For sure. Things will be ever so much better with Huffman in the Senate, Dudley in Salem, and Boehner as majority leader.

Exactly my thought, Allan. If you're disappointed that the government isn't truly progressive enough, it makes absolutely no sense to vote in right-wingers. Obama said it best in a recent interview:

"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward."

"The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible...It has been hard, and we've got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

If the choice is between somebody you don't know and somebody who's already betrayed your trust, I think most sensible people go with the former.

Huffman has no chance, but Dudley could win. And it's hard to see how a divided government in Salem would be worse than re-anointing the Goldschmidt people.

Did anybody see the piece from Afghanistan on "60 Minutes" Sunday? The correspondent was Lara Logan and it looked exactly like a war movie. This outpost near the Pakistan border was getting hit daily and our soldiers were being asked to go to Taliban-controlled villages and help build canals, etc...
It was the definition of madness. One look at it and you could tell the whole mission there is guaranteed to lose.
So when President Obama calls out progressives for letting him down, he should stop trying to be everything to everyone in Washington, and concentrate on getting these soldiers the hell out of these wars. He should look in the mirror and ask himself about the people he's letting down.

One of the frequent Tea Party criticisms of President Obama is his adoption of European-style approaches to healthcare, etc... but what we really have is a European approach to being a dying military empire.

We need to trim the military industrial complex before having a defense budget that's bigger than the rest of the world combined, brings us to ruin.

The hopeless phonies in the Tea Party - who didn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution when Bush was trashing it - always kiss up to the same military industrial complex. They use national security as a pass to give the Pentagon anything it wants, even though the military budget is a bigger threat to our economic well-being than Osama ever was.

Listen to Chief Moron Sarah Palin discuss running for President:

"A reason to run is if nobody else were to step up with the solutions that are needed to get the economy back on the right track and to be so committed to our national security that they are going to do all that they can including fighting those on the extreme left who seem to want to dismantle some of our national security tools that we have in place."

Unless we stop being an empire in the European tradition we will collapse and the idiots in both parties had better figure that out soon.

And there is this

FOX NEWS * POLL
Opinion Dynamics

Support for the main issues the Tea Party has raised

49% Democrats

91% Republicans

75% Independents

Not that Fox News would slant the questions to get the answers it wanted.

"Not that Fox News would slant the questions to get the answers it wanted."

OK - I shouldn't have had a mouthful of coffee when reading that, Jack.

For sure. Things will be ever so much better with Huffman in the Senate, Dudley in Salem, and Boehner as majority leader.

Then we keep firing Congress Critters until we get the government we want.

They are supposed to represent THE VOTERS, not their party platform. That massive distinction has been lost in the last 50 years. See: the lame duck session that will happen in order to take care of any business that would have certainly caused other people to get elected.

If the choice is between somebody you don't know and somebody who's already betrayed your trust, I think most sensible people go with the former.

I see this more as a choice between people who didn't live up to my expectations and people who I know will betray my trust.

I'm with Roger. There are solid reasons for disappointment on some issues, even for feeling betrayed – on the national security/civil liberties front, certainly. But it's also true that on many issues the Obama administration has been good. Take the stimulus: yes it was too small, but it was probably as much as could be had and there wouldn't have been one at all under Republican leadership; and, yes, it was too heavy in tax cuts, but at least those tax cuts were mostly aimed at the lower end. Also, I write about green-technology development and it is inspiring to see the extraordinary explosion in research and development that is going on in this realm thanks to the work of the Obama administration. It really does represent a huge move away from reliance on fossil fuels, and toward a reshaped, reinvigorated manufacturing sector in this country, and that's a profound difference from what we would have seen under the Republicans. On currency exchange - another issue important to the manufacturing sector - the administration is showing real backbone with the Chinese, a position distinctly different from the opposition's. More personally, I went through a patch of unemployment in 2009, so maybe it meant more to me than it did to others, but I damn sure noticed that there was one party fighting for extensions in unemployment benefits and one party that was fighting against them. Lastly, on the president's two signature accomplishments, health care and financial regulation, maybe he could have gotten more, maybe he couldn't have. But again, I know he moved the ball forward a lot farther than the other guys would have. So here's one progressive who is fancies himself realistic and, yes, enthusiastic, and is out there working to make sure we get MORE progressive Democrats (instead of Blue Dogs, or, worse yet, Republicans) elected. I know what the other side wants to do. I've seen it. I don't want it.

