Actually, if you look at the comments you're getting from just about everyone, my opinion of you is pretty much universally shared. As for me, we're done. On ignore you go, and good riddance.

Good lord. Why are you so damn sensitive?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, if you look at the comments you're getting from just about everyone, my opinion of you is pretty much universally shared. As for me, we're done. On ignore you go, and good riddance.

Here's a nice article by Mike Lofgren, who served for 28 years as a professional staffer for Republicans in Congress. It's long, but worth reading in its entirety. I'll paste some especially pertinent passages. Read this, one and all, and reflect on the fact that we do not have business as usual here, and that stating that the Republicans cannot be reasoned with and cannot be appeased is, in the present context, not political hyperbole but the simple, plain truth. The party wasn't always like this. In fact, it has very rarely, if ever before, been like this. But it is now.

Note the comparisons of today's Republicans in Congress not only to the Nazis but also to the Soviet Communists. I didn't make that comparison myself but in many ways it's apt.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/1314907779

Originally Posted by Mike Lofgren

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant. . . .

The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.


Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.


John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."

[note: this comparison has also occurred to me, and I think I mentioned it a time or two.]

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. . . .

Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.

This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting.

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.[2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear. . . .

Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition.

As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of 2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing:

1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. . . .

2. They worship at the altar of Mars. While the me-too Democrats have set a horrible example of keeping up with the Joneses with respect to waging wars, they can never match GOP stalwarts such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham in their sheer, libidinous enthusiasm for invading other countries. . . .

3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. . . .

It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill. It is not in my pragmatic nature to make a heroic gesture of self-immolation, or to make lurid revelations of personal martyrdom in the manner of David Brock. And I will leave a more detailed dissection of failed Republican economic policies to my fellow apostate Bruce Bartlett.

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. . . .

If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.

And so that is today's Republican Party: best compared to such things as the Nazis, the Communists, or the secessionist Democrats prior to the Civil War. In my opinion, the last of those more than any. This is not business-as-usual time. This is a Fourth Turning. And that means that at least a metaphorical civil war is what we have. It will do us no good to pretend that all is normal and everything is fine.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."


Nice try Eric.

Good Lord do you have a one-track mind. I'm not seeking "boomerish" leadership per se. I'm seeking leadership that actually works, and is effective in bringing about at least some of what I'd like to see for my country. I think most people want that. Whether it happens to come from someone born before or after the year 1961 makes no difference to me. I call Obama how I see him, and if you have a problem with that, well... (shrug) opinions are like a**holes, as they say.

And as for him not being stupid... I agree, he is a very intelligent man, in many areas. But in the rough and dangerous political atmosphere we have today, he doesn't appear to be very effective at getting much of the things he wants done. Or at least the things I thought he wanted, based on his campaign. That's probably the kind of savvy not too many people have. And with corporate money and corporate media arguably stacked against real progressive reform, it was always going to be an uphill battle. I'm disappointed that he doesn't seem quite up to that challenge. But as for overall intelligence, he's probably well up in the 95th percentile I'd imagine. But the talents I'm speaking of include a bit of what are called "street smarts", and probably most importantly, a strong will and tenacity. Now if we could see the same kind of tenacity he showed in both his primary and general campaigns (which made me think he had enough tenacity for the job at hand), then....

Ron Paul 2012!

Originally Posted by Eric

I had lots of positive thoughts about him...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There's a start. Now change that "had" into a "have" and you'll be a winner....

I hope you're not one of these "think positive thoughts and they'll magically happen" types. You speak of Xers, nothing makes a good Xer's eyes roll more than that type of Pollyanna crap.

I too had all kinds of optimism about the man. But results matter, and I don't see good results so far. Optimism for me can only go so far without a payoff.

Originally Posted by 92man

Ron Paul 2012!

One can only hope. It will be nice to have a president who is not an economic illiterate for a change.

It is interesting that his support does not come from corporations. It would seem that if a libertarian government is to the advantage of corporations then they would be falling all over themselves to support his campaign and the Libertarian Party as well. Yet curiously they don't. The more perceptive individuals will investigate this apparent anomaly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I suspect, rather, that he is too genteel, and too unprepared to accept just what he is dealing with, even if he is smart enough to see it.

I think you nailed it better than I did.

I mean, I really, really wish with all my heart that we didn't have the conflict we do in this country, that we weren't in a 4T, etc. I'm a very peaceful, easygoing guy by nature. But we do. And (since summer in the fall likes to extol the supposed virtues of we Xers) one thing Xers know, is you have to deal with the reality handed to you. And so does Obama.

