The Elephant In The Room   empirePie
     
The elephant in this here room
sure ain’t pushin broom.

The elephant in the room
smokes Cuban stogies,
checks the mirror, & smiles at old fogies
with insider tips: “Cash in on Doom,
cash in on doom”

The elephant in the room
crying ‘trickle down’ tears,
cries fowl at every hand that ain’t a flush,
while Condi plays; ‘Kum ba yah’ kinda nice
tuned in from Hispaniola to dump for rice

The elephant in the room
hoped for a tea party
or at least a hearty PNAC snack
polished up the plastic and slid it through the crack
as the governor from California kept saying:
“I’ll be back,  I’ll be back.”

The elephant in the room
is always there
Say:  “What’s your share?”

I don’t know why you all say the Democrats are dysfunctional.  It seems to me they’re doing quite well, taking in big money and getting elected and everything, shafting the progs, the peaceniks, the minorities, and labor, and laughing all the way to Washington.  Of course, they’ll go down when the Great Flush happens, but so will their rivals and everyone else.  Perhaps it was ever thus.

Been saying this since the Clinton administration wobbled onto the scene. The Republican Machine has pretty much successfully blocked every move the Democrats have tried to make since that time. It doesn’t matter what the bill tries to do; if it’s introduced by the Dems, the Republicans will try to stomp it into the dirt with every tool at their disposal. The thing is, it works, and the American voters are too stupid to see it. Good bill, bad bill—-doesn’t matter. If it’s introduced by the Dems, it’s blocked any way they can do it, even if it requires talking it to death. This isn’t government; it’s a playground bully tactic.

What’s wrong with Democrats?  They are idiots and have been for over 45 years.

Democrats started neutralizing and emasculating Democratic Presidents starting with Lyndon Johnson because of Viet Nam.  They then went on to emasculate both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both times resulting in the WORST Re-thuglican Presidents ever—Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Now, true to form, Democrats are emasculating their own President yet again.

One thing Re-thuglicans do better: They stand behind their President even when they can’t STAND him!  That’s why they have the Presidency in:
1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1888, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

In that same time Dems won it in:
1884, 1892, 1912, 1916, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008.

So, since the GOP was formed 150 years ago they won 23 Presidential elections to the Dems 15. Since Nixon came to power in 1968, the GOP has won 7x to the Dems 4x.

gerard—A conceivable, even sort of obvious strategy for Obama would have been to attend to other matters in 2009, especially ones where he was likely to be victorious like re-regulating the financial industry and attempting to stimulate the economy, then do the first, more general part of the Health Care reform thing starting in spring or summer of this year, move quickly to put forward some plan most Americans thought was tolerable—including at least the Public Option—let the Republicans and Lieberman block it, avoid serious negotiations, and go to the polls with that, a sort of referendum on a popular abstraction. 

But as someone pointed out in another discussion on this subject, Mr. O may have never intended to get any kind of public option, much less single payer, enacted.  See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

If so, the danger in the sort of plan I sketch above would be that it might succeed—the Republicans and Blue Dogs might have caved rather than take the blame for defeating popular legislation.  With a handle equal to a sixth or a seventh of the entire economy, that outcome—even the threat of such an outcome—would be unacceptable to the medical insurance industry.

gerard:
“Being right and proving it”

Ah, now. Therein lies the rub.

Self-evident lessons from Obama’s (mostly failed)
efforts at “non-partisanship”?
1.  All partisans are partly right and partly wrong.
2.  Some partisans are “wronger” than others.
3.  “Wronger” partisans are more resistant to change
because part of the reason they are wrong is that they are stubborn and can’t see beyond their own point of view.
4.  You can’t change them by letting them think they are right.  You have to prove to them that they are wrong without alienating them and making them more resistant by threatening their “security.”
5.  Once you “make a deal” with them, they think they “have” you and become even more resistant.
6.  Any deal they make will act as forerunner of another deal.
7.  Pretty soon you have sold out.
8.  Being right and proving it is better than making deals.

President Obama is what my Dad used to call a “book smart and people dumb” kinda guy.

Too bad that he frittered away his entire first year in office trying to find “common ground” with the already-obsessed Republican Party. They were preoccupied with sharpening the long knives, which began well before he ever raised his right hand and took the oath of office.

In connection to the observation that free speech will not change the basics, i find that the free speech of MSM collumnists is even less important to the endgoal: establishing an enlightened and idyllyc society.

In fact, i dare even aver that ?all msm collumnists, are deliberately deceiving us with what they write.
For them, parameters of allowable discourse are set.
They cannot cross such borders and escape at least some warnings.
Most, i think, are also strongly asocialistic; thus, voluntarily and deliberately stay on periphery of major issues.

They have seen, i aver, that talk- and their talk especially- does not change anything.
So why do i read their pieces? I don`t! Most of the time i read posts or a few paragraphs of what MSM collumnists write!

To know how to build a house, one needs to know its structural members. To know US structure of governance, one must first know how it is structured.
As a person had said, structure is the only content of knowledge.
EG, by studying the structure of US system of rule, one cld quickly espy that balloting is one of the least or least important structural member of it; institutionalized lying, cia, fbi, army etc., being by far more important. tnx

I wld agree with commenters who do not expect any amellioration in US.
US system appears at this time inviolable. It may not change in basics for decades or even centuries or until an antipodal structure of society is finally developed.

Some european lands have in situ, as far as i am aware, a structure of society that is a mixture of US system [extremely asocialistic]and an idyllic structure of society.

Asocialistic structure of society arose millennia ago. It had been patterned on the observed animal behavior, in which the strongest-wisest animals have a greater chance of survival.

The observation was correct. Alas, invalid for humans!
In many societies, people live in an animalistic way.
Which lead such societies into mass slaughter, exploitation, ‘strong’ against ‘weak’ inter-relationship.

India may be epitome of such behavior.
What the early ``scientists did not espy was the fact that humans possess a cortex and a special brain that made possible constant amellioration in our condition.

Once s’mwhere, -s’mwhen, -s’mhow an idyllic structure of society is set up, the US system, much inegalitarian-vìcious, wld collapse from inside.

In connection to the structure of societies, they may have been much idyllic prior to rise of ‘science’ which proclaimed that we had a better chance to prosper and survive if ‘strong-wise’ wld rule us.

Early ‘scientists’ being shamans, sorcerers, magicians, mentalists, dreamers and later priests; ending with the ‘nobility’.

Thse people have led us to countless wars; established serfdom, slavery, lowervalued and highervalued people.

A system cannot change self or by working from inside it; forces out of the system only can change a system.
In US, the system is changed the moment there is a strong second party there.
Talking, comlaining, condemning is of the system; system welcomes it; precisely, because such activities may only nick it, but not signifcantly change it. tnx

There’s a good deal of preaching to the choir, but that’s hardly unusual on political sites.  I guess people enjoy it.

Anar:
I agree. I’m an atheist myself. truthdig however is, by your definition, a religious fanatic’s dream site, warm and toasty in layers of blankets like:
Bush
Cheney
Israel
MSM
banks
corporations
rich people
Republicans

You get the idea.

rfidler—Blanket condemnations are too religious for me.

Although Robinson says that when GW Bush was President he governed like a steamroller, it is important to remember that he did so with the support of many so-called Democrats.  All of his key legislative enactments—the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, the tax cuts for the rich, the unfunded Medicare prescription program—as well as the bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq, were passed with substantial support from members of the Democratic Party.  That’s the real difference between the parties.  The Republicans know how to stick together, but the Democrats can always be divided and conquered. 

What this country needs is political party reform, so that there is a conservative party and a liberal party.  Instead, what we have now is a conservative party and a moderately conservative party that has a few, lonely liberals in it.

Here’s my nightmare:  We all stand around and write comments and tell each other what’s wrong and what should be done (by somebody) until things get worse than they are now, at which point:
  A leader will step forth from the shadows.  He (it won’t be a she yet) will be young, handsome, articulate, poised, educated.  He will “make a lot of sense” to the “common man”. The nation, which has not found any way to discuss and share its mutual concerns and is tired of confusion and discontent, will be putty in the leader’s hands—unless—betweeh now and November 2012 we get our act(s) together.
  Start a local workshop on “The Commons Movement” or “Developing a Community” or “Is Democracy for Everybody?”  Hold a series of discussions on Chinese History at the library.  Talk to your local newspaper editor about writing a series of articles on “American Activists.”  Attend a “book group.”  Join your local PTA or League of Women Voters or NOW. Learn about the future of electronic media. Investigate your local prison. 
  Take on the responsibility of helping kids at your local elementary school or care center.  Feed my sheep.  Do unto others. Then maybe we will know how to judge the man on the white horse—true or false?  Or both? Or neither? We will know more about the kind of country we want and have the courage to act to get it.  It’s out there somewhere, waiting for us to imagine it and give it birth.

Here’s my nightmare:  We all stand around and write comments and tell each other what’s wrong and what should be done (by somebody) until things get worse than they are now, at which point:
  A leader will step forth from the shadows.  He (it won’t be a she yet) will be young, handsome, articulate, poised, educated.  He will “make a lot of sense” to the “common man”. The nation, which has not found any way to discuss and share its mutual concerns and is tired of confusion and discontent, will be putty in the leader’s hands—unless—betweeh now and November 2012 we get our act(s) together.
  Start a local workshop on “The Commons Movement” or “Developing a Community” or “Is Democracy for Everybody?”  Hold a series of discussions on Chinese History at the library.  Talk to your local newspaper editor about writing a series of articles on “American Activists.”  Attend a “book group.”  Join your local PTA or League of Women Voters or NOW. Learn about the future of electronic media. Investigate your local prison. 
  Take on the responsibility of helping kids at your local elementary school or care center.  Feed my sheep.  Do unto others. Then maybe we will know how to judge the man on the white horse—true or false?  Or both? Or neither? We will know more about the kind of country we want and have the courage to act to get it.  It’s out there somewhere, waiting for us to imagine it and give it birth.

anarcissie:
You are so right about Marx. And he was so wrong about everything else he said. The “masses” will never rise up because the “masses” don’t give a shit about the rest of the “mass”. Only about numero uno. Adam Smith and John Locke understood that and described capitalism and democracy as the best espressions of that nature.

Get over socialism and marxism and communism. They’re artificial ideologies imposed on serfs by power-mad tyrants.

hello. unHoly nasty verbiage chattering up the
threads. make the Democrats believe that a socialist
takeover of 48% control of the United States economy
is the right thing to do at this historic moment of
idiocy, and they will suffer the consequences. this
display of government chaos for the past year is only
a precursor to the coming two and a half years, while
he jams ‘cap and trade’ and the remainder of his
socialist agenda. he will not stop until government
controls most of the economy. EPA ...(nevermind). the
great rotten tomato throwing, molasses dumping,
feathering of yes voters is taking place this
weekend. i would like a ride to attend the public
humiliations, if anyone is headed that way.

My reaction to Robinson’s article was, “Oh, yeah, Mr. O sure kicked hell outta them Democrats!”

And as for you, Writer on the Storm, I think you’re making the same mistake Marx made in the Communist Manifesto.  He said that when things got really, really bad, the working class would be “at last compelled to face with sober senses [their] real condition of life and [their] relations with [their] kind.”  But that’s not what happened.  Many of them descended into pits of nationalism, racism and fascism, while others continued to cling to the same leaders and institutions which had wrecked their world.  If and when things fall apart, no doubt some great leader will step out of the wings, most likely from stage right.  I’m not as optimistic as you are as to what kind of great leader it will be.

New definition of “bipartisanship”—Dividing the Shipo of State into two or more parts in order to sink it faster.

Do you think that just maybe the Dems are having trouble passing the health care bill is because 60% of the public is against it?

WinterOnTheStorm

Unfortunately, very close to my sentiments and I could not have said it better, nice peace of work, thanks!

Any political discussion has to begin with the understanding that we have been
engaged in ugly ideological trench warfare since the late 1970’s. In one camp
we have the righteous but feckless left, which seeks to establish a European
style social democracy founded on the principals of social justice, common
good, equality of opportunity, and sustainable business practices.

And in the opposite camp is the conservative fundamentalists and their
neoliberal partners. This powerful alliance puts the bootstrapper-maverick,
sink-or-swim, angry-white-christian coalition on the font lines, while the uber-
elitist, trickle-down-economics, scorched-earth-capitalist, radical-self-interest
bunch call the shots at a safe distance from the field of battle.

The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty
notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses
what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to
foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including
brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic
inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats
all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good
news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism.

Regardless of their brand affiliation, most American “leaders” support some form
of this elitist neoliberal ideology. And most of the walking dead who inhabit this
country are in their thrall. It has all the makings of a pretty good zombie flic,
except there doesn’t seem to be nearly enough brains to go around.

In the end though, no matter how many focussed-grouped talking points, or
gay-marriage/gun-control “wedge” issues they role out, no matter how many
kabuki Capitol Hill skirmishes or loaded Supreme Court decisions the power
brokers win, the progressives are going to take the day. Because there simply
aren’t enough cheap resources, exploitable workers, aspiring middle classes and
bankruptable European countries to keep the whole scatterbolt contraption
running. There are plenty of signs, in fact, that the machine has already begun
to eat itself alive - it’s called casino capitalism, or financialisation, and it’s what
happens when the easiest thing to produce is money itself.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, the Democrats took a stand alright, one at a substantial variance to what the vast majority of Americans want.  The Democrats’ stand is bent over, ass-cheeks spread wide apart for corporate penetration, just like the Republicans’ stance.

“Americans tend to believe they have the best health care in the world, but in truth it is a second-rate system and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive.”
(Donald Barlett and James Steele)

“We are the only advanced nation without a national system of subsidized health care.”
(Elliott Currie, Crime and Punishment in America)

“If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire-“Here is $1,000.” What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, “Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.” What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe.”
(Janice Fine)

Well, kids, there’s this THEM and here that US. The US control-influence-drink coffee with 0001% of cia, fbi, army, police echelons, judiciary, WH, congress, schooling, media and THEM near-hundred per cent.

Yes, folks, THEM not only drink coffee with one another, but also golf, chat, drink, discuss politics, etc. together.

THEM own also 98% of america. Mind u, WE still don’t know how many of THEM there are. How ab 0001 to 2%? Does that sound ab right?

And these THEM have to partys. But when it comes to wars, denying medical treatmnets and the right to be informed-be in on the arcanum, the two parties quickly become one.

Well, not really. Only 99% vote for any war of aggression or denial of medical treatment. 

One of US, my wife, asked me, What is zionism? Isn’t US a democracy? How can a democracy be wrong?
Look, dear, said i, Do i look like i know everything?
There’s only ab 200mn of US like me and my wife!

My premise, is the reason it took so long for the Democrats to act, is because it is always an act.

Those democrats, oh those Republicans, the drivel made me do it!

Constant contention the ever so useful smoke screen.

Except based on the strings the Obama crowd pulls behind the scenes—not out in the open where Obama’s actions would be in conflict with his rhetorical posturing, one is left to question his true motives when he consistantly and deliberately works to undermine any progressive agenda that has the support of the MAJORITY of the population.
  Notice Obama dismissed and marginalized his base and those who voted for him to turn and embrace those who sought to buy him or destroy him.
  Why the hell would we want to defend or believe any of his regressive policies from Constitutional rights to war to the environment to health care are anything we support and want him to suceed with?

  The Right can win because they come across strong and determined while Obama is a weak fool who ignores his base, and only seems to seek unity with those out to destroy him because it is preferable to the perception that he is in league with them.