Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There are a lot of bullshitters that hang out here.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:26 AM
Original message
There are a lot of bullshitters that hang out here.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 11:29 AM by Bleachers7
First, there are more bullshitters on the right. I just want to point something out. Someone somewhere called Hillary and Schumer republican lite and said that it wouldn't matter if republican won their seat.

These two have a 95% rating from the ADA and a 11% and 6% rating from the ACU. There would be a major difference if the pukes had those seats.

Some people here need to get a grip. Hillary spoke about making those reforms on the Senate floor. I have met Schumer and I know his voting record. He supports reform.

An important part of being an elected official is GETTING ELECTED! That's not a big deal for house members, but that's tougher in the senate. Schumer isn't going to be bounced out, but he has to have a good reason to vote for objection to Ohio votes. What's the good reason? Is it going to make a difference in the race? No. Is it going to help him as an elected official? Probably not. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure.

Here's a solution. If you aren't happy with these people, run for yourself. Otherwise stop whining when you are the one being unreasonable, not them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sportndandy Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why do we have to sacrifice ideals to get elected?
I agree with everything you said, and yet it leaves me hollow.

I think a lot of people here are frustrated that the winning the popularity contest is more important then fighting for ideals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. You don't necessarily have to.
It depends on what you support. Voting for objection of those electoral votes is a very bold thing to do. Are there 118,000 +1 bad votes in that race. I haven't seen proof that there is.

Chris Dodd said that he already supports a constitutional amendment, but he didn't vote for objection. Is every single senator a republican? I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. One day...
a candidate will come along who has the ability to popularize ideals, instead of changing his ideals to be popular.

If you're a candidate and you don't have that ability -- by all means, sacrifice your ideals to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Excellent thought here. That is the most succinct statement of the...
Democratic Party's current problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. The problem is that the DLC led Democrats aint that popular
and haven't been winning that many contests.

Sure, they have their place in the conservative areas of the south and midwest. However, the party as a whole has simply abaindoned the working class and much of the middle class in its quest for corporate cash and the votes of a few yuppies. You can't ignore your base and expect to win, something they should be learning from the GOP's attention to their cadre of religious wack jobs.

Forcing the entire party to the right while abandoning working people by taking bread basket economics off the table and promising nothing beyond the business as usual that has been killing us is a losing strategy, as the past several elections should demonstrate even to the more conservative among us.

Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. I'm not sure what you mean by not winning that many contests.
There are lots of DLC'ers elected. Then again, they probably get elected first and join the DLC later. A major problem with the party is that there are too many groups with too many conflicting interests. There isn't one message across the board. I don't think we need to be mindless clones like the pukes, but we must stand for something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. yes, some people need to get a grip
Just because they are Democrats and Democratic partisans doesn't necessarily mean they are on my side. Voting in the House and Senate involves all sorts of background deals, vote trades, and the like. Clinton votes the way she is supposed to, as a Democrat from New York, but when the really big issues come along - the war, the election - where is she?

Clinton has star power and one of the safest seats in the Senate - where is she? She can get on TV whenever she wants - where is she? Sounds to me like she's "triangulating" to set herself up as a "moderate centrist" to run for President.

Who needs her? We can get any Democrat to vote according to ADA scorecards, but with Clinton and all of her celebrity, she can't even be a leader?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. I'm not sure why you think she has a safe seat.
She would have trouble if she was challenged by the right person. She is a hard sell. It's tough to convince people that she is one thing or another. People already have an opinion of her.

She can get on TV and do what? Say the election was stolen? She won't say that. There isn't enough hard proof.

Who needs her? We do. If that seat goes to Guiliani, Pataki or some other RW nut, it's worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. she voted for the war, for the PATRIOT Act, ignored the voting machines
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 01:46 PM by InvisibleBallots
A right wing nut like Pataki or Bloomberg would be worse - by a little bit at least. This is New York - if Clinton with all of her star power isn't safe here, then she sure as hell has no business trying to run for President. She should just stay in her seat I guess, and maybe try voting against PNAC for once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. She is not safe
because of who she is, not where she is. I also don't think she should run for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. in that case, why did she vote for the war, the PATRIOT Act,
and everything else? She's not safe for "who she is" - so, then, "voting safe" isn't going to help - why not vote against the war?

Unless, that is, Clinton is not on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is an incredibly pathetic argument.First ,a man like Schumer needs to
explain why he is voting for a scumbag like Alberto Gonzalez who goes against every principle our party stands for.That man supports torture of prisoners and was seeking a way out of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners, a treaty we have ratified. That man calls these conventions "quaint".What would be the reason Schumer would approve of torture himslef? And why is Hillary Clinton being given a free pass on this the most important issue of our time. To claim that these two have a 95% ADA rating is a ludicrous demonstration of how pathetic we have become as a party.

These two must be asked to ask why they voted for the Iraq War Resolution and why they now support the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez. Thay have no business calling themselves Democrats if they subscribe to the idea that torture of prisoners is an acceptable form of behavior for civilized nations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. I also don't think Gonzales belongs there
That said, I don't think you/we would be happy with any Bush pick for anything.

Here is what Schumer said:
<snip>
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, said in an interview that despite reservations about Mr. Gonzales, he is likely to be confirmed and with broad Democratic support.

Mr. Schumer said the threshold for winning confirmation to a president's cabinet was far lower than for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, which have produced intense battles.

"Generally, for an executive branch position the president gets the benefit of the doubt," he said. "The general feeling on the committee is that he has probably met that lowered threshold."
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/politics/03gonzales.h...

Why is there "broad Democratic support?" I have no idea. I don't agree with this. I can't find anything from Hillary so I don't know which way she's voting. Are me and you the only real Democrats left? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. This is getting ridiculous. We had, first of all,no reason to invade Iraq.
We have killed an estimated 100,000 innocent civilians. We are not fighting a nation state but a rag tag army.Long before we were in Iraq we were torturing prisoners at Gitmo brought in from Afghanistan,Pakistan and other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. hahahahahaha....100,000 dead equals "playing around"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Child_Of_Isis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. If they keep okaying stolen elections,
they'll eventually lose their seats no matter how we vote. They think it can't happen to them. But it can, and it will. Eventually. Hillary voted for the non person's certification and look where it got her...a leak in yesterday's news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. They didn't OK a stolen election.
I still am waiting to see proof that the election was completly stolen. They made their points and the pukes are calling them "liberal lunatics." That's without voting for it. I don't give a shit what the pukes have to say. At least they stood up. And I don't think the leak had anything to do with certification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. I agree
It certainly is too bad we live in a democracy where our leaders have to be able to appeal to a broad enough range of people to get elected. What ever happened to good old fashion dictators who didn't have to appeal to public opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. This may sound like BS
but I have already run against Hillary. I did not run very well or very hard, but I did run. Did you know it takes about 17,000 signatures in 70% of New York's counties to get on the primary ballot? Clearly running for the US Senate is only an option for a) state senators or US representatives, b) super-rich people, or c) celebrities.
The fact that it is nearly impossible for me to run for the Senate, much less win a seat does not mean that I have no right to complain about my Senators voting record, speeches, or unwillingness to take a stand.
Also, BS is not the same thing as hyperbole or hysterics.
Finally, Hillary is a probably a decent Senator, certainly way better than the two I have here in Kansas. My objection to her candidacy is that a) she was hand-picked by party elite because she is a celebrity with connections, and b) she is less of a New Yorker than I am (at least my mom was born there).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Great post
I live in NY so I generally know the signature rules. She may have been hand picked for the Senate seat. I would not initially support her in a run for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
10. besides, repub-light is not equal to repub
the difference is in one being "light" and the other not.

so it would make a difference whether or not a repub would win a repub-light's seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. I'm not sure what you mean.
Schumer is pretty safe. Hillary is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's not always BS for BS's sake.
A lot of it is knee-jerk reaction to the latest perceived affront to one's personal beliefs. It seems as though many people are much too willing and eager to dump on *anyone* who doesn't meet their standards 100%.

That being said, don't underestimate the possibility of trolls. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Life is compromise
You are absolutely correct.

That's why fundamentalism and other idiotic simplistic sureties are so tempting: life is one great big grey area. More importantly, the difficult issues of the day are difficult specifically because there're no simple answers to them.

You can't get elected to anything in this country if you don't profess a belief in god. I'll bet there are a few out there now who are serving, and they either fluffed the question or are deceiving us. To many, they would be called cowards, but to me, an ardent agnostic of a pretty anti-religious stripe, they're doing the right thing: they're keeping in the hand. The rest of us can't even get dealt in.

Knowing when to fight and when not to is all very easy to say from the sidelines, but in the arena of full-contact politics, it's a hell of a lot different.

Of course, once one compromises one's ideals, it may be hard to know where to stop or where to hold the line. That, too, is hard to say from a distance, but obviously a huge problem.

Scrappy perfectionists aren't just annoying, they're virtually useless. Dismissing those major Democrats who're walking a tightrope in these incredibly dangerous times is a big temptation and fair response to our frustration, but if it's done willy-nilly, we can't focus ourselves on the ones who really ARE sell-outs.

Dick Durbin is damn near a saint, and if he gets slagged by many of us, it takes away much credibility when we need to rightfully hammer Joe Biden. Biden's got his moments (where he ripped Ashcroft to shreds with bared teeth garners more respect from me than he's ever had) but he rolls over too often, and his core beliefs are too wishy-washy and "centrist" at best.

Leahy and Durbin were gems in working over Abu Gonzales. (I don't know which DUer came up with that term, but thanks!) When asked whether he thought the president had the right to disobey a law that he thought unconstitutional or unseemly, he twisted and dodged. There's a simple answer to that: "No, never".

The right is going to crush and trample all dissent now, and that leads to two tactics: fighting everything, or REALLY fighting certain things. The former can be painted as shrillness and get the country totally against the whining lefties, and the latter may give up too much ground and still not win on the critical stands. Then again, the former can just weary the bastards and draw lots of media attention to just what monarchic thugs they are, and the latter can allow us to be seen as reasonable, while drawing huge attention to those critical battles. Who's to say? Fuck, I'd like to see them have to fight for each greedy inch, but I'm leaning a bit to the latter. Of course, I'm just a wilting lily like the other traitors for saying such a thing, but so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
showpan Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. More bullshit
This election has proven nothing, we know there is no difference between the Dems and the Repukes, thay all work for the same corperate backers that have been running our country into the ground. Some may throw us a bone once in a while to appease while they all dance around the money toes. Ratings, like polls do nothing but confirm more bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. How do you figure there is no difference between them?
I'll even make it easy for you. Are there any differences between Schumer and Santorum or Brownback? If you say there aren't any differences then you are dishonest or nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC