EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Wonder Obama Is Losing Support from the Left
CNN has just come out with a poll that shows Obama losing support from his left flank.
“Roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough,” the poll said. “Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71 percent, the lowest point in his presidency.”
Overall, the poll had Obama with an approval-disapproval rating at 45%-54%.
For anyone within shouting distance of most progressive communities, this is not a surprise.
The dissatisfaction with Obama has been building steadily over the past three years, and it has grown more audible by the month.
While he spoke progressive on the campaign trail, Obama has, for the most part, governed from the corporate center right.
On health care, he abandoned single payer, and even the public option.
On the banking and housing crisis, he bailed out the banks without extracting any meaningful concessions, such as a moratorium on foreclosures or a 25 percent write-down of the principal on all existing mortgages.
On the stimulus package, he came in well short of what the economy needed, as he was repeatedly warned by Nobel Prize winners in economics Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and his own Christina Romer, who was chair of his Council of Economic Advisers.
On taxes, he caved on the Bush breaks for millionaires.
On labor, he sat on the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill to make it easier for workers to organize themselves into unions.
On civil liberties, he continued the Bush policies, extending the Patriot Act, not modifying the Military Commissions Act or the NSA spying act, holding suspects indefinitely at Bagram Air Force Base (and actually increasing the numbers held there by a factor of three), siccing the FBI on leftwing solidarity activists, and announcing that he has the right to assassinate anyone—including American citizens—that he deems a threat.
On foreign policy, his rhetoric has been less macho than Bush’s but the substance has been the same. His State Department backed the coup makers in Honduras. While he has been critical of Netanyahu in Israel, he hasn’t backed that up with any reduction in aid. He was slow to rally to the support of the Arab Spring, and he coddled Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. He escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has pressed for keeping some troops in Iraq. And he launched an illegal air war against Libya.
This week, when he shamefully agreed to raise the retirement age for Social Security and cut benefits for recipients by monkeying with the cost of living (concessions that we were spared only by the obtuseness of the Republican Party), Obama again showed his readiness to give away almost the entire progressive store.
He does have some progressive supporters, though, especially among gays and lesbians, who recognize that on their issues, he’s made a significant difference, especially by ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
But even among African Americans, his support is shrinking, and justifiably so, as Kevin Alexander Gray points out in the cover story of the August issue of The Progressive.
I hear progressives saying they feel betrayed by Obama, and they can’t understand why he’s abandoning his base.
But progressives never were, in fact, his base.
His real base has always been Wall Street, and he’s raising even more from Wall Street than he did last time around.
Wall Street may give him the money. But it won’t give him the people on the ground going door to door and making endless phone calls. And it won’t get progressives excited enough to call all their friends and relatives and beg them to go to the polls, as happened last time.
Money can’t buy enthusiasm.
And without progressive enthusiasm, Obama’s in big trouble.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
152 Comments so far
Show AllA nice piece that details what all progressives have known for awhile. In our hearts we had hoped Obama would be more progressive. And it never happened. And it never will. My line has always been, use a bit of logic: If the right is angry at him and the left is angry at him, that would of course make him a centrist (leaning right). This 30+-year mess we now find ourselves in will require more work to undo.
Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016? Face it, our choices will be 4 more years of Obama or Michele Bachmann. Unless of course we progressives can somehow help resurrect another Fighting Bob LaFollette.
If we get a dem house again, I'll allow Bachmann before I vote for Obomber. Backmann can never destroy what remains of SS and Medicare by herself. Obomber can.
it don't matter who is in the whitehouse the senate the congress
hey it's time to learn some basic facts bro
our political system is corrupt to its core and no one in it is any better than anyone else
the script is written for these sock puppets and they play their part - often badly
as for our political system - it holds up a moron like palin who insists that paul revere rode all night to warn the british not to take our arms
bachman - who's husband runs a religious counselling service that de-gays willing gay back to heterosexuality
i'm telling you - you can't make this stuff up
so enough already with the dems and reps - they are two flavors of bologna
btw: talk nice to boehner - he weeps easily
maybe he should be president and he could weep for 8 years over the death of america
If, by some terrible quirk of fate, Michelle Bachman gets elected president what chance is there that the House will not be overwhelmingly GOP too?
If one sees violent revolution as the only way of saving this nation from the fascism it seems to be embracing then one should work to elect the most extreme to office, thus escalating the downward spiral and forceably involving our passive electorate.
I do not wish to see it come to that thus I work diligently to raise the presence of third party politics in our system. I choose to work for the Green Party, but any progressive third party is quite acceptable to me.
The right is angry at Obama for stealing their agenda, hence, their contributors and their voters! The same reason they hated Clinton.
Is Elizabeth Warren a Democrat?
QUIT SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATS so early in the process. Have them prove that they have a progressive, anti-corporate backbone before you throw your support to them.
Are they taking corporate money? If so, move to the next candidate.
While supporting the greens isn't likely to produce winners in the short run, it does present a possible solution to the rightward march of the Democrats, who appear barely better than Republicans for the middle and working class.
If you just keep going back to the Dems without them proving they deserve your vote, then you are facilitating their corporate agenda as they take you for granted.
Join a 3rd party today. If you like the Green Party's values, please change your registration now.
You hoped?
Billy boy was the man from Hope, Obama peddled the hope thingy, and you bought it.
Obama is and was a millionaire. What don't you get?
Millionaires have no interest in what the common person has as an economic interest. Indeed, millionaires are opposed to the economic interests of the common person.
Why don't you get it? If the person is a millionaire, like half of Congress, they have no interest in the common persons political, economic, social or cultural life.
Like George Carlin said: Congress doesn't care about you.
Joanne Boyer wrote:
Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016? Face it, our choices will be 4 more years of Obama or Michele Bachmann. Unless of course we progressives can somehow help resurrect another Fighting Bob LaFollette.
- - - - - -
Excerpt from "No Wonder Obama Is Losing Support from the Left" by Matthew Rothschild:
CNN has just come out with a poll that shows Obama losing support from his left flank.
“Roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough,” the poll said. “Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71 percent, the lowest point in his presidency.”
Overall, the poll had Obama with an approval-disapproval rating at 45%-54%.
- - - - -
My Comment:
Joanne Boyer.
Whether or not Barack Obama or some Michele Bachmann type gets elected in 2012, what will you and the rest of the folks who post comments here do between now and 2016?
I find it interesting that a number of people who have posted comments under this article have fixated only on the statement that “Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71 percent" rather than also considering the more provocative statement that "the poll had Obama with an approval-disapproval rating at 45%-54%".
In fact no one here has yet mentioned this particular poll finding or commented upon any of its implications, and there are several.
Let’s assume the poll results are accurate at least at this time.
First, Barack Obama is not only disapproved of by more potential voters than approve of him, but Obama is actually disapproved of by a majority of the voters. This means that if Barack Obama were to be elected today, the election results would violate the fundamental democratic idea that the consent of the governed is what gives legitimacy to government.
Second, the majority that opposes Barack Obama consists of Republicans (no surprise here), independents who lean Republican, and how shall we put it “unenthusiastic” progressives.
Neither Plurality Voting, which is used in most election in the United States nor Instant Runoff Voting, the leading alternative from a political point of view, grant voters either the freedom of speech to express their dissent and vote directly against Barack Obama as an individual candidate or the freedom of political association which that freedom of speech would permit that would allow Republicans, Republican leaning independents, and “unenthusiastic” progressives to politically associate together in opposition to Barack Obama and reject Obama outright regardless who else in on the ballot.
If Barack Obama were elected today this would amount to the manufacture of the APPEARANCE of the consent of the governed through the use of Plurality Voting, when and where no such consent actually exists.
Does anyone really have to ask what the propaganda value might be of using a voting procedure in elections that will elect a candidate to office who is disapproved of by a majority of the voters without revealing that important fact?
But what about Michelle Bachmann?
The CNN / ORC poll did not ask potential voters about Michelle Bachmann, but did ask voters their opinions about the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and Republican leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Only John Boehner managed to receive plurality support from the voters with results reported as 43% Favorable, 32% Unfavorable, 12% Never Heard Of, 13% No Opinion.
See full report of poll results.
URL: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/22/obama.aproval.pdf
It seems reasonable to assume that while a spontaneous association of Republicans, independents leaning Republican and “unenthusiastic” progressives could reject and defeat Barack Obama if a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting or Category Scale Power Voting were used in the election; a similarly spontaneous association of Democrats, independents leaning Democratic, and “unenthusiastic” progressives would reject and defeat a Michelle Bachmann or any other Republican running for President in a fair and democratic election using a consent / dissent based voting procedure.
What’s more this could be accomplished while progressives support through their votes a Bernie Sanders, a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, and / or a FIghting Bob LaFollette for president.
There is no way that adding a “None of the Above” option to Plurality Voting or a “None of the Other” option to Instant Runoff Voting can do any of this things given the opinions of the voters as reported by the CNN ORC poll and the severe freedom of speech and freedom of political association restrictions that Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting impose upon voters!
State legislatures have the authority to replace Plurality Voting with a consent / dissent based voting procedure such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting.
Replacing Plurality Voting with a consent / dissent based voting procedure such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting is an important step in establishing genuine democracy in the United States.
Duplicate post erased.
Bachmann has zero chance of being nominated, due to her gay husband, although she could get the VP slot.
Demographics, not policy, wins elections. Obama's constituencies--blacks, Latinos, labor, and white middle-of-the-roaders--will stick with the man not because he did anything for them but because they see him as a tribal leader.
Another whole segment of the voting population looks at celebrity appeal in making their choices. Barack and Michelle and their two sweet children are more appealing than, say, Pawlenty or Ron Paul. Obama will win this segment of voters, too.
The oligarch's elevation of this man was a stroke of genius as it insured an eight-year term of someone who professes to care ever so much for the poor and the unemployed while kicking them in their sorry-ass behinds. Talk about hope and change---has there ever been such a hypocrite in the presidential office?
That's a very accurate analysis.
Also agree with drosera's analysis.
Bill in Dubuque
Indeed Drosera until the left has an uncomfortable discussion about how identity politics has been turned on us, we will continue to get steam rolled by the MIC/banks/corporate oil-a-garchy, and workers, the environment and yes ultimately gay people, people of color, atheists, pagans, Muslims, and women will continue to loose ground as the oligarchs find people like Obama, Rice, Bachman, Hilary, Gonzales, Thomas etc to do their bidding as uncle Toms, and aunt Thomasinas. Let the uncomfortable un p.c. class and ecology *is* most important discussion begin I say, the sooner the better!
Not quite right. 30% of progressives is probably 5% of the electorate. His margin was 4%. Just losing that many progressives could lose him the election. And he has more than a year to make it much worse.
A further point: 5% is the percentage needed to get Federal funding in future elections, if there are any. If we could unite behind a single candidate and hand them at least 5% of the vote, we'd then have a serious contender. .
The real question, I think, is: how chicken are so-called progressives? Can they be scared into voting for a flagrant, dangerous right-winger by a flamboyantly right-wing Republican - meaning Bachmann. It seems to me that Bachmann will self-destruct very quickly once she has the full attention of the media, so nominating her would be the best thing the Repubs could do for us; but it might depend on how good her handlers are. And Obama's, of course. They're both sock-puppets for the same interests.
"A further point: 5% is the percentage needed to get Federal funding in future elections, if there are any. If we could unite behind a single candidate and hand them at least 5% of the vote, we'd then have a serious contender. ."
You do realize that this was the strategy the Greens dreamed they were trying with Nader in 1996, tried for real with Nader in 2000, exploded themselves to pieces trying yet again in 2004, and of course -even with a Zombie-version of the Party- tried once more in 2008?
I hope your mentioning it is no indication that they are trying it again!?
Matti
What you have omitted is that a big part of the problem with attempting to elect a third party candidate to office is that the media rarely covers those candidates. A case in point is what you tangentially touched upon when you mentioned Nader's presidential run in 2000 while never noting that the Democrats and the Republicans colluded with the corporate media to make sure that Nader would not be able to take part in a debate with Gore and Bush in the summer of that year in Boston, Mass. The last thing that the mainstream media desires is for the American people to be exposed to the ideas of someone like a Ralph Nader who will not only criticize but also condemn such corporate candidates as Al Gore and George W. Bush.
Perot did get a lot of attention and even Nader a little by the media. I take it that the reason is only because of the corporate media's mental urge for having fun watching the Democrats and/or Republicans either lynching the third party candidate in question as a "spoiler" or playing good cop and pretending that they're sincere about giving that candidate a chance to be heard. It's hard for me to put it together but it's like publicly the Democrats and Republicans pretend to fight and oppose each other when they're all having plenty of beers and steaks together and letting the lobbyists corrupt them forever. I used to think that Perot was silly and used to frown upon Nader until after the Democrats started winning in 2006 and showed us what they really were all along.
MaxP.
I think the key words in your comments are that the media gave Nader "a little" attention. As I previously alluded to, Nader was barred by the police from taking part in a televised national debate between Gore and Bush in the summer of 2000 that was seen by millions of people even though he had a valid ticket in his hand which should have enabled him to attend and participate in that debate between the two corporate candidates. The well made documentary on Ralph Nader called an An Unreasonable Man brings this scene out in vivid detail to the viewer.
Until progressive candidates like Ralph Nader get a lot more attention from the mainstream media and are allowed to get on the ballot in every state in this country, then the United States remains a democracy in name only.
Your analysis is dead on Erroll, and exactly to my point.
A failed strategy should be assessed as failed and abandoned.
I was worried that the Greens may not be understanding this.
There is much that they don't appear to understand.
Erroll, if I remember, it was 1996 when third parties were effectively barred from attending presidential debates unless they had a minimum percentage in the polls. I was thinking about the political ads as scant media attention where one party would frame the third party as the spoiler while the other would patronize the same third party.
Matti, we can't be sure about strategies failed and which didn't when it comes to Green or any left leaning third party. It's not that the Greens, Nader, and all can't understand but it's that they're trying to get around the double/triple standards. Why is it that some of the same strategies that are successful for Republicans and/or Democrats aren't for Greens? I'm not asking that the Green Party go loose on their strategies but the media and the duopoly would see to it that the Greens not only failed but get the wrong impression that their strategies, even the best ones, failed. It's difficult for me to explain.
Not difficult to explain but impossible to penetrate an obviously closed and agendized mind.
Third Party politics has the deck stacked against it. Ballot access is in the hands of the Duopoly Party and the inroads the Green Party has made, each election cycle, is somewhat startling and very impressive. Each cycle more local and state elections are being won by Greens, more Greens are appearing on ballots in more states as well.
Those who say that third party politics is a dead end are either dyed in the wool democrats or disinterested in doing a bit of research. Some, possibly, are wedded to instant solutions to complex problems,sad for them, useless to us.
He's lost labor.
Too true, and a brilliant analysis.
At least Ron Paul would pull the troops out "as fast as the ships can get there." No more bombing. No more drone attacks. Support the O'Bomber if you must, but others of us value not having a murderer as president.
Ron and Rand Paul would indeed work to end our involvement in stupid wars. They would also tear down any and all entitlements to working and middle class and the dirt poor, end even the shadow of our regulatory powers on corporations, kill our floundering system of public education, end social security, etc. ad nauseum.
I just do not understand folks like you. Either you share the Pauls' libertarian positions or you simply refuse to do the research prior to supporting someone or something.
Yes, I was with someone yesterday who said she was "glad Obama was in there" after Bush's reign. I didn't want to ask her why because she doesn't know why. It's just a knee-jerk, visceral thing with liberals: they are convinced Obama is 'better' somehow. Better packaging, I guess. And he has better grammar. There are millions like her. Indeed, those 71% of liberals who 'still support' Obama are all like her. They don't know why they support him, they just do. He's not Bush. Bush is filterless Kool cigarettes. Obama is Marlborough Lite--all the same flavor of fascism but without the nasty tar.
Obama represents the triumph of identity politics and slick marketing over rationality. He will almost certainly be re-elected, not that it really matters. We might as well be talking about the New Jersey Nets vs. the New York Giants, or opposing polo teams, for all the difference it will make.
Black Bush: Great Whiskey, Lousy President.
Next time make sure you get the right one.
Well said. At least with the loathsome Bush you knew what he stole those elections for. With Obomber you face the reality that you were played for a sucker by the most dishonest, shameless sell-out I ever voted for. That slick campaign of his (winner of an Advertising Age award for marketing) showed how Obomber used our dread that McCain would be the next president after 8 years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare to believe all of his pandering bullshit and put him in the White House where he immediately began his sellout. Yes, it was a stroke of genius that the oligarchs installed this hypocrite to do their bidding. He is the ultimate Trojan Horse for Corporate America. The tragedy continues because his supporters will vote for him as a "lesser evil" next year and he will possibly win due to the wingnuts that are running for the Rethuglicans. One thing is certain, he is not swayed by the increasing criticisms from the Left. His agenda was bought and paid for before he ever took the oath of office. Then, just like Bush in his second term, he will do whatever he wants without worrying about re-election. I never thought I could hate a politician more than that walking disaster, George W. Bush, but Obomber is getting close. I continue to be amazed at his ability to sleep at night after all of the betrayals he has committed on powerless people who voted for him because they believed in his campaign of "hope and change". The same ones with tears in their eyes in Grant Park the night of his election. I never thought I would be witness to a Democrat who so willingly contributed to the cutting or dismantling of social programs that we have the most right to be proud of and who contributes to the outright lies about these programs needing to be "reformed". George Carlin was right. These people don't care about us - at all. At all! As Dylan wrote - "You're only a pawn in their game."
"He does have supporters, among gays and lesbians, who recognize that on their issues, he’s made a significant difference, especially by ending 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.' ”
Thanks to Obama, gays and lesbians have the freedom to murder foreigners and the right to a star spangled coffin.
Big deal.
.....Post-Constitutional America
Actually they still can't openly serve. The policy change officially takes effect on September 20, 2011.
.
Wealthy gays and lesbians will do OK after Hurricane Obama passes in 2017.
Less wealthy gays and lesbians will be in the same boat as the rest of us.
By the way, Glenn Greenwald, one of the most perceptive & indefatigable critics of Obama, is coincidentally "gay" -- according to his own declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
He will not be falling all over himself, I trust, just because Obomber throws a bone or two to the gay and lesbian folks.
Obomber has carefully calculated that the issue will not cost him any Wall Street $$$$$$$.
So it's a question of wealth, not of gayness. :-)
Yes, no smiley necessary. Let the general strikes begin!
Give us some credit to know we have only been thrown a bone for our vote and donations, and can see through Obomber's "act". We're also citizens, and care about illegal wars, obliteration of Social Security, and destruction of the Constitution.
A percentage of gays and lesbians who are politically naive will be one issue voters, and vote for Obomber. But that's true of any demographic.
Of course I'm terrified at the prospect of a wingnut like Palin or Bachmann. Pink triangles and re-orientation camps would not be far behind. But I am more terrified by the steady and deliberate destruction of the US by the current con man in the White House, and his corporate cronies in the Congress. I'd rather have my enemies out in the open, than pretending to be something else like the duplicitous sack of excrement currently inhabiting the White House.
Thank you for seeing the bigger picture, solidarity!
nohobear,
So glad to see your comment! This was the one part of the article that really annoyed me (otherwise it was excellent) -- the implication that most gays and lesbians support Obama solely because of his ending "don't ask, don't tell." As you most deftly pointed out, the majority of gays and lesbians are NOT just one issue voters. So let's stop perpetuating generalizations, folks.
Also, Obama has been outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage when it has been politically expedient for him to take that stance. I'm sure he has all of his handlers out there crunching the numbers to see where the votes will be as Americans become more comfortable with gays.
I'm never really sure where Obama stands on most issues -- it's all about getting re-elected and accommodating his benefactors (the financial sector.) What a shame (and sham) this presidency has been.
Post, the issues of Gays and Lesbians do not affect Wall Street and the rich, so Obama can throw the liberals a pacifier.
Word, yes to gay marriage, no to gay war criminals!
Regarding this and previous comments upthread, guitarist:
I'm a regular watcher of Free Speech TV's "Gay USA", a weekly newshour of "comprehensive news and analysis by and about the LGBTQ community".
I generally enjoy and recommend it.
But regular anchors Andy Humm and especially Ann Northrop, both dedicated activists, remain depressingly mired in the reflexive stance of lesser-evilism rooted in identity politics.
Over and over, one sees these well-informed, well-meaning anchors reflexively tolerate or diminish larger or greater "wrongs" in order to accentuate some bit of incremental progress or advancement of "LGBTQ rights".
This habit of exclusion endemic to identity-politics thought and perception is a fatal flaw.
So, for instance, when Congress tucks an LGBT-equality law into a Defense Appropriations Bill while conducting their scurrilous and abominable legislative sausage-making, the anchors will fervently applaud this "progress" in gay rights.
One of the anchors, Andy Humm, may point out parenthetically that it's indeed a travesty for gay persons who are anti-war to go along with gay rights advances being co-opted by hawks. But Northrop will quickly agree that of course "the (progressive) movement" is anti-war and needs to address such conflicts by and by-- but in the meantime, it's a victory of sorts.
And lately they've both expressed their intention to vote for Obama again next year, because they don't want some nutcase like "Bachmann" to ascend the Oval Office Throne. Sigh.
For a good recent discussion of this topic, see:
"Bradley Manning: Rich Man's War, Poor (Gay) Man's Fight"
by Larry Goldsmith (June 7, 2011)*
* http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/07-6
Excellent points, OS. I used to watch that show when I had FSTV. Now I just have the basic cable that comes to all the trailerpark residents. These dumb liberals just never seem to wake up. They talk about how much 'smarter' Obama is than Bush. But if 'smarts' counts so much in presidential performance, how come he governs virtually the same as the grammar twisting Bush?
I'd rather have Bush in there than this fraud. At least then the liberals know we're getting shafted, and there are more street protests and organizing.
Obama center right? Not hardly, way right is more accurate. His voting record as a senator and the draconian actions during his time as president tells the tale.
The Liberals are being herded into the rightwing slaughter pen and aren't really different from the Conservatives.
The real "left", people that can think beyond capitalism and fake democracies, are free range creatures.
I recently told an Obamabot that Obama was further right than Nixon and he looked at me like I had just told him that his mother was a whore.
I hear ya ray. The other day an older guy said Obama's hands are tied. I said, What about the two years when the dems held all the cards. After a short pause, he said, But his hands are tied.
It's the media coupled with an educational system that discourages critical thinking.
I'm not surprised -- many still regard Nixon with respect and would take your comment as an insult to Nixon.
Sadly it's true that right wing crook Nixon who signed the EPA into existence, gave us wage, and price controls, and gave us relations with Communist China is more left than Obama, I too use that line all the time, and also point out the DIm majority Congress elected in 2006 and in power as an majority until 2010 to no effect to O-bots who are morons just like Bush-bots.
You give him too much credit: on most issues, he's farther right than Bush II. And more dangerous.
I'm hoping trademarked, self-centered Palin decides to run. I'd vote for her over deranged Bachmann in a heartbeat. One "God put me in the White House" president is one too many. But regardless of which candidate we vote for, we really need to work on getting some sane (and not rich) lefties elected to both houses of Congress.
My son told me that Obama would be about the same as "Bush III."
I told him I was voting for Obama anyway, because McCain/Palin would be even worse.
He asked me how long I would be willing to go on voting for the "loyal opposition" Democrats just be cause they were "not a s bad as the GOP"?
Well, it's now July of 2011 and I hope Obama's advisors are listening when I say: 'NOT AS BAD AS THE REPUBLICANS' AINT' GOOD ENOUGH ANY MORE.