You know what? I'm really proud to be a DUer these last couple of days

Everybody's pissed and kicking up dust about a lot of different issues. For example...

I think it'd be cool of Caroline Kennedy was a US Senator--she's certainly been an active and leading public citizen of New York for long enough to earn being considered. But the people here who've been arguing against her really have provoked me to think deeply about nepotism and celebrity politics. I really do benefit when people challenge my thinking.



I'm deeply offended by the selection of Rick Warren to offer the invocation at President Obama's inauguration. I think it's a slap in the face to people who believe in the equality of civil, unalienable rights--particularly those Americans whose rights Warren wants to attack. But the people who think this was an acceptable selection are getting me to think about the nature of loyal dissent and what my role as a liberal citizen will be once we have a chief executive who doesn't do just every damn thing wrong from sunrise to naptime.

It's worth thinking about, how do we as a republic navigate the differences between reasonable progress through compromise and moral rectitude; how do we strike a balance between ending the culture of scorn and rancor on the one hand and yet on the other still stand up for our core principles. These are matters we'll be dealing with for the next two (and hopefully the next eight) years and the arguments here the last couple of days have really helped clarify my opinions and sharpen my confusions.



I think this is good stuff. We have sharp differences and the vast majority of posts here are making sound, aggressive arguments. As Democrats we're really not going to spend much time singing kumbaya with each other. We disagree, and disagree passionately, both publically and "underground" here on the internet.

We used to worry whether there would be a need for a DU after we got Democratic control of the two elective branches of the federal government. "What will we fight for once we've won?" we naively wondered. Now here we are, proudly five weeks out from the Promised Land, and I can assure you that we have plenty of poop left to fling at each other. And fling we must. The arguments don't bother me. I love seeing them happen. I'm pretty sure I'll be on the losing side in most of them. But this is what a democracy is supposed to be.



This is what DU is giving to us and what we, as DUers, are giving to each other. Never quit arguing; never quit fussing, my friends. DU is not going to hell in handbasket because we're snapping at each other. DU is one of the hot, firey furnaces of the engine of progress. I'm really proud to be a DU and all this rancor and kvetching is precisely what our country needs.

Now STFU, you noobs, because this time I'm really gonna give you an ear full...

Ooops, was the third, but who's counting?

That's gotta count for something

illustrated texts are so much more informative

passion of the poo.

Then again, I never understood going to a political discussion board to tell others not to discuss something. How odd is that?

Part of what I think is missing in this country is the conversation. Talk shows are more about people talking at each other and giving a pointless 2 minute sound bite. I come here for the discussions and for the differences of opinions. DU delivers, there's no doubt about that.

"Then again, I never understood going to a political discussion board to tell others not to discuss something"

Oh STFU!!





jes' kidding.

Your comment was my laugh of the week.

...and you know it's working right when NOBODY is quite satisfied!

I can do without the hy-sterics, but the fire works sure are purty some days.

I don't like the petty squabbling on DU, but you make a good point.

And I like your poo-flingers.

A picture speaks a thousand words.

is that for the most part, the people objecting to Rick Warren are focusing (at least initially) on Rick Warren. The people who support Warren or who aren't objecting to him are, in large part, attacking the people who object to him.

Instead of telling us why Warren is a great pick and wonderful symbolism for the Obama administration (which I don't agree with) they tell us that if we object we're chronic complainers and whiners having a hissy fit and just filled with constant outrage.

That's what's frosting my buns today.

What they're defending--and admittedly this is nuanced--is that being symbolically inclusive now may make it easier for Obama to ensure some concrete progress further down the road. I hope they're right. They're protecting their president's ability to compromise and cut deals--rather essential aspects of a Madisonian democracy in a pluralistic society. In this particular case I don't think it's worth it--Rich Warren is opposing equality under the law and invoking religion to underscore civil public policy. That's bad stuff.

But I have to concede to them that it comes down to a judgment call. This is a president who's willing to sit down and chat and even do photo ops with Iran's ayatollahs, a move I endorse despite their considerably nastier treatment of homosexuals. I disagree with Obama here, but in the end his giving Warren a minute in the spotlight may be an ingredient in the recipe for postitive results in the area of civil rights. I don't think it will, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

They demand that you capitulate and then, if you do, they demand some more.

Everybody compromises. Why, just compare their beliefs about the Bible with their compassion for the truly needy. Talk about compromising their positions!

But seriously, the Christian community is a lot more diverse than you're giving them credit for. Obama thinks he can play in their ballpark. Certainly my very conservative Christian aunt who totally loves Obama is an example of someone who can be won over to the Democratic column by triagulating and splitting off the truly Christian from their rightwing ideologues who've been manipulating them.

I'm skeptical of Obama's chances and I don't approve this particular move of inviting Rick Warren when he's stood up against civil rights, but I won't go as far as you in castigating all conservative Christians as goose stepping zealots.

and then, a second later, will vote to take my rights away -- as the Obama-voting churchgoers did in CA. That makes me all tingly.

Prop H8 kind of convinced me that conservative Christians are, in fact, goose-stepping bigots, at least in CA.

Hate is a loser's game.

Once you drop the stereotyping and the blanket dismissals, you'll find it easier to win unexpected allies.

 

Dude, would you sell off your puppy cause he can't retrieve a duck? These things take time and they take persuasion. But four years ago she wouldn't have supported adoption rights for gays, which today she doesn't have a problem with. You can't have a perfect world and you can't have everyone switch over to your side all at once.

But I can guaran-damn-tee you that you won't win anything if go around calling people nazis just cause they vote against you. Fortunately most people involved in this struggle understand that gradual steps, public education, and smart PR will slowly win us allies. Name calling will not.

Is that fair? Should gays have to wait to get the full civil rights they're entitled to? Hell no, it's not fair in the least. That sucks. If you have a fifty years to spare, I can come up with a list of things that aren't fair in this world for you. I think we're all just doing what we can.

great post

I admit it. LOL.

:sarcasm:

I am sitting down and shutting up when I type on DU.

Also, you forgot the other sarcasm tag -- unless you want me to believe that you're sincerely being sarcastic there.

Yes, am very sincere in my sarcasm. I enjoyed your post.

:)

Ouch!
Personally, I think getting posted like this would hurt too much.

It's a little-known fact that Hitler had three legs

DU is interesting and worth the discussions.

"If there's poop, you can't just leave it there." :)

not being "experienced enough" to be a Senator. Was Hillary? No. At least Kennedy has lived in NY or the environs for her entire life. Clinton's only experience was being married to a former President. Well, that's not quite true. She was very active politically before that. But the fact of the matter is, Kennedy has as much electoral experience as Clinton did when Clinton "became" the US Senator from NY. Kennedy, as has the rest of her family, is immersed in public service. They don't do it for the money. They do it because Rose taught them to give back. It's not power. It's not money. I've got and read Kennedy's books. Believe me, if I lived in NY I would have no problem having her as my senator. Unfortunately, I live in Texas.

Caroline hasn't.

in fact, as far as her "lack of experience" goes, I would think that being a Kennedy...being around people in government....would go a long way toward teaching her the basics.

I mean, it's not like she's asking to do brain surgery on someone after reading a "How To" book...

And if she fails to get the Senate Seat in NY, I hope that she'll try again in Mass after her Uncle Teddy passes on (which I hope will not be for a long time yet). I would vote for her in an instant if she ran...

:)

Her brother and her mother both pretty much stayed in the publishing field, whereas Ms Kennedy has been a power broker, a civic activist, and a deal greaser for years. She knows the players. Now she admittedly has a fairly blue blooded "base" of supporters, but I don't think that is gonna keep her from branching out. Frankly, I half wanna see her run for Senate because I want to see how a refined society lady throws a few elbows, slaps down the Pugs, and rolls around in the mud in the rough and tumble of politics.

Dear God, I think I may be an S&M politics fetishist.

May God have mercy on the democracy that ever gets tired of arguing. Argument is the fuel source of democratic government.

I'm in Texas too, so I think we're part of a trend. If Gov. Paterson doesn't give Caroline the gig, I'd love for her to turn carpetbagger and come on down here for a shot at John Cornhole's seat.

at least we all have the right to disagree.

So while I disagree with you on a couple of the other issues, I really can't disagree with you on that one thing...that we are mainly all intelligent human beings who have minds of our own.

In fact, one thing to be proud of is that there IS so much disagreement here at DU, you know? It's not like everyone is following in lockstep with each other like on some of the other (Republican/Conservative) sites.

A bunch of little parrots, that's what they are...all agreeing with each other, for the most part. The only time I ever see any disagreement over on those sites is when someone (whom I suspect might be a DU'er in disguise) goes over and shakes things up a bit. Otherwise, it's all the same old shit over and over...everyone agrees....

Not only does it cause mental stagnation, it's also dangerous to this country as a whole.

I think we continue to exist as a wonderful country partly because people are willing to disagree with each other.

Thanks for reminding us of that...

:)

Great way to go into the weekend.

:kick:

Nice post.