Tuesday, August 10, 2010

What Do You Get For The Liberal Who Wants Everything?

While I know that Christmas is still four and a half months away, I think it's worthwhile to consider what present to get the very grumpy liberal Democratic base (which I happen to be a part of). What do you get for a group that wants EVERYTHING?

Well, what they got this week from White House Spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, was a healthy smackdown. For those that may have missed it, Gibbs derisively referred to those on the left that compare President Obama to George W. Bush as the "professional left," and suggested that they "should be drug tested." Of course, many on the left wing chattering class took considerable umbrage to his remarks. Various liberal commentators responded with outrage, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann busted out with a particularly tiresome--and less than surprising--"Special Comment."

I think it's fair to say that Olbermann is getting perilously close to Rosie O'Donnell territory. As a liberal, you may agree in principle with their view points, but you sure as hell don't want them speaking for you.

So what is it that has liberals so down on Obama? To be fair, the President certainly raised expectations during his campaign to untenable heights (don't they all?). And while many benchmarks in the liberal agenda have either been reached or are in progress, many have been compromised or simply not achieved fast enough for the base.

The President got off to a fast start with allowing government funding for stem cell research, ending the torture of detainees, and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act which allows women to sue employers for past wage related sexual discrimination. That was the easy part. The first two items did not need congressional support, and with large Democratic margins in the house and senate, the Ledbetter Act sailed through without a fuss.

Then came the tough stuff.

First, the President managed to push through his stimulus plan with the aid of three Republicans. While liberals were pleased that the bill became law, many complained that it wasn't large enough and included too many tax breaks. Of course, if it were larger and submitted without the cuts in taxes, it would have never passed. More on that point later.

Secondly, came the Health Care Reform Bill and the summer of discontent. I'm sure everyone remembers the Tea Party's efforts to disrupt town hall meetings and spread misinformation about the bill itself (see "Death Panels," "Government Takeover," etc.). Clearly, Republicans won the message war with the public. Even after scaling the bill back and removing the much desired "Public Option" from the legislation, it still took reconciliation to get the bill across the finish line. Of course, if it would have had a "Public Option," or the even more preferred (by liberals) "Single Payer," it again, never would have passed.

Most recently, the President signed the Financial Reform Bill that included the most sweeping changes to our financial system in over 60 years. However, this plan did not reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that disallows retail banks from also being investment banks, therefore reducing the chances of "Too big to fail." Still, it includes a consumer protection piece that is quite promising, and does add more accountability and oversight to the risk taking that banks partook of that created this mess in the first place. However, many liberals were still disappointed. They wanted the banks broken up and downsized. Of course, the bill never would have passed if that were included, but...well, you get the idea.

As well, liberals are steamed that the President hasn't repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and passed comprehensive immigration reform.

While the pentagon is undergoing an examination of the policy and the completion of this review will almost certainly end DADT, that's not good enough for the left. Which to a degree is understandable. This policy is clearly prejudicial, and has resulted from far too many soldiers being kicked out the military. But there is no arguing that the issue is progressing in a positive direction for gay and lesbian soldiers.

Immigration has become the hottest issue of the summer. People are up in arms over border security, illegal immigrants taking jobs and accessing goods and services. No one in their right mind would argue that our system isn't broken. For far too long, this issue has been avoided by politicians who either don't want to upset the fastest growing minority (Latinos) in the U.S. or don't want to give up the cheap labor that fuels the agriculture and construction businesses. The issue has gotten so contentious that Republican Senators who were once for a comprehensive plan (this means you McCain, Kyl, and Graham) are now against it, and several states are considering usurping federal law and creating their own laws to deal with the influx of illegals (take cover Arizona!). When the Governor of said state, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law that would require illegals to be put through the state system and would have unavoidably lead to racial profiling, the President's Attorney General, Eric Holder, sued the state to prevent the law from being enacted. This still isn't good enough for liberals who want comprehensive legislation passed and right now.

Which brings me to a greater point. Do liberals want all or nothing? It seems to be the case. While most polls show tight races between Democrats and Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, the surveys also show a significant enthusiasm gap between the followers of the two parties. In almost every single poll, Republicans hold a double digit lead when respondents are asked about how motivated they are to vote in November.

Why? Because Barack Obama is not the President of their dreams. He doesn't walk on air, isn't able to part the sea, and has not waved his magic wand to meet the unreasonable expectations that liberals are holding him to. Don't get me wrong, it's important to push your party and not just go along to get along. As liberals, we should always strive for more. We should also be realistic. We should try to understand that there are Democrats from more conservative areas of the country who may not agree with us on everything. And right now, there is an opposition party that has made a bet that sitting on their hands and doing nothing is a healthy strategy for mid-term ballot booth success. Guess what? They may just be right. They may indeed take over the House and/or the Senate (less likely).

So what will liberals be left with then? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with House Speaker, John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Is that not the stuff of your nightmares? How much of the liberal agenda do we think will make it to the President's desk after November if we decide to take our ball and go home? Can any of us imagine equality for gays and lesbians or immigration reform getting anywhere? Do any of us lefties think that Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, or even the Lilly Ledbetter act would have had a snowball's chance in Hades of becoming law. Even in the case of the former two as compromised as they were? Not bloody likely.

So be careful about how bad you make this administration out to be. Because if you think it can't get any worse, then go ahead and stay home this November. But expect that theory to be sorely tested when the new congress of 2011 takes to the halls with people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck in tow.

As my father-in-law once said to me, "Never challenge worse."

Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010

170 comments:

  1. Cheryl Jenkins JacksonAugust 14, 2010 at 7:44 AM

    Cheryl Jenkins Jackson likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cheryl Jenkins JacksonAugust 14, 2010 at 7:47 AM

    Barack Obama is not the President of their dreams. He doesn't walk on air, isn't able to part the sea, and has not waved his magic wand to meet the unreasonable expectations that liberals are holding him to. Don't get me wrong, it's important to push your party and not just go along to get along. As liberals, we should always striv...e for more. We should also be realistic. We should try to understand that there are Democrats from more conservative areas of the country who may not agree with us on everything. And right now, there is an opposition party that has made a bet that sitting on their hands and doing nothing is a healthy strategy for mid-term ballot booth success. Guess what? They may just be right. They may indeed take over the House and/or the Senate (less likely).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pat Sisk likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As crazy as conservatives may make me, it's nothing compared to unrealistic liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nina Delany likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM

    Thanks, Dave - very interesting. I'm going to repost for the whole group to see, with credit to you, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    Just realized you're the WRITER. Are you sure you're ready for the onslaught from both sides? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Janet Thoma likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

    I think it's very well written, by the way. I may not personally agree with every single point, but I'm glad you made us aware of it. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I consider myself very liberal, but I think it's important to consider the alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    In my perfect world, my (and others) staying home in November WOULD make a difference and force Obama to go further left. However, we're simply not there yet, and I'm not willing to accept the alternative. Maybe by 2012, but not just yet. So, my "statement" would be counter-productive. -- beth

    ReplyDelete
  12. War Crimes Trials, elimination of contractors from military budget, scrap the F22, bring everybody home from the Empire, Treason trials for Wall Street criminals (subverting the economy in time of war should be treason), 50% tax rates on in...come over $500,00, restore the estate tax, $500 billion a year in public works, equal justice for all citizens, Single Payer Universal coverage, Immigration Reform. I want it ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mohammad Zafar likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Me Too!! What Doug Milliken said!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. i agree to a point, david -- but ending the wars and closing gitmo were promises made and completely broken by obama. so while there are successes, there are overwhelming reasons to be disgruntled -- reasons not addressed by your call to co...mmon sense. i plan to vote -- but i grow weary of the jockeying for power (rather than leadership) between the 2 major parties and would like other viable options. but the left is chastised for wanting more and shamed into voting democrat -- a party that moves further and further to the right every day -- even when the "should" be able to do pretty much whatever they want as the majority in congress and residents of the white house. god knows their predecessors did. it's beyond discouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tell me why not, but for the cowardice of the people we put in the majority and the stupidity of a third of our fellow citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  17. it's about priorities... and make no mistake about it... liberals can have everything they want ... if we have people in positions of power who will actually work on our behalf... instead of saying they want to change the status quo ... and... then turn around and defend it ...

    we could have and end to both wars
    we could have a public option
    we could have our civil liberties defended

    but not now...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I *completely* disagree with this article.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because you can never have it all. Sometimes Democrats, Liberals, disagree with one another. In a perfect world, we could just implement whatever we wanted. But it's just not realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. H Douglass Brown likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Long, poorly constructed Strawman argument.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As a Democrat, I accustomed to not getting what I want from government so whatever the President has squeezed from the right is gravy. Has it escaped everyone's attention that the GOP is firmly entrenched and the fight with them is just getting started? I hate it when Democrats start acting wimpy, and the Republicans just love it. Stick with the President, he's all we've got.

    ReplyDelete
  23. WHY SHOULDN'T THE LIBERALS 'WANT' EVERYTHING? FIRST, STOP THE WARS, SECOND, SPEND THE MONEY ON A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PLAN!!
    GOD, I JUST 'WANT AND WANT!' THIS SEEMS SOOO UN-DOABLE..YES

    ReplyDelete
  24. Still steamin' over single-payer shut out though....

    ReplyDelete
  25. One thing this liberal would like is for rational discussion without hysterical epithets with those of a more conservative bent... I mistakenly joined Choose America First and cannot believe their hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amy Melenbacker McMullenAugust 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    This says it all:
    " be careful about how bad you make this administration out to be. Because if you think it can't get any worse, then go ahead and stay home this November. But expect that theory to be sorely tested when the new congress ...of 2011 takes to the halls with people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck in tow."

    And I completely agree with this. Stop the whining and keep working to get more progressive candidates on the ballots. The alternatives are not something anyone is going to be happy with.
    The difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats will tear down their leaders and then wonder why they lose the next election. We never had a supermajority in the Senate to get all the things done we wanted and if you really think McCain/Palin would have been better then I've got a bridge you might be interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

    ‎@ John. I hear the "strawman argument" thrown around a lot, but I think it is overused right now. Here's the official definition: "Stating a misrepresented version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument." I want to understand your point of view, but can you explain why this article consists of a "strawman" argument. instead of just an argument that one may not like? -- Beth

    ReplyDelete
  28. By the way guys, as much as you may disagree with me (totally fair BTW), I should stress that if we had a checklist of all the things that progressives should more or less agree on, I think my sheet of paper would look very similar to yours after it's completion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    ‎@ Kenneth. I agree that the Democratic party sold out, and sells out, every single day. I certainly don't consider myself a Democrat - far from it. My point in this case is, strictly regarding NOVEMBER, the alternative is unthinkable. Again, maybe by 2012, but not in November. Staying home will guarantee that John Boehner becomes speaker of the house, which is not a viable alternative to me, just so that I can prove a point. Soon, I hope, just not yet. -- Beth

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jay Branscomb ‎~
    re: What Do You Get For The Liberal Who Wants Everything?
    Good points. The tragedy of the liberal/progressive/left-of-center coalition is that we seldom manage to hang together, getting pissy over the most trifling bullshit. We can't even cooperate for a good cop/bad cop ballet. Meanwhile, we get our asses kicked by co...nservatives who are masters of that game.

    ReplyDelete
  31. as for our civil liberties... it is obvious where the Obama administration comes down... they have worked to set in stone the Bush-era policies that violate basic human dignity ... Gitmo, rendition, secret prisons, murder on Presidential or...der without trial... need I go on? ...

    again... this is more of the status quo ... this is not a defense of civil liberties or the rights of man...

    ReplyDelete
  32. ‎@Kenneth, I agree with you completely on Gitmo. The Dem's in congress are not willing to push for the funds required to close it, and folks like Mc Cain who were formerly "for" have been scared crapless by the Tea Party.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for the help Amy and Lynn, it's getting hot in here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. as for our civil liberties... it is obvious where the Obama administration comes down... they have worked to set in stone the Bush-era policies that violate basic human dignity ... Gitmo, rendition, secret prisons, murder on Presidential or...der without trial... need I go on? ...

    again... this is more of the status quo ... this is not a defense of civil liberties or the rights of man...

    ReplyDelete
  35. The American Progressive PartyAugust 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    I warned you, David!! This very diverse group is what makes this page so interesting, though. LOVE IT!!! -- Beth

    ReplyDelete
  36. I can take it. I knew the point of view would result in a fair amount of disagreement. In the end, I AM WITH YOU GUYS

    ReplyDelete
  37. yeah... unlike the right we lefties tend to think ... we use our brains and have different options ... I like that... I appreciate having this forum to voice my opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kenneth, then I take it you're voting Republican? How will that help anything? Or, are you not voting? How will that help? Idealism should fly out the window right after the inauguration and be replaced with determination and practicality. The President is one man, and he's in a one hell of a fight with the most low-down obstructionist contrarian bunch of Republicans that ever lived! They are the enemy, not the President.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ‎@ Kenneth. It's a long story, but I have an alterego (for research purposes). She is a beautiful, plus-sized swimsuit model/tea-partier who likes Nascar, the "Left Behind" series of books, and pro-wrestling. Keep in mind, this person do...es NOT exist, but "she" has over 100 Facebook friends. The thing that strikes me the most about the "friends" that she has is that, without exception, they ALL agree with everything the others post. There is NEVER any argument, just "amens" and "you go, girl!". It is one of the scariest things I've ever experienced. -- Beth

    ReplyDelete
  40. Of the health care debate, David writes, "Clearly, Republicans won the message war with the public." This is a fine example of why so many liberals are pissed. Obama had the "bully pulpit." No one else in the country was better situated to ...dominate the "message war." Why, then, did he concede this war to post-literate teabaggers and their benefactors at FreedomWorks? Here's all he had to say:

    "Are you afraid of losing your health coverage, which won't even be there for you anyway when you really need it, if you quit or lose your job? Then support the public option."

    See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

    The fact of the matter is, Obama lost this message war by choice. Many Democrats, like Evan Bayh, whose wife is a WellPoint executive, receive campaign contributions from the health insurance industry, and the president didn't want to disrupt that. His (and congress') decision to water down the health care legislation is now being rewarded. Insurance News Net reports, "The insurance industry is spending more in this election cycle on Democratic candidates, a trend-breaking contribution pattern that puts Republicans behind for the first time since 1990. According to statistics maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2010 mid-term elections, Democrats have drawn 55% of insurance-related contributions, compared with 45% for Republicans."

    This is the Democrats' reward for passing what essentially amounts to the Heritage Foundation's health care plan.

    By failing to regulate over-the-counter derivatives and restore Glass-Steagall, the recently passed Wall Street "reform" bill is equally watered down.

    But even if you're a glass-half-full kind of person and you view the health care bill and Wall Street "reform" in the most charitable possible light, they are still offset by some sobering truths. For example, civilian deaths in Afghanistan have jumped 25% since Obama took office. Obama has continued, and even intensified, Bush's assault on civil liberties. He made the incomprehensible decision to re-appoint Ben Bernanke, while simultaneously throwing true progressives like Dawn Johnsen and Elizabeth Warren under the bus. He has abandoned gay rights, cut sweetheart deals with the pharmaceutical industry, authorized the assassination of US citizens, given AT&T immunity for operating their own private corporate spy network, and he appears to be caving in on net neutrality.

    Liberals don't want everything, like the article's title suggests, but we do want SOMETHING. It was a compromise just to vote for Obama in the first place, but the center-left candidate Obama has become center-right President Obama. Where's the Hope & Change?

    ReplyDelete
  41. How does one write an article on liberal discontent and manage to weave themselves around addressing every major issue? Phillips should get a job writing textlbooks for Texas schoolchildren

    ReplyDelete
  42. It was an article not a book, Kurt. And I'm willing to bet we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on. But if you want to resort to cheap insults, then that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Beth... I am always amused by the "either/or" ethical question...

    so many people say to me ... "well you should be grateful that McCain didn't win in 2008" ... aren't you happy? "

    of course I am happy McCain did not win... and I am thrilled... Obama is President ... but I am not at all thrilled with regard to several of the policies he has endorsed .. (above)

    the fact is ... it is not an either/or question...

    the question should be ... what is right? ... what am I willing to fight for? ... who am I willing to vote for? ... where am I going to send my money?

    if I chose the vote or not ... that is my right ... and it is also my right to be a critic of the President and voice my disapproval with his policies ...

    he lead us to believe he was "an agent of change"... and was selling "hope"... he lead us to believe he was going to take on the status quo and be a fighter for the people .... he has not done that ... and many on the left rightfully feel betrayed

    if we on the left can find a way to coalesce .. instead of compromising our beliefs we will get everything we want...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Many years ago, Teddy Kennedy was offered catostrophic health coverage for everyone by Richard Nixon. Teddy turned it down because it didn't go far enough. Before he died, he considered it one of his greatest regrets. Because, while it w...asn't everything he wanted, it was a step in the right direction. For all it's flaws (and there are many), HCR Reform was a step in the right direction.

    And voting is always an either/or question.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ‎@Kenneth, agreed. Apparently the best argument the Obama fans can make is "He's not quite as bad as McCain!" That's not really a selling point for me. The other classic is "Vote for the guy you despise or the guy you fear will get in!" ... Again, if that's your best description of Obama then I don't know why you're voting for him.

    So far, Obama has been an aggressive corporatist. More of a status quo warrior than a progressive. I don't know why anyone who calls themselves a progressive would call for supporting him. But they do, over and over.

    IMHO if you're a progressive and you want change then you need to find and support a third party. As long as the left blindly supports Democrats they will be ignored and Obama will be about as good as we can get.

    ReplyDelete
  46. David... God Bless Teddy Kennedy... but it is 2010... and we need to look forward ... not back...

    and this health care bill is not a step in the right direction.. it is a sell out to the health care monopolies ... for reasons stated above ......

    ReplyDelete
  47. No disrespect, but I found the article a call to "settle" for corporate owned politicians. And again, it appears that holding up the "fear" flag of but it could be worse, is another stealth way of saying, it's not as bad as it looks, there'...s really not a elephant in the living room who is acting like a donkey.

    In these times of economic melt downs, where corporations are the big winners ,and our kids are being killed and maimed in on going war, I'm not sure that I buy into telling those of us who are ready for a revolution, to just calm down because it could be worse.

    This piece, for me, was like watching someone throw water on a growing flame of discontent. Lets not forget that it has always been the discontent of the masses that has the power to demand change. Let's not buy into puttig out the flame of empowerment.

    ReplyDelete
  48. exactly Deborah... and I'm not afraid ... and I'm not settling...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, David, that question takes a disingenuous view of what I wrote. Sure, the Lilly Ledbetter Act was something, I guess. I mean, it was an easy slam dunk for him, but still, credit where credit is do and all that. Same with stem cell res...earch. Reversing the flat-earth policies of the previous administration needs to be done, I suppose, but, again, it's a no-brainer. In view of some of Obama's other policies, which I alluded to above, I have my suspicions regarding the ending of detainee torture, but I didn't bring that up because I don't have any proof -- just suspicions.
    As I've mentioned in other threads here, what we got is not what was advertised. It's settling for a package of Chips Ahoy because it's the only thing available, then opening the package to find crappy generic cookies. It's getting something, but not what was advertised.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Deborah, You say "settle," I say reasonable. No dispespect taken or intended.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Brad, I take your point, and don't entirely disagree with you. But in the end, it does come down to "this" or "that." And if you think me a fool for supporting this (Obama) over that (the alternative), then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Julia Bryan OpipariAugust 14, 2010 at 2:14 PM

    Julia Bryan Opipari http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14herbert.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, David, that sounds to me like a false dichotomy. There's a lot of that going around lately. Here's what I don't get: If Americans order a cheeseburger with no pickles and it comes with pickles on it, we raise hell. But if we order a "...hope and change" president and he comes with very little change, it's "take it or leave it."

    There's a lesson that Democrats can learn from Republicans. Even after Ted Haggard got caught having meth-fueled gay sex with a hooker, the Republicans didn't abandon their base. But all the Democrats have to do is ask for the hope and change that was promised, and we are told to get off the drugs.

    Democrats ridicule their base and look for every opportunity to abandon them. It's as if Obama said, "Oh, alright." (heavy, perturbed sigh) "I GUESS we can TRY health care." I mean, it's like he didn't really mean it. But, by golly, he's johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to bombing the snot out of the Afghan/Pakistani border or asking for civilian internet usage data.

    FDR famously told his constituents, "I want to do it, now make me do it." But when we try to make Obama do it, he sends Gibbs out to suggest we're all on drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Julia Bryan OpipariAugust 14, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    The REAL party of progress is the Green Party...the Green Party is what the Democratic party USED to be. I'm not sure why we have to keep comparing the Democratic party to the GOP and saying, "imagine the alternative if we don't vote Democ...ratic!" GIVE ME A BREAK! We have an alternative--one better than the Democrats even! If we don't start now, we keep getting what we deserve. NOW is the time with the tea party dividing the GOP...they'll never win. If all of us stand on principle and vote those principles, instead of cowering because we can't face the alternative--we might just get what we want. Think about THAT alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Brad, I don't think we really are that good at making them do it. The other side has been kicking our ass at this for years. Why? because they believe whatever they are told and march lockstep with a pocket full of lies in each pocket. We can't put it all on the Prez. We need to look at ourselves as well.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Michael KochKetola likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ok, then vote Republican. I'll be practical and vote for the Democrats. I won't get what I want but it will be better than the alternative. Yes, in the voting booth it is an either/or situation.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Very strong again, as usual. I do agree with you. We cannot have everything, it is a chip away at the stone effort.

    ReplyDelete
  59. ‎@Julia, I agree the Greens are the progressive party the Democrats will never be but the Democrats were never so much the "progressive party" as they were the "Working man's party". Well, if you were a white male anyway. Remember, this w...as "back in the day".

    And I agree if the left tries to "out Right" the right we'll lose

    ReplyDelete
  60. Voting for the Green Party was a great aide...to George W Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Beth, Beth... no one here is voting Republican... its not either/or ... don't you get that

    what we want is the President we voted for in 2008 ... where is the
    fighter.... where is the defender of the people...

    ...and now Gibbs calls us on the left crazy or on drugs... for asking for results... and holding their feet to the fire...

    this is the only way we will ever get what we all want... by demanding it ...and holding our representative accountable...

    I sickens me to think how frustrated the people are with Obama... I want him to succeed ... but god damn it ... I refuse to follow along blindly without saying something ... otherwise I'm not better that a Republican...

    stand up for what you believe ... don't settle for what they give you..

    ReplyDelete
  62. Kenneth, but there is a choice. The right wing thinks he's an insane Kenyan socialist. While most of us (me included) wish he were more liberal. Isn't it possible that the truth lies somewhere in between? I think there's a real possibil...ity that he will be seen as pretty progressive when the history books are written.

    ReplyDelete
  63. NO... the truth does not lay somewhere in the middle ... that is the problem...

    acknowledging .. that we should be grateful for the scraps is wrong..
    we should not settle for the scraps...

    ...you know what the truth is... and you know as a liberal what is right
    now fight for that...

    ReplyDelete
  64. Kenneth, I think this "you know what the truth is... and you know as a liberal what is right
    now fight for that..." is a bit unfair. Maybe I just don't want to fight the same way you do. Is that not allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Kenneth Brown ‎... that is fine with me David ...

    now stop questioning my motives...

    and the way I go about fighting for what I want...
    ...
    its obvious we both want the same thing... (more or less)...
    you're willing to accept the current situation...
    I'm still waiting for the change agent I voted for..

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jeez, David, you went from false dichotomy to false equivalency. One side says the earth is flat, one side says it's round. Doesn't the truth lay somewhere in between?

    The "birthers" have no rightful place in public discourse. People who wan...t single payer health care do.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Maybe we're attacking this thing from the wrong direction. Obama and the Democrats are definitely the lesser of two evils. Maybe Obama never had the political capital we all thought. Maybe that was owned all along by his political sponsors.... These are politicians, for Christ's sake, they have compromised their ethics and beliefs many,many times over. Single payer healthcare was defeated by big money not popularity. Our liberal media is not liberal. The politicians will follow the money. Attack the sponsors, then attack the media.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Kenneth, I wasn't questioning your motives, I was asking a question.

    Brad, Through this whole discourse, I have attempted to keep my replies respectful and impersonal. It has at times been a challenge (and a frustration) to defend my viewpo...int against folks that I probably agree with 99% of the time, but I have certainly efforted to stay above board. While I find your opinions to be very well written and consisting of a considerable amount of forethought, I think there is a smugness coming through that is unnecessary. Maybe I'm just getting a bit sensitive after 3 hours of self defense. I've written a whole bunch of other stuff that I'm willing to bet you would mostly agree with. Perhaps next time we'll be able to discuss a position that we both agree upon.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Thanks. I'm taking a helluva beating over here:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-American-Progressive-Party/195858376158?v=wall&story_fbid=118128158239614

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wow. It is thinking like that that got us the 2 damn wars! You know Nadar cost us everything! I joined but they seem pretty set in their ideas. Talking there seems futile....

    ReplyDelete
  71. It was about as fun as falling down the stairs. Arguing with people you agree with 99% of the time. How dare I disagree on one freakin' point!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thanks for the compliment, David. Sorry about the smugness. I've been having this debate for about a year, now...longer than that, actually, since this is kind of a variation on the Nader-ruined-it-for-Gore argument that's been going on for 10 years now. So don't take it personally, it wasn't intended that way.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'll ask what I've asked numerous times on numerous threads: how does refraining from criticism help move a politician in the direction you want him to go? You can decide to vote for him no matter, but there's no reason to loudly proclaim ...that. The only support you owe them is for the minute it takes you to walk into the voting booth and vote D. Make them sweat up to that last minute. Election season is our time of maximum leverage, and the numerous op-eds telling dissatisfied liberals that we're being unrealistic and ungrateful (if not downright stupid) for not just cheering on the relatively little we've gotten so far are probably not the best way to fire us up.

    Let alone the numerous and well-worn Opologetics on display here. "He can't wave a magic wand," "he can't do it by himself, it's our fault for not supporting him enough, etc. Sorry, unconvincing.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Janet Scott WhisnantAugust 14, 2010 at 6:37 PM

    All Progressives need to get real and realize that NOT VOTING is the same as VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS OR TEA PARTY CANDIDATES!

    We are only 2 yrs into change. This is going to be a long hard road for most changes we need. Let's clean up Congr...ess by squeezing out the Rs and replacing any Ds who are really in Rs in D clothing. We can then fix the HCR bill, and get more done. The Mid Terms can give us a chance to increase the Progressive type of Dems. There are some good, sincere Dems out there who deserve to be protected. With God's help, The Rs will decrease this fall!!! and we can do more!!!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thanks, Brad. Very gentlemany of you. I think we're both on the same side even if we disagree here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You know, I have a feeling if I would have started out by posting a previous column that took Obama to task for expanding off-shore drilling that there may have been a little more context taken into account. Patrick, I don't recall ever saying that we should not criticize the President. I just think that we need to be balanced. And my definition of that may simply differ from yours.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I went, but no thanks. I don't want any part of that mess. I'm glad that you are sticking yourself out there. It was a great article BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I just checked that out, those people are NUTS! That almost scared me to center right instead of the center left that I am.....just kidding. I am actually going more and more left. But those people are a little scary though.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Kimberly Harrell SkalskiAugust 14, 2010 at 6:42 PM

    We just saw your post. Sorry we were gone and didn't see your request until just now. Do you want us to still respond, or leave it alone since its been an hour since any of the crazies have posted on your comment. Let us know.... we'll be happy to jump in

    ReplyDelete
  80. You have to go a long, long way to get left of me, but they sure managed didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  81. I am not saying that I disagree with all of that, but that comment about taxing people 50% that make over 500k per year....sorry, that was nuts!

    ReplyDelete
  82. See my previous comment. Might be the first time I've felt like a centrist in my adult life. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I thought you were Liberal Left.. They were Liberal Left and then broke it off...

    ReplyDelete
  84. I bet there are a lot of Che Guevara t-shirts in their closets.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I voted or campaigned for Obama in 2008, and I do not regret that decision ‎August 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    ‎"I think it's fair to say that Olbermann is getting perilously close to Rosie O'Donnell territory. As a liberal, you may agree in principle with their view points, but you sure as hell don't want them speaking for you." OMG! I can't stop ...laughing! It's SOOOO true! No offense to anyone who likes Olbermann, but he is a little whack at times! I LOVE the comparison to Rosie! LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  86. Thanks. I was on another FB page tonight and got skewered. Take a look:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-American-Progressive-Party/195858376158?v=wall&story_fbid=118128158239614

    ReplyDelete
  87. National Health Care!!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Great article. Very familiar to me...

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=136599256358208

    And yes, Mark... we want all your money. Not the folks who gave a few trillion dollars of tax revenues to entitlements for rich people (that is EXA...CTLY WHAT THEY WERE since it did nothing to "stimulate" the economy) and oil companies... and to start completely unnecessary wars half way around the globe... not them... yes, it's us liberals who are trying to take all your money. We're a scary bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Don Bergant I agree with Justin. Finally, an honest liberal...its like a breath of fresh air! Do I send my check to you, or just mail it to the nearest slacker?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jeanne Bruggeman-kurpAugust 14, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    We are the Borg.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The borg wanted evolutionary perfection, though.

    Liberals generally want a society that's more conducive for the lazy and the less able. :)

    ReplyDelete
  92. Jeanne Bruggeman-kurpAugust 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    Pooey, that is just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  93. It's so much easier to stick a label on something complex than actually understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. And in the spirit of Brett's comment, I invite you all to www.theunderstandingproject.com

    ReplyDelete
  95. Danica Hurd likes this.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mary Elizabeth likes this

    ReplyDelete
  97. Garry Powers likes this

    ReplyDelete
  98. Mary Strickland SimmonsAugust 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM

    Mary Strickland Simmons likes this

    ReplyDelete
  99. Judy De Atley likes this

    ReplyDelete
  100. Bob Williams likes this

    ReplyDelete
  101. It's a different world over there...makes everyone on this page look like "moderates".

    ReplyDelete
  102. That's exactly how I felt. My God, I believe in legalizing marijuana, prostitution (and no I don't partake of either), reparations, single-payer, breaking up the banks, etc., etc., and you would've thought I was wearing a fishing cap with tea bags hanging from it.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I agree David! Please no tea bags though! At least not on a hat! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  104. Great Read David !! - funny comments

    ReplyDelete
  105. That Brad Cook so funny!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  106. What about the guy who suggested that I should write text books for the schools in Texas? ME! TEXTBOOKS! TEXAS! Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  107. He has not been as liberal as I would like him to be - but he has done a great job, and the cutting off nose to spite face people need to wake up a bit

    ReplyDelete
  108. My point exactly. At least that's what I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  109. We elected the most liberal senator to be our President. He believes in overthrowing the system by "boring from within." We need to be more patient and find a balance between getting as much as we can without exposing ourselves as too obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  110. LOL! Yeah, I just watched "Collapse" about Peak Oil and all that. Just anybody who is mean or doesn't agree with me or my friends can honestly just suck me.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Did you go to that link and read the back and forth. I'm usually up for a little one on 55, but not with people I agree with 99% of the time. It was a scene, man.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I definitely think you fought the good fight, but it still depressed me.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I "am" a moderate (a bit to the right of the Huff Post) but actually legalizing hemp could save us money and especially our environment. And it is no more harmful than alcohol ...we are living through 1920s prohibition concerning marijuana.... ...just look at Mexico. Just from glancing at David's list ...much of that has already been proven to work in parts of europe.

    One man WR Hurst had it banned for his forestry profit expansion.

    http://www.equalrights4all.org/bach/uses_of_hemp.htm

    Cannabis Sativa, L, the plant known in English as "Hemp" is a prolific farm crop that looks similar to kenaf, but it works in a much greater range of products and climactic conditions. different from marijuana. Although industrial varieties of hemp are related to marijuana, they are used differently and do not have the psychoactive effects. All parts of the plant are useful, and it is estimated that hemp can produce from 25,000 to 50,000 consumer products.

    Seeds For Oil and Food

    Hemp seeds produce high-grade vegetable oil for cooking, cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, lubrication, fuel, plastics, etc. The seed is a cholesterol-lowering source of full protein. It also posseses omegas, the essential fatty acids that are critical to human nureological and immunological well-being.

    Stalk for Fabric, Fuel, Paper and Commercial Use

    Hemp is dried and broken down into two parts: thread--like fibers and bits of "hurd," or pulp. Each has its own distinct applications:

    The long bark fiber, or bast, at 77% cellulose, is cleaned and spun into thread, yarn or rope, or woven or knit into a variety of durable, high-quality textiles for clothing, canvas and fabrics of many textures.

    The inner core that remains is called hemp hurds, an abosrbent material with cellulose for tree-free, dioxin-free paper; non-toxic paints and sealants; industrial fabrication materials; construction materials; hemi-cellulose for plastic, and much more! Hemp is the best sustainable source of plant pulp for biomass fuel to make charcoal, gas, methanol, gasoline or even produce electricity.

    Rooted In Nature

    Even the hemp roots play an important role: they anchor and aerate the soil to control erosion and mudslides. Hemp can save family farms, create jobs, reduce acid rain and chemical pollution, and reverse the Greenhouse effect. It does this naturally, because the hardy plant does not require chemical pesticides or herbicides, produces oxygen and consumes atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, and uses cleaner manufacturing technology than forestry products, fossil fuels or petrochemicals.

    Foliage for Medicine, Food and Relaxation

    Cannabis has important medical value for easing pain, relieving stress and treating illnesses from glaucoma to cancer to nausea to AIDS and beyond. Hemp flowers and leaves are smoked or eaten for many therapeutic, religious and relaxational purposes. They contain 60 therapeutically active compounds, called cannabinoids, but only one makes people high (THC). The industrial hemp varieties do not contain significant amounts of THC, but they do contain other medicinal compounds like cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN). Varieties that produce more than 3% THC in the female flowers are called marijuana, which has been legalized as medicine in seven Sates.

    ReplyDelete
  114. We can actually make fiber boards (and houses) out of it ...it grows like a "weed", needs little water, depletes the soil very little and we can have forests of it annually!

    ReplyDelete
  115. I don't like the "art" of the personal attack.

    ReplyDelete
  116. But hey, nothing else I've written has been so widely commented on. that's a good thing, right? Yeah, I don't know either.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Just make sure they spell my name right, boys!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Julia Bryan OpipariAugust 14, 2010 at 8:27 PM

    ‎@David--I wanted to address your statement that voting Green got George W. Bush elected...only because more people didn't vote for the Green Party...it's either all or nothing in terms of securing a win for the Green Party just like any pa...rty. If more people would commit to it, then they'd have better chances. If we keep voting the status quo, that's what we'll get...even Gibbs said we are going to come out to vote and vote Democratic because we are afraid of the "alternative"...so again, here we go--they'll just keep treading that centrist line because they can--because they know we'll keep voting for them...no matter what they do.

    I want to make sure nobody here thinks I'm not voting...oh I'm voting...and it will be for the Green Party candidate. I'm done playing the two party game.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I get your point, I just don't think the green party is viable. I guess I'm one of "those" people who sees that as throwing away a vote. For a third party to take off, it's going to need a really dynamic candidate. They don't have that.

    ReplyDelete
  120. It also make good hard candy, LOL, good for diabetics, no sugar. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  121. Gilbert, did you know that you can put an "air splint" on a stalk of budding marijuana...with a graft of a hops plant, and when that takes root, you can then plant it, grow it like a vine, and have all of the THC, vessel you want for parties.. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  122. ‎"We elected the most liberal senator to be our President."

    Wow, just wow. Ever heard of Socialist (that's right, Democratic Socialist) Senator Bernie Sanders? How about Russ Feingold? It's quite obvious from Obama's governing since he got i...nto the White House that he's not liberal at all. How would you explain the most liberal member of the Senate almost immediately giving up any possibility of single payer and starting the negotiations (with only industry lobbyists, by the way, and no single payer advocates or physicians/nurses' groups advocating single payer) *from the middle*, and then moving it to the right after making back room deals and getting a few billion dollars from the industry in exchange for what we ended up with: a Republican health care plan complete with mandates for the public to keep paying into a broken private system? It is widely reported that Obama and Rahm Emanuel worked in the background to prevent a public option from ending up in the final bill, as well. He made promises to AHIP and PHrMA early on that he'd make sure the bill did not have any chance of taking away their profits and power. He was only concerned about the Dems continuing to get contributions from these industries. This is not a liberal thing to do. It's a corporatist thing to do. We got a farce of a health care bill that will not even begin to fix the problems at hand. It brings us further away from a single payer system, much as Dems in Congress try to paint it otherwise. Any laws that entrench and codify the power and profits of private insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, by definition take us further away from a single payer truly universal system. I get tired of people saying that the bill moved us in the right direction. No, it didn't. It made it more difficult for the government and the people to challenge AHIP and PHrMA in the future. More money for them means more power to them. No public option means no competition from the public sector. An no one will touch this will a 1000' pole any time in the near future.

    The health care debacle is the primary thing that completely soured me on Obama. I was already unhappy with some of his actions, but the health care debate and the summer of 2009 just woke me up to the realities of his corporatism and his loyalty to the status quo. Most (not all) of the actions he's taken since them have simply confirmed my earlier disappointments.

    ReplyDelete
  123. We were never, ever going to get single payer. While it's fair to argue that he gave up too much too soon, single payer was never going to happen. For anyone who thinks it might have been a possibility, I have two words for you: Joe Lieberman.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I agree with David that the Green Party is lacking in dynamic, charismatic candidates. Part of the problem is of course that they refuse to take corporate money. But also, as much as Nader has done as a consumer advocate and a vocal critic ...of war and the military industrial complex, we need fresh people in there. Younger, more charismatic, better able to get people out to speeches and rallies. The GP's philosophy matches my own in about 90%+ of its tenets. It's really what the Dem party used to be, decades ago. But it's going to have to win with persuasion, not money. And that's really hard in this day and age.

    This is why I agree with Julia and Brad and Patrick that we can't just sit idly by any more. Giving the Dem politicians our unwavering obedience is extremely counterproductive to both change as a whole and progressivism in particular. They have not earned it. It is they who are at fault for the polls showing such lack of enthusiasm on the left side of the spectrum. I will always vote, but I will vote for candidates with principles I agree with, not the lesser of two evils. The time is now to educate the public about the inadequacies of the system and of both major parties, and rally people together out on the streets to get the media's attention. I think that we on the left could drown out the "tea party" and take over the false media narrative that's been propagated by the right wing, if we just get real vocal activism going.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Ha Ha! I just read the whole conversation... vicious! I love reading various stuff from both sides (right and left). I am always amaized at how little they know one another... yet believe they know all they need to know about each other.

    I l...ike seeing you in the moderate role, Dave!

    ReplyDelete
  126. The convo was between the left and left of Che Guevara. I mean how liberal do you have to be to be further left than me? I believe in the legalization of prostitution and marijuana, I believe in reparations, breaking up the banks, getting off of oil, putting Rumsfeld and Cheney in jail for war crimes, and I'm not far enough left for them? Yeah, I'm feeling like a pretty reaonable dude right now. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yes!... lazy and "less able". That's "Liberals" for ya. Friggin' hippies! Unlike those hard working types on the right, who have done all the heavy bullshitting... errr... lifting.. for all those years. Man... just think... where would our economy be without you?

    ReplyDelete
  128. David, you are probably right that we would not have gotten single payer this time around. What we could have gotten, with a strong president and a strong House Speaker and Senate Majority leader, was an end to the feudal employer-based sys...tem and a public choice for all Americans. Polls show that this is what people want and have wanted for years. We could have had reform that included a universally available public option (not that watered down non-option that the House bill ended up with). Basically, the ability for anyone of any age and any employment situation to be able to buy into Medicare. This would have been the way to lay the path for single payer in the future. Had the president wanted it, he would not have made the back room deals. Had Obama and Reid and Pelosi conspired together, they could have had it.

    They did not use a single tool in their arsenal to get the blue dogs and the Senator from Aetna (Lieberman) to get with the rest of the party. We didn't hear about the president bringing all the blue dogs into his office and giving them a talking to, threatening to not support them in their next elections. We didn't hear Reid threaten to change the filibuster rules. Reid didn't even do the most obvious, OBVIOUS thing he could have done: force anyone wanting to filibuster, to actually have to filibuster and stand at the podium for 30 hours. All he did was cave whenever he heard a peep about someone playing the filibuster card. Oh, and there were more tools. Reid and Pelosi could have threatened to remove dissenters from their committee chairmanships. Reid could have threatened the most egregious dissenters, like Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman, to throw them completely out of the Dem caucus.

    Obama and the congressional leadership did none of those things. We got corporatist legislation that brought us further away from single payer then having done nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I do think we should force the clowns on the right to stand up and make like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" (minus the moral clarity, of course) for hours on end. I don't understand why Reid hasn't done this at least once. Then maybe people would actually understand how small and petty those guys are.

    ReplyDelete
  130. lol. yea, you scare me. Them........ (shivers) :)

    ReplyDelete
  131. For Christmas I would like.......to finally get a response (hopefully positive) from loss mitigation about the status of my possibly foreclosed-on home, a refrigerator full of food for my always hungary teens (where do they put it all?), to catch up on all my bills, a job that pays at least 26k/year (30ish would be sweet!), Americans to stop with the us and them mentality and broaden their thinking,........oh and whirled peas.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Lets see its all the poor peoples fault after all they have all the power.

    ReplyDelete
  133. ‎152 comments on this one. Many of them angry. It's been an interesting day.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Stephanie Moore BiekAugust 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM

    really? I thought it was rather well balanced. People are funny about their politics.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Thanks, Steph. It's not often that I play the moderate.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Stephanie Moore BiekAugust 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    I've been dealing with a very bull-headed family member who is anti-religion, but worships their views as their god. I really do value the friends I have who have strong views and share them, but don't hit me over the head and swear that it's the only way to go. I don't agree with you on everything, but I'm glad that the few times I have disagreed, that you have never shouted me down as an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Stephanie Moore BiekAugust 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    Man, you must still be stinging over that. Writing textbooks for Texas now? Ouch. The fact of the matter is, and what amuses me about all the disgruntled democrats, is that in the end, they voted for a politician. He talked a great talk..., but in the end, and no matter how he voted in the past, he had to give up a lot of his party convictions to run this country. The president is a representative of all the people, not just the party he came from. even if there are more liberals than conservatives in the country, its not that wide a margin to keep him safe to pass all that he promised. It would be nice if he could keep his promises to the people who voted for him, wouldn't we all like that? But the heart of the matter is this: a politician is a person who holds very strong views, then immediately has to compromise those views to get elected/stay in office. No one likes a wishy washy person who just changes with the wind, and a politician has to embrace that trait to survive in our politics today. It's a damn shame.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Someone once said that "politics is the art of the possible." In other words, you have to compromise to get things done. The funny thing is, there was a study done recently comparing promises kept by Obama vs. previous Presidents, and he ...came out pretty good. I take you point about governing the whole country. In fact, every survey I've ever seen has conservatives outnumbering liberals by double digits, percentage-wise. And if I ever turn into that ass bag who said the Texas thing, you have my permission to unfriend me with extreme prejudice. Like that description makes any sense at all. Cheap shot.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Stephanie Moore BiekAugust 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM

    I would hope I would never let you get off that easily, but I promise to unfriendly you if you turn to the evilness of douche-baggery.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I will do my best to abstain from such behavior. I'm sure I failed several times when we were at the B&N together. Hopefully have evolved since then. Knuckles all the way off the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Please take the time to read this article. It will make you drag yourself to the voting booth in Nivember. Be sure to drag some friends with you.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thank You, President Obama.August 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM

    this article is right on target! thanks so much for sharing this!

    ReplyDelete
  143. Thanks, guys. I took a beating on another liberal site yesterday. One person suggested I write the text books for Texas school system. That smarted. :)

    ReplyDelete
  144. Thank You, President Obama.August 15, 2010 at 5:37 PM

    Fanned!--> From an article posted by @David E Phillips: "How much of the liberal agenda do we think will make it to the President's desk after November if we decide to take our ball and go home? Can any of us imagine equality for gays and lesbians or immigration reform getting anywhere? Do any of us lefties think that ...Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, or even the Lilly Ledbetter act would have had a snowball's chance in Hades of becoming law. Even in the case of the former two as compromised as they were? Not bloody likely

    ReplyDelete
  145. Thanks for the endorsement. Hopefully the good people on this page will enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Thank You, President Obama.August 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

    surely! i think that is is a great addition to the page! we usually reserve the wall for just thank you's and obama-doration, but this was a good one! thanks, David!

    ReplyDelete
  147. Kimberley Cote likes this

    ReplyDelete
  148. Thank You, President Obama.August 15, 2010 at 8:26 PM

    whoa! wait - did you write this article? WOWOWOOWOSA!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Mary Bartula likes this

    ReplyDelete
  150. JenniferBiteme WoodroffAugust 15, 2010 at 8:27 PM

    Yeah, let's get our fucking priorities straight.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Good info to remember...

    ReplyDelete
  152. Thank You, President Obama.August 15, 2010 at 8:29 PM

    Holy DOODLE! i missed that! excellent piece, man! just fantastic!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Yeah, for better or worse, I did it. I do one or two of these a week. Will continue to share.

    ReplyDelete