Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Excuse me, but ...

... why should one be "a very loyal Democrat."
Some of the Obama policy stances I disagree with—Afghanistan, Wall Street enabling, torture obfuscation—but on the whole I remain very supportive of President Obama. There is real tension and conflict in deciding how critical and in what style to be, readers may not know it but I am a very loyal Democrat, and there has to be a point where one is too critical, I have no idea where that tipping point is but it’s there. I never mindlessly criticize major Obama initiatives, and there is a real duty to support the Party and President. I do my part—bitching all the way, perhaps—but I do it.
I can see why a politician might think they should at least appear to be a loyal party member (Lieberman excepted). But why should a citizen be a loyal party member?

And why is it that
1) Republicans keep stepping over the line, then
2) Citizens put more Democrats in office, and then
3) The Democrats go further than the Republicans in turning our country into a renegade and lawless country with serial Kings.

And now we're supposed to accept (believe?) that wanna-be king Bush's successor is only taking on the wanna-be king mantle so he can keep the CIA loyal and working for the US? That would mean the CIA are a bunch of traitors ...

If this is the case then the CIA is threatening the President (and thereby threatening the country and the constitution) directly or indirectly. Add to that the very direct threats from the financial industry traitors to destroy the country if they don't get their way. Apparently President Obama is going to give up on the Constitution in order to keep as much peace with these threats to our democracy as he can. In other words the Democrat who was elected to stop the Republican giveaway of our country is going to continue on course like a good little bought and paid-for politician.

Again, why would a citizen be a loyal party member? Shouldn't that loyalty be going in the other direction?

No comments: