What I've learned on DU: Circular firing squads and yaks.

[wyldwolf]

I have learned many things in the four years I've lurked and posted on Democratic Underground.

I've learned that I'm not as liberal as I thought I was in early 2001.

I've learned that some people will never be satisfied with a leader and some are too easily satisfied.

I've learned that a leader is only as good or as bad as his/her last statement or vote on an issue and that the doghouse DU'ers push Democrats into has a revolving door.

I've learned that no matter what you criticize one Democrat for, your favorite Democrat has done the same thing - you just didn't know it!

I've learned we have a few prolific thinkers who shouldn't be wasting their time here, a few clueless souls of who I am glad are here and not in the real world, and a large number of people in between them.

I've learned that no matter what you write today, no one will give a damn tomorrow unless the thread goes over 100 replies. But even then the original point has been lost.

Unfortunately, I've learned what a yak is.

I've learned Edward Van Halen is NOT the greatest guitar player ever. Jimmi Hendrix is. No, Eric Clapton is. No, Jeff Beck is. No, Edward Van Halen is.

But what I've mostly learned and experienced first hand is the Democratic circular firing squad in action.

Before 2001, I thought the Democratic circular firing squad was a myth - blown out of proportion by a few instances.

Having been involved in local politics, I'd never seen it in action.
I never saw yelling matches break out over who would lead the local county Democratic party.

In Democratic primary candidate debates in local races, I never saw taunting aimed at supporters of one candidate by supporters of another.

I've only seen it first hand since 2001. But it's like an addiction, you know? Once you start, its kind of hard to stop.

What inspired this rambling post? Was it the recent outbreak of renewed 2004 primary infighting? It had a role.

But what really made me post this is the current threads on KOS and John Kerry.

Two words:

WHO CARES!

Why should any of us care what KOS has to say about a candidate who came within a hair of defeating a war time incumbent and garnered more votes than any democrat in history?

What we should care about is that KOS spends an awful lot of time tearing down Democrats.

Let me rant a bit more.

I'm glad Air America canceled Unfiltered. Like I said above concerning KOS, we need not be so supportive of people we call our own tearing down Democrats.

In 2005, even after the most disastrous presidential administrations in history squeaks by for a second term, some are still yelling loudly that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Why should we lend any support or draw any attention to those who give that misinformed belief any credibility?

If I want to hear Democrats being bashed, I'll listen to rightwing radio or read a rightwing blog.

Am I saying Democrats are above criticism? Absolutely not! But when we air our dirty laundry publically, we provide fodder for the right and ammunition for the "Democrats are no different than Republicans" crowd.

If we really want Democrats to win again, I believe there are two steps to doing it:

1. Adapt Reagan's 11th Commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Democrat." Amend it with "publically." We can debate among ourselves privately, but let's take care not to let the blood spill out on to the streets.

2. Follow the "K.I.S.S." model - "Keep It Simple Stupid!" We need to concentrate on a few key issues that we can all agree on and hammer them home. The public will get the message that Democrats do stand for something.

Now... throw this post a life preserver 'cause it's sinking fast!

[XanaDUer]

1. kick.

...

[Gman]

2. Good rant

[Me.]

3. Helluva Thread

I'll be checking in from time to time to see if it survives. Really appreciated your thoughts on the 11th commandment and other points. However, if I'm one of the clueless ones, and I could well be, it might be better for you if I keep my applause to a minimum. (lol)

[salib]

4. Excellent rant!

I agree with everything point out. I would not say that we go as far as adopting the 11th commandment. Aside for the obvious of not copying the enemy simply to beat the enemy, I think that basically, we should debate publicly, but NOT personnally. I.e., "Thou sall not speak ill of a fellow Democrat simply to speak ill of the person or her/his values."

Without such a distinction, I would not be able to piss and moan about the likes of Zell Miller.

[kliljedahl]

5. Nice rant

I'll go with 75% of what you say, but I'm still a newbie here. When I've been around here as long as you I'm sure the percentage will rise dramatically.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[kentuck]

6. Good one !

:)

[welshTerrier2]

7. works for me ...

as long as we can accept criticisms of Democrats when they're focussed on issues and are not personal assaults, I'm OK with your post ...

and for my first suggestion for "a few key issues", i'd like to propose that we push as hard as we can to get the hell out of Iraq ... nothing good will come from remaining there ... let's lead the country in the right direction and bring our troops home now ...

[cestpaspossible]

8. I like to yak

it's fun.

[patricia92243]

9. Sounds like somebody needs a little vacation. n/t

[H2O Man]

10. My only concern .....

is which Jimi Hendrix song you are talking about? Is it a live version, or studio? And which studio? And why are you attacking me?

Words like "liberal" and "conservative" are only mildly meaningful. All of us should be a wonderful combination, even if at times a bit of a contradiction, of liberal, conservative, and the like.

[Coexist]

18. why isn't Jimmy Page on that list?

why do you hate our country?
why do you hate this website?

...just for fun

[Pepperbelly]

63. I noted the Jimmy Page gap and wondered why OP hated America. nt

[H2O Man]

75. He obviously thinks

that moderate democrats are better guitar players than Jimi Hendrix. But why the savage attack aimed specifically at me? And why is he advocating flag burning? It's hard to feel safe when these Marxists are up to no good. I think we need a fear level/colored-coded chameleon on DU.

[Pepperbelly]

77. I expect you're onto something. Quick! To the ramparts!

We must go to condition chartruese.

[Coexist]

79. ...some people.... eom

[Bake]

91. No! Hendrix and Clapton are co-equals at the top of the pantheon!

Hendrix died way too young. Clapton has a decades-long career. I can't choose between the two. But I'll never betray The Slowhand!

Bake

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I'm with you on this

So I will nominate this thread to help keep it from sinking. Also I'll add that too often we look at the Democratic Party as if we were judges at the Olympics, sitting back assigning point scores for each new round of performances by every leading Democrat. We have to be the Democratic Party, not just critical bystanders. How many of us are attending local Party meetings? How many of us even know the names of the Democratic Committee Men and Women who represent us where we personally live, or even where to send them an email?

I understand politics enough to know that no one will be perfect on all things all of the time (from my own perspective) who can consistently get elected. Hell, even if I somehow got elected I am sure I would cave on some of my own priorities from time to time, for this or that pragmatic reason. But the more active each of us becomes in the Democratic Party, the more energy and resources we devote to it, the better equipped it will be to consistently do the right thing. Most "leaders" are only as good as the support that stands behind them anyway.

[H2O Man]

12. Good idea!

I second that nomination.

[lala_rawraw]

13. Yep... you read my mind, but on one point I must

Disagree... "no leader will ever be good enough" is really not true. In fact, my cat would be a better leader than Chimp. Anyone would be a better leader than Chimp. He, Chimp, is however not good enough to be my cat:D

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. I would add this:

2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.
2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.

If we care. If our words here mean anything at all. If we love our country.

No more important date has ever faced our nation and its future. Start girding your loins now and clear your calendars.

[LeftCoast]

15. So criticisizing Democrats is out now?

No tearing down the party...but what about Lieberman, votes on the bankruptcy bill, etc? Or is it perhaps that you are implying that we shouldn't criticize one particular Democrat?

[cestpaspossible]

19. Yes that's exactly what the poster meant by this comment:

Am I saying Democrats are above criticism? Absolutely not!

:eyes:

[GRLMGC]

39. but haven't you noticed that people feel the need to ignore

certain things in order for it to fit their own purposes?

[cestpaspossible]

43. You'd have to be a lot less cryptic and a lot more specific

for me to know what it is that you're talking about.

Ok, that's unkind. Sorry. More to the point, what I really believe is, I'm more willing to accept ideological differences than partisan disloyalty.

[GRLMGC]

44. what's the point of apologizing if you're gonna say it anyway

I totally accept differences in ideology, I don't accept pointless insults on people who have different opinions (and that is directed at the type of people the OP is referring to)

[cestpaspossible]

47. You're right, I shoulda put that in two separate posts

btw, could you point out one of these 'pointless insults on people who have different opinions' ?? I thought insulting people was against DU rules.

[GRLMGC]

59. I'm talking about those

"fuck " posts. Regardless, I'm done with you.

[cestpaspossible]

88. What's that mean?

"I'm talking about those "fuck " posts


Do they exist? What are you talking about? You said 'pointless insults on people who have different opinions' but that is specifically prohibited by DU rules... are you talking about something from a different message board or something? What is a "fuck" post?

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Good question

Lieberman is a good example. If I lived in Connecticut I suppose I would have to decide it it seemed plausible to get a better Democrat or Independent in office than Lieberman. That is one of the main reasons for having primaries, to pick who will represent the Democratic Party in an election. It is not inconceivable to me that I might vote for a Chaffee like Republican over Lieberman if given that choice in Connecticut, but I doubt it because the Democrats need to regain the majority in the Senate to control that Chamber.

So I don't focus my energies against Lieberman per se. I would rather focus my energies against Frist for example. Now if Lieberman runs for some Senate Democratic leadership post, then I would oppose him on that. Let's say it is safe to say that I will never promote Lieberman on or for anything, but I prefer him to at least 52 or so Republican Senators, maybe all of them.

If there were such a thing as the Lieberman wing of the Party I would say I opposed that in a sense, but I would not relate to it as my enemy the same way I do today's Republican Party. I would attempt to gain the upper hand over that wing sure, but that is not exactly the same order of opposition to me as attempting to dethrone the Republicans. Control of Congress is crucial and that requires winning majorities in both Chambers. I may work to change the Democratic Party but I don't advocate purges that will lock us into a minority status for the immediate future unless someone really jumps the rails like Zell Miller did.

Issues are a completely different kettle of fish. I can praise someone like Byrd for a stand he takes today and yell at him for one he takes tomorrow, but I don't forget that he is a Democrat on my side much more of the time than any of the Republican Senators are. Mostly I cheer and encourage my favorites, like Boxer, and at most write nasty emails to Democrats who defect on something of importance of me. And I am working to gain a stronger personal voice in my local Democratic Party.

[wildeyed]

16. I agree.

I'm not going to spend my time arguing with people who I agree with on 90% of the issues over the other 10% while the forces of evil devour my country. I'm going to spend my time working to defeat the evil and will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone else who will fight.

[sharonking21]

17. Two things

1. I agree with you and hope that we can continue to discuss a wide range of candidates and issues but do it in a way that makes us both good DU citizens and good Democrats.

2. Clue me in on the yak thingie please.

[seito]

21. Good Post

:thumbsup:

[TacticalPeek]

22. Eminently reasonable.

Would that we all take it to heart, and to the street.

[dsc]

23. Great speech

too bad it came from someone who attacked a person who had already left a thread. What is it the Bible says, take out the beam in your own eye before you take the speck out of another persons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1783367&mesg_id=1783670&page=

editted to add link

[wyldwolf]

36. three questions

1. What exactly does that have to do with anything I wrote?

2. How was I supposed to know you had already left the thread? Is there some time limit one must adhere to? Seems my post was at 4:31PM and your last one was at 7:12PM.

3. How is pointing out that someone is correct attacking someone else? :shrug:

[cestpaspossible]

89. Should I hold my breath waiting for the answers?

[mzmolly]

24. Agreed. I've been saying the same thing ... Granted both you and I

were guilty of the BS you note in the primaries, but I'm personally planning to rethink that in 2008 ~ provided I'm wrangling on polticical discussion boards then.

[ewagner]

25. For a brief, shinning moment

in the 2004 campaign....right toward the end....I was proud of us for pulling together....the (alleged) defeat brought out the worst in us again.


Nice post.....

[mtnsnake]

26. I found your post to be refreshing from top to bottom.

Recommended!

I agree that there needs to be more loyalty shown AMONG Democrats.

Yes, Democrats are not above criticism, and we should express our concerns, but I think we need to TEMPER our criticisms if we're going to accomplish anything. Some of the criticism gets so extreme sometimes, that it borders being disloyal. It's stuff like that which plays right into the other side's hands.

[IronLionZion]

27. you'll never find 2 people who agree on everything

let alone 20,000. And you'll never find 2 people who agree on absolutely nothing. There's always some common ground.

good rant. Everyone here will agree that we shouldn't fight each other...and then go back to fighting each other. That's how Republicans beat us.

[LSdemocrat]

28. Also remember DU is NOT the Democratic party

DU is just a liberally-oriented political message board and nothing more. Most people come to DU just to discuss, debate, and vent.

I really wouldn't use DU to judge Democrats and the Democratic Party as a whole.

[ulysses]

29. reagan's eleventh will work for me

when I see conservative Dems bearing olive branches. Progressives didn't start this. You know that.

[mandyky]

30. some day DUers will learn the difference between

bashing and criticism. criticism is not a firing squad. We do bash some Dems, like zealot Zell, jomentum jo and the DLC, but most of the criticism can be chalked up to frustration with spineless moves, and being in the minority.

[omega minimo]

31. Frank Zappa

K:
Voting--Verifiable voting mechanisms and processes

I:
Media--Correct the 1996 airwave giveaway and media consolidation boondoggle. Turn off the TV. Quit buying their hyper-commericalized, cheap outsourced crap.

S:
War-- Out of Iraq. No pre-emptive wars of whimsy. Demand that the press and Congress investigate the Smoking Gun UK Memo. Demand that troops are not abandoned once they return home. Demand investigation of depleted uranium.

S:
Crooks-- Hammer the wage discrepancy between workers and CEO's-- including those whose corporations are defaulting on pensions for longtime workers. Are these people being rewarded for bankrupting American homes and the American Treasury? YES. Quit buying their cheap outsourced crap.


Yaks: Quit waiting for a magic leader or other people to be the change you want to see in the world. We have to be able to quit going in thoughtful, literate, well-intentioned circles.

We have to be able to criticize Democratic leaders and elected officials who still erroneously believe that Republican Lite will succeed. Back to Basics, back to the real concerns of real Americans. They don't need to be "framed."

We have to be able to criticize Democratic leaders and elected officials who REFUSE to stand up for us the NEXT TIME an election is hijacked.

Keep It Simple Stupid this time means tell the consultants and handlers to step back. Focus on real people.

Thanks for posting this wyldwolf.



:bounce:

[bpilgrim]

32. welcome to politics

this ain't like cheering for your favorite team, this is about life and death and everything in-between.

don't expect liberals to march lockstep with any politician especially third way politicians.

i love that DU has a variety of opinions and the only thing that irks me round here is when someone gets pissed that we aren't all marching in lockstep on every issue or every politician.

face it, there is a LOT wrong with politics in America and it ain't only the reTHUGs who are to blame, that is simply childish black & white thinking to believe such nonsense.

so, chin up and tackle the issues you care about as they come up, in the thread and stop ranting about what YOU don't like about DU or post it in the ATA forum.

peace

[porkrind]

58. The lone voice of reason in this miserable thread.

Thanks. :)

[European Socialist]

33. Dems are a disgrace.

Instead of fighting Bush tooth and nail over the past four years-they are letting him drive us off a cliff. The Iraq war and tax cuts for the wealthy are insane and the Democrats had a hand in both.

[beaconess]

34. Rant on, Baby!

[Just Me]

35. Excellent two rules!!! EXCELLENT!!!

Moreover, anyone who advocates that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats at this point is comforting/enabling the enemy against the people's interests.

Until the day we defeat these power-mongering mo-fos, there is no excuse for directing our anger or frustration at anyone OTHER than the power-mongering mo-fos, PERIOD!!!!

[crispini]

37. Bravo!

Good post! :thumbsup:

[chlamor]

38. During Clinton's Last Two Years Food Pantries in NY State

Saw an increase in need of 37%

Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.

– H.L. Mencken

[salin]

40. partially muffled... bwahahaha

because it is so sad, and so true:

I've learned that no matter what you criticize one Democrat for, your favorite Democrat has done the same thing - you just didn't know it!

Individuals are complex and vary on issues. So do politicians. Add the mix of political calculus and local dynamics, and - sadly - political contributing... and yep - the above statement is a pretty solid reality.

[stickdog]

41. REAL ID just passed 100-0. Are we supposed to applaud?

Sorry, but I'll continue shooting as long as crap like this keeps happening.

If you don't want to get hit, then perhaps you shouldn't circle up so close to Cheney, ya think?

[FreepFryer]

42. Took a while to get thru your preamble, but I agree 100%.

Kos is an opportunist, and a poor one at that.

[Q]

45. The DLC Flunks Politics 101

Bob Borosage

The DLC Flunks Politics 101
Date: 1/13/03 | Source: American Prospect

Why Democrats need their base -- as well as swing voters

Democrats have a penchant for circular firing squads, particularly in the wake of electoral defeat. Once more, a first salvo has come from the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which has made its name sniping at other Democrats. In a confidential memorandum on the "Road Ahead," the DLC's Al From and Bruce Reed surveyed the 2002 election and decided -- why does this not surprise? -- that the party's problems are being "too liberal" and focusing too much on its base at the expense of the "forgotten middle class." Its salvation can only come by lurching to the right, particularly by being tougher than Bush on terrorism and Iraq.

The memo is a virtual recipe for defeat, a clear example of the thinking Democrats must shun if they are to revive. There should be no confusion about why Democrats lost ground in an agonizingly close 2002 election. Led by the president, who raised record sums and personally drove the late surge, Republicans ran a ruthlessly efficient campaign. The White House rolled out the Iraq debate to define an election about national security. Republicans shamelessly dressed themselves up as reformers on the domestic issues -- prescription drugs, corporate accountability, Social Security -- that they feared would be most damaging. They mobilized millions via independent ads, used to blur party differences and paid for by corporate allies. And they poured resources into getting out their vote, using an institutional capacity that far outstrips anything on the Democratic side.

Contrary to the DLC, Democrats did not counter this onslaught with a campaign focused on their base. Leaders hardly had a national message at all. They recruited anti-choice, pro-gun candidates for swing, conservative districts. They chose to stand with Bush on terrorism and Iraq because they didn't want to argue about national security. They failed to offer their own economic plan, instead carping about risks of recession. Senators in contested races even embraced the Bush tax cuts. The Senate majority was too divided to embrace real corporate accountability or pension reform, or even to pass a prescription-drug plan. Defense of Social Security was the oasis in an otherwise barren desert. --- http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/borosage/borosage_jan13_03.cfm

[bushclipper]

49. Only Q could turn a mostly positive thread into his personal DLC bash.

You've not spoken to a single thing set down in the original post. Just more ideological sniping from you.

[Q]

53. Mostly positive? Only if you believe...

...that the thread author is sincere about including liberals and progressives in this 'no fire' zone he wants. But the 'loony or activist left' remains a target for both Republicans and 'new' Democrats.

We can see what the '11th commandment' did for the Republican party. It gave them/us Bush, Cheney, Neocons and Theocrats because everyone was 'encouraged' to donate, vote and then shut the hell up. Is this what we want for 'our' party? I'm sure the corporate-backed Democrats would love it if they were able to turn the party into GOP-II and not be called on it.

The Problem is that those the thread author defends on a regular basis are no less guilty of using the 'circular firing squad' than the people he's ranting against now. The article was meant as one example of how the 'new' Democrats attack and demonize anyone against their corporate agenda. That is...it's okay for the 'centrists' to attack and make scapegoats out of the left...but centrists call for loyalty oaths and 'time out' when it's their corporate candidates that become the target of criticism.

[bushclipper]

54. Revised: Only Q could turn a mostly positive thread into his personal ...

...DLC bash and attempt to hijack it with further irrelevant and unproven information and attacks on the original poster.

But we've come to expect that of you.

[Q]

56. I'm not sure I recognize...

...your handle. Do I know you? You sure presume to know ME.

The idea behind THIS type of thread is to make all Democrats feel guilty for criticizing ANY Democrat...especially those career-advancing, corporated-backed pols wandering outside of Democratic principles and values and sleeping with the enemy.

When we criticize a 'Dem' for voting with the Bushie Republicans or supporting Bush policies...we're accused of wanting 'purity'. When we object to democrats supporting Bush's ILLEGAL war or refusing to include the WH in 9-11 investigations...we're labeled as the 'liberal elite' or 'conspiracy nuts'.

Yeah...this 'don't criticize your own' sure worked for the GOP. Now they're overrun with fascists and theocrats that want the republic destroyed and replaced with THEIR version of a 'christian' nation and biblical laws.

The ONLY way democracy works is to allow each individual their say about government and the politicians who run it. What the thread author seems to want is a loyalty oath. But we're at a very dangerous point in history where the Right has taken full control of our government, military, media and the judiciary and ANY Democrat that cooperates with them should be considered to NOT have the party's or this country's best interest in mind.

[bushclipper]

57. I see no need to revise my impressions of your posts this time

You've stuck to the same modus operandi

[Q]

60. Do you really think...

...that I care that you're not 'revising your impressions'?

Democrats must learn to police their own or suffer the consequences of small, well-financed factions within the party taking away the voice of the majority.

There is no 'positive message' in keeping silent while politicians on both sides are betraying the American people with lies of war and greed.

[bushclipper]

61. You've again saved me the trouble of revision

So predictable.

[murdoch]

85. exactly - are we all on the same team?

When feudal France transformed into capitalist France with the French revolution, initially everyone from the poorest of the poor to the richest capitalist were united against the king and gentry. After Louis XVI lost his head as it were, infighting began.

There is a book called the "Long Detour" which is not good enough that I recommend spending time to read several hundred pages of it, but one good point is the Democratic Party is a coalition. Just like the Republican party is a coalition between bible-bangers and more well-heeled types.

I think you're in more danger if you think we're all in the same jolly gang or whatever. I myself voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senator and I voted for Schumer the first time (against D'Amato), although I voted for David McReynolds over Schumer last time, as McReynolds ran to Schumer's left.

There's no point in lamenting about circular firing squads. I am not in the same "circle" with the DLC. If I find myself temporarily allying with the DLC for some reason, and I hope I never have to, I will realize it will just be a temporary marriage of convenience. In many ways, I view the DLC as more of a problem than the Republicans.

[Catherine Vincent]

46. Very good advice!

:thumbsup:

But there is only a tiny part I disagree. There is one democrat that deserves to be bashed. And that is ZELL MILLER. The Rat Bastard!

[Dover]

48. FIRST....fix the voting machine problem. Otherwise, regardless who

the target is, we're shooting blanks.

That's the most important thing I've learned from being here.

[JNelson6563]

50. Never thought I'd say it

but good post.

I also noted that in RL politics things were much different than on-line. As in a different world. I am hopeful that it is because there are many in the on-line world who aren't active in RL so never really have to get along and work things out. Here in the pretend world arguments can go on endlessly and not effect anything where as in RL that wouldn't be the case.

Your example of the KOS/Kerry bru-ha-ha is a good one. I've barely glanced at it and yet I see it mushrooming to ridiculous proportions. As you said "Who cares?"

We need to focus on the present and the future after taking our lessons from the past and moving on. Why some insist on remaining in the past is a mystery to me.

I was rather heartened to read your post and notice I kept thinking "Yes, that's right." Who woulda ever guessed? Certainly not me.

Julie

[seventythree]

51. liked it and nominated

don't agree 100%, like adopt the Reagan thing --will never be able to clean up our party that way, because if you discuss it at a meeting --county/precinct -- that's public. But I'm ok with not letting the blood run in the streets.

[Neshanic]

52. Excellent. Just steer me to get behind the Judas goat.

What an amazing idea. Let's not think. Let's not air ideas.

Is there a Republican sign-up card desk here?

Can you imagine this post being made in 1968?

The point being these are messy times, with messy issues, and messy solutions....and messy discussions. This is not the time to play follow the Judas goat.

Everyone is upset that Kerry is not being shown respect. Kerry was not a poor candidate. He was a candidate that acted poorly. He underestimated the republicans. He underestimated them badly. It also does not help when you have to parse words with a laser so Joe Average will maybe get you point.

The only thing I agrre with is the "keep it simple". We have to make our issues simple and clear. Ah, but there's the rub. When our guys are on the same shelf on the supermarket as the "other brand", the people that want us do not know the difference. So they go with what the commercials say.

Who cares? I care. Since when did you have to tell your sexual orientation to a prospective employer in a right to work state that you are gay? Since when do you have to leave a firm because a "fundamentalist" has a problem with working for you...just because you are gay. Or maybe NEVER talking about politics, relgion or sex in the office, and then listening to gay bashing; this no factory scene, but a design office that does millions in business. After I left, to my own credit the client sent the $600,000 in contracts to another firm.

My recreational activities are not devoted to tearing down our candidates. My job is telling them what I BELIEVE IN, and how my beliefs are the same as theirs hopefully.

When will the break point begin? When will the "go along to get alongs" get the picture? Why not just "list" the messy issues that you would either throw under a bus or a blanket to win. The Republicans do it. They will pay down the road for it...but they do it all the same.

Messy stuff this saying what you believe.

[Inland]

62. At some point, there is more than airing differences.

I mean, we have all the messy stuff down: the airing of differences, the minute points of disagreement, the erudite and intellectual debates over angels and the heads of pins.

Yes, I could list all the issues that I would be willing to give up to win. And then you could argue with it. And then we could all work on precisely all the issues that are non-negotiable. And it would all be a huge waste of time as no candidate could be found and the republicans win again.

The republicans will pay for their disciplines and electoral victories down the road--after a few thousand military dead, the public treasury raided, the forests paved, and a federal judiciary making sure all those effects aren't changed for a generation or two.

You seem to think that there isn't a purpose besides debate and proclamations of one's own beliefs. You don't acknowledge that winning elections matters--and almost think that it's good that the republicans have succeeded. I say: God curse the democrats with that sort of temporary success! Let US pay the price down the road, when there will be more people living to "regret" it!

[wyldwolf]

64. Oh my...

That's good.

[Neshanic]

66. Of course winning matters...But you may not have us around.

"Yes, I could list all the issues that I would be willing to give up to win."

Good. Then what are they?

It's strange how the Republicans have no problems doing this and winning, we can't even get honest, non-coached answers from the people that you want me as a gay person to support. Of course Republicans are scum, but they pull it off all the same.

The bottom line is this. There is a dissatisfaction with being told to take one for the team again, and again, then to see a posting with a topic like this, with the stop your whining, and take some more for the team, and oh, those hits you gay people take, well, keep it down with your dissatisfaction. It makes us look bad.

We have been taking it, and giving, and giving, to then read someone's inner child tell them that they are more conservative than they thought and how messy it is to have discussions on what people in this party think?

You want the votes, but tell us to shut our yaps when Kerry says something very questionable on gay issues. You want our support when the elections come, but on a post like this with the elections far enough away you muse over the things, that in code word mean someone's not getting in the lifeboat.

You talk of paying a price. What do you think we as Democratic gays have been doing? For this agreement of so many here to the idea that not making a mess so our neighbors the republicans will be somehow scared of us is bizzare. Just paint the house, and tell those guys upstairs to move out for now...they can move back in when we need them.

Try being in a group scapegoated daily for the decay of Western civilzation some time. At least the Gay Republicans have a strong message from their party. WE HATE YOU. But knowing the facts I guess is what makes it easy for LCR members to look beyond that, and what really matters to them.

We just take another for the team, and then are treated to Kerry grams from moderation land. Then told to shut up.

[Inland]

76. Yeah, we just may win it without you. What's your point?

Let's face it, nobody on the democratic side is making gays pay a price for voting democratic. Its the republicans, and only because democrats lose. THEY make you pay the price, not for supporting democrats, but because they won and dems are unable to protect you with policies. So what's your point?

My point is that eternal debate is worthless. Someday, elections have to be won or whether the democratic candidate is perfect becomes a moot point. Decisions are going to be made in that hard reality.

[Neshanic]

81. Yes, it's those mind control Republicans fault.

"Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it."

"My point is that eternal debate is worthless. Someday, elections have to be won or whether the democratic candidate is perfect becomes a moot point. Decisions are going to be made in that hard reality."

Good thing you were not around for the women's right to vote thingy.

[Inland]

83. And your point would be, what?

We already know that the democrats aren't your ideal candidates. Mine neither, and I could cry you a river over it. Maybe it would be the same set of complaints you have, maybe different, but if there's anything being a democrat proves, it's that we could argue all day about it, and before long, one of us would throw in some sort of idiotic rhetorical handgrenade for the purpose of scoring. It took you three posts, and it's no surprise. It's what democrats do.

That's my point. Sooner or later, elections have to be won, no matter what the outcome of the theological debate. How many you won lately? As many as me? Enjoying it? Thinking we have another eight years and several hundred billion and a few thousand lives to run through before it makes a real difference? I'm not. You figure out what's important.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Nominated For Greatest - Hope It Gets On The DU Homepage too

Great rant. :yourock:

[FizzFuzz]

65. If unified purpose worked so well for a bunch of sociopaths, ideologues

and greed whores, how much farther could it take us?

[Toots]

67. So...What's your point?

We belong to no Organized Party. we are Democrats.

[zulchzulu]

68. B.b.b.b.b...ut, I love KOS....he's a blog god, man...

I kid.

Picking and knawing on the last pussy morsels of scabs from Democratic primary season is what some need to do...Kos and those who agree need some help and perhaps some shrink action...why this claptrap keeps turning from small chat room psychobabble to fully automated PHP/MySQL threads of madness is beyond me...

[Neshanic]

69. So we need shrinks now. For being a democrat or being gay?

"Kos and those who agree need some help and perhaps some shrink action..."

Yes, it does a person good, "picking and knawing on the last pussy morsels of scabs from Democratic primary season"...especially when those wounds are questioned by others who have no idea.

[zulchzulu]

80. I'm saying that not getting over Dem 2004 primary losses is a good...

...example of possibly seeking mental professional help. Kos was a paid Dean "blogger"...funny how he can't get past it...and then the obvious wackjob accusations from some here that would rather believe unproven lies and make more shit up as they go along to somehow "reverse" reality.

If you are delusional, seek help.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Neshanic]

82. Funny thing delusion. It has an effect on whole groups too.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[NYCGirl]

70. What does "Unfiltered" have to do with Kos? Am I missing something? NT

[wyldwolf]

72. Like KOS, Rachel Maddow went to great pains to criticize Democrats

I recall two instances in particular.

One was discussed here on DU at length - she ranted about Howard Dean. Funny, Franken praised Dean in his show for the same thing Maddow criticised him for.

On the last day of Unfiltered, she even said that since it was her last day there was no reason why she shouldn't say exactly what she felt about Bill Clinton.

Now, like I said, no one is above criticism. And Maddow had every right to criticize and bash anyone she wished. But I have the right to be glad her three hour block is gone on AAR.

[NYCGirl]

73. Okay. I just didn't get the connection.

Kos, BTW, is a regular on Minority Report. Maybe that's what confused me.

[orpupilofnature57]

71. I promise not to say bad things about Howard Dean or progressives

In the spirit of never letting another Shrub, happen again.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

74. Kick--good analysis

I disagree with you politically, I'm sure, but since I vote for democrats as the enemies of my enemies, I can see the sound strategic sense here. I will speak ill of no democrat from this day forward, although I will probably have to scream some things about Lieberman into the nearest deep hole in the ground.

[Mythsaje]

78. Well...

Considering that I'm not sure I'm a Democrat, exactly, though my politics are at least "liberal" or "progressive" I'm not sure why some members of the Democratic party who seem too cozy with corporate interests or the repugnicans shouldn't be bashed...if not burnt in effigy.

I will agree that personal attacks against other posters here is an exercise in futility. Who gives a rusty rat's ass? I've been bashed by Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, and Independents, because I can alternately agree and disagree with them all on different points. So what?

Posting on the Civil Liberties Boards over at About.com will either give you thick skin or send you running as fast as you can. I finally quit because I got tired of bashing my face against the sheer stupidity of people who can't recognize that some people might have a right to be pissed off when you invade their country. Imagine that. Or people who will, no matter what argument you make to the contrary, continue to support the STUPIDEST mistakes of the Bush Administration, even if they're the same kind of mistakes they'd've tried to crucify a Democratic President for.

On the other hand... I'm not particularly thrilled when I see hypocrisy in action from ANY side. I threw up my hands in disgust and completely walked away from the Libertarians (I was already a bit out-of-sorts with them over their approach to corporate interests anyway) when they (as well as the Repugs and Democrats) sued to change our state primary system to support the parties rather than the rights of the individual voters. They said it violated the parties rights or some shit to allow open primaries...and the courts agreed!

Parties don't have rights! People, as individuals, have rights. All rights conferred to organizations are simply extensions of individual rights. Any argument to the contrary is spurious and self-serving.

In general I probably support the democrats more than any other party these days. I believe in worker's rights, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state. I also believe in an even playing field whenever possible, universal education, and universal healthcare.

Where I split with the Democrats is where it seems that they've never seen a tax they didn't like. I have no problem with paying taxes, assuming I'm getting something worthwhile for my money and I don't feel as though it's being squandered. I live in Washington State. I see a lot of squandering.

Okay. I think I've ranted enough. Suffice to say that I agree with you to some extent, and disagree with you to another. And that's pretty much the best you can expect.

[gulfcoastliberal]

84. And when elected dems do this to each other (ie, latest being Frank v Dean

in major press releases read by far more people than the dems supporters on DU - who are earnestly trying to change the party for the better by pointing out realities like those who sell-out on issues - bankruptcy, a womans right to choose, etc. What's with the double-standard?

[Zomby Woof]

86. "Unfortunately, I've learned what a yak is."

As the DUer who started the whole yak mess in the Lounge a few years ago, I apologize (maybe). :-)

[funflower]

90. So what's a yak?

:think:

[digno dave]

87. Helluva post whose wisdom will be lost in a week's time

[WLKjr]

92. I wish we didn't have public "cirular firing squads" between the ranks

It's stoopid and pointless fighting.

[Stockholm]

93. Kick and nominated n/t

[CWebster]

94. What the hell do you suggest?

IF, IF, IF a thousand times IF the Democrats weren't so occupied with how the Republicans were framing the issues, and adopting their positions (think Hillary) then, and maybe then, they could trumpet their own perspective instead of undermining their own party by defining it as too liberal.


Who the hell needs Republicans when Democrats are more than willing to model themselves as Republicans and attack their own?

Now that's bashing Democrats.

[ArkDem]

95. publicly

[KoKo]

96. Because so many Elected Democrats are Democrats in Name Only.

Because our elected Democrats and the Campaign Managers have attacked the Progressive Wing of the Democratic party at every opportunity in effect "blaming us" for Gore and Kerry's squeeking by in elections.

When you look at DU you see the effects of our own Elected Officials and spokespersons attacks on those of us who want to bring our Party back to a time when it stood for something.

These issues will be fought until a strong Democratic Party emerges, one that can lead the way to throw the Lobbyists/Corporatists total influence off our backs where we can get back to the business of having the ideals and values that move this country forward for the people and not the Corporate/Military/Industrial maniacs which have taken it over under Republican Rule.

[wyldwolf]

97. historical revisionism

Because so many Elected Democrats are Democrats in Name Only

That often repeated statement is so bizarre and you unprovable. WHO defines what a Democrat is?

Because our elected Democrats and the Campaign Managers have attacked the Progressive Wing of the Democratic party at every opportunity in effect "blaming us" for Gore and Kerry's squeeking by in elections.

I think you have this reversed. In every election since '94, all I've heard from the "progressive wing" of the party is how "moving right" caused election losses. This completely debunked belief ignores the fact that the Democrats started slowly losing influence at all levels after the McGovern debacle.

The rest of your post shows that you gained much of your knowledge of the Democratic party from the period of roughly 1968 - 1992.

Exactly what period do you feel the Dem party stood for your ideals and was not involve in some fashion with lobbyists and corporate money?

[Mythsaje]

98. Maybe

it's because the whole damn discourse has moved to the right and anyone a smidgen left of center looks like a flaming radical compared to everyone sitting on the fence or dancing on the collected corpses of our former civil liberties.