” Damn the here and now, any
cost of living adjustment will not happen until
2012 at the earliest. S.S. people will be the voters
being courted in 2012.”

*************

There would have been enough money for COLA increases, social security that
affects most Americans,

IF WE HAD NOT EXTENDED TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY 2% OF THIS COUNTRY!

Who needs that money more—the wealthy with jobs and savings or older
people who depend on social security—nearly 75% of the country!!!

Notice how the Dems are trying to suppress the fact that they couldn’t even let
the bush tax cuts expire.

GUTLESS WONDERS!

Barb:

Iraq I was NOT Clinton—it was Bush41. That changes the count by 2—one more repub, one less dem.

You also split the Balkan war into 2, both under Clinton.  That lowers the Dem count by one more.  So it’s Repubs 11, Dems 10, NOT R 10, D 12.

You also forgot Ronald Reagan in Lebanon, and the attack on Libya—that makes it R 14, D 10, but you also forgot the invasion of the Dominican Republic under LBJ:

Now it’s R 14, D 11.

So by Barb’s counting the dif was -2 wars for GOP, when in fact it’s +3 wars, for a total miscount of 5 wars by Barb, as expected, in favor of the GOP.

****************

One thing about candidates(especially
incumbents) for office, is the vulgar, to me,
persona of a candidate being so
immaculate[squeaky clean] {think john edwards,
mitt romney} that he/she just can’t be corrupt or
would do the people wrong, even those who vote
for him. I see this as the perception that the
msm’s dumbstream look for and demand in a
candidate: not a hair out of place, perfect white
teeth, tailored 3 piece suit, a big ‘warm and
friendly’ smile and a perfect line about how much
good he has done and how much better he is
than his opponent. Not to mention he will be
carrying the american flag and singing god bless
america. The dumbstream take all that hook line
and sinker as no one like that would screw them
over for anything.

We will see. Now that some powers that are ‘to
be’ have insured that the c.o.l.a. for social
security won’t be increased until 2012 at the
earliest, one should be able to see the potential
of that being the condition of winning votes in
the 2012 election. Damn the here and now, any
cost of living adjustment will not happen until
2012 at the earliest. S.S. people will be the voters
being courted in 2012.

Whoever wins in 2012, much less in about 3
weeks, expect the pelosi syndrome where
impeachment was taken off the table faster than
the speed of light. Watch how fast those
campaign promises and caviar dreams will be
turned into something like this:
‘well, the increases in s.s. payments or the new
jobs programs will have to be put on hold so that
the military industrial congressional financial cia
msm complex can be allowed to win or fight
another useless and most likely illegal war
against those confounded ghosts that never go
away’.

Just think back on o’s campaign and how fast his
campaign promises were quickly turned around
for his buddies in the u.s. of corporations. Just
enough froth to get the minorities to cast their
vote, then the knife in the back.

It will pay to really get the most information
about who to vote for if any good will come from
changing things by elections.

y glider, October 10 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment
mack894,

A lot of people owe Nader an apology.

**************

Reaction to Nader was based on Bush rage, not anger about what he stood for. 
If we consider what Nader did during his tenure in govt—fought corporations
that were ripping people off, that were killing people—and won, we would be
begging him to return to the scene.  To show u how radical the notion is now, I
would have preferred him for the new Consumer Protection Agency.  But if the
govt doesn’t have the gumption to install Elizabeth Warren because of corporate
pressure, it certainly lacks the balls to appoint Nader.  And there’s the rub. Why
the freakout over Warren?  Are we getting tough with corporations or not?  Why
is the Obama administration being so either cautious or accountable to
corporate influence (pressure borne by corporate purchased elected officials,
both dem and repub)? 

This midterm reminds me very much of the Bush-Gore election where
democratic voters—progressives—were so disgusted with their party (and
they had been run off anyway by Clinton who wanted to be more republican
friendly and less liberal, thus more competitive) they voted Green, opening the
door crack just enough to allow the SC to appoint Bush and install republicans
in power. 

Democratic leadership just doesn’t learn. Now at the 13th hour, they want to
halt foreclosures and publicize other get tough measures they’ve been to weak
to deal with for 2 years. 

Gutless wonders.  I’d vote for Nader in a heartbeat, charm or no charm.

By ejreed, October 11 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
A reason to vote? Or not?
Black Americans Face Higher Joblessness  
********************

I believe in voting, but that’s not the point so much of the article.  The point is
who to for vote?  At this time, black people, white people, any people who
support a progressive agenda and hope for more progressive legislation must
vote democratic unless there is a candidate who presents him/herself as
progressive and independent.  The problem with voting for a
Republican/independent is that Republicans swarm the independent for party
votes in Congress and without cooperation effectively “deactivate” the official to
bar his power.  That’s why tea partiers are republican, no matter what they say.

A reason to vote? Or not?
Black Americans Face Higher Joblessness  
The US economy shed 95,000 jobs in September, according to the latest figures from the US labor department. While the percentage of unemployed Americans remained unchanged at 9.6 percent, the jobs crisis has had a devastating. http://www.newslook.com/videos/256651-black-americans-face-higher-joblessness?autoplay=true

Here’s what Obama has done in less than seventeen months.

?1. Gutted real financial reform (no Glass-Steagle, no ‘too big too fail)
?2. Rejected the only health care option that would simultaneously extend
coverage and cut costs (single payer)
3. Supported a stingy stimulus (one-third tax breaks)
4. Doubled-down & accelerated the Bush bailouts
?5. Escalated a fruitless war in Afghanistan
6. Not helped people in bankruptcy & needing mortgage remediation
7. Not passed a jobs bill & had trouble extending unemployment compensation
8. Ignored previous Republican profligacy, crimes, misdemeanors
9. Used “Heck of a Job, Timmy” to promote low taxes for the wealthy on capital
gains, dividends and ‘carried interest’

Obama has not helped black people, white people, brown or yellow people.

Obama is a pawn of the wealthy and the corporations. He should leave the
Democratic Party and join the Republican Party which is closer to his values and
‘principles’.

oops!, make that “if they don’t move Leftward”

mack894,

A lot of people owe Nader an apology.  I am sure he has had enough but I sometimes think I would like to see him come back with a bit of a new twist.  Send him to charm school and develop a strategy to empower the Left by threatening the Democrats with a loss due to vote splitting if they move more Leftward.  Fight fire with fire.  There might be some intelligent ways to pursue that kind of agenda even accepting he can not win.  If he can move the Democratic strategists properly we might have a productive outlet.

y morristhewise, October 9 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment
White Liberal voters are frightened and no longer trust the Democratic party to
solve their financial problems.

**************

This is ridiculous and just stupid if white liberal voters are actually going to
trust the Republicans whose agenda is to protect corporate influence and Bush
“tax cut” Americans.  That behavior is like changing lines at the grocery store
when all of a sudden you find your line has stalled for a price check. 

Republicans aren’t going to solve the financial problems of a white liberal; they
don’t care about white liberals. They care about those corporations that will
fund their campaign chests and keep them in power.

We came close to a third option with the Green Party is people had just
developed some gumption and voted for an honest person.  Nader would not
have screwed you like dems and republicans; he’s not beholden to anybody and
he would have told the lobbyists to ef off.

Glider,

Agree that it’s apples to oranges, but the dynamics are similar psychologically and also politically. I’m sure a case could be made that the details are different, but in looking at the forest through the trees, I see very similar markings. But I am not pointing to Weimar only. Fallen empires tend to go through somewhat predictable cycles. Rome comes to mind, and it may be even more apt than Weimar. What is indisputable, however, is the undercurrent of entitlement, dispossession and rage. It isn’t going to get better, but it is going to get a lot worse by 2012. I’d say an order of magnitude worse—regardless of who wins in 2010—but you might find pundits that argue that it will only get twice as bad. I’d say the distinction is moot, however. The wheels are coming off, and we’re going over the falls. Beneath the anger, there is fear, and when most of the population owns guns and hails from a cowboy tradition, that is a very creepy thing.

gerard, October 9 at 3:28 pm said:
“Republicans have a history of acting more pro-war…”

A common misconception. I’ve been trying to figure out why.

Here’s a list, and I’ve probably left out a few

Franco-American Naval War(Quasi War): John Adams, Federalist(Ancestor Party of the Republicans)
First Barbary War: Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican(Ancestor Party of the Democrats)
Second Barbary War:James Madison, Democratic-Republican
War of 1812: James Madison, Democratic-Republican
Mexican-American War: James K. Polk, Democratic
American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Republican
Korea(1876); Ulysses S. Grant, Republican
Spanish-American War and Phillipine Insurrection: William McKinley, Republican
Haiti-Vera Cruz occupation: Woodrow Wilson, Democratic
World War I: Woodrow Wilson, Democratic
Nicaragua: Calvin Coolidge, Republican
World War II: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic
Korean war (1950-54): Harry S. Truman, Democrat
Vietnam War: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson, Democratic
Grenada: Ronald Reagan, Republican
Panama: George HW Bush, Republican
Persian Gulf War Operation Restoring Freedom: George HW Bush, Republican
Bosnia: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party
Kosovo: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party
Iraq 1: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party
Afghanistan: George W. Bush, Republican
Iraq 2: George W. Bush, Republican

Republicans: 10
Democrats: 12

If Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo for 78 days didn’t convince people that todays Democrats love war as much or more than R’s nothing will. That was a PNAC plan, as can be seen here:
http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm
There was no genocide taking place, it was a lie. Don’t believe me, check the FBI or the UN. Both orgs concluded as much. But we still have a huge base there! (955 acres)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel
Sound familiar? Invade a country based on lies, bomb kill and destroy, build a base, then pretend nothing happened.

Prediction: (D)emocrat Barack H. Obama will decide to invade Pakistan (can’t let those people keep their nukes). We’re already drone bombing all kinds of folk there, what kind of country does that?

The truth is the D’s have started more wars than the R’s. And Congress funded them all.

mdgr,

Comparing unemployment is tough due to the shifting methodologies between then and now.  Classic apples and oranges.  I dug around and found this graph where the author tried to normalize the 2 data sets and compare them more fairly.  The conclusion is that our unemployment is no where near that of the 1930s.  Additionally think about the buffer of having woman in the workforce and many families with 2 wage earners today.  The other factor I think needs research is how much personal wealth was lost in the 30s amongst the middle class due to the combination of the stock market crash and no FDIC to cover Bank failure losses (I think 30% of the banks failed).  Fortunately, our politicians did not trash all of the FDR era safeguards.  It bad now but the not at the same level of despair.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/u3-and-u6-unemployment-during-great-depression

Mothers of the confederation may have not known, but fathers did: the best
way to rule a land by iron grip wld be to fill them with blacks of all
shades,europeans, and asians along with many cults; all working against each
other to a necessary degree that twelve rich anglosaxons cld rule all ‘americans’
[socalled] for an eternity.

But canadian and australian fathers also knew that and have done likewise.
So the best thing to do now is to first of all ship off s’mwhere ‘jews’, since they
are by far the best mafia org.
Send blacks to birobidjan—it’s a paradize. “jews’ did not want it—they
wanted hell and to behave like mofiosos; US being a very good arena for that.

Latinos cld be sent to canada, italy, or mexico! Euros can go to EU, if it wld
accept them—if not ship them off to sahara.
And only leave wasp in amerika. And see what? But, of course, paradize
restored.
No more wars; unless english cld hire aliens to wage wars for them; they, of
course, are not that dumb to fight!

In finland, norway, slovakia, it is much harder to rule these people with iron
fist—rulers there use their sticks and magic wands, because these lands are so
homogeneous.

What if u can’t do that? What then? Well, u’d always have ur God Bless America
and the Greatness of America.
Finally, u have learned what the greatness of america and god bless america
mean?

Now u know why latinos support the ruling class more than any other ethnos.
They know that they may be shipped off if ultra right wld rule america; for
them just the Right—a bit right of mussolini, wld do fine! tnx

1. Everybody should now by now that political parties lie, whatever they say, The only half-viable way to judge them is by what they do—or don’t do.
2. Republicans (Bush/Cheney) took 8 years to do things that got the country into one helluva mess, which Democrats inherited.
3. Democrats, in two years, have not done much to get us out, for a number of reasons, some “good” reasons, some not.
4. Republicans have a history of acting more pro-war, more “white-supremacist”, more anti-welfare and less sympathetic toward “underdogs” than Democrats.
Differences between the two parties has narrowed in recent years but is still significant, judging from behavior in office.
5. Voting is important, but if we want to improve the situation we will have to do more than just vote and complain.

White Liberal voters are frightened and no longer trust the Democratic party to
solve their financial problems. They are jumping ship and swimming to the rock of
corporate power that is better represented by the Republican Party. When poverty
comes in the door love flies out the window.

****************

And as horizontal and vertical integration works
and demonstrates, those ‘monopolies’ of the
dimocrat and repubs, making the 1 party of
american politics, know competition is NOT
healthy for them, Crushing the competition is
what works, that is why monopolies exist.

Clarification of the obvious:

“stratospheric employment” should have read “unemployment.” Sorry for the typo.

Glider,

A previous post (I think it was yours but maybe not) stated that unemployment in 1932 Germany was 28%. Right now, we probably have from 18-20+ % real unemployment in America, however, assuming one counts people who have dropped off the books. We have an even larger number wondering what happened to the “glorious American empire,” and we have resentment, seething racism and AK-47s openly taken by Tea Party activists to presidential convocations. That leaves out the NRA and the unfoldment of an ultra-right strategy that is funded by the Koch Bros and is proceeding right on track. Whether we like it or not, it will be as formidable and dangerous a force in 2012 as the Nazi Party was in 1932, and conditions are getting exponentially worse in this country.

Again, I think that framing the probability of third party politics in 2012 as splinter groups is, at best, ingenuous. Even now, Thomas Friedman is stating that they are likely to be the norm, and that they will be huge, not trivial. I don’t trust Friedman, but I do trust Naomi Klein both as a strategist and as a political analyst. She is no airhead, and she is making many of the same noises I am relative to the viability of a third party from the left that is emphatically NOT Thomas Friedman’s party of the “radical center.”

We can debate intellectually till the cows come home. That is, in fact, one of Vichy’s tactics, and I’m beginning to see blogs on the Huff and here mostly as glorified scandal sheets wherein people expend their vital energies and anger in what some might call “rational discussion” but which, as history might view it, could well be called intellectual masturbatory sessions. 

I am in no way diminishing the import of your specific questions—they are compelling questions—but the only probabilities I see are that things will devolve fairly quickly in America economically; that the undercurrent of rage and cynicism will grow exponentially; and that both major political parties will be weakened by 2012, whereas a far right group will probably be immeasurably strengthened. I’m less dismayed by the latter (it can yet be addressed) than I am with the two party fantasy. The latter is the poison pill that, as it were, keeps us all waiting for Godot.

I think that the statement that “corporations are evil” is itself as two dimensional as Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” If one looks at it deeper, one can see many ironies. The military-industrial complex, while despicably evil, also depends totally on tax dollars, for example. It is not in Boeing’s best interest, therefore, to call for a repeal of the income tax. Microsoft and Apple depend on consumers being sufficiently well-heeled to buy their products, and stratospheric employment rates are not in their best interest. It is not in Warren Buffet’s or Soros’ best interest to see Palin be given the nuclear football. My point is that the ancient Taoists were right, everything contains with it the seed of its Opposite, and perhaps the title of Nader’s (not a hero of mine, but I give him credit here) new novel was, finally and eventually, really on point.

Maybe the super-rich will in fact help us, once they see that neither of the two big parties (Vichy and Berlin) are going to be very viable in 2012, standing up against the Tea Party (Stalin).

My guess is that in the wake of a crushing defeat of Vichy in 2010, the pundits will declare it very badly injured—hopefully fatally injured. Self-interest will subsequently direct at least a portion of corporate money to Friedman’s “third party,” but that momentum can, I suspect, be redirected.

Corporations aren’t going away anytime soon, I think, and a Worker’s Party (whatever that is) is mostly pie in the sky. I’ll settle for corporations being compelled to serve the people rather than having the people serve them.

The question after November isn’t much about the money as leadership. That’s the thing I’m mostly worried about. . . .

mdgr,

I don’t believe conditions are bad enough to catalyze the response your hoping for in 2012.  Maybe you will need to add another decade!  Big political changes within Republics such as those that produced FDR or Hitler were much worse.  Generating a 3rd Party that could achieve election success due to the vote splitting effect in our crazy system and the lack of corporate financial support would probably take many election cycles (and money would eventually corrupt it).  The Tea Party does provide an alternative model in which a splinter group operates openly and defiantly within their own Party.  Their strategy has actually enabled them to field primary challengers successfully and thereby avoid this vote split effect.  The problem with reproducing that within the Democratic Party comes back to the “money” issue.  Since the Tea Party is astroturf born money is not a problem.  Any Leftist splinter group within the Democrat Party would need to be funded and organized by a grassroots People/Workers movement.  A tall task that comes back to are conditions really bad enough to catalyze it?  This is more feasible but still seems depressingly difficult.  At any rate we are living in “interesting” times and I have no idea what will happen.  I only feel certain that real progressive change necessitates removing money from politics.

Glider:

Money does matter and we all know that corporations are going to be buying votes with it and well as buying politicians. It’s also been blessed by SCOTUS, which both Vichy and Berlin helped install (e.g., my own Democratic Senator happily voted for Roberts).

The rage coursing through America is going to get far, far worse, however, and that can be used to advantage. I want to see that rage first turned on Vichy (2010), then on Berlin (2012).

The first step toward getting significant donations is to make any further affiliation with Vichy a thoroughly shameful enterprise that not even Kucinich could justify any longer. I won’t hold my breath for Dennis, but what if people like Franken, Grayson, et all resigned from that party en masse and talked about the need for a third party?

If that happened, I predict money would follow.

Let’s also remember that giving the nuclear codes to someone like Palin is not in the best interest of most CEOs, and many of them know it.

Here, I am first looking at November 2010. I view it not as an end, but as a beginning.

mdgr,

It seems the problem with both our scenarios is that neither accounts for how a 3rd party, or a Democrat Party that moves Leftward (more than on a short term basis), becomes viable in an structural pay for play system.  Your scenario, which I would love to see, depends on such an extreme level of obviousness and disgust that a dumb as dirt electorate is able to discern reality in the face of a Corporatized government and media propaganda machine.  How do you imagine getting above a level where money doesn’t matter?

ODIN007,

My reasoning for stating that 2010 doesn’t matter is because there’s going to be gridlock either way, and I am guessing that Uncle Tom will play a more progressive hand—using his veto powers—with Berlin in Congress that if Vichy (Pelosi, Reid and Nelson) maintains power. Again no one is being thrown under the Berlin-bus because Obama has his veto and gridlock will continue.

2012 matters because I am hoping that (1) Vichy gets eviscerated in 2010, creating a power vacuum that progressives can fill in the form of a third party. (2) By 2012, voters will revile both big parties, further leveraging any third parties, including that of of Stalin (the Tea Party) and a coalition of progressives and indies.

But more pointedly, 2012 matters because Obama is a one term president (if he even lives that long) and Hillary/Biden are nothing. Sarah Palin or someone even worse thanher will be waiting in the wings (Stalin), and if they take both the executive and legislative branches, they would also probably get the support of SCOTUS (Roberts, et al). Whether the Dems win or lose in 2010, they will be toast in 2012.

A lot is at stake, therefore, including the transfer of the nuclear access codes. It’s true that Bush too was a Rapture Nitwit, but at that time there were at least some checks and balances. There would be none if the Tea Party captured all three branches of government, and that is the brass ring that they are looking toward in 2012. It is, I think, very much in their reach, and it absolutely must not happen.

When I say “must not happen,” however, it is not to be deflected by keeping Vichy in power. It is Vichy that is preventing any real progressive/indie coalition from forming—and I’m not talking about a token 4% party, but a formidable party that could capture the plurality of votes in 2012.

That’s no psychotic dream. Naomi Klein recently talked about it, as did Thomas “the Weasel” Friedman. [See some of my previous posts where specific URLS are cited.] The latter writer seems to favor cosmetic changes; Klein and I are calling for substantive changes. In any case, some very influential people agree that it is probably quite realizable, but (and this is the strategic caveat) only if, in 2010, a stake is driven through Vichy’s heart.

This distills down to Democrat Strategists calculating more money/votes are had by moving Rightward to “Barely Left” of Republicans.  This calculation is rooted in our pay for play “Democracy” farce.  I propose to now refer to the Democrat Party as the BLR Party to elucidate this fact.  Shrewdly the Repugs have moved Rightward in response.  What will be the logical response of the BLR Party?  By definition they move more Rightward.  So the cycle is entrenched and “Progressives” in essence vote for Corporate Fascism.  A brilliant win-win strategy for Republicans.  How can one end this cycle and move Democrat Strategists to calculate more votes/money are to be had moving Leftward?  I suggest that a massive protest vote to the Green/Peace and Freedom Party will send the message to these Strategists when the time comes to “calculate” their platform.  While a Democrat POTUS is in office is the least damaging time to exercise this turnaround process.

Not only do black people have little choice but to vote for democratic candidates,
whose “stated” platforms at least acknowledge many issues that concern black
Americans, but also other progressives no matter their color.  Why would a
progressive, even though dissatisfied with Harry Reid’s performance in Congress
vote for Sharon Angle instead? 

But there is still a choice and that is the competitive battle here at midterm.  The
choice is between voting democratic and not voting at all.  The democrats need
their base to vote, but they only seem to acknowledge this at election time.  If they
had begun working for this vote 2 years ago, they wouldn’t be so desperate now.

The author has long been an Obama supporter and not unsurprisingly characterizes the Dems as “championing” progressive causes. There are many here, including me, that take umbrage with that statement.

I have previously compared the Dems to the Vichy government in France which collaborated with Berlin (the R’s). There is a nominal distinction between the two groups, yes, but the Uncle Tom who is our president has been in full collaboration-mode since he first formed his cabinet.

The two parties need each other much like the three warring powers needed each other in Orwell’s “1984.”

Now, just before the election, Uncle Tom is making a pitch to his base—the base he previously held in contempt—to remind them that the Axis of Evil begins and starts with Berlin. “Vote Vichy,” he says, “and progressive causes will be championed.” Presumably there is no ulterior motive for this sudden epiphany, but everyone with half a brain knows precisely what it is.

At issue, however, is that it really doesn’t matter who wins in Congress this time around. It matters very much in 2012, but not right now in 2010.

If anything, I want Vichy to be crushed, since they’re the biggest obstacle to a real progressive uprising in this country. It’s not Berlin, it’s our so-called friends—you know, the ones who have constantly stabbed us in the back.

But what Uncle Tom knows is that he can again afford to play a “real” progressive for television, since nothing he does as a is going to go through—it will be filibustered even if Berlin were to lose the election. It’s a win-win for Uncle Tom—and also for Wall Street.

At least if Berlin wins, Uncle Tom will actually have his feet publicly held to the fire—he will have to exercise the veto, and the irony is that he probably can be relied on to do that in enough cases so that people won’t be thrown under the bus by Berlin.

“Vote the lesser of two evils"pitch is entirely predictable coming from Vichy, and also predictably, Vichy has also become ever more evil.

The author of this article starts off by saying that what has transpired this past year was entirely unpredictable. If the latter is true, then I submit that Vichy has lousy political strategists.

It was in the cards from the day Obama first appointed his cabinet. It’s just gotten progressively worse (bad pun, I know) since then.

As a person who has frequently defended Mr. Robinson here on truthdig; after reading this article, I’m now wishing that go away, someday he would.

This article seems to indicate that Mr. Robinson is a single issue progressive and a person who places his special interests above the common goals of progressives.

“Given the stakes, I see no real choice for African-Americans but to go to the polls in November and stick with the Democratic Party, which at least asks for our votes.”
That statement is the most insulting piece of Democratic pandering I’ve seen in a long time. We all have real choices: vote third party or write in your vote or issue. Neither party is going to do a thing for any of us. We have to all get together and fight these bastards.
Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report wouldn’t agree with your assessment in a million years. You ought to try reading him sometime, Mr. Robinson. Perhaps you’ll understand the meaning of self-respect.

>>”...the progressive agenda championed by the Democrats is much better for African-Americans, and for the nation as a whole…”<<<

“progressive agenda”? ROFL It’s been a Goldman Sachs/Wellpoint/AIG agenda. Eugene isn’t ever going to get it. But he’ll keep parroting the same thing until he starts drooling in public.

>>”...the conservative agenda favored by Republicans…”<<<

Here is a major problem, laid out in black and white html: Todays Democrats aren’t really “liberal” and todays Republicans aren’t really “conservative”.

They both work for the corporations.

Eugene seems obsessed with race. That keeps his eye off the real ball. Robinson is a good little soldier.