Democrats & Liberals Archives

Nope. Sorry. Still Sane.

Missouri Representative Todd Akin reportedly tried to drive liberals insane with the pledge of allegiance. Since this particular liberal failed to see all the groovy colors, and did not hear the voice of Janeane Garofalo telling me to use tinfoil to block out the evil thought control rays coming from the American Enterprise institute, I regret to inform them that they failed.

Yes, some folks have sued over the passage "under God." in the pledge. It would help the tea partisans to have a more thorough grounding on the matter.

1) The words "under God" were added due to a movement by various Christian Groups during the 1950's.

2) The originator of the pledge was himself a Christian Socialist and a baptist minister, a fact that should cause heads on the far right to asplode, especially since he left out "under God".

3) The original salute was the Bellamy Salute, rather than a hand over one's heart. What was the Bellamy salute?

At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute -- right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.

Just so there's no confusion as to what this means, here's a picture.

It would be terribly amusing to see the Tea Partisans go back to the old way of saluting the flag. ;-)

So, question, does this pledge inspire dread and derision among Democrats and Liberals? No, as a matter of fact, it does not. When I attended the State Senate District Convention in Spring of 2008, we said it, loud and proud.

What's happened among Republicans and Right Wingers is that a lot of these pernicious little myths they use to get their folks riled up are not being taken with the proper grain of salt. A lot of people believe in this country, are patriots, but don't share their view. This disbelief and amazement that folks like me could actually, proudly, swear allegiance to a flag, only reflects just how narrow the Republican perspective on their counterparts has become.

The Tea Party folks can justify a great deal, due to their belief that they are the only real lovers of this nation. They can jealously advance an agenda of obstruction. They can shout other Americans down, accuse others of being the worst kind of scum. They lament what a bad reputation they have, and angrily accuse others of sliming them, but the problem is, they do, and proudly stand by many of the obnoxious things they do to earn that reputation.

One obnoxious thing, is to appropriate, at least in sentiment, their patriotism as the only true patriotism. To believe that everybody who doesn't justify the same things, seek the same policies or do what they want the country to do is not a patriot, not an heir to the revolutionary spirit that had folks dumping tea into Boston harbor.

I'd like to think that something else other than taxes on tea was at stake in the revolutionary war. That something like self determination was at stake. That self-determination, really, is part of what they claim.

But isn't the point of Democracy that people self-determine their government as well? Is it unpatriotic to want an economy bound by laws that keep people honest, that protect the weak from the strong, the helpless from the unscrupulous? These laws were not dropped on the majority's heads unwillingly, but were gradually asked for by the people, and granted by those they elected.

The folks on the right seem to think that when folks ask for more government, more regulation, they're out of their minds. That when they ask for more taxes on the richest top few percent, that they're out of order. I guess they're entitled to that. And they are also entitled to be held accountable for their patronizing attitude towards those who don't buy into the small government theory of governance. Just because you have the right to say what you want, doesn't hand you the right to dictate the reception of your ideas.

But what these people are not entitled to do is shout the rest of us down, hog the spotlight, insist that even though the majority installed a majority of Democrats that it's right for them to use parliamentary tricks to stall legislation they don't like.

It's one thing to claim to love your country. But what about carrying out it's principles? Abiding by the obligations of a citizen? This is a nation ruled by laws, not by parties, and the laws say that majorities rule.

The Tea Partisans want to rule, with or without a majority, and see anything they do to that end as right. What they should realize, perhaps, is that they can't hold everybody else back forever without consequences.

Sooner or later, their fellow Americans are going to demand that their own rights, their own beliefs are honored, not merely those of a select, vocal few. They are going to want to see their interests seen to as well.

It's already starting. The real question is, how much tension and ill-will do the tea partisans want to build up against their causes, before the majority finally does what it takes to see it's will carried out?

Regardless of your party, the will of the people and the rule of law are paramount. Those who try to evade that, one way or another, are putting themselves in the path of unimaginable forces, and God help any who forgets that this nation wasn't founded with an eye to frustrating the continued rule of an unworthy few. This is a country whose patriotism isn't some simple, blind acceptance of the status quo, or an allegiance to a King or Queen, but a fierce dedication to a nation that is composed of one and all, through it's most visible symbol.

We are a union of states, constitutionally bound together, with the will of elected officials, not the writ of some King making our laws. Our laws are carried out, not by some hereditary officer, some dynastic emperor, but by an elected official, who can be held accountable to us.

The Tea Partisans lament that things are no longer how they like it in the government, that their ideals are not writ large upon the country. They must thing it's some horrible mistake, or worse a conspiracy by ACORN. They have not gotten it yet. They have not realized that even their beloved Conservatism, their ideal of how this country should be run can fall from grace.

We pledge allegiance to the flag, because those who rule us are constantly being traded in and traded out. Ours is a government, an ideal meant to change. The Tea Partisans are resistant to the direction voters took this country. Well, that's tough. Democrats were once on that end of the stick. That's the price of freedom and Democracy. Only in a dictatorship could we force everybody to choose as we liked. Or at least try to force them.

In reality, all dicatorships, absolute monarchies must still heed the will of the people, or risk overthrow. But they can also be unresponsive to that will, and for long periods of time. Democracy gifts us with a shorter response time, a means by which to bypass revolution in favor of a peaceful change.

The Tea Partisans should consider that "peaceful" and "tea party" are not words typically associated together. It isn't that they're especially violent. It's more or less the degree to which violence and the threat of violence permeates their language. The hidden alternative, they hint, is that they'll take up arms against their own government, or secede from the union.

It would be interesting to these folks to learn, given that, that the words "under God", in part, were justified on the grounds that those words were in the Gettysburg address- that Lincoln, who sought to reunify the nation even if it meant the continuation of slavery, was the touchstone for those words.

These people need to realize that this country, and the symbols of our belief and loyalty to it belong to more than just them, and their fellow true believers. This is a country meant for all kinds of Americans, not just them, and they don't get to dictate terms to the rest of us on what it means to be a loyal American.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2009 1:33 PM
Comments
Comment #290296

foxx, bachmann, mr. orange - if we knew these ppl were going to be in one place, we should have sent the men in the white coats.

i’m with you stephen. i am a proud american, and i support the troops. i get teary eyed everytime i hear the anthem. i come from a long line of honored military personnel. i love this country, and have seen every bit of it. i have laughed w/everyone around the states. i am patrotic, and i am a democrat.

everytime i hear “i’m here in small town america, where true americans live”. (palin campaign trail 2008) - i find it disgusting. living in a city doesn’t make me less patriotic.

the teabaggers are beginning to become scary. they are saying very forceful slang. “we want our country back”, or “we’re taking this country back”, or even “revolution now”. i feel that they are standing almost straddling a line a very violent line.

we have heard this before, not so much from the original teabaggers (since they were cowardly dressed as indians) but from protesters in arkansas trying to block a little black girl from entering a SCHOOL.

how do you tone it down? how do you stop far right media from pressing those control buttons every hour on the hour? fauxnews has already set up an abortion doctor to be killed. there was a talking head provoking hatred, spewing bile daily until he was murdered. no consequences. i guess the shame factor is non existant at the orally factor.

no shame for congressmen/women and senators who recently have become vocal against the census bureau that one was killed last month found strapped to a tree, w/the word fed written on him.

words have power. and the elected officials certainly have power. now, do they have responsibility, accountabiliy, and a conscience? or, is it just a paycheck, and a ploy.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 5, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #290297

Bluebuss-
There’s a liberating feel to not having to follow societies rules or society’s standards. But feeling and truth are sometimes two different things. The irony is, on healthcare reform, is that they’re fighting against fictitious death panels run by the government in defense of a private system where the insurers make monetary decisions of life-and-death consequence everyday.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2009 3:36 PM
Comment #290303

Stephen,

It is interesting to note that you rail against the extremists of both parties but then not only call out the extremist views of bluebuss but back him up on his statements, allowing them to pass. Then point your finger at moderate Republicans for not reigning in their wingnuts…

Actions speak much much louder than words.

Bluebuss,

The left used very similar language in the early part of the decade. I can easily go back and pull up quote after quote to back this up if you really want to suggest they didn’t.

Blaming anyone for ‘egging on’ the death of an abortion doctor is no different than blaming someone for the death of the abortion protestor and attempted murder of others. Both suggestions are way over the line and despicable. The same for trying to blame people critical of the attempted abuses of the census process being somehow responsible for the death of a census worker.

Do you really think you should be taken seriously when you do this? To me you have just marginalized yourself further going forward.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 4:46 PM
Comment #290304

BTW, while I am in agreement with the idiocy and IMO unconstitutionality of ‘under god’ being added to the pledge, the further generalities and stereotyping that this article relies upon is part of the problem, not the solution.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment #290309

Why the straw man?

The big news event was on Tuesday.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 5, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #290310

“I’d like to think that something else other than taxes on tea was at stake in the revolutionary war. That something like self determination was at stake.”
Some patriots were more concerned about a monopoly on tea more than the tax.

“hog the spotlight”
Who cares? They’re providing material to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

“We are a union of states, constitutionally bound together,”
Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie in 1860-‘61 by Abner Doubleday:

The summer of 1860 found me stationed at the head-quarters of the First United States Artillery at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina… The other forts were unoccupied, except by the ordnance-sergeants in charge. Charleston, at this period, was far from being a pleasant place for a loyal man. Almost every public assemblage was tinctured with treasonable sentiments, and toasts against the flag were always warmly applauded. As early as July there was much talk of secession, accompanied with constant drilling, and threats
of taking the forts as soon as a separation should occur.
To the South Carolinians Fort Moultrie was almost a sacred spot, endeared by many precious historical associations; for the ancestors of most of the principal families had fought there in the Revolutionary War behind their hastily improvised ramparts of palmetto logs, and had gained a glorious victory over the British
fleet in its first attempt to enter the harbor and capture the city.
The modern fort had been built nearly on the site of the ancient one. Its walls were but twelve feet high. They were old, weak, and so full of cracks that it was quite common to see soldiers climb to the top by means of the support these crevices afforded to their hands and feet. The constant action of the sea-breeze had drifted one
immense heap of sand against the shore-front of the work, and another in the immediate vicinity. These sand-hills dominated the parapet, and made the fort untenable. Indeed, it was originally built by the engineers as a mere sea-battery, with just sufficient strength to prevent it from being taken by a coup de main. As an overpowering force of militia could always be summoned for its defense, it was supposed that no foreign army would ever attempt to besiege it. The contingency that the people of Charleston themselves might attack a fort intended for their own protection had never been anticipated.

from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24972

Posted by: ohrealy at November 5, 2009 7:19 PM
Comment #290312
This is a country meant for all kinds of Americans, not just them, and they don’t get to dictate terms to the rest of us on what it means to be a loyal American.

BTW, hilrious ending of this article from someone on the left…

When told that their plans will infringe upon individuals, they say that the individual doesn’t matter, it is the majority that must prevail. I guess that the majority can dictate terms to the minority and it’s ok, but the minority can’t stand up for their own rights against he majority because, well, to be frank, the left is in charge of the majority at the moment.

So it’s ok, see?

When the right is in charge of the majority and want to send troops to Iraq to overthrow Saddam and enforce the resolutions against him so he will quit killing his own citizens and threaten the rest of the world… Well, that wasn’t right! When the right wanted to enact measures to help protect the US against terrorist by expanding RICO statues to suspected terrorist (Patriot Act), well that wasn’t right!

But now that THEY are in charge? Who the hell are the minority to question and fight back against majority oppression?

Just a bunch of unAmericans.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #290321

Rhinehold-
If actions speak louder than words, tell me what the actions of the Republicans say. Tell me what this continuous insistence that the heritage of this country belongs to them says.

Bluebuss may not be being precise in his targets, but his sentiments speak to the fears that many Democrats have.

We Democrats hear about things like this: An antiabortion group selling art from Tiller’s murderer to funder their group, a grotesque, high-school style drawing with Tillers murderer pictured as a Davy holding aloft the severed head of Goliath- the abortion industry.

We Democrats see things like this: Tea Partisans holding signs implying the threat of violence if their politics are not appeased.

We Democrats hear things like this: mainstream Republicans who once touted their independence and centrism running over to indulge people making wild claims like Death Panels and Socialists takeovers with their rhetoric. Grassley first, Then Mark Kirk from the suburbs of Chicago. The Tea Partisans are claiming that the elimination of moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava is a victory.

We see the mainstream Republicans indulging these folks, who hold up signs comparing Healthcare policy meant to cover every individual to what the Nazis did at Dachau.

More and more, the provocative rhetoric goes uncheck. More and more, irresponsible words are spread around about armed takeovers, secession, assassination. More and more we see folks like Orly Taitz bringing forward and lionizing comments that imply that it might be a good idea to assassinate Barack Obama, even as she questions the real birth records of our American-born president.

I’m sad to say that a lot of what I spoke of was not stereotype. It really does seem that many on the right think folks like me and Bluebuss, among others incapable of Patriotism. The questions are always coming, because we don’t toe the line on their military strategies, or on their politics. Hell, you’re constantly accusing me and people like me of not believing in the constitution. Of course, you give your reasons. But you’re doing it nonetheless.

BTW, hilrious ending of this article from someone on the left…

When told that their plans will infringe upon individuals, they say that the individual doesn’t matter, it is the majority that must prevail. I guess that the majority can dictate terms to the minority and it’s ok, but the minority can’t stand up for their own rights against he majority because, well, to be frank, the left is in charge of the majority at the moment.

Further generalities and stereotyping, eh?

Look, if we waited until everybody agreed to apply a law, it would never happen. And if it weren’t majority rule, what would it be? Well, minority rule.

I fully agree with minority rights. But like my Conservative civics teacher said, it’s minority rights, but majority rules.

And what you’re missing about that, is that once you break up the monolithic party blocks that this kind of obstructionism forces, we find that majorities can be where you find them.

In fact, I’ve said as much sometimes in my criticism of the Republican’s tactics. They could easily be serving their constituents better by participating and being willing to vote on things. But because they have decided to become a block of unitary voters, they don’t have the power to be part of any majority, and therefore are losing the power to shape legislation.

Republicans are isolating themselves entirely from the policy process. the Democrats aren’t doing this to them. Hell, people like me would have preferred that they be willing to compromise and make deals. We’re sick of having to fight these political battles on everything all of the time.

But of course, the left, in your view, have to be dictatorial. No other explanation, huh?

When the right is in charge of the majority and want to send troops to Iraq to overthrow Saddam and enforce the resolutions against him so he will quit killing his own citizens and threaten the rest of the world…

Many Democrats voted with them. But they voted for it thinking there was an actual threat possible there.

My support for that war as a legitimate thing to start was first prefaced on them being right, and secondly based on the notion that there was a real terrorist threat possible from them.

Otherwise, the war that me and most other Democrats wanted finished and won was Afghanistan.

Go and read my postings. I’m a Democrat, but that doesn’t make me a pacifist by definition.

Well, that wasn’t right! When the right wanted to enact measures to help protect the US against terrorist by expanding RICO statues to suspected terrorist (Patriot Act), well that wasn’t right!

Sometimes the right idea can be carried out the wrong way. What, you think Democrats WANT another attack? I guess you might think that. Let me clear something up: America should not be forced to give up its freedoms to protect itself from an enemy. That is, in my opinion, a strategic loss that should never be allowed.

The Patriot Act and the Bush Administration’s general direction on matters were a mistake. Americans want to be Americans, free and brave, not hidden behind walls of security. Any policy incompatible with that is only going to stir up resentment, especially when the law gets abused, like the Patriot act often does, for the sake of dealing with non-terrorist threats.

Personally, I think we should have had a reasoned investigation first, found out what actually went wrong, and then take care of that, rather than simply shotgun blasting it with an invasive law that will only turn people against our counterterrorism policy.

But now that THEY are in charge? Who the hell are the minority to question and fight back against majority oppression? Just a bunch of unAmericans.

WHAT BLOODY OPPRESSION?

What? I see these guys on the news all the time, and FOXNews is practically their dedicated outlet. They are getting coverage all out of proportion to what they respresent on the spectrum. They have a party that’s embracing them with open arms, even as they become a burden on their party’s chances for the majority.

They are getting backed by rich astroturf organizations who move them around on busses, and their opponents are nowhere near bold enough to actually crackdown on them, or mount a similarly loud and outrageous response.

God, the only the only think they don’t have is credibility and popularity with the rest of the country. But that stuff, you can’t expect as if its your right, your entitlement.

What you guys mourn is your loss of the majority, your ability to dictate terms to everybody else. Sorry, we’re going to do things a different way. If the voters don’t like it, you’ll have your chance to persuade them to go your way.

You’re not unamerican for resisting the new order in American politics. You’re human. You’ve had a system that flattered your sensibilities more than this, and you see it slipping away. So you’re going to fight it.

Look, I was a Republican once, a Clintonista when he was President. But my perspective was that there was always a point of equilibrium, a place where reason could bring agreement.

But what have the Republicans been doing? When they were in power, they increasingly refused to provide any such space for dissent. Now that they’re out of power, they’re hobbling the ability of the new majority to do anything they don’t like.

How can I reason with that? How can I reason with those who will brook no compromise beyond a total compromise of my own? Ultimately, the strength and the stridency of my rhetoric is a product of deep frustration with this unbending unwillingness to accept any different political order from their own. There is no place for a person like me in their political world!

Why should I continue to offer my hand in political peace to those who are not willing to negotiate in good faith? We just had to pass something through one of our committees on climate change legislation, with the Republican delegation of that committee boycotting any and all sessions concerning it.

The Republicans choice to me is to either push my policy as hard as I can, or to sit down and shut up. That’s all they’re offering. We can’t get them to compromise. We can’t get them to stop threatening filibusters. We can’t get them to stop the unfounded lies (rather than founded concerns) that they insist on spieling out there. I am a big proponent of bipartisanship, but damn it, how much patience for this bull**** am I supposed to have? Why in God’s name is it in my interest to just let them have their way all the time, when I don’t agree with them at all on what they’re insisting upon?

Craig Holmes-
Christie ran against a governor with pollingin the thirties, a prominent stockbroker. He could have gotten better, but Corzine was successful in dragging down his numbers. Yet in that state, Obama remains very popular. Therefore, no referendum on Obama.

Virginia? Well Virginia had a candidate who basically ran away from everything Obama was pushing- public option, climate change bill, you name it. Gutted his own support among progressive Democrats. Ask the question: if a Democrat’s going to act like a Republican, what’s the use when the Republican’s already there, and the Democrats want something different?

Meanwhile, the two special elections saw the seats go to people more progressive than those they replaced. Ellen Tauscher was a centrist Democrat, her replacement is a progressive. The Republican who vacated the seat that Dede Scozzafava, Greg Hoffman, and Congressman-elect Owens fought over was replaced by the Centrist Democrat Owens, in a District that hadn’t been represented by a Democrat since the Civil War.

What’s more, Republicans are going to be doing their best to gut support for Centrists and Liberals in their party, whereever they may find them. The Tea Party Republicans consider what they did in NY-23 a success, even though they got a Democrat elected in the process.

Recall that the only reason the Democrats have Sixty now is that your Republican pals fixed Arlen Specter’s wagon, good. Now you’re going to hobble your best potential Republican candidate for Florida’s Senate, and try and run a hard-right challenger to a long time Democratic Party incumbent in California, instead of a middle of the road candidate who might get more centrist votes.

The news is, the Republican Party is going to immolate itself politically to prove it wasn’t wrong. What you should ask is whether those two Governors make it past one term, if good challengers arise.

Or put another way, REpub

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2009 10:44 PM
Comment #290322

I was lucky enough to learn the ‘Pledge’ by holding my hand over my heart, and not the ‘Hitler Salute’ in Stephen’s picture. But my pledge was said sans the words ‘under God’. Later as I progressed in school those words were added, but by then I had determined there was no God, so I just left those words out. As a patriot, I felt the swelling of pride when I ‘pledged’ or sang the anthem, and the shivers in my spine when the flag marched by, and those feelings contributed a great deal to my decision to join the Marine Corps, but in the Pledge of Allegiance the words, under God were a horrible waste. I’m a little older now, and while the prideful feelings remain when things patriotic occur, the horrible waste in those two useless words does remain.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2009 10:53 PM
Comment #290323
If actions speak louder than words, tell me what the actions of the Republicans say. Tell me what this continuous insistence that the heritage of this country belongs to them says.

The same thing it said of Democrats when they said that they were going ot ‘take their country back’ earlier in the decade.

Bluebuss may not be being precise in his targets, but his sentiments speak to the fears that many Democrats have.

Yet you poo poo those same fears that Republicans have. Or Libertarians. It is because you don’t find the opposition ‘stable’ of mind, which says a lot about the mindset of the Democratic mind than those of the ones they ‘fear’.

We Democrats hear about things like this: An antiabortion group selling art from Tiller’s murderer to funder their group, a grotesque, high-school style drawing with Tillers murderer pictured as a Davy holding aloft the severed head of Goliath- the abortion industry.

And other people hear about all kinds of things that are despicable that are not indictments of an entire political philosophy. Why is it that Democrats cannot use their brains in these matters, isn’t that what we are told that one of the good things about Democrats is supposed to be, that they aren’t led by ‘emotion’? I find that suggestion without merit.

We Democrats see things like this: Tea Partisans holding signs implying the threat of violence if their politics are not appeased.

And Republicans and Libertarians see similar things. Jesus, Stephen, you act like these things are new in politics! Most Republicans and Libertarians see and hear the same things against them by Democrats for decades and suddenly, when back in power, it is something to be concerned about?

We Democrats hear things like this: mainstream Republicans who once touted their independence and centrism running over to indulge people making wild claims like Death Panels and Socialists takeovers with their rhetoric. Grassley first, Then Mark Kirk from the suburbs of Chicago. The Tea Partisans are claiming that the elimination of moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava is a victory.

And Democrats are trying to say that their losing of the states of Virginia and New Jersey isn’t a defeat. It’s called POLITICS.

We see the mainstream Republicans indulging these folks, who hold up signs comparing Healthcare policy meant to cover every individual to what the Nazis did at Dachau.

Do you want me to go back and show you the signs from left leaning protests that went unchecked by mainstream Democrats, suggestions that the levies in New Orleans were exploded on purpose to kill people, that over 40% of Democrats are truthers, etc. Your insistence that this is a one sided invention is extremely myopic…

More and more, the provocative rhetoric goes uncheck. More and more, irresponsible words are spread around about armed takeovers, secession, assassination. More and more we see folks like Orly Taitz bringing forward and lionizing comments that imply that it might be a good idea to assassinate Barack Obama, even as she questions the real birth records of our American-born president.

Ok, we’ve already had this discussion where I pointed out repeated statements by people on the left that Bush should be assassinated and left ‘unchecked’ by mainstream Democrats. Heck, sometimes it WAS mainstream Democrats. But that was ok, wasn’t it?

I’m sad to say that a lot of what I spoke of was not stereotype.

Stephen, that pretty much tells me that I should just ignore you from now on. You stand up and rail when those on the right try to say that one mentality or another is what ‘most on the left believe’, rightfully so. I defend you on that, it isn’t accurate. But then you throw it right back at them?

It is clear that you have become unhinged, just as bluebuss has, and others who are buying into the rhetoric and fear that your party is dishing out to you. It is the same as the fear that the right tried to push out against Democrats during the 2004 election, the fears that were sewn, the lies that were told.

Congratulations, Stephen, you’ve sunken down to Karl Rove’s level.

Further generalities and stereotyping, eh?

Nope, I’m pointing the finger directly at you.

Look, if we waited until everybody agreed to apply a law, it would never happen. And if it weren’t majority rule, what would it be? Well, minority rule.

It would be what we were supposed to have, majority rules as long as they don’t violate the rights of the minority. You are stepping all over them in the name of helping the minority. You do it out of misplaced good intentions, but they are just that, misplaced.

And what you’re missing about that, is that once you break up the monolithic party blocks that this kind of obstructionism forces, we find that majorities can be where you find them.

In fact, I’ve said as much sometimes in my criticism of the Republican’s tactics. They could easily be serving their constituents better by participating and being willing to vote on things. But because they have decided to become a block of unitary voters, they don’t have the power to be part of any majority, and therefore are losing the power to shape legislation.

Except you ignore the FACT that the Republicans cannot stop you. They can say no, en masse, to everything your party wants to do, but that would not be enough to stop your agenda. It is not the Republican’s fault…

The Right same the same thing about the Democrats in 2001 - 2006. Only then the Democrats COULD do something. But that was ok, right?

If the Democrats want to pass anything, all they have to do is show up and agree. THAT is the real problem. Your pointing the finger to the ones with no power at all isn’t going to help your party one bit. And what do you think it is going to do to the independants that you are going to have to rely upon for 2010?

When the right is in charge of the majority and want to send troops to Iraq to overthrow Saddam and enforce the resolutions against him so he will quit killing his own citizens and threaten the rest of the world…

Many Democrats voted with them. But they voted for it thinking there was an actual threat possible there.

And they were right. It wasn’t just based on information that came after 2001. It was based on things that happened during the Clinton administration. And they were right then. Just because we find out later that they had secretly destroyed some of the WMD that were known to have existed did not change anything about what their intentions and planning was once the sanctions were lifted.

Sometimes the right idea can be carried out the wrong way. What, you think Democrats WANT another attack? I guess you might think that. Let me clear something up: America should not be forced to give up its freedoms to protect itself from an enemy. That is, in my opinion, a strategic loss that should never be allowed.

You misunderstand me, most likely because you keep wanting to lump me in with Republicans for some reason. I never suggested that Democrats want another attack. I fight against the Patriot Act & The RICO statutes as well. I am for the TSA to get the hell out of the airports. I would rather have attacks every 5 years than to lose those freedoms that we hold dear. That was what they WANTED for us to do, give up our free society because of the fear that they would institute. We lost, they won.

WHAT BLOODY OPPRESSION?

What? I see these guys on the news all the time

No, you see the extremes of the people on the news because that is what news does. It doesn’t care if the majority of people are peaceful protestors, it seeks out the worst and puts them on the TV. Your mistake is to listen to the news propaganda as some look into a mindset that you don’t share, it will only lead to your disgust of that view because you will never get an accurate understanding of it.

You continue to beat the drum about the ‘astroturfing’ that you think went on, but it wasn’t like that. I KNOW, I am part of it. I see how it works and what happened and if anyone wanted to really look at it, they could find a much more sedate and non-threatening situation. But no, people like ‘TPM’ and ‘ThinkProgress’ are NOT interested in finding the truth, they are about pushing an agenda and lie in order to do just that. I’ve shown you facts that shoot them down and you ignore it because I obviously must be the one lying. Fine. That’s your decision I suppose. But don’t kid yourself that you are getting unbiased reporting from the likes of these people…

I would suggest actually listening to those who disagree with you and trying to understand their point of view because that view, most of the time, is a VALID one. You can disagree with it, just as I disagree with the progressive and statist views, but I don’t think that people who hold them are somehow numb or braindead. You might see what I see, that the howling fear that you and bluebuss want to pass off to us is entirely unfounded…

God, the only the only think they don’t have is credibility and popularity with the rest of the country. But that stuff, you can’t expect as if its your right, your entitlement.

‘The rest of the country’? You might find that you are wrong about that statement. LA, Chicago, NY and Atlanta are not ‘the rest of the country’. There are a LOT of people who are very very upset about the spending that Bush AND Obama have been doing, they left the Republican party years ago because of it, as we see by polling, and were hoping that Obama was being truthful when he claimed to be about fiscal responsibility. They have lost faith in that lie and other lies that Obama has made, and continues to make (not raise taxes? He did that within weeks of taking office!).

These are the people who got you elected. Who you are making feel horrible for ever trusting your party. You will feel a backlash from that Stephen, especially those of us who, like myself, stood up to the left being called UnAmerican by the right and then found themselves being called that very thing, as well as racist and a whole host of other crap that we will not soon forget.

What you guys

Again, SHOVE YOUR ‘YOU GUYS’ crap, Stephen.

In fact, that’s it, I’m done trying to talk to you.

How can I reason with that? How can I reason with those who will brook no compromise beyond a total compromise of my own?

How indeed. I understand just how you feel. Have a fun life living your imagined fear of the right.

And goodbye.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 11:41 PM
Comment #290333

RH,

It sure took a lot of words to say you’re no longer talking…hmmm…talking about not talking…hmmm…if your political stance is as pragmatic as that, your affiliation (whatever THAT is) is in trouble.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2009 8:57 AM
Comment #290352

The “Right” math:

FOXNews + molehill = mountain

Posted by: Cath at November 6, 2009 1:23 PM
Comment #290356

Rhinehold-
One vote less than our entire Senate Delegation, and we can’t break the filibusters. The Republicans could lend a few votes.

But they practically never do.

You may see power as some nebulous thing, but in the senate, if even one Democrats says no, every other Democrat’s vote is powerless to stop the filibuster.

The Filibuster the Republicans must maintain full and utter unanimity in order to keep this going. If just a few dissent, it’s all over.

You think that happens on accident? You think Every Republican is that ideologically tidal-locked on the internal principles that would cause them all to vote no on cloture?

You think such coincidences just happened 112 times during the Democrat’s first Congress as majority?

Seriously, this is an organized, deliberate strategy. It’d be kind of brilliant in certain regards, except for the tiny problem that we’d like our Congress back if the Republicans aren’t using it.

They’re not trying to win the next election on the merits. They’re trying to win on the notion that the Democrats didn’t do what they said they would…

After they completely roadblock that agenda in the Senate.

And they will do this so that people start to think that it’s useless to elect Democrats, and that the smart thing to do would be to elect more Republicans.

Follow me on this: we are supposed to reward the people who are fundamentally at fault for the gridlock in this country for the fact that the people they’re getting in the way of aren’t getting anything done, as is the Republican’s plan.

What kind of f’ed up BS is this? I thought the point of having a government is to handle the issues in front of us, not cater to the political gamesmanship of an otherwise useless bunch of cynical bastards!

You are playing into one of the most unspeakably cynical political moves in the last century, playing into precisely the kind of corrupt, careless politics that you profess to hate. We never did anything approaching this magnitude of interference with the majority. We backed down in the face of a Republican threat to cut off the filibuster over five federal judges that we were blocking.

The Republicans are blocking about two hundred Obama officials, judges, and until recently, our own surgeon general in the midst of a swine flu epidemic.

This has gone far beyond legitimate political games. They are hindering this country’s ability to govern itself in the name of restoring themselves to that government. They are doing worse, less than nothing, and wanting to be rewarded for it.

Why can’t you see what an outrage that is? If the Republicans come back, they should earn their return with sensible policy that a majority of Americans can subscribe to. They should acheive things, and do things over and above what the Democrats are doing, and not simply because they’ve filibustered every Democratic Agenda item of note.

I know it seems naive to say this, but the Republicans are cheating. They are not playing fair with the American people. They are not doing what politicians are supposed to do to get elected, as opposed what they often do to get elected. Having destroyed most rational reasons for voting Republican, they’ve decided to gut America’s trust and ability to depend on their government, exercising a kind of political nihilism that is both breathtaking in its audacity, and dangerous in its consequences.

Let’s call what the Republicans are doing what it is: a crass, cynical, and ultimately dangerous manipulation of our political system.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2009 3:49 PM
Comment #290383

Stephen:

America is tracking to the right, and will continue to do so. You are too locked into the Democrat Republican thing. Simply look at the country as center right. Obama ran as a centrist but his policies are liberal. He is well liked, but not his policies.

You sound sometimes like a Democrat sound bite machine. Very close to Pelosi’s tone. do you believe you won the election on Tuesday?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2009 9:58 PM
Comment #290391

The ‘right’ is okay, it’s the fleas it wakes up with every morning that causes the worry. The ‘right’ is needed as a balance to the ‘left’. I’m pretty sure that’s what Stephen has been stressing…that we need both, but we can’t find the ‘right’ because the ‘right’ is hiding behind so many kooks. And THAT is scary…especially since the ‘right’ seems to relish its hiding place.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2009 5:47 AM
Comment #290408

rhinehold - well. ok. trying to get hinged.

stephen = karl rove? really? i find stephen in the center. i mean, he has ended up on the left side because of the politics of the right. i would start a rant on rove, but fighting the flu as it is.

what i was saying, or trying to say, there are a lot of ppl on the far right stoking fear, and raising hate to levels that lead to extremism. i personally do not want to attend an event where a man is carrying large weapons openly. call me a city slicker, but when i see a gun, it’s time to go. now, yes the man is allowed to own a gun. but is it right for that man to carry it an event where a woman is bringing her child to see the president? i don’t think so. that is my personal opinion.

old play book by republicans: guns, abortion. GET OVER IT! there is more to this country than those 2 issues.

and don’t forget democrats buried 9/11 victims too.

don’t you want to live in a society where we all pledge allegiance to our flag, our country, our people. because that is what you are pledging. allegiance for one another for our country.

now, that being said, it is time to cover all w/health care. as a patriotic american i feel it is sinful to watch and ignore my fellow americans die very cruel, and painful deaths. many are scared, hurt, ill, and poor. many worrying about finances. many having medical conditions that need immediate attention, only to purchase something over the counter to try to mask discomfort. this is america damn it, where is the u-s-a pride? can we all stand up and say U-S-A, U-S-A loud and proud when it comes to the treatment of the poor, and ill? i can’t.

and, for the last time bluebuss is a woman.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 7, 2009 12:38 PM
Comment #290447

Don’t be concerned about those who err on your gender…the male of the human species has used up his fifteen minutes. Darwin was right, males are no longer necessary for human survival, and as soon as you females figure that part out, we males will become mere pets…that probably includes Rhinehold and the other righties who blog here. We males on the left are becoming accustomed to that little evolutionary truth, and are preparing for it.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #290480

well - now this is in fun. if rhinehold is a pet, his trainer didn’t do very well. :)~ i am truly kidding!

Posted by: bluebuss at November 9, 2009 8:14 AM
Comment #380613

bad, choosing mulberry a stylish case can reebok shoes also be juicy couture outlet a great mcm handbags option. louboutin Thin insanity workout rubberized cases oakley sunglasses can provide salvatore ferragamo a fun splash soccer shoes of color, mont blanc or north face outlet eye-catching design to your device. These items will valentino shoes allow you to express asics running your personality herve leger through true religion jeans your polo ralph phone and converse shoes also nfl jerseys can be used lululemon outlet in ghd hair keeping chanel handbags your louboutin phone clean and bottega veneta free supra shoes from burberry cosmetic defects. Furthermore, in birkin bag such michael kors outlet cases, tory burch outlet an additional amount is added to marc jacobs the coach purses device.



This phone is one of the karen millen most versatile options coach outlet store when coach factory outlet it longchamp outlet comes to coach outlet modern louboutin Smartphone. However, this coach outlet device can longchamp be louis vuitton handbags improved ray ban outlet by adding louis vuitton outlet online appropriate chi hair straighteners accessories. longchamp Choosing hollister the soccer jerseys right toms shoes accessories true religion outlet is the true religion perfect way to get the best new balance shoes experience with any ralph lauren Smartphone.

prada handbags

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 11:40 PM
Post a comment