Take the Damn Vote

This is where the lectures I get from devout Obama apologists set me off. The President is providing cover to Dems who are scared about politics http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/gibbs-the-public-plan-doe_n_473443.htmll) when he facilitates these "don't have the votes" giveaways.



How is this representing any kind of change? How is this getting something done? How does HIDING from the undeniable "who's side you on" question that an actual up-down vote on a piece of legislation delivers support the "transparency" that we have been craving and were told we would get?!



I think avoiding a vote is the ultimate act of cowardice for a legislator or caucus. And it is HERE where the President can LEAD and demand a vote - or he can continue to trot out Gibbs to announce unavoidable surrenders for which there is no proof for or against.



The President is aiding and abetting cowards. I've had enough of it. And I've had enough of the excuse-bots who pop up and admonish me for having the temerity to exude anything less than complete adulation of the President's performance. I want him to succeed, but he seems insistent on inhibiting himself at every turn. It's frustrating.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrat Youth Support Dwindling

"Analysts say the findings reflect the fast pace at which young voters live their lives, and both parties should take note of their fickleness."



Wow, how utterly insulting and feckless.



Isn't it possible that the man they worked and voted for has turned away from his campaign rhetoric so sharply that the younger voters feel betrayed? Being told "change is coming" and then get absolutely nothing more than the same could maybe... just maybe... be VALID and reasoned grounds for disillusionment... right?



And wouldn't valid, reasoned grounds for an action be the OPPOSITE of fickle?



I'm in my 40s and I feel betrayed, too. But no writer would suggest that a 43-year old Dem is "fickle" like they would about 20-year olds. This is a very lame bias.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rahm's Parting Shot at Obama Insiders

Dana milbank is an n30con ideologue. She's not interested in seeing a clinton-like administration. She - and all those like her - want more raygun and bush.



Even if you want to twist your brain around your overly generous interpretation, the DLC clintonista actions in the 90s were key accelerators for the massive problems we have now.



Emulating the team that helped sell out our nation's economic foundation, piece by piece, is just the poison to finish us off. It's irresponsible glorification to adore the works of bubba's administration.
About David Axelrod
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Kyl Calls Bipartisan Health Care Summit 'Pointless'

Dear Senator,



We accept your surrender.



By now, you know well that refusing an open invitation by the President to negotiate the legislation will definitively label the repug party as not interested at all in bipartisanship.



And you also know that if you show up, you have nothing sensible to ask for because everything you've asked for has already gone into the bill (which the CBO says will reduce the federal deficit - something we thought you wingers liked... go figure).



We understand the only reason it's "pointless" is because it's "pointless" to go to an event wherein your attendance incriminates yourself.



Best to pack your office and go home since you can't stop everything. Need some hankies?



Best Regards to your kickin' tan,

Timm0
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Joe Biden Tears Into Dick Cheney On 'Meet The Press' (VIDEO)

Dick gregory and dick cheney... all these Dicks... they want to shape the conversation and push emotional buttons by invoking symbolic issues like 'giving the blessings of our liberty to terrorists'.



Biden does better than most of our Dem "leaders" in debating the righty nonsense. However, he can still do better by refusing to play this word gamesmanship. We can not be at "war" with Al Quaida. There is no "war on drugs". There is no "war on Christmas."



Start making an issue of the choice of words. This would have been a superior response (IMHO):



"Dickie, I don't know why anyone cares what verbs are used to describe our relationship with Al Quaida. Please. Of all the intense and important issues we have to deal with today, the former vice president's view that verb selection is somehow cogent to actual policy results is precisely the sort of superficial nonsense that too many republican leaders and voters are concerned with. It's equally shameful that folks like you in the media give this pettiness equal footing with real issues and I'm embarrassed for you if you can't see that...." Then continue on with the description of the current results in the terrorist hunt.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Frank Rich: 'Palin's Cunning Sleight Of Hand'

Those 1/3 ALWAYS get to the polls. No matter what, no matter who - they will be out and vote for their anointed demagogue.



The other 2/3 aren't nearly as reliable. And the best way for Rs to keep Dems and left-leaning Is at home is to continue down the current path of beating the Dems into submission. The Rs know the Dems, with very few exceptions, refuse to engage in any hand-to-hand combat on issues in public. When engaged, Dems assaults can be very effective and get a ton of media attention (witness, Obama's Baltimore audience with the Congressional Rs).



But since that is rare, the Rs will win back seats this year.



And the excusaholics for Dem aversion to conflict give temporary cover to the incumbents and the horribly weak advisers and consultants as the ship slowly sinks. Then we all blame the media and cry on each other's shoulders.
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senate Republicans: Filibuster Everything To Win In November?

The sooner the President realizes that one side doesn't want to play by any rules of the "bipartisanship" game and shows leadership skills by bulldozing through the riff-raff by all means at his disposal, the better we'll all be.



If Reid is the problem, then Obama needs to go public and eviscerate the Majority Leader. The President wields far more power than the 'oh, but he's done more in one year than any other blah, blah, effitty-blah' apologists want to recognize.



If he doesn't get tough soon, this all ends badly. And if the Rs get the senate seats needed to kill the filibuster, you better believe they will.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Glenn Beck's new BFF -- David Barton

Your ridiculous assertion that modern interpretation of historic writings can change the writings of the Founding Fathers fuels the well-established view that Christian nationalist xenophobes are intellectually challenged.



You want to be taken seriously, use logic once in a while.
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Time for the Democrats to Get Loud and Fearless

Decorum is not required.



Results and maturity are required.



Sometimes results require decorum and diplomacy. I would argue that the President has used both in massive quantities this past year with only modest success.



When decorum and diplomacy are ALWAYS met with machinations of gutter level gestures and bravado, then decorum is no longer required from the oval office. And certainly hiring messengers to spin aren't required, either.



A mature leader will still get results despite such distractions by resolving to work around the obstacles until those obstacles actually want to contribute constructively.



I love loud. And I want Obama to be loud, too. I'd think less of him if he had henchmen scurrying around being the heavies. Leaders shouldn't be afraid to talk about the elephant in the living room.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Clarence Thomas: Some Criticism Of Supreme Court Is 'Irresponsible'

Oh Uncle Thomas... you are so unfairly persecuted for your ability to detach from reality and hack away the strings that hold back our most righteous corporate masters.



Our prayers are with you.... I'm sure that will help!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Understanding the <em>Citizens United</em> Ruling

The use of organizations presumably dear to our liberal hearts to set up red herring examples of why we should cheer this ridiculous SCOTUS decision is really inspiring. Illustrating ACLU violations as beneficiaries of this new decision is dishonest.



Also, if ACLU or an organization has an issue with something an incumbent or candidate has done, they can go to that candidate's opponent and give them all the ammo they have. The opponent can use that to beat down the transgressor (or not). Requiring the ACLU or another org to refrain from attacking a candidate at the last minute of an election is a very reasonable idea and doesn't infringe on rights any more than prohibiting speech that incites a disaster.



And noting that the decision didn't impact donation limits is also weak. Coordinated advertising to influence an election is considered an "in-kind contribution" (the value is treated as a donation). Given the donation limits, running an ad on a network station for a candidate isn't possible.



This decision enables corporations to more easily work around this problem. They can saturate the airwaves in the weeks leading to election day and allow candidates to save their money. Previously, the limits on last-minute advocacy advertising forced the candidates to raise and spend their own money in the last month. So in effect, this decision helps corporations fund campaigns in ways they haven't been able to do since the advent of mass media.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost