Know your place!

Who cares what people want?

Who cares what voters say?

What did you think?

What were you expecting?

This is not a deliberative democracy!

Ours is a modern Republic!!!

Since the 1830s when Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

Corporations are citizens too. And they have rights---rights, which are to be protected from the would be mob-rule of people like you.

Now, you know.

The Founding Fathers would have been proud of the 111th congress.

And they would have been proud of this administration.

And so would have Theodore Roosevelt---or so says the Ministry of half-truths:

Repeat after me now (from Bloomberg article above): " will take years before the public recognizes their [the Democrats'] achievements."

Warning: Do not continue if you have epilepsy.


  1. A couple of things.....

    If you have watched FOX news lately you know that the right is already revving up to make huge cuts from federal programs. You know the story line - we can't afford all this spending, blah blah. Which approach, of course, was facilitated by extending the Bush tax cuts.

    On NPR this morning a woman (forgot her name) remarked that the polls show that a majority of Americans tend to be "ideologically" conservative, believing in small government, etc., while "practically" they're progressive, believing in making healthcare accessible to all as an example.

    So we voted the bums out. And look at what we got in their place. Bums to beat all bums. Obama dreams of "compromise?" Good luck. There Tea Party committees in House districts watching their reps to make sure they don't compromise. Purists all.

    We live in interesting times.

  2. Hmm...what does Obama "dream" of?

    Does anyone know?

    Does Obama?

    Does he dream in color?

    What are a Republocart’s dreams made of, anyway?

  3. Ahh, but President Obama is no "dreamer," no sir, he is a realist - didn’t you know?

  4. LOL!! I stand corrected ;-)

  5. The “BUMS,” whatever their color or the flavor of the day (blue dog or tea flavored), have proven nothing else but a convenient alibi to this administration.

    If anything, the Democrats’ super-majority in congress turned out to be somewhat of an embarrassment to the party. It made for a sloppy performance there. The masks kind of slipped off for a minute or two—until Obama’s mentor, Senator Palpatine (a.k.a. Senator Joseph Lieberman) saved the show and single-handily killed the Public Option (this one time around). It almost ruined the Kabuki performance and left the audience confused. Can’t have that.

    New Democrats have always been at their best, when what they say or do is of no consequence. It’s a more traditional and much more comfortable role for them—and their main purpose.

    This administration has achieved the impossible: snuffed the progressive movement, swayed the drive for healthcare reform so as to deliver to the insurance industries what they had long coveted (individual mandate and a captive market), and also managed in one fell swoop to ensure that this Democratic controlled congress would not stand in the way of the extension of the Bush tax-cut (the president has actually endorsed a tax plan that is even more favorable for the richest Americans than anything President Bush before him had been able to pass into law). Not an easy feat—none of it—in view of the circumstances and the kind of Zeitgeist that had launched Obama's candidacy (giving credit where credit is due here – a "Nixon goes to China" kind of a feat).

    Obama should now be able to return to a more comfortable register: soaring rhetoric and empty posturing (like, that speech he gave, more than a year before he was sworn in as a senator, against the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, or the keynote he delivered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention), just so long as he is not required to act on any of it—to be sure, the “BUMS,” whomever they happen to be this time around, will once again provide him and the New Democrats, with the perfect alibi.

    Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communication director is already setting the stage:

    "In a world of divided government, getting things done requires a mix of compromise and confrontation. What are the things you can do without Congress? In some cases, that involves executive orders, but it also involves using the bully pulpit of the presidency to make a political argument about the direction of the country."

    You don’t say.

  6. Curious, Jon Stewart is receiving more credit for getting the 9/11 responders bill passed through Congress than Obama. And many NYC firemen and first responders stormed some Senate offices before the vote, raising a ruckus.

    That's called "pressure," putting pressure on legislators to get worthwhile bills passed.


    A skill Obama lacks.

    Hint that lack though to Obama and you risk his wrath. In fact, his wrath is far stronger for those who suggest it than for those who stand in his way. Since not knowing how to apply pressure is a political failing on his part. And that failing apparently induces a greater character failing: anger at critics who point the first failing out.

    Obama really does illustrate the old adage that those in the wrong often react more violently than those in the right do to criticism. I always thought that was a little over simplified. But here’s Obama characterizing it, unless he has some grand scheme which will surprise us all and make us wonder why we never saw it? But somehow I doubt that.

    We bash Obama a lot on this site. We can take his ire though as a cue he is sensitive about an issue. And probably knows he is wrong. Or may even be trying to justify his position to himself. This may only be pop psychology, but that existed long before the professionals came along and complicated things. Even some Greeks, even Shakespeare, are credited for such visions. Even “old wives.”