The internet left fringe needs to get out of their pajamas, realize governing is hard.

[madfloridian]

Gibb's comments about the professional left really are not anything new. My problem is the ongoing nature of such words. I am not sure if they are talking about me sometimes, but I suppose they are. They have many terms for us, even fringe or liberal or activists.

I have pushed back on women's issues, education issues, social security issues and the make up of the fiscal commission, and most of us here are irate at the failure to stop DADT. So I guess that makes me part of the "left" that is so often criticized by the WH spokespersons.

Last October John Harwood appeared on TV as an apparent spokesperson for the views of the WH and made some remarks that really angered many people.

John Harwood to the internet left fringe

Sure but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats ]b\so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Here's the video of Harwood's interview with Lester Holt.

Here is more from Glenn Greenwald last October on the topic of the march and on other issues.

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive." Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told told The Washington Post that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists. In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush Terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs." Last year, "Democrats on the Hill" anonymously dismissed opposition to telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping as nothing more than a fringe issue being exploited by Chris Dodd for his presidential campaign, and then anonymously warned Dodd to abandon his left-wing obstructionism if he wanted to resume good standing in the Democratic caucus. Can anyone miss the pattern?

He points out something we know but the DC insiders would prefer was not true. Yes, I believe that. I believe they are afraid of their majority.

It's often forgotten or obscured, but the central political fact now is that the Democratic Party controls everything in Washington -- from the branches of government to favors doled out to lobbyists to the policies that Congress and the President enact. Wars that are fought and bills that are or are not passed and policies that are maintained are, by definition, Democratic actions. The dreaded Right can't dictate or stop anything. That's the burden of having massive majorities in all areas -- everything that happens is the result of what the Democratic Party does, and that's why the divisions and conflicts that truly matter are ones with the party itself. The "right v. left" and even "Democrat v. GOP" drama dominates most of our discourse, yet at this point it is a distracting and largely irrelevant food fight. It's the Democrats who have won the last two elections by large margins and wield all the power, and increasingly the defining conflict is between those whose overarching allegiance is to Obama and the Party as ends in themselves, and those who see those things as mere means to more important ends.

Harwood later clarified, but in some ways made it worse.

Harwood clarified today that the scorn from the Obama adviser wasn't directed to the gay protest per se, but also to criticism "from the Left" on "the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo." They're saying: we don't care about the criticisms coming from the Left on those issues (and Harwood even suggests they're happy about it) because it doesn't matter. If that's how they think (and on those issues, it clearly seems to be), then that's obviously significant. The challenge -- and it's a difficult one -- is always how to combat that cynical Emanuelian approach (how to criticize and pressure the White House when warranted) without strengthening and rejuvenating the incomparably vile Palinesque Right.

Oh, and I had forgotten Glenn's "justification timeline".

2004-2006: "You have to wait until we win a Congressional majority in the 2006 midterms."

2006-2008: "You have to wait until we win the White House in 2008."

January-May, 2009: "You have to wait until we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate."

I always viewed myself as a moderate person, but it seems I am not anymore. My family is mostly Republican, I have a strong religious Southern Baptist background...though not church going now.

As far as I can figure I must be a person on the left, or a liberal because that is apparently how the spokespersons for for the administration define me whether intentional or not, careless speak or not.

I was dead set against the Iraq invasion, I think we are wasting money and putting lives at risk in Afghanistan. I believe the school "reforms" will harm public education and will gradually dismantle it if they stick to the 5% per year turnaround policy. I believe that women's issues were harmed to please the religious right. I believe the issue of DADT being allowed to remain is for the same reason. I believe that the people appointed to the fiscal commission by President Obama hold seniors in scorn for the most part.

So I would think I would be included in the party's continued tirades toward whatever they call those of us who differ. It's a mindset they have, and they need to lose it soon.

[katandmoon]

1. K&R.

[Demeter]

33. The DC Bubble Has Good Reason to Fear the Activist Left

as they try to sell off anything that isn't nailed down for their personal profit, and even stuff that is nailed down, like Social Security.

[bjobotts]

65. The left pays attention but left of the left pays "close" attention and expects accountability.

[patrice]

101. Agreed! But we need to differentiate who is Activist and who isn't, because there's

plenty of folks (Libertarian, Greens, and Republican disrupters) who are trying to get something for nothing and stand to profit whether they succeed in doing so or whether Democrats lose in November. It's win win for them and they don't even have to go by their real names on the internet to make it happen.

[BurtWorm]

2. This administration makes it clearer each day that they lack the courage of the left's convictions.

[Lorien]

19. Because they don't share those convictions. nt

[defendandprotect]

46. Absolutely right -- but for 18 months now that msg has gone completely over DU heads!!

[NorthCarolina]

84. Bingo! n/t

[patrice]

102. Because the True Left is supposed to BE it's own convictions and stop being dependent, so

it will live on NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT.

[LWolf]

3. It's hard work to be president.

Deja Vu.

[madfloridian]

14. Indeed it is. :)

And was.

:)

[phasma ex machina]

41. Sensible wood chucks already knew how hard it is to be president without having to be told.

[bjobotts]

66. Obama walked into the biggest disaster of Gov since the GD with few honest members left

[LWolf]

96. And immediately appointed a center-right neoliberal cabinet and

started "reaching out" to republicans while distancing himself from the left.

[amandabeech]

88. All over again. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Yet you are perfectly okay with disenfranchising the votes of fellow Democrats in your own state.

Who-Kay.

[enlightenment]

10. Make up your mind, please.

Either those of us on the 'left of the left' are both wholly and solely responsible for the success or failure of the Democratic party or we're a minority fringe that sits at home in our pajamas and means nothing in the grander scheme of things.

Which is it?

Are we so important that we can 'disenfranchise' (and you're using the term incorrectly - 'cancel out' might work, assuming that is what you're talking about . . .) fellow Democrats or are we the minority fringe sitting on our butts and complaining?


Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1664
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
— dis·en·fran·chise·ment \-ˌchīz-mənt, -chəz-\ noun

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Well, you can tacitly support the disenfranchisement....

....by excusing said disenfranchisement simply because the certain "power that is" who oversees said disenfranchisement is viewed as a fellow "left of the left."

And after 2000, that would just be damn hypocritical, if you ask me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Re-read the definition of disenfranchisement

and then try to comprehend it.

Serious.

A person NOT voting for your chosen candidate, but instead voting for somebody is is exercising the franchise. A person who's right to vote is taken away because they are going to commit a crime in 2014 (and are voing while black and democrat, that is disenfranchisement...)

Jesus age, this is poli sci 101

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. Let's see....

January 29, 2008 I go into my precinct that was assigned to me by my county's supervisor of elections. Had I gone in the day before or the day after the polls would be closed. I showed the precinct workers--agents of the supervisor of elections, which I pay my taxes to support--my voter's registration card. (Had I given them a false voter's registration card or attempted to vote in more than one location I would be committing an actionable crime, a felony.) I'm handed an official ballot approved by the State of Florida, cast my vote in private, and submit it to the ballot reader to be counted.

In other words, I legally voted under the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America for the candidate of my choice.

That being said, for the next several months, I was told by others--including many on this board--that contrary to my own understanding, I did somehow not legally vote and that my vote should have zero effect at the DNC Convention, all because of some stupid little spat between state and national DNC figures, a spat that I had absolutely zero say or control in. It was not until before the convention itself that the party realized that in effect disenfranchising nearly 2 million Democrats may not exactly be the right thing to do and reversed its horrid original action.

Yes, disenfranchising. I, an eligible voter, cast a legally viable vote for the candidate of my choice, and for a good several months I was told that my vote would not be given its proper effect. I think you would agree that constitutes disenfranchisement, wouldn't you?

The sad thing is, some people who claim to espouse the most liberal of virtues were okay with these inexcusable actions and steadfastly defended these actions, all because their political idol was at the helm during this entire debacle, and admitting that what the DNC did was wrong would be in a sense admitting that their political idol was wrong. And they just couldn't fathom that.

As an aside, I have no idea what you are talking about as to "not voting for your chosen candidate." I really don't know where you got that from.

[tomp]

56. i'm sure i don't know what you're talking about.

how did your vote get taken away, and what does it have to do with the op?

do you know something about poster or are there some circumstances you're not telling us.

no reasonable person is going to deny a legally cast vote. it's just hard to tell what you're going on about.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. A legally cast vote without its given effect constitutes disenfranchisement.

And for months, the vote I legally cast and the votes that nearly 2 million other Florida Democrats cast were was not counted towards tally for the nomination. That in the end, the national DNC did what it should have done months prior still did not excuse their inaction and ineptitude in the situation.

So what does this have to do with the op? Well, I don't want turn this too personal so as Precious Roy said a few threads down a review of the archives will explain it all (albiet maybe not as he/she may think it will). Needless to say, the level of apologetics, spin, feigned outrage and blame shifting that occurred on a daily basis was quite unfortunate. Except that to try to shift blame from the national DNC (where blame was proper) to the various campaigns or congresspersons or state legislators simply because one could not fathom the fallibility of one's political idol in the situation shouldn't have occurred. And if someone wishes to cast one's self as representative of the principles and ideals of the "left of the left" portion of the Democratic Party, then one must first remove the plank out of one's own eye. And after 2000, and living in Florida in 2000 there are some positions that ought not to be taken.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Yes that is

did you contact the Party for the Legal Team to take action?

You are aware they have lawyers right?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. The local and state parties were well-represented legally and firmly on our side...

.....for which, regardless of anything they did to contribute to the spat between themselves and the national leadership, I was very thankful.

It was the national DNC who made the original stupid decision of collective punishment of innocent voters who then foolishly sat on their thumbs for months until they realized that, hey, holding a convention where not all registered Democrats of states are given their proper voice for their votes would probably be a disaster and potentially lead to a President McCain and ((shudder)) Vice President Palin.

[gaiangreentree]

110. State not National

It was the state, not the national DNC that decided to throw your vote away by breaking the rules.
It was the national DNC that made the stupid decision of awarding votes that they shouldn't have.
They had no legal justification to award those or recognize those phoney primaries (Florida and Michigan).
The state and local parties were given clear warning, and pulled that nonsense on you anyway.
Florida's Representatives were they ones who sat on their thumbs for three months and then
declined a legitimate vote even when funds were being raised for it.

Your anger is righteous but misdirected.

[riverdale]

104. Michigan too

Don't forget that they did that to us in Michigan as well. So many in the state did not vote in the primary since we were told it wouldn't count anyway... not all of the candidates even had their name on the ballot.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. We are only responsible for the failures.

Rahm is responsible for the successes.

It's a simple division of labor.

[tomp]

57. interesting point. another way of looking at it is....

...if it wasn't for the looney left, they might have bombed teheran by now.

success!

[truedelphi]

51. Excellent point, though often I don't care what they think of me - a long as they

hey I don't care what they think of me - Don't take my pajamas away.

I mean, I would hate to sit around typing in my birthday suit and scare away the horses.

[seafan]

18. The DU archives prove very helpful in spotlighting that claim of disenfranchisement.

But, not to worry, there were others who were confused about that as well.



For the record, Debbie Wasserman Schultz-D(FL), who served as the Clinton campaign's own national co-chair, vehemently opposed a revote primary for Florida voters to definitively decide on a candidate. Let's give credit to whom much credit is due for that outcome.

March 7, 2008

.....

Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, has called for a new Florida primary, although he thinks the national party should pay for it. But Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says another election would be too expensive.

"The potential of a do-over is slim to none," said Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair of Clinton's campaign. "The cost of a do-over is beyond reach. A do-over would be unfair. We still have nerves that are very raw from the 2000 recount in Florida."
"There isn't the capacity in the state party here to raise the $18 to $20 million to rerun the primary," Wasserman Schultz added.

..... AP

Wasserman Schultz continues to be a liability to the pursuit of true democratic values--- just so everyone knows, the ones consistently pushed by the steadfast "Professional Left".


Some advice:

Don't mess with madfloridian.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. Thanks for the advice.

Stay cresent fresh!

[madfloridian]

23. Hi seafan...

Thanks for the defense. I can't see that post, but I can gather it must have been about the primaries. Oh, well.

:-)

[seafan]

24. Florida's political scene is a perpetual disaster area.

(Another link to that post here.)


Keep on documenting the details, madfloridian.

[bonnieS]

26. I don't live in Florida

but my mother does. She is voting absentee ballot. Her elderly neighbor, also voting absentee, came downstairs to see my mother with her primary ballot because she was confused. All that is on it is the judges. She has no ability to vote for anyone else. i tried to give my mother some ideas of what to do, but really, the candidates should be told. If this is widespread, all the old people will not come to see my mother about it-- most will just vote for what is on the ballot. My mother, by the way, is 90.

Anyway, about Gibbs, it is even more insulting that he is trying to get away with saying he was only talking about one to three cable TV hosts and no one else. We all know he means us, and he is speaking for the Administration.

[madfloridian]

28. That's strange. The primary candidates should be on it.

We have our ballots, just getting ready to open them. Will check that out.

[madfloridian]

29. Just checked. No judges on ours.

Congressional, state and school board.

[seafan]

30. Is your Mom's neighbor a registered independent? If so, the judges will generally be the only names

appearing on her primary ballot. (If she's a registered Democrat or Republican, there will be more candidates appearing on the ballot.) Hope this answers your question.

[bonnieS]

74. Thanks

I will ask, but I do not understand why madfloridian does not have the judges. My mother has the judges and everyone else as well. Does it depend on the county?

Absentee is not the way to go. One time my mother did not have the questions on her ballot that were at the polls. The only way to vote is paper ballots.

[seafan]

82. There are county judge and circuit judge selections that will vary with voter location.

There may be various local school board/city officials to vote on as well.

Those races should be uniform across everyone's ballot in particular individual locales/districts.



Where the ballot differences in this primary election then come in is regarding the voter's party affiliation.

For Dem voters, their ballots will include the Dem primary candidates.

For Repub. voters, their ballots will include the Repub. primary candidates.

For Independent voters, their ballots won't have any other races to vote for, aside from the locality-specific judges or any non-partisan city/county races.



Hope this helps.

[bonnieS]

98. everything you say helps

but it sounds from your explanation like madfloridian's ballot should have more on it.

I just called my mother and she is looking into it. Sherlock Mama.

Thanks, everyone.

[Dappleganger]

90. That's how it is on mine.

Registered Independent.

[Individualist]

5. K&R

Thanks for that reminder about Harwood's spew.

[alsame]

6. K&R.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. The Democratic party has a fatal...

...fascination with winning elections.

We can't worry about winning. Winning elections keeps us from finally achieving party discipline, unified vision, focus on actual progressive values, and coherent messaging.

Reduction of the bag of cats that presently calls itself the "Democratic Party" down to the cold, hard, real Democratic party is the only thing that will save the country.

We can't achieve that till we're freed ourselves as a party from distractions and encumbrances like winning elections, having a majority, passing legislation, or governing -- all those thing that just distract us from what is really important.

Look at what the Republicans have been able to accomplish since '08 by not worrying about that stuff.

It just gets in the way.

[Vincardog]

36. We can't achieve that till we're freed ourselves as a party from distractions and encumbrances like

winning elections.
REALLLLLY?


You don't believe that we can win elections if our elected representatives GOVERNED as if they were working in
OUR best interests?

Do you think Obama would be more or less popular if he had really closed GITMO?
Do you think Obama would be more or less popular if he had prosecuted the war criminals who preceded him?
Do you think Obama would be more or less popular if he had really ended the illegal occupation of Iraq?
Do you think Obama would be more or less popular if he had really FOUGHT FOR single payer?
Do you think Obama would be more or less popular if he had signed an executive order to end enforcement of DADT?

[Davis_X_Machina]

49. There's no Bbedit tag for snark yet...

You should see the posters who agree with me, BTW. It's enough to make a cat laugh..

[Jackpine Radical]

94. Right on!

Forgive me. I just had one of those Sixties Moments. They're coming more frequently as I age.

[MadHound]

8. Same as it ever was,

For years and decades the left only matters when election season comes around. Other than that, the Democratic party leadership wants nothing to do with the left. They won't listen to us, much less take up one of our pet causes. The only time they come around is when they want boots on the ground, money and our votes.

That's simply not a healthy relationship for anybody.

[bigtree]

9. I think it's interesting how many folks have volunteered themselves

. . . to be included in Gibbs' 'professional left'.

I'm not convinced his statement can be credibly folded into every bleating that's been made against liberals in the past - then further used, as many have, to associate his insult with the administration's view as a whole (or the President's view).

I'll admit, the insult has been a pretty convenient foil for those in opposition to this WH and President to use in their dissent. I'm just not convinced that all of the characterizations are legitimate.

[bvar22]

42. Really?

I thought he included those of us who want to End the WARS, reduce Military Spending, support Kucinich, and believe that Americans deserve the same quality Health Care that the rest of the Civilized World takes for granted.
Silly Me!

But I know better than to believe my lying Eyes and Ears.
You see, I also thought Obama campaigned on a Public Option.

Thanks for setting me straight.
:hi:

[madfloridian]

43. I volunteer myself proudly.

My main issue is education, and they are pushing Bush's agenda through, Gingrich's agenda also.

I think they have had time to do more than they have done on vital issues.

I think they fear the right more than they respect us.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. You're right -- it's not easy and it can't be done all at once

But the problem isn't in criticizing the President; that's fine. It's the corrosive, destructive, juvenile way it's being done.

Look at this place. People post pictures of woodchucks to let the world know that they have been personally offended by ... who the hell knows what? The meme is six weeks old and it's purpose is already opacifying.

And this thing over Robert Gibbs' bout of verbal diarrhea has become absurd. How can anyone take it personally? I cringed when I read it, because it made Gibbs look like the same kind of thin-skinned wanker he set out to criticize.

You know, I could almost overlook it if the complainers were actually activists. But most of us are NOT. A great many of us are shut-ins (voluntary or compulsory) who use the political discussion boards for emotional release. I see a shrink for that stuff; maybe I'm lucky that way -- but I still do a lot of GOtV sitting on my ass in front of my computer. I think a lot of what Gibbs called the "Professional Left" are better defined as the "Frustrated Impotent Left".

The cure, fortunately, is simple: Action. But compliance with the therapy is mighty low. Maybe we need more GOYA (Get Off Your Ass). Fighting for change is so much healthier and more satisfying than fighting our co-partisans.

--d!

[madfloridian]

13. We were strong activists in 2003 for Dean, 2004 for Kerry, 2008 for Obama

So you must not be talking about me.

[Dappleganger]

91. No one has more "GOYA" than madfloridian.

And she inspires ME to get offa my ass and be involved, locally!

Gotta love how people shoot the messengers so fast on this board.

[kestrel91316]

12. There is nothing terribly difficult in saying, "We progressives won,

you conservatives lost. Get over it. We're in charge now."

I don't believe in collaborating with our oppressors, particularly once they got summarily tossed.

[TransitJohn]

15. "It's hard work. We're working hard." *smirk* --George Bush n/t

n/t

[old mark]

16. Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and remember who voted for him in'08

...it was NOT the republicans, BHO.


Fired Up? :rofl:


mark

[golddigger]

87. +1

[me b zola]

17. K&R

[Missy Vixen]

20. I can think and wear pajamas at the same time

Mr. Harwood might want to consider the fact that I've held political office. There's nothing like doing so to realize that sometimes, the choices are a) rock and b) hard place, and you'd better damn well be able to explain your decisions when you get buttonholed in the grocery store by someone who's mad because you made a choice they don't like.

I don't see that happening here. At all.

I might also add that I'm a blogger. My blog doesn't get the traffic of FDL, TPM, DailyKOS, or other prominent Democrats, but I get sufficient traffic to receive Republican AstroTurf in the comments. I'm not going to sit down and shut up, either.

>So I would think I would be included in the party's continued tirades toward whatever they call those of us who differ. It's a mindset they have, and they need to lose it soon.<

I'm with you, a card-carrying member of the Liberal Fringe Activists "Bloggers in Their Pajamas", F_______g R_________s Division of the Professional Left, and proud of it.

-MV

[madfloridian]

25. They don't acknowledge the anger...thus it doesn't exist? Video

Watch this video of Ed Schultz talking about Gibbs laughter the next day about his comments.

Ed is furious, so am I.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x494421

They treat us with contempt and then laugh.

[Missy Vixen]

27. They remind me of something my roommate in college would do

Kim is still quite a prankster with a wickedly dark sense of humor. When someone would talk about something she didn't want to hear about ("chocolate cake" in front of a dieting 18-year-old, for instance,) she'd stick her fingers in her ears, squeeze her eyes shut and say, "Lalalalalalalala I can't hearrrrr youuuuuuuuuuu!"

Certain parties in this administration believe the above is cute and funny. Instead, it's just discounting and demoralizing.

>They treat us with contempt and then laugh.<

Absolutely. What does each of us do in our everyday lives when confronted by anyone who treats us with contempt, and then laughs at us?

Madfloridian, I am in awe of your dedication to public education, and to the truth. :hug:

[liberation]

52. Gibbs, and by implication his boss, knows damned well the left has nowhere to go

Since they are a bunch of bed wetters when it comes to duke it out with real assholes, the GOP, they simply are getting their rocks off from abusing parts of their own base. What I don't think they were counting on is on the left to start waking up...

One thing is clear, this administration from a political standpoint is so daft that is embarrassing.

[Doctor_J]

79. You may be on to something here

Since they are weak and afraid of the right, they set their sights on the "left" because they feel like we're easier to defeat, and then they can feel like they accomplished something.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. So 90% of Dems are satisfied with Obama.

Sure we poll that way. I'd say the same thing if asked by a pollster because there is no option for expressing dissatisfaction from the left, and I know that if I say I'm unhappy, this will be taken as meaning I think Obama is being too "liberal," and will have the net effect of forcing him rightward.

Likewise questions about whether the country "is on the right track." There is no option for "Yes, but I think we should be on the left track."

So fer Chrissake, what else, other than hanging up on the pollster, should I do? I tell them that I love Obama and the country is on the right track.

[liberation]

53. Because those polls are not designed to measure your opinion...

... but to provide a talking point.

[dflprincess]

54. Exactly

I was polled by Rasmussen this evening and I told them I was "mostly satisfied" with Obama (not true). I lied so I wouldn't give the right any satisfaction. I also told them I'm extremely liberal (true).

But afterward I wondered if I did the right thing. Obama & Rahm look at the polls too and if they see "extremely liberal" Democrats claiming to be mostly satisfied they're just blind enough to believe it too.

[Jackpine Radical]

93. That's the problem. But, really, it's not your problem.

It's theirs. If they can't see through the thicket, they're in real trouble, operating on false perceptions. I can't fix that for them, other than by trying to communicate my sentiments through whatever channels are open to people like me. It's up to them to tune in to those channels. They had damn well best not just be listening to the polls, because there is nothing like a poll to obfuscate how people really feel. I have never yet seen a poll with response choices that allowed me to really communicate my positions or attitudes in an undistorted fashion.

If you were going to construct a poll honestly, you would first go out & sample the population of interest with open-ended interviews. E.g. "Tell me what you think about {Obama; the state of the nation; health care reform; whatever}, and then from that database I would construct multiple-choice questions that adequately sampled 95% or so of the opinions collected in the open-ended phase, and would then administer those items to the larger sample. This is almost never done outside academic settings. They essentially make up questions based on what they think people might think, and then keep asking the same questions year after year so they can "measure changes in public opinion." What they actually get is mostly bullshit, useful only for the talking points somebody mentioned.

[PufPuf23]

34. Great post! Gibbs' statements (and Rahm's) undermine the Democratic party and

the best interests of quality of life and lack of stress for a majority of the citizens and potential voters in the USA.

The Obama Administration claims victory on HCR when what passed is what Obama campaigned against and is essentially a transfer of $$ away from health care and a larger pool for the insurance companies, regardless that some special cases were addressed on the surface. etc etc

[amborin]

35. knr

[slampoet]

37. The Same thing was said about PROFESSIONAL PROTESTERS 25 years ago.

[CANDO]

39. Hell of a lot easier with a spine.

They've spent far too much energy trying to please the electorate who didn't vote for them. Those of us who did, gave them sizeable majorities and still act as if they were handed a hot potato.

[russspeakeasy]

55. Thanks Cando....Well said......

[nadinbrzezinski]

1994 comes to mind

and we were blamed for that one too.

Oh wait, what about 1980?

This pattern of dissing the base is long.

One of these days the base will permanently stay home

Oh and spare me the fear card.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. 1994 comes to mind

and we were blamed for that one too.

Oh wait, what about 1980?

This pattern of dissing the base is long.

One of these days the base will permanently stay home

Oh and spare me the fear card.

[Dappleganger]

92. "Spare me the fear card"

Yeah, I'm sick of that threatening shit too. We lived through 8 years of BOOSH and know what the consequences can be. I am tired of people looking down their noses and shaking their fingers at me for not being a good girl and minding my manners. I am a democrat, god DAMMIT. I know what it means!

[sabrina 1]

44. All those comments remind of the old rightwing attacks on the left

It's hard to tell the difference.

But I think it's time to just accept that this WH has different goals then those they claimed to have in the campaign and nothing is going to change that.

The problem is that many on the left, the actual people who donated and worked to remove Republicans from office, may decide to opt out of supporting Democrats in Novemenber.

I know House members and especially the leadership are very worried about the negative effect of these frequent attacks from the WH on their own party, especially Nancy Pelosi.

The best thing to do to prevent this WH from handing a victory to Republicans in November, is for members of Congress to speak out as Grayson has and simply distance themselves from the WH.

We need a majority of progressive Democrats who will prevent eg, this WH from implementing any more Republican policies, such as the Health Care Bill. Social Security needs to be protected from the Rightwingers on Obama's Deficit Commission.

I no longer expect much of a fight for progressive policies from the WH. We will have to focus on Congress for that and that means not allowing Republicans to take over as that will give this WH the excuse it needs to Privatize Social Security eg.

So disappointing, but now we need to move on from this administration, leave them to whine about the 'left'. The 'left' has work to do and it doesn't involve this WH at this point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. And that is why I give money to PROGRESSIVES

and will bother to vote.

[sabrina 1]

69. Yes, that is what people must do. No money to

those who do not represent progressive ideals. I would rather give to the ALCU than to the DNC right now as the ACLU is fighting for the rights we have lost, while the Leadership of the Dem Party is doing nothing to restore the rule of law and hold violators accountable.

In my district which I just moved into eg, I found out our Rep. is a Republican. I don't know much about the District yet, whether it is right-leaning or if a good Dem could win here. I'm working on finding out, meantime I am helping a few people register to vote, and am pretty certain they will not vote Republican.

Building up a strong, progressive Congress, supporting only progressive candidates (if there isn't one in my district, I will support one somewhere else) and organizations that work to protect our rights, imo, is far more productive than focusing on the WH. If we had had better Democrats who would have fought the WH on Health Care eg, then the WH would have had to take a very different position.

Imho, if we are to lose anything, I would prefer to lose the WH than Congress. Because if Congress is strong enough it won't matter even if the President is Repub. But Dems in Congress have to stop caving, as they have both to Bush and Obama on issues like war funding, health care etc.

All that time and money spent on the Presidential election might have been better spent on Congress.

Clearly this administration is not afraid of the people who elected them and that's a real problem for the American people.

As Jefferson said, 'when the government is afraid of the people, that is democracy'. Right now we do not live in a democracy.

[Jakes Progress]

45. K&R What the adm. doesn't get

is that they are going the wrong way. The wrong way ethically. And the wrong way politically. Their wishy-washy, quasi-right, wholly centrist machinations will not get them the turn out they got when the nation thought they represented real change.

[defendandprotect]

47. Why is there such a problem in understanding the Democratic left is

being attacked by the Democratic-corporate-right wing -- the DLC . . . ???

Their agenda is to move the party to the right -- to please corporations --

business leaders -- not the public --

and part of that moving to the right is to try to demoralize the liberal/progressive base --

They're saying: we don't care about the criticisms coming from the Left on those issues (and Harwood even suggests they're happy about it) because it doesn't matter. If that's how they think (and on those issues, it clearly seems to be), then that's obviously significant.

And if they manage to put the GOP back into the majority in November -- and Speaker Pelosi has

obviously already been so concerned about their attacks on the Democratic Congress that she has

complained to the White House TWICE now -- then who will they have served but their

corporate-masters?

Time for DU to face up to this --

while there is still anything of a Democratic Party left!!

[laughingliberal]

59. I was not sure what to make of Pelosi's concerns. With this latest attack on the left, I'm...

persuaded she has good reason to worry.

[defendandprotect]

60. Pelosi has made quite clear she feels Democratic Congress is under attack

by Obama administration --

And -- she spoke quite clearly to us in this . . .

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning that he is no longer for" --

You can only be betrayed by those closest to you --

I think Pelosi has also found that out --

[laughingliberal]

68. I think she's right. I see no indication the WH is terribly interested in holding on to the House.

:shrug:

[kenfrequed]

106. Well...

The house is inconvenient to the DLC/blue dogs. The Democrats there are louder and tend to push progressive policies pretty hard. Personally I think the triangulators would be happier with losing the house and thereby having an excuse to wring their hands and complain about the republicans and thereyby not have to do anything to earn the votes of hard core liberals.

[laughingliberal]

48. The more of this I hear, the less inclined I am to get out of my pajamas. To help these guys?

:boring:

[defendandprotect]

62. We have to continue to move government to the left --

and that's in the opposite direction from where "these guys" are going -- !!

[laughingliberal]

67. +1 nt

[jobycom]

58. I'm not upset. They weren't talking about me.

I sleep in the nude and I don't even have a basement. So unless you work for the media, wear pajamas, eat cheetos in your basement while blogging, why would you be offended? Clearly they were showing disdain for some other liberals.

[metapunditedgy]

64. Chew on this: "They are afraid of their majority." After Coakley, I do not believe

the top Democrats want the power they have.

[grahamhgreen]

70. It's hard work being president! - W. nt

[bkozumplik]

71. if 90% of the party agrees with the direction we're going

Then they truly dont need my vote.
So I guess they wont care if they get it.

And they aren't going to get it. So I guess we are all winners here. They dont need me, I dont need them.

[Chef Eric]

72. Governing is hard? It will be even harder if Democrats lose elections in November. nt

[patrice]

100. And that is what the Professional "Left" is all about, but don't say anything around here, or it

will cost you and your issues "recommendations" for the Greatest Page.

[Chef Eric]

107. Waaaa! It's not fair! Waaaa! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

73. David Frum : "Republicans fear their base and the Democrats hate their base."

[orbitalman]

75. Excellent compilation!! n/t

[RBInMaine]

76. Actually governing as compared to bitching constantly from the backseat IS hard and complicated, so

good for saying so. Tweetie said the same thing. GOOD !

[Doctor_J]

77. So the basement Cheeto-eaters can sink Brennan's nomination, but

can't get any progress on ending the wars, or DADT, or rendition, or getting health care, or pardoning Don Siegelman?????

BULLSHIT

[iamthebandfanman]

78. Way to call anybody whos on the left and uses the internet lazy. n/t

[Deep13]

80. Why tells us?

Obviously, we have no part in governing. Obviously, the D. establishment doesn't want or need our help. So what difference does it make?

[NJmaverick]

81. If you just read the title of this OP it's perfect

shame the rest of it let down the outstanding and promising title

[golddigger]

83. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to get the fuck out of pajamas

to support the entitled lazy fucks who are sitting around in their pajamas drinking martini's sucking on the corporate tit. Fired up I tell ya.

[elzenmahn]

85. Follow the money...

...since politcal courage tends to dry up with the introduction of $$ into the process, especially when it comes from Corporate America.

The administration is trying to suck up to Corporate America by "punching a hippie", as they say in the Beltway. Most of the left's agenda is at odds with that of Corporate America - and what was the "golden rule" - s/he with the gold makes the rules?

Obama is trying to use the Clinton model to govern - run to the middle, triangulate, and make deals with demons. He probably thought he could get away with it, at least as far as the left was concerned. SURPRISE!

We don't need another Clinton. The times call for an FDR. Even a LBJ would get more done - he had a propensity to take the appropriate names and kick the appropriate behinds.

[Thav]

86. Governing is Hard!

Let's go shopping!

[ProSense]

97. "The internet left fringe needs to get out of their pajamas, realize governing is hard. "

Wow, that was a broad brush. At least Gibbs characterized the "professional left" as those who say "Obama is like Bush."

There were progressives fighting for change.

[obxhead]

99. It is really hard. First you have to take all that money from

mega corporations. Then you have to make your voters feel good about getting fucked while you do the bidding of those corporations that paid you so very well.

It's only hard if you work against the needs and best interests of the people.

[madfloridian]

103. Video of Gibbs actually laughing about it and us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1cdARwiXk

Arrogant.

[felix_numinous]

105. What an ingenious insult

dissing the liberal online forum culture. Propaganda created the necessity of an alternative way to communicate, so here we are.

Who is in pajamas, could it be the unemployed? Older people who have worked their asses off all their life and now have health problems from all the heavy lifting? Could it be someone recently fired? Someone forced to care for a sick family member, or a vet who served their country and now is home suffering from PTSD? Or maybe it's a first responder--who knows, just trying to keep it real.

I must be wrong, because my crack pipe is empty and I am jonesing. I have loved the internet for the many ways it opens people to connect with one another, sharing ideas and inspiring each other. I have enjoyed the online support of like minded people, while socially challenged by a culture of intolerance and ignorance.

It is hard work making sense of all this rhetoric. I am glad other people are okay with it. I am hoping to survive another decade before my SS kicks in, and have enough health challenges that it is hard to find work. Not to get too personal here only to point out how personal the issues and insults can hit people on an emotional level. These are trying times.

I have always envisioned President Obama being surrounded by the powerful old guard RW, making whatever headway is possible, and have always spoken well of him. That is my failing, I do not lend my loyalties easily.

For now I want to thank you all for being here :hi:

[hobbit709]

108. I don't even own any pajamas.

[SidDithers]

109. ...is not a shit statement...nt

Sid