I get discouraged listening to AAR hosts tear down the Democrats

[madfloridian]

Trupiani is doing it now as are all of his guests.

We have serious problems in our party, agreed. But the alternative for 3rd party is only going to accomplish one thing....give it back to the Republicans.

There is no credible 3rd party leader on the horizon.

There has got to be a way to hold them accountable without destroying the good guys.

:shrug:

[xultar]

1. I agree. That is often why I find DU so tiresome.

[acmavm]

8. Yes, that was obvious from that totally obscene and vile rant

that got deleted almost immediately.

[acmavm]

2. Well then to good guys better start speaking up and getting

something done because at this rate the democratic party is nothing. They have this attitude that this is an aristocracy and they're we sent to Washington to help our unelected emperor rule, not represent the people who voted for 'em.

[madfloridian]

4. Then destroy them, let the GOP rebuild.

.

[madfloridian]

10. All Democrats are not bad. 30 of the 41 the main ones...can be replaced.

Basically only a few who stick together. Why make the whole party sound bad?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1420

[acmavm]

12. Because it's the leaders who suck. Especially Grandman

Pelosi.

[madfloridian]

13. Then target them. Don't diss the party as a whole.

.

[acmavm]

32. Here, you'd best be hopping on that high horse and giving

Buzzflash this lecture too.

<snip>

With domestic spying powers just recently legally expanded by a Democratic Congress to include, according to The New York Times, certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans' business records, the Bush Administration now has legal authority to achieve what Nixon attempted to do illegally in the Watergate burglary.

And if the Democratic Party were to sue over a modern day Watergate-style operation, the Bush Administration would tell the court that it can’t reveal why it conducted the spying operation on a political party because it would violate national security.

This is not BuzzFlash idle speculation; it is what the Bush Administration, now enabled by the lack of caucus discipline in a Democratic Congress, has achieved.

God help us all.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/157

[madfloridian]

38. "high horse"?

.

[acmavm]

43. Yep. The majority of the people who call themselves democrats

are thoroughly disgusted with the party and the lack of leadership and the lack of pretty much anything resembling backbone. And all the lectures in the world won't change that fact. Haven't you been keeping up with the news? Have you seen their polls?

Supporting these people while they kick us in the ass is just plain stupid. And all the lectures in the world will not change that.

And now I'm on my 'high horse'. But I can admit it. I'm also safely in the company of the majority of the people who vote democrat. And seriously, we are damn sick of rewarding them with nice cushy jobs in Washington and them biting the hands that feed 'em.

By the way, any news on the 'secret' trade deal that Nancy and Harry were do proud of negotiating with the bush** administration?

[madfloridian]

46. This would be funny, but it is not. Unfair criticism of me.

Rangel..."bam, seal it and catch hell" ...about the trade deal
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1355

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1437

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1427

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1426

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1424

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1422

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1417

That's just a little of what I have written recently.

So it is not fair attacking me for not speaking out.

[shenmue]

64. Grow up. What did you expect to happen?

I love how people expect one person to face no opposition and cure all problems like this is the House of Lords or something. If you hate her, just get it over with and move on.

And what kind of word is "Grandman," anyway? Were you trying to say "Grandma"?

Nice respect for women you've got there, huh... :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:dunce:

I didn't realize the word "Grandma" was an insult. Guess yours didn't raise you right.

[acmavm]

65. You need to do a little moving on yourself. And I don't have to

get 'over' a damn thing.

As far as raising my right, how the hell would a arrogant twit like you know? What to make this personnel, fine. I've been reading your posts today and I'm wondering who or what raised you.

[wyldwolf]

3. which is why I quit listening. Probably why they never really took off...

They were supposed to be our answer to Rush Limbaugh. They became the voice of the 2% Naderites.

[madfloridian]

6. We seldom agree. But this time we do.

.

[jgraz]

15. A clearly informed opinion from a non-listener

Of course, lack of information never stopped you before, so maybe you can point out which of the AAR hosts are 2% Naderites: Randi Rhodes? Thom Hartmann? Rachel Maddow? Or how about Lionel, who won't even say he's a progressive?

My guess is you've never even heard of these people. You just were told by somebody once that someone said something bad about Democrats on the radio.

Of course, I'm being kind. My guess is that this is just another fantasy of yours.

[madfloridian]

18. Most of us support the Democratic Party while criticizing some.

The AAR hosts have been going overboard with talk against the Democrats.

[jgraz]

26. For example?

I have AAR on almost all day. t I've never heard Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder or Rachel Maddow go "overboard" while criticizing Dems.

Maybe you're thinking of Mike Malloy, who's not on AAR. Or maybe you just have a different definition of "overboard" than I do. Personally, I think the AAR hosts have let them off easy.

[wyldwolf]

29. the extreme criticism isn't the big issue. The BIG issue is they do it with millions listening

[jgraz]

31. Ah, so if they had a smaller audience it would be ok?

Sometimes I think I just reply to you for the entertainment value.

So what, in your opinion, would be the proper way for someone to criticize the Democrats? Are you really saying that someone with an advocacy show on national radio should not state their opinion because somebody might hear it? :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

36. If they were broadcasting to a college town (like their talent level suggests), no...

... it would sound like a bunch of college radio jocks.

But for an outfit that, by it's very founding purpose, was to help Democrats. With millions listening, they give slanted views and could very well help Dems lose.

If that is YOUR goal, so be it.

[jgraz]

44. Yes, they should be careful. The some people might start thinking incorrectly

If the Democrats can't win elections in the climate of this national leftward lurch, nothing AAR says or doesn't say can help them. Maybe you should concentrate on that instead of trotting out these tired 1950's tropes about party loyalty.

[wyldwolf]

47. ...or at least start thinking like Nader did in 2000

[jgraz]

51. "I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of the Naderite party..."

Stop, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Dr Fate]

But we DO know who supported Lieberman (I) in 2006, dont we? Why it was the DLCers, that's who.

A LOT of hypocricy on DU when it comes to "centrists" and THEIR 3rd parties.

The only ones they tolerate are the ones that help Bush. Just ask Harold Ford of the DLC who supported Joe, or the former(?) DLC employees who are now Lieberman (I) staffers.

[Dr Fate]

52. Or like your DLC was thinking, when they supported Joe Lieberman (I) in 2006.

Harold Ford, "President" or some shit of the DLC, who supported Joe (I) even after Lamont(D) won as your shining example, no doubt.

Then Bill & Hill, who campaigned and made appearances for Joe (I) more than they ever even dreamed of helping Lamont (D).

I know, Iknow- you all instantly all became anti-war, "nut-roots" Lamont (D) supporters at the stroke of midnight once Lamont one.

Forget the fact that you all still argued for him even after he threatened to pull a Nader-long before he actually lost to Lamont(D).

Yeah, right after your glass coach turned into a pumpkin. LOL!!!

[wyldwolf]

58. is the DLC on a radio network tearing down Dems of all stripes? I must have missed it.

[jgraz]

66. One: they weren't tearing down Dems "of all stripes"

Two: You're right, the DLC wasn't on a radio network tearing down Democrats. They save that for NATIONAL TELEVISION, specifically Fucked Noise.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I just remind you that Harold Ford, newly-minted head of the DLC, went on Fucked Noise and ripped apart the left wing of the Democratic Party?? How Naderite of me.

[wyldwolf]

71. one, they have been since they came on the air

[jgraz]

86. Uh huh. Why don't you show us an example of that

Here are all the podcasts: http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php

And here are the blogs for the most prominent hosts on AAR:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/
http://samsedershow.com/
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/


All of their third-party planning should be right there for anyone to find. Why don't you show us a few examples?

[Dr Fate]

89. You wont see AAR campaigning for & funding a 3rd party like the DLC did, that is for sure.

n/t

[jgraz]

90. Yep, that was kinda my point

Just trying to help wyldwolf reconnect with reality. So far, no success.

[Dr Fate]

92. LOL! Check this out if you want more DLC "forgetfulness" (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3462765

[jgraz]

94. The Google is a bit of a help here

You can find old threads that are still bouncing around the net -- like this one quoted at, appropriately enough, ConservativeUnderground:

The DLC has written a commentary calling Progressives a "motley" crew
and comparing Lieberman to John F Kennedy!!!

In the Hartford Courant

the DLC has said that supporters of Lamont are not the Democratic party but are "outsiders" and declares that the DLC are the Progressives and that Progressives are war hawks.


In addition to being a standard-bearer for the party's tradition of equal opportunity and upward mobility, Kennedy was a muscular internationalist who understood that force was sometimes necessary in order to protect the nation's freedom and security. As Lieberman notes: "I am a Democrat. I believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in the vision of JFK and, I must say, the vision of Bill Clinton."

That tradition is now being challenged by the left in the Democratic party. Driven by a motley coalition of left-wing bloggers and the MoveOn.org crowd, a serious primary challenge has been launched against Lieberman. However, if Lieberman is defeated, a disastrous message would be sent to the nation that centrist hawks are unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

The Connecticut Senate primary is nothing short of a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. That is why outside left-wing groups have converged on this state.

By any standard, Joe Lieberman is a progressive.

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-02-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
17. I find little in that article to disagree with. The left would hate JFK..
...they despised him in 1960 and they'd despise him today (and the feeling was mutual)

[Dr Fate]

91. Not only that- but Harold Ford (DLC) went ON TV & supported Lieberman's 3rd party AFTER the primary.

So not only dose Ford and other DLCers go on TV to rip the DEM left wing, he OPENLY supported CONSERVATIVER, PRO BUSH 3rd party against a fairly moderate, anti-war Democrat.

[Dr Fate]

88. No-the DLC doesnt attack DEMS of all stripes, just the ones who oppose Bush/media on issues like...

...the war, impeachment, Anti War candidates (see their support for Joe Lieberman), filibustering right-wing judges and minor shit like that.

There is a differecne between disagreeing with "centrist" DEMS who "accidently" help Bush's agenda by going along with it- and the DLC's disagreement with us DEMS onthe ground who have been 100% right about the war and other major issues of the day.

Big difference.

[wyldwolf]

28. On the contrary, oh clueless one

Not only was I once I avid listener, I had the inside track on happenings there from Jon and Steve Sinton, who I know quite well.

Remember when Mike Malloy was fired for “financial reasons?” Usually in radio, that means the ratings don’t justify the salary. In Air America’s case, however, it is obvious the network is losing money so you’d expect them to cut loose their weakest link.

I listened to Air America Radio. I have friends who were involved with Air America Radio. What we got after a promise to go after Republicans was a host of inexperienced leftwingers who often joined Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk in attacking the Democratic party.

The one thing that REALLY turned me off to the now-cancelled Unfiltered with Rachel Maddow, as well as several other Air American Radio Shows (like the Mike Malloy show) is how quick they were to criticize Democrats. Now, I don’t feel any Democrat is above criticism - but doing so with literally millions listening won’t do anything to build support for the party and get rid of the GOP. Do you ever hear Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage trashing the Republican party? Plus, it provided fodder for the rightwingers. Maddow really crossed the line on her last day on Unfiltered when she launched into an anti-Bill Clinton diatribe. With millions listening, she explained why the man who saved the Democratic party was really a bad president.

Way to go, Rachel! That’s how you convince the fence sitters to vote for Democrats! Unfiltered was cancelled because of low ratings. Now you know why the ratings were low.

But Maddow wasn’t alone in her disdain for anything that isn’t far left simon-pure. Mike Malloy, the Left’s answer to rightwing wacko Mike Savage, believes he is a “traditional Democrat” (no, seriously, he believes that) but, as Wikipedia explains, he has basically withdrawn from the Democratic party and is now making overtures to the Green Party - those swell guys who cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

LOSERS one and all. A failed experiment.

Of course, I'm being kind. My guess is you've bought into the 2% naderite on-air bonanza.

[jgraz]

34. Naderite...why don't you just come out and call me a communist

This is sad McCarthy-style rhetoric, even by your low standards.

I heard Rachel's last day on Unfiltered (before she launched one of the most popular progressive shows on the radio). I know, it must be hard to hear someone criticize your personal deity, but she didn't make a single point that wasn't factually correct and supported by evidence.

Where's your evidence that Bill Clinton "saved" the Democratic party? IIRC, the Dems only held the executive branch after 94, and Clinton spent much of his time capitulating to the big scary right in Congress.

[wyldwolf]

45. why try to divert the purpose of the thread?

:shrug:

[jgraz]

67. And that purpose would be...what?

To give you another chance to try out your arguments before you run for head of the Politburo?

[wyldwolf]

77. I dunno. You're the one doing it so you tell me.

:shrug:

[jgraz]

80. First Naderite, now Rubber/Glue

Hey, folks!! Welcome to the Greatest Hits of wyldwolf.

Up next on the big show: random non-sequitors.

[MADem]

50. You got that right. NT

[youthere]

5. DU 'er cali-mary is going to be on at 1 ET.

[madfloridian]

7. I like and respect her.

I like and respect Trupiani, but real is real. We can work for change or work to destroy.

[shance]

9. You know Floridian I believed that for over 15 years, and now I believe its

simply at tactic the elite Washingtonians want you and I to believe so the "two party" system remains actually a one party system where they make money and more power for themselves and the banks.

You don't have to agree with me, I am just saying that believed what you currently believe as well. After being a Republican when I was younger and a Democrat for the past fifteen years, I have concluded that a party system only creates divisions and teams competing against one another which if one takes a closer look only serves to divide and separate which keeps the powerful, or those who abuse power, IN power.

That's my theory.

I think we've become too focused on parties and we are missing the bigger picture. The corporations and moreover the banks, that own both parties.

[madfloridian]

11. Then don't vote Democratic and see what happens.

:shrug:

See my point?

[ldf]

107. well, we VOTED democratic in 2006

and you have SEEN what has happened.

NOTHING!!! well, except maybe posturing, threatening, shaking our finger, stomping our feet, and THEN giving little lord pissypants everything he wants.

yeah, THAT is what i want out of MY democratic party... :sarcasm:

we can't even issue a fucking subpoena, for christ's sake. they just ignore them.

could a Democrat get away with that? huh?

[SaveElmer]

14. Why I don't listen to AAR so much anymore...

Could always count on Al to keep the focus on the bad guys. But it seems whenever I tune in to Thom Hartman for example, he is spending as much time attacking Democrats as he is Republicans...

[jgraz]

23. sigh -- another proponent of blind party loyalty heard from

Do you people ever stop to think WHY the Democrats have so much trouble winning elections? Are you really so deluded that you think that it's the fault of the progressive critics of the party?? Have you never considered the fact that maybe the Democrats really deserve some of this criticism, and that if they listened to it we'd have a much stronger party? (I'm guessing NO).

I have never heard anyone on AAR call for people to vote against Democrats. On the other hand, I have heard your dear uncle Al refuse to even entertain the possibility that election fraud contributed to Kerry's "loss" in 2004. If that's the kind of progressive radio you want, you can keep it.

[madfloridian]

25. Never use the words "blind party loyalty" to us here. "BLIND"

That is just not fair, and it shows you do not read the passionate stuff some of us right.

But congrats...you were the first to use "blind" in this thread.

[jgraz]

39. Anytime you attack people for speaking up rather than addressing their issues

you're engaging in blind loyalty, IMHO. At the very least, you're demanding that others who don't share your opinion engage in blind loyalty.

Let's suppose Rachel or Thom or Randi realy DO believe we should all abandon the Democrats and start a third party. What the hell is wrong with them saying so? Either they're wrong, in which case opposing viewpoints and/or dropping ratings will win out, or they're right and we really should listen to them. Classic John Stuart Mill.

[madfloridian]

41. Then let them say it. You say it. Say it THIRD PARTY...

and let the GOP have it next year.

I think you know better.

[jgraz]

49. Scare tactics that are unworthy of you

Here's what I say: SHAPE THE HELL UP, DEMOCRATS. If they don't start addressing the real issues supported by the majority of the people -- and stop acting so fucking weak -- nothing you or I can say will help them.

That's just reality. People are tired of this crap. Non-DU, non-AAR people. I spent most of 2006 getting these people out to vote with the promise of real change in D.C. What the hell are we going to tell them next year? Trust me, the story of the big scary Republican hiding in your closet will not cut it this time.

People -- real people -- are getting disillusioned with politics and tuning out. And you know as well as I do that NOTHING helps the Rethugs more than a turned-off voting public.

[wyldwolf]

62. gotta agree. For the most part, AAR comes *this* shy of advocating a third party

[NYCGirl]

73. Who on AAR does this? I listen to it all the time and have never heard it.

[jgraz]

85. You can't hear it -- it's on the radio in wyldwolf's head

[noamnety]

33. I am with you on this

I would much rather see a discussion of the criticism itself, and whether it is or isn't valid, than a discussion of whether it's horribly outrageous that somebody criticized a democrat, or criticized the party.

If the criticism is valid, it needs to be discussed, not swept under the carpet.

[jgraz]

37. Nail meet Hammer. What's the best way to quell criticism of your party?

REFUTE IT.

Until you can do that, you have no business telling other people to shut up.

[madfloridian]

16. Target the ones selling us out....support the good guys.

And at least say thank you to them.

[NYCGirl]

17. Who is Trupiani? He's not on AAR here. NT

[madfloridian]

19. Subbing for Schultz...who is on XM AAR though not AAR

AM carries Schultz instead of Hartmann midday.

[NYCGirl]

21. Ahh, OK. We get Hartmann's show here. NT

[Dr Fate]

20. They don't get any biscuits or treats until they learn some new tricks.

Going along with and apparently AGREEING with Bush was not why we bought this dog.

[madfloridian]

22. Are you including all of them?

You need to visit Open Left. They are doing an analysis of the ones who vote against the party the most.

[jgraz]

30. It's getting harder and harder to accept the silence of some of the Democrats

I truly hope they're fighting pitched battles behind doors in D.C., cuz it's difficult to imagine that some of these progressive Democrats would just assent to what the leadership is doing.

The impeachement non-debate is just mind-boggling. Even supposed pro-impeachment reps like Kucinich are being pretty quiet about it.

[Dr Fate]

35. All of who? What television show are they on?

I dont go to-or acknowledge obscure websites that my Red-State Aunts and Uncles will never see. You know that about me by now.

Sorry- the "good" Democrats get to share the blame until they start OPENLY dissenting against the GOP/"bad" Democrats.

I dont need to vistit some website, I need to turn on my TV and see the "good" Democrats dissenting against Pelosi, etc. and calling for imopeachment, ending the war NOW, or both.

You will disageree, but If I have to go to a website to find out that DEMS may or may not be opposing Bush in a meaningful way, then no one is REALLY opposing Bush or stopping him.

[madfloridian]

24. Open Left is doing some good work on who to go after to get results...

for what we want the party to be. Just random targeting hurts all of us.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=872

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=862

[tnlefty]

87. Bush Dogs - I saw Matt Stoller on Wash. Journal this morning, and

so I went to have a look see, and he's done some analysis on who the targets should be. It's unfortunate that our local party seems to back the type he's writing about! :mad:

I don't think that I used the word blind, but I do remember stating that I had worked for Harold Ford out of a sense of party loyalty, and he seems to take great delight in going on Faux News and taking cheap shots, not valid criticism, but cheap shots at Democrats and that pisses me off to no end. :hi:

[paulk]

27. hey, we agree on something...

I stopped listening about a year and a half ago for exactly that reason. I thought Franken was pretty good - he had some good guests and tried to present a balanced show... for which he was generally reviled here at DU.

I used to listen to Randi Rhodes every now and then, but the day she said she believed a cruise missile had hit the Pentagon, not an airplane - that was it for me.

Right now the focus needs to be on defeating Republicans, not internecine party fighting. Once we get a working majority in Congress, along with the White House, then we can fight over how to reach our goals. In the meantime, all these people are doing is providing fodder for the pukes to use against our candidates.

[ProudDad]

81. I'm curious

"Once we get a working majority in Congress, along with the White House, then we can fight over how to reach our goals"

Really, I'm seriously curious. For those of you who appear to be "My party, right or wrongers" --

What are your goals?

How do you expect a group of people bought and paid for by corporate amerika to achieve them?

[madfloridian]

40. Words used against me: "high horse" "blind party loyalty"...talking points

to hurt those of us who try to find a way to make the party work.

This is funny because I am always posting stuff about the ones in the party I disagree with.

It shows a snobbishness toward us.

[jgraz]

53. Words used against me: "Naderite", "Republican", "high horse"

Hey, you don't think it's the same high horse, do you?

[madfloridian]

55. I did not call you those things.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

42. I am accused of "blind party loyalty" for saying most Democrats are good.

What does that tell you?

:shrug:

Me? Blindly loyal?

[jgraz]

56. Nope. Only if you insist that other people must agree with you or shut up.

[madfloridian]

59. I said that?

?

[jgraz]

68. These meta-arguments are not particularly helpful

The implication of BPL (blind party loyalty) is there in many posts. If you agree that AAR and others have a perfect right to criticize the Democrats and that this DOES NOT mean that we want the Republicans to win in 08, then I will retract my characterization for you alone.

[AtomicKitten]

75. no worries

The OP hates plenty of Democrats and is in no danger of being a BPL.

[jgraz]

76. I know you're joking AK, but many people feel exactly that way

e.g. You either support all the Democrats or you're a hater.

Personally, I was extremely proud that we had our own Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker. Now, I'm pretty disappointed in her, and I'm highly critical of her performance, but that doesn't translate into hate.

I reserve that for the other side of the aisle.

[AtomicKitten]

79. Um, I'm not joking.

However, I will clarify it's a rather convenient criticism exhibited by the OP with the expectation that people should rally behind the Dems they approve of and brandish torches and pitchforks for those they don't.

There is nothing wrong with honest criticism. Absolutely nothing at all. The problem, again, is that some folks cannot discern between that and clarity being obscured by being an alternate fangirl/hater.

I would say just stake a claim to your legitimate POV and let those that can't deal with it dangle.

[MADem]

48. Send them an email, and tell them why you're turning them off.

Hell, who needs bitching and whining? You can get that at home!!!!

[madfloridian]

54. What a change.

I usually get attacked for criticizing Democrats. :shrug:

I usually get told I should not be so critical.

:shrug:

[zalinda]

57. It's is discouraging when people use the word

ALL, as in all dems are spineless. That's the problem. If you say blue dog dems, or Lieberman dems or dems who vote with repubs, then I think that we have a discussion. But when you say ALL dems is where you raise hackles. Because all dems would include Kucinich, which we know some revere as the only true dem.

So, if you are to say that the dems are not standing up to Bush, please say who is or who isn't. Get the ones who aren't a run for their money with another candidate, or bombard their offices with email, faxes or phone calls. But to lump every dem into the ALL catigory is not worthy of a dem board, or dem radio station.

zalinda

[movonne]

60. Well I think the dems have been asking for it...passing fisa, no impeachment,

hearing after hearings with nothing happening, etc.

[shenmue]

63. What do you mean, nothing happening?

:shrug:

FISA was there already. You know they don't want to shut down the government like the Republicans during the Clinton era, so what did you expect to happen?

You know if people vote to impeach, they won't ever get votes when they run for Congress, right?

Probably because of people like you.

[jgraz]

70. See, it's this kind of disinformation that makes my blood boil

The problem is not that the "my party right or wrong" crowd is blindly loyal and authoritarian, it's that they think the rest of us are fucking retarded.

"FISA was there already. You know they don't want to shut down the government like the Republicans during the Clinton era, so what did you expect to happen?"

What the hell does that mean? The government would SHUT DOWN if they didn't pass the FISA bill? News flash: they had a FISA bill that addressed all of the court's objections without completely capitulating to Chimpy and Gonzo, and they CHANGED THE RULES OF THE HOUSE so that it wouldn't pass. They put the Democratic bill on the "unscheduled" calendar so that a 2/3 vote was required for passage. Then they brought the more draconian Rethug bill to the floor for a straight up-or-down vote.

"You know if people vote to impeach, they won't ever get votes when they run for Congress, right?"

Another through-the-looking-glass ridiculous statement. The Nixon pro-impeachment crowd GAINED seats in the next election, while the anti-impeachers lost seats. And how much of a political price did the Rethugs pay when they impeached Clinton when he was at 60%+ approval?

Bush is at 26%. Twenty-six. The majority of Democratic voters support his impeachment, and the entire country is tied on the subject -- without any support whatsoever from the D.C. leadership. Just who do you think is going to turn out to bring down pro-impeachment Dems in 2008?

[shenmue]

61. Yeah. It's almost like they're Republicans.

Most people on AAR, and a large amount of posters here, rip into the Democrats so bad, I wonder why they bother. You hardly ever hear them say anything supportive about anyone. Just vote Republican if they think things are that bad.

There are some people who have their heads in the clouds and think that there is going to be a perfect candidate somewhere, who will somehow fulfill every mythically, insanely lofty expectation they have for them. Please. There's nobody perfect, so get your nose out of the air and stop being selfish and bitchy. Help somebody, or we'll all have the Republicans in office again. If the whiners hadn't been so uppity last time, the Democrats would have gotten more votes as is. I think unrealistic idealists on our "own" side are what trip us up half the time anyway. Support someone who is close to being right, then work with them. Because there is no one who is a saint and angel coming down the pike, folks. Don't be a baby.

[jgraz]

84. It must be nice to have such a rich fantasy life

However, you may want to consider learning to tell the difference between reality and what the voices tell you.

Those "whiners" you refer to were people like me who spent dozens of hours working phone banks to turn out the democratic vote. And the Democrats who won, won big and won unexpectedly were the progressives. The only way we would have gotten more seats is if the establishment Dems had actually supported the challenges of those who had the elections stolen from them.

Tell me, how many voters did you get to the polls with your anti-idealistic "stop being a baby" arguments?

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

69. The problem is the financing of campaigns..

Until we have publicly financed campaigns the difference between the two parties will only be marginal. Dennis Kucinich has ideas that offer a true choice. His voice is drown out. Why? Because his ideas threaten the corporate interests and hence they will not contribute to his campaign. Hillary is the opposite. Bland ideas that don't threaten big business so they can cozy up to her. You could say, it's not their fault, it's the system. But who would have to change the current system.
This issue over rides everything else in a way, but how much notice does it get.

[ProudDad]

82. You hit the nail exactly on the head

Public Financing and TAKING BACK OUR AIRWAVES for the People's Business...

Welcome to DU... :hi:

[zulchzulu]

72. Trupiani is an asshole

I can't stand listening to him. He is a lightweight. And yes, he thinks like some that when you get a slim majority in the Congress that you can just change everything overnight...literally.

The way democracy works is a little more complicated than just showing up and turning dials or switches in another direction.

[Mutineer]

74. We aren't a perfect party.

And our leaders and potential presidential candidates should be held accountable for what they say, do, etc.

I'd worry more about the lack of criticisim if they weren't doing it on AAR and here at DU, etc. It's when there is no honest exchange of opinions and a diversity of opinions that you're in trouble.

[Larkspur]

78. Who on AAR are you listening too?

The Dem leaders deserve more than a swift kick in the butt after giving Gonzo more power by passing the last FISA bill, and they get the Neville Chamberlain award for dealing with Bush.

[democratsin08]

83. war hawks

all of a sudden democrats are more hawkish than bush

[tishaLA]

93. Seems that Mr Trupiano subbed for Ed Schultz today

but Mr Schultz is not AAR. Mr Trupiano hosts a show, apparently, on the Michigan Talk Radio Network, I.E. America Radio Network, and the Syndicated Solutions Radio Network, none of which is AAR.

It's so sad that some want to smear AAR so much that they are willing to claim that non-AAR hosts actually ARE AAR hosts! But then again, some also claim, in direct contradistinction of his actual position, that Sen Obama supports the privatization of Social Security, so anything is possible, I suppose.

[madfloridian]

95. Wow....you covered a lot of territory there.

.

[tishaLA]

96. And accurately, too.

[madfloridian]

98. I have oodles of stuff to prove you wrong. But I don't care anymore.

I don't post lies, I don't post spin.

I have that in my journal if you want to search...it was about the Hamilton Project with Robert Rubin, and Obama was totally on board.

Yes, that is on the agenda.

Sorry you think I lie. I don't.

[tishaLA]

99. Like when you say Mr Trupiano appeared on ARR?

Yes...the very definition of accuracy. :sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

101. This is my AAR.

http://www.xmradio.com/onxm/channelbio.xmc?ch=167

I like Trupiani usually, but the first hour today was heartbreaking.

Tish, there is nothing I say that will ever satisfy you. So I will back off.

Someday if you decide I am honest and trustworthy, please let me know.

[tishaLA]

103. Once again:

Trupiano--even his name is wrong in the OP!--is not on Air America. Neither is Ed Schultz, for whom he substituted. Schultz is on Jones Radio Network. Do they play the program on a progressive station in some areas? Yes. But neither Schultz nor Trupiano is an Air America host.

To hear such distortions, such misrepresentations, and the insistence against all proof that they are incorrect, is befuddling. But some know what the agenda is.

[madfloridian]

104. What are you accusing me of doing? Please do it clearly.

What is your accusation.

I just showed you a page which shows that the Schultz I listen to is on 167.

Now, I think you are accusing me of lying.

I will add that to "blind loyalty" and "high horse". "liar"

You have done this to me before.

Should I not have opinions just as you do? Even though I usually back mine up with fact?

[Blue-Jay]

97. Tearing down Democrats is for GD:P.

[Solon]

100. Question, define "good guys". n/t

[madfloridian]

102. Here....

are some I think need to held accountable.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1446

But that is just my view.

[madfloridian]

105. Just FYI...I listen to AAR afternoons, evenings and week-ends.

But I listen on XM radio, and they have a different schedule now. So I tend to think of that 167 still as AAR because it says that on my channel labels.

I like most of the hosts, but I think they need to single out and target more accurately.

[Doctor_J]

106. AAR isn't focussed any more

You need to pick and choose, and listen to novam the rest of the time. Lionel admits to "hating liberals". It served a good purpose, but lost its way.