What will I say? : )

We also have the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats – who seem to go in lockstep with the right-wing, along with a so-called “Independent” like Senator Joseph Lieberman.

We’ve had Senator Max Baucus having our own physicians and registered nurses being arrested and dragged out of the U.S. Senate (I’ve watched the footage of that happening in news broadcasts), for simply asking that single-payer medicare-for-all be a real part of the discussion, instead of being a forbidden topic to seriously discuss (and that’s also a position coming out of the Obama White House).

We also appear to have an oligarchy controlling 95% of the wealth and the policies of our nation – an oligarchy that often behaves like the royalty and corporations of Europe of a couple centuries ago, with even more catastrophic results.

You also certainly must have noted the relaxing of our anti-monopoly laws and regulations regarding the media, the resultant mass buying of and closing of many local newspapers, and the buying of local television, radio and internet providers, by large corporations.

There really have been and are protests by people from all walks of life in our nation (not only “activists” who are often simplistically labeled as being “the left”), but our U.S. corporate-controlled and mass-consolidated media doesn’t cover much of it (3 corporations now control approximately 95% of the media in the U.S., as opposed to 59 companies several decades ago, plus we lost the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987).

You’ll find protests and many issues from our nation have been and are covered in news broadcasts and publications in other nations, and also in our U.S. alternative media (including by reporters like Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill of Democracy NOW, and Laura Flanders of GRITtv), and once in a while in publications like Rolling Stone magazine, etc., for years on end now.

I’d also pay attention to what is being covered in the Rolling Stone magazine currently on newsstands across our nation:

No We Can’t
Obama had millions of followers eager to fight for his agenda. But the president muzzled them – and he’s paying the price
by Tim Dickinson
(From Issue 1098 – February 18, 2010_

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31961846/no_we_cant/print

(snip)
Not only did the White House fail to crank up its own campaign machinery on behalf of health care, it also worked to silence other liberal groups. In a little-publicized effort, top administration officials met each week at the Capital Hilton with members of a coalition called the Common Purpose Project, which included leading activist groups like Change to Win, Rock the Vote and MoveOn. In August, when members of the coalition planned to run ads targeting conservative Democrats who opposed health care reform, Rahm Emanuel showed up in person to put a stop to the campaign. According to several participants, Emanuel yelled at the assembled activists, calling them “f—–g retards” and telling them he wasn’t going to let them derail his legislative winning streak. “We’re 13-0 going into health care!” he screamed. “We’re not going to be 13-1!”

Emanuel also locked down OFA: When liberal activists approached the group about targeting conservative Democrats, they were told, “We won’t give you call lists. We can’t go after Democrats — we’re part of the DNC.” It was exactly the danger that Hildebrand had warned about when Plouffe made OFA part of the party apparatus. In the end, the activists scrapped the organizing effort, leaving the president without a left flank in the health care debate. “Instead of channeling the energy of the base, they’ve been squashing it,” says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. “When special interests are represented by people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, you’ve got to go after those people. Instead, you had OFA railing against Republican obstructionists, when the Republicans were irrelevant to the debate.” Given Emanuel’s background as a legislative insider, it’s not surprising that the White House shelved its activist base…
(snip)

I also perceive that the rage, disgust, despair, and the complete exhaustion of the patience of the public (including that which is as a result of George W. Bush and company’s lies and actions), will not stand for “Democrats” in office, who show via their actions and policies that they don’t have the courage of the convictions they claim to have and support. Don’t forget Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stating about those recently and currently in office in Washington, D.C.: “The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt. They are accepting money from the same corporations…”.

The problem is, as we have reported with link after link on the news front page, the Republicans in the Senate are blocking everything. Their goal is to prove government doesn’t work. Until “the people” demand action from them, progress will be slow.

Too bad the Tea Party gang doesn’t get this. At least they show up to protest, if their ire is directed at all the wrong things. Where are the activists on the left?

His so-called academic research is complete BS. Look at this:

My research began with a focus on the conditions of democratic consolidation in advanced industrial countries, especially in Western Europe. My first book — The Sources of Democratic Consolidation (Cornell University Press, 2002) — argued that the key right-of-center political movements formed long-term commitments to democracy only when their political risks in democracy became relatively low as left agendas moderated across time.

Huh?

It continues…

Variation in these risks was used to explain variation in conservative regime preferences and in regime outcomes in Europe’s five largest countries from the 1870′s France to 1980′s Spain. This first research project also included two articles with related but distinct arguments. In the Journal of Theoretical Politics (2001), I argued that formal political institutions in democracy cannot create the degree of predictability needed for consoldiation. In Comparative Political Studies (2002), I argue that non-formal social-structural characteristic of countries are more important causes of regime outcomes than the formal regime characteristics emphasized in prominent claims concerning the rule of law and “institutionalized uncertainty.”

Related reasoning is the basis of an article in The National Interest, “The Authoritarian Illusion” (2004). My current research concerns factors affecting the size and role of government in selected cases in Western Europe and also the United States, and how they influence conservative attempts at reform of welfare states.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ga8h/

Right, professor. You might pass that off with some moron of a dean, but you are a right-wing nut in a tie, man. Get a job…