Isn't it funny . . . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

In the bush years (cheney's presidency), we heard on pretty much a daily basis how, either:

"But Clinton did it"

or, more importantly

"Clinton was evil and we have to undo it."

Now, when Democrats are in power, no such talk, even as we are still suffering the direct result of the reign of terror that was the Worst President Ever.

No one with a real microphone wants to say that.

Why is that?

[Fumesucker]

1. Because the people in power are world class hypocrites..

Practically to a man (or woman), the tiny number of exceptions prove the rule.

[countingbluecars]

2. Didn't Biden just do that today? n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I don't know. Did he? I haven't seen or heard nooz all day today.

[Caliman73]

17. Yeah Biden was responding to Cantor's comments.

He said something to the effect that the Republicans talk about how when they get back into power that they are going to reinstate the same policies as before Obama. He said that they were going to go back to the same policies that for 8 years lead the US to where it is today and what we are digging ourselves out of.

I agree with your main point though. The media is largely shying away from the tactic they used with Clinton, when Bush came into office. The center right seems to be setting the agenda for media coverage.

[sandnsea]

3. They'd have to stop bashing Obama for 5 seconds?

I don't know, just a thought.

[scheming daemons]

5. Half of DU (and the progressive community in general) is too busy bashing Obama

...they have no time to bash Bush any more.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. That statement may or may not be true

Imagine that it is.

What does that say to you?

Progressives (including those on DU) are "bashing" him because . . . . ?

And the word "bashing" means . . . . . what?

Let's see. Here's what's on the Wiki:

Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that the act is motivated by bigotry. The term is also used metaphorically, to describe verbal or critical assaults. Topics which attract bashing tend to be highly partisan and personally sensitive topics for the bashers, the victims or both. Common areas include religion, nationality, sexuality and politics

That more or less (I suggest "more") implies a legitimate festering caused by the bashee. Not always, but it sure is a possibility.

Why do you think the left "bashes" Obama? Seriously/no snark. Why do you think that?

[Evasporque]

7. I agree with half of your subject line...

lol

[Stinky The Clown]

8. OooooOOOOOoooo I love it you get all cleverly cryptic

[Barack2theFuture]

16. This has been said before.

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

[gratuitous]

9. Wait a second

My attacks may be harsh, but are almost never prejudicial. Except when they are. But usually they're launched after careful consideration of at least one fact (that I can type on a keyboard and have access to the internet). Wikipedia owes me . . . well, maybe not an apology, but something. I'll figure out what later.

[scheming daemons]

13. Honestly? It is because the "left" is made up of a hodge-podge of special interest groups

Each one has a different agenda item that they consider to be THE top priority item.


It's impossible for the President to treat every one of their priorities as number 1.... so nearly every group thinks he is "dissing" them.


If he focuses on Health Care.... then the LGBT groups, the anti-war groups, the unemployed groups, etc get pissed because THEIR #1 issue isn't his #1 issue.


The Republican party is a monolith. They all pretty much want the exact same things.


The Democratic party is a mosaic. A group of people who all have different priorities.


It was true in Will Rogers' day ("I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat") ..... and it is true today.



A majority of Democrats will NEVER be satisfied with the work of any Democratic politician.... because it is impossible for any Democratic politician to be focusing on all his constituencies at once.


Yes.... this is a variation of the "didn't get their pony" argument. But you asked my opinion.

[OnyxCollie]

18. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D.
Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

In the third level were placed respondents who failed to rely upon any such over-
arching dimensions yet evaluated parties and candidates in terms of
their expected favorable or unfavorable treatment of different social groupings
in the population. The Democratic Party might be disliked because
"It's trying to heip the Negroes too much," or the Republican Party might be
endorsed because farm prices would be better with the Republicans in
office. The more sophisticated of these group-interest responses reflected an
awareness of conflict in interest between "big business" or "rich people,"
on the one hand, and "labor" or the "working man," on the other, and parties
and candidates were located accordingly.

It is often asked why these later respondents are not considered full
"ideologues," for there perceptions run to the more tangible core of what has
traditionally been viewed as ideological conflict. It is quite true that such a
syndrome is closer to the upper levels of conceptualization than are any of
the other types to be described. As we originally foresaw, however, there turn
out to be rather marked differences, not only in social origin and flavor of
judgmental processes but in overt political reactions as well, between people
of this. type and those in the upper levels. These people have a clear image
of politics as an arena of group interests and, provided that they have been
properly advised on where there own group interests lie, they are relatively
likely to follow such advice. Unless an issue directly concerns their grouping
in an obviously rewarding or punishing way, however, they lack the contextual
grasp of the system to recognize how they should respond to it without being
told by elites who hold their confidence. Furthermore, their interest in politics
is not sufficiently strong that they pay much attention to such communications.
If a communication gets through and they absorb it, they are most willing to
behave "ideologically" in ways that will further the interests of their group. If
they fail to receive such communication, which is most unusual, knowledge of
group memberships may be of little help in predicting their responses.
This syndrome we came to call "ideology by proxy."

"The Republican party is a monolith. They all pretty much want the exact same things.

The Democratic party is a mosaic. A group of people who all have different priorities."

The Republican party is a monolith because political/corporate elites have convinced the public that their interests are the public interests. It is anti-democratic. The Democratic party is a mosaic because it (supposedly) represents the interests of the people. You seem to have a problem with that, and would prefer all these out groups to take their issues and fuck off. How very conservative of you.

Maybe the Democratic party needs to lie better; After all, calling people "fucking retards" and saying they need to be drug tested hasn't helped much.

[Touchdown]

10. And the other half wants to have his babies.

Reality is somewhere over there. Run to it!

And... He still has not condemned the disgusting DADT survey. You demanded that I retract everything bad I said about him and "eat crow", your words, if he did by the 2nd Monday in July. Are you going to man up and admit he isn't perfect, or even nice?

[scheming daemons]

11. He's not perfect

But he's generally nice.

[Touchdown]

14. That's all you got?

You make a shrill demand that I bow before Obama and lick his balls if he did the right thing, which he refuses to do, and all you can say is "He's generally nice"?

I agree. He is generally nice. You are not.

[scheming daemons]

15. What do you want me to say? He should have condemned the DADT survey... but he didn't

He was wrong.

Doesn't change my overall opinion of him.... that he is a very competent, and mostly-correct, welcome change from the last several occupants of the Oval Office.


I wish he was 100% right all the time. But he's right only 80-90% of the time.


I'm sorry that's not good enough for you. It's good enough for me.

[Touchdown]

19. I want you to acknowledge that you flew off the handle and

accused me of being a hater for no reason when you know I have a legitimate reason.

This is not about my opinions or yours on the President, but your unreasonableness toward other Democrats when it comes to criticizing of him.

It's about you. Not him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8724093&mesg_id=8724373

[OnyxCollie]

20. Don't expect a response.

I didn't get one either.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8981504&mesg_id=8982449

[scheming daemons]

22. Frankly, I didn't see your response until now.... so here's my answer

Domestic Surveillence: I would argue this is "just as bad", but not "worse".

Electronic voting: This is something that is decided on a state by state basis. The federal government plays very little role in this, and what little role they play is NOT in the executive branch. There is literally nothing that can be done at the federal level. This needs to be dealt with in the state legislatures and governor's offices.

[OnyxCollie]

23. "Just as bad", but not "worse".

Wow. Have that put on a plaque.

Let's look at what Dems have done regarding domestic surveillance:

They gave the bush administration a free pass for violating a federal statute multiple times.
They gave immunity to telecomms that helped the bush administration.
They have expanded it and are looking for more.

Rahm was the third largest recipient in the House for campaign contributions. Hillary took over $150,000 in campaign contributions from telecomms. Have they done anything to bring it back to where it was before bush fucked it up? No.

Where's Leahy? He was concerned about this when bush was in office. Did he change his mind? Rockefeller was concerned about it, but then got campaign contributions and suddenly he was okay with it.

And as for electronic voting, it's a cop out to say Obama can't do anything about it. He is the head of the Democratic party. He sets the agenda. Why isn't secure, accurate voting a priority?

Are you going to tell me that the Dems can't sell these issues? Or is it that they only appeared to give a shit about these things when they were a minority?

[scheming daemons]

21. Well... that was pretty mild to be considered "flying off the handle"... but..

I was a bit rude to you.

For that, I apologize.

[Touchdown]

24. Thanks

:toast:

[leftstreet]

12. If they bash Bush/Cheney too much, people might expect indictments

:shrug:

[mmonk]

25. Yep. Can't have that.

The DLC would get their panties in a wad.