An Open Letter to President Obama
Mr. President:
I've always been one of your biggest supporters. I remember looking on with moist eyes the day you threw your hat in the ring. I knew even then that I was witnessing the beginning of a new era in America. Even then I knew that you were destined to become the next president of the United States, so along with millions of others I embraced the audacity of hope.
While I've voted in every election since I've been eligible to vote, this time it was a little different. This time around, for the very first time in my life, I set my cynicism aside and invested my time, money, and emotion into a campaign. I defended you in my columns against even the slightest hint of criticism. I wrote letters and corresponded with people and groups all over the country promoting your interests, and I even arranged for my bank to send a modest check each month.
I didn't do these things because I saw you as a rock star, I did them so I could contribute something more than just lip service to change in America. Now I'm asking you to reciprocate, because as I see it, you're on the verge of deeply disappointing millions of people like myself.
When the pundits first began pointing out that the far left was becoming disenchanted with you for compromising your campaign promises in the face of GOP pressure, and then your administration started sending out trial balloons, I began to agonize - Here we go again.
But what made these reports even more painful was knowing that the mild admonishment from the pundits hadn't gone far enough. The truth is, it's not just angry radicals who are becoming disenchanted, it's your entire base. The dream that was so palpable in the hearts of millions just a matter of months ago, was on the verge of evaporating before our eyes. It was on the verge of succumbing to the very thing we rallied against - business as usual.
In one of my previous articles I pointed out how much I admired the fact that you tended to give reason priority over ideology. I found it quite refreshing to see a politician who assessed every issue on its on merit instead of basing his decisions on pre-chewed and regurgitated dogma. I had hoped that such a mindset would help to break the gridlock in Washington and serve to help the American people to get the kind of governance that they deserved.
But it became clear early on that the GOP was having none of that. They clearly demonstrated that it wasn't effective governance that they were after. Their primary motivation is to bring you down and regain power, by any means necessary. So why pretend otherwise?
I though you'd recognize that fact and quickly replace your carrot with a stick - or more appropriately, a brick - but to my horror, you're still running around Washington trying to pet a snake. Wake up, Mr. President. It's time to show some backbone. If you don't, by this time next year you'll be both branded, and through.
Somehow I managed to missed Harvard, but as a proud product of South Central Los Angeles I have extensive experience when it comes to aggression. So believe me, mindless aggression can never be appeased through kindness. The Republicans are like coyotes. They're still feeling you out at this point, but once they're convinced that theres nothing to fear, they're gonna have you for lunch. They're all bullies, and the first place a bully goes when he's looking for a victim is to that guy that's always going around trying to make friends with everybody. He draws the bully like a mouth to a flame, because the bully perceives Mr. Nice Guy's need to seek out friends as a sign of weakness.
At this point you're only into your seventh month as president. While you're putting up a good front so far, the reality is, the Republicans, in spite of their small numbers, already have you cowering in the corner while they're encouraging blatant insurrection all over the country. They're publishing cartoons about your assassination, telling blatant lies about your initiatives, and showing up at your town hall meetings armed to the teeth. You even have a war criminal running around shaking his finger at you for having the audacity to investigate his crimes - and at the same time, he's telling the people that you're too weak to defend them against an aggressor. So the fact is, you're not looking too good.
You're allowing the Republican party to Carter-ize you. They're ignoring your accomplishments, portraying all of your assets as liabilities, and you're too busy trying to make friends to fight back. They're making you look like a wimp, and the American people can't stand a wimp - regardless to how nice a guy he is. You may feel that you're being reasonable and remaining above the fray, but that's not the public perception. even as I write the American people are beginning to ask themselves a very pertinent question - how can we trust this man to protect us from Osama Bin Laden when he can't even stand up to Dick Cheney?
You should also ask yourself that question, because the the Republican strategy has absolutely nothing to do with substance. It's all about perception. Ask Jimmy Carter.
So what should you do about this situation?
Fortunately, growing up in the inner city was instructive in this area as well. Most young boys in the hood learn very early in life that if they want to save themselves a lot of unnecessary fighting, they should grab the biggest bully in the crowd and wear his butt out. Thereafter, everybody else will leave them alone. That's exactly what you need to do to Dick Cheney, and it's really not such a daunting task, since most bullies are actually wimps in disguise - that's how they know who to target.
So your rehabilitation should start with revealing Cheney for the wimp that he really is - and I guarantee you, he's undoubtedly one of the biggest wimps in Washington - he's simply been hiding behind the power of his executive position for the past eight years, and he's learned the value of playing the strong silent type. But in spite of the foreboding image that he's carefully cultivated, don't forget, this is the very same Dick Cheney who hid behind his wife's apron strings to avoid having to defend this country in Vietnan - five times. Thus, it's easy for him to play tough now, when it's other people's lives he's placing on the line.
So with just a minimum amount of pressure you're going to find that Cheney's not only a wimp, he's a wimp without character. The minute he begins to feel any kind of personal jeopardy he's going to start throwing people under the bus, then all of their crimes will begin to unravel.
You can begin this process by simply embracing the resolve to follow the rule of law. Unleashing Attorney General Holder to do a full and unfettered investigation of the Bush Administration's corruption and war crimes (just like the Republicans would surely do if the situation was reversed). Thereafter, there's a literal certainty that the fingers of Bush and Cheney's corruption will creep so deeply into the Republican party that they won't have time to think about anything else but saving their own butts. Being the weasels that they are, then they'll begin to re-discover the virture of public service, in an attempt to generate goodwill in order to save their
Then you should setup a public relations office in the White House to both coordinate your initiatives and trumpet your accomplishments. In the area of healthcare, for example, you need to do more than just talk to the people about the hardships that the private insurance industry has visited upon the America - you need to demonstrate it by going about the country and gathering up people who have personal hardships to share (with a special emphasis on finding Republicans who fought against the Clinton healthcare plan). Use these people to do political ads about what they had to endure, then run those ads continuously, all across the country.
The very same kind of ads could be produced using small business owners discussing what they were paying in healthcare costs five years ago as oppose to today, and the impact that it's had on their businesses and their ability to hire new employees.
I've also noticed that the economy is rebounding, yet I've heard very little fanfare about it. That's a big deal. The White House public relations office should be all over that. It seems to me that if you do nothing else in your term of office, the fact that you averted a second Republican generated Great Depression, and without GOP support, is something that the American people should know about.
And finally, I once heard you mention that you didn't support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. That's a complete giveaway to the Republican party, and it makes absolutely no sense.
The argument that the fairness doctrine hinders the right of free speech is totally specious. The fairness doctrine doesn't hinder speech, on the contrary, it promotes it. It mandates that if a broadcaster disseminates inaccurate or slanted information that it must provide equal time for opposing views. Thus, there's nothing in such a policy that would hinder free speech - it simply makes it costly and inconvenient to tell a lie.
The American people have just as much right to expect truth in content with respect to what goes into their minds (and the minds of their children) as they do with what goes into their bodies. One is just as important as the other, since accurate information gives people the necessary knowledge to act in their own best interest. And as every insurrectionist knows, depriving the people of accurate information is the easiest way to deprive them of their rights. That's why the GOP is dead set against this policy - because it's impossible for them to compete in an informed environment.
I continue to pull for you, Mr. President. I'm confident that you have the character to overcome this hurdle and go on to become one of this nation's greatest presidents. All you need is someone who's not afraid to give you a little tough love . . . and here it is:
Your heart is in the right place. All you need now is for your backbone to get the message. The Republicans are not going to respond to reason nor platitudes, so show 'em what you're made of, and give 'em hell. The American people are behind you.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Wattree
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.













Thank you for posting this Eric.
A truer statement I have not read in a long time. Can't operate in good faith with people who aren't.
When Obama spoke of "change we can believe in" I thought he was talking about how our business is conducted in DC. So far all I have seen is the same old business as usual.
I still revel in his victory last November. Our country and people took a HUGE step forward. But I can still be disappointed in the president not being willing to take a stand and make the fundamental changes that need to be made in the way our government works. If he tried to make those changes I would be at my president's side fighting right along with him.
September 1, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a remarkable testament for the application of brutal aggression against political descent that many of us on the right, and a growing number of independents, are only now beginning to realize lies at the base of Obama's support.
I have only one request from you, sir: May I have your permission to re-post your letter on some other websites that for one reason or another have not seen your light?
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that rich...the defender of one parties application of force crying foul when the other side says "when in Rome..."
September 1, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What force? All I want to do is spread this gentleman's message around the blogosphere so others can revel in its wisdom as well...especially the part about the brick!
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rightwing tries to bully, and threaten to use violence on, the left and when the left refuses to turn the other cheek it represents brutal aggression against political dissent? Yep, you reside in an alternate universe.
September 1, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fully prepared to let Mr. Wattree's letter speak for itself -- no force required.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fully prepared to let Mr. Wattree's letter speak for itself -- no force required.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...feel free. Comng from the side that had people ejected from political rallies and sometimes arrested for questioning the last president's policies, which put the Patriot Act into law, and who now bring weapons in an effort to intimidate our right to free speech, I am not too concerned with what those people think. The actions of your side speak loud and clear. You have enjoyed your 'right of dissent' trying to disrupt and shout down discourse at town hall meetings...more than what the left 'enjoyed' from 2000-2008, as we were called terrorists if we dare question Dear Leader.
Cry me a river...
September 2, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are advocating for application of tactics that were abhorrent to liberals or moderates just a few short years ago. Hypocrisy is never a good policy as it tends to turn those who could have been converted to your cause into more persistent foes instead.
September 2, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear...what I posted are my views and my views alone. I am not speaking for Mr. Wattree or on behalf of anyone.
Secondly did you read what I had to say Jason? I am not calling for violence from the left. But I agree with Eric that appeasing bullies with kindness is not gonna work. So I am advocating freezing the conservatives out of the process if all they bring to the table is inflexibility, threats and obstruction. Some conservatives think they can still get their policies put in place even though the voters spoke last November and said they reject the Republican Brand. In the case of the republican agenda, it has failed and no amount of threats, obstruction, disruption and screaming is going to get that agenda implemented. In that no more turning the other cheek or meeting people halfway...that didn't happen from 2000-2008 and it should not happen now.
September 2, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Violence, either real or metaphorical, has the same end result. It further polarizes this country rather than seeking to bind us together. I am sad to say that I don't think I misread your comments in the slightest.
September 2, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine feel that way Jason. I am sick and tired of having my patriotism questioned, called a traitor, having politicians I support be threatened with violence and even death, calls for violent revolution to overthrow a legitmately elected government and feel people who engage in that kind of behavior should have no right to be heard in a civil society. Your side is inhabited by thugs, bullies, goons who are well armed and paranoid. And if I am somehow 'bad' for not wanting to give that kind of hate and violence appeasement then I will happily wear the tag as the 'bad guy'. What the right is engaged in has no place in a civil society...
September 2, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again let me be clear I find you to be a reasonable and civil person Jason...but the people who you are negotiating on behalf of aren't. In fact they are scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag and try to pass themselves off as patriots. We on the left have all along tried to have a dialog in good faith and time and time again Lucy has pulled the ball away as Charlie Brown tries to kick it and we end up flat on our backs. No more...
September 2, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am advocating on behalf of the people who would never hit your radar. That is the sad part of my mission. Trying to point out the mythical moderates of both parties to those who scarcely believe they exist.
September 2, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait to hear the gasp of shock from the right when they hear that Mr. Wattree suggested that President Obama modify a metaphor. "My God, he suggested changing 'Carrot and Stick' to 'Carrot and Brick'? The horror!"
You do understand that "Carrot and Stick," or for that matter "Carrot and Brick" are figures of speech, and not weapons choices for some sort of takeover? Right? You do understand that?
Don't even get me started on "brutal aggression against political descent," which was so deliciously Malaprop-y that I descended into giggles myself.
September 2, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wattree is in good company with asking for the investigation of the Bush administration for war crimes, as I have pointed out before, in 2006 the lawyer who sent 22 Nazi's to the gallows as Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946 said both Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor:
September 2, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. Thanks for making it again!
September 2, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
Please feel free to re-post anything that I post to the net. That's the point of my posting it in the first place to disseminate my views.
After reading some of the responses below, it amazes me how people perceive what they want to perceive. I never once advocated violence in my post. But in spite of the fact that I specifically listed what I thought the president should do in response to Republican aggression, many chose to draw that conclusion.
BTW, I revised the piece. After re-reading it, I didn't think it was quite forceful enough.
September 2, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr. Wattree. I had hoped you would allow me to spread your views around the independent blogs.
Just out of curiosity, who is going to decide which speech is inaccurate or slanted that equal time for opposing views MUST be provided?
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 2, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty easy to recognize a lie about public policy when we see it. You know, like death squads, or whatever it was that Palin was talking about.
The policy worked for years. If a person or organization heard, say, Limbaugh tell a lie or give a one-sided argument on a publically debated issue over the air, they could request equal time to present the opposing point of view.
The policy not only served to keep broadcasters honest, but it also helped to educate the public to both sides to any given issue.
September 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a question of how easy or how hard it is to recognize a lie....one person's truth is another person's lie. My question is, who is going to make that decision? Once you set up a government policy that mandates speech, the 1st Amendment is abridged. Once you allow the government to abridge the 1st Amendment, the brick wins.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a person or group feels that the broadcaster failed to present both sides of an issue, they have the right to demand equal time to present the opposing point of view. If the broadcaster refuses, the complaining party files a complaint with the FCC, and they'll decide.
Such a policy provides the public with a defense against the poison that Rush Limbaugh, FOX, and company pew into the political debate. It doesn't prevent them from saying what they want to say, but they have a responsibility to ensure that both sides of every issue is addressed in an evenhanded manner.
September 3, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give Mr. Wattree a few more days to decide. But from the way Libertine and Erica are posting, he may be just as ignorant as they are about the Left's political strategy in exaggerating the guns, violence and free speech issue. I certainly hope so.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 2, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, let me ask you--what exactly are you going to say when you share this letter around?
Do you believe that Mr. Wattree is advocating that President Obama or anyone else use illegal physical violence against his opponents? Because he is not. He is suggesting that the President get very serious about doing the right thing, using the mandate given him by the American people and all the political tools at his disposal.
Wattree is also suggesting that the President take a serious look at whether this business of bringing guns to public events has a chilling effect and therefore impinges on the freedoms of people who choose not to bring them.
But he is using figures of speech, not suggesting actual physical violence of any kind, nor is he suggesting that Republicans don't deserve the same constitutional rights that anyone else has.
I just want to make sure you understand this. So please state what your intentions are, rather than coy about with this "You have a few more days to decide" business. Normally I'd say "puff away, Wolfie," but if you are going to cherry pick and deliberately mislead people about what Mr. Wattree said, that's not cool, possibly illegal and certainly immoral.
What exactly is your understanding of what Mr. Wattree is talking about?
September 2, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following is a verbatim record of an open letter to President Obama written by one Eric Wattress.
The letter speaks for itself.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 2, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The letter speaks for itself."
Clearly it doesn't, at least not for you. You said yourself that one person's lie is another truth. So enough of this yikety-yak.
I am simply asking you to state clearly what you think Mr. Wattree is advocating--and if you believe there is an agenda at work, what you believe that agenda to be. In other words, what conclusions have you drawn that make you want to "share" this letter which supposedly speaks for itself?
Do you believe that Mr. Wattree is advocating violence or illegal/unconstitutional supression of people on the political right? Yes or no?
Do you believe that Liberals are advocating violence or illegal/unconstitutional supression of people on the political right? Yes or no?
Do you believe the President is advocating or would attempt to employ violence against or illegal supression of people on the political right? Yes or no?
These are not difficult questions.
September 2, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know what David? If you want the conservatives to have a 'seat at the table' maybe you should concentrate on the problems on your side. As long as your side uses violent rhetoric talking revolution and assassination there is no room at the table for any conservatives. Reign in Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their unhinged followers and start a respectful dialog and then we'll talk. Until then no appeasing bullies or anyone trying to negotiate on their behalf.
September 2, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still refuse to get behind any call to face violence with violence when it comes to politics, real or metaphorical. We are talking about governing a multivariate not defending ourselves from bullies in a schoolyard.
The state of the country is worse off for the republicans having pursued such short-sighted strategies these last forty years, with the left providing the Judy to their punch. Continuing the trend is not smart strategic thinking and leads to repeating the same tactical mistakes.
Perhaps it is time for every Obama supporter to read his book Audacity of Hope and then understand it will take longer than seven months to fix what it took decades to break. For the republican grassroots, I suggest they be a little more pragmatic than reflectively fighting everything that comes out of Obama's administration.
He is as conservative as a liberal was likely to be (or that the right could have expected) after the last eight years.
September 2, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I've noted before Eric, I read all your posts here and have to say this one is the best thus far. Many of us have been saying these things for a long, long time to no avail but you've put it very eloquently and in unmistakable terms.
I particularly liked:
"The Republicans are like coyotes. They're still feeling you out at this point, but once they're convinced that theres nothing to fear, they're gonna have you for lunch. They're all bullies, and the first place a bully goes when he's looking for lunch money is to that guy that's always going around trying to make friends with everybody. He draws the bully like a mouth to a flame, because the bully perceives Mr. Nice Guy's need to seek out friends as a sign of weakness."
I would put a slightly different spin on it though. I think they already know there's nothing to fear but they are waiting until they've put Obama and the wimpocrats in a position where they are so weak and seen as such enormously impotent cowards, they will be risking nothing when they go for the kill... not even a scratch. That time is not far off. They will crank it up about this time next year.
It has been my view that Obama has, sadly, always been, much to the contrary of popular myth, the consumate DC insider. Every telling move in his campaign, and everything since he was elected has shown this to be true. He was a different face, but not the face of real change.
He believes fully in the wimpy Democratic approach that has been losing now for the better part of 40 years. His willingness to stand there and let the opposition attack him and then act like he's taking part in a parlor game instead of a knock down drag out fight is no different that what the reprehensible Harry Reid does!
Compounding the problem is that he doesn't have much to defend on healthcare because he compromised the strongest Democratic position away in advance and he's put himself in the pocket of the insurance and pharma interests. He has boxed himself in on prosecuting torture by adopting Bush's position on investigations, prosecutions and the ongoing cover up of photgraphs and other evidence of war crimes during the Bush years in hopes of gaining the good will of the coyote party. His adoption of the Bush approach to the banking crisis has shored up the wealthy at the expense of the common people who continue to lose their homes at a rate of about 10,000 daily. He has consistently refused to blame the Republicans directly and by name for all the messes they left him.
At this point, despite his face being covered in the spit of the bullies he refuses to throw even one punch because of his naive belief in a bipartisan fantasy that never was and never will be. While he continues to search for his bipartisan Brigadoon, the people like you and me who gave our time, our money and our votes to him are left holding the bag and it becomes clear that the whole line about changing how Washington does business was just empty rhetoric.
I hope somebody at 1600 will read your post and take it to heart because what they need is a little more south central and a lot less Haaahvad. Even now it is not too late for Obama (and America) if he'll just stand up to and fight them. But I ain't holdin my breath.
September 2, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, often you capture exactly my thoughts. Here you did it again.
cosign.
September 3, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
Oleeb, you just summed up every point I was trying to make, but much more succinctly. When I finished reading you response I was feeling the exact emotion that I wanted to bring out in my blog.
Bravo!
September 3, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that must mean we are the "Unimind" Eric!
I just hope and pray that someone in DC gets a clue and realizes you have to fight to win a fight. Seems elementary to pathetic plebes like you and me, but those smart guys in charge apparently are so smart they can't see the obvious.
September 3, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree more. Its high time for Obama to take the gloves off and wade in. Call a spade a spade.
September 2, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, I like the spirit of this post, the essence of which is to stand up to bullies, and call lies lies. And if you listen to Obama at his townhalls, he has been pushing back. We can help by posting some of this video on youtube and taking it viral.
You're missing some fundamentals though:
the Republicans and their proxies have nothing to lose by going negative. There is no central target to hit back, and often the party out of power gains in the midterms. That's not so good.
But if you are Obama and the DNC, think of all the footage of fools you've got for the midterms when the GOP goes too far - like the Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate, sinking in the polls due to previous writings. What goes around comes around. Not hard to put ads together about Bachman, is it? She almost tanked last fall.
Obama was elected with major grassroots power - not corporate power. Senators aren't. Several "Democratic" senators in red/swing states Obama didn't win - McCaskill, Landrieu, Lincoln, etc, may prevent progressive legislation from passing the Senate to be palatable to their electorate. If you've watched "Sicko" or even done your own homework on www.fec.gov, you can see which Senators took funds from big Pharma, health care companies, etc. Really, the only force pushing hard for health care is the people themselves. Senators aren't yet elected by large numbers of small donations and a strong change vision by the people in their states. It's a corporate engine that got them into the Senate.
I'm sure the Obama/DNC team is eying vulnerable Senate seats in Florida, Maine, and Montana and calculating whether it is politically worth it to go after Baucus or Snowe. Martinez' vacant seat is certainly a target. It's just not as "now" as I'd like it, for sure. But it isn't Obama being a coward.
Finally, I'd like to believe the economy is doing better, I really would. But I work in the financial trenches, and I see lots of interim financial statements from a variety of small businesses. 4Q 2008 was bad. Most of the companies I saw had large drops in revenue. Could you make it if your income dropped 40%? Well, many cut staff and expenses to make it into 2009, but what I'm seeing right now is revenue and income even lower than 2008, with a very recent uptick this quarter. Let's hope the trend holds; it's not over yet. Obama can't get people to spend, and without new jobs, that's a tough sell.
I remember how so many lamented Obama's approach when the Clintons hit him hard in the late primary season. Same thing when McCain/Palin worked on him in October. To turn this massive ship we're riding will take a patient, long-term approach that considers the realities of the Senate, and takes ground where it is possible. Right now it's harder to accomplish things with a corporate Senate and poor economic conditions.
When things turn the corner, it is an entirely different story. Like you said, there is a stimulus package Obama signed he should trumpet - especially in Maine, Arkansas, Missouri, etc. That ought to be enough to get him re-elected with a different Senate, and what isn't possible now may be possible then.
September 2, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska,
Your post gives me a lot to think about, and I'm going to seriously consider every point you made. You already caused me to fine-tune and revise this post to clarify that I'm not just talking about Obama's style, but his policies, like his stated desire to look forward, not back, for example.
That's a wimpish position. He's clearly taking that position in order to appease the wingnuts. But by taking that position he's not only turning his back on the rule of law, violating his oath of office, and fundamentally changing the very foundation of the American ideal by creating a class of Americans who are above the law.
What's going to happen to this nation when the next group of demagogues come into office knowing that they can act with impunity?
September 3, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
See? That's what depresses me about Republicans today. They seem to have nothing to lose, including the last remnants of their base.
It's like a knife twisting in my gut every time they prove this.
I want so badly to ignore it, yet that last remnant is the scariest part, and cannot and should not be ignored.
September 2, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink