You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #3: True, but I don't see a big difference between that and [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-09-13 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. True, but I don't see a big difference between that and
Democrats who idolize Bill Clinton or Obama.

And it's more than just one person. Cheerleaders on both sides will explain away almost anything that almost anyone in their party does. Unless there is a conflict with what the President wants, in which case the President wins. And further in that vein, they will throw any individual or group under the bus at the slightest hint of conflict, even Sanders (whom I think is the single best person in federal office).

I used to post on a political board where both Republicans and Democrats posted. During the last two years of Bush's reign, a few of the Republicans began saying a few unflattering things about his spending, but very few. I thought that kind of blind obeisance would be foreign to Democrats. Then Obama got elected and my jaw began dropping.

Mind you, I voted for Obama in 2008--eagerly--but I could not find a good reason for, e.g., giving the invocation at his inauguration to Rick Warren, except being willing to do anything to enhance his chances of his own re-election. (Not the last time I was to come up with that only reason, either.) And it was not a good enough reason for me to justify what he did.

The first tactic of our friends here was to blame it on the Inauguration Committee, ludicrous as it was to claim the Obamas did not know in advance about, and had no power over, the recommendations of the committee. (In fact, I'd be surprised if the Committee was the first to mention Warren's name.)

Yet, Democrats who would have reamed Bush for doing the same thing justified Obama's doing it. Pulled stuff out of the air, they did. And, if his personal ambition got to be the only reason they could defend, they defended that, too, or at least said it was what he should do. I thought Democrats were better than that.

Were we always like that? If not, when did we change? Maybe we were always like that, but it was not as obvious because we were not on message boards? I don't know. I didn't follow politics closely and tried to stay away from controversial topics when talking with friends and neighbors.

I didn't even know my sister was a Democrat, that's how little I discussed politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC