!); DADT repeal; UC extension; Defense Appropriations; etc.)
I can remember when a few hundred billion was something other than "chump change." How many more few hundreds of billions do we simply give away before we finally float like a corpse in a bathtub, unable to sustain any of the programs like Social Security, Medicare, or even unemployment compensation that are the target of the Norquist crowd?
We are at war, people. It's time to see it for what it is. Bernie spelled it out as plainly as anyone has in Washington these last thirty years, and we'd do well to rally to his call. At last!
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:50am
Jeezus, you and Ramona are the best there are at reminding us all of what's important when it comes to labor, and unions, and how messed up everything is these days. But as much as you get riled up, I've yet to see anyone backing you up beyond these here blog posts.
When you do something in Gubbmint, and make a difference with something other than just your words, count me in. Sign me up. Otherwise, it's just words. Palooka words.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:55am
I called two Senators and my Congressional Representative just today (Friday) and told them I hoped they were listening to Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, I signed two petitions and contributed a few dollars (that are sorely needed elsewhere) to Democracy for America in an attempt to sustain the effort Sanders and others are making to try to rally people on our side to at last stand and fight against the oligarchs who have declared war upon us.
I have raised my voice on blog posts, in my workplace, with my family and friends - in short, in every opportunity that has availed itself - to let people know there is good reason to be alarmed at the state of our governance in Washington that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the monied interests. I have succeeded in getting a few co-workers to switch from the Tea Party Talking Points to instead begin questioning the War in Afghanistan and tax cuts for the rich as their preferred topic of conversation on the loading dock in the mornings. I have also inspired others to get involved who are generally sympathetic to Democratic/Socialist issues but who have been complacent until now.
I continue reading and listening to a wide variety of source material, gleaned from a wide range of political perspectives, to remain informed about what is going on. I trust my intuitions and my informed opinions, and maintain a vigilance that the latter be subject to change if and when I am shown to be mistaken or even "over-reacting."
These efforts continue. In short, I have done everything I can think of to understand the issues and to raise the alarm in response to what I see as the most challenging times in my history, where we truly are at a point where the only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men - and women - to do nothing.
And you?
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:33am
Awesome! That's a start. When you run for Congress, I'll back you.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:38am
No need to run for Congress when represented by Tammy Baldwin. I have committed considerable effort, however, to make certain she retains her seat.
I also fought hard for Russ Feingold in his recent Senate campaign. In an election year in which the Tea Party nonsense went unchallenged in defining the issues. (Again, extremely weak leadership from the Dems, overall, and Obama in particular.) His electoral loss remains one of the most devastating failures of the Party in my lifetime. (SIDE NOTE: Interesting to see that the new Senator Johnson's choice of a well-connected K Street lobbyist as his chief of staff has some Wisconsinites - and many Tea Partiers - already expressing "buyer's remorse.")
To insist that the only way to engage in political reform is to personally run for Congress is naive, at best, and irresponsible at its worst. This is a representative democracy. It requires an informed electorate that holds its elected representatives to account for their actions (or, far too often, their lack thereof.) Russ Feingold knows me as one of his most vigorous supporters. His office also knows that whenever I call, it's usually to complain about something or to strongly encourage him to take action on something. That's the nature of politics - to forever be searching and pushing for a better way. To never be "satisfied" that their work is somehow "finished."
Obama is no different. In the best of circumstances, he would always be subject to my criticism for things he did and didn't do. But make no mistake about it. Through his ineptitude and his lack of leadership, he has singularly earned an overall vote of "no confidence" from me and others who expected so much more from the mandate to lead he was given in 2008. His failure to stand up to those who own him compromises any degree of support I might otherwise offer to him.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:21am
Nita Lowey knows me as well as Russ knows you, then. I'm curious as to how you felt about Clinton, back in the day. Did you hold him this accountable?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:40am
Yes, indeed! NAFTA was only one of the actions of Clinton that lit my hair on fire. And everything that has progressed from that rotten policy has reaffirmed I was right to be so concerned at the time.
Clinton of the DLC was the start of the Dems becoming enablers of the oligarchs rather than an effective control against their excesses. I did not support Clinton for President (Tom Harkin was my guy) and I even got the chance to offer my reasons why in person when he was a candidate. Interestingly, it was during a discussion we had while eating hot dogs in Frank Zeidler Park during the 1992 State Dem Convention in Milwaukee.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:55am
I'm jealous of those hot dogs. Wish I could've been there. And yes, I was no fan of NAFTA either.
But now you can see where I'm going with this, yes? Clinton was no ideal either. Carter was no ideal either.
You know, sometimes I wonder why in hell I became a Democrat.
And you don't help. Neither does Oleeb. Neither do a lot of bloggers here. Y'all make me wonder why I woke up and became a Dem. You can understand how Stilli feels too, yes? Because it seems to me that no matter who y'all get in power, he's not good enough. He's not liberal enough. He's not strong enough.
