It's time for a 51 % majority in the Senate to take control .Even if the Republicans take over in the near future .. We're on a slippery slope and picking up speed . I for one ,want to get to the bottom in a hurry .So I can get off and get working to getting back to the top . May God Bless the World .

We're runnin against the wind!

In large part, I find myself in agreement with Thom's commentary. However, I do question the assertion that Obama voters represented "High Information Voters." I most certainly reject the notion that the "Birthers' and "teabagers" and such are of that "High Information" class. They are, instead, the epitome of willful ignorance and a degree of gullibility that would be P.T. Barnum's best dream come true. But to the Obama supporters.

First, full disclosure. I did mark my ballot for Obama. As a resident of Texas, my vote in Presidential races is usually a wasted vote, so it was merely a rather muted protest against the very concept of the Bimbo of the North being one frail heartbeat away from "The Football" (nuclear launch codes). But I was not an Obama supporter. I read his policy positions and, in foreign policy understood him to be entirely in the thrall of the beltway consensus (as he expressed directly in his recent pronouncements) that the US is fully entitled to build bases where it wishes and to assert military force as it sees fit - unilaterally, to use his term from Oslo. So, the escalations in his "Af/Pak" war are no surprise and could not be to any well informed voter not acting under the influence of cognitive dissonance. As for domestic policy, it is certainly true that as a campaigner Obama presented an apparently progressive agenda that all but a very few of his actions, beginning with his very first appointment, belie. But, a High Information Voter would have looked beyond the campaign hype about ma and pa donations of $10 and $20 contributions to build the largest campaign fund in history. If they did not, as intelligent and informed voters, already know to check campaign finance reports the announcement that Obama would be the first candidate to reject public campaign financing since the program was started in 1976 should have sent them to the web pages of the FEC.

The great tragedy of what has transpired is that, as Thom suggests, the campaign did build excellent grassroots organizations across the country, even here in 19th century Texas. Once the Electoral College met, that fine organization (enabled to no small degree by Howard Dean's courageous leadership as DNC chair when he forced the 50 state strategy on his party) was thrown under the bus (as was Dr. Dean - Rahm knows how to play hardball with friends and allies even if not with his adversaries). If the Harvard Law Review editor and millionaire was really the community organizer he claims to be, he would have been using that army of Fairly Well Informed Voters as a lever to overcome his opponents and we would not be facing a welfare bill for the insurance, health care and pharma industries, a pointless and deceptively dangerous "climate" bill, or phoney-baloney financial services "reform," to mention the most glaring examples of "more of the same." But, Barack learned well that in politics you do dance with the ones that brung ya' and it was those very industries who led the pack in paying for that most expensive ever campaign.

I know I’m too late for the drawing, but I have two stories that you might enjoy.
The first happened in 06, when the Senate was debating whether or not to give Habeas Corpus to the detainees at GitMo. Everyone’s favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman, decided to change his vote from the previous year’s vote on the same issue. This means he decided to deny the detainees rights in '06 after voting to give them the right in '05, citing U.S. treatment of German POW's in WWII as precedence. Being a student working on a M.A. in history, I decided to call him on this erroneous belief. I called his office, told the aid that I had seen his comment on MSNBC, and asked if the Senator stood by his comment. The aid said he did, so I asked the aid if the Senator also thought it would be a good idea to have WWII style internment camps for Muslims, like we did for the Japanese. The aids response was "I believe he says that in his comments". Completely taking a back, I asked the aid, "So he would be for it", and the aid replied, "Yes, that is what he is saying". I was so surprised by the response that I just said thank you and hung up.

The second was a call to Sen. Feinstein in ’05 as the price of gas began to soar. I was pumping gas at Costco and paying $3.30 a gallon, which at the time was a huge jump in the price of gas. Being upset that the price of my education had just jumped nearly %25 simply because of the cost of driving to school while the profits of oil companies were larger than the profits of any corporation in history, I called my Senator to find out if she was going to support removing the tax breaks given to the oil companies. When I asked the aid, his response was “Economists tell us that as the resource becomes scarcer the price of gas will rise”. The cost of oil per barrel the week before had gone from $75 a barrel to $60 a barrel, so I asked the aid what economist tell should happen to the price of gas as the price per barrel drops. His response was “I’m not going to argue with you about this”, and he hung up on me. Unlike my other Senator, Boxer, Sen. Feinstein’s office never has current or logical information, and hangs up on me frequently.

Thanks Thom
Jeff Shettler

DDay,

I love you, too!

Richard L.,

Seeds?

Side conversation . . . As Bill O’ Reilly says . . . SOME PEPOLE SAY that they recommend using a plastic serving tray such as those at Mickey D's for deseeding/destemifying . . . The texturized surface. Basically indestructible. Lip to keep stuff from running away . . .

DDay,

Please keep me posted on your activities. (I'm a little burned out right now but I might be able to relight the fire...)

Zero G, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Quark,

Re: Ryback

I usually play hard to get at this phase of the endorsement process. (It usually assures that they all pay attention to me. Besides I'm a natural slut.) This year I have decided to be more emotional and less pragmatic. I am following my heart by supporting the candidates whose issues, ideologies, and hearts best match my own. I like R.T. Right now I have given money and other help to John Marty and Tom Rukavina. I am mostly busy working against Bachmann. In fact, tomorrow morning I am going to be in a commercial shoot for Tarryl Clark. It's a Sportsmen for Clark type thing. I have been ironing my khakis and camo all day. I also have been meeting with a group of businessmen and lawyers in this district who are fed up with things as they are. We are forming a liberal PAC most likely. I am very enthused about these prospects and am elated that they came to me for advice. I'm pretty burned out dealing with the Democratic Party lately. So many Peckerheads! So many pointless meetings! It would be nice to operate with fewer constraints and political correctness.

What's the difference between a good man and a bad man if the good man goes through the same motions as a bad man?

Zero G.,

That puts Matthews in the same category as Bill O'Reilly when O'Reilly was verbally abusive to a young man whose father was killed during the attack on the World Trade Towers on 9/11. I think the young man was saying something obvious like Iraq wasn't responsible for the attack...

However, I will always be grateful to Matthews for being one of the first people on national TV to stand up to Bush/Cheney, which got him into more than a little hot water.