You all do realize Stewart was calling for things like

[JNelson6563]

compromise and reasoning, right? I'm just making sure because it is a bit confusing. Here at DU any sort of compromise and/or reasoning with those who hold an opposing view is viewed with extreme disdain. Yesterday's call to such by Stewart is being hailed universally as a positive here at DU so I'm just wondering if we all know just what we're applauding here.

Julie

[bullwinkle428]

1. One can't ignore the fact that when one side does ALL the compromising

and the other side does none, that the system is incredibly out of whack.

[JNelson6563]

11. Valid point.

Thanks for making it. :hi:

[Lasher]

12. Exactly right, and that's the reason many of us here don't want Democrats to compromise.

It is inaccurate to characterize the DU members as being opposed to compromise and/or reasoning. But the give and take is a fools errand when you're doing all the giving and your adversary is doing all the taking.

[liberalmuse]

30. Sad, but true.

I loved Stewart's speech. He's actually saying the same things Obama has been saying for years, but gets criticized for, even on Stewart's own show. By Stewart, LOL. That's because, as others here have said, it doesn't work out so well if only one side compromises, or chooses to behave like rational adults while the other side chooses to behave like fucking idiots. As a parent, I've learned that you can't compromise with a 3-year old in the middle of a temper tantrum, or adults with a pre-schooler mentality, always holding their breath until they get what they want. Dear god, how do you deal with that bs? You've got to put your foot down at some point - or use it to give them a swift kick in the pants if all else fails.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. +1000

[demmiblue]

45. +1 Nice response to this condescending OP.

[treestar]

51. Well you do know the reason for that, don't you?

The Republicans know their supporters will not abandon them and will stand behind them.

The Democrats don't know that. Their "base" or those who call themselves that, will not rally behind them - there is no way they can get everything everyone wants.

The Republicans are more unified. We are not. We simply have to deal with that reality.

You can't expect your representatives to be so tough and uncompromising when you know you will not support them if they don't so such and such by a certain date. It's hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kenny blankenship]

84. Actually you're dead wrong. Repuke voters PRIMARY non-pure Repuke officeholders ALL the time

that's what the Teabaggers are all about. They are an insurgency within the Repuke party and they are just the LATEST in a series of insurgencies dating back to Goldwater at the least. You have managed to get it completely backwards. Democrats tell their base "You have nowhere else to turn to, so STFU". Repukes cower in fear before their base and march in lockstep, compared to Dems, because their conservative base is always taking them to the primary woodshed over perceived lack of ideological orthodoxy. In the last week, Rachel Maddow interviewed Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and acquainted Murkowski with the fact that she had been primaried no less than three times. That's not the picture of party of solid supporters who just get in line no matter what, like the way you paint it. That's a picture of a party where the elected officials are told to support the base's political positions, or else, instead of the base being told they have to support the elected officials' positions, or else.

You can't tell others to deal with reality, when you yourself are willfully blind to political facts of remarkable size and duration.

[October]

94. Brilliant point. /nt

[defendandprotect]

104. Stewart needs to be clearer on his message ... as Schultz is pointing out today on his radio show...

I think the Jon Stewart Show has gotten silly rather than more pointed --

Stewart needs to go back to where he was in the beginning -- HOWEVER, I think

in large part, it is Democrats being in office which is handicapping him.

I haven't watched Stewart with any regularity in a long time -- I tune in to

Olberman/Maddows and forget trying to catch Jon -- not intentionally.

But, too often when I do tune in, it is silliness.

I'd love to hear that I am wrong.

Schultz for the hardest and longest for MEDICARE FOR ALL against this administration.

Certainly, right wingers are not going to move to kindness and compromise for our

sakes. If that was Stewart's message -- and I doubt it -- but I don't really know cause

I've had a head cold and haven't seen the replays -- it would be wrong.

Fight the right -- that's all we have to do -- and fight the right's violence -- that's

urgently important!

[kctim]

108. Examples?

[piratefish08]

2. I understand Stewart's pov, but how do you compromise with "No"??

[baldguy]

10. More like "No, and if you keep saying 'yes', I'll kill you."

[bigtree]

3. you're reading my thoughts

I found a poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9426523

. . . and I wondered if there was some disconnect with some folks here.

[sufrommich]

5. Notice it sunk like a stone. There is a disconnect. nt

[LiberalEsto]

4. Teabagger to another teabagger:

TB1: "Duh, what's this 'compromise, reasoning" shit that Stewart freak is yammering about?"

TB2: "Beats me. Must be some kind of Commie or Nazi plot."

[johnfromokc]

66. LMAO!

That is sadly quite accurate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The disconnect between Stewart's point and most beliefs on DU

is palpable.

Whether one agrees with Stewart's point or not (DUer Kurt-and-Hunter was brave enough to offer a cogent critique of Stewart's argument), it's useful to understand what he was saying, and apply it in our current political context.

The problem is that Stewart had a multi-level argument, some of which people here are immediately willing to agree with. Specifically, Stewart's critique of the media has been a constant Lefty pet project since the days of Media Whores Online, and before. So it's easy to assent to that. But Stewart was, as you're saying, calling for a kind of high violet politics, a thoroughgoing moderation of the discourse that would, in fact, condemn people like Grayson as easily as it would condemn Karl Rove. The slight amount of pushback on that demonstrates that that feature of the argument makes some people here uncomfortable, but that was a major aspect of his argument, like it or not.

Good post.

[JNelson6563]

15. Good points all.

Well said.

Julie

[jaxx]

7. It was ok yesterday but today's not looking so good.

Back to the Obama's a triangulating corporatist teacher hating elitist pragmatic bipartisan do-nothing deserves to be primary bait don't know nothin' about special interests.....you get the picture.

Stewart was right, yesterday and today.

K&R

[donco6]

26. On the bus, under the bus, on the bus -

Could you just make up your mind? I can't keep up.

[jaxx]

29. The President is driving the bus.

You can get on if you want to.

[donco6]

59. Sorry, the real Party is down here.

I don't know who's riding the bus anymore. But there sure are a lot of empty seats.

[Number23]

98. + a BILLION. "You can get on if you want to." Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[madmax]

50. +1

[gkhouston]

109. It's a Moebius bus. Helps if you take Dramamine. n/t

[whathehell]

8. A lot of DU

can be relied upon to "hail" Stewart no matter what he says...The knee jerk approval can get a bit thick at times.:eyes:

[JNelson6563]

49. Well, that's true.

Another valid point. Many of those in this thread.

Julie

[whathehell]

52. Thanks. n/t

[treestar]

53. True, while sarcastically calling anyone who supports the Democrats

"cheerleaders" who "walk in lockstep." Well we have to do it to a point. That is why the Republicans get so much of what they want. They know that support is behind them.

We have to support politicians who don't do everything we want or don't even agree with everything - if we don't do that, there is no one to support, leaving the Republicans an even wider field.

[whathehell]

85. You are correct....

It's one thing to have issues with Obama...it's quite another to sit out the election and give up ANYTHING to Repugs.

I am absolutely appalled at the way the M#M has been almost literally "measuring the drapes" for them.

[BeyondGeography]

9. He also called Obama timid

Fundamentally incompatible notions.

But this is quibbling relative to his overall positive impact for our side. And he is on our side.

[laughingliberal]

13. I'm gonna guess Stewart in not of the opinion that Democrats need to do all the compromising. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

14. He was talking to the ones who have yet to compromise, Julie.

That would be the right wing hard liners.

[JNelson6563]

16. He seemed to think it should apply universally.

Though I don't doubt he was aiming at the wingers yesterday. I noticed a lefty or two in his montage tho....

Julie

[Bluenorthwest]

42. To play the game you are playing you have to edit Stephen out

of yesterday's events, and make it all 'what Stewart was saying'. That is like doing an analysis of a play called 'Romeo' or book called 'A Tale of A City'. Missing half the text and half the point.

[bigtree]

22. how does that work, STC?

So we go in declaring that we've gone far enough, will go no further, and it's up to republicans to capitulate? I'm all in agreement with that proposition (maybe not the overall strategy of stonewalling), but I doubt the result is going to be what Mr. Stewart had in mind. I'm not convinced he was just talking to republicans.



MR. STEWART: "Look on the screen. This is where we are. This is who we are. (points to the Jumbotron screen which show traffic merging into a tunnel). These cars—that’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He’s going to work. There’s another car-a woman with two small kids who can’t really think about anything else right now. There’s another car, swinging, I don’t even know if you can see it—the lady’s in the NRA and she loves Oprah. There’s another car—an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. "

"And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30 foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved, by the way, by people who I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by conscession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go. Then I’ll go. You go then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay—you go and then I’ll go."

http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-in-national/rally-to-restore-sanity-jon-stewart-s-closing-speech-full-text

[laughingliberal]

57. So, it's your position Democrats have failed to compromise enough? nt

[bigtree]

80. I'm just enough of a veteran of this process

. . . to abhor gridlock. I don't know how it's possible to do little more than snipe at each other if we take the position that we have nothing to negotiate on legislation. I think it's forgotten that legislators negotiate for votes all of the time. Several key bills have passed with the cooperation of cross-over votes from republicans. That took some give from our side. That's the way politics works. It's smelly, but the alternative in many countries is just outright violence. We can always afford to negotiate if the alternative is an unacceptable status quo.

Anyway, my point was more to the subject of the op, about the rally and Stewart's view of what constitutes 'civil' government. I doubt that he intended to mean that he thinks Democrats don't have any room or need to negotiate on legislation. At any rate, the result of such an obstinate stance by Democrats wouldn't produce the good government he's looking for. That's the point behind my response to STC; Stewart's reaction to the outcome of what STC suggested.

But, you feel free to deflect from that and change the subject. I may not be up for all of that on this thread, though.

[laughingliberal]

88. I believe Democrats have more than compromised.

The few shreds of benefit to ordinary people that our legislation, of late, have retained were quite small enough, thank you, very much.

There has been no compromise from the right at all.

And, yes, I'd prefer gridlock to any more right wing policies that move us further down the road that is destroying working/middle class Americans and leaving the poor to die in the street.

Yep. I like gridlock better than enacting right wing policies.

[bigtree]

93. on some issues, they have overdone themselves

But there isn't going to be a legislative agenda that follows these individual concerns by ideology. Most legislation is a combination of interests under the driving force of a central goal. No one is going to stonewall the highway bill, for instance. Defense bills will always bull their way through appropriations to an eventual vote.

The China bill that just passed the House had quite a few republicans. The bill which intends to pressure China into boosting the value of its currency, passed with a 348-79 vote. Ninety-nine Republicans voted for it and 74 voted no. This is a bill that unions have been arguing in favor of for years and it's actively opposed by the Chamber of Commerce.

The election season definitely had a lot to do with the defections; many of the republicans from manufacturing districts hard hit in their own depression. But it's just one example where it makes no sense to close the door to the opposition and eschew cooperation when promoting Democratic-oriented and favored legislation.

It's still locked up, btw. In order to get the bill through the Senate, there will need to be negotiations with republicans who are feeling the same pressures in their states. Call it cooperation; it's more like coercion with a cooperative facade. It's politics, and unilaterally declaring that we're opting out (as republicans have) is self-defeating and counterproductive.

[laughingliberal]

95. I'm thinking more along the lines of the looming attempt to screw us on SS and Medicare.

No matter, I fully expect the Democrats will cave.

It's what we do. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

97. Well, I'll tell ya, BT . . . .

It seems to me he was talking to everyone (cuz he was preaching "moderation") but the message was aimed at the hard liners. And to be sure, he was talking to the hardliners on the left as well as on the right. The difference is, the left hardliners are either a member of a very small, essentially insignificant, group of hardliners or the much larger group that is the left that is sick of compromises, but would probably do it "one more time" if there was a chance of some actual success. The latter of those two groups is not who he was speaking to.

The right's hard liners are more numerous than those on the left and, for most part, are FAR more firmly entrenched in their views, even when their views are pure ignorance (will **anyone** ever convince a birther he wasn't born in Kenya?) Beck's and Limbaugh's audiences are the right wing's hard liners. They vastly outnumber left wing hard liners. And as to the target of Stewart's message, add in the elected officials who blatantly pander to the hardliners, essentially making them, too, just as much hardliners.

