Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So... Who Was Rahm Doing THIS To?

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:25 PM
Original message
So... Who Was Rahm Doing THIS To?


Has to be my favorite "non-Obama" shot/moment of the day. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bush? Cheney?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. To him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I hope that's the correct answer.
Either way, funny stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Howard Dean. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
33. LOL
That's what I thought, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. You can bet some palmistry artist will soon be all over this picture!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. So many deserving people there on the "host" side of the podium
I mean, shit at least he's not sending them a fish or stabbing a table with a steak knife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cash_thatswhatiwant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. your signature is scary nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. 6On the radio this AM they said it was directed at Shrub.
Pill Press said that this AM and said he would post the pic on his website. Bill was laughing at it, but unless Rahm WANTED it to be published, he sure better get used to the fact that there's ALWAYS a camera, no matter where you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. The democratic wing of the Democratic party & others who shall not be named here. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. who are they and what makes them that?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. the ones that are currently wielding no power? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. or never really have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Oh, you know them.
All of us who you don't think belong in the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. ohh, the ones you think are the only "true" Democrats
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Well,
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 01:33 PM by polmaven
obviously "they" are not you and I.....! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. obviously not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. what do you think?
Do you deny that there are differing opinions about the direction the party should take?

:shrug:

Here is a question: who is it you are always mocking and ridiculing? Upon what basis do you decide who goes into that category?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. what do you think?
Do you deny that there are differing opinions about the direction the party should take?

No.

Do you claim one direction is the correct way and therefor it's adherants are somehow "more Democrat" than the others?

Here is a question: who is it you are always mocking and ridiculing?

The same people who ridicule and mock the wing of the party I prefer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. fair enough
Good question -

"Do you claim one direction is the correct way and therefor it's adherents are somehow 'more Democrat' than the others?"

I would not claim that, no, because I think the direction of the party is up for grabs, and whoever wins control over the party will be defining what being a Democrat means.

By the way, other than a couple of swipes in response to you, I don't mock and ridicule the wing of the party you prefer. I disagree with them.

I think it would be great if those who agree with you could have their own party, be that the Democratic party or not, and could be free of us and could then spend your time persuading the public rather than engaging in an ongoing rearguard action against the political Left within the party. I don't think the two wings of the party can co-exist indefinitely, and I think you agree with me on that. I don't expect to be able to purge those with your views from the party, but I think you do hope to purge those with my views from the party.

You would say that those of us on the Left have no other practical choice but to be Democrats, would you not? Well, here we are. I don't like it any more than you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. interesting
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 03:50 PM by wyldwolf
I think the direction of the party is up for grabs, and whoever wins control over the party will be defining what being a Democrat means.

That's probably true. But if we are to speak of the party in terms of "wings," the wing I prefer have run things pretty much since Woodrow Wilson was in office and the wing you prefer has tried to sabotage the party electorally on a number of occasions.

I think it would be great if those who agree with you could have their own party, be that the Democratic party or not, and could be free of us and could then spend your time persuading the public rather than engaging in an ongoing rearguard action against the political Left within the party.

That's fascinating. See, I would prefer the far left of the party stay in the party but cease the constant "I'm a real Democrat and you're not" that seaps from the netroots daily. Any one who has paid attention can plainly see it's the further left who constantly snipes at the rest of the party.

"Progressives" daily "slash and burn" centrists from blogs and message boards. They write entire books on it. But when they get slashed and burned back, they whine about mean old centrists trying to purge them from the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. heh
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:40 PM by Two Americas
"The wing you prefer has tried to sabotage the party electorally on a number of occasions."

That may be. But the opposite could be said, as well. But calling those on the Left saboteurs...

The party has moved to the Left on occasion, or individual politicians have, and that has led to greater electoral success. Also, moving to the center has on occasion led to less electoral success.

I don't know that the faction you prefer has been running the party since Wilson. I think there has been an ongoing battle between two small factions within the party. The conservative faction wins control over the party more often, if that is what you mean.

Obviously, depending upon which faction one identifies with, what is happening will look different. So it is not true that "any one who has paid attention can plainly see it's the further left who constantly snipes at the rest of the party." The centrists are one small faction, just as the Left is. The two sides criticize each other, as it should be. It is not fair to accuse those criticizing the centrists by saying we are therefore constantly sniping at "the rest of the party." Whether or not you represent the "rest of the party" is yet to be seen.

People who are on the conservative, or centrist side also "write entire books on it" and say "I'm a real Democrat and you're not" and complain about people trying to purge them from the party.

Since the centrists are defending power, they have an easier job. The Left is on the outside, so of course we are forced to work harder and be more aggressive. The centrists win by default, since that is where the money and power and control over the media is. That makes it easy to smear us as whiners and purists and nutroots and the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. heh
That may be. But the opposite could be said, as well. But calling those on the Left saboteurs...

1948 - "Progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

1960 - The left of the party tried to draft two time loser Stephenson to replace JFK

1968 - The left protested the DNC convention and Humphrey's nomination.

1972 - "Progressive" McGovern lost in an electoral landslide.

1980 - "Progressive" Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention and did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carters hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

The party has moved to the Left on occasion, or individual politicians have,

Individual politicians have, of course, but the party has not

and that has led to greater electoral success.

Like who? And when? The only time the party shifted left to any degree was when FDR co-opted the left in the 1930s with the stated goal of neutralizing third party threats.

Also, moving to the center has on occasion led to less electoral success.

Like when? Our biggest congressional and presidential losses have come post '68 when the GOP effectively painted the Democrats as "liberals." The very perception we'd moved left caused major losses in '72, '80, '84, '88, and congressional races in '94.

I don't know that the faction you prefer has been running the party since Wilson. I think there has been an ongoing battle between two small factions within the party. The conservative faction wins control over the party more often, if that is what you mean.

When has the "progressive" wing ever won control of the party? Answer: They haven't. Name one period post Woodrow Wilson when "progressives" controlled it.

People who are on the conservative, or centrist side also "write entire books on it" and say "I'm a real Democrat and you're not" and complain about people trying to purge them from the party.

Really? I'd like to read one or two. Can you recommend some titles?

The centrists win by default, since that is where the money and power and control over the media is. That makes it easy to smear us as whiners and purists and nutroots and the like.

Ask yourself why that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. lots there
Thanks.

You know, this is a good post. I don't understand why you don't do this more often and we could have some interesting debates. You make a good case here.

A couple of points -

I don't know what "progressives" means, so I can't speak to that. Seems to me you lump any and all of those who lost and could be portrayed as left wing into this "progressive" grab bag, and then use that to make an argument that the party should move to the right.

Could we not cite the Dixiecrats and other conservative forces within the party and make a similar case to the one you are making here against the Left?

I don't know that the demonstrations is Chicago caused Humphrey to lose. I think an equally valid case could be made that it was the conservatives in the party who caused that loss.

I don't know why Kennedy challenged Carter. I didn't support that. Seems to me Carter was as much a leftist as Kennedy.

You say that "our biggest congressional and presidential losses have come when the GOP effectively painted the Democrats as 'liberals.'" The right wingers are always trying to portray Democrats as too far Left. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see how that can be used as an argument for moving the party to the right. Would the right wingers stop trying to portray the Democrats as too far Left if we moved sufficiently to the right? Of course not.

You say "the only time the party shifted left to any degree was when FDR co-opted the left in the 1930s with the stated goal of neutralizing third party threats."

I wouldn't deny that. Obviously, then, that means creating a third party threat is the best strategy for the Left, no? Yet that is what you continually argue against. Whatever the cause of the FDR administration moving to the Left, that did lead to electoral success.

That can only mean that you want the party to move to the right, and do not merely advocate that because of this practicality argument. That is the hypocrisy and covert agenda that keeps this feud alive. You are not alone., There have always been many in the party who argue that we must move to the right, in order to win, when you are actually in favor of moving to the right and doing everything you can to make sure that any and all moves to the Left fail.

I think that an equally valid case could be made that it is the conservatives in the party who would rather sabotage the success of the party than let it move to the Left.

Why not be honest, and say that you support conservative politics rather than using these practicality arguments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. answers
I don't know what "progressives" means, so I can't speak to that. Seems to me you lump any and all of those who lost and could be portrayed as left wing into this "progressive" grab bag, and then use that to make an argument that the party should move to the right.

I use the term to cover several movements closely related to each other. Henry Wallace, a former VP of FDR, ran on the Progressive Party ticket, a party that sought to move American politics left. The "new left" of the 60s that had the same goal, and the "progressive" movement of today (netroots, etc.)

Could we not cite the Dixiecrats and other conservative forces within the party and make a similar case to the one you are making here against the Left?

You could, but it would not be nearly as strong a case. In the '48 election, the Dixiecrats did, indeed, splinter off. But Thurmond siphoned off votes from the Republican candidate as well. Henry Wallace's Progressive campaign (like Nader's in 2000) siphoned off votes that would have most likely gone to Harry Truman. Additionally, the Wallace run against Truman was the culmination of close to two decades of progressives sniping at the administrations of FDR and Truman.

By the time 1968 came around, the mainstream of the Democratic party had already rejected the Dixiecrat movement. When former Democrat George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party ticket on the same segregationist platform as Strom Thurmond did 20 years prior, he was no longer claimed by the official apparatus of the Democratic party. No other conservative force has splintered from the party to run a third party candidate nor has any other conservative force protested the Democratic nominee in any presidential election as progressive movements have.

I don't know that the demonstrations is Chicago caused Humphrey to lose. I think an equally valid case could be made that it was the conservatives in the party who caused that loss.

The '68 debacle of a Democratic convention carried live on national TV, showed the left as being counter-culture radicals - a very strong image for 1968 America - and the leading contributor of the Democrat's undeserved image as being pacifists. Humphrey was very much in line idealogically with the Truman-Kennedy tradition.

What case can you make that conservative in the part caused it?

I don't know why Kennedy challenged Carter. I didn't support that. Seems to me Carter was as much a leftist as Kennedy.

Well, as President, Carter clearly was not a leftist. Carter was involved in the recruiting of Islamic fundamentalists, who later became Al Queda, to engage in a "Jihad" against the "atheistic communist regime" in Afghanistan. That certainly wasn't a leftist move.

Time Magazine said of him: A catalog of contradictions: Liberal, moderate, conservative, compassionate, ruthless, soft, tough, a charlatan, a true believer, a defender of the status quo, a populist Hamlet... A Democrat who thinks like a Republican... he also considers himself a fiscal conservative...

Other facts concerning him:

A former State Senator, he was elected Governor by running to the right of the other Democratic candidates. "I was never a liberal," he told state voters that year. "I am and have always been a conservative."

He campaigned against school busing.

A supporter of the Viet Nam war, as Governor he declared "American Fighting Man's Day" in support of Lt. William Calley after his court martial on charges of massacring civilians.

At the 1972 Democratic convention, he was a delegate for Henry "Scoop" Jackson's (said by some to be the father of the DLC) presidential campaign, and he worked with Al From of the DLC on economic issues as well.

One of his campaigns was endorsed by Pat Robertson, who aired a profile of him on the 700 Club.

Kennedy challenged a sitting Democratic president from left, carried his fight to the Convention when there was clearly no chance he could win, lobbied delegates to break DNC rules and change their vote, then refused to lift Carter's hand in victor when Carter got the nomination. Millions on TV saw Carter following Kennedy around the stage to get that congratulations.

You say that "our biggest congressional and presidential losses have come when the GOP effectively painted the Democrats as 'liberals.'" The right wingers are always trying to portray Democrats as too far Left. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

Yeah, it worked beautifully when our candidates lost electoral landslides in '72, '80, '84, and '88. It was completely ineffective in '76, '92, '96, and '08.

I don't see how that can be used as an argument for moving the party to the right. Would the right wingers stop trying to portray the Democrats as too far Left if we moved sufficiently to the right? Of course not.

Two issues here. The stated goals of think tanks and policy shops like the DLC is to move the part back to the center with the same goals as Democrats had in the Truman-Kennedy era. And they've largely succeeded. History shows the centrist candidates win (or come very close to winning) and further left candidates lose big. That isn't my opinion. It's an electoral fact.

Obviously, then, that means creating a third party threat is the best strategy for the Left, no?

If the left's goal is to give the GOP a lock on power, that would be a good strategy.

Yet that is what you continually argue against. Whatever the cause of the FDR administration moving to the Left, that did lead to electoral success.

Actually, no, I don't continually argue against the left forming their own party because they already have several registered parties in the US. FDR's electoral success wasn't based entirely on leftist policies. After all, he always said major portions of the New Deal were temporary, even stating as much in a State of the Union address: "this business of relief must end."

Much of FDR's electoral success came from his embrace of free trade policies and his desire to enter WWII (and performance thereafter)

That can only mean that you want the party to move to the right, and do not merely advocate that because of this practicality argument.

No, I want the party to remain in the center, as it was throughout most of our golden period (Post Wilson to the present)

Why not be honest, and say that you support conservative politics rather than using these practicality arguments?

because I don't. I support traditional centrist Democratic policies.

I'd like to paraphrase one of the moderators on DU, Magistrate:

"Another is the perennial brouha here about what constitutes a "real Democrat", most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. The idea that (certain Democrats) not "real Democrats" is nothing but the punch-line to a very poor joke, although it is certainly true that they embrace many policies and ideas that some of our radicals detest. But that latter is hardly an indication they were not "real Democrats"; rather, it is an indication that such radicals are somewhat out of step with the Democratic Party as a real institution and political force, as opposed to an ideal item they imagine not only to be fact, but to be wholly agreeable to them. That faction of the Democratic Party had its political trial with the campaign for President of Sec. Wallace in 1948, and failed utterly, gaining the votes of only a handful of people. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple."








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. questions
I think we agree that there are two major factions jockeying for control of the party.

How would you describe those two factions?

You support one of those two factions, but your arguments never betray which you prefer - which you agree with on principle rather than tactics and other practical concerns.

Which do you ultimately support, and why? Which would you support if both were in your view equally practical?

Most of the arguments here are not so much about which politicians to support, but rather about what our role should be.

What is the problem with people advocating from the Left? Even if it is not practical to get politicians from the Left into office, why can we not influence them by strongly speaking out from the Left? What is your problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. uh huh.
I think we agree that there are two major factions jockeying for control of the party.

Uh huh

How would you describe those two factions?

Latter day Truman-Kennedy Democrats and latter day Wallacites/McGovernites

You support one of those two factions, but your arguments never betray which you prefer - which you agree with on principle rather than tactics and other practical concerns.

I support them both, but prefer one over the the other since they're in agreement on about 85% of everything. Bill Clinton and Not Ted Kennedy. BUT Ted Kennedy and NOT any Republican. Understand?

Which do you ultimately support, and why? Which would you support if both were in your view equally practical?

The centrist wing. And it they were both equally practical, there probably wouldn't be enough differences to make a distinction.

What is the problem with people advocating from the Left?

None. The problem arises when they advocate from the left while trashing Democrats.

Even if it is not practical to get politicians from the Left into office, why can we not influence them by strongly speaking out from the Left? What is your problem with that?

I've never had a problem with that. My gripe has always been the methods the left employs.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. very good
That is clear. Appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. George Bailey. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. For Sasha?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I think we have the answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Oh no there HAS to be some bullshit scandal over this.
That's just to SIMPLE to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. That's cute. I'm saving that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. Dick Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
35. progressives
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 Tue Sep 30th 2014, 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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