I've got Harry Dresden
telling me in another thread that Lefties didn't like Speaker Pelosi, and i don't believe it.
So I'm asking: were any of you criticizing Pelosi on USMB last summer? I seem to remember the sentiment being that she was about the only one looking out for Liberal issues, while Obama was dropping the ball and Harry was trying to survive.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember any Liberals bashing Pelosi.
I'm a Christian Left/Universalistm, liberal Constitutionalist, and progressive Democrat.
I find most things that Pelosi, Obama and others have done for political agenda violate Constitutional duty to equal protection of interests in representing the whole nation.
The health care bill introduced unconstitutional mandates, and contradicted pro-choice defenses against pro-life legislation to "save lives" at the expense of Constitutional ethics.
So I find both the actions and words of Pelosi and Obama to be in conflict with Constitutional duties and ethics, and thus damaging to the public trust, which you might call "embarrassing."
I agree with Obama's appointment of Sotomayor with the understanding that if a consistent immigration policy is going to be enforced, where violations by either individuals or organized groups or employers will incur restitution proportionate to the length of time and degree of the violations, then it will help to have Latino representation on the federal level so that the law enforcement comes from inclusion and not perceived as outside.
I believe most of the liberal agenda is better achieved through organization, promotion, and management of cost-effective nonprofit and business programs that can end poverty and abuse by providing private community-based counseling, education, and training on a localized level that does not require legislation or micro/mismanagement by govt bureaucracy. I don't believe the government should be abused to create or fund such programs that work better by private programs with the freedom to work by localizing accountability, representation and consent of each community, district or state. Only if a program or policy is proven to work universally could that be adopted as national policy -- but by choice, by informed consent, not imposition by majority-rule. If it's a truly effective solution, it can be proven to work and chosen freely, not by political manipulation. Otherwise, to push an agenda or policy without informed consent of the public or any proof it meets Constitutional standards or ethics is an abuse of public trust, authority and resources in violation of Government duties:
ethics-commission.net
I believe the Democratic Party owes restitution to the constituency and communities claimed to be represented, for abusing the votes and elections to push for party agenda instead of reforms that are Constitutionally sound. The partisan conflicts caused, which cost more money for political lobbying and campaigning, draw attention and resources away from the community-based programs proven to work which deserve that support.
This has been going on, exploiting and destroying poor communities, so that is one reason I joined the Democratic Party to address the cause at the root and to pursue corrections.
I believe in the goals of the Party, but the way to achieve them must be Constitutional.
These politicians who have hijacked the Party, from the Black vote to the Green vote and the Pink/Peace vote just to get elected to power, owe restitution for the damages done.