Abolishing the Filibuster. Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico was on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (actually, without KO, last nite; Sam Seder hosted). Udall was there to discuss the will of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate to reform the rules of the Senate to mitigate in some measure the destructive and obstructive effects of both the filibuster and secret "holds", a 'Senatorial courtesy' by which ONE anonymous Senator can stop the work of the entire 100-member Senate by a mere THREAT of a filibuster if the Senate does not kowtow to that cowardly dictator, hiding behind anonymity.
+
I wasn't impressed, with either Udall's proposals or with Udall the man. I have vague recollections of his father, Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior in the Kennedy-Johnson years, and his uncle, long-time Congressman Morris ("Mo") Udall, who ran for President in 1976. They both had more forceful personalities, by far, than little Tommy Udall, who looks much younger than his actual 62. Part of that seeming youth may be his apparent lack of weight and gravitas.
+
In any case, I sent the following message to him today by feedback form at his website.

The filibuster is not just cumbersome and unworkable. It is absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and must be abolished, not reformed. The Constitution permits the Senate to operate by supermajority only in a limited number of cases that are specified by the Constitution in so many words. Remember, Senator, that what the Constitution does not permit, it forbids. Thus, apart from those few circumstances in which the Constitution expressly permits (mandates) a supermajority, the Senate is ALWAYS supposed to operate by majority rule, 50% + 1. The Constitution does not have to say that; it is just implicit in the concept of democracy. The Constitution in Art. I, Section 2, does not say that whoever gets more votes for Representative in the general election wins that office. It says only "when elected" not "when elected by simple majority". The Framers didn't load up the Constitution with excess and unnecessary verbiage. Majority rule is implicit in the democratic government they were setting up. So majority rule — simple majority, not supermajority — applies to procedural votes of all kinds as well as votes on approving actual legislation, in both Houses of Congress. Any requirement for a supermajority that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
+
Furthermore, a "hold" that permits one Senator to obstruct the work of the entire Senate is not just an absurdity, it is a CRIME against democracy that must be ended. That isn't even oligarchy, but dictatorship.
+
The Framers of the Constitution never empowered the Senate to operate by minority rule. Never. How could Senators at any time in our history have adopted insanely antidemocratic rules?
+
If you cannot abolish the filibuster within the Senate, you need to step up to bring in the other departments of the Government to restore democracy to the Senate. That is, after all, one reason the Framers divided the Government, so that if something went wrong in one branch, another branch might correct it.
+
First, insist that the Vice President, when serving as President of the Senate, rule as soon as a simple majority is reached that whatever measure (procedural or substantive) that is being voted on has passed. Period.
+
Second, if the Senate refuses to abide by simple majority even with a ruling by the President of the Senate, then SUE the U.S. Senate in the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court for a formal declaration that minority rule in the U.S. Senate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
+
The reforms you discussed last nite on MSNBC's Countdown are preposterously cowardly and inadequate. You should be ashamed of yourself for leaving the essence of minority rule in place. And what is this nonsense about waiting two years to make another attempt to make the Senate work? What idiocy requires such a wait? If there is a procedural rule that hamstrings the Senate for two years at a time, that rule too must be ABOLISHED, not heeded, not hedged, not shortened. ABOLISHED. Don't be such a wuss. Why are Democrats such worthless wimps? The voters don't want wimps, as they showed last month.
+
How on Earth could the Senate NOT "have the authority to look at its rules"? Who but the Senate makes the Senate's rules? You're talking nonsense. The Constitution does not contain the Senate's rules. The only rules in the Constitution about voting by the Senate are a few provisions for supermajorities; apart from those, the Senate is to operate by simple majority, always.
+
Your mention of looking at the rules thru the Constitution is nonsense if you accept the authority of the Senate to IGNORE the Constitution and require supermajorities that the Constitution does not permit. I have read the Constitution, Senator, and nowhere does it permit the Senate or House to write rules that create minority rule.
+
Doing the people's business should not be an agony of fiting unconstitutional minority rule. SUPERMAJORITY RULES INFLICT SUPERMINORITY RULE. End it. Crush all tendencies, in both houses of Congress, to void the will of the majority entrenched in the Constitution.
+
Finally, Senator, the Democrats desperately need a new Majority Leader, a real man, not that whimpering little wisp of a man from Nevada. You need an LBJ. Harry Reid is no LBJ.

(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,430 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:48 PM

 
How Long Must We Wait for an End to DADT? Tho President Obama claimed yesterday to have repealed Bill Clinton's odious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, that policy is in fact still in place today, and could be for many months, or even years. Had Obama just allowed the Federal court ruling that invalidated DADT as unconstitutional to take effect without challenge from the "Justice" Department, the policy would have ended months ago. Obama's law permits the Pentagon to delay, and delay, and delay as long as it damn well pleases, because our cowardly Congress, led by our super-cowardly President, didn't simply order an end to the policy NOW.
+
The President is Commander-in-Chief. All he had to do is ask Congress to repeal the policy for HIS military, effective on the President's signing that legislation, and the policy would have ended yesterday. He didn't do that. Why not? Because he's a pussy, that's why, and totally unreliable. He has given the bigots and bullies an indefinite pass to continue their injustice to gay Americans until the Pentagon finally persuades the most recalcitrant misfits (and possibly closeted homos) that it really is happening: gay men and lesbians really are going to be permitted to serve openly in the U.S. military.
+
There should actually, of course, be no lesbian soldiers, because there should be no female soldiers. The Communized, Radical Feminized U.S. military is causing HUGE problems in our attempts to win over the people of Afghanistan, a profoundly anti-Radical Feminist society. It is not an advance for humanity to turn women, who used to be proud to be the font of life and of maternal gentleness, into instead killers of men, women, and children. Legitimate feminism values womanly virtues and women's work. It does not demand that women's traditional roles and women's work be held in contempt, and that all women be compelled to give up their femininity and become pseudo-men, men-manqué.
+
In any case, there was absolutely no need for the law to involve ANY delay whatsoever. The Pentagon has already taken several months to distribute and evaluate the answers to a questionnaire on the willingness of people in the present military force to accept openly gay or lesbian fellow soldiers. The results of the questionnaire disappointed those who hoped that present soldiers would adamantly reject repeal of DADT. But the Pentagon put itself into a trap of its own creation in distributing that questionnaire. Now it is bound to implement the change in policy not "with all deliberate speed" — the standard for racial desegregation given in the Supreme Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, that enabled defiance of desegregation for DECADES — but "immediately".
+
I don't know, from the media coverage I have seen, whether the law now in place authorizes the President to shut off Pentagon delay and order implementation at any time of his choosing (as Commander-in-Chief). Certainly there should have been an absolute upper limit, say, six months or less, to full implementation, and an absolute bar on prosecutions under the old policy effective yesterday. I would remind Mr. Obama, tho he should not have to be reminded of this, given the history of "with all deliberate speed" in the case of desegregation, that "Justice delayed is justice denied". I would also remind everyone so subservient to straight mandates as to be willing to wait further months or years for DADT to end, that accepting denial of one's own rights constitutes co-conspiring in the denial of human rights.
+
Harry Truman would not have waited months or years after the passage of such a law before implementing it. Indeed, Truman would not have permitted Congress to pass a law with delays. Harry Truman ended racial segregation in the military with a few strokes of a pen.
+
Barack Obama is no Harry Truman, and Truman wasn't even a great President.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,430 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:50 PM

 
Starve Dr. Phil. On today's show, psychologist Phil McGraw deliberately wasted HUNDREDS of pounds of food to demonstrate the excesses of a guest couple's food intake. He dumped sugar, condensed milk, butter, and shortening into an enclosure, as public spectacle. I don't imagine that any of that food was thereafter consumed by anyone. Is he insane? Malicious? Or just appallingly ignorant of how severe a problem malnutrition, even starvation, is on this benited planet?
+
Let us review. No one really knows how many people worldwide die from starvation, because most such deaths are in countries, and in parts of countries, in which the government barely functions, and does not keep good vital statistics. The lowest figure currently used by reputable charities is that some 16,000 people, mostly children, die from the effects of malnutrition each DAY. That equals 5.8 million deaths a year. If the number is 25,000 a day, the yearly death toll worldwide is 9.1 million deaths a year.
+
Starvation.net estimates that in this year, not yet over, some 32,589,500, of which 85% are children, have died from starvation. Long-term malnutrition short of death but enuf to interfere with daily activities — such as producing food — is an appalling problem. Wikipedia's article on starvation says:

According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. According to the FAO, starvation currently affects more than one billion people, or 1 in 6 people on the planet. * * *

On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58% of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates).
On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates).

And Dr. Phil is throwing away hundreds of pounds of high-caloric-value food as a public spectacle. That is obscene, a moral outrage.
+
All deliberate wastes of food on a starving planet should be PUNISHED, by law if public condemnation does not suffice. That goes for all food being thrown around in food fites on television and in film, and actual food used as props, that is not later consumed. The appropriate punishment is, plainly, starvation. Let Dr. Phil be confined in jail for two weeks and given NO food of any kind, in any form, only water. Not even nutritional supplements, just water. For two weeks. I suspect that at the end of those two weeks, Dr. Phil would never again want to throw away good food on television.
+
To make the point even more poignantly, we could flog Dr. Phil 10 or 20 lashes before putting him in the pokey, so he can see how starvation affects recovery from injuries. Perhaps then he'll have an even greater appreciation of the misery that people in the Third World suffer because of nutritional insufficiency.
+
The same punishment, up to a month of confinement without food, should be imposed upon all the directors, actors, writers, and others in show business who deliberately waste food as spectacle. They should as well be fined triple the cost of the food they waste, which fine should be turned over to CARE or some other charity to buy food for the poor, here or abroad.
+
Wasting food on a starving planet is sinful. It must end. Another form of such waste is the glorification of gluttony, as in obscene eating contests — hot dogs, pie, anything — all of which must END. The only way anything evil generally ends is by punishment. Lecturing sometimes works, but not usually. People are animals, and punishment works. Positive reinforcement may work to train animals, but positive reinforcement won't break up a dogfite.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,430 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 4:08 PM

 
Bernie's Booboo. Independent, socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders made a stupid, stupid, unforgivably stupid mistake when he spoke to an EMPTY Senate chamber on Friday, interfering with NO Senate business, in opposition to the surrender over taxes on the rich by Barack the Faithless. What the hell was that 8-hour TV show supposed to accomplish? None of his colleagues listened. No legislation was interfered with. No time constraint was exceeded as to prevent the Senate from capitulating to Obama's demand that the Senate endorse his surrender to the menace to this Republic from the Evil on the Right. Bernie's Blunder was an empty, moronic waste of his time and breath that had NO effect on delaying the consideration of Obama's enlistment in the Radical Right.
+
What was he thinking?
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:59 PM

 
If It's Economic and Political Civil War We Need, Then Let Us Have Economic and Political Civil War. The rich have been waging an unresisted war against the middle class and poor for 24 years, ever since the Plutocratic Revolution of 1986 (formally known as the Tax Reform Act of 1986). They have achieved a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, all the while loudly condemning redistribution! The Obama surrender on tax cuts is just one more step in the unending assault upon the fundament of our social, economic, and political democracy. It is long past time for the poor and middle class to fite back against the rich. So today I sent this message to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi via feedback form at her website.

Stand strong against the traitorous Obama sellout on tax cuts for the rich. Far better would it be to have taxes rise for everybody (a relatively trivial amount, as against what the rich would get), and reduce the deficit, than to contribute to the appalling redistribution of wealth UP from the poor and middle class TO the rich, that is DESTROYING socioeconomic democracy in this country. Go the OPPOSITE direction, and introduce a steep tax increase for the rich, to a minimum rate of 50%, and both boost the rate of the estate tax and lower the threshold to $1 million. Wage TOTAL WAR against the Republican plutocrats. Indeed, sue the U.S. Senate before the Supreme Court to abolish all of its undemocratic rules, such as the filibuster and holds, so the people's will can be done from now on, not frustrated by unconstitutional minority rule. And get rid of every undemocratic procedure in the House too. No supermajorities EVER!

Only the antidemocratic rules of both houses of Congress, which have given us minority rule, prevent us from doing justice in this country. If Congress cannot behave itself, then the Executive branch or the Supreme Court must step in to end undemocratic procedures in Congress.
+
If the system is so ossified that minorities under the thumb of the rich can thwart the will of the people, we will be left only street demonstrations — Britain's rioting writ very, very large — or armed revolution. Why can't we just abide by the majority rule set up by the Framers of the Constitution?
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,430 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:42 PM

 
Forging Alliances, Left/Right. I am hugely indignant at Barack the Faithless selling us out again, this time regarding tax cuts for the rich, and am heartened by resistance from Liberals, who must, unlike the President, fite for principle. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has stated his intention to filibuster, if need be, to stop Obama's betrayal of the American people.
+
Sanders is a democratic socialist, and an independent member of the Senate who caucuses with the Democrats. But I think he should reach out to the sincere members of the Tea Party, not yet in Congress but a force to be reckoned with, to stop the budget-busting boondoggle for the rich. Democrats have ceded the Tea Party to the Republicans, but there's no reason to do that.
+
So today I sent this message to Senator Sanders via feedback form at his website.

Senator Sanders: Urge the Tea Party to end tax breaks for the rich

Please appeal to the Tea Party to reject tax breaks for the rich that will increase the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. Tell them that this is NOT a temporary extension but a permanent extension of obscene benefits to the obscenely rich, since the Republican Party, which has co-opted them and is playing them for fools, will NEVER permit taxes to rise on the rich, no matter how much tax breaks for the richest people add to the deficit and the long-term debt that future generationS will have to pay for. Tell them that the present generation will find the deficit a huge drag on the economy and employment, because these tax breaks will NOT stimulate the economy but take money away from programs that MIGHT. Unless the Tea Party's rhetoric was all lies, Tea Partiers should be FURIOUS that the Republican Party is betraying Tea Party principles, even tho the Tea Party delivered millions of votes to Republican candidates who promised to be fiscally responsible. They should demand that tax breaks for the rich end, because there's no way to pay for them. Surely the Tea Party would rather that all tax breaks be ended and all segments of the Nation "share the sacrifice" needed to put our economic house in order. Altho newly elected Tea Party members of Congress have not yet taken office, surely they have enormous clout RIGHT NOW with which to batter down the Republican Party's (big) "business as usual" stance and force change consistent with Tea Party principles of personal responsibility and shared sacrifice.

We on the Liberal Left and the Tea Party do agree on some things, and in a democracy, we should always be willing to work with people of good conscience to achieve what is in the best interest of the Nation.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,430 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 2:25 PM

 
Never Co-Conspire in Evil. I saw Senator John Kerry on TV over the weekend being adamant about not extending tax cuts for the rich. You may recall that he was the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, so he should have the leadership qualities that can make a difference in the shameful behavior of the Democratic Party's current President. So I sent him, today, the following message via feedback form at his website.

No compromise on tax cuts for the rich! Stick it to the Republicans. Force them to vote against the people if that's what they want to do. Don't play their game, don't share the blame for ruining the Nation. They pretend that the most important issue is the deficit, but want to worsen the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in order to give the rich money they don't need and that they won't invest to create jobs (in the U.S. — in China and India, maybe). If the Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits unless the rich get tax cuts that are ruinous to the long-term economic and social condition of the Nation, then let the blame fall squarely on the Republican Party. Do not co-conspire in this. Fite the good fite, and make the Republicans see that they are NOT going to co-opt Democrats. Force the Republicans to reveal themselves as the ONLY party that is monstrous to the unemployed, and let them answer for that in the next election — or sooner, because Democrats can surely mobilize mass demonstrations in every city in the Nation, MILLIONS of Americans on the march.

If taxes have to rise for everybody because the Republicans won't extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class, AGAIN let the entire blame fall on the Republicans. At least the deficit, which is one of the two greatest internal threats to the Nation (the other being the rise of oligarchy and plutocracy thru a monstrous redistribution of wealth UP, FROM the poor and middle class TO the rich), will be starkly reduced if taxes rise for everyone. So who ends up looking fiscally responsible? The Democrats, not the Republicans. Who ends up looking like monsters? The Republicans, not the Democrats.

Why would Democrats go along with policies they know are monstrously unfair and will RUIN the Nation? What else can Democrats be coerced into doing as a condition to extending middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits? Impeach President Obama? Declare war on Iran? Abolish the progressive income tax and adopt the insane "flat tax"? Abolish the estate tax? How many Radical Right programs will Democrats endorse — co-conspire in — just to extend tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits for the temporarily unemployed?

You must NEVER compromise with evil. The Republican Party of today is PURE EVIL, and you must NOT consent to do their evil for them when YOU are in the majority. Why is it that they refused to compromise, to do good, but were rewarded with electoral triumph in the House, but Democrats think that they MUST compromise or face electoral disaster in the Senate? If Republicans can refuse to compromise, can be "The Party of No", and be rewarded at the polls, why wouldn't the Democrats be rewarded at the polls for becoming "The Party of HELL No!"?

You, as a very rich man, are in an exquisite position to demand that low tax rates the rich do not need are destroying the Nation. Grandstand over it: "I'm a very rich man. My taxes are too low. Raise my taxes! Raise taxes on ALL the rich. We will STILL be rich, but the Nation will be much richer for moving against the creation of the United States into the northernmost nation of Latin America, with an obscenely unfair distribution of wealth."

To extend the tax cuts for the rich two years is to extend them forever, because if a Congress with a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic President cannot end tax cuts for the rich, a Congress with a Republican majority in the House surely cannot do so. Expose the sham of a "temporary" extension.

Further, it is obvious that the U.S. Senate has gone insane with rules that have created MINORITY RULE, which the Framers of the Constitution never intended. They intended MAJORITY RULE, and except for a very few items, like ratification of treaties, the Senate is ALWAYS supposed to operate by simple majority, 50% + 1. Supermajorities for ANYTHING not specified in the Constitution are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What the Constitution does not permit, it FORBIDS. Lead the fite to end the filibuster, "holds", and every other ANTIdemocratic and UNCONSTITUTIONAL rule and procedure in the Senate, and free us from minority rule.

(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,429 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 12:49 PM

 
Obama's Re-election Prospects. America Online today published an opinion piece by one Bob Lehrman comparing Bill Clinton's maneuvers to get re-elected, to what President Obama may do to achieve his own re-election. ("Hope, and Change, Ahead for Obama") Much to my surprise, that piece did not elicit the usual hundreds or even thousands of vicious anti-Obama comments that most articles on AOL do, so I was able to balance the discussion without taking too much time from my other dedications. I show, below, my 33 substantive comments, mostly in reply to the noxious things that were posted by Rightwingers.
*
Perfect choice of word: "uppity". Now everyone knows what you mean. "Uppity" is a racist term for a black person who will not accept an inferior position. Yes, Obama is definitely "uppity". And davidx357's comment is definitely racist.
***
You have no idea what socialism is, so never use the word until you read at least the entire Wikipedia article.
***
President Obama is 49 years old. The Presidency is NOT his first real job. The economic new[s] TODAY is that 93,000 jobs were added in the private economy last month, as against 700,000 LOST the first month of Obama's term. Clinton threw Liberals overboard, and was an imitation-Democrat. He was nonetheless detested by the Radical Right, and Republicans impeached him! They will probably try to impeach Obama on some charge as trumped-up and immaterial as those they levied against Clinton, but will fail the same way the Clinton trial in the Senate failed -- unless Democrats become so disgusted with Barack the Faithless that they agree it's time for him to go -- for not being the transformative Liberal figure the people wanted in 2008 when they put him in the White House.
***
Obama is President of the United States. Kindly tell us what job on EARTH has more responsibilities. And david..., stop repeating posts. And if you're going to repeat posts -- which is ABUSE -- at least correct misspellings!
***
All Presidents become former Presidents. The Presidency has a two-term limit. So in 2017, Barack Obama will become former President Obama -- unless he so enrages the Liberals who put him in office that they find a REAL Democrat to replace him with in the 2012 campaign. And then THAT President will become a former President in 2021.
***
Fascism and Socialism are mutually incompatible political and ecoomic philosophies. One cannot be both Fascist and Socialist, at the same time. So you are talking nonsense. When you talk about Obama, who is half-white and half-black, being a racist, you are showing only YOUR racism, not Obama's NONEXISTENT racism. When you call him a "Turd", you are showing your infantilism in throwing around absolutely meaningless names. In short, what you have written condemns you in the minds of all sane and fair-minded people Congratulations!
***
Some health insurance plans pay for mental-health care. Use it.
***
It's refreshing to see open racism in these comments areas instead of the closeted racist tripe for a "change".
***
You don't believe for an instant that Obama is a dictator, because if you did, you would not dare speak out against him. He could track you down and have you arrested or killed outrite. Ergo, you are lying to everyone in claiming Obama is a dictator, because you yourself do not believe a word of it.
***
So you're saying that a majority of over 10 MILLION Americans above the number that voted for McCain are "the dumbest of us". Your extremely low opinion of Americans -- are you even American, or one of those foreigners who intrudes into our affairs while pretending to be American? -- should be offensive to all Americans. If Obama "denied our right to dissent ", how come you are dissenting from his program publicly, here? The fact of your dissent disproves your assertion.
***
Everything you say is false. Since that is so, one must cast about for your motivation in misstating everything and blasting the President. It's not hard to see.
***
The United States is being passed in category after category by countries all over the world, because regressives are an albatross around our neck. Even as regards the skyscraper (invented in the United States), China and other countries are building taller. The very tallest building in the world is now in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. France, Germany, Britain, Canada all have far better healthcare for everyone than we have. Our wage rates are dropping, in real dollars, every year. More and more people are falling into poverty. And the Republican Party cares only about the rich. They said today that they will not allow ANYTHING to happen unless the Democrats extend tax cuts for BILLIONAIRES. And you talk nonsense about this being "the greatest nation on earth". NO, the U.S. is NO LONGER the greatest Nation on Earth, by several measures, soon to be MANY measures unless "conservatives" stop destroying everything and keeping us from doing the only things that will maintain or increase our greatness.
***
The President's trips are, for the most part, BUSINESS trips. George Bush, by contrast, took 1/3 of his entire tenure in office as VACATION.
***
Clinton was a Republican in Democrats' clothing, but that didn't keep the Republicans from trying to oust him from office over sexual trivia. And as to welfare reform, which Clinton and the Republicans cooperated on, does ANYONE believe we no longer have long-term welfare? Certainly comments from Rightwingers on AOL suggest that welfare is in no significant way reformed.
***
Your "muslim" reference renders everything else you say void, as the real world sees things. Keep up the nonsense, and totally discredit everything you say.
***
You know nothing about Socialism, so stop misusing the term. It does have an actual meaning. It is not merely a name like "poopyhead". And since when have Republicans compromised on ANYTHING during the Obama years. You are saying the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. There's a word for people who do that.
***
van, apparently you do not understand that the Radical Right has made it their purpose in life to haunt AOL message boards and drive sane and fair-minded people away, in order to give the appearance that the entire country is Radical Right. But don't let them fool you. They are a tiny coterie of propagandists who matter not one whit in the grand scheme of things. Keep speaking out against the RadRite crazies.
***
Let us talk a moment about what the free market has never been able to do: build affordable housing, provide affordable healthcare, provide affordable education, provide for the national defense. That is four HUGE things right off the top. Government is NOT dispensable, and the free market cannot REGULATE itself, nor rein in the thieves and abusers who want to pay workers NOTHING, while they foul our air and water. The free market is a MONSTER that cannot do more than a tiny number of things right.
***
You have no idea what Communism is, and cannot come up with ONE proof of a Communist disposition on the part of President Obama. Not one program or action. Even the loan to GM was a LOAN, not a takeover, and is being repaid. NOTHING Obama has done is even Socialist, much less Communist. "Obamacare" requires people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no single-payer "Government healthcare" (like Medicare, but for everyone), nor even a "public option". Radical Rightwingers keep throwing around these terms, "Socialist", "Communist", "Marxist", as tho they know what they mean. They do not. Nothing you say about Obama's program is the slitest true. Not the slitest.
***
From what you say, it is impossible that Obama could win even once, much less twice. But he DID win, which you can't stand. He didn't just win; he won by nearly 10 MILLION votes. Your talk about white votes shows you think that all white people are racists. We are not, and Obama could not have won the Presidency without a LOT of white votes. As for the Nation's reputation abroad, it is HUGELY improved over the Bush years, so you are stating the exact opposite of the truth. Have you forgotten that he got the Nobel Peace Prize?
***
Carol..., if it weren't for lawyers, huge numbers of innocent people would be in prison, and corporations could sell dangerous products and evade all responsibility for the harm they do. There would be no civil rights, and no legislation, because the bulk of legislators at the Federal and state levels are lawyers. And Obama did indeed work in private practice. Again, nothing the Radical Right says about anything is ever true, sensible, or fair.
***
And more people will vote to return him to office -- unless he continues to sell out the Liberal base of the Democratic Party, in which case Democrats will chase him out in the 2012 primaries, and a genuine Liberal will trounce whoever the Radical Right puts into the Republican nomination.
***
It is the REPUBLICANS who have been unwilling to compromise. That's why we have heard, only in the past year or two, the phrase "The Party of No". Two can play at that game, and the Democrats can be The Party of HELL No! to every stupid, Rightwing piece of crap the Republicans try to pass.
***
White racists regret that the White House is no longer a white reserve. Real Americans have no such problem.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,429 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 10:52 PM