But if you think that you've the right to demand and / or expect in 17 months a 180-degree turnaround from eight years of chronic chaos and malfeasance, then I respectfully suggest that you're the one who's in immediate need of an attitude adjustment, and not the rest of us.

But, of course, we have exactly the right to demand that.  And why wouldn't we?  We can demand anything we want and if the politician isn't going to deliver, he/she can then explain, or not, why not.  And then we have the right to believe them or not, demand the same, or more, or less, or simply do nothing.

I see no reason to believe that an 180 degree turnaround from things like unconstitutional military tribunals, denial of habeas corpus, the continued erosion of our civil liberties, or the arrogation of power to the executive, is an unreasonable expectation or demand.  I thought Bush's policies on torture and no habeas corpus etc. were 180 degrees from what Democrats stood for.  Why wouldn't Democrats demand and expect an 180 degree turnaround from those policies which are both anathema to Dems and wholly within presidential control?

I fail to see anyone twisting your arm to do any of the above.

Then I guess you're not paying attention, Donald...I was responding to Capt. Howdy, who in his comment, and in others he has posted, consistently frames this as being about Obama.  And he's not the only one who does that.

And while you've the right to your own opinions and to express them however you wish, I'll take issue with YOUR own self-proclaimed right to set overly exacting and subjective political standards for the rest of us, and then to further criticize those persons whom you perceive as failing to meet your lofty expectations.

Donald, I'm not setting standards for you, dear - I don't have that power, although, as you so graciously allowed, I do have the right to my opinion, and in my opinion, the standards for elected Democrats really ought to be higher than "the other guys are worse."  I question - which I also think I have the right to do - how anyone thinks we will get better governance or better government if we are not only willing to settle for such mediocrity, but go around shushing those who believe they deserve better: it's just beyond my ability to understand that strategy.  Others may be willing to say, "Oh, that's okay - I guess that's the best you can do...tell me again, how do I make out the check?" instead of "If that's the best you can do, I will not be sending you another dime," but that's their choice.  

You have entirely worthy policy views with which I and perhaps quite a few others here can mostly agree. But if you think that you've the right to demand and / or expect in 17 months a 180-degree turnaround from eight years of chronic chaos and malfeasance, then I respectfully suggest that you're the one who's in immediate need of an attitude adjustment, and not the rest of us.

Donald, it's not that I expected a miracle, and I think I'm intelligent enough to know that nothing happens overnight.  That being said, maybe you can explain to me how the continuation of the Bush policies by express and affirmative efforts to extend them is a sign that change is coming - just not quite yet?  Is there an issue where Obama and the Democrats have not started from a position of concession, in spite of their majority, and sent loud signals that they were willing to make more of them?

I highly recommend that you read Doris Kearns Goodwins' No Ordinary Time, her Pulitzer Prize-winning account of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt as they led this country out of the Great Depression and through the Second World War. In it, you'll find that the two most accomplished liberal politicians of our time were also pragmatists at heart who were often compelled by given circumstances to seek compromise - however begrudgingly that compromise would sometimes come - and who proved more than willing to defer their immediate political gratification in order to attain a measure of progress toward their overall policy objectives.

I'm all for a level of pragmatism, Donald, but your last point makes about as much sense as someone saying that they are working toward their objective of losing weight by first packing on some more pounds, or quitting smoking by first increasing the number of cigarettes they smoke.  Is it possible, Donald, that what we've seen in the last 18 months is evidence that their policy objectives are exactly what we think they are?  

[snip]

Elected officials are not the "hired help." Rather, they hold office because the majority of voters ostensibly trust their overall judgment. Frankly, if I want a weathervane, I'll get one at Home Depot when they're on sale at $49.95 plus tax, thank you very much.

I don't expect them to come clean my house or cut my grass, but they are accountable to us - and this trend where we just let them off the hook time and again is one of the reasons they are underperforming: there are no consequences.

Further, I daresay that like most of us, public officials will generally respond to relentless negativity by reducing it to background noise akin to Charlie Brown's schoolteacher's disembodied voice in a Peanuts special. Those who choose to work in politics had better be able to tune out those critics who would forever judge or question another's intelligence, competence, morals or ethics, or for their own sanity's sake they ought to find another profession.

But they weren't listening even when the criticism wasn't relentless, Donald; they have not been listening for a long, long time.

[snip]

As I said above, you've certainly the right to hold and express your own political opinions and decisions, and nobody holding a gun to your head to support those Democrats that you really don't wish to support for whatever your reason.

But please, allow me and others here the same courtesy to make our own choices for whatever our own reasons or rationale, or I'm afraid that you're going to find that the island of the perfect can indeed be a very lonely place.

So yeah, regarding the administration, I'll keep grumbling. But I'm not going to support any move that dilutes what little power we have (and I'm not joking when I say "little power," because even with huge congressional majorities and the White House, too much of the country is still under a Reagan/Limbaugh/Murdoch spell, and too many congressional Democrats are cowardly as a result). If you know how to get big leftward shifts to happen, really, go for it. If all you know how to do is demand them, I might take your point, but I'm going to object that you don't have a plan.

Even around here we've had conversations where people say things like we should get rid of all cars and if not, hike up the gas tax.  It just makes me wonder what life is like on their planet because back here in reality-land, things like that aren't feasible.

I made an assumption that the person using the label of "FireBagger" is someone who also uses the term "TeaBagger," and was explaining how THAT person intended the label to be taken.