and expand the tent.

I don't give a fuck about any more contortions to shave votes. If they can be made to fight among them selves and chip and shatter then that's cool but I'm not interested in peeling far Reich wing racists and fluoride fearing nutjobs.

They seem to split on not being absurd enough and are always happy to move further off the map. I don't see significant fissure points. They are unified in what is major to them. They might be pro-choice but they will always be much more pro-Reganomics and/or blowing folks of color the fuck up.

Shitloads of non-fundie Republicans are pro-choice, smoke weed, aren't actively racist (awfully tolerant of it though), have no problem with gays (or even are themselves, usually white males), or virtually any other social type issue but STILL stick with the pukes purely because of a fundamental belief in Voodoo economics and/or slavish devotion and adulation for the military and/or the police fueled by fear or something like nationalistic fervor.

To be fair, the fundies are in the same boat and have had to throw much of what they believe in the toilet making them caricatures of themselves by taking up greed and murderous domination as core values.

The Teabaggers are Republicans, the dynamics haven't changed at all. We've long hoped to split the branches of their ideology but they are slaves to the pursuit and maintenance of power and power means the rabid zeal and reliable votes of the religous Reich.

Attempts to appeal to the "sensible" elements by accepting corporate leachhood enabling and making sure we are always at war with Oilasia, seems to be destructive to the country and not very effective at building a dominate governing coalition.

Please no more plots to triangulate a permanent majority. We'd have one straight up like we did from FDR-Clinton really and definitely Reagan.

Time to diversify. They believe they have created a much wider consumer base now and a large American middle class is no longer particularly beneficial to them. They have spent the past two generations seeding economies around the world at our expense and now they are looking to move to a more standardized wage structure for the masses here and in Europe to get more in line with global norms.

Meanwhile, they can spread out the consumer class around the globe which allows it to grow without further centralization that they see as a direct risk to the balance of power.
The middle class must be able to see the value of their niche by the certainty of crushing poverty all around but not be able to amass significant numbers to force systemic changes by sheer numbers and the pooling of resources.

Not to mention creating a serious buyer's market for what labor is needed which makes workers very cheap and super expendable, even if they are skilled. Wage destruction will hurt almost everyone, even the professional class, first teachers and then my guess is a concerted effort at doctors and much of the medical profession.

the the best engine for the social and economic advancement is corporate commerce. As such his primary concerns are always what is good for the powerful and the wealthy because without growth, ever increasing trade, and economic interconnectedness his entire philosophy of the advancement of humankind goes in the dumps.

His interest in safety nets and reluctantly regulations is fueled primarily to promote systemic stability.

He pretty well spells it out in the early chapters of 'Audacity of Hope' and as such I admitted he was a corporatist even as a vocal supporter.
My "misunderestimation" was that I convinced myself that this was much more of an operative issue than an ideological one. The sad case is he seems to truly believe that "properly" handled that the likes of BP, Monsanto, and Halliburton will really save the world rather than leaving it used up and in darkness.

will lead to a healthier America with broader prosperity and increased opportunities for all. All we can do is demand the wars end and all of our troops come home, not just half of them or a slim plurality but all so those resources can be reinvested in our own people or at the very, very least cease to expand the budget deficit.

All we can do is insist on justice for one and all, that the wealthy, connected, and powerful be accountable.

All we can do is apply pressure for a new energy future that leaves us with our habitat.

We can only be unrelenting in our demands for an affordable, accessible high quality health care system.

We can only hold our leaders accountable rather than excusing our own.

We can only demand that our fellow citizens not be allowed to fall through the cracks and that the one's who already have be given a hand up.

If the people are put first, the administration will not fail but if political calculation and the whims and desires of "stakeholders" remain foremost then failure is inevitable regardless if the President is reelected or not. Reelection at the cost of the needs of the working and poor citizens of this nation is no better than trading a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.

Candidate Obama, I wish you were here or was that guy a house proud town mouse, a charade? Clapping harder ain't going to bring Tinkerbelle back, at the very least you have to believe and folks ain't going to believe a bunch of happy bullshit that is in no way reflective of the reality they experience.

The people have been pummeled for better than a generation by the beneficiaries of political malfeseanse , judicial malpractice, and economic piracy. The same beneficiaries that every "reform" seems to favor in the end to our greater detriment. It is no victory to struggle to take a hand in our own defeat by allowing for another moment for the shenanigans to go on.

Go to the mat for the "small people" and the land where we live and die or go the fuck home, is the name of the game and if that is remembered we can perhaps be beaten but we will never lose.

leaving the least of us behind in dreams of riches from global commerce and wars to provide poor people's resources for the plunder of the wealthy and leaving them with nothing but nightmarish memories of war and loved ones lost then that's a castle made of sand.

Our hopes lie in the indomitable spirit of our fellow citizens, faith in our ideals, clarity of vision to see through many deceptions, discerning minds, wisdom passed down through the ages, and our unquenchable desire to be free people living in peace, passing on no less than we inherited.
These things have a foundation of strong stone, hard as a diamond and can be relied on when many works and plans of men have long failed.

There is much to place faith in beside the false, the feeble, the transient, the duplicitous, the cowardly, the bought, and the sold. My heart and faith will be fixed on what is in the still quiet places in each of us. If a person embodies that greatness and serves the people well then I will give them trust and celebrate them, if not then they prove faithless stewards and dishonor the trust they are given.

However, in addressing the systemic issues that got us here and that was eating us like cancer for years before the last crashout, Ratigan's points are more compelling and he is focused on a broader picture.

What we have here is the legislative equivalent of a gussied up hoptie. You know, a five hundred dollar car with a three thousand dollar stereo system, and 1,500 a piece rims sitting on bald tires with steel showing on the sidewalls.

Nice peripherals but that raggedy car might drop dead or slide off the road anytime.
We need to fix the basic, fundamental stuff first and work our way out if it's one or the other. I'm confident we could have written our own ticket with this out of the gate, side by side or one after the other with the stimulus but if I have a choice I'm going motor before I worry about the new seats.

and Palin would be.

I didn't work, donate, or vote for those moronic heathens. I don't subscribe to their policies, rhetoric, values, or world view. They have no legitimacy whatsoever in my mind and should be disbanded as a terrorist and anti-American entity.

They are not even an option, they may as well not be on my ballot.

My sole interest in the cretins is their destruction. My expectations of the Republicans is mostly isolated to an ongoing effort to undermine the government of the United States, plunder of the commons, legislative, political, and legal shenanigans to benefit the wealthy, a strident commitment to inequality, racism, xenophobia, the establishment of theocracy, absurd economics, and murdering people of color around the world.

I judge the President against no one but himself and what is required to be done with the opportunity.

Obama gives credence to the Republicans like they have a valid philosophy and executes their failed and rejected policies.

It's my thought that if you really despise the treasonous Republicans and their bankrupt ideology then some disappointment is going to be a natural consequence of paying attention.

Not on the debate team, on line communities from the days of BBS's at 300 baud to present of all sorts, a variety of corporate environments, not in dealing with government contractual obligations. Nowhere except in literature, history, and political science courses that I can recall and never in a positive way but with largely similar justifications.

Off hand, I'd tend to say the US Congress would be far less restrictive than I interpret both rule and intent.

Much, much simpler rules dictate decorum in even less than fancy free environments.

Words have meaning, they represent thoughts of specific notions and particular things and to restrict the word is always a sin against expression and should only be done at great and specific need.

I read the elaborate edict and the screams of the term "thoughtcrime" with the accompanying conditioned responses way, way, way too much to even bother picking the shit apart to give a detailed and legalistic point by point.

I shouldn't have to. I would hope that most of us would have been educated in environments that would condition against easy acceptance of that level of dictates on free expression.

It is sad, similar easy acceptance has led us to pissing on much of our promise as a nation. This is how we get into wars without aim or end, how we end up going through the gauntlet at the airport, why our communications are monitored without recourse or repercussion, why we may be murdered if our associates or opinions are not tolerate, why we tortured and the perpetrators go free, and endless and worse more.

What is it not to get???? Rule #1 in the how to deal with thoughtcrime is to remove the words that act as placeholders for thoughts, people, ideas, and objects to make them difficult to relay.

Rule #2 is that some wiseacres will be able to still express the taboo concept, person, object so make sure that such expression is unlikely to be observed and absorbed as possible. If seen ostracize, impugn, and minimize.

Rule #3 If 1&2 don't work, if the subject's is still able to effectively communicate thoughtcrime they must be reeducated and if they cannot be or are not worth the investment then they are to disappear.

Who hasn't seen that playbook before?

Now that we possess it the desperation to keep it outweighs all the wonderfully laudable reasons for acquiring "the ring".

It's easy to forget how the ring vexed poor Boromir, how neither Aragorn nor Gandalf would take the ring anywhere near Gondor, how Faramir would not touch it, the temptation and diminishment of Galadriel, or the weight it was for Frodo and were it not for Gollum's bite Frodo would have tried to posses the ring even in the heart of Mordor.

That corrupting power and the burning avarice for it cannot safely be ignored. Boromir would have taken the ring for the best of reasons but would no longer have recalled them by the time he reached his lands and too many of our own are falling into the same trap.

We do not seek power for it's own sake and we cannot forget the reasons we are here at the Cracks of Doom. If we have power then it is in the spirit of stewardship not to take whatever course leads to maintaining control.
To behave as such is a form of slavery and it is servitude to a cruel master.

I think that's my motivating factor for anything in life once "for the money", "for the women, or "it gets you sooo wasted" don't really fit but is too concrete or serious to respond with "for the shits and giggles".

can scarcely be defined as the kind of change I'm looking for.

I think it is more of a stick together for the success of certain personalities and whatever changes they can tolerate and that's a mile high pile of rubbish to me.

We went from fighting for a seat at the table to hoping those at the table would bring something back to patiently waiting for scraps to begging for crumbs and now we are being asked to simply HOPE for some crumbs to fall because asking for and more so expecting them is too demanding to allow our dear, dear leaders the latitude required for their "pragmatic" decisions.

destruction both morally and literally.

Unfortunately, it was not seen as "pragmatic" or "smart politics" to stand up for what we all knew was a vital life line to at risk communities all over the country and dutiful and not immediately replaceable foot soldiers in our party's registration and GOTV efforts in the very communities that make up perhaps our most reliable voters.

Not often can one organization display such craven cowardice and profound arrogance in a single action.

the field of ideas and words to express them are in deep and irretrievably at odds.

I think knowing this tact can be overcome the backup plan is to push such frowned upon ideas into hidden places or into long tiresome diatribes that will most often be passed over, leaving the content out of the broader conversation.

Of course if the filters should somehow fail and the taboo concepts find their way into discourse then the "rule evader" can still just be deleted as a disruptor acting beyond the scope of "the law".

Looks like one of the better debate filter techniques imaginable, falling short of actual thought control.

These kind of techniques should be familiar to most and cannot be reasonable conflated with rules of order or etiquette.

on the issues but not on the methods to reach the goals.

The very heart of the conflicts is the issues and ideals. Certainly, execution is at issue as well because very often implementation can actually preclude the goal and regularly guide away from the supposedly agreed upon destination.

I honestly see a selling of platitudes and smokescreens to pretend away doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps it would be instructive to break down in a flow tree or a similar device some examples of how traditional and third way type Democrats start with a common aspiration on a divisive subject and how each or at least how the 3rd way thinkers hash out how they take their path and reach the same promised land.

I see no smaller gulf in ideas, ideals, and aspirations than existed between Democrats and Republicans of years past, maybe even greater differences in some respects.

for the people.

His appointments are generally bad for the American people.

The people he really listens to are corporatist.

His back room dealing undercuts the people for the benefit of the wealthy.

His asswiping with the Constitution is a disservice to western civilization and is appalling from Constitutional Law expert.

The wars sap resources from the people and prevent the much needed and long delayed re-investment in our crumbling infrastructure.

If we don't seriously and dramatically deal with energy we will have more wars, more environmental devastation, and yes a lot of people will die miserable deaths.

In context, who gives a flying fuck about liking or not liking anyone?