StuartH—I have no problem with agreeing—I just dont seem to be able to do it with either party of the duopoly anymore.

I dislike the GOP (for the most part)intensely. But, honestly, what have the Dems done in the past two decades to address poverty? Welfare reform, lack of a cogent philosophy about health care, food, shelter, etc being human rights, NAFTA (which helps no country only corporations)

Is Earl Pomeroy or Max Baucus a better rep than, say, Voinovich or Specter (now a Dem, I know)?

The Dems seem to vote for just about any war that a CIC proposes. They keep voting to fund it, even when the majority are against it, They voted in the USA Patriot Act I and II, the att protection act, the lameass credict care bill of rights, will not regulate the financial industry, even after voting to give them record amounts of cash. Geithner and Summers are nothing but neolibcons. Sebillius used to work with the insurance indsustry and Salazar is not what I would call an environmentalist. gates is still on board as is McChrystal…what change?

I do have a handle on what is happening and why, with poverty etc. And I submit that Capitalism, the military/medical industrial complex, and, the fact that everything is for sale for a price to be the problem and cannot be the solution. (there are some things that just should NOT be for profit!) Sociialist Democracies are doing much better than we are in the world , they tend to be more at peace with other countries and their citizens enjoy a higher standare of living than we ever will.\

Can you imagine France accepting the Dem plan for ‘insurance”??

I certainly dont see religion as the solution at all, and, is part of the problem…

Neither party represents the class that I stood with as a social worker nor the class that I occupy now. They wont even talk about it. Thats why I’m a Socialist.

Like I said before, why waste my time—whatever I have left—-with Dems, waiting and waiting and waiting for them to do something non-corporate?

The Dems just do the same things and tell y9ou that they “feel your pain”...Obama is shaping up to be alot like Clinton and who thinks that we need that again?

If we could concentrate on someone who will do the right thing (and maybe be one term), rather than looking good and getting re-elected, we might get somewhere.

As it is, I see nothing changing.

Sorry bad spelling—I have a bad hand and it hurts to go back and correct…

KDelphi:

I am trying to analyze this.  One impression is that your post and mine have
agreement more than disagreement in them.  I feel like you just prefer your
words and aren’t willing to agree just because you don’t do agreement. 

As a social worker, I would think you would have a great grasp of human
beings, and probably a better than average sense of why poverty and various
ongoing tragedies occur.  Maybe what you are really saying is that you are tired
of the complacency and apathetic ignorance that keeps endemic problems
from being adequately addressed. 

It is hard to see intractable cruelty not arousing outrage.

But then, having grown up in a Southern Baptist environment, I can see that the
reason Republicans tend to have been in charge for the past decades and the
Democrats have not, is that Republicans are better at verbal or actual violence.

If you look at the donnybrook over the President addressing schoolkids, you
see a lot of temper tantrums basically for the sake of ginning up pure vitriol
and creating an atmosphere of muscular and sheer hatred.  The hope here is
that this will cause a win for the Republicans by next year’s midterm elections
or in 2012. 

I had a dream once in the midst of a campaign season.  I dreamed a bunch of
us were having a discussion, trying to work something out and suddenly we
were all bowled over by a big guy in a football suit who ran right through us on
the way down the field we were standing on.  That was a Republican.

That’s the DNA aspect.  Some of us are more muscle oriented and don’t care
about thinking at all.  They are willing to do things that the more thoughtful
would not care to even imagine. 

That’s the real problem.  Progress comes from intellect and building, and
power comes from the willingness to exert power.  Aligning those two aspects
of human nature is awfully tricky.  Sometimes it happens.  Then we see
something historic and magnificent.  We could use something like that now, but
whether we will see it when we need it, that’s a lot to ask.  That’s DNA.

Determinism is not what I am promoting, although the way I was going with that earlier, I came closer than I intended.  Southern Baptists and other right wing evangelicals tend to be inheritors of Calvin’s rather rigid idea that if you see rich people, you see people who are the Elect of God and if you see poor people, they are being punished by God.  So therefore, helping the rich is good and helping the poor is a waste of time. 

That is the fundamental reason why Republicans refuse to support social welfare in any form and why we perpetually argue for any tiny incremental progress.  It also explains why these Christians have abandoned the New Testament in favor of the Old, cutting and pasting it so a gun-toting, angry Calvin replaces Jesus. 

I live in the Southwest.  Unfortunately, a lot of people out here believe in a Calvinist view of the world and therefore vote Republican.  It is not likely they will change that view anytime soon.  Such a change in attitude towards civilization is the Revolution I would like to see.

StuaRTH—allow me to address a couple of issues in your post without being nitpicky…first, if we “cannot escape our DNA” , then that implies that it is all pre-determined and, so the future will just be like the past, only longer….if DNA is inescsapable, we might as well have an orgy and do heroin.

“So, we wake up the morning after the Revolution.  Looking around, lo and
behold, we discover that what frustrated us that has to be addressed has not
changed. ”  So we start from there…what did we do the day after the Am Revolution? USANS seem to hate all revolutions but that one.

I dont think that that has to be. Humans made what exists today and we can make it whatever we decide it has to be. Perhaps “revolution” was the wrong word. But, no, I do not think that we can work within today’s system to produce enough change. i just do not. Everyday is evidence of that, to me.

The Constituiion was written into the perceptual framework of a few rich Anglo males and I think that it is time we had one that better reflects the US population. No civilized country in the world has a C in effect as long as ours, and, I think, asz to certain parts of the C, we really have no idea what the founder intended. So money rules the day.

“The change we are undergoing now results from conditions no one really is in
control of.  That is probably the scariest thing about it.”

Now THERE is a perception that needs to change! I am sure that it suits the elites to have people think that “no one knows what is going on”—I dont believe that. I think that they just dont care. They have a stake is making people believe that “it is too complicated”. The MSM is certainly doing a piss poor job of helping people understand—we need the Fairness Doctrine back, in my opinion. I used to enjoy talk radio. Studentrs dont study things like this anymore…they all want MBAs because it pays better and someone taught them that this was all-important

On Kucinich or Nader:

“I came to the conclusion that those
particular gentlemen didn’t have the full grasp of what leadership really takes
given our time.  They remain too narrow in their outlook, too doctrinaire, too
dogmatically rigid.  What makes a good advocate doesn’t always make a good
leader.  We need a larger, more flexible approach to politics.”

So, now, we have one—pragmatic as hell Obama. I think that bi-partisanship is a way for the comfortable to maintain the status quo. A good govt’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
We have been dragged so far Right im the past couple decades that it would take 8 yrs of a REAL Leftie to even catch us up with civilized deemocracies.

“Everybody that had even a little money in a checking account,
whether they knew it or not, was about to get dragged into an abyss because of
the way the Bush administration dismissed the need for intelligent regulation”

Dems are in charge now and our allies are practically begging us to regulate. The bill passed with Dem support. Blaming Bush is pretty passe, when you think how much Geithner, et al have given the banksters.

I just strongly disagre with the general position that no one is in control and we are adrift. We may be, but there is a group at the top that knows exactly what they are doing and they hope that we wil continue to think that they blunder along.

Thats what I think, anyway.

I am NOT a conspiracy buff, but anyone with a brain can see who has beneffitted from these last 20 odd yearand the evaporating middle class knows it isnt them! The poor are not even mentioned.

If you are looking for another Profile in Courage in any current Dems , i am afraid that your faith is misplaced.

So, we wake up the morning after the Revolution.  Looking around, lo and
behold, we discover that what frustrated us that has to be addressed has not
changed.  The issue all along was a fractal geometric projection of our DNA (as
above, so below.)

There are fundamental perception issues we have to cut through.  The idea that
the Constitution is outmoded, comes about because the conditions that
somehow we must address are no longer fitting into our perceptual framework. 

This is the problem with trying to address greatly profound dynamics through
politics. A lot of people feel like victims in all this because they aren’t
conditioned to think they have a right to think “above their pay grade.”  So the
way things come about remains a mystery, a pernicious conspiracy one has to
blame on oligarchies or corporations or elitists who care nothing for who they
hurt.

In the penthouse suites in the high rise office buildings where some people get
multi-million dollar salaries, there is just better PR to make it look good.  They
are probably more clueless up there than anyone about what is really going on. 

The change we are undergoing now results from conditions no one really is in
control of.  That is probably the scariest thing about it.

The great issue is who can control this and how can we get control?  Do we
need a new government?  No.

Look.  I didn’t vote for Nader or Kucinich.  I didn’t vote for them on purpose.  I
thought long and deeply about it.  I came to the conclusion that those
particular gentlemen didn’t have the full grasp of what leadership really takes
given our time.  They remain too narrow in their outlook, too doctrinaire, too
dogmatically rigid.  What makes a good advocate doesn’t always make a good
leader.  We need a larger, more flexible approach to politics.

What is happening is beyond the ability of the public to absorb in terms of
complexity, in terms of the pace of change and in terms of the truly radical
nature of the quantum leap departure needed from conventional wisdoms. 

What we need is for a huge educational shift in the entire population.

We will deal with the gathering calamities of our future because we see them
coming and adjust before it is too late, or we will deal with them when they
clobber us like a big two-by-four to the head.  We can’t make people be
conscious when they aren’t. 

The necessity for a government bailout of the major financial institution was
only a prelude.  Everybody that had even a little money in a checking account,
whether they knew it or not, was about to get dragged into an abyss because of
the way the Bush administration dismissed the need for intelligent regulation.

But there is a bigger problem that remains after that one is fixed.

We are a culture based on the economics of consumer demand to such an
extent that the entire world is now dependent on increased growth and on
consumption.  For the entire planet to live in a style equivalent to 1950s
suburban America, we need about four planets (maybe five,) We can’t reconcile
this.  Yet, we don’t know how to behave economically any different.

This is a dilemma that is beyond politics.

You are right, it is’t about leaders, as much as it is about developing the ability
to be a smart population.  We need to press “Fast Forward” on our evolution. 

But then, I have been reading Profiles in Courage.  Kennedy writes about the
chaotic nature of public service and basically the same situation based on
experience in the ‘40s and ‘50s.  Again, human DNA.  We can’t escape it.

SruartH—I guess that I am too impatient for that.

When there have been large scale changes throughout history, they have never been incremental. I realize that dramatic, fast change is risky, but, when enough people have nothing else to lose, I think that it is inevitable.

There are so many former middle class that have just begun to feel the sting, and the poor in this country should be considered a disgrace to the free world and our allies should call our govt on it! People are fighting for their very survival. Those that no longer can obligate us to do it for them.

We cant do it with two corporate parties, and, perhaps I am being selfish, but, i would ike to see a revolution in this country before I die. The Constituion is outdated, and we dont really have anythng resembling a republic…we have an oligarchy (we should go ahead and call Congress the House of Lords and the president’s cabinet his privy council), a plutocracy (Horatio Alger moved to France for benfefits) and, are bordering on fascism (the boogey man word—but its true as seen by the bailout bill) . Corporations cannot hold so much sway in a so-called democracy and not undermine it. Egalitarianism is a joke, and the govt (both parties) chip away at our liberty everyday, which the Right like to define as the right to money, claiming that greed (supposedly one of the seven deadly sins) is good and , Libertarians, that that is “just the way we are”. (They believe in Social Darwinism, but, strangely, not Darwin and they wont call it Darwinism—I think they think it is “gawd’s intetions”)I have known too many people living contrarily to that to believe that it is true of the best of us—or even most of us.

The majorities that the Dems have are about as large as they are ever going to get, given our system. If they actually want progressive change (and I dont think that they do), and cannot do it now, what is the point in supporting the old system ( I am not beind a smart aleck or rhetorical).

If one is concerned about violence (and who isnt) then the violence of early death and malnutrition should hang heavily on our consciences—death from a lack of shelter, food or health care seems much worse than dying for a principle which is worth dying for.

I have alot less to lose than many and perhaps I have not seen the results of the type of coup taht I think would be appropriate. But we have to try something, with Obama’s aides saying taht he is preparing to deliver another blow to progressives on Wednesday.

We will never have a President Nader or Kucinich under our current system, unless we demand it. Power cedes nothing without a demand..

KDelphi:

“...with things remaining essentially the same , over centuries, wont it take
something pretty dramatic to actually produce change?”

Change is not something we have to produce.  The world is inexorably in the
process of a worldwide paradigm shift so pervasive and on so many levels that
many people are not aware of it at all - or prefer to be in denial.  But if you
look around very much, you see that it is not possible to hold on to the old
status quo.

No political system was ever designed to move fast to keep up with conditions
like these.  Generations before would never see much change.  Probably no
generation of humans has ever experienced anything like what we will continue
to experience for at least the rest of the 21st century.

The question for all of us is keeping up with at least what we need to, and
maybe advocating here and there for some sensible response to the need for
moving as a society in the right direction instead of backward.

StuartH—Yes, but with things remaining essentially the same , over centuries, wont it take something pretty dramatic to actually produce change?

Change is always resisted by organisms that seem to be surviving, its in their nature. If you seem to be fed, warm etc, yur body resists movement , at all. Even when change is for the better, it is stil painful for the psyche,and resisted, at least at first.

I think that the BB have plenty to say and to pass on, but feel a little betrayed by the entire “revolutionary” methods and ideas that seemed so certain to produce change. LIke SDS and others have gone rather mainstream and many of us feel that we must be fools if we do not.

If someone had told me in the 1970s that we would have converted back to the christianesque, right wing military industsrial complex, I would have said, “no way! People know better now! Revolution is inevitable!”

I think that (as many have prob surmised over the years, but decided to kick the can down the hill) we ARE at a turning point, certainly for the uS and probably for the whole planet. Democracy is probably too unamenable to change to prove to be of much use in the long run, in my opinion. There may not be any system that has been in wide use so far that would serve as a blueprint. We may have to dream it all up on our own, on a planetary level. That would be difficult! But, when it is becoming a matter of survival, what choices do we really have? The choices we have been making (and the chioces we have been made to believe are the sole ones, by corporate elites)are unsustainable and “recovering” would seem to me to be about the most dangerous thing we could do.There must be some way to start “bottom-up” so that those at the bottom do not have to bear the brunt of all the pain that wil inevitably come with change. It is our responsibility to see that the misery of our frivilous actions is not borne by those who can least afford the burden.

But i am not getting us anywhere near “how”. Because I dont know.

I do know that there seems to be a lack of justice which hasnt been seen in modern times. There are so many of “us” down here , but , somehow, a very few at the ‘top’ seem to have led us down the proverbial primrose path or, fool’s paradise. The costs of the choices are “coming home to roost” and only the tiny fraction at the top maybe able to avoid the pain for any length of time. The fact that these decisions dont seem to have produced any real joy or peace does not seem to matter, as marketers have figured out how to push the buttons that you speak of.Honestly, I have never seen the people of this country so discontened in my lifetime. many are simply chosing the wrong targets or seem unable to find a target at all, so they punish themselves further.

I am not a religious person at all, and I dont really feel that religion is a way out of the madness, as Ghandi said. But something like what he was speaking of would seem to be a starting point to re-finding our humanity. If even one is in pain, we are all eventually in pain. “We”, not of the corporate, military masters, have alot more in common than we have to divide us. But, getting people to realize this seems to be a trick that no one has mastered.
Peophets have, I think , from reading their words, tried to do this many times. But, probably to their dismay, they found themselves becoming the “center” of the movements that they were trying to promote, which, many times, went against the very precepts that they were trying to teach.

The US has to stop looking for a single person to change things, simply within the context of the current system, which is widely said to be “classless”, but the lower clases know better.

If there is not some justice and more egaltitarianism, the US will no, in my opinion, long survive.

Human populations can be looked at in evolutionary terms, as animal herds.

The animal is mostly led by apetites.  We live with cats and dogs, so we can see
how this works.  Cats are free to go anywhere.  They stay because they know
they have some security in living with these inexplicably kindly dinosaur sized
beings that they couldn’t produce on their own.  They know the sound of the
can opener in the kitchen.  This is a powerful motivator. 

Especially since WWII, we have created an economy based on psychological
science which goes a lot further in understanding how we are all led by our
apetites.  This has become so pervasive that we now have no concept of
another way to behave economically.  The world is governed by an over riding
assumption that the future is guaranteed for all the populations of the planet
by consumer economics.

For the time being this is probably a useful truism, but it is worth considering
that we may also be putting all our eggs in an unsustainable basket. 

The problem we have is that we have short life spans and very short attention
spans.  It isn’t part of our ancient DNA to consider aspects to reality beyond our
immediate senses in the here and now. 

What is needed is a lot more consciousness about the deeper considerations
that should really guide our decisionmaking.  But ironically, that doesn’t come
from the political arena.  The necessity of gaining a popular majority tends to
mean that deeper considerations are always having to be ignored in favor of
practical crisis management of the moment. 

If you look at the discussion around global warming and the various
interconnected ecological crises in our world, the recent political nature of the
argument arrived after something fifty years or more of consciousness raising
in the intelligent and well educated part of the culture.  If you take it back to
John Muir, it goes back over a century.

Perhaps one could say that democracy mitigates against frivolous innovation by
making it difficult to approve of change.  Perhaps this doesn’t matter so much
when things are pretty much as they have been for centuries. 

Probably what this says is that humans are just beginning to react to a sense of
change that is happening on a scale that is wholly unprecedented.  The more
concrete and literal minded won’t believe anything is happening until a building
falls on them.  Even then, they won’t connect it to large trends. 

For some, it is like the experience of the horses who get highly agitated before
an earthquake.  They know something is deeply disturbing, but they cannot say
what it is.  They may be angry but not know why and lash out in all kinds of
ways that may seem quite odd to others. 

Some desire a less amorphous sense of things and relish the idea of a dramatic
apocalypse, with its decisive disposal of categories such as damned and
righteous. 

If politics is the art of the possible in the context of what is commonly
understood by a majority of people, how does one deal with concerns that only
the most sensitive and intuitive are in touch with?  How do you take the
testimony of artists and deeply neurotic people?

I guess the answer is with scientists like E.O. Wilson and writers like Bill
McKibben who can probe and define questions in various dimensions of the
great overall issue of sustainability so that they can become more commonly
understood.

I don’t feel like the baby boomer generation, which I also am probably at the
tail end of,  has nothing to say.  I think rather that, with greater experience
comes an obligation to figure out what wisdom has been achieved and to try
and pass it on for the benefit of succeeding generations. 

Figuring that out is never easy and has always been the most serious challenge
of all.

ITW—It does. Go into your private page and you can choose anyone to ignore.But its a pain and rather unnecessary, when you can just scroll past. Seems to me that my first reaponse to you was “
kidding around” a little. ardee responded with much more vigor. Would it help if I apologized, as he did? Because if it would make you happy , I can. Here is what I said in ref to your post.

“..talking about Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or Mother Theresa, there are TDrs who would cut them down…”

Actually, I would criticize each of these alot more..lol”

Then, I responded to what seemed to be your anger at people bringing up Kennedy
“character flaws”, which, I replied that I was not doing—just disagreeing politically. And on and on.

I even told you that I thought bringing up Kennedy’s “accident” right now was out of line.

Thats why I do not understand the vitriol. But, no matter. There is nothing else to argue here. Peace.

StuartH—I am going to have to think about that one a bit. What online communication OUGHT to be and what it is, are probably two very different things. As with most things that become commercialized, histrionics seem, to rule the day, and, I dont think that that is accomplishing much that cant be done on cable news. There is info to be gleaned here, but many now just believe whatever is on the internt because they think that it is an “alternative”.

I’ve only been doing this since I cannot be a social worker anymore.

There are some calls to action that seem to carry substantial weight, such as the one about the demonstration in Pittsburgh later this month, as well as pics posted from demonstrators a t the gOP Convention,etc that we probably wouldve never known about otherwise.

I dont think that “this generation” (baby Boomers, which,I am prob not really considered part of it, but , maybe at the tail end) really knows how to be “wise elders”. I am also not certain that this next generation wants any of our advice (just as we did not want our elders advice). I appreciate the poetry, but action is what is necessary in this age, or, as you say, we may not have a future at all. But there is little agreement on the action that needs to be taken.

As far as the internet, I am somewhat impressed with the many things that are offered there, as information or ways to organize that dont seem to have any ulterior motive. I dont think that facebook, twitter, etc get us much of anywhere.

Since the internet seems to be the preeminant tool of the 21st century for communicating, it would be best for progressives to find a way to use it more wisely than we have so far, I guess. But how one does that, I do not know. I think that using it to gather support for a third party (some kind of alternative!) to the present choices would be a worthy goal, but, now that cable news, etc seems so intent on “making much use of” the internet, it could just become a corporate tool.

If it can be used to elect Obama (when Hillary seemed such a sure thing for Dems), it can be used to offer a viable alternative. But are there enough people who see the current corporate parties are something not in their interest yet? There is alot of fear that goes into it—-“we will end up with Bush again”—which, since it has happened, it seems it could happen again. But, the younger people that were not so involved in 2000 seem to be “into the mix” now and many have to be looking for a more progressive alternative.

We first have to have enough people agree that the current system isnt working for the vast majority of the population. As long as the majority is played to and thrown an occasional bone, most will choose to be content with it, I think, until it is no longer sustainable economically.

More thoughts on it would be welcome.

KDelphi:

I checked back into a previous thread and you said then,

“I was a Social Worker for many years and have certainly been in the trenches.
(Now I am in one myself and will never be middle class again despite hard
work) When I get over feeling sorry for myself, I plan to get more involved
again, but I just cant go with the Dems and their broken neo-liberal promises. I
fought for Dems for almost half of my life—now I want something better. We
need something better.”

That is really well phrased and meaningful to me.  I thought it worth referring to
because it was some of your best phraseology.  I can relate to what you are
saying.  Society isn’t a monolithic conformity.  Our life experience gives us a
range of perspectives to consider.  We take our stand where we are, not in
some ideal imagining convenient to other people’s.  Sharing these most
meaningful life experiences, a vantage point arrived at through a long, long journey, ought to be central to our best contemplations.

Since I put a huge amount of effort into political work at the community level
over a twenty year period, some of which came with a price, I am now in a
position of looking back and reflecting on the deeper meanings, as well as
considering what my role ought to be going forward. 

The Kennedy legacy has inspired me into taking the large view and looking for
the universality in things that are at issue.  I have met a few people who were
involved in the JFK or LBJ administrations who have confirmed this. 

As a social worker, I am interested in how you view the entire question of what
this sort of online communication ought to be for, ultimately, and whether we
are doing anything useful here and what it might be.  I have been participating
in these for over a decade now, since they first became available and have been
thinking about them in the larger context of the First Amendment tradition and
what its ultimate purpose could be. 

That might seem beyond the scope of this discussion, but again, when I think
of the great poetry of phrases like “Ask not what your country can do for you,
ask what you can do for your country.”  I think of considering what meaning
might be derived from a lifetime of experience with phrases like that playing
repeatedly in the background.  I think of looking out an airplane window at
30,000 feet.  I think of our history.  The advance of cities and roads look so
organized and implacably ordered, with no sense of struggle and argument
behind their development.  One can think of threads running through our past
into our present and wonder about whether or not there really is a future.  It
may indeed be time to depart in our thinking from conventional frames and try
to figure out what we really need to be doing and thinking…what is wise in an
American political and citizenship sense as we become elders?

Gee, KD—why am I “so angry”?

Wonder why. You psycho-analyze me (how arrogant is THAT???), you mis-read what I write, and infer what you want, (always the worst about me you can imagine, and always wrong), and then act as if your opinions are the only valid ones.

So…Don’t bother reading my posts. Too bad this web-site doesn’t have an “ignore” function for you.

ITW—WTF are you so angry at ME about?? i just dont get it. Youre quoting REAGAN now?? How do you know how close the heatlh care issue is to me? You dont.

I havent worked for alot longer than you havent and I may never be able to again. It pisses me off that I might be able to work part time if we have universal heatlh care, everybody covered, working or not. It also costs money, which is all anyone is saying about health care anymore.

I am under no obligation to read your posts at all and you are under no obligation to read mine.

I dont think I will read yours anymore. You just want to fight.

I am glad that you got another job, but I dont see how, in your entire post, you attribute that to part of the “economic recovery”, yet you lost your job just awhile back m due to Bush. It doesnt make sense, ITW. “recovery” to you, seems to be whether you have a job. You werent so complimentary of the economy a month ago.
************************************************

Thanks.  Too bad you don’t understand irony, either.

The point is: If you lose your job, the economy stinks, no matter what the pundits here at TD say.  And if you get new one and a better one, then the economy is improving…..Dang! I hate having to explain the obvious crap.

Remember Ronald Reagan’s cute but devastatingly effective remark in (I think) the Presidential Debate of 1980:

“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose YOUR job.
Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses HIS job!”

As one who has lost his job and found another, I can tell that the economic mess is FAR closer to me than the Health Care mess is to you.  It’s what you call personal, as personal as it gets.

Congrats—I think you actually read my last post.  I think that’s a first.

Your brother has a novel hyporthesis—never heard that one before, so forigve me if I say that it sounds like one big excuse. Maybe Bush just did really shitty so Obama would loook good, or Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office so you wouldnt notice how neo-con his globalization policies were—but , no, I dont think so.

I am glad that you got another job, but I dont see how, in your entire post, you attribute that to part of the “economic recovery”, yet you lost your job just awhile back m due to Bush. It doesnt make sense, ITW. “recovery” to you, seems to be whether you have a job. You werent so complimentary of the economy a month ago.

If Obama were “taking an economic hit”, things should not be recovering—and,  in fact, for most of the country, theyre not. I wish to hell I could take that job I was offered, but I cant. I even tried getting a lawyer (friend ie free)to argue my case, so I could keep medical coverage—cant be done. If they knew all my med history might not hire me anyway and it would involve moving. Good luck selling this house.

Im so glad the banks are recovering, I was worried about the banksters. So is Wall St..just great…

I am not at all certain that Geithenr and Summers are better than Bushs advisors. Obama has kept ao many Bushies on (Gates, Bernanke) and Clintonites, but, then you think Clinton protected us from terror so I dont know what to say there.

No presiedent can “protect us from terorr’ which is a concept, but I’m not even going to try arguing that one with you.

I read the whole thing and I stated where I disagree. I hope that that meets your standards. I shouldve guessed you got a job—cause youre feeling spunky jumping my ass again.

And, for gawd’s sake, STOP CRITICIZING OBAMA!!-hes only been in office a little while and hes better n bush!!!

KD,

What really amuses is me that you don’t actually READ my posts, just project what you would like to think I wrote, and react to that.

Had you actually READ my post, you would have made the OBVIOUS inference that there is much to criticize in Obama’s administration so far.  But, unlike you, I expect him to be human and make a fair number of mistakes as he learns the job.

I would dearly have loved him to immediately call for the repeal of the Patriot Act, the MCA and the return to the 1978 FISA.  All 3 actions would be major boosts for both our freedom AND for fighting terrorism—after all, Clinton did a far better job of it than Bush. (unless, of course, you believe the nonsense that Bush/Cheney/Mossad were behind 9-11).

I also think he doesn’t have the best economic advisers, though they are still far, FAR better than Bush’s.  But he should have made Volcker and Krugman his two top advisers rather than Summers and Geithner, who have pushed Volcker and Krugman out.  The result is that while the economy IS recovering, it’s not recovering as fast as it should.  Yet, for me, personally, it is recovering. I lost my job in April (on the tail of the Bush F-Ups of the economy for 8 years), and I finally start a new and better one (by all measures) next week, as part of the recovery.

My brother has a hypothesis that Presidents need to do their economic worst as soon as they take office, and it carries them to re-election. As he puts it “They have to take ‘the hit’ early on.” They get lots of criticism of their economic policies early on, but by the next Presidential cycle, things have generally improved enough to make ‘em look good—at least to a plurality of voters.  He pointed out that Carter and Bush I didn’t do this—and lost, but that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II all did, and served two terms.  (lots of people suffered under Bush II’s plans, but in 2004 most of ‘em weren’t Bush voters. Plus, Bush timed his war to the optimal political time: Spring of 2003).

So, IF Obama’s learned that lesson, he’s done the right thing and is taking “The Hit” on economics right up front.  Trailing economic indicators, like unemployment, are finally turning.  And, funny thing, most of the banks have paid back their loans, with interest—$4 billion in extra revenue has flowed it. 

However, AIG and CitiBank remain the 900lb gorillas in this story. And AIG was bailed out SOLELY because Goldman, Sachs wanted AIG bailed out—sinking AIG would have sunk Goldman and Paulsen was a tried-and-true Goldman man—I’ll bet he’s got a 7 or 8 figure Goldman job as of Feb 1, 2010, after a year out of public service. 

So, KD, you see I CAN criticize Obama.  I just think blanket criticisms like he’s a clone of Bush (from the Left), or he’s a Socialist Terrorist Alien (from the Right), are blatantly idiotic and typical of the dumbing-down of American political discourse.

Of course, I doubt you’ll actually read this so why am I bothering?........

ITW—Im glad youre amused because most progressives arent.

It is indeed faint praise, but it seems to be the only one Dems can summon up these days.(better n bush, better n bush)

Let me take over the office—I wouldnt do very well, but Id do better than Bush. So would you . So would my friend Diana, so would…

You seem to think all black and white—that anyone who criticizes Obama is a “radical”. Polls among progressives certainly dont show me in a minority anymore.

No, KD, I don’t think he’s a saint.  But I find it hilarious that folks like you and FT think there’s only two views of Obama: Bush-clone or Saint.

It’s that black-and-white, all-or-nothing POV that defines irrational fanatics.

I think Obama’s a good man, and potentially a great President.  But he’s certainly not a great President yet, and maybe, barely a good one, so far.

However, he is, clearly, a far better President than Bush EVER was—but that’s damning him with faint praise.

Ok, ITW—I think its parsing words and I did not say tha Kennedy was treasonous, but Ill give you that one.(sbout Nader) I didnt vote Nader, but, yes , I think he would make an historically good president.

Are you a worshipper at the alter of St Obama ?? (J/K)
Would you follow him off he cliff he is headed towards now? We dont really have a choice—we’re in the back seat. Buyt I think I can yell at the driver if I want to.

In fact, in case hes not fully aware of the cliff, I could be doing him a favor…even fulfilling an obligation.

Because if he doesnt quit dissing progressives he will lose the Senate in 2010.

K:

“...what infuriates me about Dems—they have had historic opportunities and
made historic decisons, only to BLOW IT when the shit hits the fan,
disenchanting young people and frusting older people.

We have to be able to do better than this dont you think??”

The propensity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has been
noted before and is such an old bromide that no one I know is aware of how
long it has been around.  This isn’t a new situation.

I hope that the admission by some Republicans that they are in fact using the
good will of those who wished to employ courtesy and strive towards a good
faith bipartisanship to play Democrats as suckers, should embolden Democrats
to just pass legislation and screw those who don’t like it. 

We’ll see how it plays out.  If the President wants to be on vacation this week
and get back into the fray when everyone else gets back.  Fine.  Hopefully they
will all find a refreshed perspective when they do dig into it.

OK, KD:
Here’s what I ACTUALLY posted, not what you read:

“I know, I know, you’re like one of those Naderites who follow St. Ralph, even if he leads you off a cliff.”

I did NOT say you WERE a Naderite, just like one—and I still say that.

But, on the positive side, here’s what I think is the smartest thing you’ve ever posted:

*************************************************
THAT is what infuriates me about Dems—they have had historic opportunities and made historic decisons, only to BLOW IT when the shit hits the fan, disenchanting young people and frusting older people.
**************************************************

I’ve hammered this very same point, time and time again, which is why I frequently call them the “Dims”. (of course, the GOP, is now the C.O.P.-Caucasians-Only Party).

StuartH—I was in a third grade class in upstate NY when it was announced the President had been shot in Dallas.  One little boy, GG, said “I’m glad he’s dead! My parents voted for Nixon!”  He was lucky to have lived through that day.

I detested George Wallace and Ronald Reagan but I thought that guys who shot them should NEVER get out of prison unless they were already dead.  I’m pissed that Squeaky Frome is out.  Bitch should have rotted in jail, along with the other one who shot at Ford.

That’s because WE DON’T DO THINGS THAT WAY IN THE USA!  You change governments with votes, not assassins’ bullets.

Curiously, Reagan was at his best, making ALL of us laugh with his “Honey, I should’ve ducked!” and, to the doctors before the put him under “Please tell me your Republicans!” and, finally, “All things considered, I’d rather be in Philadelphia” (borrowed from W.C. Fields).  Doesn’t mean I liked RR, just that I liked how he handled being shot.

StuartH—Maybe so. But the political system itself tend to frighten me more these days than individuals.

If there have been true activists in the past, they are fading fast, and, those who try (like the Progressive Caucus) seem to be drowned out as “radicals” and “fringes”.

Alot of people on this board may hold the idea that I “hate Democrats” or something. That is not it—I am angry with them, because they may have missed a historic opportunity. They have no excuses now, none that will hold water with me.

I find the GOP (along with the neo-cons) so useless as to be hardly worth mentioning.(with a very few exceptions, that I cannot think of ANY right now!)

Well, I just heard in the background, that the “debate” wil be on hold until the president gets back from another week of golf??!! Who is advising this guy? Axelrod?? Emanuel?? That is REALLY stupid.

THAT is what infuriates me about Dems—they have had historic opportunities and made historic decisons, only to BLOW IT when the shit hits the fan, disenchanting young people and frusting older people.

We have to be able to do better than this dont you think??

KDelphi:

You are certainly right about 100,000 more years being too long to wait to
resolve our problems.  America probably will see increasingly critical decision
points being reached inside of the next 100 that will tell whether we survive
into the 22nd century, and large numbers of humans in other countries as well. 

I respect your stated view that Obama may be too careful.  I have my fingers
crossed.  I also believe in various Democrats I have met over the years who are
model activists, some of whom have persisted well over 60 years.  Some have
seen success, others have been frustrated but the fight continues.  Each of us
has to decide where our energies are best invested. 

Thanks for the feedback.  I guess it’s what I get for trying to be abstract in
describing huge trends in an attempt to promote a calmer discussion.

:I cannot ascertain what this means…“To me, a population as large as 300
million people is a real potential danger to
itself.  Our concepts of social control combined with liberation have not evolved
very far and are therefore not as secure as we would like to believe..”

Seriously, I just do not understand what you mean by it.”

I think if you were just coming in to do a survey of this planet from somewhere
else in the galaxy, you might look at the population densities and think that
the evolved social systems we have seem just about overwhelmed by hundreds
of millions of people involved.  This could look like a prescription for disaster
waiting to happen.  It could be said that the human enterprise is always
precarious.  You could say that our political systems are a wonder of
dangerously balancing forces.  I think it is this that instinctively frightens a lot
of people.

Whether people wanted JFK dead in Texas is probably not germaine.

Obama is a hawk because he continues Bush policies and has increased the military budget. He has increased the use of mercenaries like Dyna Corp and Blackwater. He voted to continue the USA Patriot Act and let ATT off the hook.

I simply do not understand , with majorities in all three legislative bodies, how he “cannot gain power”?! He HAS power—he simply is too “pragnmatic” (ie conservative) to use it.
They went with a GOP with Bush—what have the Dems done differntly? Please, besides SCHIP, and putting all rhetoric aside, what is different?

I’m not giving up—except on being a Democrat.

As for Cro Magnon man, he wasnt quite as violent as today’s USANS was he? We dont have another 100,000 year to change, so we had better get started pretty soon, unless we are to become extinct, with all other
“intelligent” life on earth.

There is something to be said for “taking the long view” but I think 100,000 yrs is a bit much…

BTW—I cannot ascertain what this means…“To me, a population as large as 300 million people is a real potential danger to
itself.  Our concepts of social control combined with liberation have not evolved
very far and are therefore not as secure as we would like to believe..”

Seriously, I just do not understand what you mean by it.

KDelphi:

Some people really did want Kennedy dead and cheered when he was shot.  I
happened to be in a sixth grade classroom that erupted in whoops and cheers
and partying.

I think a lot of that atmosphere exists now.  However, I think you are right,
people in public office should remember the legacy of courage in the face of
tough opposition and not be cowed.

I don’t know what the source of the idea that Obama is a hawk is.  He may be a
bit on the pragmatic side.  My sense is that he is on a tight wire over a swamp
with alligators in it.  He may be the President, but gaining control is another
thing.  I think it is too early to judge what his real strategy is and whether it is
working or not. 

The Bush years created a lot of calamities that the media was suppressing
since the corporate agenda that runs the media pretty much is synonymous
with the Republican Party. 

Obama took office at a time when the pigeons were just beginning to come
home to roost.  A lot of Americans are in denial about most of it.  I live in a
district that just elected the first Democrat in history to Congress.  These swing
voters are easily likely to conclude that they should go with a Republican next
time.  So he needs to take it easy and work on relationship building so that he
can build up some credibility, otherwise he is not even going to leave footprints
in the sand.  Same thing for Obama.  I think he has taken on some pretty tricky
circumstances.  He is the smartest and most articulate President we have
elected in a very long time.  My hope is that the circumstances we are in are
not so far gone that it is too late to have elected a smart leader.  The public could easily go for a right wing demagogue at some point that would make Bush seem downright liberal.

To me, a population as large as 300 million people is a real potential danger to
itself.  Our concepts of social control combined with liberation have not evolved
very far and are therefore not as secure as we would like to believe.  I hope that
we learn to use our language ability, our mental capacity, and our technology to
full potential soon enough to overcome these challenges.

As Betty Davis once observed, “...it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

So I don’t feel like now is the time to give up, but to reflect on the improbable nature of human being at a time like this and to look for opportunities to
contribute to sanity, even if it seems futile.

I take the long view.  According to recent genetic research, the Cro Magnon line is something like 100,000 years old.  Maybe that’s 4,000 generations, depending on how you count.  The species has yet to really evolve beyond its childhood.  If we survive beyond the current century, maybe some progress will begin to be achieved, but it will be a long haul.

StuartH-I’m sorry, but I just refuse to buy the “he might be assassinated” stuff. If he is worried about people carrying so many guns, perhaps the Dems should stop caving to the NRA on every gun issue.

I am too young to really remember, but I think I do remember my mother , a voracious GOP, Goldwater-style, watching tv during JFKs funereal—she was crying, as was my dad.(He was basically an In dependent) I said, “Why are you crying? I thought you liked Goldwater?” She said, “well I didnt want him to DIE”.

I dont want anyone to die—that is why I am so upset with all the military spending that the Kennedys approved in their lifetime that couldve easily bought medical care for all. (HR 676 wouldbe .8% of GDP)

It only take one crazy person, true, but we cannot all live our lives on the edge of worrying we will die, especially not is we wish to be a public “servant”. (very highly paid, I might add)That is letting the rednecks win. Is that what Obama should do?
The Kennedys themselves didnt shirk from it. From whom much is given, much is expected.

I think that Obama is a hawk in the style of LBJ. But , as I have said, I am not a Democrat. I juat cant be anymore. Too much corporatism , too much war, to much military spending.

The Dems will give it up or make us a Third World country.

KDelphi:

I appreciate your remarks.  I hope we can learn to become more deliberative
and less like kids throwing clods at each other. 

I agree to an extent with your framing the perception that the Kennedy legacy
has some harm as well as some good in it.  There are various ways to look at
this and I could offer one.  I grew up in Central Texas, so everywhere you go
there is the legacy of Lyndon Johnson.  Talk about harm and good!

One of the things I remember from being a kid was how vitriolic the hatred was
towards the Kennedys.  People now forget that.  With all that has passed, the
People magazine treatments over the years has wallpapered that over to a
great extent, although on this forum there is evidence that it still echoes.

One thing I remember about the political scene I came of age in, was the sense
that the assassination of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King caused a lot of
people to become cautious and to avoid being bold, lest they draw fire.  This
led to the Clinton years in which the underlying reality for the Democrats was
to pull back from the visionary boldness and intellectual large grasp of the
Kennedy years into a professional consultant calculation about everything.  This
wasn’t just at the Presidential level,  but even down to the most humble local
meetings.  The intellectual leadership of the Party became its consultants.

Although his campaign was a departure from consultant-driven politics back to
a greater embrace of the grass roots. I think Obama is probably still operating
under a caution flag and maybe this is to some extent because, standing near
the Kennedy legacy you can’t help wonder when something violent might
happen to wipe out the best efforts to think through problems. You have to
wonder what he makes of people with guns on display at town halls where the
President is making an appearance.

That to me is one way in which the Kennedy legacy leaves us with a complex
set of considerations to sort through.

StuartH—I would agree with that.

But I came to this thread, with conflicting views on Kennedy. I tried to put down pos and cons, although, all in all, I think he did as much harm as good for working people and the poor. How this became a tyrade over whether he “committed treason” or on private insurance companies, or about other people who barely commented on the thread, I do not know.

When I am mentioned by name (not real name , of course) I tend to respond. Not always, but, in general. Especially when it seems so angry and purports that I said things that I did not.

I would like for ITW to point out where I , supported Nader, called kennedy treasonous, mentioned FT, etc.

I think part of the problem on Truthdig forums is that we are all conditioned by a
circumstance that leads us all to be very impatient readers and very impatient in
crafting words that can be understood.  There is an assumption in the use of
English that seems to lead to dueling letters to the editor, or maybe a video game
sort of ratcheting up.  Posts tend to seem summarily conclusive and definite to the point of being rude, which create responses that require greater heat, which
creates a cycle of increased shortness.

That is kind of what is happening to a general American political literacy.

ITW—are you feeling ok?? When did I follow Nader?  You know I am a Socialist. I called Kennedy’s attemopts “treasonous”?? Where?? Do yu have a fever?

You dont know people who have been denied care under insurance?? Well, you know that that happens with Medicaid all of the time. Medicare Private plans, like Advantage, do it all the time. My sister pays $18,000 a yr for single insurance an dthey didnt pay for her chemotherapy. I could go aon and on but you are just so angry you dont hear anyone but yourself today.

I dont know what planet you are spending most of your time on now. I can certainly take your"heat’ if that is what you are calling it now.

You do go through your grouchy periods! To the contrary, i am most unhappy that my beliefs are proving to be all to well founded. I knew the Dems would be a letdown, but THIS?! Nobody expected this horseshit.

KD:

Go analyze somebody else with your pop psychology. I’m just stuck at being intolerant with someone who never has good control of facts or logic.

Like your absurd statement that the insurance companies are already totally refusing coverage and cancelling people if they get sick.  Yeah, they’d like that, and when they can, many try to get away with it, but there is STILL recourse available, and you can be pretty sure if you break your leg, your insurance will pay.  Plus, if they want Medicare reimbursements, they MUST follow the rules.

I know, I know, you’re like one of those Naderites who follow St. Ralph, even if he leads you off a cliff.

Back off?  If you can’t stand the heat, don’t play in the kitchen!  You just can’t stand having any of your pet beliefs questioned when they are factually challenged, as they usually are.

ITW—I did not point you out specifically first!! Back off! You are a good little Dem and have a right to be—I have a right not to be or dont you belive that anymore? You just automatically name me or FT, even if that is not who you are having a discussion with! Get over it!

  “If the HMOs and insurance companies had their way, they would charge huge premiums to everyone, and refuse coverage to anyone instantly who got anything more than a cold—but still would want their premiums.  Hospitals wouldn’t be required to treat somebody bleeding to death if they couldn’t pay.

THEY ALREADY DO! And Kennedy accomplished almost nothing on it! I didnt say he didnt try! (if you actually read my posts, not addressed to you, specifically)Perhaps you are not reading my posts but just seeing my name is enough to make your blood boil—tough.

I will never shame myself enough to support the very industry that kills us. I will never be that naive.

There are just GOBS of sites and threads espousing the wonders of the Kennedy clan this week…why you feel compelled to jump in here, just assuming that everyone is “being negative” I have no idea…but you know my politics—-did you expect me to be all-positive over any Democrat??

Did you even see my first post?
“But we HAVE to stop looking for heroes and leaders.  EMK did alot of good, but he did alot of compromising that I am not certain has been good for the Left at all. The Kennedys represented a different kind of “liberal” than what is needed today”

Why would that make you so angry?? Ridiculous.

KD:

Stop with the “Shame on you” crap already!  I am not even vaguely ashamed, nor do I have reason to be.  You can pretend to be a school teacher wagging her finger at 7 year olds all you want but you’ll get not traction with me using that tired old tactic.

You are not any closer to the health care issues than I am, whether you believe it or not, and no, I don’t care to explain.  You and FT are so far off to the left you are off the radar.

Yes, I WANT a single-payer option.  I believe that the profit maximizing motivation of the system clearly interferes with optimal delivery of health care to needy patients.

But I also know that most of the advancements we have made never would have happened without Teddy Kennedy.  If the HMOs and insurance companies had their way, they would charge huge premiums to everyone, and refuse coverage to anyone instantly who got anything more than a cold—but still would want their premiums.  Hospitals wouldn’t be required to treat somebody bleeding to death if they couldn’t pay.

So you and FT, with your blinders on and your acid tests of ridiculous agendas that NOBODY elected could pass do no more to get us a REAL health care bill than the obstructionist Re-thugs who want it ALL to be profit-driven.  You don’t realize that you are on their side, helping them prevent ANY change to a broken system, even though you don’t intend to be.

I’m not the one who needs to feel shame.

ITW—Shame on you . You know how I feel about universal heatlh care, which is something that the Dems plan is not…neither was Kennedys plan. EMK gave up on universal in 1979. He was wrong for doing that. Since then, nothing has changed.

I am alot closer to that situation than you are.

I dont really much care about motivation at this point. The Dems will not fight for health care as a human right, and, I for one, take that persaonlly.They could—they wont.

StuartH—Fear tactics?? And throwing out the “Palin card” is what??

Russian Paul—dont expect Dems to ever tell you what THEY have done right, only what the “other party”(lol—samosamo) would do wrong…and then they proceed to do the same thing.

I have yet to hear what it is that having Dems control the Senate, House and presidency has changed.

The only change I see is that neo-liberals think that they have to shut up. I think that that is the most dangerous thing that they can do right now.

Doesnt anyone remember why there was a riot at the Chicago Dem Convetion in 1969? Because people thought that MAYBE they could appeal to the Dem party’s conscience. Although, looking less likely all the time, there is certainly no point in appealing to the GOP or the Blue Dogs. And the Progressive Caucus gets shit on everyday.

NOTHING IS DIFFERENT EXCEPT YOU LIKE HIM! That is the truth. If he makes you feel better, fine. Some of us have more concrete issues to deal with—like survival. The Democrats have done NOTHING that they promised—not one thing.

Please read Nick Kristoff’s op-ed in today’s NYT. He points out that the current health care system kills 18,000 people a year through non-coverage, causes over 60% of personal bankruptcies, and forces people who love each other to divorce to prevent the whole family’s assets from being wiped out by one senior’s need for long-term care.

Yeah, Teddy Kennedy fighting to fix that is obvious treason, according to the FTs and KDelphis.  What crap. But totally expected from them.

“Its a cop out to say, “IT WILL BE PALIN IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THE DEMS!””

KDelphi:

It is very easy to oversimplify the present circumstance and if this is what you
are saying, then perhaps we agree.

My analysis of the health care reform debate led me to purchase number of
copies of Profiles in Courage to send particular members of Congress who
seem to need a reminder to take a stand for the best public option provisions
possible. 

What I think a useful political consideration to make about this situation, from
a Democratic standpoint, is that there is no real point in accomodating
Republicans anymore.  When Sen. Enzi was quoted as saying that he was only
negotiating with Democrats to delay the process, he revealed a dishonest
position that really causes the whole bipartisan effort to lose credibility.  Most of us were suspicious that it would result in this, but it has unfortunately proved futile now. 

Given that, the only considerations are within the range of constituencies that a
Democrat must be responsible to.  A key part of that constituency are those
who volunteered for the campaigns of 2006 and 2008 and contributed,
especially online so that those elections were won instead of lost.  Many of
those people would be betrayed by a less than courageous stand on health care (and
other issues as well.)  If those people sat out the next election, the prospect
exists that some seats in Congress would be lost in 2010 and 2012, and the
Presidency could be in danger as well.  But the consequences don’t end there.

If the current crop of Republicans get elected, they will be nihilists who won
through generating fear of reform.  They will not be people elected because
they developed a constructive agenda, but instead an anti-reform, pro status
quo agenda based on the worst appeals to the lowest common denominator.

This is likely to lead to a great deterioration in the public discourse and the
probable result is a decline towards really serious political dysfunction.  At a
time when this country most needs intelligent leaders willing to take
courageous stands to do the right thing, we could wind up falling apart and it
could take quite a while to regain a better equilibrium. 

Contemplating that, I see a good case for Democrats taking a decent stand as
the health care reform effort reaches a climax.  Sometimes, people do the right
thing when there really is no other option. 

I don’t care how they arrive at the right decision, just as long as they do.  So, I
am sending my copies along with a note making it clear why the copy was
sent.  The more people think of stuff like that, the more likely it is that the vote
margin will be a good one.

And, like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, she will be disastrous for the nation.

Obama IS disastrous. His administration is a fluid continuation of Bush’s, how in
the hell is it any different minus the soaring bullshit rhetoric? The wars continue
unabated, in fact, they have expanded, as has his use of private mercenaries.
Rendition and torture continue. The bailout of wall street and not the American
people continues. And of course, his healthcare plan is being compromised into
something that might actually BENEFIT the insurance companies. Jesus Christ, it’s
like Bush, but worse since he knows he can get away with so much more.

And I am REALLY tired of the attacks on the “fringe” (ie do whats right for the people) of the US—if sticking to one’s principles and demanding that people keep promises makes one guilty, count me in!

If Dems lose the Senate in 2010 it will be because they broke every fricking promise they could think of to the Left, because they count on the fact that you will afear Palin and still vote for them while they give you the finger.

Every bill passed and signed (save SCHIP) has been watered down, cut to pieces and kisses the corporate ass. Health care, credit card bill, “cap and trade”, “leaving Iraq”, “closing GITMO” on and on. Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, Sebilius, Baucus, Clinton, Salizar—these people are supposed to be LEFT?!

I hardly think that the REAL left is to blame for that.

Except for SCHIP, name one thing that would be different if the GOP had control of the Senate…all bills passed have been totally watered down to suit conservatives.

Saying “Palin will be president” is just absurd—-even Fox News polls show less than 30% support for her even running. Its a cop out to say, “IT WILL BE PALIN IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THE DEMS!”

Dumb corporate war-monger or smart corporate war-monger—-is that our choice?

The attacks on my opinions and the vitriolic attacks on Ted Kennedy are EXACTLY why the Republicans will rapidly regain control of the United States Government, perhaps as soon as Nov 2010.

The Rethugs have had their circular firing squad—notice it’s ALREADY gone silent?  Yet, in VICTORY, the Dims and their supposed “allies”, the so-called “progressives” are just warming up THEIR circular firing squad, with no sign whatsoever that it will diminish.  No, echoing the results of the 1976 and 1992 elections, the Dems and “progressives” will attack each other more and more viciously, making ANY progress or reasonable legislation impossible, and putting the dangerously incompetent racist GOP back in power.

Do you REALLY want Sarah Palin as your next President?  You are all paradigmatic of the behavior by Liberals and Progressives that will MAKE IT HAPPEN, as it happened in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004.  You have learned NOTHING from those lessons of the past.  She will be our next President in 2012 if you continue.

And, like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, she will be disastrous for the nation.

Einstein said it: To repeat an action and expect a different result is the mark of insanity.

If there is one person responsible for the US descent into barbarism, Ted Kennedy is certainly among the contenders for the spot.  The cheap sentimentality by Dems and Progressives obscure the sellout bastard’s duplicity, and divert attention to the ending to a dispocable life.

The reason Bush-Obama can walk over the American people and drive them into the ground is because we are not organized to resist.  The traditional form of class organization was unions.  Kennedy was instrumental in destroying American unions, first by deregulation in the 1970’s of the trucking and airline industries, and in the 1990’s by his support of globalization.  Leaving the American population at the mercy of the owners and managers of the corporations and their political shills, Bush and Obama.

The American people can’t think straight about power and policy because they are consistently misled by their Dem leaders and Progressive truthers.  Were there a Benevolent and Merciful God, Kennedy would burn in Hell for a good long time, the hell he crated for the earth’s people by preventing the American people to resist homicidal imperialism.  The random torture of prisoners, the rape of children, the distribution of opium and cocaine by the CIA, all are a result of the lack of power of the American popuation to resist the moral degradation of megalomanical power.

And Kennedy supported it, indeed, helped cause it.  He was the soul of the Democrat party.  Yes, indeed, and we see the other souls celebrating its achievments.

Ted Kennedy was a disaster for the American people.

ITW-I also do not understand the complaining about those comenting on Kennedy’s “character” flaws, as that is not what I see here. Mostly political disagreement.

maybe you were upset with hearing it in the MSM or something? A good tip there would be not to watch any of the coverage on MSM but that is your decision. I heard all of the folks calling into c-span , talking about the bad judgements EMK made, the very morning he died. (I think it was 2:00 AM and they were showing the Town Hall meeting where fetal maniac Randall Terry showed up so I was watching)I wouldnt judge those judgements EMK made, I was not there and he was an alcoholic. It was his “highly bi-partisan” politics , that I mistrusted.

True , no one was every killed in the wrecks I had during my “foggiest” days. But, who knows what couldve been. I doubt that my response wouldve been the same, but I dont spend time judging politicians’ personal lives.

ardee, August 29 at 6:06 pm #

For ITW I apologize for my rather shrill response, but I know you to be better than that.

“..talking about Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or Mother Theresa, there are TDrs who would cut them down…”

Actually, I would criticize each of these alot more..lol

Yes, Clash. I wish I knew the answer to your question. I think that we need more people who think that the question is appropriate, first.

But the unrealistic purists here (think “Ralph Nader Apologists”) will castigate anyone who deviates even a hair from their unrealistic views of politics.

A good post ruined at the end. Couldnt resist showing your temper, huh ITW. How in the hell do you know the leanings of all who criticize Edward Kennedy’s career? What burning bush gave you the news that they all support Nader?

Your posts are mostly crocks of late.

No doubt Ted Kennedy was a flawed man.  But that doesn’t diminish what he accomplished. I think if we were talking about Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or Mother Theresa, there are TDrs who would cut them down.

A whole bunch of people believe “he killed that girl” rather than he just f***ed up and showed fatally bad judgment—but I doubt she would have survived that crash anyway.

I, like many people, resented bitterly his run in 1980 against a sitting Democratic President, who was fundamentally a GOOD President, Jimmy Carter.

(I wonder if he ever privately apologized to Jimmy, who was there, graciously, at Teddy’s funeral today.)

But that STILL doesn’t change the hard work and accomplishments he made once he realized HIS destiny was in the Senate, and, ultimately, to be the king-maker, not the king. As a Senator, he was part of a dying breed: Those who work with and make friends with members on the other side, like Alan Simpson and even Dan Quayle.

But the unrealistic purists here (think “Ralph Nader Apologists”) will castigate anyone who deviates even a hair from their unrealistic views of politics.

KDelphi;

For the his family we may offer condolences as is the human thing to do.
Though as a family the Kennedy’s knew well there positions in the republic, and as princes new the risks they took. EMK the last of the old guard lived a good life. While in his younger years represented progressive change, the latter years were fraught with compromise, as necessity required so as to allow him his position in the republic.

The rapacious nature of the princes and their supporters who have governed this republic will continue to to impede what the people would consider justice, and what they would consider prudent virtues.

The question still remains. How can the people effect positive change when the prince and the other royalty of the republic are controlled by the military and those who have made themselves rich on the vices they pass off as virtue? The avenues of justice do seem to be blocked by those who condone the the unspeakable.

And yes it is just not right!

I wouldnt disagree with that, Clash.

I am just worried that the “kennedy worship” has overtones of what made Obama seem so “royal” to some people. EMK’s support of him rather puzzled me, but, he was a Dem—-what else did we expect? Hillary? lol.

Kennedy supported alot of very conservative issues in his day (mostly later) like No Child’s Behind Left (so does Obama), and industry based heatlh insurance reform, and “free trade”. He abandoned the idea of universal health care in the 1970s. He consistently voted for de-regulation.
I think that alot of people have very fond memories of the Kennedy clan…so do I, but when I was to young to know any better…

His type of liberalism championed “christian charity” more than Justice. “US charity”, I have to say, has certainly not shown itself to be a force for good in the world, lately, anyway. Thats my opinion of it.

We give the very wealthy tax cuts, subsidies, bail them out when they invest stupidly, privitize everything to their advantage and make sure that they recieve the best of care when they are sick, while they offer us the medical industrial complex. I am not certain that Kennedy lasted any longer , due to his medical care and money, he lived about as long as my dad after diagnosis.(its just not curable) But I do know that there are many, even under the Massachusetts plan, as well as the plan that the Dems in the Senate have come up with, that will let many people just die with his same ailment. It is not right.

We have to demand better than that. I feel bad for his family.

If you want to name a bill after him, name it after the bill he championed in 1974—Universal Health Care for All, as a human right. Not the faux one that many are supporting now.

KDelphi;

I would agree with your observations, except the reference’s as to princes. This republic is controlled and governed by appointed princes, with the majority of the people following them haplessly by their ability to make their vices appear to be virtuous when necessary.

Anarcissie, August 28 at 10:04 am #

I find the worship of the Kennedys quite tedious.  I think there are five or six articles on Truthdig in this vein at the moment.  Hero-worship is the antithesis of the kind of thinking leftists need to do if they are ever going accomplish anything.

I find your characterization of the outpouring of support and respect in a time of tragedy to be superficial at best. I see no hero worship here, only the thanks of a grateful nation.

Anarcissie is right. I am sorry that Kennedy family has had so much grief and I am even sorrier that he had to die of brain cancer. I know how horrible it is to watch someone you love die of that. No one deserves it (has anyone noticed a huge increase in brain cancers? There seem to be, to me…)

But we HAVE to stop looking for heroes and leaders.  EMK did alot of good, but he did alot of compromising that I am not certain has been good for the Left at all. The Kennedys represented a different kind of “liberal” than what is needed today.

The term “
prince” or “king” is stupid in this context.
“Moral clarity” does not exactly describe it. I am not going to worship him or hate him, just as I did not when he was alive.

The health care bill should only be named after Kennedy if it is basically the same as the Massachusetts health care plan.

Can anabody tell me wath this prince Kennedy, has made come sacrifices, born rich, died rich, lived as a rich, made nice speeches, people who are living with and in the politic world, on the end has to be infected with this wealing and dealing.

Nothing wrong with Rock Star status after one passes away.
I seem to remember Bush and Kennedy chumming with one another before the launch of the illegal Iraq invasion. 100s of thousand killed, millions displaced, nearly 4500 US Military killed, a country utterly destroyed and a cheerleading Washington Post.
  It’s almost like Kennedy was playing the loyal opposition, and Bush was in the driver’s seat “off to war we go together, chuckle chuckle”.  Incidentally - does anyone remember how the Kennedy family earned their fortune?  Liberal Lion? No. Pragmatic enabler? Sometimes.

“But we sorely miss Kennedy’s moral clarity. He believed our nation has the responsibility to ensure that every American has the right to affordable health care. Perhaps his life as an eternal prince taught him that happiness and salvation lie in sacrificing self-interest for the greater good. “

Firmly agree !

The reason why so many people are pausing in remembrance of a great man, is that it is remarkable when somebody overcomes the normal limitations of tragedy in the human condition, sometimes caused by fate and sometimes self-inflicted, and breaks free of all the negativity and entropy to accomplish something worthwhile on a large scale. 

I am still astonished, all these years later, to consider how most people having lost two brothers to publicy being murdered in the political arena, having witnessed the incredible vitriol expressed towards the Kennedys in the 1950s, and having inherited a large family to take care of, would have just quit.

No one would have blamed him.  The eulogies today would have been sympathetic towards a grieving brother who skipped the killing limelight. Most of us would have taken that path and everyone would have been supportive.

That he chose to put a huge amount of energy into becoming a detail oriented mechanic of sub-paragraphs and remembering individuals from towns across America, that he became “The Lion of the Senate” revered by Republicans as well as Democrats, is something really awe inspiring in scope as an achievement. 

This happens to rarely we don’t even have an adequate vocabular or frame of reference for this.  We use terms borrowed from ancient concepts of royalty.  They don’t really apply unless they are sort of People Magazine kind of terms.  But the rising above, the dignity, the vision based on setting sights on the big picture far horizon, the largeness of mind and spirit, those are all the more remarkable for all the temptation to be small and nurse grudges. 

Most of us are given to those normal temptations.  It is a good time to stop and think about how sometimes in the long history of flawed human being, transcending the ordinary transcends our ability to remark on it.

I find the worship of the Kennedys quite tedious.  I think there are five or six articles on Truthdig in this vein at the moment.  Hero-worship is the antithesis of the kind of thinking leftists need to do if they are ever going accomplish anything.

We can expect to find, and already see examples of, the meanspiritedness of those on the right ,bound and determined to bring down any ikon of the left regardless of the truth of the words. Who can blame them after all, given the paucity of real leadership or even morality on their side of the aisle. Lest we forget the GOP is run by, to all intents and purpose, a bloviated lying drug addict.

That being said, Edward Kennedy was a flawed human being, as are we all of course. Nevertheless his legacy is clear, a man as adept at bipartisanship as ever sat in the Senate, a man who, despite great wealth and priviledge, was responsible for much legislation benefiting the poor, the elderly, the children ,working families and the disenfranchised.

At a time when leadership in both Houses is scarce as hen’s teeth this “Lion of the Senate” will be sorely missed.