Sleeping on the Democratic Couch – Advice for Republican Refugees

[ReadTomPaine]

Until we fix your party and send you back across the aisle, here are some suggested house rules for Republican refugees staying with the Democratic Party.

1) It’s our house, not yours.

Don’t put your feet on the coffee table, don’t raid the 'fridge and don’t pretend you’ve owned the place all along. As comfortable as you may feel here, this isn’t politics as usual. It’s not your home. If you find you fit in, you are welcome to stay and become a member of our family. Otherwise, don’t pretend we’re the same as you. Be happy we aren’t charging rent; you are expensive guests.

2) Don’t invite your crazy friends over.

We have a big tent, but a short fuse. While we are putting you up in our home, don’t push your old politics in our face. Hold your nose and support both mainstream and progressive Democrats. Yes, that means ditching McCain for now. Assuming he’s still in politics when this is over, you can vote for him or give him support then. Leave the Bush enablers at the door. You can spend time with them once we reform your party for you and send you home. It’s bad form now. Meantime, eat your veggies. They are better for you than you think.

3) Wipe your feet before you come in.

Tracking mud on our nice carpet is boorish. Leave the dirt outside. This means that no matter how much you are tempted to do otherwise, use that old GOP “support the leader” discipline and get in line with progressive politics, whether you agree with them or not. You might not like our agenda, but you wouldn’t be here if you preferred Bush’s GOP. I know old habits die hard and vices are a comfort in times of stress, but please also refrain from your favorite pastime, bashing Democratic ideals. We want you to go home as much as you want to return, but it’s hard to fix the bigger mess if we are constantly cleaning up after smaller ones at home. We do work, you know.

4) Leave the keys to the car alone.

As a party we are pro civil rights, pro women’s rights, pro minorities, pro gay, pro environment and pro choice. We believe in the separation of church and state. Don’t try to take the wheel and steer toward the right. Your driver's license was suspended anyway, remember?

5) Be nice to our friends.

We’ve been friends with labor unions, environmental groups and foreign countries like France a lot longer than we’ve been friends with you. Don’t give any of them a hard time. Don’t say they don’t belong here at our side. Don’t call them wackos or extremists. They belong here more than you do and they will be our friends long after most of you are gone. We argue with them enough as it is.

6) Don’t unpack your baggage.

The only reason you are sleeping on the Democratic couch is because you can’t face your alcoholic father. We empathize, but please don’t preach to us about religion, morals, ethics or lack of the same. Save it for the family counselor after we put your abusive parents in jail. Democrats have plenty of GOP problems to deal with already.

7) Don’t interfere in a family fight.

Moderates may fight with progressives. Grassroots liberals may fight with the party establishment. Young Democrats might argue with older ones. That’s none of your concern. These are our political brothers and sisters, not yours. If the Democratic Party is somewhat dysfunctional, at least it is still a real political party, not the empty shell of one. So if we start to bicker, leave us alone. We'll find a way to work it ourselves. Democrats are good with that. Learn from this.

Now with a little bit of luck, this will all be behind us in a few years and you’ll get your old house back. It will take a lot longer if you screw around, however. So don’t screw around.

Enjoy your stay!

[aquart]

1. I love this.

[Warpy]

2. THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

you said it far better than I ever could.

We're sorry their party got handed over to the lunatics and thieves. However, just because they lost theirs doesn't mean they can come in here and try to run ours.

Remember, the Eisenhower GOP has been trying to do that for decades. NOBODY is happy with the result.

[ReadTomPaine]

15. Their sanctimony is occasionally breathtaking..

People escaping a flaming house don't order the firemen around.

[Critters2]

3. Especially the thing about your crazy friends eom

[Kurovski]

4. K&R. I really like this.

It could have a more welcoming tone, but I really do like this.

I've seen a number of the "steering to the right" types, and they can indeed be rather rude, telling us that the fucking world will end if we don't do as they say.

Authoritarianism dies hard, I guess.

Very recognizable analogies.

[ReadTomPaine]

7. Republicans do much better with clearly defined boundaries.

I can't imagine the GOP would be as gracious if Democrats needed a place to stay to ride out a political storm.

Guests of the right wind up like the Gimp from "Pulp Fiction"

[Kurovski]

10. Boundaries and the authoritarian mindset.

It makes sense. :-)

Glad to see you made it to the greatest page, I can see you took some time to write the post, and it's a good'un.

[Tsiyu]

5. this is precious

K & R

Awesome!!!!!!

[ReadTomPaine]

6. Thanks for the catch! n/t

[Tsiyu]

9. No problem

This post just cracks me up.

nice writing :thumbsup:

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Excellent! I especially like the family fight!

That's one thing the Cons never seem to understand. We'll fight and bicker and try to reason and argue. We're not afraid of airing dirty laundry either.

But when it comes down to it, we stick with Democrats!

[Kurovski]

11. Kick.

:kick:

[Cleita]

12. Buwahahaha!

Excellent!

[Stinky The Clown]

13. K&R ... but more. Is there a Post of the Month award?

This is the best thing I've read in a long time.

[Kurovski]

14. It really is a polished little gem.

It hits on some of the problems we face as a nation AND here at DU. The non-insane members of the Republican Party really do have to work with Dems if they want get out from under the mountains of crap Dubya and friends have shoveled on all of us.

And it's funny.

[eridani]

16. They might want to check out the Bull Moose Republicans

http://bullmooserepublicans.com/about/faq/

[ReadTomPaine]

25. Ironically, it seems that link is currently down.

How symbolic. The GOP is certainly in need of maintenance.

[Kurovski]

17. Late-shift kick.

:kick:

[ReadTomPaine]

18. Kick

[MaggieSwanson]

19. another kick for the morning crowd...

:kick:

[Skidmore]

20. K&R

[Hugin]

21. '7) Don’t interfere in a family fight.'

I especially agree with this item.

[ReadTomPaine]

32. It's amazing where these people will insert their nose given half a chance

Just look at Marshall Wittman.

[moc]

22. Can this be put on the front page? It is a classic!

:applause:

[cybildisobedience]

23. Perfect!!

Thanks for doing this -- I'm going to send it around -- it's perfect.

[ReadTomPaine]

24. Quite welcome!

They say politics are all about compromise. So I want to see them start compromising. The fact they are in the tent at all shows plenty of understanding & tolerance from Democrats already. So it's either the Democratic couch under the house rules or the soup kitchen for them.

Thanks to you and everyone for the kind words, btw!

[ripple]

26. K & R!

Great words...

[Bluebear]

27. Genius. nt

[porphyrian]

28. Heh, that's fucking great. - n/t

[AspenRose]

29. WooHoo!

:yourock: :applause: :thumbsup:

[interregnum]

30. K&R (NT)

K&R

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. Welcome to DU, interregnum!!!

:hi:

[ReadTomPaine]

47. Welcome to DU!

And thanks!

[newyawker99]

66. Hi interregnum!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[myrna minx]

86. Welcome to DU, interregnum.

:hi:

This should be post of the month! K&R.

[WilliamPitt]

31. Brilliant.

K&R.

[ReadTomPaine]

51. Thanks Will!

Looking forward to that new book of yours..

[Swamp Rat]

33. k&r

[MessiahRp]

34. That is awesome!

:)

Rp

[paulk]

35. are you sending a copy to Ned Lamont?

just curious....

he used to be a Republican, you know.

[ReadTomPaine]

36. I think he's earned his place at the table.

Don't you?

[paulk]

37. don't turn it around on me

I made a legitimate point.

Ned Lamont used to be a Republican. Voted for Reagan twice. I don't see any special dispensation in your letter for him.

Are you going to send him a copy?

[ReadTomPaine]

40. "If you find you fit in, you are welcome to stay...

and become a member of our family." Your point was addressed before it even occured to you.

He's walking the walk and talking the talk. Don't worry, you'll feel better about last night's Lieberman loss before too long.

[paulk]

42. I supported Lamont - look it up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1817061#1833205

I object to manifests about what it means to be a Democrat. What it means to "fit in". Who decides what the "family" is.



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

edited to add -

I sometimes wonder if people on DU even know any Republicans. I'm not talking about your standard run of the mill kneejerk neocon. I'm talking about real Republicans - thinking people, businessmen perhaps, fiscal conservatives - people that think about their political decisions. A lot of these people, and I know a few, vote Republican because, quite simply, they can't stand liberals. They can't stand the holier than thou, "I get to decide attitude" as exemplified in this screed. I can guarantee you that if shown this editorial, no Republican I know would be swayed to vote Democratic.

And I spend a lot of time trying to talk Republicans into voting Democratic.

[ReadTomPaine]

48. And I object to political parties without meaning.

This shouldn't be an employment program for future lobbyists and political commentators. Without Democratic discipline, principle and structure there is no party, just careerists buying tickets on the gravy train. That is precisely the problem now. Someone has to draw the line, and as loyal Democrats, we are the ones to whom this duty falls.

There is a place for those who share conservative republican beliefs, but that place is not by the side of Democrats.

Regarding your edit, I don't want GOP votes long term, I want them to have a real party.

We have plenty of missing and disenfranchised liberal voters that have to start getting courted and counted first. That's a bigger priority than selling out a party platform to political opposition. We are not Republicans. They already have a party, the problem is that it has been co-oped. Just the act of proper leadership with strength and conviction will keep a fair number on our side anyway. That was the key to Paul Wellstone's broad appeal.

[marions ghost]

98. the OP's essay

is not about trying to turn Repugs into Dems. It's addressed to ex-Republicans whom the GOP has Left Behind. More than that it's a call for ANYONE who's still got their sanity left after this Republican sponsored fiasco --to get on board with serious damage control.

People who base their vote on the fact that they 'can't stand liberals' can stay with the Repuglicans and attempt to resurrect a failed party...plenty of work there for them.

[TexasLawyer]

38. Jane Smiley, "Notes for Converts"

If you like this, also check out novelist Jane Smiley's "Notes for Converts":


This is Jane's advice from "those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election)". She gives GOP refugees "a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/notes-for-converts_b_17662.html

<snip>


1. Bush doesn't know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and support him. No degree of relationship (father, mother, etc.), no longstanding friendly intercourse (Jack Abramoff), no degree of expertise (Brent Scowcroft), no essential importance (Tony Blair, American voters) makes any difference. There is nothing you have to
offer that makes Bush want to know you once you have come to disagree with him. Your opinions and feelings now exist in a world entirely external to the mind of George W. Bush. You are now just one of those "polls" that he pays no attention to. When you were on his side, you thought that showed "integrity" on his part. It doesn't. It shows an absolute inability to learn from experience.

2. Bush doesn't care whether you disagree with him. As a man who has dispensed with the reality-based world, and is entirely protected by his handlers from feeling the effects of that world, he is indifferent to what you now think is real. Is the Iraq war a failure and a quagmire? Bush doesn't care. Is global warming beginning to affect us right now? So what. Have all of his policies with regard to Iran been misguided and counter-productive? He never thinks about it. You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question? It doesn't matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or, most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you, he's not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to him. You cannot change his mind. Nine percent of polled Americans would agree with attacking Iran right now. To George Bush, that will be a mandate, if and when he feels like doing it, because...

3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a "sense of entitlement".

<snip>

Check it out-- it's GOOD!

[ReadTomPaine]

44. "Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's ... a loser."

"Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of those who profess them."

Just finished giving this a read and you're right, it's a keeper. Thanks for the link!

[mad-mommy]

39. good stuff

[ReadTomPaine]

49. Thanks and welcome to DU! n/t

[electropop]

41. Correction: not "mainstream and progressive," "mainstream and centrist."

Mainstream IS progressive.

[ReadTomPaine]

43. Point taken! n/t

[TwentyFive]

46. BRAVO!!!! Yes - respect the party members!

Unions, gays, women, minorities, environmentalists, transgender, atheists, civil libertarians, etc. Just remember the "When they came for the XXXX, I wasn't an XXXX, so I did nothing." part.

[Book Lover]

50. Great read!

K&R

[NanceGreggs]

52. EXCELLENT!!!

:toast: :kick: :yourock:

[BlackVelvet04]

53. Nice job!

May I have permission to re-post it on another board (with credit due, of course)?

[ReadTomPaine]

54. Spread it far and wide - that's why I wrote it...

and thanks for your kind words!

[BlackVelvet04]

55. Thanks....

and you're welcome. It's awesome and will be much enjoyed on my board.

[NMDemDist2]

56. one more little kickeroo..

:kick:

[loudestchick]

57. Excellent!

Unfortunately, all the pukes I know would rather die ( and take us all with them) than admit that they were wrong about Georgie-boy.

[ReadTomPaine]

58. Denial and projection seem key qualities to the hardcore Republican...

however I've found Rockefeller Republicans tend to be a bit more reflective given time and motivation. For the most part, they are the ones sleeping in the living room these days. I just wish they were better stewards of their party.

[Kurovski]

59. Kick.

Bookmarked, too.:kick:

[ReadTomPaine]

61. Thanks Kurovski!

:thumbsup:

[Kurovski]

63. My pleasure.

I like your style.

[tinfoil tiaras]

60. ba-dap-ba-ba-ba..

I'M LOVIN IT!!

:D

[lonestarnot]

62. Damn good post! Wish I had seen it earlier!

[Oak2004]

64. Do keep in mind that some of us refugees are former liberal republicans

We used to exist, once upon a time ago, back when the Republican party had a left, right, and center.

My credentials include that of having been one of those rare beasts, a "Republican for McGovern" who worked on the campaign alongside members of the Jackson delegation to the Democratic Party in 1972, and I was a card carrying member of the ADA at a time and place where there were actually a fair number of us (because the Daley machine had no place for the Democratic left, and the Republicans were happy just to have members). I'm probably to the left of many of the lifelong Dems here. I hung in as a Republican as long as I could possibly bear precisely in order to fight the rise of the right within the party, for as long as that was possible.

[Kurovski]

65. Thank you for fighting the good fight, wherever you stand in the spectrum!

Cheers to all good and thoughtful Americans.

And who in there correct mind WOULDN'T welcome a man like John Dean, for just one example.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

67. Take your shoes off and make yourself comfortable

It sounds like you may have found a new home.

[ReadTomPaine]

68. What was the catalyst that caused you to leave the GOP?

Was it Reagan or one the Bush administrations? A certain event?

It's ashame that the Rockefeller Republicans couldn't stop this takeover.

I would give a lot to have a principled political opposition that I could trust with the levers of government. I wouldn't mind losing a few Democrat-by-proxy votes in trade for an opposition party where Republicans such as yourself would be at home and for elections where I can feel at ease and sleep at night, no matter who the winner is.

Thanks for checking into this thread!

[Oak2004]

71. 1994

There still were non-extremists in the party during the Reagan and Bush I eras, and I could usually find myself candidates on the primary ballot who needed my support (say, pro-choice Republicans under attack from the fringe). In fact in the state of NY (where I lived immediately before 1994) I could find Republicans worth supporting on the general ballot (for example we had a great Republican mayor and a good Republican state senator in my town, though I also displayed a very non-Republican Maurice Hinchey bumper sticker in my shop window :-) ).

But in 1994, the Gingrich victory meant that even the moderates were forced out of power almost everywhere in the party (a few are still hanging on in the NE though only by going along with the loonies), and there wasn't any real ability to fight anymore. Simply, we lost.

I did vote in the 2000 Republican primary, though, so that I could vote against Bush. I don't know if I should be proud of, or saddened by, the fact that I've voted against him three times, to no avail.

[ReadTomPaine]

72. The rise of the new GOP in 94 was a turning point in many ways.

I've written elsewhere on DU that it marked the end of any standard political solutions to the current crisis. In particular, the raw abuses of power within the Independent Council's office indicated a willingness toward naked malfeasance that hadn't been seen before. Gingrich's revolutionaries made it crystal clear that no restraint in using these tactics would be forthcoming, and it's just gotten worse since then.

If you don't mind another question, what would your preferred GOP look like today given the realities of late 1980's politics? Were you a Perot supporter?

Thanks again for your reply above!

[Oak2004]

73. No, I supported Clinton

I need to see a stronger third party candidate than Perot to vote for one, and he took a few pretty frightening positions (though I can't recall which). He was dead right on NAFTA and NAFTA-esque deals, though.

I suppose my model GOP was the GOP of the 1960s and 1970s (minus our deposed Crook in Chief). I don't know if there will ever again be an era when the parties were merely vehicles with perhaps a slight tilt in one direction or another, and what mattered was individual candidates anf their stands on the issues of the day, but I think America did better without parties sharply divided by ideology. When liberals (or conservatives) might be expected on either side of the ballot, and one picks ones allies by viewpoint rather than label, it seems there are more real choices and fewer insane extremists.

Not that the Democrats seem to be running extremists. I don't think the Democrats actually changed, in terms of makeup -- they still have a left, right, and center (known now as "liberal", "far extreme liberal", and "Karl Marx's jogging partner", in current media-speak). It's the Republicans who have concocted the new polarization.

[ReadTomPaine]

77. I mention Perot as his popularity was built around your constituency

The GOP voters in my extended circle were nuts over Perot at that time, specifically because he tried to tailor a message toward the Rockefeller wing of the GOP that was being increasingly ignored. Not surprisingly, he wasn't my cup of tea either but I felt it was a good thing for Republicans to send a message to their leadership and Perot's wasn't a bad one for them to hear. That wasn't to be, however.

Sadly, the GOP took a measured look and cut the moderates loose, taking the political lumps along with it. Already, you could see the machine politics starting to form and later on even Gingrich himself had ideologically pure minders who accompanied him to White House meetings to make sure that he didn't succumb to Bill Clinton's remarkable ability to persuade his opponents.

Needless to say I'm not a fan of Nixon's either, however I'd prefer having the GOP of the 60's and 70's over the current crew in a heartbeat, so I understand where you are coming from in that regard.

[Oak2004]

80. Nixon came close to being a great president rather than a goat.

His two problems were Vietnam (where he pursued a cynical policy of letting Americans die in order not to admit we lost on his watch) and his damned paranoia that led to his attacks on his "enemies" (saner people call them "political opponents", and sometimes discuss issues with them over dinner).

I wonder sometimes, if Nixon's plan for welfare form had been instituted, whether we'd be hearing as much about the "failure" of the War on Poverty today.

I'm definitely not a moderate, which is who I think Perot played to more than to liberals. I'm one of that strage breed of Republican that emerged from the Chicago area in the 60's/70's, where, oddly, "D" usually meant "pro-war conservative machine politician" and "R" usually meant "anti-machine, pro-democracy, antiwar liberal". I suspect with the democratic reform of the Democratic Party and the growing authoritarianism of the Republican Party, most of us Cook County liberal reformer Republicans changed parties; I didn't. I reasoned that if everyone who didn't like the trends within the Republican Party switched, that would only encourage the extremists. When I think of Republicans of that era I liked I think of John Lindsey and Jacob Javits of New York, and Lowell Weiker of Connecticut.

Conversely if you think about that era, there were countless Democrats (mostly, but not exclusively, Dixiecrats) who would fit comfortably into today's Republican Party.

It's easy, with how things are today, to forget that the Republicans, too, have a long liberal tradition that traces itself back to a Roosevelt-- Theodore Roosevelt-- or at least had such a tradition.

[ReadTomPaine]

81. I don't feel the same way about Nixon.

However his bi-partisan accomplishments dwarf both the Bush presidencies combined. The creation of the EPA, the SSI program, OSHA and his support of affirmative action and price controls all put him to the left of Reagan. His handling of China and the Soviet Union were more adept than GWB can even imagine.

It was under his watch, however, that the rot began in earnest. Donald Segretti found his legs in Nixon's administration and such colorful characters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz got their first executive branch jobs with him. Moreover, it was Nixon's close ties to Prescott Bush that lead to Herbert's first associations with the White House and eventually to his job as head of the RNC around '72.

Bush used that position to continue the war his father started against Nelson Rockefeller and thanks largely to Nixon's assistance, he became a rising star in the GOP and remained there until his win in 1988. Needless to say, much of what's happening now is directly traceable to Herbert's presidency and thus to Nixon's tenure previous to that.

Of all his many character flaws (paranoia, anti-semitism, vindictiveness etc) who would have thought Nixon's most dangerous fault was his utter inability to judge the character of his appointments? That legacy has outlasted Vietnam, Watergate and everything else which occurred during that period. The way things are looking politically these days, it may outlast American democracy as well.

[Oak2004]

82. I don't think we've got much of a disagreement here

in that I do agree it was Nixon who gave birth to the current train wreck called the Republican party.

I was just pointing to the schizophrenia of his administration: the positive, liberal, policies that you note, and the dark forces that he embodied and empowered. If he had not so embraced the darkness that destroyed him (and others, and threatens us today), he'd have had a positive record of accomplishment. But he did embrace the darkness -- and as such he deserves his standing in history as the first (I hope not the last) president to resign in disgrace.

It's unfortunate that there wasn't a thorough housecleaning of the Nixon and Reagan criminals. Ford was appointed chiefly because he was a weak man who could be swayed -- and was swayed -- not to hold the Nixonites responsible for their actions. And while I'm not surprised Reagan pardoned the crooks under him, I wish Clinton had cracked down on the bunch.

I think too many people underestimated them, and thought of them as merely wayward political figures in the conventional sense. They are, of course, not conventional American "conservatives" -- they're fascists.

[ReadTomPaine]

84. Especially after John Kerry's hard work on BCCI and Iran-Contra...

more should have been done, I agree.

Kerry did a bang-up job with his investigations and that should have made putting away many of these figures or their close associates an easy matter. Unfortunately others in the party felt Clark Clifford's future was more important than continuing prosecution, so that golden opportunity just drained away with little lasting impact on the GOP.

The lack of punishment over such a serious, widespread scandal just emboldened the players to take further risks, once the dust settled and they realized that their reputations, fortunes and future were all still intact.

"I think too many people underestimated them, and thought of them as merely wayward political figures in the conventional sense. They are, of course, not conventional American "conservatives" -- they're fascists."

This quote of yours really says it all. Underestimation & false appearances are a key part of this machine. From the fake collegiality they occasionally extend toward moderates, to Donald Rumsfeld's chatty dissembling, to that drawling, drunken monkey act of Bush's; they don't look as dangerous or extreme as they really are, even to people who should know better.

[Oak2004]

96. My worry of the day is

they're starting their usual routine on the Lamont campaign (demanding an apology) and so far the Dems are doing what they do so well (giving them the apology).

Among decent people, apologizing, even if one hadn't really meant any harm or don't see what the problem is, is the right thing to do. But these are not decent people. And they're not concerned about any hurt feelings. They pick at progressive forces, looking for anything they can misrepresent or misinterpret, in order to portray progressives as bumbling and weak.

"Weakness", remember, is the cardinal sin of the fascist -- the loathsome ailment that fascism claims to heal. Purging "weakness" is their reason for being, and expressing "strength" the nexus of their agenda. Every time a progressive falls for the bait and apologizes, or hesitates and speaks with excessive caution, the fascists put their trophy on display, as proof of "weakness", for those who are vulnerable to fascist influence, and then they move on to find another piece of flesh to pick at.

The correct response is to understand what its all about (creating the weak/strong dialectic that fascism must feed on), and to counterattack. "I said it was a city caught between slime and filth" (or whatever it was -- I'm not willing to look the exact quote up at this moment), the right response would go, "because it is. The people of (insert correct city name here) have been getting a raw deal from their leaders, from (insert crooked politicians' names here) at the bottom all the way to Bush and Cheney and the Republican congress at the top. The people of (insert city here) deserve better, and Ned Lamont will give them better. (Optional counterdemand, use as seems appropriate): You owe us an apology for implying that the people of (insert city name here) don't deserve any better than what they've been getting from their leaders".

When dealing with these people, either directly or indirectly, never ever apologize, not even if they deserve an apology, don't mince words even when it means taking a risk of saying the wrong thing, and spin positively/take pride in your misspoken words. The urge to treat these people as decent people among decent people seems almost overwhelming, though. I doubt I have the ability to open any eyes as to why it is so very important to treat these people this way and assume the role of the "powerful" in all propaganda situations.

(Yes-- I consider Lieberman and his ilk, as well as large parts of the DLC, to be one of them, and/or duped and used by them, just as mainstream conservative Republicans were used by them. In the case of the figure asking for the apology, I think a Lieberman dupe, but in the case of Lieberman, a full-fledged fellow fascist traveler.)

[ReadTomPaine]

99. It's the curse of Edmund Burke...

There are Democrats who simply refuse to believe the gravity of this threat even when they are being confronted by it. It’s like having a neighbor who’s murderously insane, and your brother refuses to acknowledge the situation beyond calling them “eccentric”. The day they show up on your doorstep with a shotgun, it’s too late.

It's also reminiscent the Yugoslavian ‘progressives’ who opposed Milosevic during their civil war. They would wring their hands and complain to the foreign press that it wasn't "viable" or politically expedient to stand up to Milosevic while they watched the genocide from corner cafes on the evening news.

This situation is going to require some confrontation to resolve, and it won’t be pretty. It won’t go away with apologies, appeasement, wishful thinking or truth & reconciliation commissions. Until the stomach for this type of fight exists from the leadership on down, we are only going to see the problem grow ever more serious. Fortunately, I see resolve and realization growing stronger all the time. Hopefully, it’s not too late.

[ReadTomPaine]

83. Regarding Dixiecrats...

The party realignments we have been discussing really started with this group's relocation to the right wing of the GOP via Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act. That's when the more conservative forces in the GOP first reasoned it possible to cut loose the liberal portion of the Republican party and pick up an easy to please, more ideologically compatible brand of voter.

The long road to 1994 began on July 2, 1964 - something even Johnson himself acknowledged with his famous "We have lost the south for a generation" quote to then-aide Bill Moyers. Both he and Moyers also saw the coming problem with the religious right.

I recall Moyers speaking of crossing the street with Johnson one day and being hounded by a group RW religious republicans who accosted them every step of the way. The fervor and aggressiveness disturbed them both quite a bit, but neither had an easy answer to the type of politics this represented. That problem still exists today.

[ReadTomPaine]

92. Maurice Hinchey has a gift...

with appealing to voters outside his standard constituency, doesn't he? For a man with such a liberal voting record, he had bucked the GOP trend since the mid 90's and kept his seat pretty safe. I keep a close eye on politics in New York and his career is an interesting one.

[Oak2004]

93. Part of his gift has been that (at least when I was in NY)

he had the endorsement of the NRA every election cycle. And there are a lot of people who are more typically Republican voters who, in fact, vote a straight "NRA" ticket, regardless of where else the candidate stands on other issues.

[ReadTomPaine]

95. It's not a surprise that this is part of his appeal

I'm a RKBA supporter myself. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats, everywhere from here on DU and NYC right out to the west coast. It's an issue that gets more discussion in Dem circles than most give credit. We certainly have lively discussions about here!

[OzarkDem]

75. Welcome!

We're glad to have you here.

[GalleryGod]

69. Brilliant ! Well done, Indeed! Nominated !

Steeeen-king Re-pugs! Time to Die!:woohoo:

[ReadTomPaine]

70. Thanks, GG!

[tinfoil tiaras]

74. K&R! I'm lovin it!

[dollydew]

76. K&R

Yes! Every time a dem gets elected that's even mildly progressive the repubs start yelling "weak on terror"? It's our party and we say who stay or who goes!

[ReadTomPaine]

85. Welcome to DU, Dollydew! n/t

[myrna minx]

87. Welcome to DU, dollydew.

:hi: Yeah, it's OUR party. :toast:

[Justice Is Comin]

78. That's tellin' em!

And don't try to steal anything from here either and peddle it on your black market. You can vacuum up stuff real easy with that long trunk.

So we're watching.

[Kurovski]

79. Kick(nt)

:kick:

[greendog]

88. Best post ever!

Thanks.

[Sugar Smack]

89. 8) Please flush your refuse

Seriously, this is one of the greatest things I've ever read. The tone is absolutely perfect. It's very serious, firm and alert. That read took my breath away, and I'd like to send it to some of my friends. I know they would love it.

Sucks that it's too late to nominate it again.

BRAVO to you. I'm in awe. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[ReadTomPaine]

90. Thanks Sugar Smack! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

91. !

:applause:

[BlueIris]

94. As someone who wishes you would just get a hotel room nearby,

I would just like to add: get a hotel room nearby. I don't like bigots, misogynists, racists, elitists, war mongers, or complacent hypocritical slimy fuckwads on my couch. And until I either see the vote tallies to prove you actually decided to SACK UP and do the intelligent thing, or your pathetic asses out at the protests of the election fraud RIGHT ALONG WITH MINE, you're not welcome. I will let you sleep on the couch only if you literally have no place else to go and even then--only if you pay up front for the new couch I'm going to buy the next day. Don't abuse the privilege, either. If we're getting literal--I only want to see Republicans anywhere near my metaphorical or literal couch for the month or two we all have to lock arms before election night. Any other requests to use the couch in any way, shape or form won't be tolerated. You fucked up. Bad. That's why you're in need of a couch. So don't ask unless it's either my place or the backseat of your Town & Country on an evening when you stayed out so late canvassing for one of our ladies or gentlemen that there isn't even a Walmart parking lot in which you can hide for a few hours. I mean it. You're on thin ice with me.

[orleans]

97. great post indeed n/t