So, no, I don't think he was calling for the left to compromise more. I think he was calling for all hardliners to stop being so hard line - and *that* my friend, is almost entirely the province of the right.

[progressoid]

62. +1

[drm604]

17. I think the point was to get out the vote for Democrats.

To do that you pretty much have to get people to accept the idea that compromise is sometimes necessary. Otherwise you'll have people refusing to vote or even voting for Republicans, in order to "send a message".

I don't get your point about reasoning. Reasoning is a completely different thing from compromise. We should always use reason and we should at least make an effort to reason with our opponents. Reasoning is in no way bending or compromising.

[jpgray]

18. Negotiation of drug prices, public option, out of Afghanistan, equal rights, size caps for banks

All these are widely supported by the public. While it is too much perhaps to ask that elected officials -only- support positions with wide voter support, surely a compromise away from total oligarchy is in order?

Or did you mean we should support bipartisan consensus on Social Security cutbacks? A similar consensus on remaining in Afghanistan? These are neither reasonable nor compromises. I hope you understand that they are unreasonable insofar as they are unnecessary, but do you also understand that only one very small group has its wishes represented in such policies? That's where compromise would have its most effective start.

[virtualobserver]

19. I don't believe that his message was about the way that DU reacts to the REPUBS

I believe that it was aimed at the people in the middle. He shames Beck and Limbaugh with this.

Gandhi comedy.

[JNelson6563]

36. I think it was to all who abandon reason

when it involves opposing views. All. Not anyone in particular.

Julie

[sufrommich]

39. Yep. Well said. nt

[BeFree]

20. Calling for compromise

And sanity.

It was a message to the t-publicans.
A message from us to them.
A rather timid message, but a safe message.
It elicited not too great a reaction from the reactionary radical right wingers, eh?

Stewart is safe and comfy.

[hyphenate]

21. I think the hard line that most Repugs follow

will forbid compromise, but it has less to do with us than it does with them. They ARE the party of "no" and it's their policy right now to continue to say "no" because it will fuck up Obama, and take him out of office.

And I think the fact is we're willing, but they aren't. It's not the first time it's happened, though, because they tried the same shit with Clinton, and to some degree it worked then, so they're doing it again. They're the ones who allowed Bush to steal our country's coffers, and hand it over to big oil buddies in the middle east. And all those other "secret" deals, including the one we will likely never know about completely--Cheney's secret meeting with energy people just about a month into his vice-presidency. That meeting's outcome has never been divulged, nor has its attendance list.

This whole mess began, not with Obama or Clinton, but goes back to Richard Nixon, and even further back if you look at the belligerent nature of repugs going back to Nixon's first attempt at the presidency. It wasn't as bad at the beginning, but Nixon really resented JFK's election, and he fumed when he got in. He wanted revenge, and the US was preempted in order for him to satisfy his thirst for such.

The other side has always, since the 50s, been willing to let the country suffer in order to bring them the riches they desire, and those of us who are mere mortals haven't got the ability to change that. It only happens when enough people say "Enough!" that we can accomplish something solid.

So while most of us here would compromise if we had to, it's difficult to see them willing to do so, because in the general nature of the spirit of compromise, they're more caught up in their desire to make Obama look like an asshole, and not into helping out the rest of the population of the country.

[Jakes Progress]

23. If everyone cooperated and reasoned

then a compromise wouldn't be out of line. So I agree with his idea. We've done two years of compromise. Now republicans can do two years. That's fair.

[BootinUp]

24. Incorrect

Stewart is not suggesting that we need to compromise. He is saying that compromise only happens when sides talk with less animus and that the media's behavior is making it harder.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. Finish the logical progression there...

"Stewart is not suggesting that we need to compromise. He is saying that compromise only happens when sides talk with less animus and that the media's behavior is making it harder."

So Stewart is not saying we need to compromise, but that it is desirable that we change the nature of the dialog so that compromise will be able to happen...

Okay, so in that framework is compromise desirable or undesirable?

We desperately need to change the world so that thing X can happen... but I am not supporting thing X, mind you.


I think you may be right that that is what he was saying. And it is incoherent.

[BootinUp]

35. The underlying logic

is that compromise is inevitable. Its a standard diplomacy message. Its a call to those that are not engaged in the debate to force diplomacy.

[Skidmore]

81. Civil discourse lends itself to seeing the other side and to making adjustments

in thinking....on both sides. Yes, we need to relearn how to speak to one another and to arrive at mutually constructive solutions of this nation we all share.

[gkhouston]

110. And we need to have politicians who are there to serve all of the country and not 2% of it. n/t

[madmax]

54. What you said! +1

[crazyjoe]

25. If we can't agree what the message was, what will the average

on the fence voter think? It was a great rally, (better than Becks), but will it turn things around for our side? My guess is a resounding "NO". They should have been more clear about who they were there for and who they want elected.
It was fun and all, but the people who would actually "get it" are already voting anyway.
IMHO

[OHdem10]

27. I do not believe Stuart was calling for Democrats to roll over and

appease.

The GOP have to give up something and the Democrats have
to give up something.

Here at DU when any legislation is being worked on,
Activisis should demand to see exactly what the Republicans
are giving in to or what is their part to making the
legislation work.

For the last 2 years the Republicans: It is my way or the
highway. We cannot compromose our principles.

The GOP have to learn how to contribute without compromising
their principles. If not, the Democrats should stand their
ground. I do not believe either Stuart or Cobert would
disgree.

It could be Stuart was promoting more civilty.

[JNelson6563]

37. No, he wasn't calling for Dems to "roll over and appease".

I agree he was promoting civility. Between everyone.

Julie

[alarimer]

60. There is no civility on the right and never will be.

All of this "incivility" is on the part of the tea baggers and their Republican allies. They are racists; they are fascist authoritarians and, as long as that is true, progressives can be as civil as they want and IT WILL DO NOT GOOD. We need to be less civil and start calling people out on their racist, homophobic bullshit. THIS is why the Democrats are losing. The teabaggers yell and scream about immigrants and gays, using all kinds of racist code, and Democrats don't even say they are wrong. They dance around the issue and try to be "positive". Well being positive IS NOT WORKING. Being too nice is killing us.

[defendandprotect]

68. Exactly ... not this far to the right ... there's no longer any pretense ... this is dangerous...!!

[seabeyond]

28. this would be the stewart calling for compromising as he went after obama for compromising on the HC

you do recognize that stewart is no more consistent than anyone else, nor perfect in all he says

and we love him anyway

[bigtree]

34. good point

I liked his closing statement - it contained some wisdom - but I sensed that he hadn't really prepared for or grasped the level of importance many folks would attach to the event and he seemed to strain for meaning in his statement. I think the participants were searching as well, despite having brought along their own ideals to measure or display. It reminded me of the Million Man March, where, folks defiantly carried their own purpose to the rally; despite the controversy surrounding the sponsors.

[Number23]

100. Great point, seabeyond.

[Edweird]

31. Stewart and Colbert are entertainers. They are not leaders, they are not the messiahs.

They are each very funny in their own way (Colbert is particularly funny in 'Strangers with Candy'), but in the end they are satirists. I think attempting to deify them like you are is a bit foolish.

[JNelson6563]

40. No attempts to place them above any other humans

Was simply talking about the message and how such behavior is often viewed at DU.

Julie

[treestar]

56. Not quite fair, since OP was obviously talking to those that DO

deify them. They insert themselves into this. How many times have we heard how some get their actual news from comedian Jon Stewart? That he is the most incisive commentary on the M$M?

Whenever he deems it proper to desert us and not support our side just to get a laugh, we are told on DU that he is right and we are wrong. No suddenly he's for us - maybe he realizes there is an election coming up - and makes a point that goes against the DU grain - there is an issue there which people who worship him ought to realize they can't have both ways - either Stewart has "let them down" and "disappointed" them and is now shilling for the corporate interests, or maybe you have to "compromise" your ideal pure beliefs to support flawed human beings known as Democratic leaders - or you will get Republicans. Who don't have to compromise, because their supporters will rabidly support them no matter what they say or do or how hypocritical it is.

[TheKentuckian]

76. It can be had whatever way we discern as right and truth

It is about the content not the person so the content can be taken or punted depended on it's value.

Same goes for Stewart, when Democrats are full of shit or wrong on an issue he is right to call the party on it.

The personalities do not trump the positions and policies, I have no idea why that concept is so alien to some folks. These people we elect are to be vessels of our will within the framework the constitution establishes not deities or lords.
Journalist (and their modern equilivents...comedians and pundits to some degreed) duty is to the truth not a party.

There is also a strange circular logic at work too. You say Republicans don't compromise because their constituents will accept anything so they don't have to compromise and our guys compromise because we have expectations and demands but would feel more confident in not compromising if we stopped expecting and demanding and just support whatever they do without flinching???

That makes no sense whatsoever. Seems like the wagons got put in front of the horses somewhere along the path. Tolerate whatever garbage the pols do unconditionally and eventually they'll stand tough for what we want???? That's fucking nonsense, nothing works like that anywhere plus you have to swallow all the putrid crap you were pissed about and bit your tongue until they magically do unflinchingly what you want. Well, except they have to be allowed to do whatever they want so there is no way to deal with the undesirable.

Puff, puff, pass. You bogart that shit and wild incoherence comes flowing out.

When you shine up suck up whatever you get and support it 110% it sounds even more silly than the unvarnished bullshit.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Stewart and Colbert put on a large piece with dual 'target

audiences'. You seem to forget which 'side' and portion of the population actually refuses to compromise, that would be the right. You are assuming the rally's entire message was for 'us' when in fact is was equally for 'them' if not more so. Few artists worth their salt really spend time preaching to choirs when there is a wider window available.
Some were upset that people like Keith and Ed were included in that montage. They called it 'Stewart's' and claimed he had 'said' that Keith was equal to Beck. No one said any such thing, and the montage was from both Colbert and Stewart views, all about the language and histrionics as seen by both 'us' and 'them'. Hint: Keith and Ed were mocked by 'Colbert' not by Jon Stewart. By the Colbert character, in fact.
Another hint. If two parties are present, and one tries to compromise and the other does not, when we say 'compromise is good' it is those who actually don't compromise being addressed. Wouldn't you agree that the Republicans have simply not compromised at all?

[lunatica]

41. Working together for our country's benefit. What a weird concept.

:sarcasm:

Jesus! We've been polarized so long that this has to be explained?

[Bitwit1234]

43. Of course WE call for compromise and reasoning we WANT

republicans to go along with the Democrats who are already doing it. What's wrong with telling the republicans their time to compromise has come.

[JNelson6563]

48. I agree completely.

:toast:

[bvar22]

44. Oh. I see what your problem is.

You are confusing "Compromise" with "Capitulation".
See, in a "Compromise", BOTH sides get something.
Remember the year long Health Care Debate?
From the beginning, the Democratic Party Leadership dithered away everything that was "Democratic" about the bill,
and got NOTHING in return.
THAT is called "Capitulation".

I'm ALL for reason and compromise if we get SOMETHING in return.


"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

[Warren Stupidity]

64. filed under "no shit'

[defendandprotect]

69. Obama had already given away everything BEFORE it got to Congress....

Obama's back room deals with Big Pharm and Health Care Executives had already

trampled universal health care!

And I'm not sure that everyone here at DU even knows that -- !!???


:)

[laughingliberal]

106. Exactly! nt

[Voice for Peace]

46. I think it's significant that he gave the conservatives and far right nothing to

be self-righteous (defensive) about.

The number of people there was a huge statement. It wasn't anti-anything but it was pro-sanity, pro-reason, pro-working together, and most importantly, pro-fun. Fear-Itself was exposed & humiliated. And there was no food for the anger & craziness. I thought it was clever, if not brilliant.

[Lint Head]

47. You cannot compromise with

people who never compromise.

[alarimer]

55. I think the rally was wrong-headed.

Moderation in principle is a vice, not a virtue. Moderates are people who don't stand for anything and are ready to compromise the store. The real problem is not compromise; it's the fact that Democrats ALWAYS are the ones to do the compromising. Republicans actually stand up for what they promise, however horrible it is. Democrats cave, each and every time. This is why I think this "rally" was just feel-good bullshit.

Democrats actually need to grow a spine and stand up to those fucking assholes on the right. And they are assholes, each and every one of them. It's time to stop playing nice with those snakes. It is THEIR fault we are in the state we are in. Republicans right-wing fuckers are responsible for destroying this country, with Democrats suffering "Stockholm Syndrome" in their eagerness to compromise their principles away.

Fuck Stewart and Colbert. They are part of the problem, this urge to be "moderate".

[madmax]

58. I know I'm a few eggs short of a carton

but, I came away feeling Stewart's main point of this Rally was not compromise but shaming the media into doing what they should be doing. Informing the general (not too insane population), the moderates and those on both the left and right who can be civil, who can compromise if they weren't all wound up by the intensity of the bullshit at warp speed that we hear and see in the media. Be it talk radio, cable, print, internet, whatever.

To paraphrase, 'when we amplify everything we hear nothing'.


That's just my 2 cents :shrug:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Warren Stupidity]

63. That was unfortunate. The other side is stuck on 'my way or the highway'.

John doesn't seem to get that. Where is the middle ground when one side won't budge?

[kenny blankenship]

73. Yep. Where's the middle ground when the other side thinks it's ok

to drive around with a "Liberal Hunting Permit" sticker on their car. (And yes, if anyone wants to know, I HAVE actually seen these, more than once)


I guess we'll have a dialogue over bag limits?

[defendandprotect]

67. Good message of caution .... I take "sanity" message as being opposed to rw violence --

however, I have noticed at times that Jon in trying to bend over to be fair --

as a TV host -- has made some suggestions I'd disagree with. But he's a TV host.

If he were actually dictating public policy, I'd question it.

There should be no compromise with the right wing -- and what we have now is a

radical right wing party and a right wing party. Overall, I think Jon is brilliant --

but I wouldn't be for any message of compromise. You can't compromise on GOP's racist,

sexist, homophobic agenda. You can't compromise on capitalism -- it has to be highly

controlled -- NEW DEAL rules and regulations reinstated -- including Glass-Steagall.

I think after Obama's election, the program got a bit silly -- presumably hoping they

were off duty and could go a little lighter? But, I really think that's a mistake if

I'm correct -- you have to take that time to EDUCATE.

Probably, this would have been better 6 months ago as a MEDICARE FOR ALL rally?


Thanks for the reminder! :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. +1

[Lucian]

71. It'd be easier to compromise if the other side actually compromised.

But until they do, I say fuck them.

[UTUSN]

72. Yip, I got roundly flamed for saying this yesterday in, uh, starker terms

STEWART and COLBERT are brilliant, never moreso when they puncture wingnuts, and, no, I don't expect them to toe my Dem issues & hero-worship my Dem leaders. If anything I have been on the bad side of this board for saying that Keith is strident and that Jeremiah WRIGHT was a loon. Yet I am somewhere way to the Left of Blue Dogs. And time and again my preferred candidates in primaries have lost and I have always voted and truly supported the Dem nominee no matter what end of the Dem coalition spectrum the nominee was from.

I always railed against the namby-pamby Dems who have tried to "work with" the opposition (DASCHLE) while defending them against attacks (here) for their civility and nobility.

But, bottom line, I detest the Sam WATERSTON "unity" approach because I --------KNOW-------what it IS: It is wingnuts NEVER giving an inch while they let our unity types give all AND the wingnuts openly mocking us for SUCKERS.

Now, as far back as when STEWART killed Crossfire my antennae went UP. Still, all along I continue to be a fan of his brilliance. But since he started being "disappointed" with OBAMA while overlaying this with appeals for mushing up the lines of disagreement, uh, no. Just, NO.

Now, my o.p. yesterday was misprepresented by most of the posters who disagreed: No, I never said "don't do anything," never said "check with the TeaBaggers for their approval," never said we should be cowed by wingnut ridicule, and never said I was CONCERNED (accused of being a "concern troll"), not to mention the usual personal swipes about "incomprehensibility."

I was just noting the discrepancies between what STEWART was advocating and what we and political realities are.

[UTUSN]

74. Plus, the turnout was GREAT, but just saying that they didn't get what they wanted

any more than BecKKK's crowd got what they wanted.

[madfloridian]

75. We have compromised and given way on important things since day one

of this administration.

[ibegurpard]

77. I used to consider myself a moderate

At this point in our political climate, compromise leads to far more conservative policy than I can support.
No compromise.

[mstinamotorcity]

78. There is a point when compromise is surrender

I don't mind compromise,but it seems the other side is not with the program. The only public option they want is surrender. This is why some Dems don't want compromise. Which brings me to this subject. Suppose all the polls that did not poll me or anybody I know are wrong??? No one talks about it as if all hope is gone. But what if the repugs fail at their attempt to fool the people??If we have the majority with some to spare,what will Democrats compromise then??? What will they give us in return??? I think that maybe they should be answering that question to let those so-called-Indys vote the Dem way. Because if we turn around again and do this for the country,The country should show some appreciation.Like stop treating our President like a bald-headed step-child eating maggots.

[WinkyDink]

79. "reasoning with those who hold an opposing view is viewed with extreme disdain." Well, if you mean

we hold disdain for the Tea-Party "view" or the RW "view,", yeah, you've got that right. AND?

[jillan]

82. I must've watched a different rally cuz what I took away from the rally was It's ok to disagree but

but we don't have to stomp each other on the head over it. Or smash into the car in front of you because it has a bumpersticker you don't like.

And to turn down the volume and the name calling.

[October]

96. Yes. Good points.

It was deep irony, really, if you read all the signs at the rally. They were truly making fun of the over-the-top right-wing in a very sophisticated manner.

I don't think we need to analyze this to death -- in a way he was trying to quell their claims to our being Hitler-loving Nazis or Commies... trying to show how SANE we are.

[apocalypsehow]

83. There does seem to be a great deal of cognitive dissonance, given the "take no prisoners" attitude

of a good chunk of the regulars who post here - the folks who give President Obama hell when he even talks to a Republican congressman, or reaches out to a GOP senator to find middle ground on an issue.

Excellent OP: rec.

[TexasObserver]

86. His main thrust seemed to be about fearmongering posing as journalism.

[Swede]

87. K&R

Partisan politics leads to gridlock. Democracy is a messy thing,as they say.

[kgnu_fan]

89. You all do realize it was an entertainment event, right?

Let's move on to the real business, like stopping crazy wars, getting healthcare policy installed, etc....

[sabrina 1]

90. Was this ever problem for Democrats who compromise all the time?

I thought the message was for those who never compromise. Are you unclear about WHO those people are?

I hope too that Democrats learn that compromise means getting something in return. So far, we have received nothing of value for the years of compromise. Democrats need to learn HOW to compromise effectively.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Compromise is good. The other side ought to try it sometime. n/t

[Radical Activist]

92. It's only wrong when Obama does it.

People tend to forget that most of the compromises Obama is forced to make are with conservative Senators in our own party.

[JI7]

99. I hear he criticized Alan Grayson

[defendandprotect]

105. THAT would not be good .... Grayson is terrific!!! Listening to Schultz on radio right now ....

he quite unhappy with Stewart's unclear message --

and evidently he showed some videos of Schultz?

Something to do with the T-baggers spitting at Congressmen?

It would be insane NOT to show the violence of the right wing and their followers!!

THAT should have been the point of this march!!

[bullwinkle428]

107. The montage included Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" clip

[Number23]

101. K&R Julie, you've obviously struck a nerve. The anger from a few here is hilarious

[Scurrilous]

102. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[moondust]

103. Maybe he'll sponsor a "Be Nice to Goebbels Week."

:sarcasm:

[Yavin4]

111. If So, Then Why Is Stewart So Critical of Obama's Health Plan?

Even Stewart back tracks on his own argument. Obama's Health Insurance reform WAS compromise. Yet, Stewart slams him for it.