If only the members of the populace could learn exactly what political Conservatism really is, surely they wouldn’t vote for Conservatism, but the Right-Wing’s Conservatives are so sure of their inculcation of the populace that they are assured that it doesn’t matter to the populace, even though Conservative means they are going to try to get rid of unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, sell the buildings, bridges, roads and ports in our country to other countries, get even more heavily into outsourcing jobs away from the populace, start more borrowed money wars, and borrow even more money to supposedly lower taxes; it doesn’t matter that the populace will be in debt and be forced to work for slave wages all their days, as this is what Conservatism does….. and all the cows say, “Yeah!”  And it is not funny, although the FOX News Network thinks it is, because they are doing it —————- the populace must be educated against destroying themselves from Right-Wing political conservative inculcation in this manner.

It is sad that renters, home mortgage payers, auto mortgage payers, Social Security participants, workers, waitresses, auto mechanics, Medicare participants,  Medicaid participants, the nearly destitute and the destitute of the American populace think they are Conservative Republicans and will argue as if they had a leg to stand on, because of all the conservative political inculcation in the schools, churches and in the media—they think they must vote with God. 

As long as the American populace members think that there is Godly and social help for the populace from the autocratic Conservative Right side of the spectrum, and that God is standing on the Right side of the spectrum, they sell themselves and the populace out to be outsourced, sidelined and marginalized. 

It is imperative to somehow break the populace’s conservative mindset rut of destruction inculcated by the Glenn Beck Type Conservative Revolution that continues and has continued for the past 30 years.  In order for there to ever be a democratic revolution against the Conservative Revolution, somehow the inculcated conservative mindset within the liberal populace must be broken, as all these poor people thinking they are Conservatives makes it impossible to ever have anything close to a democratic republic for the populace.

It’s the DLC Conservatives that are the problem.  Conservatives are definitely not the American Populace’s Base.  We, the liberal American Populace, must be about learning the difference between Conservatism and Liberal innovation and that Conservatism is not in the best interest of the American Populace by studying this essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson called “The Conservative”:  http://www.emersoncentral.com/conservative.htm

“The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and that of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made. This quarrel is the subject of civil history. The conservative party established the reverend hierarchies and monarchies of the most ancient world. The battle of patrician and plebeian, of parent state and colony, of old usage and accommodation to new facts, of the rich and the poor, reappears in all countries and times. The war rages not only in battle-fields, in national councils, and ecclesiastical synods, but agitates every man’s bosom with opposing advantages every hour. On rolls the old world meantime, and now one, now the other gets the day, and still the fight renews itself as if for the first time, under new names and hot personalities.”

“It is the primal antagonism, the appearance in trifles of the two poles of nature.”

“There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact. It affirms because it holds. Its fingers clutch the fact, and it will not open its eyes to see a better fact. The castle, which conservatism is set to defend, is the actual state of things, good and bad. The project of innovation is the best possible state of things. Of course, conservatism always has the worst of the argument, is always apologizing, pleading a necessity, pleading that to change would be to deteriorate; it must saddle itself with the mountainous load of the violence and vice of society, must deny the possibility of good, deny ideas, and suspect and stone the prophet; whilst innovation is always in the right, triumphant, attacking, and sure of final success. Conservatism stands on man’s confessed limitations; reform on his indisputable infinitude; conservatism on circumstance; liberalism on power; one goes to make an adroit member of the social frame; the other to postpone all things to the man himself; conservatism is debonnair and social; reform is individual and imperious. We are reformers in spring and summer; in autumn and winter, we stand by the old; reformers in the morning, conservers at night. Reform is affirmative, conservatism negative; conservatism goes for comfort, reform for truth. Conservatism is more candid to behold another’s worth; reform more disposed to maintain and increase its own. Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory. Reform has no gratitude, no prudence, no husbandry. It makes a great difference to your figure and to your thought, whether your foot is advancing or receding. Conservatism never puts the foot forward; in the hour when it does that, it is not establishment, but reform. Conservatism tends to universal seeming and treachery, believes in a negative fate; believes that men’s temper governs them; that for me, it avails not to trust in principles; they will fail me; I must bend a little; it distrusts nature; it thinks there is a general law without a particular application, — law for all that does not include any one. Reform in its antagonism inclines to asinine resistance, to kick with hoofs; it runs to egotism and bloated self-conceit; it runs to a bodiless pretension, to unnatural refining and elevation, which ends in hypocrisy and sensual reaction.”

“And so whilst we do not go beyond general statements, it may be safely affirmed of these two metaphysical antagonists, that each is a good half, but an impossible whole.”
http://www.emersoncentral.com/conservative.htm

I believe there are still over 170 unconfirmed Obama appointments pending before the Congress. They are being blocked in a strictly partisan effort by a negative GOP and an incompetent Democratic majority.

While George Bush was piling up one unsuitable appointee after the next Democrats said, in an effort to assuage the hurt at their inability to block or even slow the nominating process,” the president deserves his choices”. Well, the same applies now.

Bush did use recess appointments, in 2003 alone he made eleven of them, and now , with the appointment shoe on the donkey’s foot instead of the elephant’s, the partisans criticize that tactic but block every one in session or in committee.

I detested the Bush eight years, and now I feel the same about Obama’s first two, but I think this issue a straw man and indicative of the dis-functionality of our Govt.

I look with much skepticism at R. Marcus’ posts since her unfair and prejudicial statements in her ‘Soaking the Rich’ article..

This one has some merit in that it details Obama’s weakness in not being able to garner Congressional support for his nominees.. On the other hand her saying it would be unfair for the President to use the tools he has (as previous administrations have) to get the right people in positions .. is outrageous.

Adios.

I doubt Ruth had a problem with Bush using recess appointments, considering one of them was Jon Liebowitz to the Federal Trade Commission. “He lives in Bethesda with his wife, Ruth Marcus, and his two daughters, Emma and Julia.”
http://www.ftc.gov/commissioners/leibowitz/index.shtml

I’m afraid I join the majority of the comments so far.  It strikes me that Ms. Marcus wants to have her cake and eat it, too.  If she likes the nominee, then by all means use a recess appointment.  If she doesn’t, well, then using a recess appointment is egregious and untimely if it doesn’t meet whatever level or standard of appropriateness she had in mind.  She keeps that standard IN her mind.  How many months is “enough, already”?  We don’t know.  I guess that’s for her to know and us not to find out. 

I’m also unsure why she thinks it should take more than 2.5 months to complete the vetting process for a known quantity like Berwick.  As Marcus says, he’s been anything but quiet about his views.  What is the Senate staff for, if not to do this kind of vetting expeditiously?  How many months would Marcus think appropriate for a Supreme Court nominee?  If 2.5 is not too much for a policy administrator like Berwick, how much is too much for a Supreme Court nominee like Kagan?  Six Months?  A Year? 

I’d accuse Ms. Marcus of a double standard, but the standards are not stated, so I’ll hold that charge until she clarifies.  It is easier to hold a charge than to hold one’s breath.

The facts presented lead me to agree that Obama made the correct decision.  If the nomination took place more than 3 months ago and there hasn’t even been a single hearing…?  That pretty much says the process has stalled and now Obama has put a leader in place of a large organization that has had no leadership direction in 5 years! 

The writer is taking a single event out of context with the big picture; therefore, it is very misleading to try and convince readers that this is a cut and dried case.  Very bad writing.  Please stick to presenting news and let others come to a LOGICAL conclusion.

Ruth Marcus, you sound like a tea bagger with your whining and bitching. Why do you have someone like her writing crap like this?

Marcus

Getting sick of you.  Take a vacation.