Sweden's a much more secular country than we are, but it's still a lot more religious than you are. And they don't have a lot of atheists. A lot of "life force/spirtuality/love each other" kind of people. And a lot of religious tradition still. (i.e. enough that I think your skin would still crawl).

My state does work well. If it didn't, it'd be a lot easier to fix than a corrupt federal government. You just have NO chance with a bad federal government. They can ruin things for everyone. States can at least offer choice. A good, honest, public servant can gain power in a state. (Obviously, there's many things the federal government can handle more effectively, let me just say that before someone goes on a rant about how great the FDA is as if that defeats my entire argument about the role of states)

The lack of tolerance the people of northern European countries show those muslims would be considered "crazy right wing" here.

The U.S. is FAR to the left of those countries at least on that social issue. (or really, maybe I should just say the moderate base here is "more tolerant" than those countries - it's not really a left/right issue..)

I love the compassion of this angle that's so popular. You claim to want to reduce poverty, but you're resentful of anyone different than you getting any help.

When it comes to states though, it's not a liberal/conservative thing to me. Liberal states can be run well. It's about self-determination, really. Sweden is a small country of like-minded people. The U.S. is not. States could be the best of both worlds. Self-determination against a background of strong national security and a guarantee of fundamental personal rights.

If Sweden, Mexico, Italy, Kuwait, and Russia were all merged into one country and tried to manage everything solely with a strong central government - it wouldn't work all that well.

Vermont seems like a well-run state, at least from a distance. New Hampshire has a real independent streak, but they're also very liberal and tax the living shit out of property. A lot of other states seem at least average/ok. Conservative states don't have a monopoly on effective state government, because effective state government isn't defined by liberal/conservative views but on whether it's delivering what it's people want. Though I do wonder if you have the same compassion for a poor person that doesn't vote the way you feel he's supposed to. A lot of the far left does seem to mock and look down on the rural conservative poor.

Germany is a model country. And they actually don't have the racism/nationalism as the rest of Europe, I think because they're so gun-shy about expressing nationalism (that was the theory of a German guy I talked to last year). France isn't too bad if you don't mind 25% unemployment for people under 30 and real social intolerance. I don't think either country is particularly relevant to anything we do here.

Why is it that you're so sure we can learn so much from smaller governments across an ocean, but smaller governments right in this country are useless? Haven't a lot of progressive/liberal ideas really taken hold in states first? Isn't there a potential for that to happen even more? How long would we have to wait for gay marriage to be legal anywhere if it had to be legal across the U.S. all at once first? How about legal marijuana?

Holy shit the GOP is crazier than I imagined. This is from presumptive Utah Sen Mike Lee.


So there are GOP senators willing to risk default when the deficit is over a trillion dollars? What cuts do they propose that will eliminate the need for raising the debt ceiling?

Time to buy Glen Beck's apocalypse seed pack.

Islam believes that there is one code of law that all of humanity are connected by and must obey. That's one of the reasons "nation building" in an islamic country is pretty stupid. They're not going to accept your laws.

Islam sounds ridgid when you put it like that, but aren't we all that way? Doesn't almost everyone think all of humanity ought to obey the type of government/rule of law they personally feel is best? Are far left/right political views no different than religious Islam political views in that way?

That's how I look at the state/federal thing. We like federal-level if we feel like we can use it to impose our own political/economic views on a great number of people. We like state-level if we feel like we want something that isn't going to fly on a national level (whether that be a liberal or conservative thing), but we feel that it works for us.

I think generally, I'm going to be in favor of self-determination for the smaller group (state or country level) unless there's a really good reason not to be that way for any particular issue. There is no one right way to run a state, or country. There is no all-enlightened correct political/economic view that everyone in the world is morally bound to follow. When you start thinking there is - that's dangerous thinking, as history has proven over and over again.

And people just kind of sound like bullies when they say, "ya, that's cute state that you have your own opinions, but as long as you take our money, you're going to do things OUR way, and you're going to SHUT UP ABOUT IT." The reality is, a mega-strong central government imposes financial obligations on states. The states can makeup for that by cutting teachers, unless the fed wants to provide help for that too (which they're all too willing to do, and since they own the printing presses, is easy for them to do). Before long, you have a Sopranos situation where the mob has given loans that can't be paid back so now they own the joint. (a scenerio which the U.S. also loves to use to exploit other countries, of course).

No. There are different strains of Islam and different governments with different laws. That's as false as saying Christians believe there is one code of law...

Your faith in your political views is the same as someone's faith in a structured religion. You're RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG (and worse yet, needs to be saved from themselves by you).

It's all just a question of boundaries and practicality. Montana has a strong central government. So does Vermont. So does Massachusetts. So does France and Germany. Nothing inherently wrong with strong central governments. They just get problematic in a hurry when the population gets too big and too diverse. Self-determination is gone at some point.

Would a world central government be a good thing? It would kind of suck if we was a bad world central government. I think George Lucas warned us against that.

As our country gets bigger and more diverse, the governance is actually getting more centralized. Which seems backwards.

Plenty of reasons. Start with the stuff that was specifically delegated to a central government in the constitution. Europe is slowly turning into what the original vision for the U.S. was then.

A country, like may of the the countries in Europe, can come up with great ideas, be progressive, especially when they're not burdened by national defense concerns, and when there's a low level of basic human rights they all agree to recognize no matter what.

Germany's done great and progressive things, but what if they eventually are just an extension of an ineffectual France-based EU? As liberals always tell me - Europe seems to have a pretty good setup now.

To put it another way, the U.S. has a centralized government that rules over 300 million people. The EU has a de-centralized government with about 500 million people spread over largely independent states.

Why is state experimentation and self-governance such a terrible concept here, but such a great thing in Europe? Or do you think Europe would better if the EU was like the U.S. and ran the show for everyone on the continent? If the EU did have that power - do you think Sweden would still be Sweden? I bet they'd be a lot worse. Sweden would be overburdened and bitter about supporting whiney and backwards Romania (and they'd be hugely annoyed by Romania's religiousness, and they'd even feel bad for them for "voting against their interests" - which are of course, supposed to be exactly the same as Sweden's, even if those dumb Romanians aren't smart enough to realize it yet).

Edit: And the EU and the US obviously isn't a perfect comparison either (yet), but it's a lot more relevant than trying to compare U.S. and Sweden (which has a smaller population than North Carolina).

True, let's get back to a meaningful comparison we can actually take something from, like the U.S. v. Sweden. (I was 100% sure you'd respond like this - shooting down any EU/US comparison while clinging to even more ridiculous ones).

And who do I vote for to implement "the Sweden system" in the U.S? And how long would that transition take? I think you would have some of the right on your side in that transition, because we'd certainly have to get rid of all the illegal Mexicans.

You ignored my hypothetical though. If 300 million people under a centralized government is a good thing in the U.S., wouldn't 500 million people under a centralized government be an even better thing in Europe? Should they move towards that? Or would that make Sweden and Germany actually suck (as I suspect).

I can't believe we're going to send Pat fuckin Toomey to Washington.

You can actually just answered this:


And yes, you are right, you are silly ;)

heh, a democratic house canidate in Virginia 1 is named Krystal Ball. Surely someone has mentioned this before, but if not, it's hilarious.

if 31% of South Carolinians would vote for Alvin Greene, we can probably say that 31% of South Carolinians are whacko.

We could also say the same thing about 40% of Delaware voters.

"Spread the wealth, consolidate the power" is kind of a catchy slogan, but not very inspiring.

I'd vote for Alvin Greene just for the entertainment value.

That's the (accurate) slogan of the Democratic/Republican/Corporate party

And we have the federal government to thank for that party, and centralization to ensure it stays in power.

I blame the voters personally, they don't seem to mind corporate backed candidates.

Eh, they're just sheeple.

Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm not a witch.

I guess at the end of the day - you have what you want, we have a strong central government in the U.S. that gets more centralized every year. It's your burden then to reconcile any fault then that this country has v. say, European countires (who all have free and progressive neighbors, which I still maintain is useful, and something that facilitates positive things for everyone.)

So, we really have your IDEAL government structure here then, don't we? So what's the problem? Why are there so many problems and corruption? Why are we still (by your perception) so far behind Europe? Why haven't we been able to "snuff out all the whackos" (I guess that's the goal) like they apparently have done there?

Or do we need to get more centralized? 1 300 million-people country ruled by a tiny elite government with corporate backing seems problematic to me, but if that's the idea, should we take it further or is this the limit?

A brand new country with new ideas certainly has merit, but I'm not why you'd start such a country with 300 million people who largely don't want anything like that. Or why one would think that was even a desirable idea to rule hundreds of millions against their will. At a smaller country/state level though, I can see people getting behind all kinds of real reform.


And this is responding to what? Something someone said on FoxNews two weeks ago? (We've apparently reached the point where you start lecturing nobody in particular. It's pretty easy to score points that way. I can play that game though. Well, SteveBollea, unlike you, I'm AGAINST child molestation. Good time to bow out.)

But why are you so obsessed with bringing in people to your vision of government, who clearly don't want to be part of you perfect government (like southern whackjobs). I can kind of understand it if we're talking America, and you want to keep American borders the same, but if you're talking BRAND NEW country, new constitution, abolishment of Senate, abolishment of states as political entitites, etc, why, in this hypothetical, fictional government, do you STILL want all the people who you see as whackjobs to be a part of it?

And isn't it more likely we could create your vision in a more-independent Vermont, than say, the entire 300 million person U.S?

Your vision of government, (not just the popular parts, but also your far left social and economic views), is not shared by 300 million people. It's not even shared by a majority of them. Why is it so desirable and important to subject 300 million people to it? I'd ask the same thing to the Bush administration about Iraq. And I think both of your answers would be the same. "They don't know any better." Maybe that's true in both instances, I don't know. But don't expect people here to react more positively to that idea than Iraqis did.

No vision is shared by 300 million Americans.

So your caring goes to the border and but not a mile further? We shouldn't try to say, change how Iraqis llives, they're stuck with their ignorant fate, but inside of THIS border, we have a responsibility to save people from their ignorant ideas about lifestyle and politics?

Americans want Euro spending and Tea Party taxation delivered by a more rabidly conservative, moderate Democratic government.

Maybe that's why we're fucked. From Andrew Sullivan:

Some are more broadly shared than others though. And Sweden's "vision" is certainly shared by a good dunk of its 9 million people. Sweden is further left because the people are further left. A Swede bringing that government and culture and society to the U.S. will have as much success as our country does "rebuilding" the government and culture and society of a Muslim country.

Dancing with the starts is popular, facebook is popular. You seem to be mistaking apathy for discontent. Your probem is you think you know what is best for me, but you don't even know me

OK, pm me when you've fixed the country (I think the tipping point will be Barbara Boxer getting another term. Certainly, everyone seems to think these elections are huge and will change everything.)

Sure. However, when you argue that we can't or shouldn't have a particular type of government because some percentage of the populace would like something else you need to keep in mind that the form of government you like also is opposed by a lot of people. In my lifetime we've always been relatively closely split. The problem with every policy is that at best you're looking at a 60/40 split and likely closer to 50/50. That's why things tend to move a little in one direction or the other for a while, but achieving a libertarian utopia or a Sweden style government won't happen.

That doesn't, though, mean that arguing for a set of political beliefs that likely won't happen means you're naive or crazy. The little changes are often a compromise achieved by people who are pushing much bigger changes.

Lovely ad for Sharron Angle.

A Tea Party founder:

It began as a movement to take back the United States from corrupt politicians. The Tea Party movement has been hijacked by Republicans and is now all about guns, gods and gays. Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker was one of the original founders of the Tea Party and calls the direction of the group an absolute joke.

We sort of are a socialist country in many respects. Military, police, fire, roads, health care for seniors, etc. So when people on one side claim to be the capitalists rooting out the socialists, it's a tad head scratching. Everyone is for socialism is some forms.

Republicans are against socialized health care for people under 65, but are for socialized agriculture and expanding our socialized military. I'm sure there are some people who are completely against any form of socialization at all, but I wouldn't even know where to put them on the political scale (anarchists?).

It's really a battle between two sides who want varying forms of pseudo-socialism mixed with capitalism. I just hate the "socialist" or "communist" or "capitalist" rhetoric when none of those accurately depict anyone in our government or the public in general.

No one is saying shut up here. But it's sort of like having your brother come up to you and lecture you for a couple hours on how you should do better with your career and manage your money better, then ask to borrow a few bucks. It's more about the hypocrisy.

I definitely think we should move towards a European like society. Step 1: Let's show some boobies on TV!

(Disclaimer: No other steps should even be attempted until Step 1 is completed)

Agreed.

And more topless beaches.

Didn't USA used to show boobies late at night many years ago?

I'd vote for that!

See...we're making progress. I will vote "Topless Party" with you guys.

Yep. On those sweet movies hosted by Gilbert Godfried.

Man...I still remember the one "Private School." I practically wore out that VHS tape.:lol:

I wonder if the rent is too damn high in Europe as well?

Shocker- the GOP has done a much better job of selling their message, as is always the case. On top of that, we want more services for less taxes. Again, shocked, positively shocked.

SI

That's "Up all Night", you twits. Not "that show on USA" ;)

SI

It's quite expensive in Western Europe. Has a lot to do with less land and more people.

(They get taxed more but don't have to save for health care or college)

SI

I did not know that. I am grateful to have that knowledge :)

SI

So not happy with what's about to happen tomorrow. I predict GOP +55 in the House and +7 in the Senate.

The one loss above all that really hurts is Feingold. He's a great man and has been a great Senator. The only guy that had the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. Was against the war from the beginning. Wisonsin is about to turn their backs on him.

Here's some pre-tally punditry for you, no charge: It'll be a night of GOP gains but not at the record-shattering levels that have been discussed in some circles today & about 3 short of retaking the Senate.

Right now I'm leaning toward something a couple of seats short of the 53 currently predicted by 538. I think the early balloting will counteract the continued fall in the polls in a few races, just enough to change the expected outcomes.

The next two years are going to be 95-97 all over again. The only thing, though, I really worry about is the glee that so many in the GOP feel for pushing the country into default. If they really refuse to increase the debt limit we're all screwed.

As a resident of Wisconsin, I'm absolutely ashamed that we are about to throw Feingold out of office. Especially for Ron Johnson. The guy has absolutely no ideas.

I wish it would've been Herb Kohl up for reelection this year rather than Feingold.

And my prediction is a huge wave.

House +66

Senate +9 (and a Lieberman shift to throw the Senate to the GOP)

Weren't the Republicans expected to keep the Senate in 2006 but didn't? Seems similar to this election. I'm guessing that the wave is much bigger than people expect because the people who vote for change will be much more motivated than those who don't.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the first election I can remember where there's a bit of a backlash, tho. I can't remember the last time I've heard a few people say "I wouldn't normally vote but the other guy is batshit crazy".

That said, it's probably still going to be a pretty ugly night for the Dems. As usual, their specialty is screwing up elections and this one was going to be a loss either way. But their ineptitude of being able to stay on message and their complete lack of unity on much of anything isn't going to help.

Five Thirty Eight has some "fun" reading from both sides, if you want to try to feel optimistic about one side's chances:
5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected - NYTimes.com
5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House - NYTimes.com

SI

Hey, that's the price the Libertarians pay for being on the ballot. Welcome to Hollywood ;)

I think 2006 had that backlash feel to it. Maybe not the crazy people running thing, but it had a lot of people who decided they needed to get their representative out of office. And 2008 saw a lot of people who wouldn't normally vote head out to the polls for various reasons.

These days elections are mainly backlash elections. With cable news on 24/7 and an endless stream of hate speech on TV and radio, you're just going to have tons of people riled up about something every 2 years.

My relatively lukewarm endorsements for today's Georgia ballot are now on the blog Election Day 2010 « Jon's Three Cents

Today is the first time I've voted in about 16 years. I don't see a point in trading my relatively moderate democrat for a republican, but I suppose she will lose. Sestak vs Toomey is just an ugly choice to make.

So that is what it comes down to? When reading the people's comments on many articles and opinions, the Democrats only argument is not to have Republitards (of whatever they call them) back in control. It's not vote for us in the positive but vote for us because of the negatives of the past. Perhaps there are no positives in our current system of two-party politics? Two years ago, I went on and on about the evils of a one-party government. I was right and now it is your chance to have a split Congress. Keep the Senate Dems but make the House Reps. In 2012, we can reshuffle the deck again as long as it cannot be a one-party government.

Voted this morning. Want to puke seeing all these options on the ballot. Nathan Deal? Really? Against Roy Barnes? Does anyone remember the 49th ranked education system he ran? Casey Cagle? Johnny Isaakson? It's like the who's who of the robovotes. I had to laugh seeing all these commercials with Isaakson talking about how spending was out of control and he was for reducing taxes and cutting spending...neither of which he did in his first term. But in GA all you have to do is shout out against gays, stem cell research, and taxes and you'll get the votes. Even Barnes wanted to adopt an Arizona-style immigration bill.

And I voted heck no on 1. It stinks of corporate bullying/bribery of the legislation to uphold these awful no-bid, anti-compete contacts. I would expect Nathan Deal to love this since a company he had a stake in (or owned) as a congressman got a very nice no-bid, exclusive deal that was very lucrative for them. I don't want to give these fools any more power than they already have, let alone ones that allow them to pick and choose no-bid deals that exclude competition.

Many of my friends and in Cali are hopeful for the passage of Prop 19. :)

There's nothing I want more than THE decisive fed/state fight to be over marijuana. Then we'll have something people care about at stake, then we'll have something so many people believe is within the proper legislating powers of the states and their individual and unique culture/history.

Just voted myself. I used a six-tier process for the most part.

1. Eliminate anybody whom I have at least second-hand knowledge of corrupt practices.
2. For national legislators - vote for anyone with big ideas and actual proven actions regarding energy reform/alternative energy.
3. After that, any 3rd party/independent candidates with a pulse that are at least somewhat competent for the job.
4. After that, eliminate anyone with a high enough degree of liberal smugness that it reminds me of FOFC. Those candidates often allege beliefs in some honorable things, but they tend to think they're already god's gift to politics and the world, and won't have to deliver anything in office.
5. If there's still multiple candidates for an office, go with the democrat if they preach/act on financial restraint to any degree at all. (State republicans lose to the final tiebreaker for me, because they operate such a cartel in this state. So I always like to see a few of them getting kicked out here and there so they don't get too comfortable).
6. For non-political positions (like coroner) go with the guy already in office unless he screwed something up since last election bad enough for me to know about it.

Do you mean 3 & 4 perhaps? Those dealt with allowing government agencies to enter into multi-year contracts.

A1 was about making non-competes a bit more enforceable in Georgia, while R1 (the only referendum on the ballot) had to do with removing the ad valorem tax from inventory on hand (something that only a handful of states still do).

I'm not going to defend the weak-kneed, ineffectual Congressional Dems and I won't feel sorry for the vast majority of those that have to go be lobbyists next year. However, it's not in my power to establish a split government. All I can do is vote for a Rep and, in an odd twist in NY, two Senators. Shouldn't I vote for the people I think will do the best job at advancing the policies I think are important?

LOL at all these states that have dozens of shit to vote for. Our ballot in PA? 5 choices.

Somewhat surprisingly, I'm actually with you on #2, though certainly for different reasons.

Yay, Bucc is here to lecture us again!

Am I disappointed in the Democrats? Sure. But why am I going to vote for a party that runs counter to everything I believe in? Not gonna happen. I don't care who's in charge of what branch.

Also, it's pretty silly to argue we have one party government with the current Supreme Court.

What's #1 about?

#1 involves a change in state law, which would allow courts to enforce provisions in non-compete clauses that were deemed legal/reasonable while rejecting provisions which were disallowed by the court for whatever reason.

Under current Georgia law, if any portion is found to be improper then the entire agreement is deemed unenforceable.

It was a tough choice for me whether to keep my Wisconsin registration or switch to Nevada. In the end, I decided I needed to fight Tea Party insanity in Nevada more.

Feingold and Reid both being ousted, which looks fairly likely to happen, would be a damn shame. Two long-serving Senators who have done a lot of good for their respective states.

Entirely meaningless of course but FWIW I'd be more surprised if Reid lost than I would if Feingold lost.

No doubt. Feingold is toast unless the pollsters are way off. Reid might win only because he's up against Angle. If the GOP nominated a sane candidate, Reid would be losing as badly as Blanche Lincoln.

Also is the fact that McConnell has not campaigned against Reid, probably realizing that he'd rather work with Harry Reid than Chuck Schumer (who would be Majority Leader if Reid loses).

I think Reid's a good man, but he's been a terribly ineffective leader. Regardless of whether he wins or loses he should be replaced.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Dems never replace ineffective leaders.

Reid and Pelosi have both been awful. I will be glad to see someone else as the legislative face of the party for a change, frankly.

But at the price of having Sharron "Sharia law is being implemented in the US!" Angle in the Senate for 6 years?

This is the third election season I've lived in a different state, so I'm always sort of woefully behind on the intensely locale issues and I don't feel enough kinship to either of the major parties to feel the need to protest and vote.

Same day voting is great, but...the only candidate I'd vote for is someone I actually had a class in college who is running for an at-large city council, but truth be told...I've seen him in town a few times and even though he did add me on Facebook, he never actually said hello and hilarious and petty as this is, that's off-putting. Plus, I know nothing about who he's running against.

It's a strange universe for a guy who was actively involved in campaigns into my early 20s, but...I've just soured largely on the remarkable state of our political affairs these days. It's weird, but I don't really feel all that bad about it.

What's Pelosi done wrong? She's no Tip O'Neill, but she's been pretty effective as a leader IMO.

How so?

Hey, I didn't say there wouldn't be costs.

I just worry about what's going to happen with the state of Nevada if Angle's elected. There's a world of difference in power between your state having the Senate Majority Leader and having a crackhead freshman Senator everyone avoids (I forget who Nevada's other senator is).

Since this is also kind of a general election thread, I'll share this here.

Been voting 25 years as of this election, in precincts from tiny towns to metro Atlanta but a few minutes ago was the very first time I've ever spoken to a poll worker about improper campaigning activities on-site. I mean, the "no campaigning within 150 feet of a polling place" rule has existed my entire recollection & no matter where I lived it seemed pretty much respected (largely because it was so easy to get spanked for & so obvious when you do it). But on the front porch of the polling site, just around the corner from the entrance used by voters, there's a trio of half-wits waving their signs for all their worth.

Poll workers said they've been dealing with them most of the day, moving them back to the required distance & then going back again as the slowly creep back inside the line.

Irony, for the FOFC folks here who think they know me at least, is that the morons are backing the most conservative guy in a local school board race (that I didn't even know existed until yesterday) whose major campaign plank is the desire to create public charter schools based on "the teaching of God's word". Well intentioned or not, I quickly dismiss anyone campaigning on the basis of something they have zero percent chance of successfully accomplishing & voted for one of his competitors without much hesitation.

My prediction: 65 House Seats lost, and in the Senate, Dems JUST survive with 51 senators. (If it's 50, the biggest ever full court press will happen with Lieberman)

65 and 51 seems like a pretty worst-case scenario.

I just don't see it being that bad. Not that it's going to be GOOD, but I can't see my way to it being that bad.

I see a projection for 51.6 Democrat Senators.

I'm all for that depending on which two senators they plan on cutting in half to make that work.

Maybe Christine O'Donnel could make it happen with her witchcraft

I wouldn't want to be Ben Nelson's or Joe Lieberman's cell phone tomorrow morning.

As long as Dewey defeats Truman, all should be well.

Love to see McCain making a last minute effort to get Sharron Angle. I mean, seriously? She's exactly the opposite type of Republican he's been throughout his career. What a joke.

Yeah it's sad to see how he's declined the last few years.

That said, Angle is probably going to win, much as I hate to say it. Reid's elections have always been extremely close to begin with, and while southern Nevada usually votes Democrat and northern Nevada Republican, Reno, a traditional Democratic stronghold, is likely going to be much closer, if not go red, because Angle's from there.

And in a race this close, that could well be the difference.

While it is sad to see the demise of McCain, I can see him getting out the vote for Angle because knocking off the Senate Majority Leader is a HUGE deal.

I would argue that getting these passed were good for her, however, to pass them and allow your party to get steamrolled in the next election for passing them is not.

I completely disagree. The prize is governing, not winning elections. IMO the biggest problem with Senate Dems is that too many of them see reelection as the ultimate goal. There's no point in me voting for someone who isn't prepared to do anything when they get to Washington.

Wish there was an option between "met most" and "average" because Obama has done quite a bit to change things in ways I like, but he did NOT try very hard for changes I'd have liked more. Public option would have saved billions, didn't even try. (In fact, rumor has it he'd already promised the health care lobby he would get that off the table.)

But changes like these are very hard to accomplish in ordinary times. The opposition is very vocal, support not so strong during a "great recession." I don't know how much more he realistically could have done. He shows himself to be a pragmatist, which is probably actually the best thing for us at this time.

Of course, let's not forget that Clinton, who wimped out on Health Care and Gays in the Military, still got steamrolled in his first midterm by about the same amount that we're about to see today.

I am disappointed with a number of things Obama has done, but I admire him for doing what it took to get Health Care reform passed. Sure, it was watered down and he spent all of his politicap capitol to do it, but it was worth it to get something done finally. Pre-existing conditions gone. Lifetime caps done. Everyone has access to coverage. All of these are good things.

Outside of civil liberties, which is a huge black eye, I don't have a lot of issues with Obama. My problems come with the weak-willed, useless Congressional delegation. That's why it's hard for me to get too upset that a bunch of them are going to start their careers as lobbyists.

Wow, the legacy of that health care "reform" gets better and better every day. The attitude sure was different back when the public option was first kicked, and right when the health insurance company lobbyists were assured their interests would be taken care of first. Makes you wonder why anyone could argue that a public option, or even a single-player system, was needed at all when what we ended up with was so glorious anyway.