Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Mystic 1

Lou Dobbs on the new North American Union

Originally Posted by Lou Dobbs

The Bush administration's open borders policy and its decision to ignore the enforcement of this countries immigration laws is part of a broader agenda. President bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it. And he took the step without approval from either the US congress or the people of the United States.

The larger scheme.

Holy Sh*t. I've looked around the net on this and find that it's almost exclusively far right and far left that are mentioning this. Dobbs seems to be the only person in the MsM sounding the alarm on this.

While looking, I came across a great Dobbsian expression: "Corporate Supremicists". Cool.

Thank you so much for posting this.

MSM control?

Yep, it's not that hard to understand how a corporatocracy works . . .

The plot to defeat our liberty

Originally Posted by St. Petersburg Times

The plan predates 9/11, according to Bruce Fein, a Republican activist who worked in the Reagan Justice Department and has known Cheney and Addington for decades. "The idea of reducing Congress to a cipher was already in play," Fein told Mayer. "It was Cheney and Addington's political agenda."

Insiders told Mayer that administration lawyers who raised questions about the plenary powers being seized by the president were dismissed by Addington as giving away the store.

This doctrine also fit the thinking of John Yoo, who quickly rose in the OLC to be the go-to legal analyst on war powers questions. His popularity had to do with his answers, which were always tilted toward expanding presidential power.

Could the events in Israel and Lebanon be the true catalyst?

Stay tuned I guess...

My vote continues to be that 9/11 was a precursor like the Intolerable Acts or the Boston Tea Party.

Perhaps this is the one...(it sure is in Cablenewsland).

Originally Posted by Linus

Could the events in Israel and Lebanon be the true catalyst?

Stay tuned I guess...

My vote continues to be that 9/11 was a precursor like the Intolerable Acts or the Boston Tea Party.

Perhaps this is the one...(it sure is in Cablenewsland).

Bear in mind that Strauss and Howe (on page 262, among other places, in T4T) have the Boston Tea Party as the catalyst. I could see September 11th as that sort of Cataylst, with what's happening right now as Lexington and Concord.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Originally Posted by Linus

Could the events in Israel and Lebanon be the true catalyst?

Stay tuned I guess...

My vote continues to be that 9/11 was a precursor like the Intolerable Acts or the Boston Tea Party.

Perhaps this is the one...(it sure is in Cablenewsland).

Bear in mind that Strauss and Howe (on page 262, among other places, in T4T) have the Boston Tea Party as the catalyst. I could see September 11th as that sort of Catalyst, with what's happening right now as Lexington and Concord.

I put Lexington, Fort Sumpter and Pearl Harbor as a sort of special class. We can discuss what 9.11 was, and wonder if the Tea Party was really that decisive, but those three... no ifs, ands or buts, at that point mobilize a regular army because there is a 4T war to be won.

Israel's immediate troubles? Nothing to dismiss lightly, for sure. I have just seen so many false starts of late. Remember when the French youth were burning cars not so long ago? I still have some ifs ands and buts. If it continues to escalate, talk to me again in a few weeks to a month.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I put Lexington, Fort Sumpter and Pearl Harbor as a sort of special class. We can discuss what 9.11 was, and wonder if the Tea Party was really that decisive, but those three... no ifs, ands or buts, at that point mobilize a regular army because there is a 4T war to be won.

Of course. I meant more in terms of 1775 vs. 1773 than a war trigger. Katrina could be a 1775 just as easily . . .

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I put Lexington, Fort Sumpter and Pearl Harbor as a sort of special class. We can discuss what 9.11 was, and wonder if the Tea Party was really that decisive, but those three... no ifs, ands or buts, at that point mobilize a regular army because there is a 4T war to be won.

Of course. I meant more in terms of 1775 vs. 1773 than a war trigger. Katrina could be a 1775 just as easily . . .

I don't think that Katrina is Concord/Lexington 1775. Rather, I think it is most comparable to the Coercive Acts of 1774. The midterms could be 1775, though, especially if the netroots live to the hype.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Originally Posted by Linus

Could the events in Israel and Lebanon be the true catalyst?

Stay tuned I guess...

My vote continues to be that 9/11 was a precursor like the Intolerable Acts or the Boston Tea Party.

Perhaps this is the one...(it sure is in Cablenewsland).

Bear in mind that Strauss and Howe (on page 262, among other places, in T4T) have the Boston Tea Party as the catalyst. I could see September 11th as that sort of Cataylst, with what's happening right now as Lexington and Concord.

You're right. Thank you for the correction.

Still, there were several pivotal events in the 1770s that might easily be regarded as *the* catalyst, and it may be that way again. I'll bet any number of colonists regarded the Intolerable Acts as the final straw, world changing.

Per always, the arguments against 9/11 as *the* catalyst rest on the 3t-like response to the events (lack of full-scale mobilization and call for sacrifice, continued preoccupation with celebrity scandals, pursuit of wealth, etc) and their early arrival.

Originally Posted by Linus

Per always, the arguments against 9/11 as *the* catalyst rest on the 3t-like response to the events (lack of full-scale mobilization and call for sacrifice, continued preoccupation with celebrity scandals, pursuit of wealth, etc) and their early arrival.

Generally, spirals of violence escalate up. I sort of expect each side to raise the tension one notch, and pass it back to the other. September 11th just seems so unique as a media event and sudden emotional escalation that I can't see it taking a back seat in the history books.

My own feeling is that one can't have a final Lexington / Sumter / Pearl Harbor commitment to action until a regeneracy (and perhaps a Grey Champion) has clearly defined the cause and brought people on board. September 11th had enough emotional impact. It is just that for whatever reason, the spark didn't catch. Generations not in alignment? Too many silent in the ruling administration? The general population was not really asked to transform? Bush 43 did make a significant policy shift, but Rumsfeld's 3rd Generation Warfare paradigm promised victory with peace time force levels, while the 4th Generation Warfare insurgency...

Anyway, I think 9.11 will be remembered more than Katrina. Maybe the Netroots could spark a regeneracy. Thing is, the Netroots are currently leaning towards a withdrawal from Iraq. Thus, one might see other catalysts which might focus things in entirely different directions. Reinventing democracy might be nice, for example.

Bob Butler 54 wrote:

[quote]My own feeling is that one can't have a final Lexington / Sumter / Pearl Harbor commitment to action until a regeneracy (and perhaps a Grey Champion) has clearly defined the cause and brought people on board.[quote]

A society-wide initiative to develop many kinds of energy technology to both make us much less dependent on carbon-based energy, release us from our peonage to the mideastern mullahs, and improve the environment? John McCain?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Al Gore for President in 2008; Hillary Clinton as his running mate & assassination insurance.

Who protects Al from Hillary?

In practical terms, I can't see Hillary agreeing, she wants power too badly to wait that long voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

I'm not being mocking, I'm serious. In the entire speech, he never actually said, promised, or advocated anything specific. He made some general statements that almost anyone could agree with, but that's all.

And so I am eager to have this argument with the Republican Party about the core philosophy of America, about what our story is. We shouldn’t shy away from that debate. The time for our identity crisis as progressives is over. Don’t let anybody tell you that we don’t know what we stand for. Don’t doubt yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end we know that it’s not enough just to say that we’ve had enough. We’ve got a story to tell that isn’t just against something but is for something. We know that we’re the party of opportunity. We know that in a global economy that’s more connective and more competitive that we’re the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, life-long, top-notch education, from early childhood to high school – from college to on-the-job training. We know that that’s what we’re about.

Everyone wants that. How will they do it? Does he advocate challenging the teacher's unions' hold on the bureaucracy? Is he in favor of reducing Federal control to let local school boards resume control, or do he favor State-level control, or would he try to institute a national school system (there are Constitutional issues with that, BTW).

What does the 'progressive' (meaning 60s liberal) party propose to deal with the dispute over which moral beliefs the schools assist parents in inculcating? Or does he favor a 'value-free' approach (that's been tried, it's classic Silent). What will he tell the interest groups that support the Dems when they demand that the schools teach their beliefs and values (and they will), how will he answer complaints from the interests groups on the other side that the schools are undercutting their efforts to teach their children basic right and wrong?

(This question can't be avoided, morals and beliefs are a basic part of education, what is taught will depend on what the teachers and administration and parents and government consider important, which will hinge on values and beliefs.)

We know we’re the party – we know that as progressives we believe in affordable health care for all Americans – and that we’re going to make sure that Americans don’t have to choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families, the party that won’t just throw a few tax breaks at families who can’t afford their insurance, but will modernize our health care system and give every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

Is he advocating a massive tax increase along West European lines to create a publicly run system? Will doctors who so chose be permitted to offer private care to those who are willing/able to pay, or will everyone be forced into the public system? How will the health care be rationed (and it will be rationed, one way or another).

Progressives are the folks who believe in energy independence for America, that we’re not bought and paid for by the oil companies in this country. We believe that we can harness homegrown alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient hybrid cars, and break our dependence on the world’s most dangerous regions.

Where will they drill for more oil? Because that's going to be necessary if he wants to achieve energy independence any time soon.

What domestic sources do they plan to tap? 'Homegrown alternative fuels' is meaningless, it's too general. Is he talking about biofuels? They take energy to grow, and a good (but not conclusive) case can be made that they are net energy absorbers. Does he mean fuel cells and a hydrogen economy? There are major engineering and public policy questions he needs to answer, if so.

Will he tell the environmental movement that there have to be nuke plants, period? Or will he tell them that a genuine, large-scale renewable energy plan involves (by necessity) enormous amounts of land coverd with photovoltaic panels (think hundreds of square miles), immense wind farms, etc?

What's his position on coal power? America has enough coal to fuel our entire economy for a very long time, at a very high cost in terms of pollution and environmental effects.

He throws a small bone to his fringe-environmentalist base with talk of hybrid cars, playing to their deep desire to hear that we can 'conserve our way out', replace megawatts with 'negawatts'. It isn't true, energy independence requires seriously increased domestic energy production, but it's what they want to hear. What would President Obama say to them when the decision-time came?

We understand that we get a three-for: We can save our economy, our environment, and stop funding both sides of the war on terror if we actually get serious about doing something about energy. We understand that.

Then tell us how you'll do it. Or tell us steps you plan to take to determine how you'll do it.

We understand, as progressives, that we need a tough foreign policy, but we know the other side has a monopoly on the tough-and-dumb strategy; we’re looking for the tough-and-smart strategy – one that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism but understands that it’s not just a matter of military might alone, that we’ve got to match it with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances and the power of our ideals, and that when we do go to war, we should be honest with the American people about why we’re there and how we expect to win.

This is just the standard line they've been using since 911. 'Work with our allies' means 'do nothing', since allies they mean (France and Germany) are vested in doing nothing.

We understand as progressives that we believe in open and honest government that doesn’t peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check.

So we can count on the Democrats to stand up to the teachers' unions, the gay rights lobby, the trial lawyers, the ACLU, etc?

And if we believe in all these things, and if we act on it, then I guarantee you America is looking for us to lead. And if we do it, it’s not going to be a Democratic agenda or a liberal agenda or a progressive agenda; it’s going to be an American agenda because in the end we may be proud progressives but we’re prouder Americans. We’re tired of being divided. We are tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks.

Then what is the Democratic compromise plan to end them? Because the divide is real.

Obama may well represent the next generation of the Democratic Party, but the Party is going to have to decide what it stands for and express it clearly. That means specific positions, not generalized fluff like this.

It's not Obama's fault, of course. The problem is that the Democratic Party is profoundly divided (so is the GOP, but on different issues), and they have to fall back on generalized comments because they can't agree on the specifics on things like defense and energy policies. Their various interest groups are at daggers' drawn on the matter.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Linus

I think it's probably too early for Obama, maybe even too early for him to be HRC's running mate. (I would guess she chooses someone older, but not quite fossilized, and southern to be her vice president in 08.)

You could see him becoming Hillary's vice president in 2013 though.

Probably, because it would certainly help having had a full term in the Senate before moving on... call it paying your dues, if you will. But certainly not too early on account of his age... Obama will be 48 in Twenty-Oh-Nine, 2 years older than Bill Clinton was when he took office in '93.

Everyone here seems to have adopted Conventional wisdom, that the Democratic nominee will be HRC, but I'm not convinced... nor that if she is, that she'll win.

I haven't. She intends to be, I've no doubt of that, but I don't consider her getting it to be a sure thing by any means.

On the plus side, she'll be able to count on the support of the Party establishment (for the most part) and most of the MsM, and the rules of the Democratic Party probably favor her.

Against her she has the ideological base of the party, who are sick to death of moderation or pretended moderation, they want an open, proud liberal. But their attitude in '08 will depend in much on what happens in '06. Hillary may well be hoping for a GOP win in '06 in hopes of increasing her chances of holding the liberal base in '08.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Linus

Per always, the arguments against 9/11 as *the* catalyst rest on the 3t-like response to the events (lack of full-scale mobilization and call for sacrifice, continued preoccupation with celebrity scandals, pursuit of wealth, etc) and their early arrival.

Generally, spirals of violence escalate up. I sort of expect each side to raise the tension one notch, and pass it back to the other. September 11th just seems so unique as a media event and sudden emotional escalation that I can't see it taking a back seat in the history books.

My own feeling is that one can't have a final Lexington / Sumter / Pearl Harbor commitment to action until a regeneracy (and perhaps a Grey Champion) has clearly defined the cause and brought people on board. September 11th had enough emotional impact. It is just that for whatever reason, the spark didn't catch. Generations not in alignment? Too many silent in the ruling administration? The general population was not really asked to transform? Bush 43 did make a significant policy shift, but Rumsfeld's 3rd Generation Warfare paradigm promised victory with peace time force levels, while the 4th Generation Warfare insurgency...

Anyway, I think 9.11 will be remembered more than Katrina. Maybe the Netroots could spark a regeneracy. Thing is, the Netroots are currently leaning towards a withdrawal from Iraq. Thus, one might see other catalysts which might focus things in entirely different directions. Reinventing democracy might be nice, for example.

Yes. And this sure looks like your long-predicted spiral of violence to me.

Originally Posted by Peggy Noonan

The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.

No, it isn't unique. It happened in the 1920s and 30s and in the run-up to the Civil War. It's the late 3T/early 4T state.

This week there was a small boomlet of talk about a new internet entity called Unity '08--a small collection of party veterans including moderate Democrats (former Carter aide Hamilton Jordan) and liberal-leaning Republicans (former Ford hand Doug Bailey) trying to join together with college students and broaden the options in the 2008 election. In terms of composition, Unity seems like the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan group (Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey) that warns against high spending and deficits.

Unity seems to me to have America's growing desire for more political options right. But I think they've got the description of the problem wrong.


Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low.

There is a four-way divide in the country, there is the (broadly defined) Red/Blue and the Commoner/Elite. The elite tends to be culturally blue and (in theory) fiscally red, the converse tends to be true of the commoners.

The current elite is heavily vested in a status quo that has its roots in the upper-class Northeast in the aftermath of World War II. It's on its last legs now, and that sense is unnerving everyone involved. They're trying to make a world-view and a system of politics work that has long since become anachronistic.

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

Spot on. The elite class doesn't even comprehend the concerns involved, they tend to see it as an expression of ignorance or provincialism.

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

The problem, again, is that a single mindset pervades the governing class, and it's highly Adaptive, highly self-focused, and totally out of touch.
It has been for decades, but now the crunch is coming.

I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

I agree, but I think the new 'third party' will most likely (not certainly, but most likely) emerge from within one of the two major parties. The name will remain the same, the agenda will be different.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

It wasn't lengthy, and I didn't rebut anything because there's nothing there to rebut. For all I know, he and I may agree on everything, because he didn't say what he stands for or what the Democratic Party should be trying to do.

All I did was ask the precise questions that the voters the Democrats need will be asking. and that the 'new media' will guarantee get heard.

If Obama wishes to unify the country, meaning I assume that he wants some cross-over vote, then he'll have to give them a reason to vote for him. Something specific, especially on the issues of defense and energy policy and social policy that are currently driving the divide. If he doesn't, the Red voters he wants to win over will just assume he represents the Democratic Party's standard positions.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Generally, spirals of violence escalate up. I sort of expect each side to raise the tension one notch, and pass it back to the other. September 11th just seems so unique as a media event and sudden emotional escalation that I can't see it taking a back seat in the history books.

The Crisis doesn't have to start all at once everywhere, in fact that would be a very peculiar situation. It's perfectly possible that Israel is now in Crisis mode, while most of the rest of the world is not.

(The current favorite word in diplomatic circles about the matter 'disproportionate' might be indicative: the attitude it embodies is almost frighteningly Adaptive. It also misses the point.)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

It wasn't lengthy, and I didn't rebut anything because there's nothing there to rebut. ...

Well, since it was me you quoted out first, I read his speech differently.

When I look at the democrats, I can't find anything they stand for. I don't know what their guiding light, their fundamental principles are. I don't know what they think america needs.

I heard health care, a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than premature invasulation, energy independence. I could see how those things would be gowrthy goals for democrats.

Now did I expect a road map and technical blueprints for these things? Not in this kind of speech. Do I think he can pull it off? Not bloody likely. But as a general statement of goals -it was good.

Are politicians good for anything else?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The Crisis doesn't have to start all at once everywhere, in fact that would be a very peculiar situation. It's perfectly possible that Israel is now in Crisis mode, while most of the rest of the world is not.

(The current favorite word in diplomatic circles about the matter 'disproportionate' might be indicative: the attitude it embodies is almost frighteningly Adaptive. It also misses the point.)

I see Israel looking for a style and intensity of combat at which they have an advantage. Fighting the defensive side of an insurgency is a pain. Somebody in Israel thinks they can win a medium to intense exchange of artillery and air strikes. Israel has a lot more firepower and accuracy, and can cause a lot of hurt. Unfortunately, their targets are dispersed to hidden. It is doubtful anything decisive might be achieved. Ideally, you'd like to force a pattern the other side can't withstand or tolerate. A 'proportionate' response (bomb one aspirin factory?) was likely judged to be tolerable by the other side.

I'm dubious about the whole thing. I'm also not sure it will go all out. It certainly doesn't bode well.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

It wasn't lengthy, and I didn't rebut anything because there's nothing there to rebut. ...

Well, since it was me you quoted out first, I read his speech differently.

When I look at the democrats, I can't find anything they stand for. I don't know what their guiding light, their fundamental principles are. I don't know what they think america needs.

I heard health care, a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than premature invasulation, energy independence. I could see how those things would be gowrthy goals for democrats.

Now did I expect a road map and technical blueprints for these things? Not in this kind of speech. Do I think he can pull it off? Not bloody likely. But as a general statement of goals -it was good.

Probably so, but it's so general as to be universally applicable. The GOP (or any other political group) could truthfully claim to believe in all the same things, they just wish to achieve them by different means, or else believe them to be inherently unachievable. But almost no one would dispute their desirability.

Almost everyone can agree that it would be desirable for health care to be as available as possible to everyone, esp. children and the elderly and other vulnerable people. Almost every American can and does favor the concept of energy independence, in a perfect world we would be 100% self-sufficient, for that matter. Nobody in their right mind prefers war to peace.

But the devil, or the angel, lies in the details, and the Democrats can't brush past it with appeals to generalities. They've been trying exactly that for six years now, and it isn't working.

You can easily get a nearly total consensus on the desirability of what Obama talks about. The moment you start talking about specifics, the consensus evaporates.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by antichrist

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

It wasn't lengthy, and I didn't rebut anything because there's nothing there to rebut. ...

Well, since it was me you quoted out first, I read his speech differently.

When I look at the democrats, I can't find anything they stand for. I don't know what their guiding light, their fundamental principles are. I don't know what they think america needs.

I heard health care, a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than premature invasulation, energy independence. I could see how those things would be gowrthy goals for democrats.

Now did I expect a road map and technical blueprints for these things? Not in this kind of speech. Do I think he can pull it off? Not bloody likely. But as a general statement of goals -it was good.

Probably so, but it's so general as to be universally applicable. The GOP (or any other political group) could truthfully claim to believe in all the same things, they just wish to achieve them by different means, or else believe them to be inherently unachievable. But almost no one would dispute their desirability.

Almost everyone can agree that it would be desirable for health care to be as available as possible to everyone, esp. children and the elderly and other vulnerable people. Almost every American can and does favor the concept of energy independence, in a perfect world we would be 100% self-sufficient, for that matter. Nobody in their right mind prefers war to peace.

But the devil, or the angel, lies in the details, and the Democrats can't brush past it with appeals to generalities. They've been trying exactly that for six years now, and it isn't working.

You can easily get a nearly total consensus on the desirability of what Obama talks about. The moment you start talking about specifics, the consensus evaporates.

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We understand as progressives that we believe in open and honest government that doesn’t peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check.

So we can count on the Democrats to stand up to the teachers' unions, the gay rights lobby, the trial lawyers, the ACLU, etc?

No, to begin with, the teachers' associations and gay rights advocates are like the NAACP who are fighting for all the people via the ACLU lobbyist and other minority groups. It would be undemocratic to shut these groups off from the political process. Their cause is righteous and good for all The People, unlike the rich fatcats, Big Oil and Big Business special interests who are simply seeking to line their own pockets with as many taxpayer dollars as they can.

You're whistlin' Dixie, dude, when ya ought to be singing Yankee Doodle!

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We understand as progressives that we believe in open and honest government that doesn’t peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check.

So we can count on the Democrats to stand up to the teachers' unions, the gay rights lobby, the trial lawyers, the ACLU, etc?

No, to begin with, the teachers' associations and gay rights advocates are like the NAACP who are fighting for all the people via the ACLU lobbyist and other minority groups. It would be undemocratic to shut these groups off from the political process. Their cause is righteous and good for all The People, unlike the rich fatcats, Big Oil and Big Business special interests who are simply seeking to line their own pockets with as many taxpayer dollars as they can.

No question about it, the difference between a selfish special interest and a citizen or group of citizens exercising their rights is whether one agrees with them or not.

The problem is that our politics has moved into a scenario where on many issues there appears to be no room for a compromise, one either wins or loses.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by antichrist

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by antichrist

That's about the clearest I've heard a democrat speak in a very long time.

Apparently they do stand for something/

It is a great message. I hope Mr. Obama can back it up with his actions.

How would you tell? He didn't actually say anything.

But apparently there was enough substance in the speech to inspire one of your lengthy rebuttals.

It wasn't lengthy, and I didn't rebut anything because there's nothing there to rebut. ...

Well, since it was me you quoted out first, I read his speech differently.

When I look at the democrats, I can't find anything they stand for. I don't know what their guiding light, their fundamental principles are. I don't know what they think america needs.

I heard health care, a foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than premature invasulation, energy independence. I could see how those things would be gowrthy goals for democrats.

Now did I expect a road map and technical blueprints for these things? Not in this kind of speech. Do I think he can pull it off? Not bloody likely. But as a general statement of goals -it was good.

Probably so, but it's so general as to be universally applicable. The GOP (or any other political group) could truthfully claim to believe in all the same things, they just wish to achieve them by different means, or else believe them to be inherently unachievable. But almost no one would dispute their desirability.

Almost everyone can agree that it would be desirable for health care to be as available as possible to everyone, esp. children and the elderly and other vulnerable people. Almost every American can and does favor the concept of energy independence, in a perfect world we would be 100% self-sufficient, for that matter. Nobody in their right mind prefers war to peace.

But the devil, or the angel, lies in the details, and the Democrats can't brush past it with appeals to generalities. They've been trying exactly that for six years now, and it isn't working.

You can easily get a nearly total consensus on the desirability of what Obama talks about. The moment you start talking about specifics, the consensus evaporates.

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

I attended an OJT class awhile back at which the instructor asked us to define 'consensus'. 90% of the class felt it meant 'unanimous agreement'. He strongly disagreed, insisting that a consensus doesn't have to mean wholehearted, unanimous support for all aspects of a program or agenda. Rather, a consensus is when you have a platform that the majority of stakeholders can live with, if they dislike or even despise portions of it. I agree with him.

When viewed this way, we can see that the problem with developing a consensus in a late 3T is that the Culture Wars adversaries have become so deeply entrenched that many on both sides (but particularly Republicans) feel that it's all-or-nothing. Too many people are not willing to give an inch on a portion of their agenda, even if it means that they get some of what they want. In a 4T Regeneracy, they'll have to decide what is really most important to them, and will vote for the party that can best deliver it.