Should we, as Democrats, be in lockstep? Yes or No?

[political_Dem]

In fact, should we be like the Republican party in which no one dissents?

[MadBadger]

1. No, we shouldnt, but its suspect when some people bitch about literally everything.

[political_Dem]

2. How so?

[MadBadger]

5. Certain people on DU have complained about every pick Obama has made

Either they are just concern trolls, or they were seriously expecting Obama to nominated Dennis Kucinich for just about every position.

[political_Dem]

7. Do you expect them to just be quiet about their dissent?

That's beginning to sound as if you want us to be in lockstep and not question the choices that Mr. Obama has made. What purpose will it serve if people pipe down about their misgivings instead of encouraging healthy debate about what is expected of us as leftists and Democrats?

[MadBadger]

10. No, but these people have judged Obama's presidency before he spent a day in office

And that is just ridiculous.

[political_Dem]

13. I agree with you about some of the folks who are the hand-wringers.

But, I also believe that there are some who are very vigilant about what is happening. As a result, they are trying to sound the alarm bells early. If not for them, we might as easily fall into a trap. That is why dissent is important. It puts the issues out there--when they aren't ridiculed or bullied into silence.

[Voice for Peace]

79. it's a fine line. Some people do sow doubt and fear when it's not helpful.

So each person has to be just as vigilant about thinking for him or herself, and not falling victim to abovementioned fear and doubt.

[yurbud]

11. the only choices aren't Kucinich or the DLC sellouts--and what the hell is wrong with Kucinich?

I know he's going to fight to represent my interests. I can't say the same for Hillary or most of the other appointments Obama has made with the exception of Robert Reich.

[Life Long Dem]

23. There you go. Who said Obama appointment of Hillary was made?

The media? So does the media choose for Obama, or does Obama choose? And if it comes down to the media choosing for Obama, then I say all hope and change is lost. Which would be a big surprise if Obama were to all of a sudden cave-in. I don't expect it, but if it does happen, I will lose the hope I have had for change.

[Two Americas]

46. I don't think anyone has

And even if someone has "complained about every pick Obama has made" your complaint would be with that one person. That does not translate into seeing a generalized attack of the "concern trolls," and encouraging everyone to be suspicious of every poster that ever makes a critical remark.

[1monster]

89. I haven't complained at all about Obama's picks, but I'm going to complain about YOUR

comment.

Why do so many on DU use Dennis Kucinich, a man of courage, conviction, integrity, and intelligence, who also happens to spot on when it comes to what is wrong and what needs to be done about it, as a put down?

It is his lack of height? His "gnome-like" appearance? His much younger, taller, beautiful wife?

Or the fact that he speaks the truth without wrapping it up in political, Orwellian double-speak.

Give the man the great respect he deserves.

[Ken Burch]

120. Indeed. Dennis deserves no one's contempt.

If you didn't want to vote for him, fine, but the man's done nothing to deserve being treated like he's a joke. He's certainly never harmed the party, and he damn sure didn't make speeches for the other party's presidential candidate like some OTHER people I could mention.

[roguevalley]

97. so. let them bitch. shutting up discussion is bullshit. nothing anyone

says on this board is going to matter to the big picture. people come here to talk. let them. given that there are threads about not repealing the tax cuts for the rich leaches in our country going on, I say let them talk. I for one, if those threads are true, am with them. fire me. Shoot me. but let the talk go.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Nope, but we must be able to discern "Concern!" from concern

nt

[political_Dem]

4. How would you do that?

Because in a large group of people, there are going to be some who don't approve of everything that binds such a congregation together--especially if it is a political party.

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Prima facie is a useful tool

:-)

[political_Dem]

14. Using the old adage of "hindsight being 20/20 " could be even better.

But who am I kidding? ;)

[PBS Poll-435]

16. I am really happy with my political party

Or to be more specific, the coalitions that get things done in my political party.

Things are about to get "crazy" and I am glad that we have the team in place to deal with them.

[political_Dem]

20. So am I. I am even estatic that the man I voted for is business-like, efficient and very organized.

But that still doesn't mean that I have to fall behind every choice that he makes. I would like to think that dissent is still an option that could be exercised--before and after the Inauguration.

I'm sure there are others of us who do not appreciate being told whom to like and what to adopt for the sake of the party.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. In complete agreement. Lockstep=worship

I like the path that our President-elect and his team are forging.

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. No, I figured it all out today:

Being progressive is about progress, progress is about trying things and learning. We SHOULD, as progressives, have different ideas, and even run with them - try them out. But the trait we need to share is the willingness to admit when we are wrong, to be able to move on and change...accept new data as it comes in, not be dogmatic. That's all that matters, that's what really defines us as progressives.

[political_Dem]

9. Where does dissent fit into that realm of thought?

[napoleon_in_rags]

110. It fits in as an important part of the process.

when somebody dissents, we need to take it in, evaluate what they are saying and match it against honest data to see if they have a point. If they do, we accept their point, make changes, and move on. If they don't, we can explain to them exactly why, and give them a chance to learn or make a better argument.

edit: let me give a concrete example: Part of the stated purpose of the war in Iraq was to bring Democracy, the system of majority rule, to Iraq. Dissenters said that either didn't make sense or wasn't working. By polling the people of Iraq and seeing if a majority wanted us there (they didn't) we could have had tested the opinion of the dissenters, seen they were right, and moved on. But we didn't, that's the error in non-progressive politics.

[emilyg]

8. No. Never.

[CreekDog]

15. Absolutely

I find the disagreement on the Gloria Estefan thing unacceptable! :rant:

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Don't you mean Gloria Estephan? Estephen? Eserphone?

I can't keep up.

:cry:

[political_Dem]

18. LOL.

:D

[Jim Sagle]

19. Doesn't matter if we should. We're not.

[political_Dem]

22. Then why are there instances of trying to get people to be silent about their dissent?

And why is there a push toward centrist and center-right paradigms when we are a party of leftists?

[sufrommich]

73. But we aren't really a party of leftist. There is a broad spectrum

of Democrats which includes,left,middle,center voters.If there weren't we'd all be bitching about our newly elected republican president.Obama is smart enough to know he's got to have that broad spectrum behind him to make real progress.

[tekisui]

78. No one is trying to get others to be quite. They are just disagreeing.

It's always been this way.

[Jim Sagle]

115. "why is there a push toward centrist and center-right paradigms? "

Because that's what money says when money talks. These paradigms gain traction because we're a mixed bag - a party of leftists AND centrists AND center-rightists.

And center-leftists, too. :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

24. No, but some level of cohesion and a unified front would be cool

it takes some of that to accomplish anything. Speak your conscience, but is it necessary to freak at every possible turn? Being done in before even taking office might be too far in the opposite direction from lockstep. There's surely some middleground between military discipline and cat herding.

[political_Dem]

26. There are going to be some people who are rather nervous about all these changes.

That is par for the course. That is why both sides need to be heard so that a person who is worried about all the changes can make their own choices. Isn't personal choice important? If that personal choice is guided by conscience and it turns out to be dissent, with others find the common decency not to quiet those who oppose certain issues or politicians?

Somehow, if we are to achieve an amount of discipline, dissent must be worked within its boundaries too. If not, would we be no better than the Republicans?

[FrenchieCat]

25. push.fucking.poll

Got milk in my refrigerator purchased on November 4th and it still hasn't expired.

While there are those who have already soured on what Obama has done to date, in his
17 days of non power.

[political_Dem]

27. This is more of a rhetorical question.

I'm sorry that you feel that this reflects anything negative. But, I was curious whether there were people who would want us as Dems to pipe down and be in lockstep.

[last1standing]

29. And you got your answer.

Sad, isn't it?

