Time for Change 2.0

It’s over.  O-V-E-R over.  From what we’ve heard from the President over the last two days, there is no other way I can call it.  Obama will never deliver for Democratic voters.

And I don’t even mean “progressive” voters, I mean anyone who is not rich, and not a rabid social conservative.  He is not on our side, period.

Yesterday, he called for a freeze on the pay of all federal employees.  Now, keep in mind that the average full-time federal employee earns between 40 and 50k per year, not the 100 thousand + per annum salaries that Republicans lie about.  And, keep in mind that many are union workers.  They get hammered.

And today, he emerged from a meeting with Republican leaders talking about “shared pain” for everyone – as he hinted his agreement to give millionaires and billionaires an unneeded bailout, borrowing over 600 billion dollars from China in our children’s names for their tax cuts.  “Shared pain,” unless you are a CEO.  

No no no, I can’t stand it any more.  It’s over – this man will not fight for us, ever.  It is not in his nature, or his philosophy, or whatever.  We have had two years to judge by his behavior.  He chooses the rich and powerful over working Americans every time.  We will not get what we want from Obama.  If we want something different, we have to start now.  If the Republicans have taught us anything over the last two years, it is that the next campaign began three weeks ago.  And we are getting our asses handed to us.

Progressives, liberals, hell – working people making less than 150k per year, we have to choose NOW, Obama or not in 2012.  It’s an ugly choice.

For the party to throw out an incumbent president in a primary is drastic.  Honestly, I don’t know if it has happened.  And there are strong arguments against doing so.  Thom Hartman says we must support Obama, because of the Supreme Court vacancies coming up in the next term.  That is a powerful argument, especially considering the disaster we have as a court now.

But I would respectfully disagree with Hartman, and all the others who rationalize the actions of the President.  I jumped off the Obama wagon following the health care episode, for reasons I have ranted about.  I hate what I perceive as his lack of principles, his stance on the wars, his continuation of Guantanemo, rights violations and even arbitrary executions of American citizens.  I hate his stance on education, his assault on organized labor, and his deep and abiding love for Wall Street bankers.  I hate his commission that wants to rob me of my social security, and take care away from the old so that corporations can get a tax cut.  And most of all, I hate how he lets us get hurt by the powerful without holding them accountable.  And still, I could be persuaded to accept ALL of that for a more liberal Supreme Court, because I do see the long game argument.

But as of now, I don’t think he’ll win in 2012.  Backing Obama at this point is backing a loser.  It is backing a leader that can’t get his own agenda through Congress.  It is backing a leader that has the dirt stick, but won’t throw it back.  It is backing a leader that has validated almost all of the opposition’s positions.  I don’t think he could beat Palin at this point.  Think about it…

…Palin’s an idiot.  If you listen to Stephanie Miller and the like, they are begging for a Palin candidacy because they think it is a guaranteed Obama win.  But don’t count your chickens. 

First, we elected, and then REELECTED an idiot to be president.  And that was just recently, the last guy, in fact.  If you don’t think an idiot can be elected President of the United States, then you haven’t been living here long.

Second, Obama’s brand is tarnished.  He has been severely vilified by the right wing noise machine, and has done very little to fight back.  He is not Teflon, like Reagan was, and the shit sticks.  His unwillingness to fight Fox news, and the lies of Republican leaders – in fact, to validate them in many cases – leaves him damaged, and leaves his base uninspired to defend him.

Third, the economy will not be much better, if at all.  Americans are realizing that it doesn’t matter how the Dow is doing – they still need a job, or a raise.  Obama will still be there for Republicans to blame, and again, he doesn’t fight, so it will stick.

Fourth, “change” is done.  Obama was co-opted by the corrupt system (or was always part of it and took us for suckers), and we suffer for it.  He can’t claim he brought it, or that he will still bring it.  (Well, he can, but not nearly as many will buy it.)  You know who took change seriously?  The Tea Party.  It was a monstrosity for the most part, but they did some house-cleaning, and at least rode those corporate sponsored busses to the rallies.  And Palin is their maven.

Does anyone think Obama will win Florida in 2012?  Hows about Ohio?  Pennsylvania?  Virginia?  Wisconsin?   Indiana?  Please!  Colorado and Minnesota will be in play too.  The electoral math for this guy looks terrible.  No, no, no…

…Saving 2012 means moving NOW.  It is time for Change 2.0.  Drafting Feingold/Greyson would be a good start.  Or perhaps there are better candidates.  Bloomberg is interesting, although he has been rumored to be pairing with Scarborough, which makes me heave my toast.  No, a progressive primary ticket to start NOW makes sense. 

It makes sense because it will take time to pound the message home.  It will take time to get the MSM to take them seriously, although much of TV never will, for at least a year, anyway.  It will take time to distribute the tens of millions of “Feingold/Greyson 2012” bumper stickers, which need to start appearing on cars in the next month, at the latest.

The best case…our team wins, and we get a progressive fighter in the White House.  I won’t hold my breath, but I think the mantle of populist “change,” change 2.0, can be wrested from the Tea Baggers.  Progressive messaging has been killed by the Democratic leadership, as well as the right wing media machine.  Giving a pro-working-family message a chance might make a huge difference.  The talking points are there for the taking, and I believe slogans like “take it back from the bankers” will do wonders for a presidential candidate.

The worst case…an upstart, grass roots progressive candidacy splits the Democratic Party, and Obama limps into 2012 with a disheveled base, and wins or loses a close one against a hideous Republican.  Worse even, he loses and Republicans finish the job of burying working families in America.  This is a horrible outcome, but I predict he loses without the challenge.

The other possibility…is that the intense pressure of a challenge NOW pushes Obama into doing something he hasn’t done since the campaign of 2008 – fight.  The seriously open question is: would he fight the Republicans to win back working Americans, or would he fight the Progressive challengers with Republican ideals, to show how “moderate” he is by comparison.  An Obama that feels the populist center of a country that is being screwed is what we all hoped for, but didn’t get.  Could a REAL challenge now awaken that in him for the next two years?

I dunno.  I just know that what we have now is officially a disaster.  Change is dead.  It died along with federal pay and  my Social Security.  It is time for Change 2.0, for hope that some president, someday, can muster a progressive fight for working families in America.  And maybe even for a Democratic Party that can find its base again. 

Feingold/Greyson 2012.

Two More Years Report Card

So, what is the verdict on President Obama at near the midterm point?

If you follow my rantings, You know I am a skeptic.   I probably don’t give the President enough credit.  I fell, hook, line and sinker for the sales pitch of “change,” and haven’t gotten over it yet.

A rational assessment is that Obama is a blue dog for the most part.  He does not want to trample on convention.  He does not want to mess with the powerful people who are already in place.  He is definitely NOT progressive.  He is very timid where what I define as “change” is concerned.

To me, “change” meant actually changing the way things got done.  And maybe it was not possible for Obama to make these changes.  The forces marshaled against change are very strong and entrenched.  Too strong, perhaps, and too deeply entrenched for one president and his administration. 

But what I didn’t see was even an attempt.  I saw capitulation to the other side, immediately.

I didn’t see any fight.

Upon reflection, I wanted to see some fight.  I wanted to see principled stands by the powerful on behalf of average Americans.  And I didn’t. I saw deal-making on an epic scale, validation of right-wing talking points…I saw a Democratic president pay much more attention to Fox “News” than to polling, the base of the Democratic party, or the needs of the American people. 

The LAST administration paid attention to Faux News.  The last administration made sweetheart deals with corporate America.  Jesus, the last Administration let Billy Tauzin write their pharmaceutical legislation.  The last administration propagated uneccessary wars, spied on people, tortured people and allowed fraud at the highest levels of our nation’s financial institutions.  This is not my definition of “change.”

You could argue that the President DID changes some things, and that politics is a long game, and that you can’t change everything…  And I would say that what you say is true – to a degree.  But I would argue strongly that President Obama did not make the fundamental changes that are necessary.  I would further argue that he favored the rich and powerful over the poor and hard-working in almost every action he had his administration take.  He did not act based on principle, nor did he fight for the principles he DID articulate.

My midterm grade for President Obama, honestly, is a D+.  He did take on some tough issues, and was left a mess.  He took on health care, and he did some stimulus spending.  And, Lilly Leadbetter.  But he came up short is so many areas.  Here are my report card comments for improvement for the next two years:

1. Stop governing like a senator, and start acting like a President – Your deferral to the legislative process is admirable, from a civics standpoint, but they’re running all over you.  Use the bully pulpit to put pressure on Congress.  An idiot like Bush did this masterfully.  Was that the “change” you meant, to be less effective than Bush?
2. Hold the powerful accountable – I have ranted on this many times before, so I’ll keep it short.  You bowed to the bankers, they took our money, and then spit in your face.  Some of them, according to expert after expert, should be in jail for fraud.  The last administration broke serious laws, yet you won’t look “backward.”  The message is, that there’s no accountability for the powerful.  We lead the world in prison population, but the rich and well-connected are free to rampage over the land.  Have some weed?  Prison for you.  Ruin the pension funds of millions of workers through fraud?  Trillions in government cash, record bonuses, and the freedom to use our cash to buy the House for the Republicans.  How has looking forward worked out for us?
3. Stop reaching across the aisle! – When we voted for change, we didn’t vote for more “bipartisanship.”  We voted the Republicans out in ’06 and ’08 because they were a disaster, not because we wanted their ideas included in everything.  Fuck them!  Fight for us!
4. Fight! – I don’t mean picking petty arguments with the horrid personalities of Republicans, I mean take principled stands, based on Democratic values, and fight for them.  Call those fucking conservatives out.  Use your advantage: the largest microphone in the world!  When those assholes filibuster, call them out.  Point out how they always side with the rich, and with FOREIGN corporations against working Americans.  It’s not that hard.  And now, after the banks and the Chamber of Commerce have shown you the backs of their hands, what have you got to lose?  And yes, on some issues, I’d rather we go down fighting than get a few crumbs for capitulating. 

Jesus man, you had both housed in huge majorities, and you acted like you needed Republican permission for everything!  You created new math in American politics, and a new meme: that you can’t do anything without 60 votes.  That is so absurd that I lose it every time I hear it.  I am a goddam civics teacher.  NEVER before in American politics has 60 been the rule instead of the exception in the Senate.  It is only through weakness and political ineptitude that a president with vast majorities in both houses gets his ass handed to him so regularly.   Fight for your principles, and fight for us!

You, Mr. President, had your own party’s senators threaten to filibuster the most important legislation of your term – health care.  That they went unscathed, that you even threw union support and progressives under the bus to back one of them, Blanche Lincoln, in the primaries shows how out of touch with your own voters you have become in such a short time.  Lincoln and Nelson should have been called to the White House in good health, and left unable to sit down for a week.  By the way, what was the result of your Blanche Lincoln strategy?  She got hammered, you lost a seat, and look weaker and more inept.  You spent political capital against your own base, and lost.

I have accepted that President Obama is way, way to the right of me politically.  What I can’t yet figure out is if 2008 was a fluke, and he is truly inept at politics, or is he wholly corrupt, and bought lock, stock and barrel by corporate America the way so many senators are.  Since Feingold lost his seat, I’m not sure there’s one member of the US Senate that I would let care for my dogs, let alone spend the nation’s money.  And this sewer was the President’s political womb.

I fear it’s going to be a long two years.  I can only hope that the President can learn, and really does care at least a little for the plight of the average working family in America. 

Does he not get it?  Or does he get it, and believe we are too stupid to get that he has sold us out to corporate CEOs.  Sold out, or a President who is in over his head?  Either way, a low grade for our President.  Let's hope he can get his grades up in the final semester.

The Pope Softens on Sex With Condoms

Two days ago the Vatican released a statement verifying the Pope’s comments to a journalist during the previous week.  Apparently, the Pope said that condom use could be perhaps, just maybe, a little, tiny bit okay in certain circumstances.

He actually was quite specific.  He said that it might be okay for a gay, male prostitute to use one to prevent the spread of AIDS.  Is he not merciful?!  No wonder he’s da’ Pope!

Most commentators I have heard or read see this as a step forward by the Catholic Church’s archaic stance on birth control.  I see it as more lunacy from this insane, ex-Nazi pontiff. 

Yes, allowing male, gay hookers to bag it is a small step forward from the Church’s draconian outright ban on any and all forms of contraception.  It is like going from 14^th Century thinking to 16^th Century thinking.  Then, rational people can momentarily get past the idea that it’s the fucking 21^st Century and measure progress with a micrometer…and give credit where credit is due.

But I can’t. 

If it was John Paul II, I’d be buying it a little more.  But not from this bat-shit crazy Ratzinger fellow.  We cannot forget that this is the guy who covered up for child molesters, and still wants to keep it an internal church matter.  And, we can’t ignore the fact that he is still dooming women to death by AIDS with this “progress.”

The Catholic Church’s largest area of growth is in Africa, which is also the place that is hurt the most by the ravages of AIDS.  He is saying, “yeah, let those fag whores use a rubber, their sperm was never going anywhere of use to us.  But those bitches, they better be getting knocked up.”  Who cares if many of them die due to lack of protection?

Now, some Christian right leaders in America would have not even gone as far as the Pope, claiming that AIDS is God’s vengeance on gays.  So, I suppose if you have to, you can give the Pope some credit for not being as vile as the “God Hates Fags” church in Kansas.  But that is damning with faint praise.  He is, once again, killing women!

And for those who would give him credit – how much of a step forward is it that the Pope would give a new privilege to a man that he would still deny a woman?  Gay male prostitutes get their lives saved, and female prostitutes don’t.  That is no step forward at all, that’s Medieval.

My God, the march of human progress is slow.  The idea that the Catholic “tribe” has to be enlarged by unrestrained procreation is a centuries old idea, and ideal.  As the Grand Wizard of Catholicism, Ratzinger looks at Africa as a fertile field for planting millions of new Catholics.  Instead of looking at the condition of the people of Africa, which struggle to feed the folks already there, and are hounded by the specter of AIDS, as it ravages the countryside.  As far as I know, he’s not calling for ALL biblical tenets to be followed.  People can still eat shrimp without condemnation, and poly-cotton blends are worn without being stoned to death.  But whether it leads to death or starvation, don’t you fucking dare waste a sperm that might find its way to a womb, potentially swelling the ranks of Catholic acolytes.

No, no, no…fuck this pope.  I cut him no slack.  The next alter-boy he allows to be raped may be saved from priest-AIDS by a condom, but that is too little progress for me.

By the way, the Vatican is walking the statement back now, saying that the Pope is in no way in favor of contraception.  Yeah, better kill those gay dudes too.

Baby steps, humans…baby steps.

**[UPDATE - The following day to writing this post, a Vatican spokesperson said that the words of the Pope were misquoted, and that he actually meant BOTH male and female prostitutes.  He said that it was a lesser evil to use a condom.  So, credit where credit is due - if Ratzinger meant what he said, then at least he is for equality where prostitutes are concerned.  And, he is truly "pro-life" as he tries to straddle the fence, being both against contraception, yet in favor of sexual protection to prevent the spread of a life-threatening disease.  If true, kudos.]

THEY ARE ROBBING US NOW!!!

The "cat food" commission has issued its report.  The wisdom of the likes of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles has spoken: you are fucked.

Here's the gist of the commission, appointed by a DEMOCRATIC president's, recommendations for reducing the deficit:

1. Cut your Social Security
2. Cut Medicare
3. Cut corporate taxes
4. Cut the taxes of the richest 2%
5. Cut the mortgage interest deduction, and...
6. Cut cost of living raises for our troops.

Or, to put it in my terms, the rich want to strap on hobnailed boots, kick the shit out of the middle and working classes, spit on us, piss on us, and then make us clean up the mess.

Pete Peterson, with his millions, has bought his way into influence in our government, and he has purchased our future.  He and his millionaire posse have seen to it that working American families will live lives of hardship and misery in our old age, so that he can add a few more millions to his swollen off-shore bank accounts.  The rich are gutting the middle and working classes so they can swell their vaults with our national treasure.  In short, those bastards are mugging us.

How does this amount to an all-out assault on working families?  If you really have to ask...

We have a quasi-volunteer army (ask troops who've been stop-lossed if it is totally volunteer), who are involved in two wars.  And you, Alan Simpson, you wanna' freeze their pay.  It is hard to express what a vile summuma' bitch that makes you.  In case you are wondering, are the rich serving in the armed forces?  Nope, mostly the poor, rural and working classes.  So the proposal is that those who sacrifice many hardships, and even die, in the service of their country should bear a significant burden of the deficit.  This alone should make this proposal a non-starter.

There are arguments against the home mortgage deduction.  When working people who live in apartments make them from a tax-fairness standpoint, I hear them.  But when super-rich assholes argue to take away this gateway to home ownership, I lose my shit.  This deduction helps sooooo many working class people become home-owners.  And for folks like me, equity in my home will soften my retirement, or be the main asset that my children inherit.  It is the main source of wealth for most families.  This proposal is an enormous tax increase on working families.

While this proposal raises my taxes, guess whose get cut.  You'll be shocked, I'm sure, to find out that it is the richest Americans.  Yup, extend the Bush tax cuts.  Sigh...

And if that's not bad enough, the "cat food" committee proposes cutting the corporate tax rate.  Now, understand that in 2009, Exxon did not pay a dime in corporate taxes.  Their profits were approximately 3.5 gazillion dollars, but they paid no taxes to support the country that treats them so well.  In fact, they received a tax refund.  But we better cut the corporate tax rate, because, what...Exxon's rebate wasn't big enough?  Jesus, we better CUT soldier pay to make sure Exxon execs can afford to bathe twice a day in French champagne.

Health care in America is STILL a disaster.  My rates just went up, along with everyone else.  But don't worry, if you don't buy insurance from rapacious death-panel corporations, the mandate kicks in in a couple of years.  You'll be enjoying that soon enough.  But to cut Medicare?  To yank the health care rug out from under our nation's seniors and neediest citizens?  It's like we've been transported back to Medieval times.  If we are going to let citizens die, and they will if you cut Medicare, so that the rich can have more...then we are becoming a feudal society.  There's no way that a functioning democracy can let this happen.

Okay...(deep breaths, deep breaths)...cuts to Social Security.  Social Security in NOT part of the deficit.  It is a self-funded program, funded with yours' and my goddam money, for all of our working lives.  This is a government annuity program, funded by the initial recipients, with the covenant that it will be there when we hit a certain age, or are disabled.  There are trillions in surplus, and the trouble doesn't start until the 2030s.  And all we have to do to fix the trouble is raise the cap.

No, no...fuck no!  SS is not a problem with the deficit UNLESS you consider the fact that the cash was taken by politicians from both parties, and spent - largely on tax cuts and unfunded wars.  Government bonds were put in place of the actual money.  What this commission is really proposing is DEFAULTING ON BONDS HELD IN OUR NAME!!  They have taken our money, now they want to burn the IOUs.  Alan Simpson has already called these trillions of government bonds "worthless IOUs."  They are proposing the crime of the century - robbing you of your money.

Politicians say that we must have an "adult conversation" about the deficit.  This is code for "bitch, where's my money!"  Then, they say "this won't affect anyone over 60."  Well I'm glad they'll dodge the bullet.  But I'm pushing 50, and I've paid into SS and Medicare for over 30 years.  I get the statements.  I have played by the rules, and paid my hard-earned money for over 30 working years, and they are going to take a chunk and give it to the richest Americans, and corporations, and let me work until I'm 70.  Mother fuckers!

You must realize this one thing - Social Security is NOT IN TROUBLE, it is a MADE UP ISSUE!  The elite in this country have spent millions to make it an issue so they can rob us in order to continue their lavish lifestyle.  It is piracy.  Supply side economics has blown holes in our sails.  Now they want to board the ship and finish the job - to rape and pillage the working class and middle class Americans.

And why shouldn't they?  We live in an America with no accountability for the powerful.  Did Bushies go to jail for torture, murder, kidnapping, unlawful wiretapping or treason?   Nope.  Did Wall Street bankers go to jail for fraud?  Hell no, they were rewarded with over a trillion dollars of our money, and given the keys to the Fed's printing presses.  Our current, Democratic president absolves all these crimes, and claims the right to assassinate Americans citizens without so much as a habeus corpus.  Nobody is being held politically, or legally accountable for heinous acts against the American people.  [side note: score one for the Tea Party folks.  They did hold some Republicans accountable for their bail-out votes in primaries.]

You cannot, must not vote for or support ANY candidate in 2012 who supports the recommendations of the "cat food" commission.  This means Obama too.  It is soooo disappointing that he appointed this commission.  His choice of membership made the panel's hideous recommendations a foregone conclusion.  If he wants to now parrot the talking point of an "adult conversation" about spending, then we know for sure it's game over - that he is not on our side.

"Adult conversation."  That's what we've been asked to have.  So here it is: if you rob me, you're done.  No votes, no support, no nuthin'.  Converse with that.  If you proceed with the adult conversation about cat food in my dotage then you are my enemy, and my family's enemy, and I will work to make sure you have no future power over me.  Republicans don't care about this warning, so it goes out to Dems.  Don't rob us, take back from the robbers, and then raise the cap.  Don't take away health care from the most vulnerable to make billionaires richer (that I have to say that in the 21st century, in America, is so depressing), don't take away the tax deduction that lets so many Americans accrue wealth into their old age, and for Christ's sake, don't put the deficit on the backs of the troops who have enough to worry about.

[Another side note - "adult conversation" is apparently not catching on in a land where we watch Squidbillies, so the new talking point to defame SS is "ponzi scheme."]

20 years ago, even ten, politicians would have mentioned any change to SS at their great peril.  It has been the "third rail" of American politics for over half a century.  We'll see now how  much the political landscape has changed.  And, we'll see how sedentary Americans have become.  Will we take being robbed by merely raging at our TVs and computer screens (like me)?  Or, will we emulate the Tea Baggers, and show up in public with "Don't Rob Me, Bro!" T-shirts?  Or, will we go France on them and shut things down.  The French people recently shut down the country over proposed changes to their national pension program.  Streets blocked, businesses closed - general strike!


Will we realize that the politicians who supposedly represent us, don't.  Not anymore.  They've taken the money, and want to burn the IOUs and piss on the ashes.  They disdain us, as evidenced by Alan Simpson's calling us "tit-suckers" with barely a rebuke by the president who appointed him.  The same president who called his base the "professional left" and tells us to grow up for this "adult conversation."

No, no no NO!  Any representative of any kind who does not fight this with all of their being is your enemy.  They are against you, and actively work to do you and your family harm.  They are sticking it in with no vaseline, and calling you "bitch" while they do it.

Obama, every Republican, most of the Democratic reps, are not on our side.  We need to burn it down - figuratively - burn it down now.

Midterm Recap

It is a week since the debacle, and that has barely been enough time to get my head around the disaster that was the midterm elections for 2010.

It was not that the results were unexpected.  Nor were they particularly historic.  But the swing seems drastic when you consider the "mandate" the Democrats were given in 2008.  I think the main message we can take from this is...

...the American people are pissed.  

But what are they pissed about?  Why did the election play out the way it did?  Why did Americans vote for the Republicans when they gave such recent majorities to the Democrats?  Only a retarded fraction of the electorate truly believes that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, a Marxist or Hitler.  So, what's the BFD?

One idea was that Americans have "rejected the Obama agenda."  They truly did, if you consider the swing in the election.  But I see this as a talking point.  Polling shows that Americans by and large favor the individual parts of Democratic policies.  From health care to Wall Street reform, folks approve of select parts of Democratic bills.  They also see the villains the way most of us do.  Polling shows that when it comes to the Economic disaster, Americans blame: 1. Wall Street, 2. George Bush, 3. Obama.  And though Obama comes in number three, the combo of one and two account for about two thirds of those polled.  I don't think that Americans rejected most of what Obama did.

Pollster and Hillary advisor Mark Penn has gone with the standard DC pablum: Obama and the Dems need to move more to the center.  This makes me want to heave my toast - especially because it is likely that this is the advice that the Democratic leadership will take.  If Obama reached any more to the right, his fucking arm would have fallen off.  No, "centrism" (corporate sell-outism) definitely did not work.  Half of the blue dog caucus, those champions of move-to-the-right, lost their seats.

Now, progressives like Feingold and Greyson lost too.  And they were some of the strongest progressive fighters.  This would seem to support Penn's argument.  But they also had giant targets on their backs.  money poured in to beat those two.  The progressive caucus only lost four members, and still number in the eighties.  Progressives did well enough, the conservatives in the Democratic party got hammered.

So why did Democrats lose the House?  

One reason is the success of Republican messaging.  For the last two years we've heard about rampant spending and rapacious taxes.  The message was simple and constant, and came from every candidate on that side.  It didn't matter that it was bullshit - it was effective.  And worse, many on the "left," especially our president, validated these talking points.

And even worse, there didn't seem to be much of a counter-message.  Obama touted his health care bill, and financial reform as 'epic,' but nobody was buying it.  And he only started that in the last two months before the election.  He didn't seem to realize that Republicans started this election in January of 2009.  He also came about as strong as a cat fart in an elephant house.

Obama and the Dems needed to hammer three points home, month after month, until we were ready to scream if we heard them one more time:

1. Republicans want to give your money to a CEO...
2. ...give your job to the Chinese...
3. ...and give your house to your banker.

Saying this over and over again would have been true, and would have made Americans decide that Republicans would fuck up the economy - again.

Now, it's universally agreed that the economy is the #1 issue.  And yet, Obama and the Democrats couldn't craft a message that resonated with what two thirds of the public already thought.  The bankers fucked us, and the Republicans helped them.  This always floors me - the professional politicians of the left have such a hard time crafting an effective message that 2/3 of Americans already agree with. 

Don't get me wrong, I see their problem.  When you give health care CEOs and Wall St. everything they want, it's hard to point to the other guys and say "not me!"  But that doesn't stop the Republicans, and it shouldn't stop the Democratic Party either.  Not if they want to win in this day and age.

So messaging was huge in this election.  But the other factor was the lack of fight for the average family.  Jesus, you gave the bankers all the fucking money, our money, and they paid themselves record bonuses.  That was in our face.  That was the moment to put them on a government salary.  Americans wouldn't have seen that as socialism, outside of Glenn Beck's viewership, they would have seen that as 100% fair.   GM management and labor had to crawl on their knees to get help to save manufacturing jobs.  The bankers snatched up over a trillion dollars, paid themselves record bonuses, and then complained how unfriendly the Democrats were to the business community.  Seriously, Obama...that's when you would have been cheered if you had punched Jaime Diamond in the face.  

Instead, you bowed your head.  You apologized, and then told the Fed to print the banks another trillion dollars.  And the Republicans, who want this as much as anybody, get record donations AND get to point the finger at you and the Democrats for helping bend working Americans over the meat counter.

People can reasonably disagree about the merits or failings of health care, or foreign policy, or whether there was enough change.  Those conversations have filled blogs and cable news opinion shows - all viewed by folks who already knew how they were going to vote.  But the enthusiasm gap was tied directly to the pain felt by the Average American, and that pain can be tied to the murdering of the economy, and the murderers who did it.  And you paid those murders trillions, without consequences of any kind.  You looked forward, not back.

Nobody, in the last 10 years, has been held accountable.  Not by Bush, Not by Obama, nor any leaders of their respective parties.  Not for treason, not for torture, and not for grand theft and fraud.  So, the American People decided to hold the Democratic Party accountable for letting the bankers rob them.  It was a form of mob justice - the electorate, women and white, working class men in particular - grabbed their torches and their pitchforks and chased Frankenstein out of Congress.  

Again, Obama and the Dems fucked this election up horribly, and truly deserve the drubbing they got.  It just sucks that we will suffer for it.  And what's the alternative to the Democrats?  The Republicans ghouls will cut the legs out from under the poor and middle classes, borrow more from China to give directly to the top 2%, and leave our country in ruins.  

Jesus, it's like a choice between riding on the Titanic or the Hindenburg.