"And they'll all be so thoroughly disappointed in their 'savior' that those liberal pantywaists will split the vote, our guy will be elected, and our strategy will have been a triumph. It's fucking genius!"
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheStevenWeber
"How wrong Emily Dickinson was! Hope is not "the thing with feathers". The thing with feathers has turned out to be my nephew. I must take him to a specialist in Zurich." Woody Allen
So which is it, concerning Wisconsin?
Hope has certainly taken flight there. Though they weren't the across-the-board victories we'd "hoped" for, they are solid victories in a very conservative part of the country all the same. Kudos to all involved who made those victories happen. They have shown the way to a national victory next year.
And for Woody's fine feathered, but bereft of flight nephew-types? There's hope for them still. In Zurich, of all "socialist" places.
The latest issue of Rolling Stone, has an article on Haiti by Janet Reitman concerning the continued misery in that STILL devastated region.
"I wish I could organize a trip of Tea Party activists and take them to Haiti," says one veteran aide worker, "so they could see what happens to a country with no government."
You know, assuming the Tea Party leaders would agree to such a trip, I believe that would be campaign money better spent, than on TV adds or slogans promoting Dem candidates.
We seemed to be creatures who need to have our noses rubbed in misery to finally smell it. Maybe it's time to ask the Tea Party, by showing them the actual end-game, if they prefer the current government services US of A, to Haiti?
Spingtime for Republicans and Teabaggery.
SirReal1 let me know that your reply to my post on "Snap Out Of It," didn't get posted. That's not cool at all.
My post was heavy with imagery and sarcasm, and, with your reply censored, I worry it was taken the wrong way. I think the reply fits this blog as well, so I'll post it here again sans the imagery.
Your "Snap" blog sure opened a can of worms, Steven. What's your take on all this division?
People are so divivded and battling one another over whether to support Obama. A battlefield of allies firing at allies.
One even insulted Matt Damon, and implied wealthy liberals don't really care. Using the Right's ammunition, against one of our own soldiers.
And the anti-Obama posts are littered with all the dead-horse-beating (HCR, Bush tax extensions...) issues, that cannot be changed or improved on if a Republican replaces Obama in 2012.
This country isn't just terribly divided between right and left, but even within those two opposites. Who has the experience and basic constructive political know-how, to right this house. To end this destructive division that is killing this nation?
It surely won't be a Republican.
Welcome back.
When virtually every action being taken by the anti-government "hostage takers," is, one-after-the-other and against all logic and past experience, digging the hole deeper, it has to be by design.
The way the Right has gained the trust and poisoned the minds of the very people they are out to destroy, is utterly diabolical in it's efficiency of execution. And, as you've pointed out so well, poisoned the left's minds as well.
These TP's, many of whom are on Medicare, will march on Washington this Fall with Dick Army and the Koch Brothers' money in their pockets, demanding the "Super Congress" slash Medicare this year.
But when you debate them on this inanity, they are utterly convinced that the Dems are going to allow Medicare to die in a couple of years unless "something (Ryan's Bill) is done."
You could almost admire the cunningness of the plan, if it weren't so cruel and dastardly in it's heartless goal.
I've been as guilty as anyone at blaming Obama, but, as you've been pointing out here in your blogs, it's time to stop firing at each other and recognize who the real enemy is.
"Unified and aggressive" they are, and we'd better get it together too if this nation is to survive. Thanks for being a sane voice in a crowd of babblers, Steven.
That way we wouldn't sacrafice the presidency in 2012, but would put enough fear in the democratic party to pull them leftward (at least as far as the center!).
Progressive don't have much Corporate Sponsorship.
To apply the T/P model, we would need a significant "grass-roots" movement, with funding coming mostly from the very people who have been decimated by Right-wing economics.
It's likely the best plan available, but it's going to take a LOT of time and effort.
Additionally, there are many well-heeled Americans and world citizens who would be joyous for a chance to turn the country toward reason.
Yes, it would be a lot of work but Americans are no stranger to that, just look at the productivity numbers.
I think it should be called The Progress Party. A friend says we need something catchier; I say we're not trying to appeal to those who cannot spell Progress!
Yet, I still find much wrong in your premise.
It's simply getting too tedious to post the same points on consecutive threads, so I would ask you to read and comment on what I've already said on this issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SirReal1/obama-2012-reelection_b_919002_101323033.html
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SirReal1/team-dispirit_b_915479_100589843.html
Bingo!
Bill Maher recently mentioned the need for a liberal Tea Party. OK, so then you'd just have the two major league teams and their AAA clubs. That's not going to provide any relief for those in the middle.
Within the "Democratic Party" you have "Liberals", "Progressives","Blue Dogs", "Moderates", and "Conservatives" (just to name a few).
In the "Republican Party" you have "Fiscal Conservatives", "Social Conservatives", "Libertarians", "Tea Partiers", and "Conservative Christians" (again, to name a few).
The notion that there are "ONLY two Parties" is a fallacy.
There are, IN FACT, multiple Parties, aligned into "Two Major Coalitions".
Unfortunately, this places too much responsibility on the Voters. They are supposed to actually look at the individual running to figure out what they really "stand for" policy wise. WAY TOO MUCH WORK for most.