I do know, indeed, I just want to be very careful I'm on the same page as people before I ally with them. Otherwise I might elect a trickle down Dem whose opponents call him "socialist" (it's only socialism if the government takes CONTROL of an industry; Obama mostly handed out free money to proven failures, but only those whose names end in "Inc" ).

We live in interesting times, when the "PATRIOT" Act has brought the Alien and Sedition Acts back from the dead and effectively repealed half the Bill of Rights in passing. It's critical to avoid the appearance of impropriety as well as the reality, lest all dissent and reform be branded treason (as the last administration routinely attempted). Obviously you can't let it paralyze you, but it's a good idea to make clear, precise and CONSTRUCTIVE arguments, make clear that you seek to benefit rather than harm the nation, so that when any REASONABLE third party looks in on the debate you're not the one coming off as the raving violent loon.

It may seem I'm arguing semantics, because I essentially am, but the difference between rhetoric and logic is that the former must take into account not just what one says, but what ones audience hears. That's how the Dem platform can be with the majority on so many issues for so long yet lose elections because the other side sells it better. "Reform" is a lot more palatable to most people than "subversion" yet the two aren't (technically) mutually exclusive. I'm only interested in subverting negative aspects of the establishment, and obviously I don't think that extends to the entire government. Personally, I think Progressives would be well served to publicly point out that "I love my country but fear my government" is a rather schizoid statement in a self governning country. Whether it's the Tea Party or the anarchists, I don't think the country well served by abolishing its government; a more accountable government is in all our interests. Sounds like you agree, but your original post could be read that way OR as a request for seditious sources. Leave it open like that and your opponents will cheerfully provide potential converts with a definition of their own (see: "Death Panels" ).