And that, too, is part of the Con strategy. They wrecked the pension and health care plans of private sector workers and that left the public sector workers as the only ones that still had good plans. Now they are going after them and saying, “Look how much better they have it than you”, to the citizens. Never mind that a few years ago the private sector workers made higher wages than their counterparts in the public sector and had the same, and sometimes superior, benefits to what public workers had. The Cons have pitted one segment of the population against another, the strategy has been successful, and we all are sliding backwards down the economic scale. Except for the richest, that is, who have actually increased their wealth during this time.

With all that said, the polls could still be incorrect and Walker could still lose. I suppose it will come down to who actually votes come election day.

What you say about Dean’s 50 state strategy and the newDem response to it is true, but you are going to be raked over the coals here because that 50 state strategy is what brought and kept so many Blue Dogs in the Dem party for so long. What a lot of people on this list don’t seem to understand is that the Cons strategy is to use the law to kill the Progressive movement. They’ve already packed the lower courts with Heritage Foundation judges and now their sights are set on the Supreme Court so that they can control the country’s direction for generations. In order to do that their goal has been obvious from the outset, with the stage set 30 years ago when they turned their attention to city, county and then state and federal elections. Gain the power, appoint the judges and then control and dominate by making dissent impotent and nearly impossible. They’ve been very successful and I think they are on the verge of having total control.

Wrong. Polling has been pretty consistent on this–it didn’t matter who ran against Walker. Walker was up in every hypothetical match-up against any candidate that the Dems could run. WI isn’t nearly as Progressive as you want to believe, and the Democratic Party could see the writing on the wall from the very beginning. Conservative Super PACS were going to throw everything it takes into this race, and as much as we would like to believe that voters won’t fall for their message, they will. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Senate swings to the Cons this election because of the money that is going to be spent, and in spite of the optimistic predictions about the war chest of the Dems, I think they and the Progressive movement are in deep, deep trouble. Remember the Golden Rule — Those with the Gold, rule. If this is the outcome on a national scale this country will slide backwards to the 1800s, only it will be as though the South won the Civil War and will become unrecognizable. More attacks on Roe v Wade, the “Welfare State” and the environmental movement. Has anyone seen the TV spot by the coal industry attacking EPA regulations and blaming the EPA and environmentalists for high gas prices? You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

The citizens will NEVER wise up. The average IQ is 100. Think about what that means for just a minute.

Lee Fang, over at “The Republic Report” is saying there’s more to this story. The LugarMan went against the wishes of the banks and the banks went all-in to make an example of him. Sounds plausible to me.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/lugar-vote-bankers/

Don’t forget how this farce came about. The Justice Department announced that the trial would take place in the Federal Courthouse in MANHATTAN. The political firestorm that started led to Congress refusing to fund any proceedings in the U.S., essentially forbidding any civilian court from trying the cases. Politically, the majority of U.S. citizens don’t give a damn about a trial–they want these people killed, and the sooner the better. These “trials” are the result of vigilante justice on a national scale and those of us that find the procedure abhorrent are definitely in the minority.

And some good news, for a change!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17975660

Sorry, Oklahoma, Eastern Texas and the Texas Panhandle already called dibs on that name. This crap goes back to the myth of “Southern Chivalry” and is a carryover from the Civil War. The troops of the South may have surrendered, but Southerners and their sympathizers have managed to perpetuate the myth and have deprecated the Union as a result. “The War” is still being fought in the minds of these asshats, and to the detriment of society as a whole. Evangelism is principally a Southern phenomenon, and its goal is the destruction of secularism, hence the anti-choice, subjugate women to the will of men, agenda.

Oh good grief! You really CAN’T use Google. Here, I’ll do it for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/supreme-court-roberts/roberts.html#2009

The question I raised was about HOW Sotomayor votes when compared to Breyer and Ginsberg, the notable liberals on the SC. I didn’t say anything about talking head opinions about her beliefs, the proof is in how she votes. And for whomever it was that wrote that Breyer and Ginsberg aren’t liberals–Wow, just Wow. Quite likely I’m to the left of most of the people here and I’m not stupid. Any Progressive that doesn’t understand the election of 1912 is doomed to repeat it (hint–1912 stopped the Progressive movement dead in its tracks for 20 years and there is a good argument that 1912 led to the policies that set the stage for the Great Depression).

Can you use Google? Check Sotomayor’s votes and how Breyer and Ginsberg vote.

So, you wouldn’t vote for Grayson or Feingold because they have a “D” by their name? I’d like to point out that the cons wouldn’t, because both were defeated in ’10. The cons will stick together and can win because of it, and they know that. They live by “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and they destroyed the Dems in statewide elections last cycle, with horrible consequences for Progressives who are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-union, etc.

You are saying Sotomayor isn’t liberal? Kagan is definitely to the right of Sotomayor, but how much remains to be seen. I suspect she is socially progressive but lined up with the financial sector on monetary issues. Bush’s picks are certainly off-the-charts-to-the-right (so much for Democrats preventing ultra-right winger SC justices from being appointed). That brings up an enormous flaw in Progressive political organization. The cons have one thing in mind–acquiring power. Progressives have varied agendas, often overlapping, but sometimes not. There is the Gay Rights contingent, the Pro-Choice group, the anti-Wall Street/anti-Corporate group, the anti-War people, etc. Many people but with different agendas and therefore the inability to acquire power. Furthermore, many corporate Republicans that have moderate to left-leaning social agendas have been driven out of that party and into the D-Party and their agenda doesn’t line up with the true Progressives. Unfortunately, the fracturing of this uneasy (unholy) alliance leads to even less ability to further the Progressive agenda.

“As I said before this does
nothing but maintain the status quo”

You seriously believe that you have any power whatsoever to change the course of the country? Progressives have been effectively neutered, and least in the near-term. Both parties have been complicit, but the cons have deliberately packed the judiciary in order to further their consolidation of power. They realized that one of the flaws in our system of government was that there was little incentive to check the acquisition of power and that the real power in the system lay not in the legislative branch or the executive branch, but in the judicial branch. The value in controlling the executive lay only in the ability to appoint members to the Federal bench. The legislative has other uses, but progressive legislation can always be thwarted by the judiciary, because it comes down to the judges having the final say as to the constitutionality of any law that makes it to the executive desk and ultimately, into law. This goes all the way down to the state level, but is somewhat more difficult to accomplish there because State Supremes are often elected by the citizens, so the real target has been the Federal judiciary. I could continue about another flaw in the Founder’s thinking–that setting the electoral system to favor two parties would lead to a moderation of views, and ultimately to consensus of opinions–but I’ve already spent to much time here.

In the past 30 years, the judiciary has been packed with right wing zealots. The Supreme Court has 4 ultra-conservatives, one moderate conservative (Kennedy, but the “moderate” label is relative), one moderately liberal (Kagan) and 3 liberals. In the next 4 years Kennedy is going to retire and the liberal Ginzberg will likely retire. Romney has already said he will appoint judges similar to Alito to be bench. The courts set the course of the country for generations, which the cons understand but the Progs just don’t seem to get. If a Progressive votes his conscience he enables the R’s with the result that he gets castrated by the high court. What ya gonna do wbgonne?

“no closing of Guantanamo Bay”

Frankly, Obama can’t be blamed for that one. The legislative branch put the total kabosh on the idea, and at the same time made it impossible to try any of the inmates in a court in the continental U.S. In case you’ve forgotten, the administration budgeted 80 million to close GitMo in its first year, but the Dems in Congress refused to fund it. It all boils down to the fact that the vast majority of Americans just don’t give a damn what happens to “those terrorists” and would be perfectly happy if they were thrown off a navy ship in the middle of the Atlantic, and they feel that anyone with a different opinion is “anti-American”.

“The gas is currently trapped in deep shale, and doesn’t get into the water supply.”

This statement is incorrect. Historically, there are numerous cases of wells (and springs) with high concentrations of natural gas. Anecdotally, my mother’s cousin had two irrigation wells on his farm outside Sydney, Wyo., and both had a lot of NG. He rigged up a contraption from a large inverted funnel, a pipe and a 5 gallon bucket with a hole in it that could capture enough gas to light off. A wonder he didn’t get hurt doing it but he became a family legend in the process. But really, whether it gets into the aquifer or not is dependent on the underlying geology, whether or not fracking is involved. The issue here is about the chemicals used in the fracking process and their level of toxicity, if and when they enter an aquifer.

The keel for this ship was laid in the 1980′s. It will take at least another 30 years to turn it around, if that is even possible. Likely not in our lifetimes. Seriously, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

While what you say is essentially true, those with the power have trapped you like a moth in a jar. If you don’t participate, you are totally helpless. If you do you must rely on the hope that flapping your wings will create a wind in some distant place. Which will it be?