But again, a bunch of college hooligans passing out fliers for some rich left wing candidate is hardly grassroots, in comparison to the little shack a block over from my office here in downtown Indy that won a mayoral race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Ballard_%28mayor%29

(Greg) Ballard was outspent in the campaign. As late as October 14, he had run no TV ads.[4] An October 19 campaign finance report showed that Peterson had raised $1.5 million since April, and still had that much to spend. Comparatively, Ballard only had $51,000 left, meaning that Peterson had 30 times the funds Ballard had during the last three weeks of the campaign.[5]

On November 6, 2007, Ballard won the race to become mayor of Indianapolis, despite having a meager $300,000 in campaign funds and low name recognition when he began the race.[6] In comparison, Peterson already had $2.9 million in April (Ballard had $9,560 at the time).[7] Unhappiness with rapidly increasing taxes and crime were seen as the biggest reasons for Peterson’s defeat. Republicans also recaptured control of the City-County Council for the first time in four years. In his acceptance speech, Ballard told the audience he considers this campaign “the classic, if not the ultimate, example of grassroots politics!”[8]

As for the content, what is so “progressive” about that? Where are the articles about conservative grass roots movements like the blogosphere, talk radio or the new GOP mayor of Indianapolis?

http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12335

And further, if you look at Baker’s comments, he shows the left is anything but progressive in terms of its history. With Brown Univ and others asking for reparations, the welfare states, and the strict status quo at all times in public education, they are the antithesis of “progressive.” Same party, new foolish term. Howard Dean is the main culprit. What he has done to that party is appalling. Ask Joe Lieberman.

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7557724?source=email&_requestid=4129009

Children who grow up poor and uneducated often rely on emotional cues rather than intellectual ones. So when the lights dim in Egypt, Syria, or New Orleans, they’re more likely to blame Jews and George Bush for the tyrannical mediocrity they endure. Tyrannical governments cannot survive without uneducated laborers, which is why primitive Muslim governments restrict education. But this is not a recent invention.

Democrats outlawed black education because they feared the loss of control over their slaves. When Republicans forced the end of slavery in 1865, Democrats used racial segregation to slow black education. And when Republicans forced the end of segregation in 1954, Democrats turned our public schools into asylums, far from the private schools that their own children attend.

Today, K-12 education in America is far below that of many poorer democracies – and many of our universities are headed in the same direction.

This might explain why Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri and many Democrats share a mutual respect for one another, and ignore the pro-democracy students and activists who risk their lives demanding freedoms that uneducated Americans now take for granted.

Because I lived, worked, and traveled around the world, I know that there is much more to Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela than their saber-rattling dictators. I know little about Democrats like Pelosi, Spielberg, or Penn, but we get a pretty good idea from the people they associate with – and from a good understanding of their party’s history.

American businesses are not just in wealthy areas, as here economic stratas are pretty much mixed up anyway. 7-11′s are popping up everywhere. As for the illegals, I agree wholeheartedly, and use that very argument with my Mexican friends. It usually leaves them as contemplative as a Trappist monk. It does not, however deny the appearance of American comercial imperialism, which does not necesarily bring new jobs, but just replaces them -Mexican companies or small businesses for huge American conglomerates.

Mark, exactly. When you have a busted water pipe in your house, do you first plug the hole then call the plumber or do you think, debate, ponder whether you’re being “insensitive” and then decide? Needless to say, astute folks do the latter.

And to PDK, well, that’s a lefty stance. I assure you that NO ONE here understands the poverty there, especially the liberal elite, but we do know that those who flee those nations—surely not all of whom are wealthy or educated—appreciate America and loathe Chavez. They also tend to be patriotic and vote Republican as they know the horrors of populism, socialism and communism.
So do not apologize for him is such a coy way, especially from the comforts of your American (coastal?) home.

I am certainly no fan of Hugo Chavez, but it seems abundantly clear to me that as, at least relatively speaking, fat cat Gringos it’s difficult for us to grasp the poverty prevalent in much of Latin America, which engenders envy and desparation.

In wealthy areas only.

Maybe one should also think what it means for Americans to see illegal aliens invade and take over almost every block of neighborhoods from coast to coast….

My last point was indicating that, as DeTocqueville pointed out with democracy and morality/religion, capitalism without morality and social justice, to paraphrase Einstein, is lame.

Well put though. And I agree with your ending.

However, I’d also like to note that EVERY major power has skeletons in the closet, and America surely has the least.