Another day - another day condemning Democrats

Many realize I had posted a thread in which I removed myself from the conversation a week ago. The jury isn't out yet for me on whether to continue to participate here or not but I have made some great friendships and their requests of me to stick around are compelling. I am simply posting this to say why I AM BOTHERING to post at all and have avoided posting on threads welcoming me back...I am here with one foot in and one foot out.

I look at a party that I have spent my entire adult life working for and see them being torn apart from the right, the left and their own. I wonder how anyone can survive in that paradigm.

I wonder how anyone can bring forth leadership in a vacuum in which the leadership is no longer tantamount to leadership simply because it is disagreed with.

The 87 billion is a perfect example as is the vote for the war. The men and women who represent the Democratic party have had some very tough choices to make. Some I agree with, some I don't.

I really feel however that there is ABSOLUTELY no possibility for any of them to even occur as a leader inside a conversation where one is accused of "waffling" if they change their mind ( I like people who change their mind at times, the people who changed their mind and voted NO on the recall were a great reward for me), wearing a pink TUTU if they aren't as caustic and nasty as some would prefer ( besides the fact that I have known some very feminine and courageous people so just the sexist connotation of the phrase is nauseating to me...masculine = courage, feminine = chicken and especially in light of the fact that some of the more studly mouths such as Bush, Rush and Cheney are all chickens)or being a corporatist if SOME of their policies accidentally work to keep people employed (and yes, I have huge issues myself with the sale of policy to the highest bidder but taking a contribution does NOT ALWAYS equate to a quid pro quo..as one who has raised money locally and nationally, I can CONFIRM THAT)

I just went through this in my state where everybody thought tearing down our own was a nice idea and a good strategy. I think the result rather speaks for itself and feel that if that is how we spend our time here, then are our leaders any more to blame for the result than us?

IF you think voting for 87 billion is a bad strategy, then why not explain it in terms of the POLICY or precedent it sets rather than the stereotype you suggest it warrants?

I personally don't see many options other than to rebuild Iraq but for a thread I posted a while back recommending that STRINGS be ATTACHED. But this thread isn't about that...post about that on another thread.

This thread is about the language used to build us up or tear us all down and the MOMENTUM it costs us (right, center and left)in convincing people to consider what is SOUND policy and what is haphazard.

Focusing an inordinate amount of time and energy on internecine squabbling is demoraliznig at the very least.

I would also look to discussion of policy over the pervasive and childish finger-pointing about who did or did not do what 1, 2, 10, 25 years ago and how that somehow impugns their credentials to lead this party.

Enough already - a little inward debate on policy and outward debate on strategy and tactics for 2004.

Thanks for posting. I don't see how we get out of paying Iraq back after destroying a lot of it. I would like a lot of strings as well as oversight by other nations also.

good and thoughtful post as usual.

The "waffling" thing really gets to me. Why is a change of opinion a bad thing? Why does there have to be one correct answer? There isn't always a clear one, and sometimes it's hard to decide between your options if they both make sense on some level. The world is not black and white. It is gray. It's up to the individual to choose which world he wants to live in.

You have my support and sympathy, Teena, in whatever you choose to do, whether you post or not. You can always become a Lounge Lizard like me and only post in GD or LBN or whatever when you have something relevent and sound to add to the discussion, not grossly unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks.

I am proud to have good Democrats who speak of issues in educated, enlightened ways that acknowledge all the factors involved. The coarsening of the debate on the internet that has extended to some of the politicians in our party is heartbreaking.

I don't want a leader who expresses themself like me in a bad internet mood.

The fact that the vast majority of Republicans simply tow the line of their national figurehead gives Republicans an advantage, because you don't need to ask where an individual Republican candidate stands on certain issues. The platform is the party. There is no room for moderates or liberal positions in the party, because the platform is viewed as almost a contract. That isn't to say that Republicans can't have liberal or moderate positions; rather, they are, as a whole, slaves to the official positions of the party.

.... I've long thought that people who never change their minds are probably in posession of fossilized brains. Anyone taking me to task for changing my mind better be ready for a fight :)

Sometimes, you learn more about a subject or situation and your position changes. If it didn't, you'd be idiot. I'd rather change my mind than be wrong.

I know we've had our agreements and disagreements but on that point, I offer my COMPLETE agreement.

to dishearten us...post in the lounge a bunch of nonsense till you get to 500 or 1000 posts then come out and trash the party and the leaders of the party.

I do not read ANY pro-anti candidate threads at all. I only listen to the debates (not the last one) and read SOME news...view the 'comments in the header' (re: polls) and go upon my merry way...feeling there is something afoot here to discredit and dishearten democrats.

That being said, I view every negative thread or comment at comming from someone who has an agenda so I am not as influenced as I would be normally.

nsma...I do not believe that Swawpotihpothger won that election without the help of the BBV machines. Call me paranoid all you want...that is my personal opinion. You may have objective(?) exit polls that say otherwise??? I do not know?

As far as the $87B goes, if any part of that helps Bush maintain, and/or, expand his power, then I am against it, and I want the Dems to oppose it. We, as a party, must oppose ANYTHING that might strengthen Bush's hand. Why should we shoot ourselves in the foot?

Similarly, another issue is the Syrian Sanctions vote. By voting for this, as many congressional Dems are planning to do, they are giving Bush, PNAC, and Sharon/Likud, additional tools to expand their wars, the subjugation of the ME, and the control of ME oil resources. Additionally, it will enhance Bush's "re-election", by enabling further war footing and headline displacement. Should I be for this? I think not, and I don't think ANY other Dem should be for it either.

There are a number of other issues and votes too, where my own party is enabling the Bush/PNAC cabal, and it must stop. Either they are going to be a solid oppostition party, or they are not.

As far as California goes, it wasn't the Dems eating their own, it's that the Dem leader in this state (Davis) was weak and ineffectual. It's entirely our fault, that out of all the possible Dem leaders in the largest (population-wise) state in the Union, we chose him, instead of someone who could do the job, in a much better manner. Had Davis stood up to Enron and Bush/Cheney, when the energy crisis was at full tilt, he could have had a great impact on his future, and the economic future of our state, ... but he didn't.

It isn't those of us who are critisizing our party for some of the things it is doing, that are creating the problem. The problems lie with the party itself, the positions it chooses to take, and how it manages itself. Pointing these things out, in hopes of urging reform, is called, ...democracy.

And while I am all for cohesion behind whoever will be the nominee, we have many other issues to discuss, because after the elections, there are a number of Dems, just like me (35 years and counting!) who are going to insist on some major changes. If, these discussions do not bring forth needed reform within the party, the 04' vote will be my last as a Dem. In the meantime, I'll fight for the party, not only for its candidates, but also to improve it.

On edit: BTW, welcome back!! :hi:

in shambles or run the risk of being taken over by religious extremists (much like the ones we rail against in another country and this country)simply as a matter of political payback.

You have a short political memory if you think Davis DID NOT stand up to Bush. If you require proof rather than to admit that statement is a generalization I will provide links later this evening.

and threatened to expose them more with lawsuits against them. Davis was a HERO.

If he had made his case, the people of California would not have been unjustly blaming HIM for our economic problems, and instead would have been blaming Bush and his Texas energy buddies, who were, in fact, responsible for it. He never DID get that point across well, and it hurt him, ....and us.

Fact is, I was working on issues related to the California energy scam, by conducting investigations, writing articles, letters, and making calls, well before most people were even paying attention to it. One of those people I tried to keep informed about it, while urging him to speak out, and loudly, was Davis. I know exactly what was, and was not done, related to this issue, hence, my opinions about the matter.

As far as Iraq goes, now that we've bombed the shit out those poor people, and illegally invaded their country, we do owe them repayment for the damage we caused. And, from a humanitarian standpoint, of course I support trying to make their lives better, BUT, and I repeat, I DO NOT support approving of any funding (and this includes large parts of the $87B) that might help Bush or strengthen his hand, or allow him to conduct further wars. Period.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...., but really, we don't disagree on all that much.. (:

He stood up to George Bush and Dick Cheney also.

I do agree with you, though, that the Democrats should vote against this arbitrary $87 Billion figure that is being railroaded through Congress.

spouted off on my own.

on behalf of this or that candidate, or this or that cause - that the responses become almost dogmatic. It is as if there is a lack of willingness to understand context (unless it suits are dogmatic pet response) and complexity, and unwilling to discuss strategy within those contexts. Long-term vs short term outcomes.

In addition - if the policies are discussed - hashed out - then if/when we communicate to our elected representatives - we can pass on alternative perspectives and documentation (news accounts, analyses) that can get into the hands of staffers that might just go somewhere. Seems a heck of a lot more productive than reflexive slams.

one thing that has gotten progressively worse on DU is the partisanship ... rather than analyzing a specific issue, or even a candidate's view on a specific issue, everything seems to come from a predetermined point of view based on whether you support a given candidate or you don't ...

if you look at the post counts on issue oriented threads, they are almost always much lower than the candidate related threads ...

back before most of the candidates entered the race, one of the hottest thread subjects was dems vs. greens ... some of these threads ran post counts over 200 ... i used to go to the green's website (fyi, i'm not a green) and copy a few of their issue positions ... i posted these in a new thread and asked what people thought about them ... the first thing i noticed was that i usually ended up with only 20 or 30 responses ... not much compared to the heated debate in the other thread ... i also noticed that probably 95% of the responses generally agreed with the green position although i never disclosed where the material came from ... so it seemed to me, we liked to argue, blame and complain but really had very little information and very little interest in discussing the underlying issues between dems and greens ...

i don't think this speaks very well for us ... i'm afraid we're seeing the same problems with many of the candidate oriented threads ... when i came to DU, i had hoped we would first try to find common ground on a "DU platform" and THEN try to influence a candidate to support OUR position ... perhaps i was a wee bit naive, eh ??

the one theme you wrote about that i don't really agree with is this idea of being opposed to "tearing down" candidates ... i mean, if you feel bush is guilty of war crimes for invading Iraq, what kind of pleasant language would you have me use in discussing those democrats whom i believe enabled the invasion ... i mean, is there some nice way to say what i think of their vote? should i ignore the very serious lack of judgment they displayed? i have no use for many of the vacuous "your candidate is a jerk; no yours is" posts ... i certainly agree they contribute nothing ... but legitimate criticism, even severe criticism, of those who have chosen the wrong course on important issues seems well within the bounds of fair play ...

anyway, i hope your ideas help us all reflect more carefully on what we're saying and how we're saying it ...

my position has always been that those taking advantage of the Rose Garden ceremony are deserving of scorn, simpy because in doing so they undermined their own party leadership and undermined the possible success of the Lugar-Biden(?) initiative which would have acheived a higher threshhold of accountability. That is why I will not be giving an affirmative vote to Lieberman or Gephardt in the primary. In the general election, should they prevail, I would vote for them.

In fact, if you read what I just said...that's the language I would use. It has nothing to do with pink tutu's, but has EVERYTHING to do with the subject of my post. Those candidates destroyed a momentum that would have accomplished a more reasonable accountable result even if we went to war regardless.

"if you look at the post counts on issue oriented threads, they are almost always much lower than the candidate related threads ..."

That surprises you? We're trying to make up our minds about which candidate to vote for, not which issue.

it does NOT surprise me that candidate pro and con threads get higher response rates than issue threads ...

what does surprise me, actually it horrifies me, is your last statement which was the very essence of the point i was trying to make ...

you stated: "We're trying to make up our minds about which candidate to vote for, not which issue."

it seems to me you start by understanding the issues, forming opinions on them, and then look for a candidate to match ... i'm afraid we are all too easily drawn to a candidate without sufficient information ...

why do i say this? look at the groundswell of support for Wesley Clark ... the guy was virtually annointed by the national press as the new democratic frontrunner ... go look at the current DU poll ... he's running a pretty good second behind Dean ... and what do most of us know about Clark? surely not enough to endorse him !! and i don't say this as a criticism of him ... Clark himself has acknowledged that he will be formulating and releasing his positions on many key issues ... if you watched him in the last two debates, i think you'll agree that he did OK but provided virtually no details on most issues ...

the point to all this is that we should define issues first and THEN find a candidate ... not the other way around ... otherwise you're voting for a madison avenue created image ... and that's not what we should be about ...

be too concerned with other people's processes. But if it will lessen your anxiety, consider there are hundreds of issues, but only nine candidates. Of course participation in issue threads is going to be spread more thinly. All of the candidate discussion is going to be focused on nine topics.

the last thing i want is some policy wonk coming around telling me about what the issues are and where candidates stand on them ...

i can tell which candidate i like just by "lookin' at 'em" ...

A: Practice, practice, practice

candidate is! If one doesn't know where one's candidate is going to be once they are in office, one could end up with another Bush!

It's very important!

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

performance.

I want posters who will provide the exact reasoning for an opinion void of platitudes.

Was Daschle not leading when he held out for Lugar-Biden until he was undermined?

You might take a look at Dean's legislative experience in Vermont before implying that he is a leader who doesn't compromise.

Republicans can't be in charge of anything without forming a circular firing squad--they're doing it again now big time. The chimp's below fifty and most of our candidates are already ahead--months before most people even think about paying attention.

Here's even better news: For work, I deal a lot with real Democrats--Labor, minority groups, seniors--the people who get folks elected. And I can tell you they've never been more pumped.

The loudmouths around here--at least the low percentage of them that are not members of opposing parties--couldn't affect the outcome of the election if they cloned themselves a thousand times each. Do the math.

In fact, as long as you stay away from campus starbucks, English departnmet happy hours, and most health food stores, you'll never hear the gibberish you hear from the one-percenters around here.

There's nothing wrong with you an hour at the union hall won't fix.

I work around all the aforementioned unions as well...the CTA just helped Arnold take the statehouse.

I don't agree..but glad to see you here again. :-)'s But, again, NO!

I believe that every Democrat should vote against giving George W. Bush $87 Billion and yet, I agree with what you wrote above, "I frankly find it unconscienable that a liberal would force Iraq to remainin shambles or run the risk of being taken over by religious extremists (much like the ones we rail against in another country and this country)simply as a matter of political payback."

Democrats should not be suckered into the Republican game of having to choose between the following false choice of:

1.) Vote to give $87 Billion as the President requested which, according to the GOP, will signal to all Americans that one a.) supports the troops, and b.) wants to do the humane and proper thing in helping rebuild Iraq.

2.) Vote against giving the $87 Billion to the President which, according to the GOP, will signal to all Americans that one a.) doesn't support the troops, b.) wants to desert Iraq and leave it in shambles, c.) that the U.S. wants to cut and run, etc.

Even Republicans are trying to divide up the $87 Billion request in both Houses. They are not afraid of being labeled unpatriotic.

Even our Senator, Dianne Feinstein, has ridiculed this false choice and said that the GOP leadership is essentially allowing 87 minutes of discussion for $87 Billion --- one minute for each billion dollars.

The Democrats should all vote against the arbitrary false choice of $87 Billion and register it with the American public that there were other viable options, but that the Republican controled House and Republican controled Senate would not even allow any other single proposal to be made. The American people would understand that. It is important that the American public sees that having one single political party controling all aspects of the Federal Government is unhealthy and very dangerous.

George Bush's arbitrary demand for this $87 Billion figure will be granted as the Republicans will give it all to him. So it really makes no difference whatsoever how the Democrats vote, does it? A united front by the Democrats that they would all vote against the $87 Billion --- unless there is more openeness and discussion about this railroaded request --- would be welcomed by the American people who are not happy about this surprizing dollar amount that was suddenly sprung upon them.

I challenge anyone here at the DU to substantiate and qualify why the amount of $87 Billion is the precise amount needed. Why not $86 Billion or $88 Billion? How does anyone know that the $87 Billion figure is the correct amount? They don't because there was no discussion of this in committee and it is being railroaded through both ends of the Capitol by the GOP.

It's not a question of the 87 billion...this thread is about the rhetoric of self-annihilation more than anything.

And I understand you. And I greatly respect you.

I come and go here quite a bit, as you know. I go more lately than I come because of much of the mindless and numbing bickering that goes on between some of the disciples of our nine candidates.

NSMA, speaking for myself, there is so much pent-up frustration nowadays within the Left as we have been systematically marginalized to the point that we no longer really have any say whatsoever in any of the three branches of the federal government, any voice in the mediums of television, radio and newsprint, and less and less clout even in grass roots organizing. Consequently, we take it out on ourselves more and more.

We watched a national election stolen in front of our eyes, something we never dreamed possible. We witnessed the redistribution of wealth by this Administration become the law of the land in three separate "tax" bills which essentially was "communism in reverse". With eyes wide open, we saw a hot war launched upon the old canards of fearmongering and false patriotism. Here in the Golden State, we just lived through a "recall" of the duly-elected Governor of our great state for no good reason whatsover.

This frustration within the Left is demonstrated by Howard Dean's continued show of strength within the more activist oriented members of the Democratic Party, although I am yet to be convinced that Dean can translate that unified support of a small and vocal and angry minority of the American public into support from the larger general populace. Only time will tell. However, the petty fighting going on between Dean and Kerry these days is hurtful to our prospects and both are to be equally blamed --- and I say that as a Dean supporter and as one who has donated heavily to his campaign.

Dean needs to drop the "I was against the War and you weren't" mantra. Everyone on earth now knows that. But on the other side, Kerry needs to fess up that his support of the War was wrong and he can do it without groveling, but the cold fact is that the United States did not need to go to war with Iraq and we were not in danger from weapons of mass destruction and the case for the war was built on lies and the aftermath of the war has been and still is (in spite of the Bush/Rice PR Campaign) a terrible failure.

I alone wrote here at the DU before the Midterm Election Disaster that we would lose the Senate. I wasn't happy about being right, but I knew it was coming.

The power of global corporate money has finally purchased the entire American government. They own the baseball fields and parks, the bats, the uniforms, and the players. If anyone doubts this, just look at how a multi-millionaire underwrote a recall election here in California so that another multi-millionaire could get "elected" and all with the help of the global corporate "news" media from General Electric News to Murdoch International News.

I spent the night of California's "Recall" election far away from my home in Southern California because I knew what was coming. My companinon and I took off by 10 A.M. (after voting) for Yosemite preferring that environment to another heaping spoonful of frustration. For the record, the phones at my business were used all afternoon and early evening for phone banking against the Recall.

I greatly respect you, for what its worth. Still, the deepest core of my soul is no longer optimistic about the future of our nation with regards to the civil liberties we once cherished and the fleeting promise of democracy that the ballot once held.

The 2004 Election will be filled with still more fearmongering and challenges of people's patriotism...because it works. And the 2004 Election will also be filled with Republican immigrant bashing, especially against Mexicans and with a great national rally against gays and lesbians in order to "save" heterosexual marriages.

How many of our elected Democrats will stand up against such transparent hatemongering and fearmongering? Probably as many as stood up against the War, the Bush taxcuts, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. Not many at all.

I challenge anyone here at the DU to substantiate and qualify why the amount of $87 Billion is the precise amount needed. Why not $86 Billion or $88 Billion? How does anyone know that the $87 Billion figure is the correct amount? They don't because there was no discussion of this in committee and it is being railroaded through both ends of the Capitol by the GOP.

agree completely. some supplemental appropriation is probably justified. but $87 billion, no way.

strings on this so that Bush has to report back to congress at "intervals" saying where the money wa sspent. I know they will have to vote for it, but it amazes me that the Dems can't twist some arms of "fiscally responsible Repugs" and make the administration accountable. I think the Dems need a PR person! They don't seem to know how to cut deals anymore. It's down to "all or nothing" which I think is what your post was getting at in a way.

Butsh has BIG troubles. There may be Republicans who would go along with at least making them accountable for what they want to spend. Supposedly some said they gave the Yes to the Iraq Resolution thinking that Bush would come back to them, or would work with the UN and they were "surprised" when he didn't.

surely by now they know how this administration works. If they have to give the money then make sure it's spent where it should be and not a give away check for the $87 Billion. Put "strings, ropes, chains" on the money. It shouldn't be "free."

You want us to all hold hands and play nice? Fahhhgetaboutit.

We're doing serious work here. Like it or not, that involves figuring out what's really important -- without necessarily putting that determination into the hands of a single DUer. We're going to work it out by arguing each other's logic, quoting and misquoting, fact-checking and correcting, posting cartoons to convey an idea better than words, and it's all to further a process.

But it is a process. A messy, stinky, humorous process. DU is not a happy ending. Not yet. Hopefully on November 4th, 2004, but not yet. We have work to do and sometimes it gets loud and sweaty.

Now get on down to the Lounge and don't come back around here until you're ready to do some heavy lifting!

we are doing counterproductive work.

Defeatist thinking that depresses activism.

Building wedges so devisive between camps that supporters are less likely to in the end be willing to do the serious legwork that will be needed (much more than a warm body holding a nose and voting) to defeat bush.

If you survey the California threads for the month prior to the recall - you can read a lot of behavior that was very counterproductive towards real efforts to prevent arnold from being elected. THis is not to say that DU has any sway - it is to say that the microcosm that we represent - seems to not only nurture behavior that is so virolently nasty (eating ones own, comes to mind) but think that it is a necessary good. Right. Reflective, as a community, we are not.

There are plenty of ways to talk about issues, compare and contrast candidates, and offer critiques. But that is not the warfare that prevails here.

This is not heavy lifting behavior. It is self-defeating behavior. More like eating only carrots in an effort to diet - and becoming so weak due to all of the other vitamins that are needed that one becomes very sick and doesn't end up "thinner" as was the desired goal - but instead hospitalized due to an unexpected - but very predictable - consequence.

to perpetrate as well as CREATE propaganda. Since propaganda relies on glittering generalities in order to catch on, it is a self annihilating practice.

Granted, it requires MUCH work to actually focus on the policy than name call...and in that regard, I think the poster has confused hard work with vituperous incessant bellyaching. One requires intellect and effort, the other requires a meandering bellow that runs counter to everything it claims to stand for.

I have been in policy meetings that nearly came to blows...they didn't sound or read like this place on a typical party bashing self annihilating day.

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

before it was deleted.
Some people type

some people DO.

There's lot more world than there is cyberspace.

Make a difference to the party posting HERE?
As IF.

Walk the talk, people.

vs the message.
And I WAS.
So..............

I don't recall the exact words - I saw it as putting someone in their place I guess but didn't think of it as a personal attack. I wasn't paying that close of attention so if you say it was then I'll defer to your judgement. Went over my head at the time because it didn't stand out if it was.

but I didn't see it. You're welcome to PM me.

image of the people at Free Republic. The rest of this was going to be vituperative, but I decided to let it go. ;-)

I suggest simply accepting the fact that some people lack the capacity for genuine judgment, and adopt simplistic, black-or-white mindsets as a result. There's not much you can do but ignore them, except when it's necessary to do otherwise. In other words, lower expectations have their advantages :shrug:

Welcome back, if, indeed, you are back.

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

within the Democratic Party and competing messages from the left is a recipe for certain failure. And, the stakes could not be greater of the consequences higher. The CA recall is the perfect example of both divisiveness and interference from within the Democratic Party (Bustamante) and competing messages from the left, our supposed liberal allies (Green - Camejo, Independent - Arianna). This, incidentally, was a turning point for me and I have recently made my position clearly known at DU that I consider ANY party other than the Democratic Party the opposition and a competitor. I ask no one to change their positions or convictions, I simply cannot see my way to sympathizing with a position that will martyr unwilling others and guarantee the reelection of the most dangerous and sinister occupants ever to inhabit the White House. But, that is another debate and I hope not to open up that topic here by brining it up, I simply wish to point out I too have been significantly affected by the divisiveness.

You know, I can see that part of the problem is that well meaning people really do not understand the issues involved, what the facts of the matter really are, or what is really at stake. I still see it, (as I’m sure you can) with the recall issue. I’m not talking about the intentional propaganda that was promoted here; I’m talking about the unintentional ignorance of otherwise intelligent people. There’s not much we can do about the biased media. It’s only an accident I knew a little more about the energy scam issues myself because of the hundreds of pages of research I did on salin‘s threads on the energy bill.

I agree with salin too, that some people are just engrained in autopilot battle mode, and their responses are determined without any willingness to consider additional facts or the context of long term vs. short-term outcomes or consequences. I said months ago that I really hated to see people become so fixed on one candidate so early because it seemed even a couple months ago that some in each camp will go into total meltdown if their candidate is not chosen in the end. And in addition, so many have rigid litmus tests as to what candidates they will and will not vote for in the end, regardless of whether or not that allows the evil empire another term in office or not. Those simply do not seem like practical or realistic goals to me, but maybe that’s just me.

As far as divisiveness and infighting here at DU, I wish I could be more optimistic but I don’t think it’s going to get any better, until, perhaps, the Democratic candidate is selected. I believe we do have members that seek to disrupt and deliberately promote propaganda that they know to be utter crap and completely false. They are few in number but they make more noise and people take the bait all the same. Then there are some people who are not promoting propaganda but are just assholes but they are probably that way in their real lives as well. It’s a large community here so that’s bound to happen. But until the rules for the 2004 election SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION come into play, I think the divisiveness is going to continue, and perhaps get worse at times.

And lastly, I believe those of us who regularly post here on DU are but a fraction of those who regularly visit DU and use it as a resource. The regulars here are activists, political junkies, and DU addicts, or temporarily have too much time on our hands. I fall into a couple categories but I wouldn’t be spending so much time here if I were not unemployed. My point is, DU is an influential resource, and I’m convinced that most discerning adults can sort out the fact from the bullshit when it is presented to them and the contrast pointed out. I think reasonable people can tell the difference and know when someone is being manipulative and blowing smoke up their ass. I am referring to the deliberate propaganda when I say this.

So, Teena, I guess what I’m trying to say, is that you are one of the best read minds we have here at DU that can set the record straight and perhaps demonstrate some of that leadership, and so the permanent loss of your participation at DU would indeed result in a loud sucking sound going south. I’ve told you - I don’t agree that your contributions have been a waste of time. But, having said that, I wonder if that’s fair to you, and it seems an awful lot to put on any one person’s shoulders. The ideal solution would be for more people to be willing to research individual issues on their own but most people are not as driven to do it or can make the time for it. I do hope you can find a compromise that works for you and allows you to stick around without pushing yourself to a breaking point again, because I would like to see you stay. Not only because we need you here, but because I think you need DU too.

Linda

I agree with much of what you wrote. Especially about the need to get below the cliches and labels and name calling to look at the substance and actually THINK about the issues. (Wotta concept.)

I also object to those who express defeatism. We can succeed. But only if we start thinking we can.

But I also believe that the simplistic frustration people express is understandable. At base, I think, DU simply reflects the larger culture in which we have been "dumbed down" by the media and politicians. That, combined with the eternal aspects of human nature that are lazy and superficial makes for a bad combination.

I've probably been an angel in that regard at some times by posting things with substance to try and generate some discussion (or at least awareness) beyond the cliches. But I've been a devil at others by venting my own frustration and doing my share of venting and bellyaching and name calling towards the powers-that-be on our side (though I don't know if I've ever used the phrase "pink tutu").

As one who has been paying attention for years, my frustration level sometimes expressed here is not knee-jerk. Rather it is the result of years and years of seeing our side give up and cede the field to the opposition.

It's built up over years of seeing the worst win out over the best (or even the good) not because the worst had the truth or common sense on its side. But because the voices of reason and staunch opposition on our side disappeared, shut up or were replaced by timid pragmatic hacks.

As one example (to be more specific) for years and years, as massive corporations swallowed up competition and became megalithic monsters, progressives tried to say "Wait a minute. We've got to stop this or these guys will get too big for their britches." But the "mainstream" politicians on our side ignored the problem. Dismissed the left as flaky fools....But lo and behold today the bad guys HAVE grown so large they are almost untamable. And they have taken over all aspects of life.

It's the same with morals and values. Not the sexual kind, but the morals and values of our public and economic life. The right wing has been pumping endless poison into the collective consciousness. "Monopolies are necessary to continue competition."..."Workers must suffer for our economy to be healthier"....all sorts of message like that.

There are plenty of counter arguments to that. Some people have been making them. But they have not been picked up or amplified by the politicial party that should have been the megaphone for that. And, as a result, the right-wing corproate message is the only one that really gets legitimized. Anyone who dares argue against the logic of oligarchy is a "radical."

In the last three years, when things have gotten so much worse, patience wears thin with the politicians on our side who have not stood up to the relentless right-wing drumbeat. And who continue to play along.

The GOP is NOT reasonable. So we should not be reasonable. We have to be strident and loud to be heard. In a nice way of course -- and backed up with substance. But we have to be crystal clear, and we can't compromise with a side that will not compromise.

I haven't adressed the $87. To avoid this long post from becoming too long I'll simply say I agree with you that we should not just castigate Democrats who go along with that. But I also believe we SHOULD demand accountability. We shouldn't giver Bush a big blank check -- instead force them to outline exactly what that is earmarked for, and seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Anyway, I'm glad you've set your toe in the DU water again. I hope you can find enough honest attempts at substance to justify your continued presence...(Or at least enough goofiness in the Lounge to provide a source of amusement).

We are now, for better or worse, in Iraq. I was against going in, but I cannot reasonably expect us to just back out now.

We are there, and we need to give our troops the support they need to accomplish the mission at hand. Personally, I think that the re-building of Iraq should be under UN control, but these idiots in the admin would never consider giving up their power play.

I am for getting enough money to pay the troops, but the rest of the $87 billion will be squandered on more of bush & co's friends and donors.

We can supply necessary materials to rebuild Iraq, but there are plenty of Iraqi's willing to rebuild their own country. They have electrical engineers, and electricians; they have hydrologists and plumbers; they have architects and construction workers. My idea is to put them to work rebuiling their country. Feed them, make sure they have potable water, and clothes to see them through the seasons, then let them get to it. They will do fine. We need only to be there only to ensure a nasty theocracy doesn't come in and ruin everything. I don't care what theorcaracy we're talking about, about the last thing these people need, is more people telling them how to live!

OK, I've vented, now it's coffee time.

:hi:

not as a mod, so please don't take this wrong.

A couple of years ago, there was a commercial on the
Super Bowl about an IT company that was herding cats.
It reminded me of the Democratic Party. Everyone has
their own opinion, we don't need orders from on high, and
we all generally want to live and let live.

Our enemies on the other side aren't like that. They
are proto-fascists who march in lockstep, and they will
not hesitate use our "circular firing squad" nature
against us.

Politics is a contact sport. It ain't no pillow fight.
Elbows will be thrown, and chins will get bloody, metaphorically speaking.

The more we fight amongst ourselves, hone our arguments
and strengthen our positions, the stronger, not
weaker, we will be when we take on the real enemy.

Everyone here knows who the real enemies are. As nice
as a group hug love fest would be, we would be fish
in a barrel for the bloodsuckers on the right.

No offense.

seem to matter.

Frankly, I think that one can disagree about policy and who can best accomplish and achieve policy.

I really don't see how calling people gutless warmongers, capitalistic pigs, pink tutu's or any of a number of playground names empowers us agains the enemy, unless the enemy is a derogatory name generator.

We all know that ad hominem attacks automatically discredit
the attacker. Would looking at it that way make you feel
better? Sticks and stones and all of that?

In reference to the midterms, they were a total joke as
far as what the Democratic leadership tried to do--cozy
up to Bush on the war and try to differentiate on domestic.
Talk about a failed policy in many ways deserves a little
name-calling, not that I would, but I can understand
why people would want to. (And I'm starting to buy that
maybe Max Cleland didn't really lose in Georgia after all,
but that's a whole nother subject.)

We aren't the enemies here. It's like we're all
siblings, brothers and sisters who battle each other
like crazy--but don't let any outsider try to get in
on the action. It's healthy, I think.

JMHO.

way can we express our frustration and disappointment? Reading David Zephyr's second post here where he talks about having to go to Yosemite to get away from the Aunold vote, gives a clue as to how frustrated we all are at this point.

I didn't mean to brush you off with my "No" in my first reply to your post. But, I just don't go along with anyone who doesn't feel that our party is open to criticism at this point.

I remember all those days when we kept thinking "Dem Leadership has a "Plan" and we will win in the "Midterms." We lost. No matter how bright a face we put on it.....we lost. And we keep losing. If we don't do something about Tom Daschle and Terry MacAuliff and some of the others we willl lose and lose and lose.

Why isn't our leadership all over the BBV issue? Why didn't they see what was happening in Georgia? Why when Jim Jeffords switched parties didn't they use that time to thwart Bush's appointments and some of the "early giveaways."

I think our party needs to have some criticism, and that's the way I reacted to my first read of your post. I think what happened in California is devastating. Since you live there you are feeling total pain... But, how does not criticizing the Party on DU help that?

The invasion of the Candidate Operatives on DU has been really disruptive. It almost seems you can't cut through all that to get any issues that are important noticed. And forget activism! No matter what one posts, there are only two or three replies if it's too serious a subject. There's lots of "fluff" here which is hard for us more serious types (although I've never thought of you as a totaly serious person who can't cut loose once in awhile!). But, how do we change that?

The bigger DU gets with more users, the more diluted our activism will become. Right now we have a scrolling GD Forum. Attention span is dwindling from the old days where one had time to think about a post for awhile and decide whether it was worth bothering with or not. I know you were very frustrated that folks weren't doing some activism on the "Energy Bill." I heard you on that. I wish folks would get out and do something about Hastert and DeLay not allowing a vote on the FCC DeReg.

I have to hope that we aren't the only ones holding the world on our shoulders like Atlas, anymore. That there are more folks out there like "Move On. org" and "Take Back the Media" and strength in our Environmental Lobbyists who are mounting large e-mail campaigns.

But, I think criticizing the Democratic Party Leadership is very important. They have let us down so badly, how can we not? I'm not a "third party" type of person. I believe in the Democratic Party. But, I am so frustrated with it at this point and have so many worries about what's going to happen in 2004 because they won't get on the voting issue and give Bush everything, I don't know what to believe. I'm almost with the group who says get out of America while you can!

Anyway, glad to see you here, but it's very frustrating lately and I don't think it's going to get better, anytime soon.

:-)'s and Peace to you,
koko

after the nomination, and be better informed because of all the, uh, debating?

make a point. You may not like the point it makes; you may disagree with the method, but it's another way of saying, "remember, there is a number of presidential candidates who have been complicit with Bush on samoe major decisions with which many democrats and independents don't agree." Now, one could type that over and over again if that is one's opinion, but the pink tutus are a more effective, attention-grabing way of making the point.

We could admonish satire as a means of expression here, but what good would that do? Instead of disdain for clever, albeit sometimes emotional expression, maybe we'd do better to understand that people make emotional voting choices and logical voting choices. The messages of the pink tutus (and other commmentary like it) are clear. Instead of dismissing some opinion as uncivil, why not acknowledge the message and counter it?

I seriously doubt that nsma disagrees with the point. She was emphasising how we decide to use language.

There are many ways to make a point, and some are better than others. For example, I sometimes hear young people use the expression "that was so gay" as a pejorative. I am betting that you see a problem with negatively encoding gays and lesbians, even if "that was so gay" doesn't explicitly connote a direct insult.

Surely we have the intelligence and creativity to do better.

that I find the pink tutus and, sometimes, other sarcasm to be extremely intelligent and creative.

My point is, we can spend our energies trying to referee the tone of the debate, or we can accomodate a variety of discourse and focus on the meat of the issues no matter how they are presented.

If I were to say of Gephardt's tax plan, "That is so gay," there will be those who will rightfully want to discuss the use of that term -- a distraction from the issue, and there will be those who will look past the style of the comment and focus on the poster's distain for Gephardt's tax plan.

on a few

Dems lost big time in Cali. Many reasons for that but I think celebrity overcame decency and legitimacy.

I don't know what the outcome is but the dems in Cali have to look at their organizing. The organization in N. Cal needs assessing.

I value your input in whatever venue you choose to present it.

Thanks for all you do.

My own experience, knowing Californians all my life, and that's a pretty long time, tells me something is stinking besides the skunk in my back pasture.

I can totally do without the derogatory comments, name calling - Limbaugh liberals, etc. and people can get totally carried away. I've been avoiding candidate threads.

California was an exceptional case - like a primary and a general all rolled into one. Not that that makes it OK to stab each other in the back - but hopefully that will NOT be the norm.

It would be great if in the presidential election that candidates could listen to and respect each other... the Democrats need a leader that is a uniter.

It probably is precisely because we are all in a frenzy about getting Bush out that people get SO adament about their candidate. And then there is the DLC/DNC thing with Greens mixed in and wanting a voice, somehow.

I think the Democrats are probably at a crossroads. Defining who we will be going forward. You have a very reasonable voice. I hope that you can use it to make a difference.

I also think that DU is a worthwhile place for that voice. I think DU can be empowering in the sense of people being able to thrash out ideas, feel a sense of strength in numbers, encourage activism and that sort of thing.

I just can't get beyond the very basic fact that one rich guy with lots of lay-around cash jump-started the recall of a democratically elected governor. And it boggles my mind that the governor was replaced by a celebrity who has no public service experience and who couldn't answer the simplest questions on major issues.

I would love to see DUers pool their many talents and come up with Internet and Photoshop flyer campaigns that will help Democrats counter the TV smear attack the Republicans tell us we can expect early next year. Perhaps we can put together an Internet contribution site for ad dollars. Let's work together, folks.

First, I wholeheartedly agree with a few of your points; leadership does not exist or prosper in a vacuum; lowest common denominator polemics do harm rather than good; the politics of destruction do more harm than good.

With this in mind, you have referred to specific policy issues (war vote, $87B appropriations vote) as good examples of difficult tests of leadership. You ask for rebuttals in terms of policy rather than stereotype. I am happy to oblige.

The unanimous vote by the Senate Appropriations Committee was a bad idea, especially for Democrats, for several reasons rooted in policy.
- Most importantly, this vote cannot be divorced from the policy to which it is attached. Granting the White House's wish here is an implicit acceptance of a war that was (is) a disastrously bad idea in terms of international law, international stability, national priorities, and domestic economics.
- There is little in it to persuade me that the money will do what the White House claims it will do. Once the general notion of "rebuilding" is examined, it reveals no-bid contracts to political allies. It is laden with pork.
- Since victory was declared in Iraq, we still have not seriously tried to restore basic services (water, electricity). Our priorities have been strictly military and economic. To hell the museums, in other words; we've got the oil fields secure. With these priorities, the White House does not deserve additional funding. They have plenty of millions already to get that job done.
- Granting the funding, especially unanimously, further weakens Democrats as an opposition party, since the voices in favor of basic civilization are undercut by the appropriations vote. It has been demonstrated that a weak "me too" is unhelpful to the Dems.
- Granting this funding presumes that we, as an invading force, are not attempting to leave as soon as possible, but rather that we plan to stay as long as we feel like it. Think for a moment how we US citizens would feel in Iraq's place, as an imperial occupying power debates the dizzying sums that will go to their elite for "rebuilding" our country.
- Nothing suggests that this will be the final appropriations request. Therefore, to approve it establishes (or continues, depending upon your view) a bad precedent.

I hope this helps.