Perhaps Obama was not thinking SUCKERS, but COWARDS; for always voting for the lesser of two evils. I might also mention that it is hard to take a response to a `virtual` post from a poster called `jest` very seriously. :>)

I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008. I knew he had been a democracy activist for proportional representation. I certainly planned to vote or him. Out of curiosity I searched his campaign site for the word democracy. No hits – the word did not even exist on the site. Even Hillary and some `make it easier for poor people to vote` rhetoric on her site. That is when I reverted to my standard 3rd party voting behavior. Remember: Those without power tend to suffer – everything else in politics comes second.

I think I will tweet that later today.

I overheard some retired military worrying that retired pay will come under that chained CPI stuff. They also get S.S. It is little more than a guess, but I doubt that middle-income Republicans favor this.

Has anyone heard many `real` average humans favoring chained CPI. Not twitter streams or broadcast media. Real people seem to have heard of the issue, and perhaps, are just as bipartisan as the politicians – but have an opposing view.

I suspect that is true, and I say that as someone getting SS as well as Medicare. However I do not think we will get off scot-free The Congress can not afford that! Say about a $10 monthly increase over inflation for Medicare. I suspect some sort cost of living freeze for Medicare, which will conveniently not be re-adjusted up to benefit the younger generation as they come to retirement age. Just some guesses.

Quote
have to wonder, though, about a quote within a quote that’s anonymous:

I agree. Reading the insider rumor tea leaves is little better that analyzing the Politburo using pictures published in Pravda.

I go with the basics. Who is vulnerable? Answer: The House Democrats. What pressure can we, with limited economic resources, apply now?

Below is my action plan for your consideration. Note: This is a repost of my post from Fridays David Dayen article. It asked basically the same question: We are powerless for two years. What now? So I give the same answer.

My tactic is to twitter like mad! :>) REALLY!

TWITTER that the Democrats can retake the House in 2014 IF the Democrats can work together.

Then I provide a link in the tweet to an article about how and why platforms work. They work because one elected politician cannot pass a law. They work because one elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! AND Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find one single candidate that agrees with them on a single specific issue?

The article also provides reference material about every U.S. House platform that either party has put out (1994 midterm elections) (2006 midterm elections) (2010 midterm elections) And how those midterm elections just happened to provide a U.S. House majority for the political party that created the platform.

I promote this tactic because the Democrats in the House are the most susceptible to pressure, If widely known, this tactic is not easily spun or blamed on the other party like the filibuster. Also once this tactic is in the voters mind, it behaves like radiation and keeps killing for years and years!

Here is the link to my article:
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html

But you can easily write something up yourself.

My tactic is to twitter like mad!

TWITTER that the Dems can retake the House in 2014 IF the Dems can work together.

Then I provide a link in the tweet to an article about how and why platforms work. They work because one elected politician cannot pass a law. They work because one elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! AND Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find one single candidate that agrees with them on a single specific issue?

The article also provides reference material about every U.S. House platform that either party has put out (1994 midterm elections) (2006 midterm elections) (2010 midterm elections) And how those midterm elections just happened to provide a U.S. House majority for the political party that created the platform.

I promote this tactic because the Dems in the House are the most susceptible to pressure, If widely known, this tactic is not easily spun or blamed on the other party like the filibuster. Also once this tactic is in the voters mind, it behaves like radiation and keeps killing for years and years!

Here is the link to my article:
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html

But you can easily write something up yourself.

Yes I understand that academics, or liberal talking heads, can`t be expected to do anything on their own. That is much to hard. I guess I am a worker class because I can write something and post it as a web page. ALL by myself!

Then I can fire-up twitter and do key word searches. That takes years to learn! I then can reply to some of those tweets with tweets of my own, that just happen to includes links to one of my web pages articles.

I like twitter because people can`t be sneered at as dumb or stupid by college students. Middle income people who work for a living are way better at insults than college students. There aren`t many low income people, other than retired or sick people, on twitter.

It doesn`t take much time or effort once you have written the article. I am retired and sometimes I can do it while listening to a audio book. Going to meetings could take much more time and probably have greater costs. I doubt it would be very efficient. When I go out for reasons other than meeting friends I would rather go to the beach or a good restaurant.

I tweet, perhaps, thirty educational tweets a week. Get say three or four thank-you`s or at least polite replies. One or two re-tweets.

Admittedly this is more for married or older retired people, but I bet you could do tabling or google hang outs. The point is that is not hard to do. If you are not doing it, it is because you don`t want to do it. It is not lack of money it does not cost much money.

The word `strongly` was primarily used to indicate my value judgement about our current system.

Since I just educate people about the limits of political power available to U.S. citizens, the real question is do you engage in that type of activity yourself, and if not, why not? If you actually followed my links I am surprised that you didn`t comment on what your personal selections would be. Perhaps your issues would differ from mine. Do you feel you are capable of educate people about our political system – or not?

Are you perhaps opposed to educating U.S. citizens about limits to their political power, and are just too shy to mention it? In my experience that is that is a very common attitude.

Many people refuse to admit that they fear representative democracy. I spent hours going around in circles with an individual on an email list. I was pointing out that a widely used voting system called proportional representation would increase the voters choices, and a higher percentage of the voters would gain a seat at the political table.

Finally the poster summed up his problem with this particular voting system.

He wrote: `I worry that the wrong kind of people might get elected. I will not support any form of democracy, unless I am certain that only the right kind of people will get elected.`

After thinking about this for a while I replied that the form of `democracy` that he favored would probably also be acceptable to most kings and dictators. I have yet to find a king or dictator who would not find a form of government acceptable, if it insured that `only the right kind of people would get elected.`

He got very huffy! I suspect that he actually believed that he favored democracy. What he actually favored was using a political system to gain power for himself.

You might be surprised when I say that I doubt that most people who label themselves liberal or progressive or socialist intellectuals believe in a strongly democratic form of government. At least not if they are `professional,` intellectuals.

In the 15 or 20 years that I have been actively educating people about our U.S. political system. I have never met anyone that identified themselves with those terms who volunteered to educate any and all U.S. citizens about our political system. I have worked with people that self identified as Libertarian (1), Anarchist (1), Socialist manual laborers (2), A Catholic (1), a Quaker(1), and one not quite classifiable Socialist party member that worked as a manager at a Savings and Loan and also had a business school education!

They helped with time, physical effort, and sometimes money. But not one person that self-identified as liberal, progressive, or socialist and that were also professional intellectuals. By definition a professional intellectual makes money from his intellectual knowledge and skills. College students are by definition professional intellectual wannabees.

My own view is that these labels represent just as much a narrow class interest as the very wealthy. They just try harder to create a false image.

The real embarrassment is that since our political system seems to reward emotional, misleading, or false rhetoric, to a greater extent than many other nations – such intellectual talking heads have a lower reputation than the town drunk.

Elections Without Consequences My Reason #1 reference article
`U.S. Political Parties are `unique` – by LAW!
-> http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html

Elections Without Consequences My Reason #2 -> reference article Incumbent Power & `Our National Committees`
-> http://i-voter.tripod.com/NationalCommittees.html

Elections WITH Consequences – Reason #1 -> reference article
`Don`t waste our vote!`
-> http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html

I did not vote for O`Bama because the word democracy was not among his Campaign site issues.

In the Republican Primaries I did not vote for Rom Paul because `Mr Constitutions` website did not mention Jury nullification.

Libertarian Gary Johnson’s website does not mention democracy either – except to complain: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gop-accused-of-attempting-to-keep-gov-gary-johnson-off-ballots

Yes, That is a question I had also.

If the Democrats could work together and sign onto a popular party platform the evidence is that they could win easily.

Modern U.S. Platforms
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html

However; since, IMO most democratic politicians are individually hired employees – it probably will not happen.

OK Firedoglake! You got my $10 for the AARP activism. With the $25 I donated about two or three years ago this could get to be a habit.

Actually, probably not, because I believe in educating the U.S. public about our political system. Since one thing I like to point out about the legally mandated structure of our U.S. political system – that it rewards misleading, exaggerated, and false political speech more so than other democratic political systems. That puts Firedoglakeres, who barely mention that aspect of our political system, and myself, on opposite sides.

How U.S. Political Parties have been `reformed.`
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html

My other, milder, opposition is with the issue of money in politics. I suggest that, with the internet, money in politics in possibly less important now than during the period of the robber-barons!

My suggestion to any hypothetical group of politicians that would like to win elections on the cheap.

Modern Internet Platforms
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html

The political divide seems to be `knowledge workers` vs `people who actually work for a living.` Did that make you mad? Try this: liberal intellectuals primarily use words to trick people. They talk about things that will never happen. They hate working people They hate decent people.

Now some of these `people who actually work for a living,` understand that the U.S. is not a democracy. They do not understand much of the details, but they do notice that liberal intellectuals never mention democracy. Liberal intellectuals love to talk about political issues. Boy do they love to talk about political issues. About the only political issue liberal intellectuals never talk about is democracy. Obviously if democracy is a problem that would be the primary thing they would talk about. They also like to complain about how stupid the voters are. Ever notice that? Are they stupid or uneducated?

I remember back a ways, prior to the internet; liberals, progressives, socialists used to complain loudly about how anti-intellectual the U.S. was. Europe, Canada, even sometimes South America were mentioned as being massively more intellectual. I have spent over a year in Europe and I certainly agree about Europe. Heck, sometimes it seemed that the blue collar workers knew more history than our college students.

My experience of political activism in Europe was transforming. An individual that walked up to me at a small bar in Amsterdam. I was seated at a table and he asked if he could join me because he wanted to talk about the history of road building! I started to look around to see what kind of bar I had walked into. He then explained that he was practicing a speech he was planning to give at a local community political meeting, and he also wanted to practice his English. After about 15 minutes he had finished the talk, and I asked him if he worked in road building. He replied absolutely not. He owned an electroplating company. His company plated the models in `2001 a Space Odyssey.` He said no one was stupid enough to listen to a political talk about road building from someone who had an economic interest in the subject. After he left, I wondered why people did not have conversations like this in U.S.?

I think I know why, but I will let you guess because this post is long enough!