“…go out and make me do it.” 66


Very few things in life are as certain as political paradigms refusing to change absent massive, and sometimes violent, action by ordinary people in sustained grassroots efforts measured in decades rather than years.  Electing Barack Obama didn’t make that rule invalid.

During an appearance on the Tavis Smiley show in November of 2008, Harry Belefonte related a story he heard Eleanor Roosevelt tell at a dinner party about her husband’s response to labor leader A. Philip Randolph’s eloquent recital of grievances.  He also cautioned Americans to temper their enthusiastic optimism with the sober reality that our work is just beginning.  Electing one man to one office was merely another step in that long journey toward a more perfect union.

It is hard to argue with that assessment as we have seen it play out over the last year on our national stage.  Without the continuing involvement of the millions of ordinary Americans who turned out to put Barack in the White House, this fragile moment of unity is quickly fading into yet another missed opportunity.  LBJ had King.  FDR had the labor movement. Wilson faced off against Alice Paul.

Obama has a nation of fuzzy couch burritos, Tea Baggers and Yosemite Sam bloggers.

Alice Paul and her colleagues formed the National Woman’s Party in 1916 as a response to the leaders of the national suffragist movement accepting insignificant compromises in a partisan political maneuver to give democratic president Woodrow Wilson the breathing room he needed to wage World War I.

HBO crafted a wonderful film featuring Hillary Swank as Paul detailing the horrific struggle her group of young, courageous women went through to change the direction of a nation.

It took a sustained effort, beginning with Susan B. Anthony in the mid 1800s and culminating with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, to secure American women the right to vote, yet most of them choose not to exercise that right today.  Same is true of all disenfranchised members of our societal compact who overcame centuries of abuse and suffering only to leave their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote dying on the vine and the right to peaceful assembly disturbingly silent on American streets.

Which leads me in a roundabout way to President Obama and the challenges he faced during his first year in office.

Most democrats have already forgotten why the man was elected in the first place.  They forget the lines stretching for miles as birds of many feathers flocked to hear a new American story.  Without significant numbers of moderate conservatives and ex-republican independents voting for him in open primary states, Barack would have never beat Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination.  Further, those same voters and the many they convinced along the way helped propel him to a narrow, though decisive, victory over John McCain in the general election.

Those facts were the immutable context of the 2008 election yet were quickly discarded as the democratic Congress rolled out its agenda in 2009, though the president deserves his fair-share of the blame for not making his party leaders understand the precarious position the country was still in and immediately implementing the strategy he outlined in Audacity of Hope and on the campaign trail.

The president allowed “bipartisan” to become a swear word to the fringes of both parties while leaving the vast majority of us in the middle wondering where the pragmatic progressive had gone when it came to tactical execution.  The “solutions” being offered were the same old big government bromides the democrats always trot out.  This produced a predictable, and avoidable, backlash from republicans in Congress that then filtered back out to their constituents.

In one short year, we have gone from Hope on a Rope to Hell in a Hand Basket.

I am convinced that while the momentum has shifted in recent months there remains enormous opportunity in the current mood of the country.  While liberals may have dropped the protest ball, the tea baggers [sic] have snatched up the baton and are waving it enthusiastically.  It isn’t too late to combine the energy and enthusiasm of the grassroots in both parties to force their congressional representatives to support innovative new strategies for our country rather than the same old corporate-friendly bullshit we’ve been getting from the RNC and the DNC alike.

I hope the president defines what that new direction might look like in his coming State of the Union address.  I would love to hear about how we can use the traditionally-conservative mindset of smaller, more efficient federal government to craft sustainable solutions to long-running societal ills using all the tools at our disposal and not just those found in the democratic bag of tricks.  None of the debates we are having today are new.  We have been down these roads many times before and typically emerge only when a president can unite our divergent halves via a shared vision.

The president did that once before during the 2008 campaign.  Can he do it again when he speaks to the nation after his first year in office?

 

IT'S EASY TO SHARE

Facebooktwitterredditmail

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

66 thoughts on ““…go out and make me do it.”

  • Aunt Sam

    Ah, ‘sustained effort’! Yes, if only so many who were shouting with glee and even toiled long and hard to usher in change last election – hadn’t walked away as if their work was done. When in truth, we were and are all needed more than ever to continue working towards the change we need.

    But, heck no – Most were never ‘all in’ – nor planned on continuing to be participatory in the hard work needed to truly succeed. The election was not the finish line, merely the beginning of a long and difficult trek for all of us, not just one man/one administration.

    All that election hoo hah was stimulating and yes, even fun – but as has been proven time and again, it seems that (at least those yelling for the change) the majority choose to do only the short laps around the track, no endurance for the long, arduous and tiring laps to real victory.

    Thanks Jason, terrific post! Sustained effort!

    • Jason Everett Miller

      Exactly right, Aunt Sam. The jaws of the status quo snapped shut just as soon as the electorate was bedded down in post-election euphoria.

      Not exactly sure how most thought this thing was supposed to work, but they certainly aren’t students of history, even that history many lived through personally.

      Progress is a strategy, a step-by-step process, and not a destination.

        • erica

          Don’t know about you guys but I got the very strong impression that the elected Dems forgot about the people who worked on their behalf at least as fast as the people did. I didn’t get much sense that there was a real effort to include grassroots, first-time voters in any efforts.

          Just a lot of distancing from ACORN which is how quite a few people got involved, and lots of confusing non-negotiations with banks and insurance companies.

        • trblmkr

          “The president allowed “bipartisan” to become a swear word to the fringes of both parties while leaving the vast majority of us in the middle wondering where the pragmatic progressive had gone when it came to tactical execution. The “solutions” being offered were the same old big government bromides the democrats always trot out. This produced a predictable, and avoidable, backlash from republicans in Congress that then filtered back out to their constituents.”

          Sentiment-wise. I was with you until this bit of revisionist history. I can understand why such a version of events could serve as a palliative to frustrated pragmatic conservative or even as campaign rhetoric, but it’s not even half the story.

          “The president allowed “bipartisan” to become a swear word to the fringes of both parties while leaving the vast majority of us in the middle wondering where the pragmatic progressive had gone when it came to tactical execution. The “solutions” being offered were the same old big government bromides the democrats always trot out. This produced a predictable, and avoidable, backlash from republicans in Congress that then filtered back out to their constituents.”

          Pres. Obama retained or brought in more people in key government roles from the defeated party than any president in recent memory. Geithner, Gates, Mueller, Kashkari, etc. Then something happened. On 2/2/09 CNN and Politico White House announced the appointment of Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary. An appointment, it was later revealed, that Gregg had put himself up for. By 2/12/09, he withdrew his candidacy. If Obama couldn’t get a moderate Republican to work with him just 3 weeks into his administration are you saying, Jason, that it was because, at that early stage “The “solutions” being offered were the same old big government bromides the democrats always trot out.”?

          • Jason Everett Miller

            I am not talking about the president trotting out big government pallatives to long-standing societal issues.

            That tactical error belongs to the democratic Congress who failed to understand the mood of the nation and what Obama’s victory actually meant given the way it happened, both in the primaries and the general.

            I think Barack made an honest effort at governing in a manner he outlined during the campaign only to have that strategy twarted by well-entrenched powers already in place when he took office.

            What he was really lacking was a continued grassroots effort to force those other partisan players to change their game.

    • matyra

      What made working for change last year with Obama’s campaign was the sudden payoff. People like to feel good about tangible results, sometimes incremental-but-solid tangible results.

      A part of the problem is that many don’t realize that being part of a sustained effort not only is satisfying, but it can also be fun. For example, a letter back from NM’s Senator Bingaman recently made the work for HCR seem worthwhile. Yeah, I wish he’d shown more leadership, but I felt just a little validated and it encouraged me to do more.

      So, part of it, I think, is the perception that politics is always unvalidated frustration.

  • bluebell

    But remember Jason, incrementalism didn’t get women the vote, it took something big and difficult, a constitutional amendment. Sure, sometimes incremental steps are needed as tactical weapons in a strategy for major change. But major change requires major goals. Great vision inspires great passion and commitment.

    The problem we have today is not that we have too few tacticians. We have no visionaries. We have no leaders with big dreams and with authentic passion.

    We have a party that figures if it can’t get it done in a few months then punt. I don’t know how many times I’ve read this week that if they don’t pass this boondoggle bill that they can’t ever do healthcare ever again in a generation or more. We can’t ever do it!

    That’s the commitment we’ve got? I figure if they are that totally convinced that they can’t deliver in my lifetime, surely we need a new party willing to take up the challenge.

    I don’t want to hear a one of them ever again begin by telling me all the things they can’t ever do.

    • Bwakfat

      Yep, it becomes self-defeating. Can you imagine these guys in the real world? Try telling your immediate supervisor the task they appointed you can’t be done.

    • Jason Everett Miller

      The constitutional amendement came after more tha 70 years of struggle. That is the very definition of incrimental. Not only that, those women were willing to sacrifice and die for what they believe in.

      Same thing with civil rights, which was a struggle more than a century in the making.

      Nothing lasting in this country has ever come by way of overnight, revolutionary changes. They came in fits and starts, mostly guided the number of Americans who were willing to take it to the streets.

  • clearthinker

    The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
    ~~~~~ James Madison, during the Federal Convention of 1787

  • artappraiser

    I hope the president defines what that new direction might look like in his coming State of the Union address…The president did that once before during the 2008 campaign.

    Do you really still think he did that “once before during the 2008 campaign”?

    I never thought he did. I thought he was doing the mirror thing, i.e., people will see in me what they want to see. I thought his campaign consciously did that and I saw them as doing that while he was running and I thought it was a crafty way to win.

    Sure they had white papers and he was specific about issues in primary debates, but what they did with the public at large (which votes in greater numbers presidential years but which doesn’t pay much attention to issues and primary debates,) and with a lot of “fans” who ended up donating, was to be as vague as possible.

    Show me an Obama rally speech that really defines specifics about the future beyond hope change etc. He won on vague promises of hope and change, not on his specifics, every day we see more examples of people who voted for him who didn’t realize he was an economic centrist but thought he was an economic liberal, and didn’t realize he wanted to escalate in Afghanistan, etc.

  • Dan K

    What precisely would you like to see, Jason? If you don’t like big progressive projects, then what “small and efficient” alternatives do you propose?

    • Jason Everett Miller

      If you are really curious, my blog has a number of policy-specific entries scattered among the posts I have written the last few years.

      Suffice to say, I think we spend way too much for what we get in return and would love to see something resembling innovation out of Washington.

        • Jason Everett Miller

          So the country had nothing to do with getting Bush elected or failing to protest until he was thrown out?

          Same old Disco Duck: Everything is groovy as long as the lights are dim and the drinks are flowing.

          Are you ever going to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion?

          • clearthinker

            C’mon, Jason, he shows us he knows how to use nice fonts and dots and tildas to give his comments a distinct visual style. For some, that’s accomplishment enough.

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            Try some other barstool . . .

            Your rhetoric has grown as thin as cheese cloth, but not as useful.

            ~OGD~

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            It has been clear for some time . . .

            Mister Bluster wouldn’t know a “protest” if it came up and bit him on his computer chair arse. He only feeds others what the media feeds him, the same pablum of !Horseshit!

            Disco Duck? It’s quite clear that Mr. Bluster Butt suffers from a bad case of anatidaephobia.

            ~OGD~

          • Jason Everett Miller

            I bet I have been to more protests than Howard in the last few years. Those old knees aren’t what they used to be, so marching is probably not high on the duck’s list of things to do.

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            Simply attend protests?

            The following is more than likely understandably incomprehensible to Mister Bluster Butt.

            I don’t just simply attend “protests.” I have actually always been actively engaged in organizing said “protests” that are designed to actually bring about positive results.

            So, ol’ Bluster can go ahead and keep playing his who’s who with the biggest ‘package’ game.

            It’s not about how big the ‘package’ is — it’s about constructively using the ‘package.’

            ~OGD~

          • Jason Everett Miller

            I am sure you have been involved, which is why not a single one has been visibile in DC for at least the last two years or so with the exception of the anti-abortion folks who shut Capital Hill down a few days ago.

            You are an Armchair Revolutionary at best.

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            Ooooo . . .

            Ah … Mister Bluster Butt is projecting once again.

            You are what you eat.

            ~OGD~

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            Take as an additional example . . .

            … of Mister Bluster Butt projecting:

            Obama has a nation of fuzzy couch burritos, Tea Baggers and Yosemite Sam bloggers.

            Yes yes yes … Yet he conveniently fails to mention blowhard blustery bozos blowing bubbles out their butt.

            Yup!

            ~OGD~

          • Jason Everett Miller

            Incomprehensible as always. No wonder your “protests” never lead anywhere. No one can understand a thing you are saying.

          • OldenGoldenDecoy

            No … what’s apparent is …

            You don’t know your ass from your elbow. The first sits squarely atop your shoulders and the second is usually stuck in the hole . . .

            ~OGD~

  • AmericanDreamer

    Maybe it’s just semantics, Jason. I don’t care, in the end, whether people who favor taking on rather than appeasing vested interests blocking needed change self-identify as independents, liberal Republicans, moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats, whatever.

    Actually, I do care. I would love to have people who want to do the right things from as many of these camps as possible because it makes change a hell of a lot easier.

    What course of action, now and going forward, do you favor on health care?

    What is the path you see as not taken, the path to “innovative new strategies for our country” that are what the grassroots–of all stripes?–want now? What are those innovative new strategies you write of?

    • Jason Everett Miller

      For one, I would have not come to the table with most of my plans firmly in place. The standard operating procedure in Washington offers solutions before truly understanding the nature of the problem.

      I think health care reform would have been better managed in bite-sized chunks, starting with the areas that have the broadest coalition. Health insurance regulation? Check. Fix government-run health programs? Check. Address the our sickness as a nation via our food and environmental policies? Check.

      We need some serious process-improvements in DC if we ever hope to actually solve these various and sundry messes of our own creation.

  • JadeZ

    I am not so sure electing Obama didn’t at least push the envelope of that rule.(first paragraph)
    after all his election was a massive reaction from ordinary citizens.

    And at what point should the masses decide to “take to the streets”?

    My approach was to allow for Obama to put his ideas into play and support them (because they were my ideas too) anyway I could.

    I became an early critic because it was clear he had no intentions of leading a “progressive ” agenda.

    The teabaggers for reasons mostly unrelated to policy were willing from day one to “take to the streets”.
    But remember the attacks that were leveled at anyone here for even suggesting anything critical of Obama because he had only been in office 3 months, only 6 months and then only 9 months?

    I like you hope the president defines his new direction and can regain the momentum because the country is in critical condition.

    But absent real leadership I don’t see how words can inspire now.
    That horse has left the barn.

    Can he draw a line in the sand and fight for the average person?
    He hasn’t yet and my concern is he wont be able to convince enough people that he will.

    Personally my skepticism goes deeper because I have concluded he never intended to.

    • Jason Everett Miller

      I think you make some good points, but the sitting back to allow Obama to implement his campaign agenda in the special interest swamp he inherited was a mistake many of us made.

      I don’t think the president had a chance of implementing his stated goals without massive grassroots activity similar in scope to that which got him elected.

      I keep going back to the civil rights movement on this one. The is no way in hell LBJ pushed for that agenda without Martin Luther King, Jr. forcing the issue on the ground.

      We The People have no ground game, which means we will always be vulnerable to the powers that do, such as the ones arrayed against us today.

  • thepeoplechoose

    We have Obama. Maybe we’d have been OK if that was enough.

    However, there is the congress and the SC.

    Neither one has shown me shit of late.

    We’ll probably never know if Obama was good enough.

    It’s two against one and Obama is in the minority.

    • Jason Everett Miller

      What really bums me out is what I hoped I articulated in my blog. We The People went right the fuck back to sleep.

      The Tea Baggers and Obama Bashers are out in force, but that constitutes little more than editorial hot air as far as I can see. No one is offering a consistent and unified goal of what progress means and how it will knit together our shattered nation.

      That was the coalition Obama built and the democratic Congress squandered as soon as they blew the dust off of ten-year-old plans to fix yesterday’s problems.

      • thepeoplechoose

        Forward looking thinking isn’t a particular forte of congress. To move the behemoth of the Washington bureaucracy is a gargantuan task even in the best of times. Honestly, right now everybody is scared shitless. Of everything. There is little I can think of that stymies progress more than fear. We have never had a time in our history where the need for bold action is more certain. Why we are so afraid is beyond me.

  • El Presidente

    Obama was not elected by 54% of the electorate. He was elected by 54% of the voters. And this is the point: Democracy isn’t about good government, or progress. It’s about giving the people what they want (or at least what they deserve). It’s about keeping Hitler out of power, at the price of electing the likes of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter.

    Health care reform never really commanded a majority in any particular form. A majority of people believe something ought to be done (you could get even stronger majorities for “changing our Iraq policy”, if you put it exactly that way). But they don’t agree with each other and never will, and that’s how we got to where we are in the first place.

    The current system isn’t an accident or a product of conspiracy. It’s a product of democracy; a big piece of uncased sausage with syrupy nonsense and corporate gristle intertwined.

    It’s also not that bad a system; most people are happy with their insurance, and even at the height of the left-leaning ad blitzes to attempt to generate guilt reflexes about the uninsured, the numbers never got that good. They’ll recede now; the moment has passed.

    Obama, it turns out, is absolutely left wing, but ultimately won’t stick his neck out (even to the extent that Clinton would). He’s more ideological than Clinton, but he doesn’t have Clinton’s courage.

    And he is also exactly what we deserve.

    • JadeZ

      the idea that obama is left wing is a fox talking point .

      there is no evidense to support it and plenty that does support he is a right wing republican from war to peoples rights to education to big business etc.

      actions not words………are defining.

    • clearthinker

      Obama lives everyday with a security threat greater than any other president in several generations.

      He has plenty of courage.

      He is naturally a conciliator. It comes from being biracial, as a way to navigate society.

      I think you’ll see some of the old Obama this week on television. I think he is getting ready to be the Democratic answer to Ronald Reagan — to use his oratory to bypass Congressional bickering and put a little heat on Congress as well.

      • El Presidente

        We’ll see. I expect more half baked ideas, a mix of progressive nonsense to appease the base that won’t pass Congress, and giveaways to donors that will.

        But hey, proofs in the pudding. I just go from what I’ve seen so far.

    • Jason Everett Miller

      I see it from a different angle in that We The People ultimately dropped the ball just as soon as we had it in our sweaty little hands.

      Candidate Obama articulated a set of ideals that might bring the left and right and middle together in a united goal of progressive change, though what that might look like wasn’t clearly defined given the paradigm shift.

      He was elected by a solid majority of those who decided to turn out. His candidacy drove near record numbers in the primaries, though it was still pathetic given the importance of the issues at hand.

      We have fundamental and systemic changes that must be made in order to finally deliver on the promise in our founding documents. Absent a huge increase in citizen engagement, our national experiment will remain a series of missed opportunities.

  • clearthinker

    The “personal” emails I, and I’m sure others here, keep receiving, keep talking in terms of support of the president and/or his agenda.

    In other words, they make the administration sound distant rather than engaged with me.

    On the other hand, money is something that politicians always respond to. A form of grassroots protest has taken shape spurred on by HuffPo to move your money from one of the big four banks to a community bank or credit union. This has gotten the attention of the administration with the response that this isn’t a good idea.

    Which seems to me to make it a very good idea indeed.

    We are also hearing how if Bernanke isn’t re-appointed the “markets may fall”. At this point, the correct response is “good, then you will know what the rest of the country is feeling.”

    It’s time to leave the threat of “too big to fail” behind.

    As a biracial man, Obama has had a lifetime of training to weave and bob and (by necessity) try not to offend anyone. This trait, so crucial in getting elected, needs to be dispatched with to govern. There is no doubt Obama is tough… and it’s time to go there. Someone isn’t going to be happy with his decisions, but it’s better than everyone not being happy with his decisions.

    Now that the Internet is being used against Obama (the move your money campaign is grassroots Internet for sure), the President will see that grassroots works both ways. It’s important to keep the pressure up on high.

    • matyra

      I’d even go the other route too–if you have a credit card with these guys, transfer that debt to a local bank. Your interest will stimulate your local economy and not be lost to these ginormous morons.

      (Then, for the love of God, pay off that debt as quick as you can. Believe me, it’s dumb to have high interest revolving credit! Maybe use a local bank loan to force you to pay off these debts instead of getting a new credit card.)

      BTW, Geithner is a bit of a financial tool, isn’t he?

      • clearthinker

        Yes, this is definitely how politicians are influenced… from the ground up.

        It’s amazing how quickly voting with actual dollars works, isn’t it?

    • Jason Everett Miller

      I would love to see Barack pivot into a more offensive frame of mind that utilizes the full power of the bully pulpit and his own oratory skills to its full effect.

      Perhaps Plouffe isn’t necessarily being turned loose on behalf of incumbents.

      I think the president still has the chance to use the same tactics he employed during the campaign to reinvigorate the same consistuency that put him in the White House.

      Barack needs to craft a New American Story that inspires a sombulant nation to wake the fuck up and take charge of their change.

  • Deanie Mills

    Jason this is an outstanding post. I’ve been offline in a blogpost way for some time now and intend to post one myself soon–and I agree with much of what you say (I usually do), but do take issue with this one quote:

    “The president allowed “bipartisan” to become a swear word to the fringes of both parties while leaving the vast majority of us in the middle wondering where the pragmatic progressive had gone when it came to tactical execution. ”

    I’d like to draw your attention to the following piece in the Nation, “Obama’s Bi-Partisan Cred Isn’t the Issue”:

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion/75-politics/814-david-corn-obamas-bipartisan-cred-isnt-the-issue

    and to this quote from it:

    “Though Stohlberg” (of the New York Times, in a press briefing, asking whether Obama would try to be more bi-partisan) “did acknowledge that bipartisanship cannot emerge from merely one side, she seemed to be blaming Obama for failing to bring about a glorious era of comity and cooperation in Washington.

    “Reality check. The White House has tried to negotiate with congressional GOP moderates on health care – much to the disgust of some progressives – but Republican leaders have declared their mission is to kill health care reform. Moreover, the House Republican leadership in November hosted a rally on Capitol Hill, where Tea Party-like protesters compared Obama to Hitler, likened health care reform to Nazi death camps, claimed Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds, decried the president as a traitor, depicted him as Sambo, and derided House Speaker Pelosi’s looks. At that moment, the House Republican leadership – all of whom were present – essentially merged with a movement that gives open expression to racist and anti-Semitic sentiments. Not very bipartisan – or civil. After this stunt, Obama would have been justified in barring House GOP leader John Boehner and his crew from the White House.

    “Yes, Obama did say he wanted to pursue a bipartisan approach to governing. He did name more Republicans to his Cabinet than George W. Bush named Democrats. (And don’t forget about that odd Judd Gregg episode.) Still, the opposition has been intransigent.”

    The point is that most of us tend to forget just how vigorously Obama pursued bi-partisanship in the beginning, (taking withering heat from it from his own party) and how obstinately the Republicans obstructed him every step of the way. As one Democratic congressman put it, they would “block a Mother’s Day resolution.”

    They have fought him on the floor of the House and Senate and they have fought him on FOX news and the airwaves. Even when he sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan–which brought down thundering hell from liberals and should have brought support from conservatives–they snarked at and mocked and criticized HIS SPEECH as “uninspiring.” They acted like he was reading a grocery list, like he didn’t care, even though he had the balls to give that speech right into the faces of the very young men and women he would be ordering into battle–something George W. Bush never had the nerve to do. (Not the same thing as using them as photo-op backdrops behind you while you give rah-rah speeches. Any time Bush escalated the war in Iraq, he did it from the WH.)

    When he went to Dover–again, something Bush never did–they sniped at him that it was a political move. NOTHING he does is EVER right to Republicans, it seems.

    And I am still getting monkey joke e-mail forwards from my conservative family and friends, who know full well how offensive I find them.

    You and I both try to find a meeting of the minds in the middle someplace usually, but in all the years I’ve observed politics, I’ve never seen anything like this, and I’m talking going back to the Gingrich/DeLay days and since then, both sides of the aisle.

    If this nasty partisanship does not change, we will have total gridlock and lockdown in our congress from here on out, and NOTHING will be done in our government from now on, no matter WHO sits in the WH, and that is something that worries me a great deal.

    Regards,
    Deanie Mills

    • Jason Everett Miller

      Hi, Deanie, and thanks so much for stopping by. It will be nice to see something new from your pen.

      As I mentioned upstream, I don’t blame the president for bipartisanship turning into a food fight. That blame lies Sly with the leadership of both parties who decided that partisan blinders were more important than advancing the goals of the nation.

      Barack is the first president in my lifetime who was elected with a majority of the vote from members of all political persuasions. They stood in line for miles for a chance to hear him talk for five minutes. His agenda was not classically liberal or contradictorily conservative.

      Something important happened in 2008 and We The People seem to have once again tuned out in all the renewed bickering from partisans on both sides of the fence.