I would add that I think the economy is beyond patching.  This thing has got to run itself out, and it's a lot better for truth, justice, and the American way if it runs itself out on the watch of the persons who are responsible for it.

And without solid Democratic majorities (that means "veto proof") in both houses, but especially in the Senate, where nobody really has to filibuster anything any more--all they have to do is whisper the word--progress will not be made.

That's what I think.

But...even if I'm right that's an awfully flippant (and hurtful) approach so [sigh] let's elect Democrats, put pressure on them, and hope for the best.

And maybe things will work out.

.

But strategic compromise should always remain a reluctant course of action rather than one resorted to because its easier or more convenient. Once compromise becomes its own end, once it becomes institutionalized as an essential ingredient in all instances of political maneuvering, once it becomes seen as always preferable to losing, then it becomes inherently destructive, sort of like how casino gambling, if one engages in it enough, one winds up inevitably losing everything. Sometimes voting for the lesser of 2 evils is a good thing; sometimes it leads inexorably to larger disasters.

Completely refusing to negotiate and reach deals through compromise is often like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Here too, however, sometimes an uncompromising position on important issues is called for; other times this stalwart inflexibility leads to bigger tragedy.

A well informed electorate has a far better chance of developing realistic priorities as to where and to bend and where and when to stand firm. A ow information electorate that is so much more easily manipulated by clever rhetoric and propaganda almost always makes their choices based on sentiment, on fear, and above all, based in the emotional plane. This is why almost all political rhetoric is designed to deceive; because a misdirected public is more easily manipulated.

It's a tragedy that standing on principle is seen as a 'radical' thing for a politician to do, while their cleverness in outmaneuvering the truth with spin is lauded openly. It's no wonder the people with the best ideas hardly ever rise to prominence in the political arena. Our political system is broken, severely broken, and probably needs at minimum of a generations worth of years to be restored to meaningful functionality. Do we the people have the attention span for such a long term endeavor? Are we willing to purge the malefactors, (bluedogs, etc), along the way even if it threatens short term partisan advantage?

These are my questions

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

Unlike Carlin, I will vote. Just not contributing to the wool collection.

Yet I think the more important question is: why do we vote? When we got a democratic majority back in 2006 what did you think would happen? I thought, quite naively, that we would end the war. It's not just the war of course, the democratic party has folded on just about every single issue of importance. They don't fight for anything. They don't filibuster any issue, except for Chris Dodd for a day or two, all by himself. I mean, you might not like Nader but his argument about two factions of the business party sounds true. Looks true too.

I mean, let's say your hoped for Roger Maris 61 senate seat dnc majority comes about. You know what happens then? The republicans, down a man or two, simply get two to five to 10 democrats to fillibuster with them procedurely. Therefore, they still run the country. I have a theory that if it was 95 to 5, those same republican senators would still run the country. I can see Harry Reid backing down to the old fashioned Dodd style fillibuster.

There's something deeply wrong with the Democratic Party. Here's something you could do: if you're sticking with option two could you make sure the DLC/AIPAC duopoly that undermines the dems and handles recruitment, or the Rahm/Schumer connection, is challenged at every turn. They picked the democratic majority that fights for nothing. That didn't happen accidently and if you really really like a proxy war for Israel and being the Republican lite party then things are working fine. It just seems to me that if those guys back somebody the netroots should look very carefully at that resume and if they see something they don't like (Altmire was a health insurance lobbyist. Should have smelled a rat there...)pick option two and raise money for him or her.

Could we agree on that?

Philip Shropshire http://www.threeriversonline.com

Then we can decide what kind of head-scarf to wear while we go about the long healing process to bring this nation back to the ideal for which she once stood.

FISA was wrong, despicable, and for that Obama crushed my enthusiasm and lost what little chance he had for getting a small donation from me.  But McCain would be a disaster, and we've had enough of that.  It's going to be hard enough to clean up the current mess.  The sooner we get started, the less chance it will get any worse.

Think about this.  It's March, 2009 and Senator Dodd introduces a new resolution calling for an independent counsel to investigate KBR and Halliburton and some others for fraud and waste.  How does President Obama respond?  What would McCain do.

Who do you want deciding if and how forcefully we go after the current crime syndicate running the nation and raping the world?  Will Obama go after them with the same zeal we know President Dodd or President Edwards would have done it?  Doubtful.  

Would McCain even let his Attorney General consider it?  Based on his record going after Abramoff, maybe.  Based on his pathetic political pandering, forsaking everything that made his "maverick" reputation, no way.

Mark Adams from Dispassionate Liberal

But...the alternative to continuing those polices would be a SCREECHING halt to the economy as it now stands until long-term adjustments could be made. Energy needs would have to be drastically altered; the ongoing gluttonous overconsumption of all things by Americans would need to be seriously reduced, etc. Given that the hypnomedia have done such a good job of convincing Americans that it is not only their right but their duty to overconsume in order to feed the consumerism-fueled engine of American business, it is very doubtful that Americans would go for such belt tightening voluntarily. No politician worth the name would even think of suggesting such a thing. Not if they wanted to win they wouldn't. And should one actually try to do something about the problem after being elected he or she would meet with such opposition from other politicians hungry for votes that nothing much would get done. Except of course that any pol who did seriously try to do such a thing would get de-elected the next time around.

So it's 'round and 'round the tubes we go. Headed down in a rapidly accelerating inflationary spiral. 'Round and' round and 'round we go. Where we stop? Nobody knows.

So it goes.

See ya at the exit.

I'l be there, waiting.

Later...

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

I remember that in 2004 there were a whole lot of people who believed that Bush should be reelected so that things would get bad enough to wake America up and force it to choose a different direction. Are things bad enough now, or not yet? Does American need another four years to be ready to wake up?

"And how many of you think things are so bad that the safest thing to do is have the Democrats win the White House and sweeping victories in both Houses of Congress so that we can emphatically reject the Bush administration and get headed as soon as possible in a better direction?"

What makes you so sure that having the Democrats in the White House and dominating Congress will necessarily head America in that much of a better direction? Certainly the Democrat legislative victory in 2006 has not resulted in very much change for the better even cosmetically. Certainly candidate Obama is not displaying a whole lot of courage of our convictions (who knows what his true convictions actually are, other than the politician's perpetual goal of winning and staying in power at any cost?).

I've found myself in Bizarro World.

Yes, let us take our lead foot off the centrism time-warp particle accelerator.

Why I should care about Wesley Clark, a Hillary surragate that ripped Obama every chance he got in the primaries, I am not sure.

But I have my marching orders from the lords of blogs.

Defeat Obama and elect McCain.

So economy gets worse, heath care remains the same, and more lives and money die in Iraq.  I made a statement to protect some idiot General that never did a thing for me.

Or do I vote for Nader this year to help defeat Obama.

Help me out here.

Patriotism and religion, like whiskey, is best used in moderation. Mark Twain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2rXiBM-qY