The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out.
The story is generally told in a figurative context, with the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Is it getting warm in here?
In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following:
*intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger;
*announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue;
*sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions;
*repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman;
*condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus;
*defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world";
*unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed.
http://www.salon.com/...
To make my own position clear: I don't have a problem with all of those. I couldn't care less what he does (or doesn't) say about Wesley Clark and I too would have voted with the majority in Heller. But, as I've diaried elsewhere, FISA is my dealbreaker. I will not vote for anyone who guts the Constitution and then tells me to trust them not to abuse their unchecked power.
But this diary is about your views - not mine. Those of you who are "unhappy" or "disappointed" or "realistic" about Obama 2.0 - but would never consider not voting for him.
Look over that list one more time. Then ask yourself if there's anything Obama could do that would cost him your vote.
Because there's 4 months until the election and a whole lot farther right he can go.
What if he said abortion rights were a "state issue"?
What if he defended "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
What if he supported bombing Iran?
I submit that if you would vote for him no matter what he does, you are no better than Karl Rove in your unprincipled pursuit of political power at any cost.
But if there's a point where you'd find the courage to jump out of the pot rather than let yourself be boiled alive with "centrism" and triangulation, you'd better mark it clearly in your mind.
Because Obama is far from finished turning up the heat.