I originally thought his appeasing, generous extended-hand approach was his strategy: either the Republicans would accept the extended hand (very unlikely I thought, but possible) and they'd actually work together with mutual respect as he seemed to want; or they wouldn't accept the extended hand but Obama would have clearly demonstrated to the people that he offered it before it was spit on, thus marginalizing the mean-spirited Republicans. The latter has happened (as I thought it would), but for them to be marginalized for it required him to actually take the initiative boldly at that point. But maybe he really is nothing but a diplomat at heart, and knows only carrots, not sticks, at that.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever makes you happy. Someone else may see the "crazy" in calling our own people Hitler and Obama the idiot fool for not seeing it.

He didn't call Republicans Hitler. He said they have one trait in common with Hitler. Quit being dishonest, and grow up.

Good God.

Originally Posted by brian

Having one crucial characteristic in common with X is not the same as having all characteristics in common with X.

It ain't rocket science, summer, unless you want it to be.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."

Good Lord do you have a one-track mind. I'm not seeking "boomerish" leadership per se....

Per se? Hmmm. That's curious. Then name another non-Boomer any non-Boomer that is both capable and willing to do the job Obama has. A Warning: pointing to Silents that you know aint got a chance in h-e-l-l of either getting the nomination or piercing through the media firewall will not reflect favorably upon you...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...I'm seeking leadership that actually works, and is effective in bringing about at least some of what I'd like to see for my country...

You honestly can say that you do not see any [zero, zilch, nada] of what you want for this country taking place with Obama? Wow, and I'm the one with the one-track mind.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...I think most people want that....

Agree. That's why Obama's job is so hard because people's views are so polarized right now. No matter what he does, somebody's gonna be mad...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...I call Obama how I see him...

And what if the way you "see" him, wasn't the way he was? Did you ever think of that? Is your knowledge and awareness of what's going on right now in Washington that complete? Better still, is your intelligence more comprehensive than the kind Obama is getting? See, on the one hand y'all want to call the man smart. On the other, you got all kinds of advice on how to be a better president than him. Do you get headaches from that type of hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...you have a problem with that...

Naw...Just think it's a little sad... I mean to like someone you have zero faith in....

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...You speak of Xers, nothing makes a good Xer's eyes roll more than that type of Pollyanna crap...

Cynicism isn't the only trait of Xers. In fact I'd say many of the best of us (including Obama) grow out of it...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

He didn't call Republicans Hitler. He said they have one trait in common with Hitler...

Yes, but it was intended to evoke the fear and dread associated with Hitler. That is the only reason why anyone makes Hilter analogies. The only reason. Tea Partiers and other protesters throwing up Obama as Hitler signs citing one similarity between the two as rationale is prime example. And I have been just as vocal with them in the streets. Ya know...I'm starting to think talking to left-wingers is worse than talking to right. You both seem to want to shut off your brains.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...Quit being dishonest, and grow up...

Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.

night all...

Originally Posted by Galen

One can only hope. It will be nice to have a president who is not an economic illiterate for a change.

It is interesting that his support does not come from corporations. It would seem that if a libertarian government is to the advantage of corporations then they would be falling all over themselves to support his campaign and the Libertarian Party as well. Yet curiously they don't. The more perceptive individuals will investigate this apparent anomaly.

The electorate that voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004 and for Republican majorities in 2002 and 2010 midterms hardly qualifies as 'perceptive'. It is far more likely. and to the benefit of Democrats, that the Constitutional and Libertarian Parties will siphon off Republican-leaning voters than Democratic-leaning voters.

I'm really beginning to see the truth of what others here have been saying about you. You are being intentionally obtuse: when someone clearly and quite patiently explains to you the meaning and intent of what they were trying to say, as Brian was, you pretend not to hear it and go "la la la, you invoked Hitler! Godwin! La la la" rather than even try to consider their explanation. That kind of bullsh*t doesn't fly here, and you'll either find that out the easy way or the hard way.

And please don't call me "brother".

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Per se? Hmmm. That's curious. Then name another non-Boomer any non-Boomer that is both capable and willing to do the job Obama has. A Warning: pointing to Silents that you know aint got a chance in h-e-l-l of either getting the nomination or piercing through the media firewall will reflect poorly upon you...

Gee, you know, I don't go looking up the dates people were born when I read about their political doings. I'm not sure your demand here is worth the effort of changing that practice. One more time so that you understand: on this issue of assertiveness or non-assertiveness in dealing with bullies, generation is not an issue. There are weak-willed and strong-willed in all generations. I'm looking for a strong-willed figure of whatever generation who shares my desire for some sensible progressive reforms. Not a bully themselves, but not a pushover either. Someone who will play hardball when that's what the other team's playing. Even if he doesn't like it. No one likes it, I don't like it, but it's what we face just the same and you can't make it just go away with "positive thoughts" and magical fairy dust. You either engage the best you can, or surrender. Such is the way of the world in a 4T.

