You regulars may or may not have noticed me being rather scarce in these GMD parts over the past six months or so. Without getting into a sob story, it's been a challenging year for me on the personal front, with both the loss of my job after 15 years and a rather sudden and unexpected divorce.

Needless to say, it's distracted me a bit, and so I chalked my decreased presence here up to my personal foibles, which was true at the time. But, over the past few months, my life has improved dramatically. And I still don't show up here too often, so instead of making excuses, I'll just say what it is: outrage fatigue. It's to the point where my expressions usually come out in rather obnoxious, somewhat flatulent rude bursts, more appropriate for my own space on the net than over here at GMD. Yet this latest capitulation from the DC Dems seems to have triggered a bit of reflective soul-searching on the part of some of the FP'ers here, so here I go, if I may be so bold.

Hop below the jump for more musings, should you be so kind…

Now, I never bought into the hope/change nonsense about Obama like many did (and continue to do). My vote for him was probably 75% based in McCain/Palin prevention, and perhaps the other 25% was the fact that he seemed like a decent, highly intelligent guy, something one doesn't see too often in White House, even more dramatic after dealing with that braindead moron we've had to deal with in the last eight years.

My political awakening started in 1994, after that whole “Contract on America” b.s. I was primarily motivated by the reckless assault on the environment, more than anything else. And so, after over a decade of playing half-assed defense, the Dems retook the House and Senate and then the WH, as the GOP couldn't hide how deranged they were anymore. Of course, being a sentient being, I had no false expectations that things would change all that much; capitulation and timididty seem to be written into the Dem party platform, albeit in invisible ink. I was also very put off by Obama's “play nice/bipartisan” schtick, in that I don't think that negotiating with the criminally insane is very productive, nor is it wise or moral. I had (and have) no qualms about railroading the GOP like they did the Dems all those years, with one difference: Don't make shit up.

Alas, disappointment after disappointment, and hence the fatigue. One can only get mad so often before burnout sets in. Now, that's not to say there hasn't been a few good things; there most certainly has, even enough to convince me that the “both parties are exactly the same” bullshit is indeed that: bullshit. But I can't really find much worth defending at this point in regards to the DC Dems. They are thoroughly unworthy and incapable of governance, with few exceptions.

That presents another problem, is that your typical, independent low-information voter typically and reflexively, when unhappy with the party in power, votes for the other one, which is what I strongly feel will happen in 2010. Yes, people will vote to put back in the people who were primarily responsible for the mess we're in. And so the outrage fatigue increases, my eyes glaze over, and perhaps drooling is not too far away. We are all Sarah Palin now. Or at least a lot of us are.

Where am I going with this? It's time to start screaming for leadership.  What got my gears going was this fantastic op-ed over at HuffPo by Drew Western, Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator. 

It's a great read, but what struck me more than anything else was this, which pretty much sums up the DC Dems, not just Obama:

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting….

Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it.

Indeed. When I hear those on our side say how this current HCR turd is “the best we could've hoped for” or something like that, all I can think of is how different the game might have been had Obama started it off with a simple statement: “I will simply not sign anything that makes it to my desk that does not have a strong public option. Period.” That's leading, it's not some overarching, courageous thing to do. If his leadership skills were half as good as his lofty rhetoric, we'd already be a much better country, only a year into his presidency.

We are in between a rock and a hard place, and the behavior of the Obamabots out there compounds it, as they pretty much defer to Obama the way the knuckledraggers deferred to Bush. We most certainly have idiots on our side, too; they may not be as mean or as evil as the right, but they're idiots, nonetheless. 

So what is to be done? I still hear that “marching in the streets” canard all the time, yet it's always either hamstrung by an absolutist pacifism, disorganization, or most importantly, a lack of will to really go with it. Like the Indians did in the Salt Satygraha in 1930. One of the things that happened was Indians lining up and marching right into the batons of the policemen, one after another – and every blow and crushed skull was a pivotal blow to the British Empire that led the way to independence.

Now, I can't say that I've got the temerity do that; pain hurts. But it can be done, and I like to think there are people out there with the gumption to do it. Just marching, singing “Imagine” and yelling “Nader!” just ain't gonna cut it. Been there, done that, too many times. It most certainly gives one a feeling of empowerment, but it's just that: a feeling. It's not real power. It means one is out of ideas as to what to do. I can relate; so am I.

Demanding leadership means being creative, stepping out of our comfort zone, and pissing people off (oh, if the prez would only take my advice). Some people may take it very far. Perhaps that may be necessary, as well; I'll leave that between you and your consciences.

So, I'm hardly done around here, by any means. If anything, the continued incompetence in the congress and the WH is making the need to do things in Vermont all that more important and necessary. Although I don't see it coming, I'd love for someone to primary Obama in '12, regardless of what else he does, if nothing more than to send a message that nothing should be taken for granted, especially the citizens of this country. I'm going to support whatever gubernatorial candidate is going to work hard to change things, and with that, there's an expectation of real change, not just talking about it, which is all Obama ever seems to be capable of. Like Bobby Byrd said, sayin' it and doin' it are two different things (apologies for an obscure but appropriate funk reference).

I just need a vacation from the outrage.