As a right-winger I blindly followed my party. I will not make that same mistake again.

[Bjorn Against]

As many of you know I first got involved in politics as a right-wing Libertarian. After losing faith in corporate America I could no longer justify my positions, so back in 2001 I became a progressive. I have written about that conversion here in the past, but today I want to talk about how things I am witnessing on DU right now make me think back to my days as a right-winger.

I joined the Libertarian Party on good intentions, and in fact the issues that brought me to the party are issues that I still believe in today. I wanted our government to respect the bill of rights and end the absolutely insane war on drugs, these are the issues that the Libertarian Party is on the correct side of. The problem was of course that the Libertarian Party is about a lot more than just those issues, when it comes to any issue related to the economy or the environment the Libertarians are actually even worse than the Republicans if that even seems possible. The Libertarians want to remove virtually all regulation from industry, abolish every federal regulatory agency, privatize all schools, stop providing any funding for health care, completely eliminate all environmental laws, and refuse to provide any form of welfare even to those who are completely disabled. It sounds crazy, and it is crazy. When you look at the platform of either the Libertarians or the Republicans you probably wonder how in the hell anyone could possibly believe in any of the extreme positions that are in those platforms, and yet millions of people have been sold on these sorts of positions. How does it happen? Because people want to support their party no matter what. I joined the Libertarians not because of the bad positions, but because of the few good positions that they took. What ended up happening however is that I found myself defending the party on the very worst of their positions, I didn't just defend those positions in fact, I stood up proudly for them. When a position conflicted with my basic ethical standards I would always find some sort of excuse so that I could pretend that my party was always right. I grew up spending a lot of time in nature so in my heart I was always very passionate about environmental protection, but the Libertarians told me that if we eliminated all environmental laws everything would be fine because the free market was good at regulating itself. Sure it didn't make any sense, but hey Milton Friedman said it was true and he was a Nobel Prize winner so I thought that he must know more than I do. No matter how much any position went against what I knew deep down was right there was always someone who could justify it for me.

Once I saw the destruction that right-wing policies were having on the world with my own eyes however, I eventually realized I was wrong to follow the party line in the way that I did. I left the Libertarian Party, and today I think that making the conversion to become a progressive was probably the single best decision I have ever made in my life.

There are many lessons I took from my experiences, but there is one thing I learned in particular that I think everyone here really needs to think about. I learned that it is always important to look for the ways in which the people who you admire are wrong, and even more importantly you need to be able to speak out for what you believe in even if it goes against the candidate or party you helped to get elected.

I followed a party blindly once before, and I will not do it again. I will vote for Democrats as I would much rather have them in office than Republicans, but I will not pretend like everything is OK with the Democratic Party when everything is clearly not OK.

Obama has kept George Bush's Secretary of Defense, and we are going to have the same person who has been overseeing this illegal and immoral war for the past two years is going to continue to oversee it as a member of the Obama Administration. At the same time Obama is about to send more troops into Afghanistan, to continue another pointless war that has been going on for seven years now with nothing to show for it. We still have no clue where bin Laden is, in fact we don't even know if he is alive any more, and the rest of the people involved in the 9/11 attacks were not even from Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is wrong, it has always been wrong, and it needs to end. If Obama really is going to send more troops to Afghanistan he is wrong, he is dead wrong in fact and he needs to be called out on it.

Then we have the issue of gay marriage. This is a basic civil rights issue, either you support equal rights or you believe in treating one group of people as inferiors simply because of who they are. Opposing gay marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage, and we need to get Obama to realize that his position on this issue is wrong. If he does not support equal marriage rights for all then we need to fight him on it, just because we voted for him does not mean we should ignore it when he is so fundamentally wrong on an issue.

I could get into some of his cabinet choices as well, but I would be going on a long time because as many of us know some of them have their issues.

The ultimate point I am trying to make however is not about each individual area in which I disagree with Obama, the point I am trying to make is that each one of us as individuals needs to be able to think critically about our candidate and our party. Some of you may have different areas of disagreement than I do, and some of you may believe Obama is right in areas in which I think he is wrong. This is fine, you have every bit as much right to express your opinion as I have to express mine, and I think it is important we all speak out for what we believe in. When you speak out however please make sure you are speaking out for what you believe in, and not merely engaging in ad hominem attacks and shouting down those who are saying things you don't want to hear.

In recent weeks I have felt pretty unwelcome at this site as I have seen countless threads bashing all who speak out against Obama's cabinet picks or his stances on certain issues. I have followed a party without question in the past and I have learned my lesson, I will not make that same mistake again. I will not be silent in my disagreement, and if I feel like people are trying to silence me I will only get louder. If people disagree with me then I will be happy to listen to their disagreements, but if anyone thinks ad hominem attacks are going to get me to shut up they are wrong. I have been supportive of Obama many times in the past, and I guarantee you that I will be supportive of him many times in the future. I am confident that Obama will do many good things while he is in office, and he has my back when the Republicans try to oppose him on those issues as they surely will. When Obama is wrong however I feel that I must speak out, and I hope a lot more people speak out as well.

In other words I am not a purist. I find it ironic that it is the people who disagree with Obama that are labeled as purists, while those who defend him no matter what he does are not considered purists. It seems to me that being supportive of a candidate no matter what they do is the very definition of purism, while voting for a candidate that you know is not perfect and then standing up and expressing your disagreement with them is the exact opposite of purism. If those expressing disagreement with Obama are purists, then who or what are they being pure to? Progressives are known for vocally disagreeing on a regular basis. There is no single person who has been able to come up with a progressive manifesto that every progressive agrees with, I mean can anyone honestly tell me what the progressive stance on gun control is? If you can find me one I am sure I can find you a few strong progressives who disagree with that stance. Until there is a progressive manifesto that all progressives can agree with there will never be any such thing as progressive purity.

The lack of a progressive manifesto is a good thing however, we should be proud that we disagree so often that we are unable come up with one set of principles that everyone agrees on. The Republicans and the Libertarians were able to come up with a set of principles that had nearly unanimous support in their parties, but their agreement was based on people looking for any justification they could to support their party or their candidate, it was not based off of a genuine heartfelt belief in the platform.

We can not follow the path that the Republicans and the Libertarians chose, we need to have a healthy debate and we need to be able to handle criticism. Dissent is necessary in a democracy, and I hope that one day Democrats will do a better job of listening to people's legitimate concerns.

[Mari333]

1. HUGE K and R

thanks!

[beachmom]

2. Maybe you should read the Pentagon report Gates put out last year.

He sounded like John Kerry. I understand there are things to worry about, but I actually think Gates has been a decent Defense Secretary.

[dflprincess]

5. We'll just forget the G.H.W. Bush made him head of the CIA

and then there's that whole Iran-Contra thing in his past.

We'll also ignore that he wants to draw down in Iraq so we can escalate in Afghanistan. Though he and Obama agree about that so it must be a good idea. :sarcasm:

[TrogL]

82. Afghanistan is a "winnable" war - depending on your goals

The local population is fed up with the Taliban and would love to see Osama Bin Ladin dead. The only reason they got in in the first place is because the Russians interfered with the existing government. As long as these goals:

Depose the Taliban regime

Keep the Russians at bay

rebuild the infrastructure

Rebuilding the military and police

re-establish democratic government

walk away

are in place, it's doable.

What's held things up until now is that Canada and a few coalition partners have been pretty much going it alone and we're tired. We don't have the resources to win it, we'd rather not walk away with the existing situation, but without proper international support it's not doable.

[DutchLiberal]

110. Those goals will never be achieved, thus the war is not winnable.

The Red Army has tried to break the Mujahideen for 10 years and they never succeeded, and the Soviets weren't exactly soft on them, you know. Obama seems to think we can shoot our way out of Afghanistan, but it just can't be done.

And no, the people are not fed up with the Taliban. Many are, yes. But not all of them, by far. Support for the Taliban is increasing rapidly because of the many, many civilian casualties made by NATO and American bombardments. This only feeds the insurgency, and the remaining civilians are forced by the Taliban to fight against American troops, yes.

The Taliban has people in all ranks of government in Afghanistan, including mayors, governors, representatives et cetera. I know this sounds absurd, but that's the way it is. How can you expect to ever bring democratic rule in that country when the Taliban are still in power, and there's no way of getting them out?

Afghanistan is run by the American army with the 'help' of a puppet government with one of Bush's cronies as 'president'. Outside of Kabul, nobody even knows who this man is! Afghanistan has no democratic government, and it probably will not have one in my lifetime.

Sad, but true.

[truedelphi]

131. Osama Bin laden is dead. That being said, the other thing about your post is

That no Western nation hs ever succeeded in rulng over the Afghans.

It ain't gonna happen.

[dflprincess]

149. If the U.S. is going to spend money rebuilding an infrastructure

we should rebuild our own first - before any more bridges fall down.

[defendandprotect]

167. Why Afghanistan? Hijackers were mainly Saudis...???

The only reason they got in in the first place is because the Russians interfered with the existing government.


The US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda, once again exploiting religious fantics

in their own interests --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

As he outlines it proudly, the US went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians

in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-

type experience."

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm


Further what allies have noted is "how much the US loves to run drugs."

There was a video around here recently where you could hear that observation

for yourself. Taliban was eliminating cocaine production before we

attacked. It's now at new peaks.

And then there is OIL ....

[zzxo]

169. Yup, it is.

Two tours in Afghan in the Marine Corps. Democracy is favorable. Second tour there was after my Iraq tour and it was mainly about supporting the new government structure and things like protecting girls going to school from being blown away... not hunting Osama. Nothing would hurt Osama more than Afghanistan being free to choose their own path instead of the dead-end beliefs of the Taliban. The world is getting too small for that.

Their culture has alot to learn so it will take awhile. One court case I heard was a woman was hurt badly by her husband (or disciplined as they put it). The court ruled in his favor on the bases of, "She should have been a better wife".

[Bjorn Against]

9. I disagree, but thanks for your post.

I will admit that Gates is far more competent than most others who have worked for Bush, but that is not saying much. Honestly I don't care what this guy wrote, I care about what he did. What he did was he enabled Bush's war, he not only enabled it but he actually led the Pentagon while they were committing atrocities. No report that he writes is going to erase the fact that overall he has continuously been a Bush enabler.

While I disagree with you I must thank you because I am asking people to speak out on what they believe in, and that is what you did and you did it very respectfully. If you want to make a case for Gates I would be more than willing to listen, I may not agree but I will certainly hear you out.

[defendandprotect]

112. Gates was also part of Reagan/Bush "October Surprise" ....

a treasonous manipulation of negotiations with Iran by the party out of power --

[janx]

3. People at DU discuss, argue legitimately, and down-and-out fight

all the time.

There has been and always will be dissent here. ;-)

[dkf]

20. Thank goodness.

I hate when people tell us what we should and should not post.

[Jackpine Radical]

86. That's not true.

:silly:

[CountAllVotes]

4. this needed to be written and all should read this

you have expressed what many must feel exactly. Thank you! :patriot:

:kick: & recommend!!

[GreenArrow]

6. man, that's a superb post

I seldom recommend anything, but you're certainly getting one.

[stillcool]

7. What I find disagreeable..

is not someones opinion, it is what someone says about others opinions. If we spoke our own minds, and left out the 'they', and especially the rampant talking points, there might actually be discussion.

[hendo]

72. yup

everyone is to quick to condemn and demonize. But that shouldnt be surprising, this is an internet forum.

[AlbertCat]

90. But that shouldn't be surprising, this is an internet forum.

And this shouldn't be surprising for an Internet forum either...

It's TOO... as in "too quick to condemn"

[jhrobbins]

133. Hear, hear!

[Luminous Animal]

8. Thanks for this..

and good luck on convincing folks results over party.

[UTUSN]

10. Well, I *blindly* follow *my* party, that would be the Democratic one

I don't read LONG thingys. Yip, I'm shallow. I just do the futile voting thing.

[defendandprotect]

114. And if betrayed what is your recourse ...leverage on Dems ...????

[Citizen_Penn]

127. Me, too - actually I just joined this site looking for a map of

the subway.

Who knew?

[Moochy]

155. But but....This long thingy was worth reading!

[readmoreoften]

11. Obama's a nice guy. Definitely a good figurehead.

But the same things I disagree with the Bush administration about, I also disagree with Obama about: teh gay, Afghanistan, free trade (even though Obama only triangulates while the Bushistas were true believers), faith-based funding, No Child's Behind Left, etc.

I will say, though, that I'm a lot more comfortable with Obama's people at the helm of the CIA and the FBI. I think that Obama's appointees will know that the LGBT law student association called OutLaw is not a violent terrorist organization and the members of its listserve don't need to be put on a no-fly list.

[UTUSN]

14. Hmmmm n/t

[Kahuna]

12. Gates has been a good and non partisan SOD. You are letting your

knee jerk hatred for bush (which is justifiable) form your opinion of Gates. Gates is not bush. He's just a man doing his job and doing a damn good job of it too.

[Bjorn Against]

13. It is not "knee jerk hatred" it is a very real observation of the horrors of the Iraq war

Gates knows very well what the Bush Administration has done, there is absolutely no doubt he was aware of and participated in the administration's crimes against humanity. Has he been a competent Defense Secretary? Absolutely. I don't want a Defense Secretary that participated in war crimes no matter how competent that person is however.

[The Traveler]

17. In the real world

(and this really sucks) there were only two choices for any man asked to be SecDef under George Bush.

First, one could refuse. This is a sound moral course, but that just means Bush will find someone else. And if that someone else where less skillful at redirecting a defense and intelligence system that had veered off into the dark, or less determined to do so, that would simply allow greater harm to be inflicted.

Second, one could accept. This is a course fraught with moral as well as political dangers. It requires a deflection of the President's will as opposed to achieving a reversal of it, for that is impossible.

I don't blame Gates for getting dirty. I think greater horrors were prevented by his rational approach to things. I actually have a greater problem with Democratic leaders who refused to impeach and prosecute.

Still, I don't particularly feel good about it, nor should you ask me to trust the man. I just think there are lots of shades of gray here. I expect we will hear many new disclosures regarding the crimes of the Bush administration over the next year. These disclosures may cast Gates in a better, or a worse, light.

Trav

[Bjorn Against]

25. Well Gates could come clean right now...

He certainly knows a lot and his job is now safe as even if Bush were to fire him he would get it right back in January anyways. We will see if he does speak out, but I am not holding my breath.

[The Traveler]

32. Not sure Gates will be the source of disclosures

But Sy Hersh (sp?) claims he has been told to expect a great many phone calls on Jan 20. Those disclosures may (or may not) clarify Gates' role in things. Did he act to shift policy back towards the legal and sane? Did he enable crimes? Did he simply acquiesce? Or is his worst crime that he choose his battles carefully, knowing he could not win them all?

General nature of the dilemma. What does a moral man do when circumstance requires he work for a deranged tyrant? (I'm not saying that Gates is moral or that he is immoral ... I am just trying to describe the landscape of the situation he was in as I see it, and point out that even a very good person would have a tough time in those circumstances.)

[Kahuna]

38. And Gates has nothing to do with those horrors. So why blame him? In fact..

He has managed to decrease the horrors. I would think you would be grateful for that instead of spewing knee jerk venom at someone who had nothing to do with the whole thing.

[Bjorn Against]

48. Nothing to do with it? He was in charge of the Pentagon while this all was happening

Sure he was an improvement over Rumsfeld, but it doesn't take much to be less evil than Rumsfeld. It is not "knee jerk venom" to oppose a person who enabled an administration which is responsible for so much death and destruction. There may have been a decrease in the number of horrors committed under Gates, but there were still horrors being committed and I am not going to look past that. The secret prisons are still open, people are still being tortured, and we know the Pentagon and by extension Gates were allowing these things to go on. I don't want someone who enabled torture to continue to have a job in the new administration.

[Kahuna]

98. While ALL what was happening??? A reduction in the casualties???

The monster!!!!! :eyes:

[ArrowMan]

63. I didn't see anything that resembles "knee jerk venom" except maybe coming from you.

[Kahuna]

97. Nope. No venom from me. At least I'm not part of the peanut gallery

and can think for myself. Unlike you.

[Bjorn Against]

136. "The peanut gallery", "knee jerk venom" these are ad hominem attacks

I think you are giving me a good example of why my OP was necessary to write.

[Moochy]

156. Thank you for telling me how to think!

:sarcasm:
Without OP's like yours I would not know what to think. :eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

157. When did I tell you how to think? My OP was all about being able to think for yourself.

[Moochy]

158. Sorry

I agree, "we've all got to work it out for ourselves!"
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/06/08/fondue_lifeofbrian_wideweb__470x318,0.jpg

[Kahuna]

165. If the shoe fits you know who you are!

:hi:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

85. "knee jerk venom"

Miss the OPs point much?

People like you scare the shit out of me.

Do you even know what you are talking about? I suggest you use the Google and find out what Gates has been doing for the past 30 or so years.

Compared to Rumsfeld, Gates is close to being a saint - but that's like saying that Musolini wasn't such a bad guy, he made the trains run on time.

Gates, CIA, Rumsfeld - Gates didn't get rid of anyone when he took over for Rumsfeld and all those same SOBs will be there - doesn't that sort of SUCK????

History doesn’t just repeat itself; it repeats itself with the same exact people.

[iamthebandfanman]

87. nothing to do with it?

jesus christ almighty.

[defendandprotect]

116. Agree ...Gates also was a chief player in "October Surprise" ....

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. Do you support the continued occupation of Iraq? Obama just said we WILL NOT WITHDRAW completely.

He said we must have a residual force in place to protect US Interests, including "American civilians in Iraq" (read: oil companies and their mercenary forces.)

Complete reversal from what Kerry said in 2004.

Also note Kerry and Dean and especially Wes Clark (another former NATO commander and a sharp contrast to Jones) -- the entire spectrum of the anti-war movement -- have been completely frozen out of Democratic party leadership.

This is an internal coup by the Democratic Party machine to restore the Washington Consensus.

[Kahuna]

99. I don't give a damn what Gates says. Obama is the president who will

be making those decisions. All I care about is the job he has done up until now. And he took a nightmare situation and vastly improved it for all sides.

[defendandprotect]

118. Frightening news ....

And Obama like Pelosi and Reid are just throwing it at us as fast as they can --

totally confident we have nowhere to go --!!!

[Mojorabbit]

15. Wonderful post. nt

[crispini]

16. K&R

[islandmkl]

18. among all these posts we find at DU...i would only offer this:

who would you suggest, not from some ideological 'wish' list...but exactly WHO would you place in Barack Obama's cabinet to ACHIEVE EXACTLY WHAT?

we might be disappointed in the nature of some selections, but ACTION has not been implemented...

it is so easy to be critical or wary, even, of the picks...but Barack has much to accomplish, and must choose those he feels will provide the format for his goals...

to assume he has 'sold out' or been 'compromised' is to underestimate his abilities, prematurely...

for all of us who have despaired for the last 8 or more years, we have much to concern us...but to attempt to pre-sage the path is foolhardy and somewhat presumptuous...

this is not about criticism...it is about pre-judgment based on individual views...none of which have any weight or true bearing on the issues at hand...

one is not expected to 'blindly follow'...but to assume a disappointment, let alone a failure, is presumptuous...

paying attention is the plan...and either have faith that our attention is noted, or ignored...then we will have something to address

[Bjorn Against]

22. Obama has made it clear where he stands on gay marriage and Afghanistan...

I don't need to wait until he acts on these issues before I state my disagreement, if he tells us he is going to send more troops to Afghanistan I am going to say that is bad idea. If he tells us he opposes gay marriage as he consistently has told us then I don't need to wait until he takes office to say that he is wrong.

While there are a few cabinet choices that I have problems with, the only one I mentioned in the OP was Gates and I certainly don't have to wait until he takes office to criticize, he already has taken office and he oversaw an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. The other choices I don't like also have records behind them that I can look at, and if they have a bad history then I think it is fair to look at that history. We can not be silent at such a critical stage in the decision making process, we need to speak out before things are set in stone because once a decision is made it is often difficult to change that decision.

[defendandprotect]

120. And when they ignore you again, what's Plan B---?????

[Foolacious]

148. Not so clear on gay marriage...

He's said and written some things that suggest that this is more of a political stance than one he really believes in, and he's hinted that he reckons he'll be on the wrong side of history on this issue. I suspect he's waiting for it to go a little more mainstream before changing his official position. I'm not excusing him, I'm just saying that he's been almost intentionally fuzzy in some of his pronouncements on the issue.

On Afghanistan he has been clear, yes.

I think there is value in reasoned discourse and criticism, and your original post is a good example of that. It is the hysterical "Oh Noes" -- and the counterbalancings STFUs -- that cause some of us to twitch.

[defendandprotect]

119. So you support his keeping Gates on ...???

[truedelphi]

132. Kucinich and Issa come to mind - Obama needs to immediately deputize

Some people that will be able to bring common sense and workable policy into the financial crisis discussion.

And Barbara Boxer would be a far better choice for Secretary of State than Clinton. I see Clinton as a technician, while Boxer is often one step ahead of even the most informed activist out there. While she is very respected, overall.

[Bucky]

19. Thank you for speaking up

I suspect we disagree over a lot of issues (I want to see bin Laden killed or brought before a judge; I want to see Afghanistan rebuilt; decriminalizing pot is a pretty low priority for me), but you remind me of one thing--Democracy is a participatory system. All of us must stay involved and fighting for our beliefs.

A lot of DUers get upset when we criticize the near shut-out of progressives from Obama's administration (so far). They say we're not being loyal. Sorry, folks, but I'm loyal to American and her people. Being a Democrat has always been incidental to that. We don't have just a right, we have a duty to speak out on the issues we believe in. We have an obligation to hold the president's feet to the fire. That's not a question of loyalty, because we should all know that there are powerful interests on the other side of most political questions already pushing Obama in their direction.

In politics you only get what you push for. I mean, I still trust Obama to cut deals that are in the nation's best interest--I'm sure he got some sort of pay off for keeping Gates on in the Pentagon--I only hope what he traded for that was worth it (we'll probably never know, but I'm certain it was a deal of some sort). But if he's going to make truly productive & progressive deals, he needs to work in an environment in which our positions are strong and in which supporting the Democratic side wins him points.

That means more than anytime in the last 8 years, our voices matter. That means to stand up, speak up, act up if we have to, and make sure real progressives have a seat at the table.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Thanks, your comments were right on the money.

And we probably agree on much more than you realize, I don't disagree with any of the things you said and while I suspect we would have disagreements on some of the details we are ultimately on the same side on most things I would guess. Of course as I was saying in my OP it is a good thing that we disagree on some details, as disagreement is essential for a democracy to function.

[CreekDog]

21. Dissent is necessary but lies are not

That's where I draw the line. Much of the bad things said about Obama and his cabinet choices have been lies. Criticism is fine with me and appropriate if accurate. Lies are not.

And my criticisms of dissent have been related to that. Not yours.

[Bjorn Against]

23. We certainly don't want lies coming from any one...

I don't know which lies you refer to, but I don't doubt some lies have been told as politics is filled with liars. That being said however I also think we need to look at things with a critical eye, and be careful not to dismiss something as a lie simply because we don't want it to be true. I am not saying you are doing that, I am just saying that in general people often do try and pretend everything they don't want to hear is a lie. We need to be vigilant about making sure we aren't taken in by lies, but we also need to be equally vigilant in ensuring that we give people a fair hearing and not dismiss them as liars simply because they are pointing out politically inconvenient facts.

[defendandprotect]

121. What lies? I've seen NONE of anything like that --

Criticism of Obama has been on his r-w picks --

Do you have an example for us ---????

[BlooInBloo]

24. I hope we all remember that "dissent is patriotic" in the days to come.

[defendandprotect]

123. Our founders encouraged it -- even to the point of overturning government ---

[20score]

26. K&R. Anytime people start to act cult-like, it can't be good. I've seen this myself from some,

and it reminded me of how the Bushie's acted a couple of years ago. No questions allowed. Not the people who legitimately disagree, that's great, but the knee jerk reactions....

[madfloridian]

27. Thanks. Remember they did this in 2003, 2004, and now again...said no time to speak out.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3146

Yes, it is time to voice our views.

[gravity]

29. Purity test are relating to the issues, not the support candidates

The problem is just dismissing politicians because they don't fit your complete view of how the world should work.

People have a wide range of political views that are well intentioned but can differ than your own. Sometimes you could be wrong on something or that a compromised solution could be best This is part of the reason why Obama chose a diverse cabinet to begin with.

Setting up litmus test based on certain issues also completely ignores the political realities that many of our leaders face. A lot of times a politician will agree with you, but can't do anything about it.

It is one thing to support gay marriage and ending the war in Iraq, it is another thing to be able to gain the political support to get your agenda pass in government and still have the political capital to further pursue other goals. This involves compromises, reaching out to the other side, and setting priorities in what you want to accomplish.

Criticism is warranted, but sometimes the ones based on ideologies are unproductive. Dennis Kucinich is more ideologically pure than most of Congress, but he really hasn't done much to pass his agenda.

[Bjorn Against]

30. So what makes something a pure stance on an issue?

If you are arguing that we have some kind of "purity test" on the issues then you should tell me what that test is, because people are telling me I am giving a test but I sure don't remember handing this test out.

Don't forget that most of the people who are expressing disagreement with Obama on this site right now voted for him earlier in the month. We knew he was not with us on everything and we voted for him anyways despite those sometimes major disagreements, but now he is in office and we need to speak out. We want this to be a democracy not a nation that refuses to question its leaders.

[gravity]

31. The purity test isn't your vote or who you supported in the election

It is saying that Obama doesn't support gay marriage because of some rhetoric in the campaign. If Obama had the political means of passing a gay marriage bill, he would have been 100% behind it.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. That's what you say, not at all what Obama says

Sorry. But Obama has said over and over again that he does not support marriage equality, in fact he has said clearly that he belives marriage is for "one man and one woman" the exact right wing words. His former church was inclusive, but Obama never has been. Period.
What you are saying is based on no fact at all, it is conjecture, an assumption based not on Obama's own words and actions, but on fiction.
The facts are the facts. You do not get to make up the facts, as they exist. So tell me, specificially using quotes from Obama, where you get this notion that he would be behind a marriage equailty bill? It is the opposite of what the man himself says.

[gravity]

64. Because Obama is progressive

The reason why no major candidates are going to say they are for same sex marriage is because they are trying to win the election. It is a wedge issue that plays into the Republican hands, so the Democrats just take the PC response out of it of being for civil unions.

All candidates BS throughout their campaigns because they are trying to win. The ones who are honest, don't get elected. That is reality that politicians have to deal with it, and why these purity tests are unproductive.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Ok I've been around the block a few times in life

Your instuction on political reality is not news to me. You entirely miss the point that Obama has not said he's just for civil unions, and he has not held any PC line. He says he does not support marriage equality, because of his religion. He's not lying. He means it.
You are the one with a purity test. Obama is just another politician and must be dealt with accordingly. You want utter alliengence to him, to the point of pretending he does not mean what he says when you dont' like it.
Obama is not a progressive. He supports 'one man one woman' and says so clearly and in those terms. He has spelled it out, in no uncertain terms, in his books, speeches and in appearnces in relgious places like Rick Warren Inc. If he does not mean those things, then I am sure it will not bother him to be called out for saying them. Seems he would want us to. If he is,as you say, misrepresenting his own mind to gain political support, it seems letting him know we support him being honest about it might be a good idea.
But you claim to read the man's mind, and your observations are simplistic. Yeah, politiicians flig bull. Do you really think that is news to anyone on Earth?
You stated your assumptions about Obama, based on nothing at all. I stated what Obama says is his God directed opinion. Maybe you are right and he's just lying. Feel free to assume that. I know better than to assume anything out of any politician. I listen to what they say, see what they do and act accordingly.
Another thing I hear the choir say, but no Obama, is that those who disagree should be quite about it. Obama actually says the opposite. He calls on the people to force his hand. He asks us to empower him by our raised voices. He's asked for it non stop for nearly two years now, and I will be giving him what he asks for, not what his ardents think he must want. He can and does speak for himself. I know he and I disagree and I know what he expects me to do about that- and silence is never what Obama wants, nor calls for.
I'll listen to Obama on the subject of Obama thanks.

[defendandprotect]

125. The gay marriage thing is r-w Obama and WRONG ----!!!

[tclambert]

39. It's not ideological purity I liked in your OP, it's that you accepted reality

and changed when you had to. That's where the true believers get it wrong. They insist on sticking to their hypotheses, no matter how much contradictory data they encounter. If the Democrats or Obama fall in love with some crazy notion, by all means, we should complain, criticize, and even vote against it if we can.

Personally, I wanted Wesley Clark for Secretary of Defense. Former Supreme Allied Commander, and the last American general to actually win a war. That would translate into instant respect from the whole chain of command. Then Obama could say, "Wes, fix that Iraq thing." And he could count on it getting done.

The thing I expect to cause serious disagreement, however, will be the issue of prosecuting Bush. It would be tremendously good for America, and the world, if a former president did even a couple of years in prison. But I think Obama fears the partisan rancor it would cause and in the interest of appeasing Republicans he will give Bush a pass. It would be hard, but he should let the criminal justice system have Bush.

[Shiver]

42. Still might get Wesley Clark

He's not eligible for the post until 2010, I believe, and I've heard (but cannot quote at this moment) that Gates is only expected to be kept on for a year or so. Which I don't find to be that bad of an idea, personally - the rest of Obama's team can hit the ground running on day one. Gates, whatever you think of him, has been running for a while now.

[tclambert]

88. Why wouldn't Clark be eligible until 2010?

I haven't heard about this. There's nothing in the Constitution to stop it. Is it a legal barrier, or tradition?

[Shiver]

89. Former military have to have been retired for a certain amount of time...

...before they can assume a Cabinet post. Or maybe it's just the Secretary of Defense post, not completely certain.

I don't have the details on hand, but they shouldn't be too hard to Google. :)

[tclambert]

129. You'd think it would be easy, but I can't find it.

Only that the Constitution says you can't serve in Congress simultaneously. I don't see why Wes Clark wouldn't be able to serve as Secretary of Defense. He's been out of the military since May 2, 2000.

Wait. I found it. It's in US Code Title 10, section 113: "A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force." That would make Clark eligible in 2010. I don't like that provision. Should be repealed.

[fascisthunter]

108. the word purity is used by those who wish to put you on the defensive

it has no meaning whatsoever.

When somebody starts with you by calling you a purist, it's best you ignore that person or demand intellectual honesty and respect. If they won't do that, ignore them.

[99th_Monkey]

33. K&R - no Democrat should need to apologize for having a dissenting opinion

would be nice in a perfect world huh?

but like it or not, "dissenting opinions" can be demonstrably harmful to the best interests of the
Democratic Party (see LIEberman & other Blue Dogs) ... and when such toxic "dissenting opinions" prove
harmful, then I am of the opinion that that's fucked-up.

Nice thought provoking post. thanks. ;-)

[bean fidhleir]

47. And if silence is harmful to the best interests of us?

Is the Party more important than we are?

[99th_Monkey]

73. Actually I prefer the consensus model over majority rule, as a rule..

... because "dissenters" often hold a key truth that needs to be heard ...

I find generally feel silencing minority opinions to be repugnant, so on that
we agree.

By the same token, I don't want to be silenced for challenging others to be more
constructive in their dissenting opinions. So it works both ways, does it not?

[bean fidhleir]

78. I do too - the closer to genuine consensus, the stronger the democracy

But I still can't get a "be more constructive" message from your post. What was figural for me was your statement that some dissenting opinions can harm the Party, which struck me as elevating the welfare of the Party above the welfare of those for whom the Party (allegedly!) exists.

But I accept that you intended a "be more constructive" message, so we're good. :)

[defendandprotect]

126. At DU, I think that's so ....

I think many here understand limitations of that policy -- but cooperate.

I think others find it comforting and don't ask a lot of questions.

It is anti-progressive, anti-small "d" democracy -- and leaves Democrats

without a Plan B should we need it -- i.e., LEVERAGE over the people we elected.

[MadMaddie]

34. Although Gates is not ideal, he is one of the most recent

appointments to his role. He is taking his orders from * and that will change January 20th. More than likely he will be a short term in his role.

We all will not like all of his choices but we do know that at least he puts some thought and consideration of who he is picking. He is picking qualified professionals in their respective fields, if we compare this to * , well there is no comparison.

And to be fair * had 8 years to get it right and every chance he got he destroyed something. The least we can do is give Obama a chance to get into office and let him try to fix the bungled mess that has been left for him before we judge him.

Everyone is welcome here and we fight like a dysfunctional family, but in the end we all want the same thing. We want a functional government working for all of the American people. Not 30% of the population, not 1% of the rich but All Americans.

[defendandprotect]

128. Gates was a key player in "October Surprise" -- he's a neo-con ...

[Norrin Radd]

35. kr

[Festivito]

36. The gun control stance is to try a little and not do much.

Seems reasonable to me. After all, we are not such perfect people as to make perfect plans at first try each time.

Dissing Dems as a Dem seems like a chemotherapy patient who hates chemical companies, sometimes the rants seem, well, stupid.

Sometimes they are not.

If, in the mean time, people errantly refer to you in derogatory terms, try to recall that they are not perfect either. And do recall that despite their current lapse in etiquette, they might not have fallen for right-wing nuttery for as long and certainly not as deeply as you did.

[defendandprotect]

134. Your analogy misses point that we are supporting Dems to achieve ....

small "d" democracy -- ideals of democracy --

Non performance means we need a new plan ---

One which actually applies LEVERAGE on Democrats.

If you're happy with neo-con Gates, you're not thinking progressively.

Others are --

We are not looking for "perfect" leaders --

nor are we "dissing" Obama --- you may not like the other words,

but we are criticizing, questioning and challenging him his decisions.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Addressing your comments about the Libertarian Party,

I posted this in the Florida forum. It explains how Libertarian principles are encroaching into the states, even where the Party appears to be marginalized:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=145x11025

[tclambert]

41. I got curious and read a Libertarian flier, and I was shocked

when it said Libertarians believe the government should "help people to defend themselves against fraud and theft." They weren't saying government, that is, police, should defend people, but that people should defend themselves, with the government's blessing. In other words, police--no, vigilante justice--yes. But how are little old ladies going to get justice? And who's going to stop an armed gang? They want to bring back the Wild West, or make America into Somalia, a place with no functioning government. Libertarian is just another name for Anarchist.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. That, certainly, sounds like a disconnect, since they are the ones

that are promulgating the frauds.

It's terrible living in one of their enclaves. At least, I hope it's an enclave. My growing fear is that my nightmare is what awaits the rest of Florida and the US if they don't wake up. But, the "Libertarian" philosophy is very insidiously creeping into the community via property rights. And these landowners/developers and everyone who makes their living carrying their water, are Suburban Gangs which have powerful connections to the State government and politicians and directly to Federal politicians. And if I had to find a consistent pipeline, it would be through the lawyers and their lawfirms - which includes Judges and Senators, since many people seem to forget that they have law degrees.

That is the rough sketch of the shadow government, in my opinion, which has been steadily eroding the laws that are meant to protect the public, in order to legitimize the kind of things they have been doing forever. In short, they are looking for peace of mind for the crimes they have already committed.

[annabanana]

40. Democrats usually do better at listening to legitimate concerns than

Republicans and Libertarians and most other "ians". This is what keeps you honest.

That said, I don't want to cut the man off at the knees before I see what he's actually up to.

[radfringe]

45. Just remember

Kool-Aid comes in more than one flavor.

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

140. Terrific comment --

[tom_paine]

46. Very very well and truly said. K & R. I only wish these early actions of Obama's didn't concern me

so.

I am trying to give the man a chnace. He hasn't even taken office yet. But these early actions can't help but make me think of that paragon of the modern spineless, often principle-less Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi.

Still, Obama deserves to have a "honeymoon" of sorts.

But these initial moves I find somewhat disturbing and even alarming.

[Alcibiades]

49. Free market capitalism is a nice theory

but it does not work in practice.

http://www.leftycartoons.com/free-market-man-in-health-care-adventure/

[valerief]

76. Human nature always gets in the way. nt

[mirrera]

50. Exactly!!!! K&R

[Deja Q]

51. K&R

[Le Taz Hot]

52. I share your concern

and don't let the bullies stop you from speaking your mind. Nobody's forcing them to read your threads.

Something a DUer posted the other day (sorry, can't remember which one) has been steadily on my mind since I read it and that is, so far ALL of Obama's appointments were wrong in their judgment. They were wrong on the war, they were wrong on the Patriot Act and they were wrong on deregulation. And claiming that these people, who were woefully wrong in the past, are necessary because they are "experienced" presupposes that those who were right on the war and deregulation do not have the necessary experience for cabinet positions. I'm sorry, but that argument is preposterous. The fact that NO anti-war person has been appointed (Howard Dean??) speaks volumes about this administration already.

[OwnedByFerrets]

53. Grateful K and R

[sellitman]

54. I still wish Kucinich was our President BUT....

I will wait for actions first before showing my true Liberal colors here. Appointments are just that. JUST Appointments. I will not be lockstep either once that takes effect. We agree to some point.

[ChickMagic]

55. K&R

Excellent post! I fully intend to hold Obama's feet to the fire just as I would any politician.

One thing, though, is that Republicans are able to come to a consensus because they are basically all the same - white, pustular, pseudo-religious, lock-steppers. The Democratic party is extremely diverse so consensus building is very hard, if not impossible. Of course there will be passionate arguments - that's part of who we are.

[elkston]

56. Obama is not trying to "win" Afghanistan.

He is sending more troops to give releif to the forces already there so they can better help the Afghans help themselves. As it is now, they are constamtly watching their back and are on the run. No progress is being made.

A democratic Afghanistan is not the end game. He simply wants a stable government and a collection of allies that will help to drive back al-Queada and provide intelligence that could lead to Bin Laden.

You DO agree that Bin Laden should be punsished, right? Don't tell me you want to give him a pass.

[Bjorn Against]

77. Of course bin Laden should be punished if he is still alive...

Of course the fact that there is a very strong possibility that he is already dead complicates the issue of any sort of punishment being levied against him. Bin Laden's fate is irrelevent to the war in Afghanistan however, as continuing a war which has already killed thousands of civilians just because we want to prosecute a single individual is absolute insanity. If bin Laden is still alive we have no clue where he is, but I think it would be safe to say that he is not even in Afghanistan any more. It is completely non-sensical that we would go to war with a country over a person who does not even reside in that country.

War does not bring stability, war brings chaos and we are not going to see a stable Afghanistan until the war ends. I have no problem with investing money to help repair the destruction our country has unleashed on Afghanistan, we do have a responsibility to clean up our mess. Continuing a war is not going to help clean up our mess however, we need to get out of Afghanistan and let the United Nations and reputable non-profits help Afghanistan in their recovery efforts. We will need to invest some money, but we do not need to sacrifice any more lives.

[defendandprotect]

143. What Al Qaeda --?? US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda ....!!!

What we're doing in Afghanistan is running drugs for profit ---

While ignoring women and children --

You DO agree that Bin Laden should be punsished, right?
Don't tell me you want to give him a pass.

Tell me you understand Bn Laden most likely had nothing to do

with 9/11 --

See: Muller re FBI poster -- "no evidence OBL involved in 9/11" --

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




"Beware of those with a strong need to punish"---

[LibDemAlways]

57. Thanks for a thoughtful post. I was never a

die-hard Obama fan. Always wondered about the substance behind the charisma.

Keeping Gates on IMO illustrates one of the R arguments against him - that he's a lightweight when it comes to defense, that he lacks the experience and confidence to chart his own path. Cleaning house at DoD is absolutely essential. Obama needed to send a clear signal that the criminal administration that preceded his is done, that he's cleaned house, and that he's ready to move forward.

I don't care if he keeps Gates a day or a year. It's not change and it's not what I voted for.

Heartily recommend your post. No one should ever blindly follow - and ignore the faults of - any politician.

[defendandprotect]

144. Agree -- and democracy is participatory --

[SlingBlade]

58. K & R Because dissent IS necessary in a democracy

And I agree on many of the same points....

*Obama has kept George Bush's Secretary of Defense

*The war in Afghanistan is wrong

*Then we have the issue of gay marriage

*cabinet choices-some of them have their issues.

*think critically about our candidate and our party

*speaking out for what you believe in

*I will not be silent in my disagreement

*Progressives are known for vocally disagreeing on a regular basis

*We can not follow the path that the Republicans and the Libertarians chose

*Dissent is necessary in a democracy

Amen Brother, Speak it and speak it loud :toast: :bounce: :fistbump:


Thank You MN Against Bush for reminding us :yourock:


Go Obama :)

[MessiahRp]

59. REC and KICK!

THANK YOU!

This is exactly what I have been saying. It's pretty appalling how so many people that call themselves Democrats apparently abhor free speech and worse yet completely disagree with the principles of Thomas Jefferson which were that Dissent was a good and healthy thing. We do have Jefferson-Jackson parties across the country for the state parties in honor of this man, do we not?

Just because he's our guy doesn't mean he's always doing the right thing.

The Centrists (DLCers) and the Republicans got us into this shitfest we're in whether it be the financial mess (deregulation, unwillingness to hold anyone accountable, NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements, Approving Memos to tell employers how not to pay workers, approving of Outsourcing, More tax cuts for the rich), the disasterous wars we're in (voting for IWR, Patriot Act, constantly approving Iraq Spending bills that mostly went to corporate entities like Blackwater and Halliburton), allowing Oil Companies to plunder American taxpayers, damaging our Constitution (FISA Bill allowing illegal wiretapping, torturing despite the Geneva Convention, ignoring Congressional Subpoenas), destroying our environment (weakening the EPA, deregulating pollution controls)....

You could go on forever. They all have been dead wrong. We have been right. We deserve a seat at the table. Thusfar we're being shut out.

If we're ignored and shut out then this is not OUR Presidency... no matter the (D) next to Obama's name.

Rp

[yardwork]

60. Good OP. k&r

[mojowork_n]

61. Clearly thought out and clearly expressed -- nice job! K & R

Back when I lived in The Cities (Mpls/StPaul -- 20 years ago -- I'm a Cheesehead, again), and I didn't know enough to dig deeper, or ask more questions, I would have thought Not Driving 55, and Not Locking Folks Up for A Joint -- were enough reason to look sympathetically at the Libertarians.

Time passes and you live and learn. Greg Palast, Dennis Kucinich, Rev. Al, Randi Rhodes, a lot of the folks at Counterpunch, and FreePress.net are some of my new heroes.

I would echo your statement that "everything is clearly not OK," but I have to confess to still having some sort of anarcho-libertarian suspicion of Big Gubmint that just will not go away. Most of this still has to do with fundamental distrust of the direction the National Security Agency and other Black-Bag-Spook areas of the Federal Government have been administered (or not), since Eisenhauer left office. Also the ways in which some of that may have come home to affect the domestic economy.

We went back and forth on it, not too long ago, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3611526

I'm still waiting (with breath 'bated), to see what's going to happen after January 20th, with the offer made by Boliva's Evo Morales, to P-E Obama, to expose the activities of the DEA, in his country.

I just hope the right people will have been put in place, that can deal with whatever may follow.

[ihavenobias]

62. K & R

[patriotvoice]

65. Progressives represent diversity, and diversity abhors quantification.

Therefore, there will never be an all-is-one manifesto for "progressives." Our best hope, I think, is to create narrow manifestos for the numerous idealogical sub-categories (where variants within a category might compete) and then take them together, a la carte, to form an individual progressive's creed. (Progressives could then be quantifiably compared based on how many of their chosen manifestos align.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Obama just DECLARED that we will not pursue a full Iraq withdrawal, he WANTS permanent bases there.

Chuck Todd also just said that Gates insisted on James Jones, a close ally of McCain, being Obama's national security adviser. Apparently Jones was the subject of the McCain / Obama peace summit. McCain gets to be Obama's liason with the Republican Party in return for Jones setting day to day national security stance.

[defendandprotect]

111. Sickening -- and what will be response of anti-war groups, liberals, progressives ...

and how does Obama think we're paying for these wars--???

We will collapse as Russia did ...

GOP's plan for "third world America" ...!!!

[BrklynLiberal]

68. Your post is well written and well thought out, and particularly pertinent because of

your previous experience. Thanks for the food for thought.

There are many who agree with you...

Edward R. Murrow: We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

William O. Douglas: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Howard Zinn: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams agree with you.

Not to mention George Washington who warned against "factions" (aka political parties).

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[AndrewP]

70. Terrific post

We have much in common background wise. Nice to meet you! :)

[hendo]

71. K&R n/t

[L0oniX]

74. Anyone here who indicates that they are skeptical gets attacked by thread nazis.

Your awesome thread indicates that you have observed this.

Cheers

[valerief]

75. There are posters who disagree and there are persistent RW trolls. It can be difficult to

identify which is which sometimes.

[emilyg]

80. k/r

[puebloknot]

81. K&R Open, mature dialogue is the very lifeblood of our democratic republic.

I have also been very disturbed that some here (and some of the most eloquent) are critical -- and mockingly so -- of those who are expressing concerns in various ways about where Obama is headed. We need to know that, so we can head him off at the pass, so to speak, if he gets off track.

If the emperor is wearing no clothes, someone (many someones) needs to say it.

It is very dangerous to sit at the feet of any master and assume that we know less than he/she. The Founders were a contentious bunch, and we will do well to follow their example!

[ProfessorGAC]

83. Bashing?

I see disagreement on some fundamental views, but i don't see people being bashed.
The Professor

[QueenOfCalifornia]

138. Then you haven't

been reading the same ops as I have.

As soon as anyone here says one single itsy-bitsy thing that questions anything that Obama does, the troops come out in force to say STFU!!!! Leave if you can't support the president elect! You are a troll! If you can't support Obama then you don't belong here - and so it goes...

It is an all out attack.

I've seen many, many of these.

[ProfessorGAC]

162. I've Been Reading The Stuff Here Every Single Day

I would suggest that bashing in the mind of the person being criticized.

Much of the Obama criticism i see here is misguided, misdirected, or far too reactionary. So, when people reject that, the "vigilence squad" takes needless umbrage.

It's not bashing just because someone vehemently disagrees.
GAC

[Jackpine Radical]

84. I much appreciate what you have to say about following blindly.

I don't think of myself as a blind follower; certainly I was very critical of much that Bill Clinton did, and I didn't leap to Obama early because I thought him too "centrist." However, at this juncture, I think it's premature to judge his administration before they have actually done anything. I admit to being perplexed by some of his appointments,but I don't know at this juncture that the ensuing policies will follow the patterns we think we can anticipate from observing the opening lineup. If this were any other administration, I might be willing to join in that game with full gusto; however, so far, Obama has always seemed to be operating at a greater depth than a lot of people give him credit for. Sometimes the actions of a whole cannot be predicted from an analysis of the behavior of the parts.

If we end up in a prolonged Iraq war, if we dig ourselves in deeper in Afghanistan, then I'll be back on the picket lines. If the rights of any minorities-ethnic, spiritual, sexual--are diminished, then I will speak for them. If the rich are fattened at the expense of the poor, if the corporations win out over the people so that there is no decent universal health care, if the environment is sacrificed on the altar of greed, then i will be with you on the barricades. Until that time, however, I will feel like some kibitzing idiot on the sidelines yelling at Boris Spassky for having pushed that particular pawn.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

91. Great post

I couldn't agree more. I too have problems with Gates, I am still trying to understand the reasoning behind the pick. At this point I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and trust that he knows best. But I will be watching and if I don't like something I will voice my concerns on DU and not be afraid to do so. Don't really understand Hillary as SOS either at this point. The hawkish nature of his foreign policy team is concerning. But time will tell.

[happygoluckytoyou]

92. DEBATE IS HEALTHY... .also time to form up ranks and back the leader...

WHERE I AGREE THAT WE CAN DISAGREE.... WE JUST PUT THE MAN IN OFFICE.... THE MAN HAS A LOT TO DO AND NEEDS TO CAREFULLY CHOOSE HIS FIGHTS AND HIS ALLIANCES.... NOT EVERYTHING IS WORTH OR READY FOR EACH FIGHT.... AND COMPROMISE IS SOMETIMES BETTER THAN NOT....

IT IS POLITICS.... THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE.... THAT THERE ARE DEALS AND AGREEMENTS.... THAT LEADERS HAVE TOUGH CHOICES....

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to build up,a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time of love, a time of hate
A time of war, a time of peace
A time you may embrace, a time to refrain from embracing

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time for peace, I swear its not too late

[Mari333]

94. i dont do 'leaders'.

elected officials work for the people. their paychecks are paid for by the people. and if i disagree with the policies of one or more elected official, i do not back them blindly .

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

93. First a libertarian, then a socialist!

...if that doesn't sound baffling to you, I don't know what would be. But that's exactly the path that I took.

The big reason for my old-days discontent with the Democrats is that they came across as sounding too conservative, you know, something like "yeah, we believe that peaceniks and fornicators and punk rockers and rappers and pot-smoking hippies are wrong, too! We just aren't quite as mean to them as the Republicans are!" And then on economics, "yeah, we don't want to undo the Reagan revolution, just soften it a bit. Don't worry fellow Republican Americans, the days of 70 percent top income tax brackets and 30-percent private sector union membership are never coming back because we don't want it to either!"

The Democratic leaders have spent too much of the past 20 years trying to distance themselves from their progressive base, which has served to alienate and demoralize the left as we have known it. Whether they did so out of sincere but misguided compromise tactics, or out of personal disdain for the left, I cannot guess.

We need to develop a mechanism that holds Democratic elected officials to progressive ideals, and there need to be penal consequences for those who drift too far right. I'm talking about more Ned Lamonts and Dennis Kuciniches, and possibly (gasp!) even a few Ralph Naders if the party leadership ever goes too far astray again. We don't have to actually break ranks and run spoiler candidates: as long as the Joe Liebermans of the world believe us when we THREATEN to jump ship, we could bluff our way to a more progressive leadership.

Politics is not a clean game, and sometimes even those with clean and virtuous motives have to get their tactical hands a little bit dirty in order to get any good to come out.

[Bjorn Against]

135. I went from Libertarian to socialist as well, and it was not as difficult of a change as it may seem

I don't know what your reasons were for changing, but I can make a very good guess and I bet I will be right. My guess is that when it all boils down to it your primary reason for changing was probably essentially the same as mine. My guess is that you lost faith in the corporation. The Libertarian ideology requires absolute faith in the corporation, once a person loses trust in corporations then it becomes impossible to continue to hold the Libertarian ideology. Tell me if I am right, and if I am right then I hope that everyone reading this realizes how they can convince people to abandon their right-wing ideology.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

152. Pretty much true...

...I lost faith in the corporation and the whole Austrian economics doctrine.

I was also surprised to see some prominent Libertarian figures (such as Kelley Ross in California at Friesian.com) sounding more and more like apologists for the Republican/Bush agenda, even going as far as to demonize the anti-war movement, call Fahrenheit 9/11 "nothing but propaganda" and even make some sympathetic remarks toward a few parts of the Christian Right agenda.

[unapatriciated]

161. My son went from R to L ...

and voted d after many, many hours of phone conversations regarding faith in corporations doing the right thing.
His brother is disabled and on ssi with medical marjurana so it made it more of a personal experience revelation.
Next step is to get him to register d (already convinced his wife, she registered d this election).

[bobbolink]

95. " Bush cannot identify nation problems because to do so would identify many of his party's failings.

The limitations of such follow-up presidencies deserve attention because the governing party's weaknesses become national disabilities, a dilemma that worsens when the opposition is also second-rate and confused--which is a kindly characterization of post-Reagan Democrats."

The Politics Of Rich And Poor
Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath
Kevin Phillips 1990


This book speaks of a lot of what you said... the Dems have COLLUDED in so many of the policies, and gone along with actions that have hurt poor folk.

To cheerlead blindly for them is a HUGE mistake, and not what our Founders suggested.

[DissedByBush]

96. Your first mistake

Blindly following any party. Think for yourself.

[Bjorn Against]

141. I realize that was a mistake, and I think I showed the OP that I learned my lesson.

[DissedByBush]

168. Congratulations on a grand awakening n/t

[Mark E. Smith]

100. Great, when the OP was a Republican he was mild mannered and meek.

But now that he's a Democrat, why he's going
to let the bastard leadership have it right
between the eyes.

One question, though. I assume he bashed
Democrats when he was a Republican. And now
that he is a Democrat he's still going to bash
Democrats.

So what's the dif, skipper?

[Bjorn Against]

102. First I would suggest you read the OP, I was a Libertarian not a Republican

I followed a party and stood up for them no matter what the issue was, but once the evidence became overwhelming that I was wrong I abandoned the party and started working for progressive causes. After going through that experience I realized that I need to use critical thinking and I can not follow any party blindly. I am not "bashing" Democrats, I am criticizing them when they are wrong and working to push a progressive agenda forward. I am working to spread a progressive agenda, and despite my criticisms of the Democratic Party I make sure people know that the Democrats are better than the Republicans and thus I tell them to vote Democratic. The Democratic Party can handle criticism, and they can certainly handle the additional votes I will be trying to get to the polls.

[Mark E. Smith]

103. Same shit different can

[Bjorn Against]

104. Maybe you should just start telling those who don't agree with you on everything...

That you don't want your support. If you expect that you are going to build a party based only on people who agree on everything then let's just see where that gets you in the next election. You need people who disagree with you in order to get elected, fortunately Obama is far more accepting of criticism than you are because if he wasn't he would not have won the election. People would not have voted for him if he told them they had to agree with him on everything.

[Mark E. Smith]

105. Wow. You got all that from my post?

You have an amazing talent, you know that? You
seem to be able to think people are saying the
wildest things even when they haven't ever
really said them!

Let me ask you something. Have you ever had a
conversation with a dog?

[Bjorn Against]

113. Here is what you said word for word...

"Great, when the OP was a Republican he was mild mannered and meek. But now that he's a Democrat, why he's going to let the bastard leadership have it right between the eyes.

One question, though. I assume he bashed Democrats when he was a Republican. And now
that he is a Democrat he's still going to bash Democrats.

So what's the dif, skipper?"

Suggesting that what I am doing is no different than what the Republicans are doing, well that kind of makes me feel like you are not very welcoming. It really makes me feel as if you don't want me around unless I am going to refrain from criticism, and insulting me by suggesting I have conversations with dogs does not make me feel any more welcome. If you want to engage in ad hominem personal attacks against me then you are essentially saying you don't want me in the party.

[Mark E. Smith]

117. I'm sorry

[Bjorn Against]

124. Thanks, apology accepted.

[mike_c]

101. error: you have already recommended this post fifty times....

Kudos!

[zzxo]

106. But you are still pretty blind.

"Sure it didn't make any sense, but hey Milton Friedman said it was true and he was a Nobel Prize winner so I thought that he must know more than I do. "


Anyone is capable of understanding Milton Friedman's principles and the logic that accompanies them. I believe you still take many things at face value if you leave a party with reasoning skills as quoted above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw&feature=related

[Bjorn Against]

115. I would suggest you look at the effect that Friedman's free market ideology has had on the world.

Read Naomi Klein's book the Shock Doctrine as she spells out the destruction Friedman's ideology has had quite well. Free market economics have been a disaster for workers, a disaster for our environment, and they have destroyed democracies around the world. Have you ever heard of Augusto Pinochet? He was the type of person that Friedman had do his dirty work.

I once fell for Friedman's crap, but I have since seem reality. Being able to express things in ways people can understand does not mean you are right, it can also mean that you are very good at deceiving people.

[zzxo]

164. People need to believe in themselves... not a party or a person.

"Being able to express things in ways people can understand does not mean you are right, it can also mean that you are very good at deceiving people."

People who don't know what they believe in are deceived.



Look, the bottom line here is that capitalism allows room for both success and failure. Most left thinkers are die hard against failure which is fine, but some failures are natural and must happen. It would be like trying to save the lives of all pray. That is what alot of government intervention is like. The problem today is that to many people think that they are pray, and ask for help from the wrong place. A place other than themselves. People denying their own power is damaging to a capitalistic frame work.

Take the "Non-Smoker's Protection" law in Tennessee for example. The law was to draw the line and make no one smoke in most public places for the benefit of limiting 2nd hand smoke. One negative aspect of the law mandated 18 yr olds to lose their jobs due to the new age requirement that came along with the law in the effected places. This is an unnatural effect to our economy due to an unnecessary law.

This law is not necessary because consumers and employers have the power to influence a business' smoking rules without government assistance. Restaurants actually like this law because it is less work for them to have to deal with the consumers demands. But, the consumers lose any chance of maximum compromise. Consumers and employers actually lose to this law for something that they already have a hand in controlling. People need to get out of the idea that they do not have the power to turn something wrong or a failure into something right or successful.

As far as Naomi, it is all just an excuse to not believe in the most successful system. Kind of like how abstinance is the best system for safe sex, but many people believe that others don't have the power to acheive it. "It is too hard" becomes the excuse. Just because not everyone can meet that goal does not qualify it as worthless.

Our country will lose it's power the more our people think they need something else to empower them. Kinda of like how black people feel more empowered now that Obama will be President. I hope so, but most people with that attitude will just find something else to blame for their own failures or problems. Some failures or problems are natural and normal and must not be denide in order to grow.

[Bjorn Against]

170. That is right we should believe in ourselves and reject Milton Friedman

Come on you tell me that I am blind because I don't agree with Milton Friedman, and then in your very next post you say that we need to believe in ourselves not a party or person. Well I would agree with that last statement, in fact that was the very basis of my OP. You however need to follow your own advice and not blindly follow Milton Friedman. What any of this has to do with a smoking law in Tennessee I have no clue, but it seems like you are trying to change the subject from Milton Friedman's support of Pinochet. But of course as you say Naomi Klein pointing out that Friedman supported a murderous dictator who brutally slaughtered thousands of people is merely an "excuse" to oppose what you call the "most successful system". Let me ask, have you been paying any attention to the economic news these past few months? Capitalism isn't doing so well.

It is interesting that you chose this opportunity to speak out on abstinence only education. You do realize that has nothing to do with Naomi Klein's book or even Capitalism for that matter don't you? And I hope you would also know that kids who are taught abstinence only have a higher rate of teen pregnancies and STD, but hey if religious right propaganda allows you to blind yourself to these facts then maybe you can sleep better thinking you are the moral person who would never even think about sex before marriage. Or maybe at least you can think that Jesus will save you for your sins as long as you condemn everyone else who has biological urges that usually come about before they are married.

I notice you couldn't help to put that not so subtle little attack on black people at the end of your post though. Can't defend Friedman's support of Pinochet, but you sure found plenty of time to distract us with your rant on smoking, abstinence, and black people. I guess you must be from one of those places that worships Friedman and believes that no money should be invested in the schools, as you clearly have the argumentation skills to prove it.

[zzxo]

171. Attacking? I am sorry that you assume too much.

"You however need to follow your own advice and not blindly follow Milton Friedman."

Milton Friedmans points normaly end up relying on individuals. Individuals need to rely on themselves. That is what I believe in. I do like the point of your OP. But, my comment questions your fundamentals of what you believe in. If you liked Milton before, it must have been because of some reasoning rather than faith. If it was based on a faith, I beg you to find reason before you leap away. That is all. If you think you have found it then let us debate! =)


The points that I have brought up have fundamentals that are correct. "you sure found plenty of time to distract us with your rant on smoking, abstinence, and black people." The smoking law denies responsibility. Ignoring abstinance denies responsibility. Black people already succeed in America, they don't need Obama to do so. The left only sees hypocracy and denies anything that will have to do with it. It is true that teaching abstinance with ignorance is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that abstinance is not the safest choice. My point to you is that do not reject something so quickly either. Milton Freidman did not go down to Chile support a murderous dictator. He went down there to counsel them on a new economic model. You are relating apples and oranges. I bet I would look foolish too teaching a football player how to ball room dance.
Milton even comments on the experience on some Youtube video. He even said that his advice wasn't really taken correctly or something like that.

I am running out of time. Computer lab closing down. To be continued.

Oh and by no means am I ranting or attacking. I am reasoning.

[Skittles]

151. Milton friedman is your hero?

that pretty much explains your problem

[zzxo]

166. Explain to me why that is a problem.

If it is a problem, you must have something I need to hear.

[defendandprotect]

107. Excellent post ... but want to add a point ---

When you left Republicans, you had somewhere to go --

fortunately you turned also from Libertarians -- and then moved to Democrats --

It looks like you want to support small "d" democracy and progressive agenda --

One of our problems here is, we have no where else to go because we haven't fought

to support third parties nor IRV voting --

In fact, Democrats have been made afraid of third parties to their left --

This leaves them with no leverage whatsoever on the Democratic Party, as was quite

plain re the Pelosi/Reid agenda --

And a resistance here to discuss this issue because of ONLY big "D" support --

IMO, if there is further take over of the Democrats by the DLC moving party to the

right, we need a Plan B.


AGREE on all of this ...

You're right about Libertarians -- worse than GOP.

And heartily agree with this ...

Obama has kept George Bush's Secretary of Defense, and we are going to have the same person who has been overseeing this illegal and immoral war for the past two years is going to continue to oversee it as a member of the Obama Administration. At the same time Obama is about to send more troops into Afghanistan, to continue another pointless war that has been going on for seven years now with nothing to show for it. We still have no clue where bin Laden is, in fact we don't even know if he is alive any more, and the rest of the people involved in the 9/11 attacks were not even from Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is wrong, it has always been wrong, and it needs to end. If Obama really is going to send more troops to Afghanistan he is wrong, he is dead wrong in fact and he needs to be called out on it.


Also agree Obama is totally wrong on gay marriage --

And true, we've had too much of this kind of thoughtless rebuttal ...

mainly focused on trying to "shut up" posters making comments they don't want

to hear.

When you speak out however please make sure you are speaking out for what you believe in, and not merely engaging in ad hominem attacks and shouting down those who are saying things you don't want to hear.

[Bjorn Against]

122. I have been a supporter of IRV for years now...

I actually worked very heavily on promoting IRV when I was in college. A two party system only has one more party than a one party system, and we all know that one party systems are bad so it shouldn't take too much analysis to realize that a two party system is not much better. Right now in Minnesota IRV is starting to get a lot of talk in the media, in the past week the Star Tribune has printed pro IRV editorials from a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independence Party member. With the recount going on now people are starting to realize things would have been a whole lot easier if we had IRV, and we would actually have a candidate that the majority of people indicated some level of support for.

I will vote for Democrats as I don't want to see Republicans in office, but I think they need to have their feet held to the fire and I also believe we do need to push for things like IRV which would level the playing field for third party alternatives.

[defendandprotect]

146. Good ... we need to move Democrats to get with it on IRV ---

and I hope we get that overall point discussed here more often at DU --

[Venceremos]

109. k&r

[malaise]

130. Very good post

Obama has six months grace from his inauguration to give me an idea of his direction. I'm not bashing either dissenters or those supporting him blindly. I'm giving him some time.

And yes I'm not excited about some of the appointments but I'm watching with interest.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

137. What scares me about the right wing (Libertarian and GOP)

What scares me most about right wingers is the abhorrance and/or antipathy with which they view the weakest and most helpless in society. It's not just their egotistism and selfishness that scares me. What scares me is that dislike of the poorest of every age, of the less able and of the neediest.

It's that certain right wing "If I can take it away from you, it's mine too-bad-so-sad" free-market attitude that does so much damage to those Americans who suffer the most, that terrifies me the most about right wingers.

Everything right wingers do, believe and stand for has that hatred at its core.

Patriotism for right wingers is not really love of country, or they'd love American people (even the helpless ones). Patriotism is just symbolism that draws right wingers together, much in the way students rally around the school team, since the school song, and wear school colors.

[Bjorn Against]

139. What is scary is that they don't hate the poor, but have been brainwashed into thinking they do

Many people on the right know people who are poor and they are often very sympathetic of the position those individuals they know are in, but they are unable to extend that sympathy to strangers.

I grew up in a working class family, and I have a brother with a severe case of schizophrenia. My brother can't work because of his illness so he collects social security. I knew that if he lost that check he would be in a very bad situation, but you know what the right-wingers told me? Charity would take care of him. They told me that if people didn't have to pay so much in taxes they could give more of their money to charity and my brother would be fine. I was told that most the other people collecting welfare were just people who sat around the house and refused to work, and that they needed to get a job and everything would be OK.

Of course this neglects a lot of issues. First when most charities are already strapped for cash how the hell are they going to afford to pay out the vast sums of money that would be needed to support all the less fortunate if all government aid was suddenly eliminated? There is no guarantee that everyone is going to give their tax cut to charity, and in fact such an assumption completely ignores all the data we have on people's spending habits. There are many other problems with these arguments as well, but the point is not that there are problems with the arguments, but that there are serious problems with these arguments they give people something to grab on to that allows them to ignore what they know is morally right.

Most right-wingers actually do have sympathy for the poor as most of them know people who are poor, and many of them are in church groups that have done all kinds of charitable work. When they want to support their ideology however they are able to find a reason to support that ideology even when that ideology goes against their own moral beliefs, so they listen to crappy arguments like the ones I mentioned and use them to justify a position that deep down in their hearts they know is wrong. That is what I did as a right-winger, and I can assure you that is what many right-wingers do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

145. Yeah well, I think they are good actors

While I realize that there are some highly uneducated, unread, uncouth people that are right wingers, the right wingers I’ve met are neither stupid, nor uneducated, nor uncouth. They know perfectly well that charity can’t cover even one iota of what is needed to help the needy. I’ve told this to right wingers to their face and their response has always been, “Well, there will always be poor and you won’t be able to eradicate that, so why are you persisting in carrying on this argument?”

Honestly? I don’t think they right wingers are compassionate, tho they might go through the motions of giving the impression that they are. In fact, I think there’s a bit of a sadist streak to them.

[Bjorn Against]

147. You are partially correct, but most right-wingers seperate their personal experience from politics

Right-wingers often do have compassion for the people they know in their personal lives, but they separate their personal lives from the society at large and they pretend the people they know are in unique circumstances. It is not that they set out to be evil people, in fact most of them are convinced that they are doing the morally just thing. The problem is that in order they are morally correct they have to blind themselves to the realities of the world so they ignore basic facts, and use false arguments to back up their positions.

Jonathan Swift did a great job of making the case that we should eat babies as a solution to ending hunger when he wrote "A Modest Proposal". Now of course Swift was a satirist and what he wrote was tongue in cheek, but he succeeded in showing that even the most repulsive positions can be spun in such a way that a person is able to justify anything they want to justify. The right-wingers basically echo the sorts of arguments that Swift made, but the difference of course is that when the right says it it is not satire they actually believe what they are saying.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

150. I think perhaps right wing ideology is a symptom of a character flaw nt

[davidthegnome]

142. Good post

It was quite long of course, but the best of them usually require many words. I respect your position as a former libertarian - there have been times, in the past, when I was drawn to that idealogy myself. Times when I followed it, without even being fully aware of what I was doing. The libertarian philosophy somehow manages to combine facism (SP?) with anarchy in a way that somehow draws otherwise intelligent people. You are not the first to have fallen to it - nor the first to have gotten back up. But kudos for having the nerve to challenge your beliefs, kudos for standing up for what you believe in and rejecting what you had taken for truth before. It is never easy. (in fact, I'm well aware that it is unbelievably hard)

As for Afghanistan, we have to consider history, first of all. During the time of the cold war we originally largely ignored the problem while pretending to give a damn. Thus came Charlie Wilson's war - the funding and the support, somehow a small group of people managed to gather the necessary funds, support, and weapons. It's pretty absurd when you consider that such a small group had such power.

Today, things are far more unclear than they were back then. During the cold war, OBL supported his people - and the American cause. When things drew to a close militarily, however, and the time came to assist (or to deny) Afghanistan in rebuilding with our tax dollars...

No one gave a shit about a school in Afghanistan, few of us give a shit about them today. To me, it is not enough that we simply pull out full force now. I am uncertain as to our originals reasons for invading, but I'm aware that it had more to do with greed than actual justification. Now we must consider what we have done - and what we are going to do about it.

If we pull out now, we leave Karzai's (SP?) goverment weak and most probably in a condition where it will quickly fall to another power. God only knows what that power will be, the Taliban most likely... but there are so many regimes, so many different militant groups in Afghanistan that it's hard to say for certain. In any event, we can be sure that a rule under them would be even worse than what they have now.

I realize that this is an unpopular position here, but I believe we have an obligation - if not to create stability, then at least to assist them in creating their own. Regardless of what we, the American people think about it - the American military (assisted by many other Countries) invaded Afghanistan. We have destroyed more than we have built, I would rather that not be the leggacy we leave behind.

I would gladly join the armed forces and go there myself to assist in whatever way I can - but on account of my panic disorder the military won't take me. (Yes, I saw that "Go join yourself" comment coming. I would if I could)

In my (not so humble) opinion, we must rebuild, if for nothing else but the simple fact that we have destroyed so much. No, I didn't support the war and most of us here probably didn't either. That's beside the point - it happened, our Nation, our tax dollars, our military, primarily responsible.

I do not like our armed forces being in this hell, and would be glad to take them out of it. The question is... what will the cost be? Ten more Osama Bin Ladens in the years to come? An Afghanistan that is determined to destroy us in any way possible? It's already drawing closer to that point. If we cannot leave behind something positive, I fear that we will create more, and greater and more dangerous and determined enemies than ever before. The Afghan people are nothing if not resilient.

My argument is not so much in favor of destroying the Taliban or terrorist organizations - my argument is that we must build, and rebuild, for what we have destroyed. It would be a big mistake, in my opinion, to leave them as they are.

[leftchick]

153. bravo!

:applause:

[Moochy]

154. K & almost R

Thanks for the perspective! missed the recommend window by that much!

[orleans]

159. i heard about 2 seconds of randi today and it sounded like she was

basically saying that no--we can't coast or go on auto pilot just because we're in & ahead. the way we changed things was by holding people's feet to the fire, emailing, phone calling, etc. and we can't stop now. (something to that effect) or it will be no better than it was before.

...personally, i am exhausted.

there are things i'm looking at and going: hummm--this doesn't look/sound good either, but i'm in a bit of a wait-and-see, in part due to the fact that i feel absolutely wiped out. i suspect i'm going through a regrouping phase, waiting for my second wind (third wind, fourth wind, whatever it's up to now)

[defendandprotect]

160. Randi also said .....

before primaries were settled that if we won this election -- after we were able

to make some progress -- that we were going to have to support third parties and

IRV voting -- Randi made clear that this was going to be necessary.

That had always been obvious to me, but I was shocked that Randi was saying this

because she had been very negative on Nader having bought the 2000 scapegoating.

Randi is also brilliant and one of the most well informed people, but amazingly

Randi didn't really seem to know how essential Nader was in informing the public

on most of the political stuff we now know -- from buying of Congress to corporatism.

I think she must have caught up with it all.

There seemed to me a lot of pressure to destroy AAR -- especially while Randi was

still there. I think this comment is the one which led to her being forced out --

tho the "Hillary comment" was the excuse.


And, she's also correct on keeping on the heat.

I sympathize with your comments about being exhausted -- we are in your debt and

I thank you.

[DrDan]

163. good post

"In recent weeks I have felt pretty unwelcome at this site as I have seen countless threads bashing all who speak out against Obama's cabinet picks or his stances on certain issues."

This attitude started during the primaries. At that time, it became quite inappropriate to express any kind of disagreement with the group-think that was being established. It is hard not to think that this once-great site has been hijacked by ideologues.

It has continued to this day!