Reply #87: Fair enough

[salin]

and I agree and share your frustration on almost every point. Going down the list:

I was also angry and extremely disappointed.

I didn't hear the comments - so while I read them and chewed on it (not happily) - I could see it from another vantage point, and the fact that he stated that based on the info he had at the time he would have voted AGAINST the IWR... gave me comfort that this was more of a bad word choice as he was trying to carefully respond than an indication that he was going mamby pamby (or he would have given an answer per the vote question that would have given more cover to Kerry and Edwards).

I am sick and tired of this leadership vacuum in the Dem party.


I agree. However there are times when Pelosi shows flashes of hardball savvy that isn't just sell out. I think that given control of the house - she could do very well and more in the mold of past great leaders such as Tip ONiell and even Jim Wright. She, though not perfect and at times nowhere near great, is a far improvement over Gephardt who was very ineffective.


I am not happy Kerry voted for IWR. I am not happy Edwards voted for IWR.

I was very unhappy with both of these votes. However I view them differently in the sense that Kerry's rhetoric at the time (that he would hold the WH accountable if they didn't follow through) was consistent with the onset of the war (he was NOT quietly accepting or suddenly going yea rah for the war effort... ) While I thought that his vote in the first place compromised his ability to fully criticize later (which I still think) - at least he was consistent. Edwards, however, on the eve of the war was yea rah war. He did state that he would have worked more on diplomatic efforts for longer than bush had - but other than that caveat was supportive right through the buildup, start and ongoing battles of the war. Thus I was always MORE disappointed/frustrated in Edwards votes, actions and rhetorics than with Kerrys.


I am sick and tired of ANYONE who wants to play "nice" with the GOP.

Me, too. However sometimes thinking of how we frame things isn't so much about wanting to appear "nice" - sometimes it is about how best to market opposing ideas in a way that will sell more voters (and hopefully in a way that is SO permanent that it results in wholesale rejection of the IDEOLOGY behind the republicans so that they don't creep back into power within a year or two or five or ten.) Sometimes there needs to be room for distinction between the discussions stating the need to play nice or keep on the high road (I am not in that camp) vs strategy and policy framing discussions. They are different discussions. THough I can see how one could be mistaken for the other in the context of today's discussion.


The GOP has made it clear they consider us their enemies and they wish to destroy us. THIS is not hyperbole.
I AGREE and it scares the hell out of me. THis concern is NOT hyperbolic. Hell there was an unrelated thread about a hummer trying to run a prius off the road... the prius had no political bumper stickers, there had been no provocative moment that started the "roadaltercation"... just simply being in a car that is somehow assumed to be a symbol of the left? Or perhaps just random chance of running into a crazy driver. Thing is - the divisions and push for REAL hatred among fellow americans - is REAL and thus the idea that perhaps the crazy hummer driver was looking to harm due to political presumptions isn't such an unbelievable scenario.

We have had war declared on us and a LOT of people want to play nice.

I hear you. Personally, I think that the reactions to your posts for many come from the same fear/anger/rage spot as yours - just with different views of how to fight back in this war. That is why when we stop discussing we get to a point where we become ineffective because we waste all this energy. I would prefer to see more energy on strategy - I think calling folks to write to Obama per ones disappointment - good point - keep those left leaning candidates and office holders responsive to us on the left. That is part of the problem in the rise of the "new democrats" - was that a sense grew that there didn't need to be responsiveness - and to some extent many of us played into that dynamic as we only were active and loud during election times. I also think that figuring out how to get more of the public to "SEE" the realities behind this administration - is needed. Simply decrying it works to a point (heck with all the media leaning on the right and the money advantage per bush... it is stunning that Kerry has a slight lead - part of that is due to those who have and can see the realities behind the admin. But there are a lot of folks in frickin blinded comfortzone space who really can not accept nor see the realities behind this admin because it would blow up their mental picture of the US, of the Republicans, of the virtues or our system and the good that we do (the stuff we are fed through grade/highschool.) Thus they keep eating the lame spin from the right, because it is simpler and safer to do than working through the cognitive disonance that is required of seeing the Bushadmin for what it is and comparing it to the idealized view of America. More discussion on different ways of penetrating that BIG CHUNK of the american public psyche - the better. IMO that is how we get rid of the current crop of GOP and make them so reviled that they don't crawl back in.


Personally I find the reaction to my reaction to be an overreaction.

Perhaps, or perhaps it is the typical cyclic dynamic to which I refered earlier. Whenever we get into these cycles - the reactions to the two sides gets more and more overreactive.


I've now been called Karl Rove's wet dream, a deliberate GOP disruptor, insane, and many other things. Again - this is very typical of DU group behavior when we get into these crazy dynamic cycles.


All for standing up for what I thought a LOT of people here on DU stood for. Or for getting caught into (and helping fuel) one of our reactive cycles where we don't see anything but our own view - phrase it hyperbolically and suck everyone else into two camps to start yelling at one another over what ever dividing line was created. What I am saying is that the underlying frustration you expressed is shared on many levels by many of us. However we react differently. And sometimes fall into a space that disallows any conversation and gets crazier and crazier. The candidate wars during the primaries come to mind. Got to a point where I wouldn't even go into some forums because the dynamics were so fucked up. Often fucked up by folks with whom I agree on many points most of the time... but who could get sucked into the ugly warring factional dynamics and become quite ugly to others. And the damn cycle just amplified itself to where folks felt COMPELLED to continue and get uglier because someone else had said x or y about candidateQ's supporters and they COULDN'T let it slide... and the response would be so insulting that it had to be responded to, etc etc until there was virtually NO content in any of the threads (though participants, even today I bet, would be loathe to admit that... but one biased source used for the 80th time is NOT full of any content...).

Hang in there... We will move through this particular flare up. Just resist the urge to read all those who disagree with you when you get caught in an emotional moment (which we ALL have given the high stakes behind these elections) as writing the opposite of your view (in this case that disagreeing with you was being written from a "play nice" perspective... which in MY case NOT what I was saying). Resist that urge - and you will be more able to keep responding point by point to folks - pushing all's views/ideas further; let other folks get pulled into that vortex of screaming at each other and eventually saying nothing because it has gotten so silly (as your last point indicates.)