One thing, it seems to me, progressives and the media need to  do is make the distinction between,
 Conservative Family Values versus Progressive Family Values.

Progressives should never refer to Family Values but to either
  'Conservative Family Values' or 'Progressive Family Values'.

Failed Conservative Family Values of patriarchy, authoritarianism, strictness, control, secrecy, intolerance, close-minded, etc.,

as apposed to

Progressive Family Values of caring, empathy, community, equality, justice, responsibility, tolerance, open mindedness, etc.,

There's a lot of work to be done to take back the Family Values discussion.

Progressive Values Stories: Brianna Leavitt on Taking Back Family Values - Justice & Responsibility
View @:DemocracyforAmerica.com  - Opednews.com - Dailykos.com - Groups.yahoo.com
I interviewed Brianna Leavitt at the First Congregational Church of Berkeley.  She feels conservatives have taken over the term Values and Family Values, but she doesn't want to just give up the words to them. She goes on to talk about the Progressive Values she learned in her family. Her mother always reached out to the poor and homeless.  Brianna  was taught empathy, justice and responsibility by her parents and grandmother. These are in opposition to the Failed Conservative Family Values that exclude people.

How can progressives take back the Family Values discussion?

Edwin R ~ most excellent response by Arianna.  I agree we need to take back the discussion on Family Values.

Progressive Family Values ~ Value ALL Families

gotta go

♥'s to all

Kindness is free!

Phil, thanks for the heads up on Moyers, a truly astonishing program.

nite all

Maybe the point to make is that progressives value the whole family, not just the potential patriarch.   It's just a matter of whose perspective is taken into account.  Adult males are inclined to think the world revolves around them.  The world (family of man) has a more comprehensive all-inclusive perspective.

How about comprehensive instead of progressive?  I've never been entirely comfortable with the notion that just moving forward is an adequate metaphor.  "progressive" works in contrast to regressive, but, to be honest, that's not what conservatives are ostensibly about.  They think life is good and want it to stay the same.  That their perception of the good life relies on the continued misery of a whole lot of others, who can't reasonably be expected to want things to stay the same, isn't part of their equation.  On the other hand, because the good life rests on the misery of others, there's the likelihood that it will be challenged.  In other words, whether the conservatives realize it or not, their good life is threatened by change.  Moreover, if they do realize it and respond by hedging their bets and accumulating ever more of what makes their good life good, they only increase the likelihood that there will be a demand for change.  A more comprehensive perspective should prompt them to share, thereby lessening the likelihood that their good life will be taken away.

Anyway, it would seem that conservatives are driven by guilt and fear, rather than greed.  We assume they are greedy from the evidence that they've accumulated a lot of wealth and can't seem to get enough.  But, appearances are often deceiving.  It's just as likely that they accumulate out of the fear of losing it all.  If that's the case, then accusing them of greed and trying to make them feel guilty is not likely to result in desired change.  Indeed, the accusations will merely validate their fears.

Whence does the conservatives' fear originate?  Who teaches them to overcome their fears by being overly aggressive?

Romanian village re-elects dead mayor

has been slipped into my first conversation Monica, that is brilliant framing of Bushco torture policies

Most of you probably know that DFA Staff did not choose me as one of their Netroots Nation scholarship winners. (grumble, grumble ;-)

However some fabulous members of the Dean Community have chipped in for my event ticket, hotel and airfare, so I AM GOING!

I've also invited 2 of the other Dean Community scholarship applicants who wern't chosen (Charlie Grapski and Ofer Inbar) to share the hotel room with me, so hopefully we'll get a couple more us there too!

Hope the gap widens.

I can't help but remember that Dukakis was up by 15% over Bush I 20 years ago almost to the day

http://www.alternet.org/rights/88950/?ses=b9a474681954429353c4bf86e7f219f1

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap "compromise" is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush's violation of the earlier spying law. Share this article

In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the "exclusive" means for authorizing electronic spying?

It wasn't that Bush and his team didn't understand the old law's language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war -- even one as vaguely defined as the "war on terror" -- the President's powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens.

Essentially, Bush was betting that even if his warrantless wiretap program was disclosed -- as it was in December 2005 -- that he could trust his Republican congressional allies to protect him and could count on most Democrats not to have the guts to challenge him.

His bet proved to be a smart one.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/why_obamas_support_for_fisa_ca.php

Here's what's so dispiriting about it. One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.

To be clear, I'm not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn't have carried political peril. It really doesn't matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.

And this time, he abandoned that premise.

Glenn Greenwald:

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

You have such a positive, inspiring attitude. Just what I like to see so early in the morning (for me anyway out west). ;-)