We've got a serious problem

you know what that problem is?

There was a time when politics was about principles. These days it is a team sport

It started with the freepers, but now it is all over the place

It does not matter what they say... as long as they are on my team.

And you know what folks? that leads to cults of personality, no critical thinking... and the depths of the crisis we are in.

That is all.

Take it as you may... and I am sure some will take this the wrong way.

But hey... this is dangerous... and politics is not a team sport.

Just because you're right.

... and we can't afford to lose.

NOT to play the game, and concern themselves with Truth.

If that one person can influence another, and that other influence another, etc. etc.
just think, we may be able to get back to honesty no matter what group we belong to!
I sure as hell don't want to blindly subscribe to any group if they ignore truth to focus on their positive spin, as the Freepers do... if enough people of a certain group demand truth and honesty from their 'leaders', then et voila! those 'leaders' will have to finally do what is right, not what is prescribed.

As for the 'affording to lose' -- ARE we 'winning' when our so-called Democratic politicians vote as the Republicans do?
What kind of win is that?

Dare I say, it would certainly solve the Blue Dog/Republican-Lite (Republican period!) problem the Democrats are having with so many of their elected politicians-- and quickly, too!

Bad political tactics are ones that lose elections.

As for rules of fair play, if there are no referees, there are no rules. Until someone puts Karl Rove in jail, there are no rules.

The tactics of getting elected are a different kettle of fish to the principles of governance. Yes, I acknowledge that it's hard to govern in a conscientious fashion when that is exactly what you cannot be to get elected.

is a loss by default?

I understand what you're saying, in this country and society it very well may be true, but it's still wrong; and it won't change until we stop playing the game and announce clearly and often why.

Who knows? It may catch on! :D

:toast:

It's more disturbing to me when Democratic candidates do this shit against another Democratic Candidate. Sheer stupidty.

they play the game that allows them to win... and right now that game is team sports... and it is actually an easier game anyhoo.

What is disturbing is the rah rah going on in this site.. and lack of thinking, as in critical thinking.

The kind that reminds me of that other place on the intertubes... the one we used to make lots of fun about

I broke the mores and had the subthread removed.

So it is going on at multiple levels

Hell, since I can still think for myself, I expect to get tossed soon... and when it happens I will not cry either.

This place is not what it used to be

are just being more quiet lately as things get a bit tense with the election so close.

and gong to other boards... where critical thinking is still allowed

I know I mostly have done that...

Cannot stand the you shall do as we tell you mentality

WOW!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks guys....

And no, this is not the only game in town... just that the other is far more work... and it involves a spine and principles... oh and it does not play well with Empire

It's Republicans vs. Democrats, Obama supporters vs. Hillary supporters, PUMA vs. Hillary haters. Hillary haters against anyone who even suggests her as VP, and so on. I'm fed up. If this madness leads to McCain being able to steal it, that would not only be a shame, but probably the nail in America's coffin. We'll become a full-fledged fascist state with another idiot hard-on-for-war, corporate puppet in charge. Unacceptable!

that I don't expect any positive changes regardless.

It will take US the people to act up... our so called leaders will not do that... forget it!

for some time now around here.

:hi:

And think on their own is the operative word here.

Mike Malloy?

;) :hi:

and he has hair....

Even if gray...

:-)

...and it does not promote free thinking or issues oriented debate.

You toe the line for the team or prepare to be attacked.

in my view that mentality can also set the mood for a mass movement... and true believers.

It's gotten to the point that I avoid DU for that reason... in case you were wondering.

I see it here, in particular at the GDP cesspool... where it should have stopped a while ago.

And even calling the locals on what they are doing guarantees the fangs will come out

Way too much of the posting sounded like pep rally rants. Our team rocks. Your team sucks. I always thought it was stupid when the coach would lead the team in a prayer asking for God's help in winning - like the other team wasn't doing the same - like God gave a little white cloud about who would win. But the schools passed out ribbons saying "KIll the Lions" or "Maim the Raiders". Sickening. We get this stuff here. Our guy or girl is great and is perfect. Your gal or guy is a poopy head.

The worst is the Obama and Clinton dust up. It would be very hard to find any two politicians who were more alike in their behavior and policies and voting records. But the team mentality takes over and people scour for minute instances of difference and blow them up into earth wrecking importance.

You are right. It is dangerous. It will likely cost us the white house.

but what we are seeing is extremely dangerous

For the record.. ALL politicos rely to some extent in a cult of sorts... to get elected. Most don't use it to consolidate power, but given George W Bush encouraged it, and used it... that makes me nervous

The differences between the two candidates are slight, but each one has a claque whose chief talking point is "It's time we had a black president" or "It's time we had a woman president."

(Personally, I think it's time we had a gutsy president who isn't afraid to defang the corporations, and I'd take a hermaphrodite Martian if s/he were like that.)

thanks for the laugh

unfortunately we/some have been turned into cheerleaders shaking their pom-poms.

There may have been times in history when it wasn't so (like after WWII), but I'm just convinced that this stuff just ain't new.

WW II, for example.

For the record the founders warned us that the bane of the republic would be two fold, empire (check) and political parties (check)

Thanks for posting this thread, it needed to be said. :hi:

this morning I came across the cult brigade... and I was shocked just how much worst it has become

:yoiks:

and I expect it to fully go there before long

the labor movements of the early 20th century... if it were over team sports you'd not have an eight hour day

I could go on... but that requires a knowledge of ahem HISTORY, which many seem to lack and revel in

Who had principals after WW2? Truman? Who jailed people without cause and had detention camps built all over the country? Or maybe you're talking about Ike. How 'bout the Kennedy's, who won the whitehouse with the help of the mob and then went after them like bats on fire.

I've read all the history I can get my hands on. Then of course, I've read the real history of our country as well. The labor movement had nothing to do with politics, at least not politicians, that was about the PEOPLE. I just make it a point to never look back with rose colored glasses. There were PEOPLE who made a difference, and politicians who made deals.

and yet there are numerous activists, regular people, who do qualify for that. It seems to me that in order to "lead" this nation, or any nation, you have to demonstrate that you are the biggest suck up to the current power players.

I'm an active Dem, because the alliterative is just too scary. But I don't look to any politician as a hero. They've all got dirt, and they've all made deals. That after all, is what it's all about. We've all heard it said so many times; it's about compromise, it's the art of the possible.

Hoffman, and radicals like him had it right. You can't trust these stinking bastards and the sooner we all realize that and start holding them, all of them, accountable the sooner this country can be a better and more honest place.

and you are confusing Truman with FDR

Oh never mind....

Read Being Red by Howard Fast. Or for that matter, Peoples History of the US by Howard Zinn. Seriously man, I'm not going to say something here without being able to back it up. This is not opinion, this is a fact.

I beg you, please be informed before you tell me I'm confused. Go read a book. I'm not talking about the camps for Japanese Americans. And don't even get me started on FDR, he did a lot of good things, and also a lot of bad.

have read the books by the way... and many others.... many, many... many others

And some primary material as well.

And yes, there were far more principles at one point.

But enjoy the game... after all it is a damn team sport...

GO TEAM! :sarcasm:

then why are you calling me confused? It's all there in black and white. For someone that claims to be a history major, you seem to have a lot of empty space in your education. As far as the "go team" stuff goes, my views have never applied to that manner of thinking.

Why so angry?

Have a good life

Just told you that you were wrong... done...

therefore I am done with you.

Have a good life...

Funny.

...I think it started with all those anti-FDR bastards, who started those think tanks.

than any politician. They have definitely created the team rivalry ethic. There is no more just disagreement with the other side's position, as much as they just hate liberals and need to obliterate them. That visceral emotion really didn't rear it's ugly head here, at least against our own, until this primary.

and the freeps made it WAR not team sports.

we cannot do any critical thinking until x point comes. And then we move the goal posts

It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

and I do remember a time when it wasn't like this (long ago).

The other thing that bothers me is that politics has become so Madison Avenue. Now the pundits are referring to the "republican brand", "the Obama brand", etc. like they are talking about Pepsi and Coke. I find that unsettling.

there is no discourse and everyone forgets that we are all supposed to be on the same side.

I do essentially blame the Republicans for the vast majority of how the whole process has broken down, they decided to make it about Republican domination and doing anything to win at any cost. And by win, I mean line the mega-corporation's pockets and systematically creating have's and have not's. They will crush us into powder, if we allow it.

The fact that the GOP took the nuclear option, it leaves you little choice but to do whatever it takes to beat them. I think that in order for the country to make any real effort to get on track that we will have to more or less extinguish the Republican party as it now exists. They have simply become too dangerous to even the appearance of liberty and opportunity and worse they're financial practices are so bad that they threaten any sustainability. They're softening us up for the corporate world order.

Once they are rendered moot then it would probably dictate that the DLC and DNC split and allow another couple parties to the table. The only part of the GOP that government should have any concern with is finances and I think the DLC can represent the children of Hamilton capably enough and we can at least agree to keep the government out of the individual's hair and we can agree to disagree on resource distribution and the power of the corporations. That's a balance that has a some functionality. Both sides can form coalitions with the Libertarians or whoever else can get a seat at the table. The remnants of the party of Lincoln can get their heads straight and try to be productive in some fashion for the people.

I agree that the state of affairs is a joke that no one thinks is funny but this has been so pushed along that something fundamental has to change.

becoming extinct and the Democratic party splitting into two parties. The republican party is self-destructing so rapidly, I don't think it can be salvaged or reinvented at this point.

there is no discourse and everyone forgets that we are all supposed to be on the same side.

I do essentially blame the Republicans for the vast majority of how the whole process has broken down, they decided to make it about Republican domination and doing anything to win at any cost. And by win, I mean line the mega-corporation's pockets and systematically creating have's and have not's. They will crush us into powder, if we allow it.

The fact that the GOP took the nuclear option, it leaves you little choice but to do whatever it takes to beat them. I think that in order for the country to make any real effort to get on track that we will have to more or less extinguish the Republican party as it now exists. They have simply become too dangerous to even the appearance of liberty and opportunity and worse they're financial practices are so bad that they threaten any sustainability. They're softening us up for the corporate world order.

Once they are rendered moot then it would probably dictate that the DLC and DNC split and allow another couple parties to the table. The only part of the GOP that government should have any concern with is finances and I think the DLC can represent the children of Hamilton capably enough and we can at least agree to keep the government out of the individual's hair and we can agree to disagree on resource distribution and the power of the corporations. That's a balance that has a some functionality. Both sides can form coalitions with the Libertarians or whoever else can get a seat at the table. The remnants of the party of Lincoln can get their heads straight and try to be productive in some fashion for the people.

I agree that the state of affairs is a joke that no one thinks is funny but this has been so pushed along that something fundamental has to change.

bud, politics has _always_ been about politics.

you might want to take a look at this thing they call "history."

obliviously this is a new concept to you...

that is what I am talking about... this is a fairly new phenomena in US so called politics BUD

And I am willing to put my REAL history degree to yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday, as well as my training in Poli Sci BUD

that you would know more. Remember, the real history is often ignored in those text books you read in school.

called Primary Records and sources.

Know the difference?

Do you really think that team mentality started with freepers? If it had a start, it was over 6,000 years ago! People ahve been acting the way you describe throughout history. the rarity is, and always has been, being able to come together at all. Politics has always been a team sport, because it is about influencing people's opinion.

The difference I think is the mass media now has the tools to really control the Dumb Vote....and I have to say looking at massive Dumb-Ins like that bike rally crowd ooh-rahing over McCain, I seriously wonder if there's ever been as many stupid, gullible morons in this country or any other country than now. I don't mean uneducated/illiterate -- I mean on-purpose educated/propaganda-ized to be dumbass tools of the elite. I guess Hitler era Germany maybe.

And it enrages me. It repulses me.

I'm not playing that game.

A little while ago the most aggresively ignorant columnist in our local paper ('if it was good enough for Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and my grandfather, it's good enough for me') penned a celebratory tribute to Rush Limpballs, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of his first broadcast:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=778917

If your gag reflex doesn't allow you to get through it (it's amazing what this d*ckhead is so happy about), here's the two item summary that cuts through the superficial differences between "our" team, and "theirs":

1.) While there may be superficial similarities between the 'blue' and 'red' teams, the conflict boils down to...


“The love of liberty is the love of others. The love of power is the love of ourselves.” – William Hazlitt, English essayist (1778 - 1830)

or as Jimi Hendrix phrased the same sentiment:

“When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, then the world will know peace."

2.) To be a little more specific, in the context of American democracy, these 2 teams are fighting for and against the Constitution, for and against uncontrolled Executive Privilege.

Can't happen people.

but they always seem to grow into mini mobs of malicious mafiosi. Just look at our own Lounge. :D

there is no substance anymore, nor is it allowed either... for the sake of ahem, victory

Heck look at the Edwards so called scandal

We care about this matter, but we can't get Mr Bush impeached?

Something wrong...

It could, but on the left it's unlikely.

On one hand, we want enough unity to maintain the inertia to victory, on the other we don't want to march mindlessly there like the right has these past several years.

Their sports fan mentality compells them to support unscrupulous criminals and abhorrent policies without any consideration for the damage being done. So when we try and show them the damage, they don't see it as a reality, but rather as 'just another tactic' of "the other side".

There lies the difference between the left and the right nowadays. I've really had no choice but to side with the left because by and large, they are the reality based community, and I live in reality. This is fairly prevalent even here. Unfortunately, many lefties attribute 'lock step' support to the mindlessness of the 'right'... and it's hard to blame them when you look at how scary and devastating the results have been. But... that translates into a fear of becoming united on the left, because it's too much like 'lock step' support to so many.

Well, it's not.

The confusion we have over the 'classification' of supporters and detractors comes from the fierce need to establish individuality, and from the fear of 'being like them'.

In reality, the left would do just fine in lock step support for a candidate because their candidates are far more likely to be chosen through realistic assesment and attention to facts. The support for a given candidate by the majority on the left has been well-earned by that candidate, unlike on the right where the candidate seldom represents the actual values of their constituents, yet they get their support just by putting on the 'team' jersey.

Those that believe that support for the democratic candidate represents 'lock-step' support are dismissing the possibility that such support is not mindless. Likewise, attempts to convince people that they need to support the candidate, and not undermine their candidacy, are perceived as the 'with us or against us' ultimatum. That just isn't the case if one looks at how desperately important it is that we win.

The calls for unity behind the candidate, and the discouragement of damaging, and usually misplaced criticism, is not a call for mindless conformity, it is just a rational plea to work together to avoid an unfathomable disaster.

So if it looks like the 'sport's fan' mentality is creeping into the left's dialogue, you can be assured that it is not mindless, and to some extent, it may even be necessary.


But the day the left's support turns into mindless sport's fan mentalitly, then we're all screwn. That's what can't happen.

that mindless sports mentality, with even elements of cult of personality, have been taking form for the last five months

People are so damn desperate for victory that they are willing to throw all to the wayside

And if you do not put the obligatory loyalty oath, somehow you are less than...

And I may add even suspect since you will obviously vote for McCain.

In my view this is far more than just about the election, and if we surrender all principles to win... then I fear we haven't won...

The way forward; it would help me see your POV if you have some specific examples of the mindlessness. I really haven't seen any that exceed the attitudes I touched on here;

"Those that believe that support for the democratic candidate represents 'lock-step' support are dismissing the possibility that such support is not mindless. Likewise, attempts to convince people that they need to support the candidate, and not undermine their candidacy, are perceived as the 'with us or against us' ultimatum. That just isn't the case if one looks at how desperately important it is that we win.

The calls for unity behind the candidate, and the discouragement of damaging, and usually misplaced criticism, is not a call for mindless conformity, it is just a rational plea to work together to avoid an unfathomable disaster."

Personally, I would have given up many principles if it meant we could have avoided avoided a Bush 43. Hell, knowing what I know now, even my life seems like a small price to pay to stem that kind of a disaster. Nonetheless, doing what it takes to win does not mean one is 'abandonning' one's principles... even if any actual principles were set aside. I haven't really seen that considering that the candidate hasn't necessarily done that either.

It's simply not true that Obama has 'flip-flopped' on much of anything. When any rational person compares him to McCain, he really does look like an Avatar of Hope, even though he has his flaws.

It is from there that people are saying 'cut the crap' when people are lamenting how "He's betrayed us!". I mean, for Christ's sake, he's not even the President yet! In this case, and this is a simple fact; creating doubt about Obama, when there is little justification for it to begin with, really is helping McCain.

Telling people we need to stuff the doubts and get behind the candidate is merely acknowledging the reality.


Cast doubts; undermine the candidate; decrease chances of beating McCain.

Look at how scary McCain is; get behind the democrat; increase chances of beating McCain.


The shit's been working for the mindless Right for a decade now, trust me when I say it can work for the mindfull Left and their far more consciencious candidates.

Unity does not equal mindlessness.

that was sufficient for me to wretch

as we'd like to see it.

I've explained this, many times, and most people at least 'get it' whether they like it or not.

Obama stepped in shit to dodge a bullet. One that may or may not have hit him. Yes, it was an entirely political calculation, that he may very well have gone the other way on is he could have stopped it.

That said, he couldn't have stopped it. To be clear; There was nothing he could have done to stop that bill. And that's the crux.

He did try to vote out telecom immunity. That vote failed.

He did state clearly that he wasn't done with the bill...



The shit he stepped in was voting for a lousy bill, one that he knew was lousy, and irritating his base.
The bullet he dodged was the RW talking point about Obama being 'soft on terror'.

Now, think of this from a basically political standpoint;

The majority of moderates that he needs to make this election a landslide would not be put out by his vote. Those same people, on the other hand, could be swayed by the 'soft on terror' message the RW would be pumping through the airwaves today.... right now... and right through the GE. Sure, they would time it accordingly, but you could bet they'd hammer on that till the cows came home, made themselves a martini, put some pajamas on, read a good book, and had cow-sex until morning.

On one side of the equation was the risk of putting off people in his base. That was quantifiable. He could only lose a very small percentage of far-left and libertarian interests.

On the other side of the equation was the risk of handing the right a tool with which to pry huge numbers of moderates from his camp. After all... they wouldn't be moderates if they were immune to RW talking points.

The first scenario; voting for the bill... presented a quantifiable risk.
The second was not only not as easily quantified, but represented a huge potential loss.

He, not being a fool, chose the former. If there's any confusion as to why, refer back to his statement.

I've followed your posts for years, you know that. You no doubt are aware that I consider you to be one of the brightest around here... I'm sure I've mentioned as much. So it's obviously no surprise that I agree what a shitstain his vote on the FISA bill is.

I'm also sure that if there is a flaw in my logic, you're one of the handful around here who can point it out.

It's all about the "Yay TEAM!" mentality for far too many here... and on the other side of the aisle.

but this is amazing... go to the GDP cesspool and you don't mention the mandatory loyalty oath... you are bitter, you are alone, you obviously will vote for McCain... and they don't get it... how much of a joke the children have become

Everybody wants it... but let the other guy change. Wot? Me change?

Life imitates art, I guess... we are Idiocracy.

all politicos rely on a certain level of true believers to get elected

but in my view the campaign may have lost all control of the bottom base that are on full cult of personality mode.

The monster takes on a life of its own. There is no controlling the cult of personality, for better or worse. The bashing continues on many fronts where it is clearly no longer relivant. And let's not forget Bush's 23%...

Interesting times...

this to centralize power

We both know Bush has done that

I fear he wasted a lot of good will that was highly contagious and growing.

These are men with sports' playbook tactics but instead they are playing with armies and innocent people's lies. When you do it on the board, you don't see the blood or the destruction of the playing field. Someone needs to throw reality into their faces.

whether it involves republicans or whether it involves Democrats.

That has sadly become the default, too many people use the sound bites and slogans as the entire basis (OK, maybe they look at the candidate's picture too) for making a decision. I hesitate to pile on and harken back to the primaries, but especially early on, it was all about creating memes, "I'm the reformer" "I'm the populist" "I'm the true liberal" ect. In some cases, the meme didn't align with the record, but in some flip-flop of rationality, what was said was somehow much more important than what had been done.

I got torched a few times for pointing this out about (ironically) the candidate I was reluctantly supporting. Strangely, you can get less heated arguments by buying into a competing meme than challenging all the memes. Especially here. Don't let facts or history get in the way of the carefully burnished image of the moment, and heaven forbid you ever point out that the image is a facade and it was once a different carefully burnished image.

The only currency that a politician has is their word, trust. If they betray that, they should not be held up.

BTW, I picked up and just started The True Believer. It looks to be an informative read.

It might be nice for politics to be about individuals and their (or our) personal principles, but I'm not sure we can point to a country that's made it about those in the past 200 years or so.

The Olympics are as old as Solon (I know a reference to ancient Greece)... and so were the political shenanigans of both Sparta and Athens

You could say the Gladiator games are the original all controlling and engrossing sports, and we both know how well things went in the Roman Senate

The Founders warned us about the evil of parties by the way.

"Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters. But I don't think so."

~Barack Obama, 'The Audacity of Hope'