HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Page: 1

merrily

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:49 AM
Number of posts: 45,250

About Me

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664118; https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664129

Journal Archives

As far as I recall, this is my first post in this forum.

This post of mine was hidden on the ground that it was either extremely right wing or I should have used the sarcasm emote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=20411

Thing is, I considered using the sarcasm emote and rejected that thought on the ground that the post was so unmistakeably extreme that adding the emote would insult the intelligence of DUers.

So, instead, even though I did not think it necessary, I added the line about "Governor Oops," thinking that (a) the post itself was very obviously sarcasm; and (b) even someone who missed the extreme nature of the post would realize that no extreme right winger would refer to Perry as Governor Oops.

Did jurors seriously believe I was faulting kindergarten kids for not creating jobs? Or that I really wanted to see "Governor Oops" in the Governor's mansion? If they did seriously believed either of those things, then I have to wonder about the jury system.

In my mind, hiding this post because I did not use the sarcasm thingie was not far removed from concluding that Jonathan Swift a cannibal because he did not add a footnote about sarcasm to A Modest Proposal.

In your view, am I mistaken about the above? (That said, going forward, I will add the emote, even if I feel the post is so obviously sarcasm that the emote is an insult to intelligence.)

I will add as well that jurors get to be anonymous and get the benefit of the last word. For those reasons, I think personal pot shots at a poster, having nothing to do with jury service, are out of place in juror explanations. They can do little to no good, but they can poison the minds of other jurors.

(I do, however, credit the jurors who knew my posts for voting to leave the post alone on the ground I am definitely not a RWer. )

If you drop labels and don't try to change minds, USians poll liberal by something like 70%

Poll on issues, rather than labels, and don't propagandize and USians poll liberal overwhelmingly.

All parties have done their best to make "liberal" into a dirty word and to make words like "middle," "moderate," centrist" etc. sound like the only rational, reasonable position. They have also done their best to pretend center left is liberal--and liberal is extreme and undesirable. That did not come from the people.

I agree that Republicans lie. However, I believe that super majority rules help

conceal the truth about both successes and failures.

For just one recent example, I think it is much easier to fool the public with a cloture vote than with a vote against Warren's concrete bill seeking to make student loans more affordable. I tried, but I could not even find the yeas and nays on that cloture vote.

Before 2010, when Democrats had the Oval Office and a majority in both Houses, it was easier for Republicans to claim that Dems did little those two years but ACA. (Lily Ledbetter had already passed, but Bush vetoed. Obama signed it Inauguration Day.)

Besides, think about what you are saying. We have a situation now where very little that we like gets done for he benefit of Americans and Republicans already lie to blame failures on Dems and take credit for whatever successes, if any, make it past the cloture rules.

You are saying it would be worse for Americans if good things actually do get done for Americans, like more affordable student loans, and Republicans continue lying, which they already do anyway? How would that be worse for Americans?

Excuse? I posted a substantive reply, which you ignored. For what do I need an excuse?

Since you chose to go that way, though, what is your excuse for ignoring everything in my post, criticizing me for what I did not address, then bringing up an entirely new point? What about what you never addressed?

I offer you this deal. Support your own claim that McGovern and Mondale lost those elections because they were liberals rather than simply posting a meme and expecting it to go unchallenged. Then rebut my points about why a tunnel vision view of the McGovern run doesn't prove that McGovern lost because he was a liberal. That is only respectful of the effort that I put into my prior post. Then, ask me to discuss the Mondale loss. (The Mondale loss ainst the Gipper, former head of the actors' union, former friendly host of of a respected television show, like GE Theater, that came into America's living rooms every week when there were only 3 networks competing for the attention of all Americans, and former Governor of California, after Americans had to wait on line for gas under a Democratic President, years of the hostage crisis, etc.--I imagine some of those things impacted Mondale's run, as well as Lee Atwater etc.)

I will then be happy to examine more fully whether Mondale ran as a liberal at alll; and, if so, whether Mondale lost to the Gipper because Mondale was a liberal and not for other reasons.

I know the claims about Mondale and McGovern were convenient claims for conservative Democrats to make, especially those who wanted to run for the Presidency from Southern states. However, they do not stand up to analysis, unless you use tunnel vision.

As for When Kerry ran for President, Kerry was then a member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus; i.e., not holding himself out as a liberal at all. And Kerry had the endorsement of the DLC when he ran. The DLC endorsement had originally gone to Lieberman, who had been a founding member of the DLC. However, I see that as a courtesy given Lieberman because it was clear that Lieberman never had a chance at the nom.

When Lieberman dropped out, which was relatively early in the primary, New Democrat Kerry got the DLC endorsement for that primary. So, Kerry never ran for President as a lliberal. Also, Kerry was from the Northeast in general and Massachusetts in particular, a region and a state that many political analysts had considered a dead zone for Presidents after the South went solid red.

Besides, some think that election was also stolen, though in a different state. So, the Kerry run is like the Gore run, not like the McGovern run. IOW, it hurts the meme rather than helping it.

Reagan was the reason that the Democratic Party just had to go right in order to win Presidential elections. Since Reagan though, several New Democrats ran for President as New Democrats. They were Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Of those three, only Clinton won. In 2008, Obama ran to the left of Hillary. (For purposes of this analysis, it does not matter if Obama is in fact to Hillary's left. All that matters is whether voters perceived him as to Hillary's left; and they did.)

Hillary lost the primary in 2008 and Obama won the general.

After he won in 2008, Obama said he, too, was a New Democrat. Then, he won in 2012. However, by then, he was unopposed in the primary and a war time incumbent-and no war time incumbent has ever lost a Presidential election in the US. Besides, there was that handy recording of Romney dissing 47% of Americans, including vets and seniors.

So, since Reagan, New Democrats have not proven their point about needing to go right to win Presidential elections at all. Still, the meme gets repeated as though its truth were self-evident. It isn't. It requires proof, and that is lacking.



Sounds like pure DLC/Third Way/New Democrat.

You don't think choosing Eagleton as VP had a thing to do with McGovern's loss? Or the fact that Nixon had served two terms as VP and one term as President?

Or anything else that happened in the 1960s? Parents of kids--most of whom had lived through World War II, watching their kids burn flags, use drugs, call cops pigs and associating all that with Dems?

Nooooo, the 1972 landslide was simply about McGovern being left of center. Ergo, Dems should go as far right as they possibly can.

Sorry, that tunnel vision view of history in general, politics in general and the 1972 race in particular, just doesn't work.

BTW, Gov. Wallace, a Democrat who thought the Party was too far left for him, also lost in 1972 and by a hell of a lot more votes than did McGovern.

Besides, it is not 1972 anymore. Depending upon your point of view, Gore, a center right guy, lost in 2000 or won only very, very narrowly.Obama ran to Hillary's left in 2008 and also won by a landslide-including the state of Indiana. Until McCain named Palin, Obama was even leading McCain in Alaska.

Funny how the only lessons the right draws from any election is to go further right.

Edit: As to Wallace, I meant his run in 1968.

Again, the withdrawal date was set between Dimson and Iraq.

Truly. It was in all the papers, or what's left of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835

During Obama's administration, the US tried to persuade Iraq to extend the date. However, Iraq would not agree to a hold harmless of our troops and mercenaries. As a result, the withdrawal was completed per the 2008 withdrawal agreement (SOFA).

Democrats need to stop giving Obama credit for ending our involvement in Iraq and Republicans need to stop blaming Obama for the withdrawal.


Go to Page: 1