The beatings will continue until morale improves, or until the 'vast leftwing conspiracy' is quashed

[nashville_brook]

People of 'good faith' can disagree without accusations of traitorism

As progressive voices grow in the mainstream media, so does the anxiety that there's a monolithic leftwing conspiracy seeking to undermine Democratic candidates in the fall elections. Party partisans are selling the notion that criticism equals subversion, which was an odious slur when it issued from the other side of the aisle. As in a slur internal to our party, it has no place.

The truth is, many centrists have aligned with conservadems to *shame* the democratic wing of the Democratic Party away from our core issues. Criticizing party leadership for weakening their position on labor, LBGT rights, abortion, health care, war funding, and the environment is what people of good faith do when those interests are being given the boot. People of good faith do not act as if those issues never existed for us. People of good faith do not attack those who stand up for the disenfranchised, the unemployed, and the sick.

People of good faith seek to keep the party aligned with the interests of the people, and not the other way around.

When it's turned around, the party is acting as a bludgeon, expecting the beatings to coerce The People into voting for them. That's called hubris, and it's the hallmark of a failed ideology. See, you have to believe in something, because without principle all that's left is political expediency. "You will vote for these candidates because to do otherwise makes you an enemy of the party."

I'm just as invested in the Dems winning this fall as the loyalist sweating it out next to me. But I'd never utter these words to anyone. It's condescending. It's beneath us. And, it's ultimately not going to work, because no one is bullied into voting one way or the other. That's what tyrants do, and it's the antithesis of why we even go to the polls.

What I find most ironic is this irrational fear of a leftwing conspiracy to undermine Dems in the fall is the result of an amazing victory for the mainstreaming of progressive voices. If it weren't for reporting on these issues everyone would think that Obama really is a socialist, and that anything to the left of a Chamber of Commerce meeting signals a rebooting of the Communist Party. It's because Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz have their fingers on the pulse of The People of the Democratic Party, that any rational criticism happens at all. I'd much rather have a full and robust discussion of our state of affairs, complete with criticism, than to go back to having only FOX News, CNBC and CNN argue about how quick grandpa will die under Obamacare.

That the polls are showing weakening support for Dems in the fall isn't the result of a vast leftwing conspiracy led by Glenn Greewald, Jane Hamsher and David Sirota. It's the result of powerful Democratic party leaders demanding that political expediency be substituted for principled action, and then asking that we stick a feather in its cap and call it "pragmatic." The people who were 'fired up and ready to go' must now sit down and shut up.

But all this puts the cart before the horse. If Dems don't turn out for Dems in the fall, it's not the fault of the media or the left wing because they weren't the ones who horse-traded our best issues away. Party leaders did that, and now, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they want to browbeat us into the voting booth. I've got news for you: U R DOING IT WRONG.

And you won't get love for that.

[Bluebear]

1. 'many centrists have aligned with conservadems to *shame* the democratic wing of the Party'

Man oh man ain't that the truth. k/r

[Bluebear]

2. oops, a centrist took my rec away lol

Whatever.

[nashville_brook]

4. they are the disappearing sort -- :)

[w8liftinglady]

11. um-I gave it back...good discussion.

[Bluebear]

13. Thanks! How you feeling?

:hug:

[w8liftinglady]

14. I am really lucky-better than pre-op-almost normal...for me,that is ;)

[Greyhound]

3. Here's one.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. And another.

[DirkGently]

5. +1 Not to mention that it can't work.

Shaming the left into pursuing the right is a losing strategy, as well as an unprincipled one. Republican opposition IS monolithic. Therefore, courting the right and alienating the left garners nothing. Zero. It's not "pragmatic." It's just nihilistic.

[Bluebear]

6. Unprincipled seems to be in vogue these days.

:(

[DirkGently]

18. True. If we can't do better than the most cynical political posturing,

what are we doing?

[nashville_brook]

24. who, i wonder, has the luxury of cynical posturing -- if not those who have jobs, healthcare and $$?

the rest of us are HURTING. our families are hurting. for the first time in modern history we aren't expecting our children to have a better life than us.

so, this cynical posturing is hugely anti-populist...and, if elections aren't about populism, then, really...what are they about? are we really just voting for the benefit of one privileged class rather than the other? where are WE in this equation?

[tavalon]

86. cynical political posturing is to Rahm Emanuel as water is to fish

Oops, sorry, I have the Miller's Analogy Test on the brain..........

[nashville_brook]

37. 'unprincipled' is the lazy man's pragmatism.

:evilgrin:

[DirkGently]

196. In a nutshell, yes. Critical thinking is the hard row to hoe.

... but the right one.

I hope that's idea most of us here share.

[nashville_brook]

10. if you haven't already seen Time for Change's essay on shame and empathy, check it out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8900074

tres bueno.

[girl gone mad]

27. That's what is so senseless about this behavior.

I work and live among the very crowd the "centrists" seek approval from. I can tell you that they absolutely loathe this administration, despite (or perhaps because of?) the White House's relentless attempts to court them through moderate, industry-friendly policy, and "pragmatic" attacks on the left.

I can't name one person who has been won over by this lame, Kumbaya governing style.

[nashville_brook]

30. i work with "them" too, and living in Orlando, I can tell you they have a more respect for Grayson

than for the administration. I have a Grayson sticker on my car, and it's led to some interesting conversation on this point.

[DirkGently]

199. I've seen the same. Why do they keep beaching themselves

... on the shores of people who have vowed "not to live with Liberals, but to destroy them."

If you you've already shown you can beat them, why join them?

[nashville_brook]

277. *****"If you you've already shown you can beat them, why join them?"***** f'n Ayyyy

[ooglymoogly]

272. Just to put a razor sharp edge to this disgraceful line of thinking

Note and reminder to this blind deaf and dumb administration;

Lincoln v Halter; Rubbing shallow unprincipled faces (both sides) in that turd pile of stinking crap.

Look what trying to stuff DINO's down our throats got you in your short sighted clumsiness and fear of real Dems, who might actually vote to level the playing field, visa vie corpworld.

The most basic proof of the bankrupt policies of this dumb administration; And to pile stupidity on top of stupidity, Scott Brown.

I am a Democrat; Not a pretend Democrat like this administration; Who become democrats only at election time; And who try to get nut job pugs to run with a D after their names while pulling the rug from progressive democrats;

And I will ONLY support, send money to and vote for True Progressive Democrats, like Grayson, Franken and Democrats like them, or write them in if need be; In all primaries as I believe all Progressive Democrats must do; If we are to expect any change.

Asking us to become, shallow, unprincipled, brainless, two faced, hypocrite Dino's bluedogs and DLC'ers, who invariably and inevitably vote or work behind the scenes in a kabuki song and dance in service to corpworld; In a blatant obscene clusterfuck with the pugs on their unholy quest of corpofascisam; To decimate and water down legislation on important common sense issues to Dems and We the People and those in dire and desperate circumstances; And expect us to support same, is the basest of insults to our intelligence and the real Democratic Party; OUR real honest and true Progressive Democratic party with standard bearers like JFK, Bobby Kennedy and FDR;

The present administration calling itself democrats is a cruel joke and an insult that is burning a hole in my brain and any real Democrat.

If it pouts like a pug, decimates and waters down common sense legislation like a pug in favor or corpworld, and whines like a pig when it does not get its way....Its a pug or a Dino pig; To include, Dino's Bluedogs, DLC'rs and pugs,

The pugs, who are at least honest about their ignorance and dastardly machinations; Being completely subservient, cocksuckers to corpworld and its coven of shapeshifting bats; Troglodytes Living in darkness; In antediluvian caves in the filth they produce by tonnage to stop even the slightest progress.

[nashville_brook]

275. The Third Way works for those with the $$ to afford "clubhouse level" membership

And playing that game ultimately gives away our best issues by marginalizing the people who the democratic party is supposed to represent.

I'm actually surprised that they haven't tried to at least advance progressive *rhetoric* this close to the election. I guess they figure they've got fundraising to do.

[tavalon]

84. Kudos for using nihilistic in a sentence!

Also, may I steal your avatar? I love his great noodlyness.

[DirkGently]

180. I strive to exhibit linguistic cunning. And I believe His

Noodlyness is available as one of the the freebie avatars here on DU. That's where I got mine, if I recall. :)

[nashville_brook]

278. are you saying you're a cunning linguist?

[DirkGently]

279. That is not for me to say ...8)

[ooglymoogly]

290. too funy nt

[TheKentuckian]

307. You are the foremost holistic defective in maybe several dimensions

That shit takes a variety of talents.

[Enthusiast]

148. Nice point. nt

[NC_Nurse]

7. Hear, hear! K&R

[w8liftinglady]

8. I watched "1984" this morning...why am I reminded of this?

I find myself:

"Criticizing party leadership for weakening their position on labor, LBGT rights, abortion, health care, war funding, and the environment is what people of good faith do when those interests are being given the boot. People of good faith do not act as if those issues never existed for us. People of good faith do not attack those who stand up for the disenfranchised, the unemployed, and the sick. "
I need to...
...change the language so it is more palatable,comrade.then it will be double-plus good.

[nashville_brook]

15. 1984 is such a sad story for me b/c they won. i've always wanted Smith to throw the sink out the

window like in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.

[w8liftinglady]

17. I know-it shows how most people react when their back is against the wall...

it IS effective at showing the Upper government's manipulation of the proletariat.

[nashville_brook]

32. and, it's more realistic than Kesey's. in real life people retreat to their prisons - willingly

sometimes.

[Donnachaidh]

12. kick and Rec! n/t

[defendandprotect]

16. "they weren't the ones who horse-traded our best issues away. Party leaders did that..." ---

Beyond the, "isn't Obama grand" which I could possibly attribute to a real desire

for political harmony and politican naivite -- there are certainly those who want

to kill the messenger to detract from the message . . .

And YOU have the message pegged exactly . . . .

"they weren't the ones who horse-traded our best issues away. Party leaders did that..."

Those trying to keep that message from becoming clear only have fear-based arguments --


My main concern is that upset and disappointed liberals/progressives don't wanter off

separately -- but that they ALL come together to figure out what to do next!

IMO we have to do the reverse of what the GOP did --

they targeted our liberal/progressive Dems and moved more and more rw Dems in place --

They've infiltrated our party with corporate money/values and work to keep more liberal/

progressive candidates out of the running.

[nashville_brook]

19. there's an idea floating around to use FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights as a new Contract with America

and i think it's a worthy idea. i think we need to unite around IDEAS and issues rather than personalities. our hope wasn't simply to get people with Ds next to their name elected. we need them to do the work that will mend this country. we're falling apart at the seams and it's high time there was some investment within our borders instead of in Eastasia.

[defendandprotect]

21. Think the idea of a "Contract with America" was rather soiled with Gingrich's Contract ON America .

but I'm all for anything to do with FDR's ideas -- and FDR's Bill of Rights ---

[nashville_brook]

26. yep -- that branding is soiled, but that's the level of rhetoric i'd like to see on OUR side.

actually, "The Second Bill of Rights" works just fine!

[defendandprotect]

133. Gringrich is a professional rw propagandist . . . robotically so --

dangerously so --

think he's still trying to take us to war with China!



You want a lot of separation between FDR/Second Bill of Rights and anything

that smells like New Gingrich!!

[Enthusiast]

150. Newt is possibly the most

dangerous RW creep out there.

[Common Sense Party]

220. Dangerous in what way? n/t

[DirkGently]

56. Seconded. FDR got it right.

[nashville_brook]

58. here's the FDR speech itself -- AUDIO for anyone who'd like to HEAR it-->>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3NTUNQzr3k

[tavalon]

91. OMG!

I had never heard or seen a transcript of that speech. A sad testament to my education, I must say. That is just perfect. President Obama can feel free to fire his speech writers when he goes on the firing spree that will, of course, include Rahm Emanuel because that is the speech he should use today, tomorrow and on election day.

[QC]

109. DAMN LEFTBAGGER!1!!11!

Sorry, just trying to learn how to be more sensible.

[nashville_brook]

115. ack!

:spank:

[nashville_brook]

60. here's the FDR speech itself -- TRANSCRIPT

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

[Enthusiast]

151. Communism!

Well, that's what the selfish RW assholes would call it.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. I personally think that a TERRIFIC idea

There's nothing I've read that anybody in their right minds could disagree with. They might call it "idealistic, naive, and wanting a pony", but any Dem SHOULD not have a problem agreeing with it as a goal. Good OP BTW, Brook.

[nashville_brook]

85. thanks...btw, i've always found TN socialists to be the most amazing kind.

back when i was in East TN, and too young to know any better, i thought the whole first district was cut from the same fundamentalist cloth. then i grew up a little and met some old timers, and some not-so-old timers who made me realize that maybe, they don't call them the 'Blue' Ridge Mountains for nothing. TVA built that part of the country and there's plenty of people who haven't forgot that. we need to stop trying to develop Eastasia, and return to cultivating our own land.

[w4rma]

137. I agree. Very good idea. (nt)

[sendero]

22. Fine ..

... as soon as there is something TO do, I'm interested. But voting for a man that is easily the biggest political disappointment of my life again isn't going to happen.

[tavalon]

92. It is partly our fault, you know

Not mostly, but partly. He spoke as every politician does. I won't use the L word but we all know what I mean. But we believed, we believed what he told us and we even believed things he did not tell us. Sure, he led us to believe he had this value and that value but he didn't say it directly and yet we believed. Fervently. He created a movement that we mistook for a leader. And I think that is where the backlash is. We wanted this hope so badly that we were willing to be taken in with hardly a bit of doubt. We ought to have questioned. We ought to have doubted.

[defendandprotect]

134. Agree --

but, again, don't like to see people just walk away from it --

there has to be discussion of what exactly to do about all of this --

a Plan B -- another way?

[sendero]

23. The old..

.. "party leaders" crap huh. Guess what, the top of the party leadership sits in the oval office.

[defendandprotect]

135. If you read the OP and my response to it . . . .

that's exactly what we are saying --

[sendero]

171. I apologize..

.. for misunderstanding your remark.

[defendandprotect]

267. Thank you --

think that's the first "apology" I've ever gotten at DU --

but I've had to make many of them myself!!



:)

[xchrom]

20. Recommend

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. K&R for the truth.

No matter how much a coven of woodchucks might claim otherwise.

[Individualist]

28. K&R

[felix_numinous]

29. K & R You got it. nt

[me b zola]

K&R

[me b zola]

31. K&R

[mmonk]

33. A post with guts.

Recommended.

[nashville_brook]

36. awwww! goes with my favorite pol..."a congressman with guts..."

Grayson!

i'm honored.

[mmonk]

51. I'm honored to recommend and say it. Good work.

Grayson is on my facebook list btw.:thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

34. k&r

[unapatriciated]

35. k&R

[bbgrunt]

38. very well said. k and r

[LoZoccolo]

39. Do you expect love when you threaten to sic the Republicans on us?

The truth is that the left's main tactic has been to threaten to tear down any progress that has been made in order to coerce people into supporting positions which are now unpopular, rather than making those positions popular enough to support their own primary candidates which could skate through the general.

[nashville_brook]

41. whoa there cowboy -- who is sic'ing repubs on you?

[LoZoccolo]

42. I elaborated. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

43. Yes, because you're a masochist.

"The left's main tactic has been to threaten to tear down any progress".

Unpopular positions? Maybe you're a little cross-eyed, but I see regression and more of the same under this DLC, and rehashed republican administration. Not progress.

As for making positions more popular for primary contests. Have you ever run a congressional campaign? I have. It's really a slide down the old ski slope, when you have the DCCC running progressives out of primaries, funding the same old blue dogs, and conservadems.

They'll call donors behind your back and tell them not to donate. They'll hold fundraisers during the primary for their choice. And above all else, it's an incumbent protection racket.

Been there a couple of times. And I know a few other candidates who have too.

[Scruffy1]

102. You understand the system well

Replacing a useless incumbant is nearly impossible. We just sit and wait for them to get caught or die.

[Dr.Phool]

111. If you really want to piss them off, beat their guy in the primary.

In 2006, in a repuke held seat, they had their guy, and us. We beat their guy by 21 points in a three way race in the primary. We couldn't get anything from the state or DCCC after that.

We had Max Cleland, and John Edwards willing to record robo calls for us 60 days before the election. But, all authorization to do them had to come via request from the state party. After 100 calls, face to face meetings, and endless promises, they finally gave Max Cleland the go ahead on the Friday before the election. In a district with over 500,000 voters.

[mdmc]

240. yupyup

[nashville_brook]

45. this is exactly what we're talking about -- the party machine only supports incumbents (Spector)

at the expense of true blue grass roots dems. this is exactly the sort of thing that alienates the party from the people.

[Me.]

113. Blanche Lincoln

& Nelson who always votes with the Cons

[saracat]

144. What "unpopular positions" are you referring to? Gay Marriage? Choice? Public Option?

The Repeal of DADT? All of those were very "popular " position that most Americans support. The WH doesn't support them! ( yaeh, I KNOW the Prez SAID he supported the repeal of DADT but then privately had it placed on the back burner.)

[bvar22]

174. Unpopular positions, like the Public Option.

Only 70% of the American people supported that.

[DirkGently]

194. I get that concern. But is that really what's happening,

or there is a temptation for some who feel strongly that criticism of the status quo is dangerous to *conflate* conscientious, good-faith criticism with "threats" to "destroy?"

As for bullying, I generally intrepret that tactic of telling someone to "shut up or get out" as a sign of being on the wrong side of something, don't you?

Nevertheless, this is an area that should be able to discussed without regressing to diametrically opposed shouting.

Assume there is a large segment of Democrats who have, not quibbles, but serious, substantial objections to policy decisions and rhetoric coming out of the administration and elsewhere. What do you see as the constructive, pro-Democratic Party way to address that?

I think if your concern is that Democrats are threatening to vote Republican, we can agree that's an unreasonable threat, particularly given the context of the "Democratic Underground" site and it's rules.

Can we also agree then, that critique, complaint, and good-faith argument does not somehow equate with ensuring Republican victories?

Can we agree that, as a first premise, Democrats as a whole *should* voice their principles, and *should* make reasoned critique of the leadership? That it's the people in the party, not the people in Washington, who should determine the direction of the party? That leaders work for us, and not the other way around? That "support" of the Democratic Party does not mean unqualified, inert, silent support?

Most of the shouting here is based on this false all-or-nothing proposition that political support means either being utterly positive about whatever is going in the party, or trying to destroy it.

Can you articulate your idea of constructive criticism aimed at improving the Party and letting leaders know when they're failing to support their constituents?

No snark is implied or should be inferred -- what are your thoughts here?

[nashville_brook]

197. really great questions. i hope the poster makes a good faith effort to answer.

[LoZoccolo]

241. If I were allowed to, I could post a link to leftists threatening to get Republicans elected.

And this is amongst themselves; it's not posturing in front of moderate Democrats or anything like that. They explicitly state that this is their plan. And it happens explicitly enough here along with it's cousin, "Democrats are no different than Republicans" which is to imply that there is no risk in voting for a third party.

[DirkGently]

254. Not the question. Nor relevant .

The question is whether you have constructive suggestions for how liberal Democrats *should* criticize and improve the party. The question is not whether you can find "leftists" threatening to abandon the Democratic Party.

The question is, are you able to recognize the role of members of the Democratic Party in criticizing and thereby shaping the party, without conflating all such criticism with an attack that guarantees Republican victory?

The problem with the discussion seems to be that these claims of attacks on the Party are raised in a broad-brushed manner, in response to any crticism, no matter how small, whether it be a cartoon, or a suggestion that BP might not be doing a good job in the Gulf. This makes it appear that it is criticism itself being denounced and dishonestly conflated with wholesale attack on the Party, in a disingenuous effort to silence critics.

One way to resolve this would be for you to acknowledge that all criticism is not the same as supporting Republican victory, and suggesting how constructive criticism should best be made.

[LoZoccolo]

271. Gain consensus amongst the electorate and run primary candidates that can win the general.

That is my suggestion. It's not something you can really do solely on the Internet, which is why people have a problem with it.

The question is, are you able to recognize the role of members of the Democratic Party in criticizing and thereby shaping the party, without conflating all such criticism with an attack that guarantees Republican victory?

Of course I can. When I am speaking of people doing things that lead to Republican victory, that's what I mean and I am doing no conflating. As I said, I could show you this happening up to the point where people are actually setting as a goal, making Democrats "unelectable" (the exact term they used) and getting Republicans to win, in order to teach us some kind of lesson. And the Nader rhetoric, the big green lie that says that there is no difference between the parties is all over this board, to the point that there were fits thrown here and elsewhere when it was announced that the rule against this lie would be enforced and have consequences. I know what I'm talking about and I'm not confused. If someone has a criticism and a plan to make things better, I have nothing inherently against that. I am not conflating; I am pointing out something that happens in plain sight all the time, which people get tombstoned for, that I do not have to stretch into an attack that helps the Republicans.

[DirkGently]

283. Sounds good. Let's, all of us, make sure to avoid sweeping

mischaracterizations of those we disagree with. And work to build consensus by discussing where the party is, what is actually working and what is not, and what Democrats want their party to look like.

I'd also agree that huddling in a corner plotting the destruction of those we disagree with is beneath all of us.

[stranger81]

242. Wow . . . there's an awful lot of projection packed into that tiny little post. [n/t]

[donco6]

40. Stop Bashing Obama!

I mean it. :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, the DLCers here keep insisting this type of post "bashes" Obama. I find it a logical, substantial piece that points out the follow their baseless position. Thanks.

[JohnnyLib2]

44. Cheer--rec.--kick--cheer!

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

46. Excellent! Who thought we'd be 'fired up, ready to go' over policies we fought for 30 years?

A new and improved package for the failed policies of Reagan and Bush was supposed to obscure what was right before my eyes?

And the beatings? Well, that didn't work on me when my abusive parents did it and it won't work now.

K&R

[nashville_brook]

47. those of us who've survived abusive relationships are especially sensitive to this dynamic...

i know i feel it on a base level.

[laughingliberal]

49. Yep. I've spent far too much time learning not to adopt the reality of the offender to be swayed by

...these tactics now.

[nashville_brook]

116. that's the thing about figuring out the abuse dynamic...you won't get fooled again.

i sincerely think that lion's share of Obama-right-or-wrong folks weren't old enough to experience the abuse of the Clinton administration fully. Getting screwed on NAFTA and globalization and repealing Glass-Steagal, and the Telecommunications Act...none of these abuses got thru to me back then. I couldn't even muster criticism over the Lewinsky scandal. And I was seriously pissed at my friends voting for Nader...i mean, i really worked them over, and they didn't deserve it. They had every right to vote for the person they felt best supported their interests.

I didn't really understand any of this until the repercussions started piling up. Here we sit now, without a manufacturing base, with completely consolidated media, in the midst of an economic meltdowns b/c of the casino environment allowed in the absence of Glass-Steagal...perspective is what it took.

and perspective is exactly what's missing in the abusive dynamic. if they have you completely identified with their interests, you'll do anything for them, and nothing for you.

[ibegurpard]

122. wow

are you sure you don't have a psychic link to my head??

[Enthusiast]

152. Nice one, nashville_brook!

Yup, repercussions have piled up at our expense.

[KoKo]

237. Well said, Nashville Brook!

The abusive dynamic...

[Roland99]

249. I once wrote about the GOP following behaving like Stockhom Syndrome sufferers.

Today I could write that piece and cover almost everyone on both sides of that proverbial aisle.

[RainDog]

260. [phone] n/t

[tavalon]

95. I'm with you on that one!

All I learned from my father and stepmother beating the crap out of me when they were frustrated was that they were toddlers in adult bodies. What a sense of deja vu I'm getting here.

[LWolf]

48. Excellent.

I'd love to stick this at the top of the forum for the next couple of years. Since I can't do that, I'll do my part to keep it on the front page.

:kick:

[Desertrose]

50. A nice injection of truth. Thanks! K&R

[Starry Messenger]

52. I just read posts here that said the left had nothing to do with getting Obama

into office. If centrists here think that, I'm not sure why they repeatedly abuse and coerce people with threats. Seems schizophrenic. If we aren't a significant voting block, then why care? It baffles me.

[nashville_brook]

53. unprincipled expediency often produces absurdities. Heller made a career out of that observation.

"Rise above principal and do what's right."

[tavalon]

97. Well, they sure are riled about us now, aren't they?

Good to know that since it wasn't us, the liberal left, who swept Obama and the Dems into the majority (or damn near) in both houses, we won't be to blame if that changes this fall. If we weren't important then, we aren't important now.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Eyerish]

55. K&R

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. Thank you!

[Agony]

59. I'm with you!

Avast! leftwing conspiracy! If I desist voting for my Democratic senator this fall it won't be because of VLC! It will be because he is a fucking traitor as my representative... sheesh

Cheers anyway,
Agony

[nashville_brook]

64. the VLC!! i love it. that could catch on.

[Joe Fields]

62. well put... k&r

[Jakes Progress]

63. Ow! Ow! Fuck you! Ow. Ow. Fuck you!

I'm not giving in.

[Agony]

66. ROFLCOPTER!

Ha Ha Ha! you made me laugh! you VLC too?

[Jakes Progress]

74. To the core.

Voting for traitors sticks in my craw.

[jgraz]

65. K&R. Nicely done.

:thumbsup:

[tavalon]

100. Is that really an Orwell quote?

Because I didn't actually stop reading 10 words ago..........

[nashville_brook]

104. omg that's f'n hilarious.

[tavalon]

142. That I didn't know whether it really was an Orwell quote or that I actually read past the tenth word

[bvar22]

67. My feeling exactly.

It isn't the Left Wing that is the problem.
The PROBLEM is that by governing to the Corporate Friendly Right, the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership has created a huge vacuum on The FDR Left.
Vacuums are filled.
Its Physics.

The "Centrists" can get all bowed up, howl at the moon, and blame Joe Lieberman, but the American People gave the Democrats a HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE, and the tools to achieve it.

Warmed over Republican Policy served up as "Bi-partisan Pragmatic Incrementalism" isn't going to quell the masses who voted for "CHANGE",
and neither will threats.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[nashville_brook]

76. none of us (labor, teachers, LBGT, enivios) volunteered to be sacrificial chessmen.

we didn't fight for this administration to use us as 'that which is jettisoned' to prove their alleged "centrism." the powerful on the right have treated The People like idiots slaves...then we're told by OUR leaders that our issues (social security, equal rights, clean oceans, education) are ponies...and that if we don't keep supporting them we're traitors. wow. who's the traitor here?

[DirkGently]

79. "and neither will threats." Excellent.

[laughingliberal]

119. +1000 nt

[bertman]

68. Thank you for a barnburner of a commentary, nashville_brook. Rec. nt

[Nite Owl]

69. I didn't turn away the

democratic party, they turned me away so they shouldn't be asking for my help now. That's how it works and they will find that out.

[Dinger]

70. K & R

Good post.

[leftstreet]

71. K&R

[Odin2005]

72. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!

:applause:

[TBF]

73. "anything to the left of a Chamber of Commerce meeting signals a rebooting of the Communist Party"

you say that like it's a bad thing...

Well I rec'd your OP anyway - nicely done.

[Scruffy1]

108. Ditto-

Without the communist party of the 1930's a lot less progress in union organizing would have happened. And from my reading of history they were an important factor in creating the other progressive reforms such as social security. Politicians never act, they react, and these reforms were at least partly as a way of undercutting the Communist and Socialist . To me that is why it is important to have progressive groups who eschew part loyalty. When they can't count on your vote they will kiss your ass.

[LooseWilly]

132. "When they can't count on your vote they will kiss your ass"

Spot on...
:toast:

[nashville_brook]

193. the non-party groups also contribute ideas that won't emerge from within a party...

we've narrowed the spectrum of acceptable discourse to the point where almost no real information is being traded. and it's all one-way. it's all "yay Obama. no, we don't need your opinion, just read our press releases and cc your email list. yay yay...."

[tomp]

203. very important history to remember. nt

[Jim Sagle]

75. K and R and fuckin' A.

[w8liftinglady]

77. yeah-what you said!

[jannyk]

78. Great Post! k&r nt

[Soylent Brice]

80. your first bolded sentence about traitorism reminds me of

of the 8 years of hell during dim son's reign of terror in which I had to have that very sam conversation/argument with rwers and even what I call 9/11 dems (dems who left their brains behind when 9/11 happened and they totally bought into the terra terra illusion of safety nonsense).

I never minded the accusations of traitorism then because people had a propaganda machine in overdrive pushing their buttons. I had hope after President Obama was elected that it was a sign that the country grew up again, but alas...

Progressive voices are still perceived as no more than chicken little nonsense and frankly it disappoints me.

It's even more disappointing that it's coming from our own party.

[nashville_brook]

93. it's a decadent cynicism that luxuriates in its own emptiness...

when they stop listening to The People, they lose The People. that's the way it works. they have control of the outcome, but they can't seem to do the right thing, even though their political careers depend on it. that's the sort of decadence that brings down empires. we're merely bystanders commenting on the action.

[unkachuck]

81. "And you won't get love for that."

....most people I know are not in a very loving mood....3 months to go....tick, tick, tick....

[Radical Activist]

82. I don't believe people are being asked to substitute principled action for political expediency.

I suppose there are a few people who don't want to see any criticism of Obama, but they are far outnumbered at DU and elsewhere. Criticism of Obama is clearly not being silenced because it's easily found in abundance everywhere.

This is the first I've heard of your conspiracy theory. I reject your divisive attempt to define Obama's supporters as being outside of the progressive movement.

I would be happy to see principled political action be substituted for the current wave of chicken little exaggerations about Obama that never seem to offer a productive course of action for progressives to take. Frankly, that's the argument you're avoiding (or failing to even recognize) while you play the role of oppressed martyr.

Passively whining that Obama isn't solving all of our problems for us isn't a strategy. It's not real organizing no matter how progressive you are. In fact, it suggests that a person has non-progressive authoritarian attitudes that belittle the movement's greatest source of power (people organizing together).

[EFerrari]

87. It's the slam o' the day and has been repeated more than once.

The OP certainly didn't originate the idea and there is nothing passive about this OP.

[Radical Activist]

123. Still haven't seen it yet.

Maybe everyone should just suck it up and move on. It's not like anyone who says anything positive about Obama doesn't get ganged up on at DU.

[EFerrari]

126. Posting a link for you would be construed as dragging an argument

from thread to thread and probably, rightfully so.

[tavalon]

83. So, I'm not the only one feeling like an abused spouse?

[EFerrari]

88. No, you're not. n/t

[tavalon]

141. You know, it's funny (not) that I spent all those years getting over my abusive childhood

and I end up with a society that feels no compunction around continuing the abuse. I'm offended.

[EFerrari]

265. Ditto. I'm reminded of Charlie the Tuna

and wish someone wanted me for my good taste.

lol

[nashville_brook]

101. can you imagine being a Dem campaign strategist right about now...not a happy job.

having "little to work with" doesn't quite cover it. the rank and file is not only disappointed...we're feeling opening abused, and instead of coming to our aid, the party is giving us the finger.

the next few months are going to be very interesting!

[asdjrocky]

89. Bullies.

It never worked on me in grade school, and it won't work on me in politics.

It's one of the main reason I was a registered Dem for so long, the pugs liked to use bully tactics and fear. I know whenever someone resorts to that, they got nothing left.

[nashville_brook]

90. this is what i find most amazing...Dems used to shelter The People from corporate bullying.

now it seems they're plenty happy to bully us on behalf of their benefactors AND tell us we're traitors if we don't like it. how times have changed.

[havocmom]

96. Yep. And it is demoralizing at the very least

Great OP, by the way. Thank you

[BzaDem]

94. "You will vote for these candidates because to do otherwise makes you an enemy of the party."

I don't think that's what very many people are saying. People are saying that you should vote for Democratic candidates, because otherwise the country will move in a much more conservative direction. This isn't a threat or bullying; it is a fact. A threat would be something like "If you don't do this, then I will do that." People are not saying that; they are saying something more like "If you don't do this, then that will happen (against both of our wishes, and independent of anything I do)."

It is not about supporting the party for the sake of the personalities that currently make up the party. It is about supporting the party for progressive, anti-conservative, policy-based reasons.

"It's the result of powerful Democratic party leaders demanding that political expediency be substituted for principled action, and then asking that we stick a feather in its cap and call it "pragmatic.""

This is just emperically false. If you accept the idea that this question is at all measurable with polling, then it is simply a fact that the Independents are not voting Republican because the Democratic party is not progressive enough. They currently (i.e. in August of 2010) favor the Republican policy position on most issue categories. I would say that this is more because of the state of the economy than actual policy enthusiasm, but it is simply emperically false to say that they are voting for the more conservative candidate because Democrats are somehow too conservative. This is easily measurable, and every single measurement I have seen from a variety of places answers the question in the opposite way from what you are describing.

"horse-traded our best issues away."

Horse trading in that context usually implies that the trade-off is worse than doing nothing. But that is obviously not true in most of the big legislation that passed; HCR was obviously better than doing nothing (and it was as progressive as possible to still get 60 votes). FinReg was obviously better than no FinReg, which again got exactly 60 votes (and no more for the sake of bipartisanship). You might have a point if Obama moved the bill so far to the right that it got 70 or 80 votes for the sake of bipartisanship, but that is not what happened. Each major bill that passed got exactly 60 votes for cloture, and not a vote more.

[janx]

98. No, it isn't a fact; it's an opinion, but a well reasoned one.

A fact is not something that may happen in the future.

[BzaDem]

107. So you are saying that if Republicans get elected instead of Democrats, that policy

will get more progressive?

No, it obviously won't. This is a fact, not an opinion. Policy getting more conservative under Republicans is not something that "may" happen; it is something that WILL happen (if they win). In other words, the probability is 100% (not 99% or 98%).

[janx]

112. No, that's not what I'm saying.

I am just pointing out the difference between fact and opinion--something I think is lacking on this board. I agree with you.

[tomp]

211. so you're saying that we should be satisfied with moderate rightism....

.....instead of extreme rightism. it's the same old line and i don't buy it.

we progressives, as opposed to you defenders of democratic rightism/corporatism, will not accept moderate rightism/corporatism.

you need to get that.

it doesn't matter if the repubs are worse, if all the democrats are offering is something slightly better. it is even arguable if it is slightly better, because the dems policies try to cover up how far right they are. this is better known as "fooling the people". as far as i'm concerned, the only reason dem policies are "the best that could be accomplished now" is because the dems orchestrate it exactly that way.

we need to find away around the democratic party's rightist tendencies. we need to show america what is actually possible. pointing out the immense failings of obama and the democratic party is only step one.

[nashville_brook]

106. does "enemy on this board" suit you better? b/c that's exactly what's emerged lately.

and it's completely your (and yours) ability and control to change that...so please, go right ahead and that statement irrelevant in the coming weeks heading into the election.

[BzaDem]

110. I don't think the word enemy is necessarily appropriate.

If someone insists on using it, it might be better to say that one's proposed voting ACTIONS are an enemy to progressive policy (rather than calling the person themself an enemy).

[EFerrari]

114. It's ironic that this thread is about how abusiveness doesn't GOTV

and here you are, on the same thread, quibbling about whether to call people or their actions "enemies".

As my mother would say, this is why 9/11 happened.

[BzaDem]

124. There is a difference between impugning one's motives and explaining how one's actions

are actually counterproductive.

[EFerrari]

128. And yet a more significant one when impugning the motives of others

or the actions of others. And so, the topic of the OP.

[nightrain]

127. "HCR was obviously better than doing nothing"?? Ask those whose

insurance policies are now 20-40% more expensive, those whose copays and deductibles have doubled, those who STILL can't afford these horrendously expensive insurance premiums, and who go without STILL. Ask an older person who still can't afford 3x the cost of a younger person's premiums!

Ask health care practitioners who have to continue to deal with the hundreds of health insurance corporations' multiple policies and exclusions, billing idiosyncracies, duplicity, layers and layers of paperwork, multiple payor sources, etc etc.

It's NOT better than doing nothing. It's worse than before on so many levels.

[BzaDem]

130. Just because you can cite some people that weren't helped doesn't mean they were hurt, or that

tens of millions of other people weren't helped. Your argument is of the style that "it is worse than before because it doesn't help everyone." That is a logical fallacy, because the previous status quo also didn't help everyone.

For example, the old person who can afford 3x but not 20x is obviously better off. In fact, any senior that can afford 2-10% of their income going to premiums is better off (because subsidies essentially cap premiums at that level). Sure, there might be some people that still can't afford it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help tens of millions of other people, or that it makes those who can't afford it worse off.

(It is not accurate to state that the premium increases wouldn't have happened without the law. The law doesn't take effect until 2014, and even the the law does little that would raise premiums on the employer market.)

[nightrain]

131. health insurance reform only enriches the corporations. It has priced

most uninsured middle-income folks out of the market and added layers of duplication of programs and paperwork. It's a fail. If health CARE services still go unprovided to needy people it's a fail.

It's a fail. 3x is unaffordable and unconscionable.

[BzaDem]

138. If 3x is unconscionable, wouldn't the status quo of 10x - 20x be MORE unconscionable?

If so, that part of the bill is better literally by definition. Anyone who says otherwise is making an error of logic.

And you are still eqauting not being better for EVERYONE with not being better overall. The insurance problems you mentioned existed before and after HCR.

It seems that all the opposition is based on either misinformation about what is in the bill, or logical fallacies.

[eridani]

149. Great. Let's make rape legal, but require that rapists use condoms n/t

[BzaDem]

164. While we're at it, let's get rid of the food stamps program, SS, and Medicare.

After all, it is very difficult to live off SS in many parts of the country. Food stamps are sometimes not sufficient, and Medicare does not cover 100% of one's care.

Using your logic, we should get rid of all 3. Because they aren't perfect.

[eridani]

291. It takes a lot of gall to compare government programs with private profiteers

There really is a difference between paying taxes to support public goods (however imperfectly) and being forced to have mass murderers as intermediaries between you and your health care providers.

[BzaDem]

293. You are the one saying we should kill bills if they don't help everyone. Not me. n/t

[eridani]

294. Trading help for a few with health care controlled by mass muderers for everyone-

--is a bad trade-off.

[nashville_brook]

167. it's frustrating that people aren't loving HCR - but, it's b/c they're actually paying attention

to what it's actually doing for them and the answer is 'not much.' it's too bad this reform couldn't have been any better, b/c this could have been a big success to point to. but, anything worth anything has to be fought for -- and this wasn't fought for. this is the HCR that was *capitulated to* and people aren't stupid. they see that.

if the insurance co's were forced to take a haircut, then maybe people would have seen this as a victory. but, all we see is that our insurance just got 20% more expensive and now we don't even have the choice not to have to buy it from the robber-barons. we've got this big mandate, and the provision for "us" doesn't even kick in until 2014. that's just politically insane.

so, while the RW was going to hate anything that came out no matter what...the Dem base wasn't given anything to cheer about either. an outcome where no one is happy is preferred during a divorce when you're splitting up property. when you're crafting legislation the aim should be to make everyone a little happy. but, the only people happy about this are the mega-corps, and that sullied the Obama brand more than anything else.

[BzaDem]

170. That post is full of misinformation.

"if the insurance co's were forced to take a haircut"

Such as a banning of any profit/administrative expenses over 15% of premiums? Ban on dropping expensive sick people, or charging them one penny more? Oh yeah they really didn't take a haircut.

"but, all we see is that our insurance just got 20% more expensive"

Insurance was getting more expensive by rates as high as 60% per year BEFORE this bill was passed. A 20% increase 4 years before anything in the bill takes into effect is not evidence of anything.

"we've got this big mandate, and the provision for "us" doesn't even kick in until 2014."

When do you think the mandate kicks in? The same year as the subsidies and pre-existing condition regulations kick in. 2014. Nothing kicks in earlier.

"the Dem base wasn't given anything to cheer about either."

80%+ of the Democratic party approves of the bill that passed. To the extent the other 20% did not approve, that is more of a problem with them (and their understanding of the bill versus what was feasible) than it is a problem with the bill.

"and that sullied the Obama brand more than anything else. "

In your imagination, maybe. Somehow though, 89% of liberal democrats last week still approve of his job performance. If that represents a "sullied brand," then the best thing that could happen to him is more sullied a brand.

[nashville_brook]

207. i get it -- it's frustrating to you that people just don't agree that HCR is super-fantastico.

but the sad fact is, you're just not in touch with where people are at on this issue.

tell you what. craft your own 200+ rec'd post to prove the popularity of HCR, and we'll talk.

[BzaDem]

213. It's only frustrating to me when people post misinformation.

The fact that HCR is not popular here does not mean that it is bad legislation. In fact, looking at what people here consider good and bad legislation, popularity here seems to be inversely correlated with good legislation.

The lack of popularity of the bill here stems mostly from misinformation and logical fallacies (not a bad bill). If I start seeing posts that criticize HCR without misinformation and without logical fallacies, I will change my judgement.

But the fact that you can't back up any of your points and instead talk about popularity (as if the collective judgement of this board is even a relevant proxy for popularity, let alone popularity being a relevant proxy for good legislation) just tells me that I am correct in my conclusion that opposition to this bill mainly comes from misinformation.

When I see misinformation, I will correct it. I don't particularly care if that doesn't thrill some people.

[nashville_brook]

169. even if the entire population of the US has "logical fallacies" about HCR, the fact remains...

no one likes it. no one feels better protected by it. and most people feel like they're getting screwed by it.

so -- what you have is, at least, a ginormous public relations fiasco. if the law is as yummy as you say it is, then your people should have no problem getting that message out. there's nothing better than "good facts" when you're mounting a PR campaign.

[BzaDem]

173. If by no one, you mean 50% approve and 35% do not approve.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

Everything you are saying about the healthcare bill in this thread is not accurate. Every single thing.

[nightrain]

181. apparently you don't realize that the US has other more reasonable, "logical", cost-effective

choices in health care than enriching private corporations that are already squeezing the life and money out of people.

If your deal is "logic", then single payer would have been the "logical" choice.

How does "logic" fit in with forcing people to pay 10% or more of their income to private corporations rather than expanding and improving Medicare for LESS, and providing it to ALL people???

You work for insurance corporations? You seem to like the idea of transferring peoples' funds to corporations.

Your "logic" is unconscionable.

Remember that candidate Obama spoke about "affordable". What he created and signed is not affordable, and is growing increasingly more expensive.

Talk about your own increases in copays, deductibles, and premiums if you have insurance. Do tell us how that's working for you.

[BzaDem]

182. So which is it? Is 10x-20x better than 3x?

You can keep trying to change the subject, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Is 10x-20x better than 3x? Or is 3x better than 10x-20x? "Both are bad" does not answer the question. I am not asking in some absolute sense. My question is a relative question. Is 10x-20x better than 3x.

If you don't answer the question directly, it just shows how your talking points are just that (talking points).

[nightrain]

184. Your 30x vs 3x is immaterial if 3x is still unaffordable.

I never changed the subject from health CARE vs health insurance "reform". Obama and his key Congressional legislators refused to allow the most "logical" options to be discussed. How come?


Did you answer my questions? Waiting...

[BzaDem]

186. Except there are millions that could afford 3x but not 30x.

Especially since the GOVERNMENT ends up paying most of the 3x, due to the sliding scale subsudy structure as a percentage of their income.

Obama did not put single payer on the table because he campaigned AGAINST single payer as "too extreme." To the extent you were hoping for single payer, the problem was YOUR EXPECTATIONS, not what Obama delivered.

[nightrain]

Middle income people cannot afford the costs of health insurance

premiums and there are NO subsidies for middle income people.

More money is going to rich private corporations, not to actual CARE. Is that "logical"?

Why again didn't Obama and his Congressional buddies--Baucus etc consider the most "logical" options? I guess protecting corporations is "logical"??

(Crickets on my questions and concerns I posted upthread.) Do inform us how you personally have been impacted if you have health insurance. How is that working out for you?

[BzaDem]

190. More misinformation.

Subsidies reach people up to families of 4 making 88 thousand per year. Anyone making less than that pays NO MORE than 9.5% of their income for premiums, regardless of the 3x.

"More money is going to rich private corporations, not to actual CARE. Is that "logical"?"

The law mandates that 85% of the money going to health insurance companies goes to ACTUAL CARE. If any less goes to ACTUAL CARE, the customer gets a rebate check in the mail for the difference. Too bad this inconvenient fact interferes with your talking points.

"Why again didn't Obama and his Congressional buddies--Baucus etc consider the most "logical" options?"

He CAMPAIGNED AGAINST them. His not considering single payer was fulfilling his campaign promise.

"(Crickets on my questions and concerns I posted upthread.) Do inform us how you personally have been impacted if you have health insurance. How is that working out for you?"

The portion of the premiums I have paid has not changed in any way it has not changed in the past. This makes sense, since the law doesn't take into effect until 2014, and EVEN THEN it barely affects the employer market AT ALL.

[nightrain]

192. obfuscation ad nauseum. 5K premium/yr plus 3500 deductible, plus copays and out of pocket

is unaffordable for one person.

ONLY 9.5%!!!?? LOL! That's NOT affordable. Most middle income folks don't have that 9.5% sitting about. HUGE FAIL.

Have you been watching how corporations are re-defining what constitutes "patient care"??? LOL!

YOUR talking points FAIL miserably.

My points are based on actual experience as a professional provider in health care.

[BzaDem]

195. You are simply clueless. Single payer costs a similar percentage in taxes in other countries.

Even Physicians for a National Health Program's single payer plan would raise people's taxes by 9% to pay for it. If 9% is unaffordable because people don't have it "sitting around," then single payer is unaffordable.

If you were or are a professional provider in health care, I truly feel sorry for your patients. Seriously.

[nightrain]

198. Not clueless at all. I see it first hand. I see you devolved into ad hominem

attack.

I'll take that as a huge fail on your part. Your talking points are straight out of the DLC and are false.

Even if PNHP has said 9%, at least that would be going for CARE, not for mansions, yachts, huge compensations. How's it feel to know there's about 30% skimmed off of your premium money for profit/overhead/denials/paperwork bs? That could/should be going to care.

So, you have heard how the insurance corporations have been re-defining what constitutes patient care? They're slime.

[BzaDem]

201. "How's it feel to know there's about 30% skimmed off of your premium money"

That is an absolute falsehood. The law mandates that only 15% of premiums can go to profit/overhead/denials/paperwork/mansions/yacths/compensation/etc. Some insurance companies are trying to get services like nurse health hot-lines included as care, but the law expressly prohibits profit/overhead/denials/paperwork/mansions/yacths/compensation/etc from being included in the MLR's medical care component.

And furthermore, you saw my post earlier stating the 15% MLR in the bill. I know you saw it because you responded to it. So it isn't just a falsehood. It is a deliberate falsehood. This is why I feel sorry for your patients. I sincerely hope you confine your falsehoods to the Internet, for their sake.

"Even if PNHP has said 9%, at least that would be going for CARE, not for mansions, yachts, huge compensations."

Oh OK. Glad to hear you change your story on the affordability of 9% once you hear that's actually what single payer costs. Talk about huge fail.

[nightrain]

204. LOL, your desperate opinions and attack don't matter.... ad hominem attacks = FAILURE

30% of your payments have gone toward obscene compensations. While we toil and suffer, execs live high. That seem "logical"?

I said "if" PNHP has said that, and there's a huge difference if funds go toward care vs obscene compensation. If we provided care, as Taiwan does, we could spend less than 9%. I never said it was "affordable" did I?

[BzaDem]

205. I feel sorry for the customers of those who promulgate deliberate falsehoods. If you consider that

an "ad hominem" attack, then so be it.

[nightrain]

210. LOL! and DLC talking points just don't cut it. We deserve better.

so much for "logic"!

[nashville_brook]

209. if you're resorting to name-calling, you're losing the argument.

[BzaDem]

212. That poster has promulgated deliberate falsehoods up and down the thread.

If calling out such is "name calling" then so be it.

[nashville_brook]

216. if the other person is wrong, then it should be extra easy to keep your cool

[BzaDem]

217. I don't think I've lost my cool.

You are free to read my posts and come to a different conclusion.

[Jax]

256. Keep waiting, they never answer

they change the subject and never answer, insults coming from them next.

Well done nighttrain.

You NEVER changed the subject, they did, that is all they have.

[Bluebear]

143. 'If health CARE services still go unprovided to needy people it's a fail.'

Amen.

[BzaDem]

165. More logical fallacies. Medicare also didn't provide health CARE services to all needy people.

Do you want to get rid of Medicare? Any needy person under 65 did not get any help at all under Medicare. Should we repeal Medicare? It is clearly a "fail" under your definition.

You should think before you type.

[saracat]

145. I absolutely was hurt by this. And when the law goes into full effect I will continue to be hurt by

this, except now I won't even have the option of dropping my insurance.

[BzaDem]

162. In what way? n/t

[saracat]

243. My premiums have risen, and because we are draining our retirement accounts

(or what would have been our retirement accounts) to pay them. it counts as income so we won't qualify for any subsidies because it counts as income so until we lose everything, we wouldn't get assistance because we fall in the loophole area.We are unemployed but they consider us as having "income". And as insurance will be mandated, we will still have to carry it. We recently realized that , even though we use it for chronic conditions, it would have been way less expensive for us to drop it and pay on our own.In 2014, we will no longer be able to even consider that as an option. I guess of course we could just pay the fine.

[Enthusiast]

155. We only need to evaluate HCR

legislation in the light of its popularity. Is it popular? Will it help re-elect the legislators that enacted it? Is it legislation that will invigorate the electorate?

[BzaDem]

163. Huh? What does its popularity have to do with its policy merits?

A popular bill could be very bad for the country. Likewise, an unpopular bill might be very good for the country.

For example, the HCR bill that passed is incredibly beneficial to tens of millions of people in this country. Yet there are some "progressives" on this board that oppose it. That doesn't indicate the bill is bad -- it just indicates why it is silly to look at a bill's popularity (especially on this board) as any indication of how good or bad the bill is.

[Enthusiast]

166. Popularity is determined by policy merits. nt

[BzaDem]

168. So the Iraq War was a great policy, because it had high popularity at the time it started?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Enthusiast]

176. Apples and oranges.

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

179. Sure, if you call an example that kills your entire explanation an "orange." n/t

[bvar22]

177. And the wonderfully popular (according to you) Health Insurance Reform...

...will go over about like the Iraq War as soon as people find out what it is REALLY about (Mandated Profits for Parasitic Corporations).

[rhett o rick]

232. You bring out a good point. A centrist is willing to "horse-trade" away basic principles

and those on the left will not. A centrist might say that the war is better under Pres Obama because only 50,000 children will be killed and not the 60,000 under Bush.

[nashville_brook]

239. and using their perverse logic, they'd be right in a sense.

that's why they spend so much time with the stats and the numbers and the arcane bullshit -- anything to keep the conversation away from principles.

[rhett o rick]

301. I cant ever get them to discuss principles. nm

[suffragette]

99. Well-said, nashville

Here, you might find this a heartening direction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8903983

[scentopine]

103. damn fine writing, nb! thanks for a cracking good post -nt

[amborin]

105. k and r

[earcandle]

117. I like your style! Thanks for the perspective. Works for me.

[scarletwoman]

118. k&r

[Lugnut]

120. K & f'n R! n/t

[Bryn]

121. K&R

:kick:

[Poboy]

125. Your vote: +1

[TriMera]

129. K&r!

Thank you for one of the most insightful and well thought-out OP's I have seen in quite awhile.:pals:

[Catherina]

136. Heartily recommended. Great stuff. Well said. n/t

[hfojvt]

139. that still aounds like insantiy to me

You can blame the party leadership or Obama, Reid, Pelosi, or the DLC all you want, but what you describe is simply instanity. Here is the Leftwing voter. Goes all out in 2006 and 2008 to defeat Republicans and replace them with Democrats. Now they are angry because Obama/Reid/Pelosi are not moving to the left enough. You seem to think that it is a rational response for these people to say "screw it, I am not gonna vote in 2010"

In reality, to do that is irrational to the point of insanity. If you want the country to move to the left, the absolute last thing a sane person would do, a sane person who cares about progressive issues, the last thing such a person would want to do is to help/allow Republicans to win in 2010.

And you trying to let the leftwing off the hook does not make sense either. Some people are seemingly working over-time trying to spread a message. This message: Democrats suck, it does not do any good to vote for them because they are not really different from Republicans.

Since, logically, that message does help Repunlicans to win if lots of people believe it and then act on that belief, so why should people who are trying to sell that message be let off the hook for the consequences of their actions - Republican victories?

[Enthusiast]

156. The message isn't 'Democrats suck'.

The message is Democrats that behave and vote like Republicans suck. And they do suck.

[nashville_brook]

160. actually, the electorate behaves in a very predictable, sane manner

And there's no pol or political consultant who doesn't know the score right now. I don't have the power to let anyone on or off the hook. I'm just describing what's out there, and it's not pretty.

[Cetacea]

140. Excellent. K&R n/t

[saracat]

146. BTW K+R One of the greatest posts ever!

[Enthusiast]

147. What are you saying?

Principles matter? That cannot be.

[Vinca]

153. Great post. I've been feeling as if the party has left me and

I haven't decided what to do or where to go or if staying and fighting is a viable option. With such an overwhelming majority of people begging for change in 2008, I thought it would finally happen . . . silly me. What we have gotten is watered down legislation with little attempt to strong arm the other side. Last night I read Matt Taibbi's latest article about financial reform and it seems Democratic leaders conspired with Republicans . . . yes, Republicans . . . to squash meaningful reform offered by Senators Merkley and Levin. Things, apparently, are not what they seem. To quote from Matt's article addressing the partisan divide, "In public, the parties stage a show of bitter bipartisan stalemate. But when the cameras are off, they fuck like crazed weasels in heat." I think we've been had.

[Enthusiast]

157. +1 Smoke and mirrors, Vinca.

So disappointing.

[nashville_brook]

159. Taibbi doesn't mince words.

Those crazed weasels are celebrating big paydays from the banks they're supposed to be reigning in. Partisan blood may be thicker than water, but money makes everyone happy.

Off to find that article!

[Vinca]

183. Sorry - I should have posted the link.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/188551

[Jakes Progress]

200. Staying and fighting may be an option

but it is getting harder and harder to care. I hate that the rich bastards have won, but on the other hand I detest the sniveling cowards, sycophants, and idiots who support either party's attempt to turn us all over to the corporations. So if my fighting would add to making their lives better, I can't really summon up that drive. They will get what they deserve. I do feel sorry for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, but half of them are the stupid idiots who keep supporting this shit.

Gaaah. I fought the power and the power won.

[democrank]

154. K & R

[Fumesucker]

158. K&R

[Demeter]

161. It's the Bad-Faith People who are Behind the Troubles

and Obama won't even prosecute. Which category does that put him in?

[nashville_brook]

191. that's one category of Bad Faith Peeps (BFPs), for sure. even as children we have a hardwired sense

of justice and fairness. and, i think that the failure to set things straight -- to clean house -- after the Bush admin, has been hugely damaging to the Obama brand. This was a gimme and they blew it, which begs the question: what does team Obama plan to do with all that unchecked Executive Power that Cheney was so nice as to leave laying around?

My sense is that team Obama isn't in charge of this. I think DoD and the Intel Agencies are calling the shots here.

[Joanne98]

172. If the bluedogs vote against the teachers it's over for them!

[leveymg]

175. Unlike 2008, I can't go door-to-door in good conscience with a "hope and change" message

And, there's precious little of real accomplishment for Democrats to campaign on a "more of the same" message.

Arguing the Dems should be re-elected because they're more pragmatic than TEA-baggers, and have a better crisis management skill set than the GOP, won't cut it in face-to-face canvassing. There are no real accomplishments (or even promises) to campaign on in 2010.

Boasts about Wall Street bailouts, HCR, and the Financial Regulation Bill ring awfully hollow.

All politics is local, and if you don't have a facially persuasive argument at the door step, you don't win elections. If we lose the House, this will be why.

[nashville_brook]

189. people see that DC sided with corporations at every turn - makes it difficult to get traction

in door to door canvassing.

[bvar22]

178. Morning Kick,

and checking to make sure I recommended this post.
Yep.
It all good.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone


Sorry, Paul.
The "kinder, gentler Republicans" now control the Democratic Party.

[disillusioned73]

185. That was GREAT, thank you...

I feel pretty much axactly the same way.

The enthusiasm gap bettween the parties is quite frightening and to be expected by the Dems own doing. That keeps begging the question....... is it by design to keep the corporatist(D & R) in power??

[nashville_brook]

187. the phrase "enthusiasm gap" trivializes what's happening. i wonder if this will evolve

as we get closer to November.

[disillusioned73]

202. Agreed, but as with ALL midterms.... the Dems knew this was coming

and did little to spur the "grassroots" of 2008. In some instances did the opposite (ex. don't ask, don't tell)

[nashville_brook]

206. the lack of interest in the grassroots is mystifying, and makes them seem arrogant.

[disillusioned73]

214. Is there a ..

:sarcasm: missing in that statement - or are we on two seperate pages here??

[nashville_brook]

219. bad pronoun assignment -- "them" as in Dem party, not us grassrooters

[disillusioned73]

229. I can agree with that, great op Brook

:toast:

[butterfly77]

188. Kicked&Recommended!

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

208. K & R!

[WillyT]

215. You Get MY Love For It !!! - K & R !!!

:loveya:

OUTSTANDING !!!

:yourock:

:bounce::hi::bounce:

[nashville_brook]

226. thanky WillyT!!

:fistbump:

[DeSwiss]

218. Excellent. Absolutely excellent!!! K&R - n/t

[walldude]

221. Brook, you are

becoming one of my favorite posters here. This is one of your best. K&R. :toast:

[nashville_brook]

224. aw shucks...

:fistbump:

[TriMera]

222. Kick. n/t

[L0oniX]

223. K & R

[Brickbat]

225. Every time I see this OP topic on the page, I think it's referring to DU itself.

[LWolf]

245. +1

[RBInMaine]

227. It can't just be all about "criticism" of Dems and Obama. There are political realities, and

positives have to be touted too. The real enemy is the RePUKES. This is what RePUKES understand and too many on the left do not.

[nashville_brook]

246. it would be great of some of the crit aimed at the left wing were redirected.

i'll be looking forward to seeing that as the election nears.

[OwnedByFerrets]

228. "Democratic" politicians use their constituents just as

the repugs use theirs. I have come to believe there is very little difference between the two. They crave power and the influence that Washington gives them.

[BrklynLiberal]

230. GOTV better work as hard and diligently as it did for the '08 Obama campaign..

or else...the repukes will take over, and frankly, I think that would spell our long term doom as a nation.
I shiver to even think about what they will do to t his country if they are in control of Congress.

[Roland99]

231. We've long seen the GOP whore itself out to corporate interests. DLC has taken over the Dems now.

The voice of the people has been silenced for the last 30 years. Even then, Jimmy Carter was cut off and thwarted. And even JFK escalated things in Vietnam.

In *my* lifetime, there really hasn't been a voice of the people in Washington except for a few brave souls like Wellstone, Kucinich, Grayson...

[nashville_brook]

235. god i miss wellstone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2CLRZLK2E

[Roland99]

244. He must have been out of his mind

when he called for an honest assessment of what was really being asked by the bush admin. I mean, really, who does that? Someone who cares about this nation's founding principles, its Constitution, its standing in the world, its citizens and their lives, its treasury? Nah, he must have been an unpatriotic unAmurikan librul.



*sigh*

[nashville_brook]

248. yep -- he had no ego when it came to principles. it was all about the people.

[Uncle Joe]

233. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, nashville_brook.

[Greyhound]

234. More recs than replies. Well done!

[nashville_brook]

236. i had not noticed that...cool!

[mdmc]

238. Well written

thanks for the OP.. R

[Ignis]

247. K&R. Way to kick the week off with a bang, nashville_brook.

:patriot:

[nashville_brook]

250. gotta love rainy Sundays -- :)

[asdjrocky]

251. This is good stuff Dude.

Too bad the people that should read it probably won't.

[alberg]

252. Agreed.

[Scottybeamer70]

253. Thanks for a great post!!

When he didn't "clean house" from the previous administration, he totally lost me. I've lived through 13 presidents, ( yes, I know......I'm old......:)...........and it seems to get worse with time! Thank you for saying what I'm sure a lot of people feel.

[Dawgs]

255. People who voted on "principles" gave us at least 4 years of Bush instead of Gore.

...

[nashville_brook]

257. nope -- sorry. the SCOTUS and Jeb's FL GOP machine gave us W.

[Dragonfli]

264. Shhh... The truth is counterproductive to that talking point (and they really love that one)

[nashville_brook]

266. "the left has no power" -->> "the left gave the election to Bush!" -->> bad brains.

[Dawgs]

285. You can be an ass, but it doesn't change my point.

Voting on principle helped Jeb and the SCOTUS put George in power.

I'm not saying that principles are a bad thing, just that sometimes they do have consequences. I'll agree that I'm wrong if you can find one Nader voter that wouldn't have been happier with a Gore Presidency.

[Dragonfli]

289. That is incorrect, The SCOTUS and Jeb stole it right in front of all of us

You can't pretend it didn't happen, with all the votes tallied Gore won, it is really very simple, if he won by vote tally lack of votes did not impede victory, lack of counting votes did.

You really should post things based on real information.
Someone sold you a bill of goods and you are parroting that bill of goods, don't be a dupe, use your mind.

[Dawgs]

297. Uh, try reading my post again.

They were able to steal it because it was so close. And, it was close because so many voted for Nader (real information) instead of Gore.

[Dawgs]

284. So you voted for Gore?

:shrug:

[Dragonfli]

259. Yes Principles are bad bad bad, Principles are Evil!!

:sarcasm:

Do you even think about what you write?

[TZ]

261. and anybody who doesn't share your views of things

is obviously "unprincipled" right? I thought intolerance of anybody having a different viewpoint was a Republican thing. Guess not.

[Dragonfli]

263. I did not post that priciples must be abandoned the one I responded to did

[Dawgs]

282. No I didn't. You're making shit up based on what you think I meant.

You want to keep going?

[Dragonfli]

287. What you said was those that voted for principles cost us Bush

I assumed you consider Bush bad, perhaps I was mistaken, You want us to vote principle after all then?

Next time use the sarcasm smiley so I do not misinterpret again.:toast:

Thanks for your support! I will be voting for principled candidates this time around, I am glad you are willing to join us in this.

For me it is as simple as voting for these principles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3NTUNQzr3k , and those that oppose them - Republican, Democrat,'Bagger, or Green will not get my support as they will not share my values or my concern for my fellow citizens.

What principles do you vote for? I hope they are aligned with mine, but if not, I can only respect what your principled vote may be and would not try to discourage you from voting for what you believe this country needs policy wise.

[Dawgs]

298. What I meant was that voting for principled candidates sometimes gives us something much worse.

I'm assuming that we can both agree that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that Iraq was really bad.

I think you would also agree that if every liberal voted for the most liberal candidate (i.e. Kucinich) every time, it would almost guarantee a never ending Republican majority.

It appears that we come from two different philosophies.

Yours is to vote based on principles without taking into consideration electability.

Mine is to vote based on principles, but also for those that are the electable.

No?

[nashville_brook]

273. huh?

[Dawgs]

281. Where did I say that principles are bad?

Uh, that's right. I didn't.

[Dragonfli]

288. See post #287 /nt

[Dawgs]

299. See my reply. Post #298.

[TZ]

258. And its just as wrong to accuse people who have different views of things

Or are more to the center of the party--unprincipled sell outs. Anyone who doesn't get the attacks GOING BOTH WAYS is not disgusting AND damaging are wrong too. There are probably people here who would want to tombstone me because it turns out that a relatives favorite ex students is a Blue Dog. Thats right, my family associates with TEH EVIL CENTRISTS. Lets face it. This insult shit if you don't agree with someone's beliefs goes both ways (by the way this same relative calls me a "knee jerk liberal" and yet, I don't think centrists are teh devil, anymore than people to the left of me are TEH DEVIL.

[Dragonfli]

262. The problem is that what passes as centrist is pretty far right (reaganomics, war-profit etc.) NT

[tavalon]

269. If a person truly believes their centrist stand, then it's just as principled as mine

DLCers are just infiltrators. They are Republicans attempting (and doing a really good job) to infiltrate and destroy the Democrats from the inside. If they would admit that they are actually Republicans and go back to their side of the aisle, they would be principled. Those here who tell us we must vote for the Democrats for pragmatic reasons are unprincipled. They are treating this like a World Cup instead of a life and death struggle to save the party ideals and save the downtrodden. That is unprincipled.

[tavalon]

268. Well, it looks like the DLCers couldn't keep this post from having

almost 300 recs and I know they tried, man, they tried. I would recommend this again if I could, but I can't so I'm just going to write to Rahm Emanuel (I write to him specifically when I just want to rant. I send actual, respectful letters to his boss).

[Rex]

270. The Dems only have their leaders to blame if they lose this fall.

Not that they will, but I will hold them responsible just like I did for agreeing to go to war with Iraq. Two words - stupid and dangerous.

[bobbolink]

274. And continually leaving poverty out of your priorities isn't gaining votes, either.

What would it take for you to remember us?

[nashville_brook]

276. there used to be a healthy sense of enlightened self interest wrt poverty -- rising tide floats all

boats, etc.

[bobbolink]

280. I take it then that caring about poverty is passe'.

Then you wonder why you lose elections.

[nashville_brook]

286. i'm lamenting the fact! there used to be a "we" implied in poverty issues...now the attitude

seems to be that poverty is "their" problem. as if we're not all affected when 20% of the population can't find work. or, kids go to school hungry, or without adequate parental support (b/c both parents are working multiple jobs to make ends meet -- if they're lucky enough to have work).

and it's even more egregious now that the income gap has widened to pre-depression proportions...so, we have a larger percentage of the population in poverty, and at-risk.

sorry for the ambiguity! i grew up in poverty and my family came from poverty before me. as a child of the 70s, i was lucky to benefit from many different "great society" programs (and my adopted parents were on SS), b/c without them i'd have never finished high school.

[bobbolink]

302. Thank you for clarifying that. I do believe that part of the problem is that those of us

on the bottom rungs, or who used to be on the bottom rungs and know what it is like, haven't been speaking out.

We don't come together and support each other in speaking out and in taking action.

We are being walked over, and we let it happen.

~~holding out hand~~ Glad to meet you. I am glad the programs were there for you. Sadly, we took those programs for granted. Now they are disappearing, and we are mostly silent.

[nashville_brook]

306. commodity foods, free lunch, CETA, JTPA, AFDC...just to name a few.

sadly the Clinton Administration did more damage than Bush did. But then, there wasn't much left once Bush came to office.

[ibegurpard]

292. kick

:kick:

[RandomThoughts]

295. I typed a long reply.

But going to make it more simple.

There is a saying.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or even the one.

[Cetacea]

296. Thanks again. The response makes me feel optimistic.

Especially when the likely fair number of unrecs are taken into account. Again, well done!

[suffragette]

300. Gibbs remarks in his new interview are right in the zone

with what you wrote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8913017


Damn, but your OP was timely.

Another K&R (well a kick anyway) for you.

[nashville_brook]

304. it's not always a good thing to be ahead of the curve...

i'm a marketing professional and I deal with this all the time. if you introduce an idea that's too ahead of its time, no one pays attention. i've actually been kicking this idea around for a while, and just got fed up with it on sunday and decided to write it up.

[DirkGently]

305. You really called it. Now libs are crazed druggies demanding the

Pentagon be dismantled. Yeah that's going to get the troops in line. Unbelievable.

[nashville_brook]

308. strategically, maybe Dem leadership sees an advantage to losing seats?

maybe their donors have pressured them into the "pragmatic" compromises we're lamenting, and really, wouldn't it be nice if the heat were turned a bit. with fewer dems in Congress we can go back to being the opposition party.

[suffragette]

310. You wrote a spot on piece here.

Again, nicely done.

:applause:

[EFerrari]

303. .

[rhett o rick]

309. There is no such thing as a so-called "centrist". I have asked over and over and no-one will

confess to being a "centrist". What could their principles be? Maybe they only like a little war, or crapy health care, or part of the Patriot Act. Centrist is code for Republican in Democrat clothing.

[XemaSab]

311. .

:kick:

[Jamastiene]

312. Kick

Very well said.

:kick: