One of the biggest historic differences between the Democratic party and the republican party is the role of the federal government. I believe the federal government should do more than just defend it's citizenry from foreign foes. It should help the Americans in need, you know, the "least of our brothers and sisters". The government should protect citizens from the greed of most corporations, and not the other way around. The Federal government of the United States should make, at the very least realistic, the ideals that all men are created equal, with the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That We are A People, A Country, and not 50 separate countries whose creed is every man for himself.
The republicans crow for smaller government, except of course when it comes to the biggest increase in federal bureaucracy in decades (the Department of Homeland Security), what medical procedure a woman is allowed to have, who you are allowed to fall in love with, and unless you are on their side (see senator, and prostitution john, david vitter) who you sleep with. You know, smaller government to peek through Our keyholes with. The republicans scream don't tread on Our Constitution when it comes to such "abuses" as the departments of energy and education, and social safety nets, like Social Security and Medicare, only to turn against the hallowed document when it comes to the First, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth amendments. Remember the marriage between a man and a woman amendment failure 43 was going to change the Constitution to include?
The only reasons I can see for the radical candidates of the republican party, the anti-civil rights act guy, the nazi reenactment guy, the I forget where I went to college but remember being into witchcraft lady, the mexicans are decapitating people lady, the latinos look like asians lady, the "I'll take you out"/beastiality email guy, the wall (that reagan asked Gorbachov to "tear down") in east germany was a good thing/hand cuffing and detaining a reporter/lying about employment guy, the i'm against the minimum wage but don't know what it is/pro wrestling lady, and on and on, is 1. once marginalized radicals are now leading a weak party that was slapped back on its heels in 2006 and 2008 or 2. the republican party has no interest in governing, and is using the "tea party" and their anger to "win" political contests and make sure money stays where it belongs, namely giant corporations, the PAC's they fund and run, K Street, and the top 5% of Americans.
Even with the aforementioned accomplishments that took place over the last two years, and any I forgot or have no idea of, some progressives are deeply disappointed. Some thought they were electing a faster and/or more extreme left turn. The President's continuing programs of rendition, his continued use of "State Secrets", and his tepid at best statements when it comes to President Clinton's ill conceived "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy are deeply troubling, as is guantanamo bay's slow closing, and the war in Afghanistan. But to let either House of Congress go to the likes of raynd paul and christine "masterbation is adultry" o'donell, to throw the few actual Progressive voices in Congress (See Representative Alan Grayson and Senator Russ Feingold) to the wolves over change not moving fast enough, or drastically enough, is a big mistake. If you thought the "progressive agenda" moved to slowly or feebly when the republicans were in the minority of both houses, filibustering (well threatening to really) more than ever before in history, what do you think will happen if they reclaim one or both Houses? Do you not remember what happened when the republicans held both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives from 1996-2006, especially while failure 43 held the White House for them from 2000-2006. Did the "bush tax cuts" create jobs or cut the deficit over the past nine years?
There's only a local election for me here in Hoboken. All I can do is spread the word. Full disclosure: I also sent money to Senator Russ Feingold's campaign.
Hoboken, NJ USA
Squid's note: I refer to president george bush jr. , a.k.a. "failure 43", not to "blame bush", but to hold accountable the man who campaigned on "bringing accountability back to the White House."
“When we promised during the campaign change you can believe in, it wasn’t change you can believe in in 18 months,’’ “It was change you can believe in but we’re going to have to work for it.”
-President Obama on the Daily Show 10/27/2010
"We can do this as a country. It won't be easy. It won't happen overnight. And it'll take more than one election or one president. The change we need will take an entire nation that's ready to work for it, and fight for it, and most of all, believe in it."
-Candidate Obama at North Dakota State Democratic Convention, April 4th, 2008: