On the eve of this election, there's something I need your help to understand

[WilliamPitt]

Tomorrow, everyone of voting age in my family will troop down to our polling station and vote en masse to eject Scott "Please Just Go Away Already" Brown over the treeline and into the ether. This is not special, or unique, or dramatic. This is standard; we vote, period and end of file.

I imagine 99.99983% of every participant on this board is the same way: you vote, period and end of file.

So here's the thing that has been vexing me for a while now.

From the day of its inception until the day George W. Bush finally vacated the office he never won in the first place, DU was flypaper for liberals and progressives, and deliberately so. Among the attributes most clearly cherished were a demand for fair and open elections, a love of the Constitution and the rule of law, a desire to stop unjust or unwise wars, a desire to protect and defend the environment, and a desire to bring the criminals in government and Wall Street to justice.

That's the short list of the viewpoints actively cultivated for eight full years here. Eight. Full. Years.

Nowadays, however, because some politicians with a (D) after their names aren't, don't or won't stand for some or all of those ideals, pointing that out here and criticizing it has become some sort of high crime. If we do criticize those (D) politicians for failing to live up to those ideals, we're called "ratfuckers" or "trolls," or accused of "trying to depress turnout," or of having "Obama Derangement Syndrome," etc., because OMG REPUBLICANS YOU GUYS.

Are we really that chickenshit that we can't discuss and debate these serious issues, and whether our (D)'s are living up to them? P.S. If you think being critical on DU is going to swing even one election tomorrow, I strongly suggest you push away from the keyboard and go get some fresh air.

It gives me whiplash. We were for all those things for 2,922 days, until a guy with a (D) after his name took the Oval, and now we get dunned for standing up for the principles that were the bedrock of this community since January of 2001.

Don't call me a "ratfucker." Don't tell me I'm depressing turnout; if you want to find me tomorrow afternoon, look for the guy with the ponytail and beard holding a sign on Main Street, and that's after I vote.

We stand for these things or we don't. We stand up for them or we don't. We used to, en masse. Now, if there's a (D) involved, doing so is a crime to a whole lot of people around here. As far as I am concerned, *that* right there is Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Explain it to me.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Brand loyalty. And yet we think we're so much superior to the Republicans because we're

"more enlightened," "less authoritarian," etc. But we're really not. We're as easily duped by propaganda as the other side, and nobody seems to realize that in Washington DC it's both sides against the middle.

[tridim]

7. Bzzzt. The Democratic party is vastly superior to the Republican party.

In EVERY way. It is stunning that you still don't know that.

And once again, no, we are not the same as Republicans no matter how many times you say it.

I am also never "easily duped by propaganda". WTF are you claiming here?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. He;'s not talking about 'parties'. He's talking about voters.

Ie, both Dem voters and Repub voters are humans who tend to share the same human failings, including a tendency to want to divide up into teams of 'them vs us'.

[tridim]

14. Democrats ARE the Democratic Party.

It's amazing that you still don't know that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. Oh how I wish that was actually true. nt

[WilliamPitt]

64. It would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it.

*sigh*

[nashville_brook]

85. wow, that would indeed make things so much easier.

[merrily]

229. +1

[rhett o rick]

208. What's amazing is that you think that. The grassroots of the Democratic Party are against fracking.

The President and the leading candidate to replace him, clearly leaders of the party FAVOR FRACKING.

The Democratic leaders do not represent the grassroots.

The Democratic grassroots did not support George Bush's Iraq war yet H. Clinton disregarded them as she gave her full support to the Republicans.

[Chathamization]

220. Being against something doesn't matter much if you don't act upon it. The majority ignore primaries.

That means that, when it comes down to candidates, most people don't choose "anti-fracking" or "anti-Wall St.", they choose "whatever, I don't care enough to Google who's running, let other people decide." That's the option the vast majority of people choose, and that's the kind of candidate they get.

[rhett o rick]

221. If a voter is against fracking who should they vote for? Does the Democratic Party support fracking

or just the President?

[Chathamization]

222. They should have voted for the Democrats who were running on anti-fracking messages?

There were (and are) numerous ones. If there wasn't one were they were, then they could work with local organizations to recruit ones, and/or volunteer for candidates in other areas against fracking. They could try to get Democratic part members to bother paying attention to the issues and showing up to primaries, and making sure that all Democratic candidates who support fracking lose, rather than having people say they're against fracking but then voting for pro-fracking candidates in the primaries anyway because they can't be bothered (or, more commonly, just staying home and saying they don't care if the winner is pro- or anti-fracking).

Again, being theoretically against something isn't terribly important when your actual position is "I don't care enough about it one way or another to do even the minimal amount of work necessary."

[RiverLover]

230. Who is running on an anti-fracking message besides in NY & NC?

Any governors at all?

No one is in Ohio, PA, WV, Michigan, IL.....

Here's what's going on in CO~

Outrage in Colorado over Fracking Betrayal by Top Democrats
Politicians announce drilling regulatory panel will welcome input by industry and business groups, headed by XTO Energy president

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/05/outrage-colorado-over-fracking-betrayal-top-democrats


Colorado's Anti-Fracking Retreat

"How worried are Democrats about the November election? Look no further than Colorado, where this week they leaned on their green supporters to mute their anti-natural gas drilling agenda that is proving to be unpopular even in a liberal-trending state.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/colorados-anti-fracking-retreat-1407280753

[Chathamization]

293. It doesn't seem like anti-fracking candidates are exactly non-existent in CO

A quick Google search returned this list from 2013; Polis is also openly anti-fracking. Ignoring the existence of anti-fracking Democrats isn't exactly the best way to encourage more of them. You better believe the pro-fracking people aren't ignoring pro-fracking candidates.

[Doctor_J]

256. Refusing to vote for a pro-TPP, pro-fracking candidate IS acting on it.

But you don't like that either.

[YoungDemCA]

272. We get the government we show up for

nt

[billhicks76]

237. Is That A Joke?

Bush lovers in our party have hijacked it and dominate the leadership. The Clintons are referred to by Bush Sr as honorary family members for playing ball for so long and being in their pocket. Its revolting. All those shallow cheerleaders on this site who expect us to swallow our own vomit and ignore this travesty can go do you know what. Im glad there are some here that are real and see through the illusion of just being on the winning team like any ditto head or Bushite. The Bush family have been destroying our country from the inside out since the 1930s and they made huge leaps in 1963, 1975, 1980 and 2000. Expect them to try and destroy all hope with another Bush vs Clinton dynastic farce in 2016 courtesy of Wall St and the military/surveillance/masincarceration complex. Keep speaking out William because we are not that far from Idiocracy and what you say is true regardless if lemmings, fools and ostriches and their misguided centrist theology can't digest the truth. They are simply raised truth intolerant.

[Thespian2]

250. Nail head

you just hit it , billhicks76. Does anyone here remember the Bush family's money laundering for the Nazi's, and their support for Adolf? Do we now look at how their criminal empire has allowed them to expand their control of America? Do we know that Democrats often support wrong-headed ideas?

[billhicks76]

296. Thanks...Prescott Bush Was A Traitor

The whole family is. And so are any that laud them publicly and kiss their butts like, I'm sorry to say, the Clinton's and their lackey Obama.

[sabrina 1]

288. How do you define 'democrat'? It isn't just a letter and it's amazing, speaking of amazing, that

there are people who still don't understand that. I and the OP and most actual democratic voters, want our party representatives to actually BE democrats, to stand up for what this party is supposed to stand up for.

Eg, anyone claiming to be a democrat who is willing to connect SS to the Deficit, or anyone claiming to be a democrat who is supportive of Bush's disastrous 'education' system, NCLB, among a long list of other issues that are vitally important to Dem voters, is not a Democrat, no matter what letter they choose to place after their names.

It's easy to recognize a real Democrat in office. You only have to look at their voting record on major issues and we have quite a few who somehow managed to get elected using a D after their names whose voting records look more like Republican voting records.

And good, Democratic voters are not going to remain silent about this because we HAVE A REPUBLICAN PARTY and we don't need TWO of them or even ONE and a HALF Republican Parties.

[True Blue Door]

72. Hear hear!

People only take absurd "Democrats = Republicans" positions because they don't want to deal with the responsibilities that come from acknowledging a stark moral distinction.

[vlyons]

104. No way, baby!!!

It's ain't your Daddy's republican party anymore. We are more enlightened, more knowledgeable, less easily duped, and certainly not as sociopathic as today's GOP. Today's GOP is a bunch of hate-mongering, greedy, paranoid, intolerant sociopaths. Or to put it more plainly, they're Faacists.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. rec.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. thank you for this. [phone]

[vi5]

4. Bingo

Summed up perfectly.

As long as we continue to give our numb nod of approval they will continue to drift ever rightward towards what we are supposed to hate.

[RobertEarl]

5. Yep

I just got called a kook and labeled a troll for standing up against vote theft and protecting the environment. On DU, by a 40,000 post member.

They have infiltrated our ranks and are just here to cause division.

[zappaman]

45. No you didn't.

You got called that because your replies made no sense and you put words in another DUers mouth.
"Kooky" fits.

And now you are implying the poster has "infiltrated our ranks and are just here to cause division."

Too funny!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5751633

[Orrex]

52. I joined in 2005 specifically to rock the kooky boat nine years later.

[CreekDog]

120. Your posts seem to Be Free of pro environmental messages

Posting wacky anti nuclear conspiracy theories while posting against other pro environmental posters doesn't make you an environmentalist.

(And i say this as someone opposed to expansion of nuclear power and in support of shuttering all but the absolute safest facilities)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. There was a poll another user did recently that asked people to vote for their

'primary reason to vote for people' or some paraphrase thereof. The voting was almost evenly split between only two of the options. One of which was 'I vote for party', the other 'I vote based on policy choices'.

It's the same split I saw over at Daily Kos, and I'm going to guess is common on every Dem/Left leaning site. Half the people are simply in it to boost the party, no matter what, the other half want specific policies that are more commonly associated with politicians on the left end of the spectrum, which generally means 'Dem', since in most races, you only ever get two choices.

The 'party before all' folks get really annoyed if you indicate you don't intend to vote for Dems who don't actually stand behind the policies.

[jeff47]

15. Actually...

The 'party before all' folks get really annoyed if you indicate you don't intend to vote for Dems who don't actually stand behind the policies.

Actually, we get really annoyed by people who don't seem to understand that there are two types of elections: Primary elections and general elections. Vote for the best candidate in the primary. Vote for the party in the general. That will ratchet the party to the left, just as it ratcheted the Republicans to insanity.

We also get really annoyed by the people who complain about their choices in November, but couldn't be bothered to affect those choices in the spring. Primary turnout was abysmal. Don't like who's on the ballot in November? Bother showing up in the spring. And if you don't like who the party's backing in the spring, run. Or help find someone to do so.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I vote in every primary.

That still doesn't help when the people who are pushed by the party turn out to have been so poorly vetted that they get chewed apart in the general, leaving my state mired in the red because team blue can't field people who don't have skeletons bursting out of their closets.

And voting for "Dems" (such as the 'Dem' who ran last cycle against Boehner, then conveniently dropped out so late that Boehner got to run unopposed - a guy who ran as a Republican the cycle before) who are farther to the right in the general only sends the message that the way to win votes in the general is for the Dems running to continue moving to the right.

What do we do to send the message in the general that Dems need to move to the Left, not the Right?

[jeff47]

29. Then you should bother reading the last sentence before complaining.

That still doesn't help when the people who are pushed by the party turn out to have been so poorly vetted that they get chewed apart in the general, leaving my state mired in the red because team blue can't field people who don't have skeletons bursting out of their closets.

Golly, if only I had covered that in the last two sentences of my post.

What do we do to send the message in the general that Dems need to move to the Left, not the Right?

Well, let's take a look at the options:
1) Vote for the D anyway, and vote against them in the next election. Result: Lousy D wins, votes with the party ~70% of the time. We can't get everything we should, but we get some things. Lousy D loses the next primary because you bothered to read the post, and is replaced with someone further left in the next general.

2) Refuse to vote for the D. The party learns that voters in your district are significantly further to the right, since the R won. So the party runs someone even further to the right in the next election. Meanwhile, that R helps Capt. Orange shut down the government and slash all sorts of critical programs.

Boy, that's a tough decision.

This is not a problem for "the party" to solve. This is a problem for us to solve. Stop waiting for a messiah and start actually changing things.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. Funny you should mention 'Captain Orange'

Since the Dem Party can't get off it's butt enough to even TRY to take him down. No national money ever, no help for any of the candidates who try to challenge him, not even another Dem stepping up to cut an ad or two.

You don't get to complain about 'Captain Orange' when the Party won't do jack squat to try and get rid of him.

[jeff47]

41. You really should try to actually get all the way through a post sometime. (nt)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. And you might want to try to learn the reality of politics.

Money talks. The vast majority of elections come down to who has the cash. Not to what I do, how I vote, who I pounded pavement for.

But your 'whole' post is exactly why I'm no longer a Dem. That whole 'don't look for a saviour' thing. I finally learned that the party didn't want to be my saviour, didn't give a rat's about me. It's why I vote for specific people, who, yes, often happen to be Democrats, but I don't vote for them because they're Democrats. I vote for them because they're better on policy.

And so I don't vote for the people who a) don't give a rat's about me and b) are also wrong on policy. And some of those are Dems too.

[jeff47]

102. You're "brining up issues" that are addressed in the posts you reply to

And if you're so concerned about "giving a rat's ass", you might wanna give a rat's ass about reading the posts before you reply.

I finally learned that the party didn't want to be my saviour, didn't give a rat's about me. It's why I vote for specific people, who, yes, often happen to be Democrats, but I don't vote for them because they're Democrats. I vote for them because they're better on policy.

Which means you're still looking for a messiah instead of fixing the problem yourself. You want some politician to come along and be who you are longing for, instead of going out and finding that politician. Or even better, being that politician.

[merrily]

234. I have a feeling he knows that reality very well.

[RiverLover]

232. This is exactly what happened in Ohio

Purple is turning Deep Red today because the poorly vetted Democratic candidate for governor is a dolt and couldn't even raise enough money for TV commercials. Meanwhile Kasich(our next president?) is rolling in money from Koch et al.

I'm voting today just to make sure Democrats can stay a viable 2nd political party. There were murmers that if we don't get 20% of the vote, we won't be an official party here any more. I think they're predicting 37& now, but just to be sure...

[jeff47]

103. Then the last sentence applies.

If you're going to raise an objection, might wanna get all the way to the end of the post first.

[MaggieD]

278. Bingo

No wonder we don't have solid majorities given the apparent lack of understanding of this basic premise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Well ...

The 'party before all' folks get really annoyed if you indicate you don't intend to vote for Dems who don't actually stand behind the policies.

I think you are simplifying things ... the "'party before all' folks", as you term them/us are not so much "party before all", as "party be them" ... with the recognition that the most blue of Blue dogs, votes WITH the Democratic Caucus better than 70% of the time; whereas, the most "moderate" of republicans (think, O. Snow), voted with the Democratic Caucus less than 10% of the time.

So I would suggest the "party before all folks" represent pragmatic/strategic thinkers, even if less moored to ideology.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. As I pointed out elsewhere, the % of time you vote with

doesn't matter as much as WHICH votes you vote with the party.


I'd rather have guys/gals who vote with the party the important 30% of the time than those who vote with the unimportant 70% of votes. The people who are willing to take the important votes even when they KNOW they'll get booted out of office for taking them, as long as something good for the country comes out of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Okay ...

what about Committee Chairs, House and Senate Leadership, Federal and SCOTUS Nominations? Are those a part of the 30% calculus? If so, then the choice (and voting record) is clear.

[randys1]

277. ROVE and Company love this, they love watching us act like adults, something they are

sure their idiot followers wont do; they love watching Democrats having honest discussions about the issues of the day, disagreeing and ultimately all learning more in the process.

They love it because they know they can distract us and sometimes can use our honesty, our well meaning, our truly patriotic attitudes against ourselves by dividing us.

Rove and Company know that Hillary is an inside/ Wall Street friendly candidate, not unlike Obama. Rove knows he can paint her and Barack in such a way as to really make serious liberals question them.

He knows he can use our desire for justice and freedom and "do the right thing"thinking against us in a big way, if he can make us question the decency or honesty of our own candidates.


There really are two sides and as much as I get pissed at Hillary for this or that and Barack for this or that, they are on the side that will NOT kill Women with unsafe abortions, they wont do that, Rove's minions like Cory Gardner will purposely enact legislation that will KILL Women, period.

There really are two sides, one side wants to make it impossible for non white str8t protestant males over the age of 40 to vote and one side does not.

So I say go ahead and argue all you want but ALWAYS make it CLEAR that having ANY republican/teapartier in ANY office is UNACCEPTABLE

[ZombieHorde]

225. I criticize the Democratic party often,

but I voted "party" in that poll, so I am not convinced your descriptions of the two types of voters is fair. I vote "lesser evil," and I respect the arguments against doing so. I welcome critiques of all parties. I welcome critiques of all values and norms.

[Dustlawyer]

283. So true! I tout Bernie Sanders because of his pledge to fight for Publicly Funded Elections and

getting rid of campaign contributions. I get attacked frequently for "splitting our vote" and letting the evil Republican win! I respond by telling them the same, if you believe in Democratic ideals, why would you ever vote for a Corpratist?

Everyone who believes that they are truly making a difference by voting for Democrats is duped just like all of the Billy Joe Jim Bob's voting Republican. All of that corporate money these Democrats get comes with strings attached. Just look at Obama's record of Wall Street prosecutions (Eric Holder is Obama's guy after all)! They spend 80% of their time fundraising. What do they do at all of these fundraisers, make promises in return for that money to continue flowing, that's what! Those promises rarely benefit the average American.

Wake up! Our whole election system is broken, corrupt, rigged... They get us to vote the lesser of two evils by always having a crazy bag of shite running as a Republican! "Oh no, we have to vote for Hillary because otherwise Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney will get in. Then the Democrat quietly does the bidding of the corporations and throws us a few bones to be better than the Republican they will face next election.

To stop this we need to fight for Publicly Funded Elections and attack the root problem that allows corporations to run this country by owning the politicians!

[woo me with science]

286. +1000000000000000 Thank you

for the truth.

GET THE MONEY OUT.

[99th_Monkey]

8. Well said William Pitt ... I share your befuddlement

For some odd reason jailing whistleblowers, keeping Gitmo open, and draconian DoJ/DEA drug busts in states that have legalized or medical mj have become all the rage on DU during the past 6 years. Whoda thunk?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Well ...

Nowadays, however, because some politicians with a (D) after their names aren't, don't or won't stand for some or all of those ideals, pointing that out here and criticizing it has become some sort of high crime.

Perhaps, it's related to this:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Does that help?

[WilliamPitt]

13. Do you really think

discussing in this place the clear problems we have about holding our elected officials accountable for their actions/inactions is going to swing one single election tomorrow?

Which one? How?

...and pssssssst...maybe...juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe...the act of being critical is an act of love, an attempt to point out a flaw in the hopes of improving or expunging it.

Juuuuust maybe.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Possibly ...

There are plenty of races out there where every single vote/non-vote will count.

...and pssssssst...maybe...juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe...the act of being critical is an act of love, an attempt to point out a flaw in the hopes of improving or expunging it.

It is not the DU regulars that I am concerned with; but rather, those Democratic leaners/potential Democratic voters/non-voters that might happen across DU during these critical days. A couple of months ago, I think it was Duer Mineral Man (I believe it was) that DUer's quotes were used by the right and Left to attack Democrats.

Being lovingly critical is great; but, not when 1) that is ALL one does; and, 2) not at crunch time, when every Democratic vote/non-vote counts.

I know you (think you) are fighting the noble battle for the soul of the Democratic Party ... fine! But, in battle, you aim your fire at your imperfect allies, rather than our common enemy.

[WilliamPitt]

39. I can see the headline

Senator Derpnoodle Lashes Out at Anonymous Online Forum Poster After Election Defeat

(AP) Democratic Senator Herp Derpnoodle went on an angry, spittle-flecked tirade last night over an anonymous internet poster's criticism of his support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

"It's all because of that SaveTheEarth2014 person on that DemoUnderground place," railed Derpnoodle. "If he had just kept his trap shut and understood the absolute necessity for total lockstep solidarity, no matter how crummy my positions are, I wouldn't have lost by 40,000 votes!"

...yeah, no.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Are you reading what I wrote, or just responding to the voice(s) in your head? ...

If you did not/do not believe that your words having meaning/influence ... why are you writing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Will, you are not displaying well ...

Possibly ... There are plenty of races out there where every single vote/non-vote will count."

Do you doubt my comment is true? Why did you leave out the rest of what I wrote:

It is not the DU regulars that I am concerned with; but rather, those Democratic leaners/potential Democratic voters/non-voters that might happen across DU during these critical days. A couple of months ago, I think it was Duer Mineral Man (I believe it was) that DUer's quotes were used by the right and Left to attack Democrats.

Being lovingly critical is great; but, not when 1) that is ALL one does; and, 2) not at crunch time, when every Democratic vote/non-vote counts.

I know you (think you) are fighting the noble battle for the soul of the Democratic Party ... fine! But, in battle, you aim your fire at your imperfect allies, rather than our common enemy.

Which was specifically on point to pursue the faux headline?

And why do you choose to further enflame with this, completely unconnected crap:

Do you remember what you wrote, or are you going to drop another "watermelon" comment on me and get yourself nuked out of another one of my threads?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[WilliamPitt]

108. Crunch time

is when it matters most.

And P.S., I have a project for you: find me a DUer who didn't vote because of something I said.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. I'll repeat ...

Since you seem intent on ignoring what I have written.

It is not the DU regulars that I am concerned with (ETA, I am pretty certain DUers will vote, and that the vast majority of DUers will vote Democratic down the line); but rather, those Democratic leaners/potential Democratic voters/non-voters that might happen across DU during these critical days. A couple of months ago, I think it was Duer Mineral Man (I believe it was) that DUer's quotes were used by the right and Left to attack Democrats.

And again ...

Being lovingly critical is great; but, not when 1) that is ALL one does; and, 2) not at crunch time, when every Democratic vote/non-vote counts.

I know you (think you) are fighting the noble battle for the soul of the Democratic Party ... fine! But, in battle, (ETA: it is unwise to) aim your fire at your imperfect allies, rather than our common enemy.

[nashville_brook]

67. omg -- if a DUer said it, it must be TRUE!! and lethal to the party!

quick everyone -- hide the bongs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. I can't tell what you are talking about? ...

So I'll guess:

Yes ... A DUer called this Democratic President a "POS Used Car Salesman" ... And, another told a watermelon joke ... And, yet a third DUer told a Black DUer to "get a job and go back to watching Housewives of Atlanta".

And, ALL of these DUers have been termed the "best and brightest pillars of DU" ... and ALL have a rather vocal protective following that ALSO have nothing good to say about this President or Democrats, in general. Go figure.

[MADem]

146. I think you think that you don't need to follow the TOS.

That's sure as hell what your OP smells like to me.

But hey, you're noticed. That was the goal, wasn't it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. Reminds me of an old saying.

To assume makes an ass of u and me.

Especially since the people who are generally being criticized are not actually running for office at the moment.

I don't seem to recall seeing anyone here 'bashing, trashing, undermining or depressing turnout' for Braley, Grimes, or any other candidate during the election season.

Criticisms are being leveled about things like the TPP, which is, atm, entirely about the President, who is not, nor ever will again, be running for office.

So unless you actually see someone bashing specific candidates in the current election, I'd go easy on the 'assuming'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Because ...

I don't seem to recall seeing anyone here 'bashing, trashing, undermining or depressing turnout' for Braley, Grimes, or any other candidate during the election season.

Criticisms are being leveled about things like the TPP, which is, atm, entirely about the President, who is not, nor ever will again, be running for office.

The attempts to conflate President Obama with EVERY Democrat, even Braley and Grimes, has been so ineffective, right?

My point is ... a couple months self-restraint is not/should not be all that difficult, as each and every Democratic vote/non-vote counts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. You mean the attempts by the President?

I gotta say, I massively cringed when he came out and told Sharpton that the Dem candidates were all supporting 'his agenda'.

Yes, Republicans are trying to tie the candidates to the President. And the President is too.

Either the President is right to want to tie the candidates to him, or he is 'trying to depress turnout' for them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Okay. eom.

[merrily]

233. I wondered what that was about. Almost the entire Republican campaign strategy this year

seems to be attempting to equate every Democratic candidate with Obama. And almost the entire campaign strategy of Democrats this year (at least in the ads I've been seeing in Boston) has been to underscore that the Democratic candidate is not Obama and Obama is not running. (What a bizarre and dysfunctional election season!)

But then, Obama comes out and says the same things the Republican candidates and PACs have been saying most of the election season. Said, "I told them to do whatever they needed to do win." And many Democrats seem to think that what they needed to do to win this year was to try hard to distance themselves from Obama. So, Obama stays quiet about that until the campaigns are winding down, but there is still time for the Republicans to use his words against Democratic candidates?

Scott Brown, now running as a carpetbagger in New Hampshire against Jean Shaheen, has been quoting Obama statement about how Obama is not seeking votes this year, but Obama's policies are--and Shaheen has voted with Obama 99% of the time.

Meanwhile, Scott Brown, as a REPUBLICAN Senator from Massachusetts, voted "with Obama" 78% of the time. Why would it be unusual for a Democratic Senator like Shaheen to have voted with Obama a bit more than a Republican Senator from the Northeast voted "with Obama?" And why does Shaheen let Brown hammer her with having voted "with Obama" 99% of the time without making that point?

I have never seen a midterm as dumbass as this one and hope the future brings us campaigns that are more meaningful.

[MADem]

145. No shit! It seems pretty clear to me!

Can't understand why this is confusing to some people, and then they get all pouty when it's pointed out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. But, at least I didn't drop another "watermelon" comment on him! eom.

[MADem]

156. Really.

The shit that goes down on this so-called Democratic board.

[jeff47]

10. The problems will still be around on Wednesday.

And the fix is for us to get involved in every damn election. Especially local elections.

Don't like the choices on your general election ballot? Well, turnout in the primary elections was around 20%. You want better candidates in November, you have to show up in the spring.

And those "boring" local elections are the pool of candidates for higher office. If you want better candidates for President, we need better Governors and Senators. If you want better Governors and Senators, then we need better House members and state senators. If you want those to be better, then we need better state house members and local executives. And so on down the line to those boring school boards, city/county/town councils, and so on.

The way we actually stand for these things instead of talking about standing for them is to work from the bottom-up, and especially in the primaries. Hell, we need to actually run in those "boring" local elections.

It's going to take a while to do this. So waiting a week before going back to complaining about the top of the potential 2016 ticket isn't gonna do much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. +1 ...

[stevenleser]

115. Exactly right on all counts.

I've burned an article and radio segment here and there on those local candidate races for that very reason. We as a group/party don't seem to take them as seriously as we should, and the GOP does. That's how we got screwed in redistricting this last time out and that's why the GOP always has a bigger farm team from whom to choose higher office candidates than we do.

But most correct and infuriating is why would you post an OP like this today, the day before the election and not on Wednesday if you cared at all about what is going to happen tomorrow? With social media and some of the tools that campaigns on both sides have, it would be easy to blast a link to this OP out to millions of people in the span of 15 minutes with some brief commentary saying "Even Will Pitt, Liberal iconoclast, says Democrats aren't worth voting for" and that's it. You could affect tens or even hundreds of thousands of votes that way.

I wish some folks were smarter than that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

213. With that last paragraph, you are too charitable. eom.

[RiverLover]

235. I agree with him 1000% and I'm still voting D

I wish the Democrats weren't bought by Big Business, but they are. Its the way our political system is rigged. I wish we could talk about that fact more here without being villified or ignored. I wish I was excited to vote.

One good thing--If Sherrod Brown were running, I'd be proud to vote, but he's set in the senate representing Ohio until next time. He's one of a handful of true Democrats left in this country, imo.

[stevenleser]

260. That has nothing to do with what I wrote. What you personally are doing is not at issue.

The tools campaigns have at their disposal gives them the ability to blast a link like one to this OP out to millions of people in a few minutes.

[jaysunb]

140. +1 n/t

[WillyT]

12. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

& rec !!!

[LawDeeDah]

16. calling the Democratic President a Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman does not = Debate.

Explained, and no further text. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

18. Sure inspired a lot of debate around here.

A debate, I might add, that is ongoing, as evidenced by your post.

[Autumn]

163. It's still a hot debate Will... by people who weren't even members at the time

[WilliamPitt]

165. LOL

[Puglover]

248. Yeah not to terribly

hard to put that together is it?

[Autumn]

257. Hey Puglover. How goes it?

It's so easy to put together.

[Puglover]

258. Going good Autumn.

It's getting darker and colder here in beautiful BLUE Minnesota daily. (All this sophomoric "Rat Fucking nonsense cracks me up.) I am enjoying the fact that this is my last winter in the US. Hopefully that will get me through the big freeze.

[Autumn]

259. Last winter here? You are so lucky

Yeah the Rf nonsense is just too cute Yeah i think winter here in wonderful CO is going to come in with a vengeance, not looking forward to that at all.

[RobertEarl]

24. How I see that situation

Pitt was calling the healthcare act a "used piece of shit" and Obama as the "salesman" of that. Both of which are true.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. If that is what WP meant ...

he would have explained that at the time ... To my recollect, he did not punctuate it the way you have.

[RobertEarl]

47. Pitt was faced with a bad personal situation when he wrote that

And then many on DU dumped on him because of the ODS which he described in this OP.

Everyone is free to take it however they may. I stated as how I see it.

Being that there are some things with more import than what Pitt may or may not have meant, it comes as a surprise that so many still carry that around with them hoping to crush WP every chance they get.

But then, this situation is described quite well in the OP we are presented with here.

That.... many here are off kilter in their words here on DU.
That.... instead of going after our enemies, they are going after our friends. Yes, WP is a friend.

[zappaman]

50. "That.... many here are off kilter in their words here on DU."

Oh...on that we agree!!!

[LawDeeDah]

61. I consider the President a better friend than W. Pitt

if you want to play this as a popularity contest.

[RobertEarl]

69. Read the OP again.

Apparently for the first time.

But if you are so clouded with hate for WP because he said something bad about Obama, then you will read into the OP whatever you want?

[zappaman]

46. Of course you see the situation wrongly.

Not a shocker there...

[LawDeeDah]

74. There must be scads of Online Writing courses,

courses on how to make your point clearly, etc. Perhaps you can find some resources and forward to the person you say is not a good communicator and didn't really mean what he actually said?

[RobertEarl]

82. You claim

That WP called Obama a piece of shit?

As in the piece of shit is a used car salesman?

Obama, is not a used car salesman, and WP knows that.

However, the ACA could be labeled a piece of shit because it is just an 80's republican idea being resold. Meaning ... used car, a piece of shit used car, that Obama is selling.

It's weird some of you are still carrying this around. Gawd what an awful anchor it must be.

[MADem]

154. Well then, why did he say that in the title of his OP?

He said, precisely:

Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman. From my heart and soul, fuck you.


That seems pretty clear to me. Here's the thread--a lot of people had a problem with that comment. The comment was a piece of ... well, I won't stoop to his level.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

[1StrongBlackMan]

214. Damn ...

If some here, campaigned as hard for Grimes, as they are for Will, she'd be up by 400 points!

[RobertEarl]

218. If people here went after republicans...

...as much as they are going after WP, we'd be rid of republicans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

240. Funny you should say that ...

Because the FOW, also are quite the non-repllublican bashing group ... something about "cheerleading" or "highest form of patriotism being holding elected officials ' feet to the fire" (ironic, huh? Criticism of Democrats on this board is some high and mighty act AND has none impact on non-political person's voting ... Funny, that!)

[Puglover]

274. "Still carrying it around?"

LOL the poster you are responding to wasn't a member of DU when that ill considered comment was made.

When I asked them about it this is the answer I received.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5741288

It must have truly traumatized them.

[MADem]

148. You'd think someone who styles himself a writer would have made that clearer, then.

I think the phrase "piece of shit used car salesman" is pretty self-explanatory. He didn't say that the ACA was that, he said that OBAMA was that.

I think your attempt to mitigate, tortuously, is a bit sad.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Spend a bit of time reviewing the things said to LGBT people simply for advocating our own equality

For years it was 'your wanting a pony will cost us the election'. The very day that Obama spoke out in support of equality, people on DU were explaining with great certainty that he simply could not do that or Mitt would be President.
Poutrage. 'Be pragmatic! There is no hope of marriage equality outside a few States for at least a generation, settle for the reasonable compromise of civil unions for you, marriage for me so that we can focus on important issues! Don't you care about the poor? Or the WAR?????'
Mitt was going to win, McCain was going to win. Kerry had to mince words, or he'd loose. 'Stop demanding a whole loaf, you are the enemy of the good, insisting on the perfect, and by perfect I mean that which I was born to, which you should not dare ask for unless you want President Palin.'
Seriously. Do a search. Read up.

[Ed Suspicious]

116. This is truth.

[Blanks]

201. I think that you've made the best point so far...

When the president stood where he needed to stand on LGBT equality the country changed with him. He didn't hurt his chances by doing the right thing.

The politicians who feel like they have to tote around a rifle to win an election should take this as an example (unless they really are a gun enthusiast) because where we would benefit the most is with politicians that are passionate about the issues that they believe in, and not politicians that 'run the numbers' on what their constituents will or will not support.

[markpkessinger]

21. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Will Pitt . . .

. . . and again I say, thank you!

[JaneyVee]

22. How many here were here since 2001?

And what's posted on DU doesn't stay on DU. Solidarity wins elections, not cynicism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. So what, if we're 'newer immigrants' we don't matter?

Not worth as much as the Plymouth Rock DUers? That means that old trolls are more 'worthy' than new hardcore dems.

[JaneyVee]

31. What the hell does that mean, and....

How did you interpret that from my post?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. "How many here were here since 2001?"

Sure sounds like 'Why should I listen to anyone who hasn't been here since 2001?'

What did your question mean, if it wasn't denigrating people who hadn't been on the site long enough?

[Doctor_J]

261. Some have solidarity for principles, others for labels. If a pro-TPP, pro-fracking, pro-insurance,

pro-drilling, anti-public school gets into office, how is that "winning an election"?

[840high]

25. Thank you. I vote for principal.

[TeeYiYi]

43. !...

TYY

[RKP5637]

32. K&R! n/t

[maxrandb]

34. Seriously, here's the deal

The Republicans have learned that mid-terms and local elections matter, and they make them "national".

That's why they will hold their nose and vote for a "so-called" "moderate" like Scott Brown in NH, because all that matters to them is that they ensure we have Mitch McConnel as Senate Majority Leader, and every crazy "the world is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so" wingnut appointed to the Science and Technology Committee, giving away grants to erect "science" museums depicting humans riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

Folks are going to vote for their politicians based on what's important to them. While we on DU may agree that Climate Change is a huge problem, that coal-miner in Kentucky couldn't give a rats-ass about that, because what he cares about is his livliehood.

What plays in Peoria, IL, is not going to be the same as what plays in Seattle....but...and it's a very important BUT, with control of the House and Senate, progressives can make the kind of changes that move us in the right direction.

We are an "instant gratification" nation, but politics, and especially the kind of politics that are a long-hard-slog to bend the course of history, is a long game.

Let me ask you a serious question.

Despite the fact that President Obama has not gotten 100% of what he wanted...is there any doubt in your mind that he has been 1,000 times better than McCain or Romney would have been? Because, no matter how you want to "spin" it...that is/was your choice!

For me, there is no doubt that this country is better off after 6 years of President Obama...and I lament the fact of how much better it could have been had we given him more support, by electing more Democrats in 2010.

But what did we do? We allowed some truly insane people to grasp the reigns of power, and now (although I don't believe all the doom and gloomers) it appears we are ready to give even more insane people, even more power.

And please don't give me any of that "the lesser of two evils" crap. If you've been paying attention, you should be able to see that there is truly only one evil in politics right now. We don't win anything by standing on the sidelines and allowing them to run roughshod over this country...unless you're one of the "let's let it get as bad as it can...and then we can win" folks.

I'm not willing to put this country through that.

You wrote:

Among the attributes most clearly cherished were a demand for fair and open elections, a love of the Constitution and the rule of law, a desire to stop unjust or unwise wars, and a desire to protect and defend the environment, a desire to bring the criminals in government and Wall Street to justice.

Let me address those one by one:

- Fair and open elections. what legislature or governorship controlled by Democrats supported and passed restrictive Voter Disenfrachisement Laws? Which Supreme Court Justices nominated by a Democrat gutted the Voting Rights Act? I can tell you...the answer is NONE. That is the kind of legislation you get with Republican control.

- Love of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. What Party nominated and confirmed Supreme Court Justices Sotomayer and Kagan? What Party nominated and confirmed Eric Holder as Attorney General? What Party began to address the unfair sentencing practices that turned drug users into livelong prisoners? When you elect Democrats, you get Kagan and Sotomayer. When you elect Republicans...YOU GET THOMAS, ALITO AND SCALIA

- A desire to stop unjust or unwise wars. Out of Afghanistan. Out of Iraq... Standing up to Bibi Netanyaho, vice doing his bidding. Bin Laden dead in a raid that cost ZERO American lives. Do you doubt that with McCain, or Romney we would be in World War III by now??

- A desire to protect and defend the environment. The largest ever investment in Green Energy. Stricter EPA Power Plant Regulations, unprecedented protections of millions of acres of public lands, etc, etc, etc. That is what you get when you elect Democrats. Poisoned water and earthquakes in Ohio and the Dakotas is what you get when you elect Republicans.

- A desire to bring the criminals in government and Wall Street to justice. I may give you a little bit on this, but let's not forget that it was this President, and a Democratic controlled Legislative Branch that passed and signed one of the most comprehensive Wall Street reform laws in this nation's history. One other thing...it's great that we "demand" bringing people to justice, but one problem with your argument can be found in my answer to your Love of the Constitution and Rule of Law point. Unfortunately, what the bastards on Wall Street did to this country was perfectly legal. I'm sorry, but if you truly believe in the "rule of law", you can't insist we arrest and prosecute people, just because it makes us feel good. Find a law that was broken, and I'm sure Holder would prosecute. - BTW, do you really think putting Republicans in charge is going to somehow hold Wall Street accountable?

so there's my answer. In fact, as I wrote this...I was kind of shocked that the Democrats and President Obama were able to get so much accomplished. Especially when you consider the withering, relentless attacks from both the right AND THE LEFT!!!!!

Sometimes, you need a Senator Landreiu so that you can get a Justice Ginsberg. That's a deal I'd make 1000 times over!

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. +1 ...

[olegramps]

86. Absolutely right on.

I am afraid that some of these people who can only find fault with the Obama administration will find much to find fault with when their counterproductive behavior results in the Senate under Republican control. It all starts at the local level from school boards and municipal elections to state and federal elections. I have to hand it to the Republicans who grasp the importance of gaining local control first. Much of their organization is attributable to groups ranging from fundamentalist congregations to some main stream religions such as the Catholic Church which used to be 90% Democrats. They knew how to use the wedge issues to divide and conquer. They are real zealots who are dedicated to winning.

[LawDeeDah]

97. *Standing Ovation. Why does this have to be said and resaid over and over?

Not quite as well as you did here though. Why are people so thick? it's right in front of you.

[TBF]

105. Define "the country" -

as in your statement "the country is much better off".

And you don't need to explain it in words I can understand - you need to explain it in words that make sense to that coal miner you mentioned in your 3rd line. That is the problem the democratic party is having right now. I lived inside the beltway for 10 years too and I remember all too well the intellectual snobbery and elitism that exist there. It may be a game (and a "long game" at that) for the players - ie the 1% and their pawns - but it is a life for everyone else. Foreclosures matter. Bankers getting off scot-free matter. NSA listening to every call - reading every forum post - that matters.

Right now you need to show Peoria why the hell they should vote for democrats. The republicans are going to throw everything out there that they think can stick - Ebola, guns, god etc ... Don't just say "hey we're not crazy". Explain how the democratic party is helping the average American - and I mean the ones making under $35K a year - not the investment bankers. They don't care that the stock market is up - they are lucky if there's more than $100 in their checking account much less investments. They don't care that Obamacare exists if they can't even make the co-pays. Give them a reason to vote and they'll do it. If they can afford the drive to the polling station.

[maxrandb]

167. Where to start

Maybe that coal-miner is one of the 420K+ that are now covered under KyNECT (the KY ACA Exchange)

Maybe his neighbor is covered by expanded Medicaid, and is able to stay in and maintain his home, increasing the value of his own home.

Maybe he is one of the 750K jobs we were shedding each month 5 years ago, that now has a job, or his neighbor, daughter, son, in-law or wife now has a job.

Maybe his house is no longer under water due to the recovery.

Maybe his kid has spina-bifida, and is now able to get health insurance because he can no longer be denied because of a pre-existing condition.

Maybe his water is a little cleaner and his air is a little cleaner due to EPA Power Plant regulations.

Maybe his children can now afford to go to college because we've put some brakes on the outrageous interest rates for student loans.

Those are just a few off the top of my head, but how about this one too?

Maybe his son or daughter is not on their 10TH Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now, how about you tell me how he benefits from a Republican Senate????

[TBF]

188. Excellent start -

except I can tell you that my friends back home are sending their kids off on deployment. So, that hasn't completely ended yet. But I also know that didn't start with this administration.

I'm not the one to tell you how anyone benefits from a Republican Senate - because I am not the one you need to convince. You need to convince Joe and Mabel in Peoria. From what I've seen on my Facebook Feed the message is getting through on the coasts but not the midwest/south (I grew up in the midwest, went to graduate school on the east coast, and now live in the south so I see a variety of stuff when I check friend feeds). The republicans co-opting of religion is probably the biggest barrier I've noticed.

[Martin Eden]

241. "The republicans co-opting of religion"

That's very true. Maybe Democrats should point out how Republican policies -- comforting the rich while denigrating the poor -- is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Maybe Democrats should affirm their support of religious freedom by explaining how the cornerstone of that freedom laid by our nation's Founders is the separation of church and state.

What the Republican Party does do much better than the Democratic Party is craft a simple, easily understood message, and keep hammering it over and over and over until it becomes a core belief among low information voters. That message is a deceptive facade crafted by One Percenters who are getting fat at the expense of the voters swayed by that message.

The Democrats need a core message of their own that is rooted in the truth, and they need to learn how to wield it in a manner that cuts through the deceptive facade. This will not be easy and it will not be quick. The GOP has gotten to where it is now by crafting and hammering their message for decades, and there is a tremendous inertia of "conservative" beliefs to overcome.

Most true believers can never be convinced they have been played for fools all along. I'm not talking about religious belief -- I'm talking about the belief that the Republican Party and its policies represent Christian values and the interests of Joe and Mabel in Peoria.

The key is to educate young voters before they turn into Joe and Mabel with their TV tuned to Faux News every night.

We need to start NOW, and never let up.

[TBF]

242. Great post -

I agree with you.

[canoeist52]

168. Thank you for this. It IS more than a game for most of us in the real world.

[2banon]

186. Excellent retort TBF. Outstanding. Well Said! Sadly it goes right over their heads.

Many just don't get it, or don't want to get it, or they just don't give a flying fuck maybe because they aspire to be a part of the 1% even if only as a pawn

None the less, yours is a most excellent post.

[LordGlenconner]

121. +1. I find your last line the most compelling

There's a few folks around here who have a lot of problems processing nuance.

I'm still waiting for the candidate that is perfect in every way, but alas he/she has not shown up yet.

[TBF]

190. Your problem is not on DU -

The goal of the party is obviously to blame the horrible leftists for not voting, but that is not the truth. Who the hell else are communists going to vote for - if you think we're going to show up and vote for Greg Abbott you've got rocks for brains. We vote dem just as you do. Your problem is that you are not connecting with middle America.

[LordGlenconner]

270. And your problem is you covet the struggle

You'd rather lose because you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate that isn't completely aligned with your worldview in every way than win voting for someone you might disagree with on a few issues.

And I have no fucking idea who Greg Abbott is, nor do I give a fuck.

Have a terrific day.

[TBF]

279. If you have no idea who Greg Abbott is

than you have no business questioning what anyone else on this site is doing. You have no idea who the republican candidate running against Wendy Davis happens to be? You should be hoping he loses today. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid purist, unicorn, pony-wanting, unreasonable commie.

[LordGlenconner]

281. Self awareness is good thing

Congrats on that.

[Number23]

292. Jesus Cripes Almighty. I have never seen folks RUN, not walk, RUN to wear the mantle of perceived

victimhood as some folks do on this web site. Their attempts to always portray themselves as the victims would be hilarious if it wasn't kind of megalomaniacal and sad at the same time.

All of this endless whining about "hippie punching" is just about the stupidest thing I think I've ever seen. I just saw a thread where someone called another person's comments "bilge" and the perpetually aggrieved responded by saying "why must you attack THE LEFT?" I'm reading that shit and my mouth fell open. I wanted to say "gooby, he wasn't criticizing THE LEFT he was criticizing YOUR elementary school comments! Why the flying fuck do you think that you speak for or represent THE LEFT?"

I swear, some of these folks around here have simply GOT to be pulling all of our chains. Otherwise, these same folks who do nothing but criticize the president and Democrats but bray like broken mules when someone dares to criticize THEM are even more foolish than they appear. And half the time, the criticism isn't even directed at them yet they run like Carl Lewis to wear it and then scream about "hippie punching" as if they matter even the tiniest bit politically. Good God.

[rhett o rick]

131. You wrote a lot of words and didn't address his question.

Will asked, "Are we really that chickenshit that we can't discuss and debate these serious issues, and whether our (D)'s are living up to them?" Why is it necessary for some to disparage Democrats for being critical of their elected representatives.

Your answer, "Democrats are far better than Republicans." Which is just a statement of the obvious. But why can't Democrats hold their representatives accountable?

Most Americans are opposed to fracking. Fracking is damaging to our environment and isn't something that meets Democratic standards. Why can't a Democrat criticize an elected Democratic representative for supporting fracking?

[maxrandb]

180. I thought that's what we were doing?

Debating.

No one says you can't debate, or have disagreements, but what you can't do is stay home, or have the insane idea that "both parties are the same" and "why should we be motivated" just because some Democrat doesn't meet some arbitrary litmus test.

Hell, I've been married 30 years, and I don't agree with everything my wife says or does, but I'm not ready to turn her in for a "fundy whack-job" who would support things that would ruin my life.

Why are we ready to turn the government over to fundies that will ruin our lives.

If my representative hits 51% of what I believe in, and his opponent hits 0% and will vote for Mitch McConnel as Majority Leader, I'll take the 51% every time.

Let me ask you a question..."Are we too chickenshit to think we can't work to increase that 51% agreement to 70 or 80%? We sure as hell aren't going to change of influence the 0%-er.

[LWolf]

244. You're debating something different.

Your arguments don't address WP's point.

[Hippo_Tron]

135. I agree with some of what you said, but here's the problem

We're not going to achieve permanent majority status. The country generally elects one party for 8 years then they elect the other party. There's not much we can actually do about that no matter how we govern. It's the nature of the two party system. If we take baby steps while we're in power and they take giant steps while they're in power, we're losing the game.

Here's my counter point to your analogy. As someone who grew up in Louisiana, I'm a huge fan of Mary Landrieu. She's done an outstanding job as U.S. Senator and I think she gets way too much flack from people who don't know jack shit about Louisiana politics.

Now, here's the deal. Mary Landrieu is probably going to lose her re-election in December and she's probably going to lose it because she voted for Obamacare. This was a risk she knew she was taking when she voted for Obamacare, but commendably decided that it was a risk worth taking. The same goes for Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and all of the other red state Democrats who voted for Obamacare and lost (or likely will lose) their seats because of it.

So, here's what I don't get. If we have to face a huge public backlash at the polls to get a health care law passed, then why not pass a BETTER health care law? Wouldn't it be better if Mary Landrieu loses because she was the deciding vote for Single Payer (or at least a plan with a public option) rather than her losing because she was the deciding vote for the ACA?

After the honeymoon period, we're going to lose at the polls whether we implement change slowly or we implement it quickly. That's the nature of the beast. So I think we might as well implement it quickly.

[maxrandb]

173. Because you would not have gotten Single Payer

No way-No how.

What you do is that you get the possible, and you don't reject the "good" for the "perfect", because the road to "perfect" is long, and is made in incremental steps. In fact, I thought the progressive ideal was to pursue the perfect union, while understanding that you may never get there...but each step in the right direction IS PROGRESS.

[Hippo_Tron]

196. Again, why couldn't we have gotten it though?

Because it's a loser at the ballot box? So is the ACA.

[markpkessinger]

295. Have you forgotten about the "Blue Dogs?"

They were absolutely unwilling to go with single payer.

[Maedhros]

136. Indeed.

And please don't give me any of that "the lesser of two evils" crap. If you've been paying attention, you should be able to see that there is truly only one evil in politics right now. We don't win anything by standing on the sidelines and allowing them to run roughshod over this country...unless you're one of the "let's let it get as bad as it can...and then we can win" folks.

And that evil includes:

* Codifying indefinite detention into law, thus abandoning the writ of habeus corpus that has been the cornerstone of Western civil rights since Charlemagne

* Waging elective wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.

* Increasing military operations in Africa by 217% since 2009.

* Defining "militants" as any military-aged male so as to obscure the civilian death toll from drone strikes.

* "Signature strikes" targeting people who look like they might be involved with persons who might be "terrorists."

* "Double-tap" drone strikes targeting first responders.

* Diplomatic arm-twisting to get allied countries to force down a diplomatic flight carrying a foreign head-of-state because the Administration believes a whistle-blower to be on board.

* Criminalizing adversarial journalism and using the Espionage Act more than any other Administration combined to punish whistleblowers, leakers and journalists.

* Maintaining and expanding a blanket surveillance program of U.S. citizens.

* Undermining teachers' unions.

* Coordinating a brutal militarized-police crackdown of peaceful protests nationwide.

* Crafting and debating in secret a trade agreement (the TPP) that will further undermine and damage the working and middle classes.

* Allowing major Wall Street and Oil Executive criminals off the hook for the financial and environmental disasters they wrought.

* Turning a blind eye, repeatedly, to U.S. citizens killed by the excesses of the IDF.

* An Administration official lying to the Senate.

But, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There is only one evil, and it's the other guys.

EDIT: I forgot the most egregious one:

* Claiming the power, without oversight, to name a U.S. citizen an "enemy of the state" and to execute that citizen without due process. Really, if you can be OK with this how on Earth can you dare call anyone else "evil?"

[woo me with science]

251. Thank you.

[steve2470]

138. +1 nt

[jaysunb]

142. Mercy ! n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

158. WooHoo!

[GusBob]

160. RIGHTEOUS! !!!!! NT

[betsuni]

211. THANK YOU!

[LWolf]

245. That's a long, passionate post

that completely ignores the point.

The point is about how, on DU, those who are critical of elected Democrats who don't fight for Democratic principles, win or lose, are suddenly cast as "the enemy" on DU.

The point was not about whether or not Democrats in general are better than Republicans, or whether or not elected Democrats face opposition in Congress.

While I can agree with most of your points, at least to a degree, that doesn't excuse the fact that you didn't address Will's point.

Those that I DO disagree with: I disagree, on principle, with using the knee-jerk "would you rather have had <insert any Republican>???" argument. It's weak, and doesn't address the primary concern. Of course we wouldn't "rather have __________." That's a given. It doesn't, though, somehow excuse the Democrat in question for bad policy.

I disagree on principle with the passionate defense of the POTUS just because he's a POTUS with a "D" after his name, with blaming Republicans for his poor leadership, and with the premise that I would have WANTED him to get "100% of what he wanted." I never wanted 100% of what Barack Obama wanted.

That said, some of your points would be good...if the argument were about Obama or about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, this one isn't.

[maxrandb]

285. And you're missing the point

that what elected Democrats do...hell, what all of us hope our elected politicians do...is represent the voters who sent them there in the first place

What that means is that it does not matter one damn bit what you think an elected Democrats principals should be...what matters is what the voters in that state or district believe the elected Democrats principals should be.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand that what is important to voters in Kentucky, is not the same as what's important to voters in Seattle, you're hopeless.

If you want to be a "big tent", you need to understand the if Alison Grimes gets elected, her beliefs, principals and vote, carry the same weight as those of Bernie Sanders.

and here is why that is important to understand.

Alison Grimes may not support the dismantling of coal powered electrical plants and an end to mining, but she sure as hell would be a vote to protect the Voting Rights Act.

BTW - Who the "eff" are you, or who is Will Pitts, that you get to decide what is important to me???

Did you even read my passionate post??? If you did, you would see that I was not "just defending President Obama because he has a (D) after his name"...I gave you several examples of concrete accomplishments he has had over the past 6 years.

That's one of the great things about this country. Neither you, nor Will Pitts gets to decide what's best for us, or what's best for the country. We all get to decide that and it's why I will vote for Democrats, because I know they will steer this country in the right direction.

I don't need some kind of "effing" purity test. We already have a party that has that. Maybe you and Will could join them. All you need is a Tri-Corner Hat, and a belief that you know what's best. You're already halfway there!

[LWolf]

291. I don't think so.

I'm not missing your point at all. I'm just pointing out that it ignores the point made by the OP.

But please. Post a whole bunch more, with more really important stuff bolded. That will certainly distract from what this thread was begun to discuss.

Feel free to oh-so-sincerely and patronizingly try to explain politics, party or otherwise to me. I'm sure you're getting something out of it.

As am I, but probably not what you intended.

[MaggieD]

275. Exactly

And just how dumb about politics does a person have to be to NOT realize that?

[freshwest]

294. ^^excellent^^

[Rhiannon12866]

37. I took this test (New York) and apparently I agree slightly more with the Green Party candidates

It was only 96% (Green) vs. 92% (Democrat), but still... I've never voted third party and don't intend to start now, but I was more than a little surprised with my results...

http://www.isidewith.com/new-york-voter-guide

[ablamj]

176. I'm surprised too.

I got 97% Green, 95 % Dem, 68% Socialist, 68% Libertarian. I always considered myself closer to Socialist, but maybe I was wrong.

[Rhiannon12866]

191. I did better on Socialist than Libertarian, don't remember exactly

But it was somewhere in the middle. And if they're judging "Libertarian" by the actual candidates, who knows how they're defining it? Then I got 6% Republican and 5% Conservative. I was surprised it was even that much...

I was particularly pleased that it told me how I felt about the propositions.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. If Dems lose seats tomorrow, it's all your fault.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. That does seem to be the message, every single cycle.

Candidates are never to blame for their own choices, it's always that somehow 'the left' torpedo'ed them.

[rhett o rick]

137. I like your thinking. We can award him the "Nader Scapegoat" award. I am sure the DNC will

be glad to support that.

[woo me with science]

49. Amen, Will.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

51. Did you vote in New Hampshire's primary election this year, Will?

If not, you did not have a say in who was running as a Democrat in the state where you live. For every state and local office, you allowed whoever won the primary to be the candidate in the general election, if you did not vote in your State's primary.

I ask, because you said that you only registered to vote there about 10 days ago, despite living in that state for over a year.

The general election is the last stop in the process, not the first.

[WilliamPitt]

63. You're a dog with a bone.

No, I didn't. Had I, however, I would have voted for all the Democrats who won anyway.

One missed primary in 24 years, due to circumstances I'm not duty-bound to explain to the likes of you. My batting average is sound, MM. Go chew your bone in someone else's yard.

[MineralMan]

71. You posted the bone, Will, on a public forum.

I picked it up, since it was just lying there. Every election counts.

[Hissyspit]

77. Jeez...

[WilliamPitt]

79. *sigh*

I turned 18 and registered that same day as a Democrat, but missed the '90 election by less than a week due to age. After that: 1992 (my first available voting age election), 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, plus a pile of special elections, local elections, etc. that are too numerous to recall. I get a buzz from voting the way meth-heads get a buzz from snorting their poison. It elevates me, invigorates me, inspires me...and, by the bye, I've doled out several barrels of ink over the years trying to get other people to get into the booth. One recent example:

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/william-rivers-pitt-the-answer-is-turnout-vote-you-jackass/

...from the one primary season I've ever missed in my life.

If this is all you've got, MM, go back to bed. You're boring, and also wrong, and pretty spectacularly obnoxious.

Go ahead and reply if you wish. You won't be hearing from me again, you tiring scold.

Seriously. Go outside or something.

[MineralMan]

81. Well, my first election was 1966. I registered on my birthday, too.

I've missed one primary election since then, when I was in Turkey with the USAF and the absentee ballot didn't come in the mail in time.

I did reply. I will continue to reply, Will.

Now, I have to go walk my dog.

[MineralMan]

194. I have never voted for a republican in my life.

I was banned from that site in 2006 for anti-freeping, as you know. What does any of that have to do with this thread?

[LawDeeDah]

93. but your OP sounds like you voted, like you always do...

I clearly got that impression so Mr. Mineral's posts are correct in inquiring about that oddity, I would say. But whatever.

[LawDeeDah]

155. Right on cue. Can you explain that oddity first, I may have misunderstood

then I will tell you my entire history of my life - my full name and every intertube place I have visited.

When the going gets tough, talk about something totally unrelated .

[Electric Monk]

157. Zombie sockpuppets don't get to even pretend they have some sort of moral high ground.

[LawDeeDah]

161. Thanks, I haven't thought of this song for ages.

[Electric Monk]

166. Have I previously posted that video in reply to one of your earlier incarnations?

I'll delete my earlier response to you in this subthread, as my questions have been answered and there's no need to trouble a jury.

[LawDeeDah]

172. Okay, you toodle off then.

(toodle off is Not a swear, added just for the trigger happy lot)

[Electric Monk]

189. Thank you for keeping this thread active tonight

(Do we really need to play these passive aggressive word games?)

[beerandjesus]

198. Interesting, a boomer scolding a 13er.

I've long suspected that that's what a hell of a lot of the "discussion" here entails. Thanks for substantiating.

Funny, the same crew thought it was just fine to go after LBJ.... but that was before they elected Reagan, wasn't it?

[WilliamPitt]

212. Apologies in advance

but what's a "13er"? I ask because I don't know.

[beerandjesus]

253. aka "Generation X"

...but I kinda hate that term. People like (apparently) you (based on when you registered to vote) and me, who were born roughly between 1961 and 1981.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Boomers are disproportionately represented in the Swarm... and of course, it's people our age and younger who will be hurt by cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare, not them.

[RetroLounge]

219. Nice to come back to DU and see things haven't changed at all.

You still cause the same puke worthy reactions.



RL

[Autumn]

164. I'll send you the jury results as soon as I get them

it's been a while. I of course was a leave.

[GusBob]

171. that jury took awhile

I was a leave as well. The one long reply held things up I am guessing

[Rex]

54. Well I for one will keep critiquing whoever the fuck I want, just like always.

Authoritarians can kiss my ass, I won't do loyalty oaths and I won't blindly follow ANYONE.

Sorry, Charlie.

[zappaman]

57. Even in Denmark?

[Rex]

59. Well yeah, Denmark is special but you already knew that.

What goes on in Denmark, stays in Denmark.

[840high]

169. +10

[nashville_brook]

55. amen, Will Pitt!

these are the same fuckers who see nooooooo problem with Dem leadership pulling the rug out from under progressive Dem candidates…oh, say in SD and KY.

THAT had ZERO impact. But someone posts about their votes being switched on an electronic voting machine in NC?? ZOMG! RATFUCKING!!!

Here's a rainbow for you Will. May you always be a warrior for unicorns and other mythical creatures such as Democratic backbones.

[Xyzse]

58. I'm not going to try... That is why I have an (I) after my name rather than a (D) or (R)

I still haven't voted for an (R) in a long while, and don't see myself doing so any time soon.

[Oilwellian]

66. Thank you, Will

It's tiring to see fellow Dems referred to as "ratfuckers." Kinda self-defeating, IMHO.

[Feral Child]

73. Extremely well written post

about a very important topic.

I think the people you're referring to are much more concerned with controlling the conversation than they are about candidate accountability.


BTW, since it's been brought up once again (sigh) I found you're analogy during the ACA flap to have been inspired.

[nashville_brook]

87. ask why they want to control the conversation...

it's a lead-up to blaming the Democratic wing of the Dem party for losses felt tomorrow. BUT, if there's wins, omg -- you best believe they'll claim those!

[Feral Child]

96. Dig it! n/t

[Hissyspit]

75. I was wondering the same thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. Oooof. The Martyrs.

[DirkGently]

78. The obsession with the term "ratfucking" is telling.

This is basically a way to sneeringly call more liberal Dems a couple of childish nasty names, masked lightly with concern trolling for the well-being of the party. And a transparent way to try to pre-emptively blame liberals for whatever doesn't go well.

"Oh, it's not that we disagree with liberal criticism or liberal candidates or liberal principles. Nooo. It's just that they can never work (according to us) so you're 'depressing turnout' and really are kind of traitors. Or maybe spies!"

An updated version I saw today even lumps in anyone talking about possible Republican election misconduct as part of the "ratfucking." Because, if there's election fraud, people will get too depressed and not vote then, too. Or something.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5750820

Yeah. Makes no sense at all. Obama was supposed to be a naive liberal dream pony that was going to lose us the election too, remember? Nevermind he didn't turn out to that fluffy liberal unicorn -- that was still the argument against him during the primary.

And it's a particularly rightwing kind of attack, calling liberal Dems traitors and spies, instead of, say, making an argument about policy or the relative merits of a candidate. Get nasty. Get personal. Impugn motives and ethics. Quite Rovian, really.

And ironically, if a rightwinger DID want to screw with Dems, racing around trashing liberals as hopelessly depressing and "non-pramatic," and especially with this new twist thrown out today that even watching for Republican dirty tricks is also somehow anti-Dem (what the hell?) would be a far more likely rightwing tactic than, say, liking Elizabeth Warren.

Ratfucking! Ratfucking! Ratfucking! It's a Nixonian term and a Nixonian tactic.

More importantly, though, seeing it everywhere is Nixonian paranoia.

No one worries more about enemy spies and traitors and dirty tactics than people who spend lots of time thinking of using those very things themselves.

[nashville_brook]

84. [phone]

[ms liberty]

174. +1000000. n/t

[tclambert]

80. My high school held pep rallies where faculty encouraged students to chant, "We're number one!"

I never found anything, not a single thing, in which our school actually achieved a number one ranking. But school spirit! Cheer for our team. Rah.

[stupidicus]

83. It can be explained, just not justified

as I've seen and argued it since starting my participation here before the last pres election, it's simply the fact that the third wayers share the same "debating" tactics as their rightwing cousins, and all the BS you cited is nothing more than evidence of and a reaction to their subliminal or conscious awareness that they can't defend the indefensible.

That's why their tactics are indefensible as well, as well as their only option other than silence in the face of legitimate and heartfelt criticisms of their leaders.

[onecaliberal]

88. I share your sentiment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. We used to be called "Reds", "Commies", "Anarchists", "Peaceniks", and "Hippies".

Now, it's "ratfuckers", "disrupters", "trolls", "left fringe", "unrealistic", "Purists", etc, etc.

Same song, different words, from the same right wing of the party.

[DirkGently]

124. And it's not like they've ever been proven right.

The pure pig-headed arrogance of the "No, really. You have to shut up because you're hurting the gameplan," coming from the exact people who said Obama was too liberal to be elected.

We get it. Everyone thinks their vision of the Democratic Party is the right one, and the key to success.

Between Obama and Hillary, the left was right, and the right was wrong. Hardly for the first time, either.

But for some reason it's only conservatives, of any stripe, who like to cast whomever they disagree with as traitors and spies, oh my.

And somehow also naive. Not sure how that one works. Naive traitorous spies, whose very thoughts and opinions lose elections, who must be silent during election seasons. And campaign seasons. And the seasons leading up to election seasons and campaign seasons.

So to recap, the bulletproof "ratfucking" argument is that liberals in America's more liberal party, must shut up and stop "depressing the turnout" with their unworkable liberal views, which are also traitorous and very much like Nixon somehow, so that liberalism can WIN.

[DonCoquixote]

90. admittedly

You are getting caught in the corssfire, because there are
A) some people who do not want to vote, and use recent disenchantment as the excuse.
B) some people who think that if we let the Clinton/Obama faction of the party rot, that the idiot masses will finally submit and vote in Dennis Kucinich or Bernie sanders.
C) some genuine GOP sneaks who glaldy want to fool people (because it did work very wel in 2000)
D) some libertarian types who do not think SS or medicare will be around anyway, so we might as well at least get dope legalized.

Noen of these are you. I know that you will be out there. For what it is worth, I think you and those like you are what keep this country something worth fighting for.

AS far as ODS goes, yes Obama has made mistakes...on the other hand, the ODS comes in 3 forms:

People who never wanted to support that guy (though they sure as hell are "Ready for Hillary.&quot
People who really do think if Obama wanted to play hardball, it would be worth the effort (EVEN IF WE LOST IN THE SHORT TERM),,that is me BTW
people who frankly are hoping the far l;eft or far right will win, so that Rand Paul can lead us to glory

[Ikonoklast]

91. I'd rather have a member of the House or Senate that votes with me 80% of the time, than a

Republican that votes with me 0% of the time.



The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[WilliamPitt]

92. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

...which is why the Dems will get my vote tomorrow, and hopefully yours.

Pointing out flaws in the party is not disloyalty.

Period.

[Ikonoklast]

101. I have voted already. Straight Democratic ticket, top to bottom.

Pointing out the flaws is also no reason not to vote, nor is it any basis to discourage others from doing so.

If people don't like the candidate offered by their party, then they need to become more active in the primary process and support or the candidate that more closely aligns with their interests.

It's too late by the time the general is held, your choices are limited to the candidate that is running.

People here tend to forget that there is a broad range of Democrats in this country, not all of them are as liberal as DU would want them to be.

They still get to call themselves Democrats. Just as many here do.

[rhett o rick]

129. It appears that a number here have misunderstood the OP. You said, "People here tend to forget that

there is a broad range of Democrats in this country, not all of them are as liberal as DU would want them to be." I think Will recognizes that and thinks it's his right (I think obligation) not to worship all of them. Some deserve criticism. Stating over and over how terrible Republican are doesn't mean we can't hold our Democratic representatives accountable.

Our Democracy is sinking and to pretend that Third Way Democrats will save us is naive.

[Ikonoklast]

181. If every Blue Dog had won their seat in the last mid-term, the House would have remained Democratic.

People here were railing against them because they were socially or fiscally conservative, forgetting that they are elected to represent districts full of socially or fiscally conservative voters.

An actual Liberal would never be able to win in those districts. Most of those seats are now held by Republicans.

So many here rejoiced in Democrats losing their seats.

I saw that we lost control of the House.


I'd rather have the half of something than 100% of nothing.

It has nothing to do with "worship". It has everything to do with pragmatics and the politics of the possible.

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. I wonder if you take the time to explain this ...

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ...which is why the Dems will get my vote tomorrow, and hopefully yours.

I suspect if you had ... no one would have responded to this thread.

[sadoldgirl]

94. Naturally criticism is a necessity

especially, if it comes from the electorate.

Here is my take on these so called primaries, which are supposed to give the general party member his/her input:

We had an option between two senatorial candidates, the slightly more left leaning one was behind, but by very little and
catching up. Result?
In came the Washington apparatus, and, yes, even Obama to channel us in the "right direction" with lots of money and
speeches.
I have never forgiven him for interfering in a state primary, but as far as some here are concerned he had the right to choose
his candidate.

Thus, don't tell me about what influence a party member has, even in her/his own state. Is this what you call democratic??!!

[BKH70041]

98. Save this post.

Change a few words and I'm betting you can use it again in October 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, etc...

It's like the Johnny Carson joke where he believes there's really only one fruitcake and everyone just passes it from person to person. You can use this post again and again. This site is fruitcake central.

[Skittles]

110. nope

to some degree, perhaps, but the fingers-in-the-ears shit going on during THIS PRESIDENCY is at unprecedented levels and much of it will pass - it is HYPOCRISY

[BKH70041]

139. How do you know that for sure?

And I'm being sincere here.

You said in #106 "that shit is specific to THIS PRESIDENT (ALL they care about is how it reflects on Obama)."

This is the first time during the lifetime of this pol site that a Democratic president has existed. How can it be said for sure that "they" won't behave the same way under a different Democratic presidency? I mean, there is no track record to point at and say "You were different under (D) President A than under (D) President B" to show the hypocrisy.

Perhaps we're gleaning two different meanings from the OP and thus the confusion (at least on my part). I suppose I've just come to believe the "Be quiet and no negative! We're having an election here" group will always be in the same frame of mind come every election time. I just suggested he keep it, because a change of candidate names and maybe a few other words might be all that's needed two years from now to still express the same sentiment.

[Skittles]

200. I know it "for sure" because I have been on this site for 13 years

I've never seen such a bunch of f***ing nitwits in all that time - they're DISGUSTING - they've held OTHER DEMS to the fire - just not THIS ONE - it's ODS, plain and simple - it is PATHETIC

[Doctor_J]

100. The liberal bashing is really discouraging. I guess it was only a matter of time

Actual democratic principles are now officially off limits. Those of us who actually want the party to move away from the republicans, to create stark differences with them, to appeal to the millions of dispossessed and disenfranchised instead of the rich, are despised by people who we vote with. I tip my hat to the movers and shakers who got this done. They killed the party but got what they wanted.

[DirkGently]

112. Ironic, that their claim is liberalism "depresses turnout," isn't it?

It's just a terrible, badly thought out conceit. They're all worried about pragmatic success and party cohesion, so ....

ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A RATFUCKER AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? That's their "party unity" argument.

[smokey nj]

128. They bash Liberals to discourage them so they have someone

to blame if they lose.

[SMC22307]

224. I consider myself a flaming liberal and trust me,

tossing out the term "ratfucker" against me has ZERO impact on me. And I imagine that goes for every other flaming liberal on DU.

Discouraged? Not in the least.

[Skittles]

106. oh, THEM

that shit is specific to THIS PRESIDENT (ALL they care about is how it reflects on Obama) - those folk will come around for future presidents - it is called HYPOCRISY and it is indeed MADDENING - just ignore those assholes, William - thinking people cannot take such garbage seriously

[GeorgeGist]

107. Moderate Republicans have no place to go ...

so they come here.

They are the ratfuckers.

[DirkGently]

195. And they bring their hatred of liberals and their

misbegotten belief that lockstep loyalty and ignoring faults within your own party are anathema.

And, they think about Nixon and "rafucking" a LOT.

[frylock]

282. word up

[world wide wally]

109. I agree with you 100%… I just wish my democratic candidates would say as much in their campaigns.

I am tired of the blatant cowardice of people who won't admit they voted for the guy that cut the deficit, reduced unemployment, kept us out of wars when they could have been horrific with a Republican in charge, at least talked about climate change, insured 15 million people and so on and so forth.

I voted straight D but how do we expect people who don't focus on politics to know what is going on when our candidates won't talk about "anything" at all except how they opposed the president too?

[bigwillq]

111. K and R

[Warren Stupidity]

114. I seem to recall that during the Bush years the "pom pom squad"

played the same role as the "BOG" - i.e. the enforcers of "my party right or wrong".

[DirkGently]

119. And Obama was a liberal pipedream!

Bit tiresome to keep beating this very unconvincing drum that liberal Dems are naive and too critical and therefore an impediment to winning elections.

To take it to the very silly extreme of shrieking that liberalism or criticism is traitorous and must be silenced for the good of the party only makes the people trying to float that leaky boat look bad.

[Tatiana]

117. Looks like the party has been co-opted by the Circle Dees.

I will, of course, be voting. And I will, of course, vote for the Dems.

As far as Obama is concerned, he's better than any Republican. But he could have done a better job as an executive and as a manager. He had the opportunity for a historic Presidency. Instead, we got an adequate Presidency. Not outstanding, but not life changing either.

What's grating is when it's argued that the adequate is outstanding. When the mediocre is historic. It's not. More people lost their homes due to a corrupt mortgage system and very few of the perpetrators are behind bars. Higher education is not affordable for the middle class, even at in-state public institutions.

But what it really boils down to, in my opinion, is leadership. I don't think Obama has been the leader we've needed. There's nothing wrong with saying we can do better than bought and paid for "Circle Dee" democrats.

[emulatorloo]

122. Ratfucking = Dirty Tricks/Sabotage by political operatives. See Nixon admin

You are a student of history, you know about Nixon's self described "ratfuckers" as well as I do.

No one is calling you a ratfucker, nor is anyone calling the majority of DU posters ratfuckers.

That being said, you are very naive if you don't understand that their are at least a few paid GOP operatives who have infiltrated this site posing as "progressives". It is what they do.

You have also been around here long enough to remember "The Great Reveal" on DU election night 2004 where a few posters let us in on the secret they were posing as liberal/progressives in order to disrupt and stir the pot.

[DirkGently]

192. "Infiltrators" seem more likely to call liberals "Ratfuckers"

than to argue for liberal policies and liberal politicians though, right?

I mean, if you want to sow discord and suspicion among the Dems, you're not going to tell liberals to shut up, because liberalism can't win elections.

You're not going to argue that nominating Obama is a naive liberal pipe dream, like these same people calling liberals "ratfuckers" did then.

And you're certainly not going to Dems they're "rats" and traitors for poll watching.

Rightwingers conflate dissent with disloyalty. Conservatives think liberals are naive.

Ratfuckers call people "ratfuckers."

The Democratic Party is America's more liberal party. Therefore, it isn't the liberals who are rats and traitors. That is not something liberals obsess about, because liberals are not stupid that way.

Neither are good Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

262. It is appalling if some DU'ers are using the term that way.

And I am mortified that someone would discourage a DU member from poll watching. I have seen people try to trash GOTV threads, and just don't understand it.

Thanks for the long reply. See you at the polls

[H2O Man]

123. Very good!

Recommended.

I'll be voting tomorrow. I follow a simple rule: I vote as my conscience dictates.

I consider the act of voting to be a very important right and responsibility. I also am convinced that voting is but the first step involved in being a good citizen. Other rights and responsibilities can be found in Amendment #1, and in many, many other places.

In order to be an informed citizen, we need to do more than read a newspaper, watch the evening news, and scan the internet for information that supports our previously held positions. We need to engage in discussions, and yes, debates, even heated (though civil) debates.

Indeed, "democracy" is not what starts in Washington, DC. It's not a future goal. It is the combined efforts of all of us, on a daily basis.

[WilliamPitt]

134. Waterman

I've been meaning to reach out to you. I am *so sorry* about what happened. You and your family have been in my arms as best as I can manage.

[H2O Man]

204. Thank you, Will.

[hfojvt]

125. Where to begin?

1. "We stand for these things or we don't"

The WE was never all that united, not even when Bush was President. The collective WE, whatever that is, stands for a lot of things. Your own short list there is not what I would list as my top priorities. So there's that. I mean, I am cool if you want to bash Obama for something or other, but not so cool when some want to charge hypocrisy because everybody here does not jump on their bandwagon. And heck, 2008 was a long time ago. We have some six year members here who have been here quite a while and are popular and well-known, but who were not part of the WE when Bush was president. Other popular and well-known members of the ancient WE, are no longer with us.

2. Is posting on DU going to make a difference?

If it isn't then why do it? I joined this group as therapy after the 2004 election. I needed a support group of allies. Presumably we would support each other and also work together to oppose Bush and the Republican agenda. See, THAT was supposed to be something we agreed on - defeating Republicans. Of course, we also had a large and vocal contingent of Greens who sometimes did not see a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. You'd think that those people would be on board with defeating Republicans, but sometimes it seems like they were not, in spite of their large portions of agreements with liberal Democrats.

So we always spent a lot of time fighting with each other instead of fighting to defeat Republicans and to defeat conservadems like Lieberman. (ahem http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/39)

Again, does it make a difference? Could DU have helped to defeat Lieberman if more of us had put more energy into doing so? Maybe it is the serenity prayer. My posts here may not make a difference in defeating a Republican like Dave Spence, but at least I tried.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1061299

In other ways, I think DU could (and should) be a place on the internets where people can learn how much Republican policies suck. Much of the public does not seem to either understand that or believe that. Perhaps we could help to inform them (ahem - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025697641 and is that going to make a difference? Maybe it would if it got 100 recs and 3,000 views and made the front page of DU)

As might this - "debunking the Laffer curve"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/53


I mean sometimes there are well intentioned Democrats who think the Fair Tax is a good idea. Would it help if when people googled "fair tax" this showed up on the first page of results? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1690043&mesg_id=1695544

I don't think it would hurt.

Anyway that is MY take on what DU should do and be. It would be a place where visitors would learn how much Republicans and Republican ideas suck (even when practiced by supposed Democrats http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x814319)

DU does NOT need to be a place where visitors can learn what a POS used car salesman an elected Democrat is.

Okay, that may not be the best example. It's not like you are the only offender. Consider 2007. Democrats had taken the House and Pelosi was the speaker. Very quickly GD became sort of a subforum which could have been called GD-bash Pelosi. What were getting the most recs, the most views, were post after post after post saying how awful Pelosi and the Democratic Party were. Same thing happened after 2009 when Obama was elected. Post after post saying how bad Obama and Democrats were. If you wanted to find out how awful Obama was, then DU was the place to go http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/121

Of course, that was before he had crossed my own personal Rubicon and extended the Bush tax cuts.

Hmm, maybe that should be a "RubiNcon" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022085948

[hifiguy]

126. Well said, sir.

Well said indeed.

[marble falls]

127. Can't explain it, Will. All I can think from right now until tomorrow is that all pundits have....

got it wrong and progressives who hardly ever vote in non-presidential or non-non senatorial races will come pouring out tomorrow. Nixon had a Democratic House his entire Presidency and lost the Senate in '70.
Call me an idealist, but I think its gonna happen. I think that the GOP will not get the Senate and will lose some Congressional seats. I don't think anyone has really gauged how thoroughly pissed off half of this country really is with Teapublicans and Teabillies.

[Art_from_Ark]

177. Nixon always had a Democratic House and Senate

In fact, he actually gained a couple of Senate seats in 1970, but the Democrats, under the leadership of Mike Mansfield, still held a 58-42 majority. The Democrats held the Senate from 1955 until 1981.

[Damansarajaya]

130. It's great that you vote on election day, Will. It's even BETTER if you VOTE EARLY.

Voting early in person or by mail does a number of very good things:

1. It makes it easier for people who can't or won't vote early.

Remember the long lines in Ohio because the Cons wanted to discourage people from voting in 2004? Well, it doesn't stop Cons from putting too few machines in Dem districts, but your early vote makes it less effective for them to discourage voters due to long lines.

2. It makes it easier for your local Democratic HQ to keep track of who voted so they don't have to call you to GOTV.

Every time you vote early, you are someone that your Dem volunteers like me don't have to call on election day.

3. It's money in the bank for Dem candidates.

A lot of folks have every intention of voting on election day, and then their car breaks down, they get sick and have to go to the ER, they are called away for a family emergency, etc. etc. etc. Voting early means it got done, period.

4. It makes all the despicable dark money ads put up at the last minute so that the Dem candidates don't have time to respond to them wholly ineffective.

Voters who voted early cannot be affected by last-minute attack ads, and your voting early tells the Koch Bros. exactly that.

5. It allows you to work on election day.

You can poll watch, drive people to the polls, or GOTV with your local campaign.

[Docross]

132. Hatchet man..

Yeeaah..... A lot of Republicans will 'scorn' you for voting for a Democrat
with a hangnail! Not perfect...

However, the hand still works and will try to reach out and get you what
you want.

On the other HAND... The Republican will cut your hand OFF!


Dang...this is hard choice...I"ll have to think about this.

[Roland99]

133. Anyone who tells me all Dems are the same is merely a parrot, a Limbot on the other side

If someone cannot tell the difference between the likes of Clinton, Feinstein, Lieberman vs Kucinich, Wellstone, Franken, Warren, well, they truly don't have a clue.

[Vincardog]

141. It is simple really. Criticizing The POLICIES of the Conservadems exposes them for what they are

What used to be GOP until the wingnutz got too crazy for them.

Now we are supposed to accept Goldwater Girls as Democrats and cheer
as they complete the Corporate Control the SCOTUS has been advancing.

[MADem]

143. This IS election season here at DU.

Don't call me a "ratfucker." Don't tell me I'm depressing turnout; if you want to find me tomorrow afternoon, look for the guy with the ponytail and beard holding a sign on Main Street, and that's after I vote.

Couldn't wait one lousy day, could you? I won't "call you" anything.



I don't even want to know what the sign says.

As far as I'm concerned, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. When it's election season--and it still is--that's the damn point.

[Boom Sound 416]

147. Lol

[carolinayellowdog]

149. Carl Jung had a term for it: enantiodromia-- Things turn into their opposites

DU was an awesome place for beleaguered progressives to find support from fellow progressives. From 2001 through 2008, it was mostly about solidarity. But then it turned into a place for progressives to be constantly scolded, belittled, and blamed. And now it is ALL about divisiveness, centrist/rightwing Dems scorning those of us who created this formerly supportive place.

Enantiodromia-- the ratfuckers are the centrist scolds.

[mstinamotorcity2]

150. AHHHHHH!!!!

the good old days

[countryjake]

151. There were a whole lot of fine DUers who got "ratfucked" during those "2,922 days".

So, maybe my way of explaining what we're experiencing here on DU today would be to remind you of the many exemplary voices that were silenced way back then. "En Masse", at one point, actually. Some of those who no longer participate here now were members that I highly respected, looked for, and, they actually succeeded in presenting progressive ideals within their heartfelt discussions, even as they were mocked, accused, and drowned out by others.

So, yeah, I agree such whiplash is painful and a shame, but just try to remember back to those times when it wasn't just you who faced such unfounded nastiness here on DU.


I always refer back to this when it's getting hard to keep on keeping on:


....then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak out.

[CK_John]

153. You remind me of a guy that whined and whined until he got a pony, then he

complained that his pony didn't have black and white stripes.

[DeSwiss]

162. ''Are we really that chickenshit that we can't discuss and debate these serious issues...''

- In a word: ''Yes.''

''The men that American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.'' - H.L. Mencken

K&R

[Zorra]

170. It's the Third Way doing pre-emptive damage control. Blame

election losses on liberals criticizing Third Way policies, as smoke to cover the fact that it was, in fact, the Third Way policies that actually caused the election losses.

[nashville_brook]

182. precisely.

[djean111]

184. Exactly right.

[OrwellwasRight]

271. +1000

We've known the answer for about a decade. Working and middle class Democratic voters stopped voting Democratic because the Democratic party stopped raising the issues of people who work. The Third Way acolytes are destroying the party and blaming those who are trying to save it. To all the "realists," pragmatists" and moderates here, go read What's the Matter with Kansas. Don't have time? Here's a summary: Triangulation and kowtowing to corporate interests doesn't address working class needs and interests and it won't win their votes. End of story.

[Agony]

175. Exactly! or more succinctly… Fuck Yeah!

nobody but me knows how i vote when I slide in between my corrugated privacy screens - be assured that I have NEVER voted for anything but a member of the Democratic Party even if I did vote for them on the WFP line.

but here's the thing - unless and until the Democrats that I have to choose from get just a little bit closer to having actual Progressive positions on certain issues I will NEVER tell them that I am going to for sure vote for them.

That would be just plain dumb strategery…

can't explain that tho.

Thanks for the moral booster, Will, right on the money.

Agony

[jtuck004]

178. "Explain it to me." - Sure. You are spending your time with the wrong people.

We need to invest it with people who want a progressive agenda. When there are enough, we will get it. Anything else is just busy work in support of the real opponents, banksters and deadbeat corporations.

[Scuba]

179. Thanks Will, great post.

[ozone_man]

183. I haven't noticed that.

"Now, if there's a (D) involved, doing so is a crime to a whole lot of people around here. As far as I am concerned, *that* right there is Obama Derangement Syndrome."

I think most of us here vote our conscience. If a (D) has followed traditional Democrat(ic) principles, then I think most of us will vote for him/her. But there is a large percentage here who will not vote for a candidate just because there is a (D) beside them. Maybe that is what you said, I wasn't quite sure.

Personally, I tend to measure the (D), if a true reading on my FDR meter, then they get my vote, if corporate/globalist/warmonger, I tend to vote third party/progressive. I cannot vote for someone simply because they have a (D) after their name.

[WillyT]

185. Kick !!!

[99Forever]

187. I stand.

Even if the "serious people" don't.

My mother called it ethics.

[Texasgal]

197. We have alot of local issues going on

your post makes me want to barf.

[bluedeer71]

199. No problem

You'll find no problem with your comment here. Just because someone registers as and puts a (D) after their name means little. The proof is in their actions. If a (D) is not demonstrating their support for democratic principles (and I'm not talking about "democratic" in the party sense), then they should be bounced out on their ass. What this country needs is people with a (D) after their name who are truly supporting and sponsoring true democratic principles (not party (D) principles).

[WillyT]

202. Ah Will...

Some forget that this is a political discussion board... think DU tips elections... and would rather engage in happy talk.

Fortunately... neither one of us, is them.

[treestar]

203. I don't worry about it

I see no reason for them each to live up to my standards. They represent other people besides me. And they are way better than Republicans. I don't want Republicans in office. I won't have health insurance, among other things. I don't want their wars. Even if you are going to claim Obama went to "war" in Libya, etc., it's nothing like they'd dream up if Republicans had control again. I see nothing wrong with voting against what you don't want when there are other voters out there rabid to get it. So I'll ally with the Democrats.

[lunasun]

205. Did I miss it or just about miss it? What does the sign say ?

Call me what you want - or someone tell me what his sign will say on Main St

[whereisjustice]

206. What's worse than Ebola and more infectious?

The conservative, authoritarian, regressive mindset that has taken over the Democratic Party.

It's necessary not for our safety, but for theirs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

207. knr

The partisan purist who demand unconditional servitude will never be satisfied no matter what progressives do to help elect Democrats. It will never be enough for them. Mao's Red Guard would have envied such lockstep compliance.

[woo me with science]

209. Well over 150 recs and still going strong...

....and I daresay this is with only one screenname per reccer!

[ibegurpard]

215. I just generally stay away from here

It's the same old circle jerks over and over.
It gets tiresome.

[MrMickeysMom]

216. I am very glad you bring this up...

I saw a number of "rat fucker" threads today and didn't realize it until you mentioned this. I don't think I need to be prompted to be a good American, whatever that means, by saying, "hooray for my side". I think what has been shaped is a mindset to never raise up against the party.

But where is the party? It's the prolls and it's 1984 and Winston Smith's admonitions are whispering in my ear.

It pretty well pisses me off and I want it to stop. That's about all I can muster up for an explanation for now.

[rhett o rick]

217. The explanation is easy. It's so much easier to blindly follow. It's so much easier to

decide that the division between good and evil is simple, Dems are good and Repubs are bad. The Ruling Oligarchs love this division in the Democratic Party. One side believes in Democratic Principles and the other side believes in Democratic Idols.

Your detractors didn't even try very hard to answer your question: "Nowadays, however, because some politicians with a (D) after their names aren't, don't or won't stand for some or all of those ideals, pointing that out here and criticizing it has become some sort of high crime. " Their stands on issues are so weak that they can not insure their candidates will win. Therefore they look for excuses. They say the Liberals want too much. I have repeatedly dared them to explain what the Liberals want that they don't want. Never get an answer. Their only answer is that Democrats are better than Republicans. We all agree on that. But when you try to tell them that some Democrats are better than other Democrats, their heads explode.

They will tell you in so many words that winning is more important than having Democratic Principles.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

226. What absolute bilge n/t

[rhett o rick]

263. Ahhh, what a perfect response. Those that criticize the Left have nothing but insults. I rest

my case.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

280. You didn't make a case.

You offered up a bunch of puerile armchair pseudo-psychological gibberish, as if you had some actual insight into the minds of the people you're maligning. Which, by the way, runs completely contrary to your frequent sanctimonious calls to discuss issues rather than people.

Scorning your cliche-strewn, adolescent diatribe as the pretentious nonsense that it is is not "criticizing the Left" either. It's a specific reaction to what you, just you, wrote above. I'm a Socialist, but I don't presume to speak for "the Left." And regardless of what you might think, you certainly don't.

[rhett o rick]

287. Speaking of "puerile armchair pseudo-psychological gibberish, ", did you read what you posted?

The question here is why do some here resort to name calling when others challenge Democratic representatives? The name-callers won't respond to the question other than their self-righteous rant, "Democrats are better than Republicans." That appears to be as deep as they can get. Without any response, we must assume they are so blindly loyal, that they are afraid to discuss any issues that might shine a bad light on the President.

"your cliche-strewn, adolescent diatribe as the pretentious nonsense that it is " Really? You went there? To what end? Maybe you think that will make me sit down and shut up.

[yodermon]

223. easy to be an UNDERGROUND when your party is out of the white house.

DU has had an identity crisis of sorts since that point. How are we UNDERGROUND when our party has the presidency and senate (and the house for a short time), and is making policy decisions that can be *gasp* criticized? The party is fully ABOVE ground, and we are expected to come along, our pet issues be damned.

noun
noun: underground; noun: Underground; plural noun: Undergrounds; noun: the Underground
ˈəndərˌɡround/
1.a group or movement organized secretly to work against an existing regime.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/underground

Ok. So who is the "existing regime" when we have a Democratic POTUS?
Are we primarily a Democratic forum, that has "underground" in the name as a catchy bit of nostalgia for the shrub years?
Or are we an Underground for those who are aligned with big-D Democratic principles?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

227. Why haven't Democrats taken to the streets over Citizens United?

That has been the only new issue since Obama'election where we had the potential of a galvenizing action by a radical Supreme Court that would have made this election seen for what it is - bought and paid for with the aid of Republican appointed justices.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

228. Issues don't count....

Republicans are going to go run out and vote because they feel white male dominance is at stake.

Get it now?

[merrily]

231. Apparently, the only reasons Democrats lose elections are not their respective messaging, not

lousy campaigning, not Republican candidates and voters, not Citizens United, not talk radio, not corporate media shills, not anything, but one thing: Democratic voters, who must be silenced by any means possible.



If anything could depress the Democratic vote, it would be the tic-like bashing of Democratic voters. Fortunately, traditional Democrats and liberal Democrats tend to ignore the boring bullshit.

[IronLionZion]

236. Do you spend more time bashing red state dems or supporting liberal dems?

That is the question. Think about that for a bit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

238. "talk on DU won't swing one election" is the same argument as "my vote won't swing one election"

If you're saying "a few discouraged readers of DU can't make a difference", then you're also saying "my own vote can't make a difference". But you assume that everyone here does always go out and vote Democrat. You do it yourself. You seem to think that whether you personally vote of not does make a difference. So you ought to assume it about other people too.

[Enthusiast]

239. K&R

[Le Taz Hot]

243. De ja vu

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024733984

[raouldukelives]

246. K&R If we are too afraid to tackle the tough issues. Who won't be?

As Democrats I feel we shouldn't have to tenderly avoid issues like drone strikes, torture, education, labor, Wall St & climate change for fear of upsetting someone. We should be the ones to fear on those issues. Not the ones who run from them.

[joshcryer]

247. Trivial. Look at the youth vote. Who motivates the youth?

It's certainly not fucking dipshit assholes who call the President a "Piece of shit used car salesman."

[Ykcutnek]

265. Your post was alerted on and survived 5-2.

On Tue Nov 4, 2014, 02:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Trivial. Look at the youth vote. Who motivates the youth?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5755029

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"fucking dipshit assholes"

Cuz that's not a personal attack or anything.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 4, 2014, 02:55 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Textbook example of a personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't sound like a personal attack to me. I didn't see anyone call the President a "piece of shit used car salesman" in this thread and joshcryer didn't call out anyone specifically. If someone did and I missed it, anyone who would call the President a "piece of shit used car salesman" is more than likely a right-wing asshole and deserves whatever is said about them anyway. Calm down, alerter, and read the good news of Karl Rove's indictment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I feel the same way.If you cant tell this man is the best this country has to offer in Character and intelligence then you are a dip shit
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP'er started it by calling everyone that disagrees with him chicken-shits
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: repeating a disrespectful slur is not a slur.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[joshcryer]

266. Thanks for letting me know.

Good jury. I guess they didn't like me quoting the OP verbatim.

[Number23]

289. Damn. DAYUM!!

And joshcryer for the win!!!

[PatrickforO]

249. This is a great post.

I haven't been on here all that long, but there are a host of things that the Dems have done that haven't been optimal. And, yes, were Repubs in office instead it would far worse. What's bothered me about most of the rank and file Dems in the House and Senate is their gutlessness in pressing for these principles, and their acquiescence to the ol' deregulate, privatize and cut, cut, cut mantra.

What's really pissed me off, though, is that during this election season, most are running away from Obama. Now, Obama has gotten a lot done. We are, in fact, better off now than we were when he took office. But he's downright terrible when it comes to using the bully pulpit and telling us the good things Dems have done and how those thing affect us. I can remember one interview he did where he said that his feeling was that getting the policy right was the main thing, and that he didn't pay much attention to the media.

He was wrong there. He should have paid attention, because the Repubs have set themselves up now to be able to say in their attack ads that 'so and so voted WITH Obama 90% of the time,' as if that is some kind of crime. Look at Grimes in KY: "Did you vote for Obama?" "Well I won't say..."

WHAT??? The only response she could have given with any credibility at all is, "Of course I did. I'm a Democrat." Her refusal to own this in any way is ridiculous and smacks of staffers telling her what to say.

The difference between a statesman or -woman and a politician is that the politician only cares about the next election while a stateswoman like Elizabeth Warren cares about generations to come. We need more Warrens, Sanders and Browns and fewer Harry Reids.

Like William, I vote. Every time. Primaries, elections. I vote. In fact I have voted because Colorado has a convenient vote by mail system. In the meantime, I'm getting all these robocalls from Dems telling me that they don't have record of me voting and they hope I do. Well, I called the election office yesterday and confirmed that yes, they have me on record as having voted.

And the emails! Please give us money. You haven't donated yet. All hope is lost...

How about campaigns that tell more of the truth? The only people who 'win' in the current system are the people who produce the attack ads and the TV stations that charge an arm and a leg to run them. What have we come to?

[Generic Other]

252. I think whoever got WP locked out of his own thread is the "ratfucker"

Must be because I still support freedom of speech. Makes me a lousy Democrat these days.

[WillyT]

264. What ??? - When Did That Happen ???

[RiverLover]

267. That is shameful & really disappointing.

[freebrew]

254. Too many 3rd wayers?...

I too, thought it was our duty to say when we thought the party was veering too far to the right.

How can that be done w/o criticism? I see too many authoritarians on this board. Wanting laws that depend upon emotional arguments, laws that are designed to police at the lowest common denominator. Jefferson warned us about making laws "for the good of the people". So far, I haven't seen any of those laws that are doing any good for "the people".

But, we can't speak of those here, because no one wants to hear from the professional left, whoever that may be.

[Doctor_J]

255. We're now supposed to stand for people, not principles

We stand for these things or we don't. We stand up for them or we don't.

Not any more. We're supposed to support fracking, austerity, offshore drilling, TPP, XL, Heritage Care, school corporatization, proposals to cut SS, and other republican initiatives just because the (D) party movers and shakers are pushing them. We are now supporting them, not our principles. Never mind that their right-wing agenda is making the party as a whole circle the bowl. Never mind the millions of non-voters who would vote with us if we went back to fighting the repukes instead of emulating them.

Not only annoying, but absurd and self-defeating.

[RiverLover]

269. x2

When Democrats criticize the US because we want to make it better for the majority, Republicans say we're anti-American.

Here at DU, when some Democrats criticize the way the Democratic party is turning more GOPy, and we want to make it better, we're accused of being traitors.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Its just blind, and ignorant.

[PatrynXX]

268. Yeah thats why D and R labels are dead

Until we figure that out things will continue to gridlock. we have 3 parties I can see. the Progressive Party, The Conservative Party (which currently controls BOTH houses and has done so for as long as I can remember) and the Tea Party which is the pure party of No. End of discussion.

[mopinko]

273. me, i, its because of the stupid assault on the man and the office

that started on day one.
and mostly, i always have and always will be unhappy about criticizing any office holder over things not within the power and purview of the office.
when people hit obama for things that only a king could accomplish, who dont recognize the obstruction that is ACTUALLY to blame for his failure to bring about the changes that we all want, it rubs me the wrong way.

in matters of war and peace, i have sadly concluded that the pres has little power. the permanent MIC runs that show. it will take pitchforks and torches to change that.

obama is a practical man, as is rahm emmanuel. if rahm advised him that something was impossible to accomplish, and he took the path of what he COULD accomplish, i applaud him. throwing rotten produce over taking what we can get instead of pursuing purity is just dumb.

[MaggieD]

276. I hate disingenuous thread titles

Then you say "Don't call me a "ratfucker." Don't tell me I'm depressing turnout; if you want to find me tomorrow afternoon, look for the guy with the ponytail and beard holding a sign on Main Street, and that's after I vote."

So, don't call you on the BS you write, is that what you're saying?

Here is the REAL DEAL, okay? You can elect all the principled leaders you can find (We ALL will, I am sure), but they can't do shit without the majority. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It's a reality of the type of two party political system we have. You can imagine and wish for a different one, but I thought liberals were reality based.

So while you may be paid to be a "ratfucker" or depress turnout, please don't congratulate yourself about it, or pretend it is anything other than what it is.

[Owl]

284. I agree. Great post Will.

DU had been a community where criticism was constructive and educational, made enjoyable through mutual respect and civil discourse.

[Jamastiene]

290. K&R

Well said.