August 5, 2012

that sums it up somewhat nicely

I've been arguing since the early days of the Pee Party rise, that it was all about moving the already off center ideological dividing line further to the right, as a last hurrah for the monied interests.

It's rather obvious that they and their political masterminds have long been aware of the threats to the size of their coffers coming on several fronts. To name a few -- the health care problem, AGW, income inequality and all the problems that produces, and all of which will require dreaded socialistic solutions. Compounding their problems, there's also that looming brown demographic tsunami they associate with the very same "socialism" they dread. They are (and have been) trying to maximize the size of their coffers now so as to keep it healthy once events dictate it be eroded to maintain social order, much as they were accepting of before the New Deal..

It's kinda like the way they bought their tickets in 2012, minus the earth shattering.

The reason they've been able to get away with all of this, is because of the "liberal" media myth. We can hardly expect their partners in crime to be revealing the conspiracy they are a part of, now can we? The simple fact of the matter is, the truth is an existential threat to that crew, and the monkey wrench in their plans. The only unanswered question in my mind, is whether the pursuit of media ownership by lefty interests starting decades ago was simply a strategic or tactical error, or whether it's indicative of the fact that there simply is an insufficient enough amount of money with lefty interests left in this country to stand against the fascism/oligarchy, plutarchy -- whatever you wanna call it -- to prevent our serfhood.

I'd argue based on how far the dems have shifted rightward on so much in recent decades, that the goal sought long ago is reaching fruition.

August 3, 2012

I have oodles

and what few cons their was amongst them, (those I interact with regularly anyway) they were harshly shown the error of their ways back in the Bush years.

Someone being a relative doesn't mean squat to me in this context. My political povs, etc, were forged back in the waning days of the VN War, when I had an Archie Bunker-like, pro-war father with a buzz cut. Just because he was my dad didn't mean he got a pass from the condemnations, etc, that I'd offer the common racist, homophobic, apathetic, warmongering, torture-supporting, etc, Pee Partier of today.

Imo, it's the lack of the father against son, brother against brother, etc, condition, like that seen in the VN/civil rights and Civil War eras, and the interpersonal conflicts and the divisions that result, that explain in no small part the rise of the modern rightwingnut and their numbers. If my family was comprised of Pee Partiers, they'd not be seeing me at the thanksgiving table. Why would I wanna spend my time with a group of/a person that thinks I'm a infanticidal marxist muslim born in kenya who's the terrorists best friend and America hater supporter, or in the alternative, those that are likely also racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and part of the "let them eat dirt/die" crowd? Once those lines are drawn in the proverbial sand, there are only three choices available -- give them a pass by virtue of the family relationship alone and overlook it, treat them as you would any stranger of like mind, or divorce yourself from the relationship. Since I don't waste much time beating my head against the proverbial wall arguing with fools or tools, and can't in the interest of those all their povs and political support harm, remain silent, the third option works best for me. ANd in the case of those former Bushbotted relatives, it was they that after the silence and an examination of the evidence, that broke and offered a "You were right!", and apologized for all the "you hate the troops, love the terrosist" crap so prevalent in that crowd back then. It doesn't matter to me if that stuff comes as a direct and personal charge, or by way of implication based on what I support or condemn, the insult remains the same.

And besides, aren't we all defined by who and what we support, and hang with? There's nothing fair/just about giving family or friends a pass for things we'd ream the butts of strangers for, it just shows that the ones that do so, are willing to elevate due to self-interest, the value of relationships with people over the needs of those people that their vote would deny them. And if you give them the treatment you rightly would the stranger, what are the odds the realtionship is gonna retain the depth, breadth, and quality it had? Zero I'd say. To me the choice in this instance, is between preserving relationships with people who support various injustices, or serving the interests of those (often oneself as well) victimized by the injustices they support. I have an uncle Tom, but I'll never be one, because silence is consent, and tolerance for intolerance is an enabling of it.

I'd add also, that imo, that it has been the fear or existence of such alienation that explains in no small part the rise in support for gay marriage, etc, and in my long argued opinion on the other side of the coin, the widespread acceptance and tolerance for islamophobia since 9/11, that opened the door for so many racists to make inroads from the fringes of the public square where they once largely resided prior to it. Evil grows when good men stay silent. End of story. The same can be said as was seen by me in my relationship with my dad, for the changes in attitudes over the VN war, civil rights, etc. The enactment of the CRA in 1964 didn't change heartsd and minds, it was the collective effort of those of us that tenaciously championed those causes publicly -- and privately as I'm arguing for here -- that did. ANd the bottom line is, if the Pee Partiers, homophobes, racists, warmongers, torture-supporters, etc, pay no price for their povs, then there's no incentive for them to change.

“I’m always glad to get comments four years later,” McCain told Fox News, laughing. “Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.”

Sorry, I can neither like nor respect a war criminal, or anyone (an enabler) that does, whether a relative or not, when it's clear that they know exactly what it is they are supporting. You might as well turn McCain black and change torture to the CRA of 1964. How as a victim, do you respect someone who'd keep you a second class citizen? ANd I'd ask as well, on a personal level, how could a relative or what would they base it on, respect someone they paint as a lilly-livered traitor supporter (based on the aforementioned rightwingnut description of BHO) that isn't in their face correcting them? That's the fuel that keeps bullies big and small thriving, the knowledge there is no price for their dirty deeds, and that it is they that have all the "respect", albeit of the less than desirable kind, as all fear-based respect is.

We see the same thing in almost all of DC politicians across the ideological divide as well. The sad part is, while the rightwingnuts have spent decades freely and without fear of reprisal painting/defining our kind in the most egregious and dishonest ways available, there's been little reciprocity (well, recently Kucinich, Grayson, and Weiner come to mind) from their dem/liberal victims, despite them having the facts on their side to make and sustain the case against the brownshirts.

Civility is way overrated, and tolerance for their intolerance is gonna be the death of this republic. That is after all, why they feel free to argue, no matter how stupidly and stupid it is, that it is those that are condemning the chick-fil-a people, that are the only "real", intolerant ones.

SO yeah, I'd give any relative a hearty "fuck you" that attended a rightwingnut Chick-fil-a-fest, or a host of other things the modern rightwingnut stands for, and hope they didn't like it.

Does this answer your question...lol?

July 31, 2012

Sure they do, if they are redefined to repub-lite

well, in terms of what the repubs use to be. http://www.alternet.org/story/154175/why_obama%27s_the_least_socialistic_president_in_modern_history_%28and_that%27s_a_shame%29?akid=8275.20699.QVbCh7&rd=1&t=5

Let's face it -- this has been why, starting with the DLC, that the ideological center line has been moved rightward, and what use to be unquestioned third rails have lost their jolt, because only dems have ever had a political chance at altering them significantly.

To those oblivious to or in denial of the many deleterious effects of the third-way BS and its role in this, I'd simply ask them to explain this http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/obama-2006too-many-of-us-have-been.html because it seems to unquestionably confirm that suspicions regarding his desire to "work with" the rightwingnut extremists on SS and Medicare "reform" are warranted, leaving only the type and magnitude of the tweaks he's willing to negotiate away, not whether he's willing to put his foot on the rail.

In other words, to harbor fears or apprehension about these matters is reasonable, and voicing concerns of them should be promoted and tolerated, and the senseless need to shit down and shut up if all they have are the usual "conspiracy theorist!", "you're the one that's not a real dem!" BS that defines who and what they are -- the functional equivalent of dem Bushbots. http://www.americablog.com/2011/08/barack-obama-best-president-ever.html If he has intentions of negotiating changes that will be unacceptable to the majority of his base, the time to let him know about that unacceptability is before he arrives at the negotiating table, not after he signs something. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/guy-saperstein-time-negotiate-obama-n

As one who's long thought and predicted that the fear of rightwingnuttery is his biggest trumpcard this fall, the ugly side to it is that it leaves his base ripe for exploitation. In my experiences, even those the most disappointed in him intend to vote for him again because of the alternative, and the idea that the "x" dimensional chess player isn't acutely aware of this is silly. The fact of the matter is imho, is that the charade of being a "uniter" (because surely he was aware of the folly of that from those determined to make him a one term pres, no?) was really just a facade produced by the same good cop/bad cop act we've been subjected to since the DLC rose from the political muck.

congrats -- good post

July 17, 2012

BHO spent his early years smoking pot

finding empathy and developing people skills.

Romney spent his early years honing his barber/bullying and cop impersonation/deception skills.

BHO spent his time in his young working life organizing communities for the betterment of all within them.

Romney spent his time in his business career depriving communities of jobs and the people in them, money to spend.

BHO amassed a record as a state and federal senator he’s proud of.

Romney served one term as a governor, but doesn’t want to talk about it.

BHO made a successful bid for the presidency http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-man-given-nations-worst-job,6439/ and has had a relatively successful record

Romney will fail again at his effort for the job, depriving him of the ability to revisit the failures and recreate the conditions BHO inherited.

Currently BHO remains relatively unchanged morally/politically in his political career, and perhaps from his days of smoking pot.

Morally speaking, Romney remains the the dishonest bully of his youth, but politically and figuratively speaking, a chameleon has nothing on him.

I'm a man without conviction
I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction

Did I miss anything important?

July 14, 2012

Bush had his DUI

now the Mutt has his -- Dishonesty Under Investigation

Assuming his guilt, I’m not sure which is worse under the circumstances, the crimes he’s potentially guilty of, or the sense of privilege and protection he’s operated under that made his shenanigans a "without a second thought" situation, and one that points towards the same two/X-tiered criminal justice system we have in this country that has allowed the likes of Bush to walk away, and the Mutt to attend a fundraiser hosted by the darkest one, Dick Cheney, the real president for eight years https://www.google.com/search?q=dick+cheney+%22the+real+president%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en. Apparently he had some second thoughts about that one, given the prohibition on photographing the two together.

It's no wonder why Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation, no?

And of course, Romney can abandon his role as and involvement with the presidency should he win, and be it in name/title only except when needed as he did at Bain http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/13/1064417/-Grover-Norquist-on-the-GOP-candidates-All-we-need-is-someone-who-can-handle-a-pen.

Quite frankly, given his already well established and inarguable record as a prolific and pathological liar http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief I'm underwhelmed, but do hope this issue becomes icing on that particular cake. I doubt how much it'll negatively impact the support from the rightwingnut base, since the rightwingnuts gave their pols and pundits a license to lie without fear of political and/or financial reprisal long ago, and regardless of the human costs, like millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, the countless needlessly tortured, etc, so I wouldn’t be expecting them to look upon the crime of perjury should a conviction occur as a sin, I’d expect them to simply remind you of the falsehood about BC being convicted of perjury. https://www.google.com/search?q=was+president+clinton+convicted+of+perjury&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en
You know how they are -- claiming that their opposition is guilty of things they have the most if not exclusive guilt for – projection – is how they maintain the moral high ground, at least in their Bizarro World. This is in evidence by his charging BHO as a liar alone, no?

Who thinks a criminal prosecution will be pursued regardless of the evidence or support for it anyway?

I don't. I see this as merely the coup de grace in the game of integrity that is decisive and determinative in the outcome, which BHO will no doubt further exploit in the debates on a variety of issues, including what can be rightly considered the Mutt's lies by omission seen in the lack of specificity on his intended policy pursuits.

That’s why the real news in the Journal editorial — the stuff that should drive the discussion today — is its scalding attack on Romney’s lack of specificity on multiple issues:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-wall-street-journal-edit-board-blisters-romney/2012/07/05/gJQAqI1JPW_blog.html

The investigation into the Mutt's dishonesty will no doubt result in an "open and shut" case for guilt, no?

June 29, 2012

Moore and Krugman piss on the ACA decision

I know that our side is not used to victories and so we're not quite sure how to respond when we get one out of the blue. For some of us, the first inclination is to point out just how weak the Obama law actually is, that it doesn't provide true universal health care (26 million will STILL be uninsured), and that it leaves control of the system in the hands of the vultures, otherwise known as the health insurance companies. The individual mandate was a huge gift to the private insurance companies, guaranteeing them billions more from millions of new customers. And many of the key provisions of this law don't even take effect until 2014 – and if the Republicans win in November, you can kiss all of that goodbye.

So, yes, the bill is highly flawed and somewhat wrong-headed...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/more-victory-decision-today-was-mandate-us-act

So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=1

Should they be admonished or maybe boycotted for having introduced critiques of the ACA, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the "win"?

Quite frankly, other than the needed benefits it represents to millions, I think the biggest win will be the inevitable softening of the scary visage -- kind of a process like then Portrait of Dorian Gray in reverse -- of the "socialist" bogeyman many hold in their tiny and corrupted brains as painted by their rightwing masters. Much as the rightwingnuts have successfully managed to to create Bizarro World-like thinking in their minions -- particularly in the last decade -- where failure is success, etc, as has been noted by some of us since at least the stimulus days, they don't fear the failure of the ACA, they fear its real and potential successes, and the baby step it represents towards single payer because of the stopgap effort it is widely seen as.

We'll have to wait and see given the medicaid thing, how many will inevitably be left out in the insurance cold, which makes it at best a partial success in terms of the completion of the goal for all to be covered. That goal will be easier to achieve politically once more of the rightwingers discover that the ACA doesn't spell socialism doom, reversing their dread and the word "doom" into a "mood" more conducive for acceptance to further travel down the socialism road.

As already argued, the ground already appears to be quite fertile http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/ leaving only a need for more cultivation which the ACA could represent the figurative plow for.

Acknowledgement of and complaints about the flaws of the ACA are as important as its human misery-relieving benefits, because that's the path to providing more.

Keep pissing Mike and Paul.

June 28, 2012

I'll drop a turd in it

Not over the win, but rather the predictable reaction from the "purists" here that regardless of the issue, continually insist that the dem emperor so to speak, is fully clothed, no matter how visible the turd is seen hanging from their anus.

I never supported the mandate and always thought it would be upheld, and as far as the lack of support is concernd, for likely the same reasons others here and elsewhere don't.

What I don't get, is why those who disagree about this and that on principled grounds, and who are otherwise largely your ideological and political allies, are told "politely" (well, that characterization may be a stretch) to sit down and shut up (in the form of an insult to them and their principled stand like "some people love misery -- to paraphrase) because they can't and/or won't share your level of pleasure or enthusiasm stemming from a victory. I'd guess you've never had a coach tell you immediately after a win, that despite it, your performance sucked and needed improvement, no, like in how the win was achieved? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22while+I%27m+pleased+with+the+ein%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGHP_en&sclient=psy-ab&q=coach+%22while+I%27m+pleased+with+the+win%22&oq=coach+%22while+I%27m+pleased+with+the+win%22&gs_l=serp.12...17235.31297.1.33579.10.10.0.0.0.3.375.2484.0j1j7j2.10.0...0.0.YY9LafAAbA8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8aabf25a9b44994b&biw=1680&bih=828 Maybe once eh, because you couldn't take what you so freely dish out, criticism in this case directed at an issue, and not you? I'm surprised that coaches that do/say that don't lose their jobs like you'd deny others their voice.

Not only is that kinda BS insulting and grossly dishonest, it's totally indicative of the fact that you can't dispute much less rebut the the various reasons why they don't like the mandate -- like the perpetuation and feeding of the leeches known as insurance companies for example, which also means they'll be wielding the political power they had before, which they'll no doubt use in the event more moves towards single-payer are made. And no, giving the insurance companies millions of new customers is not like paying heating bills (and filling energy producer coffers as a result) or food stamp recipients doing the same for food producers and retailers, because in all those and similar cases, they satisfy immediate survival needs, not the mere potential of one. The similarity begins and ends on the bottom lines of the respective corps that benefit from the benefit. ANd if that analogy was to hold, based on those who will become insured as a result, then what you're cheerleading is satisfaction with it despite the 26M that will still have to do without http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/odonnell-no-matter-how-scotus-rules-afford which what, one can't complain about without fear of reprisal from the "totally elated"? Will those 26M be considered "masochists" too for talking about the inadequacies, methods and means behind the reasons for their continuing plight? This isn't a case in the minds of many of a desire for perfection being the enemy of the good, but rather the complete abandonment of the simplest and best solution that exemplifies "half-assed" in form and measure given that 26M figure.

But then I've never been one to argue that rightwingnuts have a monopoly on shortsightedness or intolerance, or the methods and means to make the existence of both undeniable.

well done

If I were to take a page outta your book, I could easily claim and sustain that most if not all of your elation (and that of others here)is all about the political victory, not the solution to plight for the half or so it represents. After all, you're cheering the failure for the 26M, aren't you? Do you share the apathy so rampant in the rank ranks of rightwingnuts? To say no then undermines your BS here, given that you'd be doing exactly what you've weakly taken others to task for in this top post, no? It's kinda like you being elated in the win, despite losing a teammate to a concussion during the game, no? Winning is everything, isn't it?

I'd be curious to know after this next election, how many lefties stay home, not JUST because of the many and varied disagreements with and disappointments over this and that they have with BHO and the dem leadership, but rather over the treatment they get for daring vocalize them to "tolerant" libs. All this kinda stuff provides is another cross for them to bear, or the feeling that they are an "untouchable". Wow, somebody put a pisser on ignore --- big, as some say, "fugging" deal. That is certainly a wise choice, given the likelihood of a loss upon confrontation. Why should they vote with those who would insult and exclude them? If anyone is the masochist, it's those who push others away over the lack of complete agreement.

And besides, it's not like the less enthused are some tiny minority you can freely piss on

The poll found that a large number of Americans - including about one-third of Republicans and independents who disagree with the law - oppose it because it does not go far enough to fix healthcare.
Seventy-one percent of Republican opponents reject it overall, while 29 percent feel it does not go far enough, while independent opponents are divided 67 percent to 33 percent. Among Democratic opponents, 49 percent reject it overall, and 51 percent wish the measure went further.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_06/inside_the_paradox038160.php

now are they, since "further" suggests dissatisfaction that by your standards, should it be expressed in any form or measure, is treason to the cause and therefore justification for things like "some people are only happy being miserable!".

Or how about their distaste for the mandate, the reason/s notwithstanding

Still, the most controversial component of the law - the requirement that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance -- does not sit well with the American public. In that same March poll, 45 percent approve of that provision, but 51 percent do not. According to an April Kaiser Family Foundation survey, seven in ten find that element of the law unfavorable

Also, among those who oppose the law overall in the March CBS News/New York Times Poll, seven in 10 disapprove of the mandate that people buy health insurance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57462689/public-opinion-of-the-health-care-law/

SO by all means, tell all those who aren't that happy (to fulfill your mandated expectations and definitions as to what constitutes what, a "real" dem, or even as a reasonable and rationale human being it appears) with the survival (but likely immensely so over the misery this has caused rightwingnuts at least, as well as some of the bennies in the bill that deny rightwingnuts a continuation of human misery those sadists relish, etc) of the mandate they're masochists. That should get them running to the voting booth for more abuse from your "It'll be COMPLETELY my way or the highway" kind in the future.

And the next time, if ever, the coach tells you that you need improvement after a win, tell him to piss off, and that we won and that's all that matters, because ALL victories are beyond reproach, and only masochists think otherwise. That's what any "thinking" adult would do, no?

If a relationship can't survive a little legitimate rain on a parade without insulting from "sweet" crybabies afraid of what, melting from the moisture, it ain't a relationship worth preserving anyway. If I was a rightwingnut, I'd take some solace and find some joy in the way some eat their own around here, and unwittingly erode that "enthusiasm" factor as a result, and all in the name of the needed cohesion you destroy with it, eh Mr. Masochist?

June 28, 2012

just a reminder

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

I've thought from the beginning that the ACA would be upheld, and have never understood the rightwingnut assault on it given the inevitability of fight over the well supported replacement for it, which is a fight they should lose given that support.

I suppose however, that their masochism dovetails quite nicely with the way they are the best witnesses for their own prosecution, like for example with Romney, the wouldbe Liar in Chief. Sometimes it isn't their lying in fact that makes them that, but something similar to this fight, like using something like his career at Bain that then turns into the bane of his political existence.

Let's hope their pain becomes our collective gain eh?

June 22, 2012

The Wild Conspiracy Theory Driving The Fast And Furious Investigation

personally I don't think any one thing can provide an explanation for the insanity the modern rightwingnuts are mired in, although I think the umbrella that shields them from the torrential downpour of reality they are constantly in a need of a shielding from, is their idea that any dem in office shouldn't be allowed to be there, if they are there legitimately at all. You can blame ACORN for that.

The only thing remarkable about this issue, is how unremarkable it will eventually be, much like all the other efforts they've tried and failed at. It'll be just another example like countless others of a relatively if not entirely fact-free kind, where it will retain a vestige or more of some element of truth to it (like the 2/3 of rightwingnut idiots still believing in Iraq WMD, despite the liar in chief Bush saying otherwise) that will keep the hate, disgust, and loathing of their rightwingnut minions alive. That's why our forefathers founded this xtian nation and populated it with them ain't it, to assure the more base and darker emotions prevailed in our politics governing those "truths" they held as plainly self-evident? Obviously the rightwingnuts have the consent of their minions to lie without fear of financial or political reprisal in the course of governing, and for the average rightwingnut xtian, sacrificing the 9th Commandment is a very small price to pay. They seek independence from the tyranny of truth, which I suppose would be their right if not for the rest of us. It just so happens most of us took the forefathers seriosly on that matter.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

That's the point behind all of their turd tossing and polishing -- keeping the stench on and of their political opposition omni-present in the minds of their mindless "morans", and the truth about themselves hidden and outta the collective conversation. Just like every other examle we can all think of, they'll move on from this embarrassingly stupid episode and convince themselves that once again they got things "right", in an effort to avoid the self-disgust that should accompany being so grossly wrong about so much, not to mention that they are quite evil in their pursuits. This is why things like lying, denial, projection, deflection, etc are the dull tools of choice for the dullards -- hiding from themselves.

This is why I've never been able to figure out which is more/most stupid of them given their record -- their thinking that they have the moral high ground, or that they are the sharpest tools in the shed.

The power of denial in this case can't be denied, can it?

Of course it can, if you're a rightwingnut.

The Wild Conspiracy Theory Driving The Fast And Furious Investigation
By Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress Politics on Jun 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm



Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Here is theory that some Congressional Republicans believe: The Obama Administration intentionally handed over automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels, who they knew would commit violent acts, because they wanted to scare Americans into supporting stricter gun laws.

That supposed series of events has now led Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/22/504557/the-wild-conspiracy-theory-driving-the-fast-and-furious-investigation/

June 22, 2012

nothing new there

the sad part is, in my recollection most of the things you listed as being "good for the environment" have been couched in "energy" terms, and sold as such in conjunction with the "energy" pursuits you disapprove of, not with a focus on their impact on global warming. That's why I say, he hasn't really spoken for the planet much, and what little he has is way outta proportion with the speaking for and action on the interests of selected demographics.

Perhaps maybe you missed the overarching point of my post. I too was a Dean supporter in 2004, and would have preferred Dennis even the last time around. The main point I was trying to make is that there seems to be some major intra-party divisions arising between the "purists" and those who choose to criticize BHO in conjunction with expressions of disenchantment, a loss of enthusiasm, etc, here on DU, and just about everywhere else I sporadically read and post. As noted in my previous response, the only thing that seems to differentiate you and them, is your enthusiasm.

I'm not and didn't intend to be criticizing your enthusiasm despite the many reasons you've shared that could have resulted in a diminshment of it as it has in so many others, I was commenting to whatever readers that might stumble upon in both camps -- the enthused and those who have lost it wholly or in part -- in an effort to end the BS, which is largely coming from the "purist" camp. As noted as well, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is the number of bodies in the voting booth in Nov, and I see all the condemnation of those who criticize BHO (absent your enthusiasm qualification) as threat to the body count. To see what I mean, try posting a post purely and solely critical of BHO on this or that issue, and see what happens around here.

I say this because I'm a realist too. People with complaints need to air them without fear of reprisal from those who are otherwise their ideological and political allies, and acceptance within that fold can't be conditional upon their sharing the level of enthusiasm those like you and others have maintained despite the many disappointments they may or may not have, like the ones you shared.

I was not very enthused at all when I voted for BHO the first time for many reasons I won't bore you with here. Like you however, for at least as many reasons I don't regret my vote, and despite the fact that all the reasons I was unenthused about have achieved fruition. What I know I would regret, is sitting idly/silently by as efforts were/are made to paint those like me that have criticisms and reservations while lacking the enthusiasm you have maintained, are treated like an enemy. Not only is it counter-productive to our shared goal -- getting him reelected -- it's just plain wrong no matter how you slice it, and particularly when BHO himself has said he wants us to hold his feet to the fire. If not for that -- as about any politically astute gay person could tell you for example, would their civil rights problems have been rectified as or to the extent they have been?

I've thought about doing a top post on this matter, because it is of great concern to me, but as a relative newbie, it's doubtful that I can compete with the many expert C&Pers here and their entourages. I have therefore decided to raise this point where ever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, to maximize the reading of it. So far that has been directly to the "purists" around here that would like to see no doubt, any criticism of BHO disallowed and perhaps even, a banning offense. I doubt seriously anyone like me is trying to dampen the enthusiasm of those like you as they charge, but rather following their own drum beat or music produced by their conscience strings in an effort to promote change, much as you'd like to on the subject of the climate. I see the divisions being created creating a climate conducive for less participation in Nov, not more, by the insistance that everyone be part of nothing but the cheerleading squad, or else.

I'll apologize if you think this off point and a muddying of your post, despite my holding the opposite pov. I see it as being more than tangential to your top post, since the "enthusiasm" you focused on seesm to be the difference between second class BHO supporterhood and not, if not outright treason to the cause.