There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

LIBERAL? Or PROGRESSIVE?? What Are YOU???

My good friend Mycue23 over at Random Thoughts (http://www.hamsandwich66.blogspot.com) has just posted a very thoughtful and well-reasoned (as always) article proudly proclaiming himself to be a "liberal", and that is critical of "progressives" whom he views as being overly critical of President Obama, and are seemily ready and willing to jump ship on him.

To be sure, the President has disappointed many of us who took him at his word in 2008 and believed that Gitmo would have been closed down by now, that he would have pushed more strongly for and implemented a single-payer, public option for health care, or that numerous other things he promised but has not yet delivered on would have come to fruition. Like Mycue23 and, I suspect, many of the rest of you regular readers, the idea of dumping the President for a more leftist and less centrist candidate, and splitting his party and losing the 2012 election to a reactionary, blabbering fool like Sarah Palin or a far-right social conservative like Mike Huckabee, or even to a corporatist plutocrat like Mitt Romney in the process, is simply NOT AN OPTION. So, unhappy though we may be with the status quo, we are indeed stuck with Obama, as we know the alternative is far, FAR worse!

But Mycue23's impassioned stance (read his post; it's great!) got me to thinking: am I a Liberal? Or a Progressive?

Such labels are always murky and often inaccurate descriptions of one's political beliefs. For example, today's Tea Party and far-right Republicans refer to themselves as "conservatives" but that is not at all accurate. They are instead backward-looking reactionaries. And when these poor unfortunate souls foam at the mouth and deride "liberals", I strongly suspect what they are really complaining about are "progressives." Let me explain...

I went to Google.com and entered "the difference between liberal and progressive" for some clarification. I was very pleased to find a number of articles listed which may help clear this mystery up for you as well. The first was a gem by David Sirota which appeared in the 10/19/06 Huffington Post. Mr. Sirota writes:

"Liberals...are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules...a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class..."


Mr. Shirota also warns us that "Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts..."


Another illuminating insight came from a 01/05/08 post on the blog Corrente:

"If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you're a liberal; if you're trying to make universal health care happen, you're a progressive...[liberals are] people who want things like universal healthcare, out of Iraq, privacy rights, help for the homeless, good public schools, justice, equality, etc... but accept the excuses made by politicians and the media for why these things are not possible.

Progressives, on the other hand, know that progressive policy is possible (and necessary, real soon) and want to fight whatever stands in the way of making it happen."



Yet another fascinating piece comes from a listing called The Progressive Review, but no date is listed:

"As Progressives learned from the last year, getting Democrats elected does not automatically translate into progressive policy. The Democratic controlled congress has failed to promote or even defend Progressive values on pretty much every issue that has come up, from Iraq to FISA...

Progressives also learned from the last 8 years that progressive policy has NO chance if the Republicans are in charge...

Therefore:

Democratic Party (or non-Republican) control of government is a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about progressive policy...

This explains my and possibly others' concerns about efforts at bipartisanship and triangulation by Democrats running for office...

Since the liberal prime directive is to win elections, they argue that compromises must be made in terms of policy, because policy is secondary...

What we need is both electoral success and the successful promotion of progressive policy. These thing have to happen simultaneously. Here is a picture to help understand this concept...

Progressives would argue that policy is everything: what is the point if a candidate wins the election but does not enact progressive legislation?...

Also, Progressives would argue that progressive policies are popular, so why would candidates make compromises with conservative policy in order to gain popularity?...

Progressives, as liberals did before Reagan, emphasize doing the most for the most – which is how we got socio-economic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and a minimum wage. Today’s liberals favor expanding health insurance company profits over expanding Medicare and strongly support Democratic presidents who undermine the very programs that earlier liberals created such as social welfare and Social Security...

Progressives don’t think the commerce clause of the Constitution should be used just because you feel like doing something, such as avoiding single payer health insurance. There is a huge difference between using the commerce clause to guarantee human rights and using it to subsidize health insurance companies...

Progressives try to convince people with whom they disagree, not just scold them...

Progressive oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; liberals like them as long as a Democratic president is running them...

Progressives worry about locked doors, liberals about glass ceilings, which is why liberals thought Obama's election would create a post-racial society.Too many liberals are infatuated with symbolism such as electing a black president, while ignoring the real problems most minorities face in everything from the job market to dealing with the law...

Liberals love Clinton and Obama while despising the Bushes who preceded them. They don’t seem to notice that our government continued to move to the right under both Democrats and that neither repealed any significant policies of their GOP predecessors....

Progressives don't think bailing out banks is an economic stimulus, but that helping to create jobs and stop foreclosures is...

Progressives are not afraid of criticizing Israel for its abusive treatment of Palestine. Liberals either support Israel's criminal actions or are afraid of being called anti-Semites so don't say anything."


and, most importantly,

"Progressives have new ideas; liberals come up with new compromises with the right."

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

I have always viewed the government as a buffer against the overreach of concentrated capital, much as the late great progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt did. For that reason, I strongly support the notion of government regulating corporations and big business to prevent excesses which may harm the public, and I do NOT in the least view the government as an oppressor the way the currently very misguided reactionaries do.


I have always viewed the government as a great force to implement good policy for the betterment of all the people on an individual basis, just as Franklin D. Roosevelt did. That is why I strongly support federal programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. I do NOT believe that "profit motive" necessarily ensures efficiency or success in human endeavors. In some cases, exactly the opposite situation occurs. And I do NOT believe in the federal government providing routine subsidies to huge concerns like oil companies or the insurance, banking, or pharmaceutical companies who in turn take this money and then end up using it against the people at large for the profit and benefit of only a few!

Given all that which has been presented above, I would characterize myself as a PROGRESSIVE, albeit with a few liberal tendencies. After reading this post, I would guess that perhaps Mycue23 and maybe some others of you out there may wish to reclassify yourselves, but maybe not. It is entirely your choice, and I respect that completely. As by now all of you have ascertained, one thing is for certain, though: I am most certainly NOT a "conservative" or a "reactionary!"

I have always viewed liberals and progressives not as being enemies or opposites, but as being very similar and inter-connected, yet distinct. Just as there are heads and tails on a particular coin, in the end, it is still much the same coin, fused together to achieve the same purpose. I think it is important for us on the left to ALWAYS remember that!


So how about YOU, readers? Are you now more confused than ever? Or are you LIBERAL? Or PROGRESSIVE?? What Are YOU???

41 comments:

jadedj said...

Excellent post! Progressive here, for sure. Action, not just words is what we need...and soon.

LORD TRUTH 101 said...

You know Jack. I don't really give a damn what we label ourselves or each other.

You're a stand up guy who is excellent at articulating and justifying his opinions. Liberal, progressive, Democrat, whatever. You're Jack and I like and agree with your views.


I don't care to get in a war of labels with those I share many beliefs. We're not reactionary republican right wing fools.

Gwendolyn H. Barry said...

Well, Jack... me? I've always been a capital L liberal. Mr. Sirota sounds like a mediating Republican PR man. I think of liberals as those folk who claimed to be; Teddy Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr., Pelosi, many of the Dems in office. I don't consider liberals as fiscally irresponsible and I would debate the examples of what makes who what among progressives and liberals by Mr. Sirota's estimation. What liberal can you name (a successful politico) that would throw anything at the pharmecutical industry? Liberals balk at large, abusive, community gouging corporations. Name me a union organizer who was ever a 'conservative' or Rethug? I'm reading descriptions of liberals that I just don't reconcile with, I guess. By these accounts, liberals are politically folks with their heads situated uncomfortably in the wrong area of the anatomy... ya know? But gee,
liberals are always picked on. LOL I see your point, though, about choosing up your political description. I read Michael's piece too. He's so dang tired of hearing Obama trashed. I get it, believe me. It still hurts to understand that the President has been a let down. It's so confusing too.
Like I said, I've been a liberal since I could express an opinion on how government should work... about the time I was taking civic's class and listening to the news instead of skipping it. 14? I think... maybe 13.
TY Jack! I also think you're a stand up guy who is excellent at articulating and justifying your opinions! Professor Jack! I learn something every time I stop in!

Jack Jodell said...

jadedj,
Thank you, my good man, and I'm all for action, too!
---------------
LORD TUTH 101,
I thank you humbly for your very kind words, and I agree 100% with your last 2 sentences. Blog on, brother!
---------------
Gwendolyn,
I couldn't help but notice the liberals you singled out were either active primarily before the "Reagan Revolution" or have taken a very activist stance (which would actually redefine them as progressives. I'm tired of the Obama-bashing too, as we've discussed. The poor guy has had ZERO cooperation but has still produced SOME notable accomplishments, and will undoubtedly produce a few more. We Americans have become SO impatient! But when a guy does an about-face and fails to fight hard enough for some core principles, that is a source of concern to all. And I'm REALLY sick of the constant left-bashing the GOP and the media have engaged in since 1980! GIVE ME A BREAK, REPUBLICANS! YOU are the ones putting the wants of concentrated money before the needs of average working people!

Thank YOU, Gwen, for being the stand up gal YOU are, and for hosting "Here Be Monsters", the very best online radio show in existence! Blog and broadcast on, sister! :-)

Mauigirl said...

Based on the descriptors you found, I am a Progressive. However, I agree with Mycue23 that sometimes things have to be done incrementally. I think the type of liberals being described in the definitions you found are the phony liberals that Phil Ochs sang about. "Love me, love me, love me, I'm a Liberal."

Jack Jodell said...

Mauigirl,
Thanks for stopping by, and I think you're right. I would call those types "limousine liberals" and, unfortunately, I know some like that. Even so, they're vastly more preferable than the reactionaries we now find all around in abundance!

Tim said...

I agree with his Lordship. Call me what you want just call..
I guess for me it's a blame game.
The one thing I'm not is a lemming like all those republicans who followed Bush no matter what he did.
Maybe I'm part of the umpire party, I call them as I see em. When Obama screws up, I say so. If he does something good I say so. Do I have buyers remorse in backing him. you bet cha.. I think I should have went with Hilly. Us whiners just want a leader who stands up for what's right. Apparently easier said then done. If Obama is the nominee I'll vote for him, but not a single dime more will I give.

Jack Jodell said...

Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I LOVE the "Umpire Party" tag you came up with!

Oso said...

Hi Jack,
I had always considered myself liberal till the last few years, both my parents were strong union people and liberals so that's what I was too. Liberal and Democrat.

You know that book "what's the matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, dealing with conservatives voting against the own interests?

Liberals are going that route too. Nothing else matters except the Democratic party.

They no longer oppose the war, they're happy with Obama's shitty HC and financial "reform". Everything is the Republicans fault, or Progressives. Just don't criticize the president.

I call myself a Progressive to distinguish myself from the partisan politics of the liberals. Also Glen Beck blames all the worlds ills on progressives, so it seems kinda fitting.

Jack Jodell said...

Thanks for your input, Oso. I, too, once considered myself a liberal. But they have compromised themselves too badly in recent years, and now my research has made me realize that since Reagan, the liberals have prostrated themselves and have almost turned into "Republican Lite." So now I am also a progressive, which is now the same as a pre-1980 liberal.

John said...

I think it is possible that the term “left progressive” was born with the term "liberal" became "the L Word." Both terms point to the same people. Most members of the political Left would call themselves a progressive after reading your article. They are the same people with the same views that used to call themselves liberals before Hannity and other pioneers of modern political strategy told Liberals that they are idiots and they started to feel it. I am a deep-left liberal, and what I mean by that is a “progressive,” the socially acceptable synonym. The term “progressive” had to come into favor so embarrassed liberals could embrace who they were. Hannity was a socially intelligent conservative, albeit a disingenuous fool, and Colmes was a clumsy spineless Liberal, incapable of representing his position. The Fox PR effort was brilliant. I cannot be one of those stupid liberals. I am something else, a progressive, perhaps. Yes, that sounds really good. That is what I am. But secretly, just between us, I am also a liberal, as they are the same thing. Shhhh.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Liberal (and proud of it),
JMyste

Jack Jodell said...

John (JMyste),
Thank you for stopping by and for that thoughtful comment. It seems to me, though, that the nature of liberalism has changed. I first noticed in the mid-'70s that the liberals were getting "soft" and were riding on the accomplishments of the previous 15 years or so. Then came Reagan and his hordes of anti-government, pro-business, social conservatives. Liberals were pushed from the left to the center, except for a bare few. Like one of the writers in this blogpost said, under both Obama and Clinton, the Democratic Party, once the party of the left, has been pushed further and further to the right. While this has been happening,, the GOP has gone way right and has pushed itself into the mental hospital, as Bill Maurer so wryly noted on Keith Olbermann last night. The net result is that neither of us can quite call himself a "liberal" anymore, and we identify far more strongly with the progressive cause than with the liberal one of today.

John said...

Great, and I boasted to everyone about being a liberal. How embarrassing! Liberals already have a reputation for vacillation. Now I have to go back and tell everyone that I am not a liberal, and yes, they are wishy washy, those liberal bastards; but we progressives know that for which we stand. I also feel compelled to recant the statement that Liberal John made. It turns out that “liberal” is the “L Word” after all.

JMyste, the Proud Progessive

Jack Jodell said...

JMyste,
I'm a "proud progressive" right along with you! :-)

Mycue23 said...

Hey Jack,
I'm glad my post was part of the motivation for you to write this piece. Writing my piece and responding to different people over the past couple of days has really helped me come to a new understanding of who our President is and why the response to him has been so harsh on the left and the right.
I honestly believe that Obama has kept his most important promise of the campaign and that was to bring change to DC. A change in the way things are done. He is singlehandedly trying to bring a more civil tone to the discourse in politics. That was the change that he spoke of so often on the campaign trail. Those on the left heard what he said, but perceived change to be a 180 turn from the Bush administration. Those on the right assumed (somewhat ingenuously, I might add) he meant a return to the 60's brand liberalism that they have so effectively squelched in the decades that have followed. He has been neither what the left expected or what the right made him out to be. Those on the right continue to vilify him because it makes good copy and those on the left continue to see all the things he isn't.
I prefer to see what the President is, and not what he isn't. I see the policies that have been implemented in a much more positive light than do those on either side of the political spectrum. People on the left and right keep on throwing out the Jimmy Carter comparisons as if that's a bad thing. I happen to think that Carter was the most honest and morally sound man to hold the office since probably Lincoln. If Obama ends up in that company, then I will be proud to have voted for him.
What he's trying to do is an uphill battle and he won't please most of the people all of the time, but I believe it's a battle worth fighting. If Obama were to suddenly become a dogma driven partisan, he would betray the very change that he is trying to affect. He's probably not gonna be successful, but perhaps it will be one small step on the way to a more responsive and effective political system. He may become a martyr for the cause, but I think that at the end of day, he will believe that he has done the right thing. Change has to start with someone, Jack. And whether Obama's a failed progressive, a lapsed liberal or a committed centerist, it doesn't really matter as long he has the courage to follow through on his convictions.
I'm willing to follow along for the ride and see where it takes us. As you know, I have been critical of this administration on may occasions (I think it took me exactly one week into his administration to admonish him), so I'm not above disagreeing with the President or his policies (and I don't have a problem with others doing the same), but I have faith in his ultimate mission which goes well beyond just winning one for the home team. I'm not sure what that makes me. Perhaps I'm not anything now.

P.S. I don't care what you call me, as long as you don't call me late for dinner (or a Republican).

Oso said...

Jack,I wrote a bit of an addendum to this post to go up at Mikes in the morning. Gave you a tip o' the hat in it.
Thanks Jack

Jack Jodell said...

Thanks, Mycue23, for this very well-reasoned comment. I know my post provoked a lot of thought on your part, just as yours did for me.

I, like you, am not willing to write off the President yet. Gwen knows this too. I AM disappointed that Gitmo remains open and that he didn't press harder for a public option. Because I believe that 15 or 20% of SOMETHING is much better than 100% of nothing, or ANY fraction of the current GOP agenda, I, like you, am willing to ride this out. I DO hope, in the next two years, that the President will become a better communicator and tactician, though. He'll need every single bit of political skill he can muster to outwit and overcome the concerted Republican effort of hatred against him. And I know you and I will be with him in 2012, because there isn't a Republican alive today who is offering an agenda that is palatable or practical. We on the left are in a familiar pose: many of us are disagreeing and want to proceed at different rates in advancing a more just and humane public policy. But, as FDR once wisely observed, that is because (leftists and) Democrats have many ways to move forward, but the Republicans have only one way to move, and that is backward.

Blog on, brother---I love ya! :-)

Jack Jodell said...

Thank YOU, Oso! I'll look for it and comment there.

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

Labels are bullshit, in my humble yet quite vocal opinion. I am way left of the center, that's all I know.


I am also enough of a realist to know that we will never elect a Pres that is left of the center, unless the Rethugs get in and screw us like they did under The Shrub and the voters go 180 the other way. I figured The Big O was a centrist or a great bullshit artist, as I don't usually trust anyone that is so eloquent, but I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.

This is one fine post dude...putting ya on my must read list. Saw your comment over at Lord Truthys place. ;)

Jack Jodell said...

Dusty,
Thanks for stopping by and for your comment, too. I tend to agree that it will take something very drastic for us to get another leftist President, but I caution everyone against outright apathy and noninvolvement, because that just guarantees we will end up with another W. And that is something we CANNOT put up with!

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

Jack, I am an old bitch and I have never missed an election since I turned 18. I do however, on occasion, vote for one of my cats, usually Scooter Lee, when I can't stomach any of the candidates on the ballot. I am registered as Decline to State here in Cali as I hold no allegiance to any party.

With Feingold and Grayson voted out of office, there are only a handful of politicians that I trust and admire.

Jack Jodell said...

Dusty,
Thanks for stopping back, and I share your viewpoint that there are only a handful of our current officeholders to admire and trust in. It is up to people like you and I to elect MORE good quality, true public servants! That is our unceasing task.

Manifesto Joe said...

Progressive or liberal?

"Liberal," when you read the tenets, involves a lot of things that I would perhaps like to believe but can't.

(1) That humans are essentially good, corrupted primarily by bad institutions. Rapid response: It was the humans who created them. And, my life experience has NOT been that humans are essentially good. Quite often they are absolute shits. They seem to be a 50-50 proposition, mostly.

(2)"Liberal" means different things in different parts of the world. Largely, it means "neo-liberal," referring mainly to economic policies that are very pro-capitalist. I am all for the market doing what it does better than the public sector. But observation suggests that this isn't the case a lot of times, so that's when the public sector has to provide a pluralistic balance to counter private power.

(3) The notion that history is sort of linear, moving toward the ultimate improvement of the human condition. Oh, that this were so! We're seeing terrible regression these days. It's not two steps forward, one step back; more like 2.0 steps forward, and about 1.99 steps back.

Anyway, my reasons that I am more comfortable with the label of "progressive" than that of "liberal." Enough for now.

Jack Jodell said...

Well stated, as always, Manifesto Joe. I wonder just how critical future historians will be of the past 30 years...

Gwendolyn H. Barry said...

I take your point Jack! I have a bunch of young folks around me all the time who are active in the local community and care about politics. Each has some specific focus in it all, too! They are not stand offish... they are the organizers around here. They are all rooted in 'green environment & economy'... local, local, local! That eventually makes it global. And they have a point.

(ps... ta for the plug for our radio zone!)

TomCat said...

I'm fully both, Jack. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that liberals tent to seek incremental change and progressives want sweeping change. In my ideal world, I want what I want and I want it NOW! But my practical side knows that, no matter how I would like to, I do not live in my ideal world. So I look at Obama, praise his accomplishments, and criticize his faults. He has both in abundance.

However, I think the idea of running off and voting for a third party candidate, who has zero chance of winning, or even worse, not voting at all, because we can't have it all now is a truly progressive position. One who abandons any PROGRESS out of spite, opening the way for the the likes of the Republican Party is not an authentic progressive. That is a regressive path, not a progressive one.

TomCat said...

Typo alert:

However, I think the idea of running off and voting for a third party candidate, who has zero chance of winning, or even worse, not voting at all, because we can't have it all now is NOT a truly progressive position.

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

TC, I disagree with your premise sir. ;)Voting for someone other than the two political parties in charge is a brave vote and it equates with NV's law of "none of the above".

Marc McDonald said...

I'm not sure that the terms "progressive" or "liberal" really have much relevance in today's America.
The vast majority of Americans wouldn't know "progressive" if it bit them on the ass.
Even the "far-right" politicians in Europe are way to the left of most Democrats in the U.S.
The pendulum has swung so far to the right in the U.S. since 1980 that we have a "liberal" president today whose policies are actually to the right of those of Richard Nixon. In fact, on domestic policies, Nixon was far to the left of Bill Clinton.
As Michael Moore once pointed out, Nixon was the last "progressive" president we had in this country.
Really, both parties today are pro-corporate and exist only to serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

Jack Jodell said...

Gwen,
You are very fortunate to be surrounded by such aware and involved young people. I would encourage them any way I could to keep their interest and passion!
---------------
TomCat and Dusty,
What usually happens when people vote for a third party candidate or don't vote at all is that the conservative Republican will gain a plurality and will take the office, something I can't go for at all!
---------------
Marc,
That is a VERY accurate set of observations! You DO know your politics and history. I agree with 7ou strongly, and that is why I consider myself to be an American Dissident! Blog on, brother!

TomCat said...

Dusty, it's brave it the third party candidate actually has a real chance to win. Sadly, that is seldom the case.

Jack Jodell said...

Until a third party candidate can prove to me he or she is strong enough to get 50.1% of the vote, I believe a vote for that candidate, no matter how brave, is a wasted vote which will aid Republicans in getting one of theirs elected. I think the most practical answer is for progressives to flood their Democratic Party precinct and district caucuses, and state party conventions, and make absolutely certain that only progressive candidates get nominated for office. Then, of course, they must work to get those candidates elected. The only thing voting third party or blue dog "Republican Lite" does is to elect conservative Republicans, and they are the ones sucking the lifeblood out of the poor and working class and destroying our economy!

Engineer of Knowledge said...

Hello Jack,
It has been a while since I last posted with you my friend. That being said, I have been very busy with things going on in my life but in a good way. One thing was jury duty and have always been appointed as Foreman of the jury. One case did not end until 9:15 PM.

I have always been a fan and consider my viewpoints to be in line with the great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt.

One of the latest things I want to pass on is here in Maryland we have a new congressman, Andy Harris, here in the 1st district of Maryland. He was voted in over a one term Moderate Democratic who had beat Andy 2 years before. This person is one of the ultra right wing Republican Conservatives but in truth, he is just a bought and paid for corporate mouthpiece and influenced vote.

A delegation of the “Maryland Tea Party” visited his office in Annapolis where he is currently a State Senator. This Tea Party group started to tell him how he was going to vote on what issues because, as they felt, they were responsible for bringing him into power with their support.

Well this self-absorbed, narcissistic, corporate stogie, stood up, went to his door of his office, and politely but firmly dismissed the “Tea Party Delegation” with the statement, “I was the one elected into Congress….not you.” Basically Andy Harris told the Tea Party to “Fuck Off!!”

So once again the Tea Party got a slap of reality of how much real influence they have in politics and that they are nothing more than being manipulated politically through their own ignorance. Just like the “Moral Majority,” “Christian Coalition,” “Tax Payers Association,” or any others that have been duped as such; the Republican could give a “Rat’s Ass” of what the Tea Party wants or demands.

They will only serve themselves which is “Corporate America.”

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

Jack, my county is run by the Rethugs. It has been forever, I live in the San Joaquin valley, the reddest part of Cali that has been controlled by the right forever. D's don't even run against the R incumbent in Kern County for the most part. That is when I vote for Scooter Lee, one of my cats.

Jack Jodell said...

Engineer of Knowledge,
Great to have you back! Yep, Andy Harris is already proving to be a loudmouth crybaby, demanding his GOVERNMENT-RUN health insurance even before he takes office! Typical far-right hypocrisy and self-centeredness, and that's why it's no wonder he even told his teabagger backers to take a hike. Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite Presidents, too, is surely spinning in his grave. I admired him for his forcefulness in dealing with the stuffy economic kingpins of his day. I did NOT admire his imperialistic bent, though, but I do understand it when placed in the context of his time. I think Obama could learn a great deal from Teddy R!
---------------
Dusty,
I admire your tenacity in sticking it out in that miserably red area in which you live. I don't blame you at all for voting for your cat, given those circumstances. You are a shining light surrounded by darkness there, and you are always welcome here at my blog! :-)

Dusty,Hells most vocal Bitch said...

After all the fuckery the Blue Dogs pulled on Obama, I WILL NOT vote for 'one of them'unless they adhere to several core beliefs of mine.

Jack Jodell said...

Amen to that, Dusty!

TomCat said...

Dusty, given your situation, I have one regret: The cat lost.

generic cialis said...

In principle, a good happen, support the views of the author

Jack Jodell said...

generic ciallis,
I suspect you are spam. When I click on your name, a site written completely in Spanish comes up...

Blogger said...

There is a chance you're qualified for a new government solar energy program.
Click here to find out if you're eligble now!