First They Demonized The Term Socialism

[berni_mccoy]

Even though many necessary services and functions of government, like safe roads, emergency response, and schools, are indeed socialistic mechanisms, the right took to turning a good political concept into a bad word.

Then they did the same thing with the term Liberal. The right was successful in turning even the working man against his own advocacy by turning liberal into a bad word by tying it with big-spending and taxation even though the right was always the one to do the big spending and the left was always left with the massive problems left by the right to clean up. And even though Liberals rarely taxed the working man harder, and instead taxed the wealthy, the right was still successful in demonizing the word.

I find it now tragic that so-called progressives are demonizing another ideology that has been a cornerstone of liberalism and the Democratic party. And that is sensibility and practicality. Democrats have always used information to achieve policy, applying solid research into legislation to find out what approaches will actually work. We are the party that honors science and technology to be used to benefit everyone, not just the wealthy. And we've consistently governed with sensibility, practicality and compromise. I find it ironic that some who are pushing the idea that compromise, sensibility and concession are bad are the first ones that are saying we should be using these approaches with Americas enemies in order to establish peace over war. But to use this same approach with the other party or even factions within our own party in order to pass some of the most progressive legislation in a generation, well, that's simply not acceptable.

And to be one of those who supports this political approach, an approach that is tried and true and has been shown to work, especially with a party that is as large and diverse as the Democratic party, well, we just get to be made fun of and called names like "Chuckles". To those fellow liberals who choose to try to demonize us, I say this. You can demonize us if you want. But you can never control us, nor can you claim the banner of being the only "true" liberals. You have a different approach. That does not make it the only approach. It doesn't make you right. And you can never tell us to be quiet. Not when you try to demonize good Democrats.

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[jody]

2. Liberalism once meant minimum government & maximum individual freedom but you assert socialism is an

"ideology that has been a cornerstone of liberalism ".

Perhaps you mean that some have demonized the meaning of "liberalism"?

[sufrommich]

3. They are internet warriors pounding out negative screeds

on internet boards and imagining themselves "sticking it to the man" day in and day out. Forming enemies lists and imagining that there silly little wars actually accomplish something other than filling up their boring lives.Ignore them, they thrive on negative attention.

[BeFree]

6. Heh, "Chuckles"

Things are going swell. No problems, here. Nothing to bitch about, eh?

It won't be long now and those damned complainers will be proven wrong and everybody will get along fine. Any minute now it will all just simply correct and all the problems will disappear.

Got to have faith, eh?

[grantcart]

37. passive aggresive strawman

Criticizing the reflexive trivial daily bashing of the President is to be understood as not allowing any difference of opinion.

It should go without saying that principled honest policy discussions and discussions on strategy are always going to part of the Democratic Party and the vibrant debate within it. Unfortunately it cannot go without saying because when folks like the OP make a point about the vicious bitter attack on the President that includes all of his policies, all of his appointments and his motivation for public service ("Obama is bought and sold by the corporations") then there is always the disingenious acting as a suprised cuckold with tear filled eyes "oh so nothing is wrong", "we have to follow a party line", and the ever predictable reference to political supporters mirroring blind religious faith.

[Radical Activist]

45. You nailed it. It has become a crutch for those who

can't defend their position and can't bring themselves to admit that Obama does something liberal once in a while.

[Mithreal]

64. Chad gets it.

[BeFree]

73. I love it!!

""...Obama does something liberal once in awhile.""

Which means he does things conservative most of the time? <<<Note the ? mark!!!!

[Mithreal]

86. +1 bullseye

[BeFree]

54. There ya go again

Acting like Obama is the Messiah.

He is a cog in the machine. Again: Obama is a cog in the machine.

You don't get to be president by promising to stop the machine.

The owners would not allow it.

So, excuse me if I friggin stand up and criticize the president. You want a debate, debate. You want to prove me wrong, go ahead, but don't hide behind all the gobbley-gook of partisan, machined politics.

Not directed at you so much, gc, but if it hit a nerve, tell us about it.

Frankly, by keeping the heat on the president, we are telling everyone in DC they all need to shape up and be real statesmen and women, for the people.

[grantcart]

62. You proved my point better than my reply did

[BeFree]

78. Wasn't hard to do?

Making heads or tails of your post was a challenge. Did I get it right?

[grantcart]

121. Now I understand why you were unable to grasp the OP.

[BeFree]

129. Gotcha

You can't debate so you just sling stuff.

I was uncertain about you. Now I know where you are coming from: Nowhere.



I never did respond to the OP, I will now.

The gist of it was that we progressives are now against practicality and sensibility.

And are now viewed as an enemy of such things.

And then that we should continue to seek, from the bushcoviks a compromise.
And concede as the moderates are dying to do.

But then the OP delves into war against us and denies wanting to compromise with us.

In effect the OPer tries to demonize good Democrats who see through the republican bullshit and who believe that the only way we win is to utterly crush the pubbies.

In short, the OP is standing up for the validity of the pubbies and fighting against the members of the Dem party that are trying to lead the way.

[grantcart]

167. Yep everyone who disagrees with you is "standing up for the validity of the pubbies"

and there is no difference between principled debate and disagreement and reflexive daily bashing of the President.

Dying for legislation that has no chance of passing a super super majority in the Senate is so much more rewarding than actually getting real legislation passed.

Zero of perfect is better than 90% of the good.

Thread after thread bashing (insert your perjorative favorite here some derivative of either a sports fan or religious follower is normally used)

So the OP responds to the insults and he is the one demonizing.


All the same passive aggressive strawman that you started out with.


Now I stand with progressive Senators like Sanders, Franken, and the rest on passing HCR and Financial Reform and so on while you stand with the FDL blowhards that no one outside of the Blogosphere even knows exist.

Forget about persuading country you can't even persuade the Democratic Party or even the Progressive wing of the party.

Only we the pure of ideology "see through the Republican bullshit and who believe that the only way we win to utterly crush the pubbies".

You do count don't you. You do realize that in the Senate the 20 smallest states have less population than the State of California and have 40 votes to CA's 2. That in order to obtain a filibuster majority that we would have to win 75% of the population. You do read the news and are aware that "Mr. I do everything on Principle" Senator Feingold is running neck and neck in the liberal state of Wisconsin?

Wow that was some Gotcha.

[BeFree]

192. Obama

He came out swinging today didn't he?

He got $20 B pledged from BP. And that was no compromise with the pubs.

He passed a stimulus package against every pubbie.

He got HCIR without a single pubbie.

So why compromise?

Hardly anyone is saying we should compromise, except for the OPer.

So, the question is.... is the country turned around yet?

And maybe, just maybe, if we aren't gonna get any pub votes, then why even talk about compromise with the crooks and liars?

We are a long way from where we need to be, but we can do it. Really, you might think of joining us instead of fighting against us. We get our way, the country will be better off.

You do agree with that, right? That if the far left or progressives or whatever you call us get our way, we will be in far better shape, right?

A simple yes, or no, to that simple question, would be fine.

[treestar]

90. You cannot support any President then

The way you just stated it, you will never support anyone who can manage to get elected President.

You just get to feel superior by being above "the machine." Which really does nothing for the country.

[William Z. Foster]

96. of course

It is not appropriate to "support" politicians the way you are describing it - ever.

[treestar]

117. Then quit expecting them to do anything

that you want done. Why shouldn't you run as well? You're above running for office and above winning the office. Yet think you should be the guiding force behind anyone who does.

[William Z. Foster]

126. no idea

No idea what you are trying to say here.

[Raineyb]

284. I expect them to do their jobs which is to look out for the PEOPLE rather than the

corporations because they are a public servant. NOT royalty which seems to be the model you prefer when dealing with politicians. You play the sycophant. I want the politicians to be moved in the right direction and I will not applaud them for doing the wrong thing.

They are not entitled to my support if they don't do the right things. Period end of story.

[William Z. Foster]

81. not true

Some think that the better strategy is to move left rather than to the right, and to fight rather than compromise. That needs to be included in your "principled honest policy discussions and discussions on strategy." But you want to simultaneously smear all people advocating that with this post, while at the same time claiming that others are doing that to you. Few if any are making "vicious bitter attacks on the President." But claiming they are is a way for you to get your digs in on people, which means you are doing the same thing you claim to be victimized by.

It has been the critics who have been mocked and ridiculed, accused of "wanting Palin" and relentlessly attacked. They fight back, and you want us all to believe that it is then those pushing party loyalty who are the persecuted ones.

Your remark - "the reflexive trivial daily bashing of the President" - is itself hostile and is a call for not allowing opinions that you are uncomfortable with, yet you turn that around and suggest that it is you being unfairly treated.

[Mithreal]

88. truth is whatever they say it is, their rules

[treestar]

93. What "fight?" The election is over and you have to deal with

what you have; just naysaying everything is not a "fight." Politics is compromise, not "fights."

While you can campaign for more leftward candidates, they have to win to even be at the table to compromise.

[Mithreal]

100. I don't think you you know what politics means

politics:

n.

1. (used with a sing. verb)
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).
b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

http://www.answers.com/topic/politics

Some would have us believe it is compromise first, maybe even only?

Rightwads know how to win elections but they can't govern. Politics is also governing. When D governing resembles R, we got a problem.

[William Z. Foster]

107. good thing people didn't follow your program in the past

When the Abolitionists, Suffragettes, Labor organizers and Civil Rights advocates had potentially friendly politicians in office, they increased pressure, they did not fall silent and quit agitating until the next elections. Conservative people in the Whig party did use all of the arguments against the Abolitionists that you are using - people should support the Whigs, people should work to elect anti-slavery candidates, people should be willing to compromise with the slave power, because "that is how politics work," people should stop fighting, people should stop "nay saying" everything, criticism of the Whigs would only help the opposition, etc.

Interesting that you say the only way to be "at the table" is to win an election, and them the job is to start "compromising." As we know, corporations have been "at the table" on every decision by the administration, and they were not elected. The corporations think that politics is a fight. Of course if we "compromise" - cave in to them - then there is no fight. Then politics becomes all about "compromise" - surrender. All of the people representing the base were excluded from being "at the table."

What you are advocating - insisting upon - is dead certain to result in conservative wins in and out of the party. I don't think there can even be any controversy about that, as there is an avalanche of evidence supporting that both from recent events and from history. Do you want the party to move to the right (that is OK if you do, although why not openly say that?) or do you sincerely believe that your approach will somehow result in progressive or left wing political gains?

[treestar]

116. There was a Civil War

That was a breakdown. Why? Because the South insisted on "fighting" rather than compromising.

They weren't "spineless." They had "guts." They did not back off of their "principles" and so we had a war.

If your way were followed, we'd have civil wars to settle these questions.

[William Z. Foster]

137. LOL

Clever attempt to turn this around backward.

I was assuming that you would be sympathetic to the Abolitionist cause, not the slave owners. Yes, the slave owners were willing to fight to preserve slavery. The question was should the opponents of slavery fight back, or should they have compromised?

[Radical Activist]

147. You just put Lincoln on the same side as the confederacy.

The abolitionists were fighting to end slavery right away. Lincoln sought compromise. He thought slavery would die out over time if the expansion of it was stopped. The emancipation proclamation was also a compromise measure that didn't free any slaves right away, but later freed many as the union armies advanced into the South. In fact, Lincoln's political idol was Henry Clay, known as "The Great Compromiser."

So should we disregard and insult Lincoln's efforts simply because he was a compromiser and not an abolitionist? Personally, I believe the efforts of both groups were critical in ending slavery. Likewise, I can appreciate the efforts Obama makes that may not be everything I would like, as well as efforts to push him left. It's not an either/or position.

[treestar]

157. William tries to make past history black and white

There were compromises, the Compromise of 1820 was one. Just like the declarations regarding FDR and LBJ, things took a long time, campaigns, debates, bills, and now that it's past history it is conflated into taking place overnight and without compromise. Shallow view of history.

[William Z. Foster]

173. depends

If we look at everything from the point of view of those in power, then yes we can applaud compromises.

This is a silly argument - that because politicians compromise, that therefore we should advocate compromise. Let's say we wanted an end to child labor. We then advocate "an end to child labor." Why would we advocate anything else? The fact that this may not be immediately or perfectly achieved is no excuse for advocating delay or imperfection. Would we advocate "go slowly and don't quite end it completely, because we are being practical and realistic and love compromise?"

[ima_sinnic]

187. +1000

[HughMoran]

202. tombstones.

[BeFree]

207. Why? Any idea?

[ima_sinnic]

210. he wishes (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

267. how did you know that before it happened?

[grantcart]

281. the same way that we know how Joe Kishore posts here.

[Hannah Bell]

282. who is "we"?

you're saying there's a special group of posters with inside information about who's going to get booted & who posts here?

like a spy thing? like cia operatives?

[grantcart]

283. . . .

[HughMoran]

287. EXECUTE MISSION OMEGA

I REPEAT - EXECUTE MISSION OMEGA!

[treestar]

247. It's one thing to advocate and another to get legislation through

The end of child labor probably was not done in one fell swoop either.

[William Z. Foster]

172. yes, it is a good example

Exactly. Perfect example. Lincoln was a politician. We are not, nor were the Abolitionists. Politicians must compromise. That does not mean that we need to, nor should we.

Henry Clay's failure, by the way, with the compromise of 1850 led to the tumultuous decade and the Civil War. Daniel Webster's reputation was destroyed by his support for the compromise. So obviously, compromise is not always a good thing.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a compromise. It was everything he could do within the limits of his authority. The important part of the Proclamation was not which slaves were declared to be free, it was that all slaves reaching Union lines would be accepted.

So you then would have been opposed to the Abolitionists? Am I reading you right? "The abolitionists were fighting to end slavery right away. Lincoln sought compromise." You say that compromise is the better path.

How did I put "Lincoln on the same side as the confederacy?"

By what stretch of the imagination do you think I am saying that we "should disregard and insult Lincoln's efforts?" What politicians must do, and what we should do are two completely different things. If we do not take strong positions, what are we giving the politicians to use in their compromises?

[Radical Activist]

176. You wrote:

"The question was should the opponents of slavery fight back, or should they have compromised?"

You present the false choice that those who compromise are not fighting back. Therefore by your viewpoint, Lincoln was not fighting back. I disagree that accepting compromise represents a failure to fight back.

To answer your question, you insult and disregard the efforts of Obama and Lincoln by suggesting that compromise equates to not fighting back.

Once again in your endless attempt to make this an "us v them" issue among liberals, you try to paint me into a corner by suggesting that I'm in an opposition camp who disregards the efforts of abolitionists, and presumably their modern day equivalents, to which you feel you belong. I believe my words were very clear on that point so I'll paste what I already wrote:

"Personally, I believe the efforts of both groups were critical in ending slavery. Likewise, I can appreciate the efforts Obama makes that may not be everything I would like, as well as efforts to push him left."

If you want to make a historical comparison, I would likely have said at the time that I'm disappointed the emancipation proclamation didn't do anything right away, but disagree with those who call Lincoln a worthless pro-slavery sell-out (as you apparently would have done).

You also underestimate just how calculated a compromise it was. It promised to protect slavery in Southern states that agreed to rejoin the union by a certain date. By the standard I see you use with Obama, that cynical disregard for ending slavery made it worthless.

[HughMoran]

243. Sadly, granite can't speak

:shrug:

[treestar]

156. The Republicans of today are not willing to fight to prevent financial reform

They won't bring us to war over it. They are willing to compromise, if any bill gets passed now that they have 41 votes, it means they "caved" and "compromised" too.

[sabrina 1]

253. And today, the same thing is happening, the Republicans

refuse to compromise. Just like the South. So by your reasoning, Lincoln should have compromised with yesterday's version of the Republicans. Instead he chose to fight. Some people think he was wrong, do you?

[socialist_n_TN]

225. Your definition of "compromise" as far as the corporations

go is EXACTLY the definition that the Republicans use. That's NOT a coincidence. It's just further proof that the Rs are a WHOLLY owned subsidiary of the corporations. And my problem is that TOO many of the Dems are using that same definition of "compromise".

[socialist_n_TN]

227. As one of the leftists here, I've NEVER told any

of the centrists to STFU. But I have gotten that attitude FROM the centrists. I've been told I shouldn't advocate for REAL leftist policies because that's not how the political system works or that it's idealistic dreaming. It's actually been insinuated that I wouldn't feel comfortable advocating far left positions on here. All these things are the equivalence of STFU and let the "experienced" professional politicians handle things.

As I've said before, I think that I AM supporting Obama's centrist agenda by pointing out that he's NOT a socialist and that there ARE people who want REAL left positions enacted. I'll volunteer to be his "red scare" if it'll get even REAL centrist positions enacted. Because when the compromise is between the center, right, and the FAR right the compromise will ALWAYS be right wing.

[Number23]

213. + like 420 Billion

Forming enemies lists and imagining that there silly little wars actually accomplish something other than filling up their boring lives.

You win the Truth of the Day award.

[Hannah Bell]

268. i think you've confused who has the enemies list.

[KharmaTrain]

4. The Lee Atwater Legacy

Two different thoughts/matters at play here. First is the manipulation of the media and the language that was a deliberate strategy of the rushpublicans for the past 40 years. It was classic McLuann...control the message and control the agenda. Through constant repetition of catch phrases and inundation of the media, the memes of "Tax and Spend Librul" and "Socialist" became used to demonize and allow the GOOP to target their opponents effectively. We saw this strategy really take off in the 90s with the rise of hate radio and Faux noise that would both echo the same talking points and reinforce old ones 24/7...creating the parallel universe that is so evident in the political divides of the present time. We get creatures like Mooselini who spews word salads to big profit and acclaim...no substance, just feel good words.

Next is the problem created by those who claimed to be "socialist". Most notable are those who coopted the term for their own uses that are far different than the definition many of us prefer it to be. Most notable were the Nazis who used the term "socialist" as a cover for a military/industrial dictatorship. Yes the government and economy was centralized and controlled...but in ways that are still being used (especially by wingnut "anal-ists" such as Jonas "Pantload" Goldberg) to batter modern day socialists. There's also the "socialism" that was used by the Russians and Soviets...that for many of us who grew up in the 50s through the 80s meant a repressive gulag system and constant shortages. With "socialists" like these its hard to redefine it in different terms. As long as people have memories of these ugly "socialist" examples it will be a toxic term in our own political system.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Agreed and thank you. You've described forest rather than trees.

There really is much to learn from history...

[jody]

8. Didn't Hegel's followers morph into Left and Right groups recognized today as Marxism and Fascism?

[KharmaTrain]

11. Always A Matter Of Degrees...

Yes, you are right about Hegel. A good example are some of today's chickenhawks who were radical "liberals" in the 60s who somehow became "disenchated" with the left and somehow drifted all the way to the opposite side. An example is David Horowitz...who traded his "Marxism" for "Fascism" over the past two decades. Unfortunately many times its the extremes that end up being the working definition and then is manipulated to further distort.

[jody]

13. Perhaps groups can go so far left & right they merge together to subjugate the masses. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

14. That has happened very recently

with FDL and Jane Hamsher working with Grover Norquist and enlisting the aid of teabaggers on Fox.

It worked so well for her that her sight now has many teabagging bloggers on it.

It definitely can and has happened.

[berni_mccoy]

12. They still are trying to demonize the term "socialism" as they did it with the HCR debate

Your historical perspective is very appreciated.

[hootinholler]

7. K&R to counter the unrecs

[arcadian]

9. unrec

[NJmaverick]

10. It certainly is odd that terms that have been respected and considered good

for hundreds, if not thousands of years, are now being demonized and attacked.

[arcadian]

20. What a strange statement

What's odd is how some people on this board want to control the dialog and abscond with the definitions of certain words.

[NJmaverick]

24. "people on this board want to control the dialog"

that's an interesting idea. Maybe we should have a pizza party and discuss it over a few slices. I would be interested to hear who you feel is controlling the board and what dialog is being controlled.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

30. Or we could set up an IRC chat to discuss it. eom

[HughMoran]

41. guilt

[laughingliberal]

42. I wouldn't presume to know the motives of the poster to whom my reply was made.

:shrug:

Now that you mention it, though, 'guilt' might be the best response to this thread.

[HughMoran]

149. you

are

[laughingliberal]

186. AFAIK, people are allowed to seek other venues for discussion. At least, I saw nothing in the rules

against it. So, a private IRC chat or other political forums all look perfectly legal within the rules to me. As always, though, you are entitled to your own opinion on it.

[HughMoran]

194. I Remember Correctly?

Seek.

Trash.

Enjoy.

[laughingliberal]

200. So, now I have no idea what we're talking about & I have no desire to continue a silly subthread

or to continue kicking a thread of little value, IMO. Feel free to continue should you so desire.

[HughMoran]

205. Just when we were getting somewhere

Enjoy the bitter herbs.

[dionysus]

178. !!!

:spray:

[Arkana]

218. We're not the ones who claimed ownership of "progressive" and "liberal".

[saracat]

128. They aren't our buzz words. They are Reaganesque.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Why make compromise and concession the goal from the beginning?

Our Democrats have been giving away the farm before the bidding even starts by preemptively removing any items deemed in advance as too divisive or controversial, regardless of whether a large portion of voters are for it or not. The will of the governed means nothing.

How did healthcare work out? Lots of compromise and concession there - to parties who did not cast even a single vote for it! What did the Democrats gain by being "practical" and "sensible" with the intractable? We got a bill that supporters may cheer as being the "most progressive legislation in a generation" (ignoring the fact that its the ONLY healthcare (oops!) insurance reform in a generation) whereas I see the opportunity of a generation to affect real change and write real reform being thrown down the toilet.

Imagine the Wright Brothers' mother saying "Be sensible, one wing at a time, dears." A one winged plane doesn't fly. I think a lot of the sensible legislation we are getting is a whole airport full of one-winged planes - not able to get us where we should be going.

[TransitJohn]

16. Dude, the part of the Party you support is in charge!

Cry us a river.

[QC]

17. Why are people who are getting everything they want so damn angry all the time?

It's one of life's great mysteries, at least around here, where the faction that is getting everything it wants, and now has total control of this site, is still in a perpetual tantrum inspired by the thought that there might still be some people somewhere who disagree with them.

[PassingFair]

34. Not just some....MOST.

I had a poll completely disappear,
but the results had shown that NOT
ONE duER had self-identified as
a "New Dem".

Progressives are in the majority on this site.

No surprise to me, as that's why I COME HERE!

[Lilith Velkor]

150. The Bushies acted the same way.

Perhaps it's not a coincidence.

[QC]

154. That's a fine observation,

and I don't think it's coincidental either. There is definitely a shared mindset at work.

[dave29]

251. We're Democrats, it's not about "getting" what "we" want, it's about

creating progress that will help the most people in a realistic way. This crazy notion that the Presidents supporters are getting what they want while others are not is ludicrous. We are just a little more patient, and maybe a tad more grounded in reality, I suppose.

We all want the same thing!! It's about how we get there. Jebus H Hockeypucks.

[QC]

18. The people who truly demonized the words "pragmatic" and "sensible"

are the ones who seek to make them synonyms for "utterly lacking in conviction."

[NJmaverick]

49. People who are "utterly lacking in convictions"

generally don't get into politics as they care little for it. At least that has been my experience. People lacking in strong views on political topics tend to have little interest in the muddy and nasty world of politics.

[TheKentuckian]

164. Buwahhahwahhhh

I guess amoral is too kind, perhaps "pragmatic" just means shady with malicious intent.

[saracat]

217. Are you really that naive? You seriously believe the majority of major politicians have principles?

or strong views on anything? Really? Do you know any? have you ever worked to craft a "message" ? It is about WINNING. Period. And that is where we are. Not long ago it was being discussed here how a politician need NOT keep his promises because what was said in a campaign doesn't count. I am one of those who does believe that it counts but then, I am not "pragmatic" and still believe in ideals.

[Upton]

19. Your "concession" and "compromise"

sounds more like rolling over for the opposition to me. No thanks, but you enjoy yourself.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Rachel Maddow would disagree with you

She did say President Obama had one of the most legislatively accomplished first years of any President in a generation.

The Stimulus Act, Lilly Ledbetter, Stem Cell research, yes, sensibility, compromise, and concession achieved one of the best accomplished first years in history.

See: http://open.salon.com/blog/je_robertson/2010/01/06/obamas_first_year_a_vast_array_of_underreported_successes

At the end of Barack Obama's first year in office, there is controversy over the nature and extent of his accomplishments, and even some allies and supporters appear to have forgotten the atmosphere of multidirectional crisis in which Obama took office. What's more, the steady decline in Obama's approval ratings appears to follow very closely a shift in media reporting away from reporting facts and back to the hyper-commentary style of the run-up to the Iraq war, an atmosphere in which conservative political propaganda fares better than the facts of deliberative action.

Pres. Obama was accused early-on of making an unprecedented list of promises, and even by the time of his inauguration, there was speculation about a gap in election-year perceptions and aspirations and the realities of governing. It became popular in the mainstream media to propagate this "controversy", asserting that Obama was "too idealistic" or even "naïve" and that somehow the "hard realities" of governing would, in time, make his Republican opponents' case for them. 2009 has largely been a year in which media reporting has moved in the direction of promoting false controversies and enforcing self-fulfilling prophecies for their value as marketing tools.

Many of his detractors, and even some of his wavering supporters, will be surprised to learn that in his first year, Barack Obama has already fulfilled at least 79 campaign promises. This is one of the most accomplished records of any first year in office, and it has come with considerable difficulty in working with and around a Congress fraught with obstructionism and distracted by its own mythology regarding specific points of policy, and in the face of the most uniform and inflexible opposition any president in recent decades has faced.

The 79 promises kept, as fact-checked and reported by PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg Times, are as follows:

Full list of accomplishments achieved through sensibility at the link.

[treestar]

94. Then nothing would ever happen

No legislation would ever get passed.

Every Senator would hold out.

[fascisthunter]

21. please stop telling us on the left how to think and act

we are really sick of it... you got what you wanted already.

[berni_mccoy]

27. No one is telling you how to act. I'm only making an observation

that there is an attempt to demonize a sound ideological position.

[William Z. Foster]

110. no there is not

There is no attempt being made to "demonize a sound ideological position." The cartoon lampooned an approach to politics - move to the right to go left. If you do not see it as an approach, but rather as a "sound ideological position," that makes it worse, not better, because that tells us that people are not merely being naive when they advocate moving to the right in order to move left, they actually want the party to move to the right and are being deceptive about that.

[stranger81]

298. "pragmatism" is not an ideological position . . . .

it's a weak excuse for accepting the status quo at every opportunity.

[laughingliberal]

22. I suppose 'what approaches will actually work' must mean different things to different people.

To me it always meant policy which would be effective ie: make things better for people. Some seem to think it means 'whatever we can get passed' whether it improves things or not.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[athenasatanjesus]

28. On Amiannoying.com "was a socialist" is often a reason they are annoying NT.

[Catherina]

31. America's enemies are the one impoverishing this country with their war support

It's the American version of "collaboration horizontale". Absolutely sick stuff.

[DirkGently]

32. "And you can never tell us to be quiet" rings a bit false

Sounds like you're the one claiming ownership of liberalism and the Democratic party. The one demanding loyalty and purity. For example, you seem determined to conflate criticism with the term "demonizing" which you repeat over and over. The two are not the same. No matter how much criticism of liberal or Democratic leaders offends you, it IS something that honest liberals and Democrats do. The fact that "Chuckles" would get so far under your skin that you would despair of a CARTOON appearing on this website speaks volumes.

You are right, of course that there is a conflict between a couple of particular points of view as to how to achieve liberal political goals. You and some others seem infuriated by liberals satirizing or critiquing other liberals (or, really Democrats).

I can only assume this is because you value group solidarity more than critical thinking.

But consider: is that itself a liberal value? Are we the ones who pretend to never be wrong? Who never admit our mistakes? Who claim our leaders are infallible? Does that not sound like the "other guys" to you?

I think more than a few people would take the point of view that *failure* to criticize those, including leadership, more or less on one's own "side" of the political spectrum is irresponsible, because all you're left with is the naked, unreasoning partisanship that's wrecked our national discourse for so long. Go red team. Go blue team. Yankees suck. Go Mets. What does that mean, if we're all equal in claiming our "side" never makes a mistake, never fails, needs no improvement?

Solidarity, some might argue, should NEVER mean *unquestioning or uncritical* support of some predetermined group or person, but should remain always with the best ideas and principles. There is an element of intellectual dishonesty, is there not, in pretending, or saying, that inadequate results are adequate, or that adequate results are spectacular?

If we don't speak up when we see things we disagree with, or think are wrong or ineffective or weak or dishonest or overly compromised, how exactly are we supposed to know what we actually stand for? Isn't lockstep, uncritical loyalty something progressives, or liberals, or Democrats have found repellant in the politics we oppose?

If so, what level of criticism do you think liberals should "tolerate?" If Chuckles the Woodchuck goes too far, what criticism is acceptable?

Are "we" part of a group that simply opposes Republicans, or do we stand for a qualitatively different approach to policy and politics that includes honest criticism of "our" own people? Do we simply want to beat Republicans at their own game, with the same approach to message discipline and unquestioning, top-down, party solidarity, or do we stand for a more honest approach?

Do we equate what is "practical" with what is politically expedient, or with what we actually think will WORK in reality?

There is a difference, right?

[berni_mccoy]

33. You're projecting your own feelings onto others.

And you are playing semantics with what is being done. The fact is, Democrats who support the President are the majority of the party. More than 80%. The fact that demographic isn't reflected here and that the most vocal and loud are those who do not or who do nothing but criticize and attack the President here does not mean anything. It only means that those who support the President are intimidated to speak their minds for fear of being demonized. And they are.

Even in this thread, because I simply don't agree with your and others approach, I am directly labelled a cheerleader. Instead of holding an honest discussion of which approach is actually accomplishing anything, things devolve into name calling, labels and boxing people in.

I'm certainly willing to apply political and constituent pressure on my elected reps. And in fact I have. I don't disagree with this approach. It has its place and its use. But for people to attack other members of this site because they believe things can be accomplished in other ways, that's not a healthy situation for this site.

[DirkGently]

36. So, because 80% support the President, no criticism is valid?

Do you see a hole in this thinking? Do you think that people here who make honest criticisms of Democratic leaders are somehow the enemy of liberals, or the President or the Democratic Party? Do you think those "80%" are of the opinion that there is nothing to criticize in Mr. Obama's administration, nothing that needs change or improvement?

Do you have possession of a poll no one has seen that says that 80% of Democrats think that everything is being done perfectly?

Aren't you just endorsing the "With us or agin' us," "love or leave it" mentality that liberals and Democrats have opposed for so long?

Where should liberal and Democratic ideas COME from,if no one is supposed to criticize or dissent with whatever happens to be going on at the moment? Where are you getting this sense of outrage that it is somehow unfair for the people who make up the the country and the party to say "We disagree with what you are doing here, and here, and there?"

As far as attacking other members of the site, I agree that's not appropriate, and no one should be "labeled," but I do think you need to consider whether opining that an (excellent) cartoon / woodchuck that expresses the views of many members of this site is a shameful "stain" that should be removed is not itself an attack.

By definition, if it rings true with people here, isn't it a valid contribution? You say others want to "silence" you, but aren't you the one trying to define what is permitted to be expressed or discussed?

[berni_mccoy]

38. Never said that at all, and I'm surprised you resort to this strawman argument

People who support the President's approach are not necessarily centrists or cheerleaders. They see the success in what he is doing. And criticism is fine. But turning on a majority of Democrats because they don't agree with your criticisms is actually damaging your own cause. If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, having people join in a thread and bash the majority who agree with the approach you don't like will only make it harder to get a more liberal agenda through. It pushes good Democrats into the dark who would otherwise offer valid points of discussion.

Again, I have no umbrage with the cartoon itself, but I do have a problem when a mob jumps on it as validation that their way is the only way to succeed and anyone else is a cheerleading "Chuckles".

[arcadian]

46. berni you are damaging President Obama's cause.

[NJmaverick]

50. How so?

[YOY]

256. Oh Mav! Only you could ask that!

Only you!

What a wacky liberal you are!

[QC]

275. He's takin' back the liberal flag, baby! n/t

[YOY]

276. and it makes me WANNA SHAKE MY ASS WITH JOY!!!

Ass shakin'...money making'... :woohoo:

[QC]

291. You and me both! n/t

[dionysus]

179. w-w-hat.. huh?

:shrug:

[DirkGently]

66. You didn't say the cartoon was an embarassing "stain" that should be removed?

I understand you feel attacked, but do you understand that you seem to be going far beyond disagreeing with "Chuckles," and suggested (or, certainly, gave the impression) that the site shouldn't tolerate such things?

And I do think you continue to misuse your "80%" figure in assuming that because many Democrats support Mr. Obama's administration overall, that only some kind of unreasonable fringe element would connect with the critique represented by Mr. Chuckles. There's no basis whatsoever to assume that "80%" of Democrats, or liberals, or anyone, is happy with the continuing existence of Gitmo, or the retention of rendition policies, or the perceived failure to fight for a public option in healthcare (which the majority of AMERICANS supported, by the way).

Further, even if you could reasonably extrapolate that because most Democrats support Mr. Obama's administration, that means that most Democrats feel no disappointment, and adhere to no criticism, which again, I don't think you can, it still seems to me that the point of a discussion forum is to collect and consider a wide variety views, albeit in this case under the banner of liberal / democratic / Democratic Party sympathies.

I respectfully suggest that while your own views should not be dismissed as mindless "cheerleading," when you attack thougtful (or comical) criticism of the administration as disgraceful and destructive, you give the impression of intolerance on your own part.

In the context of a discussion forum, rather than simply stating that ideas like those expressed in the Mr. Chuckles cartoon have been "debunked," or are a "stain" on the site, or don't respresent the views of "80% Democrats," you might argue the merits of the critiques themselves. As you say, we shouldn't be labeling each other here, but the way to avoid being dismissed as close-minded is to refrain from dismissing others' views as being disloyal or destructive in the first place, no?

[berni_mccoy]

99. No, I said the thread was, because it is.

[William Z. Foster]

111. yes you are

You just did it again.

Those defending power are not being "pushed into the dark."

Clever how you are turning this around backward and inside out when you claim that "their way is the only way to succeed and anyone else is a cheerleading 'Chuckles.'" No one so claimed. Only those using the chuckles talking points were characterized as, um, er... using the chuckles talking points. On the other hand, you and others are doing exactly that - support the President (utter no criticism, advocate no left wing positions) or else you are helping the opposition or have a nefarious agenda and so forth.

[William Z. Foster]

83. oh the irony

"To attack other members of this site because they believe things can be accomplished in other ways, that's not a healthy situation for this site."

Right. That is why people responded positively to that cartoon. You are the one who decided that the cartoon was directed at you. I don't believe that you feel persecuted, I don't believe that you fear for the health of the site. I don't think you care about the success of the administration. I think you recognized some of the talking points that you have been using to suppress discussion and attack others, and don't want people thinking about that because of the damage that might do to your talking points. Otherwise, why would you have stepped out into traffic on that busy street and then whined that people were trying to run you over? The fact that you jumped in on that thread invalidates all of your claims.

[Catherina]

101. +1000 Well said. You spoke for me too n/t

[TheKentuckian]

169. Encore!!

[Bobbie Jo]

280. Elvis has left the building.

again.

[Ignis]

297. ...

:spray:

[Blue_In_AK]

299. You are the first one to use the word "cheerleader"

in this thread. "Even in this thread, because I simply don't agree with your and others approach, I am directly labelled a cheerleader. Instead of holding an honest discussion of which approach is actually accomplishing anything, things devolve into name calling, labels and boxing people in" is a false premise.

[laughingliberal]

35. Excellent post! nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. ::::standing applause::::: and I wish I didn't unrec this thread because your post Must be read.

Thank you.

[nashville_brook]

44. I LOVE you DirkGently!!

:loveya:

[leftstreet]

51. +1

[jgraz]

56. WIN.

:applause:

[unapatriciated]

74. +1

Yes there is a difference.

[Catherina]

102. Great post. Thank you Dirk. +1 n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Fire1]

40. Great OP bernie! K&R.

[Radical Activist]

47. "I think (x) and if you disagree with me it means you're a corporate, compromising, sell-out

and I don't have to correct my factual errors or defend my position at all except to call you names."

Yeah, the routine is overused. It reflects an "us v. them" mentality that isn't very helpful when its directed against other liberals.

[jgraz]

76. Hmmm... I think corporate, compromising, sell-outs are bad.

You disagree? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

106. Sell-outs are bad.

Every politician in American history that ever accomplished anything has had to compromise. Even Paul Wellstone and all liberal heroes. It helps to understand that reality and know the difference between the two.

[William Z. Foster]

112. of course

That is not the issue, nor is it what your chronic complaint is about. Politicians may have to compromise, we do not. It is us whom you are demanding compromise from.

It helps to know the difference between that - us and the people in power. Let the politicians defend their compromises with the right wing, they don't need your, or our, help. Demanding that we all help them - and that is what you are doing - is the problem and the cause of the feuding. Helping apologize for the politicians when they compromise with the corporations and the right wing helps the right wing. It can never help the left.

[jgraz]

113. OK, I'm just gonna let William respond for me from now on.

Well done, sir. :thumbsup:

[William Z. Foster]

114. thanks

There is a fishing expedition going on, with prodding and probing hoping to get an uproar going about some minor point for the purposes of creating a distraction. They say they want discussion, yet when their questions are answered, when they do get a solid, well-reasoned and courteous response, they won't touch it but instead will keep casting about elsewhere probing for another spot to provoke a feud.

[Radical Activist]

130. Here's my experience on DU.

1) I see an inflammatory article attacking Obama for the latest outrage of the day.
2) I do a little research and find that some of the claims are exaggerations, and illogical leaps that are supported by very little or no evidence.
3) When I point this out I'm accused of being on the opposite side of the issue or "apologizing" for politicians.

In reality, if the article had simply stated what is usually the factual case, "Obama has done a, b, and c, which is good, but he still needs to do x, y, and z to finish the job" then most of the time I would respond with support for the demand to do better. Hyperbole and broad-brushed labeling of Obama only get in the way of discussing issues.

I realize you'll probably never agree with me about this. You see all disagreement with any criticism of Obama as a conservative argument from the "other side." You'll probably never notice or care that I agree with people who use fair, factually-based arguments to push Obama left.

There won't be much reasonable discussion on this board as long as people hold your attitude, which assumes that anyone who disagrees with their attack on Obama must be a conservative apologist.

[amborin]

183. +10000

[nashville_brook]

215. the compromises are at our expense, and protect their political capital. that is the bottom line.

to critique that is to remain true to one's interests. it's really that simple.

[DirkGently]

216. This is IT

Exactly. Unfortunately. We owe no allegiance to the Triangulation Faction of the Democratic Party, whether or not it is the majority, although I suspect (and fervently hope) that it is not.

[jgraz]

48. "Sensibility" and "practicality" have long ago been ruined by the corporatists.

You might as well fight to rehabilitate "pro-life" or "pro-family". People eventually see through the ruse.

[NJmaverick]

52. What exactly do you mean by that?

First please define how you are using the term "corporatists" and then please explain to me how they have "ruined' the terms "sensibility" and "practicality"

[jgraz]

55. Simple.

When They Say: Pragmatic
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Rahm Emanuel's campaign was a pragmatic success."

When They Say: Grown-up
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Unlike Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton is a grown-up."

When They Say: Rational
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Harold Ford advocates a rational approach to foreign policy."

When They Say: Practical
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Blanche Lincoln says taxing carbon just isn't practical."

When They Say: Reasonable
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Steny Hoyer wants to adopt reasonable financial reforms."

When They Say: Sensible
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Max Baucus is drafting a sensible healthcare bill."

When They Say: Centrist
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Diane Feinstein's centrist views have not been popular in the more liberal areas of her state."

When They Say: Bipartisan
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Joe Lieberman led a bipartisan effort to compromise on the Roberts nomination."

[NJmaverick]

58. I am old enough to remember when "commie" was used

like you are using "Corporatist"

[jgraz]

59. Wrong again, Bob.

One is a jingoistic attack on liberals.

The other is a defensive deconstruction of pro-corporate newspeak.

[NJmaverick]

79. I can't say you have made a compelling argument

to convince me to change my position.

[arcadian]

80. Yeah I guess you really "cna't"

[dionysus]

180. wow, he had a typo. does that make him a lesser person?

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

235. Among other things, yes.

[HughMoran]

244. of cores

:shrug:

[William Z. Foster]

77. LOL!

I think that line of reasoning is recycled from the 1850's.

"I can remember when Abolitionist was used the way you are using slave owner!"

[bahrbearian]

61. It is so simple , I love it.

[Catherina]

105. +1 n/t

[amborin]

245. so many handy euphemisms for corporatist

[Mithreal]

53. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

:cry:

[William Z. Foster]

57. it is just horrible

Those siding with the powerful are so persecuted. Imagine - having their ideas lampooned in a cartoon!!

[Mithreal]

60. Do you mean this one?

[jgraz]

65. Or maybe this one.

Interesting... can you spot the difference?

[Mithreal]

67. I don't know, but I haven't had my coffe yet. Maybe if we had another?

[jgraz]

69. Heh. Check your first post. My favorite part of the cartoon is missing.

:shrug:

[Mithreal]

70. Ack, ok, I was up late fixing my fixing a friend's computer. Coffee now.

Coffee :hi:

[Mithreal]

87. Omg, how did I miss that?

Just finished my coffee though :)

[William Z. Foster]

71. it is a tragedy

First they came for the upscale gentrified people who promoted Reaganomics within the Democratic party...

Who will they joke about next? Where will this all lead?

[Mithreal]

72. +1

:rofl:

[arcadian]

139. I think it was actually this one:

[Mithreal]

141. Woodchucks is scary, dontcha know?

:hi:

[martinojacko]

63. Yup. A lot of liberal-hating these days

When the real enemy is the right-wing and wishy-washy centrists who enable them.

[Mithreal]

68. Yep

[Lilith Velkor]

295. !

:spray:

[Catherina]

109. No, it's the recent DLC newspeak, according to them, the Left is now the wishy-washy centrists.

It's a takeover game to redefine the center so they can move even further to the right.

[jgraz]

75. Pretty sure posts starting with "First They X'ed" fall under the Godwin umbrella.

Unless you feel a little disagreement on an anonymous internet board somehow equates with the Holocaust... :shrug:

[Boojatta]

82. Before 1760, were there no safe roads in England, or were all safe roads in England private roads?

Even though many necessary services and functions of government, like safe roads, emergency response, and schools, are indeed socialistic mechanisms, the right took to turning a good political concept into a bad word.

Doesn't the word "socialism" refer to ideas expressed by some or all of the following people?
Comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825)
Charles Fourier (1772–1837)
Karl Marx (1818–1883)

Of course, at the moment when Comte de Saint-Simon was born, he didn't think of and publish his ideas, so I could revise the title of this message to ask about roads in England for some time after 1760.

[JVS]

84. You think "Chuckles" represents sensibility and practicality? You don't get the cartoon's beef.

Chuckles represents the foolish and impractical masquerading as the wise and practical.

[blindpig]

85. Only the Capitalists control the liberals...

well, the liberal politicians anyway.

[YOY]

89. FAIL on so many levels it should be in a museum.

n.t.

[JoseGaspar]

91. You've spun so hard, you made yourself dizzy.

Will you call forth the "silent majority", next?

It was mostly the sensible, practical and pragmatic who "demonized" Socialism, and a Liberal (Palmer) who put them in jail.

But, do go on...

[bvar22]

92. Enacting Republican Economic Policy will NEVER be "Practical" or "Pragmatic".....

...unless you're a Republican.

However, it does allow the Party Marketing Team to claim a "WIN" and hold a "Mission Accomplished" parade.

The blueprint is simple and easy to follow:
Eliminate everything that makes the Republicans, Corporate Lobbyists, and BIG MONEY Interests uncomfortable, and pass whatever is left over.

QED: Health Care "Reform",
The current Financial Reform Bill

Which way to the parade?
:party:

[earth mom]

95. I don't think you have a clue what socialism or liberalism actually means based on your political

leanings.

So spare us your lecture. :eyes:

[JoseGaspar]

97. You've spun so hard, you made yourself dizzy.

Will you invoke the "silent majority", next?

It was mostly the sensible, practical, and pragmatic who "demonized" Socialism, and it was a Liberal (Palmer) who put them in jail.

Do go on, though.

I am waiting for your "Cross of Bold" speech:

"You shall not press down upon the brow of the apparatchiks this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify sensible-mankind upon a cross of bold."

[treestar]

98. True, why can't Americans compromise between themselves

when they need to compromise with whoever it would take to get the wars over? Isn't that "rolling over for the enemy?" Not "fighting?" The far left and far right converge. They want to fight to the death without ever working anything out. I'd hate to be involved in one of their divorces. Must be all out war every time.

[laughingliberal]

103. The compromises being worked out are being worked out heavily in favor of one side.

Win/win means all involved benefit and benefit in a fairly equitable manner. So far, the compromises I see are heavily weighted towards wealthy corporate interests and the workers and people struggling are getting a crumb here and there.

I have no problem with compromise. I spent a good deal of my working life resolving conflicts and problem solving with families in crisis. It is not a compromise or a solution to continually screw one side in favor of the other.

After 30 years of the beat down of the working and middle classes, we have a real need for some real push back and fight in the war that has been waged on us. I'm really not inclined to compromise with those who'd just as soon we all die and get out of their way.

[socialist_n_TN]

237. Yep. I wonder where the compromise between

the left, the middle, and the right would come down? I KNOW where the compromise between the center, the right, and the FAR right comes down. We've all seen that compromise. TOO MANY TIMES!

[madfloridian]

104. A couple of terms you forgot...

the "sensible center" and the "moderate middle"

}(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. It's the centrists calling themselves liberal who sold out that did the most damage to "liberal".

The apologists who say that lost wars are "necessary".

That say that financing fraudulent bankers are "necessary".

Who say that holding politicians accountable is "bashing".

Who say that making behind the doors deals with corporations is done in good faith.

Who say that public servants "have too much on their plate" when they fail to act.

Who say that "not as bad" is really good.

[Peacetrain]

123. I almost had to put on a set of hipwaders to get through that

The right went after liberals and the word "liberal" hammer and tongs.. I never let it go.. but I am still po'd about that.

A whole group of former "liberals" decided not to fight for their names and their beliefs and redefine themselves.

Okay I will live with that and call yourself anything you want to.. Centrists of any stripe did not have diddley to do with that

It was the right and they got away with it, because people were scared of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. It was the centrists who caved to the right. Remember "triangulation"?

The "former liberals" you speak of are the centrists who preach moderation and vote with the Republicans.

[TBF]

148. And now some of them have decided to call themselves leftists,

while making their deals with the capitalists. They can use whatever words they want to disguise their actions, but it isn't fooling those of us who really care about workers as opposed to owners, and know squarely which side we are on.

[socialist_n_TN]

240. Yeah, I've wondered about that..............

The centrists would have had a hissy fit if you called them a "leftist" 10 or even 5 years ago. All of the sudden they're ALL "leftists" and they get their panties in a wad if you even ASK their definition of the word leftist, even if it's just for clarification.

I'm looking at it as progress. We are dedemonizing the word "leftist". Of course, we're also confusing it. It's all boils down to POSITIONS on ISSUES though, rather than labels.

[DevonRex]

115. I'm with you, Bernie. K&R.

Don't pay any attention to the firing squad. They must not know any republicans they can attack so they go at you. :shrug:

[Mithreal]

118. Of course, that is it. Guess BM's the next best thing. Makes ya wonder.

Go figure :shrug:

[jgraz]

119. Ouch.

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

120. Makes me wonder why any DUer would attack and insult a DUer and a fellow Democrat.

But that's just me. :shrug:

[Mithreal]

131. Who says I am insulting. I'm with you.

[DevonRex]

163. After reading your replies in this thread, I didn't misunderstand your meaning. nt

[berni_mccoy]

166. He's not with you at all. Take a look at his responses to this thread. He's all about

attacking Democrats and members of DU.

[DevonRex]

170. I just did. Thanks for the info. My first reading was correct after all. nt

[Name removed]

262. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

274. Lynne? Oh, the OET bullshit again.

[spoony]

250. Indeed, why have you so often done that? nt

[jgraz]

259. +1

[Peacetrain]

122. I think you are right.. good op!

[upi402]

124. Careful, this borders on Democratic Party blasphemy

-you could get banned for telling the truth about the Democratic Party now. true story!

[Mithreal]

133. Woodchucks are gonna become an endangered species.

[saracat]

127. How can anyone not know that "sensibility and practicality "are the buzz words for the GOP

and Conservatives and they have been for years.Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention. There is the loony gun nut female running for CD in my district and she describes herself just that way. In every campaign I have ever worked on, and in several states, Democrats have incorporated those "words" in a conscious effort to garner GOP votes. It never was a reflection of Democratic issues or meant to appeal to the base. We may in fact be exercising more sensibility that the GOP but that is NOT our branding and anyone who is offended by the argument that trashing that concept is offensive to democrats is just waaay off base and doesn't know anything about how the parties define themselves.

Inflicting "sensibility and practicality" with a broad brush as the Democratic motto is redefining our party, and I can't say I care for it.

I can't imagine any Democratic President campaigning on that phrase. It is positively Reaganesque.

[berni_mccoy]

132. The cartoon and that thread were not attacking Republicans

It was a clear attack on Democrats who support President Obama. To play it otherwise is a show of guilt and a redirect of what it really was. You are trying to cover your ass now, that is plain and clear.

[saracat]

151. What cartoon? I am adressing the OP.

I am not trying to cover anything. I am responding to the OP. You are defending Conservative Buzz words. I have employed their use in Dmocratic campaigns and I know why they are used but they are NOT Democratic terms. You are implying that they are. No Democratic presidential candidates use those terms as a slogan. President Obama didn't. if you recall, he ran on "Hope and Change".Bill Clintonhad, "Its the economy stupid" and JK had"Help is on the way"or something like that. Most congressional races, and other races, especially in red states, throw in those buzz words to appeal to the GOP. Those are NOT words for the base and again, you imply they define us. You are mistaken.

[berni_mccoy]

153. Practical policy is indeed part of the Democratic platform

and was part of the 50-state strategy initiated by Dean.

Sorry you and other self-proclaimed progressives don't like it, but that is a fact.

[saracat]

181. I am talking about verbiage. Those are RW buzz words. I am sorry you aren't aware of that.

Anyone who has ever worked a campaign PR knows there are code words. Those are not ours.

[Catherina]

155. Forgive Berni. You may not have seen this

but Tom Tomorrow posted a cartoon that traumatized dear Berni



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8655726

Hilarity ensued. And them more hilarity ensued when some of the usual suspects came into the thread and did the exact things Tom was depicting in the cartoon.

It's a great cartoon. But it traumatized Berni. Traumatized I tell you.

The bus Saracat, the bus is getting awfully crowded underneath.

:hi:

[saracat]

182. Nevertheless, I was not adressing the cartoon. I was addressing the OP.

WE cannot defend the use of RW buzz words and claim them as their own. Now if someone said they wanted to "reclaim " the words for Democrats, that might be an agrument but at this point, those words are not common Democratic buzz words.

[Edweird]

189. They are attempting to subvert the meaning of "Liberal" - they want it to mean 'conservative'.

Hence all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of a cartoon woodchuck that points out the conservative/centrist Dem position. If you read the posts in the thread the cartoon was posted in originally, you'll see the OP asserting that the cartoon is 'an attack on liberals'. This OP is simply an extension of his complaints about the cartoon.

[Sebastian Doyle]

134. ...and then they came for the Woodchucks.....

...and since I wasn't a Woodchuck I didn't speak up.

[malaise]

135. Why are people unrecing this thread?

:puke:

[berni_mccoy]

136. The same reason they are posting cute graphics of woodchucks

and calling people chuckles. Because they want to quiet anyone who doesn't agree with them and make examples so anyone who would speak out is intimidated to speak out in favor of the approach taken by President Obama, no matter how successful it will be or has been.

[Mithreal]

138. Actually I am pretty sure they want you to keep talking.

And wtf, who is intimidated by a picture of a woodchuck?

If you can't stand up to a chuckle, how ya gonna stand up to a rightwad?

Know what I'm sayin?

[berni_mccoy]

142. Like this graphic? Is this an attack on Republicans or Democrats... you tell me

I can stand up to chuckie and pukes alike. In fact, they are very similar.

Know what *I'm* sayin?

[Mithreal]

160. Neither. It is making fun of the excusa-palooza.

The principle first folks seem to get this.

[berni_mccoy]

165. The only excusa-palooza are people upset by this OP

who have to figure out some excuse as to why they attacked Democrats at DU and instead try to change the story and say it was all about Republicans, when everyone knows damn well that's not what it was about at all.

You've responded more then 21 times to this thread. I think you doth protest too much.

[Catherina]

174. Upset? Who's upset? I find it hilarious. I encourage you to write more of these n/t

[berni_mccoy]

175. You're upset when you spam a post more than 20+ times on a site you said you were done with

Or did you forget you said that?

[Catherina]

177. What is it to you? Do you own the place or think you do? n/t

[YOY]

255. Crickets...

n.t.

[Mithreal]

261. Lord of the Crickets does not find this amusing.

[YOY]

263. and I hath tempted its wrath with mine merry antics of frivolity!

Huzzah Lord Bernie of Cricketdom! It is only I a fair clown-jester in your court who merely dances for thine amusement...to honor the and not to mock thee in the slightest...

...Well in all honestly not just thine amusement but the Duke Mavie of NJ as well!

Huzzah I say! Huzzah for our merry lords!!!

[Mithreal]

265. .

:applause:

[Mithreal]

260. It's a discussion board, genius.

And how many times have you? Nevermind, I don't care.

[Raineyb]

184. Actually it is YOU who has been trying to silence people.

Your annoyance seems to be that those you wish to silence aren't obliging. I hope they continue to not oblige you.

[Mithreal]

140. Why do we listen to anyone intimidated by a cartoon? Just sayin.

[berni_mccoy]

143. It's not the cartoon...it's the mob that follows the cartoon and how they attack members of DU

[Mithreal]

159. But you are giving them the ammunition

And there is always a difference between attacking the person and their hilarious position.

[Catherina]

162. The mob? The mob? Oh come now Bernie

It's not like we're some mob that rose from the bog, some swamp demons lol.

Congratulations, you play the victim well enough to almost be believable.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

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

[QC]

144. That woodchuck seeks to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids! n/t

[Mithreal]

285. lol

:)

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

152. !

:spray:

[Lilith Velkor]

185. Very strong, indeed.

:popcorn:

[Edweird]

193. I've wanted to use that phrase myself......

[HughMoran]

146. K&R

[vanbean]

158. Bernie, it is really just a matter of definition. We look at socialism

as police forces, fire departments, road crews, rural electricity, schools, etc.,but the people who really just want cheap labor, look at it as communism, or at least try to make others do so. We either need a new word, or make sure everyone is on the same page in the dictionary. It really is just that simple. Honest engine.

[jennijohnson]

161. They demonized the word Socialist in the UK in the 80s..

This is why New Labour was formed, a right wing leader. It was the only way they could get elected.

[Hekate]

168. That's a very eloquent post & I agree. I watched appalled as "Liberal" was turned into a dirty word

I heard Repubs and Cons say "Liberal" like Nazi anti-Semites would have said "dirty Jew." It took them probably 20 years, but they got the job done. "Liberal" is now a term of disgust for all on the political right.

I still call myself a Liberal, though. I tried "progressive" until I realized they were going to slime that word too, so I reverted to Liberal, and to hell with them.

But wake up people. Our values are at stake, and they are good values.

Hekate

KnR

[datasuspect]

188. the mass unwashed vulgar should not legislate

i want a representative who is trained in the classics and can speak and read at least Latin or Ancient Greek. Someone who went to a really high-end school and has a somewhat patrician background. Not a former real estate agent or an exterminator like Tom Delay.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

197. Good comeback!

[HughMoran]

201. Time is up

[Forkboy]

203. I wish.

[HughMoran]

204. wishes come true

soon enough

[Forkboy]

206. Why, you leaving?

[HughMoran]

208. ...said the green pig,

'not I'

[Forkboy]

209. I always did hate that green pig.

;)

[Edweird]

221. Dem support for RW policy is why Richard M Nixon now looks like a bleeding heart liberal.

Way to go.

[HughMoran]

223. Nice

most ridiculous bullshit I've read in a long time.

[Edweird]

224. It's the truth, and it makes you angry that people see it.

[HughMoran]

226. lol - if you say so

I call it psychobabble.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

233. Huh?

What the FUCK are you talking about? Woodchuck? Guess I messed the fun.

[Arkana]

236. What woodchuck?

[Edweird]

239. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8655726

[HughMoran]

241. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?

If a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[saracat]

229. Really . Try reading a bit. Nixon had better health plans and environmental plans.

[HughMoran]

231. I despised Nixon. I don't have to read, I fucking lived it

:eyes:

[DireStrike]

234. You should try it again

Apparently you missed some things.

[HughMoran]

238. Yeah, I must've missed the part where he wanted to be dictator and was impeached

What the fuck are you TALKING about??

Yeah, the climate was more liberal then - doesn't make Nixon a good man - unless one is a rewriter of history for personal gain.

[saracat]

258. I didn't SAY Nixon was a good man. I said he had a better Health Plan than the current HCR and he

was much better on environmental issues than the current admin. That is a fact.You don't have to be a "good man" to have a good policy. And I lived it too.I watched Watergate everyday and I campaigned for McGovern.I also supported Mccarthy. I have always been a Democrat. I "lived" it as well. And the climate wasn't more "liberal" though I would say we are more divided now then ever.

[HughMoran]

269. You say the climate wasn't more 'liberal' then

I say that Nixon couldn't have been elected without 'playing to the left' - very similar to how Democrats have to be more to the center to get elected now. Simple facts that people in idealism land refuse to acknowledge. Have fun in your fake little world - I see how 'real' voters identify themselves compared to then. Facts are tough things for idealists.

[unapatriciated]

278. sarah, I agree with you on most things.

Saying Nixon had a better Health Plan is a stretch, similar maybe but not better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q

[saracat]

279. I will grant you that! I overstated the argument. It is similar.

I am just so angry because of what we "could " have had and what we got instead.

[HughMoran]

288. Angry, yes

We agree.

[saracat]

289. The major thing is the President got what he wanted. I wish he wanted more.

But he sides with the Blue Dogs in reality.

[HughMoran]

290. He may or may not have 'guessed' right at what he could 'get'

But we'll never know. It's not like there wasn't MAJOR OPPOSITION to this bill from both Republicans (all of them) and several Democrats. Let's not make this seem like it was a cake-walk in retrospect.

[saracat]

292. I remember Sen. Schumer saying way back when that Pres.Obama

could have "whatever HCR he wanted" and I believe that was true. Just as he told the Congress to put DADT on the back burner. I think where people make a mistake is they think the Congress is blocking the President.I think the President is getting exactly what he wants. My problem is what he is getting is not what I want. Or what many Liberal folks want. Bu then I never accused the President of being a Liberal.I read his books. I knew he was at best a moderate. I just somehow hoped things would be a bit better than they are.

[HughMoran]

293. Shumer is one Senator

You can believe whatever or whomever you want to, doesn't make it true from my perspective.

Obama is not a hardcore liberal, but he was the most liberal Democratic candidate who had a chance to win the election. I tend to support the most liberal candidate who also has a chance of winning. No more Dukakis' or Mondale's for me.

[saracat]

294. And your POV isn't necessarily true from my perspective.

I do not believe that Obama was the only candidate who had a chance to WIN this election, nor do I believe he is by any definition of the word the "most liberal one who could have won" But that is my opinion and clearly one we do not share. The odds were so much in favor of a Democratic WIN in 2008 , I personally think a ham sandwich could have won with a D behind their name. We wanted "change". We voted for "change" and it didn't really matter what package it was in. But no way was the President the most "liberal" candidate we could have elected. Sadly, we actually may have blown a real chance to get a real liberal elected. Maybe some day we will actually run a liberal when the time is right, as it was, but it likely isn't going to be in my lifetime. It is sad for me to recognize this but it is true.

[HughMoran]

296. Even in a 'Democratic' year, the candidate must receive the support of Democrats

So many on the so-called 'progressive' side (I put it in quotes since I'm a progressive that has a different perspective) supported either Edwards or Kucinich. Edwards would have lost due to lying about an affair. Kucinich couldn't win even in a banner year for Democrats IMO. I'm really not sure who this magical Democratic (or any party for that matter) candidate is that could have won. And if you think Obama has difficulty in reaching consensus with a Senate tangled up in their byzantine rules, imagine President Kucinich. Not getting it done in my view - we're talking 2nd year lame duck from where I sit.

[YOY]

264. Yes. You do have to read.

n/t

[HughMoran]

270. That the best you can do? Are you another pro-Nixon DUer?

This place has gone mad.

[YOY]

272. Yes...you caught me! I'm totally cuckoo for Tricky Dick!!!

MY GAWD! The world has totally gone mad and you are the only one who can keep this ship afloat!!!

What ever will you do???

I know! You'll stay "sensible!"

[HughMoran]

277. Slip sliding away

No serious conversations are possible here any more.

Have a fabulous life.

[YOY]

286. It's the world you wanted! I'll be contacting Nixon with a medium to worship him.

Hope it works...last time we only managed to contact Checkers.

Have a sensible and pragmatic day!

[DireStrike]

232. How so?

Nixon was more liberal certainly than the republicans that came after him, and some of the democrats. And concerning "mainstream" political thought? Someone with Nixon's views would only appear on CNN as a novelty once a month or so.

[HughMoran]

246. Have fun with that.

The 'pro-Nixon' Democrats. :eyes:

We all know the climate was more liberal then - I've pointed that out repeatedly over the years. Doesn't mean Nixon wasn't also a criminal.

[Edweird]

222. “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

Tom Tomorrow hit the nail squarely on the head.

[SunsetDreams]

191. K&R Berni,

You make some great points. Awesome post!

[Forkboy]

196. That thread yesterday really got to ya!

[grantcart]

198. Didn't want our friends to feel ignored.

[Forkboy]

199. Don't think they were.

[grantcart]

211. And the pizza was good too!

[Forkboy]

212. I missed out on the pizza. I had fish for dinner!

And it was yummy. :)

[grantcart]

214. well if your hungry there's many on this thread and I don't think we can finish all of them

[depakid]

219. Irony impairment runs deep in some...

all the way to the core!

[DireStrike]

230. "Pragmatism" is being used as an excuse for bigotry.

Positions are claimed to be realistic, workable, etc. based solely on the fact that they compromise away things that the left believes in. Never mind that the only "facts" so called pragmatists are interested in are poll numbers and mutable political will. Not which approach is the best for the country, would save the most money in the long run and be the best from a moral standpoint to boot (single payer anyone?)

Nobody has done more damage to "pragmatism" and "realism" than the people now taking up that banner under false pretenses. It is eminently mockable because it does not describe their position or mindset at all.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

271. bigotry?

This is a ridiculous argument.

[TBF]

273. They are scared.

Obama's approval ratings are dropping lower than Carter's. But I would advise them not to come out swinging so hard that they knock out all their own voters. People are mad. They see the disaster in the Gulf, they know that they're still unemployed, and you know where they're going to throw that blame (even if it's misplaced) - to the non-incumbent running on the Republican side. If I were Obama right now I'd be trying to re-connect with everyone who voted for me, not causing more in-fighting. Just my two cents.

[NHLrocks]

248. +1

[Name removed]

249. Deleted message

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

[dave29]

252. Nod.

[YOY]

254. blah blah blah....

It was a political cartoon that pointed out how ridiculous some folks here are...it obviously hurt your feelings. That's just too bad if it hit close to home.

[jgraz]

257. Ginger

[Mithreal]

266. The jesters have overrun our defenses!

[Lilith Velkor]

300. this space for rent