Change or Unity - Which Did You Vote For

Where the hell is it?

this current love-fest we've got going on here.

:eyes:

the thought gives me shivers

I'm sick of factionalism.

because that's who we're talking about, not family members, not your friends. Change in Washington, not in your bedroom or kitchen.

I figured that was at least a step forward. Now the critical part starts as there is no bush to blame for bad policies for the Democrats. Though the Republicans are currently in disarray, the Democrats have to find their soul or the future will change places for the parties.

And I believe unity is one of the changes that is sorely needed.

Every poll should have a choice for OTHER.

I voted for Bob Barr.

As it is, I cannot vote.

Unity, respect and progress IS THE CHANGE!

Your post and your sig line seem mutually contradictory to me.

Are there or are there not things more important than unity, respect and progress?

Unity, respect and progress does not mean giving up what you believe. You can work for unity on the shared goals. You can respect the various opinions on how to achieve those goals. And, progress.

Aside from that, US policy and what seems to be Obama's policy on Afghanistan is the only major issue difference I have. But, there are many many other things on which we agree and I hope to see done.

Unity is not possible for me when I am working in the opposite direction from those I am being called to unite with. Since they are more powerful than I, uniting with them means there agenda will prevail. That would be morally wrong to submit to that, or to pretend that I don't know that.

I can't respect the right wingers and what they have done, nor the Dems that enabled them. Respect is earned.

Progress on what? Destroying Afghanistan?

Unity comes from shared principles and goals. Shared principles and goals don't come from unity. For progress to have value, we must know the direction we are progressing toward.

To a great, life-altering extent, they don't.

Where's the common goal on the right of women to control their own bodies? Equal rights for GLBTers? The rich paying their share and the common citizen not getting financially raped by the aforementioned wealthy?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

paybacks were not on his agenda, AFAIK.

Remember competence?

Obama recognizes that to pass his agenda he's going to need the support of some moderates and conservatives.

If he listened to purists on the left, he'd end up just like Bush who listened to the purist neocons. The more the left attacks Obama, the more Obama will be forced to align himself with moderates. The left is its own worst enemy. Just as it helped do enough damage to Bill Clinton to get a Republican Congress, just as it did enough damage to Gore via Nader, it threatens to do the same to Obama.

I consider myself left, but I support Obama's pragmatism completely, as long as it's to push his agenda and not some other agenda.

...and attack the left as "purists."

Bush was quite successful in advancing the agenda of the right, despite having little if any support from the public - amazingly successful.

The people want the same thing now as the "leftist purists" much more so than was the case with Bush. Yet we are still counseling caution and compromise?

So what or who is it exactly that we are so afraid of offending, to who we give so much consideration, with whom we must compromise? It is not the people. It is the same people whom the Republicans represent. That is not right, and we have a duty to continue to speak about that.

called their democratic Senator yesterday, today and said...please vote to strip away Joe Lieberman's chairmanships, vs keep him on? How many people signed petitions begging them to at least punish the guy.

I guarantee it was NOT the later that won out.

Check my Google results looking for those "Keep Joe Lieberman Petitions"
http://www.google.com/search?q=keep+joe+lieberman+petitions&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS245US245 - I see ONE on the first page of results vs the many for the removal of Lieberman.

So much for the power of the Internet, unless it's for donations. Petitions get tossed in the trash can.

"This election isn't about me, it's about you"? How many times did I hear that over the past two years and sorry, but I didn't see a sea of UNITY signs in those crowds. Democrats won on the message of change.

I'm bummed out, today was just the beginning of the same old shit when it comes to the congress of spineless democrats.

Lieberman will not bend to Obama or Reid. He's a grade-A asshole, how many times does he have to prove that before it sinks in?

needed votes to seat the judges he wanted and pass the "legislation" HE wanted. He had a freeway bypass around Congress. If Obama seats himself in the MODERATE position, I WILL become a repuke. At least they do what they believe in.

edit: Okay. I can't be a repuke. Never happen. I'll just drop out.

Did I screw up?

Mojito recipe
serve in Parfait Glass

3 fresh mint sprigs
2 tsp sugar
3 tbsp fresh lime juice
1 1/2 oz light rum
club soda



In a tall thin glass, crush part of the mint with a fork to coat the inside. Add the sugar and lime juice and stir thoroughly. Top with ice. Add rum and mix. Top off with *chilled* club soda (or seltzer). Add a lime slice and the remaining mint, and serve.

Me, I voted to have a government that works. If unity does it, fine.

We have had a government that worked very well for the wealthy and powerful few, and that had strong bi-partisan support. The public just rejected all of that.

the proof is in the failed policies and bankrupted economy.

The Bush administration was phenomenally successful. They gave those people for whom those they were working everything they wanted.

Their policies were not failures, they were successes. The only question is, as is always true in politics - who was it that benefited? Whom were they working for?

We are right - it is our duty - to ask for whom the new administration and the new Democratic majority will be working. It would be irresponsible and bad citizenship to not ask that question.

I would not call that a successful government. I'm sure you wouldn't define that government as an ideal to be strived for either. As in most things, there are multiple definitions of successful, depending on the point of view.

Certainly we should monitor the new government. but a government that functions for the whole, not just for the few, will require a certian amount of unity to succeed.

My cousin works as a chef for a well know super-wealthy oil family. I can't mention who they are. As a fly on the wall, one hears all.

I can guarantee you that there are people who think that the Bush administration was wildly successful - for them. And they are right. They are doing much better. Life is good. They see those for whom life is worse as losers, and not to be taken into consideration.

They win, we lose. Nothing about it was accidental or unsuccessful. It still amazes me just how successful the Bush administration was at advancing the meeds and desires of the wealthy and powerful and improving their lives. 10% of that success on behalf of the general public would feed, educate, house, employ and pay well every citizen in the country.

But it all depends upon whose interests the politicians are advancing. Since we here are intolerant of anyone strongly advocating for the have-nots - we call that unrealistic, impractical, radical, purist, unpopular (that is a laugh), fringe, whiners, ideologues, communists etc. etc. - we are unable to get any politician to fight even one tenth as hard for the have-nots as the Bush administration fought for the haves and the have-mores.

That has to be a function of the fact that the activist community is dominated by people who are fairly well-off - professional, educated, gentrified - and who identify more with the ruling class than they do the working people.

That is the crux of the problem. When I say I want a government that works,I may not mean the same thing as when someone else says the same thing. the standards i use are valid in my opinion - does it work for a majority of Americans? If yes, then it works. If no, then not.

I think that in part you may be right as to the causes of why poverty activism and improving the living conditions in this country. however, another aspect IMO is the fact that the majority of citizens have been effectively brainwashed through nearly 100 years of Red Menace propaganda, to the poin that they will happily vote against their interests just because the word "socialist" comes out.

I've seen this country.

I voted for change which will bring unity- and for Unity for a change.


:shrug:

It would be nice to have unity, but it is not in our hands. The other party represents people who want everything and will never compromise unless forced to do so.

own decisions to live our lives as agents of peace, unity and working for the good of all of us- should it? If we allow 'them' to dictate how we live, then we have lost -

Living our ideals might not be easy, or seem 'smart'- but are we really committed to them if we don't?

People may be 'forced' to obey- but that doesn't really change them. Demonstrating why 'our' way is 'the better way' offers hope that they may see the reality and look at things differently- and tip the balance.


:hi:

That is more of a religious approach to the situation that it is a political approach.

In politics, we seek to change conditions - ending slavery for example - not to changing people - making the slaves happier with their condition through personal enlightenment, for example.

Were the slaves "allowing" the slave owners to dictate to them how they lived, and could that have been remedied by the slaves merely personally "living their ideals" and could that have ever "tipped the balance?"

as to taking actions that end oppression and removing laws, or enacting laws which ensure equality, freedom, and that everyone has at least the minimum requirements for 'living'-

I didn't express myself very well- and I can see what you are saying. I didn't mean to imply that living true to my 'ideals' meant inaction- or a 'live and let live' hands off approach. What I was trying to respond to was what I heard in your statement that "the other party" would "never" change- without "force".
I don't believe that I can judge all individuals who fall into 'the other party' as being of 'one mind'- or incapabile, or unwilling to change unless forced to do so under duress- or threat.

I DO know a few people who were against the legalization of a womans right to choose, who came to see the situation much differently after living under the law of 'roe v. wade' - and who now work to ensure that it remains a right - they weren't changed as much by 'force' (as I see it) as by witnessing that an individual's right to have the ability to make such a personal and important decision without having to 'break the law' or risk their life is a 'personal' not 'governmental' issue.

Thanks for questioning my words- I (like you) do encourage changing conditions- (vs. simply telling the oppressed to 'be at peace' with their situation) We can be agents for change, and still be people who are reasonable and non-violent or vindictive at the same time, I believe.

:hi:

peace~

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to consider my opinion on that.

We are in agreement.

:toast:

for decades?

I got news for you, we won on general policy with the general populace years ago and have never approached the day to day partisanship of the Republicans. If you think that's all it is to the puzzle then you were born yesterday or at least a few hundred years early.

As far as I'm concerned unity means giving it the old college try and rolling over their obstructionist asses as required. Assuming people will do the right thing is naive beyond belief, especially people dedicated to such widely beneficial beliefs as theocracy, fascism, racism, and imperialism. People deadset on obstructing any change beneficial to the people to the point of literally doing so by ANY and ALL means necessary.
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to put forth our best effort but there are too many things that simply have to get done to be overly guilt ridden about having to truck them. We owe too much to our forebearers and future generations to throw our country (and by extension to some degree the world) down the tubes because we want to play nice and not offend a gang of bullies, pirates, and tyrants. Furthermore, letting them get away with being a bunch of pigs at the troughs and thugs isn't exactly edifying their souls nor is it keeping people in their homes and jobs.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. About 98% of us are under the thumb with another 3-8 percent acting as "overseers", that get a little taste. How long are we suppose to worry about the good of these folks and the confused mob that goes to the mat for them at every chance against their own interests? How many of your countrymen's lives and livelyhoods are we supposed to be prepared to burn on the alter of unity.

Again, don't mistake a stern tone on this with legitimate questions as being anti-unity but there is a limit and we should have some goals that we demand be fought for tooth and nail and hell and highwater. Otherwise there is no point. This remains reality and in reality sometimes you must fight for it or roll over and die. Survival overrides all other concerns and the way we have been going is suicide. If that offends a Republican relative, well fuck 'em. Better them than me and the other 6 billion people on the planet, not to mention the entire future people, flora, and fauna that have a right to this world too. Fuck 'em for freedom, liberty, and justice. They aren't that important, your's or mine and you know what we they get "the shaft", 99.999999 times out of a hundred the dumbass will be better off and probably the .0000001 too but nothing is perfect.

iliness. I didn't vote for this childish crap going on here in the last 2 days

That is the premise on which my vote for change was based.

All the rest is gravy.

One of the best messages that Obama talked about was ending this nasty divide of partisan politics. We've been dealing with it now since Clinton was elected and it's just getting fricking old as hell. I'm hoping that the change that Obama brings to DC will be a new unity of the party - but a party where it's elected officials represent those that vote for them and NOT partisan issues that divide this nation. And yes, that kind of thinking means my senator might not vote like your senator even if they are the same party. But if these people are truly representing the people then that won't matter.

false paradigm, built on a desire to suggest we can have only one of those two

:shrug:

Need some CREATIVE THINKING to solve economic - environmental crisis

NOT the same old

AND A BANANA CREAM PIE

Seriously, what were you hoping to accomplish with this? More flamebait about the Lieberman decision? You're disappointed that the caucus didn't waterboard Lieberman. We get it.

ANYONE who doesn't think so has learned nothing about Republicans over the past 28 years.

I think he will surprise you

and face consequences when they don't- as I'm quite sure we will see again and again over the next 2 years.

If anything, to avoid this:

n/t

Lieberman

discuss

:grr:

I voted for the man. His ideas. His beliefs.

I'm hoping to see some, maybe.

I'm not smart enough to define what that means. So far, I'm counting on PE Obama to have a better grasp on that than do I. I choose not to judge too harshly at this point.

:)

They want capitulation.

Lame "push poll." Did Zogby help you devise this fair and balanced poll?

It is like asking who would choose popcorn versus a good book

FREEPER!


:P

Change and unity will be their offspring.

it's in their very being, something awry, I have a few of them in my family; it is nye impossible to hug someone who is trying to (figuritively strangling you).
There are 2 types of opposition that generally fit: the one's who are SO passionate about their cause-something outside of themselves....& the other type that is ALL ABOUT SAYING NO, there is no cause bigger than themselves, nation be damned. These last types are inflexible dogmatics that never let reality interfere with their decisions. I'd take a chance & hire the 1st type but NOT the last, it doesn't work, they sabotauge constantly, usually with the sweetest smile on their faces.

I didn't vote for revenge. I voted for change and part of change is unity. I hated the way the Republicans tried to impose one-party government and how they chose the most extreme right-wing toadies for every position. I hated how they ostracized every person with a hint of difference of opinion. I don't want the Dems to be like that at all. And I hate how divided our country is. If Obama can reach out to the middle without compromising basic liberal values, I'm all for it. Obama said it best when he said to those who didn't vote for him that he would be their president too. Now that is change. I'm not afraid of a few moderates in his administration. I am very liberal, but I never once expected Obama to appoint a cabinet full of Dennis Kuciniches. I'll hold back my judgment until I see what they do after January.

The repukes have shown that they will do everything they can to kill the Democratic party. Do you think they have changed? Hell no. They will regroup and unify against the Dems as usual. They are not the party of unity and never will be. They are total scum bags!

The hope that this country could heal the wounds inflicted on it over the last 8 years and the hope that this country could begin to heal the wounds it has inflicted on the world in the last 8 years.

And yes, that amounts to both change and unity.