[alexpinca]

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

The American Right Wing closely resembles the above description. What group/party continually utilizes the flag, lapel pins and religions symbols in their nationalistic fervor.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Which group has continuously supported moves of the government to “protect the homeland”. Even the term “homeland” comes straight out of the fascist playbook. Cheney, Bush, and the entire administration fits this description closely.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

The radical elements of the right are now utilizing this tactic to focus anger, racism and contempt on the President…only time will tell if it works.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Most of these characteristics speak for themselves but just looking at the war in Iraq and the present day push for healthcare make it clear that the right epitomizes this description

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

The above are characteristics of the homophobic right wing in the U.S. The rabid right insist that they are standing up for the family, what they are really standing for are fascist ideals.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Readers will remember Palin’s recent remark regarding the media “why don’t you just tell the truth”. The right wing anger toward the media and charges of bias are well known and documented.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Which group/party is continuously using fear tactics in everything from terrorism to socialism?

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

The fundamentalists are fighting their own war to convert America to a Christian nation. The right has been attacking government restrictions on public recognition of religious institutions for years and continue that battle today.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

The right wing is the champion deregulation and “getting government off the backs of business. Today the right wages the war on healthcare reform to protect the profits of the healthcare industry.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

What is the most anti union group/party in the U.S.? The latest round of anti-Union activity goes back to the late 40’s. Just suggest empowering unions and watch the reaction from the right.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Bush and Palin are the clearest examples of the anti intellectual footing of the right. Selecting heros from the backwaters of America somehow makes them feel that they are “one of us”. Their hostility to academia is well known.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Which group/party continuously supports greater latitude for police and suspension of “search and seizure” restrictions, suspending wiretapping restrictions, and support for Gestapo like tactics.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Those who would question the application of this principle to the right might read “C Street” chronicles

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The theft of the 2000 and 2004 election speaks for itself. There are documented cases in both Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) regarding how those states were stolen.


THE USE OF “FASCIST” BY THE RIGHT TO DESCRIBE THE LEFT IS NOTHING SHORT OF ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK!!!

[buzzjosh]

WOW Alex!! This post is brilliant; I am in awe of the reasoning that went into this. I know I say it sometimes (perhaps you may think, too often) but in all honesty this post has to be one of your best yet. I am sure that I rate it so highly partially because I have always been facinated by the political ideology we call facism. I have read a fair deal on the subject and commend you for bringing together in your 14 Points what I believe is the essence of facism.

I could not wait to share your post with a friend in Chicago who is currently working on a book chapter on the subject of post-WWII Facist movements. He was impressed, I mean very impressed when I downloaded your post and sent it to him in Chicago. He plans to read some of your other posts as I told him speak out on the issue of facism every now and then.

I would add only one comment about your masterful piece and that relates to point #3. I see facist regeims as doing more than just identifying enemies and scapegoats - I see them actually vilifying minority groups to the point that they (the groups) lose a sense of humanity. These peoplpe are not only different they become less than human.

It becomes easier for the population to accept ever increasing forms of discrimination of other people when those other people are seen as sub-human. At some point, the excuse to discriminate becomes a duty to eradicate, to put firmly in place, to use whatever means may be needed to prevent these less thans from tarnishing the glory of the majority. Facist heaven can be achieved only when the scum of the Earth have bee completely subjugated.

This has been the case in the well known facist states that have haunted mankind. Of corse Hitler had the Jews but there are others. Franco debased the Catalans and the Basques, Salazar did the same with the residents of the far north in Portugal. The Facist overlords in Rumania considered Hungarian as animals, they dismissed all claims of Christianity among the Majyars and were beyond vicious in thier treatment. We see the same thing in Milosevich's twisted Serbia.

Alex, this was a great post. I hope it garners the appreciation from others that it deserves. I know I shall be using it as a basis for my continued study of the Facist phenomenon. Thanks Alex, it is posts like that one that remind me of how fortunate I have been to be a part of this excellent web site for the length I have been. GOOD JOB!

[buzzjosh]

Thinking about my statement above about Facists dehumanizing people enroute to conquering and destroying them. Think about the extremes that the GOP goes in thier rhetoric about certain minority groups. For example illegal workers in the US. The GOP does not stop with just the fact the law was broken - no, they picture these workers (read Hispanics) as not only not Americans but some vile ethic group out to destroy the superior western, Anglo world.

The GOP is fond of the phrase, 'these people' when talking about groups they fear and want you and I to fear. These people want to take your (American) jobs, they want to defile your precious language by not speaking it, they want to change the mores and taboos of our culture and bring it down to thier level. They want to do all these things and more because they somehow are the haters - not we.

I live in a neighborhood where about 50% of the homes are owned by people with roots deep in Mexico. The part of town I live in was once one of only two places where Mexican-Americans were allowed to buy homes. You should see this beautiful part of my town built and maintained by American citizens who love thier Mexican heritage but would fight at the drop of a dime to defend thier homes in thier United States. Every summer the neighborhood has an influx of summertime guests from Mexico who spend some time here and I know they work during this time. Am I wrong or unpatriotic because I do not raise a stink with immigration over these people?

No, not my job to determine who should or should not be here. Not my place to look down on a person doing what it takes to raise a family and provide as best as they can for that family. In my neighborhood almost no one locksw thier doors because crime is low. Crime is low because we know eachother and look out for eachother. Not a single neighbor has ever been in trouble with the law. Not a single summer visitor has been in trouble with the law.

But, sometimes if you listen to the GOP you get the impression that Mexican citizens are set on stealing back the southwest provinces they lost to the US in the War of Expansion that we call the Mexican American War. Interesting that they want to steal it back - sounds like we were the tieves in the first place.

[buzzjosh]

Still thinking about your excellent post and knew that you had said something in it that really rang my bell but it slipped my mind momentarily. Well, I have it firmly in mind now! Your comment on Homeland Security is so spot on. That term has bothered me ever since we have had that Department. Yes, it has a Facist origin and smacks of a Facist view on the boundaries that make up a country. I HATE the term and always have.

We never had a "homeland", we lived in America; we never had a homeland to protect, we protected our country; we always stayed away from such bombastic speech like 'motherlands' and 'fatherlands'. We were Americans until the Shrub sold us down the path to ruin in Iraq and the road to shame in his torture sites. Now, I suspect we need a homeland because we have gone down to the level of other powers who failed to use thier immense power for good and not just gain.

I have NO HOMELAND and I have NO flag and I have no Loyalty Oath and I have a clear mind and sleep well most nights. I love my country but I do understand right from wrong.

[JulieInCt]

Alex, this was an outstanding post.

Buzz, your comments on "Homeland" in Homeland Security are right on. I remember when I first heard of the new proposed governmental dept. Homeland? It sounded teutonic. I don't recall the US ever being referred to as homeland. The term still makes me uncomfortable.

When I read item 13 about appointing friends to gov't positions, I immediately thought of Pres Bush who took the idea to a whole new level by appointing people who were incompetent to be in charge of government depts (Justice, FEMA, Defense, etc) It has been well publicized that he also peppered the non-partisan Justice Dept with graduates of Mickey Mouse University (aka whathisname roberts), and firing people who had been doing a terrific job.

Really, this was an excellent post...each one of the points could be discussed on this site, with our take on how our country was stolen from us during the past administration...

By the way, these protesters saying that they want "their" country back absolutely infuriate me. That is how I felt over the last 8 years...but with the policies that had been set in place, I was AFRAID to say so!

[buzzjosh]

Julie, so glad to hear that 'homeland' also sounds alien to you. I like your choice of the descriptor "tuetonic" to modify it. It does indeed sound Northern German or even Frisian and that is not saying much for its pedigree. I am surprized there was not a greater ado raised when Bush first proposed that name. But, we have discussed the atmosphere of fear that had taken America's common sense and allowed the inmates to run the asylum.

This word is so foreign to our entire History as well as the implications of that word. The territoriality of the word implies that the ground itself is somehow sacred and that there should never be any doubt that every inch of our land will be protected forcefully, blindly, without thought, without any questions asked.

Not that a nation is wrong in protecting and defending its borders but the intelligent nation understands there is both a time to fight as well as a time to talk. One can protect in many ways short of making War. That term, 'homeland' continues to bother me greatly; I would certainly support a name change but I realize there are other more important issues of substance vs. form that require attention. But, I do hate it.

[alexpinca]

I had seen so much discussion thrown around regarding "fascism", I wanted to see if my recollection of the label of fascist was correct. Who has not seen on video of a black booted German soldier with his outstretched arm giving adulation to Hitler...Wow if that isn't right wing, I don't know what it is. The doublespeak of the fascist right knows no bounds, remember the Patriot Act? Gawd, those people scare me the way the use the language.

We are un-American because we want to defend the ideals of this country, because we demand fairness and equality, because we demand a proper role for government in bringing together our common resources to achieve an urgent goal of society...if that is socialist, if that is communist, I will let the artists of semantic wizardry apply their art.

[buzzjosh]

Good post Alex. Concise, to the point and riveting in its direct assault on those who wear the jackboots and dare call others un-American. I will go on a limb here and most like tee off a number of people but it must be said. The Facist salut is the symbol of fealty by a cowered people to thier deranged mad-man leader - it is repulsive. The demand that I or any other American stand up, remove head-gear and place an open hand over my thier heart is no different in my view. It does not matter how you show submission to authority whenever that authority demands it. The SIN is in being submissive and buying the preposterous ides that it is Patriotic to do so.

Patriotism is within. I love my country and I do not own a flag, nor a lapel pin, nor a bumper sticker. I will not change. I will not salute (again), I will not submit. Did I push your rage button? Then tell me! Tell me your thoughts, let us have a dialogue instead of a diatribe.

[JulieInCt]

We have a flag on our house. My husband & I installed it when we moved to our house, about 25 years ago. From time to time when the old flag gets tattered, we buy a new one. It doesn't make us more patriotic than someone who doesn't have a flag, but it does serve as a reminder that we are members of this country. It is our government--we may disagree with policies from time to time--but it remains our government.

On the other hand, I do believe that I am more patriotic than individuals who do not choose to become informed about the candidates and vote.

[alexpinca]

Julie, I agree with your post for the most part. Actually, there isn't anything specific with which I disagree. However, I have begun to wonder about the commonly held belief that unless you vote, you have no right to complain. Don't get me wrong, I have voted consistently over the years and I am sure that in the past, I uttered those stern words to the "slackers".

My reservations go like this; in today's America to vote is to endorse a system wrought with corruptions, ballot stuffing, bundles of cash in freezers, international jaunts paid by corporations, self-righteousness and hypocrisy. The system doesn't know my vote exists and couldn't care less. Our ancestors will study the Florida election of 2000 and laugh. Our Supreme Court endorsed a wholesale theft of the election by the brother of one of the candidates in behalf of his brother: lol: all I can say is you gotta have a sense of humor in today's American politics.

We have system of election by electoral votes, we all know that it was system which may have made sense years ago but not today. Right wingers like to make a big deal that B. Clinton didn't get a majority of the vote in 92...they fell silent on this issue when their candidate didn't even get a plurality in 2000. But we will never get rid of the electoral college because the small states get a disproportionate weight on their vote and a constitutional change would require their support.

The two party system may have made sense at one time but I think many would agree with me that the time for that system has passed. I think back to my elementary education and they talked about the “two-party system” like it had been personally endorsed by God. Just like they talk today about Capitalism, Democracy, free markets, free trade, on and on and on…master liars using carefully prescribed marketing concepts to make us believe there is something sacrosanct about these processes and therefore should not be questioned or challenged.

I think maybe it is time for an informal parallel election process where the choices are I support the current system or I don’t support the current system.


http://www.the13thst...ords/myths.html

[JulieInCt]

Alex, I think that to choose not to vote is wrong. (Please understand that when I say vote, I mean become educated on the issues and then vote. I am absolutely not in favor of just going to the polls without doing some homework first.)

When a person doesn't vote they are really saying that sacrifices, that people made in earlier years so that we would have that right, are meaningless. I include the brave young (and sometimes not so young) people who fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWII absolutely definately--but also those who fought in other wars who did what they did because they were Americans and their country asked them to do this. I also include those who fought for Civil Rights and the Suffragettes. Were their sacrifices meaningless? No!

When people don't vote they also let extremists get their way...The extremists (on both sides) are in the minority in this country. (Studies have shown this.) Yet, because most people do not vote in primaries, we often end up with candidates who represent extreme views, who then try to slant their views more towards the middle in the general. Yet, once in office they must please the extremists who not only vote, but are vocal.

And, finally, when a person doesn't vote they aren't represented. This was particularly evident when I worked in a nearby town in a housing project. A few people tried to get residents registered, which was quite difficult, not only because of apathy, but because it is difficult to go to the polls when you don't have a car and have to work. The town did not do anything to make it easier,and, ofcourse, required photo ID. Here in CT, it costs money to get a photo ID from the state (plus, again, it is difficult when you don't have a car, need to get your birth certificate, etc.) And, yes, the republicans were reelected on the platform of eliminating the housing project & replacing it with (market rent) garden apartments.

-------------------------
I am strongly in favor of 3rd parties. I have, in the past, voted for 3rd party candidates. I wish that each time a candidate wants to run on a 3rd party, they didn't invent a brand new 3rd party identity. I wish there was some existing moderate 3rd party that individuals could join and then run on. They is really what is needed...

[alexpinca]

I guess I would propose that not voting is perhaps a vote. It is a way of saying that the system is so corrupt as requiring a total rehabilitation. Yes, failure to vote is for the most part, a statement of indifference but it can also be an affirmative “nay” to the system.

The American Soldier has fought in many causes, some just and some not so much. But they fought bravely because that is what they were told to do. In many cases, the system that sent them to fight and die had motivations other than just protecting my vote. In many cases the motivation was protecting corporate markets and profits. As I stated on another thread, Americans have fought and died in Iraq so that people could drive SUV’s and other gas-guzzlers. That statement is harsh and “in your face”, I understand that but the horrific part is that it is true. I would submit that to vote in that system is a vote for the status quo.

I would submit that if a parallel, informal election was held where there was a “nay” to the system, and the process grew and became a national process, the system could not just ignore a national “nay” vote. In the statistics of whether extremists make up only a minority, I would ask who developed the criteria. Over time seeing the results of hundreds of polls, elections, and news reports, I would submit that extremism is on the rise. The right is poised to bring healthcare reform to its knees…mark my word, there will be healthcare legislation that will be extremely generous to the industry and pittance for the masses, on that I will wager .

Julie, I honestly can say in all sincerity that I do not feel represented now! Even those candidates with whom I have voted for are part of the same corruption as all the rest. My vote doesn’t guide their conduct…lobbyists and campaign contributions guide their conduct. The situation you described of non-representation existed in an environment of non-vote…what I am describing is a pro-active “null” vote, subtle difference but very important.

[JulieInCt]

If you don't vote, you are part of the problem in America, not part of the solution.

By that I mean that there are only 2 solutions to the problem of corruption in our government: violent and non-violent. The violent solution is self-evident, and I don't believe you favor that option. Non-violent requires that you vote. The system will continue even if more and more people choose not to vote. The system will continue even if the loonies are the only ones who vote. So, by choosing not to vote, those who are voting "nay" on the current system are no different that those who don't vote because they are apathetic-- both groups do nothing to help those of us who want to reduce corruption.

[alexpinca]

Julie, with all due respect, I don't think that addresses my most fundamental question, what is the value of a vote in a totally corrupt system?




Playing in the Mud Just Gets You Dirty

[JulieInCt]

I agree that the American system is corrupt: many legislators vote based on who has given them campaign funds; One party tries to stop people from registering to vote; the politically appointed Supreme Court decided who won a presidential election along party lines.

However, I don't think the system is TOTALLY corrupt. I think there are some legislators who vote based on what they think is best for the country; one party continues to try to register voters; there is hope that future Supreme Court justices will decide cases based on the constitution or constitutional ideals.

Therefore, I think that it is obligatory to vote to try to get rid of the corruption. Only when that has proven to be impossible, can one give up. We may very well reach that stage at some point--but we aren't there yet.

You are correct. When a system is totally corrupt, there is no point in voting.

Even during the last administration, when our constitutional rights were trampled on--when I actually feared to send emails that spoke of my true political feelings--, even then I didn't give up hope that things would get better. And look what happened...we elected Pres Obama because we voted for change. Pres Obama needs our support. If we don't support him, change cannot happen. I will add that I had hoped for more change than has occurred. Pres Obama said something at one point that has stuck with me. He said something about America being like a big ocean liner, and when you start to change direction it takes a long time to move the ship. I want MORE people who want change to vote in 2010-get more democrats in power so that more change will happen. Let's get rid of those legislators who like the status quo!

[alexpinca]

As is often the case, we are pretty much in agreement, even to the point that all is not yet lost. However, I think we are closer to that point then you might believe.

I believe we are the most polarized then any other time in our history. Good people will not run because of the Fight Night, no-holds barred politics that rein supreme in our country. Those who run with the best of intentions quickly realize that money is the name of the game and are soon sitting across the table from a lobbyist eating cavier crowned eggs listening as to why insuring millions of Americans is bad for the nation.

Until Americans wake up and realize that the real threat in this country comes from the right and Corporate America, we will continue to slide toward a day of reakoning. There are millions of red necks who are getting extremely skiddish about whites losing control "of their nation". That nervousnes will only increase as the rate of growth of the number of minority population continues to climb. Race riots are a very real possibility in this country (however, I am glad to say that will probably be after my time). I am not a real historian but what little I know of Nazis Germany in the early 30's, strikes me as similar to today's America.

For me, refusing to vote is still on the table for the future...but not yet.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[buzzjosh]

Interesting that three of Mr. O's stongest supporters on this site find themselves discussing the value of voting or not voting at this point of the game. I voted for Mr. O in a fashion that I had not in many elections - I totally and whole-heartedly supported BHO and gave time, money and my vote to his great call for change. I truely believed in BHO and trusted that he would in fact not deceive me or any one else in the US. I believed that change of great note was not only possible but assured by the grand coalition that Mr, O put together to take the government back for its people.

I was mistaken, I was fooled, I was used by the Democrats who wanted only thier turn at the power in DC. I will not be fooled EVER again, I will return to my roots when I again cast my vote. I will not vote because a person made the right verbal appeal. I will remember the way in which Team O used voters like me on the far left to gain the White House but quickly became more concerned about bringing along GOP members rather than carry through on promises.

I am sorry, but Mr. O has offered too many compromizes to all the people who brought the US to ruin while pulling back on simple straight forward promises he made to effect real change. Over the weekend Mr. O drew back from his commitment to the public option in health care reform. That was more tahn I can accept. He has not fullfilled his promises in the important areas and as a result my support is now reviewable for each issue that arises. I am not on borad the Obama ship to the extent I once was and doubt I could ever be swept up as I was even 1 month ago.

I hope for the best but I view Mr. O less as a progressive every day and more of the same but with a twist given to the Democratic issues. I can see myself returning to my brand of politics and often voting for only a fraction of those on the ballot. The Democrats had the chance to change things and they failed to act coherently and to present a unified front. I have not left Mr. O - he has taken a direction he did not mention when he was running. I am not anti-Obama but I am not a blind pro-Obama-ite either. I ask for reasons to remain supportive - I will see if the Dems provide the reasons I need.

[alexpinca]

Buzz, I certainly understand the frustration you are expressing. I have no regrets for my vote. My first choice in the last Democratic Primary was Senator “screw off”, my second choice was Senator Clinton and my third choice was Obama. I participated in the caucuses in Laughlin, Nevada which at least gave me the feeling of real participation. I came to trust Obama and support his candidacy. I believe you can blame Obama for failure but I disagree wholeheartedly that you can fairly question his intent, motivation and desire to enact real change in this country. It is overly simplistic to say he has Democratic control of the Senate and House and should therefore be able to move his agenda at will. We have powerful, well-financed opposition to everything he does.

You were not mistaken and you were not fooled. You and I and many others were naive that one election was going to change the way the earth orbits around the sun. BHO is backing away for the Public Option because he has been given no choice by his party and the lies and deception of the rabid right. It is no longer a matter of bringing along the GOP, it is a matter of keeping the Democratic vote together. Yes, we should hold the Democratic Senators and Congress people who forced this situation to account next year.

The compromising I see BHO doing is not by choice…this has been forced upon him, again, you can criticize him for failure but I don’t think you can fairly criticize him for deception. There will never be a monolithic Democratic party that moves in lockstep to undue the wrongs of the Prophets of Greed…they are too powerful and have successfully duped a large portion of the U.S. population. The best we can hope for is the gradual movement away from the right wing fascist state for which so many seem to dearly yearn.

Whether it be Obama or the next Democratic President, they are going to have to make every effort to be President of all the people as opposed to that SOB George who was only interested in being President of his base. The question I would pose is “would BHO be any better than George if he ignored 30 or 40% of the population?

[buzzjosh]

So let me understand this position you are putting forth. I should accept that 30 - 40% percent of the population lies somewhere other than I area I hold - is that the gist? The 30 - 40% who may be right of center and actually no better than only slightly moderate Republicans are more important than those of us who occupy a position farther along the spectrum and find ourselves Left of center. Why is that Alex, why must we cater to people who hold POGlike positions that only keep causing us all more grief? Why is it important to pretend that we have a bi-partisan agreement on anything? Why is it always necessary to compromize our positions while so little is given in return?

You sat that Mr. O is at the mercy of his own party and I can see how you would say this given the blue dog Democrats that deserted Mr. O when he needed them most. But, he chose to go for the whole ball of wax; to make the push to move his entire reform packages forward at the same time along with his other major programs that he campaigned on and offered such hope to so many of us. He put, it seems, all his eggs in one basket and now that the Health reform initiatives are not going well Mr. O faces the prospects of getting very little that he really wanted.

And you again hit on the idea that the Obama election is but one vote and that change will be slow and will require many election cycles. I wish I could really believe that but I do not. If Mr. O is stopped in securing MEANINGFUL health care reform the opposition will be emboldened to challenge every other intitiative Mr. O may put forward as vehemently as they have the health reform. Will he settle for little pieces of his big goal and consider it getting at least something? He may be forced to do just that.

If he had rated his goals on some scale of importance perhaps he could have worked to get those programs that mattered the most over the top to a new era but instead he presented a mass of reforms that became lost on the average American. I suspect I shall receive a deserved lecture from Julie on the inter-connectedness of Mr. O's major goals and that success rests on the ability to affect change on all the issues not just one or two. She of course will be correct but that will not help change the reality of the political landscape - the opposition will have succeeded in stopping the Obama movement dead in its tracks.

I do not regret my vote for Mr. O in any way - it was such a high moment for me - to be fully behind what I thought would finally be the election I had waited for my entire life. To be a part of the new way that things would be done; to see politics returned to the average person and taken from the hands of special interest groups.

It hurts more because I believed in Mr. O 100%, I trusted him, I believed he was in-corruptable; he was like an Untouchable - he would not change his position for political expediency; he was different and I could take his promises to the bank because he would not change positions based on polls. He was a man of his word and I believed that he would remain so.

I did not scream when he picked a moderate as his Supreme Court nominee - I believed his next choice would be a real Liberal. I did not complain when all his talk of change during the campaign still led to his stuffing his Cabinet and other high positions with old bClinton retreads - I thought that new faces and new ideas would follow in great leaps and great numbers.

I did not bristle when he kept jumping through Republican hoops trying to get them to support his policies even a bit. I said it was good that he was above the politics of "locking out" the opposition party. Yet, what did you give to huge swaths of ardent supporters? Little, very little and it started to become apparent that those of us on the so-called "fringes" would be the ones who would be cut loose to hold to obviously more important swegments of the voters.

Not a single openly gay person was appointed to a top Administration job. Promises but as yet no movement on the don't ask, don't tell policy - well, way too little movement and he has refused to take the open lead on this issue. Not a firm position on the health care reforms but rather he has allowed Congress to take the issue into the weeds. Trips overseas that seemed to promise a new foreign policy position on very serious conflicts but little follow-up. It is as if the world must wait until the US gets its domestic house in order. So far we have been lucky and a real crisis in forgeign affairs has not yet surfaced - but it will.

Alex, I will say it hear as I did on another thread. I was not fooled but rather acted as a fool because I thought that Mr. O would be different and not allow the situation to devolve into what it has always been - just another series of compromizes and half-measures as usual. Was I naive? I would say I was not but I will say I over-estimated Mr. O's abilities and have now but a dis-allusioned view of what he is willing to fight for.

Mt. Obama had one of the most Liberal voting recors during the brief time he spent in the Senate and I expected much more of the same from him as President. I had every right to believe that he would display consistency politically. I was wrong and I am now faced with the realities of a man who wants consenus more than he wants change.

Alex, I voted for, campaigned for, gave money to, and did everthing I could to help elect Mr. Obama. I was like many other millions who belived he was for real. What is the sum of our reward? We (I and other Socialists who supported him) are cut loose to make room for people who do not support the bulk of his programs. Why are we so easily being cut loose? Because they know we will not vote for the average GOP candidate. Yet, they forget that we can as easily NOT VOTE or vote for real Socialists or for the next new face that promises change. No, I am not a Democrat and given my experience with the Dem Party thus far in the Mr. O Administration I cannot see that changing.

I was not fooled but I am disappointed and I will choose my positions on everything Mr. O proposes from this point forward carefully. I still think he is a man of Honor but I now know that he is as much a politician as any of the GOP. He has his supporters who will not fail him but he will NEVER again enjoy the depth of support he once had. That is a shame!

[JulieInCt]

During the campaign, Pres Obama said he was for change from the status quo. He said he didn't want to fight the same old fights again, but instead to find bipartisan solutions. I believe that is what he is trying to do.

However, the republicans have decided they don't want bipartisan solutions. They want to defeat everything he wants, and in this way, cause his "Waterloo" so that he will be totally ineffective for the rest of his term and not get reelected in 2012.

I personally think it is time for Pres Obama to do his best to pass legislation without them....Yet, he has a major problem. While the republicans stick together like glue, the democrats don't. The democrats in the Senate from red states worry about getting reelected, so they won't vote for meaningful change that corporate interests have lined up against....For example, the public option for health care.

What should Pres Obama do? Stick with the public option (reduce the bloat) and not get his plan passed by the Senate or abandon the public option and go for meaningless co-ops which will not get passed by the House?

We constantly hear about Pres Obama having 60 democratic votes in the Senate. In fact, he doesn't. There are 58 democratic Senators, but a substantial number of them are blue-dogs. I did a search to try to find out who the blue dogs are. I found that there are blue dogs in both the House and Senate. Sometimes a name or 2 was mentioned in a post. I was unable to find out the exact number of blue dogs in either the House or Senate, although one post mentioned 15-20 potential Senate blue dogs, back when the caucus was forming. It is clear, tho, that health care reform cannot be passed (even with the 51 vote end run) without getting the Senate Blue Dogs on board (as that would simply require a membership of 8). For the public option, that means that the administration would have to convince them to ignore both the corporate funding they have been receiving and the idiots at the town halls--which means, basically, the administration would have to ask the blue dogs to vote for something that would guarantee they would not be reelected. I don't see that happening.

When we look at the House, there are a substantial number of blue dogs as well, but even if they band together with the republicans to defeat something, the liberal democrats can still pass it. There are a substantial number of liberal democrats in the House (again, no numbers available) who will not vote for health care reform unless it includes a public option. I believe there are enough of them that together with the republicans, they will defeat a plan they don't like.

So, while people like Buzz feel betrayed because Pres Obama is not pushing thru enough change, the fact is that Pres Obama alone cannot create, pass, and sign a bill into law. He needs help. This health care reform is actually the first thing on his agenda...The other stuff that was fought over and passed was because of the recession--stuff that was left over and was not anticipated when he first started to run. Rather than being angry or disappointed in Pres Obama, I think the proper attitude is anger towards those who are stopping change. I know I am very angry at Sen Lieberman, who does not support a public option. I wrote him an email, but I really don't know what else I can do. (I thought about driving to his office, but he apparently only has one office in the state and it is over an hour away...)