Y'all want a matyr? What do you want? I just don't get it.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:05am
Politics are always aspirational. No, Lis, we cannot ever be "satisfied." And every politician understands that their work is never done. It's ludicrous to even consider such a thing.
That said, my objections to this President and this iteration of Dems ranges far beyond their policy choices or even their competence. Instead, I abhor the ever-increasing corruption that causes them to pull their punches and present to us change and reforms and policies that are limited to ONLY those things that the oligarchs will allow.
I don't want a martyr. But I expect a Dem President and Dems in Congress to fully represent OUR SIDE in this Class War that has been launched against us. The Repubs got the monied interests' side covered. Someone's gotta' start advocating for the peoples' interests instead. And I have adequately shown here where - time after time - punches are pulled by the Dems to ensure nobody who matters among the oligarchs gets hurt at cost of surrendering the interests of the people in HCR, FinReg, Tax Policy; etc.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:28am
I appreciate and understand what you're saying, Jeezus. I do. I want the same things you do.
But, number one, it's not Obama who caused a corrupt system, nor is it up to him alone to cancel said system out.
It's up to all of us to continue railing against the system. NOT the President.
Much as my family is Republican, there's one rule of law they have always had that I uphold: You don't diss the President. You honor the office that the President of the United States holds and you honor the person in the White House whether you voted for him or not.
If you have a problem with government, you work with your Rep and your Senator and you go from there. You don't diss the President.
I myself broke that rule in the beginning of Bush's presidency, and again after 2006.
That's how I moved to the Democratic Party.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:41am
If it is truly your concern that we not "diss the President," then there remains nothing more to discuss. We just agree to disagree, because I can't imagine a more irresponsible position to take than an insistence that the POTUS is not accountable to the people he serves, or that he somehow bears no responsibility for his leadership or lack thereof.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:48am
Find us a new Democrat, Jeezus, to run in 2012, then.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:51am
Um, but...oy, never mind.
I could go into how much I disagree with the Republican party's platforms (which I do, tremendously), and I could go into how much I hated Bush (still do), but my point is....I fought against the Republicans by voting for a Democrat.
I voted for, gave money to, and continue to support a Democrat.
And the dems like you who no longer support our President, you just leave me bewildered. Who are you going to back? And how? What is your answer?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:49am
Not good enough dood. No opinion for YOU allowed!
You know, I was more aligned on the other side of the divide during Clinton - didn't like him at all, for most of the reasons liberal critics highlight (plus a couple that don't bug liberals ... and one that doesn't seem to bug anyone but me). Nobody protesting NAFTA from the "right" had any idea there might be liberals against it also. IMO, it is damaging for the concept of liberalism to allow people who aren't liberal to wrap themselves in it. If someone was deeply disturbed by Clinton policy and bought the formula Clinton is liberal - liberals get credit for being full-on corporate tools. But I guess that line of thinking just leads back into the hilarious "What is a progressive" thread ... so truth is we've got to figure out how to move beyond labels somehow. Hmmm. That seems unlikely.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:17am
You and otpc should get along really well, then.
I'm sorry but I'm sick of the pessimism. Terrible things have come before, and terrible things will come in future. Crying over and over again that the sky is falling every time Obama does anything other than sneeze is just....a waste of effort. Crises come and crises go, no? To cry about doom and gloom every time there's a vote in Congress or a new news item to chew on, it's just silly. Nobody told you there'd be days like these?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:50am
"Crises come and crises go, no?" offered as a defense to do nothing and as a refusal to hold our President accountable for his inept failures of leadership is perhaps the single most pessimistic thing I've read to date.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:06am
Okay, maybe I should've said, "Presidents come and presidents go."
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:11am
She said, she said....
Y'all act like this is the first time a president has come to the White House. You all act like we had a messiah in the making and he's let you down. You all act like you've forgotten how to have a voice except in blog posts.
Take him out, then. More power to you. Take him out with all you've got, Dems. Elect something better. I'll back him or her, once you find them. Let me know, k?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:21am
OK. Will do. So. I guess you should probably just wait quietly and patiently then, as we hash through the issues and figure out what and who we want. We'll keep you posted. Maybe stop fragging threads in the meantime?
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:50am
Okay, Sleepin', all kidding and music aside now....how is holding our President accountable going to help? You'll lhold him accountable for things that only a liberal far left President would have accomplished, starting with holding Bush and Cheney accountable. From there, you'd have Gitmo closed and from THERE you'd have Wall Street bankers nearly abolished, or at least shamed....somehow. Never mind explaining what would happen once Wall Street was shamed, nor how they would be. After that, what else would your teflon President do?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:27am
When onboard a boat that is headed to go over the waterfalls, you do not simply forgive the captain for doing little to change course simply because the current is pushing him in that direction. Instead, you scream at him to "Turn the fucking wheel!" and hope it ain't too late to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid the catastrophe.
Challenging times require great leadership. I give a rat's ass what kind of man we did or did not elect in 2008. That's a debate for the academics to explore. What I do know, however, is that we are desperately in need of a President capable of standing up to the powerful elite that would trash this country for fun and profit. Just watch Obama at the joint presser today with Clinton and really ask yourself if you are confident we have in place such a leader as he now presents himself in the Office of the President of the United States of America.
We need FDR. We got Alf Langdon, albeit with better tailored suits.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:47am
When you find the next FDR, let me know. Meantime, we got what we got. And as far as I'm concerned, he IS turning the wheel as incrementally and as pragmatically as he can.
You find someone better, Jeezus, and I'll back him 100% too.
I did not become a Democrat just to find my new party imploding, dammit.
I became a Democrat because I couldn't live with myself backing another Republican. And much as everyone says around these here parts that Obama is just another Republican, I know better.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:57am
Some days it feels like we jumped from the frying pan into the fire, doesn't it?
by stillidealistic on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:32am
Some days, yes, Stilli, it does indeed feel that way.
But we know the alternative, don't we? And, dammit, we know better than to let that alternative gain control again.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:48am
Yes, lis, we do. Although there are days, I swear, when I can't tell them apart except by the Ds and Rs behind their names...makes me VERY sad.
And because the vast majority of them are bought and paid for, the far left, whose ideals most closely match ours, will not EVER get all we want in big chunks, unless and until we get to the point where we have the Presidency and a filibuster-proof House AND Senate. That is NOT what the people seem to want. And if you don't think that is true, how do you explain all the red on the map? So how does a relatively small group of people convince the larger group, that what we want is not only what is best for the country, but best for them as well? Until our party gets its shit together and comes up with a "blueprint" that outlines our goals, shows how it is economically doable, and convinces the majority of the voters that it makes our country stronger, we are just howling at the moon.
So we can give up, change the mindset of the majority of voters, or make a bit of progress here, and a bit there. If there are other viable alternatives, I'd like to hear them.
by stillidealistic on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:34pm
Frankly, accepting as an acceptable premise that "they are all bought and paid for" without rising in full anger in defense of democracy itself is far worse than baying at the moon. Might as well lay down in the road and invite them to just run you over. Or, even worse. simply accept the rules as written for us, and allow the pretense of democracy to continue whilst the wealthy have their way with us, unfettered by any insistence upon justice or equality or even "one person, one vote."
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:45pm
It's my biggest frustration, SJ. I DO believe it. I just don't know what to do about it. AND, I believe that people who don't realize it, or won't acknowledge it, are missing the boat. If we don't find a way to get the money out of politics we are screwed, blued and tattooed. NOTHING is going to change if we don't. And now that our SC has given personhood to corporations, the rest of the world can buy influence, as well, unfettered, and under the cover of darkness.
Welcome to America. Yeah, I may be needing a name change. The flame of my idealism is getting pissed out.
by stillidealistic on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:11pm
Incrementally and pragmatically?
A vast majority of Americans think tax cuts for the wealthy is lousy policy. And it costs hundreds of billions of dollars, too.
A vast majority of Americans thought the public option was great policy.
A vast majority of Americans thought legitimate FinReg was good policy, including regulation of derivative trading, ending of Too Big To Fail; Financial Consumer Protections; etc.
If the President and the Dems - holding the Exec and both Houses of Congress - can't stand and fight on core issues that have the overwhelmoing support of the people, when will they fight?
Incremental and pragmatic? The people give them the ball with good field position. Obama and these Dems continually punt on first down. And you wonder why some complain that the game is fixed against us, with Obama and the Dems duplicitous in this charade?
This ain't about "Let's all just hold hands and make nice." This is about who will govern: We the People? Or the monied interests who presently own the game in Washington?
Obama and these Dems in Congress (with few exceptions) offers us a plain and simple answer in nearly everything they do. And they deserves nothing but contempt for choosing the side for which they most surely and adeptly play.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:44am
Slow down there, big fella.
First off, the House is just as angry as you are and Obama's compromise is not yet written in stone. So don't even jump on that wagon yet, okay?
The public option has been discussed inside out and backwards and I wish, too, that it could've been. But it wasn't. There is time to change it, through the years, thanks to Obama's HCR. We got the foot in the door, so to speak.
As far as regulation of derivative trading, etc...and the rest of your arguments about Lucy taking away the football from Charlie Brown's foot.....
...you keep saying "We", Jeezus. As if all of our entire US, as if all of our entire country, were behind YOU.
It ain't. Half of this country is either too blind or too greedy to let it be "We". And half of this country still holds a monopoly.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:57am
Sticking fingers in ears and saying "La! La! La!" when confronted with a factual argument is an inadequate response, in my estimation. But that's just me.
Re-read the specific criticism above that shows where very specific policy choices that rested in the Dem wheelhouse were torpedoed - DESPITE the fact that they were polling in high numbers at the time. It cannot be explained in any other way than Obama and the Dems being in the tank for their owners. Go ahead. Try. Incrementalism here is an excuse for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and all the lipstick in the world can't make a prom queen of this pig.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:06am
Re-read what the Dems (us, you, me, and Obama) are up against, and tell me who's sticking fingers in their ears.
This country is not moving in the direction you want it to, Jeezus. It's not moving there. Period.
Sometimes I think it's a miracle we have gotten this far.
Yes, FDR was awesome, and yes, I want another. But this country today is not polarized in the fashion it was back in FDR's day.
You're asking for the US to be one with everything we want. Polls that you quote showing 70% this and 65% that, they are polls that we all read on the left.
Point: My mother reads Rasmussen's approval rating of Obama's performance....every morning, she does this. And every morning, Ras tells my mother Obama sucks by at least 10%. Whereas, you go to TPM's polls that show a median of Ras and Gallup and all the others combined, and Obama's looking pretty damn good.
But my mother is out there, wanting him to fail. Sad but true. And Fox is there, and the GOP is there, with their great messaging and twisting and turning of all the news, and half the country thinks Obama was born in Kenya.
And yet you're expecting him to be FDR.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:15am
See my reply posted at the bottom to get away from the margin...
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:33am
It isn't pessimism it's realism Lisb. Instead of believing in a fantasy we believe in what we see and what is going on right in front of us.
by oleeb on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:32am
Right back at ya, Oleeb. I see what is going on and think that you are the one fantasizing.
So let's find some middle ground, then?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:59am
I'm sorry but I do not believe in compromises that put me in a postion of supporting something I know is wrong and harmful for the people and the nation. I refuse to do that. I'm not against compromise. I am against capitulation masquerading as compromise. I have seen enough over the years to know without any doubt at all that going along and accepting horrendous decisions made by lying, ethically befeft politicians of either or (as in this case) both parties is simply wrong. It isn't like most Democrats on Capitol Hill don't know this is the wrong thing to do. They clearly do. Even Obama says his rotten compromise contains things he knows are bad for the nation. Yet, he and other lying politicians flim flam millions like you into believing their lame and demonstrably incorrect claim that this was "the best deal we could get". It isn't. Bernie's dedicated opposition proves that and that is what the long speech was all about.
I was in Washington and working on the House side the day of the fateful vote on Reagan's destructive and corrosive tax cuts in 1981. Jim Wright, then Majority Leader, gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the right wing proposal. I was so struck by his eloquence and prscience at the time that I got a copy of the Congressional Record for that day so I would have that speech word for word. Now, 29 years later the prophetic nature of his speech is as clear as can be. Many argued against his position and poo-pooed what he had to say as too pessimistic, etc... Well time has proved Jim Wright correct and those who took your position as dead wrong. I will look for that copy of the record today if I can find the time and I will post that speech if I find it. I hope you'll read it and carefully recondier your admirable but strategically flawed viewpoint.
One last point and that is that the criticisms of Obama flow not from a simple dislike of him or his policies, nor from a position of not respecting his efforts. The criticism flows from the promises and committments and positions Obama himself took and that many of those who voted for him expected him to honor. If he wasn't being a massive hypocrite on basic principles and if he was actually coming through on any of his major promises the criticism would not be anything ike what it is. He and his boosters like to ignore the fact that he has essentially broken every major promise made during the campaign or compromised to the point where the promises have no meaning. Any and every elected official needs to be held accountable for their actions. Obma's double crossing of the voters over and over again is the source of the criticism being leveled at him from the left. And if he was sincere about some of these matters where he has watered down his position to the point of being a meangless gesture (DADT is one good example since he could suspend it with the stroke of a pen) people would give him credit but it is clear that he has not sincerely tried on most of these matters and he has, in fact, lied to us about them as with the Public Option which he continues to lie about and not own up to the fact that he himself secretly agreed to make sure no public option was included in the healthcare bill long before the legislation was moving in Congress. That is the sort of typically unethical and duplicitous behavior he campaigned against. Every bit of the criticism he has received from the left he has brought upon himself and richly deserved.
by oleeb on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:36am
I think Obama is moving into the sort of tone-deaf that believes the sound of a 3rd grade recorder ensamble is pleasing.
I'm almost starting to think he doesn't really even want to get reelected and is just doing a high-end Palin ... prepping his 2013 million-dollars-an-engagement-booked-solid-at-think-tanks-flush-with-money-from-Obama-brokered-deals speaking tour. And then, just to make our hell complete, we'll probably be treated to "Brarack's Chicago" reality series where we get to watch him pick out his new Rolls while Michele selects uniforms for their two new DREAM-slaves (from his last-minute deal with the GOP to make the path to citizenship be working as an indentured servant to a rich dude for 15 years). Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:54am
Yes, it's just being cynical.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:57am
One has to wonder why he just kicked the can down the road two years, and why is he saving this issue for his election year? Why would anyone give the GOP two years to develop and implement a campaign against it? Why would anyone think the Dems will handle it better next time around?
Did they handle anything this last time, besides blowing a 70% popularity rating for healthcare reform and winding up with the meager allotment we did? I might say the GOP schooled them, and maybe in the 21st century those will be accurate words, but when I was in school during the last century getting schooled meant you learned something.
by Gregor Zap on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:38am
One way or another we have to find the energy to persist in the name of justice and freedom; it seems to require listening to the sounds coming through the ether: from the stars and far-off galaxies. This seems to be one of those crunch times when we need to open up to the possibilities of attrition or worse, if we lose; progress if we can keep going and make life better . It'll require opening up to the truth of what's happening to us; all of us, not just our own small circles.
I thank Bernie for the lift he gave us today, and how he reminded us at his age how to fight back. For Bernie, and all of us:
by we are stardust on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:02am
BERNIE NEEDS MOAR TRACTOR!
by quinn esq on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:14am
I sent him a e-mail the day he stood up and announced he would filibuster by offering if the GOPer's felt it necessary for the Bu$h tax cuts to be extended 2 years they should also extend unemployment insurance for the same period too...tie the tax cut extension to extending unemployment insurance. So if tax cuts were that important, the GOPer's would have to give something to get something.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:06am
Good news! I have my own opinions!
Bad news! I have my own opinions!
Don't get me wrong. I love Bernie. But what is the alternative? Does anyone have an alternative that they can pass? That's the operative word. Can it get passed?
Obama solds out social security! That's the biggest news in ALL of this. Obama sold out social security!
If there is anything that needs doing to this bill, it is putting the lock back on social security. Want to get Independents vocal on this bill, there it is. Want to see if the tea baggers are real, ask them if they agree social security should be mortgaged to allow less than 2% of the population to keep millions of dollars to go with their other millions. There is nothing more longstanding in importance then retaining that social safety net. Let's talk about that, if we are going to comlpain. Not about what we give the rich. Let's talk about what we're putting on the line. It sucks to be poor, too, but we only have a few poor, a few too many, but still, they are a minority and we only have a few rich in a minority. For the time being, for as long as it lasts, most of us are in the middle and we should talk about where this hurts us, the most of us. Make it personal, people, and feelings will emerge and we will get some power behind our objection to this bill. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We need something! Letting the tax cuts expire is not really a good alternative either.
Frankly, this is the last stab the Dems have to get anything passed, and passing nothing is a pathetic legacy. For their two years with a sizable majority the Dems managed damn little. There were no other plans then Obama's with any kind of traction in the healthcare debate. There was nothing but cheap shots among the pols. All kinds of complaints, but no viable alternatives ever emerged. There were no effective deals made to get anything else passed either. We want to blame this on the GOP, we want to scream at Obama for being a bad negotiator. He did something. Anybody else?!? Anybody?
Two years to make changes, the Dems needed just a couple votes more to pass a bill, any bill. Did the Dems ever get any of those? I mean, besides healthcare reform, did the Dems get anything accomplished with their magnificent majority? All you could hear was "I don't like this" and "I don't like that." Oh yeah? What are you going to do? What have you done? Nuthin'! Obama started healthcare reform. We have a place to dig in our feet and push forward. It's not perfect, but it's something. Here we may have something too, an extension of unemployment. It's not much, but the unemployed might be able to dig in and push forward from here too. At the rate the Dems are going, those unemployed are going to thank the GOP, because they are the ones who will get this bill passed. Yeah, that really makes the whole thing smell, knowing the GOP are lining up to support this, but there is no evidence at all that the Dems can effectively accomplish any alternative.
Maybe I should have thought about this some more, but sometimes I toss things out just to see how folks react. Maybe a different perspective will lead to yet another perspective which might just be the one. I'm sure there are holes in my argument, but I always gain a lot of insight in reading the responses, and from time to time, I feel like I get something right. That's why I keep putting things out there, just hoping it might lead to something that will work.
It's also why I still golf, every now and then, I get one long and right down the center of the fairway. LOL!!!
by Gregor Zap on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:29am
Hey, you got a hole in one, in my eyes. Because you're right. Without this stupid compromise that everyone's bitching about, the Republicans would've held even unemployment bennies hostage. The Party of No that won't back anything just got our President to lean their way, in order to help....EVERYONE!
And now EVERYONE is pissed at everyone. But most especially our President.
Mind you, no one knows who to elect next, to replace our President. They just love to yell about how bad he is at his job. But hey, being a blogger with a lot of opinions is easy. Take me, for example. Ha.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:34am
Yez, that is the farce being played out by the Dems right now too. That they will get the GOP to join them in some other compromise. Like they did with the last issue...oh, wait a minute...the Dems didn't do sh&t! Maybe if they had, they could have held the House, but they had nothing to show for their two years in power except they did not know how to pass anything. I swear, they couldn't even pass gas if they ate three bowls of BBQ beans with grilled garlic bread!
DANG!!!
by Gregor Zap on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:44am
OH! And one more thing...now that Everyone is mad at Everyone, guess who sits on the sidelines watching the Dems implode? Get real, people! Obama made a deal cause he was thinking ahead and knew this is the last chance. There are just a couple weeks left of the Dem Congress. He got what he got. What did the Dems get? In two freaking years, what did they get? Was this bill some kind of surprise they didn't have time to prepare and handle? Yeah, prolly was. They would have needed another 10-20 years to think about it.
by Gregor Zap on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:48am
"If there is anything that needs doing to this bill, it is putting the lock back on social security. Want to get Independents vocal on this bill, there it is."
That's pretty well taken care of, it's got the best imprimatur possible:
The AARP isn't worried, they have come out specifically in support of the reduction in the payroll tax.
Also, it's far from the case that we have ever had a "lockbox," but you should check out the details on that for yourself, it gets complicated.
by anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:03am
Allowing all the tax cuts to expire remains the best strategy.
Those of you who actually believe the Republicans will obstruct everything else in the next Congress are just buying a pig in a poke. No Congress has ever failed to extend unemployent benefits in the middle of a recession regardless of which party was in control so that's a red herring. The other provisons of the tax compromise plan can also be won individually or as a package. It really isn't all that difficult to understand how this would work out if you didn't buy into the official lies being sprayed all over the country.
by oleeb on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:37am
My goodness but I hope you're not always this wet blanket that you appear to be. Seriously, and no personal attacks meant, but....golly, you're always so down. I do hope you have a happy home life, not that it's any of my business.
But I do.
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:43am
Wow. What does it look like when you DO mean to attack someone?
You don't like Oleeb's politics, so... he must not be gettin' any at home...?!
Fucking hilarious Lis!
by Obey on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:09am
Have no complaints at home thank you very much, but I get pretty pissed off when assholes in Washington threaten my children's future and are actively involved in destroying the things that have made the middle class possible and who have impoverished millions of my brothers and sisters (15+ million unemployed right now). As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't angry and outraged by these matters is not doing their duty as an American. It is our obligation as citizens to vigorously oppose any and all measures that will harm the country and jepordize the prosperity and stability of the nation and it's people in the years to come. We owe it to our posterity every bit as much as those who signed the Constitution understood their obligation to their posterity who happen to be us.
by oleeb on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:42am
I think you are spot-on with the most important problem with the compromise hands down. If we can only fix one thing ... that would be it. I think the assault on social security is the most insulting part of the whole thing to the American people.
But IMO you are imposing false imperative on this. We don't have to pass anything. IT EXPIRES. We've already successfully battled the unemployment extension once and it left a serious mark on the GOP. (BTW - anyone who gets unemployment isn't middle class, they are poor). Bohner said he'd vote for a middle-class only bill if that was his only option (and if it expires for everybody we've really got until like October or something to fix it for the 2011 returns). Make it his only option. We're sitting on bread-and-butter issues that a damn student council could pass. They are so scared of losing they won't play the game.
To hell with the Democratic majority's legacy - they've got like 6 days left ... if they don't have a legacy by now they don't deserve a legacy. I don't think START nor DADT are worth it, not even DREAM (I've gotta be honest, the whole military conscription part of DREAM creeps me out anyhow ... it feels like one of those "all we can get is suck, so we'll take something" kind of things to support). And I mean not even worth the deficit hit from the high-end taxes, let alone the social security issue and the corporate stuff. It's like you are resigned to put up with your party doing literally nothing for two years and think this is the ONLY legislation we'll ever see. The exact same dynamic they are setting up with Social Security gets set up with the deficit in general ... so this deal pretty much makes that a self-fulfilling prophecy as best I can tell. Instead of coming into the year cutting the deficit by $100 billion+ (as with the expired high-end tax cuts) and in a strong position to argue for progressive jobs programs(and a middle-class cut if necessary), we start it by increasing the deficit considerably leaving us in a strong position for the GOP to say we can't afford another "failed" stimulus with "all that Obama has added to the debt" this year ... leaving what money we have to be doled out to bankers and corporations through the Fed.
And that Anybody else? Anybody? Thing seems absurd. Of course not. We're in the middle of the game ... we picked the QB already. When the QB throws three interceptions are we really going to say "Sure, he threw the ball right to the other team, but at least he threw it! I didn't see anyone else in the huddle or taking any snaps. Anyone? Anyone?". Just saying. He gets criticism because he is the one who specifically put himself in the position where he is the ONLY ONE who would be expected to perform - he's not some tragic figure or a victim here. There is nobody else. We elected him. The only question is how well he meets expectations - and how well he rises to the needs of the occasion.
I thought FinReg was mediocre, but not super-damaging with some good bits. I believe HCR was very bad for America as crafted - you at least agree it should be improved. Now it seems you don't even envision passing another bill for two years and yet you think that HCR was a "starting point". Who do you see digging in their feet and pushing forward in this scenario? It's home ... we ain't moving shit. It seems like you are relying on two narratives that are mutually exclusive. You can't be paralyzed by the GOP into an inability to pass anything but shit and at the same time be in a position to make positive changes to the shit passed last time you said "sure, it's shit ... but it's a place to start and we'll make it better before the bad math consumes you." In fact. You highlight a very good point. This is like putting crap on a legislative charge card - asking to get credit for being awesome now and promising come back later (date undisclosed) and make it into something that actually meets the people's needs and they'd like. That it ... the first step to an austerity program:
I am officially putting the Democrats on bad-bill restriction. Until something notable is done to improve health care reform from it's current state, they are hereby prohibited from passing another crap bill under the premise that it's a place from which to start that can be made better. After all, it is just going to get harder to move anything from here on out.
And also. too. If this bill passes the GOP pretty much deserve "thanks" for passing the unemployment benefits, frankly. This how they'd have crafted it if they were in charge to get past a Democratic filibuster ... but they'd have probably had to make it a bit sweeter for the Democrats. When it appears your party could likely have gotten a better deal in the opposition than they did with the majority, you are at risk for a serious case of "been losing so damn long it looks like winning to me."
I'm not convinced of this deal at all.
by kgb999 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:17am
In response to LisB (above)
Even FDR knew politics wasn't a matter of building consensus, and there was certainly no consensus among the electorate during his time. Fifty years later, I encountered people who railed against him as a "socialist" or a "communist" or other such nonsense we hear thrown about these days.
FDR had a plan. He had principles. He knew he wasn't going to be popular with the banks and industry and the oligarchs of his time.
But he went to war against the oppressors in good conscience and on behalf of the people who were suffering. And he won, too.
THAT'S politics, Lis. THAT'S leadership. It's ugly. It's confrontational. And it's necessary if we are ever to gain control of our government, and all the hand-wringing in the world ain't gonna change it.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:42am
I can't dispute that, Jeezus. He was one of a kind.
Now what?
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:55am
"Now what?" is probably s good premise for a doctoral dissertation by a political scientist! ;O)
Actually, I think there is plenty that can be done, and I will try to find time to write a bit more on offering a path forward rather than simply bitching about where we are at. (Although it is vitally important to understand the present landscape - especially as it relates to just how compromised our present leadership is by their bought-and-paid-for fealty to their monied owners.)
For now, I'm going to bed. G'night, Lis.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:06am
I look forward to your next dissertation. For now, I shall say "Good night, Jeezus." Hee, always cracks me up, saying that.....
...me being agnostic, and all....
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:09am
But, yes, the bitching about where we are at could be held to a minimum, thanks. I prefer the plan and path forward. ;)
by LisB on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:11am
Lis, I wanted to answer this that you said above, but the columns were getting too narrow.
"But, number one, it's not Obama who caused a corrupt system, nor is it up to him alone to cancel said system out.
It's up to all of us to continue railing against the system. NOT the President.
Much as my family is Republican, there's one rule of law they have always had that I uphold: You don't diss the President. You honor the office that the President of the United States holds and you honor the person in the White House whether you voted for him or not.
If you have a problem with government, you work with your Rep and your Senator and you go from there. You don't diss the President."
No one is expecting 'him alone to cancel the system out', by which I assume you mean make corruption vaporize during his term. But the country hired him to do the job he told us he'd do; he hasn't in many respects, nor has he made any effort to distance himself (except in empty rhetoric) to protect people instead of Wall Street and large corporations. It's hard to know from your comments how widely you read the news (or not), or whether you just are compelled to not let any information in that might corrode your opinion of the man.
By 'railing against the system' I assume you mean that you can acknowledge how far money has infected government, and want to work toward public campaign finace or run-off voting, or lowering term limits or something. Great! But then you wouldn't be having these conversations so often grousing about others' needing to hold the President accountable; you'd be pushing the nuts-and-bolts efforts to change ;the system'. Like JEM and others, all pushing for tweaking the mechanics of the political process.
Instead, when you advise against 'dissing the President', it seems you'd rather we watch without comment or trying to hold him or the Dems in Congess accountable for their decisions and policies and alliances. And that is simply enabling him, which is my complaint with far too many Dems; it's as though you can't afford to see the Prez, especially, criticized, partially because, as you said above: I moved to this party, and now you guys are wrecking it for me and Stilli! Wow.
It's as though you can't handle criticizing the family authority figure: He/She may be tormenting you/us, but it's not polite to say so, or worse, that you've learned there is some inherent danger in doing so. But really, Lis; if you go into politics, you do so with the express understanding that the voters are allowed, no, expected to pressure you, to criticize, or offer alternatives to your behaviors. That's what politics IS.
You said many times above things of this effect: Find me this person to run; I'll be there. Tell me who; I'll be there. It's not our job to do that for you, plus,it's just another way yu can turn over your responsibility to some other candiadate, President, to do it for you, and you can again not be compelled to make informed critiques of the job that person's doing. Enabling again; making excuses; protecting him/her so your world doesn't explode in the ways you fear.
God knows, it's hard for lots of us not to bring our dysfunctional family histories and roles in them to the political table, but we need to keep trying not to, I think.
by we are stardust on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:46am
Yeah. WOW, is right. I went back and reread all of lis's comments, and I didn't see where she said you guys were wrecking it for us. She expressed a disillusionment that she and I are feeling with the democratic party. We're allowed to feel that aren't we? And, I don't think she objects to criticism of the President, same with me. We just aren't ready to throw him out with the bath water, because we don't see a viable alternative right now.
You are free to feel differently, but your sarcasm doesn't advance the discussion.
I don't see it as not being able to handle criticizing, as much as being unwilling to throw divorce out as an option before all others are explored. I don't see anything wrong with that. We LIKE our "family authority figure." We'd like to be able to keep him if we can get him to see our point of view, and do more to help us out.
But we're as frustrated with our siblings as we are with him, and feel like if they were working together to solve the problems instead of some of them siding with the opposition, and the rest going in a hundred different directions, maybe we could work this out and keep the family together.
by stillidealistic on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:02pm
"But now you can see where I'm going with this, yes? Clinton was no ideal either. Carter was no ideal either.
You know, sometimes I wonder why in hell I became a Democrat.
And you don't help. Neither does Oleeb. Neither do a lot of bloggers here. Y'all make me wonder why I woke up and became a Dem. You can understand how Stilli feels too, yes? Because it seems to me that no matter who y'all get in power, he's not good enough. He's not liberal enough. He's not strong enough.
Y'all want a matyr? What do you want? I just don't get it.
by LisB 12/11/2010 - 4:05 am
If you have a problem with government, you work with your Rep and your Senator and you go from there. You don't diss the President.
I myself broke that rule in the beginning of Bush's presidency, and again after 2006.
That's how I moved to the Democratic Party.
by LisB 12/11/2010 - 2:27 am
But, yes, the bitching about where we are at could be held to a minimum, thanks. I prefer the plan and path forward. ;)"
by LisB 12/11/2010 - 5:11 am
Those indicate what I mentioned, IMO. Now you didn't need to take any of what I said to Lis as a criticism of you, but I did notice reviewing this that you had commented that you and Lis went 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Not sure what that meant, but it may have meant that you were uncomfortable that some of are being too critical, and no very practical in your eyes. Only you know what you meant.
I now notice that I might have remarked ALSO that there really is no path forward until we clear our eyes and see what IS going on now. If we don't, why would we chart a different path forward?
by we are stardust on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:14pm
We are in complete agreement on one thing Lisb: you really, really don't get it.
by oleeb on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:16am
Now you didn't need to take any of what I said to Lis as a criticism of you...
...except that you said "you and stilli" which sorta makes it about me...You didn't need to mention me in that comment to lis, yet you did. So did I NEED to take it as criticism of me? Yeah, I think I did.
But, really, it's neither here or there. The more important point is, politicians suck, repubs and dems alike (which explains the jumping from the frying pan into the fire comment...had nothing to do with anyone being critical or practical - all you had to do was ask, if you didn't understand it.) Although, I choose to believe the dems are marginally less awful than the repubs, in practice, and way better than the repubs if we could actually pass legislation that reflected our ideals.
As far as lis's comment about dissing the President, unless I'm screwing up my urban usage of the term "dissing" it means being disrespectful. You can criticize without being disrespectful.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:28am
Then I'll try to accept your rejection of my comments, but Lis put you into the mix, and it's true I thought you were agreeing with her that 'the fire' included some of us criticizing Obama. If not, I stand corrected, but I reserve the right to nuke his whales over issues in which he's flat out wrong, which happen to be legion right now, IMO. ;o)
by we are stardust on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:16am