At 61, I feel so naive. Of COURSE, winning is all that counts!

[Atticus]

All of the crimes committed in 2000 AND 2004 to elect Dim Son don't matter at all. They will not be recounted in history books and will be entirely forgotten when my generation is worm chow. The dude WON, man! Move on! Get a life!

The slandering of Max Cleland; the faux War Hero image; the idiotic "Bring it on!" comment; the idiotic "Mission Accomplished" banner; the delegation of regulation to the mega-corporations being "regulated"; weapons of mass destruction; "yellow cake" from Niger---none of this matters. None of them will be allowed to stain the reputation of The Decider---because the son of a bitch WON.

Joe Lieberman ran AGAINST his party after losing the primary and later spoke at the Republican convention and campaigned for Geezer and Gidget. But---he WON, so he lost none of his Democratic perks or positions.

And, now, Blanche Lincoln: she opposed her party and her president in the health care debate and vote; she just voted with the Republicans to allow Big Oil to avoid paying for the clean up in the Gulf; she opposes organized labor on just about everything and, today, she was given a hero's welcome upon her return to the Senate---applauded and embraced by Democrats. But, this is only her due. She won. And, no, it DOESN'T matter how.

If I have occasionally mentioned irrelevancies like integrity, loyalty, courage and truthfulness in discussing political candidates here, please accept my apology.

I'm so ashamed.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Perfectly and eloquently said, my dear Atticus...

:cry:

[stevenleser]

37. No it's not. This is a perfect illustration of a Straw Man. NO ONE said "winning is all that matters

He is beating up an argument that no one has made.

[zeemike]

40. And that is the perfect get out of jail free card

No one said it so it does not exist.
No one said that they hate black people so there is no racism.
No one said we went to Iraq for the oil so that never happened.
no one said they wanted to tear up the bill of rights so that never happened eather.....see where I am going with this?

[stevenleser]

41. No, I don't. You cannot use logical fallacies and claim they mean something.

As soon as you base an argument on a logical fallacy, you fail.

The correct course of action is to fully explain something using reason and facts. You don't argue against opinions that do not exist. If you believe that the positions you wrote are correct (going to war for oil, etc.) then you have to back it up using facts and reason.

[zeemike]

62. Are you saying that the opinion that winning is all that counts

does not exist...?
I beg to differ with that....it is very prevalent in our society.

[Forrest Greene]

53. That Argument Is Made

...twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, by virtually every part of the culture in which we live.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. You're mistaking your environment.

This is a rant, not a debate. Anyone on a rant is automatically entitled to a certain degree of "ranter's license" in their rhetoric. The main point is clear and to my mind valid, regardless of whether he adheres to formal logical standards.

[Ignis]

68. And Bush never said, "Let's kill them dirty Eye-rackys for 9/11!"

But I'd say the message was pretty fucking clear.

[saracat]

2. I still am shocked that this was unrecced but I did try to rec it.

[keopeli]

4. Well, thank goodness mine counted, then.

[keopeli]

3. Your post sings the song of my heart, atticus. We are of one mind. n/t

[DesertFlower]

5. well said. nt

[suffragette]

6. Perfectly stated

K&R

[Jamastiene]

7. K&R

Wish I could K&R it a zillion times.

[jobycom]

8. It's not all that counts, but losing rarely helps.

There's always a point over which you can't step and still look yourself in the mirror, and no one should ever pass that point just for the sake of winning. On the other hand, if you have a candidate who will support you on 60% of the issues, and the other choice is a candidate who will oppose you actively on 100% of the issues, then doing anything to harm the 60%er candidate is more of a sellout than sticking to ideals. It's not about winning, it's about having any chance at all of achieving ideals.

I don't really know if any of that applies to Lincoln. I don't know if her opponent could win in Arkansas, and I don't really know Lincoln's full record. But I can tell you, I'd rather Lincoln, from the little I know of her, than either of my senators. I'd fight until my nails fell off and blood poured from my eyes to get her into office over either of my senators. That's not about winning, it's about accepting a partial victory in order to end an atrocity.

Some people just want to hold ideals. Others actually want to accomplish them as much as possible. I tend towards the latter route. But as I said, I'm not in Arkansas and don't know the full issue there. I'm just speaking hypothetically. I know people who voted against Ann Richards here in Texas because she wasn't pure enough, and that allowed George W. Bush to get a toehold and you know the rest. I know people who refused to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 because he wasn't pure enough, and to this day regret that vote. I had to make that choice on Obama--I didn't like him, didn't trust him, and didn't think of him as a liberal. I voted for him, though, because in that case, winning was all that counted. Or at least, it counted a lot more than being clean.

It's not always about remaining pure. Sometimes it's about taking the least shitty route.

I'm not really challenging you, just stating my opinion, which I don't see as the opposite of yours--I don't really disagree with what you said--just a further exploration of the issue.

[Atticus]

9. Thanks for your response. I understand and appreciate your views.

I do not "just want to hold ideals". I just don't want to abandon them in the name of electing anyone with a "D" after their name and I don't believe that winning an election absolves a candidate for crimes or even ethical lapses during the campaign or thereafter.

Bush and Cheney should have been impeached.

Bush and Cheney should still be prosecuted.

Lieberman should have lost ALL chairmanships and committee assignments.

Blanche should be made to feel as welcome as a skunk at a picnic.

[Rhiannon12866]

16. +1000

I share your views 100%. It's not just discouraging, but devastating to those of us who grew up believing in something. ;(

[nannah]

19. +1000 for a string of thoughtful responses

to an interesting question of pragmatic moves and values driven decisions. further complicating these elements of potential contradiction are the wildly different perspectives from which a situation is viewed by by each person. viewed from this perspective, it is easy to see why conflict is so easy to generate and peace so hard to secure. so here is a new puzzle:

We need to find ways to articulate shared concerns among progressives and other disenchanted voters of both parties in a way that crafts an alliance. much is done to emphasize the differences among progressives and many other voters who are not well represented by major political parties. More needs to be done to articulate the shared concerns and experiences that separate both groups from the corporate politicians in both parties. Reframing our objectives in ways that address our shared concerns could provide an alliance strong enough to win a voice. it could be a fun brain storm.

[stevenleser]

38. -1000,000 for Atticus and + 5,000 for the other poster who made a game attempt to get through

unfortunately, Atticus completely ignored what that poster said to continue his straw man rant.

[kenfrequed]

46. - billions and billions for misusing and misapplying the strawman fallacy

Seriously. For a strawman to exist you have to have an opposition construct and arrange the weakest possible argument of your opposition and then trounce that as though it were the essence of the debate.

Why do I keep seeing the strawman misused here? Could anyone explain this?

[stevenleser]

48. It is a perfect application of the straw man fallacy, and I will explain

The argument is, we have to support candidates who have a chance of winning so that, even if we only agree with 60% of what they will do, it is better than someone who will do the wrong thing 100% of the time.

The argument the OP is arguing against is "Winning is the only thing that matters"

He is arguing against an argument that no one has made instead of the one that is really at issue. This is a classic straw man. He is making an attack on a distorted view of the position, not the position itself.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[tiny elvis]

64. i want to play pop fallacies

'agree with 60%' begs the question
you alone chose the 60% quality of lincoln or some abstraction of her

[Atticus]

65. I have read your several posts several times and have to admit that I still am not certain that you

are serious. The gap in your "reasoning" is wide enough to drive a truck through.

My OP was a sarcastic tongue-in-cheek "argument, not against anything any particular person actually SAID, but against what I perceive to be a growing attitude among Americans of both parties, i.e., "winning excuses anything illegal or immoral that was donw in order to win".

It is not necessary to quote some known person's exact words in order to oppose a position with which you disagree. It is undoubtedly true that quite a few people do feel that "winning is the only thing that matters". Since it was my OP, it was up to me to choose my topic. I did that. I didn't feel it was particularly nuanced or opaque. You may not agree with what I said, and that's fine.

But, don't----wait for it----use a STRAW MAN to discredit my opinion. Your erroneous characterisation of my OP as employing a straw man was, in fact, a straw man---using YOUR definition:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Thanks for your interest.

[glitch]

49. Same reason why you see Occam's Razor or Godwin's "Law" cited.

Glib works on the Net with a lot of people.

[stevenleser]

51. See my response above. thanks n/t

[NashVegas]

61. Don't Forget the Cherry on Top:

"I destroyed your argument."

[TheKentuckian]

12. My Senators are among the very worst of a horrible lot but then

I have opposed both to the extent of my ability.

I know what its like to hold your nose in that polling booth. Hell, I just did it when I had to keep my lower intestine from reaching out and choking my brain from the inside when I had to vote for the gawdawful corporatist criminal Lunsford but I knew I'd never be able to sell myself on it again unless he surprised beyond imagination. No way a guy like that could be allowed to become a multi-term incumbent, only getting rid of McConnell made me suck it up.

I might be a bit of a slut but I'm not a whore and certainly not a cheap one, the party will throw up any craven fucks they can find that have multiple millions and can be talked into the race. We simply can't afford to give lifetime passes to any piece of shit that puts a (D) next to their name.

Gain requires risk or investment and we will see things getting worse rather than slowly better avoiding risk by rubberstamping less bad who's seeming purpose is to kill or weaken every possible victory.

Traitors are thought of as worst than enemies world over and through the ages for a reason, rot from within is harder to cure or survive than the most devastating attacks. Not to mention, when they are inside your weak spots are known and working in concert with the outside enemy, a traitor basically opens your flank and you can't hold your line.

Also, the 60% is pretty empty when the 40% is the crucial part. I don't know some of these "centrists" are starting to seem worse than pukes. All the shit I despise about the stupid cons with the added fun of gun grabbing

[liberation]

23. Neither does "wining" when it implies total compromise and subsumption.

[jobycom]

24. Another "I read the title but can't be troubled to read the actual message" post?

Complete with odd spellings in quotation marks...

[liberation]

52. Another, just because I disagree with your point it must meant I didn't understand it

I know exactly what you mean, I simply don't agree with justifications for false choices.

To each their own. I guess.

But using your own example (see I actually read your post), 60% (and that being an arbitrary number, since reality means that the disagreements in my case are far higher than "just" 40%) is still a D, barelly passing. Would you trust an architect that got a D, or one that got an F? Well, that is a false choice: neither. Might as well just buy a tent and live in it, it may end up being cheaper and safer.

I understand your point that barely something is better than nothing. And I submit to you that sometimes, "barely something" can be bad if it either slows down a proper solution, or extends the problem.

[uponit7771]

32. AMEN!!! on the 60% for vs 100% against!!! That's what we'll get with the GOP! Pragmatism defines you

...go with the 60% and work with it than go with the 100% against and get nothing at all...

[kenfrequed]

45. Uhm

Every poll had Lincoln trailing by a much larger number versus her republican opposition than the candidate that challenged her in the primary. Every poll.

So if we are going to spread that 'winning helps' and 'better than a republican' stuff about, lets remember in November that we could have had a candidate that is "purer" (a designation I notice that is often used by DLC sorts) and one that could have won.

The contraction of polling place from 42 down to 2 should be enough to suggest some kind of corruption but I guess we will never know.

[chill_wind]

10. K & R.

We were, we once said, going to drain the swamp...

That seems like a lifetime of betrayals ago.

[Atticus]

11. "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your objective was to

drain the swamp." Red Adair.

[chill_wind]

13. Too true.

Frighteningly and sadly.

[MissDeeds]

21. Well said

And sadly all too true.

[Bryn]

14. Great Post! I completely understand

I live in Arkansas, but I don't plan to "fight until my nails fell off and blood poured from my eyes to get her into office" for Blanche Lincoln. I won't even lift my finger at all because I will not accept few crumbs from her stinky table. I expect integrity, loyalty, courage and truthfulness, too, from a democrat. Not a traitor like Lincoln.

Not all is lost. I will work to support other good democrats in other states to gain a democratic seat or two.

[Greyhound]

15. Well gee, when you put it like that...

:rofl:
:thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You're bogged down in the past, friend

[donco6]

18. When even the platform is irrelevant -

- what does being a "Democrat" even mean? Is it having the physical letters on your website? Or is it an adherence to some sort of principles? I'm thinking it's the former.

[Jakes Progress]

20. K&R Well said. Well said.

[MissDeeds]

22. Values, honesty, integrity all seem to be easily scuttled

The ends justify the means. I hate this new world order.

Thanks for you thoughtful post, Atticus.

K&R

[bertman]

25. Hear!! Hear!! Well said, Atticus. Rec. nt

[pundaint]

26. No need for shame if you didn't vote a second time for the liars.

[femrap]

27. k and r

WASF.

[democrank]

28. Now just a darn minute.....

It`s the New Wave. We don`t have to stand for anything anymore, and what a freakin` relief!

What`s important is the APPEARANCE of standing for something...just long enough to snag a vote, a contribution and the mainstream media`s pom poms. Hire a few consultants, maybe Frank Luntz and...presto! A win.

[flyarm]

29. Excellent Atticus ..I share your shame! eom

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

30. K & R ++++

We need progressives to stand up and fight. The democratic party has been overtaken by conservatives.
We need to take our party back. When and if we do this will be a moot point.

Yes, the past is the past, history will not remember us kindly, unless we get one voice - against the corporate
interests that rule us at the current time.

Atticus, I'm 58, in our youthful days we were sold a load of manure - "The American Dream".

I tried, started my own small business, worked harder than if I was employed by another.

What do I have now?

NO Health insurance, cannot afford it.

NO retirement, stock market took it away.

Maybe no social security, fighting for it each and every day.

State taxes on service business' (Michigan, we fought it and are fighting it, but it seems like a reality.)

I'm trapped, and almost tapped out, but the fight in me is all I have left.

WE NEED PROGRESSIVES TO TAKE CHARGE OF THIS PARTY!!

Until that takes place, we are doomed to be "Republican Lite"

[old mark]

31. I am almost 63 and I know how you feel....Lincoln may not be much of a Democrat

but she's not a republican....or is she? Is Obama?
Are there any Democrats in the administration?

Hard to tell, but it's early yet.....


mark

[Dollface]

33. Dear Prince Myshkin, no true heart need aologize.

PS - I believe the proper reference is Geezer and THE Gidget although Dimwitdget works too.

[LiberalLoner]

34. What a beautiful, well-written post. A must-read. I share your shame and pain. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. Politics is Pro Wrestling

They pretend to hate each other in the ring but backstage they are all helping each other out.

[Javaman]

36. Once upon a time, the victors wrote history, no more...

it has now been replaced by the willfully ignorant.

One day before I die, I will hear some stupid jackass propaganda extolling on the virtues of moron* and how he* single handedly won the war in Iran and Afghanistan.

mark my words.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. It eats away at the core of me... this country is so far off the correct path.

I am ashamed, heartbroken, and often stultified.

[treestar]

42. How can you get that old and .

Oh, never mind. Losing does no good. For instance, losing to a Republican.

voters will vote for who they want to. Making them want to vote for progressives is hard, so instead of trying to do that, cry about how the loser is superior.

Well, the voters didn't pick the loser, no matter how superior.

[G_j]

43. K&R

[1776Forever]

44. It started with me with the "secret" meeting Pres. Obama had with Hillary & then Rahm came along....

Then ex-Pres. Clinton goes to Arkansas to cheer for Lincoln and now it is this point you brought up that Blanch voted for the oil companies (again)! OK what is left? The DLC rules - As Rev. Jesse Jackson once called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class.”! Like I have said in the past they are true to their corporate roots!

Bill Clinton defends DLC role, legacy
From June 2009
Politico ALEX ISENSTADT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23833.html

......The DLC reached the height of its influence during the early 1990s. Clinton, who once served as its chairman, made the council’s policies on free-trade agreements and welfare reform staples of his presidency.

But the group – which shunned the “liberal” label in favor of a “new” Democratic brand - never shed its reputation as an organization that spurred conflict with liberal interest groups. Rev. Jesse Jackson once called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class.” And former presidential candidate Howard Dean referred to it as “the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.”

But in his speech on Tuesday, Clinton argued that the DLC’s policies were now a central part of the fabric of the Democratic Party, and he said that Obama – while he hadn’t said so publicly - had taken some central tenets of his young presidency straight from the DLC playbook.

“It doesn’t matter that Barack Obama wasn’t an original member of the DLC and that he’s got his own brand,” Clinton said.

The former president went on to argue that Obama’s cabinet included such card-carrying DLC members as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(more at link)

...........

And so it SADLY goes.........

[xchrom]

47. recommend

[Naked_Ape]

50. It hurts, because it rings true. nt

[OneBlueSky]

54. at the risk of having this post relegated to the dustbin of unpopular threads . . .

might I add that it doesn't even seem to matter what the truth is about what happened on that fateful day in 2001, when planes fell from the sky, buildings collapsed as they never before had in the history of steel construction, invisible jetliners hit the Pentagon and "crashed" into an empty hole in the ground in Pennsylvania, and the most extraordinary conspiracy theory of them all was foisted upon us as the "official" story, i.e. "The Truth!" . . .

that this "official" story has been so widely accepted in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is nothing but one large crock of horseshit never ceases to amaze me . . . that good, decent people can say with a straight face "I trust my government" on this issue in light of all of their lies on every other issue also never ceases to amaze me . . .

disclaimer: like everyone else, I don't know what DID happen on that horrific day . . . but I DO know what DIDN'T happen; you can find it in the "official" report . . .

[Jackpine Radical]

58. I would probably say something about being in complete accord

with your post, but I won't do so for fear of enlarging the target here.

[Duval]

55. I am dismayed & a tad frightened. n/t

[bobburgster]

56. Hmmmm, well I thank you.

"...Blanche Lincoln: she opposed her party and her president in the health care debate and vote; she just voted with the Republicans to allow Big Oil to avoid paying for the clean up in the Gulf; she opposes organized labor on just about everything ..."

What a shame to have a "D" after her name. I understand compromise in drafting bills and voting especially foe southern politicians who represent a more conservative constituent....BUT, at some point our politicians need to stand up for the ideals that make us democrats. She is a disgrace.

[Overseas]

59. K&R. Thank you for saying that.

Capturing part of the cognitive dissonance of life in the 2000's for me.

The country desperately needed a Time Out on Modern Republican Values when President Obama was elected-- a Truth & Reconciliation Commission on the GOP's destructive rule.

But we did not get a sober analysis of the 8 years of destruction, how the GOP had driven us over some steep economic and moral cliffs so we would never do that again. And it could even have been done courteously by saying we wanted to be bipartisan, but the GOP had gone so far off track that we needed it to return to core American values first.

Democrats seizing their mandate could have followed The Bush Crash and Bush Bailout directly with a people's bailout-- Medicare for Everyone. They could have done that with the confident declaration that they believed in the ingenuity of US business and surely, the executives who had been worth $200 million per year to the medical insurance industry and Big Pharma, would devise ways for their comapnies to survive. But the American people had been bankrupted by Republicans off the rails, who had cooked up a war of choice that cost us a trillion dollars and was still draining our treasury and damaging our national security. The people were then robbed by Bush Bailout of Big Finance, deregulated to become Too Big To Fail. The American people were the ones who needed the real bailout of national health security. (And smarter Democrats would also know that workers freed from the privatized medical insurance burden would be spending more money locally, keeping their cities afloat after the Bush Crash. That's why I was thinking we'd start boldly-- bold things like that would have been economically as well as tactically sensible.)

That thorough Truth & Reconciliation would have helped enormously. No more pretending. We would have already examined the Bush Gang's too cozy relationship with Big Oil, and their wanton deregulation and tax preferences for that very wealthy industry. So when our President wanted to show himself as business-friendly and endorse more drilling, he would have had to add the caveat that he would not sign another contract without the most stringent liability and safety regulations in force.

[Enthusiast]

60. That was awesome, Atticus.

I'm happy to see you have had a change of heart.



















:hide: :sarcasm:

[BrklynLiberal]

63. Marking for later perusal. thanks.

[bobbolink]

66. we're constantly being sold out *because* winning is all that matters.

"Strateregy" rather than What The People Need.

You have laid it out well.

Recommended.

[MrScorpio]

67. I wrote this, this morning, with you in mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8534911

[hulka38]

69. Nice post.

We have to deal with our party before we can deal with fixing the country because it's really not our party in any shape or form right now.

[myrna minx]

70. .

It's sickening. :cry:

[varelse]

71. I'm with you

:(

[defendandprotect]

72. Agree -- interesting who is accused of betrayal and who is not . . .!!!

[johnaries]

73. Well, here's the problem. Everyone has a different definition of

integrity, loyalty, courage, and ESPECIALLY truthfullness.

I don't want to try and defend Lincoln's actions, I totally disagree with her stance on almost every issue.

HOWEVER, her job was to represent the stance of her constituents - the people who elected her in the first place. Don't blame her, blame the people who "enabled" her. The people who elected her. We don't need to change her mind, we need to change the minds of the people who voted for her. In the meantime, there is a hige advantage to having someone with a "D" after their name, whether they represent the classic "D" principles that YOU assign them, or not.

That's a big difference between the "D" and the "R" - the "R" people tend to follow the Party National Line, no matter what. The "D" people tend to think for themselves - or at least consider the opinion of the people who elected them. Even if that is not the "traditional" "D" line.

Also, her very existence puts the lie to such extremist statements as "Obama WANTED to abandon the Public Option." That is such a stupid statement considering al the work Obama has done to push the PO that it doesn't even deserve serious consideration. It's just plain stupid.

[Dinger]

74. K & R # 257

:patriot:

[DeSwiss]

75. Integrity? Loyalty? Courage? Truthfulness?

No, no, no sir. This will not do.

- We are both fools (I'm 58) and obviously totally out of step with today's political realities. So I must apologize as well......

K&R