No, of course not. That's not at all what I want. But we can't always have what we want. And in a democracy you are guarantied that you won't get exactly what you want much of the time. You will have to learn to accept compromise. Otherwise you will find yourself folowing the path of the obstructionists. The obstructionists won't get what they want, and they will harm everyone else. It's the adult equivalent of the child who destroys a toy because he will otherwise have to let another child play with it. I am very disappointed with the current administration in many, not all, respects. I am pleased that Reid, since you mention him, used the Nuclear Option for the specific reasons I stated in another thread. That was a demonstration of leadership on his part and personally not an easy thing for him to do, but his hand was forced by the obstructionists.
"You can always tell who is liberal and fixated on the role of government. They always want the government to 'do something'." That's a human characteristic of the naive you are referring to. It applies to naive people of most political persuasions. And you are certainly incorrect when you say 'you can always tell who is liberal'. You can't always tell. And not only that, but consider that individuals have different ideas of what "liberal" means. In U.S. politics, the term has become nearly useless. As an example of how nebulous the term "liberal" has become, you will use the term liberal to describe someone you don't agree with because you consider yourself a conservative. At the same time, however, you may fit well the classical meaning of 'liberal'. Liberal and Libertarianism have the same roots and yet today what we call neo-conservative is often closely associated with libertarianism. All of these labels are used as terms of derision so imprecisely that outside of academic discussion they have become largely useless when used by themselves to describe an individual's political philosophy. The unqualified, imprecise use of political labels in the Politics and Religion Forum is at the root of many misunderstandings and pointless insults.
One man's obstructionism is another man's courageous fight. When, not if, the shoe is on the other foot and the Republicans have control of the house and senate, you, and many like you, will rue the day that democrats got rid of the filibuster.
It's certainly true that the obstructionists believe they are engaged in a courageous fight. I don't think there is any question about that, else why would they do it. What do you think their chances of prevailing are given a divided government? I would think virtually zero. The best they can hope for is stalemate, though I've no doubt some think that throwing a monkey wrench into the works is an even better result. So, I am forced to conclude that under the present circumstances they can only make government less efficient and more costly by pursuing their obstructionist tactics. We have had many sharply divided governments in our history. The worst led to a bloody civil war. But that was exceptional. In the past, generally speaking, the party that controlled the executive and one of the legislative houses prevailed, and the other side, after voicing strong objection, agreed to go along in a cooperative spirit. Alternatively, there was sometimes a brokered compromise. Today, however, we have something quite different. We have present a recalcitrant, destructive movement that has the potential to do great harm, with no evident interest in compromise or cooperation. It is somewhat reminiscent of the ill will that led up to the civil war. I commented on Reid's invoking of the Nuclear Option in another thread.
In some cases, perhaps. In others, they see an injustice and want to do what they can to correct it or draw attention to it.
I don't consider the label "liberal" to be an insult. I'm proud to be a liberal when it comes to the poor, especially food stamps and Medicaid, and don't mind anyone calling me liberal because it accurately describes my belief that government should take a liberal role in insuring the people are fed and treated for sickness.
If he continues to exhibit well thought out responses and a balanced view to problem solving, then he'll do much finer than those of you who don't do either.
1. neoconservatives are/turned out to be big govt big spending overseas interventions republicans. Their group was founded by the fathers of todays neocons. Their fathers and the founders of the movement had been democrat socialists. see wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's.[7] The "neoconservative" label was used by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[8] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited the magazine Encounter.[9] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazine Commentary from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was terming himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[10][11] During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives considered that liberalism had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about," according to E. J. Dionne.[12] The term "neoconservative", which was used originally by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[13] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had become slightly more conservative[8][14] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[15][16] with particular emphasis on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[17] The term "neocon" is often used as pejorative in this context.[citation neede 2. Which brings me to my next point. Liberals today are big govt progressives. Progressing towards socialism / communism... big govt low liberty. Classical liberals are anti big govt pro - pro big liberty and very similar to Libertarians. Classical Liberals and Libertarians are the opposite of modern day liberals and neo cons. The only confusion is that the democrats were once classical liberals who believed in big liberty... see miranda rights and privacy laws. It is confusing that such a good history could have been so quickly changed in to a big socialist / facist party. With establishment republicans very closely tied to them via their crony donors / owners.