This sums it up pretty well.
Chester Vanderbilt
6:17 a.m.
Oct 1
"You can sum up tonight's debate in one line from John Kitzhaber about the state budget: "All the cuts have been made."
If you believe that then you should vote for Kitzahaber. If you don't believe that then you should vote for Dudley. ...Jack Roberts"

I think we are seeing progressives using their leverage. The message is, "You have to do better. You can't count on us." But I doubt that will translate into, "I'm so disappointed I'm going to vote Republican."

Incidentally, when President Clinton was on Letterman the other night, he said that the stimulus was two-thirds to keep jobs from being lost now, but that the other third really will lead to a lot of good things in time. It was not wasted.

It's interesting how Clinton's image has evolved. Remember, they were on him to the point of impeachment, but looking back, and at the stuff he does now, he really is an intellectual who enjoys analyzing problems and attempting to solve them.

Translation: If it turned out President Obama really was the Messiah, the GOP would crucify him anyway. It's a power thing.

The problem with the people in the White House is that they're too stupid to figure out where the real problem in their numbers is. It's not politically-active progressives who aren't going to go to the polls for them in November -- and even if they weren't, there aren't enough of them to make that much of a difference -- it's the average Democratic voter. The actual base. That's where the mass numbers are and that's where a few points of apathy are really going to make the difference between a win and a loss.

Sure, it's harder to raise money and get progressives to do GOTV for you when you've sold their principles down the river for two years and then call them retarded on top of it, but it's not the first political dance progressives have been to. Democrats have treated progressives that way since -- wow -- forever. Remember when FDR tossed out his progressive VP, Henry Wallace (who went on to run as a Progressive Party candidate in 1948)? Or how anti-war progressives were treated during the '60s?

So what Obama's team is doing is nothing new. They're just looking for an opportunity to push the blame for November losses off onto the usual scapegoats of the party.

Suing Arizona? Too stupid indeed.

The hopeless phonies in the Tea Party - who didn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution when Bush was trashing it - always kiss up to the same military industrial complex. They use national security as a pass to give the Pentagon anything it wants, even though the military budget is a bigger threat to our economic well-being than Osama ever was.

Listen to Chief Moron Sarah Palin discuss running for President:

"A reason to run is if nobody else were to step up with the solutions that are needed to get the economy back on the right track and to be so committed to our national security that they are going to do all that they can including fighting those on the extreme left who seem to want to dismantle some of our national security tools that we have in place."

Well, Bill...there you go again. It almost seems that you're biologically incapable these days of conducting rational discourse. In virtually every post, you resort to name-calling and slobbery invective.

Although I'm not associated with the Tea Party movement, I believe that if you looked at facts rather than relying upon knee-jerk emotion, you'd find that many were arguing against a number of Bush policies. Personally, I argued against the reinvasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, and other elements of Bush policies.

But surely you must be aware that Obama has taken some of the elements even further than Bush did. However, never let facts stand in the way of a good tirade.

I'm sure that, despite your railing, you are aware that in 2010 total DOD expenditures accounted for less than 19% of federal spending. Social Security and Medicare accounted for 40%, while other federally mandated spending accounted for 17%.

In the meantime, our President (who, by the way, is Kenyan and smokes cigarettes) has assembled a task force on household appliances. - not my line, but it fit in well.

As I've noted before, it seems unlikely that Ms. Palin will run for the Presidency, and I've noted a number of reasons why it would be surprising, were she ultimately to do so.

Max,
I see why you don't get this. You must think you are the right wing, so when I criticize them, I'm criticizing you. And since you apparently were against some Bush policies, that means it's incorrect to criticize the right wing for being for them. Thanks, but if that's your idea of rational discourse, we're at an impasse.

For 8 years I lived through the Bush administration. I heard the right wing refer to him as "our Winston Churchill". It was as idiotic then, as the right wing's attempts to distance themselves from the whole mess are today.

Don't get me wrong, it gives me great joy when Michelle Backmann slams President Bush now. My point is that we could have used a little of that back when it counted.

You write, "Many were arguing against a number of Bush policies." Yes, but many more in the right wing were carrying water every step of the way. Both my parents served in France in World War 2 to help maintain the American values we had back then. People went to great lengths to keep this country - and all that it stood for - going.

Yet, when Bush came up with the Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes, or torture, or authoritarian rule, the right wing sold out America and the Greatest Generation in a heartbeat and went along. All they asked was that kind old Uncle Dick Cheney keep them safe. That's not knee-jerk emotion, that's a fact.

Max, you may think this is all about you but I'm generalizing about the right wing here. We were supposed to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Under Bush we became the Home of the Scared and it's no surprise that our freedom was greatly diminished as well.

That's my opinion and I believe the facts bear me out, but I admit, I can be wrong. For example, in our last go-around, I said Sarah Palin would be on "Dancing with the Stars" the following Monday. I was wrong. She waited another week and had Entertainment Tonight up to Alaska to film her meeting Bristol and her dance partner. Then Sarah appeared on "Dancing with the Stars" in the second week.

I'm sure if Sarah Palin becomes President and it is a huge disaster, you will bravely point out that you were never really for the idea. I think it'd be more valuable if you said what a dangerous idiot she is now, especially since you apparently are the right wing and what you say determines everything.

Bill, "Listen to Chief Moron Sarah Palin discuss (something)" in moose-peranto.
(h/t Cocktail Hag News Hq.)

Debate stupidity in a single sentence:

Kitzhaber is totally over his head and unworthy of being matched against duh-Dudley on the same basketball court ... and
duh-Dudley is totally over his head and unworthy of being matched against Kitzhaber on the same ballot

.

Oh, Bill. I'm not taking your comments personally, nor do I believe that "it's all about me". I simply find your continual descent into name-calling reminiscent of second-grade, and not especially productive in terms of discourse.

Let's revisit for a moment: The hopeless phonies in the Tea Party - who didn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution when Bush was trashing it - always kiss up to the same military industrial complex. They use national security as a pass to give the Pentagon anything it wants, even though the military budget is a bigger threat to our economic well-being than Osama ever was.

While there may be phonies in the Tea Party movement - as there are in any party - I noted that your characterization is incorrect: many expressed disagreement with a number of Bush policies. It's disingenuous, at best, to claim that they "didn't give a rat's ass, and that they always kiss up to the military"....

I further noted that in this year, DOD expenditures account for less than 19% of federal spending - yet you refer to the military budget as a greater threat to our economic well-being than Osama bin Laden ever was. Now, rather than address the salient points (which you initially raised), you seem to want to turn it into a discussion of how it's all about me.

You're trying to cherry-pick, Bill - and it's a pretty lame effort. You raise an issue, I address it, then you change the subject.

Yet, when Bush came up with the Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes, or torture, or authoritarian rule, the right wing sold out America and the Greatest Generation in a heartbeat and went along. All they asked was that kind old Uncle Dick Cheney keep them safe. That's not knee-jerk emotion, that's a fact.

And it is interesting that, though you lash out at Bush and what you term the "right wing", the fact that Obama has continued the polices merits nothing but silence from you. Did Obama not promise to close Gitmo within a year of taking office? My. It seems that it's still open.

Obama's administration has invoked "state secrets" rather than the "open and transparent" administration he promised.

And these, my friend, are not knee-jerk emotions, but documented fact. Yet you remain curiously silent on these issues. You seem to take great delight in referring to people such as Ms. Palin as moronic, dangerous idiots - in other words, engaging in schoolyard bully antics. But you have nothing to say when it comes to the disparities between words and deeds on the Left side.

I'm sure if Sarah Palin becomes President and it is a huge disaster, you will bravely point out that you were never really for the idea.

As I've said many times before, I don't think she'll run. If she does, I don't think she'd be elected. So your thesis is nothing more than the proverbial straw-man.

On the other hand, Obama was elected, and has proven to be a huge disaster. I don't see you calling him names. Perhaps it's just an oversight on your part.

Well, Bill...there you go again. It almost seems that you're biologically incapable these days of conducting rational discourse. In virtually every post, you resort to name-calling and slobbery invective.

"...these days???

You left out the inundatory verbosity substituted for logic part - it's my favorite part!

"Max, you may think this is all about you but I'm generalizing about the right wing here. We were supposed to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Under Bush we became the Home of the Scared and it's no surprise that our freedom was greatly diminished as well."
===

Glad to see Obama rectified all of Bush's freedom diminishing. Or did Obama change much of Bush's policies? Not much change in Gitmo. Nor other Constitution trashing, as far as I can tell.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that Constitution trashing is all bad when it is done by Bush, but not so much when the same is done by Obama.

Max,
I think we're making progress here. You say the continuation of Bush policies under Obama "merits nothing but silence from you." You're right. My comment you quote from is very critical of President Obama but since it's just words on a screen, it is silent.
So the next step is to go back and read it out loud slowly. Here's a little passage:

"So when President Obama calls out progressives for letting him down, he should stop trying to be everything to everyone in Washington, and concentrate on getting these soldiers the hell out of these wars. He should look in the mirror and ask himself about the people he's letting down.

One of the frequent Tea Party criticisms of President Obama is his adoption of European-style approaches to healthcare, etc... but what we really have is a European approach to being a dying military empire."

Now as far as your DOD budget, you ignore the fact that the defense budget and the DOD budget are not one and the same.

However, you pass over the fact that our defense budget is bigger than the rest of the world's combined. I think that's too high. In fact, it's not a defense budget as much as an empire budget - a military-industrial complex budget like the great Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about.

The right wing always stresses military spending. I think the reason is because the right wing is selling national security as a product rather than actually looking out for our national security as a reality. For example, I think our national security was much worse after 8 years of Bush/Cheney
because we were much weaker economically. That other superpower known as the Soviet Union collapsed economically, and here's the interesting clue: They also went on a military misadventure into...wait for it....Afghanistan.

Look, I know all about the conservatives desire to curtail entitlements as a threat to America. I get that. My point - and this is why I call the Tea Party phony - is that they do not appear as interested in reigning in military spending. They also didn't seem as concerned when Bush was in power about these attacks on our freedoms. It's downright comical to hear right-wingers talk about freedom with the Constitution clutched to their chests. The actual example I used to give on my cable show was, "The right wing should think about the loss of these freedoms if Hillary was president. You don't care now because your guy is in charge but you'll care then." I made a lot of sense on that show. By the way, I would have continued but my co-host died or we'd be criticizing Obama on the airwaves right now. But back to military spending:

Some estimates have Iraq at 3 trillion when it is all finally over and we're 9 years into Afghanistan with no end in sight.
I don't think we can afford that even if we were getting good results and I don't think we're getting good results.

I will try and respect how sensitive you've become about name calling, but I can't take on every point you throw out there. For example, that part abut the DOD budget as if it were the entire defense budget. I don't have time to play those games.

And I apologize for calling Sarah Palin a dangerous idiot, but it's not name-calling. That's my honest assessment. I think she's dangerous and I think she's an idiot. To suggest that is simply name-calling is also idiotic. If I thought she was bright, I'd be the first to say so. I'll even try it for you: Sarah Palin is really smart. Sorry, it just doesn't work for me.

I also believe President Obama is hardworking and bright, but he is a major disappointment. I have called and written to complain. I find his stance that the voters are whiners to be ridiculous. He earned the criticism he's getting. The part that I've commented on many times is the economic team. He named them right after he was elected and got rid of his campaign economic team. That was not based on changing circumstances or learning something in office. That was deliberately deceptive.
I do have to admit one thing: He promised hope and watching these Obama officials leave this week is a hopeful sign.

There is one other thing that could explain any difference in how I judge a president. During the economic crisis, I learned more about the role of international bankers in our government through Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. I now believe more in the idea that a President can only do so much.
The real power lies elsewhere. That is a factor in my criticism but I do believe President Bush was already there, willing and able to do as he was told. His family has been in that international banking game since Prescott.

I want to close on a nice note: I love Bristol Palin. I really want her to win "Dancing with the Stars."

Bill I gotta take exception. Bristol Palin is not a star in any sense. She's a dumb assed teen-ager who got pregnant out of wedlock whose Momma happens to be a headliner grabbing moron. But the kid has done jack to be a star. Puhleaze.

Bill, I'm not necessarily defending Bush, but many of your comments center on your distaste for Bush's "Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes". I will not be surprised after Obama is out of office that there will be evidence, or at least charges, that his administration has dabbled in the Doctrine. You, like me, must have friends still in the military serving in the Middle East that might vouch for this claim, even now.

And knowing a little of my father's efforts in WWII, and all the other evidence, the Doctrine was certainly practiced in those days like most of our past wars.

Oh, yes *Lefties* (not progressives; a slow slide toward collectivism is not progressive, people) please, do stay home this year. Then the grownups can get back to running things again...

Jerry,
I like your use of the term "there will be evidence, or at least charges" that Obama dabbled in the doctrine. That seems to be the proper tone.
But to suggest it's been a part of our history? Yes, the Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes did appear in World War 2 - Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor followed it exactly. I prefer to live in a country that doesn't attack first based on whether we anticipate a threat from a country later. I think it's key to civilization.
President Bush's whole approach was un-American. He announced that he was not just above the law - he was the law. And he announced to the world that anytime he wanted to attack any country all he had to do was say it was to prevent a future threat.
And the right wing nodded their heads in agreement. What could go wrong? Well, the one time it was officially used in Iraq, everything went wrong - with some of our justifications involving outright lies and distortions.
That's the price of having authoritarian rule.
The beauty of America was that it checks abuses of power, or at least attempts to. Maybe President Obama was sincere in questioning Bush's power grab, but things can change when you're the one in charge.
I honestly don't know what happened to him, but I sense big trouble.

America was a beautiful aberration in the course of world politics because it provided checks against leaders who wanted to be kings or dictators and take our freedom and privacy. I fear that now that we've given into these same old shortcomings in human nature - it'll be darn near impossible to return to how it's supposed to be.

If the Tea Party is the beginning of an angry correction in our path, it'll be vitally important. Right now though I sense it's not helping. It seems like it's a marriage of anger and ignorance. I don't think Sarah Palin gets it. I know the dingbat in Delaware doesn't get it. I do approve of their desire to get back to America but we have to take on the powers that be. Not go further off the cliff.

The one final symmetry of the story of this country could be that we started by rebelling against King George, and ended by giving into another King George with King Barack shortly to follow. And meanwhile the real power was held by international bankers bleeding us dry. It's a damn shame.

Bill - Maybe the Weather Underground had it right all those years ago when they were bombing and advocating the bombing of banks...

Bill,

So when President Obama calls out progressives for letting him down, he should stop trying to be everything to everyone in Washington, and concentrate on getting these soldiers the hell out of these wars. He should look in the mirror and ask himself about the people he's letting down.

Now, you follow with this: The hopeless phonies in the Tea Party - who didn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution when Bush was trashing it - always kiss up to the same military industrial complex. They use national security as a pass to give the Pentagon anything it wants, even though the military budget is a bigger threat to our economic well-being than Osama ever was.

Listen to Chief Moron Sarah Palin discuss running for President:

You do see the difference, do you not? Thats why I noted your silence when it comes to Obama. You're not out here calling him a moron or a sap or any other name in your book.

You like him. I get that. I don't know why you like him, because his foreign and economic policies are essentially extensions of those put in place by his predecessor, whom you clearly despise.

Many conservatives were strongly opposed to TARP, which Obama continued and subsequently expanded upon - and his guy Geitner calls today for even more "stimulus" with money we don't have.

Now, I was in favor of blowing up Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, because they harbored terrorist training camps there. Going back into Iraq was a stupid move, which many conservatives opposed, and I wrote about it at the time.

Some estimates have Iraq at 3 trillion when it is all finally over and we're 9 years into Afghanistan with no end in sight.

Yes, but don't look now - there's no end in sight to Iraq, either - which is one of several reasons why it was a stupid thing to do. On the other hand, we still have, what? Around 30,000 troops in Korea 50 years down the road? We should have concentrated on Afghanistan, but no - we went into Iraq as well. And Iraq is going to become another Korea. We'll have troops there for years.

So you like Obama. You think he's a smart guy, clean and articulate. I don't agree - he's just another Chicago politician (and I know from Chicago, having grown up in the area during the 1960's). But I don't pepper my dislike with schoolyard tactics. I don't call him "Obambi", or "Nobama", nor other terms of endearment. I try to keep my discussion focused upon the man and his administration.

It's amusing to see legal pundits claiming that Rahm has no standing to run for Chicago mayor. We're talking Chicago, here - formalities don't matter all that much in Windy City.

On this we do agree: I find his stance that the voters are whiners to be ridiculous. He earned the criticism he's getting. During the economic crisis, I learned more about the role of international bankers in our government through Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. I now believe more in the idea that a President can only do so much.
The real power lies elsewhere.

America was a beautiful aberration in the course of world politics because it provided checks against leaders who wanted to be kings or dictators and take our freedom and privacy. I fear that now that we've given into these same old shortcomings in human nature - it'll be darn near impossible to return to how it's supposed to be.

Like you, Bill, I hope that it isn't too late to undo the damage resulting from our collective placidity. And I'm not sure that the Tea Party movement is the answer - which is one reason why I don't count myself as an affiliate.

It's a start; I think it's good to see some actual anger being generated. I just don't get the sense that it's usefully directed at the moment. The image I have of the Tea Party movement is something out of a Monty Python flick, where people dash about with pitchforks and torches and end up setting fire to public restrooms rather than City Hall.

Max,
One thing I'm certain that has hurt America and has to go is the Federal Reserve. That'd be a start. We are literally enriching foreigners just to print and borrow our own money. It's crazy.

Okay, I'm going to try this one more time on the name-calling. You describe an arbitrary process where I come to the conclusion that I don't like Sarah Palin so I look into my book of names and start calling her by some. That bothers you. You attribute my lack of name-calling about Obama to me liking him:

"Thats why I noted your silence when it comes to Obama. You're not out here calling him a moron or a sap or any other name in your book."

Okay, one more time: The reason I call Sarah Palin a moron and an idiot is because I genuinely believe she is a moron and an idiot. It's how I describe her. I'm not assigning arbitrary names from a book. I say that about her because that's what I think she is.

Conversely, I don't call Obama a moron because...I don't think he is a moron. I do call Obama a disappointment but it's not because I looked into my book and picked the "disappointment" word. I call him a disappointment because....I think he's a disappointment. Okay? Are we clear?
Sarah Palin: Moron. Obama: Not Moron.

That's as obvious as I can possibly be. Thanks for taking the time. I've got to watch football now.

Bill,

We seem to have points of agreement. We disagree on how to handle points of disagreement. I don't think it's productive to call people morons and idiots - in fact, if recent developments in the U.K. are any indication (and they usually are), you could be sued for infliction of emotional distress.

Personally, I'm not at all impressed with Obama. But I won't stoop to the schoolyard level.

Moron: Adopted by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded with a technical definition "adult with a mental age between 8 and 12;" used as an insult since 1922 and subsequently dropped from technical use.

There is no reason that I can see for you to use 1922 insult terminology - unless you are simply unable to convey your objections to Ms. Palin and others through rational and respectful discourse. Frankly, I don't believe that you lack that ability.

Enjoy watching your soccer game.

Go Timbers! (By streetcar).