But it does seem there aren't a whole lot of clearly Xer Democrats high enough up there in politics to make a run of it in 2012 (should Obama step aside)--which is a shame I suppose. There may be more of them by 2016. But get it through your head, please, that I don't look at generation at all as a criterion. I.e. I don't abide by your framing, I just want whatever progressive is best for the job, whatever progressive will give the progressive case a clear voice. If he or she just happens to have been born before 1961, so be it, whoop-tee-doo. If after, so be it, whoop-tee-doo. That's what I meant by "not Boomerish per se"--it's not a factor I even consider. Got it?

You honestly can say that you do not see any [zero, zilch, nada] of what you want for this country taking place with Obama? Wow, and I'm the one with the one-track mind.

I'm glad "don't ask don't tell" was done away with. I'm glad we caught Bin Laden. I'm glad something was passed to address health care, but not that it ended up being one giant subsidy to the same insurance companies who've been screwing vulnerable policyholders over with fine print or outright fraud at their greatest hour of need (and even if he wasn't aiming for single payer, he should have started negotiations with that on the table, because smart negotiators always start asking far more than what they know they'll end up settling for)--and the mess of legislation we got probably won't even hold up in SCOTUS. But it was a start, whether we can build on it or whether we'll have to start again if it's repealed or struck down by the courts.... And I do like his calmer, mellower disposition in some ways (and that doesn't preclude assertiveness either--one can be calm but assertive when it counts, too bad he really isn't the latter though). And I do like the fact that he isn't Bush, that he's not off starting new wars (although we got involved in Libya's conflict, peripherally) in which his contractor cronies can loot the target country while our soldiers come home maimed or traumatized or in bodybags. I like the fact that he isn't some apocalyptic true-believer whacko like Palin or the Dominionists who think harsh measures are required before Jesus returns. In fact, it seems most of what I do like about him being in office is that the alternatives are surely worse. But that's not enough to motivate most voters, and if that and little else is all we see I'm afraid those worse alternatives will be in a stronger position to win in 2012.

Agree. That's why Obama's job is so hard because people's views are so polarized right now. No matter what he does, somebody's gonna be mad...

I see the right making their case loud and clear--not hard for them, and they seem to be gaining some ground (or momentum) for doing so in spite of the polarization. I don't see the holder of that most public of podiums the President has making the case for even the center-left loud and clear. It is not out of place for a President to actively make the case for the policies he ran on, even knowing he'll be opposed by many. A leader that earns respect even from some of the opposition is one who will clearly state what he wants to do and why he wants to do it, and will make it clear through his actions that he won't be buffaloed. Reagan knew this well. It's what's expected even in non-polarized times, and it's definitely needed in polarized times if one is to be able to lead at all, to have his voice heard above the fray.

And what if the way you "see" him, wasn't the way he was? Did you ever think of that? Is your knowledge and awareness of what's going on right now in Washington that complete?

Well golly gee, no, my knowledge of Washington politics isn't complete. Is yours? No? Well gosh darn then, I guess neither of us has a right to comment on what we do see. No more political discussions, then.

What I don't see, is you making a case for Obama--just a defensiveness (that's getting shriller and shriller as it goes on) against my case. Why don't you go out on more of a limb and comment about what you see in Obama?

Better still, is your intelligence more comprehensive than the kind Obama is getting?

Let me tell you about "intelligence": I originally gave Bush 43 the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, because I assumed the "intelligence" he was getting, that we didn't see, probably would justify it. Fool me once....

So okay, maybe when he stepped into the Oval Office, the big corporate boys who really run the country sat him down and delineated on no uncertain terms what he could push for and what he couldn't, and possible consequences (like some lone redneck patsy with a rifle) if he forgot his "place". I've actually wondered if something like that happened, which would explain the drastic change from outspoken and somewhat fiery progressive advocate during the campaign to suddenly aged, quiet, and timid after January 20. (And if that "wild conspiracy theory" were true, I guess I wouldn't blame him for his timidity. I'd just be greatly saddened at what it would imply for our country.) Or, probably more likely, it may have been "holy sh*t, this is gonna be way harder than I thought", and he had no idea that one could no longer make deals amicably and with mutual respect between parties in Washington, as he had really hoped he could, and he didn't have a Plan B (but sadly that shows a lack of perceptiveness--even I could see how intransigent and strident the GOP had gotten, and had doubts that they would deal evenhandedly--and I admit that does make him appear less intelligent than I think he is). But you're right, I don't know. Do you? No? Well I guess neither of us has a right to comment on the odd change of behavior. Nothing to see here....

See, on the one hand y'all want to call the man smart. On the other, you got all kinds of advice on how to be a better president than him. Do you get headaches from that type of hypocrisy?

You know what? I'm going to here and now call bullsh*t on your claim to be a "brother Xer". Because you seem too young to be. You lack the even basic life experience to recognize that people can be intelligent in differing ways, and the basic (to someone in their 40s or even 30s) wisdom to understand that no matter how intelligent you may be, you can always benefit from advice from someone else with a different, even (maybe especially) outside, perspective. Even from someone who is, by whatever metric, less intelligent overall. Saying he could use advice is not the same at all as saying he isn't smart. Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

So no, there is no hypocrisy in that. Only your increasingly desperate desire to find a way to attack me. I recommend you give it up, since you clearly don't know how to do it effectively.

Naw...Just think it's a little sad... I mean to like someone you have zero faith in....

Faith is as faith does. (shrug)

Cynicism isn't the only trait of Xers. In fact I'd say many of the best of us (including Obama) grow out of it...

Magical thinking is definitely something most Xers grow out of fairly early. Positive thinking does have a function, and I have them in my day to day interactions with people for the most part. In spite of what might be my better judgment, I do tend to give most people the benefit of the doubt at first (as I did you). Knowing little of Obama in 2008, I gave him a shot and voted for him over Hillary Clinton in our caucuses, and felt some positive thoughts then.

But here's the thing: sometimes my positive thoughts turn out to be wrong. And maintaining those same particular positive thoughts after that realization would just be deluding myself, wouldn't it. So no.

Yes, but it was intended to evoke the fear and dread associated with Hitler. That is the only reason why anyone makes Hilter analogies. The only reason.

No it isn't, you're just asserting that. If you actually read what he said rather than thought of some way to fire back at him (as I'll bet you're doing with me as you read this), you'd see that he was talking about Chamberlain, not Hitler. And that he was talking about trying to appease someone who won't be appeased. He said the Republicans won't be appeased. You're the one who flew off the handle and invoked Godwin. So what then, we aren't allowed to talk about the phenomenon of unappeasability, and people in the past who tried to appease the unappeasable, because well that's just too close to the dreaded H-word?

Since you proclaim the value of positive thinking, quit trying to reach for a negative spin on what people are saying. I'm sure everybody else here got what Brian said. And I think you did too, but Brian's real argument was just too inconvenient for you to address, so you pathetically tried for the Godwin card. As people in the generation I suspect you actually belong to say, "FAIL!"

Tea Partiers and other protesters throwing up Obama as Hitler signs citing one similarity between the two as rationale is prime example. And I have been just as intolerant with them in the streets. Ya know...I'm starting to think talking to left-wingers is worse than talking to right. You both seem to want to shut off your brains.

Once again, Brian did not call Republicans Hitler. Either show me in quotes where he did, or shut up. It's not gonna work. We don't play games here. At least not those cheapass kind.

That I'm responding at all to you is a courtesy. I'm afraid I might be feeding a troll. If that proves to be the case, enjoy shouting to the thin air, because soon that's all you'll be doing here. Not too much time gets wasted on this board on people who are intentionally obtuse, dishonest, or looking for a fight.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Good Lord do you have a one-track mind. I'm not seeking "boomerish" leadership per se. I'm seeking leadership that actually works, and is effective in bringing about at least some of what I'd like to see for my country. I think most people want that. Whether it happens to come from someone born before or after the year 1961 makes no difference to me. I call Obama how I see him, and if you have a problem with that, well... (shrug) opinions are like a**holes, as they say.

And as for him not being stupid... I agree, he is a very intelligent man, in many areas. But in the rough and dangerous political atmosphere we have today, he doesn't appear to be very effective at getting much of the things he wants done. Or at least the things I thought he wanted, based on his campaign. That's probably the kind of savvy not too many people have. And with corporate money and corporate media arguably stacked against real progressive reform, it was always going to be an uphill battle. I'm disappointed that he doesn't seem quite up to that challenge. But as for overall intelligence, he's probably well up in the 95th percentile I'd imagine. But the talents I'm speaking of include a bit of what are called "street smarts", and probably most importantly, a strong will and tenacity. Now if we could see the same kind of tenacity he showed in both his primary and general campaigns (which made me think he had enough tenacity for the job at hand), then....

Yes. He's playing chess in a Roman arena fight.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I hope you're not one of these "think positive thoughts and they'll magically happen" types. You speak of Xers, nothing makes a good Xer's eyes roll more than that type of Pollyanna crap.

I too had all kinds of optimism about the man. But results matter, and I don't see good results so far. Optimism for me can only go so far without a payoff.

Some of the magical thinking going around in the field of economics, of which you've just cited an excellent example, would disgust anyone who knew anything about magic. In fact, any experienced witch would tell those folks to stop trying to wave their wands around and have a hard look at what really does and does not work. They give the term "magical thinking" a bad name.

Originally Posted by Galen

It is interesting that his support does not come from corporations. It would seem that if a libertarian government is to the advantage of corporations then they would be falling all over themselves to support his campaign and the Libertarian Party as well. Yet curiously they don't. The more perceptive individuals will investigate this apparent anomaly.

The Libertarian Party platform, and Ron Paul for that matter, wouldn't put caps on corporate power or wealth BUT they also tend to oppose the laws that Corporate America has bought and paid for which give them legal advantages over smaller businesses (and individuals). That includes Wall Street bailouts and some forms of mandates and regulation that Big Business can afford but which can bankrupt small business -- thus eliminating competition.

In other words, libertarianism may enable a plutocracy, but unlike what many Republicans and a few Democrats produce, libertarianism wouldn't actively promote it with legislation that explicitly favors the megacorporation, that give it additional advantage beyond what their size and wealth would already give them.

Ron Paul would pursue policies favorable to corporate greed maybe half the time, because libertarian ideology calls for that roughly half the time. What the corporate donors want is someone who would pursue policies favorable to corporate greed all the time, and that doesn't come from a sincere ideologue of any kind, but rather from a corrupt politician who knows what side his bread is buttered on.

The real problem with libertarian ideology isn't that it is favorable to corporations but that it has a total disconnect from reality.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ron Paul would pursue policies favorable to corporate greed maybe half the time, because libertarian ideology calls for that roughly half the time. What the corporate donors want is someone who would pursue policies favorable to corporate greed all the time, and that doesn't come from a sincere ideologue of any kind, but rather from a corrupt politician who knows what side his bread is buttered on.

And when that corporate donor is a defense contractor, of course, they would be even more opposed to libertarian candidates.

In regard to Mr. Hitler: the man has been dead now for 66 years. In my opinion, it's long past time that we de-mythologized him. There are lessons to be learned from the history of Nazi Germany and we can't learn them if our take on that period is essentially "the German government was possessed by demons who were exorcized by the combined righteous military force of the Western allies and the Soviet Union." This kind of thinking is useless partly because it isn't true, and partly because it leads us to the comforting delusion that we have no politicians possessing at least some of Hitler's reprehensible traits and that it can't happen here. He was a very important political figure of the last Crisis, arguably the pivot on whom the whole mid-20th-century world turned. Not to study him objectively is a foolish omission.

Many of us on this board have at least trivial points in common with Der Fuhrer. A lot of us are good with words. So was he. (Albeit in a different language.) Some of us are vegetarians. So was he. Some of us served in the military. So did he.

As a politician, he had many positive qualities along with some disastrously negative ones. He was a compelling orator. He was very sensitive to public opinion and a shrewd judge of what the people wanted. He had a strong pragmatic streak where it wasn't sideswiped by his ideology, e.g. in economic policy. He was a very capable and efficient administrator. He was a clever and accomplished diplomat.

On the downside, he was an autocrat, a warmonger, and a genocidal racist. The failure of Chamberlain's peace initiatives arose from one of those negative traits: warmongering. It was not impacted one bit by Hitler's genocidal racism, and only marginally by his autocracy. But because Hitler was determined to go to war, he could not be offered any concessions in exchange for peace. He wanted to wallop France and then conquer half of Russia and fill it up with German colonists, and there was no way he was going to get that peacefully. From this we may draw a general rule: when dealing with someone who is determined to go to war (literally or metaphorically), it is useless to try appeasement. There are no concessions that can be offered in exchange for peace. But we may apply this rule only if we are willing to recognize when someone shares this particular quality with Hitler. And in order to do that, we must cease treating him like a supernatural embodiment of evil, and look at him more rationally.

A person who shares this quality (unappeasability) with Hitler will not necessarily share his autocracy (although that's not unlikely) or his genocidal racism (much less likely). Today's Republicans in Congress are perhaps autocrats, but to date they have not taken this as far as the Nazis did (perhaps only because they have lacked opportunity, but that's yet to be proven -- and let's hope it won't be). I see no evidence that they are genocidal racists. But they are certainly political warmongers: determined to fight a civil war with political tools, unappeasable, and unwilling to compromise.

The approach that Obama is taking with them would have been the right approach with the Republican Party of Eisenhower, or even of Nixon. It could even have worked with the GOP of Reagan's time. But it will not work now. Just as appeasement (also known as compromise) is the right approach the majority of the time, so is a willingness to bargain honorably and to pursue the politically possible. But there are exceptions, and we're in one. These Republicans can no more be reasoned with or compromised with (to use a different analogy) than could the government of the Confederate States when Lincoln took office.

There is only one approach that will work with such people: fight them. Fight them hard. Fight them without compromise or compassion or half-measures. Accept no resolution short of unconditional surrender. Drive them utterly and forever out of high office. Yes, that means that the niceties of parliamentary procedure and normal democratic governance have to be set aside for a while. It's a Crisis Era. That's part of the package.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

The Libertarian Party platform, and Ron Paul for that matter, wouldn't put caps on corporate power or wealth BUT they also tend to oppose the laws that Corporate America has bought and paid for which give them legal advantages over smaller businesses (and individuals). That includes Wall Street bailouts and some forms of mandates and regulation that Big Business can afford but which can bankrupt small business -- thus eliminating competition.

In other words, libertarianism may enable a plutocracy, but unlike what many Republicans and a few Democrats produce, libertarianism wouldn't actively promote it with legislation that explicitly favors the megacorporation, that give it additional advantage beyond what their size and wealth would already give them.

I wonder if a workable hybrid (or temporary alliance of sorts) of Libertarian and Green (Paul and Nader, as was brought up somewhere here) would be focused on ending corporate welfare. Maybe see if doing that will actually alleviate much of the need for helping those at the bottom stay above water at least in the mid and long term. If smaller businesses had more of a fighting chance, then employment may increase significantly.

But I wonder if some trustbusting will have to be in order first. Today's megacorps have gotten so much of a leg up under the hope-to-be-soon former way of doing things, that even cutting off the teat would still leave them relatively powerful enough that they can crush with sheer economy of scale, market manipulations and whatnot all by themselves. Some huge corps may be so built around the present system that they may implode if it's suddenly cut off (and I don't think they'll take that prospect sitting down), but others really never "needed" the largesse to survive.

Even enabling a plutocracy worries me--because plutocracy worries me, and disgusts me to the extent we already have it. I don't like any person to be too powerful, whether he be private citizen (or corporate "person" in the legal sense) or governmental. Concentrations of power are dangerous to liberty and the overall well-being of everyone else, no matter what their agency. The problem we have is that since we have large concentrations of power building in the private sector, we need something itself powerful to keep those in check--the government that represents We the People. But that government has allowed itself (no, we allowed it, by not paying attention as was our civic duty) to be bought and largely and effectively captured by those concetrations of power in the private sector. Which means we're really up the proverbial poop crick, because who is left to watch our backs from that megaconglomeration of power?

Dismantling that structure will be very messy if even possible. I'd just be concerned what comes out on the other side not be more cruel, not be more repressive of those on the bottom, and not allow any new great concentrations of power. If any of those things result, then the "experiment" would be a failure in my book. I will assume if the Greens come out as the big counterparty to the Libs in the new order, environmental concerns will be addressed. They had better be, because the Earth is our Commons, and we live or die depending on whether we protect or foul our nest.

I'm still quite skeptical of Libertarians, and some of their motives (which translates to which direction they'll go). If it came a point in time that Libs and Greens become the two dominant parties to emerge from whatever pile of rubble might be left for them to crawl out of (as I said, some big people won't take it sitting down), I'd be a Green, as I suspect most progressives would be.

Edited post.

Clearly I need to pay better attention as I posted the exact same article as Brian Rush did yesterday by Mike Lofgren. A good article btw. Apparently I permitted myself to be distracted by some of the arguing drama that I overlooked Rush's post. Apology to everyone.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I'm really beginning to see the truth of what others here have been saying about you. You are being intentionally obtuse: when someone clearly and quite patiently explains to you the meaning and intent of what they were trying to say, as Brian was, you pretend not to hear it and go "la la la, you invoked Hitler! Godwin! La la la" rather than even try to consider their explanation....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...But those were not normal times. Every once in a while, one is confronted with an adversary for whom appeasement is the wrong approach, simply because he cannot be appeased. And that describes Adolf Hitler, who was hell-bent on war, come what may. Hitler was the one-in-a-million situation for which Churchill's approach was right and Chamberlain's wrong. In our domestic politics, we have a similar situation today. If Obama adopts a less compromising, more combative approach to the Republicans in Congress, he will not get the crucial legislation passed that we need. But if he does not -- he will still not get the crucial legislation passed that we need, because the Republicans cannot be appeased and will not compromise. And he may also lose his reelection bid, putting us in even worse straits as of 2013. With this Congress, war (metaphorically speaking) can't be avoided. Obama needs to stop being Chamberlain and find his inner Churchill. Normally, that's bad advice. But these are not normal times.

This was his intent. Later backtracking aside. This is what he was after--fear. Appeasement analogies are fine. But there is a reason he wanted a Hitler/Nazi one.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Per se? Hmmm. That's curious. Then name another non-Boomer any non-Boomer that is both capable and willing to do the job Obama has. A Warning: pointing to Silents that you know aint got a chance in h-e-l-l of either getting the nomination or piercing through the media firewall will reflect poorly upon you...

Gee, you know, I don't go looking up the dates people were born when I read about their political doings...

Well, you might want to try, especially seeing as you are on a forum that discusses generational theory.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...I'm not sure your demand here is worth the effort of changing that practice. One more time so that you understand: on this issue of assertiveness or non-assertiveness in dealing with bullies, generation is not an issue...

You see, but what you call assertiveness vs non-assertiveness, I see as you're-either-with-us-or-against-us-black-white Boomer crazy. There is a reason why people are flocking to the at-least-Bush-was-a-decider rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...There are weak-willed and strong-willed in all generations...

If that's the case, Obama has got to be one of the strongest-willed persons I've ever seen...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I'm looking for a strong-willed figure...

You're looking for a daddy. And daddies don't come in people the same generation seven years older than you.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...But it does seem there aren't a whole lot of clearly Xer Democrats high enough up there in politics to make a run of it in 2012...

See, you missed the point of my exercise. I wasn't limiting you to Democrats or even the 2012. My point is that no one wants to touch the job Obama has, the job you're beating Obama up for not doing correctly.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You honestly can say that you do not see any [zero, zilch, nada] of what you want for this country taking place with Obama? Wow, and I'm the one with the one-track mind

I'm glad "don't ask don't tell" was done away with. I'm glad we caught Bin Laden. I'm glad something was passed to address health care, but not that it ended up being one giant subsidy to the same insurance companies who've been screwing vulnerable policyholders over with fine print or outright fraud at their greatest hour of need (and even if he wasn't aiming for single payer, he should have started negotiations with that on the table, because smart negotiators always start asking far more than what they know they'll end up settling for)--and the mess of legislation we got probably won't even hold up in SCOTUS. But it was a start, whether we can build on it or whether we'll have to start again if it's repealed or struck down by the courts.... And I do like his calmer, mellower disposition in some ways (and that doesn't preclude assertiveness either--one can be calm but assertive when it counts, too bad he really isn't the latter though). And I do like the fact that he isn't Bush, that he's not off starting new wars (although we got involved in Libya's conflict, peripherally) in which his contractor cronies can loot the target country while our soldiers come home maimed or traumatized or in bodybags. I like the fact that he isn't some apocalyptic true-believer whacko like Palin or the Dominionists who think harsh measures are required before Jesus returns...

Seems to me that there is quite a bit you are pleased with...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Agree. That's why Obama's job is so hard because people's views are so polarized right now. No matter what he does, somebody's gonna be mad...

I see the right making their case loud and clear--not hard for them, and they seem to be gaining some ground (or momentum) for doing so in spite of the polarization. I don't see the holder of that most public of podiums the President has making the case for even the center-left loud and clear...

All I can say is that your perception of reality is different from mine. I see no one really happy and Obama staving off civil war by staying in the middle.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

And what if the way you "see" him, wasn't the way he was? Did you ever think of that? Is your knowledge and awareness of what's going on right now in Washington that complete?

Well golly gee, no, my knowledge of Washington politics isn't complete. Is yours? No? Well gosh darn then, I guess neither of us has a right to comment on what we do see. No more political discussions, then.

Not my implication. Make all the discourse you want. But when you find yourself reaching for defeatist arguments see the counterproductive-ness of it. Essentially, your anger with me is that I won't validate your dissing Obama. And that makes me a horrible, evil little troll GRrrrrrrr...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...What I don't see, is you making a case for Obama...

Why should I make a case? I'm not the one in doubt.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Better still, is your intelligence more comprehensive than the kind Obama is getting?

Let me tell you about "intelligence": I originally gave Bush 43 the benefit of the doubt on Iraq...

Well that's the difference between you and me. I had Bush pegged the moment the Afghanistan war started. I felt like the lone brain in a sea of sheep. I kept saying, "From a cave? He orchestrated the greatest terrorist attack the world has ever seen from a cave?" I lost friends during that time. Much of family and I were not on good terms. Now I see the same sheeple mentality, this time by the Obama is satan echo chamber...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...because I assumed the "intelligence" he was getting, that we didn't see, probably would justify it. Fool me once....

You know, that may be where this is coming from--displaced anger at (oneself, really) for being duped. If that's the case I give you permission to forgive yourself. You, hereby released from that demon. Thank you JEEZ-us.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

See, on the one hand y'all want to call the man smart. On the other, you got all kinds of advice on how to be a better president than him. Do you get headaches from that type of hypocrisy?

You know what? I'm going to here and now call bullsh*t on your claim to be a "brother Xer"....

Sorry bro. Xer in the flesh. Now I'm not an early wave Xer, but an Xer all the same. And proud of it, bro.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...Because you seem too young to be. You lack the even basic life experience to recognize that people can be intelligent in differing ways, and the basic (to someone in their 40s or even 30s) wisdom to understand that no matter how intelligent you may be, you can always benefit from advice from someone else with a different, even (maybe especially) outside, perspective. Even from someone who is, by whatever metric, less intelligent overall. Saying he could use advice is not the same at all as saying he isn't smart. Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

You guys keep using this word "intelligent" when I have not. I said "smart" and "competent". Whatever. Fine, I'll use "intelligent." Now we can have a semantics debate on what those words mean (god I hope not). But the gist of it is you think you know his limitations better than he does. Of course he can seek advice. No one is questioning that. But for what other reason could you possibly think he has not considered the things you keep running on constant loop about other than a belief that he lacks the intelligence?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Naw...Just think it's a little sad... I mean to like someone you have zero faith in....

Faith is as faith does. (shrug)

Now why do I get the feeling that you don't actually believe that?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Cynicism isn't the only trait of Xers. In fact I'd say many of the best of us (including Obama) grow out of it...

Magical thinking is definitely something most Xers grow out of fairly early....

I have 3 words for you -- Barack Hussein Obama.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Positive thinking does have a function...But here's the thing: sometimes my positive thoughts turn out to be wrong...

Well, wah wah wah poor you. Sometimes positive thoughts are wrong. So I should have no more positive thoughts ever again. Grow up.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes, but it was intended to evoke the fear and dread associated with Hitler. That is the only reason why anyone makes Hilter analogies. The only reason.

No it isn't, you're just asserting that. If you actually read what he said...

I did.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...rather than thought of some way to fire back at him (as I'll bet you're doing with me as you read this), you'd see that he was talking about Chamberlain, not Hitler. And that he was talking about trying to appease someone who won't be appeased. He said the Republicans won't be appeased. You're the one who flew off the handle and invoked Godwin. So what then, we aren't allowed to talk about the phenomenon of unappeasability...

Talk all you want. Don't need my permission.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Since you proclaim the value of positive thinking, quit trying to reach for a negative spin on what people are saying....

A negative spin on calling Republicans Hitler--HA!

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Tea Partiers and other protesters throwing up Obama as Hitler signs citing one similarity between the two as rationale is prime example. And I have been just as intolerant with them in the streets. Ya know...I'm starting to think talking to left-wingers is worse than talking to right. You both seem to want to shut off your brains.

Once again, Brian did not call Republicans Hitler. Either show me in quotes where he did, or shut up...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...But those were not normal times. Every once in a while, one is confronted with an adversary for whom appeasement is the wrong approach, simply because he cannot be appeased. And that describes Adolf Hitler, who was hell-bent on war, come what may. Hitler was the one-in-a-million situation for which Churchill's approach was right and Chamberlain's wrong. In our domestic politics, we have a similar situation today. If Obama adopts a less compromising, more combative approach to the Republicans in Congress, he will not get the crucial legislation passed that we need. But if he does not -- he will still not get the crucial legislation passed that we need, because the Republicans cannot be appeased and will not compromise. And he may also lose his reelection bid, putting us in even worse straits as of 2013. With this Congress, war (metaphorically speaking) can't be avoided. Obama needs to stop being Chamberlain and find his inner Churchill. Normally, that's bad advice. But these are not normal times.

Cheers.

You know..its amazing how many people argue just for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes, but it was intended to evoke the fear and dread associated with Hitler. That is the only reason why anyone makes Hilter analogies. The only reason. Tea Partiers and other protesters throwing up Obama as Hitler signs citing one similarity between the two as rationale is prime example.

Just a thought. Only ignorant idiots manage to take what otherwise would be a legitimate comparison to one characteristic of Hitler into an OMG YOU'VE INVOKED HITLER type drama that raises everyones hackles.

I saw where Brian was coming from. That you didn't speaks to your inability to even debate on any kind of logical basis.

.......
.......
.......
.......

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In the sense that he isn't blatantly self-serving or actively opposing what (he thinks) is best, I agree. In the sense that he is pursuing, not only what he thinks is best, but what objectively really IS best, I don't.

In some ways, Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain: a good man for a different time.

Anyone raised in the history of the prelude to WW2 uses the word appeaser in a negative sense, but appeaser is just another word for peacemaker. I have pointed out in other posts the stirring oratory of Obama the confrontational leader that appealed so much to the progressives. On the other hand, his appeal to centrists in 2008 was more based on his stated aim to end the culture wars and bring us together. In hindsight, perhaps this latter hope was the main reason I voted for him.

Progressives think of his peacemaking with Republicans and feel betrayed, but he also has tried to be a peacemaker with his own party. One constant criticism of the first two years was that he turned legislating over to Pelosi and Reid.

Progressives fume at the cognitive and psychological disconnect between his "change" campaign rhetoric and his "peacemaker" governance. Centrists think of his peacemaking as simply not having worked. He passed a stimulus program which was little more than payoffs to favored groups and a health care overhaul that never had the consensus of the country. Much of the country still loathes both of them and the unemployment rate is like a corrosive on feelings of good will.

I still think he will be reelected simply because the Republicans are not able to offer a candidate that can win a majority, but his second term will probably be even more divisive and disappointing as his first. We are not in a good place.

James50