For the 'sensible' people, here’s the deal.

With all the straw men being offered of late, enough to meet our energy requirements for the rest of the year if one were to ignite them, I thought I’d get out my lighter and do my part for king and country.

Now, put your seat belts on, because here we go.

While I didn’t share the level of euphoria some felt after Obama won in 2008, I was very happy that Bible Barbie was sent home to Wasilla, instead of D.C. That was a good thing. Obama was in my eyes a political neophyte with a preacher’s cadence, but anything would have been better than McFailin’; I would have voted for Ronald McDonald and I'm a Burger King man! I still believe that. The problem, however, lies in the fact that we are still on the road to a corporate state and the change that we got was only a change in the speed with which we are approaching it. In case it hasn’t occurred to you, that isn’t real change.

We all sat back and laughed as the GOP began to implode after the election. I took real pleasure in it for all the negative reasons. I hate conservatives passionately. There’s nothing, not one thing positive they have ever done for the people and I don’t mean just in the history of the U.S. I mean not ever in the history of our species.

Let’s leave party names behind us for a moment and just look at the line that divides us basically into two groups; those with empathy and compassion, who try to make things better for all and those without, who don’t – I prefer the terms ‘progressives’ and ‘regressives’ respectively. That’s the divide in a nutshell. The problem the so-called ‘radical’ left has with the Obama administration is that it is sometimes hard to distinguish the president’s policies from those of the other side. Oh, he talks a fine talk, for sure, but he doesn’t walk the walk.

I lived in Germany for 23 years and was shocked upon my return to see just how ignorant a large part of the population here is. And not just ignorant. Critical thinking skills have gone out the door, replaced by obedience to authority. The one thing regressives like to do is to point out the failings of the public school system and use that as a reason to cut its funding. This worsens the situation, which gives them further ‘justification’ for further cuts. Many of these primates publicly declare their desire to do away with the Department of Education altogether and they get support from the useful idiots who vote them into office. Robbed of an opportunity for a decent education, the children are the first victims of this cynicism, but our country as a whole suffers due to this celebration of ignorance. Thomas Jefferson believed an educated public was necessary for the survival of the republic, yet I see President Obama following in the footsteps of the regressives in that he attacks teachers’ unions and pushes the charter school fable. No, he doesn’t do it directly. He sings the praises of a good education in front of every microphone, but his actions speak a different story.

Women’s issues are another area the Democrats traditionally claimed for themselves. The ‘issues’ being for the most part the right of women to determine for themselves what happens to their bodies, without having some old fuckhead waving his finger at them, and the right to sit at the adult table, instead of being sent to the kids. It is beyond me how this is even being discussed in this day and age, but our patriarchal structures are still far too strong to afford women the simple and self-evident recognition that they are actual human beings. To not allow public funding of abortion for low income women is a vile slap in the face of all women, even those who say they would never get one. One never knows. Around 31% of the abortions performed yearly in the U.S. are done on Catholic women, second only to Protestants. See what I mean?

Homophobia is another gift the patriarchal system has given us. What could be worse for a ‘real’ man than to be like a woman? I know that’s not what male homosexuality is, but it’s how it’s viewed by many in our society. The hypocrisy gets even better, when you consider how many ‘real’ men enjoy watching girl-on-girl action, then rant about the 'fucking queers', but that ties in to women’s issues again. Sex between two women isn’t really sex, you see. Either they just haven’t been fucked properly by a ‘real’ man, or as that luminary Elisabeth Hasselbeck recently claimed, because they are too old and ugly to get a man, so out of loneliness they go for another woman - shame on you, Barbara Walters, for giving that backwards stool sample a forum to spout such utter poison! And like with women, if LGBTQ-individuals aren’t finally given the full rights that every other citizen enjoys, there will be no peace. Obama could have at least suspended the DADT practice of discharging LGBTQ-members of the armed forces pending review. He could have done that with the stroke of his executive pen, but he didn’t. I was saddened to recently see that Lt. Dan Choi was discharged, an officer whom I, as a very heterosexual former 11 Bravo, would have followed without question. His discharge and the discharges of the men and women like him shows the bitter failure of President Obama’s stance on civil rights as far as the ‘radical’ left sees it. Meanwhile, moral waivers are being given to criminals, because the war machine needs more meat, while important translators, for example, are sent home because they dare love someone of the same gender. Bravo, Mr. President! I feel safer already!

Speaking of civil rights, what does our constitutional scholar of a president think on the matter? It’s so hard to tell, because, once again his words don’t match his actions. Rendition? Still happening. Torture? Still happening (you are naïve to believe that the Twister game they are playing with the goat herders in the Bagram Black Site is the Hasbro version). Warrantless wiretapping and the further narrowing of the definition of freedom? They’re being expanded and continued. Now he has given himself the right to kill U.S. citizens without a trial, just for being suspected of nefarious activities. If you were to repeat this list without attributing it to Obama, I’d swear I was listening to Dick Cheney's Christmas wish list; certainly not a Democrat.

Oh, and how could I forget the wars; the ones that are killing or maiming our soldiers, sucking our treasury dry, and creating more enemies on a daily basis, while there isn’t enough money to help people here at home? I know Obama isn’t an idiot like Dim Son was, but he evidently wasn’t paying attention in history class when Afghanistan was discussed. It’s not called the ‘Graveyard of Empires’ for nothing and we will get our asses pinched just like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. Rest assured, there is nothing for us to win there, but that pipeline will be a great thing for the oil multi-nationals. The cost is only an unimaginable sum of money and, more importantly, the lives of fellow citizens, people who are your neighbors or relatives.

The fellating of big business is really one of the most disgusting displays of cowardice Obama has given us. Whether it’s dealing with Wall Street, BP, or the health insurance industry, I’ve yet to see him take off his kneepads. Tim Geitner leads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the time being. Obama might as well put the fox in charge of the henhouse. BP is calling the shots in the Gulf of Mexico, while openly showing the administration the finger. Wall Street is coming for your Social Security and I have no faith that he won’t fold here either. The biggest dud, though, was the so-called health care reform; a giveaway to a parasitic industry, that profits from your death (let that one dissolve on your tongue a little, then savour it). Here President Obama could have really made a difference and joined the rest of the civilized world, considering nearly 70% of the population stood behind him on a public option, but he folded before he even reached the table. I’d love to play him in a game of poker. I really would. Where was the fight, except for his weak admission that he’d “like to see” a public option in the final bill, knowing full well that Baucus would deliver no such thing? We are told by 'sensible' members of the party that he achieved what was possible, but how will we ever know, when he didn’t fight? I’d have more respect for him if he would have fought and failed, than his buckling to financial interests over the lives of many who voted for him on this issue alone. I’m one of the 47 million without the possibility of getting affordable health insurance, so I, like them, have to sweat it out and hope nothing serious happens until the reform kicks in. Nothing is more enjoyable in life than living in fear. Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

His crowning achievement, though, was the decision to stop investigating the war criminals living under us. This defies everything progressive, not to mention everything just, and is unforgiveable. That’s right. Unfuckingforgiveable - if you really give a damn. I don’t even think I have to say why, and if you fail to see that, you should have your moral compass checked out because something is definitely amiss. Covering for war criminals makes him complicit, makes him guilty. If you're getting red-faced now, that's just your conscience speaking to you. You should give it a listen.

I think we can all agree that if Dick Cheney were to go public with the announcement that the Bush Administration was one of the most successful implementations of progressive policies in the history of the U.S., we would all laugh at him. Am I right? So how does continuing the same catastrophic policies as the Bush Administration make Obama the new hope of the progressive movement?

It doesn’t - plain and simple.

And this is our beef with him. Not because we are dreamers, GOP operatives, or racists. The (D) is not enough. There has to be substance. Parties have come and gone throughout our history, so there is no reason to believe it will be otherwise now. We truly do live in interesting times, because the paradigm shift is coming, whether the 'sensible' under us want to believe it or not. The GOP imploded after 30 years of flirting with insanity and many of the moderate regressives have migrated to the Democratic Party to escape the taint. We saw the reverse when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, as many racist Dixiecrats switched to the GOP, because they just couldn’t stand the fact the ‘those people’ were finally recognized as human beings. Sadly our party is becoming the new haven for disillusioned Republicans, all at the cost of the very policies that defined us for a half a century. Policies that brought us from the dregs of the Great Depression to the moon in less than 40 years. Policies that enabled a middle class to develop and thrive. Policies that have been whittled away since Reagan started the whole supply-side stupidity. You know what trickledown economics really are? In reality they're table scrap economics. I don’t know about you, but I want my fair share of the pie and not what some asshole deems I deserve. That’s what makes us progressives and Obama's failures here, his squandering of a historic opportunity is what pisses us off.

For those who thrash anyone who has a legitimate complaint about Obama, I have only this to say: you can whine all you want, soil yourselves in fear at Palin 2012, and point your finger at us to blame, but we didn’t move. We are still here. If the leaders of the Democratic Party feel they don’t need us and our 'fucking retarded' ideas, fine. The vacuum developing on the Left needs to be filled and it will be, as nature abhors a vacuum. Bill Clinton said that during the primaries we fall in love, but during the election we fall in line. I say if our love continues to go unrequited, there is no reason to remain in that line.

No reason at all.

Think about it and a nice weekend to all.

but frankly, the people in power just hire pols to put on theater for the masses. They choose. We hope for change that isn't coming. Power is not given up.

Thats a real loaded phrase that should be qualified.

Do you believe the voters are the people in power?
Do you believe a small group of rich people are the people in power?
Do you believe Michael Steele & Tim Kaine are the people in power?

Also, what keeps these people in power? Is it purely money? If so, how much do you need? Apparently Ted Haggard, as much as an audience he commanded, didn't have enough. Does Bill Gates? Is money not enough, does someone also need to control a limited resource?

Or should we all take comfort in hiding from the 'people in power' boogeyman?

The pols are just their paid middle management. Steele and Kaine? they are just an act in the burlesque that obscenely keeps people diverted from the power that is screwing the people of the world, not just this country.

Country? A quaint notion with no basis in reality anymore. Corporate entities rule the globe. Watching various agencies and high ranking employees in the US government do BP's bidding has made that perfectly clear to all but the most stubborn of willfully ignorant.

Maybe we need to rerun the movie, 'Zeigeist' for them.

Nice educational film for weekend viewing.

It's in their hands. And it isn't just us telling them, it's Nancy Pelosi, and far too many of the House Dems who are beginning to wonder if they should have fallen in line for, as they are now admitting, 'unpopular bills' which they knew would get them in trouble in November. Especially since, as they twice told the WH, this WH doesn't seem to care whether they win or lose.

Yes, that is coming from Dems in Congress, NOT from DUers or as Obama's friend, Alan Simpson likes to say, 'the lesser people'. That would be us I suppose.

Putting Republicans in positions of power after their whole platform was rejected by the American people, was not the change people voted for. If we wanted Republicans, we'd vote for them. I'd like an explanation as to why when the people vote for Democrats, they get Republicans like Gates, Simpson, Peterson and Lindsey Graham, fundie pastors etc in a Democratic Administration.

Putting Republicans in positions of power after their whole platform was rejected by the American people, was not the change people voted for. If we wanted Republicans, we'd vote for them. I'd like an explanation as to why when the people vote for Democrats, they get Republicans like Gates, Simpson, Peterson and Lindsey Graham, fundie pastors etc in a Democratic Administration.

Or --

as Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it in an effort to try to let the public in on what's really

going on . . .

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning that he is no longer for -- "



Another sizzling analysis --

But get Republicans, it is no wonder that:

-people say politicians lie

-people say there is no difference between the parties

-people give up trying and tune out from politics altogether

-no one trusts the government

-there is a huge rift between those that see what is happening and those who want to believe that it is all going well

I'm not sure what you mean or how what you assert disproves my post. I'm happy to listen.

and I assume you would prefer them to be further left.

If I'm wrong who are the Republicans the American people got when they voted for Democrats? Since Obama is the only national candidate it sounds like you mean him.

Which would imply that you are kindly speaking for the American people, who would otherwise lack a voice, and yet somehow unaware that Obama's strongest approval is on the left of his party not the right, which says that if there is any buyer's remorse among those who wanted Democrats it is not on the left but on the right of the Democratic spectrum.

So help me out again - where was I wrong? Did you not mean Obama or were you speaking for some other section of the American people who either didn't vote for Democrats or are by far the most satisfied with what they got?

My point had nothing to do with disputing the polls that claim that we lefties love everything Obama does. I'm not sure who is doing those polls, or how they are identifying people as liberals. But apparently they exist. Great. I haven't seem them, but I have no interest in arguing with them. And I don't believe I was arguing with them.

I think what is happening in this country is a much more interesting discussion than debating about which polling firm's results confirm whose beliefs.

If you would have read my post, you would have read that I proposed that when people vote for one thing but get another, then they will distrust government (and people do distrust government), they will say there is no difference between the parties (people say that too), and etc. That was my point. That our civil society is degrading. That our political system isn't working that well. And I'd be happy to discuss that.

You point was, surely, that people wanted more left leaning policies from Obama than they got, no?

My rebuttal, is how does that square with surveys that show the more left a Democrat's self identification is, the more likely they are to approve of Obama?

Either we are facing the single best co-ordinated and most secret conspiracy ever to skew poll results, or the left likes Obama more than you are saying.

I never said "everyone" or "all people who voted for Obama."

All you have to do is read DU for about 15 minutes to figure out there are plenty of people who think they voted for one thing, and are now seeing another.

Again, I am not disputing your polls (thanks for the straw man argument though). Your polls do not show that "all" liberals agree. And repeating to us about how you are the majority doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of disappointment out there, that the Dems will lose about 25 seats in the House in November, that Guantanamo is still open, and that the DOJ is still wiretapping us without warrants because the Democratic House and Senate renewed the USA PATRIOT Act at Obama's request.

Remember, in this country, a "measly" 1 % of the population is still more than 3 million people. So a disappointed minority can make a huge difference.

My post was about lamenting the results of what has happened to the country when there are so many people who are so clearly disappointed--despite the fact that some people are perfectly satisfied.

So you think Obama's perfect? Great. Super. But you might want to be aware that many other Democrats--millions of other Democrats in fact--who don't. And denying a phenomenon doesn't make it go away, nor will it help the Party to adequately prepare to deal with it. But if it makes you feel better that Gallup is on your side, terrific. But if that is your only point, I just don't think there is anything interesting left for us to talk about.

You have laid it out plainly and accurately. Well done. Now, duck because garbage will be thrown your way or there will be no response here in hopes this sinks into the memory hole.

...I welcome their hatred.

Thanks!

While he will never achieve universal acclaim, the fact that Obama tries to look like he is all things to all people makes the case that he can't be trusted.

It's a good rule to follow.

Thanks for saying what you did and well done.

I know it's a lot, but I couldn't shorten it.

this, snake.

You said what many of us are and have been thinking and I am impressed you could lay it out in the few paragraphs you did.

Watching those in power steal from us for at least 10 years, watching our education system fall since Nixon was elected.
These are scary times, especially for those of us on the edge of bankruptcy, lost jobs, lost pensions.

I wonder if they think we'll all just die before we can mount a good revolution or even protest?
It's very difficult to travel these days without $$$, but maybe a 40 million citizen march is what we need.(lotsaluck)

Still contemplating whether to vote come November, I have voted every election since McGovern, my first vote.
But maybe not this year, Skelton? I could vote for a Repug and get more empathy.

Not one wasted word! I need to be this succinct and on top when I'm with the enemy (family and "friends") Only clarity of thought and expression such as this will convince other minded people to come around to the critical thinking crowd. Thanks again.

Get it every time I read MadFloridian or McCamy Taylor.

I quit cigs years ago but a sip of cognac right now would be perfect! Skoal!

Best post I've seen here all week!

I don't know about anyone else, but I think they are pretty sensible.

Thank you.

But more importantly, we need to hammer this message without relent. The politicians should fear the people and not the other way around.

I'm sure the unrec squad will be out in force, but they can't negate the truth of your message. Well done, Snake.

K&R

Well, someone has to be sensible.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't expect him to be so feckless, though; especially after his ruthlessness in the primaries. My only hope (if you could call it that) was that he, as a constitutional scholar, would wash the blood off of our doorstep by investigating the war criminals of the previous administration. Instead, he covers for them.

Unbelievable and unforgivable.

Which is why I didn't vote for him.

However, while I knew enough to not any illusions about his presidency, I have to admit that it's been far worse than I thought it would be. I take absolutely no comfort in knowing that I was right to not vote for him as I would MUCH rather have preferred to been proven wrong. Unfortunately, that just hasn't happened. And I sincerely wish it had.

McCain/Palin?

There were other people on the ballot, ya know.

Why is it that people to the left of Obama are always accused of being right-wingers? It just makes no sense to me.

Our long national nightmare was over. I told people it was a new beginning. Even with Rick Warren polluting the inaugural stage.

Brother, was I ever wrong.

But, I saw it earlier. I was just trying to believe. I gave him the benefit of my doubt.

It didn't work out so good, did it?

Two parties. Two puppets held up by the same guy behind the curtain.

I, sadly, had high hopes for this new admin, but I am feeling pretty discouraged at this point. I'll probably vote, but not with much enthusiasm and I expect nothing will change as a result.

I'm going to figure out a new way to be active, and it sure isn't going to be by giving my money or time to the party.

When the Green Party arrived on the scene in Germany in the 1970s, they were laughed at for being stinky, peacenik hippies. By 1983 they had achieved over 5% of the vote, putting them into Germany's lower house of parliament. Now they are a force to be reckoned with, in spite of the efforts of the established Social Democrats (rough equivalent of our Democratic Party) to marginalize them.

We have to start somewhere. My vote is no longer a tactical piece on the board. I will vote my conscience from now on.

Or the party will piss all over you... and the only way to not be taken for granted as delivered... well, like you said progressives have to start somewhere...

(A thought recently occurred to me- the argument that a green can't win an election is a lot like the argument that a black man can't win an election... insightful conventional wisdom- until it isn't.)

I think it was during that whole bank crisis before the election. The House voted the bailout down. The administration reached out to the Democrats and the Dems pushed it through. Complicity.

For sure!

We won't see anything really change until we have public campaign financing, paper ballots with accountability, and a repeal of the perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, because corporations are not fucking people.

...or, when critical mass is reached and the people grab their pitchforks and rocket launchers.

while Obama was still in the State Senate in Illinois.
"They" got him that speaker position at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and groomed him for the 2008 run.
Thats WHY a 1st Term Rookie Senator was able to show up in Iowa with $100Million dollars and an Up & Running National Political Machine.

I worked a goddamned year and donated many times to Obama's campaign. I was one of his delegates. But I've been feeling used for over a year and I won't give another dime from my pockets and not another moment of my time. Why should I work my ass off if he's going to just use us and then sell is out to the highest corporate bidder? Ralph Nader had the two major parties pegged perfectly and that's why they were so terrified of him that they conspired to keep him out of the debates in 2000. Nader knew the only way to get real representation was to stop the corrupting flow of corporate money to both the republicans and democrats. Ralph Nader would have NEVER sold out the people to corporations.

You claim that you posses critical thinking skills, but it doesn't show. The US spends a considerable amount on education. It varies across states, from $5,257 (Utah) to $14,119 (New York) per student. The results vary across states. Iowa leads in SAT scores.

The same can be said when comparing across countries. The US spends considerable more per student than many other industrialized countries. Your hypothesis that throwing more money at the situation, just doesn't fly.

Then again, I am one of those "regressive" who think that there are underlying factors eroding our educational system than just lack of funding. We can give each kid a $200 calculator, but if they don't know the fundamentals, then what good is it?

As for the rest of your post, I largely agree.

...MadFloridian's journal. There you will find what you seek.

I'll say this much, though: getting rid of the Department of Education, as many 'regressives' want, is not the answer.

HARD WORK and constant research that she combines with wonderful, insightful posts!! From one Floridian to another, she's right on TOP! Way ahead of me, but I KNOW how I feel and am NOT AFRAID to say so!!

Thank YOU again! I worked too hard to elect so many to have gotten such a "smack down" from these people! Let me rephrase that, my PERCEIVED "smack down" because I know many Rah Rah's are going to get the LONG knives out on this one!!

If I were to move back to Florida, it would be under the condition that she's my neighbor.

foreign policy or anything else.

But there is something very wrong with privatizing public education, with handing public money to individuals and companies to use to educate our children. Public education is a central part of our democracy. Charter schools are undemocratic. They are a trojan horse in our democracy.

There isn't any really reliable research that shows that charter schools being established with the speed and ferocity that they are being put in place and imposed on communities through bribes and pay-offs of public money will actually change anything, much less improve it.

The charter school thing stinks to me. I smell the nasty blood of corruption. I'm an old lady and when people try so hard to sell you something like charter schools without letting you really see how the product works first, you are being "took."

People claim there is something wrong with our schools because the scores of our kids don't compare favorably with kids in other countries. First, many countries do not encourage all children to go to their equivalent of our high school, so the comparisons are of maybe 40% of the population of some other country and 100% or 90% of the population of our country. You can't compare test results in that way.

Second, most of the countries in which the scores are claimed to be higher than in our country, have public schools that are strictly regulated. And in a number of those countries, the teacher is the boss in the classroom. In elementary schools in some of those countries, the first grade teacher stays with a class for four years. The children feel secure even when the teacher may not be the best or most inspired. Our children are tossed about with a different classroom and teacher every year. There are so many things we could do to improve our schools. None of them require paying charter schools to educate our children.

We test everyone. Most countries don't... which negates the entire argument.

see grades overall improve dramatically. Assuming of course that the schools are given bonuses based on average grades. Yup, expect a whole generation of straight "A" students. Never mind that many of them will be unable to read or write at a high school level or do basic mathematics. But they'll have those diplomas showing what little geniuses they are, and the stockholders of the "Haliburtons of Education"© will become even wealthier.

mine has told me all about HER experience with CHARTER SCHOOLS! She wasn't complimenting in any way!!

America is NUMBER 37 in the WORLD when it comes to education! It SURELY needs fixed, but I can't wrap my head around this CHARTER crap, and I KNOW Obama is really FOR THIS type of thing and IS pushing THIS on us!!!

Arne Duncan hasn't won me over, in fact I'm highly offended!

Never mind, the pizza has been delivered.

works out to about $5 per hour. That cost covers all school operations: salaries, infrastructure, transportation, materials, records etc. The kids where I teach can use the $200 calculators just fine. Most of them can do things with computers I never knew was possible. Their critically thinking skills are no better or worse than when I was an adolescent in the 60s.

Cassandras have been wringing their hands over the obvious shortcomings of compulsory K-12 education since we started doing it. I have a book in my library somewhere, bemoaning the failure of public education, written in 1954 (the same year as Brown v. Board of Education). And, of course, no list of anti-public education tomes would be complete without "A Nation at Risk", the mother of our present school reform movement from which one could have inferred that American schools would never have produced the people necessary to launch the computer age or lead global breakthroughs in telecommunications technology and medical science.

The real issue that "education reform" has with public schools has never been so much with the curriculum and teachers as with integration and inclusiveness. The key to making public schools better is not privatization and the inevitable return to segregation by class and income that would cause. It is social justice.

It is a combination of $ and what is done with that money that makes the difference....

When the only underlying motivation for everything is to maximize profit....there are important questions that need to be asked.

with his hands held high with money and telling school districts if you do it our way this can all be yours'??

You talk of underlaying factors but do not list any.....just asking.

Where I live education is mostly financed by property taxes. The more prosperous communities have an advantage.

What duncan and Obama are doing to the education system in this country is a crime. Perhaps the education system is broke but why have test scores decide whether a district is failing or succeeding?? Race to the top is not the answer.

Sure, there will be people like Nader who fill a 'vacuum.' It's just that the 'vacuum' doesn't ever have any actual power. Sure, there is a lot of complaining and yelling and screaming. But when it comes to actual power, all your 'vacuum' does is move Democrats to the right to make up for lost votes on the left. Like clockwork.

Eventually, these people recognize reality and fall in line (as Clinton said). It is never a matter of if. Just a matter of when. People can remain irrational for a short period of time, but in the end humans have evolved a survival instinct that forces them to be rational. The only real question is how long it takes for that instinct to kick in. After 2000, Nader lost 90% of his support in 2004. That tends to be what happens -- people who say "there is no difference between the two parties" find out in a quite vivid way how wrong they were, and they switch their votes in the election immediately following.

...the Know Nothing Party?

Where are they now?

The only difference I see between the parties is that one is willing to give us a few more scraps and is maybe not totally insane on some issues. When a certain percentage has nothing more to lose, we will see real change, maybe even ugly change, although I cannot say I'd regret it all too much to see Cheney led to the guillotine and I'm anti-death penalty! Both parties have subscribed to neoliberal economic policies, which have gutted us in under thirty years. It will not be sustainable for much longer.

Either we get back what FDR gave us or at some point people are going to take it back.

87% of liberal democrats approve of Obama's performance. That is higher than every single president since JFK.

So not only are people not clamoring to "take it back" -- they don't even agree that there is a problem! And this is more true now than any point in decades. This is why you have to go back over 150 years for an analogy that isn't even relevant.

...exist forever when they've outlasted their usefulness or had none in the first place.

It was the Great Depression that enabled FDR to bring about the change that helped more people than it harmed. Now, instead of going after these forces with decisiveness, our fine representatives are going to bed with them. We'll have to watch and wait, but at some point the neoliberal policies and corporate fellating will bring us to critical mass.

Watch and wait. We live in interesting times.

As opposed to being at the lowest level in decades.

Don't get me wrong -- there would be no chance of a viable third party in our winner-take-all system even if said party had a non-negligible share of supporters. (See Perot, with his 19% support and 0 electoral votes.) It's just all the more striking that people are making all these claims about "critical mass" when their support is negligible and at the lowest point in decades.

...I get it already. Everything is going to be just fine.

I am simply describing reality as it exists. I'm not saying that it's "fine," or that our two-party, winner-take-all system is a good thing. I'm describing reality, not judging it.

...as long as people believe the system cannot be changed, it won't be. We have to start somewhere.

If you prefer Obama over viable alternatives (and know who they are) you must love every single thing he has ever done. You must share his taste in music and ice cream and vegetables and believe he is never wrong.

the Whigs, who vanished after they failed to deal with slavery, the greatest and most contentious issue of their day.

If you'll look at today's NY Times, you'll see that Krugman is getting seriously disillusioned and that most of the online readers' comments agree with him.

The only people I know who wholeheartedly support Obama now are the ones who aren't paying any attention.

The K Street crowd?

The insurance company executives?

The military contractors?

Because I'm sure they're as delighted as can be.

since World War II, except that he wasn't really.

n/t

Republicans similarly bashed the polling industry, right up until election night (when it turned out that the polls were correct).

of weeks ago by that Quinpac&^$()*&$ (however you spell it). The polling started with my state...Governor, Senator, policies. It was long and in depth. Then it went to national.

Now I agree 100% with the OP, but I felt I had to say I approved of Obama or I would be counted as a Repugnant. I hemmed and hawed with the dude who was asking me the questions. Hell, on some of them, I told him I could write a book and a simple 'yes or no' was very difficult.

These polls suck. And they are worded in such a way that you end up saying 'yes' when you want to say 'maybe' or 'none of the above.'

Next time I vote, I want a place for 'None of the above!' I guess I'll just write that in.

It all depends on how the question is worded. Before taking poll results at face value, I want to see how they are worded.

his biggest supporters, are disillusioned with him. He has not drawn us in. He has not listened to us. He has ignored us and disappointed us. The very people who knocked on doors and stood behind tables and got out the vote in the crucial final days now mean nothing to Obama.

He is getting horrible advice. He is not using his tremendous ability to communicate wisely. He is losing the 2012 election because he is losing the enthusiasm of his base.

He could turn this around, but he would have to fire some people -- especially on his economic team. He seems to be wising up to the Chamber of Commerce crowd, but his policies, his focus, doesn't reflect the fact that he is wising up.

matter in terms of popularity of anykind is that the ramp up is long, the drop off is sudden, and often times comes directly on the heels o the peak. That is how it works in general, with 'stuff' in the public square, and political Parties, and especaially politicians should bear that in mind always. The way to be the least popular is first to be the most popular.
In this case you have the unusal scenario in which the Party leadership stands against the equal rights of millions in the 'base' it claims to want and need. Tim Kaine says my family should have no rights as a family. Any Party in history taken a stance like that against their own? Of course not, only modern Tim could have such hubris.
Enjoy your fanstasy the Tim Kaine is doing a good job. Frittering it away, that is what they call it. Frittering.

And some nasty shit is about to hit the fan.

It could be an Israeli strike on Iran.
It could be a false flag of some sorts.
It could be we piss off China and they decide to place an embargo on us.
It could be a devastating Earthquake and resulting land mass shifts.
Hell, as I learned in Physical Science 101, it could be the Earth flips on its axis.
It could be the collapse of the US Dollar as the reserve currency.
It could be a Dow Jones of 2,000.
It could be a number of things....and then the butterfly's wing movements will have its effects.

The shit is gonna fly.

This time we'll damn well see some 'Change!'

You have ZERO credibility- but you are useful to the extent that you represent one of those who never learn , and thus repeat the same mistakes you and your conservadem ilk caused in 1994 and 2000.

Seeing your sorry displays reminds all of us who do have the ability to learn what to look for.

It was 87% last week. This week it is actually 89. To my knowledge, it has never been as low as 80 (and I have never claimed as such). You can go to Gallup (or any other poll) and see for yourself. (But you won't, because it is obvious evidence against your crackpot theories based on nothing more than a type of religion, and this makes it invalid to you by definition.)

The fact that you are arguing about WHICH high 80 percent level of support it is shows you that you have no case based on anything other than religion.

where your constituencies live.

As I said, it happened before- and it's happening again for the exact same reason. The fact that we're even talking about this pathetic bunch of Republicans taking back the house and making major gains in the Senate should tell you something, but of course, it doesn't and never will.