How’s that purity thing working out for you?

Last Tuesday, Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.   While Republicans immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion – that they had a mandate to return to the “good old days” of Bush, just more so – there was an element of the “progressive blogosphere” which also jumped off the deep end.  Over on Blue Wave News, we call them “the frustrati.”   They’ve also been called “poutrage artists,” and “purity trolls.”  You see, they are the “true believers” in the “progressive movement.”   They are “real progressives,” unlike  the rest of us.   I know that because they keep telling everyone they are, and attacking anyone who doesn’t get in their line.

Hence, they saw the results as “validation” of their purity.  You see, the reason the Democrats lost is that they weren’t progressive enough.  Which blithely ignores that several of their “heroes” – the ones they were holding up as models of progressive behavior – also went down to defeat.  Badly.   Others barely scraped out a win in a district they used to carry pretty handily.  But most of the ire is directed at the President.   Yes, you see, he “didn’t do what he said he was going to,” and he “sold out” to the “corporatists,”  which are their current villains.

There’s more than a large element of self-delusion going on.   Just after the 2008 elections, one of the things that set of some alarms for me were the overwhelming assertions that things were now going to be moved drastically to the left – as they defined left. Which was blatantly ignoring that the President hadn’t run on (or promised) a “left” platform, it was very much a left of center platform. It definitely wasn’t “pure progressive” by any stretch of the imagination. They were also assuming that, all evidence to the contrary, Congressional Democrats would lock-step with the President, while ignoring Congressional procedures and precedents.  Having convinced themselves of that, then they screamed their heads off when what they believed would happen didn’t – or as fast – as they wanted, or exactly as they thought it should. What they believed would happen was not what actually was happening.  Reality-based community, my ass!  They’re like the little kids who have convinced themselves they’re getting a pony, when what they were promised was a pony ride, and are now pitching a fit because they got a pony ride but didn’t get to take the pony home.

However, their collective tantrums fit nicely into some plans.  Yes, the broadcast media loved it.  So did the Republicans, who were quite happy to showcase it.  The people running the “progressive sites” –  Huffington, Markos,  Hamsher, and Greenwald among others – loved it as as well.  They pushed it up, because it drove visitors to their web sites.  They got invited on talk shows and news show  appearances as “commentators,” where they could “inform” everyone how badly disappointed they were.  Oh, and while they were at it, shill their newest book on the subject.   For them, it was a bonanza, a major cash influx.  Let the good times roll!

Now, rather than waking up from the cold dash of reality that’s hit them, they’ve decided to double down.   Flailing about, coming up with ever more fantastical scenarios and “heroes.”  Yes,  “Hillary should  run.”  Never mind that Hillary was just as center-left as Obama, and wasn’t that good a candidate when she did run.  Oh, well, then Feingold!  Yes, the guy who just got booted out of the Senate in his own state is a perfect candidate to run.  Yes, you see the country  really wants true progressives, current evidence to the contrary.   Their divorce from reality is pretty much finalized.

Let’s do some reality.  A good portion of the blame is that rather than sending the message of what was being accomplished, of highlighting the successes, the idiot left was helping the right by screaming their fool heads off.  Here’s some reality checks.  First, at no time in history has losing like this shifted the Democratic Party to the left.  It’s always shifted it to the center.   So one of those fantasies – that this will cause the party to become more “pure” isn’t likely.  Second, in case you missed it, it wasn’t just the national offices being fought over.   There were a lot of state offices and legislatures up for grabs.  Congratulations, you assholes, you just helped make sure that redistricting will be controlled by Republicans.  Think you had troubles in some places before?  You haven’t seen anything.  Third, what the fuck makes you think that every area in the country is just like your little corner of the world?  Newsflash for you – they aren’t.  They aren’t all redneck ultra-conservative if they’re not progressive,  either.  Most of them turn out to be pretty middle of the road, with a slight lean one way or another.  You want to win there?  The person who can isn’t going to be a pure progressive.  That’s the way it goes in reality.   Finally, remember all those things that were started and supposed to get finished in the next two years?  DADT, improving the Health Care legislation, climate change legislation,  and immigration reform?  Kiss all that good-bye.  Maybe if you’re lucky, and I won’t bet on it, you might get something in the lame duck session.  Otherwise, forget it for the next two years, and probably longer.   If you’re really lucky, you won’t have to start over from scratch on them.

So, just how’s that purity thing working out?  Looks to me like it you just blew up your entire agenda to make a point.  Look on the bright side though.  All the people running the sites that you’re screaming on are going to make a mint.   Maybe they might even hire you.

Advertisements

22 Comments

Filed under Politics

22 responses to “How’s that purity thing working out for you?

  1. I have a slightly different take, one that’s less about purity and more about something I guess I’ll call political trust. I’ll use my own (departing) Congressman Arcuri as an example.

    Governing is about getting things done. Politics is about storytelling. Arcuri never quite figured out what story he was telling, though I think he was an okay Congressman.

    Getting a straight story out of him on why he didn’t support the healthcare bill was especially difficult. His answers didn’t fit his prior statements, notably at a Town Hall in Varna. He seemed to be trying to appeal to the right with a vote against legislation they opposed, while justifying it on grounds that reached a sliver of voters pretty far to the left.

    He left a lot of people who should have been his base wondering what was going on – not just in leftist Tompkins County, but also in more typical for the district Cortland County.

    A lot of those same people did end up working on his campaign, and it’s hard to know how much this cost him, but I heard a lot of “holding my nose” comments. (I did put out a sign for him and voted for him, and helped connect people to the Arcuri campaign, but can’t say I went out of my way.)

    I’m perfectly happy to work with and for conservative Democrats. They need to have a story to tell though, one that stays consistent, makes sense, and connects with their district. I know these have been some hard years to juggle all that, but that’s pretty much at the heart of staying in office.

    • Well, this was aimed at the idiots over at FDL, DailyKos, DD, and so on, who just couldn’t get the idea that their particular notion of “purity” wasn’t shared by all progressives.

      The only thing that surprised me about Arcuri losing was that the polls had shown him with a (somewhat) comfortable lead not too long before. I wasn’t happy with him, for his extreme waffling back and forth on the issue when it was being decided, and his very lame excuses afterwards. Then again, he’s not my congressman.

      Mine turned out to be one of the bright spots – Congressman Owens. One of my grudges was the attacks he received on Daily Kos back when he was first running. Is he a “progressive”? No, he’s a moderate, works hard, listens to his constituents, and votes with the party when it’s really critical. I don’t have to agree with him on everything – and I don’t – but I’ll take him over the alternative any day. I also know very well that a straight-up progressive would only get 30% of the vote – if they were lucky – in this district.

      • Yep – your district was luckier. Hoffman helped, but Owens seemed to make it clearer from the start what he was trying to be.

        I haven’t followed Owens as closely, but haven’t seen “waffling” per se from him. I suspect it would have been quickly fatal in that district!

        • Hoffman went and locked up the Conservative line while he was still competing in the Republican primary. I had a feeling he wasn’t going to win that line – and he didn’t. He’d pissed off a lot of people in the party during the special election. Now, they’re really hating him, because he cost them big time. 😀

          Owens doesn’t waffle. If he says he’s thinking about it, he’s actually thinking about it. I get his newsletters, and he really does make his case as to why he did something. I may not agree with what he did, but I understand his reasoning. I know during the health care debates, one of the things that really pissed him off was that Tea Party groups from outside the district were calling his district offices, being abusive and making threats. Not something calculated to make him see their way.

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention How’s that purity thing working out for you? « Norbrook's Blog -- Topsy.com

  3. g

    I had thoroughly expected that response on those sites, but the vehemence of it surprised even me. Back in Psych 101, the “meme” (thank God we were NOT using that expression then :)) was that responses are not disproportionate to stimuli; it is that we are unaware of what the GENUINE stiimuli actually was. In other words, the Frustrati WERE acting (acting OUT, we teacher types say) appropriately, but to what? IMO, it was simply the coda to the performance they had been staging for two years. The play is entitled “We are the Base.” (subtext: We Matter, dammit)

    • Yup. That has been something I’ve been hammering at for a long time. Yes, I did that when I was over at DK. A “base” has certain characteristics, and a Party’s base is made up of a number of bases. One of the key characteristics is “reliable.” It takes time to become one, and it doesn’t happen in one or two elections -which is really how long “the netroots” has been around. They pretty much shot the reliable part down the tubes as well.

      They really (helped along by the professional left) convinced themselves they were this major force in the party. Start with that belief, and most of the rest of their reactions become predictable. Objectively, they’re not – hence my calling them “Weak Tea” over at BWN. 😉

  4. I agree with a lot of what you said above. The constant harping on the left about President Obama and the Democrats being total sellouts because health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc. didn’t go far enough undermined our electoral chances and showed an inherent lack of understanding of both our political system and of how progressive change is achieved over time.

    Having said that, I do think some constructive criticism is appropriate, and should focus on the role that another set of folks who too often work to undermine our party – the Blue Dogs and conservadems – played in this defeat. A compelling argument can be made that the reason for our electoral losses on Tuesday was because the economy still sucked. And the continuing economic malaise (high unemployment, low growth, people losing their houses) was due to the fact that Blue Dogs and centrist thinking kept the Democrats from pushing a bold enough economic plan (larger stimulus, cramdown, stricter restrictions on TARP funds, etc.) to actually achieve economic recovery.

    Many Blue Dogs, of course, represent moderate districts where a progressive would have a hard time winning right now. But the Blue Dog approach assumes that those purple district are static and that, therefore, any Democrat who gets elected in them must run to the center and criticize the progressives in the party. The result of those assumptions is that we would never get the sustainable progressive majority that we want and need.

    Instead, we need to assume that such districts are not static and, instead, can be moved to the left by increasing Democratic turnout and/or convincing moderates in the districts that the progressive position is correct. We’ve had a number of opportunities to do that, most notably with the economic crisis that the Democrats inherited two years ago. Bold action that truly fixed the economy would have both increased Democratic turnout and moved some of the moderates our direction. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs prevented us from taking such bold action and we saw the results of their strategy last Tuesday.

    So, I am not a purist and do not believe that President Obama and the Democrats are sellouts or are somehow no better than the Republicans. However, I also do believe that more boldness and less timidity on economic issues would have served our party and our country much better.

    http://www.winningprogressive.org

    • While I agree that the Blue Dogs didn’t help themselves, when you talk about constructive criticism, there was almost none of that from the noise chamber on the Left.

      I do quite a bit of constructive criticism in my writings on other blogs, but here is where I figuratively break out my brass knuckles for some much-needed “hippie punching. ”

      The other thing to remember is that while districts aren’t static – and there’s redistricting in the next two years – at the same time, one of the huge mistakes I see the frustrati making is that they are not taking into consideration the local conditions. They’re apparently not involved much in local parties on the ground, and they’re not willing to listen to the locals. I ran into that during the NY-23 special election, and it was infuriating to all of us who were locals when it came to dealing with the “true progressives” over on Daily Kos and FDL.

      Just for an example: Gun control. I’ve lived in major cities, so I understand why it’s an issue with urban Democrats. But I grew up in this area, so I understand the flip side – and that it’s a complete non-starter of an issue in this area.

  5. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    ” Last Tuesday, Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives. While Republicans immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion – that they had a mandate to return to the “good old days” of Bush, just more so ”

    That is not totally true. Republicans know that the public was not voting for them. It was voting against Progressive policies. Which is actually a worse thing for you. When inevitably the political tides sweep Democrats back to power in the House, the Blue Dog Democrats are more likely to be of the Joe Manchin type, who totally ran away from the Obama agenda.

    Charles Krauthammer said, ” November 2nd is not going to be an election, It’s going to be a restraining order. ”

    In the short term the Democratic Party will go more left because those are the ones who survived the midterm massacre.

    • From the Republican side, their entire rhetoric is based around that they have a “mandate” – objective evidence to the contrary. You’re mistaken that the electorate was voting against progressive policies. The reason I say that is that if you poll on individual issues, it turns out that the public wants the progressive policies, not the conservative ones. Ask them about specific aspects of the health care reform package – without mentioning “obamacare,” and it turns out to have a large majority of support. The same thing for Social Security, Medicare, credit card reforms, and and several other progressive policies.

      What they voted against was the pacing – they’re lashing out at what they see as “failure” on the part of the government to reverse what has been happening. That dichotomy – and the mistaken impression that it was a rejection of progressive policies – is going to come back to bite the Republicans.

  6. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    With all due respect, you are amazingly wrong. SS and Medicare are so ingrained now, they can’t be undone. They had better be fixed or they will take us all down. Denying the structural problems of these two programs won’t save them.

    Credit card reforms are not that big a deal. Obama-care is. It is another entitlement and wealth redistribution that will only make everyone poorer. The humorous thing is, Western Europe is moving away from a half century of Socialism, and President Obama is moving us all towards it.

    It is also humorous to have World leaders on Obama’s latest trip tell him to pound sand. The World has fallen out of love with him.

    • I wish I were wrong, Alan, but I’m just quoting back a lot of the conservative think-tanks. Remember, it was just a few years ago that a certain Republican President and a Republican Congress was on a direct path to undo both Social Security and Medicare. That whole “privatization” system.

      You might find this enlightening, when it comes to “socialism.” What I find amusing is that you are not looking at what the actual legislation does. It does not (as many on the left wanted) demand a single-payer system, which is what those European countries all have – along with that massive socialistic threat to the north, Canada – and have no intention of repealing. What it actually does is curb the worst abuses of the health insurance industry. They no longer can drop you just because you foolishly got sick, they have to cover certain procedures – like check-ups, and they have to spend 85% of their premiums on providing actual healthcare.

      What I find amusing is that all the screaming about socialistic medicine is that it ignores something else. The US does not have the best health care in the world. We barely crack the top twenty in most measures. What we are number one in is the amount of money we spend.

  7. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    How about we try clarity for a change. Sweat the details. I clicked on “this”, so what. One man’s take on regulation. Let’s talk the important stuff, shall we ? I am pressed for time, so I will deal with SS for now. Obama-care is a can of worms for later.

    Every single time I hear a Democrat in office speak about SS, Republicans, and privatization, I hear blatant lies.

    You know it is really easy to scare Grandma and Grandpa, by saying Republicans are going to lose their checks in the big bad stock market. Every time your people put a picture of some old person up and retell this lie, I want to puke.

    Privatization was only to let the under 55 crowd take a pitiful 4-5% of their SS ‘tax’ and have 401k type accounts. It has nothing at all to do with dear ole Grandma.

    The other lie your side tells is that SS will be there for the 20 and 30 year olds paying in now. Privatization was a way to help those suckers.

    Now go ahead and destroy my argument!!

    • Ahem: This analysis by the Congressional Budget Office does a pretty good job of it. But, you might also want to read this one for an alternative proposal.

      You might note that Representative Ryan was proposing privatizing Medicare, substituting “vouchers” for it. Which strikes me very much as getting out of it.

      Now, in terms of “saving Social Security,” one of the factors that gets overlooked is that the “deficit” it faces can be mostly erased by the simple expedient of removing the cap – that is, we don’t currently apply the tax to earnings over 100,000. Remove that, and much of the shortfall disappears.

  8. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    ” Now, in terms of “saving Social Security,” one of the factors that gets overlooked is that the “deficit” it faces can be mostly erased by the simple expedient of removing the cap – that is, we don’t currently apply the tax to earnings over 100,000. Remove that, and much of the shortfall disappears. ”

    I love you Democrats. Push a button, no fuss no muss, problem solved. The old Washington joke. ” don’t tax you , don’t tax me, tax the guy behind the tree. ”
    You solve your problem by raising taxes on the rich . Redistribute wealth and there is no down side. This ” does ” affect economic growth. Besides the fact that ethically you ask certain people to pay more into a failing system and get nothing more out. But don’t believe me..

    Anyway, none of this matters at all. You Liberals fail to grasp how gi-freaking-enormous the problem really is. There is a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability. Get it ? A multi Trillion dollar liability, ” unfunded ” that your quick fix of removing the cap, will not put a dent in.

    Oh, and since I now have some time, allow me to destroy Obama-care. It was built on lies. It will add to costs and will fix nothing. Typical Democrat slight of hand. Give away some freebies to the young and the really stupid. Once you have bought them off with wealth confiscated from others they will fight to preserve their entitlements.

    ” What it actually does is curb the worst abuses of the health insurance industry. They no longer can drop you just because you foolishly got sick, they have to cover certain procedures – like check-ups, and they have to spend 85% of their premiums on providing actual healthcare. ”

    This is total BS. Everything wrong gets blamed on private insurance. Here is a newsflash. There is no free lunch. Your hero Obama will destroy private health insurance. What comes afterward will be worse. Trust me.

    Riddle me this Batman. If ObamaCare is really so good, why is the Administration giving out exemptions ? Originally 30 companies, including McDonalds got exemptions. Last count it was up to 111 companies. Oh and then there was the lie from President Obama that if you liked your healthcare, he would not mess with it. What about the poor souls at Boeing who got their coverage cut and their contributions raised ?

    There are all kinds of unpleasant things coming from Obamacare. I say again, there ain’t no free lunch.

    I believe I covered everything except Medicare vouchers. I plead ignorance on that . I do know that Medicare is soon to cut money to Doctors. Now you may say good. Those evil greedy Doctors will finally get what’s coming to them . Well what will really happen is that a lot of old people will lose their Doctors.

    Let’s see, how will you guys blame all this on Republicans?

    Again, now destroy my arguments with facts.

    • No, I pointed out a very simple thing. To solve the “deficit” with Social Security, all you need to do is to either remove the cap (106,000) currently, or raise in. I’d suggest you read this analysis to see it.

      Now, you might also want to consider that, as you’re screaming about “Obamacare” being a failure, that most of the provisions aren’t even in effect yet, and won’t be for another 4 years. So all your complaints are based around things that would be happening – and probably worse – if the legislation hadn’t been enacted.

      Now, as to fixing the deficit, you might want to consider that it’s a matter of targeted cuts and raising taxes. No, you don’t get out of that part. I’d also buy into conservative’s deep, deep “concern” about the deficit and unfunded liabilities if they hadn’t run it up so high themselves. Last I looked, one of the biggest deficit issues was all that borrowing a Republican administration had done to fund two wars, and a Republican Congress had passed a major unfunded liability for Medicare.

  9. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    ” Now, as to fixing the deficit, you might want to consider that it’s a matter of targeted cuts and raising taxes. No, you don’t get out of that part. I’d also buy into conservative’s deep, deep “concern” about the deficit and unfunded liabilities if they hadn’t run it up so high themselves.”

    Which is why the public voted Republicans out 4 years ago. They figured if they were going to have big spenders, they might as well get the professionals ( Democrats ) in. Now Republicans after wandering in the wilderness for 4 years have a chance to be real fiscal adults.

    ” Last I looked, one of the biggest deficit issues was all that borrowing a Republican administration had done to fund two wars, ”

    Yea, I guess those wars were just for fun. I guess killing terrorists wherever you find them is worse than fighting them over here.

    ” Now, you might also want to consider that, as you’re screaming about “Obamacare” being a failure, that most of the provisions aren’t even in effect yet, and won’t be for another 4 years. So all your complaints are based around things that would be happening – and probably worse – if the legislation hadn’t been enacted. ”

    Yea, to cook the numbers, your worthless leader began collecting taxes 4 years early. You have 10 years of offsets for 6 years of spending. Obamacare is nothing but lies.

    • Let me make this clear. I supported going into Afhganistan after Bin Laden. I did not support going into Iraq, for very simple reasons that there was no proof that Saddam Hussein was in any way real and imminent threat to the United States, and that (as was shown to be true later) the entire justification was total bullshit. I might also note that instead of keeping taxes stable – or even increasing them – to pay for the war expenses, Republicans cut taxes and then proceeded to borrow the money to pay for it. Hence the massive increase in total debt. I can also point out that we still haven’t captured Bin Laden, and that al Qaeda remains a major threat, because of those actions. Good going there.

      You might also want to look up what “offsets” are. They’re meant to reduce the deficit – that is, pay for the program in a way that is deficit-neutral. Which was not the case when the Republican Congress, and the Republican President passed the Medicare drug benefit bill. Not only didn’t they pay for it, they did it in such a way that it put a massive strain on the budget now and in the future.

      So, if you want to talk fiscal discipline, you need to look somewhere else than the Republicans. You want to bitch about “tax and spend” – that’s a lot more responsible than “borrow and spend.” Of course, we could solve some of those problems by returning the tax rates to what they were under Reagan. Go ahead, look them up.

  10. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    Like all Liberal-Progressives you do not see the connection between the public and private sectors. The more the public sectors spends, either by taxes or borrowing, the more the private sector shrinks. And guess what? We can’t all be public sector employees. We can’t all get public teachers pensions. Those pensions by themselves are bankrupting States like Caleefornia.

    Since you supported the war in Afghanistan, why do you list it with Iraq, as two wars the Republicans unnecessarily ran up deficits on ? Anyway what did we get for the Billions spent on Bush’s wars ? Security. We were not attacked again on the same scale after 911. Those two wars were a warning to middle eastern governments that support terrorism that the US had the will to take anybody out that messes with us. At least if the President had a last name of Bush. I doubt that the name Obama strikes fear in the heart of anyone but American businesses.

    So what did we get for the $trillions Obama misspent ? Bigger national debt. Zero confidence among business. 9.5% long term unemployment. So tell me Liberal Economist, why didn’t the green economy work? Why didn’t stimulus work? Why didn’t Socialism work,,this time ?? Socialism has never worked, but this time under the most brilliant President of modern times, it was supposed to work.

    Oh, and I agree with you on Bush’s Medicare drug benefit. I think he was just keeping up with your guys pandering to the AARP crowd.

    I think we can agree that the GOP’s previous majority was irresponsible, that the current Democrat majority was even worse. The new House majority will have to prove itself, or the House will flip back to the professional over spenders. Nancy could get her private broom ( jet ) back if that happens.

  11. I can see it quite clearly. I’d be even more impressed by the argument, if it weren’t for the fact that 2/3’rds of the top corporations in this country don’t pay income taxes. I might even give you credit for the whole wailing about tax rates if it weren’t for the fact that tax rates right now – and have been for the past several years – the lowest in history. So, you really can’t make make the case that the tax rates are responsible. You might also want to take a look at who passed TARP. Helpful hint, it wasn’t Obama.

    Second, you might also want to look at what you consider “security.” Right, increasing al Qaeda recruitment, sacrificing several thousand American soldiers, and wasting money in the proces – oh, and setting up a huge federal bureaucracy – is “security.” Enjoy your next airplane flight.

    Trillions? Give me a break. That’s not even close to that. Oh, and you might want to look at GM. As in, they just came out of bankruptcy and are profitable for the first time in a decade. Thanks to President Obama.

  12. Alan Scott

    Norbrook,

    ” can see it quite clearly. I’d be even more impressed by the argument, if it weren’t for the fact that 2/3′rds of the top corporations in this country don’t pay income taxes ”

    You scare me. You and your’s have controlled the country totally for two years and partially for four years through both Houses of Congress. It’s this blame Wall St, class warfare BS that has sunk this country.

    Let me educate you. American Corporations, for the most part, the good guys have to compete globally. Unfortunately their own government is at war with them. They compete with Japanese, Chinese, and European corporations who do not have their own governments screwing them at every turn.

    Let me give you some information from National Review. As of May 2009 the average complete tax rate on US companies came in at 46.3%. In comparison Germany=44.9%, Norway=41.6%, Holland=39.3%, UK=35.9%, Switzerland=29.7%, Denmark=29.2 %, and Ireland=26.5%.

    Among modern developed countries the US has the highest effective corporate tax rate on new capital investments at 35%. Also the US is the only developed Country which taxes the foreign profits of their international Corporations at more than 30%. Since they don’t pay the tax until they send home the money, they don’t send home the money.

    Now if you Socialists would drop that tax, these companies would send home this money to their investors, who would pay taxes on it and spend the money in this Country. Pretty simple when you understand economics.

    By the way I consider TARP a necessary evil. Now I know you Socialists blame Wall Street for everything and Bush for everything else, but I point out that Fannie and Freddie were the dumping grounds for every left wing flunkie while they ran up hundreds of Billions in losses. Barney Frank , Maxine Walters, and Chris Dodd were the protectors of these two government basket cases. Look it up.

    As far as GM, that was a government bailout for the UAW pension funds. That’s what bankrupted Government Motors in the first place. We will see how much of the total money is returned. And as far as the auto jobs, I argue that if GM went bust forever, those workers and cars could have been handled by Ford.

    ” Second, you might also want to look at what you consider “security.” Right, increasing al Qaeda recruitment, sacrificing several thousand American soldiers, and wasting money in the proces ”

    Very funny. I guess by your left wing appeasement life philosophy, we should never, ever fight back when we are attacked because the bad guys might get mad. Here is a news flash , son of Neville Chaimberlin, weakness gets attacked, Period.

    Lastly, what has stalled the economy has been fear. Generated by our fearless leader Obama. Almost a Trillion dollars in private money is waiting to be unleashed. Next year with a Republican House stalemating any further stupidity from Barry, things will gradually get better. You heard it from me first.