A little over 50 days till the election and you guys are ready to toss the

Dems overboard because of statements about Chavez? I am just amazed.

You know, there's a lot of finger pointing as to who's to blame for why Dems are out of power, but maybe we should look at ourselves a little bit too. We're hardly acting like a winning team here...

:rant:

/rant

Sorry guys. But Chavez is hung up on himself. We'll see how good a democrat he is when he is voted out of office and wants to stay.

I'm just blown away by some of the incredibly negative comments I'm seeing *RIGHT* before an incredibly important election. One which we actually have a chance of winning. Arg. I'm getting worked up again.

That anyone Bush would put in in his place would have to be a reactionary thug. And what's scary is that it sounds like some of OUR guys would prefer Latin America to have right wing leaders.

Face it, folks "pro-American" Latin American leaders are usually scary, ugly and murderous. They are never progressive and positive.

Maybe onece we take the House and Senate, we can star to toss the worthless shits over.

It just seems like every thread out there is bashing one Democrat or another.

There is nothing wrong with getting fired up a little. My pulse is up tonight....Put a little fire under their asses!!!!

"Fuck You Nancy Pelosi and and big stinking Fuck You to Charles Rangel" which one GD thread does. I will grant that some of the other 'bashing' threads could also been seen as calls to action though. I'm as dismayed as many here by some of the things that are going on right now (torture, etc) but I think we need to keep focused on how we're going to win in Nov.

Reps are not speaking up with one voice and I do also understand your frustration too and I understand what you mean. Sometimes, it pains me too when we start eating our own and also, sometimes, they deserve to be spank too.

Circular Firing Squad.....Check! :patriot:

The Squad's all here!

but he has to hurry up and say it.

  I posted a long rant in General but most if it can be boiled down to the following: Can you quantify what, exactly, Rangol, Pelosi, et al. gained for the Democratic party through their commentary on the matter as opposed to, say, keeping mum and letting the Republicans do the talking?

  Because I'm unable to see what the deeper strategy was, here. Because CNN's got a nice fat headline saying "Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush" and, for once, it's not a terribly misleading one.

  The real question I'd like an answer to is what this gained for the Dems, but a bonus question which is more related to your reasonable and arguable turn-the-mirror-on-thyself approach:

  What makes more of an impact on registered voters: ~500 messages in two or three dozens threads or headlines in most every print and cable media outlet like the one on CNN for a few days?

PB

Mum should have been the word.

...expected something from them. That's not to say that Rethugs didn't provide and endless number of soundbytes, it's more likely that the MSM chose to dutifully report everything a Dem had to say on the matter, especially those most repelled by Chavez's comments.

  Again, though, I don't see what keeping quiet would have cost us.

PB

They don't. They're just pulling a load of crap for the GOP in an attempt to get Dems riled up.

Chavez stuff is a diversion, ignore it.

It wouldn't help in any way, but it might hurt since he's a foreign fanatic who may very well be contributing dollars to FARC in Columbia. That opens a hole can of worms. Who cares what he says. Pelosi taking a shot at Chavez? How is that a big deal? I don't give a rat's ass about Hugo Chavez.

..what has making those statements that Rangel, et al. did gain for the Democratic party that keeping mum on the matter would not.

PB

Come on. Have a lack of concern for what he says all you want, but calling him a "foreign fanatic" is just ludicrous. Seriously, don't give a rat's ass about him if you don't want to, but let's get facts straight.

There is no progressive anti-Chavez position in Latin America. Being anti-Chavez there means being on the side of the rich.

And fine, it isn't the most important thing, but it was just as horrible a sign as JFK coming out for overthrowing Castro in the last days of the 1960 election, a stand JFK didn't have to take. I think we can agree that it would have been a bloodsoaked nightmare for Cuba if the Bay of Pigs had succeeded.

'disloyalty'. They've already been pretty free with it earlier in the campaign.

..., fleetingly, in another thread. I will admit to you, LeftCoast, that I did not consider it as a serious strategy as the Dems have been both the bedpan and punching bag for Rethugs who ushered in an unprecedented (?) level of partisanship and political unilateralism.

  Because of the volume of personal and ideological insults levied by the Rethugs for the lion's share of the last six years I'm still a little skeptical that it should still be a way to predictably (or even preemptively, as you suggest) control the Democratic commentary. At a certain point, I would have felt that we would ignore reacting to the disloyalty commentary and go straight for the jugular with the veritable butcher's shop of well-honed facts of corruption, incompetence, public deception, etc.

  Thank you, though, it's at least something I can touch as far as strategy explanations go.

PB

I agree, the laundry list of republican failures should speak for itself and silence all critics.

out to goad those DUers who have some kind of fetishism or fealty to tough talk and insults.

Some people here are just easily suckered into drama queendom by every bit of political theater.

Its just this week's theme for GOP disruptors on the forum. It has all their favorite villains. Most DU'ers aren' falling for it. The few who are should cool off and find a more important topic to discuss.

This is not an important topic.

that not everybody who is worried about this topic is a GOP operative. The stress level is high right now and is only going to get higher. Just wait until the $60,000,000 ad campaigns start.

...stopped long, long ago, but at least after the Leopold/Truth Out internecine butchery.

PB

The high post count ones have been really coming out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/opinion/22fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It’s time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation’s severely damaged reputation."

I'd like to see the Dems take a stand on this. Thanks for the link! :hi:

Personally, I'd preferred a somewhat different approach than what Pelosi and Rangel did, but you make an important point.

In the scheme of things, nobody in the course of history will remember that Chavez called Bush satan. What an incredibly stupid thing to get worked up over, especially considering what's at stake. It's like arguing with the 911 operator when your house is burning down.

:eyes: