I Vehemently Disagree With The HCR Bill, But Tearing Down Obama Is Pointless and Incredibly Stupid

First, there are NO other Democrats, who could win a national election, that would do ANYTHING fundamentally different than what Obama is doing. NONE. Yes, Kucinich, Sanders, Feingold, Boxer, and some others may be more progressive, but they cannot get elected nationally.

Second, the other alternative would be a teabagged-fox-news-glenn-beck-rush-limbaugh approved Republican nightmare. We'd go from Corporatism to Christian-Fundie/Gut All Social Programs/Start Wars with the entire Islamic Reglion/De-Regulate Everything/Hand Out Massive Tax Cuts to the Rich Corporatism.

Finally, the real solution is to build a strong progressive presence within the Democratic party, and groom an entire new generation of leaders, not a leader, but LEADERS, plural. It's not enough to elect a president. We've got to elect an entire congress, and that takes work. As progressives, we've got to win back the brand. We've got to get Americans to embrace the progressive agenda, not fear and despise it.

Obama is only the beginning, and if you destroy him, then you put yourself a generation behind.

You are calling republicans "Rich Corporatism" and don't believe Obama gave more to
Wall Street and the health care industry thatn repugs would ever dream of giving them. And I don't see anything trickling down to Main Street.

I called the Republicans, "Christian-Fundie/Gut All Social Programs/Start Wars with the entire Islamic Reglion/De-Regulate Everything/Hand Out Massive Tax Cuts to the Rich" Corporatism.

BOTH politcal parties, as currently constituted, are pro-corporatism, but only one of them is batshit crazy insane about other issues as well.

Maybe it's their attitude towards their own base that's frustrating people to the point that they want to hit back.

People really don't like being thrown under the bus, then told, "better learn to like it, b/c you have no other choice." That's when people desperately look for a way to retaliate--for revenge, and to assert themselves to keep it from happening again.

And that's the problem. There is no credible, national progressive figure that can win a national election. Sure, there may be a progressive with a name recognition and a following, but unless you have a candidate with the credibility to WIN a national election, then Rahm is right, there are no alternatives.

he couldn't be more wrong.

Apparently he's never heard of "word of mouth", or he assumes that people on the left don't influence their friends in the center. People in the center are usually disengaged politically, and look to their friends on either side to sell them on who they should vote for. This xmas, I couldn't hide my disappointment in Obama. As much as I'd love to defend him, I didn't. These are my best friends, and they would know if I was lying, or being insincere. They went back home knowing that their friend who knows a lot about politics is greatly upset and disappointed in Obama. They also went home knowing why.

I think Rahm Emanuel is a clunky, rigid thinker who would overlook obvious qualitative info like this. I really think a lot of this is due to him just not being very bright.

You'd end up with another corporatist Dem or a batshit insane corporatist Republican.

Heck, even if somehow you'd got a real progressive elected, that progressive would have to deal with a corporatist congress, one way or another.

That goes a long way. Rahm operates as if the people in the purple section of the pie chart and the people in the blue section do not live among one another and interact in day to day life.

There's nothing that progressives can do, but we're capable of bringing down Obama?
Then it would seem he and Rahm are wrong and might want to rethink that whole "Progressives can't hurt us!" idea, doesn't it?

Not that I've got any desire to bring him down, whatever the hell that means. None of us want him to fail. If he fails he's going to do it all by himself. Liberals are going to get blamed by the Republicans and the Conservocrats for all the bad policy anyway.

get help.

seriously.

STRONG PROGRESSIVES, THE BASE wouldn't be so upset! If he will LEAD, we will FOLLOW!

This is not about you specifically but a more general observation

I see a fair amount of people on DU talk about how Obama is their employee more or less, and should be doing progressive/liberal things because *they* want it

We got people like you who ask Obama to *lead* and you will follow

Those two does not really mix to well, is Obama supposed to be a leader or a follower of those who elected him

LEAD or to put it in "sports terminology" which seems to always be the case, he's the quarterback! He has the ball, he's the guy who gets the ball when it's hiked. Does he take that ball and throw it over to the other team? That's not how the game is supposed to be played, or at least that's not how I learned the rules.

Right now, I see him trying to play on both sides of the field and it's apparent to me that it's not working. So, should you not then SEE that the people on your own team want you to play on their side? Would you not score MORE POINTS when you as a leader used "your team" to score more points? Why invite the other team into "your" huddle when they obviously don't want you to win the game?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that when we elect a person in this country, they do in fact WORK for us. They are employed by us, and we pay their salaries with our taxes.

I could go on about lobbyists, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, big banks, Wall Street and the monied people who use a certain "leverage" to get their way. And "their" way more often than not isn't what's best for the common citizen. What "some" of us here complain about is that "these" people have too much of an inside track and we don't like the sell out.

Ever heard "of the people, by the people & for the people? What do you think that means? I thought that was at the core of Democracy here in America.

"Some" of us are very unhappy that Obama has actually flip-flopped on what he said he wanted to do. "Some" of us thought we elected him because campaigned on certain issues and we now see he changed his mind or something.

This is getting long winded, but that's the gist of what I mean. We want a STRONG leader on OUR TEAM, and one we feel who actually wants to win the game. "Some" of us don't know what the game plan is anymore, so how can we follow? Especially when we are getting so many mixed signals. Bottom line, just because we disagree doesn't me we don't want him to succeed. Too many here DON'T understand that!

I don't like using sports analogies, it's a bit simplistic and doesn't cover a all the bases per se, but a lot of people use them and understand it better that way.

Be a Progressive, moderate, liberal or what you want to call it, but be on OUR side, not the conservative side.

But yes, he does work for us, and the people he chooses to help him should follow his LEAD!

Enough!

1. People want Obama to do the right stuff because he said he would, and we worked our butts off to elect him. Remember "hope and change"?

2. He's supposed to be the Leader of the fing Free World, and many of us remember Presidents who actually led, as opposed to being wimps. (Okay the jury is still out as to whether he's a wimp or a sellout.)

Knowing those things and saying them are not contradictory.

I know zero people in my circle of friends, acquaintances, etc. who now have a favorable opinion of Obama. This is in 90% contrast to just after his election.

trouble understanding who makes up what some people believe to be President Obama's "base." The off-hand assumption that a very vocal few on DU make up the "people" who are being thrown under the bus, or make up a "base" of any sort, appears to be unsubstantiated, and therefore unfounded.

The broader Middle American voting population, to my way of thinking, makeup the true "base." I'm not seeing widespread accusations of anyone being "thrown under the bus" outside of highly-charged political discussion sites on the Internet. It is the height of arrogance to assume that a 3-5% segment of the voting population makes up a "base," or even represents American voters as a whole. Hell, it doesn't even represent the views of everyone on DU, or make up a credible "base" of DU activists.

Would I absolutely love to see a completely Liberal Democratic agenda which has the backing and support of ALL Americans? You bet your sweet ass I would, but this the real world and all of the Internet vitriol and petulance in the world will not change reality.

And one last thought: "It's the Congress -- stupid."

:dem:

It was way more than 3-5% who didn't want Geithner in as Sec. of Treasury, who don't want to double down in Afghanistan, who support gay rights, etc.

Wishing that number down to 3-5% is not going to make it so. The center can't keep wishing that all the left's criticisms can be pinned on Dennis Kucinich and punted out of bounds every four years in the presidential elections. It's the majority who are getting thrown under the bus here, with the 3-5% being the corporate Dems. There's a big difference between the moderates you're talking about, and pro-corporate types favored by Obama so far.

the 70% of Americans who support a public option does not equate to 70% of Americans who are totally dissatisfied with President Obama. The remainder of the issues and stats you provide also do not translate into widespread disapproval of President Obama by a majority of Americans. President Obama's poll numbers have been increasing as a result of his handling of HCR, with 87% approval by Liberal Democrats, and an overall 51% approval rating by all Americans. I find it telling that the main demographic where his approval ratings drop below 50% are among Republican, White, Southern, Males, over the age of 50 in the higher income brackets:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx

My problem with just throwing around misleading numbers, and using presumptive and all-inclusive phrases such as "we" and "the base" is that they are not intellectually honest, and give the appearance of using a Neoconservative strawman tactic in an attempt to bamboozle those who disagree with you. The 3-5% I speak of does indeed represent the fringe minority who are actively calling for a program of "non-support," and for President Obama's replacement (anybody but Obama?) in 2012.

I am not thrilled by the slow pace of progress by this administration, but then again I wasn't totally thrilled by the initial performances of Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. I am, however, overjoyed that I lived long enough to see a Democratic-introduced HCR Bill (in ANY form) given the opportunity for an up or down vote. This only adds to my pride in having also lived through major Democratic advances in the cause of Organized Labor, and the Civil Rights Movement.

I understand and support your anger and passion, but I believe that you and others can make your case without the use of exaggerated and misleading talking points, or hyperbole.

Cheers...;-)

Well said. :thumbsup:

How many of THOSE people would support a third party candidate once they find out what's actually in this bill? I don't think most people know, or accept what's actually in this thing. In that regard, I consider DU like the canary in a coal mine. I think the dissatisfaction will register with them a few months behind what you see here from those of us who'd like to strengthen the left's position in political negotiations like HCR.

And it's not like this candidate would have to be a lefty like Dennis. It could be someone like a Bloomberg or a Ron Paul-type who represents mainstream Progressives.

But I respect what you're saying about the percentage willing to support a primary opponent to Obama being different than those who supported the PO.

Both your posts.

Thank you.

What worries me is not that we small and insignificant critics will "destroy" Obama, but that he might be destroying himself AND squandering a once=promising opportunity in the process.

Time will tell.

You and your kind can blindly follow a politician if you like, but I will continue to think for myself. And you and the OP are missing the fact that Obama is doing his best to tear himself down, at least in the eyes of progressives, of which you and the op seem not to be, with your defending of corporatism, and all.

and that people that don't share your anarchist/anti-corporate views are not "blindly" following anyone. You need to learn what the world is really like.

criticism is any threat to his presidency.

is his warmongering. We need to quit blowing up people and then maybe people will quit trying to blow us up.

this country will figure it out! they don't HATE US for our FREEDOM, they HATE us for OUR INVASION!!

STOP THE WARS!!

in Afghanistan?

:kick:

And you are now going to defend corporatism by saying we could have a "worse" form of corporatism? That is funny.:+

and sorry, standing up against wrongs is not a bad thing. this is nothing along the lines of calling him hate names, etc. but if the corporatocracy is challenged - that's a good thing - hold his feet to the fire - like he SAID!!!!!!!!!!!

And treating him like he's the end all be all, and the only Dem who could possibly get elected is pathetic.

Who knows, maybe there's an Obama on the left, or even in the center who could harness the public's frustration with corporate America and siphon his votes away.

And even if that candidate won the presidency, you'd still have a Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, et al. to deal with.

since our current President has been clearly on their side so far.

obama has to work with the dems he has in office. if, for instance, he went on TV demanding single payer, knowing that his own dems in congress don't have the votes for it, he'd look like an absolute imbecile.

better. Many people do not believe me, but North Carolina is a sleeping liberal state. What I mean is that if a true liberal candidate came up and ran here, they would get voters that don't normally bother.

When you have Republicans and Republicans Lite, most people here say, "Ah, nevermind again. The 'good old boys club' is all we have to choose from."

But, if we had a true liberal candidate, who knew how to speak the language that works here, many areas of NC (some of them densely populated and some sparsely populated, but not well represented) would vote for the social liberal, even if the person would have to stick to being a fiscal conservative to win. There is a way to do it and get positive social reform in Congress in many areas of the country, imho.

Let me suggest a different scenario to you:

Currently, the administration threatens liberal Senators to get them to fall in line, and gives major goodies to Repigs and DINOs.

Just suppose it reversed that. I'm sure Ben Nelson would notice if federal money to his state dried up. And LIEberman would notice if his committee assignments went poof.

You think Obama doesn't tell Harry Reid what to do?

The majority of Democrats and all Republicans are corporatists. Even if you somehow elected a non-corporatist Dem as president, he or she would have to work with a corporatist majority in the congress.

Your current choices are corporatism vs. Batshit Fundie/Launch wars against Islam/Gut Social Programs/Homophobic corporatism.

Taking down Obama means we are stuck with the crazies. Excuse me while I puke at that thought. Somehow many forget Bush's RW crew.

who use the term "corporatist" have no clue about its true meaning. Unbridled Capitalism, as evidenced by the recent Neoconservative economic breakdown, is a truly ugly thing, and equates to unbridled, and unregulated, Republican-style greed.

On the other hand, regulated Capitalism as setup by FDR and the New Deal worked extremely well, and continues to work well in a few European countries. Now that the Congress is taking a look at re-introducing Glass-Steagall, there is hope that we Democrats can begin herding American Capitalism back into its productive corral by re-regulating the financial sector. A strengthening of anti-monopoly regulations also needs a closer look.

Without access to massive amounts of capital, the United States of America would have remained an insignificant Third-World frontier outpost.

Too bad a freaking Republican is the cosponsor for that bill.
And we've yet to see if Rahm is going to let this blatant assault on his friends go unanswered.
I'll wait to credit the administration with re-regulating the financial sector and strengthening anti-monopoly regulations until they've actually tried to get it done.

Such a move would actually buy them quite a bit of goodwill from the progressive/liberal wing of the party.
If it gets passed in spite of them rather than because of them, it's going to look really really bad.

"Your current choices are corporatism vs. Batshit Fundie/Launch wars against Islam/Gut Social Programs/Homophobic corporatism."
One that would fund religious programs like abstinence only, surge Afghanistan, privatize schools and parts of the health system, and keep DADT? Maybe work in some underhanded attacks on unions while they're at it?
Yeah, that would really suck. Good thing we don't have that now.

Too bad they're all dreaming about how much worse it could be. We still have 3 more years to go, after all.

Slapped them back to reality!

It's about POLICY.

If you kow tow to the neocons...If you do not follow the Constitution by not reinstating Habeas Corpus....If
you continue the illegal wiretapping that flourished during the Bush years...If you install Wall Street
executives in positions of power in your administration and then hand that industry billions...If you
pass a healthcare bill that is a giveaway for Big Insurance that contains NO reform...If you meet with
Big Pharma and bend to their whims by preventing Americans from buying cheaper pharmaceuticals from Canada....If
you give the corporations everything they demand--at the expense of your party's platform and at the
expense of the American people...then I will not support you!!

I don't care if you're George Bush, Barack Obama or one of the Jonas Brothers.

People need to get over the notion that we're hurting a person and they should also stop
protecting PEOPLE who do these things, out of some kind of blind loyalty.

If you're so enchanted by one person--that you fail to see that this person's policies are horrible
for the Democratic party, for our country and for our democracy--then you really have no business
giving people advice about their political beliefs.

1.) Name one other Democrat, who has a reasonable chance of being elected, that would do anything different from Obama? (And, no, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders have no reasonable chance of being elected president.)

2.) Even if you did get a progressive Dem elected, how would that Dem be able to pass any legislation through a corporatist congress?


Finally, you are arguing with yourself. I'm not "enchanted" with Obama. I just recognize that the real change that we are looking for is going to take years of hard work to achieve.

I am so sick and tired of the who else is there argument. We are lazy sell-outs when we start thinking like that. I will continue to fight for change which means I will not support candidates that don't fight for my Liberal views.

The DLC'ers, and other so-called centrists like Senator Reid and President Obama don't.

Here's just one example from hundreds.

Only 30 Democratic Senators voted for cheaper drug importation, legislation that was opposed by President Obama while an overwhelming majority of people supported this progressive proposal.

I heard people here declare over and over that Obama could never be elected.

Anyway, a primary challenge seems out of the question. The progressives haven't even begun to learn how to go after Obama, they're nowhere near ready to take him on in a primary.

Obama is not doing very well in the polls. If Dems don't win in 2010 elections, a contender could definitely take the presidency from Obama.

Gallup: President's standing among self identified "Democrats" "Liberals" "Liberal Democrats" UP
First detailed demographic analysis of the President's approval rating
released after it was announced that the Senate was passing a HCR bill.

Groups that showed an increase in support for the President

Democrats +2 to 86%
Independents +2 to 45%
Pure ind +4 47%
Liberals +2 to 86%
Moderates +2 to 61%
Liberal Democrat +1 87%
Liberal/Mod Rep +8 35%
Nonwhite +4 76%
Black +1 91%
Hispanic +9 77%
Some college +4 50%
College grad +2 49%
$ 2000/mo +13% 69%
$2-5,000/mo +2 52%
18-29 +0 64%

complete poll here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x99935

You just proved my argument.

or expressing displeasure when he fails to deliver for the people.

I usually agree with your posts.

However, I don't think Obama should be immune from criticism.

yes the only current alternative is Batshit crazy...etc

But I think that we have to keep pressure on Obama and the rest of them to start paying attention to "the left" or what I consider basic liberal moderation as opposed to tghe corporatist weaseldom of the DLC types.

The more they are allowed the luxury of assuming support as the "lesser of evils" the worse they will get.

The ones like Obama who has potential have to do more to earn support.

The only thing that will work is getting true progressives elected to congress, in particular the Senate (think more Boxers, Frankens, etc.) and fielding a credible, electable progressive candidate for president that can WIN. That's what it takes. Until you have that, you're nothing but background noise.

But in the meantime....

Also, there are a lot of good liberal/progressive Democratic legislators already. The problem is they don't have the power to overcome the obstacle of the corporate and conservative Dens.

I do think that they could have more clout if they had more public backup.

most of us want the same thing. The work to be done is among the rest of the populace to convince them of the correctness of Progressive policies. If the support is there, it will happen. The problem is that the right wing owned the Health Care debate from before most of the rest of us knew there was a debate.

So what happened Steve?

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

I'm sure it has something to do with blaming Obama though.

Steve loves the attention, especially congrats over his FoxNews appearances, but don't point out to him why FoxNews loves to invite him as their "liberal" guest!

Probably why he fits in so well at Faux.

I don't think it's pointless to criticize any politician when he's earned it.

And I don't think "Obama is only the beginning." He's the beginning of a Democratic surge to the right, which is not helpful. He is not a strong "progressive" presence, unless you're counting the PPI as "progressive."

Criticism has to start with the Senate Finance Committee and extend to both houses of Congress. Obama can take some of the blame, for not using his bully pulpit to pressure Congress to do a better job, and for not standing for authentic, vigorous, health CARE reform from the beginning, but he's certainly not the prime offender.

Really ? I think I've heard about just everything now..... And I know for a fact that you've been around here for at least 5 of the past 8 years.
:shrug:

and since fall of '02 as a lurker.

"Surge to the right." Really.

The Health Insurance bill is one example.

Public education, though, is the clearest signpost. Obama/Duncan make GWB's privatization and union-busting efforts look kind and gentle in comparison.

there are absolutely no basis of fact that getting ANY healthcare reform bill into law is a move to the right.
Your statement defies logic.

increase the profits of private insurance companies is not a "healthcare" bill. It is a health insurance bill, and it furthers the privatization and corporatization of the nation.

A move to the right.

I am however, going to raise ten different kinds of hell on what I see as detrimental policy. It doesn't matter how little it matters to the powers that be because it is important to make it known as possible that these aren't our plans, that this crap is not representative of our ideas.

for writing a rational and well thought out post.

K&R!!!

The watered down version of the Obama brand, perhaps. When I criticize Obama, my intent is not to bring him down. I don't even think that is possible. He will be re-elected in 2012. I've never doubted from the moment that McCain conceded the election that Obama would be a 2 term President. He does need to be held accountable for the decisions he and his team make. As do those in Congress. They may well lose seats in Congress and even Congress wholesale but if the party is forced to return to their roots in order to stave that off, then that would not only be good for the American people but for Obama as well.

It is ridiculous to blame the left for losing elections that haven't even happened yet. Lecturing people who have been tossed aside only makes someone look like they are bullying people who have no power.

He is doing a fine job of destroying himself, without any input from us. He had made it quite clear he does not want, nor does he intend, to use any input from the left. So, none of his actions are our fault. He's a grown man responsible for his own actions. If it bites him in the ass come election day, it will be because he did not listen to the people who tried to do what he told us to do; hold his feet to the fire.

We may have no input whatsoever. The actions he takes may not be in our favor, interest, or fault, but I can guarantee you one thing: we're going to be the ones that get blamed for them. Republicans and the conservatives in our own party, plus the MSM and the public in general are all going to call every single bad policy passed a "liberal" policy. Every. Last. One.
The stuff that can later be proven to be good policy will all be the result of compromise, bipartisanship, or not listening to the fringe.

You know, just like NAFTA was the result of bipartisanship and compromise right up until it became obvious it was a flaming POS that nearly destroyed the middle class. Then it suddenly became "liberal legislation that destroyed jobs". Gramm–Leach–Bliley was another example of the wonders bipartisanship could work. Right up until it annihilated the economy. Then it became the fault of liberals, at least in the eyes of the public.

I see what you mean. We really need better PR on the left. Maybe that would be in our best interest. If we took the faux liberals out of the path of all the microphones and cameras and put real liberals there instead, we might stand a chance to get our side of the story told.

It's hated everywhere but boardrooms, for that matter.
Pointing out Republicans pushed heavily for it doesn't help, either.
It was passed under Clinton, Clinton was apparently some sort of liberal, therefore the bill is to be blamed on liberals. :(

When all those progressives said, "Al Gore is such a centrist -- there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats." And then they went off and worked for a third party so they could maintain their ideological virginity.

And we ended up with eight years of Bush.

If you think there's no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, then you're a drooling idiot. And if you think that ripping apart the Obama Administration is going to somehow do this country good, then you're the enemy.

Gore lost for a number of reasons, including the Supreme Court.

And, if the Clinton/Gore/DLC had not deliberately shut out so many people with their policies and stances , Nader's campaign would have been so small as to be totally irrelevant.

What did the Nader voters get for voting for him? What did the country get? What did the world get?

The 77,000 Gore votes that got tossed in FL were EXTREMELY relevant. SCOTUS rewriting our legal framework "just this one time" is EXTREMELY relevant.

Blaming the people who saw through the BS Clinton was involved in(Glass-Stiegal ring a bell?) is a very poor way of cheering for things. I like Gore, but when he was toying with running again in 2008, he started to sound like a placater to the entrenched interests again.

You don't think we'll EVER get someone who can fix things in, do you? By your own theory, it won't matter who we move up- they will forever be marginalized out of the game.

Yes!!!!!!!

I say this every day here!! You can't improve the Democratic party by destroying it!!!! You can't create an alternate party with a minority of voters!

I agree with you that attacking Obama is pointless. He is far better than any President we've had in ten years or who we could get for the next seven. Attempting to influence him through pressure however is different. Republicans attack Obama, Blue Dogs like Nelson and Bayh try to "influence" him, and we should also.

But mostly I disagree that Obama is the best progressives can hope for from an elected Democratic President. I believe that a more progressive Democrat could have won in 2008 if the right one had been nominated to run. A younger Mario Cuomo could have beaten McCain handily. I think Wes Clark could have also. Edwards ran as more progressive than Obama and I think he could have beaten McCain also if his personal scandal didn't come out during the campaign, even though I never was that impressed with him.

But I don't think a more progressive Democrat than Obama can defeat him in the 2012 primaries, and even if s/he did the Party would be bitterly torn and probably would lose the election as a result. Which means Obama is the best we can get till 2016 at the earliest.

.. but I refuse to hold my nose and vote for the lesser lousy of two lousy, lying candidates.

NOR will I STFU.

Do what the f*ck you promised to do or prepare to be retired.

NO MORE "COMPROMISE!"

Without a true Progressive that can actually win, what alternative do you have?

Sure, you may feel better by not supporting Obama, but will your country be better off?

The "you don't have any option" thing is getting pretty fucking old. I don't go much for being told take it or leave it. Guess what happens when you play that card...

If you tear down Obama, then what will be the alternative? Either another corporatist Dem or a fundie maniac corporatist Republican.

Right now, those are you only choices until you build a strong progressive movement that can actually WIN elections across the country.

...shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Proverbs 11:29

Lending force to the Republicans does nothing for us, or anyone that considers themselves liberal or progressive.

IF HCR was defeated the Republicans would gain all sorts of momentum and they know it.

As flawed as President Obama may be in some regards it's not as bad as being ruled by the Rethuglicans.

It's frustrating, but at the national level, corporations are calling the shots. You are probably more effective writing LTTEs than writing your CongressCritters. But by all means try to get a face to face meeting with your CongressCritters and establish a dialog.

... not just himself alone. I cannot believe the number of noisy DUers who somehow think he can do it by himself, and that their work *ended* once they cast a ballot.

I no longer care how many volunteer hours they put in or how much money they donated that they could ill-afford -- that is, I once cared quite a bit, but it is now being used as an excuse to piss and moan and complain that HE isn't doing all the work that needs doing.

WE need to get out from behind our keyboards and get our own jobs done, because this isn't a "movement" of any sort unless WE do.

Hekate

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: