And there is such an effort, especially now on Democratic forums, I've also noticed.

The Republicans only have their greed and pride to sustain them. They can only mock and destroy, which is why we can't be like them.

tired of Liberals being told to shut up and sit down by the Third Way/Party that has attached itself to our party.

Thanks for your comment, Hydra

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

You know something else that struck me about your post? The sheer joy a lot of us have at being Democrats. Living our principles and looking forward to a better and more open world.

I don't see that same joy among republicans or others like them. They live in fear or anger, looking down rather than looking up. Angry at progress or things that make a brighter future, while glorifying hatred and ignorance/small-mindedness as civic virtues.

I love being a Democrat. I love being here among Democrats working on projects, discussing news and d'awwing over kittens or aww'ing over wonders that people bring here.

There are times that I forget that joy when there is the need to fight, but thank you for reminding me

when I first began reading online political forums was the nastiness I saw coming from Republicans. Democrats always tried to reason with them but in return they got nothing but personal attacks and/or attacks on 'liberals', on the Democratic Party.

I had ever seen anything like it RL and was weirdly fascinated by how angry they seemed, for no reason. I didn't even comment for a while because who wants to engage such nasty, unhappy people who do not care anything about other people, especially anyone 'different'. But after a while I decided to engage them. I'm glad I did as it forced me to learn more about politics so that I could fight them with facts, which to them, is like holding up a cross to a vampire, lol!

I didn't even know there were 'democratic forums' at the time but when I found them, I was so conditioned to being attacked for criticizing Bush et al (which I did no matter how they reacted, I didn't know how to react to people who were generous and kind, who cared about people and who AGREED with me lol. I was in shock for a while.

I think someone did a study once about the Left and the Right and they found that Liberals ARE generally happier people.

Great post, thank you again.

It's such a beautiful reminder of why we're here at DU.

what I see on here is push back on the notion that all of this is Obama's fault. The Democratic Party is obviously much larger than a president. At the national level we have too many connivers like Harry Reid in powerful positions. At the local level, only borderline Republican-types can be elected as Democrats due to the districts they are in.

It is very complicated, and the Democratic Party cannot be put into a one size all mold. For a time, the GOP could. they were the borg. Delightfully, they are seeing major fractures in their coalition, and a united but diverse Democratic party can capitalize.

This is truly an exciting time when demographics and a receding of GOP power and influence could help us drag the consensus of the Democratic party more to the left.

But attacking each other and sliming our duly elected president isn't the way to go about it.

here voted for Obama, the first time with great enthusiasm and joy, and when he won, it is hard to express the joy people felt after the eight long years of horror under Bush.

What I see when Obama is the object of criticism is that it is often because of something he said. Eg, would you expect any Democrat NOT to be critical of a Dem President who decided to end the ban on Offshore Drilling?

Let's just take that one thing. What should a Democrat, who has fought for years against Republican attempts to end that ban put in place and fought for to keep it there by many great Democrats, when they see the President THEY supported, now taking the Republican position on such an important issue?

And he was WRONG, as we found out just 18 days after he made that announcement, criticizing Democrats who wanted it to stay in place, stating that HIS advisers had informed him that offshore was now SAFE and in effect, that those who still supported the ban, were OLD-FASHIONED AND UNINFORMED.

I personally was SHOCKED to hear a Dem President say that. And when 11 men were killed because offshore drilling is NOT safe, he should have apologized to all those who supported him and he should have publicly fired whoever those advisers were. But he did not.

And worse, he had argued against John McCain in the campaign FOR keeping the ban.

So taking that one example, what should we Democrats have done? Remained silent? I fought for YEARS with Republicans over that issue, assuming MY PARTY would continue to fight them also.

But when we did criticize the president for that issue, we were attacked, called 'Obama haters' etc etc and all the other personal attacks that have become so familiar.

As a Democrat I am not going to change my mind on Offshore Drilling even if Obama had not been proven to be so tragically wrong. It is a threat to our precious environment as we just saw and we elect Democrats precisely because we know Republicans will not protect the environment.

So am I an 'Obama hater' for standing by MY principles? No, I don't think so.

I don't think there would be so much enmity on the board. I'd have to go back and see specifically what the promises were and the bans he was referring to had to do with because I thought it had to do with banning certain offshore drilling in sensitive areas such as off the coast of Florida and Pacific coast.

Here's an article from 2010 that helps with some of the history I'm aware of here

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/12/ap-obama-oil-drilling-ban-florida/1

But I take your larger point that Obama now has a record he's being judged by, and there are some things he either promised and didn't fulfill (yet) or there are things you truly felt a Democratic leader would do and are disappointed to see he didn't and would like to challenge him and others on WHY.

I get that. As I said, when debates and discussions are framed in those terms, I don't think anyone can call others Obama haters.

seem to be, I don't think there would be much dissension either. So thank you for the civil discussion. I think all Democrats, real Dems, want what is best for the country first, and they believe their party is the best party to do that.

But they will disagree from time to time, and should be able to do it intelligently. There are a few here, a very few, who regardless of how rational people are, simply resort to personal attacks, but thankfully they are in the minority.

Regarding the issue of Offshore Drilling, I don't remember the details right now, it's been a while, but I do remember listening to Obama's speech when he announced he was going to left the ban, and you may be correct, it may have been a partial lifting of the ban. Maybe it was the way he seemed to be denigrating those who still wanted to keep that ban, in fact I wish we could expand it.

Plus, I remember being thrilled when in his debate with McCain on the issue of Offshore Drilling, he was saying exactly what Democrats wanted him to say, as a representative of all of us. McCain was supporting lifting the ban. Obama's arguments were clear and confident and I was proud of him then.

I don't know why he has changed his mind on some of these issues, and I know the president isn't responsible for everything that happens, but he does have a lot of power over his own party, how they vote etc.

Maybe if we just discussed things rationally, and came to some agreement on some of the issues that some of us are disappointed over, together we could have more influence over the party. On the whole I do think we are pretty much in agreement on the issues though and should not allow the base to be divided. That only helps Republicans.

Then you are clearly looking for discord. That post is clearly a positive message about the President of the United States.

I can clearly distinguish between frustrated Democrats such as Sabrina and actual Obama haters.

off shore areas early in 2009. Then his administration discarded the 2010-2015 lease plan for new offshore areas. Through 2017 most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts remain off limits to drilling.
In 2010 he did this

TRUE PROGRESSIVES DO NOT MARCH IN LOCKSTEP

how much we can attribute to Obama vs. Democrats in the senate, etc. than wonder why everyone is saying all is hunky dory with the world when it is clearly not.

Diversity keeps us strong. A diverse thinker always questions the world and has great critical thinking skills. Always outdoes loyalty oaths or fealty to a cult of personality. Trusting a politician to be truthful 100% of the time is a recipe for failure.

If we applied truthfulness to popularity, Congress would only be telling the truth 9% of the time.

Hi Rex, nice comment

Keep it up!

here that is so indistinguishable from the Bushbots of previous years, but they really are a tiny minority. It's unrealistic to expect one group to be *devoid* of these types while the other is dominated by them.

that small minority actually represented Democrats, I would leave the party because as you say, several of them are indistinguishable from Bush bots. I know, I dealt with Bush Bots for a few years and the similarity is remarkable.

thank you.

coming from you, that is a compliment

How are your bees? We moved to a farm upstate NY and a local bee-keeper asked us if he could keep his bees on our property, (he's been doing it for years apparently with the permission of the previous owners) of course we said yes. He gave us some honey in return, which was very nice.

But we have found two hives, one on our property and the other on the farm across the street. Another bee keeper removed them and took them to where they can be protected. I thought it was a good thing to see the hives, considering the problems they are having. We are in farming and Amish country, and as far as I know, they don't use chemicals, not completely sure about that, but I don't think most of the farmers do so. They seem to be mostly family farms.

Please check your PM.

and character, who don't think we should give our leaders a blank check just because they are the ones in the White House calling the shots.

The lock-steppers are not only wrong, but they never have anything interesting to say it seems, other than we support our president 100%.

I find myself in the strange company of some people who still feel Snowden is some great guy (I do not). But I am with you and them on rolling back telephone data collection and revisiting the entire patriot act. Most Democrats voted for the Amash Amendment and I supported them and any future efforts to accomplish the same goal. And you are right, most Democratic members of Congress voted for it under a Democratic president just as they would have under a Republican. And lots of the GOPers like Gomhert wouldn't have done it in a million years if a Republican was president so yeah, cheers.

them than from those I agree with. I appreciate your comment. I don't know if Snowden is a great guy or not, he made a decision and knew the consequences. However, I have been listening to Democrats like Ron Wyden beginning during the Bush years where he was often a lonely voice speaking out about the dangerous threat to our freedom and rights that was being posed by the policies of the Bush years, and when he continued to try to warn us, BEFORE we ever heard of Snowden, I knew something was wrong.

His hands were tied, he was not free to reveal what he knew, but he made it clear that if the people 'knew how they are using the law (The Patriot Act) they would be angry'.

And yes, I am happy that so many Democrats did vote for the bill and according to reports there was tremendous pressure on them NOT to do so.

And yes, it's probably true that most Republicans would not have voted the way they did if a Republican had been president.

But isn't that a good thing, that by electing a Dem, we forced Republicans over to our side on some issues? Does it matter why they vote our way so long as they do?

And to be honest, I remember during the Bush years a few Republicans changing their minds, the Freedom Fries guy eg, who ended up working with Kuciinich to try to stop funding for the War in Iraq. And another Republican who complained about the pressure, the threats they were exposed to if they didn't vote the 'right' way.

Anyhow, thank you for your comment, I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree on

having dissent, using logic, debating with actual facts, holding liars accountable, and all the other things that we usually do, inherently can come off to some as "being an Obama hater".

I agree that there is a longer list of things that this administration hasn't stood up to than I would like to see based on my progressive liberal ideals. I voted for Obama twice and I am not an Obama hater.

The difference I see in the two parties is this. I can only report on what I read and what I see in my everyday life. And what I see is that the right has grabbed so many people, people that if they really read a fucking book, or see things for what they are instead of being fueled by race and hate and fear, would be Democrats based on how they want to live their life in America. Let me explain.

I know way too many pot smoking, nature loving, wage complaining, police fearing, middle class, men and woman that are so short sighted they vote fucking republican down the ticket. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is especially true where I live and places like it.

I live just outside Indianapolis, Indiana. I have read that it is the "reddest state in the Midwest". On 270towin.com to be exact. And holy shit was I surprised to see the state to blue in 2008. Even if it was by a mere 50% to 49% edge. Went right back to red in 2012, 55% to 44%. Lets just be frank about this, the reason Indiana went blue was Marion county, which is basicially Indianapolis. This county had registered 1 million new voters in 2008, a super high percentage of those were minorities. I am afraid that these same new voters we registered in 2008 will not be out to vote for anyone in 2016.

This, coupled with the fact that a large majority of the middle class around here are so blind they keep voting for republicans down the ticket. Even though repubs are against almost everything that would make these people's lives easier, more fruitful, and less stress free. It is fucking maddening.

If you studied my friends and they way they lived their lives you would bet your savings they were Democrats. To be honest, not a one of them is. That's the truth. Because these illogical people are not smart. It is NOT smart to vote for people that stand for a way of life that they themselves have no chance of leading, unless they won the lottery. But around here it happens in droves. How do we get these people to wake up? Believe me I have tried.

They hook them on one issue and theyll follow them to hell.

is a "microcosm of the larger world of Democrats", it is obvious that you spend way too much time here in the echo chamber, instead of out in the real world where Democrats think, talk, and act nothing like the, uh, "Democrats" on this board.

of Democrats, REAL Democrats, not the Third Way kind, they are just a third party that has attached itself to the Dem party, are pretty much on the same page as a majority of DUers on the issues. Maybe your RL is more limited than mine.

of them know they have been abandoned and do not even dare to hope that things will change.

And anyone who disagrees with your perspective is automatically "of the Third Way kind."

If you actually spend time in the real world, you obviously haven't been listening to what people, especially Democrats, in the real world have to say.

policies, policies we are seeing come to fruition unfortunately, supported by many in the Democratic Party leadership. If you have a problem with them separating themselves from the traditional party, and even applying a 'lable' to themselves to make that distinction, then talk to them.

I have read their policy statement so I recognize supporters of those policies when I see them. That is a fact, not a fantasy. Nor it is anything I made up, I wish it was just a bad fantasy, but unfortunately it is not.

This site is a cesspit full of RW and Libertarian trolls, who have been greeted with "sweets and flowers" by the never-satisfied wingnuts (allegedly of the Dem party), who believe that any enemy of their enemy is their friend.

The opinions expressed on DU are in no way representative of the Democratic Party as a whole, and even the most cursory look at actual Democratic websites - not to mention Democrats in RL - is the proof thereof.

But by all means, keep pretending that this site is demonstrative of how Democratic party members think and act - whatever gets you through the night, and all that.

seem to be seeing all over the place. And if you hate DU so much, why bother to come here at all?

I haven't seen what you claim to be seeing. I HAVE seen a few who contribute nothing to the place other than personal attacks on Democrats and on Democratic principles, but I mostly ignore them as they have so little credibility here.

So what right wing issues are you seeing being promoted here, other than by the few I mentioned who support the Surveillance state which is definitely a right wing issue. The polls show them to be in the minority also, as the anger grows among the people over that particular issue. Other than that small, ever unhappy contingency, who else are you talking about?

And give up what?

As I said, keep pretending that DU is representative of the party as a whole.

Some people need to cling to their belief that DU is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the Party's thinking and direction, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So be it. Believe as you will.

What utter nonsense you are posting now. DU is a political website where people get news and discuss politics. You seem awfully obsessed with it for some reason. Relax, you are the only who seems to think it is the 'be-all and end-all of anything. Where do you come up with this stuff?

The PEOPLE make the Party. Without the people there is no party. And the people are not all that happy with the party right now on certain issues. You seem to think 'the party' is the 'be-all and the 'end-all' of Democrats. I was not speaking about the party, the party works for the people. Sometimes people get this the wrong way round. Just as you did right now.

The party's thinking is not nearly as important as the people's thinking. I know some of our elected officials forget why they are there. We are here to remind them, which maybe they don't like too much.

So you couldn't answer my question about all these libertarian trolls and right wingnuts who are running all over DU? I didn't think so.

And yes, DU represents democrats, note the small 'd' around the country. That Party Leadership right now, not so much. Maybe that is why you are confused, you see only the party and their 'thinking'. They need to start thinking about their employers or they might be fired and replaced with Progressive Dems. who actually will work for the people.

give it up.

"And yes, DU represents democrats ..."

Keep telling yourself that - you've got nothing else.

DU. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't come here.

I've got plenty, lol, and I'll keep posting it. You give me incentive, thanks for that.

It validates your every misconception about what real Democrats are about. That's why you'll always be here, lapping up the opinions expressed by those who have no concept of the real world.

I find people like you incredibly amusing. And that amusement is the only thing that keeps people in the real world reading this site.

your own strange idea that only you know what a Real Democrat is.

I don't 'find people like you' at all frankly.

Put it this way, I know what a 'real democrat' is not.

It doesn't matter why people come to this site, so long as they do. It's a business, I hope they are amused, rather than disgusted eg.

The "game" consists of making a statement ("DU is full of RW libertarian trolls&quot and then backing up that statement with evidence. It's called "reasoned debate" and it can be very healthy for a discussion forum.

Making an inflammatory and derogatory statement (i.e. claiming that posters are RW trolls) without providing any evidence is the opposite of reasoned debate - it's just instigating a flame war, which is NOT healthy for a discussion forum.

You have to power to choose which of these paths to take. Your choice will reveal a lot about your motivations.

I'll pass it along to some of the other Democrats here in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

see that what sabrina1 is saying is true.

Try it sometime.

... and even less to do with the real world.

Obama's approval numbers among RL Democrats have been consistently solid. Among DUers, Obama is evil incarnate, who has never made the right decision, has never appointed anyone to office who meets DU's approval, etc.

RL Democrats are gearing-up for the 2014 mid-terms, while DU "democrats" are already griping about how they never-ever-ever get who "they" want to vote for - you know, candidates who pass all their purity tests - and some DUers are already trotting out the lesser-of-two-evils schtick, or the ever-popular both-parties-are-the-same BS.

RL Democrats are not obsessed with discussing Snowden or Zimmerman 24/7, or walking around with a doom-and-gloom attitude about every goddamned thing imaginable. RL Democrats do not whine incessantly about living in "police state", living in a "surveillance state", and all of the other bullshit that gets discussed here day in and day out, to the exclusion of all else.

DU is about as reflective of the RL Democratic Party as FreeRepublic is reflective of well-informed, rational people with exceptionally high IQs.

Damn...I agree sabrina 1!

The clouds parted and cherubs sang as the light never shone so brightly before!

First agreement of many I hope. Thanks for sharing.

Lol, and hell froze over!

on the surveillance state was encouraging - Even though ideally - the Democrats should have voted overwhelmingly in favor of Amash/Conyers - the fact that they at least by a majority went against the White House on a matter of democratic principle was a lot better than anything you would ever see from the Republicans.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 412

H R 2397 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2013 6:51 PM
AUTHOR(S): Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 100
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment

Party Affiliation----Ayes----Noes----NV
Republican-----------94-----134-----6
Democratic----------111------83-----6
Independent
TOTALS-------------205-----217----12

was enormous to vote against it. So maybe finally we are seeing some pushback against the leadership from Dems. They have to run again in 2014 and if they want to win, they need to start standing up for the people. The WH can do what it wants, they won't be running again. But Congress needs to worry more now about the voters than the WH.

working on something also. So no, the fight isn't over yet. As Sen Wyden said, this is the opportunity to end these policies and if we miss it now, it would be a shame.

didn't submit my parallel post until 3:02. This NSA mess definitely is causing people to lose sleep. But just as with the Iraq War Resolution, House Dems are far more truly the Voice of the People than the Senate Dems or the Repukes.

DU is reflective of the same dynamic as we see with the Amash/Conyers amendment-- a majority of Democrats that thinks independently, in struggle with a minority that wants to stifle dissent. Contrast this with the lockstep march to hell of the House Republicans under Bush.

pressure to vote against it, according to some of the members. 'The pressure was intense'. So I am proud of those who resisted that pressure and helped come close to getting it passed. There is another coming up, which is great news. Finally we are seeing some movement to end these policies in Congress, and it is bi-partisan to a greater extent than ever before.

I also heard 'this is just the beginning' which means they are going to keep trying.

Maybe they are looking at the polls also, which are showing a growing anger over this issue. In the latest this week, it's now up to 56% opposed to the massive surveillance. So there are things to be optimistic about.

I don't blame you. But, the symmetry is hard to ignore. He was and is attacked for surrendering on every front except those where he was implementing what they consider a liberal agenda, like NCLB.

Establishment Republicans supported him and were dismissed as RINO centrists. He was accused of continuing Clinton's terms, and it was regularly lamented that a "real conservative" wasn't nominated. Don't worry; we too will forget all of Obama's disappointments next time a Republican is in the White House.

issues that are good or bad for this country. Republican ideas are bad for the country which is why we are Democrats. But when a Democrat supports Republican ideas, such as eg, cutting SS, by whatever means, then Democrats should expect to hear from the people who elected them to PROTECT these programs, which always been under attack from Republicans, NOT to cave after all these decades of Dems fighting to protect them for the most part.

Anyone who thinks that Democrats standing against Congress touching a fund they have no right to touch, it belongs to the PEOPLE and is not part of the Fed Budget so they need to stop lying about that, is 'attacking the President', needs to do some thinking about their priorities.

What we will remember the next time a Republican is in the WH, is, how much easier their job of privatizing SS eg, will be, IF Democrats allow even a baby step in that direction now.

Just like we didn't speak out during the Clinton years, we were so busy defending him, and now we are stuck with Deregulation of Wall St and the Media, and Welfare Reform. I regret that we did not do more to stop those policies from going forward.

Sabrina clearly didn't actually read any right-wing board. Bush was being attacked for being too centrist by the absolute wingnuts all the time. Hell, on Free Republic, anyone who supported Mitt Romney in their primary was "zotted" (banned) for being a RINO! The guy simply wasn't insane enough for them.

However, there really is a difference, which is this, probably my favorite recent Howard Dean quote: "Your party is about 49% crackpots, ours has only 10." The persistently hate-filled party destroyers (who, oddly enough, pretend that they speak for the "real" party) are generally frozen out of Democratic governance, whereas the monkeys have really taken over the asylum on the GOP side.

So they rant on the D.U., but are basically powerless to spoil Democratic positioning (and positions). Harry Reid remains Senator only because the Tea Party ruined GOP chances, but our purity trolls can't do the same thing to us.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

negative word was ever tolerated by them about their 'hero'. Free Republic banned anyone who dared to criticize him no matter how trivial the criticism was .DUers used to play games over there, sign up, make ONE comment about Bush and were instantly banned.

I am, iow, an expert on the subject of Bush loyalists.

There was however, a contingency on the right who were upset with Bush over a few things, your comment actually reminded me of this kind of rightwinger, they thought Bush was wrong on immigration eg, and ended up getting kicked off the bigger boards, formed their own and railed against FR.

Please post the names of the Freepers who are posting here, you claim to know who they are and they are not welcome here. Just point us in their direction so we can see them for ourselves.

It doesn't refer to Freepers. It refers to extremists, purity trolls who hate their own party much worse than they disagree with members of the opposition party.

A DUer starting out attacking Bush from the left as their first comment? Of course they'd be banned. But from the established FR members, there was plenty of criticism of Bush tolerated from the hard right, just like there is plenty (if not 95% of the top voted) posts criticizing Obama from the hard left here.

They were all "Tea Partiers" before it was called that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

such people. Criticizing bad policies is what Democrats do. Maybe you are not familiar with mainstream Democrats. We are not the kind of people who will support any bad policy blindly simply because we view our party, as Bush bots did, as THEIR 'team'. They care nothing for the country. Politics isn't a sport, it is about THE PEOPLE and the future of this country

You appear to be very familiar with these 'extremists' you speak of.

there are very few of them here on DU, a few yes, but most people know who they are.

Btw, your sigline says more about you than you probably know, which I believe I told you before. Odd that you wouldn't already know that.

...you are not a mainstream Democrat. Not even close. You articles are nothing but a non-stop onslaught of anti-Democraric-party hatred.

You want to see an extremist who is damaging the very goals you say you believe in? Look in the mirror.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

They resort to personal attacks.

I always consider the sources of these kinds of right wing-like personal attacks.

You can tell if you are being complimented or attacked simply by viewing the source. In this case I am highly complimented and my creds as a Democrat just soared, even higher. So thank you or for the validation.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the extremists on both sides become hard to distinguish from each other. I haven't yet completely figured this one out yet, but the sigline is a very big clue.

So, we have no idea where you stand on the issues, since your main contributions so far to DU appear to be attacking other Democrats. My creds are well established with those who matter, yours are not known. And as I said, to any Democrat who has been one for any length of time, that sigline is very revealing.

Care to discuss your Democratic position on some of the issues important to Democrats?? Enquiring minds want to know.

'mocking' Obama's speech?

That's fine.

your posts. If you have a point to make, then make it. If you just link to your own posts don't expect people to go study them. I don't link to my own posts because I know people don't have the time or the interest to wade through them. If they read the titles, I'd be lucky.

If you don't want to explain your point in your own CURRENT words, then I guess I'll just continue to misunderstand.

That doesn't sound like the Prosense I know!

and source of obfuscation, I can repost with the actual text.

Take Obama's speech, it earned mostly mocking and mischaracterization here.

That's to be expected from the RW:

Gish Gallop works more effectively if you have a minimum of 12 links to your own posts.

Then again, there is so much hypocrisy surrounding "blue links"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338992#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338992#post82

You lost the argument then.

"Only two blue links? You lost the argument then."

You're so much more mature and progressive than I am: Your fear of or making links an issue and your current comment makes me laugh.

"You're so much more mature and progressive than I am: Your fear of or making links an issue and your current comment makes me laugh."

and I think that too, when you have the Republicans in all-out war against a President of your own party, there's a tendency to want to protect him from the slings and arrows coming at him/her so that he/she can get other, more important, things done. Maybe that might look like "blind support" but, at least for me, I don't want to see Democratic Presidency after Democratic Presidency torn down by the Republican Noise Machine, nor by anybody else over lack of ideological purity. I also feel like we won in 2008 and then a lot of people wanted to get every social ill from the last 30 years resolved and are getting mad that President Obama hasn't expended enough time and/or resources to tackle every single "bad" thing out there at once despite the practical impossibility of doing so, particularly after 2010 when he got severely hobbled by a bad election of a bunch of right-wing anarchists obsessed with obstructionism, which has continued to persist to this day. We need to work hard(er) at the state and local levels and root out these teabaggers and elect people whom will support our goals and aims and do what we can to support President Obama as he fights off Republican obstructionism towards achieving his broader goals which, in general, I think we all agree with.

completely and blindly fucking missed. The "pure" democrats didn't get every fucking thing they wanted during the first two years of Obama's first term, so they sat on their asses in 2010 and allowed a fucking right wing cabal to take over the House and weaken the democratic hold on the Senate. A lot the "pure" democrats accomplished, about as much as blind mites accomplish. They set progress back at least for another two to three election cycles and they ushered in an unprecedented attack on women's rights and voting rights in republican run states. The "pure" democrats, as they call themselves don't have a fucking clue about how to effect change. It is high time them admit it. The fortunate item for sane democrats is that Independents and people who were apolitical before clearly see now how evil the republican party is, a coalition of sane Democrats, Independents and new voters will go into the 2014 mid-term election and take back the fucking country for progress and economic fairness.

false and has been debunked over and over again. Had Democrats sat home in 2010 we would have lost every Progressive Dem in the House and in the Senate.

The people who stayed home were INDEPENDENTS and YOUNG PEOPLE, disillusioned as they were and I am sick and tired of correcting this false claim. The stats are available and HAVE BEEN for five years now.

But it's instructive to see how some dems took the wrong message from what happened in 2010 and they may have their false claims come true if they keep up the bashing of the base of the party as we are seeing here all the time. I am having a hard time already trying to convince democrats I know to remain optimistic an to try to ignore the constand attacks on good Democrats. I am beginning to think that this is the goal, to cause Democrats to lose in 2014 because there is no other explanation for these relentless assaults on the WHO GOT DEMOCRATS ELECTED.

Sickening to see this here again. Speaking of 'purists'. If you don't march in lockstep on each and every issue for some here, a small minority thankfully, your vote isn't wanted. Unbelievable. and so harmful to the Democratic Party.

The entire thread was validating and inspirational.
I had been feeling like I was stuck in a circular rut,
and was starting to ask myself, "WHY do I bother coming to DU anymore?"
This thread answered that question.

I continue to post at DU
....because I am a DEMOCRAT,
....because I know WHY I am a DEMOCRAT,
....because I'm NOT afraid to STAND for traditional Democratic Values
....because I am a DEMOCRAT.

DURec!

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"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[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

... do it better than most, Sabrina.

regardless of which politicians are in power. If Sabrina states something, I know I can take it to the bank.

.. passion for the truth, and the ability to state her case so very well, leave me in awe sometimes.

Like when Snowden's internet postings (as TheTrueHOOHA) were revealed, wherein he said that "leakers should be shot in the balls", and social security should be done away with, it was sabrina1 who declared: "Looks like he was very smart. He knew he was being spied on, like all of us, and he created a 'pro-the-security state' profile to deflect suspicion from himself, even if at that time he was not planning to do what he did, thankfully."

Did you take that bit of delusional thinking to the bank as well?

has ever proven it was Snowden. I traced those links back to the source and all I could find was someone whose ID I have no clue about, nothing to demonstrate who it was, and from a questionable site no one ever heard of.

Sort of like the 'boxes in the garage' and 'he hates ballerinas' or whatever the talking points were.

But if it was him, and we're still waiting for proof of that, people change their minds, and all I can say is he must have seen some pretty awful stuff to have changed his mind so completely. But he isn't the first Whistle Blower to try to warn the people, we have a long list of them now, and there will probably be more. People actually do care about their country enough to risk losing everything when they believe it really is being threatened.

because you seriously meant them at the time.

But backpedaling is becoming one of your better known traits here. So I'm not surprised.

easily decided by looking at the source.

I am immensely complimented by your comment!

I love to give the rightwingers "the bizness" over that as well.

I still post on a mixed board, and am in a distinct minority in terms of criticizing the admin.

It's really sad how frequently the rightwingers rub so many lefty noses in their support -- be it direct or tactly through silence -- over the things they use to whine about under Bush.

There are Republicans and right wingers who do exactly the same thing. Bush was not conservative enough for them and they hated a lot of what he did. They think McCain lost because he was not conservative enough, and the same for Mittens.

In fact, it is worse for republicans, in that their extremists get somewhere and cause further fracture for them. The Christine O'Donnell debacle cost them a House seat.

If we followed the far left in lock step, we'd lose seats the same way.

that they're divinely right, regardless of the holes in their arguments, or how much they ignore clear facts. You are exactly right. When republicans surged during the 2001-2005 in the face of a fearful public post 9/11 and democratic party disarray, the "pure" rightists in the GOP wanted more, we saw the case of a husband being prevented from having tubes removed from his vegetative wife, we saw unprecedented attacks on women's reproductive rights, relentless attacks on early childhood education and childhood hunger programs. Democrats cleaned republicans clocks in the 2006 midterm, things got better as Bush was restrained. Democrats made more gains in the 2008 election, including winning the Presidency. Once democrats had firm control, the unrealistic birds on the Left came out demanding politically unrealistic policies. Republicans pounced on the solid, but not adequate for the far Left progress that was made during 2 years on democratic control, and the far Left aided them by relentlessly attacking Democrats and our President for not doing everything the far Left wanted.

My sense is that the circumstances for 2014 will be different, thanks to un-relenting attacks again on women's rights, voting rights and food rights by republicans in Congress and in republican held states. A solid coalition is forming to oppose republicans, this coalition can be counted on to win elections moving forward and finally get the nation to the point that the, "pure' democrats, in their own self appointed viewpoint, couldn't fucking get it to in two centuries given their mindsets.

And who, pray tell, is that?

President Obama is a conservative? Who call average liberals "centrists?" Who refuse to acknowledge they are on the extreme and the American people in general don't want what they want?

Like people so far to the right they think Bush is too liberal. Those people exist, and that was my point.

A Republican is an old guy in his back yard who shoots pigeons.

That's the difference.

We need something more than crumbs but for now they're better than bullets.