^^^^^^^ CB: Most of it's wrong in the sense of half-truths (smile).
As to what you say about me specifically, there's nothing from the past I've said by which it is accurate to say it is true to form of me that I would say "take a stand". I'd say compromise. I believe the Reps have them in a bind because the tax cuts for the working class are tied to the tax cuts for the rich. ( I have to check on this) The Blue Dogs are Dogs and unreliable to win. I would say compromise to save the tax cuts for the working class. Preserving these tax cuts would be good in the sense that it might piss off the sincere Tea Partiers who might thereby come into conflict with the regular Republicans. Also, I never have vilified the liberal Democratic critics of the administration as ultra-left. I support Conyers, Kucinch, Kaptur, et al. I criticize, not vilify, the ultra-lefts (who emphatically characterize themselves as not-Democrats ) for not developing the rhetoric and arguments against the ultra-right. They reach this bizarre conclusion of only criticizing Democrats, and think nobody notices that they don't criticize the right and Reps as much as they criticize the Democrats. This is objectively rhetorical unity with the Republicans and right-wing, i.e backing into right-wing political discourse in this concrete situation. They have horrible concrete analysis of the concrete situation; they are very non-Leninists.