Have we shifted to the right?

[Iverson]

(n.b. - changed the title after about half an hour to reflect more what I was getting at.)

Rightly or wrongly, I've gotten the impression that the political discourse around here has been shifting to the right. These are among the argumentative warrants that I've encountered lately:
- The Iraq War Resolution (IWR) was an attempt to avoid war.
- A refusal to support IWR or, more importantly, candidates who voted for it is the province of third parties only and impermissible in the Democratic Party.

Two questions with this in mind:

How much accomodating of the rightward-drifting middle is possible before a political position ceases to be progressive?
What role do progressives have in the Democratic Party?

I realize that topics like this have been raised before, but perhaps the campaign season has made for some tidal shifts at DU. You tell me.

[Pillowbiter]

1. I had noticed a change here

but I didn't put my finger on it being a rightward shift. I thought it was mostly because Democrats are grasping at any straw to get Bush out of office, and in the process lose sight of the big picture and attack other Dem candidates.

Either way, not good.

Bad DUer's, no Friday beer.

PB

[K-W]

I dont think its losing sight in many cases

but a recognition that until bush us out we need to put a very progressive agenda a bit on hold. When the power in washington is at least more balanced, then we can push hard for a progressive agenda.

Also Ive noticed more conservative posters than I have before, which changes the overall tone a bit.

[Lars39]

2. I think we have been too accomodating.

It's sharpened our wits and arguments a bit, but it's getting pretty old.

[HFishbine]

3. I think

there has definitely been a shift to the right, and I think it started when a certain canididate's supporters joined us.

I'm totaly dumbfounded that some people here have the opinion that they "don't care" about privacy rights as long as we are "safer." I think that would have been an invitation for a good beating several months ago.

[CivilRightsNow]

137. You hit the nail on the head..

..and I shutter to think what will happen to our party as a whole if that candidate becomes the nominee. I just think that now is a pivotal time and we cannot just give our party away with the whole "anyone but Bush" mentality.

I mean really..

Anyone but Bush? How bout Zell Miller or Arnold Schwartzenneger? How bout Colin Powell, wrapped up in a more societally accepted package spouting an antiwar message cause his pollers know it works well with the Dems? I already see something much more sinister.

Bipartisan my ass. Pro-Military/Industrial Complex is more like it. And these are things that we cannot accept. To do so is to let down the people that have worked for 100 years to make this party a great one. To make this party the people's party.

[Cleita]

4. Definitely.

I'm thinking they are more libertarian than right wing though. You know the we're liberal until it costs us money group.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. I have been noticing a rightward shift for the worse

and I'm not nearly as 'progressive' as many progressives on the board. The sexist, racist, and homophobic attitudes exhibited by many DUers is particularly troubling.

On threads about abortion, affirmative action and gay marriage, I have read some posts worthy of Free Republic. And they are from long-time DUers, not disruptors.

I love it here, but I don't know how much longer I can tolerate these jackasses...

[Iverson]

6. That raises a question ...

... and this somewhat applies to other respondents so far too.

Are you describing contributions from those who come explicity to disrupt, or are you describing something that is becoming part of the collective culture here?

:toast:

[Lars39]

7. There are quite a few that come to disrupt and never get banned

because they are very skilled. They become part of the culture then, and is part of the reason for the rightward shift, imo.

[tom_paine]

15. Bingo, Lars! The professionals are here now

These are no verbally flatulent Young College nazis who can;t make three posts without revealing themselves.

In my opinion, we have a fair-sized legion of Busheviks who come in here and use us for their nefarious purposes. They are trained and sophisticated and likely paid to do this, considering the Busheviks have not only $200,000,000 in legitimately raised campaign funds, but God knows how much in slush funds

(you think Watergate ever stopped? LOL. Just slowed for a short time and redirected...growing evermore bolder as the checks and balances of the Old Republic weakened and weakened unto death)

Finally, add in the fact that, as time goes on, the Public Treasury is rapidly beccoming the Imperial Privy Purse and that I have no doubt that Busheviks are using the FBA, CIA, and OHS for political surveillance and PsyOps work, along with the entire Black Ops funds that can more and more be siphoned for Bushevik purposes as the various agencies are purged (less violently than Stalin or Hitler--bad PR--but just as ruthlessly purged) and replaced with unscrupulous Bushevik Loyalists...

...and what you have is a well-financed and unopposed bunch of people with time enough to troll around DU and do their vile Bushevik thing...subtly, smartly. Increasing divisions (oh, I'll bet you could find more than a handful of Bushevik Operatives in GD: 2004 spidering around, enflaming divisions then running once everyone gets het up and starts flaming.

I have absolutely zero doubt this is going on...and will get worse as the 2004 Stalinst Amerikan "election" grows closer.

And you can make book that there will be a Denial of Service Attack on "Election" Day, too.

[sallydallas124]

36. I fully agree

And, I'm sure one of them is going to pop in and call me a "tinfoil" -ist...but it wouldn't surprise me if the goal is to hijack DU and create an environment where the dominant ideas are RW and liberal ideas are labeled 'whacko.' It's happened on other boards, I have no idea why, of all places, it couldn't happen here.

I've been turned off by the RW pollution on DU for some time now. But there is a definite core of good souls and as long as they're here, I'll keep coming back.

I feel some of the slick right-wingers are easy to spot because they're so MEAN! There are some who, as far as I've seen, have never posted without a level of hostility -that certain special style of hostility that the RW has so lovingly honed reserved for commie liberals.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

40. Most of them just need to get laid, but then again

wingnuts are all about abstinence, except when it comes to their leaders like Newt Gingrich.

[KoKo]

52. They are here, and gaining control. n/t

[0007]

117. Many many many

I have read at freerepublic how they'd gain control of DU, and that was two years ago.

[JanMichael]

70. Are you violating any rules by saying that?

Just curious and somewhat serious due to my skill at attracting certain undesirable reproaches:-)

[Lars39]

78. Didn't name names, or parties or candidates.

I know what you mean, though I haven't received any *get in that corner*, yet. :)

[9215]

134. And being disallowed from doing that makes

your claims sound like a "conspiracy theory".

I agree with your claims, but also agree with the board policy of not naming names.

Without any "case studies" we will never solve this problem because we will never be able to verify its existence.

[Solomon]

122. This is the problem I see lately. I'm kind of dismayed at the

new interpretation of the rules. Seems kinda fascistic to me. Feels alien if you know what I mean. Can't say more for fear of ...

[K-W]

8. I think that the board is shifting to more of a politics forum

rather than a democrat forum. Now this site is not supposed to be only for progressives, but for democrats, so some moderate liberal opinion is just fine.

Im not sure what the solutio is. It seems bad to boot people who are not being terribly disruptive, but then again It is pretty annoying to have to deal with threads and replies that dont belong on this forum. They arent disruptors per se. It is the kind of posting that would be acceptable in a more open aimed forum.

[tom_paine]

17. This is not about "moderate liberal" views

I should know. I'm a meat-eatin', gun-totin', affrimative-action-disliking moderate myself.

That is NOT what people are referring to.

[Woodstock]

167. Agree

It's more of a general politics discussion in some ways. Which is too bad, because general politics discussions are everywhere - and Democrats/progressives need somewhere to regroup. At one point someone named all of his positions - none of which was along the party platform or progressive - and said, should I post here? And a surprising number of people actually said yes (thankfully, a good number also said hell, no.) Some of it is naivete...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. There are some DUers with lots of posts

who seem to always take the far-right position (I'm sure you know who they are). Whether they came originally to disrupt or hone their debating skills is unclear. I know there are conservative Democrats, and I'm fine with their positions because they've come to their positions honestly. The folks I'm talking about are racist, sexist, and homophobic and often post flamebait.

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. I'm not moving to the right.

Further left is more like it.

[liberalpress]

133. I started out kinda moderate....

... kind of a centrist-Bill-Clinton-DNC-ish kinda guy. But the longer these walking feces remain in charge, the more leftist I become!

[BurtWorm]

11. It's an excellent question, Iverson.

It seems to me that there is a rightward drift around these here parts every time a candidate takes a position that cannot in anyway be construed as progressive. Naturally, people who support this candidate for whatever reason, usually having to do with "electability," defend that candidate's position. It often looks like cognitive dissonance.

[blurp]

12. Liberal minds consider many ideas

Sometimes those ideas match those on the right. Sometimes they don't.

The whole point of having a liberal mind is that we're open to all sorts of ideas, not just those that fit what has been called "left". If we kept recycling the old stuff, we'd be, well conservatives.

[Iverson]

16. from the general to the specific

Surely you are not suggesting that fear of being doctrinaire should make us believe things that we do not.

I hope that all of us here can take as given your general comments about the importance of being open-minded. Would you comment on the specific questions about progressivism?

[BiggJawn]

13. Isn't that why we call it a "Big Tent"?

OK, so I'm not "Liberal enough" for some people because I'm a gun-owning Democrat, I eat meat, I refuse to acknowledge "Politcal Correctness" as a RW "invention", etc.

But I'm no ReTHUGlican. I make about $200,000 a year too little for the ReTHUG party to hold any attraction for me.

I think you're seeing some really SMOOTH disruptors, or possibly some of those "Lieberman Democrats".

[Kathy in Cambridge]

18. You're right-defintely some smoothies

that fly under the radar. And I do think they're professionals.

I have very progressive attitudes, except that I too eat meat, don't care if you own a gun, have no use for the regionalism that I see on this board (re: electable Southern candidates and the Northeast is the root of all evil).

[K-W]

23. Im sure even the very progressive here have some views that might seem

conservative, that isnt the point I dont think. A centrist liberal is welcome here and has been since ive been here. I have seen them discuss and share opinions and its been fine.

Things are different now. People starting up threads questioning the basic tenets of the democratic party and replies in posts doing basically the same. I think there are definately disruptors, that is to be expected with the exposure this site has gotten, but I think that same exposure has attracted normal political junkies from across the spectrum who have decided to just act as if this is a debate forum rather than a liberal discusssion forum.

I think the solution is twofold. The mods of course, who I think are doing a very good job.

I think the most important step is that we need to stop responding to posts and threads that violate the spirit of the forum. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I usually never fail in defending my progressive views, but if we just let bad threads and posts die, they would be less of a problem.

[Woodstock]

168. "questioning the basic tenets of the democratic party"

Agree. In one case, someone even toted out stats that 45% of Dems disagreed with one of the major tenets - I know this is not true, of course - and everyone was so sick of arguing the point that the lie just laid out there unchallenged for a while. It gets to a point where you don't want to spend half your time defending the platform and challenging lies.

[ulysses]

14. yes.

DU is always changing, imo. Look for the pendulum to swing again after the general election.

How much accomodating of the rightward-drifting middle is possible before a political position ceases to be progressive?

How to answer this objectively? I'd like to believe that there is a way, I just don't know what it is. I know what *my* breaking points are, or at least some of them.

What role do progressives have in the Democratic Party?

Depends on who you ask, and then there's the difference between an actual function and what the party hierarchy wants. :)

[Hamlette]

19. I'm more careful about what I post

because of the "spies." Probably makes me sound more conservative.

When I found out we were being read and some comments were being reported in and on Rush I didn't want to fuel the fire.

As to moving right...why not appear moderate and win in 2004 and then do what we want? Like Bush did.

[Terwilliger]

20. OHHH no

if anything, we're moving to the left right now! John Kerry and Johnny Edwards, and Wes Clark! Paragons of leftist dogma!

Liberals sans all that "liberal" crap

[Iverson]

21. dehydrated water?

Just add water and serve!

[K-W]

25. Well at least we have the militant progressive group that will always seek

to exclude any moderation.

[JanMichael]

71. Whew! And the Militant Moderates that are SO progressive in their views.

I just wanna hug them all, they're so mushy and unrestricted by principles. Free as birds they are!

[K-W]

72. As far as Im concerned anyone in the spectrum who wants to exclude

the rest of the spectrum is wrong. Be they moderate or progressive.

[Terwilliger]

92. exclusion has nothing to do with what I want

that must be on YOUR end

[K-W]

102. The pee-wee herman school of debate

"I know what you are, but what am I"

I never stated or implied that we should exclude anyone, in fact thats the exact opposite of my point.

[RapidCreek]

108. That's exactly what you have done

you have made yourself the Grand Inquister of trolldom....you alone decide who is a troll and what bait is.....This is interesting since you also seek to blur the lines between left, moderate and right leaning democrats.

Your arguments have no focus that I can see.

RC

[Terwilliger]

127. you implied that I implied it

read your previous post

[reprobate]

22. I believe that there is a group of professional disruptors here.

When this board started these types would not be tolerated. I spent three terms as a moderator and these infiltrators would have been banned immediately.

I don't know what has caused the change in attitude of management, and I know that they have bent over backwards to accomodate as many of us as possible. The problem is that in accepting the wide range of opinions of democrats, repug disruptors can sneek in.

And yes, I have noticed that some posters are brazen in their right wing babble. The only way I know of to combat them is to jump their ass as soon as they post their propoganda. That's the way it was done here once upon a time.

Come to think of it, perhaps the difference is that WE have not defended our positions as vociferously as we once did. I have noticed that I will just ignore some of the spies who post here, instead of attacking as I once did.

We must also remember that the right wing is extremely well organized and has a dirty tricks corps that would put watergate to shame. Before DU started I would frequent a democrat news group. By luck I once saw a post on there that was addressed to (and I'm paraphrasing) 'all disruptors'. It was apparantly supposed to go to a mailing list and got posted in error. It was a full set of instructions on how to disrupt democrat news groups and discussion sites. The posting lasted about then minutes before it was caught and removed.

No, bush is not hitler, but the right wing is using the same tactics that the nazis did. Did you ever get the feeling that democrats are the new occupants of the warsaw getto and the republicans are the ones with the guns?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

27. I see through their bullshit and call them on it

there are a few clever ones that I can't bait though-they're professionals.

"Did you ever get the feeling that democrats are the new occupants of the warsaw getto and the republicans are the ones with the guns?"

Yes, I think it's only a matter of time if the Chimp steals another election.

[Sterling]

59. Thanks for this post and this thread.

I was really down and considering giving up on DU and looking for a new place to post.

It's good to see that others see what I see here.

I am a mod dem at hart I am even conservative (populists style) on some issues. But lately I feel like a commie here compared to a lot of the new crowd.

[wuushew]

24. Yes, how else do you explain a creationism thead with 350+ posts?

n/t

[K-W]

26. Successful disruption

most of those replies are liberals who got suckered into a discussion that just doesnt belong here.

[RapidCreek]

41. Suckered my ass

allowing that sort of shit to go unchallenged is exactly WHY people get the impression that the board is shifting to the right.

I don't feed trolls I blow their friggin heads off with great fan fair....as should any other self respecting Democrat. Hitler was a friggin troll....a damn successful one at that. Everyone just ignored him and hoped he'd go away....soon enough they were kissing his ring.

RC

[K-W]

46. Erm, no

all you do when you reply to such things is bump them up to the top of the forum and give the disrupter a chance to continue gathering attention. An unanswered thread or post quickly gets buried.

You cant kill a troll. You will just have to accept that. They want you to try and they laugh at you as they get you to keep bumping thier thread and allowing them to piss you off and get others attention.

If hitler was posting on an online forum, your best bet would be ignoring him. As far as I can tell that was never one of his tactics, so you dont have much of a point.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

47. Amen, brother!

I too consider it my duty as a Dem to slay freepers!

[K-W]

61. Oi, please please please take the word of an experienced forum person

YOu are just playing into their hands. You allow them to turn this forum from a discussion between liberals into a debate between liberals and conservatives. That is exactly what they want and the entire point of thier disruption.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

64. Most of them are gone in less than 20 posts

but, with all due respect, K-W, I'm not a Dem that lays down and allows them to take over a democratic messageboard. I often ignore the obvious knuckleheads knowing they'll be disposed of quickly, but I don't allow the long-time disruptors to get away with anything.

If that's you're strategy, go with it. But I'll stick to mine.

[K-W]

68. Erm, you are not only letting them take it over, you are helping them

You dont seem to understand teh dynamics of a message board. A thread with no replies dies. They cant take over the board if people dont post on their threads. You seem to think that if we dont answer thier posts everyone will see thier unansward posts and assume they won. That is just plain wrong. Thier posts would just drift down the page and away from anyones eyes.

A disruptor on a forum is not looking to win a debate. They go in with no illusion that they will ever win a debate. All they do is try to get people like you to defend your beliefs. They stick around just long enough to get you and a bunch of others into an argument, then they just split having fully accomplished thier mission. They have made you waste your time arguing with them and because your thread is active it attracts the attention of more and more people on the forum.

This happens on almost all forums, it is a common tactic and you are just feeding into it. It is called trolling, and what you are doing is called feeding the trolls. Think about it, what would be the best way to disrupt this forum.

Dont get me wrong RationaRose, I feed trolls all the time. I am certainly never one to lie down and take it, but the disruptors are taking advantage of your passion to accomplish their mission. If this is OK with you fine... but please propose another solution to dealing with disruptros. You allow them to get away with EVERYTHING, you are doing exactly what they want you to do.

[RapidCreek]

82. As you can see from my post count....I am considerably more experienced

than you are. I won't mention the fact that I have administrated 4 forums...one of which I built, marketed and run entirely by myself (though I borrowed allot of code).

Tell you what chief...you come into my house and shit on the floor I ain't gonna ignore you. You'll get my attention and it'll be the sort of attention you won't like. I'll kick you in the ass, jamb the shit you left on my rug down your throat, throw you out and let the neighbors know about you.

I would suggest that is not what they want....what they want is for folks like yourself to ignore them...so they may quietly sow their seeds and make fence sitters doubt themselves. Your mentality is the sort that has given rise to the rightward shift of the Democratic Party....and to the subsequent birth of the Greens....and weakening of the party as a whole.

JFK called a spade a spade
LBJ called a spade a spade
HST called a spade a spade

Many consider these politicians methods to represent the epitome of truly effective Democratic politicking.

Tom Daschle is a molly coddler
Nancy Pelosi is a molly coddler
and up until recently Al Gore has been a molly coddler

Most recognize these individuals as loosers.

As Bill Clinton said about the last presidential campaign. Weak and right looses, Strong and wrong wins. Right and Strong is the way to go.

RC

[K-W]

84. DU post count doesnt count my total posts online

so I wonder exactly why you are trying to pull rank.

If you have administered forums, you should know full well not to feed trolls.

If you killed me, I would stop shitting on the floor. Arguing with a troll just encourages them to do it again. That is the fundemental difference and one you seem to be missing quite dramatically. If my goal was to get you to kill me, then I would have won by shitting, just as if a troll's goal is to get you to respond, he has won by posting.

I would suggest that you stop using idiotic metaphors that do not relate to forums. A troll is not trying to win an argument with you, he is simply trying to get you to argue, so stop playing into his hands because you dont understand what he is doing.

Let me see how much clearer I can make this. DU is innundated with posts. If a thread does not get a reply it very quickly disapears off the front page and VERY VERY few people will ever read it. You are the one making people read troll posts, not me. If you ignore a post it disapears and gets little attention. If you post on the thread, you just bump it up to the top and make other people check it out. A troll accomplishes nothing if no one responds to him.

And then you somehow compare my advice on dealing with trolls to the democratic party, which is laughable. They are two completely unrelated things. Yes, if a republican gets on TV and says something, he must be challenged. He isnt a troll. He is trying to influence people. A thread started on this forum and not bumped will be seen by very few people, it is a completely and totally different situation.

THIS ISNT POLITICS, THIS HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH JFK, LBJ, HAST, Dashcle, Pelosi, Gore, or Clinton.

Now stop being silly and realize that a democratic underground forum is not a national media covered political debate. None of the people you mentioned were dealing with forum trolls. So they are completely and utterly irrelevent to this discussion.

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/dealingwithtrolls.html

Please read this. A key quote:
"Remember the golden rule: In all cases, the best response to a malicious or destructive troll is absolutely NO RESPONSE. Trolls will only stay where they are well fed."

[RapidCreek]

95. 61. Oi, please please please take the word of an experienced forum person

Who was the one who pulled rank? As you can see....I pay attention to what people write....and I address it directly.

You say feeding the trolls keeps them around....Painting a clear picture of what they are....MORONS...then kicking them out is a hell of allot more effective. It also is a valuable bit of practice for dealing with such idiots in a face to face public confrontation.

Here is another idiotic metaphor for you....If I were a guest on Bill Maher and Anne Coulter called me a communist...I'd get up and knock the evil bitch over the back of her chair and tell her that she will meet with the same response or worse if she ever engages in such intentionally malicious, unfounded, character assassination again.

You would ignore her. Allot of people ignored McCarthy....think about it.

Trolls are a fact of life...they are everywhere...ignoring them gives their words validity in the minds of those who don't think for themselves and sit quietly by. I'd prefer to give that audience a different point of view to consider and I shall tailor it's delivery according to the situation.

The very fact that public school sponsored prayer is once again an issue is proof of what I say. The rejects who market such anti-american practices have been ignored to the degree that they once again have traction....and are increasingly considered mainstream. Patriotic Americans should make it their mission to stomp this shit down at ever turn.

You keep ignoring it....I'll keep fighting....we'll see who is the first one who takes a train ride to the shower room, k?

Lastly this board is the media, it is internet media and it is powerful. Unlike Nationally Syndicated media outlets I have a voice here....and I intend to respond to the Anne Coulters and Sean Hannity's when they rear their empty, malicious, hateful heads. I'll kick them clean off, with eloquence, intellect and style....and hope that the lurkers read my words and learn something they may not otherwise have considered...before the thread is locked.

RC

[K-W]

100. I didnt pull rank, you did

I simply asked people to take my word as an experienced forum user. YOu are the one who claimed to be more experienced than me. That is pulling rank.

Yes, kicking trolls out is the best way to deal with them, but mods are overloaded and dont get them all instantaneously, in the mean time, the best strategy is to not fall for thier tricks. Meanwhile who is the bigger moron, the one who trolls, or the one who falls right into a trolls lap?

Once again your metaphor is completely and utterly inappropriate. This is not a TV show. In a setting like that there is a debate. People are engaged and there are people watching. On a forum a post or thread only becomes a debate if you make it a debate. You see, it doesnt become like the Maher show unless you choose to draw attention to the thread and enter the debate. THe thing is, a troll is not Coulter. Coulter wants to debate you. A troll simply wants to piss you off and make you think you are debating him, when he has no intention whatesoever of winning the debate. The moment you respond he has won.

I would not ignore Coulter on a show. Why on earth are you comparing a televised debate or discussion to an online forum. For goodness sake. I know the difference. I would debate her and show her as an idiot. There would be a point to doing that. There is absolutely no point in trying to debate trolls.

Trolls arent everywhere, they are only in online forums. And ignoring them is the best thing to do and the only way to beat them. THERE IS NO AUDIENCE. This is one major thing you seem to not understand. There arent thousands of people reading every post on these forums. The only way for a thread to get read by more than a handful of people is if it is very active and has alot of discussion on it. By responding to a troll you hand him his audience on a silver platter. If you ignore him he has no audience. No one reads it. It would be like simply not letting Coulter on television in the first place, which is a heck of alot better way of shutting her up than letting her on and punching her.

Arguing with trolls on forums has no effect on political issues. It will not prevent prayer in schools or have any meaningful efffect other than disrupting the forum. I fight in places where fighting will actually do something. I dont waste my time falling for trolls.

This board is not the media. You are hillarious. You are the perfect troll bait. You actually think you are winning by responding to trolls. You are just walking stupidly into thier traps.

--------------------------------

And let me make something very clear. Even if there was some point to your crusade against trolls, this is not the forum to do it in. The point of this forum is not to debate lurkers, trolls, or disrupters. It is for liberals to discuss between themselves. So stop colluding with the trolls to disrupt this forum please.

[RapidCreek]

112. My how interesting....

Anne Coulter is not a troll!! She seeks debate! Just like Limbaugh and Scarborough and Orielly no doubt! No they don't seek debate...they seek to attack and disparage through innuendo, misdirection, obfuscation, outright lies and fallacy. That is not debate.

There aren't thousands of people reading every post on this forum? Perhaps not...but there are thousands of people reading this forum every day...some are members and some are not....Do you have any idea of the number of page hits a day this site gets and from how many countries they come? From you words I am thinking you don't.

Here is a little experiment for you to run. Type democraticunderground into Google you will come up with 74 pages of references to DU. Now look up near the top of that page and you will see this.... News > Media > Alternative > Progressive and Left .

Guess the folks at Google aren't as smart as you are, eh? I'm sure the people who write articles for DU would be surprised to learn you feel their work does not constitute media or news...very flattering of you.

Now type in Drudge report and do the same....Wow! Lo and behold Drudge has only 81 pages of references to his site. 5 more than DU! Is the Drudgreport media, news? Evidently the dummy's at Google think so because if you look up at the top of the page you will see News > Directories News > Breaking News. Is the Drudge report not media either? Not news?

The difference between Drudge and DU is that DU is news written by real people in real time...lot's of real people and it's read by thousands. I would hazard to guess that as many people visit DU in a day as watch the HBO show hosted by Mr. Maher...possibly more.

RC

[Sterling]

87. amen

:kick:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

90. Everyone has their method and way of dealing with disruptors

I agree with RapidCreek's.

[K-W]

103. How is feeding a troll dealing with it?

That is the one I just cant figure out. Meanwhile when did this forum become a place for you folks to debate disrupters?

[Lars39]

106. Self Delete.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

107. You have your way of dealing, some of us have ours

can you understand that people have different approaches?

I'm going to sleep, looking forward to seeing where this thread goes in the morning.

[RapidCreek]

110. What is a disruptor?

Someone who disagrees with you? Pray tell, give me a definition....since you seem intent on bluring the lines between left, moderate and right leaning Democrats...your explanation should be interesting.

The reason the Creationism discussion was allowed to continue is because Creationists seek to inject their faith into public institutions...which is political. While it is most assuredly a position adopted by the right on both sides of the fence...it is not the exclusive property of Republicans (see Lieberman). If I recall correctly you asserted that that post was one engineered by disruptors...So are those who are proponants of Mr. Liebermans ideology disruptors? Were the mods wrong in allowing the thread to continue?

RC

[RapidCreek]

98. break out the swords!

and let the ass kicking commence :kick:

RC :)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. I have no patience for freeps

it is my civic duty to rid them from DU!

:-)

[RapidCreek]

109. Agreed....

I'll take it a step backward and say i have no patience with stupidity, intolerance, and dishonesty founded on misrepresentation, misdirection and fallacy....Freep or otherwise.

RC

[Kathy in Cambridge]

31. Yes, Creationism and the SUV/Global Warming Thread

What is up with that? Creationism? I went to CATHOILIC school and we were taught EVOLUTION.

[Sterling]

65. I posted that thread

I assure you I am nio freeper. I wanted help from DUers on how to address that kind of insanity. I am not a scientist I need help seperating the psudo science from the real deal as that essay was full of lies and half truths.

It was a great help to me in understanding what these people are thinking, but yes their were soem freeptards on the thread that much is true.

I am more worried about people here helping the media smear Dean and other candidates. It is sad that dems would use the puke media to hurt another candidate.

[rman]

114. only a few creationists in that thread

opponents of creationism (me for one) helped continue that thread.

imo that disruption was only successfull in that it caused some distraction, i don't think creationism made a very strong case for itself - on the contrary.

[Iverson]

28. another small example of what I mean

I realize that anecdotal evidence goes only so far, and I don't mean to single out the person I'm quoting from another thread, but this came out just a short while ago:

"Anyway, NBD and Nader types are a waste of time, we're better off trying to convert Republicans who read Kevin Phillips, etc.. Besides, I can't tell the far left from the insane or their Republican impersonators these days."

In a moment of frustration, a person can be moved to say nearly anything, but to express a preference for working with Republicans over Dean enthusiasts and Nader supporters seems to me to be a departure from past custom. Also, framing the left in terms of insanity is a similar departure.

[Lars39]

30. I'd say that

was alertable.

[K-W]

32. I have to say, I think you are off base here

Now I can certainly see that quote being said by someone with bad intentions, but I can see it coming from someone with good intentions too.

This is the democratic underground, not the progressive underground. If Nader is going to run against democrats for office, he is very much a threat to the democratic party. Now ideologically we sympathize with him, so of course there is a difference, but that statement you quoted could very well mean that greens are so ideologically set that they wont compromise, therefore we shouldnt use our energy to try and get them, but rather we should focus on pulling away moderate republicans. I dont see this as at all conservative or disruptive and it is actually a pretty decent point.

The far left have moved to be more fringe as a reaction to the middling policy of certain factions in the democratic party. If that was the posters point, he was right.

[Iverson]

33. could be

I have no lock on truth, and I am sure that the poster meant well from his point of view.

However, consider the difference between your analytical phrasing of a point and the word choice of the original poster. That is more than a difference in writing style. On some level, framing Dean and Nader supporters - even intransigent ones - as irrational and less preferable than Republicans is ... worth noticing.

I am trying to argue for inclusion of the progressive view, not exclusion of the moderate view.

[K-W]

34. Understood, and I agree with you

I think that you do have a point about the board changing. I think that is part of the all around problem. If it werent for the changing, we could give posts like that the benefit of the doubt, now we are forced to question the posters motives.

[Jax]

35. Have you read this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

snip...
"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. "

snip...
"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

And my favorite:
"We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive."

But khephra said it best IMHO when he said on this board " the further the Democratic Party moves to the right it allows an already far right republican party to move even further right without looking extreme".

That statement I firmly agree with.

I am staying liberal and left. I will never forget those pro war posters here and their support of this illegal oily corporate bloodbath in Iraq. Never. Reprehensible. RationalRose has said alot of what I feel as well on this thread.

Jax

[K-W]

37. Of course I have

We welcome anyone who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. That doesnt mean we welcome any progressive to come here and say whatever they want. If they wish to work on the shared goals that is fine.

There is a difference between making conservative a bad word and making conservatives a bad word. Conservatism is a blight on society, conservatives are in many cases just horribly misinformed or misled people.

I think khephra is just plum wrong. While that logic makes some superficial sense, I certainly dont think it works in reality. THe republican party got more conservative by moving more liberal. Bush ran on liberal positions. Gore didnt imitate Bush, Bush imitated Gore. Moving to the middle is a natural part of any national election, the whole point of the system is compromise. Khephra would be right if the republican party were openly radically conservative, but they arent. They are taking advantage of the people by pretending they are pro-enviroment, pro-healthcare, pro-workers etc. They are publically compassionate conservative, ie moderate, and privately radical conservative.

I am extremely liberal. I am extremely progressive. That does not mean that I dont recognize the importance of supporting a more moderate platform in order to gain the best possible results in our system.

That said I dont think there is any place on this forum for people who are attacking democratic ideas or democrats from any side of anything. Im just cautioing people not to villianize moderates along with conservatives and disruptors.

[Jax]

48. What liberal positions did Bush run on

pray tell.

Jax

[K-W]

49. Are you joking?

Did you see the election?

Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. One of his main issues was education. The debates between him and Gore were a debacle, because Bush would just make a general statement about how education, enviromental protection, etc were important things, but never giving specific examples. Then Gore would be forced to sort of agree with him but he would give statistics, which made him seem stiff compared to the catchphrase only Bush. Certainly Bush expounded conservative viewpoints, but only those that were politically effective and popular. It was the same in the primary when McCain gained momentum, suddenly Bush started running on campaign finance reform. Using his money he convinced voters that he, not McCain was for reform. At no point in the campaign did he run on a platform of what he has actually done, nor does he even now explain his actual motives to the public. He still pretends that he is leaving no child behind etc.

[Jax]

53. Never saw the debates as a 'debacle'

But I saw the media play up that right wing talking point like you are doing.

Enlightening thread here...

Jax

[Iverson]

56. let's be civil to each other

Surely you didn't mean to suggest that K-W was advocating a right wing perspective.

[Jax]

58. K-W is stating

the same right wing crap I heard all over the media after the debates.

I will call it as I see it. You and K-W can do the same.

Jax

[K-W]

60. Yes those were the right wing talking points, THAT WAS MY POINT

The right wing talking points were that Bush was pro Education, Enviroment, Healthcare, etc just like gore, but that gore was bogged down in boring and unreasonable plans. That was exactly my point. I'm not agreeing with them, Im pointing out that their strategy was to make it look like Bush and Gore were not much different, and that Bush was moderate in areas like Education and enviroment, where most of america is liberal. In the areas where conservative views played well, he expressed those. So you had Bush covering conservative ground to keep his constituancies and portraying himself as a moderate to the general public who didnt feel like thier health, education etc would be threatened by Bush.

He ran as a moderate. He is still running as a moderate. You have to be pretty out of touch not to see that. Yes hen is a rabid conservative, I know that, you know that, more and more people know that, but he still presents himself as a moderate every day.

[Jax]

62. I still did not see the debates

as a debacle by Gore. Ever. If I misunderstood your point, apologies and thanks for trying to clarify.

and khephra was NOT wrong. IMHO.

Jax

[K-W]

66. I thought gore won the debates handidly

but the fact is that he didnt win them with the general public. That is my point. Bush just agreed with Gore on all of Gores important points, making it seem as if Gore had no real positions. Bush did this by pretending to be moderate, and in some cases (education) liberal. Thus the things that should have gotten gore massive support from the middle ended up being non issues.

Well as for Khephra's point, thats just an strategy issue. I could be wrong, but I certainly dont see any evidence of it myself. I think the dem party runs the chance of making itself obsolete if it overeacts to the conservatives in office by going extremely liberal. The fact is that the general public who voted for Bush was not voting for him because they wanted a radical conservative president, so what we need to do is expose him for what he is and show that the democrats are the ones who are actually going to work for education, jobs, enviroment etc, all issues that people care about.

That said I also think it would be a mistake to do the opposite and to assume that the public is behind Bush's right wing policies and to move right because of that. That would be a terrible misjudgement.

The democrats need to stay where they are strong, on average, moderately liberal.

[Jax]

73. I see it the other way

I see the Democratic Party as becoming obselete if they ignore their liberal base. You state opinions as fact that I do not see as fact.

The appointed slime and his ilk must go. That is a fact for me and I suspect you as well. We may or may not agree how to get there or ways to get there. Come see me here in Marysville, WA sometime and we will discuss it over the beverage of your choice. :dem:

Jax

[K-W]

76. Why do you think it is mutually exclusive?

Why do you think that the democratic party has to choose? I think this is a big problem in the mindset of many progressives. They feel that the dem party either has to be progressive or moderate. I think that some moderates think this way too and that is also a problem. The war between progressives and moderates needs to be settled, but I think the only way it will be is for the party to encapselate both. The party needs to be true to its liberal base, but at the same time it needs to be in a place where the moderate voters can relate to it.

In a presidential race, you will always have moderate... or at least pretend moderate candidates. With the large number of voters, there is a conservative tendency (not politically conservative). Now in congressional and local elections, depending on the district candidates have different playing fields.

In the American system, our parties must act as broker parties, including people who can win in many very different districts. This means having moderates, liberals, and in some cases conservatives. Just as the Republicans must run very liberal candidates in some parts of the country to remain viable.

Every party must ride this spectrum and retain as much of the voting population as possible in national elections and retain as many districts as possible in district elections.

Now ive rambled on a little too much, but I hope you see where I am coming from. The republican party in recent times has recieved a huge monetary advantage. In our culture this has been a big change and it has forced the democrats to deal with the fact that more than ever they are facing an uphill climb. They screwed up by focusing too much on the moderate side of the spectrum, this is partly because they need money to compete with the republicans. But, now the progressive side of the party has said "enough is enough" the moderation doesnt seem to be working and we need to regroup.

But lets not make the mistake, during that regrouping, of ignoring the importance of including moderates in our party to retain and gain political power.

[Speed8098]

121. I've read enough

"I thought gore won the debates handidly" but the fact is that he didn't win them with the general public.

Are you forgetting the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote by 1/2M votes?

I think Rapid Creek and Rational Rose are right on the money. You K-W are the one who can't see the forest for the trees.

DU is a place where you can learn. I've been here for a long time, and yes, this place has changed. Everything in this country has changed.
I get frustrated sometimes because, as good as they are, the mods can't catch every disruptor, especially the subtle ones.

That said, I'd like to ask you, do you think this board would be what it is if everyone agreed on everything all the time?

I have learned so much from the links of facts that have been posted here to prove the point of whomever may be debating.

Personally I welcome the freeper who thinks they are sneaky. It gives me great pleasure to point out to them that we, unlike them, have facts to back up our statements. It is at that point that we become relevant as a news source. As Rapid Creek so eloquently pointed out, thousands of people from all across the political spectrum read this board. And when facts, I'll say it again, FACTS, are right there for you to see, you can't ignore them. Hence "osmosis" takes effect.

DU is a home for many of us and we will handle the freeps as we see fit. You are welcome to do the same.


On edit: Fixed html mistake

[greatauntoftriplets]

74. Did you believe * bush?

Did you know his record in Texas? "Compassionate conservatism" was BS.

[K-W]

79. of course not

I think this is the root of some of this discussion. I am a liberal and I never believed Bush. I am simply pointing out that to some extent his strategy worked, and that his strategy was to appear as a moderate.

[Toots]

29. I think a lot of really good liberal minds have left the premises.

For whatever reasons I don't know but there are many many posters who have gone by the wayside that I for one really miss. It seems the ones that have taken their places have neither the wit or the heart of those gone missing. It is still a great site and a good place to hone some of our arguments but the soul seems to have gone. just my $.02 worth

[Mandate My Ass]

38. Agreed

Several thoughtful, articulate, but most importantly unabashedly populist members are no longer here. I miss my brothers and sisters of the far-left fringe. :evilfrown:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. A good example of unacceptable and divisive attitudes

The thread is titled: "Homosexual marriage shot down in OH. New England should secede." The premise is New England is more tolerant of gay marriage.

This is from a nameless DUer that has been around a while-has over 1,000 posts:

"I bet army recruitment would go up mightily in some parts of Georgia if New England seceeded. It would be a long time coming, but it would be revenge time for some families who had their livestock killed and valuables dug up and stolen to up north.

I don't think secession is such a good idea.The southern states had one fourth of their adult white male population dead in four year."

Do you think this can be construed as regionalist or prejudiced?

This is a lame example but indicative of his overall mindset...

[K-W]

42. At first glance that looks tongue in cheek

but I could be wrong.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. It's not tongue-in-cheek

He's still fighting the civil war and hates Yankees. It gets really old...

[Iverson]

43. I haven't seen that thread.

However, if the excerpt you've provided is any indication, it's unfocused to the point of incoherence. I'm not sure it's even clear enough to be called divisive.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. It's a bit of a loaded question my friend

The phrases you cite are talking points in a sense (re IWR) and the directionals of right and left have been obscured. There is NO better place to witness THAT assertion than in the gun dungeon.

We HAVE shifted from policy talk quite a bit over the last two years but that is MORE due to the fact that the primaries are going and people are trying to FRAME issues inside a paradigm of what is "electable" versus what works or is right.

For myself, I've always considered myself a liberal...I SOMETIMES consider myself a progressive (not always though...e.g. PROGRESSIVES were largely in the 60's responsible for the promotion of forced sterilization as a means of being more "humane" towards those with a penchant towards crime etc...hardly a progressive notion today but nevertheless a means of underscoring that progressive policy can ALSO lead to unintended consequences).


A very perfect example of the dilemma we face as a group would be the Lake Charles area of Louisiana. The lake is polluted by PCB's. Industry has done everything they can to cover up the evidence that PCB's kill and cause cancer. People need jobs. The plastics/vinyl industry creates jobs. As an environmentalist I KNOW this industry needs to be reigned in and really needs to be replaced. As a politician I KNOW this industry keeps many people in my district employed in a bad economy. As a practical matter, I KNOW there is NOTHING in place to replace those jobs. What do I do?

[Iverson]

50. your raise multiple points

"As a practical matter, I KNOW there is NOTHING in place to replace those jobs. What do I do?"

My impulse is to say that it's not a good idea to keep the poison flowing.

"...(re IWR) and the directionals of right and left have been obscured...."

How so? It's one thing to argue pragmatism, but quite another to redefine pragmatism as principle. Thus, a noxious vote out of fear of losing reelection is an old story and not my focus here since it's nothing new. On the other hand, calling IWR a noble thing because it sought to prevent war, well, that's just goofy.

You may disagree, but it is not a loaded question, nor have you shown how a left-right dynamic doesn't apply. Why doesn't it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. I am saying the lines are a bit obscured

On the IWR vote, I don't give it much meaning NOT because I think the war was right, NOT because I don't think the vote was political and NOT because I think it was to prevent war but because they KNEW war was inevitable and the IWR vote made the circumstances predictable as to when the war would take place rather than UNPREDICTABLE either by surprise attack or by rigging the circumstances.

I think you are implying that there is a correct RIGHT position and a correct LEFT one...usually you are not binary in your approach.

[KoKo]

57. NSMA, the Repugs always said we'd lose jobs because of our Environmental

regulations. So it started in New England where the shoe manufacturers (big polluters) started to leave in the 70's and it's continued on down to now.

So, some Repugs would say let the Chinese and other countries kill off their populations (vast and growing) with toxic fumes and polluted waterways so they can send their stuff here "cheap" while they die for lack of an "Environmental Movement."

I think, perhaps, our Dems in Congress know this "unholy tradeoff" and that's why NAFTA/GATT and loosening of trade has been given the "thumbs up" for a couple of decades now.

In the end, the solution is NEW technology to filter waste and to deal with polluting industries, but that was deemed too expensive when you could just "outsource" the stuff to another part of our Planet and let them deal with it on their own.

I understand what you say, because their are "trade offs."

But, the issue which was popular to discuss in the l970's was taken care of by the aforementioned treaties. It's sort of "dead in the water" for now.

At some point we might be forced to accept more pollution as a trade off for suffering Americans....but of course, the Enviro-Regs will go down because of desperation.

Lake Charles is polluted and so is most everywhere else on the Planet, but people are living longer as long as Science can find ways to deal with our Cancer rate....and if you're lucky and can afford the Chemo and other stuff...you're golden. If you can't you just die.

:shrug:

[Sterling]

77. If we can bail out the airline industry

And the S$L people we can find some way to take care of people displaced by as a result of us protecting our environment.

We are wealthy beyond imagination (some of us are). There is no need for anyone to do without.

[Lorien]

140. Insist they clean up their mess

why should the employees pay for it? without employees, they have no product, so firing their employees makes little sense as a cost saving solution.Car manufacturers would always use the "we'll have to cut jobs" excuse whenever the government insisted on new saftey regulations (like seat belts) but the opposite was always true; new regulations CREATED new jobs, and the cost to the company was always very temporary and minimal. Same with environmental regulation and clean up. People will need to be hired to do that work too, and products will still need to be made during the process. It's win-win.

[LeahMira]

150. An idea...

A very perfect example of the dilemma we face as a group would be the Lake Charles area of Louisiana. The lake is polluted by PCB's. Industry has done everything they can to cover up the evidence that PCB's kill and cause cancer. People need jobs. The plastics/vinyl industry creates jobs. As an environmentalist I KNOW this industry needs to be reigned in and really needs to be replaced. As a politician I KNOW this industry keeps many people in my district employed in a bad economy. As a practical matter, I KNOW there is NOTHING in place to replace those jobs. What do I do?

One thing that might work would be to put those folks to work cleaning up the pollution. I don't know what the plastics and vinyl are used for, but maybe another thing that might work would be to put the people to work for a company that makes safe products instead of the ones that are made from plastic. I understand that this does not happen over night, but that does not excuse anyone from taking the first steps to make it happen in the (hopefully!) not too distant future.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. IWR = huge error in judgement by congress...

But not in any way an attempt to avoid war.

[Snappy]

54. Stand up for your beliefs

"And yes, I have noticed that some posters are brazen in their right wing babble. The only way I know of to combat them is to jump their ass as soon as they post their propoganda. That's the way it was done here once upon a time."

I was just banned from Sunspot Board. Banning posters is not the best way to deal with opposing views. The best way is to agressivly challenge views that one doesn't agree with and to do so with logical debate and facts.

[Woodstock]

169. But this is a board for Dems/progressives

Sunspot is supposed to be a board for everyone.

The whole purpose of this board was to have a place for us Dems/progressives to talk amongst ourselves. It's valuable to have a place to regroup and get stronger before plunging back into the fray of the Sunspots in the world.

[robcon]

55. IWR was a declaration of war...

"...(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq....

snip

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[liberalhistorian]

67. I've noticed it especially in regards

to abortion and health care. I've been amazed at the number of posters (most newbies, btw) who've been against a national health care system and say things like "let the market drive the system", "no one has the right to health care" "someone with cancer doesn't "deserve" or "have the right to" treatment, especially if the rest of us have to pay for it", etc., etc.

The only encouraging thing about it is how quickly they were jumped on by everyone else.

[K-W]

69. That brings up the important question, who are they

Are they simply newbies who mistook this sight for an open politics forum? If so I suppose the only answer is more work for the mods unfortunately.

or

Are they disruptors who are taking some time out of thier day to troll these forums? If so jumping on their threads and posts is exactly what they want us to do. But again the only real solution is more work for the mods, but we can help them a little by not taking the bait.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

75. I think the mods have been lenient lately because of GD2004

and the large number of new posters.

[K-W]

80. Yep, hopefully things will plateau off

the mods have my deepest thanks for having to deal with this unenviable situation.

[Sterling]

81. Wrong

Never I repeat never can we allow RW lies and half truths to smear this board without rebutal. People read and learn from these forums. The RWers are never opposed in the corporate media, it must happen here.

[K-W]

83. Fine, turn this forum into a left vs right debate forum

and have fun with it. I will have moved on.

The point of this forum is not to debate right wingers, its to discuss political issues in a community of liberals. If this is indeed the work of disrupters, thier entire goal is to turn our attention to arguing with them, rather than discussing things with each other.

THe magical thing about a forum, is that if you ignore something, it goes away. It drifts off into a deep sea of past posts and very few people see it. The best way to insure that a right wingers views get read by many people is to bump the thread to the top of the que.

[Sterling]

86. It does not go away.

People read it, it goes unchallenged. That is bad, yes the mods gotta stay on top of things but we have a responsibility to expose the BS as long as the thread is in play.

[K-W]

104. No one reads it

You dont understand the basic mechanics of a forum, if something is ignored it drifts away from anyones attentions. The only way people read it is if it is moved to the top.

That is why people kick threads.

[Tinoire]

152. Precisely! There is nothing more galling than finding a RW post quoted

at right-wing sites where they say "Ta-da, even the Liberals agree with us" when we absolutely do not! Some of these posts and threads have a funny way of showing up on right-wing sites or on candidate blogs. I won't let the propaganda stand unchallenged.

There are too many people who come here to learn. The last thing we want to do is let right-wing talking points stand just to be accommodating. This board is not about accommodation- never was and never will be.

[RapidCreek]

105. So tell me...what would your propose as an ideal forum?

A poster posts something....and all the responses are "I Agree"? If you do not agree and state why...is this not a foray into political discussion? How can one have a political discussion board while avoiding the discussion of politics?

You seem intent on bluring the lines of left, moderate and far right democrats in one breath and in the next you make accusations of trollhood. I'm interested what is your measuring stick?

RC

[Jose Diablo]

85. You bet it has shifted to the right

I haven't been here long myself, about 7-8 months or so. But I have noticed a change.

It is strange, I see a post that I would bet is a freeper, yet they have a star and post numbers over a 1000.

I don't know how anyone could get 1000 posts in 3-4 months, yet some do.

[Sterling]

88. Strange isn't it?

:kick:

[earthman dave]

91. Yeah, it looks like some "old-timers" are quite right wing

As a newbie, i got the impression that some of these rw ideas were accepted round here. Is there an easy way to boost your posts-meter?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. RW Ideas are NOT accepted around here

This is a board for Democrats and people left of center. Many disruptors accumulate posts in the Lounge, or avoid controversial topics and manage to fly under the radar.

Are you a Brit or an ex-pat?

[earthman dave]

94. Yeah, this thread is really heartening

At first though, seeing people with 1000+ posts and stars, it seemed as if the opinions of those posters were - well, you know, "standard" for this board. It's an effect of the stars and post totals, probably, but without thinking "how hard would it be for a disruptor to get those" i seem to have taken it at face value as "the locals are unfriendly". I know better now. :)

Brit.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

96. Welcome

:toast:

We have quite a few Brits and other Europeans who post here. Your perspectives are always welcome. As Americans we can become very insulated from the rest of the world.

There are some conservatives who are long-time posters (thousands of posts). They manage to evade scrutiny, but some of us feel it's our duty to give them a hard time! ;-)

Cheers,
RR

[Jose Diablo]

97. BTW Welcome to DU

This is a very good board IMO, if you want to really understand whats going on. I have witnessed some hardnosed idea clogging in here, sometimes it gets pretty brutal. Thats what's its all about though, trying to bang ideas together, publishing research into events.

You can obtain links to some really hidden background about the real reasons why things are happening the way they are. Lots of things that are hidden by the 'mainstream' media.

Again, welcome.

:toast:

See, I got a count right here.
:D

Edit: RR sorry, I am a slow typer

[Tinoire]

153. Yeah.... Half of them are racked up in "X supporters" sign in here

or in the Lounge where people are pretty nice and more accommodating since the talk is non-political. A bunch of "Yes n/t", "No n/t" "Not me n/t" and you're well on your way. I've seen it done in less than a week.

You're better off clicking on "Member Since" in the profile and even that doesn't go quite far back enough because it starts at "July/Aug" 2003 when the influx had already begun. We've gained a lot of fine new members but oh what snuck in too.

The advertisments by Rush and Hannity have not helped. Nor has the pandering to Republicans to get their votes. How can you, on one hand, accommodate campaigns that want to draw in Republicans, and on the other hand remain progressive?

The attitude towards the poor and towards Latin America has been shocking lately. The DLC is now A-ok, Gray Davis needed to go & voting for Reagan & Bush was ok. Oh yeah, and we were all duped about the WMDs so votes for the war were ok. It wouldn't be so bad of Progressive DUers weren't leaving out of disgust and biting their tongues stifled by all these new rules we never needed in the past.

[leesa]

89. Definitely. A blush of fascism love.

[KG]

101. you are not far off the mark, Iverson.

i used to really dig the progressive vibe when i found this place 2 1/3 years ago.

views that weren't tolerated then are tolerated now.

it's the unforseen consequence of 'ABB'. :(

[YNGW]

111. Left/Right

Left and right is so subjective to the individual. What is left of me is more liberal, what is right of me is more conservative. A poster sees someone here who is to the right of them, and with some that person is automatically a freeper. Are they? IMO, you gotta take the whole package. I've had conversations with people here that I was to the left of them on some subjects and to the right of them on others. Some people I view as being far-left here (tinfoil hatters and anti-capitalists come to mind) see themselves as being quite mainstream. This board definitely leans further left-of-center than the party as a whole, I've seen several people admit that is the case. The number of DK supporters is evidence of that in relationship to his popularity at the polls.

You have a group of Democrats who believe the party needs to go much further to the left than it has been, calling on the party to offer a real alternative to the R's. There are others who believe the party is already too far left and that the party needs to become more moderate in its politics. There are others opinions, of course. And obviously, these viewpoints are from the prospective of those individuals. It's seems to me there is room on this board for all those opinions and more.

[Q]

113. It's not 'subjective' at all...

- There have always been issues, ideals and principles that has separated the left from the right. It wasn't until the advent of the 'new' Democrats that factions within the party were willing to 'trade' these values for a seat at the corporate table.

- Many of the posters on this forum that some call 'far-left' would have been considered mainstream Democrats just a few years ago. Now they're labeled as 'liberal' for simply adhering to principles they grew up with and have fought for over a lifetime.

- I think it's clear that the Democratic party has been 'infiltrated' by so-called 'centrists' willing to compromise too much on the very issues that once differentiated the politics of left and right.

- The end result? There's no longer a party that represents the people versus a party that represents the corporations. Instead...we have two parties that represent the corporations versus the people. This leaves the poor and working class to fend for themselves as both parties abandon unions, worker's rights, choice and environmental protections.

- You know the rest of the story...

[YNGW]

124. Agree to a point.

I would definately agree that the Deomcratic Party has traditionally been the party of the working class, whereas the R's were the party of big business. I'm not sure this was at one time considered a "left vs. right" issue, but it seems to have been awarded that distinction as of late.

I was making referance to more of the social issues that were mentioned on the thread to this point: abortion, homosexuality, environmental, etc... If we could turn back the clock to the 30's and 40's, I can't imagine too many FDR Democrats calling on these issues to be part of the party platform, and I am confident there are many FDR type Democrats in the party, and not all of them are advanced in age. Some people simply want the party to be a force for the working class, not a catch-all for a bunch of special interests. Some want it to be a force in both the working class issues and the social issues. I just personally think we're seeing more of the former logging on since the primaries are heating up. If others disagree, so be it.

[Iverson]

115. Saturday thoughts, question redux, thanks

Good morning, all.

I see that overnight there's been some vigorous discussion, a good sign.

It's pretty clear to me that most or all respondents are arguing for inclusion, not exclusion.

There may not be a single best way to deal with disruptors; it could be situational.

Permit me to resuscitate one of the thread's inaugural questions: what role do progressives have in the Democratic Party?

Thanks to all who have contributed so far.

:donut: :donut: :donut:

[LWolf]

118. Ouch.

That's a painful question.

Yes, I think DU has shifted to the right. Along with the democratic party.

What role do we have in the party? I'm not sure. We can move the party back our way, or continue to be further marginalized. Or go elsewhere. Many progressives already have. Personally, I would like to see IRV and proportional representation in action.

As far as the democratic party goes, our role would be to keep one party representing us. To shift the party our direction.

[0007]

116. The Government is the people for the people and of the people

are being control by the media that is controlled by people that are in the White House, and selected by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Being opposed to an unjust invasion is leaning to the right?
Being opposed to the lies about WMD is leaning to the right?
Being opposed to tax cuts to enhance the rich is leaning to the right?
Being opposed to stacking right wing judges in the judicial system is learning to the right?
Not having fair hearings or an independent investigation on 911 is learning to the right?
Catering to big corporations is leaning to the right?
Being opposed to junior is leaning to the right?

Guess I'm just an old right wing winger that is blind to the love of what junior is doing to the poor folks in this country.

I need to change my attitude, maybe even get some counseling.

[Iverson]

120. I don't think you're understanding my questions.

My focus is the discourse around DU. Any careful observer can see that it is not a monolithic thing, but instead is comprised of a mix of attitudes. I suggest that that mix has changed lately.

Your response of a series of rhetorical questions seems to suggest, mockingly, that the continued presence of some left opinions makes the question a foolish one. I can't agree.

Perhaps if you offered a straight answer instead of sarcasm, we could leave off irrelevancies about counseling and instead examine the evidence.

[Jose Diablo]

125. The mix has moved to the right, what does it mean?

Movement of the discourse in DU has moved to the right. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Why is indicative of a big change about to occur in the political landscape in America.

My view of the political landscape in like a huge ship with everyone on board. The direction the ship is traveling should be the medium of all the occupants view. Sometimes however the pilot house gets hijacked and false leaders steer the ship in a direction that does not represent the mediums views. When this happens, those who views differ dramatically from the direction the ship is traveling seek ways to change the ship. They try any and all mechanisms to retake the pilots house.

This retaking the pilot house would normally be staged by discourse in the media. But the media (communication) has also been hijacked. Thus, new forms of communication are sought by the disenfranchised to change the direction of the ship.

9-11 was the hijacking of the pilot house. The influx into DU is new forms of communication being sought to change the direction of the ship back to the medium path.

In effect, DU has become a main sounding board for the political discourse as the ship attempts to right itself. I doubt the board had this purpose in mind when the board was first instituted, yet due to a lack of suitable other platforms, this board has become a primary sounding board by default. DU has been drafted by the politic to serve the function of testing ideas against each other the seek a new direction.

Is the drafting of DU for a purpose other than the original purpose 'bad'? I don't think so. This is an opportunity for progressives to convince others the value of their ideas. After the election, I suspect the posting of those to the right to drop as they find more suitable homes.

America is far more powerful than the neocons think or can even imagine. It is not easy to take over a free people.

I think the republican party is going to be crushed next election.

[dusty64]

119. The political position

has already ceased to be progressive. I guess our roles are to be taken advantage of. The Democratic establishment knows we will never support the rethugs and figure we've no where else to go. The discourse could easily be brought back to progressiveness as it benefits the People and the Planet, but that would require real leadership willing to cut through the corporate media filter and explain these policies and why they are best.

Personally, after the 2000 coup I pledged my vote to the Dems for two election cycles and voted a straight line ticket for the first time in my life and will do so again this year. In the future however they are going to have to EARN my vote and the continued caving to EVERY extreme rightwing demand does not bode well for them in my book. Where I turn is anybodies guess, I really wish we had a more representative system like the Parlimentary one, it would give us FAR more options than this stinky two/one party system.

[jonnyblitz]

123. yup, with the influx of Clark supporters.

I was also informed that they were here all along but dormant during the Iraq invasion,as one Clark supporter informed me in a thread about the DLC "we were just being quiet while you were shaking your fist."

[Tinoire]

154. Hence part of the problem in having a campaign that is appealing to

both Left and Right-wingers. But I will say that I have spoken, and personally know from anti-war marches, quite a few Clark supporters who are as Left-Wing as any old time DU-er. Just not all. And the same, but to a lesser extent, for some of the newer Dean supporters who joined back in April/May. Too many are for Corporate Globalization, see nothing wrong with the NGOs & think tanks that support the right-wing while fronting as Democratic, and would tell you that SOA is just a summer camp.

Gephardt brought his share of more conservative DLC supporters too who think that corporate America is the way to go.

This is sadly the nature of the election beast and I don't see what the Admin can fairly do. When I get too discouraged, I remind myself that this board's primary purpose is to oust Bush; advancing progressive ideas is a secondary aim. Our hearts are broken because we would like to do both at the same time which was the original page we were on.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

126. Creationists,anti-environmentalists, misogynists, racists, and gay haters

have no reason to be here. Yet I see them, even on this thread.

How does the Democratic Party represent you, if you fall into any of these categories?

[fujiyama]

128. Some posters...

really do irritate me -- especially the xenophobic bigots and racists.

For example there was one thread where a poster said Mexicans enter this country all doped up on meth. It went unchallenged. Another claimed know nothing nativism was a good thing and America is losing its character or some other such nonsense. It was obviously at thinly vieled attack on changing demographics. Another post said in the past unions would have run illegal immigrants out of town. It was creeepy how similar it sounded to Pat Buchanan's rantings.

Populism is one thing, but race baiting, xenophobia, bigotry are pandering to the lowest common denominator.

One thing I've noticed is that some on this board like to find a scapegoat for the economic problems. I understand everyone has a different opinion on the level of immigration into this country, but sometimes these threads start mirroring those on free republic.

Those on the left have to remember where the blame really lies -- in those major corporations exploiting workers and the politicians that work on their behalf.

[welshTerrier2]

129. On Shifting

I suppose we have to define what is meant by "shifting" to the right ...

For many months, I argued that I would never support any candidate who voted for bush's insane war ... and now I'm considering endorsing Kerry ...

Have I sold out my principles? Have I "shifted" to the right? Have I lost my mind?

There was never a time that I didn't see a need to balance principle with pragmatism ... my goal a year ago was to not have this country engaged in wars all over the globe with young men and women dying on a daily basis ... for that reason, I thought it best to promote candidates who opposed the IWR and opposed the invasion of Iraq ...

This position remains unchanged ... no shift has occurred ... the IWR vote cast by some of our candidates was tragic ... and the invasion of Iraq has clearly been shown to be insane ... and so, one could conclude that there has been no shift in my feelings about this insanity ...

HOWEVER ... I have taken a second look at how best to prevent future wars ... and here I find myself in the difficult position of believing that getting bush out is the best way to achieve that regardless of whether that means supporting someone who voted for the IWR or not ... the real issue going forward is whether I believe a candidate can 1. beat bush and 2. keep us from global war with the Islamic people ... I no longer feel I can afford the luxury of punishing those who so badly disappointed me with their pre-Iraq conduct ...

The underlying values have not "shifted to the right" ... the goal remains the same ... what has changed is how best to achieve the goal ...

[Iverson]

130. brief response

Primarily I am talking about the discourse. The decisions that happen inside your head don't affect that. The things that you write do.

Talking about pragmatism is well within the range of normal here. A variety of viewpoints on tactics is likewise normal. Recasting the IWR as a noble anti-war gesture is not. The false dichotomy of supporting IWR candidates or else leaving the Democratic Party is not.

"Have I sold out my principles? Have I "shifted" to the right? Have I lost my mind?"

By your description, no to the first question, maybe to the second question, and only if you're lucky to the third.

[salin]

131. I am not sure

there have been flurries of this since I started posted more than 2 years ago - stepped up just before the midterms... re-emerged during the war buildup (and there seemed at that point to be a bit more liency... I think in an effort to recognize that some democrats supported the war - and thus to be fair ... I understand that approach... but the result was a slight shift right. However - by now even most of the voices that were supportive of the war have changed their tone... which is interesting.).. and re-emerging as the primaries began to near.

As to the racist, sexist, homophobic tripe that shows up from time to time... that has been here as long as I have. Fortunately there are usually many more voices that jump all over the few posts that are borderline to abhorent (at least to my taste).

But to be fair - I have witnessed another phenomenon here at DU in the other direction. I have watched numerous posters who perceive themselves to be pretty moderate and mainstream shift their views on policies slightly to the left as a result of the wealth of information and the quality of discussions at DU. This is more of an individual phenomenon - but I have observed it countless times.

As to the perils of ABB - and what that brings along with it - I think it is the fear that so many feel around the question of... "What will the U.S. look like if Bush and DeLay rule for another five years..." that brings out folks "pragmatic" and more compromising sides - that leads to the push to the center to pander or compete (depending on one's view) for the mushy middle independent votes. And it is a very hard question - around which I have my own internal debates.

It is exactly with chasing the middle which has contributed to the rightward shift in the democratic party over the past 15 or so years - and that is a problem. However - if we don't play some of that game... we really do risk having to find out if this country can survive four more years.

While I really distrusted and disliked the Reagan and Bush1 administrations... I never found myself asking if we could survive them. This group pushes so fast and furious on so many policy fronts- and is creating landmines for the future all over the place - and their policies seem so singularly ideologicaly with NO real study of consequences (and policy person worth their salt always analyzes for drawbacks of any policy position to better prepare to craft means to mitigate those drawbacks within the policy). Combine that with the dirtiest hard-ball players that have been dealing in Congress and in the Admin in nearly a century. Suddenly - to me - the stakes are higher than I ever could have conceived of in the past. So back and forth i go.

I think some of the 'rightward drift' that we see is the result of a similar collective rather than internal individual dialogue. With an end result being the adoption of language which has been pushed through rw media for nearly 20 years that is decidely center-right - and which assumes as givens rightwing arguments that were laughable to even moderate democrats as recently as the late 1980s. Things like tax cuts/trickle down as being good for the economy (hell even David Stockman later said it was all a joke and based on bad economics)... that the private sector is always more efficient than the public sector (as if the waste we have witnessed in the very public implosions of several behometh corps didn't demonstrate the exact opposite. Watching these premises excepted as fact - and used as the basis of some discussions is very disheartening. To me it says that we have a lot more work to continue to do after the election - we need to de-brainwashing/deprogramming the general public.

[Iverson]

132. Thank you and follow-up

Your considered and detailed response is much appreciated.

What is the role of progressives in the Democratic Party? Is the implication to be found in your post, to lay low while the moderate game gets played and exercise influence between election cycles?

If so, how does this differ from the main strategy of the DLC era?

[King Cantona]

135. Speaking as an Outsider

I think that the US has been shifting away from the rest of the world for a few years now, especially in the last ten years...

There is the almost blanket disdain for the UN, a body that is only relevant when the US wants UN resolutions upheld, and even then it is only very selective in the resolutions that it wants upheld. Never mind the UN resolutions that Israel is flouting or even the US itself, the US is being increasingly marginalised now and to facilitate this they don't want their own populace to be too educated...

That's only my opinion though, Fox News is no way to educate yourself about world events, in fact any American news doesn't seem to spend a lot of time on world events if it doesn't directly affect th US...

[Iverson]

136. Marmite, Bob's your uncle ...

Now that I have your attention, thank you for jumping in.
My focus was not the nation, which of course has been moving right for a generation at least, but this website and how progressives might affect the discourse within the Democratic Party.

Also, welcome to DU, King Cantona.

:toast:

[roughsatori]

138. That is why I hardly ever come here anymore

Members who are the most right-ward among us continually call DUers fringe. I noticed the change after Wes Clark's promoters entered the site enmass. And though Clark has grown on me, the general tilt to the right at DU has not :shrug:

[Lorien]

139. Since the 1970s-yes, in a big way

we used to be the anti-war, anti-gun, pro-environment, pro-animal rights, pro-teacher and education, pro women's rights party. Now you'll find just as many NRA members here as on Freerepublic, and just as many happy to kill animals or use the favorite freeper logic that if you care about other species then you must "not care about people" :eyes: when actually the opposite is true (compassion begets compassion). We, like the right wing, believe we should keep an arsenal at home to fend off the government (if the government DID come after any of us, it would be the briefest of battles). You hear plenty of anti-teacher rants on these boards as well, and a huge number of DUers care more about corporate profits than delicate eco-systems when it come to Alaska ("Hell, what do I care-I'll never visit the place" is a "me,me,me,I,I,I" right wing like response I recently read about Alaskan drilling; never mind the environment, endangered species,and drain on the taxpayer for a paltry amount of oil that will only profit Big Oil and Halliburtan).Right wingers have very successfully inserted their memes into the thought processes of all Americans. Profit is God; it trumps all. There is no morally beyond profit and looking out for #1. The military never does wrong. If you don't believe America is the greatest Nation on earth, then move to Iraq. There's little critical thinking, but there's a lot of regurgitation of popular Rush Limbaugh themes and ideas. If we want to take back America, we need to offer a real alternative to the opposition, IMHO, and not validate their views time and time again.

[NicDanger]

141. Why shift to the right?

What's the point of being Republican-Lite? We need to somehow make the American people understand we're in a class war and most people are losing.

[Iverson]

142. the bird's eye lowdown on this caper

Welcome to DU, NicDanger. I'm not Rocky Rococco.

[Tesha]

143. Without a doubt.

Discussion here always had its less-liberal proponents,
but now, the "center of gravity" of the discussion has
shifted quite far from Lefty/Progressive values.

And 2004 *MAY* be the last election for a long time
where the Democratic Party matters very much. Or not.
But right now, it's not looking good.

Tesha

[stickdog]

144. 1-2-3-4, DU ain't left wing no more.

2-4-6-8, DU wants to triangulate.

[mountebank]

145. Fear of Bush shifts us Right. Voting Kerry is a vote for fear.

Fear always shifts people to the right, at least toward more authoritarianism, toward less direct control and freedom. Here at DU we always rail against the fear of terrorism as being responsible for a national shift to the right. But within the Democratic party and here at DU, I believe the shift right is caused by a fear of Bush's re-election, crazy as that sounds. Embracing candidates like John Kerry and Wes Clark is tantamount to ceding power. When there is fear, the reaction is to give up control to someone who will lead us out of our mess. Hence the focus on "electability."

[Iverson]

146. question

How about fear of that same authoritarianism? Would that shift us left, do you think, or would it result in a competing right-wing impulse?

Under these circumstances, what role do progressives have?

[mountebank]

148. Good question....

I don't think fear of authoritarianism would lead to more authoritarianism - but that depends on definitions. I really only mean giving up control for any reason, not just being oppressed. This is America after all, and the ways we can be forced into submission are relatively few. The key is to get people to willing give up control of their lives.

So I see candidates like John Kerry and Wesley Clark as essentially being authoritarianism in another guise. Granted, a much less obvious form than Bush. But they still back and are backed by the same power structure with different names attached, lip service to "getting rid of special interests" notwithstanding. That being said, of course I would support Kerry against Bush and think there is a big difference between them - but on another deeper level, nothing would really change. My opinion.

Now, the political spectrum and its two axes come into play here. On one axis you've got authoritarianism v. libertarianism (notice small L) - a sort of social scale - and the other you have left v. right, an economic scale (socialism v. capitalism if you will). ANY fear based reactions lead toward more authoritarianism, and I mean that just in the sense of people giving up control of their lives and who is making decisions - it doesn't have to involve jack-booted thugs. This obsession with electability involves giving up power.

Progressives are hard to define extacly, but they are down in the lower left of that spectrum, meaning they want less authority and more socialism, maybe having some form of communitarian socialism as a common goal (don't think hippie communes - that's not it). To clarify: they would be totally against Stalin and Soviet Russia because they would be on the opposite end of the social spectrum.

The role of the progressive then is to support any candidate who is truly supported by people making a decision based on the issues that affect their lives (this rules out Wes Clark in my opinion because his large grassroots support is based mostly on cosmetic reasons like "he's a general and will play well in the South"). In fact, the progressives most important point may be voting on the ISSUES.

And this really only leaves Dean and Kucinich among those who are running.

[Nom de Plume]

147. If you ever want the Whitehouse and congress again-

You'll have to be more inclusive. Gays? Environmentalists? Feminists?
Better have room for gun owners, hunters, farmers, military, etc.,
too. the chimp has pissed off a lot of moderates, who could be votes
for a Democratic candidate. I only ask that a candidate stand up and
declare he will follow the US constitution and Bill of Rights, to
the LETTER! (And follow through!) Anything less is bullshit.
Would you rather have four more years of the status Quo?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

157. We already have those in our party...

in case you haven't noticed. Ones who ALSO fully support other core Democratic and center/left values.

If you're proposing we trash or weaken those values to bring in those groups, forget it.

I would much rather work to bring in the 50% of voters who never make it to the polls.

[Iverson]

149. A progressive Monday morning kick. What place ...?

:donut:

[Jose Diablo]

151. The purpose of the progressive

in the political discourse is to move the median view of America toward a less authoritarian and more communitarian view.

The Bush* neocon radical authoritarian view has moved America into a police state. A harsh, less free, less stable, economically bankrupt state.

The progressive view on ecology, womens rights, gay rights, more community versus individualism, gun regulation are views more in tune with what is needed in the modern world than the current world view of the Bush* administration.

The radically authoritarian world view will be the death of us all. The world has 6 billion people, the world will not support a human species with a world view that was used when the world had a population of 10 million.

The place of DU is to provide a soap box so the progressive view specifically and the overall democratic principles the America was founded on can be presented in such a way to convince the body politic to abandon a world view that will kill the world and the human race. Abandon a world view that was more suited to an environment far in the past.

[Iverson]

155. good points

You can see why I'd be dismayed if the progressive voice were shifting rightward here. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

156. Absolutely YES!

Anyone who has been here for longer than a year can say without hesitancy that there has been a rightward shift in the discourse here. I can't tell you how many conversations I have had with another DUer about that very topic. :)

It has been both disturbing and disheartening

I don't feel it's DU's job to move rightward to fit in with what many here are saying is happening out in the world, or even the D party.

DU is a stand-alone entity. If you come onboard and expouse beliefs that go against what have been CORE Democratic and center/left values for the last half-century -- the ones that define that part of the political spectrum DU represents -- and get flamed, tough nuts.

There are many on the left and right of me here who I disagree with on many issues, but we basically share the same values -- we may just disagree with how to GET there. But when someone here demands that a CORE VALUE be jettisoned or weakened, be it through the party or the site, so that we can be more "inclusive" or (bleck) appeal to the GOP, I say fuck that.

As for trolls here, be they amatuer or professional, I say no charge should remain unanswered. I want to see a PILE-ON when someone posts something that goes against those core values, because it's the only way anyone who views DU will see just what this site is about.

[0rganism]

158. How should we measure?

It's characteristic of entropic processes to tend towards some average state. If, as a group, we've come to resemble a national "norm" more than our initial state, then it could as easily be a natural evolution as an artifice of right-wing disruptors.

I remember, about three years back, we were a very motivated, highly progressive group. Since that time, the motivation has diluted, as has the progressivity. However, the dislike of bush seems to persist, which makes me think we've maintained at least some sort of overall partisanship -- if not a progressive slant.

One thing I've noticed, as have others here, is that some disruptors have become much smoother, and more polite. I get the same gut reaction ("yup, it's a disruptor") as before, but it's harder to actually pin a reason to "alert" on them. There are still plenty of obnoxious dips who get tombstoned in under 5 posts, but the persistent "low-level" disruptors seem to accumulate over time.

I'm not talking about the folks in the "Gun Dungeon" either, they've been present since the start, and some of the most vehement pro-gunners are outright progressive in other ways. They have a single issue of variance with the standard party line on that in particular. Nor are the new Clark supporters necessarily moderates; frankly, if the issues2000 assessment of Clark's platform is any indicator, he's one of the more progressive candidates in the primary.

What would help is some comparitive statistics about DU membership. I think the admins could provide this for us, if it wasn't deemed too "sensitive".
1) A histogram of "tombstonings" compared to post count
2) A histogram of DU donor and non-donor members by post count

This might provide some "objective" data to measure overall troll volume and quality, relative to overall DU membership.

[Iverson]

160. measure by individual reports

I doubt that an objective measurement is possible, since we are in the subjective political realm. Personally, I would rather not even factor in the trolls/disruptors, since I don't consider them part of the true discourse of the site.

I note that even with your reservations about statistical validity, your clear impression is similar to mine.
"I remember, about three years back, we were a very motivated, highly progressive group. Since that time, the motivation has diluted, as has the progressivity."

The comment about entropic processes is intruiguing. Why has the far right not seemed to follow this model?

[OKHRANA]

159. Shifting to the right? Maybe, but there is no problem...

It's all relative. Change in the world is always happenning and we adapt. Some time ago, we shifted way to the left, now some way to the right.

As long as we don't overdo it and get close to becoming Republicans, it's OK, and I don't think we have to worry about that.

Relax.

[Iverson]

161. danger, Will Robinson!

I would love a clarification of this statement: "Some time ago, we
shifted way to the left,..."

Also, everyone has a different breaking point. What does one do to get close to becoming Republicans? By today's standards, Nixon would be left wing on some issues, Nelson Rockefeller even moreso, and Sen. Edward Brooke (R-MA) even moreso.

I will accept the advice to relax just as soon as I'm sure there's cause.

[OKHRANA]

162. was speaking metaphorically...

"some time ago we shifted way to the left"

by that I meant since you noted a shift to the right, then obviously there must have been one to the left previously at some point.

My main point is that minor shifts in either direction occur constantly, as we influence each other through discussion, but what matters is where in terms of the big picture we are now and where we are going to be tommorrow, rather than the small daily fluctuations.

And from what I can see we are collectively pretty progressive, and Nixon or Rockefeller (not familiar with Brooke) are so far to our collective right that they are not even visible except maybe as tiny distant specks.

It's good to ask the question once in a while though (Slow deep breath)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

163. Ah, if only we were...

talking about "minor shifts"...

When the shift is so profound that you visit the boards and say to yourself, "Toto, I don't think we're in DU anymore!", there's something amiss...

[Uzybone]

164. The IWR is your only barometer

to measure if there is a rightward shift? How about Biden-Lugar? Gay rights? Civil rights? Fiscal policy etc.?? You already have your mind made up.

[redqueen]

165. I would say yes

"How much accomodating of the rightward-drifting middle is possible before a political position ceases to be progressive?"

At this point? Not much at all. I try to judge objectively, looking back through history, and at other countries as well. We're now so far to the right already that any more drifting and we'll be obsolete.

"What role do progressives have in the Democratic Party?"

IMO? We're used as strawmen. People point to McGovern and say 'See? Shut up already!' As if that's somehow a valid argument against standing up for progressive values. This enables the 'party leaders' to continue onward with their march towards the right.

Nothing is ever changed if you never point out a problem. We've stopped pointing out the problem, for the most part, it seems. Or forgotten entirely what the problem is! (I say this due to free-trade discussions which have ended up with members posting things like: if we had a living wage, then businesses would fail / prices would skyrocket / jobs would flood overseas. NEVER is it observed by those posting that kind of sentiment that it's really the excessive compensation at the top that is the major problem!)

[dionysus]

166. Nope

Generally moderates get their asses kicked on DU from my observation.

[Woodstock]

170. I'm a moderate & my "ass" is intact

I suspect our definition of moderate differs. One can be a progressive Democrat and still think moderation is the way to go. The difference between us, I suspect, is for me, the party platform is non-negotiable.

[Freddie Stubbs]

172. Funny how the moderates are doing better in the primary

that the liberals.

[Iverson]

171. Post-debate kick.

How much accomodating of the rightward-drifting middle is possible before a political position ceases to be progressive?

What role do progressives have in the Democratic Party?