Some things said on DU: What bothers me most is a...

...kind of general smugness that in my view is part of why our party is falling out of favor with the common voters. How often have you heard or seen these among the smug Democrats? Conservatives are losers, they are idiots, dummies. People who vote for them are just too stupid to know better. Bush is a monkey, etc.

Anyone who disagrees with the Democratic viewpoint is a lesser individual in the eyes of the superior libs. This is the fertile ground Republicans have plowed for years to lure voters to their side.

Hey, they say, we are like you. We are no better than you. We share your values, and we value you.

Now lots of folks know that is a marketing smokescreen to get elected. But it works, as opposed to the in your face nose in the air Democratic attitude that is all too prevalent.

I like to use this analogy:

Salesman: It is obvious that because you drive a Ford, sir, you are a complete idiot. Can't you see how foolish you have been, to be duped into driving a Ford? How stupid! Now then, I know what is best for you. You need to buy a new Chevy from me!

Uh...betcha he doesn't make the sale!

Myself, I have many Republican friends (for which I have been skewered by the radical left) and I see them as human beings as well as a set of political beliefs. It will not be accepted by many here, but I swear to you they are as intelligent, loving, fun, caring and patriotic as any Democrat.

My doctor is a Republican. I have been told by superior libs that that means he is too stupid to be trusted with my health care. Geez.

Until our party's members say "We value you" to voters, we won't have made the first step to winning again. We need to get off our superior streak and stop demeaning people becaue of how they voted last time if we want them to vote for us this time.

We can start right here at DU. Let's attack the policies and priorities, not the people.

I won't hold my breath.

You have no agruement sir.

Important distinction.

NGU.

if this shit continues.

Since when is Moveon and its members "the leaders"?

Since when is Mike Moore "the leaders"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Leaders are those who run the show.

That would be Democrat Senators, Representatives, the DNC and DLC.

It would NOT be Moore or Moveon.


Opinion leaders. *snicker*

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is, is it?

You claimed only LEADERS were attacked.

Show us how Moveon and Moore are leaders.


The fact that Moveon and Moore are more than average Americans has NOTHING to do them with being leaders.

They are not my leaders, nor do they act upon my desires.


Your attempts to defend a statement which is indefensible is laughable.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You win. <ROTFLMAO>

NGU.

Anyone weather we like it or not that is that much in the public eye are perceived as our leaders just like we percieve that Rush Limbaugh is one of theirs.

Just because these leaders have no offical copasity does not me the average american doewn't view them as the leaders of our party and allow themselves to be swayed but their feelings toward these leaders messages.

What I have noticed on other boards is that the pubs have this fascination with Hollywood, and they hang on their every word. I, myself do not have time to follow other peoples lives or hang on their every word. Hell, I grew up in Southern California, and could care less what the Hollywood elite have to say...They are not running our government...unless you count Arnold. We don't need to hold Moore accountable, we need to hold our government officials accountable. When the 2000 election was stolen from the people and decided by the courts, the democratic party became bitter enemies of the consevative right. It split these United States right down the middle...For a brief momment after September 11th, 2001, the parties came together to fight a common enemy...THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE GIVEN BUSH A BLANK CHECK!!!...And we can now all see why. After Bush played the religion card, it was all over but the crying. 80% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and George banked on the religious right to carry him through another fours years...The man is not dumb...but he is a lunatic! He used al-Qeada as an excuse to invade the Middle East, and now we are ALL along for the ride! I really hope the elections in Iraq go well, but our's haven't for the past two elections, so maybe I'm asking to much. God help any country that models their elections after ours!


Scatamooch

Those little catchphrases have a strangely familiar sound to them.

<LOL>

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Liberals = Leaders?

Anti-life = Leaders?

Bleeding Hearts = Leaders?

The right wing noise machine would have nothing to say if they removed social generalities from their litany of enemies.

Yes, they take extreme social generalities and make boogie men out of them. They say "liberals are stupid" but they're not stupid enough themselves to say "the American People are stupid."

NGU.

"They attack the leaders, not the people.
Important distinction."


...is incorrect.

NGU.

...to prove the targets of Limbaugh et al are NOT American people.

Prove your statement.

...to demand proof of a negative when they in fact have no proof or argument. The onus is on you.

NGU.

...to make a rash statement then attack those who question it.

Your statement:

"They attack the leaders, not the people.
Important distinction."


...is in error.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I, on the other hand, have asked you to prove your statement twice, and you keep changing the subject.

NGU.

Your statement:

"They attack the leaders, not the people.
Important distinction."


...is in error.

...to fit your argument.

NGU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


...is in error.

He made a stupid statement and he can't defend it.

We've all done this before, but unlike many of us, he can't seem to admit it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your statement...

"They attack the leaders, not the people.
Important distinction."


...is incorrect.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You made the original statement that only the leaders are attacked.

You were asked to provide evidence of your statement.

The ONUS is on YOU to provide proof of your statement.

...and then hands-down proclaimed it wrong. I never said ONLY the leaders are attacked. But if it suits your arguement to add words like "only," I guess you'll do it.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NGU.

When they attack Liberals.

Or are Liberals only made up of "leaders"?


Funny, I'm a Liberal and I don't lead jack shit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I asked you to read my answer elsewhere.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

NGU.

Why then is it wrong to attack the repugs? Are they more American People than liberals are?

dehumanising feminists ir dehumanising people. american people.

"American people are stupid." I HAVE seen posts where liberals have said that Republican "sheep" are stupid and I agree, because when you vote AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS, just because a Rush or an O'Reilly TOLD you to do so, there can be no description other than STUPID.

No matter HOW we try to asskiss Bush's supporters, they are not going to come over to our side because they enjoy the name-calling themselves.

Why is it that the liberals are always the ones who have to "compromise" or "go along to get along?" I don't see a single Republican saying, "Maybe we should compromise our stance on this issue." Heck no, they hold fast to their beliefs while some of our own want to give up some of the values that are the foundation of the liberal viewpoint. WHY?

Hey, if our soldiers are caught in battle now will it be unjust for them to be tortured.

It is not possible to walk the high road if you use those things you despise about those on the low.

and keep right on losing to those who use the low road to great advantage." Sounds like great DLC-Centrist "How to keep the Republicans in power" philosophy to me.

Torture? Hell, the U.S. is ALREADY doing it to the Iraqis. How is "walking the high road" as Dems going to stop the tortures at Abu Gahraib or Guantanamo that are going on right now?

We, being democrats, are always say that the things that the RWers do is dirty and low, they are out for themselves and not for anyone else. And We, being democrats, argue that we are out for the good of everyone. That sounds to me like a high road low road discussion, does it not? And if you want to walk the high road and fight for the right pricipals and ideologies, then don't you also have to hold yourself to a set of standards of conduct.

We say that it isn't right for them to paint us as hippies and liberal elite. We say it is wrong for them to run smear campaigns. But even as we say that what they do to us is wrong we call them stupid and ignorant. We run smear campaigns all over the country.

My point about torture was an analogy. By committing torture as a country we open our soldiers up to that fate themselves. And we did that by not following the rules we helped establish at the Geneva convention. So now when our soldiers are tortured, and if captured they will be, we have no right to complain.(and by us in this paragraph I mean all Americans, Republicans and Democrats, because even if we disagreed with them doing it. We are all responsible for the actions of our country).

I still hold my own.

Just listen to Rush and Hannity if you can bear it.

Give me an example of them attacking "the American people."

NGU.

Do you even LISTEN to the bull you are spewing?!

How many times have I heard conservatives refer to Democrats as "elitist yuppies" or "Godless socialists" or "latte-sipping intellectuals"?

How many times have you heard conservatives refer to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE as any of those things? It's always an undefined "other."

NGU.

when they make curled-lip remarks about "liberals."

My disdain is reserved only for the wilfully ignorant.

...IDENTIFY themselves as "liberals." That's the key difference. "They're not talking about me, Joe Bluecollar, they're talking about those damn liburls like John Kerry."

And this makes another fine argument for calling ourselves Progressives.

NGU.

So people who identify themselves as liberals are not Americans?

That is what you are saying!

1. JFK: "What is a Liberal"


Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

More: http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/whatis.html

*************************
I got this info from a post by BlueEyedSon on 1/24/05

And as a liberal myself I would love it if that was how the world viewed us, but even JFK knew how the opposition painted liberals...

"If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar..."

I understand that his speech dispelled that image, but in todays RW Media what do you think would be the soundbite?

getting Democrats to see what the word "liberal" actually means so that some of us can stop being ashamed to use it. And also to educate enough Repubs to see that they cannot insult us by calling us "liberals."

And I agree...it is beautiful....

and look at the polling on the issues...
the majority of the american people believe in the principles of the democratic party but won't vote for democrats because of the RW successful effort to turn the word 'liberal' into the leprosy of Jesus' day. i was listening to the malloy show the other night and a RWer caller called mike a 'democrat liberal' as if it were the worst insult in the world. and the democratic party (as a general rule) has not stood up for and owned the word 'liberal'.
so i believe the problem lies both with the RW attack machine with its desire to obliterate the democratic party and with the democratic party not stepping up and saying "Hell yes i'm i liberal! i'm proud of it! and i'll tell you why."

we've been too afraid to really confront them, our leaders have especially been too afraid to confront them.

for me though (back to talking about the original post), i believe in civilized dialogue and honest debate. i don't believe that conservative principles are necessarily evil. however the conservatives that promote an agenda of torture, genocide, empirialism, the erosion of civil rights...for me (who LOVES nuance and gray area) i'm in shock that anyone would suggest have a real dialogue with them (and i feel entitled to call supporters of such agendas stupid and ignorant and/or evil because that is EXACTLY what they are because committing the above offenses is EVIL). you can't have a real dialogue with someone who blinds themselves with faith out of fear. it isn't possible and you can't win.
they will have to decide for themselves to be informed and strong and ethical. you can't make someone be a decent person. don't judge us for calling a spade a spade.

btw, i'm a liberal jane blue-collar

EOM

NGU.

We are called :
Left wing radicals
Tree huggers
Socialists
Communists
Eastern Elite
Smug
Femme Nazi's
Abortionists
Baby killers
Un-Christian
Anti-religious
Tax and spend liberals
Out of touch
Cowards
Amoral
Unpatriotic
Appeasers
Should I go on ??????

We have had every label imaginable put on us. It's about time we started being a little tougher in calling a liar a liar. We have been appeasers in the Senate and house. Hoping that if we go along, we'll get along. It doesn't work, because the Republicans do not give back in kind. Since Gingrich it's been that way. Delay has raised it to an art form. We'll get absolutely NOTHING being nice except a kick in the ass. So we might as well take off the gloves and make a fight out of it.

We identify ourselves as Progressives. They identify themselves as average Americans. I'm not saying be nice to the Radical RW!! I'm saying BE SMART AND STRATEGIC ABOUT IT. Don't just throw third-grade names around at everyone - craft names and images that have A STRATEGIC IMPACT on the debate.

For a better explanation than I can give here, read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant." You talk about calling out liars - Lakoff says that won't work. Everybody lies to one degree or another, and everybody expects politicians to lie. It comes with the territory. But if we think about it a little harder, using Lakoff's reasoning, we come up with "betrayal of trust." Now we expect a President to lie, at least a little, but it would be almost unthinkable to have a President who "betrays our trust."

That's a smarter way of saying the same thing. I'm not saying to back off or play nice (in fact, anyone who knows me would find that implication hysterical). I'm saying AIM before you SHOOT, or you're going to take out innocent people who could be our allies.

NGU.

Not attacking peo0ple? They use moral superority as a bludgeon; they pressure church and synagogue members to vote their way or face the wrath of God, who is on their side.

Now what was that again?

Mom & pop. The salt of the earth. Joe Lunchbucket.

The Radical RW makes up phantoms like latte-drinking liberals - who are dirty hippies and rich elitists at the same time - and attacks THEM as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Sick and insidious to be sure, but that's the way they work. Meanwhile the freaks kiss up to the average folks who don't identify with any political labels - the majority of voters in this country - and they think, "Hmmmm... I'm glad I'm not like those wackos."

NGU.

GAY persons,
Liberals,
Democrats,
Environmentalists,
Peace activists,
Women,
French, Germans, anybody foreign and not bought by them,
Scientists,
Teachers,
Union workers,
Workers in general,
Etc.
Etc.

Yeah, sounds like thy sure don't attack people at all!

Whoa there!!! To be fair, there has been some pretty nasty stuff coming from our side too.

I'd find another doctor. I do not, cannot, and will not trust a Republican, period.

and do you know how most white men vote?

Come on, people! Party affiliation ought not to be some kind of caste system. I'm sorry, but that is not only a disappointing attitude, it goes against the very grain of what liberalism is supposed to represent. It is every bit as narrow-minded as we like to point out we think they are!

I would throw out my doctor's vast knowledge and accurate treatment solely because he voted for Bush? That is ludicrous!

plenty of great people who are also democrats who can use our support. I dont think its narrow minded to support democrats with our buisiness- support democratic leaders? why not support democratic followers too?

"I'd find another doctor. I do not, cannot, and will not trust a Republican, period."

I just don't get that! People in my life are all parties and no parties.

better question him.

but take heart- most nurses are democrats

This is a country of secret ballots. What if he said it was none of your business?

Supporting the democrats is nothing to be ahsamed of.

That is discrimination against republicans.

As I see it we are on our way toward a situation like the one in Iraq right here. Shiite and Sunni...republicans and democrats. Two groups of people who feverishly hate each other living in the same country.

You seem to think I owe people my hard earned money- I dont!

I choose who I have as my doctor- and it is a democrat.

Dont try to preach away my consumer choice.

I DONT owe conservatives a living.

preaching by suggesting that we should only try and find doctors who were democrats.

I choose my doctors based on who I find to be compitent doctors. Doctors who understand how my medical issues fit in with the rest of my life. Not on who they vote for.

dont play dirty- its unbecoming and weakens your stance in the debate.


I NEVER said or even implied "WE SHOULD" do anything in respect to employing republicans.

Freshman English. In a conversation on personal values when one uses statements such as "I would look for a proud democratic doctor" that is normally viewed not only as a desciption of ones person personal beliefs or actions but a prescription of what those with opposing views or actions should do according to said person(I got very good grades in that class for everything except my use of punctuation, damn run on sentences).

Now if you did not mean that as a suggestion for what we all should do then I apoligize.

Edit: removal of a sentance that what a little harsh.

there was NEVER a "should", I have never told people they must be like me to be democrats, if you look at my overall rhetoric on this board.

It is inconsistant with my belief that we as the left, dont have to all be alike.


Again, Im not trying to preach away your consumer choice by answering someones question about what they would do.

My money is my money, and I will spend it on progressives, Democrats, and others who support my ideals. (Any "pressure" you feel to do the same from that statement is pure fiction.)

there badgering, bullying, chastising, condemning Democrats for not following in lock-step. Maybe you should turn your gaze?

And incidentally, Bush* IS a chimp.

. . but it swings both ways. I think liberals tend to condescend others based on intellect, education, and at times, experience. This often leaves those condescended with the perception that liberals think they know it all.

Conservatives, on the otherhand, have coopeted away from the liberals patriotism, religion and so-called american values to include as many as possible, and only exclude those who vocally disagree with them.

The democratic party needs to re-claim patriotism, community, citizenship, religion (both the absence of and existance of) and hard work ethics to use to seperate who they include in their democratic ideals as well as to seperate out the ultra right wing facists who would like nothing more than to destroy what so many have fought to preserve.

You gotta wonder about what's inside peoples' heads that they go along with the Bush crowd and policies. I don't make it a habit of attacking people individually--and I have some R acquaintances that I associate with and don't rag on--but we all need a safe place to go and unload our thoughts and frustrations about what is raging on around us. I think DU serves that purpose, and I'm not sure how many outside our "borders" notice what we feel free to express here. I don't go on "freeper" websites because I can't deal with the awful and ugly things they feel free to express there about anyone they choose--people and not just leaders or policies.

Just some thoughts from the Tired Old Cynic.

Rush has commented many times on the more outrageous of the DU posts, and then claims that those posts are typical of Democrats in general. Recently a really far out DU post showed up in the New York Times. Yes, the rest of the world is watching.

All viewpoints are not equal, some are wrong. You should be reminded that there were millions of people in Germany that VOTED for Adolf Hitler. They did not all share his madness and evil intent. They were duped, lied to and decieved under the guise of, get this, PATRIOTISM! I am sure there were many Doctors that voted for Der Fuhrer as well.

In your wildest dreams do you actually envision a time when the Rethugs, especially of the Rush Limbaugh wing, will STOP lying about Democrats and their supposed smugness? Please! Your post is nonsense!

bunch of sheeple. They believe everything that Limpballs tells them. They don't read. They ignore FACTS. G-D put the chimp in office. They steal elections. They lie about EVERYTHING. They kill people out of greed for oil. They hate poor people. (They're lazy you know)

Your doctor is a repuke probably because of his pocketbook...aka...GREED. They're all alike. They want money. Piss on anyone who doesn't have enough money. I've got mine, to hell with you. Get your own. Who cares if you were born into poverty and haven't had the privledges of we rich white boys. Piss on ya.

THEY started this BULLSHIT by trying to destroy Bill Clinton for 8 fucking years. Don't dump on the Democrats for dishing it back. They deserve eveything they get and more. IMCPO

If it walks like a duck its a damn duck.

If Bush and the other republicans lie (and they do), well then they are lying scum!

The Democrats are being optimists by reasoning it's Stupidity, IMHO

And you might as well read Sun Tsu while you're at it, because you never win a war by underestimating the enemy.

NGU.

No, it's the first time I'VE posted it.

Probably an error in posting she wasn't talking to you directly.

which is what I meant -- did not mean to infer yours was a dupe.

i also have a lot of republican friends (my drummer is a stout republican). I just had a conversation with a co-worker that is republican, we have very civil debates on policy, and most Americans want the same goals, but there are many different ways to meet these goals. I consider myself a progressive democrat, and would like to see the system fixed in a way that doesn't dissenfranchise the less fortunate. I do believe that there is a valid threat by the 'fundies' and the 'freepers' but these are about Social issues, not political policy.

... the right has (via Linmbaugh and others) made "liberal" a dirty word. You should hear the things they call us. How bad has it hurt them?

Before Dems can win any power in the government, they must understand the culture of this country. Ever watch TV? Movies? Understand the "winner" vs. "loser" dynamic that has been set up? Understand the "I'm about me" view that is the predominant ideal in American culture?

Please - if you really think that the reason we are not winning is that we are too rough on the other side, your head in so far in the sand you can't breathe.

I think the OP's point was that we shouldn't be beating up THE PEOPLE - who SHOULD be voting for us, and who we want to attract. Note that the Radical RW attacks "liberals," who are some cartoon cross between hippies and wimps. They never attack "mom and pop" or "the American people."

We can attack Radical RWers - but I would NEVER say, "The American people are stupid." First of all, it's not true on the whole. Second of all, THEY'RE not my enemies - Bush**, Cheney**, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, and the rest of the ghouls manipulating the American people are the enemies.

We need to get it straight.

NGU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... I am not on the campaign trail. I would not recommend to any politician to tell the American people they are stupid.

What I am advocating is much, much tougher rhetoric from the Dem party and our elected officials against policies.

I realize the original post was about what is said here. Who the fuck cares? If you are a conservative and don't like what you read here, I suggest you go to freerepublic.com and tell me it's better. Go on, I dare ya.

And finally, it is quite possible to have the skills needed to get elected and not have the skills to effectively run a country. They are not the same skills and I've see analogous situations in business over and over. Folks who are good at moving up the corporate ladder are not necessarily effective executives once they reach the top.

We won't be running against W again. And we won't really even be able to run against his record. We'd better learn to frame the debate and to get media time by making UNEQUIVOCAL, EXCORCIATING DENUNCIATIONS OF POLICIES THAT HAVE FAILED COMPLETELY.

Sigh. It was about the image projected by the party.

That is my point, by whom? As a group, our Dem leaders don't talk enough smack. That is my point.

As for MM or other folks, I don't think the "image of the party" they project is any worse than the one that various free agent Republicans present.

And frankly, I think that the fact that Dems and Dem supporters are too nice and that has hurt us. If you cannot muster any passion in your argument, nobody is going to hear you.

To extrapolate further, look what the national party did when one of its primary candidates said Democrats ought to be the party of people in the South, too. His comment was edited down to just the guns in pickups, Confederate flag elements (uh...note that they are the most inflammatory), then was completely removed from its larger context, then was immolated by the superior liberal Democrats.

That resonated throughout the South, in newspapers and editorials.

Gee..how many Southern states did we win? Win, hell...what am I thinking of? How many did we even bother to CAMPAIGN in?

We are so superior to Southerners, a backward and ignorant breed, that we just concede their stupid votes to the GOP.

Hmmm...who controls the national government right now?

Heheheheh...this is a topic the party sorely needs to do some soul-searching on, but there is way too much denial at present to even start the process. Yet it is a fundamental stumbling block for us.

sendero wrote: Please - if you really think that the reason we are not winning is that we are too rough on the other side, your head in so far in the sand you can't breathe.

Ratcheting up the debate beyond the facts in evidence is another flaw I see here a lot. But that's another topic.

I said, ...that in my view is part of why our party is falling out of favor...

I also said nothing about being "too rough on the other side." What I said was Until our party's members say "We value you" to voters, we won't have made the first step to winning again. We need to get off our superior streak and stop demeaning people becaue of how they voted last time if we want them to vote for us this time. (sic)

.. or madam, do you really see Dem pols on the campaign trail telling Americans they are stupid? Really?

Or are you just talking about a collection of pissed off Dems on a freaking message board?

Because frankly, if you think the American people are real concerned with anything said here... well, I can't say anything nice so I'll say nothing.

I watched the party lose thousands of Southern votes in one fell swoop -- in 3 days -- when its Beltway elite first distorted and took out of context comments during the primary by Howard Dean saying we need to be the party of Southerners, too, and then the smug Northern Dems all piled on and completely vilified them.

That played huge in the South. Huge.

Let's see, how many Southern states did we win? How many did we even bother to campaign in?

(Dean, BTW, campaigned in the primaries in Georgia, Alabama and other Southern states. He will be appearing in Florida and Mississippi after the DNC chair vote is taken...regardless of the result.)

That's just one example. If you cannot hear the arrogance of the party, my friend, you are tone deaf to what the average voter hears.

Tone deaf. yes, that's it. That is part of the problem, too.

As far as DU, it has no direct relevance to the party at all, nor would I expect it to. But it's a big online gathering of rabid Dems. Maybe "rabid" is why the party doesn't listen more closely.

... because a beltway elite might distort our words or take them out of context.

Thanks for that, now I know you have no point. That is just what the pukes want, for us to shut up.

I don't think so, and not only that, it looks like a few Dem congresspersons don't think so either.

LOL

Read through a good assortment of threads, & be turned against Democrats because of a few insults?

Will they really reject the large amount of valuable information & the friendly silliness of the Loung because of a few postings? Postings that may have been made by disruptors, in fact?

I agree that most of the crap that happens here is the work of disruptors, but I also think we need a major attitude adjustment in order to start winning again. Please read "Don't Think of an Elephant," then PM me and let me know your thoughts.

NGU.

...inflammation of the rhetoric and debate, unsupported by my original post. I merely said in conclusion that we could start the process here at DU. That's all.

I agree, disagreeing with positions and policy
is the high standard, but frankly you can't
get in the mud with the Republicans if you
want to stay clean.

I don't mind getting dirty to make a point.

...he just votes for the men and women he believes are best suited to be in office, same as I do. Uh, isn't that the American way? And he also monitors my health and treats me effectively to prolong my life. He's highly intelligent and an excellent diagnostician.

that your doctor as a Republican doesn't represent
many people or makes policies that affect many
people as do Republicans in all three branches
are doing now.

It goes without saying that all Republicans
aren't stupid...but when you are making up
soundbites against what is happening, one has
to make up sayings that sound almost as
stupid as what the Republican backroom boys
make up daily.

It's lovely to stay above the fray and just
argue positions, but you don't win races that
way.

And why do you have to attack anyone with a childish, worthless insult like "stupid??" And one that lowers the expectations on the Radical RW to boot??

Why don't we attack them with smarter words like "criminal" and "murderer," instead of resorting to third grade insults that just help the other side?

NGU.

...I said quit insulting the very voters you need to be able to win.