Fighting Dems

In my years as a front pager at Daily Kos, a running theme, perhaps THE running theme, was that Dems needed to fight for their values. The Barack Obama phenomenon and the PPUS sidetracked that theme. But perhaps it is making a comeback. Here is E.J. Dionne today:

Consider the contrast between two groups of Democrats, in Wisconsin and in the nation's capital. Washington Democrats, including President Obama, have allowed conservative Republicans to dominate the budget debate so far. As long as the argument is over who will cut more from federal spending, conservatives win. Voters may think the GOP is going too far, but when it comes to dollar amounts, they know Republicans will always cut more.

In Wisconsin, by contrast, 14 Democrats in the state Senate defined the political argument on their own terms - and they are winning it. [. . .] Here's the key to the Wisconsin battle: For the first time in a long time, blue-collar Republicans - once known as Reagan Democrats - have been encouraged to remember what they think is wrong with conservative ideology.

The Deal was a terrible mistake, in part, because President Obama avoided a chance to fight for the middle class, for the ordinary American, and instead signed on to the "no sacrifice for the rich" Norquistian GOP agenda. He had a chance to fight for what Jim McDermott called the Common Good:

[McDermott]: [I]f there's anything that's lost, that we've lost in the last for awhile, it's being the sense of the common good. [. . .] Reagan started us down the road, not that he was the first, but he was the one that articulated best when he said: "are you better off this year than you were last year or four years ago?" The question should be are we better off than we were four years ago and the fact is that as a country and as a people and as a middle-class, we are not. [. . .] I think the biggest thing that's missing in the democratic party is that we have lost the idea of the common good. That's what Franklin Delano Roosevelt was going with social security, he's saying look, this is the worst that's ever been in this country but we would get together and we will find the way to help our old people in this country get back on their feet and we've driven down the poverty among senior from 50% to 10% and it's not all gone, is not perfect, is not the best system in the world, but it's going in the right direction and herein comes the President who says "we have to get rid off that, we want to put you on in the ownership society." What he means is that we want to put you out on your own and that's splitting again the idea of the common good.

It's always a time to fight for what's right.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Common good at the presidential level (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    is now defined by what policies will generate a billion dollars in campaign contributions.

    "Common Good" has been (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    stood on its head - no rhyme intended - and now means "Keeping the common people down is good for the elites, and good for the corporations that contribute to our campaigns."

    IMO that pretty accurately sums up the (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    the direction of both political parties in D.C.

    Millionaire politicians furthering their own financial interests at the expense of the rest of the country.


    Well (none / 0) (#124)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:55:40 PM EST
    the corporations that own our politicians.

    The attitude that I must be re-elected at all costs.

    The cost is the common good, the nation's soul.


    Vision (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:10:06 AM EST
    I'd like to think that the battle in Wisconsin would serve as a wake up call to Democrats (and every American) across the country. Sadly Obama again chose to sit on the side lines rather than fight for one of the basic principles of the Democratic Party.

    It's time for Democrats to sit down and define who they are and what they stand for. Give the public a definite choice of governance. Quit trying to nibble away at the Republican base by being more Republcan than Republicans.

    The big tent has gotten so big, that in an effort to please everyone, Democrats are finding that they aren't pleasing anyone.

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    one of the problems is that the DC dems are deferring to Obama for leadership but there is none coming from him. They need to quit waiting on him and do like the WI Dems did.

    I agree on the issues. That's long been a problem and it's why the party has been so divided.


    Pathetic (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    When you have Democrats cheering because they beat back the unions in Arkansas and other Democrats blocking the healthcare bill to promote their own pro life agenda, there's a definite problem.

    YES (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    Which DC Dems? (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    There are some Dems in the house who have been pretty solid, the liberal outspoken wing of the party.  When Obama was here the other day for a fundraiser Capuano and some other state Dems rallied against the heating assistance cuts.  Wiener has been in the press a lot as well this entire time fighting for Dem issues.

    If you expect the senate Dems to step up, you're out of your mind.  I see most of them as being more conservative than Obama.  And the rest of them just want to play nice.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    I'm glad to know there are few. Kudos to them. I really meant the party as a whole speaking as one voice. I guess that's too much to ask but still....

    Actually Obama is not on the sidelines. (none / 0) (#67)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    Today I read that the administration has a new thrust-Challenging bullies.  Front page story!!!

    There's a real irony in that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:29:56 PM EST

    Still nobody much talks about how (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    the rich get tax cuts in December and teachers get the total shaft when our education system is ranked 20th in the world now in March.

    Was reading this morning too that if Fannie and Freddie aren't recapitalized and they privatize all mortgages from this point on, new mortgages will be much more expensive and whatever bottom the housing market has in it will be utterly knocked right out of it and who knows where that free fall will end then.  Democrats continue to make every wrong decision there is to make on the economy and joblessness.

    At Some Point (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    We have take responsibility.

    When we stop electing millionaires, maybe stuff like tax breaks for the wealthy will be what it is, a joke, something people laugh at.

    Because when it is all said and done, people are going to vote for their own best interest every time.  Now for some of us that's taking care of people who need help, for to others it's making sure fetuses live to be poor, and for politicians, it's means giving themselves huge tax cuts and acting like they are doing the economy a favor.  Not exactly, but you know what I mean.

    They would have never done if they didn't think they couldn't get away with it.  My point is the problem is really with us, voters, we keep electing these people who are not looking out for anyone but themselves.  We make them spend untold millions campaigning for nearly a year, we are driving all the madness.

    When was the last time your vote was note 'a lessor of two evils' vote ?  Right, Obama was a vote I thought was different, but it's turning out that my vote didn't really matter because we are basically being led by a republican minus the spine.


    Break down that 20% (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    I keep seeing that our schools are failing.  The arguments don't seem to hold up when you look at the details.  Somerby (and Drum) write on education.  

    Numbers show that a child's performance is tied to the mothers education level.  Whites and asians score very high.... we are failing black and hispanic children.  It is a poverty issue, not a teacher issue or a union issue.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#46)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    You are telling (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    us that because of tax cuts in December we are now ranked 20th in the world in education in March?  Got a link showing that?  

    No, I'm telling you that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    your teachers already make wages that do not attract the best duh.  You have some wholely dedicated though who were willing to settle for the crap you paid them that you now insist buys them BMWs and Tbone steaks but really buys them a Hundai and chopped sirloin.  The best who really wants a decent middle class wage goes elsewhere.

    The filthy rich in the United States though haven't paid their fair share in so long I can't even remember and got another damned break while everyone else is broken in December.  Then three months later Republicans insist on screwing teachers and all the while we are now 20th in the world for education.  Anyone buying the Republican propaganda these days has their head firmly planted up their arse and hightailing it as fast as they can for a slot in second world or third world country.


    I would never insist teachers (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    buy BMWs.  A rip-off.  Show me a teacher driving a BMW and I'll show you a teacher with little horse sense.  I would love a Hyundia.  My wife will not drive my car- doesn't trust it.  

    You should insist (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    that teachers, as members of unions, should drive things like GMs, Fords, and Chryslers, as those are also made by union workers.

    Really... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Realleft on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:46:20 PM EST
    You're going to blame the crap cars produced by Detroit companies that have had among the worst management imaginable on the people who assemble the cars?  Not the design, choice of using cheap parts, ignorance of the issue of the cost of gasoline and how it should influence design even after the 19702 oil embargo, not the playing the game for short-term stock profits, or the health insurance industry's raping of everyone in the face of guaranteed contracts, the executive bonuses or the misinvestment of pension funds, or the lobbying investment to keep MPG requirements as low as possible?

    Surely the unions played a role, but there was a lot more to it than that.


    Have you checked the quality (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    of American cars vs. foreign in the last, oh, 40 years or so? Besides those who hang on to outdated notions - there is no difference, and in many cases, the American cars are better.

    But I guess you don't like union workers who get their hands dirty while they work.


    The teachers haven't (none / 0) (#27)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    Lost their right to bargain over wages. What they have gained is the right to decide if they want to pay $1000 a year to belong to the union. It will be interesting to see how many teachers send the check to the union when it isn't automatically deducted from their paychecks. That will be the real test of their commitment.  I know our dues are $1200 a year where I teach, and it's taken out of our paychecks $300 a month for the first four months of the school year. If we opt out of the union, we are charged $400 a year in "administrative costs".  Union membership is dropping quickly in our district.

    Yes, because with out (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    collective bargaining you'd be so much better off.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#35)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    Some us would. The union bargains on a one-size fits all mentality. But in the real world some teaching certificates are more valuable than others. Teaching some subjects requires more work than others. Teaching some students requires more skill than others. But whether your assignments allow you to cut out with the kids at 2:00 and go home empty handed, or if you're still at school at 6:00 and work at home till 9:00, you get paid the same. Because that's the union way.

    Balance of Power (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    Yes, unions are worthless. That is until you need them. I have two friends that have just found out what life without unions can be like.

    One was fired after 19 years, because had he got his 20 in, he would have been entitled to a pension.

    The other was fired because she was sick and had missed too many days. Now not only doesn she have to deal with the stress of her illness, she also had to deal with the fact that she no longer even has any healthcare insurance.

    Unions are far from perfect, but they do provide a needed balance of power in a world of corporate greed and short sighted politicians


    Your sick friend needs to look into (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    the FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act. Her employer shouldn't have been able to fire her, if she's being treated by a doctor.

    That only really works if you can afford (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    your own expensive attorney after you find one with the needed knowledge about labor issues.  Or you can have Union representation and take part in the power of that organization at a bargain rate and not suffer any such slings and arrows.

    A tough decision to make (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    That's the problem. She's weighing the cost of fighting to her pocket book and her stress level. Right now her focus needs to be concentrated on her health.

    And employers fear screwing over (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    anyone with Union representation because they have attorneys at their fingertips and they have legal documentation to really fight and fight well right out of the gate.

    Depending on the sate they live in, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    they can file a complaint with the labor board. Chances are, they'll win, it just takes longer. Also, you can find the entire act posted on the web and do your own research, to find out which section was violated. Then go to the labor board and file the complaint.

    I filed a very serious complaint with a (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    labor board in a right to work state about fifteen years ago before things got as bad as they are now and you know what happend?  NOTHING

    I'm sure that's the way it would work. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    Alas, that's not how the free market works. The free market, by design, bids down costs, by pitting, in this case, workers against each other.

    It is a sort of free market dynamic (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    that creates unions too.  Suddenly workers wake up one morning and realize that organized, they are their own commodity and they can affect markets too in ways that benefit them when they act as one.

    Completely true. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    The problem is, people have been convinced that it good and true that businesses should behave in this manner, but people are selfish and wrong, if they adopt this same model.

    I suppose it will take a certain amount (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    of human suffering before people realize why Unions came about and we all start fighting for them again.  I remember a time too when a whole community would be affected by a strike.  Nonstriking families would threaten to take business elsewhere if employees were not treated decently and fairly.  I think different times are upon though, and we will come to remember.  The rich and the corporations are set, the rest of us are set up to suffer now.

    It is sad when they convince you (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    that your union does nothing for you worth the dues and is a rip off.  If that were a fact the Koch brother's would have one of their own.

    My father was a Union member and activist so the chances that I will ever see things in your light probably is an impossibility.  It's funny reading at Dkos too among the afraid to act about how scary and unsurvivable a strike would be.  I lived as the child of a striker several times during childhood and magically everything is okay.  I always have to remember that many people drawn to blogging tend to come in low on the in the flesh participation scale and they always come up with a million reasons and arguments to not take action. And WI is evidence that they are not in the majority when the chips are really down.


    My dad was a Teamster. (none / 0) (#76)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    So what? And the teachers' union negoiated a raise in pay for the top tier of the pay scale which cut the pay of beginning teachers the first year I taught, and that was the best thing they ever did for me. The union objected when a group of  us pooled our non-teaching duties in a way that gave us common planning time, something unions should support. They wouldn't include it in their bargaining, and they tried to penalize us for getting creative. They fined us each $100, but none of us paid it. The union wanted us to  refuse to comply with state regulations for time on task requirements because they wouldn't discuss how to compensate secondary school teachers who were required to teach longer hours  than elementary school teachers.  We ended up doing it anyway without  any compensation because we cared about meeting our state standards. Any time any of my fellow teachers got into any difficulty, the union told them to quit. Even the teacher who had her car stolen by a student whose parent complained because the teacher pressed charges.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    Since your dad was a Teamster, I bet he gets / got a pension and healthcare for you and the rest of your family while you were growing up.  He probably had higher wages than his non-union counterparts, which means you probably had food on the table, electric lights to burn, a TV, and maybe a little extra to get a family car or take a family vacation?

    But you're right - so what?


    Where do you teach? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    I've taught (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    both public school (union) and private school (non-union).  Public schools pay more (thanks to unionization and collective bargaining).  I did not find that private schools, without unions, paid more depending on the subject, or how many skills you had, or how many hours you put in.  And I had a Master's degree in Special Education, worked way longer than my "official" hours, wrote and received grants, developed and implemented educational programs from scratch, and worked with extremely difficult populations that not everyone is willing to work with (the severely developmentally disabled, multiply handicapped, autistic, and severely emotionally disturbed,  including students who were self-abusive and/or physically aggressive).  This was true in both the public and private schools I taught in, and (I'm not bragging here- well, maybe I am) my students made huge, well-documented progress and I was a damned good teacher.  Without unions and collective bargaining, I don't think that public schools will suddenly start paying teachers more depending upon skill set, hours worked, and so on.  (On the contrary, they'd pay them less, the way private schools do.)  Yes, you do go "up the scale" for advanced coursework and degrees, and years worked.  And it is much more difficult to get rid of inadequate teachers when they are unionized- this is something that I would alter.  Not eliminate- alter.  I would not like to see teachers canned because the administration did not, for instance, like their political philosophy, or wanted to hire somebody's relatives, or wanted to get rid of experienced teachers every year and hire brand new ones because they're cheaper.  But I do think it should be easier to fire the incompetent.  

    I can't help it that (none / 0) (#64)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    You have no negotiating skills. Maybe all those years of having someone else do it for you hurt you. I left public school teaching for the private sector, got a $10,000 raise, no longer had to buy my own classroom supplies, and had parents and students who fully participated in their own school experience. All without the help of a union representative. What has your union done for you? Seems like you work a lot harder than the phys ed teacher who grades no papers, tracks no ieps, and leaves at 2? Who gets paid for after school coaching while you are expected to tutor for free? I'm not the one who is delusional. It's the teachers who think the union works for them who need a reality check. Teachers are just pawns in a system that rewards the unions and the politicians the unions support. If we want to be treated like professionals, we need to act like professionals. Form a professional organization that certifies our members, much like passing the bar, police our members, and demand respect for our profession. Or we can act like people who need to be taken care of because we can't take care of ourselves.

    Oh my God really? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    You think that singularly all by your Superman self you are going to self negotiate your way to middle classness against billionaire corporations who can find someone easily who will take your place tomorrow and work for the high end of the poverty level :)?  Too funny

    Why do I suddenly think it is a possibility (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    That some union busting entity might have some commenters around here on a payroll?  I know if I was wingnutty out of the American Enterprise Institute I would have noticed by now some lawyer a-hole like BTD.  I'd be tracking him and his spiel.  I hope you guys negotiated some middle class wages and benefits for yourselves but in this economy I sure do doubt it :)

    Of course you received medical, dental, (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    and a pension plan too?

    How many (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    private schools have the resources to pay that much more?  Are we talking Philips Exeter, Andover, the Madeira School, Concord Academy, and other such schools which charge a huge tuition and mainly have students whose parents are very wealthy?  Or are we talking parochial schools, private schools with much lower tuition, and private special ed schools, much of whose money comes from public school districts which cannot provide for those students?  I'm just thrilled beyond belief that your negotiating skills are so wonderful- more power to you.  Isn't it a shame, though, that all schools are not blessed with parents and students who are so engaged?  Who will teach the less-advantaged, the disabled, the poor?  I guess those of us who chose to do this are just chumps.  I'm retired now, but if I ever want to go back into teaching, remind me to find a job at an exclusive private school that gets to choose its students (and, BTW, the private residential school for the disabled I taught at took all applicants).  

    Well, I do not know what you taught-- (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    I only know what special ed teachers do.  My daughter has Down's Syndrome and I did practice teaching in her school.  That one school was a travesty, with aides carrying paddles around to get in a little ping-pong practice on bottoms during the day.  But, gifted with the 7 least cooperative boys in school, I became an advocate for each--something a lot of parents were not.  

    For the past 20-some-odd years my daughter has attended an activity center and now she lives in a satellite home. She won't ever get a Rhodes scholarship, but she lives a contented life among caring people.  Do you think that affects her alone?  Special ed teachers work with her everyday--and now I have a life of my own (where I can sit and read blogs), and I know my other children will be able to raise their own families without the juggling of the very different needs of 'normal' and 'special' children that I coped with for 40 years.


    Raising a child (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    with Down's Syndrome has to be one of the hardest things in the world. I have a cousin with it and I've seen the joys and the heartbreak that comes with it. I have a child with learning disabilities and that's hard enough.

    My daughter has become (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    a very special love and a joy to all wh work with her (except when she isn't).

    Clarification, please (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    To itscookin: Are you supportive, then, of the Wisconsin governor. (I'm asking based upon your quite negative statements re: unions.)

    I don't like it either (none / 0) (#71)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    But pitting some teachers against others will cause splits in the ranks.  Then you lose the union shop and all of the bargaining power for those who don't quit until 9 p.m. like my stepdaughter. Find a way to evaluate teachers fairly (not on a standardized test) and most would go along.

    Actually, it' the board's way. (none / 0) (#117)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 07:47:49 PM EST
    Actually, it's the school board's way. They're the ones who want to evaluate a PE teacher and a special ed teacher by the same unfunded nclb criteria.

    Not for nothing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    That 20% figure you quote, is the average score. When you look at the results by district there's a different story. The wealthier districts score much higher, near the top, in fact.  

    Its like a huge social experiment (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:30:35 AM EST
    the Republicans are conducting...

    Will states like Wisconsin meekly accept the kind of severe economic stratification, and high levels of poverty, that have always existed in the South? Many right to work states either have a long history of racial division, or, are relatively low population, rural, very lightly industrialized.

    How quickly will Walker and other Republican Governors move to privatize? What kind of economic consequences will the resulting decrease in average wages have for workers and small business in Wisconsin and elsewhere?

    It may take awhile for all the consequences of these Republican assaults on the middle class in the upper Midwest to become clear. But its unlikely they will be good consequences for most working people, in Wisconsin or elsewhere, private or public.

    Will people who still pride themselves on their long progressive history really accept living under the kind of conditions that South Carolinians have long accepted (never knowing anythng better)? Will the Southern model work in a state without a large minority population and a history of racial exploitation?

    Perhaps that was the past... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    This is a website with an agenda (none / 0) (#40)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    state by state demographic information doesn't match their conclusions.

    The statistics were not conclusions (none / 0) (#77)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    Also, South Carolina has the greatest (none / 0) (#44)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    level of income disparity of any state in the nation.

    And, of course, its important to remember that gains the South has made economically, starting in the 70s, were based on massive federal support for energy projects (designed to bring the region into the 20th century) in the 50s and 60s. The region still, unfortunately for the rest of us, takes in more federal tax dollars than it contributes to the federal coffers.  


    I read that the state has the lowest (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    level of women in government than any other state in the nation.

    Women (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    are little more than chattel in SC. and a woman governor is leading the way!

    Sorry, but I refuse (none / 0) (#95)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    to be chattel.  My great-great grandpa moved here after the revolution, and we've been bloody-minded ever since.  When the subject of 'submissive southern women' came up once before, my grown son remarked that behind that sweet little smile lives a 'steel magnolia' with a tough mind who goes her own way and usually gets her own way.  "Please sir, don't throw me in the briar patch!"

    good for you! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    I wonder how many more there are like you though? I grew up there for the most part and it seems like they just lay down and take it. A lot, lot, lot of fundamentalism in the state.

    True, a lot of fundamentalism-- (none / 0) (#114)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:35:37 PM EST
    But most of us operate on a 'what he doesn't know won't hurt him' basis.  While he's blustering around, we run everything but the gub'ment.  And with women like Tunk Riley around, maybe the gub'ment is not so very safe from us.  Most families I know, at least the old timers in the Upstate, are run by the women.

    Some poor young fool marries a pretty girl and next thing he knows, he has a 'honey-do'list for every free moment and turns over that paycheck right smart.  (Thanks to his long-standing habit of turning it all over to me, we had LTC insurance when my husband had his stroke.)


    Well, we have a woman (none / 0) (#94)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    governor--and she's in a race to see how fast she can dismantle health care and education.  ps--moved here in '65 from CA, and I am rather proud of Dick Riley and the fellow who pointed out the 'Corridor of Shame.'  Bernacke (a product of that same corridor!), not so much.

    Well, that's quite an oversimplification (none / 0) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    on your part. Of course, I understand that the cold can make a person feel a bit put-upon and self-indulgent. Here, have some pecan pie and you'll feel better.

    Doesn't that dispel your notion (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    About greedy union workers who make too much money?

    I like the way they don't show how they (none / 0) (#90)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    got their numbers.

    The states with the lowest unemployment rates (none / 0) (#104)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    tend to be those with the lowest populations and economies based in heavily subsidized (by the federal government) industries like agriculture and resource extraction. These also, as I pointed out in a previous post, are those states outside the South that are most likely to be Right to Work states. 8 out of the 10 states currently enjoying the lowest unemployment rate are also on the list of 10 states with the lowest populations. The two states on the list that are not among the very lowest population states are VA, a state that enjoys significant federal spending on defense, etc., and OK, an oil state (another heavily subsidized industry). New Hampshire is also on the list, but it has only been a Right to Work state for a matter of weeks -- its a little early to be claiming its current good fortune is based in legislation that so recently passed. Oklahoma, on the other hand, became a Right to Work state in 2001 without seeing any increase in job creation. You can read about how Right to Work legislation has affected that state in this report:


    By the way, low unemployment is not the same thing as prosperity. Montana, for instance, has a lower unemployment rate than my state of Washington at the moment -- but it is still one of the poorest states in the nation while Washington is much more prosperous.  


    PS. Virginia actually is the #1 recipient of (none / 0) (#106)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    defense dollars -- receiving more in actual defense funds than either California and Texas, the other two of the big three defense reliant states. No need to point out, I think, that California and Texas are both MUCH LARGER AND MORE POPULOUS states than VA. Per capita defense spending in VA is pretty damn hefty.

    Fighting Dems...another oxymoron (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    I expect to see that reality, in DC anyway, when I also see all those "pacifist Republicans" on the beat.  

    In other words, when pigs crap snowballs in hell.

    It will be from the ground up, obviously, we will have no leadership offered from Washington, nor any rallying roars from any bully pulpits in the capitol.  Hopefully there will NOT be blood. But I really wonder these days.  Sadly I wonder.

    Well, this isn't the 60s, (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    there are no freaky-looking pranksters like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman out front and center with their provocative street-theater antics that turn off the middle.  These are working- and middle-class folks who are protesting en masse, the kind who vote and pay taxes, the kind who can be influential in a positive way in swaying otherwise disinterested or fence-sitting teevee viewers.  

    And the backlash among the public so far seems to be favoring the unions and protesters, and not the power grabbing Goopers.

    Indeed, revolution may well be making its way to our own shores.  

    See you on the barricades.  I'll be the rather handsome fair-haired guy looking for some cobblestones to dig up ...

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    The graphics are totally different. If anything, the tea party was a huge negative for the GOP because at least down here in GA they were hauling around confederate flags etc. Really creepy looking people. Even the leader of the tea party that Judson guy looks so oily and so much like a klansman without sheets that he makes my skin crawl.

    Who is going to pay to bailout the elites (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:06:34 PM EST
    when the middle class is gone?

    The Deal not the only terrible mistake (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by pluege2 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    The Deal was a terrible mistake

    what has obama done that isn't a terrible mistake?

    • escalated Afghanistan
    • chucked the public option for a contorted sop to insurance companies and lost the healthcare debate
    • as bad or worse on civil rights and the rule of law than bush
    • resurrected a defeated and demoralized republican brand for his ludicrous worship of bipartisanship
    • resurrected lieberman for no benefit at all
    • allowed BP to get away with destroying lives and the gulf environment for generations
    • blew the stimulus
    • failed to help people stay in their homes and be prtoected form predator banks
    • failed to hold wall street bankers responsible for the economic destruction they caused

    "The Deal" as horrendous as it is destroying Social Security and the economy, is far from the only terrible mistake obama has made. For progressives, obama is a Trojan Horse

    The Koch blockers. (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    The Koch blockers.

    I know. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:25:05 AM EST
    But BTD, the deal is done and the DC dems have lost the argument because of it. What is the solution? I frankly don't see one.

    True, the deal is done but (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:14:35 AM EST
    what continues to trouble is the supposedly temporary nature of the Deal is no where to be seen or heard in current budgetary discussions.  Such as, the cuts proposed by the Republicans need not be draconian since (a) we expect the economic recovery to increase revenues, and (b) as a part of the Deal, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in two years and even with tax rates expiring on just the upper two percent, we will be on our way to addressing the worst of our deficits.  Unless....

    If I remember correctly (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    your question as to (b) & the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is initially addressed in the Administration's proposed budget whereby revenue increase from those making over $225K was included/noted?

    The unions just got busted (none / 0) (#2)
    by TJBuff on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    I don't think the word "winning" means what Dionne thinks it means.

    Sorry, I must snort (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    I never ever think of any union at this point and during such socioeconomic conditions as busted.  They were all busted the day they were born :)  So was I, so were probably you :)  Unions exist on the verge of perpetually being "busted", they walk the line between making a living and busted :)

    "My name is... (none / 0) (#3)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    Ynigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    One of the greatest movies EVER.

    Perhaps we need some scientific research into exactly how the lost Democratic spine has regrown. Perhaps people are just desperate. Perhaps we should refuse to give up, just like Mr. Montoya.


    Read Kevin Drum in the March edition (none / 0) (#79)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    of Mother Jones.  Its a pretty reasonable essay on what happened to the party and why they no longer represent the working class.

    AsI understand it (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    The fight is not over on the issue.

    I understand there are legal options and political options.


    The huge protests have been a great place (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    to gather the needed signatures to recall WI Republican Senators.  And I have not heard anything yet on what the WI AG will say or do.  He told them yesterday though that what they had in mind to do was illegal.

    Just have a new vote (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    So what if it was illegal?  The Dems are heading back, there will now be a quorum and the Repubs can just have a new vote.  The Dems will look like suckers.

    This could perhaps be true (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    It is a war.  I've been doing this fight a battle at a time thing for too long :)  I have an idea, bring home the whole military and fire them and place them on the front lines of fighting for jobs and decent wages.  We have this fighting thing down now, and if we get our a$$e$ kicked on one day we still get up the next morning for the next fight :)  We need much more of that spirit in the Democratic party and among self proclaimed Democrat activists :)

    Seriously, sometimes I've never seen bigger bawl babies than the left :).  They take a stand, lose one fight, have a big get together where they sniffle and talk about how pointless fighting is and then they go home vowing to never look so stupid again.  As if standing for what you believe in and fighting for what is right and what you believe in is somehow wrong just because you lose one battle in getting there.  This is all going to take a bit of courage and heart.


    Tracy, the left (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    were not always "bawl babies."  I was active in the anti-Vietnam War protests and did some civil rights work, as well as working for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.  Those leftists were not "bawl babies."  They (we) didn't always win, but they (we) kept fighting.  I don't recognize the current Democratic Party, and for the most part, I wouldn't call them "the left."  To me, they are mostly the "mushy middle," and many of them are so far to the right of what I consider "Democrat," they may as well join the Republican Party.  I have been heartened by the protests going on in Wisconsin, and if I were younger and not disabled, I'd be out there with them.  As for the administration and most of the rest of the Dems- meh.  They're not "the left," and they're never going to be.

    Heh, they are the left I have to go to war (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    with and not the left I wish I had....

    I know most people commenting here (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    aren't bawl babies.  This just isn't a nurturing place for bawl babies.  I'm speaking in more big tent generalized terms after reading around the blogosphere this morning.  No, this isn't much of a bawl baby hangout :)

    This place and (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    a few others are one of the rare blogs where there aren't bawl babies. The leaaave poor Obama aaallooone crap bugs me to no end. We're supposed to "protect" poor Obama who is the most powerful person in the world?

    Well, we have (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    a few of those posting on this website (I don't think I need to name names), and if they want to keep believing that, it's their right.  We certainly don't have nearly as many as Booman does, or DailyKos, that's for sure.  I keep waiting for them to wake up, but I doubt that's going to happen.  I do resent being accused of being a PUMA or a racist because I am not happy with Obama.  I didn't like Hillary or Obama in the Primaries- I voted for Dennis Kucinich (but then, I am and always have been a DFH, left-of-the-left type).  And I worked for the civil rights movement in my younger days, and have always supported gay rights.  But I was prepared to (and did) support the Democratic nominee in 2008.  That doesn't mean that I have to march in lockstep and support everything that Obama has done (or hasn't done).

    Me too :) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    Seriously huh?  If he needs me to protect him he has huge problems :)

    Hey Zorba (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:36:15 PM EST
    It must be us ol' cats from the 60s. The Wisconsin situation has heartened me too (heck, I'm even talking with my husband about flying up there soon.) Maybe it is the uniter for those at center and left of center. As you know, I'm living strong support for the Democratic Party (like I have been all my life.) And, what Wisconsin says to me is that--once in a while (like when a fool of a Governor overreaches with a I'm-going-to-spend-my-political-capital-Bushian-reduz)--the broader population, the good general public wakens & rouses itself to blatant, threatening class warfare.

    Certainly (none / 0) (#23)
    by TJBuff on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    That just means it might be reversible.  But for now, the GOP has won and the Democrats have lost.

    Something the Democrats never realized is that it's a lot easier to block something that's already done.  All they really need at this point is Walker.


    Are lawyers who work for (none / 0) (#15)
    by itscookin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    The government unionized?

    Which government? State government? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    Yes, lawyers who work for the state are unionized there.  This is really not hard to find out, since Walker's layoff plan targeting the state public defenders has been in the news a lot.  I'm rather surprised to see TalkLeft ignoring that issue -- that Walker will further deprive the poor there, especially, from timely and competent defense.

    If you mean municipal or federal government lawyers in Wisconsin, the answer differs, so just refine the question, and I'll come back with the answers.


    Lawyers & unions in the government (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    Although I was in management in the federal government for most of my career, a few of us began the process and saw the formation of the first AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) local in EPA. The question of attorney membership was a thorny one for sometime...e.g., under the Reagan Administration it was not allowed, although attorneys in our region belonged during the Carter Administration (myself included before becoming a manager.) During the Clinton years, legal membership was once again allowed in the Local for attornies in Enforcement. That means: When an attorney was situate in a Counsel office--that person was charged by position description definition with representing management & could not be in the Union; when, however, the lawyer resided elsewhere--as in the prosecutorial Enforcement Office--the obligation was to the broader public as a public employee, and membership was allowed.
    (I believe it still is.)

    The rhetoric (none / 0) (#24)
    by Madeline on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    from the right, including most of the 2012 pseudo presidential candidates, is disgusting; Huckabee, Bachman,Gingrich, TPaw.  Why does the left have to play nice?  We are losing. Vile rhetoric is winning.

    It's time.  Enough is enough. I say we revolt. It's time. Good timing too.  Obama and Clinton are fighting for people in the ME, for their right to be heard.  Let's see if they will fight for us.

    Fineman, yesterday reported that the right is just waiting for a '60's style uprising so they can use it in the 2012 election. Well.....so be it.


    What? (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:22:24 PM EST

    Obama and Clinton are fighting for people in the ME, for their right to be heard.

    The administration seems quite content to sit on its hands while the rebels in Libya are slaughtered.   They can't even seem to speak up about the vile treatment of women lately in Egypt.



    Here you go (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:36:21 PM EST

    But Clinton was far from a passive observer. She was in energetic discussion on the Egyptian news site Masrawy.com, where her presence excited a stream of questions--more than 6,500 in three days--from young people across Egypt. "We hope," she said, "that as Egypt looks at its own future, it takes advantage of all of the people's talents"--Clinton shorthand for including women. She had an immediate answer when a number of questioners suggested that her persistent references to women's rights constituted American meddling in Egyptian affairs: "If a country doesn't recognize minority rights and human rights, including women's rights, you will not have the kind of stability and prosperity that is possible."


    As for Egypt, she said she was heartened by indications that women would be included in the formation of the new government. "We believe that women were in Tahrir Square, and they should be part of the decision-making process. If [the Egyptians] are truly going to have a democracy, they can't leave out half the population."


    Amid the current unrest and pervasive uncertainty, Clinton's mission has only gained in urgency. As she noted in Qatar in January, two weeks before Egypt's first "day of rage," the Middle East's old foundations were "sinking into the sand." But there has been a hard core of realism to her recognition of a new opening for women. "We are watching and waiting," she said. "People jockey for power, and often the most conservative elements once again use the opportunity to crack down on women and women's roles."

    While Clinton views the subjugation of the world's women as a moral question, she plants her argument firmly on the grounds of national security, terrain she knows is far less likely to be attacked as "too soft" to be relevant to U.S. interests. "This is a big deal for American values and for American foreign policy and our interests, but it is also a big deal for our security," she told NEWSWEEK. "Because where women are disempowered and dehumanized, you are more likely to see not just antidemocratic forces, but extremism that leads to security challenges for us."

    For starters....


    That is a really good article (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    Got there this morning via Alegre's Corner.

    HRC works so hard that it makes me tired just reading about it.


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    I feel like such a slacker, especially when I consider she's 63!

    I don't think there's a harder worker in DC.


    Nice generalities... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    She should have been down there in the square keeping those guys away with her rolling pin.

    (rolls eyes)


    Re: Libya (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:01:05 PM EST

    What we are watching in Libya is an outbreak of civilian protests that has broken into armed revolt. That's very different. And do we really believe now that the United States can or should intervene militarily every time there is an armed insurrection against an existing government? That strikes me as crazy and deeply unwise, regardless of how odious the Libyan regime might be.

    I have to confess that the sanest voice I've heard on this whole matter has been Secretary Gates saying that a "no fly zone" is not a video game. It's not a joke. It begins, necessarily, with a series of debilitating attacks on a country's military installations and anti-aircraft defenses to remove the opposing military's ability to threaten your planes. That's an act of war. Taking over a country's airspace is an act of war.

    I'm not saying that there won't ever be a time when it will make sense for us to intervene in some way, that it might not be sensible in concert with other powers or that we shouldn't put military assets in place to prepare for various potential scenarios or to assist the transit of refugees. But this whole conversation illustrates in an amazing way that when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

    You can have a policy, be committed to a policy, even be making great efforts to put that policy into effect ... all without the use of artillery. It can happen.

    Click or TPM Me


    I'm sure she'll totally ignore it (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    when she's there next week . . .

    btw, since her name wasn't mentioned, that means she hasn't addressed it?


    Is your comment about supporting women (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    and being geniunely concerned for women or is only about beating up the one woman commonly known as Hillary?  If you want to support and fight for women we welcome you....welcome aboard.  If the best ya got though is to beat someone up because she isn't Wonder Woman single handedly saving the whole world...come on man

    Hillary ain't the only one in the admin (none / 0) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:42:31 PM EST

    This whole Obama crew seems at best to be able to mumble generalities.   The slaughter in Libya gets referred to a committee.  Gak!

    So, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    What would you have her do spcifically, since you just said that she "ain't the only one in the admin"?

    Oh, (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    yeah, let's get stuck in another d*mn quagmire while we don't have money to even pay our teachers according to conservatives. I guess we should be going to Libya to do what? A repeat of Iraq? Sometimes you just have to let people solve their own problems. If we get involved it actually might hurt the cause of the opposition and make the people of the country really hate us instead of the leader. Its what Reagan did in South America and it has produced a bad legacy for this country.

    Silly you! (none / 0) (#105)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    Haven't you learned by now, There's always money for wars.

    There is, it's magic (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    I was watching McConnell on the tube a few days ago taking some questions about how he could insist on tax cuts for the rich one month and then spending cuts in the social safety net the next month.  Not that they got a straight answer out of him, the two issues can't be related...at least 45 days existed between the two fights and that is so far apart they cannot be related to each other in any way I guess during this time of huge economic hardship for the middle class.

    I did notice one thing though.  I noticed that he brought up the President deciding "prematurely" to decrease our "strength" in Afghanistan.  You know what that means?  That means that if Obama wants to wind anything down in Afghanistan before the 2012 election they will try to use it against him as something to run on.  They are already priming their base with the words prematurely and strength meaning they would really like to and hope to paint Obama as a whimp.  But we have plenty of money for the maintenance of strength, none for the prevention of stupid or hungry or homeless or sick though.


    Wish I (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    could get me some of that magic money!

    A discussion about Libya (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    goes on around me every day right now.  What should they do that they aren't doing?

    Fine, I'll go then (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    The President ordered 2 warships and available planes and fighters to the area March 1st.  We have plans to stage and know where we will stage if it is deemed necessary, we are in constant contact with our NATO allies and hourly discuss what is happening.  If we inject ourselves we taint the self governance of the people fighting for it right now.  It has happened over and over and over again too.  I don't know what would take place before we would enter the situation but we are making a difference standing at the ready.  I don't know what would make my President add his assets to the fight, and every morning when Gaddafi wakes up and tries to decide how to attack the people he doesn't either and that does make a difference.

    So, Abdul (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    Are you playing at goading or do you really want another war? It seems to me that the Administration has handled the matter, to date, rather adroitly.  With the official declaration of support for the rebels from France, and a similar follow-up from Britain, we are in a position to be supportive without the deficit-breaking $$$ that a military reply would entail. Quite smart, as a number of national & international writers have noted.  Again, are you just jabbing or do you have a feasible suggestion?

    You obvioulsy (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    have not heard what Hillary Clinton has had to say on the subject.

    How about (none / 0) (#32)
    by the capstan on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    'The Fighting Powderpuffs"?

    BTD, thanks for highlighting (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    Jim McDermott's comments. He's my congressman, and I believe that he has finally hit the wall with Obama's capitulating ways. It's good to have a rep who is unafraid to speak his mind. McDermott represents his consitutents in the 7th district very well.