An honest note to DU's so-called "purists":

[Robb]

You know who you are. You know what you've dished out, what you've taken. The names you've been called, and called others.

I appreciate you. I salute you.

Here's why:

You. Never. Give. Up. Thank you for that.

A lot of us look at a solution that winds up in the middle ground, and say "Hey, a solution!" And we feel pretty smug about it. And we jump all over you for complaining that you didn't get every single thing you asked for, we asked for, really, but you're still asking for, because hey, we've got something, right?

We forget.

We forget that politics in this country is a game of tug-of-war, complete with a knotted handkerchief on a rope dangling above a a mud puddle.

We forget that for every tea-bagging bigoted knuckle-dragger on the other side, there's one of you on ours. Sometimes two, because those bastards are loud and pulling hard.

We forget we'd be standing in that puddle but for you, the anchors. Digging in your heels, demanding perfection. And not by being the enemy of the good, but the enemy of the bad.

We forget it's all of us on this side of the puddle, pulling in the same direction.

In the end, solutions tend to be a middle ground. Maybe not smack in that puddle, but in the mud around it. No one realistically denies that.

But it's foolish to deny the importance of our anchors.

So dig in. Lean back. Hold fast. Don't take "compromise" for an answer. Don't take "good enough." Don't take "better than we had."

And for the love of all that's holy, don't let us ever talk you out of your grip on the end of that rope.

You're our anchors. Thanks. :patriot:

[redwitch]

1. I take it back.

You are not a dingbat at all. Nice post Robb, thank you. :patriot:

[LoZoccolo]

2. Naderism is Republicanism. n/t

[tekisui]

7. Conservatism is Conservatism, regardless of Party Label.

[Forkboy]

19. This OP must have you pulling your hair out.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

21. Why would I?

The purists have little effect on anything.

1. Go to any IRL Democratic political boondoggle and purists get their asses laughed at, people try to avoid being accosted by them and make excuses to go talk to other people, then smirk at each other over the obvious signs of insanity and social ineptitude that come out when these purists can't hide behind the Internet. Someone from DU showed up at one of our Illinois Dem Net meetings and became an obnoxious spectacle haranguing everyone with symptoms of some kind of affect disorder or something, interrupting and talking too loud and then moving to the other side of the table like she was pissed off when people wouldn't automatically agree with her. The Internet masks all this, and that's why this mass of purists tends to congeal here, because they don't do so well other places. Why would I complain when I know that this happens, and will happen, over and over again, and then a winrar is me.

2. You can almost ignore point #1 because the purists never get their asses up to do anything anyways. I used to post threads about what people do outside of DU before elections and they'd sink like cinder blocks. Purism is a condition of thinking that complaining is the only thing you need to do to affect change, and that's all they'll do, and all things considered, that's fine by me because I won't have to pretend that I have to go talk to someone else next time I'm at a Democratic boondoggle. No one ever got the bro fist for complaining, and if these people started doing anything but complain they would soon become pragmatists.

3. A lot of purists are closet pragmatists anyways.

4. Even if they aren't, they will get their asses kicked soon enough and learn their lesson, as witnessed by Ralph Nader's decline between the 2000 and 2004 election, where he went from 3% to like .3% or something.

[Robb]

22. You make good points

...But I think you're confusing "purist" and "keyboard commando." ;)

[LoZoccolo]

23. I don't think the two are the same, but I think they are closely related.

Both are an abdication of responsibility for actually getting anything done. A purist gets to pretend to be one of the good guys while doing little or no good.

[Robb]

24. That's a pretty broad brush.

Chinos and khakis, how about? "All worthless keyboard commandos are purists, but not all purists are worthless keyboard commandos"?

[LoZoccolo]

31. Well, I'm not sure how many keyboard commandos are actually trolls.

Because as we've seen from Nader's funding, the opposition can use purists to their advantage, but I do see what you are saying.

[kenfrequed]

53. So in other words

Your whole line on this thread is one long line of strawmen that you are machine gunning to fly in the collaborative and cooperative spirit that this very thread is supposed to engender.

As a hard core issue based activist that DOES donate money, time, and attention to the 'real life' version of politics the online game who happens to be a long term-long time progressive I want to thank you for seeming to want to drive us out of the party LoZoccolo.

And thanks for the absurd logical fallacy too, really undermines everything else you say rather effectively.

[kenfrequed]

54. And to Rob

I appreciate being appreciated. Feel free to hang out on the left side of the fence a bit mroe, you might find that we are actually not only right about a few of our issues but more practical as well.

[kenfrequed]

83. I need to wake up and break up...

Well break up a few of my sentences with actual punctuation that is.

[placton]

75. Ken

great thread - as reviled purist, I wonder who the real trolls are?

[Forkboy]

28. "The purists have little effect on anything."

I know, you really don't. That's why everybody here ignores pretty much everything you say.

then smirk at each other over the obvious signs of insanity and social ineptitude that come out when these purists can't hide behind the Internet.

Projection, LoZo?


Someone from DU showed up at one of our Illinois Dem Net meetings and became an obnoxious spectacle haranguing everyone with symptoms of some kind of affect disorder or something, interrupting and talking too loud and then moving to the other side of the table like she was pissed off when people wouldn't automatically agree with her.

This from the guy who is proud of his "dooga dooga dooga" video.


The Internet masks all this, and that's why this mass of purists tends to congeal here, because they don't do so well other places.

I'll take your word on congealing.


Why would I complain when I know that this happens, and will happen, over and over again, and then a winrar is me.

Derangement...it's not just for breakfast anymore.


You can almost ignore point #1 because the purists never get their asses up to do anything anyways.

Or I could ignore it because it's the ravings of someone crazier than a box of frogs.


I used to post threads about what people do outside of DU before elections and they'd sink like cinder blocks.

How could we have missed your brilliance?


Purism is a condition of thinking that complaining is the only thing you need to do to affect change...

Which explains every post you've made here.


No one ever got the bro fist for complaining, and if these people started doing anything but complain they would soon become pragmatists.

What's your excuse?


A lot of purists are closet pragmatists anyways.

A lot of pragmatists are closet purists who like to project.


where he went from 3% to like .3% or something.

Slightly higher than your DU approval rating.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Congratulations, you have won an internet.

Would you like it wrapped? :D

[LoZoccolo]

30. NO U

[Electric Monk]

37. I know wikipedia is just wikipedia, BUT, by wikipedia standards, you've already lost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

...posting... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response<1> or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

[LoZoccolo]

86. This is why I like anonymous message boards better.

You have to actually argue rather than throw out ad hominems.

[Electric Monk]

89. So you're denying your primary intent was "provoking other users into an emotional response"?

Really?

[Fedja]

38. Time to slow down

When you get your arse handed to you like that, it's about the right time to fade into the shadows. Just saying.

[LoZoccolo]

87. I'm not too hurt by 50 lines of "I know you are but what am I". n/t

[Fedja]

90. Ok, lets play that game then.

Anyone bashing the purist liberals is a part of the plague that's eating at society. You, Sir, are more to blame for Iraq, Afghanistan, the sad state of healthcare, lack of equal rights, and many other areas than the Republicans are.

Ok, I'll give you 2 seconds to let that sink in. The likes of you are to blame for Bush Jr. and Blue Dogs.

Why you ask? Because the likes of you have thinned the "pure" liberal ranks to a point where they're barely heard anymore. The wedge of criticism you apply from within, ridiculing those who stand for morals and principles above all else does more to silence these voices than any other criticism.

And yes, the purists are few and far between, which is the main reason why the average bar has moved. It has moved so far to the right that you practice your pitiful pragmatism not on middle ground, as you claim, but on conservative ground. You end up having to give in on all sides, selling out every last principle the liberal movement stands for.

There's a war out there if you haven't noticed, one that claims more American lives than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. There's a war that destroys families before they even exist, denying or limiting their claim to marriage. There's a war going on in which the masses are kept as serfs to corporate centers of power. And in this war, your pragmatic choice is not to reinforce your position with the pure defenders of morals and principles. No, you instead sacrifice them to feed your ego and play by your enemy's rules.

Pragmatism my arse, let's call a spade a spade. When your 'pragmatism' is displayed by the bashing of the principled on your side, you've sold out.

[Robb]

92. LOL

How, exactly, do you suspect it will be helpful in convincing LoZoccolo you're right to say he's to blame for two wars, healthcare and bigotry? :D

I mean, just from a rhetorical standpoint, I'm trying to see the strategy there.

[Toasterlad]

95. I'm Not Sure Convincing LoZoccolo Is The Aim.

I think explaining WHY HE'S THE PROBLEM is the aim. I doubt the poster believed he'll learn from it, but it's good for others who aren't so thick to see it.

[Fedja]

96. Actions and consequences

His words of utter contempt for a group of people crucial to a healthy democratic process have dramatic results. While it's not his fault exclusively (which was implied hyperbole), he's very much a part of the machine that the crazy rightwingers lean on.

It was my attempt to show him that while his words may soothe his ego, they do untold damage to the interests of everyone left of center as well.

[LoZoccolo]

106. "he's very much a part of the machine that the crazy rightwingers lean on"

Is that why right-wingers fund disruptive candidates like Ralph Nader and Al Sharpton?

[LoZoccolo]

107. Purists silence themselves when they pursue courses that will inevitably fail.

It is everyone's responsibility to present opinions and ideas that are credible, if they intend for them to take hold. Don't blame pragmatists for the fact that results are compelling, and posturing is not.

[Fedja]

109. Again with the cheap shots

The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 formulated the demand for women's suffrage in the United States of America. After a long and hard battle, in 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave women the right to vote.

Women's right to vote was a purist cause for 60 years. It was doomed to fail for generations, and they never stopped fighting for it. The pragmatists kept telling them that it wasn't a cause the men in Congress would get behind.

Without the purists, the pragmatist has no platform to stand on, no case to argue.

[dionysus]

67. rofl rofl rofl rofl

:rofl:

[spoony]

91. Indeed!

You broke that stinky thing down into every element it was made of. You're like a spectrometer or something.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. One Trick Pony. Nothin But Ad Hominem Emptiness.

Try arguing sometime with intellect instead of grade school putdowns. (and now here they'll come at me!! Woohoooooo!!!)

[Forkboy]

101. You big lug.

:hug:

[Gman]

41. Here's a post that ought to have it's own thread on the Greatest Page

with 500 recs! You nail this one, LoZoccolo. I couldn't agree more. A pragmatist is a purist that started doing some work.

[LoZoccolo]

88. Thank you sir! n/t

[Daemonaquila]

61. I'm really sorry for you if you are this naive.

Purists kick ass. Purists kept Minnesota the only state without a version of the USA Patriot Act. Purists have passed measures in many cities that prevents local cops from either being co-opted into, or voluntarily taking, the role of ICE agent. Purists have fired ALL the successful shots at Guantanamo that now lets Obama dip his toe into closing it down. Going back a lot farther back to the fundaments behind some of the Bush push, purists winning at the Supreme Court forced the Watergate burglars to make a hurried and sloppy withdrawal of their equipment, and ending Nixon's attempt to broaden presidential power in almost unlimited ways.

Real purists gripe and moan, fight, try to bring the complacent mid-left with us... and we win big ones that the complacent mid-left lacks the imagination to conceive as a winnable. It's no different than in any negotiation/mediation - you must start by demanding what you really want, if not more, with the expectation that you might get a partial win that's at least on the favorable side of the near-useless middle ground. If you want to start the negotiation in the "reasonable" middle, you are doomed to lose because you'll never get all you demand and the result will be too weak to do any good.

By the way, I'm sick of seeing Ralph Nader's name bandied about with "purists." Ralph Nader is a useless sack of ego who was too pussy to join the Green Party even though he wanted to run as their candidate. He is not "pure" about anything but Ralph Nader. But of course the mediocre middle has to have someone to blame for their losses other than their own failed candidates and analysis.

[pnwmom]

64. I think there is another group of purists,

and that is the young and inexperienced, youthful idealists. Life will eventually push them toward the pragmatists but, in the meantime, I don't think it hurts us to be reminded of our ideals.

Unless, as you say, that idealism results in votes that tip an election to the Rethugs.

[sui generis]

74. generalize much? that was a shit response.

I'll bet some of your best friends are purists. :eyes:

Define purist anyway. With examples.

You did get one thing right: the reason we ARE purists is because we can be "pragmatists". We know that once you bend over and go with the flow you're going to have to stay bent over, AND you'll get a reputation.

Oh we know all about pragmatism.

And the part about purists not being good activists just means you only hang out with your own kind; your cinder block posts are indicative of nothing but bad writing.

[creeksneakers2]

85. I've called them worse than that many times

But since some initial rejection of Obama the far left has been pretty supportive of the Democratic agenda. I predicted the far left would sabotage the public option because it wasn't single payer but the far left proved me wrong. I'm glad we can all pull together and now welcome the far left contribution.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. no, its not. nt

[tekisui]

3. knr!~ Hold steady to the left plank!

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Salute

[demmiblue]

5. Great post... thank you purists!

:toast:

[SidDithers]

6. Shit. I hit unrec by accident...

Good post, Robb. Kicked.

Sid

[Vickers]

8. I balanced it out.

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

10. Was hoping someone would. Thanks...

:applause:

Sid

[charlie]

9. Two thumbs up!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Much appreciated.

[Skittles]

11. THANK YOU ROBB

you get it

[SoCalDem]

12. Dingbats of the world, unite

:)

[CTyankee]

13. Indeed, we MUST fight like hell! Scream bloody murder!

It is essential and it is why we even HAVE some semblance of a PO now, fer chrissakes!

Thank you purists for your unwavering support of what is right and good. Always, always, always fight for the right thing to do...

[MelissaB]

14. Great post!

I'm happy to K&R.

[ThomCat]

15. It is the extremes that determine where the middle will be.

The radicals always determine what is possible. Moderates step in, give in, and compromise until they get to the middle, then they take credit for supposedly making everything work.

Thank you for recognizing the value of our radical left. :)

We should ALL be cheering and supporting our radical left. They are the ones that will pull the agendas back to the left, after decades of necons pulling everything to the right.

They are the ones that will shout all our goals loudly until everyone has heard them 10,000 times, and keep shouting, keeping our goals on the agenda when republicans and our own moderates keep trying to change the subject. Once our goals have been heard 10,000 times, simply through repetition, they stop being radical and become familiar and mainstream. Suddenly the moderates are allowed to talk about those goals, and maybe even fight for them occasionally. Once people get used to hearing our "radical" ideas repeated 10,000 times radicals will change the agenda, and put our lefty goals on that agenda.

Our lefty extremists, our radicals, our purists will drag us all back to the left, kicking and screaming if necessary. They are the ones that will make it possible for us to finally win our goals, if everyone has the will and the courage to fight and win those goals.

Please, let's all recognize the value of our purists and extremists, and try to be a bit more like them when we can. Let's all pull the agenda more to the left whenever we can.

[ChiciB1]

51. GREAT POST ROBB & ThomCat! I've Seen So Many Nasty Replies To Many

lefties here. At the very least, WE didn't start "bargaining in the middle" and slide down from there!!

I simply CAN'T wrap my head around HOW this HCR got so out of hand!! Are we to clap our hands when the final vote is cast when all we got is OPT OUT or a TRIGGER, and say WHOOPEE, finally HEALTH CARE REFORM??

I live in a RED state with a GOVERNOR who won't even admit he's a closeted gay man! And NO, I'm not in any way dissing GLBT, I have very good friends who are gay/lesbian. And I REALLY HATE to define them other than the rest of us! I'm a white female, married to the same man for more years than most, but I have OCD... so that would make me crazy then! Off subject, but rumors about Charlie can't be ignored BECAUSE he actually works against the LGBT agenda! He's a hypocrite, and I suspect he will OPT OUT!!

Sure, Florida has MANY retirees who are on Medicare so they may not feel the full impact, but DAMN I know too many people who don't have ANY insurance! My daughter & son-in-law work in the health care industry, one in the emergency room and one for a cardiologist. The stories they can tell might curl anyone's hair! And from what they say, IF you come into the emergency room WITHOUT insurance, you can bet the care you get will automatically be worse than what you would get IF you have insurance! And my son-in-law tells me that he administers certain care that used to be ONLY what doctors were allowed to do! He's worked in the ER for many years, so he's considered more than just a critical care nurse, simply because he has taken extra courses to earn him better pay. But I think this is something that happens in MOST ER's, especially where there is no union!

And yes, I AM quite upset at how this HCR is falling apart, and just settling seems that one is just being a Rah-Rah because the person has a (D) behind his/her name! Those of us who have been called "lefties" feel like that's almost like being called a REPUKE in reverse!

JMHO!

[theFrankFactor]

59. We Need More Not Less "Radicals"

eom

[Canuckistanian]

16. Great post

We may not agree with the "purists" sometimes, but this place wouldn't be what it is today without them.

[abq e streeter]

17. k&r

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. This purist thanks you

"We dream things that never were and say 'Why not?'"

[rucky]

20. With all the back and forth - and it can get pretty ugly here...

this is how DEMS make our sausage. Lotsa spice.

[Lyric]

25. Thank you sincerely.

:hugs:

[Capn Sunshine]

26. .........

Seriously, Robb, nice compliment to the backbone of this place

[tblue]

52. When the center has moved so far to the right that we accept escalation of war,

continued indefinite detentions, letting war criminals and profiteers run free, military people still being discharged under DADT, slow if any financial industry reform, giving Olympia Snowe inordinate say over health insurance reform, and a pragmatic but hardly a hardcore liberal appointment to the Supreme Court, I have to wonder why so-called "purists" need to be defended at all.

Appreciate this op very much, tho.

[Individualist]

27. K&R

[waiting for hope]

32. I rec'd you earlier...

Now I'll give you a kick - thanks for the post. :)

[Hekate]

33. That's one of the sweetest shout-outs ever.

Not that I necessarily agree 100%, but a very nice peacemaking effort for this fractious board.
:hi:

Hekate

[Mithreal]

34. Damn good post. K&R nt

[Joe Fields]

35. You're welcome.

[Missy Vixen]

36. We don't fight just for ourselves

We fight for other people's children.

If there was a reason to not give up, it's the fact that they should have a better world than we have right now.

[eridani]

39. I am, in fact, not expecting single payer this time around, but current versions of the public

option SUCK.

Of course the public likes the public option idea. After all, this is the same public that overwhelmingly wants government involvement in health care one way or another, whether a comprehensive single payer plan or just taking care of all the people who don't now have access to health care in some unspecified way.

But the facts on the ground are this. The public is going to absolutely hate any of the bills being considered if they are actually enacted. For one thing, we have two election cycles to go through before anyone sees anything at all happen in 2013, during which the victims of a jobless recovery are going to see health care in this country go further and further down the drain. Yes, I know that forbidding discrimination on the grounds of pre-existing conditions comes into effect immediately, but that has no practical significance as long as insurers are allowed to charge whatever they want for such policies.

Also, what people will experience instead is being forced under penalty of financial sanctions to spend 8-12% of their incomes to buy private insurance which at the basic level will only cover 70% of medical expenses. (Mandated private insurance in other countries using that approach is not only far cheaper, but also has minimal or no co-pays or deductibles.) They will still have insurance companies choosing their doctors and denying claims at will. Expenses will still be going up from an extremely high baseline, despite limits on the allowable percent increase per year. Those worried about deficit spending will be asking "We've gotten ourselves another trillion into national debt for THIS?"

Older people are going to hate the mandated age discrimination. Younger people are going to hate having to pay anything when most aren't going to see any benefits.

How to get around this while our legislators insist on incremental reform? Very simple—just make the Medicare program that exists right now open to anyone. If there is concern about a big rush to the door, open the door in increments, starting with early retirees over 55 and the unemployed of any age. No set-up time necessary, since Medicare is a working system right now. The result will be a visible and good-sized minority who will counter any insurance company lies about reform with a really big fact on the ground. If anyone is thinking "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," let me just say this about that. In this case it's the existent that is the enemy of the non-existent.

Still, there will be problems even with an incremental approach that starts to pay off for people immediately. Clearly, those who volunteer to enroll in Medicare with be sicker, driving up costs without a commensurate input of funds. The cheapest and most efficient solution of all is still single payer Improved Medicare for All. If you are going to force everyone to pay into a health care system, why not the HR 676 system for $125/month instead of insurance “exchanges” for $400-$2000/month? The latter will wipe out large swathes of middle class discretionary income in return for nothing at all, not a good thing in an economy 70% dependent on consumer spending.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. Yer welcome.

:hi:

[StarfarerBill]

42. We have more than enough pragmatists...

...in Congress and the Administration. We need more idealists to demand what's right, not just what crumbs that the wealthy and Big Business will deign to let us have; that goes for all levels of American society, as well.

So, Robb...thanks for this.

[varelse]

43. Best post I've seen on DU in a long time

because of the title, I almost passed it by - glad I checked the author's name first ;)

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Pragmatisists purists

All of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Someone has to.

[Jester Messiah]

45. We need the fringe, true enough.

They make the rest of us look sane. :evilgrin:

[SlingBlade]

46. Thanks Robb..... K & R :)

:kick: :fistbump:

[Javaman]

47. Nice post, Hitler.

Honestly, that was a really good post. :)
Cheers!

[Cleita]

48. About the middle ground.

We purists are the middle ground. The faux middle ground has moved so far to the right, people have forgotten that what is considered the middle ground today is conservatism like that of the Eisenhower administration. As a matter of fact Ike would be considered a raving liberal today by the likes of Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would have been considered looney tunes.

[Kermitt Gribble]

49. Excellent post, Robb. K&R! n/t

[existentialist]

50. George Bernard Shaw's "unreasonable man"

I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw's discussion of the "unreasonable man."

He posits first, correctly, the much is made of the standard of the "reasonable man." Without rejecting the concept of the "reasonable man" per se, he goes on to find more value in the "unreasonable man" because, a reasonable man, when confronted with adversity, will conform his actions to the standards and norms of government, law, and society. The unreasonable man, however, despite all odds and obstacles, will persist in attempting to bring government, law and society to conform to his standard. Therefore, according to Shaw. "All progress is due to the unreasonable man".

No sexism is intended other than to correctly convey Shaw's thinking--objectively the same thinking applies to unreasonable women, except maybe even more so.

[robinlynne]

55. right on, right on, right on.

[bridgit]

56. It can often be harder than many are able to think it would be

:kick:

[mmonk]

57. You're welcome.

;)

:patriot:

[ElboRuum]

58. The only purpose of an anchor...

...is to keep the ship from moving.

I doubt this was the analogy you were going for, but I figured I'd point it out.

Here's the problem I see with what you're saying. If the point of "purism" is to get more of what we want, knowing full well we will have to compromise, then I see the value in it. However, the analogy of the anchor is generally incorrect.

If the purpose of the anchor is to keep the ship steadfast, then the moderates would be that anchor, and the radicals would be the ones trying to move the ship... i.e. the wind. If the wind is strong enough, the anchor drags with it. There is value in having that strong wind. But ultimately, the ship rests with the anchor.

But let's not pat ourselves on the back hastily. LoZoccolo has a point. Idealists make poor footsoldiers. Idealism, at its core, is an inability to accept compromise in one's principles and the solutions to the problems that exist relative to those principles. If an idealist chooses to act rather than do things like "raise awareness", which is just an unfortunate synonym for oration, an idealist either meets many a failure and becomes frustrated and ceases to act, or meets many a failure and becomes pragmatic, trying to win smaller victories in lieu of winning every victory.

Your tug of war analogy bothers me, too. The center is the puddle. The muddy no man's land. The handkerchief is what, the sheeple?

Anyone who sees the problems introduced by partisan politics today as being solved by continuing the metaphoric battle between competing ideologies, one exerting its influence over the other, while completely ignoring the obvious points of view (and contributions made therefrom) that must exist between the two extremes completely misses the point.

[Toasterlad]

69. How Very Naive.

You're talking about the "battle" as if it's something that can be avoided if people are just SENSIBLE about things.

There is nothing sensible about politics. There is nothing sensible about society.

Given the vast number of people in this country, each with his or her slightly different viewpoint, it's impossible to come to a consensus. IMPOSSIBLE.

The battle has always been fought, and WILL always be fought. And your "poor foot soldiers" are the ones most likely to be carrying the signs, manning the phones, hitting the doors, and cracking the wallets. It is the people that CARE who drive a campaign, and no one cares more than those who passionately believe in something.

No one believes passionately in compromise. Except Obama. And look how well THAT'S working out.

We purists are indeed the ones who move the debate, who effect change. God help the rest of you if we were to suddenly give up, and you centrists became the "new purists". America would quickly become Saudi Arabia.

In this day and age, the anchor analogy is especially APT. Faced with a tenacious right and a completely apathetic at best, fawning (to the right) at worst, centrist base, the purists are the anchor that prevent the ship of state from moving any further right. Without us, you'd be in deep shit, as the OP correctly points out.

You might try actually listening to us every now and then, instead of continually trying to shut us up. Considering everything we've done for you, and all.

[ElboRuum]

79. Wow, what a load of horseshit...

Assumptions erroneously made as point of fact or assertive conjecture:

1. Saying I claimed the battle was avoidable if everyone did things a certain way. I said no such thing.
2. Saying there is nothing sensible about politics or society. Both make perfect sense if you understand what motivates people. Clearly you do not.
3. Saying that it is impossible to come to a consensus. Consensus is neither required nor implied, so your point, although correct, is moot.
4. Saying that the purists are the big driving force behind campaigns. If you believe for a minute that any modern campaign can be made without a majority contribution by the so called "centrists", you're sorely mistaken. And purists absolutely do make poor foot soldiers, because they are the most susceptible to disillusionment. The purists were the first to start with the "OH NOES" when Obama didn't immediately overturn 30+ years of Republican-written and Republican-influenced policy.
5. Saying that " centrists" (assumption) do not care as much or more about our own points of view than you do.
6. Saying that purists move the debate. What debate? There is no debate to a purist.
7. Saying that America would become Saudi Arabia without you. I hope you were being facetious or hyperbolic.
8. Saying that no one believes passionately in compromise. Actually, most people do. Without compromise, we never actually do anything, we just spend time pushing for what we want, while the other side pushes back. Eventually, compromise is what allows forward motion. It's what ends strikes. It's what gets programs in place. It's what makes things happen by giving all of the actors something. Compromise will always be disappointing to some, and there is always the potential of dilution of the goals, but then again, politics is by nature about give and take.
9. Saying that the anchor is an apt analogy. There is nothing apt about the anchor, because the right isn't tenacious, they are desperate, the middle isn't apathetic, they want forward progress. The ship of state will move left, regardless of your intervention. It just won't happen as quickly or as surely as the purists want. Anchors... move... nothing... If you are the anchor, then we're staying right where we are, right? No? Well then I guess the anchor is a bad analogy.
10. Saying that anyone is trying to shut you up. No one is trying to shut you up. But they MAY not be listening very closely. Maybe its because you don't really speak with them, you speak at them. I know that I've stopped listening to most people who claim either directly or through implication to be purists, not because I'm particularly centrist, but because there is no room to debate there. Every discussion either ends with an amicable "agree to disagree", or something a little less classy depending on the fervency of rhetoric exhibited by the purist in question.

[Toasterlad]

81. "I know that I've stopped listening to most people"

Well, we agree on that much at least. That's why people like you are ruining any chance we have for a better America.

[ElboRuum]

93. If you are going to quote me, at least do so correctly.

The quote you are looking for is...

"I know that I've stopped listening to most people who claim either directly or through implication to be purists"

Now, just for the record, that would roughly be you. Oh, I still listen to others, maybe because they are not so sure-footed in their belief system. Maybe there are ideas there. Maybe there is room for benefit. Maybe there is potential for a little positive momentum. Where you see compromise, I see potential. Where you see selling out, I see the normal ebb and flow of politics. Where you see a calamitous end to a preternatural ideal, an ideal diluted by compromise and its fate sealed by the machinations of weak-willed people, I see the reality of a system fluctuating under the requirements of its own sense of balance.

If a "better America" means that purist idealism, allow me to educate you on this, you've already seen it. Yes, yes, you have. The last 8 years were a practical experiment in allowing idealists at the helm. Now, don't let the fact that you or I don't agree with the ideals themselves throw you, it wasn't that the ideals were anathema to what we know to be correct, but that they were ideals in the first place. Idealists are authoritarian and dictatorial in their mindset, because the ideal brooks no quarter for compromise. It makes sense, authoritarians and dictators don't ask for even the beginnings of consensus, so why would an idealist? As we also found out, rule without any attempt of consensus has often led to awful result. Another argument against the idealist. Did you notice how the past 8 years transpired without so much as an acknowledgement to the people of this country who disagreed? Now there's your big hint as to the fallacy of this. It doesn't matter that you believe your ideals to be better intended, there are those who will disagree, and that disagreement is not only important, but NECESSARY.

A better America is one where the people and what they want matter, because right now they don't. It took a long time to get to this place, the trip was a long one, and no one knows how to get back or out. Yes, neither do you. Regardless of how we move forward, a better America is one where EVERYONE's opinions count as to the shape and substance of its future, not just a few people who think they've got it all figured out and believe that gives them a louder, more authoritative voice or somehow gives what they say more force or cachet.

Unlike you, I won't say you are ruining any chance we have for a better America, even though you wouldn't do me the same courtesy. Yes, even your self-congratulatory "enlightened" viewpoint is necessary and desired, even if it comes as a cautionary tale.

[Toasterlad]

94. If You Believe You Have Nothing to Learn From Those Unwilling To Compromise...

...you are not a part of the solution. You are the problem.

[ElboRuum]

98. Wow... now that's a whole pile of nothing.

Let us suppose there was even a scintilla of truth to your sound bite... er, sophistry... er, okay, statement... whatever.

You make the fallacious statement that I believe I have nothing to learn from those unwilling to compromise, which is untrue. What I've learned is simple, direct, and true. While there is one thing I've learned from the uncompromising... exactly one... it is an important lesson to be sure.

That lesson can be best expressed as follows:

A person who thinks they're right in whole is usually wrong by half, and a person who thinks they are wrong by half is usually right in whole.

You can reason with the latter, not with the former, and exceptions are exceedingly rare... so much so, I've never seen a specimen of "Reasonable Uncompromising Beast" in the wild. Oh, there are claims of sightings, but much like UFOs, ghosts, and ESP, all have been thus far thoroughly debunked.

Since reason is part of the solution, you can guess who I think is also part of the problem.

[Toasterlad]

102. Keep Compromising Your Way to Saudi Arabia. Don't Worry: We'll Continue To Bail You Out.

Lucky for you, we have ourselves and other reasonable people to think about. Unfortunately for us, ungrateful, ignorants like you benefit from our work, too.

Despite the OP's appreciation of our "Never Give Up" attitude, I think the vast majority of us, if presented with the choice of leaving the US for a tropical progressive paradise, and staying here fighting for ingrates like you, would choose to leave you with the Repubs in a heartbeat. Within a year, you'd be begging to come live where we are. Hopefully, my fellow purists would put me in charge of determining who gets in. I'd have a nice long list of all you centrists, and I'm not nearly as willing to forgive and forget as my purist brethren.

I dearly wish you could reap what you sow without it bringing down the rest of us.

[ElboRuum]

104. Oh, please. Spare me further nonsense.

Your painful platitudes, empty pontifications, and self-congratulatory noise about what a gift you are to us is about as useful as a popcorn fart in a stiff breeze and about as material as an apparition. You'll break your arm patting yourself on the back like that.

What are you more pissed off about? The fact that I'm a pragmatist/centrist/eeeevvvviiiill creature or that I'm not genuflecting before your wonderful "works" in whatever material (or more likely immaterial) form they may take. Well, keep waiting for it, because I don't typically even respect pompous gasbags like yourself, much less prostrate myself before your "greatness".

If you do feel that strongly about not sharing the presumed benefits of your so-called "work" with those who don't share your "purist" view such that you feel the need to cast off your moorings and sail for whatever tropical progressive paradise may exist, may I be the first to wish you bon voyage.

I think we're done here. End of line.

[Toasterlad]

108. Oh, Sweetie, You Don't Piss Me Off.

I have REAL things to worry about, people who are actively denying me my rights. While you enable that, you're not really the cause. I don't think you're evil. I just think you're misguided, and more than a little clueless. All you people who believe you can compromise with vile bigots are.

In a fair world, you'd have to fight for your own achievements, instead of riding our coattails. But no one said life was fair. So we'll continue to ensure that you have as many freedoms as we can get you, while you pigheadedly fight us all the way. Sadly, you don't know what's best for you. How lucky you are that there are people like me who are willing to fight for a better world. We'll continue to drag you out of the shithole you dig for yourselves, don't worry. And we don't expect your gratitude. We know how thick and contrary you are.

[ElboRuum]

112. Yawn...

:eyes:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kansas Wyatt]

66. If you start out at middle gound....

Don't be surprised when you end up with exactly what your opposition wanted.

There is a reason why Republicans take extremist positions and never give in... It's because they know that the Democrats will move a lot closer to what they want. You don't have to be a master at multidimensional chess to play checkers.

The Democrats lost this battle, when they compromised before it ever began.

[Toasterlad]

73. Amen.

[SlowDownFast]

84. Sad, but true. +1. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

62. That is one of the most positive posts

I've seen around here lately. You are extremely cool.

(No dingbats 'round here, Ma, j'st us peacemakers)

[haroldweeks]

63. Being Civil Helps

Being civil to each other on the left, including members outside of the Democratic Party, is a good start to beating the Conservatives at their game of destroying the country for the rest of us.

[GreenTea]

65. Cheers!

[Yuugal]

68. K&R

and thanks....

[sui generis]

70. happy to be your "tea-bagging bigoted knuckle-dragger"

on this side.

:P

although, my tea bags are spoken for.

[Toasterlad]

71. Thank You, Robb.

A surprisingly simple truth that many DINOs here can't begin to grasp. Nice to hear it every now and then.

[valerief]

76. Shirley says it all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW8LIragJXE&feature=related

[LaPera]

77. I roll with the punches...

and give them a hard rocket punch to take back with them....cuz they throw up nothing but feeble shit anyway, making it a complete waste of my time...So I laugh, ignore and move on, still laughing...they just ain't worth my time or talent...very few are!

[debbierlus]

78. Pssssssssst...if you join us, we would have the power to not have to compromise

And, we would not have to take suck ass as a compromise to incredibly suck ass.

Just a hint.

[ThomCat]

105. Who are you asking to join whom?

From my perspective it is the moderates who should join the lefties so that we can accomplish stuff. I hope that is what you are saying. :)

If moderates had principles and courage they would be lefties, and they would ignored "pragmatism."

"Pragmatists" either don't think anything can change or don't really want anything to change. Many are afraid that any change will somehow make things worse, so keeping things the way they are is somehow better than trying to make things better. Let's get "pragmatists" out of our way. We're trying to make changes. We need people who believe those changes are possible, and are willing to make them possible and make them happen.

[Electric Monk]

111. LoZeRs

the way I read it, anyway

[NikolaC]

80. K&R

[Buns_of_Fire]

82. K'd and R'd a google times...!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: <==(Okay, it's only three, but it's the thought that counts.)

[Rudy Adams]

97. "Intellectually masturbating/While the radio was playing"

And we were circlejerk

:puffpiece:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. All Purist Means In This Context Is Closed Minded Ignorance.

Time after time, they have proven to be no help or even had a negative affect for our side.

The purism displayed here at times is visibly overflowing with stubbornness, narrow mindedness, ignorance, need to just whine, and irrational knee jerking. Our anchors? Hardly. Outside of DU, they are quite near worthless as it relates to their political value.

[Toasterlad]

103. And This Post, Ladies and Gentelmen, Proves the OP's Point.

Anything OMC is against is, by definition, good.

[Electric Monk]

110. Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!