You're not going to have Obama to kick around any more

    By Flavius on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 10:24am |

    after Nov 2012.

    On Countdown last night Nate Silver explained that this week's special congressional elections were even worse than they had seemed on the surface. We knew that the Republican carried Anthony Weiner's Brooklyn  seat and won in the open  Nevada seat.

    Brooklyn was  discounted as Netanyahu's revenge: the district's large Jewish electorate punishing Obama for being insufficiently pro Israel.  No reason to expect that to change between now and Nov 2012 when Ed Koch will presumably endorse Rick Perry or whomever the Tea Party anoints.

     

    As for Nevada, what the NYT didn't make clear was that the depth of that disaster. It was dismissed as having always been Republican but Silver pointed out that the Rep majority  was drastically increased. And also that Obama had almost carried it in 2008. 

    In commenting on Obama's slipping approval ratings the media usually couples that  with the encouraging? news  Congress has slipped even more. What Tuesday's results may indicate is  the reason  Congress  has slipped  is because of a particularly deep decline by the Democratic congress-people..  

    What's to be done? Well if you want Obama to lose, nothing. You're in fat city.  Just stay home on Election Day and enjoy that night's results.

    Or if you don't really hate Obama so much you want that to happen , maybe it's time to call off the circular firing squad.

     

     

    Comments

    Or maybe, just maybe, it's time for the Democrats who control the White House and the Democrats who control the Senate to throw electoral caution to the winds and go to work for the working people of this country.

     


    by Red Planet on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 11:37am

    For example (h/t karoli at Crooks and Liars):

     

    The CPC's Rebuild The American Dream Framework has six parts to it. Specific policy proposals will be forthcoming, but here is the high level overview:

    • Make it in America Again - focus on bolstering U.S. manufacturing
    • Rebuild America - focus on infrastructure as a larger part of the jobs policy than the White House proposal
    • Lead the Green Industrial Revolution - blending the first two elements into a focus on green industries and products
    • Jobs for the Next Generation - Job training and education for young people
    • Not Just Jobs – Good Jobs - Reinforcing Americans' right and access to collective bargaining, promoting jobs that provide wages, benefits and security that will preserve the middle class
    • Fair Taxes – Shared Sacrifice - Pay for the program by taxing the wealthy in this country

    Surely there's a plan that those who think Obama is doing everything he can, and those  who think who could do better, can all agree on.

     

     

     


    by Red Planet on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 12:12pm

    The White House needs to continue to think harder about how to rebuild the once rock-solid and enthusiastic relationship with their base that they have spent three years neglecting, disdaining and throwing away.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 12:36pm

    I think to say Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place is an understatement.  People support Obama's policies towards jobs when stated as ideas, but not when presented as President Obama's jobs bill.  How does any Politician deal with that conundrum?  Even when he tries to do what's popular, people are against him doing what they say they want.  At some point, you have to start assuming either it's personal or all poll respondants are complete idiots.

     

      


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 12:55pm

    At some point, you have to start assuming either it's personal or all poll respondents are complete idiots.

    I'm going with (c), all of the above.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 1:02pm

    I think Linkins is onto something in the article you cite Smith, when he says:

    But I'd argue that these are the wages of the public's constant exposure to horse-race politics, which place too much focus on political personalities, and not enough on policy.

    We're guilty of the horse-race focus here, too, arguing about who's going to vote or not vote for whom in 2012 rather than what could/should be done today to improve the prospects of everyday Americans.

    So the question is, how do we promote these good policy ideas that the people support? Arguing about them always in the context of Obama's re-election prospects isn't going to get the job done.


    by Red Planet on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 1:02pm

    I was thinking about a possible Obama commercial for 2012 based on the old game show Concentration.  In the ad, the puzzle pieces are all those policies and ideas that people like, which get matched and the puzzle keeps getting more and more pieces revealed until finally, the voice-over asks, who is the person that proposed or implemented all those ideas? and the full puzzle is revealed; President Barack Obama ...


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 1:36pm

    I would say it's personal at this point.  Obama is presiding over double-digit real unemployment and a double dip recession that is the country's worst economic experience since The Great Depression.  At this point, he is perceived as a failure, and so whatever his name is attached to automatically loses appeal.

    For some reason Obama and his team have never quite managed to grasp the extent of the emergency the country and his administration are facing, an emergency with both economic and political dimensions.  He has been dreadfully advised by political hacks and Wall Street insiders who either don't understand the problem, or are part of the problem.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 1:53pm

    I think you're right on, Dan. And a President does select his advisors, does he not?

    Here's a summary of some advice I wish he'd take, from an old political fighter:

    What should the White House do? Panic!

    This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.

    1. Fire somebody. This may be news to you, but things are not going well. It's not going to work with the same team, the same strategy and the same excuses.
    2. Indict people. There are people in American finance who haven't been held responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country. People are livid. Show them that you are livid, too.
    3. Make a case like a Democrat. While we are going along with the Republican austerity garbage, who is making the case against it? It's not the Democrats!
    4. Hold fast to an explanation. Stick to your rationale for what has happened and what is going to happen under your leadership. Never say things are improving because evidently they are not.

    The course we are on is not working. The hour is late and the need is great. Fire. Indict. Fight.

    That's Carville.


    by Red Planet on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:00pm

    I always liked that refugee from the dick tracy comic strip(ol'cobrahead...)               


    by jollyroger on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 5:01pm

    Obama could do worse than hiring the Ragin' Cajun.  If he hired Carville, it would show that he understands plain talk and is willing to listen to words he hasn't so far wanted to hear.

    I can't see a thing wrong with any one of the items on Carville's list.  We've all been ready for a good fight for a long time.  We're still ready.


    by Ramona on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 6:55pm

    Who chooses the Presidents advisors?


    by Resistance on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 4:12am

    A politician deals with this conundrum by actually having a plan that meets the needs of the nation and then implementing that plan rather than chasing easy-to-manipulate polling numbers all over the policy map as his (well, my) adversaries pump millions dollars into generating pockets of informational instability that predictably result in confused responses.

    Justifying policy by chasing polls 42 ... 36 ... 24 .... 16 months out from an election is some amateur bullshit. A real leader shapes opinion, they are not enslaved by it.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 2:30pm

    "A real leader shapes opinion."

    Just wanted to roll that around on my tongue. Tastes good.


    by Red Planet on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 9:38am

    You realize that:

    (a) people who are critical of Obama's job performance are critical based on the actions and outcomes of the presidency ... not on if they like or hate Obama. This consistent mischaracterization really makes me wonder if you guys aren't just projecting. Bear in mind, just because you personally don't give a fuck about outcomes and base your politics entirely on personalities and personal loyalty doesn't mean that's what everyone else uses when making decisions.

    and (b) Democrats can talk as nice as you please to each other ... that still won't translate into a win in Nevada. Harry Reid was the only Democrat who could possibly prevail in Nevada in this environment. If there was ever a bellweather indicating how abjectly inane the state of political pudrity ... Nevada holds that spot.

    Democrats appear wholly unable to wrap their heads around what's happening in the nation. We hate you. Not because you are too liberal. Not because you didn't compromise with republicans enough. But because everything about how and why those who run your party choose to do things sucks great big donkey dicks. Until that changes, you are going to lose elections.

    The biggest miscalculation establishment democrats are currently making is to draw the conclusion that because the voting public isn't reacting according to their (absurdly moronic) fantasy political formula that this somehow means the voting public is comprised of idiots who aren't paying attention. The elitist disdain currently empowered Democrats show for anyone who isn't them is palpable. Good luck winning elections with *THAT*.

    Ironically, Obama isn't going to lose. He's simply going to ensure the defeat of many, many down-ticket Democrats for the next two cycles. The bizarre and singular focus of the party on a single personality - at the expense of literally everything else - is setting up the potential for one of the most delicious Pyrrhic victories in the history of American politics.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 2:12pm

    Obama should step down for the good of the party?

    but he wont, he's to arrogant to admit he was a failure as a leader. HE surrounded himself, with worthless advisors.

    The people are reaping what he sowed.

    President Obama inherited the mess that's true, his policies have failed to adequately address the underlying problem.

    NOW!  he wants to talk about helping homeowners? Too little; too late.

    Or was that the plan all along, so he could win a second term? To heck with all those who were sacrificed in the first term.   


    by Resistance on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 2:28pm

    Pretty sure the scam was to drag his feet helping homeowners until the bankers managed to foreclose on the bulk of outstanding bad loans. The ability to do that is a VERY crucial aspect of why banks were willing to write all these bad loans in the first place. Then he'd swoop in at the "height" of the crisis, propose some lame thing or another, watch it waffle for six months behind his questionable support ... and then sign something absurdly weak months after the bulk of foreclosures had already been executed - blaming the suffering on GOP obstruction.

    They almost pulled it off too. If it weren't for Schneiderman in NY, Obama had arranged to let the banks off the hook for all of it, whitewash their practices and open the floodgates on a whole new raft of undocumented foreclosures ... all for the low, low price of $20 billion split between all of the banks involved (ironically, $20 billion is also the amount Obama sort-of required BP to set aside for all damages related to the Deepwater disaster ... that's apparently his sweet spot). Hell, such a deal could still happen (although it looks far less likely than it did a few weeks ago) ... but the timing is increasingly fucked. Looks like Obama got shafted on that one. Not sure what his fallback will be.

    As far as America goes, it really feels like having Obama do this shit largely unopposed is *far* worse than having a Republican trying to do the exact same things yet having to fight Democrats at every turn in order to possibly pull it off. And there is no question that the Democratic partisan psyche would absolutely be opposing Republicans on ALL of this crap if Dems were in opposition and the GOP were carrying it's water.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:08pm

    While I understand your point made in your other comment about not slavishly following public opinion, you appear to be conflating being critical of Obama's job performance in general with being critical of Obama's jobs bill specifically. If you agree with each point in there if and only if it's not attached to Obama's name (which is what Mr. Smith's post suggests is true for many people), then that sounds like an emotional reaction and not a logical one.

    Sure, some people who are critical of Obama's job performance are critical based on his actions and their outcomes, but I think you're extrapolating inaccurately if you think that applies to most of the people who are critical of Obama's job performance. Most people are far too ignorant to be critical of Obama for the right reasons, and most people are far too ignorant to praise Obama for the right reasons. (I hope you can agree that he has done some things right.)

    I'm sure Mr. Smith wasn't trying to imply that everyone who was critical of Obama was critical for purely emotional reasons, since I've seen him be critical of Obama as well.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:00pm

    You are mixing up two distinct comments I made. The observations I made in my comment to Mr. Smith represent the entirety of what I desired to say in reaction to his comment, which I distilled to the question "how should a politician deal with [it]?"
     

    The comment you are responding to here is in response to the ideas expressed in the topline post. I find these lines especially germane to my decision to say what I did.

    Well if you want Obama to lose, nothing. You're in fat city.  Just stay home on Election Day and enjoy that night's results.

    Or if you don't really hate Obama so much you want that to happen , maybe it's time to call off the circular firing squad.

    I'm certainly not the most well-educated among the Dagfolk, but it seems pretty difficult to parse that in any fashion other than as an assertion a person's desire to no longer have Obama as president is entirely rooted in a hatred of Obama personally. Additionally, it seems pretty difficult to pretend this isn't laser-focused at liberal activists as opposed to a discussion of the general voting public.

    Most people are far too ignorant to be critical of Obama for the right reasons, and most people are far too ignorant to praise Obama for the right reasons. (I hope you can agree that he has done some things right.)

    Yep. That's the exact elitist disdain I was talking about. Good luck with that.

     


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:25pm

    You're correct that I was mixing up the two comments, because until you emphasized that one line in the original post, I couldn't tell what you would otherwise be referring to. That sentence does not mean what you seemed to imply, although I see the similarities. Being critical of Obama is not the same as hoping Obama loses to a Republican in 2012. However, if your point is that one can hope that Obama loses to a Republican in 2012 without hating him, then I agree.

    As to your last point, what you call "elitist disdain", I call "realism". Do you honestly think that the majority of people are well-informed on the issues? If not, then how is the way I framed it elitism? If you honestly do believe that, then, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't see any way we'd change each other's minds on that.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:37pm

     

    You're right, Verified, I didn't mean to imply that ...


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:55pm

    Ummm ... for the record, I never implied that you meant to imply that. I was framed.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:08pm

    Well, when one is projecting, it helps to put it in a frame.  :-)


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:15pm

    Now THAT'S punditry I can get behind!


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 5:33pm

    Guilty as charged. I apologize for that particular confusion.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:15pm

    This consistent mischaracterization really makes me wonder if you guys aren't just projecting. Bear in mind, just because you personally don't give a fuck about outcomes

     

    I reject the accusation  about outcomes. In 2006 I hosted 3 days of get out the vote calling at the request of Move On. . In 2010 I spent 5 days going door to door. Not because I love doing those things, I hate them , but precisely to try and affect the outcomes. Perhaps you did more  but I paid my dues.

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:20pm

    Electing Democrats is not an outcome as far as the nation is concerned. That is simply a means to an end. Outcomes are the what gets accomplished in government by policy makers after a successful election campaign.

    In many ways this just solidifes my point. You don't give a fuck what they do once in office ... as long as you elect a Democrat, you consider it job done.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:32pm

    Talk about disdain!

    In many ways this just solidifes my point. You don't give a fuck what they do once in office ... as long as you elect a Democrat, you consider it job done.

    Just because you work to elect a Democrat, it doesn't imply that you don't care what they do once they're in office. You're really reading between some pretty thin damn lines there.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:40pm

    Sure. I never implied differently. Bear in mind I too did a fair amount of GOTV for Democrats, not only in 2008 ... but also in 2010 for Harry Reid.

    But, in context, working as a partisan grunt is the ONLY example Flavius has given of caring about outcomes. If this is not the case, it seems incumbent on Flavius to clarify ... as any confusion here is a result of his words. Thus far, there is only a single line that has been offered by Flavius to follow here.

    You are inventing a random position for him that suits how you'd like the debate framed - well beyond what he has actually said - and projecting the results of your fantasy on this conversation.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 3:57pm

    You are inventing a random position for him that suits how you'd like the debate framed - well beyond what he has actually said - and projecting the results of your fantasy on this conversation.

    No, I'm pointing out that you're inventing that random position, apparently based on the assumption that because he didn't mention doing X, he didn't do X. I am, appropriately enough, remaining agnostic on that issue. Maybe it is all he cares about, but I'm not willing to make that leap of faith. Heck for that matter, I'm even willing to give him (and you) the benefit of the doubt.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:15pm

    Not at all correct. Go back and read the thread.

    It started because I non-declaritively wondered if what I see as a consistent strawman proffered by the same people over and over - that liberal Democrats who worked to elect Obama in '08 and might be expected to support him again in '12 by virtue of his Democratic label are considering not doing so specifically out of a personal hatred of Obama - isn't ultimately a case of those who consistently raise said strawman engaging in projection. Regardless if my speculation on that point is accurate, the strawman itself is abject demonstrative bullshit.

    You can try and pretend as if this post was focused at the general voting population ... but that doesn't really explain the "Circular Firing Squad" dig. So, I'm calling bullshit. If you want to correct this, I'm all ears for an explanation.

    Now the converse to an assertion that ex-Obama supporters are motivated by blind hatred would be that active Obama supporters are motivated by blind love and loyalty. That doesn't really leave any room to assess real-life outcomes in the support paradigm  ... and I crafted a sentence highlighting this.

    Flavius, in turn, asserted that no, no, no. It was totally unfair of me to say he doesn't care about policy outcomes because HE WORKED TO ELECT DEMOCRATS. So did I. The big difference between us: when the Democrats I elect don't push for the outcomes I elected them to achieve, I recommend not voting for them again.

    OTOH, based on Flavius' words here, he considers working for an entirely partisan purpose evidence he cares about outcomes ... even as the people we worked to elect produce shitty outcome after shitty outcome and Flavius excoriates anyone for suggesting maybe don't vote for people who yield such shitty outcomes again.

    Again. If there is something more to the decision matrix behind why Flavius chooses to support a politician beyond their Democratness ... it simply can not be extrapolated from the words he has shared. Whereas, I feel my extrapolation is a perfectly valid (although admittedly potentially inaccurate) logical extension of the exact ideas presented in this post - and certainly a proportionate response within the field of fair play considering the sentence Flavius decided to craft that kicked this whole thing off.

    If you don't like me using this tactic ... then you should hope at some point the people posting to the topline stop doing exactly what you are criticizing me for which has illicited this reaction from me. I don't get my panties in a bunch, I have no problem responding under any terms of engagement y'all want choose to bring ... but all this goddamn whining every time someone gives back exactly as good as they get is getting wearisome to say the least.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 8:41pm

    The "only example" remark suggests that you have not read anything by Flavius but the one sentence you have responded to. Whether you agree with him or not, he has consistently measured outcomes as a matter of actual suffering by actual people.

    You bring forth a fair and welcome challenge. No need to impute motives to deliver it.


    by moat on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 9:31pm

    If this is not the case, it seems incumbent on Flavius to clarify ... as any confusion here is a result of his words

    Boring anecdote

    I once took a course which consisted of considering landmark judicial decisions: Supreme Court , or various Appeal Courts: Workers Rights, Anti Trust, Freedom of Speech , Capital Punishment, Voting Rights, whatever.

    On the first day the instructor asked for a show of hands , Republicans vs Democratic. The Republicans - including me - were a minority.

    The cases selected were always split decisions: the court's decision and the dissents both brilliantly argued.  And in  every case I agreed with the position of the liberals. At the end of the year we had another show of hands. This time most were Republicans with only a handful of Democrats, including me.

    Which I've remained ever since. Not based on one issue but because I would prefer to live in a society which plays by the rules crafted by Hand, Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, Brandeis, Warren, Brennan, and the hardy four trying to hold the line against Roberts, Alito , Thomas  and whomever would get added to that line up if we made the mistake of electing Perry, Romney etc.

    I'm a Democrat because even when they - and I include Obama - take a position with which I disagree I know that given a chance the Republicans would do worse.

    So the Outcome I want is to keep the Republican out.


    by Flavius on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 10:56pm

    Not boring at all. My transformation away from my Republican upbringing was much more gradual. I really can't put a finger on what changed my mind.


    by Donal on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 8:30am

    And just to clarify. I have a deep-rooted and unapologetic disdain for the practice of making decisions exclusively based on partisan metrics. That disdain will often carry over to the people who embrace this practice when that embrace leads them to argue it's benefits to others.

    And I'm not sorry at all. If you aren't uncomfortable about the disdain you feel for the American majority ... own it. Just don't try and pretend like it's going to win your party any elections. It won't.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:07pm

    a) You seem might confident in your ability to analyze my psychological state based off my pointing out that Americans are not well-informed on issues. (Disdain?)

    b) Are you suggesting that winning elections is more important than truth? Because I'm not pointing out that they're ill-informed because I'm trying to win elections. I'm pointing it out because I think it's the truth. Would you prefer that I not point out the truth as I see it?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:11pm

    The impression though is after the Democrats get elected, the die hard supporters don't want to hear criticism, for fear the democrats won't get re- elected.

    What; you'd rather have a Republican instead?  Spoiler

    Keep electing them and ignore the fact, that once they are in office, they DO ignore the base. But don't criticize them, we need to win the next election.

    Same old BS;  death by a thousand cuts and eventually the two capitalist parties quiet the dissenting voices.

    Social network (socialism) either destroyed or neutered. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 4:11pm

    The above assumes that there is absolutely no difference between the Democrats and the GOP. I would note that Democrats do not have an active program to keeps blacks from voting as one difference.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 7:18pm

    I'm sure the capitalist's servant;  the democratic wing; will continue to exploit this distinction?

    "The Elgin writer says that we shall "jeopardize the best interests of the Socialist Party" if we insist upon the political equality of the Negro. I say that the Socialist Party would be false to its historic mission, violate the fundamental principles of Socialism, deny its philosophy and repudiate its own teachings if, on account of race considerations, it sought to exclude any human being from political equality and economic freedom. Then, indeed, would it not only "jeopardize" its best interests, but forfeit its very life, for it would soon be scorned and deserted as a thing unclean, leaving but a stench in the nostrils of honest men.

    Foolish and vain indeed is the workingman who makes the color of his skin the stepping-stone to his imaginary superiority. The trouble is with his head, and if he can get that right he will find that what ails him is not superiority but inferiority, and that he, as well as the Negro he despises, is the victim of wage-slavery, which robs him of what he produces and keeps both him and the Negro tied down to the dead level of ignorance and degradation.

     http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

    •  

    by Resistance on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 11:04pm

    Negroes will make their own decisions on where they will place their votes. Nothing in your cut and paste deals with the voting assault going on today. Your Socialists are not going to have Negro voters if the GOP has taken away voting rights.

    Strong on theory. Nothing on applied politics that make a difference today.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/15/2011 - 11:13pm

    Blame the torpid workers, to blind to see the game is rigged against us.

    As for your cut and paste remarks; as though it's an attempt to diminish the truth.

    Eugene Debs gave his life; literally for ALL workers rights.

    You on the other hand, fail to appreciate, he exposed the corruptness that you support and buy into. You keep protecting the (Wage) /slave traders.  

    The Negroes you speak of will reject the Republicans because; they see the prejudicial barriers erected, and so of course they'll vote for the other Capitalist choice. The democrats treat them better, like the old carpetbaggers did.

    Until the election is over.   

    Either way an assured expectation, a candidate of the capitalists will win.

    "You don't like this (Republican) capitalist candidate, let us give you another?" How about a ( r - Democrat) capitalist candidate?"

    Them big mean republicans. You tell em rmrd

    Eat it up, because it's all the capitalists will allow. 

    MSM will assure their capitalist friends; that you'll never see a viable alternative.  

    Monied interests will make sure, any President serves them, not the worker.

    But you keep believing they'll  have a change of heart? You'll keep empowering them to continue the deception. "They're not as bad as the other guy" 

    Works for them,  "you tell 'em rmrd."


    by Resistance on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 1:14am

    If you read Ayn Rand in detail, she also criticized racism against Negroes. That did not mean that blacks should follow Rand in lockstep. Nor did it mean that most of Rand's supporters were not racists. Palin was prayed over by a witch-hunting black Kenyan minister and may have had sexual relations with a black guy. Despite her contact with black people, Palin would still not be my choice for President.

    Socialists can make all sorts of claims because they have never been in charge of anything. Once Socialists are in charge, it is likely that the same ethnic diversity issues would arise within the party.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 8:34am

    While you present moral superiority because you have decided to opt out of the two party system, don't delude yourself that those of us working to preserve voting rights are your moral inferiors. The moral superiority is offensive.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 9:26am

    What is offensive, is those who capitulate. YOU know the two parties are corrupt.

    Reminding me  of the folks in Libya, willing to lay down their lives because they wouldn't accept Ghaddafi or his successor sons.

    Brave people, willing to take up arms, against a corrupt regime

    In this country, we don't need to take up arms, we only have to vote both corrupt parties out of power.  

    We had the chance and instead we listened to the siren song  "vote for the lesser of the two evils, it's our only choice." 


    by Resistance on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 1:52pm

    Stop blogging and follow your own advice.

    Edit to make clear that I'm not advocating you do something violent since I really don't know you.

    The fact of the matter is that people like those in Wisconsin are choosing ballots over bullets.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/16/2011 - 6:13pm

    What do you want to bet, they voted for the Democrats? The other wing of the two winged Capitalist beast.

    The only difference between the two wings, is who gets the spoils.

    Capitalism failed in '29, it has failed again.  It is rotten at it's core, it is diseased, and it is apparent it is paralyzed, apparently it is on life support.

    If the private means of production is paralyzed;...... are the workers supposed to role over and die with it?


    by Resistance on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 4:21am

    This thread has passed its'  "sell by" date  Let's move on..


    by Flavius on Sat, 09/17/2011 - 10:20pm

    Latest Comments