The wet dream of having a real liberal in the White House today.

[Burgman]

Our government has been bought and paid for. They have the receipts.

Until there is a public tsunami, things will not change. No matter who we elect.

It costs millions if not billions for a person to be elected to meaningful office today. With the 1% controlling even more than the lion's share of money here, how do you expect anyone who will not sell their soul to ever get elected?

Capra's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is a fond dream. Until there is an earth shattering change in our election process there is no chance in hell that the common man will have a real voice in Washington.

[brooklynite]

1. Assume that the political process was NOT bought and paid for, as you allege...

Name the "real liberal" who could get enough votes, State by State, to win a Presidential election.

[Burgman]

3. I think you missed it, or at least my intention...

There is NO "real liberal" who could be elected today without corporate sponsorship as the price of the entry ticket is too high for all except for those chosen by the sponsors to allow for the facsimile of an election.

It really doesn't matter all that much who gets elected as all the contestants have already been bought and paid for.

[surfdog]

35. "been bought and paid for"

I agree our politicians have been bought and paid for.

But did you get paid for the vote YOU cast ?

I can vote for whoever I want to.

[Bonobo]

2. Ding ding ding.

"Until there is an earth shattering change in our election process there is no chance in hell that the common man will have a real voice in Washington."

And tell me, do you think it likely that the current crop of politicians will be instituting new laws that make it less likely for them to be able to keep their cushy jobs and to move to K Street after they leave their cushy jobs?

[Burgman]

4. See post number three.

[tabatha]

5. Obama is a real liberal.

Until he has a filibuster proof congress, he cannot be.

[Burgman]

7. I so hope/wish you are correct but I wonder.

I really like him. But many of his decisions have left me with more than one raised eyebrow.

He's the first Pres since JFK that I would like to have a beer with. But I have a lot of high friends in low places so that really doesn't count for much.

[tabatha]

13. I would hate to have to face what he has to, every day.

I don't know why he just not pack it in - it is almost impossible at times.

He is doing it for his daughters. And for all the people who would get hurt by Republican policies, even if he has to inch it along.

[Burgman]

17. I'm sure he feels that way.

But I'm just as sure that others have told him to "hoe the row" or end up like JFK in words that lent themselves to such. the Presidency, Congress and Senate have no more control of our country than you or I do.

[gyroscope]

9. Obama calls himself a centrist

and his former chief of staff says liberals are retards.

[tabatha]

12. Maybe that is why that chief of staff is former.

[gyroscope]

14. His new chief of staff isn't much of a liberal either

unless a former JP Morgan executive is your idea of a liberal.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

19. Please stop it

Rahm DID NOT say that liberals were retards. What Rahm said was that the strategy that the firebaggers were using in undermining Democratic congressmen was retarded. He didn't say that liberals were retards. And the point he was making was right

[gyroscope]

25. He most certainly did.

ABC News: After Calling Liberal Activists “Retarded,” Rahm To Meet With Disabled Rights Activists Wednesday

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/after-calling-liberal-activists-retarded-rahm-to-meet-with-disabled-rights-activists-wednesday/

[emulatorloo]

38. No, Rahm told a specific group that planned to run attack ads on Democrats that the strategy

was retarded.

Is Rahman an asshole? Yes. Did Rahm have a point? Yes. It was a fucked up thing to say, he should have said it better.

Did he call you retarded? No.

So please include all the facts before you repeat this tiresome talking point.

[treestar]

43. What Rahm said should be used to judge the statement

Not some motive-filled headline.

No, he called the ideas retarded. Rather than defending them, it was "Rahm insulted us!"

When somebody tough like Rahm is in the room, you have to stand up for yourself, not complain that he was tough on your idea.

[treestar]

42. He said their ideas were retarded

Nothing is quite so unappealing as people making themselves victims when they weren't. And refusing to defend their own ideas, but sidetracking into how victimized they allegedly were.

[gyroscope]

11. Oh, and his new chief of staff

is a former JP Morgan executive.

on what planet could Obama ever be considered a liberal?

[tabatha]

15. I have a hard time when people are smeared by association.

In every place I have worked, there has been such a diversity of people, that there is not one characteristic one could assign to all of them because they worked at a certain place, other than they worked at that place.

Without any facts, you are ascribing to a person all of the characteristic of who? at JP Morgan Chase to him.

Believe me, I despise Jamie Dimon, but I would never assign the vileness of Jamie Dimon to anyone else just because they worked at JP Morgan.

Because I have worked at too many places to know that a CEO is usually very different from all of the other employees.

[gyroscope]

23. What planet are you from?

Obama could hire Jamie Dimon himself as his chief of staff
and you'd be totally fine with it. You have a very odd idea of what a liberal is.

[tabatha]

24. Can you read?

I loathe and detest Jamie Dimon, and have already written to Obama about him.

So don't fucking put thoughts in my head that are totally opposite to what I have already done.

[gyroscope]

28. I'll do as I please

if you don't like it you are free to leave this thread.

[dionysus]

46. nice to see a 19 post DUer telling long time posters what to do.

[primavera]

47. So we're always told...

... the problem really isn't Obama, it's that he doesn't have complete and total control over every branch of government, so what can you expect? Well, yeah, if he did have complete and total control, then any five year old could run the country. The point is that that, in a democracy, no one ever has that level of control, yet we still look to our presidents to be effective leaders able to rally support to do the right thing. If Obama is not capable of doing that, then he's not an effective president. Sorry, but being president isn't ever an easy job, that's why so few people are able to be good presidents. To keep saying that Obama would be a great president if only it were easy is kind of meaningless: it's not an easy job, it never has been, it never will be, and if Obama - like 99.99999% of the population - isn't sufficiently gifted to handle that job and its demands, then he should step aside and we should go back to looking for someone who is.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Obama is a center-right moderate. nt.

[Angry Dragon]

55. Not even close

[Missy Vixen]

6. Capra's film may still be a "fond dream", but anyone who believes there can be meaningful change

in our nation will continue to work towards that goal.

I want better for our friends' kids. We may not see it in our lifetimes, but they might.

[tblue]

27. Damn. That's so sad.

Not seeing it in our lifetime. I don't know what to even hope to see in this life. I just hope the planet survives.

[dkf]

10. 21% identify themselves as "liberal"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

I imagine that makes electing a "true liberal" President pretty difficult.

[Zorra]

18. Huh. No wonder the country is in such terrible shape. That totally explains it right there. nt

[Burgman]

21. thanks to Fox, Rush and countless others

Liberal is worse than being Black, Gay, Eco intelligent or a Satanist. Semantics.

[gtar100]

29. Beg to differ on the perspective here.

If a racist comment is made and nobody dissents, then it may appear that racist opinion has the consent of the audience. And even if that were the case, the racism is no less abhorrent or despicable.

Liberal is not "worse", not in reality. Let any idiot say otherwise. No matter how many of them there are, they are still wrong. We do ourselves no favors by letting them get away with denigrating a system of philosophy and policy that has the ability to liberate our minds from ignorance and the blindness of our egos. We take back its true meaning by owning it for ourselves.

[tblue]

26. Thanks to GHWB, et al, liberal has become a bad word.

Also Dukakis should have set the record straight but he missed the opportunity. Unfortunately.

Most people don't even know what it means. Heck, lately I'm not even sure anymore.

Maybe labels don't hold much water anyway. There are plenty of people who say they are liberal who tolerate some pretty conservative policy.

[gtar100]

30. Liberal has been a difficult concept for those in power probably for eons.

It gets in the way of selfish decisions that are the hallmark of of the powerful elite in both business and military matters. Arguably, it's why they killed off Jesus so quickly and why they have such a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'peace'. As far as I'm concerned, hearing someone denigrate liberalism tells me they are just ignorant on the subject. Other prejudices and biases are soon to spill out of their mouths.

Just tacking labels on people is problematic, as you point out. But if we fail to acknowledge the concept of liberalism and discuss its merits and challenges, then the richness of this ideology will remain closed to many who would greatly benefit from applying it in practice.

I guess that's my way of saying "fuck GHWB, Reagan, Rush... and all the horses they rode in on". The utter inadequacy of their "conservative" philosophy to meet the needs of all but a handful of people demonstrates to me that they care only for themselves and whatever supports their small-minded interests. They're willing to let millions suffer in poverty and war for their own gain. They damn well better be afraid of liberals and liberalism because we intend to bring them to justice.

[stillwaiting]

34. I hate seeing that statistic posted on this website since it is so very misleading.

Through propaganda over decades "liberal" has been trashed and vilified purposefully so many Americans would not identify with that label.

When questioned about the ISSUES, the very same people who do not identify as liberal support progressive/liberal positions.

Frequent posters should know this by now.

So, if the focus were kept on the issues those issues would (and have) garnered the support of overwhelming majorities of Americans. Those issues, of course, being LIBERAL issues.

You know this.

[dkf]

39. You are of course able to post your conflicting data if you so choose.

[stillwaiting]

40. Well, I don't choose to do so.

You're a regular poster around here.

Your agenda has clearly been to get people to think that liberal policies do not have a chance to be implemented, and that we are not a liberal nation. Your ideas put forth work DIRECTLY against mine in trying to build a more liberal nation. You must first believe something is possible before that something has even a chance of becoming a reality. Psychological theory knows this, and the elite use this knowledge to work AGAINST left wing groups, their ideas, and liberal influence around the world in various ways. Putting just this such doubt into the minds of left wing groups and individuals is a massive goal of the elite. It can potentially significantly reduce the chances of liberals from gaining ground in this country.

