Why I'm a Democratic Socialist

The stories we tell ourselves are all essentially just lies that we tell ourselves so that we distract ourselves from noticing how shitty and meaningless our lives are.

I know that coming from me, a white male living in a 1st world nation, that sounds like I'm just being ignorant or bitchy about not having everything handed to me, but it's totally not the case.

I'm just recognizing what can only be described as a fact. Life is shitty. To be alive, no matter WHERE you live, is to suffer.

So let's get ethnocentric for a moment-- Here in the United States of America, we've got this narrative that we tell ourselves. That if you just work hard, do the right things, and you'll get ahead.

We go to school and school sucks, but we're told that we're supposed to endure being bored while being fed lies about Europeans who got lost and “discovered” places where people were already living, told a bunch of dates from history that have absolutely no meaning or relevance to our tiny myopic 10 year old universe, having dodgeballs hurled at our heads in gym class-- and with all of it done in shifts, like at a factory, which was designed to mentally prepare us for a life of working in all those factories that left the country 30 years ago. For our tests, we regurgitate answers without understanding them, and we accept things our teachers tell us without thinking about them. And we call that “learning.”

And it sucks, but we endure it all. In fact, we work really hard at doing well at this thing that sucks, because if we do well at this thing that sucks, it opens up this chain of possibilities for other things that suck, but supposedly lead to better things (but which in reality, also suck). If we do well in school, we're supposed to be able to get into a good university, and then we stress out and work really hard going to that university because if we do well, we supposed to be able to get a good job. And then you get a job, and you work really hard no matter how much you hate it, in the hopes of moving ahead in your career, so that eventually you'll get to a point in your life where your body is giving out, and your organs are failing, you can do all those fun things that you wanted to do in life.

But it's all a load of bullshit. We are constantly deferring our happiness today for this abstract happiness in the future which never materializes. And it's not going to either.

Well, I mean it could work out for you that you get your story book ending where you live happily ever after, but more likely than not, it's not going to work out that way. You're just going to keep suffering through the shit in front of you today, and then at the end, you just die, and it's all shit. It's just one long line of continuous shit from birth till death. Rather than getting ahead, you spend every day giving it your all just trying to keep what little you have, and then you're even losing ground, day after day, no matter how hard you work.

That procession of success we're all told to believe in is complete and utter bullshit. Some people have the right skills or the right connections and happen to be in the right spot at the right time and get lucky, but most people don't.

Some people don't go to college, walk into a street while drunk, get hit by a car, and end up with a huge settlement, and then invest it in something that makes them rich. Some people just happen to be born to the right parents. Some people just happen to be born to the wrong parents. There's just no fucking rhyme or reason to anything, and it's foolish to assume that anything in life is going to resemble ANYTHING like fairness.

Some people are able to amass huge amounts of wealth for no goddamned reason, and most people end up with little or nothing. That's how we currently organize our society. And part of that too, is that's just how life works-- some people get rewarded for doing the totally wrong thing, and some people get punished for doing everything right. Being successful in life seems to be a lot like winning the lottery-- it's just random chance, and it's totally out of your control.

Unless you happen to be born to the right parents, the parents of successful capitalists, and then you can use your money to do all your work for you. Then you can hire people to do other things for you. You can even hire people to do your hiring for you. You also get buy politicians, politicians who will change the laws to make it easier for you to do whatever the fuck you want to.

While there is abundance which can only be described as insane for a small few, that wealth is gathered by force from everybody else. And that is where poverty comes from.

So if we're living on a planet where odds are, you just happen to be born to the wrong parents, you know, parents with brown skin who live in a place without clean drinking water, how can we say, “well, there's some winners who profit from being born to rich people who use money to buy force to control natural resources and fuck other people over, and that's totally fine with me” and then call ourselves moral, or ethical?

If you subscribe to the theory that we live in a cold and uncaring universe, and that life on the planet earth is as fragile and meaningless as mold in a bathtub, you quickly realize that the world is filled with suffering FOR NO GODDAMNED REASON, and the very least that we can do is reduce the total amount of suffering on the planet by evening things out a little bit.

And that's why I'm a Democratic Socialist.

The Democratic Party is irredeemable and unreformable

Cynthia Dill's run for US senate is a prime example

If you run into people who think that running as a Democrat is a good way to seek reform at the national level, tell them to follow this race in Maine: Cynthia Dill for US Senate.

The DSCC (Democratic Party Senate Coordinated Campaign) doesn't even mention Cynthia Ann Dill or that she won the primary of the Maine Democratic Party in their write up about the race.

Instead the DSCC chooses to talk about how the corporate-funded independent with ties to clearcutting... is an "Obama supporter."

Well first, I'm not an Obama supporter, because I don't support incinerating women and children with drone strikes, and I don't support the executive branch having the authority to assassinate people, or keeping a "Kill List."

But let's just put that aside for a second.

This just goes to show how completely corrupt the DNC is. Why is that the case? Why are they backing a corrupt, millionaire independent over a politically progressive woman that their own Party nominated through the democratic process?

Well, I would say that they are concerned with winning, but that's not true. If that were the case, they'd be dumping DSCC money into Dill's race, which they are not. And besides, the past 20 years show that they have made a pretty successful career out of chronically losing -- losing on the agenda front, losing on the congressional seats front...

Could it have something to do with the fact that Dill states that she is opposed to PACs and supports amending the Constitution to eliminate corporate personhood? (Thereby pulling billions of dollars out of the industry that is politics.) I think you'd be on the right track there. They are not concerned with policy. They are not concerned with the well being of the average American. They scapegoat the republicans, and willingly step aside on key issues that they should be digging their heels in on.

I have a theory that because Cynthia Dill is a real progressive, is opposed to the NeoLiberal agenda of Bush and Obama, that the DNC is pulling the rug out from under her because she would show how corrupt the DNC is. She would potentially be a thorn in their side. This is what I learned the hard way back in 2007 working on Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign. As Howard Beale said in the film Network, "I have seen the face of God."

Since then I have Registered Green, haven't looked back since. If Cynthia Dill were to have registered Green, we might not have had a giant political machine to push behind her with, but she'd at least have the formal backing of the party that she is registered with at a National Level.

The DNC is beholden to corporate money, wall street, the war machine, and that's it. They are irredeemable, unreformable, and corrupt beyond repair. Your time would be better served walking away from them, and building an alternative.

"99 Airlines", or "Why MoveOn Sucks"

Because nothing says, "proletariat" like flying an airplane

MoveOn has a glaringly blind eye towards Obama.

Obama, whose plutocratic, power-grabbing, constitution violating presidency (new boss, same as the old boss), is a large part of why we're protesting to start with. While I'm confident that this movement isn't going to get sidelined with presidential politicking for wall street's puppets, and this just goes to show that MoveOn is potentially a worse enemy than FoxNews.

At least with FoxNews, we KNOW they're against us. MoveOn is the worst kind of enemy, the kind who smiles and compliments you while they smother you in your sleep.

Sure, Mitt Romney and his allies have millions of dollars. But Obama has the same allies on Wall Street. And they're also giving Obama millions of dollars. And is wasting money on airplane banners really "making sure our dollars go far?" Just... WTF MoveOn?

Dear MoveOn.org. Please try this: Instead of trying to make this into an anti-Romney, or anti-Republican thing (which Occupy has never been), why not make this an "anti-money" thing? Pressure Obama to run as a clean elections candidate? Pressure congress to create a Clean Elections system modeled after the one in Maine? Why not take a firm stance against corporate contributions and the use of SuperPACs by ANY candidate? Until then, you're just hacks for the Democratic party, who turn a blind eye to the DNC doing the same things you are berating the GOP for doing.
via an email from MoveOn.org:

99airlines is off the ground, and we need ideas for airplane banners to fly over high-profile Mitt Romney events. Rate, submit, and share an idea today.

Submit Your IdeaDear MoveOn member,
We just launched 99airlines, our program to fly airplane banners over high-profile Mitt Romney events with messages from the 99%.
And what's the coolest part? You get to decide what the banners say! If you could fly a message over Mitt Romney's head, what would it be?
Will you suggest a short, pithy, memorable phrase for a 99airlines banner? Or check out and rate other people's ideas?
Click here to submit or vote for a 99airlines banner.
Imagine if Mitt Romney and his Super PAC friends had to deal with the sights and sounds of airplanes following them everywhere, reminding Americans how Romney stands for corporations and the 1%. Reporters at the events will film and write about the banners—it'll drive Romney and his corporate backers crazy.
That's why we're taking it to Romney, exposing him as Mr. 1%. Here's the banner we flew over a Romney fundraiser in Boston last week.

We're ready to fly a whole lot more over his high-profile appearances this summer, including fundraisers and a major event with Latino political leaders.
We need you to submit your ideas today. And the highest-rated, most shared, and most timely messages from the 99% will get flown over Romney's head. So get your ideas online today!
Click here to submit or vote for a 99airlines banner.
MoveOn members stepped up and funded 99airlines as a way to combat the Super PAC ads and corporate money that will flood into this year's election. We're transforming Mitt Romney's 1% fundraising tour into an airborne progressive message machine that will be seen by the people at the events and the media covering them.
They've got millions of dollars, but we've got more people and more creativity than they can muster. If you submit your ideas—-and make sure as many people as possible rate and contribute ideas—99airlines can define Mitt Romney and the people he represents in a visible, memorable way.
Click here to submit or vote for a 99airlines banner.
Thanks for all you do.
–Garlin, Elena, Emily, Victoria, and the rest of the team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to andrew pollack on June 1, 2012. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

Court to Maine Democratic Party: NO MORE BULLYING THIRD PARTIES OFF THE BALLOT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

April 19, 2012

CONTACT:
Oliver Hall – (617) 953-0161
Lynne Williams – (207) 266-6327

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES FOR NADER IN SUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATS

High Court Decision Reinstates Lawsuit Alleging Democrats Unlawfully Targeted Nader-Camejo 2004 Independent Presidential Campaign

PORTLAND, ME – Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court (the “Law Court”) today unanimously ruled to reinstate a 2009 lawsuit filed by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his 2004 Maine electors against the Democratic Party and several of its allies. The lawsuit, originally filed in Superior Court for Washington County, Maine, was dismissed in November 2010 pursuant to Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556. The Law Court vacated the dismissal, ruling that the lower court erred by denying Nader and his electors the opportunity to establish their claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy.

“We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims,” the Law Court declared in a majority opinion by Justice Donald G. Alexander. Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley, Justice Jon D. Levy, Justice Andrew M. Mead and Justice Ellen A. Gorman joined the opinion.

“Accordingly, today we announce a change in the parties’ burdens at the preliminary anti-SLAPP dismissal stage,” Justice Alexander wrote.

Under the new standard, the Law Court ruled that the lawsuit filed by Nader and his electors “should be allowed to proceed,” unless they are unable to show that “any, rather than all,” of the Democrats’ litigation against the Nader-Camejo 2004 presidential campaign was “devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law.”

Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 1995, with the intention of protecting activists who are sued by real estate developers for speaking out against proposed projects (such actions are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Typical SLAPP suits have no merit and are filed for improper purposes, such as imposing litigation costs – which, as defendant Toby Moffett admitted, was a primary purpose of the litigation that Democrats initiated against Nader’s 2004 independent presidential campaign with the late Peter Miguel Camejo.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Joseph M. Jabar, Justice Warren M. Silver wrote that the anti-SLAPP statute had been “used by different parties than those intended,” and that it had “served an entirely different purpose than the one intended.”

“The ‘Goliath’ who abuses other forms of petitioning to harass ‘David’ has now adopted the [anti-SLAPP statute] as another obstacle to throw in David’s path when he legitimately seeks to petition the court for redress,” Justice Silver wrote.

The lawsuit alleges that Democrats orchestrated a concerted, nationwide effort to interfere with the Nader-Camejo campaign, by filing 29 complaints in 19 states, including Maine, and that many of the complaints included groundless and demonstrably false allegations of fraud. According to Moffett, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist who helped recruit an estimated 95 lawyers from 53 law firms to join the effort, the purpose of the Democrats’ complaints was to “drain,” “distract” and “neutralize” the Nader-Camejo campaign, by “forcing [them] to spend money and resources defending these things.”

Other defendants named in the lawsuit include the Maine Democratic Party, its former Chair Dorothy Melanson, the Democratic National Committee, its former Chair Terry McAuliffe, the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign and a Section 527 political organization called The Ballot Project headed by Moffett.

As a result of the Law Court’s decision, the lawsuit will be remanded to the Superior Court for Washington County for further proceedings.

The Law Court also vacated a lower court order awarding Moffet $1 in attorneys’ fees.

Copies of the Law Court’s opinion are available by emailing oliverbhall@gmail.com.

We must build the Non-Partisan Progressive Movement

Laibach: Divided States of America

So Laibach is a band from a nation that no longer exists: Yugoslavia

They are part of the Neue Slowenische Kunst or NSK artistic movement, which uses a retrospective avant-garde aesthetic, borrowing from and combining conflicting ideologies to create an aesthetic both authentic feeling, and nonsensical.

They toured the USA just after the 2004 election, and while here, they documented the political, social, and psychological climate here.

It's interesting to watch this now, hearing people's critiques of Bush at the time, the critiques of the wars at the time, etc.

I can't shake the feeling that I'm actually watching a documentary on the fall of the Soviet Empire. But there it is, it's us. It's our empire that's crumbling now.

What becomes really apparent for me, is how the duopoly of two corporate, pro-war political parties, have deeply divided our nation politically into two opposing camps that fight essentially for the same team.

Until we get beyond this illusion that we have two different political parties that serve different masters, we're going to keep driving America into the same corporatocratic ditch every two years.

Below is their documentary: Divided States of America, in which a friend of mine makes a cameo.

I personally feel that this film's message culminates in section 6 with a reading by NSK luminary Peter Mlakar.

DADT vote fails; my thoughts

Even after Obama caved on the tax cuts, the GOP has thanked him by... giving him NOTHING.

Driving home from work today, I was scanning the radio, and came across what turned out to be Sean Hannity's radio show. He was talking about how the blame doesn't rest entirely on the shoulders of the GOP, and that the Democrats should stop Demonizing the GOP when the Democrats vote the same way.

I think this may be the first time I actually agree with Sean Hannity.

Democrats voted with Republicans in blocking DADT.

Now, I've been following politics, and working on campaigns since I was in high school. Let me let you in on a little secret that I've learned along the way: Federal Level Politicians don't give a shit about you, or your issues, unless they can use them to get you to vote for them.

That's right! I know-- shocking. Politicians lie through their teeth about what they are going to get done when you elect them. Why? Because most don't see themselves as beholden to you. They are beholden to their monied donors. Are you rolling in cash? Then who gives a fuck what you have to say?

But that's not all. There's a second half to this equation. You, the voter, make yourself irrelevant every fucking election cycle by buying into their bullshit. That if you don't elect the Democrat/Republican the gays will; be put in camps/destroy America.

They don't give a shit about gay marriage. They don't give a shit about DADT. It's a wedge issue, as I cover in this video:



It hitting your head against the wall hurts your head, maybe you should stop doing it. Stop voting for people who lie to you.

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU AT ALL.

Footage of Laura Wells Arrest at the NBC hosted CA Gubernatorial Debates

To all of you who keep saying, "if voting changed things, they'd make it illegal."

Well, voting DOES change things, but instead of making voting illegal, they've just decided to make attending a debate while being a member of the Green Party illegal instead.

Ralph Nader files suit against Maine Democratic Party in Machias Superior Court

Hearing on August 6, 2010 Will Determine Whether Lawsuit Alleging Unlawful Democratic Party Effort to Bankrupt Nader-Camejo Campaign and Suppress Voter Choice in 2004 Presidential Election Can Proceed.

MACHIAS, ME – On August 6, 2010 at 2 PM, Machias Superior Court Justice Kevin M. Cuddy will hear oral argument in Nader, et al. v. Maine Democratic Party, et al., No. 2009-cv-57, the lawsuit filed by consumer advocate and 2004 Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his Maine presidential electors, which alleges that the Maine Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") and others unlawfully attempted to bankrupt, sabotage and otherwise damage the Nader-Camejo Campaign, in an effort to deny voters the choice of voting for Nader and his running mate, the late Peter Miguel Camejo, during the 2004 presidential election.

The lawsuit charges the defendants with civil conspiracy, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Abuse of process is an intentional tort that occurs when a party misuses legal processes, such as the subpoena process, for an improper purpose. Malicious prosecution arises when a party files a lawsuit without probable cause.

Democrats and their allies filed 29 complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in 18 state courts and the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") during the 2004 presidential election. The state court complaints challenged the validity of Nader-Camejo nomination petitions, but the Democrats’ true purpose, Nader and his co-plaintiffs allege, was to tie up the Nader-Camejo Campaign in court, drain its resources, and smear the Independent candidates with false allegations of fraud.

"We had a role in the ballot challenges," defendant Toby Moffett told The Guardian UK in December 2004. "We distracted him and drained him of resources. I’d be less than honest if I said it was all about the law."

Moffett was president of a Section 527 political organization called The Ballot Project, which helped coordinate and finance the Democrats’ nationwide litigation against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. The goal of the litigation, Moffett said, was "to drain [Nader] of resources and force him to spend his time and money."

"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said. "This lawsuit was filed to advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidates’ rights reinforce voters’ rights, by giving voters more voices and choices, for a more open and competitive democracy, in which the people, rather than private political parties, determine who our elected leaders will be."

Nader’s co-plaintiffs in the case are Christopher Droznick, Nancy Oden and Rosemary Whittaker, each of whom served as a Maine elector to the Nader-Camejo Campaign.

"The Democratic Party is afraid to allow citizens a genuine choice," Oden said. "Hence, their attempts to keep Nader off state ballots and out of the national presidential debates in 2004."

Oden and other Nader-Camejo electors were subpoenaed in connection with the Democrats’ Maine challenge.
Democrats and their allies filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Maine, including one complaint filed by Dorothy Melanson, who was then-Chair of the Maine Democratic Party. Melanson admitted under oath that the DNC had retained her law firm and was paying her attorneys’ fees. At the time, DNC officials denied that the DNC was funding the Democrats’ litigation against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. Campaign finance reports now on file with the FEC confirm that the DNC hired several more law firms that sued the Nader-Camejo Campaign in other states.

At least 95 lawyers from 53 law firms nationwide joined the Democrats’ litigation against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. The Nader-Camejo Campaign prevailed in the great majority of state court challenges and in all five complaints filed with the FEC, but at great cost in time, money and other campaign resources. Further, Democrats’ false charges of fraud against the Nader-Camejo Campaign were widely reported in the news media.

Maine elections officials, the Maine Superior Court and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously concluded that the Democrats failed to provide any evidence to support their allegations of fraud against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. Democrats made similarly groundless allegations in several other states, none of which were proved.

"During the 19th century when ballot access standards were far less onerous, many small parties and independent candidates were able to pioneer reforms opposed to slavery, for a woman’s right to vote, for regulatory restraints on the abuses of industry and commerce, and for improved conditions for workers and farmers," Nader said. "Today’s vastly more burdensome, intricate and discriminatory ballot access barriers in many state laws, enacted by the two party duopoly, have enabled the anti-democratic forces of the Democratic Party to flourish."

Nader and his co-plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages. Bar Harbor attorney Lynne Williams is the plaintiffs’ local counsel.

"This case is part of a long struggle to protect voter rights by ensuring that all candidates have an equal right to access the ballot," Williams said. "The Democratic Party’s effort to suppress voter choice in the 2004 presidential election went far beyond the usual dirty tricks, and we are looking forward to proving our case to a jury."

In June 2009, the federal court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that a similar lawsuit filed by Nader and his voter-supporters raised "interesting legal issues of first impression," but held that the District of Columbia’s three-year statute of limitations barred D.C. Courts from hearing the case. The D.C. Circuit did not hear evidence or rule on the merits of the case.
"We have the evidence to prove our claims, but we have never had the chance to present it to a jury," Nader said. "We are still pursuing our basic right to do that in this case."
Maine’s statute of limitations is six years.

For Immediate Release: August 3, 2006
Contact: Oliver Hall - (617) 953-0161

STRATEGY

Help keep this show going.

FireDogLake is being AWESOME

I was really happy to see this in my inbox today:

Last September, progressive groups including MoveOn, DFA and blogs across the country came together to raise over $430,000 for 65 members of Congress who pledged to vote against any health care bill that doesn't have a public option.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is one of those members who took the pledge and intends to honor it.

And now MoveOn is demonstrating against him because of it. He's being threatened with primary challenges, and President Obama is going to his district today to campaign for the health care bill.

Donate $5 to Rep. Kucinich and let him know that we've got his back for opposing any bill without a public option.

The health care bill that Congress now wants to pass doesn't contain a public option, which would have served as a check on private insurance. Instead, the bill is written as a giant giveaway to big business--it doesn't make health care affordable, it just forces people to buy insurance from unregulated monopolies.

Dennis Kucinich is doing what a member of Congress should do: holding out his vote for something that 80% of the American people want. Now that only 50 votes are needed in the Senate, and 51 Senators have said they'd vote for a bill with a public option, even that last threadbare excuse is gone.

Dennis is asking the question everyone should be asking: why?

If we allow Dennis to be targeted for his principles and have his political career destroyed for simply doing what progressives should be doing, no member of Congress will ever have the political courage to stand up against corporate power again.


Donate $5 to Rep. Kucinich and let him know that we've got his back for opposing any bill without a public option.

Please repost this everywhere progressives go on the internet.

DANCING KITTENS!

Not surprised AT ALL by Coakley v Brown

the Punk Patriot

Coakley lost.

And she should have lost too.
She had absolutely no grasp of retail politics whatsoever. She seemed to be relying on the fact that the Massachusetts Democratic party is a 500 pound gorilla that wins everything ever, and that this fact alone would sweep her right into office, without any regard for campaigning.

Coakley overlooked a simple fact of politics. It's the voters that put you into office. Your votes aren't granted to you, you have to EARN them.

This is a fact that the Democratic party seems incapable of learning, over and over and over again.

In fact, the Democratic party is SO adverse to learning this lesson, that they come up with excuses left and right to avoid facing this simple truth.

They are so convinced that 51% of the votes are already theirs that when they run a terrible campaign and lose, they quickly scan the scene for somebody else to blame. They blame Nader. They blame the Green Party. They blame the weather. They even blame the voters. It's not the voters' fault that you lose elections. Its your own fault, for not earning their vote.

Now the talking heads are all saying that this race is going to change the results of the 2012 election, because if the healthcare bill fails, then Obama will be a failure, and the voters won't re-elect him.

WRONG. I've taken a course in statistical analysis, and the cardinal rule of statistical analysis is that "correlation does not determine cause and effect."

If Obama loses in 2012, it's not going to be because of this one race. This one race is maybe, possibly, perhaps, an indicator of the national political climate. Maybe. Or maybe it's just that Coakley was such a terrible candidate that Democrats couldn't stomach voting for her, and just stayed home.

Let's say that it is an indicator though. Am I really supposed to be upset that the corporate give-away that is the current healthcare bill is going to fail? And why can't the Democrats pass a bill, when they have a larger majority in the Senate than the Republicans have had in the past 23 years?

Why was it that George W Bush was able to ram anything he asked for through congress? Was it because the Republicans had a marginal majority? Or was it because the majority of Democrats in Congress voted along with George W Bush? Was it because George W Bush was a more effective president? Or was it because the Democratic leadership offered absolutely NO meaningful opposition?

Let's say that Obama DOES lose in 2012. If he does indeed lose, he's likely going to lose not because of the healthcare bill passing or failing.

He's going to lose because the healthcare bill that came out of the Senate was a corrupt bill that forced consumers by Federal law to purchase a financial product from a private, for-profit enterprise or be subjected to thousands of dollars in fines.

He's going to lose because he spoke about ending the war, and not only continued the two we had, but started two more-- one in Pakistan, and one in Yemen.

He's going to lose because he promised healthcare reform, and allowed the Congress to give us corporate welfare for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

He's going to fail, not because congress fails to pass a bill, but because he failed to spend the political capital he had after the 2008 election. He could have done as FDR did, and asked the voters, who had just swept him into office, and were ripe with enthusiasm, to give him a Congress that would create sweeping reform. Be he didn't. He's going to be a failure because he didn't ask congress for the sweeping kind of reform that the voters who put him into office wanted.

He must have been too busy picking out his new dog. You know, important stuff.

This all goes back to the lesson that the Democrats continually fail to learn. You have to EARN our votes. Maybe if your party could produce something that wasn't a compromised corporate give-away for once, if your party could stop complaining about Republican policies while voting for them, maybe, just maybe, you could earn the respect of the voters.

Alan Grayson is a F**ING FIRESTARTER!

I'll be donating to this guy's re-election campaign. Here he is on Hardball with Chris Matthews, calling the Republicans murderers, and accusing Dick Cheney of being a vampire.





I think "Firestarter" is officially this dude's themesong: