I would have loved for our nation to be divided at that moment in history.
Instead, the Democrats deferred to Bush on the Patriot Act, and on going into Iraq, and on otherwise doing their best to work with the person who won. And I don’t want that – but it’s not just me; it’s the whole point of our system. If a majority in the Senate thinks something is a good idea, but a majority in the House doesn’t, then nothing happens. And vice versa. And if they agree, but the President disagrees, then nothing happens. And if the President wants something, he needs to convince a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Why is it set up that way? We could’ve enshrined efficiency, but the whole point was to foster gridlock instead of rubber-stamping majoritarianism.
9/11 made the Dems lie down for the better part of seven years; the system isn’t perfect. But it’s the least bad way we can figure on to institutionalize checks on someone who shouldn’t have absolute power. We need to be ready to investigate the next flimsy pretext for war, or the next Watergate, or whatever; we can make it hard on ourselves by fostering deference to authority until something questionable comes up, or we can have the skepticism in place already. YMMV, like the man said.
The Repubs had the majorities and did exactly what they wanted. They won the presidential election with a mere 51 percent of the vote and declared it a mandate.
Now that they have been whipped, they are fighting every single move the Dems make, even a speech to school kids. They made it clear they will not be logical. fair, or polite. It is time for the Dems to use their power ,
Yup, and start with a purge of DINOs. If Ben Nelson wants to vote like the minority, let him join the minority, be voted out of office, and eat a large bowl of STFU!
Not that easy. The DINO is a heritage of Clintonista policies. Back when Dems tried to suck more business contributions by being more “business-friendly”, effectively emasculating themselves to be Republican Lite. That sorta worked, more business contributions to Dems like “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman.
Obama has upset the whole applecart, and nobody knows yet how to deal. Obama was massively funded by the small donor, and this changes the whole dynamic. Good God, man, if the people start deciding stuff like that, who knows where the chaos may lead?
It’s not clear that it does change the whole dynamic. Obama may turn out to be more ‘Republican Lite’, and all the small donors may have been played like Reagan, Bush I an II played the religious right. If that’s the case, he too will need to be dealt with firmly.
Yeh, but once they are in power ,corporations buddy up with the incumbent. They will use their money and power to get legislation they want even if they had to finance Hitler. As a matter of fact, that is what German industrialists did. It is all about big donors and big power now. The small contributors only matter in election times .
I take your point, but the thing is, a change like that can take a while to “sink in”.
Remember, there was a time when corporate donations were a very major player. I won’t make the case that it was the dominant player, but nonetheless major. And the Pubbies always got the lions share, for obvious reasons. So the Dems trimmed their sails to the prevailing wind, and made the effort to be more “centrist” and business-friendly, i.e., Republican Lite. This is the essence of the Clintonista “third way”.
And, in a way, it worked, there was a huge increase in the Dem share of business donations, and the Clintonistas advanced to leadership positions.
Me, I don’t much like that, I don’t want to choose between centrist and tighty-righty, I want to have a lefty option in there. To my happy surprise, so do a lot of people. And they expressed this desire by just flat out giving their money. To Obama.
Full disclosure: I was wrong. I didn’t think he could do it, I was already gritting my teeth getting ready to vote for Hillary. But he did. So, yeah, I think if there is such a shift that direct, small contributions becomes the major source of campaign finance, I think its going to make a huge difference.
It is a good think I am not a principal of a school - if a parent called me to complain because the President of the United States intended to speak to their kid about the value of education, I would tell them to hang up or I will report them to Child Services for being too stupid to be a parent.
So, let me see if I understand this: the repbulicans/ conservatives / fundies / whackos / loonies don’t want their children exposed to political ideas which the children might not yet be able to understand at the age of 10 years or lower, or higher.
Does this mean they will finally stop the ** daily** indroctination of the children by stopping that reciting of the Pledge under God? Because how can school children of 10 years or below make a pledge, when they are not legally adult, and how the fuck can they grasp what they are babbling each morning? And why do children need to affirm their oath of loyalty each morning anew? Have they been brainwashed in the hours between - at home, maybe? - to cause the destruction of the US (maybe by disrespecting the POTUS)?
Yeah, we got a letter on Friday telling us that if we don’t want the sprog to watch the speech, he’d be given an alternate assignment. The sprog is going to watch the speech. His parents may be opinionated, but we’re not moonbats.
Of course, if I were the superintendent, I’d take the position that kids whose parents didn’t want them to watch the speech can jolly well stay home that day, and their parents can take a sick or vacation day or just not get paid to take care of them. If you’re going to put your kids through your petty political bullshit, then you can suck it up and deal with the consequences. It shouldn’t be up to the school to enable your craziness and ignorance.
Listen to some of the arguments being made here and elsewhere:
[ol]
[li]I have the right to decide what my child hears.[/li]This is not an argument, just an assertion of your rights. The question is: why are you insisting on exercising this right now? Why don’t you want your child to hear this message?
[li]It’s a waste of time.[/li]No it’s not. It’s a civics lesson. There’s a test afterwards. The children will be required to think and write. Isn’t that what schools are supposed to do?
[li]He’s going to indoctrinate my children![/li]Yes, he’s going to exhort them to work hard and get good grades. Poor babies!
[li]Tu quoque! (Not that they actually use this phrase, but you get my point.)[/li]Not even a reason. Just a refuge when you’ve run out of reasons.
[/ol]
Am I the only one who thinks these “reasons”, and others, sound more like rationalizations than genuine reasons? The question is - what are they rationalizating away? Why can’t they give a real reason that actually makes some sense? Are they themselves even aware of the real reason?
Before you accuse me, I’m not saying that they’re all a bunch of racists. Some of them are, maybe even most of them, but I’ll concede that there are probably some who have other reasons. (I’m not talking about the folks on this board. We’re kind of unique and like to argue just for the hell of it.)
Top Ten Reasons Not To Let Obama Address Your Children
Because you’re afraid he might promote such values as personal responsibility and hard work, when everyone knows that everything that is wrong with America is totally the fault of liberal treehuggers, academics, Commies, hippies and homosexuals.
Because he will use subliminal messages to brainwash your children into joining his personal paramilitary force, who will then spend the next eight years building houses for the homeless.
Because you’ve told your kids that Obama has three heads and speaks only in demonic chanting and you don’t want them to find out the truth.
Because Glenn Beck said so and he would never lie to his viewers.
Because the young, vibrant, articulate President makes you feel old, lazy and stupid.
“Address”? I thought you said “undress”!
Because you want to appear to care about what your children are exposed to, despite letting them smoke, drink and watch porn and slasher flicks at home.
Because keeping your children home that day supports our brave troops fighting for our freedoms overseas.
Because you feel that allowing him to address children during school represents a dangerous step towards the politicization of the educational system. Ha ha ha! Just kidding!
