Thursday, September 02, 2010


Seems to be the word of the week for Democrats about Democrats.  It's often being used simply because people had expectations for Obama to do things that he never actually promised (single payer, an end to all American wars).  Since he has not fulfilled these fantasies (he never promised single payer, only hoped for it knowing it was unrealistic, and he clearly stated that he would put troops from Iraq into Afghanistan) some leftist bloggers are jumping to the conclusion that he wants war with Iran.

If his prompt attention to the Palestinian-Israeli peace proves anything, it is that he would like to avoid war with Iran.  Why didn't Bush even try?  For one thing it would have complicated the Neocon map of engagement.  You can't work toward peace AND use Palestinians as a reason for war.  Yet Democrats are today calling Obama a "Neocon."

Can we simply ask ourselves before we speak, "Is this true?"

And can we point out the true hypocrites that have mastered it so well that people often accept it without comment?  Like when conservatives say they hate "group politics" when the left protects them, but then work hard to have us hate many different groups?

The GOP is giddy because they think they are going to have a sweep

One of the reasons are "unenthusiastic" Democrats. 

Maybe we can be enthusiastic in our ability to give Obama a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS like Clinton had when he DID GREAT THINGS.

Divided government will mean 4 years of no legislation, Presidential proclamations, and a Republican President in 2012.