Obama Is a Muslim Terrorist, Gun-grabbing Socialist, and the Destroyer of the US Economy.... (or, so we were told by the cons)

As we're drawing closer to the unthinkable, that is, uttering the phrase, "president Trump", there might be time for Obama to live up to the worst fears of the Republicans, tea partiers, and conspiracy idiots.

Now, of course, this won't happen, but it actually won't be noticed by the knuckleheads who've been accusing president Obama of all those things that were actually lies, that he wasn't, and he didn't.  I don't think they'll really notice the tricks Trump will be pulling off to not do what he promised during the campaign.

Happy new year. The resistance begins on January 20th, 2017. I mean, believe you me, Trump is already responsible for bad weather, disease & pestilence, the middle class woes, Putin's grab of power, the rich getting richer, billionaires in charge of our government, and the Giants' loss in the playoffs.

The Year of the Monkey is Shapping to be a Great One for Progressives!

This is shaping to be a nice new year, and once again we're called to make a decision about the direction of our country. There are vast differences between the two parties' candidates, and let's not forget that elections have consequences! The Supreme Court is always at play during a presidential election.

There have been great debates about the direction of the country already, but new ideas come primarily from the left as the right wants to bring back what it has been tried before, often with dire outcomes. Yes, "the system" has a momentum that can't be easily changed given present political realities, unless, as Bernie Sanders says, public opinion and voting changes to reflect the need for change--change that will restore most benefits to the middle class.

The presidential term lasts 8 years, and Obama has over 300 days left in office. God just gave us a gift by recalling Scalia from the US Supreme Court. How can you argue with God, right? Scripture, as per St. Paul, says the people should obey those in power, because, after all, there's a divine plan in place. Therefore, Obama should nominate a replacement asap, and the president should be the communicator-in chief in order to get the new SCOTUS justice confirmed by the Senate.

Despite the nice statements about the departed justice, Scalia was a divisive figure and a conservative champion who believed in a romantic but unrealistic view of the US constitution. The conservatives have been attacking the liberal justices as "activists" who find rights in the constitution and overturn the "will of the people" and legislatures. Of course, the 2000 SCOTUS decision to essentially give G.W. Bush the presidency was an act of judicial activism by the conservatives, though they tend to forget it. 

Marco Rubio put it bluntly yesterday, that the US constitution is not "a living, breathing" document but must be interpreted "as the founders intended."  This is a conservative but misguided view. The constitution was meant for a living and breathing country, not a dead one of the 18th century..... a time when owning arms meant a musket and a knife!  Indeed, we tweaked the constitution 27 times already. 

Also, many necessary changes that promoted rights, freedom, and the quality of life came via the judiciary branch, especially when some states--often representing local majorities--remained stuck in the 18th century conservatives seemed to love. Oh, yeah, there are "moderate conservatives" I hear. OK, it's true. These are the ones who love the time before the New Deal. Maybe that's what Trump means by "Let's Make America Great Again."

There are many cases of importance the high court has to decide before it goes into recess in June, cases such for voting rights, Obamacare, union organizing, immigration, etc.  So, let the gladiatorial games begin...  Happy Chinese new year by the way.

A Liberal Citizen to President Obama: Push for Immigration Reform Now!

President Obama latest staged speech on immigration was interrupted by an attendee who yelled, "our families are separated," referring to the record deportations under the current president. Obama gave a b.s. answer that he has to follow the law, and that he still needs the immigrant communities behind him to change the status quo. He's obviously playing a political card in order to keep up the support these people have overwhelmingly given him and the Democrats.  But, it's his timid and ineffectual approach that hasn't changed the status quo.

Mr. president, he law is broken, the whole immigration legal framework is broken, plus any law that is applied without discretion is probably an unjust law. You have applied other laws with prudence and restraint, like when you decided that the feds wouldn't harass the citizens of states who have legalized marijuana--against federal law.

If there's no criminal conviction, the deportation of parents of US citizens (children born here to undocumented immigrants) is unconscionable, as the deportation of many others who have roots and are productive in their communities. It's a shame that we--most of the blame goes to the irascible Republicans in the House--haven't passed the DREAM act and legalize those children who were brought in the US without a visa but this is the only country they know. On this, the president issued an executive order to stop the deportation of these children or those who were brought into the country as children. So, why did he do that?...  [The Immigration Policy Center is definitely worth a look as it has a comprehensive, issue-by-issue, approach to immigration in the US]


So, Mr. President show some leadership and get comprehensive immigration reform passed. Stop repeating the same mistakes. In 2008, you ran on a universal/public option for health care. Once elected by a landslide you wasted over a year by delegating to Congress. Seriously? Not only you lost the momentum and wasted your political capital, but in the end we got a flawed system. Yes, it's better than the current one, but it could (yes, we could!) have been much better by extending Medicare to all. 

It's mind boggling that his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was so clumsy implemented. He knew the opposition has been shredding the ACA from the moment it was proposed; there was no luxury for having this kind of problems today. He made it so  much harder for many Dems and progressives to support this flawed program. This doesn't help building momentum against the regressive Republicans, who had been battered from causing the government shutdown this Fall.

Last year, Mr. Obama won reelection handily. He had made immigration reform an important policy goal in his second term. What did he do then? He, again, delegated to Congress. Oh, yes, he threatened them that if they didn't do it, he would! Sure. Immigration reform, flawed and all, was passed in the Senate but died in the Republican House. 

At least there's good news for those who prefer to lead from the rear. A majority of Americans now not only favor immigration reform but also a path to citizenship for the undocumented. 

Of Course We Need to Know How Our Government is Exercising Power in Our Name and on Our Behalf.

It's fascinating that many liberally-minded people I know aren't bothered by our government's snooping and are more upset at Snowden for revealing the "state's secrets."  I fully understand that in order for us to enjoy our lives and freedoms we have to be safe, but at which point Big Brother-like government actions are not appropriate?

What did Edward Snowden reveal? Something that should not be secret anyway! We should know what and how our government invades our privacy. Do they follow proper constitutional procedure? When somebody collects information about me, I have to know about it, how they do it, and how they'll use this information. As consumers (never mind as citizens), we have to know. And, if we don't think it's appropriate, then we should be able to change that. This is what an advanced, liberal-social-democratic country should be.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Therefore, our government has to, "by oath or affirmation," obtain permission, and thus create a record that can be reviewed for abuses or even whether the act was necessary. We now know the snooping into many people's private affairs in the past was improper, wasteful, and not what an accountable government should be doing to its free citizens.

Not all leakers of government secrets are the same. When the government breaks the law, or lies to its people, or is corrupt, or wasteful, etc, the public's interest is at stake. We need to know! The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Abu Graib, torture and rendition program, and so many other cases--revealed by conscientious people--served our country. 

This is not a banana republic where Big Brother knows best. Are we mature adults who care to know?

 

Obama's SOTU Address: A Progressive View

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

Are We Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago?

Are we better off four years into Obama's presidency? Well, it depends how you look at it. I say, yes, we are! The previous chief and his crew started the fire that began to consume our house. This chief and his crew put out the fire and have began the rebuilding process. Is our house better since 2008? Probably yes. Is it better since we arrived? Probably not. However, the previous regime that created the whole mess now wants the keys back because the present regime hasn't completely fixed the mess!

Oh, and when the current chief asks for tools, programs, jobs, the Republicans in Congress say, NO! Under our system, the president can't raise or spend money unless Congress agrees. Further, we should never elect to high office persons and political parties that do not have a positive view regarding government. If they don't think our government can be a positive force for our commonwealth, they should stay away. No, government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the agent that reduces obstacles to freedom, to enhance access to opportunity, and to push for legal equality.

The numbers

Clinton was right, the Dems have created almost twice as many jobs despite controlling the White House for fewer years! The Repubs have created more deficits and increased the gap between the 1% and the rest. How about the market? Without including the Great Depression [guess who was mainly responsible for it?], had you invested in the market, under a Dem president you'd have gotten an annual return twice as big, 8.9% to 4.7%; including Hoover's term, then it drops to 0.4%! [Here's the link to those numbers]

Obama gets an "D" (barely passes) when it comes to political communication. He cut taxes for 95% of the middle class taxpayers and nobody knows it. The benefits of the health care law are not known to those not immediately affected by it, so many people think it's another big government program costing billions more, when it's not and it actually reduces medical expenses. One third of the stimulus went to tax breaks for working people!

There's been a huge investment in green jobs and the CBO reports that 2.5 millions jobs are a direct effect. Likewise for the automobile industry and the many private business connected to it. The stimulus package was mainly a jobs bill in essence, but Obama hasn't communicated that!

Banks got a bailout--private banks with very highly-paid execs--but that saved the financial system. It wasn't done in a way most of us would have liked, but it was necessary.

Where's G. W. Bush?

In 2008, the US had lost millions of jobs, and was losing hundred of thousands every month until the summer of 2009 when Obama's policies began to take effect. The conservatives started labeling the Great Recession as Obama's recession a week after the November election in 2008!

If the GOP really believes Obama is responsible not for the pace of the recovery but for the roots of the problem why don't they take G.W. Bush and his crew out of mothballs and parade them around today until the election? Did you hear Dubya's name at the GOP convention? I didn't either!

In 2008, the economy was shrinking 9% a year; it was like the entire economy of Canada disappearing! Deregulation and lack of oversight of Wall Street created many of the financial scandals. This is the philosophy and policies of the conservatives at play. Yes, many Democratic leaders also cater to Wall Street and big banks, but there are a few, like Elizabeth Warren, who want to change that... to the benefit of everyone, including the big financial institutions. 

Why? Because capitalism needs referees, needs oversight, needs to be saved from itself. The more successful, stable, happy, safest, healthiest countries are the ones who have strong regulations and a good oversight. The more "pure capitalist" countries are on the opposite side of this spectrum. Check it out.

It's truly amazing that the US conservatives' policies attract so much support. Why Romney and his party are still competitive in this election... They are not saying anything different nor are proposing new policies but the ones that got us into a deep recession and worsened the position of the middle class.  Are we suffering from Alzheimer's as a nation? I hope that enough people will turn out and stop this insanity on November 6th, 2012.

...

My next post, soon, will be on the electoral calculations. I'm looking into the post-convention bounce and into the numbers from the battleground states. As of now, it looks very promising for the blue team.




 

Guns Don't Kill People! Then Why Shouldn't We Allow ALL and ANY Weapons?

Update, 7/30/12

The Second Amendment Has Been Turned Into a Sick & Deadly Joke. Who Are the Enablers of Death?

Those who don't like gun control now--after the theater massacre in CO--say "let's not politicize it". I say, we shouldn't if no aspects of this outcome are related to political decisions. Of course, we all know that the prevalence of gun violence in our society isn't because of our culture but also because of laws which are the result of political considerations, lobbying, and leadership.

Short on something?

Speaking of leadership, the president failed to lead, again, on this issue. He may lead, from the rear, in the near future if the country moves ahead on this issue and demands sensible gun controls. This issue is like so many others--oh, "controversial"--so Obama is cautious. Like he was with the Don't Ask Don't Tell, same sex marriage, taxes, etc. First the country moved, then this president followed instead of providing leadership.

Even most NRA members agree that sensible gun laws, better and more complete ones we have now, are needed! So, when will this president and Congressional leaders take on this issue? Why isn't there a federal law prohibiting assault weapons, certain ammo, and requiring background checks and waiting periods? 

Not turn-the-other-cheek fellow.

One of the stupidest arguments is that "the Gov will take away our freedom if it takes away, or knows about, our guns!" Oh, really? IF it comes to that, it will be too late indeed; the GOV always has more and bigger guns. We would have lost our fundamental freedoms well before that. And, we'd lose those freedoms by being idiotic, apathetic, and having a bumper-sticker mentality!

Modern societies have progressed from the days when justice and protection was up to each person--if they could afford it. Disputes are better solved without violence and if there's violence deadly weapons aren't used. We tried the method of everybody carrying a gun to defend themselves and we, at least most of the advanced societies, decided to change that. 

Disarm?

Sure, it's possible that the Colorado incident might have turned out differently had most of the theater audience packed guns. How different, I'm not sure. On campus where I work we've talked about the V Tech student massacre few years ago--when one person walked on campus and killed 30+ people. Maybe that would have happened if faculty, staff, and students had been carrying guns. However, what would happen every other day?! And, what would the atmosphere be when everybody knows a dispute can escalate into bullets flying everywhere?!
 

The Notion of Freedom 

I will not tire repeating that freedom is not just the absence of restraint! Yet, this is how most Americans define it, but this is rather inadequate nowadays. Obstacles to freedom include poverty, illiteracy, prejudice, tyranny of the majority, disease, lack of opportunity, etc.  


From my perspective, having the freedom to carry a gun and use it for protection is not as important as having health care, education, and be in an environment that allows me to reach my potential.  I cannot understand why having limits on the types of weapons I can buy, the types & amount of ammunition I can obtain, or restrictions on how and where to use certain weapons is limiting my true freedom. 

If guns don't kill people, then why have any limits? How about licensing nukes, armed fighter planes, and dirty bombs? Don't we need such weaponry for hunting or target practice? Obviously no one needs this weapons or huge ammo clips that attach to machine guns. If then it's about the effects οf weapons, then reasonable restrictions are necessary.


Necessary gun control plus some common sense enhance everyone's freedom and the quality of life.
........................................

Update, 7/27

The NYT has an editorial today reflecting many of the points here. Both candidates for president, but especially the sitting president failed to take this opportunity to lead and push for sensible gun laws.  On the other hand,  NYC mayor Bloomberg has been right on this issue all along. 

“Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”Mayor M. Bloomberg

As much as Obama has been lukewarm on many important issues, GOP flag bearer Mittens Romney is ridiculous. When he was one-term Gov of MA, he advocated all sorts of good things--health care, gun control, same-sex unions, abortion rights, etc. Of course by vying for the leadership of a lunatic party he changed his tune completely. 

And, this is my argument with people who say voting for Romney will not make much of a difference and that maybe he'll be more effective than the siting president. This is wrong on so many counts. Romney will have to govern with this Republican party, with its extreme policies and backward party line. He has flipped-flopped from his centrist positions and he'll most likely won't go back to them if elected. Plus, he'll be running for reelection which will make it even harder to adopt centrist policies.

On the other hand, Obama might be freer to pursue sensible policies (more) boldly after November thinking of his legacy and not of reelection in 2016.

The Theater of the Absurd Keeps Performing, and Amazingly Attracting Audience!

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

Obama Delivers a SOTU Speech Outlining His Campaign Themes. [But, will he revert back to a soft, compromising, and ineffectual style?]

Good speech by the president in the SOTU address, which revealed the main themes of his re-election campaign. Obama is a centrist and will play to the so-called independents and the "floaters"--which, for now, have left but many can be convinced to return, especially given the Republican challengers this year.

There are many reasons why we progressives can't stand the conservatives and this loony, extremist Republican party. Yes, that party whose ideology and public policy proposals go against the vast majority of Americans, in spirit and as public policy.

Obama talked about those American values that unite us. Well, let's see, what are those values, besides nationalism, patriotism, American exceptionalism-center of the universe, "support the troops," motherhood and apple pie?

I'll take them in order as Obama mentioned them, without the president being blunt and drawing his highlight pen to expose the Republicans as the ones against those American values.

1. Tuition assistance and generally the cost of education. Access to opportunity, and, of course, having an educated population is good for the US. The Republicans are against grants, tuition assistance, and want the ..marketplace to price education.

2. Immigration. Well, need I say more? OK, I will. The GOP is hostage to a shrinking but still xenophobic base that is more concerned with "border security" and arresting and expelling anyone who lacks documentation (heck, anyone who can't produce papers on demand). Giving amnesty to all those who have benefited from a hard-working, low-paid labor pool is fine with the Republicans, but giving a path to citizenship to those who have been here more many years, are productive, have paid taxes, and have stayed out of trouble, well, this is a no-no for the Republicans.

3. Public funds for scientific research. What is science anyway? It's just some theories who have gaps and the ..liberal scientists are conjuring up hoaxes on the American people... according to many Republicans. We have no money for science, we must balance the budget... unless we have to pay for another war against Iran. The Republicans are against funding for science and exploration, and research for alternative energy, etc.

4. Public projects. We built them even during the Great Depression and under sensible Republicans like Eisenhower. Not any more according to Republicans today. Infrastructure, communications, the internet, national parks, and even electrification were some of the deeds the GOP has opposed.

5. Regulations about consumer protection, conservation, environment, reckless Wall Street practices, etc, are all opposed by the Republicans.


6. Extending the payroll tax breaks to the middle class workers is opposed by the Republicans. Yet the GOP is in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires!

7. The super rich like Romney pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle class. I don't see why the millionaires (and anyone who earns over that amount) couldn't pay more. The Republicans oppose that, even when the country was about to default in paying its bills (many expenses a Repub prez and a Repub Congress authorized), because the GOP wanted to shove it to anyone (98% of Americans) but the rich.

What I find fascinating is that a major political party can advocate for policies that go against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and even against what the public wants right now [ie, spend to create jobs as opposed to balancing the budget], and yet this party is allowed to have so mach political power. The Republicans should not be allowed to govern, because they don't believe the government can do anything well or any good--unless it's about fighting the evil doers. Oh, and tell us how not to fuck.

It's going to be an interesting campaign season. Have I mentioned that I endorsed Newt for the Repub nomination?  I could go with Mittens but I think the campaign for the general election might be too much about style and personalities. However, with Newt being the GOPer, we may finally have the debate about the kind of conservatism inappropriate for in America of the 21st century and beyond. It's about time the conservative vision and policy proposals are clearly defeated and dismissed for good. Maybe then a more modern Republican party can emerge. That would be good for the country.

Obama's Struggling Against All Top GOP Contenders, But That's The Price He Pays for Weak Leadership

Obama's approval rates are in the low 40s, but as for handling the economy are even way, way lower. Another interesting poll (Gallup), perhaps more troubling is that the president is in a tight race with all top Republican contenders. What I sense is that the country is trying to decide whether Obama presidential material--someone who can lead not just delegate his responsibilities to Congress and try to compromise on the lowest possible denominator. The window for him to do anything to reverse this perception (with a great dose of reality) of an ineffective leader is closing. 


The president came out swinging against Congress just before he went on a ten-day vacation on a posh island where he's photographed playing golf. Nice swing, Mr. President. Admittedly, he has a better swing with a golf club than he swings against his political adversaries. It's actually amazing that the GOP hasn't paid a bigger political fine for bringing the country to the edge of insolvency. That the GOP was actually able to fight for and win amidst a recession tax breaks for the very wealthy!

Soon, the GOP will argue for a tax increase. The payroll taxes have been reduced under Obama's stimulus package [how many people know this??!!] but are slated to go up next year. This has been money directly into the pockets of working people. But, it's been a reduction only for the workers not the employers, so why should the GOP be in favor of this? Oh, they said letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a tax increase. Let's see how the handle this one. And, let's see how this president handles it too.

But, There's Hope in Extremism

 I still think the GOP will go for Perry, unless someone else declares soon who may be stronger (I doubt it), or unless the Texas governor has a secret closet. If I were selecting one of the current GOPers, I'd pick Huntsman. But he's "crazy" as he Twitted recently. He believes in science, evolution, and other facts--but this is not what this extremist party wants right now.

So, you have Perry who wants to be President of the US and who doesn't believe in science, nor does he understand the meaning of the word science & scientific theory. Or, doesn't know how old the earth is. Do you? Does it matter?

 

Elections have consequences, and of course there are differences among candidates and the policies they pursue. They may be playing poker with our chips though, and this isn't good for our country. Leadership is important, and not only in implementing policy, but also to set the narrative. These are the stories we tell ourselves. People repeat slogans, ideas, myths, because they've been indoctrinated without bothering to analyze.

This is not something anyone wants to hear--that they parroting away. Yet, ask what do people mean by freedom ? Why do they reject evolution (one of the strongest scientific theories we have), climate change? Or, that they believe the earth is a few thousand years old? Or, that creationism [read: the Xtian myth, not any other] should be taught in public schools?  Leaders  who shared those beliefs would be marginal not presidential contenders!

Maybe this election will highlight those differences, that is, between a weak president and a right wing extremist. That's Obama's best hope, because he doesn't seem "to get it" nor does he seem to "go for broke" [as Savannah Guthrie asked Gibbs on Meet the Press] and fight for what's right not what the Republicans will allow him to have.

Reading the Tea Leaves: Rick Perry's Run Bad News for Obama.

We all know that Obama is very vulnerable and increasingly seems like an one-termer. His biggest enemy is himself, but since he's going to have to face a Republican in the general election next year, the announcement of Rick Perry--the dimwit Texas gov--as a prez candidate creates a very credible threat to BO.

The GOP is not very comfortable with any other candidate, despite the high ratings Bachman, Paul, and Romney get. Paul is not mainstream conservative. He's a libertarian who sides with the GOP because of economic issues. Romney is a flip-flopper--he had to be in order to compete in this extreme party--and a Mormon. The Mornons aren't even considered Xtians by the other faithful, especially the Southern conservatives. Bachman, well, she's crazy and the majority of the conservatives already know this, despite the very conservative Iowans supporting her. She's the "local" candidate who'll probably win the Iowa caucuses early next year. But this won't be enough. 

Even if Romney wins the New Hampshire primary, the election schedule is favorable to Perry. If, and I think it's very likely, he sticks to close second or third finishes, then he can sweep the Southern states where the political base of the conservatives lies.


Perry's move to start his campaign with holding a mass prayer with fundies was to sent the message that he's not a Mormon, and that he's in line with the hardcore religious right. He can tout his gubernatorial credentials [even though he's been a terrible gov in a state with the weakest chief exec], as a pro-business, tax-cutter, job-creator, gun-totting, religious nut.  This will go extremely well in the GOP primary selection race. Unless a scandal befalls him, I see him as the Repub nominee next year. He could also be the next president of the US.

The credibility of a candidate nowadays--even before the public gets to know him/her--rests on the size of their bank account and the ability to raise a mountain of money. Perry excels in this, therefore, he'll be able to spend, spend, and outspend all the rest of the GOP hopefuls. Romney is rich, but I expect once the rich conservatives settle on a favorite horse, most of their money will flow to Perry.


The conservatives (in this GOP) have never accepted the legitimacy of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. I can't emphasize this enough. From day one, they didn't just oppose the ideology and policies but the person in the high office himself. They hated Clinton and they hate Obama. It's a visceral reaction, which will make the cons coalesce around the strongest candidate who can beat Obama.

The only puzzle piece in the presidential ticket will be whom Perry will select as his VP. He may go for ..crazy as he'll want to keep the loons engaged and excited. He understands that he'll have to make a hard turn to the center during the general campaign and, thus, will stop talking the loon dialect of the right. Instead he'll focus on the economy, (blame Obama for all of the troubles of the economy), and jobs, while constantly highlighting O's weak style of leadership. Perry is polished enough [lots of sizzle not enough beef.... though often Americans pay attention mostly to the sizzle] to project a strong presidential leadership and portray himself as a person who can get the economy going.

There will be an interesting difference in style that will obscure the substance between the two men. If Obama remains the detached and analytical intellectual, he'll lose. He'll lose because, even though most Americans agree with his policies (as expressed not as compromised), he won't be a strong leader. Americans prefer a strong leader who's wrong to a weak one who's right. 

Change we could believe in (2008) may turn into change we don't believe in (2012) but will get it, one way or another.

A bad economy always plays a huge role in the elections. Many voters have short memories; most don't understand how our political system works. The "floaters" (low info, impressionable voters) move from party to party and they decide elections. The other important factor is an energetic base. You can make your own assessment whether Obama has satisfied his political base.


The so-called independents and even some Dems may find acceptable a ..centrist Perry next year.  It's not all doom-and-gloom for the progressives yet, but there isn't much this president has shown us to be excited and hopeful as I'm writing this. Yes, We Can sounds far removed today. 

UPDATE (8/16):
"So where does the notion of a Texas miracle come from? Mainly from widespread misunderstanding of the economic effects of population growth."
 
Paul Krugman points out some more scathing truths about the "The Texas Unmiracle". 
"So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought."
 
UPDATE 2: Want to think about something really intriguing? Imagine if Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC, jumps into the race as an Independent.... He won't have to go through the primaries either.  This may have the effect of splitting the Democratic vote in the end, though if Obama is seem as an eventual loser, most will abandon him for Bloomberg. The latter is very acceptable to Dems, Inds, and moderate Repubs, and I believe he can handily beat any of the GOP fields against him. 

Another scenario would be that MB challenges BO in the Dem primaries. I would very much favor this, because it would produce a stronger candidate and a unified party behind him--no matter who it is (either). I like the idea of primaring Obama more and more. I'm with Bernie Sanders on this. We can dream, can't we?.. 

Obama's [Community-Organizer/Let's All Work Together?] Style: Leading from the Rear While Surrendering the Narrative to the GOP

Update, Aug. 2nd: Jon Stewart: "You're not pinning this turd on us..."
 


The manufactured crisis of the debt ceiling theater is coming to a close, though the damage will last a long time. Even if the US averted default on its obligations, its credibility has taken a hit. Progressives think that Obama was diminished by this process, and his popularity is also decreasing. Even though the majority of Americans like him, and are more in favor of his proposals than those of the GOP, he's considered a weak leader. Remember, the country has shown that it prefers a strong, effective leader even if he's wrong, to a weak leader even if he's right on the issues! 

Maybe Obama is gambling on the possibility the Republicans will nominate someone worse to run against him next year. The economy won't be much better before the next election, because this president failed to take action and the GOP has done everything it could to damage it.


Read Paul Krugman's "The President Surrenders" editorial.

Here's something to remember: One of the biggest differences between progressives and the American conservatives is that we want an active government to mitigate social darwinism the Republicans are in favor of. 

Every time there's a failure of government, the cons win points! They seem to be winning the narrative on this one too. They come into government with an intent of making the government worse! They create deficits, slush social services, and remove consumer protections. They love gridlock, because this increases the public's cynicism of their government!  Sadly, the person with the bigger, loudest megaphone is not disputing this narrative!


I'm with Senator Bernie Sanders on the need to issue a serious primary challenge to Obama. Not the Nader type, or a preacher, or some leftist fringe, but a good, sensible progressive like Feingold. I'm sure Obama will prevail but he will have to understand that there's an activist base out there and elections (especially close one) depend on getting the base excited and to the polls. Besides, we have to publicly discuss a few important issues. 

I argue that the narrative is extremely important in shaping our political discourse. Most Americans support progressive positions but it's the conservative narrative that often prevails. The more we spend time discussing the ridiculous [or, the artificial crisis of the debt ceiling] the more time, energy, and money we're wasting, instead of tackling serious problems.


There are going to be lots of polls following this manufactured crisis. As of now, the public blames the GOP more, but Obama's ratings are looking more and more Bush-like.

Here's a snapshot of public opinion: 

Q: If negotiations between President Obama and Congressional Republicans on the federal debt ceiling fail, and it leads to an economic crisis, would you place more blame on the President or on Congressional Republicans, or would you blame both equally?  
President Obama: 35
Congressional Republicans: 46
Both equally: 18
Not sure: 1


Here's a slew of numbers from DK/SEIU weekly poll.

This president hasn't learned yet that he can't trust this Republican party. When asked back in December--when he caved in regarding the Bush tax breaks to the super rich--why he didn't make the looming debt ceiling part of the deal, he said the Republicans would do the responsible thing when needed. Great call, Mr. president. Maybe you forgot how they negotiated on health care reform.... Tsk. 

Obama Sets His National Campaign in the SOTU Address

If you didn't watch the speech you probably heard tidbits about the president's immediate and long-term goals. I think his intention is to uplift the national sentiment about the economy and the future of the US. Gloom and doom, even if the outlook is bleak, doesn't bode well for those in charge of government. Obama made some sensible proposals for action the US must undertake if we are to be a successful country in the near future.

Is a country better off if its people are educated? Why does China, in proportion, more high school graduates than the US? Why Russia has more college graduates than us?

How about health? How come we spend more, per GDP, than any other country, but we're not the healthiest, we don't live as long as other advanced societies, and we have so many millions uninsured & under-insured? I'm not going to ask about quality of life questions, like stress, and general happiness...

During the SOTU address, I noticed that the Republicans stood stone-faced when the president mentioned a good provision of the new health care law, that insurance companies can't deny or drop coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Same face for the DADT repeal. In this they were joined by the military brass. Tsk.

Immigration reform is a necessary for many reasons, but I don't see how this tea party-infected GOP would support any immigration reform other than taking the "law & order" route of building fences and raiding companies for hiring undocumented workers. Even the Dream Act--giving legal residency to children who were brought into this country by the parents if these kids got an education or joined the US armed forces--will probably be opposed by the Republicans.

The future will come, but the question is how we get there. We have to choose our path wisely.

2010: A Year of Political Misfortune, Some Gains, But Still Better Than the Alternative

We've come to the end of yet another year. I know marking this particular day is man-made, but in measuring time we get some perspective on life and how our limited time is used up. Was this a good year? Obviously the answer isn't a simple one, but it may be easier to answer it if we focuses on the political developments here in our country.

In 2010, a Democratic president delved into his 2nd year and a House that will soon be under Republican control. This blog has been very critical of the way president Obama handled many issues important to us. We got the reversal of DADT, financial and consumer protection reforms, but the GOP got benefits for the super rich, the top 2% of Americans. I think a strong president with big majorities in Congress could have gotten a lot more for the middle and lower classes, and for setting the priorities for the future.

The unemployed got some more benefits, the super rich even more, most of the banks were bailed out, Wall Street is giving record-breaking bonuses, and the deficit grew even bigger.

On the other hand, we can't forget what it could have been under a McCain/Palin White House. Seriously, we can't forget this. I do recognize that the "lesser of the two evils" isn't very appealing, but in practical terms it makes a huge difference. We may not be sailing into the desired direction, but we are still sailing and we can still see the horizon. Do I need to explain what the McCain/Palin alternative would have looked like?

Long after a president leaves office, and for some 30 years afterward, his Supreme Court appointees rule on important issues that affect the lives of US citizens (and not only). We could have had a 7-2 SCOTUS conservative majority today--something that would have taken decades to undo. 

Another thing we have to remember is that a president has influence on the kind of narratives we use as a country. You want more of the American Taliban? Vote for a conservative president. Yes, it matters a great deal who are the people in positions of power, public policy implementation, education, science, etc. I don't want conservative ideologues, who prefer a theocracy to a secularism, creation myths to theory of evolution, astrology instead of astronomy, ignorance instead of the scientific method.

Enjoy the holidays, and come back for some more political fighting--fighting for a progressive America.  

Guess: Is the GOP a Deficit Hawk or a Peacock? They Have Money for the Rich but Not for Hungry Kids

The House passed the bill extending the tax cuts to people who make up to $250,000 a year--this includes the first 250,000 of all taxpayers that make more than that. But, the Senate Republicans are giggling because they won't allow this bill to pass the Senate unless the tax breaks include the rich. Now, why isn't this something Obama blurts out every time he opens his mouth these days?

The best way to infuse cash into the economy is to give it to people who'll spend it right away, not those who'll save it. The unemployed will spend those checks, the rich will save it--because they buy what they want anyway without waiting for the extra tax breaks to do so!

Now the White House is negotiating with Senate Repubs to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy in exchange for extending unemployment benefits. It's crazy! The WH shouldn't be working behind the scenes but in front, pointing out that unemployment benefits are more necessary for boosting the economy (and giving relief to those who need relief) than the very expensive (and long-lasting) breaks to the affluent!

We expect more from Obama--not more than what he promised as a presidential candidate! We don't expect much from the conservatives and this Republican party, other than block any worthwhile bill--like the one to extend free healthy meals to kids! Oh, no, we don't have money for that, they said. But, we do have pocket money for the rich to buy more shrimp cocktails. [by the way, the $4.5 billion this healthy meals program needs is basically a re-allocation of money not extra spending.]

Election 2010 and the Aftermath. Much Will Depend on the Learning Curve of President Obama in the Next 2 Years

Probably you've heard that the GOP took control of the House in Congress in a "historic" collapse of the Dems. Nothing unusual really. In the last 80 years, in the first midterm elections the party in the White House always loses seats in Congress. Only twice there was an exception: FDR in 1934 (Great Depression), and GWB in 2002 (War time). 


The opposition is always more energized and it shows at the polls. This election was decided primarily by turnout. The economy and the perception of ineffectiveness/weak leadership were the other reasons.

Did you watch Obama's speech/analysis of this election? “We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done,” What?! No, Mr. President, the Democrats lost because:


1. The economy still sucks even though Wall Street is doing fabulously well. More importantly, you didn't explain to the public that 8 million jobs were lost before you took office; that another 3/4 of a million were lost in the first 3 months after you got into office--before your policies went into effect; that 40% of the stimulus money went to save jobs like school teachers, firefighters, and police. Needed projects to shore up our crumbling infrastructure also helped with keeping unemployment down and stimulating the economy. Same for extending unemployment benefits. Many economist have argued that your stimulus wasn't big enough.


2. That you failed to pass a health care reform bill as you had promised, because you wasted one year trying to convince Republicans to support a watered-down bill (none of them did anyway), and you gave your electoral winnings to DINOs (like Max Baucus) to gamble away. You failed to explain that even this health care bill gives coverage to millions more Americans, prevents insurance companies from capping coverage and dropping people for pre-existing conditions, and allowing students to be under their parents insurance until 27 years old. But, where's the public option? Also, most of the already insured saw their coverage premiums go up.


3. You alienated your progressive and most active political base by scorning groups that raised lots of money for you, hoped you'd end DADT, DOMA, take the country out of 2 wars and bring the troops home.  You took bad advice from people like Rahm Emanuel, who don't understand that progressives may not go to the other side but they can stay home on election day.


4. You didn't push for immigration reform. Hispanics are heavily pro-Democratic but they have to see someone fight for good, sensible, and practical reform of our broken immigration system. 


5. Do you know why you lost the independents' vote? About 20-25% of the independents are "floaters"--move from party to party within a short span of time. Some 10% can be moved by rational arguments, like reasonable people who evaluate the evidence and make a rational decision. Unfortunately, most voters aren't moved by rational arguments. They are moved by impressions, perceived results, and strong leadership.

A Different Electorate

This electorate was older, richer, and whiter. Blacks didn't come out to vote like they did in the past--their percentage in the voting public dropped precipitously. Hispanics didn't vote either in big numbers--except in Nevada! They had a reason there: Sharon Angle and her racist, xenophobic ads.


As for compromise the Dems  and the president are ready to accept, it's a dubious thing. The Repubs aren't interested; their number one priority is to make Obama one-termer! The latter already bought into their talking point: extend the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts will go to the top 2% of Americans and will cost $1 trillion. Sure, cut the government, they say to balance the budget. First, it can't be done--enough of these deficit peacocks. Secondly, what are they going to cut? Seriously? What part of the discretionary budget will they cut? Is the defense budget on the table too? 

Compromise is part of politics. Our own political system is partly the result of a compromise. However, facts are pesky things that get in the way of an opinion. A conversation and possible compromise between rational parties should start on a factual basis. Compromising with the flat earthers by agreeing that the earth is a ..square serves no good purpose.


There are positive outcomes from this election too: The Tea Party as the spoiler to the GOP hopes of capturing the Senate. There will be a fight now between the teabaggers, their supporters and the pragmatists like Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Also, the "blue dogs" Dems were disseminated. If Obama plays it smart--like FDR did in the 1930s--he can blame the conservatives for gridlock and, more importantly, he can point out who's on whose side. Who's is promoting the interest of the people and who's promoting the interests of big business and the rich. Can't wait for another government shutdown... 


I've talked with many people who are disgusted by politics, who believe that our two corporatist parties have the same agenda and it doesn't really make a difference. I share their frustration but I don't share their conclusion. It's beyond obvious to me that elections matter. A preliminary analysis by Think Progress shows:

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of man-made climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

To be continued.....

Simple Truths & Clear Messages. The Tax Cuts: Who Gets them and Who Pays for them.

Simplicity is not always possible when it comes to complicated issues, but without people being informed their impressions about reality affect their behavior, including how the vote--if they do--which is a problem for the Democrats this election.

Our president has the intellectual ability to grasp complicated issues but he needs to improve his message, because he doesn't speak to a captive audience in an academic auditorium. The noise by Fox, the Tea parties and the GOP paint Obama and the Congressional Dems as ineffective leaders. It's incredible, isn't it, that Superman hasn't fixed yet all the problems Republicans have helped to create over a decade, so, therefore, the GOP is asking to be put back in (more) control of the legislative agenda!

The video above is a clear, concise illustration of the issue of tax cuts and their effect on our budget. Such messages have to increase in frequency until the election, November 2nd.  Of course, many races will be decided on local issues and personalities, but their effect will be felt nationally for many years to come.

As soon as we see good signs that the White House is coming out actively campaigning and refining a good message, we had both the prez and his veep chastising the Democratic base as whiners and too demanding. What the hell? The White House, instead, should take a good look at its failure to push through many elements of the progressive agenda candidate Obama promised and asked the country to support. He has disappointed much of his most active members--usually the ones who volunteer and come out to vote in midterm elections!  

Obama should be saying that he'll try harder to lead the country in a more progressive direction. This was the message he ran on and the country responded enthusiastically.  It was not just about voting down the incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous Republican rein, but it was about universal health care, end the wars, energy independence, immigration reform, controlling the excesses of Wall Street, etc. All these issues still have the majority support of the country. Maybe with the imminent departure of key high-level White House staff, the president will re-evaluate his strategy and message.


There are 4-5 weeks left during which things can change. The country still doesn't trust the Republicans and don't like their new (old) policy proposals. But, uncertainty about the future and present economic stagnation make voters uneasy. Some reminders and comparisons are necessary to be made soon. In politics one should always ask, what's the alternative?

Those Who Wrecked the Car Want the Keys Back.... (Some Thoughts on the November 2010 Election)

It's the economy, stupid. September has been good on Wall Street but no so good on Main Street. Anywhere between 25 and 35% of our working force has felt the effects of unemployment since the Republicans were in office in 2008. The latter are saying now that the Dems haven't fixed the problems of the Great Recession in 1.5 years that they created when they controlled the government.

Unfortunately there's a big percentage of Americans who have short memory and float from side to side and often decide elections. They are low information voters, moved by impressions of power and outcomes. For the life of me, I can't see why voters would return control of the House to the Republicans. The congressional GOP has one strategy: to frustrate any Dem initiatives and make Obama one-termer. The hell with the country. Controlling one chamber (the House) will produce more dysfunctional government. Indecision, delays, bad laws, inaction, and a protraction of the economic crisis all are bad for Obama in 2012 and the Dems.


We can consider ourselves a bit lucky that the biggest threat to the Republican party right now is the tea parties. If it weren't for the teabaggers wrestling control from key GOPers, the Dems would also lose the Senate this year. Take for example Dem Harry Reid in Nevada. He would be trailing by double digits today if his opponent wasn't such a nutcase. Instead he's ahead by a couple points. 


Now, what has the Dem in the White House and those in Congress done? Not much. They have managed to alienate their most reliable and active base--the progressives and those groups that believed the country would finally get bold leadership to pull it our of the morass the conservatives had sunk us in. But, no such bold leadership came despite huge majorities, a huge electoral win, and high approval ratings when Obama took office in Jan. 2009. 

Drildo. Many voters will be satisfied (one way or another) in November

I've written lots on this wasted opportunity and how the Dems have been incompetent in managing their good fortunes after the last general election. Let's look to the future now. But, in a democracy with popular elections there has to be some kind of strategy, good communication with the public, and, yes, a clear & bold policy. The president usually wins public fights with Congress if he knows how to play the game. He has to be out there every day saying articulating a clear policy while pointing to the obstructionists. The current president should see how Clinton played the Republicans when they shut down the government via their congressional leadership.


The economy will be a major factor in this election and it ain't getting much better between today and election day. But, from Labor Day on the voters pay more attention to politics and begin to form their opinions. 

• Bigger than 5% points in polls by end of this month will be insurmountable by election day. Time to act is now.
• In a low turnout midterm election the more energized base produces huge advantage. Thus far, the Dem leadership has failed to energize its base. Why? Because, they shied away from legislation (jobs bills, tax breaks for the rich, immigration, etc) even if there are big majorities in favor of such bills. The Times has an article on college voters, here.
• Obama must set forth a clear agenda now and make a promise to implement it one way or another. He should establish clear objectives and send a clear message to the Republicans and Dems that he's going to be a stronger leader than he's been so far.

With fewer Dems in the Senate and a minority in the House it's imperative the Dems show more solidarity. Their electoral fortunes in 2012 will depend on this. And, the country will be better off. The Republicans are going to have a brawl with the teabaggers one of this days or the GOP will cease to exist as a party that represents a big chunk of the country. Tea party candidates are way out of the mainstream and I don't think they can sustain their initial success, but then again they may capture the GOP whose white, southern (regional) stronghold is shrinking.


The bottom line is who can convince the voters that they can do a better job with the economy after the November election. In theory there should be no contest, but in reality... well, we're seeing it right now. I just think there's a small (and getting smaller) window for the Dems to stem their loses and retain control of the House. Yet, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

A Few Reminders to President Obama...

Even if the choice between Obama and McCain, including their respective parties, was very clear in the last election, we can't be happy with several actions by the sitting president--who has maintained the failed and even illegal policies of the Bush administration.

Many of us were inspired and greatly motivated by the rhetoric of candidate Obama and the striking differences to the Bush-Cheneys he pronounced. So, what the hell has happened???!!!

All progressives have to keep Obama's feet to the fire. "All the power you didn't like when you didn't have it ... now YOU decided to keep it"..

Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com

As for the election in November, two things can happen. Either the Dems will maintain a narrow majority in the House or it'll go to Republican control. Wasting one year on health care reform and wasting his political capital falls squarely on the president. He took his electoral winnings and gave them to DINOS and the GOP to squander.

He's seen as slow to react in the BP disaster, and the general view is that Obama doesn't have a clear policy. Again, the country prefers leaders who are strong but wrong, to weak/indecisive but right. 

The economy is also a big factor, and it will greatly influence the outcome of the November elections. There are signs of improvement but this has to be "felt" by most Americans. It can't be a jobless recovery or one defined just by a Wall Street rise.

The Dems Must Repeal Social Security, Medicare, and All Social(istic) Programs!

In Hopes of Getting the Support of the Republicans! That Would Fulfill Obama's Holy Grail of Bi-partisanship. Middle-of-the-road Politics Today, Roadkill Tomorrow! Everybody Wins (except the country)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Blues Clueless
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

"The Republicans are f@**ng with you! They'll never going to let you in the station wagon." Jon Stewart

I watched the SOTU address (no drinking game this time*) and the Repub response last night. Obviously, in principle, Obama comes much closer to my values and priorities than the conservatives who, at this point, are somewhere in the outer boundaries of the solar system (yeah, that's far out).

But, despite Obama tailoring his speech to appeal to the fluid independents the reality is that he and the Dems have not provided the kind of leadership the country wanted by giving huge majorities to the Dems since 2006. Yes, the lost decade left a heap of troubles and huge deficits before Obama walked through the WH door. No reasonable person would expect a total reversal in just a year, but judging from the way he and his party conducted themselves so far, well, it's pathetic.

I'm afraid they'll take the wrong message from MA and move to the center in hope of getting in the ..car that they own! It's not going to be a successful strategy, for the following reasons:

• They will lose the support of their most energetic base--the grassroots and the progressives
• They will never get the Republicans to support them. Unless the Dems bring back the failed policies of the previous administration or the disastrous conservative policies: freeze spending across the board excluding defense; continue tax breaks and no tax increases for the wealthy class and big business. All these will not benefit Main Street, only Wall Street.
  
• They will lose the independents who are not ideologically attached to a party and don't like weak leaders or nothing good coming out of Washington.
• Did I mention that Republican-lite isn't the flavor of the moment?
• If the Dems give up their mandate for change (yes, change the status quo--when more and more Americans believe that "the fix is in."), then they might as well return to the status of the minority to wail and make noise without having any responsibility to do anything. In short, give up CHANGE, and they'll get a CHANGE of regime in Washington DC come November and again in 2012.

*