As one of the board's dreaded "Centrists" I would like to offer an Olive Branch

[SidneyCarton]

There are many here who are angry, frustrated and ultimately disillusioned with the President here. I am not one of them, but the grievances you bring to the Administration's conduct in the past several months are valid, Pres. Obama has not managed to do all the things that we had hoped he would during the early months of his Presidency. In other cases, he has shown himself to be more conciliatory toward the opposition than many here are comfortable with. Many here have suffered greatly (in either spirit or in person) from the excesses of the Bush Administration, and the seeming betrayals of earlier administrations, and as such find their anguish almost intolerable, and as such seek the fastest relief possible. Others, outraged by years of abuses and corruption making a mockery out of the liberties which we profess to have are angry that the many injustices of the past have not yet been dealt with, and seem indeed to be more likely to be left to fade into the past without direct confrontation. Finally there are those, who having begun to see themselves as part of a great and powerful progressive movement, will not allow themselves to sit down and be complacent just as their voices are being heard. There is nothing wrong with any of these positions, nor is criticism of the President a cardinal, unforgivable sin. You should not be silenced for your position, indeed, as much as the anger demonstrated on this board and in other forums makes us moderates uncomfortable, this discomfort is a necessary part of the process, otherwise we become little more than self-satisfied and starry-eyed.

That said, this is my party too, and I will not be silenced. I do not intend to be run out of my own party, which I joined of my own volition because I do not meet an arbitrary standard of liberal-ness. I don't want you to leave (unless you really want to go, and then Godspeed) but I'm not going anywhere either, so we may as well learn to disagree and do so civilly.

[izquierdista]

1. As long as you don't offer an Olive Garden

[SidneyCarton]

2. No, that could be dangerous, just look at the Lounge.

:scared:

[vaberella]

3. Oooh..what's going on there? n/t

[SidneyCarton]

6. it's an ongoing thing

It's actually become one of the Lounge's long-time running gags.

[vaberella]

11. Inside joke, huh?! n/t

[Cha]

14. "Olive Garden is pulling their ads from Letterman show"..

Mrs. Overall (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-18-09 01:59 PM
Original message

"Olive Garden pulling ads from Letterman over Palin joke (owner donates to Republicans)"

"Following a week of back and forth between CBS late night comic David Letterman and Sarah Palin over a crude joke he told about the Alaska Republican governor’s daughter, the Olive Garden restaurant says it is cancelling (sic) all of its scheduled ads on Letterman’s “Late Show” for the rest of the year.

In an email to a Letterman critic obtained by POLITICO, a spokeswoman for the Italian restaurant chain wrote that “there will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for ‘The Late Show’ with David Letterman in this year's broadcast schedule,” citing the talk show host’s “inappropriate comments.”

“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden,” wrote Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090618/pl_politico/2 ...

On Edit: CONTACT INFO: https://www.darden.com/abt_contact.asp

<more>>>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5875181

Don't want to hijack your thread, Sidney, but I just saw this in GD and think it's something important that we can all agree on.

For the record, I want civil rights for all and the sooner the better.

[Better Believe It]

17. Where in the world will I go now to have real Italian food?

Does anyone know of any Italian restaurants, outside of the Olive Garden, in New York City?

[K8-EEE]

23. LOL.......yeah where can my pre-pasta unlimited breadsticks?

Whenever I see that commercial I'm like....why are you going to be hoovering breadsticks when pasta is coming??

[rhett o rick]

24. very funny you always have Chef Boyardee. nm

[surrealAmerican]

51. Very funny.

You could try closing your eyes and throwing a wad of napkins in a random direction. Seven times out of ten, you'll hit one.

[rhett o rick]

20. See message for better link to Olive Garden. My appologizes to the OP.

https://www.olivegarden.com/company/contact_us/Default.asp?

[SidneyCarton]

21. No problem, it needs to be said. My fault for a poor choice in metaphors.

[Cha]

35. Thanks, rhett!

They need to hear from us..apologies to Sidney, too:)

[rhett o rick]

49. Been sending a message about one an hour. nm

[Cha]

52. Good!

Thanks..I passed on that link you gave to a GD thread.

[incapsulated]

4. This is my take...

I did this with Clinton. The knee-jerk defense routine.

I really didn't get much out of it and he could take care of himself.

I wish progressives like myself weren't silenced by the endless right-wing attacks on Clinton, maybe we would have gotten a more progressive President.

I have no illusions this time around. I'm not profoundly disappointed or anything, I am sad that he is living up to my lowest expectations. Which is, in essence, a black Clinton.

It's not that I want more, it's that this country NEEDS more.

As for the fighting, look, no one is "silenced", they are flamed, ridiculed and dragged into absurd fights. It gets rather predictable and stupid after a while and I doubt my little excursion back to DU is going to last long because of it.

I can talk to and debate my friends over Obama's policies without this sort of shit.

Anyway, none of this is has much effect. One letter to your congressperson is worth more than a thousand DU posts.

[DJ13]

7. It's not that I want more, it's that this country NEEDS more.

Two big :thumbsup: :thumbsup: from me.

Thats the same perspective I have.

[incapsulated]

13. Thanks :) n/t

[rudy23]

5. There are many subtle strawmen in there.

You can chalk up the left's anger with Obama to a lot of things, but you are chalking it up to very petty impatience.

People who believe in traditionally liberal ideals (the majority of the COUNTRY, not just the Democratic party), are upset, not because Obama is taking too much time.

It's that in the time he has had, he's made many backwards moves, and moves towards protecting the Bush administration. Why does he have time to make moves that appease Republicans, but he just doesn't have TIME to move leftward on the issues you've seen debated among Democrats recently.

Why did the DOJ have the TIME to put out that offensive memo? That had nothing to do with time, that was a giant leap BACKWARDS for the empathy and equal rights that the Obama campaign touted for the last two years of his campaign.

So just to drive the point home, it's not the amount of TIME Obama's taking on these issues, it's the direction he's moving.

And for the last strawman, no one's asking moderate Democrats to leave the party. We're asking moderate Democrats to hold our President to the standard of at least being moderately liberal, instead of the firmly right tack he's actively been taking.

[SidneyCarton]

10. Rudy we've been through this before, haven't we?

There are no strawmen there, I'm telling you what I really think, if you see them, you put them there.

As for petty impatience, I don't believe I used those words or implied anything of the sort. You are justified in your anger and your frustration, some of these things should have been done better or sooner.

As to direction, that's personal, I don't see a great problem with direction, merely with execution, if you see a problem with direction, that's your right too, and we'll just disagree.

But seriously, I extend an olive branch and get rebuked for offering strawmen, come on!

[rudy23]

16. I'll list the strawmen I see--

*"Pres. Obama has not managed to do all the things that we had hoped he would during the early months of his Presidency"

It's not the speed at which he's moving, but the direction

*"In other cases, he has shown himself to be more conciliatory toward the opposition than many here are comfortable with"

It's not the conciliatory tone, but rather the legislation and stances announced by he and his cabinet that are IDENTICAL to the opposition.

*"Many here have suffered greatly (in either spirit or in person) from the excesses of the Bush Administration, and the seeming betrayals of earlier administrations, and as such find their anguish almost intolerable, and as such seek the fastest relief possible."

Again, you are implying that our problem is our impatience.


"I do not intend to be run out of my own party, which I joined of my own volition because I do not meet an arbitrary standard of liberal-ness."

No one wants to run you out of your party because of some "arbitrary standard of liberalness." There's a concrete standard set by the Obama campaign that we, as politically active Democrats, wish to hold him to.

I'm sorry, but when you speak in such a way in an aggressive attempt to reframe the debate, you don't come off as a moderate Democrat. You come off as a paid DLC staffer, and our big beef isn't that the DLC is too moderate. It's that they're indistinguishable from the Republicans!

[SidneyCarton]

18. These aren't strawmen Rudy, they're disagreements.

There is an actual difference, as I did not take them into account. Though I would assume that there are a fair number here who have a problem with the timing instead of the direction in which things are heading.

And once again, you whip out the broad brush and characterize anyone who disagrees with you as Republicans or crypto-Republicans. If I come off as a paid DLC staffer due to attempts to reconcile warring parties, what do you come off as with your name calling and labels?

[rudy23]

22. Not "anyone who disagrees with me." Just the DLC.

And it's not name-calling, it's an observation. The DLC platform is remarkably similar to the Republican platform.

[SidneyCarton]

26. And yet everyone who disagrees with you is quickly labeled a DLC'er

Substitute that label for "Liberal" or "Socialist" and you could sub for Hannity.

[rudy23]

31. No, not "anyone who disagrees with me." That's another strawman.

Just you, and a few others on here who sound way more like paid defenders of the DLC than actual moderate Democrats. There's a big difference between a moderate Democrat, and a DLC'er.

I may be wrong, but there are tells, and you have shown me all of them.

[SidneyCarton]

32. No, its an observation, when you do something often enough, it becomes self-evident

Paranoia strikes deep friend...

[rudy23]

36. Strawmen, then ad-hominem

Why would someone go to such great lengths to defend the moves Obama has made to appease the right.

Oh yeah---why did Obama's DOJ have time to set Ted Stevens free?

Why did Obama have time to block the visitor's log to the White House?

Why would a Democrat so stridently defend these actions on a Democratic board, and employ so many strawmen in doing so, unless they were paid to?

[SidneyCarton]

41. Would that I did get paid for doing this,

It would actually make putting up with cracks like yours worthwhile.

But alas no, I don't get a red cent from the DLC, the GOP, the Communist Party or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for this, I actually believe in what I'm saying. And that's why this whole conversation is so pitiful, I'm trying to converse, as you cast aspersions on me, calling me a paid hack and an infiltrator. One wonders as to your true motivations for this, you accuse me of ad-hominims, yet in the time we've had this conversation you have called me a crypto-republican, a DLC'er and a paid hack for the DLC. I really have to wonder about you, is character assassination your typical form of argument, or am I just special?

[Zodiak]

46. There is no evidence that the DLC has paid bloggers on DU

There are members here that champion the mission of the DLC, and they often take great pride in it enough to indicate so in their profile. But I think they are just that way ideologically.

I rarely call a DUer a DLCer. The DLC is a group of elected democrats and their associated think tank and funding infrastructure, not a bunch of political junkies typing stuff to each other on the internet. To me, a voter cannot be in the DLC, so the charge is ridiculous on its face. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, may be legally called DLCers or DLC-types until the cows come home....many deserve the monniker.

As an aside, if someone refuses to engage you in a respectful manner, ignore is a wonderful way to save your precious time. It's far from an act of cowardice.

[SidneyCarton]

42. And if we are going to descend into the realm of credentials...

My info is up on my profile, where's yours? I find it a little insulting to have my identity called into question by someone who hides their identity even more than I do.

[SidneyCarton]

19. Dup.

[Lerkfish]

8. I don't really see a lot of proposed silencing

from the left: I think we just want to make sure that a president we all know is more centrist than left doesn't forget that the left helped elect him, and to give proper and thoughtful consideration to OUR issues as well.

As an example, if he moderates his stance on DOMA, that panders to the right, but does nothing for the left.

Torture is a good example of an issue on which there should be NO compromise... you can't half-torture, nor can you compromise on whether its wrong.


Compromise is not always the BEST solution, its only a solution that averages both sides. In the case of basic civil rights and torture, for example, there is no good average on those issues. Either you permit other human beings the same rights as you, or you have violated their rights. If you torture, even a little bit, you have absolutely violated the Geneva Conventions.

there is no middle ground on what is right on some issues.

[Turbineguy]

9. Sorry, we don't eat there anymore

We are boycotting Olive Branch.

[SidneyCarton]

12. probably for the best...

I hear the food's no good, and they have pulled their ads from Letterman over this whole Palin crap.

[Romulox]

15. The fact that Tim Geithner, Larry Summers direct Obama's economic policy has to do with VALUES

not time, just to name one example.

"Pres. Obama has not managed to do all the things that we had hoped he would during the early months..."

"seek the fastest relief possible..."

"the many injustices of the past have not yet been dealt with..."

[Zodiak]

25. I agree that the central argument on this thread that it is not the speed

...but the direction is a very valid criticism of the OP.

However, I do think this is a sincere attempt at a meeting of the minds, and Sidney should be commended for the effort.

This place has gotten very ugly as of the last few months, and good DUers are lurking instead of posting. We need a lot more of this sort of tone, and a lot less name-calling and strawmen.

[SidneyCarton]

27. I will freely admit that I misinterpreted the argument regarding direction

Harder to reconcile that one, I still defend the validity of the arguments that the President is going the wrong way, I may not agree, but along with the incivil and rude condemnations of the President there have also been intelligent and nuanced arguments on this issue, which make excellent points. I am not ready to toss out the baby with the bath water just yet (ask me again in 2011) but I can see why many are indeed disappointed, and that we should let them state their case, after all, giving ear to the more progressive elements in the party is what keeps us honest.

[Zodiak]

34. I am an issues-oriental liberal by the standards of this board

More of a populist than anything.

I still support Obama. If I were called by a pollster, I would express general approval. There is no way I am going to contribute to strengthening the Republicans politically in the greater body politic depite my disappointments. Here, however, is a different matter...here is where we air these differences.

I will point out every single case in which I disagree with Obama, and I will point out exactly why. Where possible, I will even offer a better solution. I will also champion a stronger voice for the left in our party because the left has been forced into the wilderness for far too long.

I might even insult a Democratic politician or two along the way.

Conversely, I will point out where Obama is doing well...and he HAS done well in certain areas of policy, especially foreign diplomacy.

And I will conduct myself in a respectful manner towards my fellow DUers (well, mostly...I get real snippy with those that throw the snark around too much). I do not want to get rid of the moderates....I want to get rid of the corporatists. They undermine the entire thrust of this party and make us look like do-nothings who stand for nothing. And they actively try to curtail any power of the left within the party.

Being moderate isn't a sin. Treating moderation as an ideology in and of itself and capitulating to the worst instincts of the opposition in order to appear conciliatory is a sin, and it goes on far too much in our party.

That's where I come from.

Funny thing is...if you looked at my stances on every issue, you would probably call me a "moderate"...but few of my individual positions are "the center". Polls show that standard American "independents" are much the same way....conservative on some issues (for me it is gun control, "nanny-statism", and some religious issues), and liberal on other issues (for me it would be peace, human rights, and economics).

Sorry for this discombobulated post, but if we are having a meeting of the minds here, I think it best to let people to know exactly where I come from instead of guessing.

[rudy23]

37. THANK YOU for distinguishing moderates from corporatists.

THAT should be the key issue here. THAT is where the "tell" comes from that makes me think I'm talking to a paid staffer.

I may be wrong in this one instance, but overall, you can make a good educated guess as to who is paid to be on here by who is defending the CORPORATE--not moderate--wing of the party.

[Zodiak]

44. Unfortunately, I find that guessing other people's motives is fraught with error

This error is compounded greatly when one does not see your opponent face-to-face.

It is best to just skewer the argument presented to you with cold facts and logic than to pursue the fancies of speculation. It is tempting, sure, but still a logical fallacy and a betrayal of weakness in rhetorical strength.

I'm sure the causes we fight for are worthy of a sound argument, so give we should present them as such.

Besides, does being paid make one more motivated than someone who argues with the conviction of their hearts? I think not. If there are paid bloggers here, they are paper tigers.

[rhett o rick]

28. I am always suspicious of those calling them selves Democratic centrists.

Are you a Blue Dog centrist? Do you support Lieberman and Specter?

What distinguishes a "centrist"?

[SidneyCarton]

29. I support neither Lieberman nor Specter.

You would need to define "Blue Dog" for me, Have never been sure what exactly that means.

Centrist is probably a lousy term, it came up in threads yesterday so I used it, I think it would be fair to call me a moderate. For this board I would probably be further toward the right than many. I favor the Employee Free Choice Act, and have been deeply disappointed by current developments along those lines. I am pro-choice, and see the legalization of same-sex marriage as necessary in order to fulfill the demands of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. I take a more gradual and cautious approach toward change than many, and realize that my views frustrate and annoy many here, hence I haven't posted much lately, I'm just doing my part to try and put out some fires.

[rhett o rick]

48. I sure as shootin shouldn't have to define Blue Dog Democrats to you.

They are the lousy ass bastards that claim to be Democrats but vote lock stock and whatever, with republiCons every single vote.

[rudy23]

38. Yes, very, very suspicious. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

40. Are they like liberal Republicans?

[rhett o rick]

47. You notice no one admits to being a right of center Democrat, yet we know they exist. nm

[girl gone mad]

30. Don't worry, we'll keep fighting for the things you take..

for granted. Civil rights, Social Security, environmental protection, choice, freedom from religious tyranny, transparent government, entrepreneurial protections, health care. You can just ride along without ever paying for the gas.

[SidneyCarton]

33. How many elections do you win alone?

This smug sense of superiority, that you fight the good fight and we sit around and do nothing is exactly what creates divisions and weakness. We may not be the "base" but we are your electorate, talk-down to us at your peril. How well did fighting for civil rights, social security etc... work under Bush with a republican majority. Do you assume those days are gone for good? You choose to go out and be an advocate, that is your privlege, I choose not to, but to back you at the ballot box, I'm not asking for gratitude, but it would be nice not to get slapped upside the head every other day because I'm not you.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. I see this as family squabbles. Clearly I'm way too left for some but that doesn't

mean I can't work with others who might not see things the way I do within a wide Democratic party framework. I get into arguments with my relatives but if an outsider fucks with one of us that's another story. Now the GOP is that outsider that other family down the block who wants to see us all fail.

What I don't get is why in the holy fuck do so many Democrats want to give value and credence to ideas that come from that other party which has bankrupted our country figuratively as well as literally. I'm all for the biggest tent possible but this party's leadership has got to stop encouraging these clown ass republicans.

As for the White House, go for it kick 'em while they're down. Every opportunity you get remind people who put us here and that we will not compromise with the collection of assholes known as the Republican party. A window like the one that has opened now will not come again for a long time. Give them enough time and encouragement we will see how the next guy will make Karl Rove look like Mr Rogers.

As far as you and I are concerned we cool as long as we can discuss things respectfully. I have no problem with that. At least I'll try my best. You do make a good point above about how we can win elections together. Once we've won those elections I think we should be bold or as bold as we can be without imploding like the repubes. I think that's a wide latitude to operate in since we got such a mandate and all. I think together we can make the republican party as irrelevant as the should be in this day and age.

[GeorgeGist]

43. As I understand it ...

progress is easier when clay feet are first exposed to fire.

[flpoljunkie]

45. Obama said change would be hard, and he would need us to stand with him. That's what we are doing.

On a public option for healthcare and for the repeal of DOMA and DADT. Not totally satisfied with banking reform, but love the idea of a financial consumer protection agency. I think we can thank Elizabeth Warren's leadership for this. It matters, cause the banks are screaming already.

[mvd]

50. Differences between you and others may be more in philosophy than ideology

I don't have a problem with centrists as much as people like Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson who work with the Republicans more than the liberals and water down the President's plans.