People are finally ready to listen. But are we ready to say something?

[Armstead]

Finally, finally, enough people are fed up with the incompetence, arrogence and general mischief being wrought by the GOP and their buddies that we may be nearing a tipping point.

And, in a larger sense, people are realizing that the US is suffering from systemic problems, as a result of many of the self-destructive policies and values of the last 30 years.

This means that a significant share of the population may soon be ready to consider something new on many levels. New ideas. New approaches. New values. New policies. New politics....They're looking for some fresh air.

The question is are we prepared to offer them something positive and produtive? Something that average folks can support? Perhaps even somthing inspiring?

This question is addressed to all who are on our side of the spectrum. Democrats and all others on the scale from moderate liberal to progresive.

Arte we Ready for Prime Time if the opportunity comes?

[scot]

1. "Something that average folks can support"

If not, its just political masterbation.

[w8liftinglady]

2. Great post...who are the Democratic strategists?

[KoKo]

4. All I see is Bob Shrum and Donna Brazille out there speaking for us.

Shrum sits and laughes and nods his heads when the Repug Op speaks and Brazille sits and nods her head and smiles when the Repug Op speaks....so I'm waiting for the "fresh faces and views" to appear.

I did see David Sirota on CNN in a brief clip tonight. And, Sirota is definitely a fresh face and a very LEFTY fresh Face.

Yet...it's still Brazille and Shrum who get all the air time where they are "conciliatory" to Repugs. Sort of like Diplomats rather than Dems.

[Armstead]

7. David Sirota is definetly Ready for Prime Time

He's exactly the kind of feresh and honest voice we need more of.

Not bad to look at either, although being a guy I don't notice such things, heh-heh.

[crispini]

30. You are so correct.

Sirota is HOTTT with several T's. :evilgrin:

[msgadget]

10. Great change happens in spite of politics,

usually when the will of the people gives them no other choice. This goes beyond party but to decades of policy decisions made in different administrations.

[Armstead]

13. Yes, politics follows values.

We will get better politics only when people shift their values enough to demand better politics.

Consciousness is the wellspring of change. I don't mean consciousness in a highfalutin spiritual sense. Just a recognition of the importane of basic human values like community and common cause.

[msgadget]

17. Y'know, I'm STILL thinking about this

Especially when I read and as I listen to the debates surrounding H.R. 4167. The first is a betrayal of our working man and the second another chipping away of state's rights. Mines and state's rights are red state issues! There's so much common ground but the rhetoric, the propaganda the need for both sides to be right...

Domestic spying very nearly caused equal pressure from both sides and the port deal did cause that kind of squeeze but will it be duplicated in the future? There's a lot of contempt to get past, a lot of bashing that would have to put aside and we'd have to work together with neither side conceding - a monumental task. The snarkiness is already coming back and political ramifications being considered by individuals as though politics actually benefits them personally.

I ramble on to say, maybe it'll be enough for us to work separately. If the right begins to rally we can get somewhere. I would cautiously echo any legitimate, universal complaint of their's to help advance it.

[Armstead]

18. I think the middle ground is the battleground

Another way that I look at it is in terms of "default values."

By default values, I mean the "path of least resistance" positions that peope who are not highly partisan and ideological accept as conventional wisdom. What is generally acepted as wrong and right, both in general and specific terms.

For example, from the 1960's through the 1990's, being pro-environment became a default value. It was widely recognized as important to protect the environment and reduce pollution, and policies to accomplish that were supported. That was generally true for modrate conservatives, as well as liberls. Even Big Business and CONservatives either accepted it or recognized that they had to at least pay lip-service to it to seem credible.

But since 2000, that default value is being threatened. Scummy conservative politicians, Corporate Greedheads and right wing fundies have been pushing to reverse that, and make it seem like anti-environmentalism (and anti-sience) are bad.

The staunch Koolaid drinkers will continue to press that position. However average moderates and honest conservatives still recognize the importne of protecting the environment. So our task is to push back at the wingnuts, to restore environmentaliusm as a default value.

Same thing applies to many otehr issues and values. It's important to remember that at least two states that voted for Bush simultaneously voted by large margins to raise their state's minimum wage.

[msgadget]

21. Okay, I can understand the path of least resistance terminology

but I don't think "the middle" is an undamaged label these days. What are some examples of default values? Today, probably because of HR 4167 and the rights denied the state of NJ regarding the port deal, I'm thinking two common default values in danger from this administration are states rights and a smaller government. Perhaps I have common ground too much on the brain but, lately, actions have been taken against both while simultaneously enpowering the voice of industry and diminishing the power of the voter.

[Armstead]

23. "People deserve a fair day's pay for a day of work."

That's an example of a default value that was much more strongly ingrained until the mid-1970's.

There was a gteneral assumption that everyone who worked a job full time deserved to make at lest enough to cover their basic living expenses.

Of course, it didn't always work that way, and there were people who fell through the cracks. But in a broad sense, the vast majority of the population took that assumption for granted and expected that as part of the basic contract between workers and employers. Most employers also recognized that as an expectation they had to fullfill, for a combination of moral, legal and public-relations purposes.

However, in the 70's and 80's that basic assumption was undermined by the contrary notion that employees were expendable, and that employers should be able to pay as little as they could get away with. They used the CON job of "global competativeness" and other crapola to barrage the population with that message.

As a result, the idea of a "fair days wage for a days work" was replaced by a new value of "People only deserve the least that their employer is willing to pay, and not a penny more."

That led the p
Now that the chickens have come home to roost from a generation of deliberate worker abuse, it's time to restore the "fair days wage."

IMO, most people are ready for that change, regardless of how they label themselves ideologically. That can open the door to both reforms and a restoration of basic liberalism as a dominant political force.

That's one example.

[msgadget]

25. Good one if it can be advanced simply

because the right has done a damned good job of maligning organized labor and bemoaning the need for business to be unrestrained so it can compete (as if that'll get jobs back from overseas) and grow so we can be a strong nation and other such bs. State activists are having a HELL of time reversing Right to Work in the states where it's passed. There's ONE tiny crack available and that's in attacking cheap labor. Cheap labor is exerting downward pressure on our wage base and part of that cheap labor force comes from illegal immigrants. Speaking against a disadvantaged group is alien to liberals though...

Another is requiring countries we sign trade agreements with to have the same labor standards (and what the big three auto makers are asking for, national health insurance...one more idea the right has convinced its base is some liberal/communist/socialist/stinky scheme). Instead the WTO, without our oversight, changes statutes to enable disparate agreements that disadvantage our workers further. I don't know how to put any of that into a couple simple sentences my mother would immediately understand and THAT'S what would be needed to get anywhere. The only part she'd get would be about the illegal immigrants and she's my barometer on the attention span and grasp of the average person.

So, fair wages should be a natural common ground issue but it hasn't been easy finding a sweet spot for dialogue. Make no mistake, I'm with you on this one. I just think it needs to be kicked around, rounded out for a incontrovertable common ground that won't require anyone to radically shift their thinking. Tall order.

[Armstead]

28. Maybe you're overanalyzing this

"A fair day's pay for a fair day's work." That's pretty straightforward. It's the basis of a contrast with the Cheap Labor CONservatives thyat most peopel in the middle could support.

It's the kind of "meme" that is hard to refute. There's simple comeback to those who try: "What you believe peopel who work hard don't deserve to be paid a living wage? Are you in favor of exploitation?"

Naturally it isn't quite so simple when you dig into the details. But as a basic guiding principle, it seems like the kind of foundation that is basic enough that most people can support in principle. In fact, they did before the great con job...And in their gut i think most peopel still go along with that. The problem is that there hs not been a political infrastructure to fight for that principle in real terms. So peope feel like it is futile to go with their instincts and common sense.

The solution is simply to restore the notion that such basic beliefs are possible, by both promoting it as a social value and getting the Democrats to start fighting for it again.

[msgadget]

33. You're right, I did

and "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" is irrefutable but...but, who decides fair? As a social value...lemme think on that.

Obviously I have a hard time with simple declaratives and based on the president's appeal his voters don't.

As a foundation its profound but there really are two different universes... I get the guiding principal thing and the knee-jerk response you gave was great but...is that enough? Is it enough to just throw that out there? What's a universally acceptable response to further probing?

I still think the right has been trained to smell 'organized labor' in such sentiments though... Still overthinking? Hey, maybe I'm *anticipating* instead. :)

Edit to add: How about a right as an American instead of social value? I see protectionism and nationalism on the rise...

[Armstead]

35. Here's a specific and simple example

Basically this stuff is ultimately simple. Although it's possible to debate and differ over details like exactly what defines a "fair" wage, there is a core truth to this that transcends partisan differences. And to anyone who is not either a diehard freeper or one of the tiny number of beneficiries of the great con job.

Here it is, in all its unanalytical simplicity. ;-)



In the late 1960's the average ceo made something like eight times the pay of average workers.

Today:

-------

The ratio of average CEO pay (now $11.8 million) to worker pay (now $27,460). It rose from 301-to-1 in 2003 to 431-to-1 in 2004.

If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.

And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460.


http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005_pr.html

-----------------------------------

Now, that is obscene by the standards of any resonable person.

Somehow, over the last 30 years, the average working stiuff hs been cowed into believing that this was okay. The legal and invisible moral barriers to such gross inequities were eroded.

Two reasons for that. A carrot and a stick.

1)The con job included the possibility placed in front of everyone's nose that "You too can be rich. So celebrate the skyrocketing incomes of your bosses, because that's good for you. Ignore the fact that you are struugling harder just to get by.


2)People were browbeaten to accept this as lousy but inevitable. "We have to cut your real wages, but we have to pay more and more to those at the top because that's good for the company and the economy. Otherwise, we;ll have to ship your job to China."

Well lo and behold, the American Worker is now being stuck both ways. Their economic position and security has been eroded, AND those overpaid eecutives have shipped their jobs to China anyway.

So, if we stick to the basics and hammer this simple truth home, I don't believe it will be all that difficult to get back to the "fair day's wage" principle as a default value.

[msgadget]

45. I like it!

"You too can be rich...only not by working for me." You nailed it, positively nailed the whole lie that what's good for the company is good for the economy is good for the country and anyone who disagrees is a subversive.

Something similar is being done over at WakeUpWalmart.com. Check out this .pdf which made me erase my entire spiel: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/Wal-mart-pay-gap.pdf . Wal Mart's CEO makes $8434.49/hr. compared to the average salaried worker at $9.10/hr. It also makes the point I was going to, that a well paid workforce SPENDS, thus strengthening the economy.

With such reverence for the rich, would the rapid rise in CEO pay even register as wrong? The hard right has a plantation mentality that doesn't see anything wrong with cheap labor as long they're not that cheap labor. And therein lies the but...has it registerd or will this make it register that they're falling behind without doing anything wrong or different? Does the CEO pay highlight that enough?

[Armstead]

47. Some will get it and some won't

I think the ability to grasp and care about this kind of thing depends on the person

In general, IMO, a lot of people already recognize what I've pointed out and agree with it on somne level.

There are hard-core Freepoids who will never get it. Or if they do get it, they will be stubborn enough to refuse to admit it to themselves or others. They cling to some macho idea and ideological right wing purity that they have abandoned all independent thinking. Or they hate "liberals" so much that they could never admit that they could agree with us on anything.

There's also the out and out greedheads, who benefit from these inequalities, and don't care about the larger results.

But I'd say a larger majority of people are receptive to this. That would include people who are honestly conservative, and pragmatic moderates. Also people who are apolitical, but still have as basic sense of right and wrong, and of what is in their own interests or not.

For example, I know a lot of peopel here are distrustful of Lou Dobbs, becuse he has been a corporate shill in the past and he is still a conservative Republican. However, IMO his current populist opposition to corporate power is sincere. He is still a Republican, and disagrees with liberals on a lot of things. But I think he honestly has seen the problem and his ommon sense and decency are offended by it.

So I'd say a lot of people are persuadable. Or they's already been persuaded, and now just need to see political fores that are willing to do something about it.

[msgadget]

49. But...

you knew it was coming, right? :) So, well said, Armstead, and I agree with you about Dobbs, SUCH a conservative at heart but obviously obsessed with this current era of no holds barred corporate excess and, of course, illegal immigration. And, I hate to generalize but I've met too many hard line, mean spirited selfish people who vote conservative not to regarding the issue of fairness. I've heard too often, "you reap what you sow", "people have what they deserve", "God helps those who help themselves". Many would rather suffer themselves than live with the idea one dime of their money went to <insert code word of the day here> people.

My 'but' has to do with that very last sentence, m'friend, and I have to ask it because I get the idea you think a little like me, that politicians aren't that good at getting the work of the people done. So, how do you propose to get a politician to act against her or his best interests and campaign kitty? I say this even light of many, many passionate speeches on the floor by great local representatives. Collectively though, I'm not feelin' the love.

[Armstead]

50. Depends on how you define their "best interests"

Plliticians are like any otehr group of people, driven by different things.

The ones who are driven primarily by principle can be won over if they are confident that there is a base to support them.

Some others are driven by ego and power, and they dread the possibility that they may have to return to their hometown and open a crummy little law firm after the perks and bright lights of DC. No matter how much money their campaigns raise, they know they are still subject to being sent home by the voters if they don't respond to them.

Some may be avaricious and are putting their term down on the resume so they can move on to a big lobbying firm and make the big bucks....They are probably not persuadable, and deserve to be booted out of office.

[msgadget]

51. Well, not always

Popular politicians often don't uplift their people as much as they should but their personalities and canny campaigning keep their seats warm on the hill. If they can break a li'l somethin' off for a program here, a new whizbang there, they're in. That being said, I do think politicians can (and should) be embarassed into doing the right thing. Um...I was about to start on a whole thing about how the powerful prevent that but I'm trying to end Friday on an UPnote! :D

[Armstead]

52. Okay, I'll take the upnote

We can pick this up later.

[msgadget]

3. Thank you!

Our country is in tatters, a shell of its former self and politicians and industry did it while we bickered amongst ourselves and it will take unity of a kind never before seen to cause the slightest shift. Don't laugh or berate me but I think some reaching out to the other side is in order. I have no idea to whom...yet...I'm still thinking about this...

Thanks also for acknowledging that Bush didn't do this alone, that there has been a prolonged hollowing out of our country.

(Hey, Skinner, you wanna invite the Free Republic guy out to lunch?)

[Armstead]

11. I think you're absolutely correct

IMHO the real overriding problem we face transends ideology and partisanship.

Excessive concentrations of wealth and power, and the deliberate undermining of the middle class is bad on the basic level of common sense and common decency.

It is something even honest conservatives should be against, because it undermines the freedom and economic competativeness that they claim to believe in.

[Lorien]

5. The Opportunity has been here for some time

will the opposition act and speak as the opposition? The Patriot act vote has me worried; it seems that the Dems are enabling the Right more often than not.Real changes are needed; words alone won't sway the voters-action needs to be taken.

My baptist fundie mother-who I believe voted for * both times-recently said that she is hoping to vote for FEINGOLD in the next election! She loves the fact that he's standing against the Patriot act (which she's only recently read up on and is entirely appalled by). This is remarkable, given Feingold's non-Christian surname and the fact that she's been voting for whoever the church tells her to in the recent past.

[Armstead]

8. Feingold is definetly ready to step up to the plate

His principles are admirable.

I hate to see him having to carry so much of the weight of that fight though. He should be one of many in it.

[Lorien]

9. Amen n/t

[zippy890]

27. Russ is my choice

not afraid to fight when a fight is called for.

& I think he is 'media-friendly' - looks nice, speaks plainly
without a lot of double-speak.

[msgadget]

12. Wow, we really are near a tipping point

My mom, who only follows local politics and rolls her eyes when I talk about national events, called me to complain about the ports deal and now finally gets how national policy trickles down to us all.

[Armstead]

14. I think it epitomizes a lot of things. Touches a lot of nerves at once

The double talk, the backroom deals, globaliztion, selling of America....

[Justice Is Comin]

6. I hope to hell somebody

is drawing up the plans to replace Pelosi. And Harmon can go with her.

[OneBlueSky]

15. no, we aren't ready . . . and we very likely won't be . . .

because the ONLY thing that the Democrats can do that will actually make a difference is to tell the TRUTH . . . about everything . . . the war, 9/11, corporate control of Congress, climate change, the true fiscal state of the nation, depleted uranium, torture, poverty, etc. . . EVERYTHING! . . .

you cannot possibly solve a problem without acknowledging the true nature of the problem and its causes . . . period . . .

unfortunately, this is something neither Democrats nor Republicans would dare attempt . . .

because TRUTH and politics are damn near completely incompatible in the US in 2005 . . .

[Armstead]

16. It's a matter how it's presented, IMO

I believe a signifiant majority of people already sense a loit of these things in their gut, at least in terms of the basic issue of concentrations of power and wealth.

Bernie Sanders is an example of a successful politician who does get to the root of problems. If Democrats would take a look at how he manages to translates strong critiques of these problems into votes among ordinary voters, that's go a long way to starting to at least bring politics and truth closer together.

[Orsino]

19. The systemic problems all stem from a single cause.

'Cause we let money into the political process. The GOP may be champions in the corruption game, but the Dems are also beholden to corporate money. If the Dems don't even try to cut off that quasi-legal bribery, they are not offering solutions.

Money is the elephant in the living room which no one discusses seriously. Quibbling over a few donations that are technically illegal does not begin to address the real issue.

[Armstead]

20. True....Money can be powerful incentive to avoid issues

Cmpaign finance reform seems like what Mark Twain said about the weather. "Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it."

The differene is that corrupt politic is not a force of nature. Humans created this problem, so we ought to0 be able to gather the collective willpower to overome the resistance of those who benefit from the corruption.

[msgadget]

22. Absolutely!

If we could get money and the need to raise money out of politics we'd be on our way. I heard someone on C-Span saying such would hamper free speech, the type of argument that's supposed to shut liberals up, I guess. Just the opposite is true, of course, since we - the voters - can't BUY the access to SPEAK at the same volume as the rich and powerful!

Edit to take out 'monied' - is that a word? Maybe it's 'moneyed'... Anyway, I changed it to rich instead! :)

[Orsino]

32. Yeah, we let money vote...

...and not surprisingly, it has voted itself more and more votes. Our representatives are therefore representing money more than they are us.

[woo me with science]

24. BEST POST IN WEEKS!!!!!! nt

[Mythsaje]

26. Oh, I've been saying it...

Check out "Everybody matters..." and "Dear Average Republican."

Or Katherine's "Liberal Agenda."

We're saying it. All we need is someone with a microphone and the spotlight to spread the word.

[crispini]

29. My suggestion: "It's the environment, stupid!"

Let's work together to save our planet from global warming!

[Armstead]

43. That's one necessity

[melissinha]

31. My take... its what you do, not what you say

Bush talks great game but never backs it up, in fact his contrary to what he promises. He spends more time lying and deflecting blame than he does to really address problems.

[msgadget]

34. Great sentiment! n/t

[Telly Savalas]

36. You're nailing three-pointer after three-pointer in this thead.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

41. Thanks....I gotta admit though, I don;t know what a 3 pointer is

:dunce:

[Telly Savalas]

53. Like in basketball.

[Avalux]

37. I'm already talking - and people are listening

And I haven't made it about politics per se. Those I know who are/were Bush supporters are receptive, and I've framed it as "we are all Americans" and look what they're doing to us.

People who've been asleep are waking up, and man are they pissed. I think it might be worse than knowing all along.

[Clarkie1]

38. Yes, we do need to offer "fresh air."

Which means not just offering the same old ideas to 21st century challenges.

Both political parties, despite their cries to the contrary, are stuck in their old ways and old approaches.

[tlsmith1963]

39. I Am, But...

I wonder if our leaders are ready? Most of them are pretty useless, unfortunately. They have had plenty of opportunities to go after Bush, but they don't do it.

Tammy

[Armstead]

42. Well it's up to us to pound some sense into them

Not literally, but make it clear that we want some doors and windows open.

[NoSheep]

40. Yes. Here is my post that everyone is ignoring:

Consider this quote:

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken

WOW! I got you to read my post. Please continue and respond if you will.

I'm wondering what in the world the Democrats are going to do to get together and come up with a fundamentally sound plan to better this insanity we have found ourselves in.

I've very recently had my attention turned toward HL Mencken 1880-1956 (journalist, satirist, social critic) and William Jennings Bryan (politician, orator, progressive, fundamentalist Christian!) Two great thinkers who, however exceptional, were very much a product of their time. Both stand accused today of imbalance, one for his curious outlook on evolution and fear of science (Bryan) and another for his heavy-handed criticism of American society in general and just about everything else! (Mencken). The amazing thing is, so much of what they had to say is so relevant right now as far as politics go. People haven't gotten a whole lot smarter than Bryan and Mencken's dumbest moments. Democrats can certainly learn from Bryan's arguments that it is a moral imperative to shape policy that seeks to protect the less advantaged. And Mencken, while a most fabulous smart-ass, can show you how futile it is in times like these to be "above" humanity with ones wit and cynicism.

There is a new book called A Godly Hero (by Michael Kazin) about Bryan and I think if you can get beyond his fundamentalism, it might be a great read for anyone who'd like to fly back in the face of the unethical Republicans who beg to take the higher moral ground.

We all know the Republicans see social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. as a bandwagon they can ride to get votes. All the while, being morally reprehensible themselves.

Here is my favorite quote from WJ Bryan:

"The poor man is called a socialist if he believes the wealth of the rich should be divided among the poor, but the rich man is called a financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance of the poor can be converted to his use."

The quote I started with of Mencken's is typical of his point of view, which I agree with completely. However...that sass is NOT going to turn our Republican neighbors into open-minded, ethical voters who think beyond "survival of the richest."

Believe me, I don't want to go back to a pre-Darwinist world as Bryan would have it. And I wouldn't take a million bucks for a smart-ass like Mencken (he reminds me so much of myself). But the Democrats don't just need to win (and they will) but they need to make genuine change and do it with moral conviction and assurity. I fear many Democrats in office have become just as corrupt as the Republicans. They've seen the fast route to power and may be doomed to repeat it to get back on top. We don't need TWO Republican parties. Democrats need to remember where we come from and that, I believe, is from a moral higher ground.

[Armstead]

44. Good points

The smartass approach like Menkin is fun and entertaining, and often probably true. However in terms of actually getting positive change accomplished, such unvarnished cynicism doesn;t get peopel very inspired. Rther it makes it easier to lapse into fatalism.

Bryant illustrates the pardox we face today, if we want spread progressive ideas beyond those people with a certain lifestyle and predisposition associated with liberalism and progressives today. (Of which I'll admit I'm one.)

We need more of the people who are religious and who may even have some social-religious ideas that are backward. Personlly, I think it's primarily about the struggle over Power and Wealth, and how it is distributed. That is more basic than many otehr issues, because the otehr liberal vs. conservative arguments will be meaninngless and impossible if we are all broke and living under an oligopoly and totalitarianism.

Dunno how to sole that dilemma, but IMO we can start by looking at those things which are political but also transcend ideology.

[msgadget]

46. I recall a NPR interview with the Bryan biographer....good piece

First, it really depends on which democratic era you prefer they go back to, the post- or pre-civil rights democrats.

You wrote so eloquantly, leading off with a superb quote which included this key phrase, "...then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre..."

The only way for democrats to win against this opponent if they're stunningly unwilling to stick together as pro-populists is to campaign like politicians, gauging reactions against mass public sentiment before taking a gamble on giving a future opponent sound bites to use against them. During political battles voter's concerns come second to the getting or keeping of power by any means necessary. We've seen through history how power shifts occur and how ideologies change to attain victory, moral imperatives be damned. So, I think that puts the ball firmly back in our court, for if we're not vocal and active, policy will be set without our input. We can't depend on people who have to raise buckets of money to run or a country that has to appease its debtors to be altruistic or in a postion to do what WE want (or to even really try).

Again, great piece, I'm sorry I didn't see it before.

[mmonk]

48. No

As exemplified in the message "we can do better". there is no real information in that. Better than what?

[vanlassie]

54. They need someone to show them pictures.

I find people who are not inclined to pay close attention to politics (and so, they just keep on voting for the Ruthugs, because they ALWAYS have...) can sometimes be jarred into reality by showing them a picture or a graph. My favorite is still the "L-Curve."

We are all working so the top 1% can enjoy the profits of our labor. Let them see just what that really looks like here:
http://www.lcurve.org/

In fact there's a printable PDF flier that I keep with me, just in case I get the chance to show someone what is really happening to the wealth of this country. Any other favorite graphs or illustrations anyone can share?
Vanlassie

[MaraJade]

55. I have been reading these posts tonight and I am troubled

by the general overall "anti-taxpayer", "big government program"
attitude shown by some democrats. Why do some of us think that
government should pay for everything without limitation as long as that
something is some sort of social service or welfare program?

We need to get away from that attitude. It won't play with middle
America anymore. We need to take back the taxpayers from the Wingnuts.
This can be done if we support the creation of living wage jobs for the middle
class, legal immigration, provision of healthcare services,
elimination of corporate welfare and privilege for
the wealthy and relief for working class taxpayers. The people in the middle
are feeling the pain. We need to show that we can relieve that pain.