My post simply stated that support for liberal positions is much greater than the misleading 21% you like to throw out. There is nothing controversial here. It's a fact, and it has been widely shown to be a fact on a number of issues over the years. Polling on issues that I KNOW you've seen. Since the SUPPORT is there for many great liberal positions, certainly they could be implemented and eventually receive wide support. When someone throws out statistics that claim only 21% of Americans identify as liberal, I strongly feel they are working AGAINST the implementation of liberal and progressive policy.

[dkf]

45. I operate based on data and analysis.

If you have data why don't you wish to share it to illuminate the debate? I don't get you.

[stillwaiting]

49. I made my point quite clearly. I don't like wasting my time on

back and forth when I know it would be wasted time.

If you really DO support liberal positions and policies, I would suggest that you begin arguing from a place that shows support for those policies (via PLENTY of issues polling) instead of undermining potential support for liberal governance by citing statistics that show 21% support for a label that has been purposefully demonized over the past few decades.

Or, do you believe that "liberal" has NOT been purposefully maligned and marginalized over the past few decades? Citing the 21% statistic in light of what has happened in this country over the past few decades regarding the word "liberal" AND in light of the popular support that many liberal issues have throughout our country (and have had) is something I would expect my political opponents to do.

Anyways, the floor is yours. I won't be responding any further so have at it. You get the last response here.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

20. Wasn't'Capra a Republican?

[Burgman]

22. A 40's R compared to today's R's????

[Laelth]

32. I would argue that the common man has never had a real voice in Washington.

But, on occasion, the political caste will elect a liberal to lead us--only when they feel they have no choice.

More here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

-Laelth

[lunatica]

33. The changes have to be much more than just surface bandaids

There has to first be a fundamental change in our way of thinking, which is what OWS and the Arab Spring are doing. It's that paradigm shift in consciousness that people have been talking about. I think we've started changing and the proof is that your argument is already using the idea of the 1%. The fact that you don't have to explain what it means shows that the concept is already part of our national consciousness.

I would argue that the change you're referring to is already happening just on that basis. The seed is germinating, which is why I think the outer manifestation of the OWS has calmed quite a bit (though it's really only gone local in the form of occupying foreclosures, etc.). On the inner levels of actually being assimilated and spreading on a much more localized level it's making changes which aren't outwardly apparent yet.

[vi5]

36. And ironically the dream has fully died..

..because of the supposed liberal we elected. He allowed the discourse to be moved so far right and contributed to the narrowing of discourse deemed "acceptable" by buying into Republican framing at every turn.

So now the country sees what is happening under this "liberal" president, not realizing that very little being done is actually "liberal" and therefore blame this supposed liberalism.

It also doesn't help that the supposedly liberal Democratic party has spent the past 15-20 years running away from the label and allowing themselves to be defined by others and then overcompensating in the other direction.

[seabeyond]

37. politics has never given me a wet dream. nt

[treestar]

41. You would need more than just the WH

In fact we should start from the bottom. There would not be nearly as much money involved in Congressional races. People ignore them and focus on the POTUS. That's where the problem lies and why the money has so much power.

You could have Hugo Chavez himself in the WH - nothing would happen, because Congress is part of the equation.

I live in a blue state but the state representative district is very red. So the work cut out for me is that state district - the real work. Dreaming about Dennis K in the WH - even if that came true, your "disappointment" would set in the first time he had to compromise to keep the government going.

We do have a system that can make changes without violent revolutions. We aren't Egypt and don't have to suffer through things like that. Look at our history, and we have come a long way.

[bigtree]

44. tsunamis

. . . that large of an ideological shift would likely be met with an opposite wave of reaction from the right which could manifest itself in an even more conservative-controlled Capitol. The intended audience isn't a static one. It's influenced (and usually easily spooked) by large swings in either direction. The system usually balances out that public reaction to a change in the presidency with an opposing effect in the balance of our national legislature. And, so on . . .

Anyway, the money's in the advertising. Solve the advertising. Make it accessible, equitable, and balanced overall. Solve, the advertising dilemma, solve the money problem. Yet, we make it into something it really isn't. The cost of the advertising is just going up in an election market where each candidate today reaches for every nook and cranny they can get in almost every state. Most of the money is spent on the ads and the rest goes to travel costs. It's a problem, but it's one that the media both benefits from and criticizes. Who controls the airwaves?

[CakeGrrl]

48. You need to focus on CONGRESS.

You think swapping President Obama with a so-called "real Progressive" will make the GOP/Teabag House snap-to and stop threatening legislation to decimate the middle class?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Aww..c'mon. The bosses let us vote for who they select for us.

[eridani]

52. The year to have started working on that dream seriously--

--would have been 1976.

[Hart2008]

53. The real Progressive in the Dem primary can't win if you don't vote for him. Richardson 2012! NT

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. DIng, DIng, Ding

[MrSlayer]

56. Where is Andrew Jackson when you need him?

Bastard goes and dies on us.