Obama Meeting With Pelosi Tuesday As Troops Decision Crystalizes

I gave no advice except to the know-it-all second-guesser: stop being stupid.

"Our leaders know more than we do, . . . ."

They have access to secret intelligence, and behind-the-scenes briefings from a rooad range of experts on the specific issues, etc. Do you?

". . . they're taking this seriously, . . . ."

You think they aren't? What percentage of politicians are likely to get elected wanting to get impeached, or charged with crimes? Of course they take it seriously: reputation and legacy guarantee they do.

For one, each branch of gov't is a complex and fluid beast comprised of at least hundreds of individuals, each with different constituent demands, each with different interests, proclivities, abilities, etc.

Look at a legislature:

To get a bill accepted for debate takes considerable effort. To get there one usually must horsetrade and make deals on other bills. To get a bill out of committee requires more of the same, but with differnt individuals, and on different issues. Etc.

And repeat.

". . . and we should trust them."

On one hand, we haven't any choice but trust them. On the other, we should be wisely skeptical. Cynicism is not skepticism; it is rejection from a superior, know-it-all perspective -- which is an illusion, because based upon distrust and presumptions about motives, and other unknowables.

Note the following -- there are many legislative "types":

The tribune. Historically, the tribune's function was to fight the people's battles against the Crown. The tribune in the legislature today is concerned mainly with taking care of problems at home; doing case work for constitutents that does not necessarily have anything to do with legislation. If the tribune is involved with the formulation of legislation, it is a bill to aid the home district. Legislative Law and Process in a Nutshell (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., Paperback, 1986), Jack Davies, at 38.

That's what most expect from all elected officials. But not all elected officials are the same. As example there is this (which coincidentally and conveniently applies to Al Gore and the Internet):

The inventor. An inventor emphasizes problem solving or policy innovation, and takes a broad view of the role as a legislator. Id.

Here's another recognizable "type":

The shaman. This little known legislator is most visible after a crisis (such as Three Mile Island) dispensing shame for greater self glory. The shaman's power does not derive from the authority of position, or from any practical results produced, but from the confidence displayed, and the emotion extracted from followers. The shaman is an expert at making real the threats of the unseen demons: world communism, the Mafia, monopoly cabals, the moral majority, or the immoral minority. Id., at 39.

And another:

The ideologue. The ideological legislator takes a totalitarian stand on the few issues whch are near and dear to his heart, while all but ignoring the other issues before the legislature. The ideologue will settle only for the perfect solution to pet projects, not for a workable solution. This hard line approach and an interest in only a few issues makes the ideologue an ineffective and short lived legislator. Only an advocate who shares his ideological position will find this legislator to be useful. Id., at 41.

And there are others.

Try to "cow" others? I'm to pretend I'm uninformed so others don't feel uncomfortable at their being uninformed? Read Deanie Mills' piece -- it has "Coccoon" in its title. That's the reality, regardless the tantrums of the ideologue.

Not so by the way, I was active against US involvement in Vietnam. And the latest "Bill Moyers' Journal" presented LBJ tapes which revealed the dilemma in which he was essentially trapped concerning that involvement, with all the pulls on him from all the contrary directions, including those of reality itself, articulated and discussed.

Did he make errors? It would have been about impossible to not make errors in that situation.

Was he evil? No, as it turns out.

Umm, the purpose of a primary is to select the political candidate to represent a party in an election. I'm really not seeing a lot of ways around this.

Interesting edit point. You accuse me of being new to politics after asking (seemingly rhetorically seeing as you are still arguing with my answer) a question concerning a fairly basic part of our political process. Perhaps you should either better educate yourself or be a little less generous with your snarky insults.

And what a very stirring reminder that there are more people in the world to think about than myself. I would take that to heart except for the fact that it completely fails to address any of the issues at hand (nice attempt at deflecting attention by implying that I am being selfish and self serving though, better luck next time). We have a situation with where elected representatives routinely fail to represent their constituents. Which begs the question - how should one deal with that?

The republican party is in the process of degenerating into an extreme hard right mockery of itself which has the effect of shedding large numbers of moderate and thinking voters into the "independent" category. This has the rather predictable effect of creating a power vacuum which is sucking the democratic party to the right (becoming a "big tent" party). Lacking ideological consistency and faced with a recalcitrant opposition party, even mildly controversial legislation is condemned to becoming a watered down and overly complex exercise in futility. And the motivation to tackle issues that are important and popular with the base is nonexistent if their is any perception of it becoming the right's cudgel in the next election cycle (see: gay marriage, reforming our financial system, or the Afpak war for good primers).

The concept of a "third party" implies a two party system. This is rapidly becoming a poor model for our political environment (with republican self identification numbers being, I believe, in the 20s or low 30s). The democrats (holding a super majority in both houses of congress and controlling the white house) are becoming a bland and nondescript single party while the GOP degrades to something akin to a "third party" itself.

Which begs the question, should we continue to follow the conventional wisdom from a past era of relative stability in our political system or acknowledge that we are at a transition point? Because following your advice seems to put us on a path of the democratic party becoming increasingly ineffectual at representing anything approaching progressive ideas allowing republicans to slowly regroup, regaining national power with a shot of ignorant fascism and dems an uninspired and compromised shell of a party.

While we have had something approximating a two party system for virtually all of our nation's history, you would be wise to note that the names of those two parties have not always been "republican" and "democrat". So you can cling to your short view of history (and future) with your worn out, inapplicable and generally questionable "conventional wisdom". Or you can recognize change, problems and opportunities and try taking an open minded approach to achieving your political goals.

But I doubt that will happen. Like I said, all the nuance of a Palin tweet.