I hope we know the answer soon–the suspense is driving me crazy!

The real question is whether they will be successful.

I hear people day in and day out, including Rush and other public commentors, and our own Huxley, say that the Democrats are merely (!) desperate. I would like, at this point, for someone to tell me the difference between desperate and determined. “Whatever it takes,” is, I believe, what Robert Gibbs has said they will do. What do you suppose that means? I will tell you. It means, “WHATEVER IT TAKES” This is not desperation. It is no-holds-barred, full-tilt-boogie, pedal-to-the-metal, damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead-with-blinders-on, charge in all directions. There is no law they won’t break. There is no rule they won’t ignore. There is no majority they will respect. They may not mean to take over the country, but if they did mean to take over the country, this is what they would say and this is how they would act. We have no other basis upon which to judge their intentions than their words and actions.

There is also a movement towards nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

In either case: I would suggest that merely making such a violent threat, and employing what are essentially “Fighting Words” , is by itself, without more, sufficiemnt provocation. In other words, this man has already crossed the line of propriety.

A man standing beside you at the bus stop contorts his face and pulls his arm back, fist clenched. It seems he is about to hit you.

Huxley: He hasn’t hit you yet. It is broad daylight, and this is merely a threat. We don’t know if he will strike. In fact, it is problably just an indication of how irrational and weak he is.

Neo-neocon: Duck!

Now, I have committed the offence of interpreting the thoughts and intent of the man at the bus stop, Huxley, and Neo. Relating cause and effect, threat and result, is what careful people do. It is a matter of survival.

J.L (to clenched fist man): Er…. the men’s room’s that a way, pal…

Just kidding. Seriously though….

I would suggest that while Huxley and Neo’s observations may bothbe correct, insofar as the intentions of the man may be the result of irrationality and may not be carried out… or, maybe he will carry them out, in which case ducking is a good idea.

In either case: I would suggest that merely making such a violent threat, and employing what are essentially (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words”> “Fighting Words” , is by itself, without more, sufficiemnt provocation. In other words, this man has already crossed the line of propriety.

My point is this: that maybe we dont need to decifer intention here to now say that what is being attempted is contrary to the will of the American people, and contrary to the represenntative democracy form of government that we have. When the people’s representatives fail to properly represent the people, then maybe its time to recall them.

In the past, I have always opposed the alarmism of suggesting that were headed toward the equivalent of Communist-era Poland. And I’ve repeatedly suggested that the answer lies within the electoral system. I still hold to these previous views. What I would suggest is that its time to employ something less than revolution, but something equivalent to the concerns of the present moment: although I am not familiar with the “recall” procedures accross the nation, perhaps its now time to employ these en masse. This, coupled with more use of the First amendment: the tea party and town hall protests to make it clear our opposition to what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are trying to ram through against the will of the people. If they havent heard our voices yet, then maybe we need to raise them louder.

Is anyone here familiar with the “recall” process? Is this something which can be employed here and now against vulnerable congresspeople?? Serious question.

Huxley: He hasn’t hit you yet. It is broad daylight, and this is merely a threat. We don’t know if he will strike. In fact, it is problably just an indication of how irrational and weak he is.

Neo-neocon: Duck!

Now, I have committed the offence of interpreting the thoughts and intent of the man at the bus stop, Huxley, and Neo. Relating cause and effect, threat and result, is what careful people do. It is a matter of survival.

I have a deep respect for the ability of the leadership to twist arms and/or offer perks. I don’t have much respect for the ability of moderate Democrats to stand on principle. What I do have at least some respect for is their desire to be re-elected. If that is strong enough, it may enable us to defeat this in the end.

But I do not think it is productive to think defeat is in the bag. And I think that it is not “alarmist” to be concerned and wary about what is happening. It is much easier to stop things before they begin, or close to the beginning. Afterward it is often too late.