The Stark brouhaha here at DU is

[cali]

insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Much sound and fury about a non-event. It doesn't symbolize anything, and it won't have any effect on any policy or on elections. It won't shut dems up from criticizing bushco. It won't encourage them to be more critical. It's a tempest in a DU teapot.

Simply my opinion, of course.

[babylonsister]

1. You're right, but it's a major disappointment for DUers. We finally

thought we'd seen/heard a Dem who actually spoke some truth and displayed a backbone, and he lets us down. Speaking for myself, I feel really let down. I know a bunch of people swayed him to apologize, but that doesn't appease me.
Why should the truth be in such short supply? I think we all deserve better.

[cali]

3. I think you're being a bit selective

I hear dems frequently speaking what I consider to be the truth- from Bernie and Russ to Dennis and Barbara Lee.

"Truth", btw, is a rather subjective thing, and Stark's comment about bush's amusement is a good example of that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Bernie Sanders is as much a Democrat as Lieberman

On the other hand, Sanders sounds far more like a Democrat should sound like than most of the Representatives and Senators with a D after their name.

[cali]

9. Actually, in many ways Bernie is far more of a dem

than Lieberman. Not to mention that he votes to organize with the dems and was supported by both the Vermont and National dem party in his run for the Senate.

[jmp]

2. I think you are kidding yourself.

People become disheartened.

[cali]

5. I could be wrong, but

having watched brouhahhas come and go, I doubt it.

[truebrit71]

4. I disagree.."It won't shut dems up from criticizing bushco"...um, that's EXACTLY what just happened.

..and KEEPS happening...

I have yet to hear an apology from the right on ANYTHING...

[cali]

8. No it doesn't.

You may not wish to acknowledge it, but not a day goes by when there isn't strong criticism for bush and repuke policies, from demss. And Jean Schmidt did have to apologize for maligning Murtha.

[Forkboy]

6. "It doesn't symbolize anything."

yes, it does.It symbolizes the same weakness we keep seeing from them in the face of any criticism from the right, while they can say the most outrageous shit without a peep from our side of the aisle.

I also know non DUers, like my own father, who has followed this.He's been voting Dem for over fifty years and is as centrist as they come, and he's sick of it too.

[old guy]

10. As a single event, you are probably right.

However, when taken together with other instances of Dems being perceived as "weak" it tends to make people question their toughness. Perception will usually trump reality IMO.

[EV_Ares]

17. You made the most valid point. Alone, it would not carry the weight

it does now. By jumping and doing the apologetic thing, it adds credibility to the folding issue on so many other issues perceiving them as being weak. That apology Stark made didn't help any, he really looked weak making it.

[bullwinkle428]

32. "If they can't stand up to their own party leadership, then

how can we expect them to stand up to potential enemies to this country?" is my greatest fear about the possible perception on the part of the general public, after the way things went down in the Stark affair.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. As an Orwell devotee, forced public confessions are always disturbing to me

[cali]

13. How do you think he was forced?

Pressured, undoubtedly. But that's not the same think as forced.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Au contraire. The result defines the method

Even a gunpoint confession is voluntary, insofar as the subject has the option of being shot. He chooses to confess, but we call it forced nontheless.

To distinguish pressure and force is like these weird torture definitions. To me, the fact that someone responds to a physical treatment by revealing something they are STRONGLY motivated to not reveal suggests that the technique is probably torture.

Waterboarding does not sound scary to me, but I accept that it is torture because we know that people will say anything after even brief applications of the technique.

I have no idea what caused Stark to apologize, but we can deduce that it was sufficient. Surely, all things being equal he would prefer to have not gone through that spectacle. Yet he did. If that was as a result of outside pressure, then to my way of thinking it was a forced confession.

in a court of law we call a confession that is not freely given "coerced", so perhaps I should have used that word.

(On edit: My standard of coercion applies only to sticks, not carrots. If he was paid to confess it would be induced, not coerced.)

[incapsulated]

23. I refuse this popular argument

I ask those who are acting like Stark had a gun to his head to consider.

Would John Conyers ever get up on that podium, no matter what his own party said, and beg forgiveness, to be considered "insignificant" and cry?

Yes, I lay blame at the feet of whoever pressured him to do this.

But I am sick and tired of Democrats who are so easily "pressured" by the republicans OR by their own party.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. I'm not condoning Stark's weakness. Only noting that his confession was coerced.

My biggest complaint is with the whole bullshit fad culture of demanding of 'apologies'... it is very Soviet Union.

[incapsulated]

25. And "censuring" the dissenters

I'm sick of it all.

Goddamn, what is a majority worth if we stay on our knees?

[Dr Fate]

27. I never thought of it quite that way. You are right. Thanx for the insight. n/t

n/t

[incapsulated]

12. Weakness

Over and over any time the repukes, who they now OUTNUMBER, make a frowny face the Dems get on their needs and beg forgiveness.

When are they going to grow some balls, if not now?

Sure it's one incident but it's one of many.

[Mira]

14. No - No ! He is falling in line. WHY? This is serious and shows

more evidence of the weakness in our elected representatives. We are saddled with people who at times try to stand up and then cave. With no more understanding of why this keeps happening we cannot really combat it, and though suspicions for reasons abound, we remain clueless. So we don't know how to combat it because we don't know what exactly is going on. We also have no idea who we can rely on, and for what.

It just wants to make me spit nails.

[cali]

16. No. It's not serious to the vast majority

and actually there are quite a few people in Congress who don't cave- not enough mind you, but quite a few. And I rely on my reps; they rarely let me down.

[JohnnyLib2]

15. I agree with you, though reluctantly.

Sometimes, I find myself cheering such fervent remarks even while a little warning bell sounds in this aging brain. Still learning the limits of one person's efforts, I guess. Sad chain of events for Rep. Stark.

[TankLV]

18. Sure it does - it proves the dems are always WRONG and the repukes are always RIGHT

in the public record...

The winners get to write the history, no matter if it is completely WRONG...

It matters a great deal for the SYMBOLISM - and it's a continuing symptom of what is WRONG with our current crop of Dems...

[Bake]

19. I'd like to have seen Stark refuse to apologize.

And if they censured him, so what? He could have flipped them off like the Pukes flip off the rest of the world.

But I agree that the brouhaha here is a tempest in a teapot.

Bake

[Dr Fate]

28. The next best thing is to go & rent "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

If you want to be inspired by politicians, may I suggest fictional ones?

I agree with you , BTW.

Also- I am glad to see you again- you may recall our gun discussions from a few years ago...

[Bake]

29. Thanks, Dr. Fate!

Good to see you too!

Bake

[NoPasaran]

20. I agree with you

This is a mere bagatelle.

We'll be back to Hillary hating tomorrow.

[truebrit71]

22. He was TOLD by Dem leadership to apologize or be censured....

...What was it you were saying about it not shutting the Dems up?

Nancy FUCKING Pelosi is DOING THAT ANYWAY!!!

[2rth2pwr]

33. What's wrong with being censured if you believe in what

you said? He has been in office forever and has about zero chance of being voted out.

Why not stand up for what you believe in?

[Dr Fate]

26. You could say the same about intitial oppostion to the war, election fraud or impeachment.

There are plenty of things that have been written off as "things only DUers care about" at one time or another- but that doesnt mean DU is wrong all the time either.

And if it doesnt mean anything, then they should have just left him alone to begin with- otherwise, their actions do indeed have an intended purpose & meaning.

[cali]

30. no I couldn't

comparing the Stark affair with IWR, opposition to war, election fraud or impeachment is way off. Those are substantive issues. This is insignificant.

[LanternWaste]

31. I think you're correct.

I think you're correct. For all intents and purposes, it's Much Ado About Nothing with a lot of Don John's running around stirring things up with no greater good in mind other than an increased sense of validation and/or purpose.

[baldguy]

34. Having someone tell the truth after 7 yrs of lies is not an insignificant event.

And having that person silenced so easily and swiftly - and by his own party - is not insignificant either.

[cali]

35. you haven't been listening

if you think Pete Stark is the only one who's told the truth in the last 7 years, and yes it's insignificant. It changes nothing.

[baldguy]

36. And how many times has it happened on the floor of the House or the Senate?

Denouncing Bush & the rest of the neocon criminals on a second-rate blog is one thing. A legislator doing on the record in the Capitol building is another. We're crying for justice out in the world & the oligarchs in Washington turn a deaf ear & an blind eye to us. The REASON Stark's statement is news is that it RARELY HAPPENS and they COULDN'T IGNORE IT!

[cali]

37. no. the reason it's news is that he said that

bush sends Americans to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement. There have actually been many denunciations of bush from the House floor- and the Senate floor.

[baldguy]

39. The previous "denunciations" have had Dems treat Bush like the ten-yr-old boy he pretends to be.

Stark's comments allowed the country to see him for the seething blood-thirsty mass murderer he actually is.

That's news.

[cali]

40. really? then you won't have any trouble

quoting some. I remember differently. I seem to recall some hard hitting comments. But I Believe Starks comments did not allow the country to see him as a mass murderer. Mr. & Mrs middle America were unlikely to be impressed by his comments.

[baldguy]

42. Why should I try & find these "hard hitting" speeches which don't exist?

And anyway what matters is their ACTIONS: the Dems express their worry, wring their hands, say some milquetoasty defiant words - then they back down & give the bushies EVERYTHING THEY WANT! The fact is that when a bully hits you, you can't crawl away to tend your wounds - YOU HIT THEM BACK, HARDER! A second fact is THE BUSHIES WANT TO KILL YOU! They just don't have enough power yet!

If you think there are Dems who consistently stand up to Bush, who are they? The leadership certainly doesn't

[The Count]

38. Of course it won't intimidate anyone from speaking up. Who doesn't love

public humiliation? (following secret blackmailing?). It was in fact a great day for democracy when they shut him up.I bet all Dems in congress can't wait for their Stark moment in the limelight!

[cali]

41. Oh, please

they can be as hard hitting as they want. they just have to steer away from personal insults, and believe it or not, that still leaves plenty of latitude.