In the present arrangement in the United States, people vote for candidates selected for them by elites.  Usually the candidates come from the same class of elites.  The result is not surprising: although the faces change, the policies continue.

If people want things to change in any substantial way, they need to start thinking about changing the shape of their institutions.  This will not be accomplished by new heads on old bodies, but by actual changes in behavior and relationships.  And given the magnitude of the task, it can’t occur overnight, the way elections do.

Anarcissie—Of course you’re right that “being passionate” does not bring change, but translating that passion into acting can at least nudge things in the right direction. E.g., caring enough to attend a town meeting, or even calling and writing every legislator you vote for as well as the DMC and Move On. Obama only got elected because his candidacy generated enough passion for the young people who were swayed by his rhetoric to organize their communities as well as vote for him.

OzarkMichael, August 26 at 7:56 am

The Last Word

Thanks, Michael, for a terrific exchange., I look forward to further such on other threads.

Sepharad:
‘Henry Waxman, Paul Krugman, and 70% of the American people are passionate about health reform—obviously not enough, or so it seems so far.’

Being passionate about something does not, in itself, change the power relationships around the something.

In the case of a number of present issues, including the ones this article is about, Democrats showed sufficient passion to elect the president and substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.  Their leaders then sold out, and will evidently continue to sell out.  I imagine the experience has chilled the passion somewhat, although nothing seems to inspire the thought that there might be something wrong with the social order in which these things happen, something which might be changed.

By the by, getting all our children covered is far more important than your “principles”, or mine. What sort of “principles” allow children to suffer or die because of ideology?

Thats a hard question. Ask the people who wrote the legislation if their “principles” were worth shipwrecking the whole project. I will say a little more in this post and then i done on this thread. Please ardee, have the last word, as you have been very kind to have such a forthright discussion with me.

We will see no meaningful health care reform , as we will see no real attempts to curtail govt waste and abuse in the areas of military spending to name one such, because of the reasons I enumerate above. I would add that, had Edward Kennedy been healthy, we might have seen a bill hammered out in the Senate. It might not have been one to be proud of, but it would have been a starting point perhaps.

Yes, it would have been a crowning glory to his career.
 
Imagine if he was around, Somehow i think he would have conferred with Obama instead of claiming healthcare as his independant project. Kennedy liked to work with Presidents, while other Congressional leaders like to stake out their own claim as large as they can make it. Kennedy understood how to harness others to his causes, how to get the most our of allies, and intimidate opponents with some populism when needed.

Also, a little of his thunder from the senate floor would be preferable to this closed door stuff. I always liked Teddy’s style, and passion, if not the substance.

I missed him this year, and will think of him now and then when their are debates and the Dems lurch from center to Left searching for that core, that soul, that consistancy… which went by the name of Edward Kennedy.

Reasonable objections turn into suspicion which turns into resistance. Thats what happens when people realize they are being lied to about things that matter to them.

You ask about the children without coverage. Must I drop all my principles and ideals to accomplish that?

I respond once more because you make such effort to continue, and in a fashion I cannot help admire. But I do not admire, nor condone the way you see govt distorting reform but seem hard pressed to deflect with faint condemnation the control of the health care industry over the process.

By the by, getting all our children covered is far more important than your “principles”, or mine. What sort of “principles” allow children to suffer or die because of ideology?

“I think Obama’s numbers are as bad as they look and it has nothing to do with big money.”

Of course it has everything to do with big money. This idea of reform is a populist one and , despite the efforts of some to deny it,  a popular one as well.

  This attempted reform is in fact a perfect example of everything wrong with our govt. It is led by, fueled by and responsive to, the continued search for more and greater profit, not the welfare of the people.

If the reform of health care was done in a bubble, immune from influence and subject only to the needs of the public and the attempt to come up with an efficient and workable health care system, we would see single payer in a heartbeat.

But, of course, the 700 million dollars Obama collected to buy the White House, coupled with the monies distributed to the legislators as campaign contributions, junkets, golf trips, cruises et al and topped with a delicious serving of a retirement career as a very well paid lobbyist all combine to make the process an absurd one.

We will see no meaningful health care reform , as we will see no real attempts to curtail govt waste and abuse in the areas of military spending to name one such, because of the reasons I enumerate above. I would add that, had Edward Kennedy been healthy, we might have seen a bill hammered out in the Senate. It might not have been one to be proud of, but it would have been a starting point perhaps.

Henry Waxman, Paul Krugman, and 70% of the American people are passionate about health reform—obviously not enough, or so it seems so far.

What you insist is an unpopular policy is denied by every poll that states the public WANTS health care reform, many polls indicate the universal health care is favored as well, this despite the corruption of a plan that does not even exist as yet by the propaganda dispensed by the industry. The absurdity of ‘death panels”, euthanasia for the elderly and all that crap shows this plain as day.

ardee, please dont stop yet, because even if we disagree its a good talk.

70% of Americans think we need healthcare reform.
You are one of them. So am I. Yes, its very popular, and rightfully so.

This particular legislation might not be the right kind of healthcare reform. Maybe it is not so popular. It isnt because of big money propaganda and astroturf. Its real people like me with concerns.

Its just you and me for a minute. Why cant we acknowledge that the other side is real?

My real observations and questions:

I know Obama wants single payer in 10 years. I know this is a step towards that, but is it merely potential or inevitable to get to single payer if this legislation gets passed? Since its so complicated and secret, no one knows. What am I signing on to if i support this bill? More than i bargained for. This creates distrust.

I know he wants all abortions covered and the legislation has room to include that. Obama says abortion isnt covered, but I remember that he made a promise to get it covered on the campaign trail.

And when i think of the proposed amendments which excluded abortions from the healthcare coverage(except for the life of the mother) they were all voted down or wouldnt be voted on. Why?

Here is one amendment in the Senate:

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=75f521c9-1b78-be3e-e037-41a1d18d66c3&Month=7&Year=2009

There is a something insidious about this legislation, which wasnt publically discussed but was nearly passed anyway. I dont blame people for wondering if these ‘death panels’ wont eventually be forced on people later. I have to admit a concern about it myself.

Reasonable objections turn into suspicion which turns into resistance. Thats what happens when people realize they are being lied to about things that matter to them.

You ask about the children without coverage. Must I drop all my principles and ideals to accomplish that?

A last effort, then we should agree to disagree methinks. You may, of course, have the last rebuttal.

Big Pharma cut an early deal with the Obama administration because they dreaded the thought of competitive bidding for pharmaceuticals. Their profits are secured by this pact.

What you insist is an unpopular policy is denied by every poll that states the public WANTS health care reform, many polls indicate the universal health care is favored as well, this despite the corruption of a plan that does not even exist as yet by the propaganda dispensed by the industry. The absurdity of ‘death panels”, euthanasia for the elderly and all that crap shows this plain as day.

You may, of course, frame your argument any way you choose, but this is not a “liberal issue” , people are actually dying. 11 million children have no health care, why on earth do you not want them covered?

ardee said: Wait a hold it fella! Money spent to push a health care reform plan in the direction of saving profits not streamlining ,making more inclusive and less expensive is in no way interpreted as such pie-in-the-sky as you are serving.

Yes big Pharma and the Insurance industry are “backing” the Democratic incompetence as well as spending millions on disinformation as well. But you are painting a picture of them as altruistic when they are pirates protecting their pillaged profits.

Well, you are right. Very little of this is being done altruistically. But the Insurance industry is stacking heavily against Obama, Pharma industry stacked heavily for Obama and they have put far more money into the fight.

In the face of an unpopular liberal policy, it is a very popular theme on Truthdig to expound that the people have been fooled by the mighty corporations/MSM. This tends to make the Truthdig discussions a bit brittle. I dont include yourself and some others in that brittleness.

My point isnt ‘Insurance good, Pharma bad’. My point isnt that the big money is evil, although I recall both McCain and Obama both ran against it, and I might have similar feelings. Obama was very big on how terrible it is to cut deal with Big Pharma. But that isnt really my focus today.

My point is that the big bucks are more behind Obama than against, not only before election but ever since then. Nothing wrong with that, its legal. My point is that big money isnt hurting his approval numbers.

I think his popularity and temporary lack thereof… reflects a real public perception. This suggests of a serious problem with the policy, or possibly the presentation. The longer he stays in this mode the more these numbers solidify.

So I am with you. For his political future he needs to bail out. But like you i am not a politician.  Idealism is in short supply so i could never actually advise Obama to drop principles. Yes, even idealism i disagree with is a precious resourse.

OzarkMichael, August 24 at 10:39 pm #

ardee said: Any discussion of the public opinion of health care reform must include the numbers in favor,plus the amounts of money being spent by Insurance and Pharma to distort what is being attempted.

True, especially that most of the money is being spent FOR Obama and not against him. Pharma is tossing unheard of amounts in favor of the health care plan, dwarfing the money that Insurance spends in opposition. 180 million from Pharma!

So count the money. But apportion Big Pharma to Obama’s side, they have been backing him for months.

Wait a hold it fella! Money spent to push a health care reform plan in the direction of saving profits not streamlining ,making more inclusive and less expensive is in no way interpreted as such pie-in-the-sky as you are serving.

Yes big Pharma and the Insurance industry are “backing” the Democratic incompetence as well as spending millions on disinformation as well. But you are painting a picture of them as altruistic when they are pirates protecting their pillaged profits.

ardee said: Any discussion of the public opinion of health care reform must include the numbers in favor,plus the amounts of money being spent by Insurance and Pharma to distort what is being attempted.

True, especially that most of the money is being spent FOR Obama and not against him. Pharma is tossing unheard of amounts in favor of the health care plan, dwarfing the money that Insurance spends in opposition. 180 million from Pharma!

Obama cut a back room deal with Pharma. Maybe you didnt know. The very people he promised not to cut a deal with! and he did it by the very method(secret closed door meeting) which as a candidate he said shouldnt be done.

So count the money. But apportion Big Pharma to Obama’s side, they have been backing him for months. 

I think Obama’s numbers are as bad as they look and it has nothing to do with big money.

Why limit this to one party alone ? Both parties are totally heartless to the core. It’s just that one party makes no bones about it while the other one snivels and stabs ! What needs to be done is more people need to vote with open minds and hearts on the issues instead of on party and all this “we’ll get to the issues after the election is over” nonsense. All this “a vote for Independent X is a vote for more Republicans” has just got to stop completely. Democrats have their passions but for the same corporate interests as the Republicans and without new parties getting a say, these two are “free” to laugh at us and play us for fools. I voted on the issues and thus glad I voted for Nader !

Any discussion of the public opinion of health care reform must include the numbers in favor,plus the amounts of money being spent by Insurance and Pharma to distort what is being attempted.

To say that the nation is center-right discounts the numerous findings that, on the issues, this nation is actually center left.

Marshall you are probably correct about my perceptions of “wing nuts” - I live in Texas.  I did not mean to imply that there were not centrists, but that they were not center right.  I fit in politcally right where you do, but I don’t consider myself to the right of center, still more to the left….especially regarding health care and the wars.

Marshall—I doubt if the American public should be called “center-right”.  This suggests a sort of ideological coherence and balance which I don’t think exists outside of maybe 10% of the population.  Something like 40% of the electorate, however, will vote for anything they see as in their immediate self-interest.  My guess is that most of them would see something like an extension of Medicare as in their immediate self-interest, so that few Congresspeople would lose a significant amount of votes directly because of having voted for it.  What they would lose, however, is many, many dollars, which would go to their opponents and to PACs with orders to search and destroy by whatever means was necessary.  Many billions of dollars—15% of the American economy—are at stake, and the present beneficiaries aren’t going to fool around.

Mr. O’s job is unenviable—he’s supposed to keep the cow from moving while it’s being milked, and the cow is getting restless.

By AuntBec, August 24 at 11:52 am #

I don’t know where you live, but perhaps that influences your perception of the right as a monolithic party of wing-nuts.  I’m a centrist for example (pro-choice, support stem-cell research, fiscal conservative) as are the many independents whom we’ve seen wield considerable power in the elections.  The far left’s stereotyping of the right is a convenient way to trivialize the opposition but hardly reflects reality.  And obviously the blue dogs struck a resonating center-right chord within the democratic party itself.  And I think the public’s negative reaction to health care overhaul and massive stimulus funding is evidence aplenty of its misgivings with large govt. run programs.  The polling numbers are pretty clear on these issues.

By ardee, August 24 at 5:22 am #

While your cited poll result may show majority support for “health care reform” (whatever that might mean), it only illustrates my point that americans like the *idea* of such reform but recognize that the details are messy and may result in a system that’s no better or even worse.  Polls also show a majority are happy with the their employer-provided health care so its easy to cite individual stats out of context and draw most any conclusion.

OzarkMichael, August 23 at 8:34 pm

ardee, if you were Obama’s advisor, would you tell him to compromise and get a weak version of the Bill passed so you could claim victory? Would you be the realist and just back out like Clinton did? Or would go for broke, bet the farm, and stay with idealism, the principles Obama really wanted all along?

Firstly I would commend you for a thoughtful and interesting post.

Were I an advisor my thrust would be to help re-election chances, thus the question is a difficult one to balance a response.

As a political advisor I would probably recommend getting something, anything passed, for two reasons in fact. One of course is that Obama can then show the voters a successful bill, and secondly, because a bill can be revised and improved at a later date.

But as a private citizen who believes our current health care system an economic fiasco and a death trap for so many I think Obama should use the all too frequently untapped resource available to him…We the people.

Marshall’s comments lead us right back to the same ol’ bull**** that this country is center-right.  No one I know is center right.  They are either progressive, which is now termed the “far left”, or a ridiculous example of the wing nut “far right”.  Where are these centrists you speak of Marshall?  The “centrists” you speak of still have their McCain/Palin stickers on their cars…..

As far as money being the culprit for Obama’s declining numbers, John McCain et all spent alot of money trying to make Obama look bad. I dont think that big money made Obama look bad then or now.
.........................
OzakMichael

John McCain was outspent by Obama by a large margin. Obama raised and spent over 700 million dollars buying the White House. Bad example.

The monies spent by the Health Care Industry is not only buying our legislators but is buying reams of propaganda as well. In the absence of any opposition fromt he Democrats it is doubly effective.

As to the usual stuff from Marshall, who would have us believe his far right nonsense to be the opinion of the majority. He conveniently omits the polls that show about 70% OF US SUPPORT REFORM TO THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.

Much of the motivation behind Obama being voted into office was an idealism
born of his race and and the unpopularity of the previous administration.  Much of
the support for health care reform was for the IDEA of reform, not the messy
details that always complicate idealism.  It’s no surprise that both Obama and
health care reform are suffering from the same reality cocktail and it’s not the
Repubs that are responsible; the Dems have done themselves in without Repubs
even having to present a competing plan.  Sure, bewildered liberals can bogey-
man the Right if it makes them feel better.  But the truth is that America is a
center-right country that supports center-right policies, even when they’re mad
at the policy makers that implement them.  The article calls this a lack of passion
on the left when in fact it’s simply the political leanings of the country as a whole.

My understanding of the poll business is that Mr. O has gone down chiefly among liberal Democrats.  That is hardly surprising; he deserted the sort-of Left back in May 2008, as soon as he had the nomination nailed, but it’s taken awhile for the ugly truth to sink in.

What should he do?  Well, that depends who he’s working for and what his goals are.  There is big, big money tied up in medical care and insurance, and as the proverb goes, “Follow the money.”

Once again Eugene manages to fill a page pondering a question that all of us progressives already knows the answer to. 
  We expected Obama to be a charismatic leader and he has turned out to be just another Corporate Bag Boy.
Why the hell should we be anything but angry?  Eugene, you will find the Passion you are looking for very soon in the streets.  When people revolt because there’s no meaningful work, no health care, no home to live in, and the country is broke; because the administration paid off the Big Banks and Corporations.  And then you and your Corporate owned media will ask could anyone have seen this coming?

ardee says: You are of the opinion that Obama’s disapproval numbers are directly tied to his poor performance in this matter of health care reform.

I am not so sure it is just the performance. It might be the product itself and not just the presentation and salesmanship. Although i think the ‘pass this legislation right now’ presentation really sank the deal. because no matter what he says now about ‘talking’, ‘listening’, people arent forgetting what was happening in July.

One thing that isnt fair is that the local Democratic congresspeople are catching the heat that perhaps is felt towards Obama.

Many conservative people were already disgruntled over the massive bank bailout(Bush), and then got a repeat in the ‘Stimulus’(Obama). All that money spent, and also much good will got spent too.

I think the economy being worse than anticipated hurts Obama’s numbers too. How much of that is his fault is quite debateable.

But the fact that the Insurance Industry and big Pharma are spending about four million a week on negative and inaccurate propaganda regarding such reform, in order to safeguard their billions upon billions in profit may very well have some role in the declining numbers as well.

As far as money being the culprit for Obama’s declining numbers, John McCain et all spent alot of money trying to make Obama look bad. I dont think that big money made Obama look bad then or now.

You are(I think) aware that big Pharma is the huge contributor at the table, dwarfing everyone else. 150 million is slated to to spent by them this fall. Thats more than McCain spent trying to be elected President. You do know(I think) that big Pharma has been and will be dumping the big bucks behind Obama, behind healthcare reform.

We the people are being lied to on every side, and for various reasons as well.

It is not in my nature to be so distrusting. I think Obama is telling the truth but adds some spin, which is what everybody does too. Sometimes the spin is so heavy that the truth is dwarfed by it. But I think p[oliticians usually believe that what they say is the truth.

Anyway, Obama will do some good things and his Approval Index will bounce up. Or maybe just sticking with his real principles in a more unvarnished way would help, even if he loses this debate.

ardee, if you were Obama’s advisor, would you tell him to compromise and get a weak version of the Bill passed so you could claim victory? Would you be the realist and just back out like Clinton did? Or would go for broke, bet the farm, and stay with idealism, the principles Obama really wanted all along?

OzarkMichael

You are of the opinion that Obama’s disapproval numbers are directly tied to his poor performance in this matter of health care reform. You may be right, his performance has been and continues to be abysmal, incompetent in fact, as are the actions of the Democrats in the Legislature.

But the fact that the Insurance Industry and big Pharma are spending about four million a week on negative and inaccurate propaganda regarding such reform, in order to safeguard their billions upon billions in profit may very well have some role in the declining numbers as well.

We the people are being lied to on every side, and for various reasons as well..

The following shows Obama’s Approval index, which looks only at people with strong approval vs strong disapproval. Note the strong disapproval was only 15% when he took office. Thats how many racists there were in January.

The steady increase in strong disapproval is now up to 41%. Of course, the only way to explain this is that racism is like the flu. It is spreading and catching. The only way to be safe from this infection of racism is to stay indoors, and only read Leftist approved newspapers and websites.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/08/rasmussen-obama-approval-rating-at-record-low-14.html

complete data available at:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

For a moment i will drop the irony. I think Obama is dragging the Democrat’s poll numbers into the toilet with this legislative debacle. This is the same thing that happened to Bill Clinton when he tried healthcare legislation. The strange thing was that the Democrats didnt recover for a long time, but once Clinton cut his loses he bounced back up. And then he held on to the Presidency.

Could Obama do the same thing? Leave the Democrats holding the bag? If he could do that, should he?

Amen, Anarcissie. Amen, amen, amen. If only someone had worked this out before the whole idea of having a manufacturing sector and creating a product to create wealth had been replaced by criminal rapaciousness and financialization (which is just another word for fraud and various other white collar crimes).

Folktruther—the ruling class doesn’t pay taxes.  If members of the r.c. sometimes put on a show about it, they just take the money from someone else.  They are already taking the money from someone else.  Only labor is the source of new value.  So if you want to collect taxes, the only place you can go is the working class.

Yeah, we’re victims. Victims of a ruling class that is GOP. Thank goodness liberalism didn’t depend on this generation having to… oh… sleep in the snow to combat the British empire centuries ago.

We instead have to do something hard. Screw up health care.

Listen. This is about building an institution and establishing a procedure for the care of the health of people in our country, and liberals today are unfortunately not good at that at all.

If Democrats in the wake of 911 had proposed a law requiring citizens to take off their shoes before a federal official at all US airports before they could board a plane, how many of our militia “brethren” would have voted for that? The answer is zero. Yet, Republican conservatives really actually established the practice without a single debate, using the department they built—the Department of Homeland Security.

Staffed by more people than the population of most American cities, DHS proves that conservatives don’t have any problem with Big Government. In fact, they intend on making it a lot bigger and a lot more powerful. Haven’t you been listening to Cheney?

Of the few volatile flash points, none is more dangerous than abortion services. Pro-life is ultimately about extending federal authority (the representation of interests, the guardian) to the unborn. That would spell the end of liberalism forever. No one would ever again be born endowed with rights by God, but rather with those which government finds most efficacious for having.

We need to stop that. We stop it with health care reform:

A woman in the labor room is ostensibly covered by an insurance policy, which she bought and with which she maintains a contractual arrangement. The fetus has no contractual arrangement with anyone, and it still has none when it’s born. That instant is the breach in the law that conservatives are trying to fill with generous helpings of federal authority, guided of course by appropriate religious guidance and wisdom.

To begin to straighten out this idiotic, sophomoric mess conservatives have dreamed up, a law must be written to fill the gap, by establishing federal authority over the newborn—get that, newborn?—when it comes to the serious matter of its health care at birth.

After all, we can’t tolerate a medical system that allows newborn babies to die because babies haven’t signed an insurance contract, can we?

The law would establish a federal health insurance policy that would immediately and automatically cover the medical expenses of the newborn, and establish the first, legitimate, recognized contractual arrangement of the new US citizen, officially recognized as such now by the federal government on paper.

The federal health insurance policy would provide basic care, and could be terminated easily by a phone call or heck a Tweet if you want. The mother wouldn’t even have to acknowledge that the child is covered otherwise. Let’s keep those pesky federal watchdogs at a great distance so Sister Sarah doesn’t get all in a tizzy and have government in her life any more than it needs to be.

Conversely, without an explicit opt-out, the baby would be covered by federal insurance for the rest of its life, and would also always be able to opt-out of it for private insurance coverage.

This procedure, this law, would provide health insurance coverage for all. Would it mean no more abortions, or the same abortions as before?

Insurance-wise, why in world would a fetus want to pay for its own abortion! That would be part of the health insurance plan of the living.

I suspect that the “ruling class” of which we speak is more than a bit apolitical, caring little for favorites but purchasing politicians indiscriminately as they need them.

As one party waxes or wanes the contributions to them corresponds to their ability to influence the legislation and the policies our wealthiest desire.

I suppose it might be said that the upper echelons of income are predominately Republican, or at least that used to be so. But those who wield the real power, and there are darn few of them comparatively speaking I suspect, are probably “above” politics, thinking it merely an instrument of control.

You may be right, Anarcissie, that some of the ruling class has gone over to the Dems but if they are like Soros, they are not passionate about public policy, the way the Gops are. The ruling class just hates to waste its money on taxes.

Folktruther:
‘The reason that the Dems roll over so easily, Steve, is tht the American ruling class is predominantly Gop. ...

I wonder if that’s still true.  It seems to me that many traditional rightists (“conservatives”) may regard the Republican Party, now riddled with religious fanatics, as a failed instrument.  The Democratic Party leadership is also full of conservatives, especially of the neo-con variety, ready to welcome their brethren with open arms.  The Democratic leadership hasn’t been “rolling over” in the usual sense; it’s not yielding to anyone or anything, it’s carrying out its established corporate-interest policies as of old.

dihey, August 22 at 2:11 pm

I would apologize, however belatedly, for my comments regarding what I consider a rather odd postion on Jefferson. You are as entitled to your position as I am to reject it. But you were civil and I was less so.

The reason that the Dems roll over so easily, Steve, is tht the American ruling class is predominantly Gop.  They therefore have the money, media and organization.  The can easily deulde the population to serve their own interests, and won’t fund the Dems if they are combative.  The Dem leaders are the lesser evil and know their place, which is to neutralize the opposition of the Progressive population.  That is why the Dems are so servile.  The are the lesser servile.

A few points:  When the republicans had control there was not a voice to be heard on their part about compromising with the Democrats.  If the Republicans had this kind of advantage now they would have had all their programs passed.  No one ran on compromise and no one voted for compromise.  The mere fact that Democrats want to roll over the minute a few nuts that represent no one but themselves show up at a town hall meeting is amazing. You can see the importance Republicans assign to a Senate seat when the fight the seating of Al Franken and watch the battle if Ted Kennedy cannot continue.  It is amazing how much the Republicans understand power and how to use it and how little the Democrats, Greens and Peace and Freedom types do.

Folktruther—the Democrats can’t count on Palin (who I believe will wind up in media anyway), the idiocy of talk radio, or the present disarray of the Republican Party.  In 2000, it took only a small defection to turn what should have been a walk-over into a defeat.  I believe Mr. O is going to have to give the base something, or they are going to start to wander off the plantation.  But this will be very hard to do because of corporate control of the Democratic Party.

dihey, August 22 at 2:11 pm #

I refuse to answer insulters.
...

You got nothing.

nah, Anarcissie, to split the Dem party requires an ideology, program and cadre, and these must be created historically.  Next time, if Obama runs against,say,  Palin, who has taken a quick course in unblithering ideocy, who do you think Progressives will vote for?  Especially if she says she wants to bomb Iran, China or whoever, assuming Obama hasn’t already done so.

Obama is a brilliant marketing tool for the ruling class, and can obandon his Progressive base without fear of opposition, they being indoctrinated with the need to be the lesser dingbat politically.  Look at all the Dem lemmings still in existence after being consistently punked by Obama.  It isn’t possible to split a party without a little courage and reason, and the Dem lemmings are cowardly dingbats.  But, in their defense,  the lesser dingbats.

I refuse to answer insulters.

And what makes you believe that “Greens” once elected in large numbers to the Congress would not succumb eventually to the lure of the “Market For Congressional Representatives” when they realize that their opponents are financially outgunning them? There are no political saints.

I wonder, Dihey, what makes you so certain they will succumb? Or why you think that written in stone? I look for options,for repairs, not the total annihilation of our political system, which, I believe, is still a good idea and a work in progress. You seem to me to be in despair of solutions and thus wish to tear it all down and start anew…I wish you luck finding support for such.

Jefferson beat me by a few hundred years using the word “rabble”. This self-serving “revolutionary” who could not cope with his daily life without his slave-servants clothing him, bathing him, saddling his horse, shining his boots, feeding him, and satisfying his testosterone production’s desires, actually lived not in America but next to an African village. Why should I be impressed by his Trotskyan “permanent revolution”? The “revolution” he avoided like the plague happened in mid 19-th century long after his death. It caused more deaths than the French Revolution which he admired for a while.

How does one say babbling without appearing to be purposely rude?

Jefferson tried to free his slaves, both while alive and after death. His attempts so angered the Virginia legislature that they past a law specifically to thwart that attempt.

Jefferson as a Trotskyite, huh….Dude you are winning no points here.

You are mum on the utter unpreparedness of our President on Health Care on day two.

Yeah, and on weather patterns over Greenland too….??????? WTF does Obama’s execrable performance on this issue have to do with the elimination of the Senate?

Lastly: the “gang of six” in the Senate are from Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota (Democrats)—states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans and from Maine, Wyoming, and Iowa (Republicans), which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population. Total: 2.6 percent of the American population.

These folks will submit a bill, nothing more startling than that. That bill will be debated, revised, sent back for further work, eventually voted on or not, then compared with its equivalent from the House…Do you even know how this shit works?

In the time of John Adams it took days to travel from Washington to Boston. Today that takes hours.
In the time of Washington he could not bombard the Brits in New York city while camped in Maryland or Virginia. Today’s “Washington” can destroy whole cities anywhere in the world in minutes with the push of a button. There are perhaps no better arguments than these to have “ever changing laws and directions” in an ever and swiftly changing world unless you want to do away with cars, steamships, and airplanes and return to buggies and horseshit.