Oh whatever.

I've heard complaints about SarbOx, but not of the "perfect is the enemy of the good" variety. Usually that means something more along the lines of not doing anything because you can't do it perfectly. For instance, opposing the "good" step of health care for all children, b/c it's not the "perfect" single-payer universal coverage. SarbOx is maybe more a problem of "the law of unintended consequences." Or perhaps "too much of a good thing." Or even "the devil is in the details." This assuming you agree with the criticisms that SarbOx is bad/problematic. I don't know enough to make a sound judgement, but it usually sounds to me like typical antiregulatory whining, and given past experience, there is clearly a need for accounting oversight.

I have always admired Kennedy for his constant service to people and the regular person working for a living.  It is why I also support Edwards and feel that his message needs to get out and be understood.  The populist message is bigger than any person but it is does not have a loud voice in the media for obvious reasons.  And for those reasons Edwards has an uphill struggle to be heard.  

I am always amazed how people both on the left and the right don't readily pick up on the message that serves them and their community.  Instead they are looking for the savior leader.  

I had never paid much attention to the Third Way but just went to their website.  There is a true disconnect with calling themselves progressive and at the same time advocating against progressive ideals.  I just skimmed over The New Rules Economy.  It is very clever and seductive, but fundamentally tells people that it is the indvidual's problem if he or she is not doing well.  All is good if you understand these new rules.  Corporations really are that bad.  Yes CEO salaries are a little out of line, but it is a drop in the bucket given their revenues.  Right there, their agenda is suspect.

I was going to go on but I am developing some anger over these neo-cons masquerading as so-called progressives.

Why the f*ck do they insist on being such flaming a$$holes?

Because they can't admit they are wrong...  and they would lose their political power, and corporate sponsors.

The way NAFTA was sold was a huge lie, and instead of amending our screwed up trade to fair trade they continued the arrogance, cronyism until we are now practically on the abyss...  Populism is a way to try and swing the pendulum to a more to a sustainable and comfortable way of competing in this dog eat dog world.

Wow, using liberal frames to argue for populism.  Thats the kind of crossover that we need more of.