Where is all this "bad-mouthing" of the left coming from?

[kentuck]

Like somehow they are not good partisans. They are whiners and complainers and they are never happy with anything the President might say or do. Why can't they see all that we have accomplished so far?

In my opinion, from the people on the left that I know, they are not "whining" and "complaining" about what has been accomplished so far. They are attempting to save the Party from a sudden death after such a promising start. They are doing everything they can do to get Democrats to wake the fuck up! It would be such a tragedy to see the dream end so quickly.

You cannot win on your present laurels. They are not that great. The other side is going to stomp you into the dust if you do not come out of your dream state. You cannot ignore or vilify your base. That is a suicide wish. You must acknowledge that they are an important part of the Party. Unless, of course, you do not believe they are needed?

The base is the foundation of the Party. Without the foundation, the Party crumbles to the ground. The base did not want the sell-out to the insurance companies. The base does not appreciate the cozy relationship with Wall Street. The base does not appreciate the continuation of wars in the Middle East. The base does not want the Party to fold and give more taxcuts to the wealthy.

The President has done some good things. It would be terribly sad and tragic to see it all end this November. But the fault is not with the left. The left is trying to help save the Obama Presidency. You may think they have a strange way of showing it? But, without the base, you are nothing.

(edited* "help save the Obama Presidency")

[mix]

1. +1 nt

[MadHound]

2. It is modern, fear based politics

Fear of the dreaded other, it's a powerful motivator for both sides of the political spectrum. Powerful enough that neither party has to do much, if anything for their base. Powerful enough for both parties to purposefully screw their base, yet keep them coming back for more. So why bother actually doing things for your base when you can enrich your corporate backers instead and keep your base in line with FEAR!

[Fumesucker]

3. Swing voters are the Democratic base..

Low information voters are who the Democrats really covet, liberals are just too damn picky and whiny and never sufficiently grateful when they get showered with crumbs from the tables of the movers and shakers.

[AzNick]

184. I am their base and will not get caught voting GOP

Yet 10 years ago I said that about the Dems, right until Bush got the nomination over McCain, then I started to switch side.

[Jackpine Radical]

192. Maybe they can capture the Tea Party voters

if they can show they're tough enough on those Godless liberals and (gasp!) progressives. The path the the tea partiers hearts lies through the badmouthing of the unions and of public institutions like the schools.

[cliffordu]

254. More complete and utter garbage. That barge is never late.

:eyes:

[Nite Owl]

4. You are sounding far too

reasonable.
I don't get all the defensiveness of some on this board. It is a discussion board and people who want to actually improve things get called names and accused of being 'fringe' and worse. Things cannot be made better unless we listen to each other and try to improve the party.

[Rex]

5. It is guilt (projection) at failing to live up to their own promised policies

they lied about being important in campaign years. The Left gets blamed for being right on all the topics, kinda like the kid that gets picked on for always being right in school.

Sad, yes. Pathetic, obviously. Wrong, since they started.

[lfairban]

157. Look up Cassandra!

My favorite character from mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

Pathetic is the word.

[jannyk]

6. +2 and kick!!

[Kaleva]

7. I don't know what the base is.

Some on the left say they are and that without them, Dems have little chance but then I see complaint after complaint about the Dems in office who supposedly couldn't have won without the base who put them into office in the first place.

[liberation]

180. That's a bit disingenuous...

People voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't necessarily imply they support their voting choice, more than they wanted to prevent the other choice from gaining power.

You can't have it both ways, if you want to pretend a "lesser of two evils" paradigm is acceptable, then fine. Do not then try to have as if some of the electoral choices shoveled down people's throats by the Dems were what some people really wanted when they had to vote for them holding their nose.

[dflprincess]

8. The positions currently pushed by those of us on "the left"

used to be considered mainstream Democratic values until the "new Democrats" came along and decided to try and turn the party into a wing of the Republican party.

[nashville_brook]

120. partisans only care about winning. but, if wins are coming at the expense of real people.

then, that's not exactly a "win." not for us, at least.

i mean, yay them for entrenching themselves. i'm sure that's the way "it's done" in Washington. but, my excitement in 2008 wasn't for "Yes We Can...Triangulate and Capitulate." My excitement was for real change that would help alleviate the REAL suffering that's happening at the Main Street level. Banks are still "too-bog-to-fail," while my neighborhood is emptying out b/c of foreclosures. we're barely hanging on to our jobs while our wages are falling thru the floor. my health insurance cost has doubled while my coverage has shrunk. and that's just the economic side of the equation.

[NorthCarolina]

177. +1000. n/t

[progressoid]

191. Yep,often feels like we're defending policies that we would have fought against not that long ago.

Makes one feel a little alien in one's own party.

[Art_from_Ark]

269. Yup.

If you were a mainstream Democrat in the '70s, you're considered "radical fringe" now. :puke:

[ProSense]

9. "You cannot win on your present laurels. They are not that great. "

Where is the campaign against the President, who is not on the ballot in November, coming from?

"The President has done some good things. It would be terribly sad and tragic to see it all end this November."

The Presidency ends in November?

[Fumesucker]

11. If the Republicans take the House in November it will be all impeachment all the time..

I fucking guarantee that Speaker Boehner won't take impeachment off the table.

[ProSense]

14. Screw Republicans.

They impeached Clinton.

This time their dreams are wet.

[Fumesucker]

15. I remember..

And they'll do the same damn thing to Obama if they take the House..

[ProSense]

18. So what's your point

If President Obama doesn't stop saying stuff that people can spin, they are going to allow the Republicans to win and he'll be impeached?

Like I said, screw Republicans.

[Fumesucker]

23. My point is that if the Republicans win..

Obama's Presidency is basically finished as far as getting any legislation through Congress..

The thing you have to admire about Republicans is that at least they have the courage of their utterly bogus convictions.

[ProSense]

24. "The thing you have to admire about Republicans... "

No, I don't admire anything about Republicans.

And keep telling yourself that if Republicans win the Obama Presidency is over. It will be far from the reality of things. Oh, the situation will change, but the Presidency will continue, and he will likely still win a second term.

[Fumesucker]

28. Underestimate your opponents at your peril..

I thought after Nixon that Republicans wouldn't have power for a generation..

Carter lasted exactly four fucking years before we got Regan and "morning in the shining city on the hill".

I won't make that mistake again.

[ProSense]

32. My peril?

"Carter lasted exactly four fucking years before we got Regan and "morning in the shining city on the hill."

Carter suffered the fate of a bitter primary battle.

As for peril, do you see yourself winning if Republicans win?

[Fumesucker]

36. You need to make up your mind..

I'm either far left or a Republican, you really can't have it both ways.

If the economy is still in the crapper in 2012 I think Obama and the Democrats could be in for a desperate battle and I honestly don't think the economy is going to greatly improve in that short a time.

[ProSense]

42. What?

" I'm either far left or a Republican, you really can't have it both ways."

Who called you a Republican?

[Fumesucker]

45. You appear to have a short term memory deficit..

You asked me if I thought I would do better if Republicans won in November, that was certainly implying that I have Republican sympathies.

[ProSense]

47. You seem to be missing

context.

[Fumesucker]

49. I don't click on naked links.. n/t

[speppin]

146. LOL thumbs up.

[Skittles]

214. stop arguing with a table leg, Fumesucker

you want I should kick some Fumesucking ass???

[NewJeffCT]

211. Darrell Issa has already said he would look into impeachment right away

over supposedly promising Sestak a job if he didn't challenge Specter.

[Amonester]

258. issa *could* look into impeachment anytime he wants, but...

to follow up and proceed with impeachment blah-blah-blah would be a taddy bit "un-Patriotic" in a time of war, would it not?

Of course, no Ds would ever bring that *deterrent* up...

:snark:

[NewJeffCT]

259. They'll go all out on impeachment

as they know it will slow the economy and everything else down even more.. and lead to a Republic in office in 2013.

[Orsino]

170. The President's ability to do good things could well be ending.

You think the margin for passing health care was razor-thin? Let the GOP pick up even a few more seats in the next Congress, and you will pine for 2010.

[Kall]

174. So, 2006...

Do you think 2006 had nothing to do with Bush?

[babylonsister]

10. Oh please.

There are some 'on the left' that take joy in tearing this admin down for every perceived wrong against them. Hamsher and Greenwald come to mind.

They are not helping. They cause rifts among us.

I see it. I know I'm not alone.

[Fumesucker]

12. I remember when Greenwald was a hero here to practically everyone..

When he was criticizing Bush..

Funny how people's perceptions change, innit?

[babylonsister]

16. No, not funny at all. DU changed. We all had a target in idiot son

we could rail against. It's not so easy now because we have a Democratic president who is trying the best he can, and we still have critics. Lots of stuff that is criticized is justifiable, but there are people who just like to complain, and probably miss the previous horse's ass.

My take anyway. :hi:

[Fumesucker]

21. I liked Greenwald then..

And I still like him now..

My perceptions didn't change..

But I see quite a few people here that really enjoyed and appreciated Greenwald then who hate and ridicule him now.

[Arkana]

129. Shock and awe, people changed their minds when his criticisms

became petty and unhinged.

James Carville used to be liked or at least respected by DU until 2008 too.

[katandmoon]

148. Greenwald hasn't changed a bit. He's totally consistent in the standards he holds politicians to.

[Exilednight]

249. I take issue with the following part of your statement .........

"we have a Democratic president who is trying the best he can"

You'll be hard pressed to convince me that he is doing everything he can. If Obama was out every single day railing against rethugs and pushing the change that he promised, then it could be said that he is doing everything he can and everyone here would be willing to cut him some slack.

Instead, he sold out the PO in a backroom deal along with prescription drugs from Canada.

He failed to bailout main street, but was more than willing to bailout Wall Street.

Nothing has been done to stem the mortgage meltdown. August saw more foreclosures than any other month on record.

[ThomWV]

112. I still consider him a 'hero'. It is not Greenwald who has changed its the Party Leadership

They are cowards.

[inna]

195. +1000 and thank you

wtf happened to DU?

[ProSense]

13. Well,

"The left is trying to save you. You may think they have a strange way of showing it? But, without the base, you are nothing."

:rofl:


Yeah, every bit of legislation passed, including Wall Street Reform, which included the consumer bureau, is the result of those who have been trashing them all the way, and continuing to do so.

Elizabeth Warren is now useless as a means of criticism...next!

[babylonsister]

17. No kidding. I'm SO sick of people trying to save me!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

164. Laugh now. There was a time I might have.

I was fairly secure and thought, somehow, I'd get by no matter what. It is amazing the rate at which formerly stable people are being thrown into poverty with slim hope of ever regaining any of what's been lost. Disparaging those on the left who are trying to build a movement to address the problems of real people is siding with those who are benefiting from what is happening to us.

It has occurred to me that at each step of the way over the past 30 years, we have continued to compromise for fewer crumbs thinking 'it's better than nothing,' and thinking as long as we hold on to a few crumbs we can turn it back around. However, the next step has not ever proved to be more crumbs but fewer. Soon, all but the very top 1 or 2 percentiles will be begging for any job, any help at all, and we'll be grateful if we are among those not starving.

I really see no humor in it. And I have no illusions it will change. By the time the pain has reached high enough up the ladder, it's really going to be too late.

[txlibdem]

176. Sage words

"Soon, all but the very top 1 or 2 percentiles will be begging for any job, any help at all, and we'll be grateful if we are among those not starving."

So true. So true. And we will be grateful...

[liberation]

181. People who think things like "world peace" or "social inequality" or "accesible healthcare for all".

... are "laughing" matters are usually bullies. And lo and behold so are those who think the best approach to earn the votes from the left is "STFU and vote for us or else"

Add the perennial cheerleaders to the mix. and it seems some people really never moved past High School when it comes to deal with politics.

Me? Well, I went to college...

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. If they save us anymore, we'll soon be back to Bush v. Gore. That's the other time...

"they saved us", and the only thing I got was two wars, an economy on the brink, and the misfortune of seeing Dick Cheney on my damned teevee. If this is what they mean by "saving us", I don't want to be saved. No Thanks...

[Fumesucker]

30. Yeah, it's all the left's fault that Gore couldn't win his home state..

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Yeah. That's the spirit!

:thumbsup:

















:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

40. Reality bites, don't it.. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. I'll admit it, your reality escapes me.

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

46. The reality where Gore didn't win Tennessee escapes you?

Hmm.. OK, if you say so..

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Maybe it's the "fumes"?

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

54. Those are financial fumes I'm sucking..

Which is why I'm not thrilled with the way things are going right now..

Perhaps if you were entirely dependent on the kindness of family not to be living on the street you'd have a bit more empathy.

But somehow I doubt it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. My empathy extends to anyone down on his/her luck. Even you. (nt)

:hi:

[indepat]

115. Gore's home state is the state that recalled his father from the Senate for the temerity of

having supported civil rights legislation. Al, Jr. couldn't win his home state because the mindset that did his father in was still alive and well. ;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. So how did he get elected to the Senate in the first place?

No, Gore was a lousy campaigner, to have such a close election when running against the dimmest opponent in living memory. A GOOD campaigner would have mopped the floor with Bush and it would have been Johnson/Goldwater all over again.

[QC]

152. And then there's the role of Jeb and Katherine in that whole mess,

one conveniently forgotten/denied by both Republicans and the anti-Left faction here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

154. And even they would have had no chance if Gore had

emphasized how he was DIFFERENT from Bush instead of how he was the same.

(I did at least one facepalm during every debate, when Gore would essentially say "Me too" to everything Bush said.)

[QC]

156. Yes. I remember at first being stunned by what a dipshit Bush was,

and then being doubly stunned by Gore's eagerness to tell everyone how much like Bush he was.

Do you remember how Gore briefly played the populist angle in the last weeks of the campaign, making his poll numbers go up, then ran from it like a scalded dog the moment the Republicans accused him of class warfare?

My heart sank then, because I knew that the man I supported did not have it in him to fight the Republicans.

[indepat]

158. Was living out of my home state when Al was first elected to the Senate, but surely he campaigned

for the Senate more effectively than for the presidency: running for the Senate, he certainly didn't have that LIEberman albatross to overcome. That said, no matter how effectively he might have run in 2000, in no way was Al was going to carry his home state imo: at that juncture, too many good Tennesseans were wholly eaten up with reichous true-believing RW politics, be it the gun-toters, the anti-abortionists, the pure de racists, the religious fundamentalists, et al, aided and abetted by an overwhelming ignorance thrown into the mix as lagniappe. ;)

[laughingliberal]

179. It was a different time. Gore first won his Senate seat in 1984.

He had been in Congress since 1976 and was considered a moderate.

After he became VP, a Democrat was appointed to his seat who chose not to run in 1994 and Gore's seat was won by Fred Thompson (R). It has not been held by a Democrat since. By 2000, TN had moved far to the right of where it was in 1984 when Gore was first elected to the Senate.

I've grown weary of the blame game over Gore's failure to occupy the White House. The smear campaign of the media and the theft orchestrated by Jeb and the corrupt Supreme Court are to blame for the Bush presidency. Gore's campaign was fine. There was relentless smearing, bashing, and lying by the media. Despite this, he won more votes than any presidential candidate to that point in history.

Continuing to disparage Gore or anyone else over the loss (sic) is to continue to let those really responsible off the hook. There's no excuse for it.

[treestar]

199. The left takes credit for Obama's win. why won't they take responsibility

for Gore's and Kerry's losses then?

It's all bullshit.

[Kahuna]

105. +1000

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

166. How in the hell was it the fault of the left that Jeb Bush & a 5 corrupt justices stole an election?

:shrug:

[suzie]

265. Ralph Nader delivered the election to Republicans.

Without Nader, there is no Supreme Court decision.

People who liked to call themselves "Left" bought Nader's constant assertion that Gore = Bush.

[flamingdem]

37. You are the best Pro, thanks!

[girl gone mad]

95. If the leadership had listened to what we tried to tell them..

we would not now be in a more perilous economic position, fighting an upsurge of right-wing populism with no back up plan, having ceded unbelievable amounts of political ground to Republicans.

[Touchdown]

108. That is complete and utter bullshit.

Paranoid fantasies, reinforced by some delusional individuals. Nobody on this site ever took pleasure in criticizing the Admin. It's only you and your friends who think so.

You see phantoms... And you are definitely not alone in that halucination.

[babylonsister]

109. Stick your head in the sand much?

So we're all paranoid. Got it, and thanks for diagnosing us instead of recognizing the real problem. :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9153772#9154553

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9154653

[Touchdown]

111. Yes. You are paranoid.

And your little smiley only masks your deep dispair.

There is no real problem, except for bossy little Democrats that demand everybody else fall in line... like Republicans do. This is a party of cats, whether we have the White House or not, we will never be a top down party. Get over it.

[babylonsister]

113. You're right, I am in deep despair, doctor.

I despair of people like greenwald and hamsher who pick on Dems endlessly with nary a word of criticism for rethugs, who are supposed to be 'the enemy'.

I'm sure you'll have a diagnosis for that, too.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[seaglass]

134. You are a fool if you think Greenwald takes joy in Obama cementing Bush policies

in regards to civil liberties, targeted assassinations, drone attacks, state secrets etc.

Greenwald doesn't CAUSE the rifts - Obama does by his actions.

[chill_wind]

19. It appears that President Obama

has decided his base are the rich elite in Greenwich, Connecticut who inherently know how to enjoy a good $10K dinner plate, while being regaled with good jokes about overly hungry, simple-minded peasants.

[babylonsister]

20. Do tell. Do Dems need to raise $ and who is best at it, besides

all the other duties this guy has? :boring: and :rofl: for the silliness!

[emilyg]

51. I thought it was 30K a plate.

[QC]

53. Yeah. $10k might get you pie and a cup of coffee. n/t

[chill_wind]

64. Well that would explain a lot.

You've got to wonder what he'd be willing to say for $50k a plate?

[dionysus]

66. exactly, because baseless hyperbole like you just espoused is awesome.

[chill_wind]

72. "And gosh, we haven’t yet brought about world peace.."

Yuk yuk. (laughter). Tell me about awesome hyperbole.

[liberation]

182. Hey, he has a Nobel Peace Price... so he can laugh about it.

It is like when only black people can say the n-word, or when only Jewish people can make Jewish jokes... you know, one of those situations.

No hyperbole there, no sireee bob ;-(

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Ditto.

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

29. How do you make a base out of a ball of fire anyway?

[Fumesucker]

31. About the same way you do out of a mound of jello..

[maryf]

189. LOL, really!

:thumbsup:

[dionysus]

67. you make a fire out of tree branches with it.

[HughMoran]

27. Horseshit

The Professional Left is out for itself and could give a crap about Obama or the Democratic Party.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. What was it you were doing to get the vote out for Dems, Hugh?

Still waiting to hear what that is.

[HughMoran]

117. you again?

Your "one note" replies are tiresome :boring:

[Hello_Kitty]

217. I canvassed today. 3 hours.

What did you do?

[quiet.american]

33. The problem is "the left" doesn't know its ass from its elbow.

"The base,"... "the left"... defines itself in such a narrow universe that anyone who does not agree with its exact approach to each and every issue is accused of being "DLC" (out-of-date and lame) or a "corporatist."

I'm waiting for "the left" to grow up. Oftentimes, those who claim the mantle of being "the left" are just as misinformed/underinformed as those on the right that DU used to routinely take aim at, and are also those who rush to come at each and every issue from a destructive, rather than, constructive angle.

Democrats are supposed to be the Party of the Big Tent. But since Obama's inauguration, suddenly, it's the tent of a relentlessly destructive "base" who don't have much else to contribute besides making every lemonade into lemons - and often because there is not even an attempt at critical thinking.

[kentuck]

34. I like your logo.

:-)

[quiet.american]

35. Alrighty - cheers. :) nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Speak to it!

:applause:

[LooseWilly]

56. Could you provide some evidentiary support for the left not knowing its ass from its elbow?

Could you provide the definition of the "universe" inhabited by the Left?, prefereably also with some evidentiary support?

Could you define "grow up"? (I'm curious, does it mean do as you say? — Or, more likely, do as you say and not as you do?) Evidentiary support, once again, would be helpful.

Grown ups know how to provide evidentiary support for their assertions. Right?

Could you also provide three examples of the "relentless destructiveness" of the " 'base' " that you seem to be referring to in a tongue-in-cheek manner? Can you support & define the claim of "destructiveness" in each example?

Please, sir... demonstrate for all of us the "critical thinking" skills that you are claiming that the Left fails to demonstrate.

[quiet.american]

57. All I have to do is refer to your assumption of "sir."

I'm not a "sir."

I'm a "ma'am."

See what I mean?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

124. The other poster mistook your gender, therefore s/he's WRONG!

:crazy:

[walldude]

161. No I don't see... maybe you ought to answer the questions

because your snide remarks are pathetic. So the poster didn't know your gender, that makes him, not know his ass from a hole in the ground? You talk about people needing to grow up... well, your little post and run is sadly systematic of the real problems in this party. Throw out a bunch of lies and hyperbole and then when called on to back it up with facts you make a pathetic attempt to insult the person wanting proof of your claims.

[NorthCarolina]

173. OK, so we'll take that as a "No". eom

[dionysus]

70. "what" are they trying "to" "say"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

151. The DLCers have redefined "far left" to mean anyone who is to the left of Nixon

and as one who has clear memories of the Nixon era (which coincided with my college and grad school years), I am being absolutely serious when I make this assertion.

I think if you listed Reagan's policies for some of the younger DLCers without identifying whose they were, they'd nod and say, "Now THAT's the Democratic Party I support."

[EFerrari]

100. We sure did last Election Day. Maybe you should consider growing up yourself

or at least to the point where basic math is within your grasp.

[Kahuna]

106. It's funny that they can see the extremes on the right but cannot

see their own extremes.

[EFerrari]

207. There's nothing "extreme" about the left in this party.

It's barely left at all. lol

[Kahuna]

231. If that were true, then the majority of Americans would agree with you..

but they don't. The fact that you continually insist that they do is not in evidence as America keeps voting against you. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. :crazy:

[katandmoon]

149. This leftie gets the message and Obama will never get another vote from me.

[treestar]

238. You're so far to one extreme that you're almost out of society

In the sense of participating in politics. Just like anyone so far right they are setting up common law courts.

Maybe go set up a little commune?

[sendero]

251. You are the one..

... lacking in critical thinking but I've learned long ago that stupid people are never intelligent enough to realize they are stupid.

[girl gone mad]

256. We do know when someone is trying to shove large objects up our elbow..

and we won't simply shut up and take it.

That's the real reason the corporatist creative class resents us.

[TygrBright]

41. Mostly from the left. And the right. Oh, yeah, and the center.

But don't feel bad. The right gets bad-mouthed by the left. And the right. And the center, too.

And the center doesn't bad-mouth itself but it really gets piled on by the left and the right.

helpfully,
Bright

[me b zola]

44. K&R

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[NanceGreggs]

58. Perhaps the bad-mouthing of the left ...

... is prompted by those who have self-appointed themselves as the Left - and then go about trashing the opinions of anyone and everyone who don't agree with their every opinion as being "centrists", "moderates", or "New Democrats" - terms meant to be derisive as well as divisive.

Confining the discussion to DUers, if I may, there are too many who have wrapped themselves in the banner of THE Left, who ARE nothing more than whiners and complainers - rendering that particular label as something many here don't want to identify with, and leaving those who truly ARE left in their political leanings to be mis-identified as otherwise because they refuse to contribute to the whining and complaining.

"The Left is trying to save you." Who are "the Left"?

I have been labeled here as a centrist, a moderate, etc. (bad words all, to hear some tell the tale). And yet, despite my being a prolific writer here, no one knows my position on the things I have NOT written about. This holds true for many DUers, who tend to speak out on some subjects, but not others.

Do you know my position on the death penalty? Public schools versus private education? The appropriate place for sex education in school curriculum? Gun control - where, when, how? Electoral reform - what is needed and what isn't to achieve fair elections? Environmental concerns - what is feasibly implemented and what isn't? Where do I stand on DADT/DOMA? How about abortions for teen aged girls - with or without parental consent? The legalization of controlled prescriptions for addicting drugs such as heroin? The reinstitution of the draft? What about the importance, or non-importance of prosecuting the previous administration for war crimes - torture - treason?

I use myself as an example (because I am not in a position to speak for others here). But I think you get my drift - there are too many DUers being labeled as left, right, centrist - whatever - based not on their positions on important topics (many of which are unknown), but based on the opinions of those who have declared themselves as THE LEFT and dismiss anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep (yeah, I said LOCKSTEP) with those who don't swallow THEIR opinions and regurgitate them as accepted doctrine.

I've seen one too many (and haven't we all) DU posts of late about "the base" - everyone claiming to be the be-all and end-all thereof.

In truth, the "base" is a fluid thing - it changes from day to day, from one election cycle to the other. The current "base" of this president/administration is the people who support it NOW, and not yesterday. There are those who supported it six months ago, who no longer do - just as there are those who didn't support it yesterday, but do today. To claim you are "the base" of fans who support a sports team you abandoned years ago in order to root for an opposing team, and root against the team you once supported, means you are no longer part of the base of said team. It's as simple as that.

Criticism of any president, its administration and its policies, is part and parcel of democracy in action. That holds true when it's their guy in office, or one of our own.

But OPs that are consistently posted, day after day, week after week, about how everything said by this president is a "hit" on "the LEFT", how every policy is a nefarious means of undermining Democratic ideals, how every piece of good news about anything is twisted (with extraordinary effort) into being something negative or just-you-wait-and-see, down-the-line disaster - one has to wonder as to the motivation of said posters. And when they identify themselves as THE LEFT - well, it tends to give the alleged "left" a bad name.

I realize that by the lengthiness of this reply, I can be accused (and rightfully so) of having hijacked your thread. That was not my intent - but given the points raised in your OP, it seemed appropriate to speak out in this particular forum, and within the parameters of the discussion you have invited.

I mean no disrespect in doing so - as I have long respected your contribution to this site. But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the LEFT is here to save us - because too many who identify themselves as "the Left" these days have mistakenly (and/or deliberately) used that self-affixed label to advance opinions that have nothing to do with being a "leftist" Democrat - and leaves those who truly are on The Left to wonder at their motivation in doing so, and to question their true agenda.

[G_j]

60. trashing the opinions of anyone and everyone who don't agree with...(them)

and they are just whiners and complainers.

sounds like you are doing the trashing
:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

62. I think it's amusing how we weren't all "whiners and complainers" two years ago..

When we were doing exactly the same thing, criticizing the president.

And yet as soon as the president has a "D" in front of his name a big percentage of us turned into "whiners and complainers".

[Drunken Irishman]

212. You got it.

That's the problem right there, Fumesucker.

You constantly criticized Pres. Bush because every position and every legislative act was in stark contradiction to the Democratic ideals.

That's the difference.

Pres. Bush did nothing to advance any of our ideals. Not once. His ideology went against our ideology. Pres. Obama's ideology.

Now you might not agree with everything Pres. Obama has done or you might believe he hasn't gone far enough - but he has done an infinitely better job than Bush. Unfortunately, most on DU do not focus on those gains.

Every action is met with the typical dismissive attitude by many on the left.

That's the problem. Constant criticism and yet, no support when he actually does something right. The response is the continued whine that he's not doing enough.

Yeah. You criticized Pres. Bush. Good for you. But Bush also did absolutely nothing to help advance the causes you hold true.

Pres. Obama has and yet, to your own admission, all you guys can do is whine and complain.

[SeattleGirl]

65. Then perhaps you have not read some of the threads I have,

and dare I say, that Nance has.

There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of Obama and other elected Democrats. Hell, they aren't perfect, but who among us is?

But there are people on this board who go out of their way to consistently shed a negative light on Obama and other Democrats, and I would question their motives.

[Fumesucker]

74. Here's a post I put up on Jan 21, 2009.. the day after Obama's inauguration..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=280&topic_id=49419

Note that I was feeling very positive about Obama on that day..

Today I suspect that you would put me in the category of those whose motives you would question..

Do you think I was dissembling back then when I made that post? Or could it be that I'm genuinely disappointed and feeling sold out?

I read a great many threads here on DU and other places as well, I think that those who try to silence or belittle any criticism of Obama and the Democrats in general are among the most divisive posters here.

[NanceGreggs]

73. When one's only motivation ...

... in posting here is to trash those who don't agree with them and, in declaring themselves as "THE true left, the TRUE progressives", to dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with them as being less valid Democrats, they leave themselves open to "trashing".

And those who post their whining complaints on other publicly-accessible websites should recognize that whining and complaining IS what it is - and is easily recognizable by anyone who cares to venture therein.

Acting the part of the aggrieved misunderstood is easily dismissed by a quick Google search - just sayin' is all.

[Fumesucker]

76. I don't even understand my own motivations all the time..

How is it that you can so easily divine the motivations of others?

[NanceGreggs]

80. I don't pretend to divine them ...

... but I cannot help but question them.

When someone goes so far as to say that the fact that Obama wears sandals while on vacation "sends a wrong signal", I can't help but question their motivation in saying so.

Perhaps the fact that certain people post nothing but negative OPs about this Administration is merely coincidence - ya know, you search the internetz and the only thing you find is negative RW shit - and you feel an obligation to post it on a Democratic website. I'm sure it happens all the time.

And far be it from me to question the "Obama's sandals sending the wrong message" comments - which were apparently posted by those who are devoted to getting the important news out to all and sundry.

Hey, they just report - you decide.

[Fumesucker]

81. Well, you used the phrase..

"When one's only motivation" so it seems that you do claim to understand their motivations..

As long as Obama was wearing dark dress socks with the sandals I don't see how that could be sending the wrong message, that's a very whitebread thing to do.

[NanceGreggs]

84. When one only posts ...

... negative "news" day in and day out, without exception, I think one's motivations become abundantly clear.

[Fumesucker]

86. Eh, I don't bother searching to see what others might be doing.

I take each post as it comes, half the time I don't even pay any attention to the name on the post I'm replying to.

Life is too short to get all caught up in such foolishness.

Not to mention that we don't know the personal circumstances of everyone who posts, I know quite a few of us here on DU are in truly dire straits and that can and often does have a profound effect on one's outlook.

Edited for phrasing.

[G_j]

87. you still seem to be referring to specific individuals

:shrug:

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[G_j]

77. well then you must be talking about specific people

not the actual dyed in the wool left as a group (as the OP was)

[NanceGreggs]

82. And who are ...

... the dyed-in-the-wool left? Those who act/opine/vote as leftists - or those who affix The LEFT label to themselves, and appoint themselves as the final arbiters of who belongs where on their self-designed Excel spreadsheet?

[G_j]

85. I'll just refer you to the OP

in that the basic foundation of principles remains the same.
Better to build a house on rock than sand.

[cliffordu]

257. Great images....and absolutely correct.

[liberation]

183. No kidding...

... and there I was thinking that runaway projection was only a affliction of the die hard GOP supporters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. But then away when your main electoral value proposition is "vote for us or else..." well, they have to take some creative detours in order to reach the top of their beloved Mount Sensible.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. In true Nance style. This should have it's own thread.

:applause: :applause::applause:

[dionysus]

71. great post nance!

:patriot:

[kentuck]

75. I do apologize to anyone that took the post so personal...

..as to pretend there is no such thing as the "base" of the Party. It is not an illusion. It is real. People have marched and fought and died for the principles within the Democratic Party. I can assure you those principles are not on Wall Street or the wealthy echelons of power.

The impetus for the post was to generate just such a discussion. It is my opinion that we have a duty to speak up when we feel we are going in the wrong direction or even if we are going too slow in the right direction. That is called free speech and that is one of the cornerstones in which we all believe, I do not doubt.

You may think the base is fluid like supporting a sports team. I disagree. The base of the Democratic Party has set principles, as in concrete, that we believe in today and tomorrow.

You say, "Criticism of any president, its administration and its policies, is part and parcel of democracy in action." We agree on that. But if the condition exists tomorrow or next week, should we stop the criticism? Don't be too critical. They may think you are one of them.

Personally speaking, I don't give a rat's ass what people call me. So long as I am able to speak, I will continue to praise the Democratic Party when I think it is right and I will criticize it when I think it is wrong. For example, I am not going to stop criticizing Tim Geithner so long as he in the role he is in. Because I do not think he is good for our Party or our country.

Not only do I respect your great input to this forum, but I appreciate and respect even those that disagree with me. We are all Democrats. But as for those that self-appoint themselves as part of the left, they have as much right to speak up as those that self-appoint themselves to speak out against them. It's a two-sided coin.

I will bid all a good night. And how about a little less criticism of the left and let's try not to have such thin-skins. Politics ain't beanbags.

[NanceGreggs]

89. I, too, don't give a rat's ass ...

... what people call me. And neither do a lot of people who post here.

But when a group of posters declare themselves as THE LEFT, dismiss all non-regurgitators of their personal doctrine as the non-LEFT or anti-LEFT, and then play the victim - "Oh, I'm on the Left and, as such, everyone is against me" - you've got to expect that people who are fed-up with such nonsense are going to speak up.

"But as for those that self-appoint themselves as part of the left, they have as much right to speak up as those that self-appoint themselves to speak out against them. It's a two-sided coin."

Not quite. Those who self-appoint themselves as being representative of - and therefore allowed to speak on behalf of - a particular group have no such rights. "Self-appointed" spokespeople have no credibility - if they did, they would not be "self-appointed", but widely accepted as those speaking on behalf of a group.

As a black-haired woman, I would not be accepted as a spokesperson for blond males, regardless of how many times I proclaimed myself as such.

So it goes for self-appointed leftists - who don't represent the views of leftists any more than I, my all-important, proclaimed from the rooftops, self-appointment notwithstanding, represent the views of blond males.

[EFerrari]

99. Self appointed leftists? What, now we're supposed to wait for the nod?

I cannot believe the authoritarianism around here any more. It's simply unreal and slightly ridiculous.

[NanceGreggs]

102. Haven't you heard?

The self-appointed are among us. By their decree we are leftists, moderates, centrists - or not Democrats at all.

[EFerrari]

104. Is this like some low rent replay of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

lol

[TK421]

145. .......

[QC]

150. It's a nice change from the bad community theatre productions

of Lord of the Flies that we've been doing every day these past few years.

[LostinVA]

121. +1

[Kahuna]

234. There is a "base." But the base isn't a monolith. And you don't get

to speak for all of us.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

118. A-fricken-men Nance!

:yourock: :applause:

[Cha]

137. Good point.. people like me are the base..

the ones who have constructive criticism and don't have to use disingenous bullshite to show how much hate they can spew on the internet("rooting for the other team"). The professional leftists have themselves quite the booming industry feeding the Obama Derangement Syndrome.

"In truth, the "base" is a fluid thing - it changes from day to day, from one election cycle to the other. The current "base" of this president/administration is the people who support it NOW, and not yesterday. There are those who supported it six months ago, who no longer do - just as there are those who didn't support it yesterday, but do today. To claim you are "the base" of fans who support a sports team you abandoned years ago in order to root for an opposing team, and root against the team you once supported, means you are no longer part of the base of said team. It's as simple as that."Nance~

[Big Bill Jefferson]

141. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the left and liberalism

First of all it's obvious you aren't able to discern what a leftist is if you conjoin that with being a democrat. The democrats are not now nor have they ever been leftists. They are the liberal wing of the big business party and leftists vehemently oppose big business whereas democrats give either open or tacit support to the status quo.

It is also true that "liberals" and "leftists" may find themselves allied on many issues or tactics and may well need each other under those circumstances.

Finally, it is true that "liberal" or "leftist" may refer to "political labels", applied by "the right", by others, or even by oneself, and have no particular relevance to the actual issues which divide "liberals" and "leftists".

Nonetheless... historically, liberals and leftists are not only not different points in a common spectrum but, in the end, are implacable enemies. And the issue is precisely joined on the issue of class, as has been mentioned before in this forum but now seems to have disappeared from the general lexicon.

If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.

In contrast, "Liberals" explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable.

Maybe the bottom line is whether or not we all seek the same depth of changes in our society. There is no doubt that whether under the control of Democrats or the Republicans, the number one beneficiary of political decisions, be they foreign policy or domestic, will be large industries/the extremely wealthy - that is, the general protection of the status quo, and the continuation of a capital-before-people mentality, the right of the US to impose its will on sovereign nations for the benefit of its corporations.

[TBF]

167. Depth and class -

I agree with your observations. The left (meaning socialists/communists) was pretty well destroyed in the 50's in this country of ours (by democrats no less). Discussing what to do about capitalism has much more meaning to me than whether we like the little blue target logo released this week by the DNC - we are on different levels completely.

[Autumn]

178. Now that is one hell of a post.

Welcome to DU.:toast: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: More please.

[maryf]

193. Thank you!!!

your cogency and clarity is refreshing...I'm keeping the definitions to use! Welcome to DU!

[WillyT]

196. Wow !!! - Welcome To DU, Big Bill Jefferson !!!

:wow: Great Post !!! :wow:

:bounce::toast::bounce:

Glad ta have ya aboard!

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

270. I was not speaking to ...

... who is a "leftist" or "liberal" in broad terms.

I confined my comments to those who self-identify themselves as "leftists" here on DU - and the fact that simply declaring one's self as something does not (a) make you such, and/or (b) does not make you an arbiter of who is where on the political spectrum, and/or (c) does not confer the status of "official spokesperson" for an entire group.

Welcome to the DU discussion - but please remember that some discussions here are confined to what is being opined upon on this discussion board, and may or may not have any relevance beyond this forum.

[Bobbie Jo]

142. Excellent post, Nance!

:applause:

[maryf]

190. Where do you stand regarding the class structure...

of have and have nots? Of people going without survival needs and the government not helping, or worse, exacerbating the situations, such as in the case of public housing being perpetually razed without being replaced? or the number of people who have no health care and the fact that the private insurance companies are raising rates as we speak without regulation (on edit see link below)?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9156638

[rhett o rick]

210. Who is the left and on what issues do you disagree them?

I dont know who the mysterious left is but I am sick of the continued attacks. I have asked every single poster that I can that trashes the left to tell me "On what issues do you disagree with whom ever the left is". I have never gotten a response. Why the attacks on the left?

You say that some proclaim themselves to be the left and trash the president. I am aware there are such people. That is no excuse to wage war.

At a time when we need to pull together, you continue to sow dissent.

And I ask you, who i assume arent on the "left", on what issues do you disagree with who ever you thinks is the left?

Medicare for all?
Single payer health insurance?
The Bush Wars?
Patriot Act?
DADT?
Military Commissions Act?
Domestic spying?
Prosecuting the Bush war criminals?
More jobs?
Corporate bailouts?

On which of these issues to you disagree with the stand of the left?????

[NanceGreggs]

224. I don't attack the left ...

... because I'm on the left. Politically, I am probably as far left as one can be.

That is exactly why I am sick of certain people here proclaiming themselves to be the spokespeople of the left, and setting the criteria for what they think a "true leftist" or a "true progressive" is.

You've seen the posts as well as I: We on the left are being mocked by this president. We on the left think Obama is a corportatist sell-out. We on the left are being ignored by this Administration.

Well, guess what? Not all of us on the left feel that way. But should we dare to express the fact that we are not in total agreement with every opinion being espoused by the self-appointed leftists, we are told that we are not "really" on the left.

These self-labeled lefties post articles from sources we all once laughed at here; they quote people we all once collectively abhorred; they repeat RW spin as though it were gospel - if and when any of the aforementioned supports their contentions that this Administration is doing everything in its power to betray traditional Democratic ideals.

Of late, I have seen people here literally twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain how any positive news emanating from the WH is actually a bad thing - you just have to suspend all logic and common sense, and you can see it as plain as day, people!!!!

I have also seen Democrats who used to be idolized here dismissed as unprincipled sell-outs the minute they say anything supportive of Obama and/or his policies. There are so many people being "thrown under the bus" on a daily basis, it's hard to keep up without a scorecard.

I find it ironic that you accuse me of "continuing to sow dissent at a time when we need to pull together". I posted an OP the other night (my first in four months) about the need for all Democrats to stand together in November, and ensure that Dem candidates win and GOPers lose. I, predictably, had my head handed to me - how dare I tell people what to do? How dare I suggest that people who are fed up with the party are obligated to support its candidates?

How dare I, indeed. Imagine the nerve of urging support for Democrats on what purports to be a Democratic website. Shocking.

As for "waging war", I can't disagree that DU has become a war zone. The rhetoric has been ratcheted up to new heights (or should I say new lows), and the incivility of some posters towards others is becoming the stuff of legend.

However, since I have hardly been here for the past four months, and have rarely even posted a reply on a thread, I feel safe in saying that I have not been the problem here.

I am pro-choice, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-GLBT rights, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-union, pro-single-payer, and vehemently anti-war.

I don't agree with every decision this president has made - and never expected to. I accepted the fact going in that the only person who will ever agree with me one hundred percent is myself.

But because I don't feel snubbed, ignored, targeted, and thrown under that proverbial bus every time the WH makes a move, because I don't parse every word Obama says and look for something to be potentially offended by, because I don't throw a hissy-fit over alleged quotes from Administration spokespeople when the only "reliable source" of same is some RW hack with an agenda, I am deemed by the self-appointed arbiters of those who are true liberal/progressives as persona non grata.

As I say, I rarely come here anymore. There are too many deliberately divisive disruptors here who stir the pot of discontent at every opportunity - and many of them have an agenda that has nothing to do with being left, being moderate, being centrist, or even being a Democrat.

[Hekate]

228. I stand with Nance

:yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause:



:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[RoyGBiv]

230. Brilliant post ...

... as usual.

:yourock:

[Spazito]

240. Excellent, excellent post!

Well said!

[Tarheel_Dem]

242. +1,000,000

:applause:

[maryf]

246. Where do you stand on class divide? on poverty? on the needs of the people

not being met? Sincere question.

[NanceGreggs]

247. I have never seen any reason why ...

... in a country with the resources (financial and intellectual) of the US, anyone should be going hungry or homeless. There are solutions to address these things - but corporate greed and wasteful gov't spending (specifically military/defence expenditures), and those who profit by them, consistently thwart any ideas that could conceivably move things forward in this regard.

I enjoy the benefits of universal healthcare here in Canada - and my taxes seem to be lower than my counterparts in the States pay. The financial industry here is highly regulated - and yet bankers see substantial returns on their investments, and doctors make more-than-satisfactory incomes. The educational system is a good one, and teachers also earn good salaries.

The social safety nets here are not flawless, but they do work exceptionally well. And, as I've said, no one is being taxed to support such things to the point of bitter complaint.

In short, I've seen how things can work, in a place where people recognize that the best investment you can make in your nation's future is an investment in its people - their health, affordable housing, job training programs, etc., coupled with regulations that don't quash profit-making, but don't allow for usury or unfair advantage in the bargain.

I realize that the States and Canada are very different countries, with a very different population base and so on. And what works here cannot necessarily be applied in the US holus-bolus due those differences. But I think the US could learn a hell of a lot by looking at what works here, and why.

I hope I've answered your question.

[maryf]

250. Thank you. Maybe?

I'm not sure I understand your continual support of those who buck so much of what you espouse?

[NanceGreggs]

255. Because I don't see them "bucking it" ...

... in the way that some others apparently do.

I think if there's anything we can agree on here, it's that there is a lot wrong with our nation - the corporate greed is out of control; financial institutions are running rampant over people's rights to fair and honest banking/credit card systems, etc.

We didn't get here overnight. It's been incremental, like a creeping vine that spreads so slowly, we sometimes fail to see just how deliberate its path has been until we find ourselves ensnared in its tendrils.

And it won't be changed overnight either.

Given the state of things when this Administration took office, I think they've begun the onerous task of hacking away at that vine. But it's going to take more than one president and one Administration to clear the garden.

I think that as a nation, America needs an attitude adjustment - and I don't say that with snark, but with sincerity. And I think a lot of our fellow citizens would agree with that assessment.

It starts with ourselves, as individuals. It is a matter of how we treat each other, what values we instill in our children, how we interact with our neighbours - and holding our humanity to be more important than owning the latest gadget, or living at the "right" address.

Perhaps it is my years - I am 61, and I've seen a few Administrations come and go. I accept that things move slower than we'd like. But as long as they are moving in the right direction, I am encouraged.

I have learned the art of patience, and the lesson of focusing on what I can do, rather than gnashing my teeth over what I cannot achieve.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here these days, I voted for a president, not a messiah. As a messiah, he falls short - as a president, I think he's doing a more than satisfactory job.

[maryf]

267. I'm 54 and becoming rapidly more impatient...

the poor are getting poorer and far more numerous, the eternal wars are just that (though truly masquerades for occupations) and are destroying civilizations and creating "terrorists", the rape of the planet of all its resources by any means necessary for profit (creating other new "peaks" to be concerned about, like food and water), the continuing loss of any valid education for the masses, the 50,000 a year dying as they have no health care, which with the new plan will likely increase as the rates are going sky high... WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BE PATIENT!!! People are dying...

If I were a Canadian, I'd be very nervous...mighty tasty resources up there...

[treestar]

248. +1000

Amazing to me: they don't want to march in lockstep, but if we aren't in lockstep with them, we're not liberals or progressives - interesting hypocrisy reminiscent of right wingers.

[suzie]

264. Yes!

[NanceGreggs]

268. I have to say I am a bit surprised ...

... that the person who said, "I have asked every single poster that I can that trashes the left to tell me 'On what issues do you disagree with whom ever the left is'. I have never gotten a response," has now been given a response - and has failed to acknowledge it, nor reply to it.

Perhaps there have been replies to that question all along - and the interlocutor has simply chosen not to see them.

[elana i am]

59. i think there's a lack of reason and common sense around here.

i didn't say pragmatism yet. that's a whole other thing. i said reason and common sense. there's also way too much arrogance and myopia. first off, assuming that we here at DU constitute anything like the "base" is highly presumptuous. we're progressives. there's a whole huge swath of liberals, moderates and centerists that are far more numerous and far more complimentary to each other in their political views than us progressives out here on the left.

the first thing needed is acceptance of reality, i.e. obama and co. are NOT liberal, they're centerists, because the repugs are the party of no, obama has to eek out every single vote from the dems he can, and the dem congress is also far from liberal. blue dogs abound. things that we progressives want are NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. not now, not likely in the next decade. we're looking at least that long before the possibility of yanking the middle back left and getting back on an even keel, and that can only happen if dems stay in control while blue dogs get weeded out.

second, we progressives need to tread carefully and avoid any comparison to the teabaggers. there's way too much conspiracy mumbo jumbo up in here. this is where pragmatism comes in. politiking requires give and take. making deals is how it's done. you know how often i read about obama giving away the public option in some backroom deal with corps, as if he committed some kind of unpardonable sin? um...no. even in my leftist little world i don't see this as some kind of conspiracy or betrayal. seriously, you had to be deluding yourself or not fucking paying attention to think that he would be able to get a public option past the blue dogs to a vote, nevermind the repugs. just because obama got elected doesn't mean the politiking can magically end or that progressive policies suddenly have a way in. that won't happen while there are right-wing extremists and blue dogs getting elected. i'd give that another 20 years of attrition. each generation of voters gets more and more progressive. we're just not there yet. until we are, our only recourse is to keep dems in the majority, and yes that means even the centerists and blue dogs.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. Watch out there, you're using logic, and that doesn't go over well here.

Pouting, Shouting, Screaming, and Perpetual Victimhood seem to be the new way. Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

78. What did you call the very same behavior when Bush was president?

Somehow I doubt you were characterizing those who didn't like Dubya as "pouting, shouting, screaming, perpetual victims".

[G_j]

79. ahem...

oh, never mind...

[JVS]

83. I'm guessing "useful"

[Tarheel_Dem]

96. My mistake. I really didn't know who I was commiserating with. But

thanks to the election of Prez Obama, I now know. And I have you to thank for that. Not sure what I would have done without your exacting insight to lead me to that light. You are that beacon on a hill. Thank You Again. I bow to your keen intellect, and political acumen. Don't ever change. Stay right by my side, and together we'll slay that corporafascist dragon in the White House.
Down with Obama! Kucinich in '12, and maybe this time we can get more than 1% of the primary vote. On to victory!


Together forever & With undying gratitude,

Tarheel Dem.

XOXOXOXOXO:hi:

[Fumesucker]

119. You didn't answer the question..

The question being, what did you call the behavior of those on DU when they were less than totally thrilled with the Dubya administration?

[liberation]

187. Pragmatism implies a lack of ideology, and ideology is a defining characteristic of Politics.

So once again: How exactly is "pragmatism" supposed to be a "good" thing when it comes to politics?

Would you consider "agnosticism" to be a great quality for the Pope?


I agree with your first paragraph, but I strongly disagree with your closing one. "Politicking" for the sake of it, without doing so in order to further or support your beliefs/ideology/positions is. not. a. good. thing. The fact that we see so many in-fighting in this site, should not be that surprising IMHO, because at the end of the day we really don't know what the Dem leadership, and in this case the Obama Administration, really stand for. They want to be everything for everybody so they get our unanimous support without really having to stand for anybody or anything in particular. Sorry if they don't want to put their skin into the fight, they should not feel entitled to our unconditional support. And I don't consider "getting elected" to be the only part of their expectations/responsibilities much less the actual "fight."

[Kahuna]

235. I hope you have a flame retardant suit handy. "Pragmatism" is a

naughty word here on DU these days. :scared:

[VMI Dem]

63. Corn.

[JVS]

68. The right.

It's always from the right.

[grantcart]

90. the self absorption of the self appointed 'saviors' reaches the heights

of the religious right.

If you have such salvific powers then run for office.

You clearly don't support the President and take every opportunity to pick him apart possible frequently on the thinnest terms with faulty logic narrow world view and continue to quote the same tired FDL circle of self appointed 'Bishops' of the left who see every public policy initiative would be easily passed if we simply got more angry and used more strident terms of engagement. Well its not working too well for the self appointed saviors on the right either. To actually get power and to actually get policy passed you have to engage people who don't share our party affiliation or ideology, you have to make sense to people in the middle and not simply stamp your feet louder.

Your patronizing "the President has done some good things" comes from a source of self appointed authority that is without substance or relevency.

You are not the base of the Democratic Party. The base of the Party has been and remains firmly behind the President.

[RandomThoughts]

91. You make a mistake in your post. There is a contradiction

Your patronizing "the President has done some good things" comes from a source of self appointed authority that is without substance or relevancy.

I have said that same thing, yet I don't claim any self appointed authority, nor do I patronize.

Although I find your post interesting.


And I am curious...

What authority do you claim to have, to appoint who is the base of the party? And how do you define what the party is?

[grantcart]

93. "My" authority is Gallup which has shown that the President's support

among the traditional base of the party remains very strong, as it has since he took office:


Obama does significantly better among those who identify as Democrats, liberals, and moderates, among blacks and Hispanics, the young, the unmarried, and those who don't attend church regularly, and those in the East.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142991/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Average-Improves.aspx


Latest numbers

Black 91
Liberal Democrat 85
Democrat 79
Moderate Democrat 76
Liberal 74
Non White 67

[RandomThoughts]

94. Who appointed Gallup as your authority?

[grantcart]

136. Exactly the same kind of dissonance that the religious right would come up with

as I said above a chilling mirror image of the true believers of the Tea Party that refuse to accept scientific objective facts.


The Democratic base is solidly behind the President.


DU is not the Democratic base.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

226. Who are these "scientists" to tell me the world isn't 6000 years old!

I'm entitled to my opinions!!!!!

[suzie]

263. I was thinking that perhaps we were going to rely on the revelations of a Mayan codex

rather than Gallup.

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Thank You! I have a feeling the "self appointed Bishops" will soon be

exposed for exactly what they are. B-A-N-K on it! :thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

98. Omg. Someone else had an opinion. How did *that* happen.

LOL

[DCBob]

101. +1

well said.

[JTFrog]

114. Indeed.

[L0oniX]

140. I officially appoint myself chief of my opinions.

[treestar]

201. Hear, hear

Just getting angrier and using more strident terms is not going to do it.

[inna]

204. what a disgusting, malicious, slandering post.

:puke:

(i almost threw up literally, actually. fucking disgusting.)

[DCBob]

97. Its hard not to feel negative things about those who constantly kick you in the teeth...

and yet claim to be on your side.

[girl gone mad]

202. Precisely!

As long as we have Rahm, Gibbs, a coterie of catapulters, and now the President trashing progressives loudly and often, the negativity will continue.

[madokie]

103. Its nothing more than they're trying to throttle us on the internet

We know what is going on, we know who is doing what, we know and that is why they are coming after us.

[Kahuna]

107. Please don't save us, bro. Every time you try to "save" us it ends

up in disaster and sets us back even further. For evey step we take forwards, we end up taking five steps back, thanks to the "left" trying to "save" us.

[girl gone mad]

203. Can you provide some examples?

[Kahuna]

232. I'll give you "the" example. George Bush because the "left" supported nader.

:eyes:

[inna]

209. wtf are you even babbling about. provide examples or retract this inflammatory bs.

[Kahuna]

233. As Steve Martin would say, excuuuuse me. Does nader ring a bell to you?

That was the last time you tried to "help" us. I'm really amused that you had to ask. :rofl:

[nashville_brook]

116. excellent post, kentuck.

k and r.

[KittyWampus]

122. you confuse a bunch of reactionary screamers on the internet with "The Left". Stupid mistake.

[Better Believe It]

132. You mean like Bob Herbert, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Michael Moore? Thanks for the info.

I didn't know they were right-wingers until I read your post.

Thanks.

[Cha]

135. And, of course, he professional left..

who get no money by constructive criticism..so they whip up disingenous bullshit to throw to perpetually disgruntled.

[Yuugal]

123. K&R

[PBS Poll-435]

125. It's not the Left being criticized, it is the "Left"

Big difference.

[Big Bill Jefferson]

126. Modern liberalism and the assault against the left

There are a number of implied assumptions behind this "not perfect enough for you" line of assault - and make no mistake, it is an assault, designed to silence people and terminate consideration and discussion. "Are you happy NOW??? Will you stop bothering us with your gloom and doom NOW???? Can we stop listening to you NOW????"

To say that the “latest-greatest” Obama (for example) is being rejected because he is not quite perfect is to imply that he is kinda sorta there, or “in the right direction” or presumed to be an ally. What is being pointed out here is not that Obama and the DLC fail some perfection test – an imaginary test that suggests that he/they are mostly OK but has a few flaws that only perfectionists would notice, and a test that the people being accused of using it are not using - but rather that these people are not at all, in any way, remotely, or vaguely aligned any of the working people and that the notion that they are aligned with us is all a carefully created and totally false illusion. What are presumed to be "flaws" – which a few of us are supposedly unwilling to overlook in our stubbornness and obtuseness – are actually accurate glimpses through the camouflage at the whole picture, not minor peripheral and insignificant flaws.

They aren't minor flaws in an otherwise perfect gem – they are indicators as to the true nature of this political system which is painted up to look like a gem so as to fool people. Looking through the holes in the fancy paint job at the interior of the object, and saying it is not a flawed diamond, it is a chunk of coal with a coat of paint hastily slopped on to make it look like a diamond is merely pointing out the hypocrisy and unreality of the liberal fetish.

On another level this assault is wrong-headed and destructive, and that is in the implied assumption that politics is a matter of personal taste - “well that is what YOU want but not very many people agree with you.” Politics is about the greatest good for the greatest number, not about “what I want.” The narcissistic belly button lint gazing is completely antithetical to working class solidarity, and is nothing more than an amusing little hobby for the pampered and spoiled and selfish latte' liberal.

Beyond the question of whether or not this particular person is perfect, I also reject the assumption that we are all looking for a person to begin with, and that looking for a person is the essence of politics.

Modern liberalism is occupying the space where the Left should be, confusing and misleading people, steering people away from accurate perceptions and clouding their minds, preventing them from asking the right questions because they think they already have the answers. That is dead wood that needs clearing. If we are willing to kick over the beehive of modern liberalism you will see the true face and the true nature of the ruling class war against the people with crystal clarity. As it is, we can't even see the enemy now. We are looking out the tent flap watching for the approach of those dreaded right wingers, and the enemy is behind us right in our own tent.

[Mimosa]

221. ^ Eloquent and unassailably true. ^

You described how I'm thinking, Bill. But I can't write as well. A warm welcome to Democratic Underground.

Back in the 1990s and through 2004 or so I might have been described as a moderate Democrat. The party has shifted to the right on many issues. I believe this is because the Republican Party has moved so far right that the Republican party as a whole is not uncomfortable with fascism and racism. Some people who are uncomfortable with the far right have come into the Democratic Party and are dragging the Democratic Party into Republican Party 'Lite'.

[chill_wind]

236. Wow. Excellent comments.

Thank you!

[Stinky The Clown]

127. The Rule Of Unintended Comedy (TROUC)

When a serious statement is met with derision intended to be clever but manifested as hilarious rantings.

[EFerrari]

155. LOL.

:)

[Arkana]

128. Who are you, Ysanne Isard?

"Without me you are nothing! NOTHING! You are NOTHING unless I SAY you are SOMETHING!"

[walldude]

162. Really? Isard? Could you come up with a more

obtuse reference? A Star Wars expanded Universe reference? :rofl:

[Arkana]

165. I think it applies particularly well.

[walldude]

194. Well it might but there are probably 3 or 4 people on all of DU

who would get it...

[Arkana]

200. True, but I just finished reading an Expanded Universe book

and Isard was the first thing I thought of when I saw that "YOU ARE NOTHING" quote.

[nemo137]

229. Antilles/Celchu 2012!

Oh, man. I love DU.

[Autumn]

130. Very good post. K/R n/t

[spanone]

131. the media takes ANYTHING negative from the left and expounds on it

they whitewash the right....

[Imagevision]

133. Yeah! I can't wait to get back to the Bush policies, how about you???

[frylock]

225. get back?

[NJmaverick]

138. The "Left" isn't being bad mouthed. Rather there are attempts

to reign in the damage caused by Quixote liberals whose tilting at windmills and righting of imaginary wrongs has prove quite destructive.

[TBF]

168. Define "damage" as it relates to what you are desiring to control -

I'm very curious as to what it is you think you're saving.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

139. Smug people think they know best, by definition

There is no reasoning with the "personal loyalty above reason" crowd, so why beat your head against the wall. You might as well be bemoaning whether some creationist blames Katrina on gay people.

The new-fangled anti-left is just like the pro-Iraq War gaggle... make amazing and obvious mistakes then try to figure a way to blame them on whoever you consider your enemies.

Just a bunch of arrogant know-nothings lecturing from a position of profound ignorance of both politics and policy.

Meh. Life is too short to hassle with such people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

143. The administration has to have someone to blame for it's sell-outs and failures.

The "left" is a convenient scapegoat for the party purists who defend the "compromises" and pandering to the right.

They will, of course, blame the "left" for the low turnout in the upcoming elections, rather than the party bosses who give the voters little reason to turn out.

[katandmoon]

153. Yup. And they say us lefties are self-defeating?

[TBF]

171. +1 nt

[walldude]

186. I can't figure out why they keep taking pot shots...

It's not like they don't realize that they are alienating people with these statements, so why make them? Obama supporters can't seem to figure out why people get insulted about these "comments". Well the reason I get insulted is... I can't come up with a legitimate reason for them to keep making these statements. There is nothing to gain, there is much to lose and there really is no need to be vocal about their disappointment that we are not all sheep like the damn republicans. So why do it? The only reason I can find is arrogance. They enjoy it, their fervent supporters enjoy it, and the press enjoys it. Gee I can't imagine why I would be insulted.

[Individualist]

144. It's coming from DLC.

They detest anyone who opposes their neocon pals.

[TBF]

160. Excellent post -

The Obama presidency attracted many youth to the campaign and I wonder if that is where the disconnect is. I'm in my mid-40s and can vaguely remember Carter. Those under 40 are recalling Reagan, Bush, Clinton (also quite conservative but at least fiscally responsible), and Bush II. 30 years of mostly conservative hell, punctuated by the last presidency featuring a moron who could barely walk and talk at the same time. Of course an articulate and attractive younger man with an ounce of intelligence appealed to them. But they have grown up under very conservative rule, and people like JFK and RFK are dim memories (I only know the stories because my mom was there in the 60s), never mind Malcolm, the Panthers, Dr. King - all ancient history to the current 20-somethings.

I think many are sincere, and honestly have no idea what "left" even means. They didn't paint strike signs with their dads (as I did) - rather they watched Reagan break the air traffic controllers union. We have an uphill battle just describing what "left" means to many at this stage.

[Touchdown]

163. FWIW Your post was thoughtful Kentuck!

It was worth reading. Sorry the thread got ruined by the toxic sludge. all good points must be destroyed on DU these days. I did K&R!

[Orsino]

169. The Left's various ideologies mean...

...that these people aren't necessarily great at shutting up and going along with a party's platform. What could be a great strength otherwise is rendered weakness in the modern era of corporatized politics.

And their reminders that elections ought to be about helping fellow Americans, of course, get labeled as "whining."

[placton]

172. where is the criticism coming from?

nationally: the White House and the many many many OTHER Dinos, who reside elsewhere

on the net: a few misguided ones and many paid ones

in real life: GOOPers only, as the vast majority of Americans support about all the positions taken by we on the left

[democrank]

175. The issues. That`s what I care about.

And I can tell you one thing....if President Obama continues a Bush policy or continues with a Bush nominee, I won`t be waving pom poms around and making excuses as to why it`s now a terrific idea. You either stand for something or you don`t.

[Panaconda]

185. Big problem here is that

some might like to feel "underground" from the comfort of this ever rightward-drifting centrism that calls itself "left." Doesn't change the fact that in terms of actual policy positions proposed and carried out it is centrism.

Now you tell me where the center is in a right-wing political system.

[Kltpzyxm]

188. Exactly

The wealthy are 1% of this country.

Why fight for them versus 99% of the country?

Misplaced priorities will kill this administration, not the left.

[ProSense]

197. Well, there is only one thing left to do:

Take a look at what the President said, and then take a look at spin.

Think about it, and then do whatever the hell you want to do between now and election day.

It's fairly certain that the President is not going to view the words coming out of his mouth related to his accomplishments and his critics as an insult because someone decided to spin them as such. Don't think it's spin? Doesn't much matter (see the Gibbs' hoopla).

It's also very clear that the some people are going to continue to claim that the President hates liberals.

Anyone who doesn't like the President and believes he is not liberal enough and is after liberals is never going to be convinced that he's a progressive liberal lover.

Now, do whatever you feel like doing because the positions aren't going to change.

Support Democrats and vote Democratic in the 2010 election if you're so inclined.

Beyond the 2010 election, you can continue to support Democrats and the President, including his re-election or you can join with Greenwald and FDL to find and support your choice of a progressive candidate to run for President in 2012.

That is the reality and those are the choices. It's all up to you, and you have the ability, the freedom, the right to do whatever you want to do, regardless of what you think of the President and his choice of words.

I and the vast majority of the Democratic Party (and I say that with the utmost confidence) are sticking with Democrats and one of the most progressive and accomplished Presidents ever: President Obama.

[metapunditedgy]

215. Why won't the positions change? They changed in January, 2009, didn't they?

Maybe they'll change again.

[treestar]

198. The not left

The doers. The criticizing left are just criticizers on the sidelines. Much easier than actually trying to accomplish something.

[EFerrari]

208. Lmao. Without the Democractic wing of this party, you'd have to change the slogan

to "we're not twins". Can you name a single successful structure or institution of this party that was set up by centrists? Where is their Media Matters? Their MoveOn? Their successful talk radio? Their Color of Change? Where were all those "doers" when Bush was in office? Voting with him.

The whole point of politicians calling themselves centrists is to show how little they will disturb anything.


The doers. That's funny.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

227. I would love for you to tell African Americans (an undisputed cornerstone of the base and 91% of

which support Obama) that they aren't REAL Democrats but are actually DLC or Republicans.

I would really love to see that patronizing lecture.

[EFerrari]

243. Why on Earth would I do such a thing?

I'm sorry -- I've missed the connection altogether. African Americans have been keystone participants in the development of all our liberal infrastructure that has nothing to do with centrism or the DLC -- like all the entities I named in my post with the possible exception of MoveOn which was mostly white and suburban. But there are plenty of others with a higher level of involvement by people of color, like Color of Change.

:wtf:

[suzie]

266. So would I.

[treestar]

237. When did they vote with Bush?

If they did it right after 911, that's understandable. come on, right after 911? In the years following that, even? Yet they did not all vote with bush.

I'm talking about now. The perfectionist bashers who find one little tiny corner of a tiny issue and declare the whole world a failure because it's not front and center and perfectly solved first thing.

The centrists are by definition not in need of organizations like move on. The center is where most people in this country are, by definition. You're lucky it's not even further right.

[EFerrari]

244. MoveOn was founded to counter the attack on Clinton.

Does that seem like such a "leftist" proposition to you, defending the president?

lmao

[Hello_Kitty]

218. What did you do to elect Dems today?

I'm a Professional Leftist^TM and I knocked on doors for 3 hours this morning. I'll be doing again tomorrow.

What did you do?

[sulphurdunn]

205. Whether in power or not

most Democratic political leaders will remain wealthy, will most likely get richer out of power and will continue receiving the same blood money from the same right wing sources they get it from now.

[sam sarrha]

206. it is a coordinated Coup to overthrow the elected government>link>>

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all


A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all#ixzz0zvcF74t5

[Skittles]

213. THANK YOU

the level of denial I see on DU is staggering

[MickeyD]

216. Absolutely.

[JoeyT]

219. What I object to the loudest is the same shit people here were objecting to when it was being

done by Bush. Only now it's not only not a bad thing, but a good thing to be cheered. And by god if you don't cheer for it, you're a hater that never liked him anyway and you aren't smart enough to understand his five dimensional chess because you don't have a pony.

I don't care what letter someone has after their name, if they aren't a fan of civil liberties, they're not on the same side I am.

[chill_wind]

223. Absolutely. Well said. n/t

[bertman]

220. Great post, kentuck. Recommend. nt

[Mimosa]

222. K&R n/t

[AmerVoicesUnited]

239. We need to vote, vote, vote!

I'm hoping and praying the Democrats and Independents out there are simply a "sleeping giant" that will wake up and come out in full force on election day like they did for Obama in '08. The Demcratic Party has made progress without the help of Repubs. It's up to us to let it continue.

[yurbud]

241. insulting your base, their organizations, and pundits who express their views seems

like intentional political malpractice.

The only possible explanation is they are trying to reassure the very wealthy that they aren't really taking care of us and it's safe to let Dems keep the reins of power a bit longer.

[EFerrari]

245. That's the clearest explanation I've heard so far. n/t

[Radical Activist]

252. You mean like some people have been doing to Obama and many of his progressive supporters

from day one? It's amazing that people don't see the double standard.

[Radical Activist]

253. Neither the President nor most of his supporters have ever suggested any resting on laurels.

Obama has repeatedly said more action is needed on major issues, including the ones he has already taken significant action on. The false premise in your post has been the source of much pointless division among progressives who share common goals.

[opihimoimoi]

260. Where from?? Why its them DIVIDERS of course....the GOP sends their peeps to make trouble and divide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ug4zUxfVCU&feature=related

les get us some patriotism....

[DailyGrind51]

261. Limbaugh started the modern meme during the 1980s, but it has always existed to some extent.

[MaeScott]

262. Well we can start with knocking off Paul...

...and Christine fir starters. When those two lose, I will do my happy dance.
...and Dems must hold!