• What bothers me the most about folks such as "changeagain" is not that they criticize Obama.  He's a big boy and he can handle criticism, and there are many things worth criticizing.  It is the adopting of rightwing talking points that drives me nuts. 

  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    I have often thought that the left was guilty of believing conservatives in the last election when they claimed that Obama was a far left.  In the election, Obama tried to make the case he was a moderate, and that's one reason I liked him as a candidate.  I thought he presented a more moderate face and was therefore more electable.  I guess it was inevitable that he would have to eventually engage one side or another. 

  • ...to finally support Obama for something.  Essentially, Obama chose ideology over party loyality to chose the more progressive candidate.  And we are not happy about this?  Don't we wish Obama had done this more often, such as Ark?

  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    Look, protest movements are important, and if that is the role of this site, then so be it, but let's not get all confused and because those folks that think there is no difference between the two political parties. 


  • comment on a post 99% there over 3 years ago

    I am clearly a democrat.  I am not interested in weakening the democratic party.  I am interested in weakening the republican party. 

    Having said that, I am all in favor of trying to push progressive policies in the dem party while understanding that it must remain a big tent. 

    I also support trying to find ways to give 3rd parties more power in our system. 

    But most of all, I am in favor of trying to increase the numbers of people in our country who are progressive.  It seems obvious that the power of the conservative movement in the republican party is that there is such a unified conservative movement in our country.  This is what progressives need to do.

  • comment on a post A Very Pretty Face In the Crowd over 3 years ago

    ...and I suppose, Jerome Armstrong is one for giving him a platform to express his thoughts. 

    I suppose the point--and value--of Jack's work is not unlike Glenn Beck in that he is trying to get attention.  For that reason, I was a fool to make this post.  But, all the same, it's worth expressing. 

  • on a comment on The bailout problem over 3 years ago

    I hope we can agree that the health industry is pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaigns of democratic congress members to protect their hard earned gains from the last health care bill. 

    That is happening.  Right? 

    Because the republicans want to take this away from them by defunding the corporation friendly health insurance bill.  Surely, we must be seeing an industry wide push to protect the democratically provided profits.


  • on a comment on The bailout problem over 3 years ago

    Of course, perhaps the Wall Street Powers that Be are just not that strategic minded, but a tough sounding President that then gives them everything they want when no one is looking seems like the ideal politician.  Of course, perhaps all the money being sent to his political enemies is all part of the ruse. 

  • on a comment on The bailout problem over 3 years ago

    So, assuming your characterization of the President is correct, that he is a corporate dem.  Why does big business not support him?  How has he failed to win the support of Wall Street and other big corporate interests? 

    He seems to be hated.  Are they so stupid they don't understand that he plays for their team?

  • comment on a post Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter over 3 years ago

    Didn't read the post, but I loved the title. 

    Like Carter, he will later found to right about most everything.

    Like Carter, he was demonized by a radical and and deadly wrong conservative base.

    Like Carter, his hard choices set up a winning economy for the next decade.

    And like Carter, he was stabbed in the back by the left wing of the democratic party.

    Yeah, our Chocolate Carter!!!!

  • missing political opportunities to pick a fight with the republicans.  I agree with this, that he is not good at this, and I wish that he would do a better job at finding wedge issues to push them around and give votes a clearer view of the differences between democrats and republicans. 

    However, I felt the same way in the primary with Hillary Clinton, that he constantly failed to get tough.  Eventually, it became clear that this is not part of his political skill set.  Whether we like it or not, we knew who we were getting when we voted for him, and I voted for him in both the primary and the general. 

  • If baiting the conservatives is the key issue, I don't see what the difference is between appointing her as a policy czar without confirmation and a recess appointment.  Both will tick off the conservatives.  In fact there is a lot more history of cons being baited into a fight from these policy czars than recess appointments.

  • There would be no nomination battle.

    It wouldn't even come up until at the New Year.  Best case scenario, she would be confirmed in January.  Most likely scenario, she would wait for 6 months or so, and even give up or accept an recess appointment. 

  • Help me out, since I am so naive.  Why is this piss poor politics?

  • Ah, I understand.  The goal is not to make a policy difference, but to make a fight.  You see Warren as a political statement, not a progressive fighter for change.

    I get you.  For you, this is politics, not government.



Advertise Blogads