[political_Dem]

30. It is pretty sad.

But, there is a less cynical side in my personality which allows for a glimmer of hope. :)

[last1standing]

31. My glimmer of hope seems to dwindle every time I visit this site lately.

I never cared as much about winning as being on the right side. Unfortunately, that seems to put me in the minority of posters here since the election. Its not even that I think Obama's making such bad decisions, I just believe that those who do should have the right to have their voices heard without being bullied into submission. I know there are conern trolls here, but the greater danger is from the STFU police who make it their job to shout down any opposing viewpoint so that everyone else is afraid of speaking up.

That's not the way the Democratic party I joined was supposed to behave and it's not the Democratic Underground I once knew.

[political_Dem]

41. My take on this.

We are in a new time which has opened up a lot of possibilities that wouldn't even be considered under Republican rule. Since Republicans are by nature authoritarian, they aren't allowing the American citizens to voice what they want in a government. And judging from the acts of the Bush regime when they stifle dissent due to the terrorism, we weren't going to be in a government which allows open and honest talk.

Enter Obama. We now have a chance to discuss our ideas of what we want to have changed to make America function again. But, there are people who have an agenda to focus the debate and narrow it down so that some ideas will not be heard. I tend to question what agenda or plan is being operated when dissent is being stifled instead of openly welcomed.

All I hope is that whether it's two weeks towards Inauguration or after Mr. Obama gets sworn in, that the American people get to chance to speak about what they want without being influenced by the MSM or even the agitators. If the MSM (or the agents provocateurs) wrests control over the national conversation, then we're operating under their terms, not ours as a collective society.

As for DU? I hope that there are enough open-minded people who will have the patience to hear both sides of the discussion and then come to some fair conclusion. Ridiculing and trying to shut the conversation down doesn't help matters. That's why maybe dissent has to be re-framed in such a way that people can easily understand what it is and what it isn't.

[last1standing]

49. Very well put.

Thanks for this thread, it's obviously needed.

[political_Dem]

55. Thanks and no problem.

:)

[Life Long Dem]

60. I think we all should be in lock-step when it comes to MSM.

Especially "if" this control involves controlling Obama's agenda.

[political_Dem]

61. I agree. Because the messages concerning progressive/liberal values have to be re-introduced.

We need to deconstruct RW talking points as well as finding a place to discuss progressive issues positively.

If I were to shoot for the pie in the sky, then the Fairness Doctrine would be reestablished so that both sides would get heard in the media. Even more ambitiously, maybe we should try to break the media monopolies so that there should be more competition in terms of ideas and news stories. Maybe even funding the non-profits would help so that they can work to off-set the corporate media as well as promote a type of journalism that is based on research and knowledge instead of glamour and looks.

[Life Long Dem]

66. It's all a rating's game to MSM.

It could be this issue or a war, it doesn't matter.

[illuminaughty]

47. I stopped posting after the 2004 election

for a very long time. I got tired of defending my "tinfoil" ideas and my cynical views of our so called democracy in general.

I'm not ready to yell "3,2,1, HE'S A PUPPET!" But, I'm not on the party train either. It's dangerous. I don't expect any one person to be a magic bullet cure all for our country and it is unfair to jump to conclusions. But, I'm not going to be blinded by party loyalty either. Hell, no.

[last1standing]

50. Agreed.

I like Obama and think he'll be a far better president than McCain would have, but that doesn't mean we should all just sit in front of our TVs and admire him like some electric God. I want a president who can be questioned and I want to visit a web forum where I can express my views without being bullied into submission. Personally, I think Obama would agree with me, not his most fervent worshippers at DU.

[political_Dem]

58. I would certainly hope so.

As I have written elsewhere, I don't think our country can take being forced into silence and repression another eight years.

[last1standing]

28. Why do you object to people expressing their views, FrenchieCat?

What's wrong with saying you're dissatisfied with Obama's choice in SOS or COS if you don't like Hillary or Emanuel? What's wrong with stating that you're not a fan of Daschle or Summers? What's wrong with not liking the color of Obama's ties, for that matter?

This site was created to allow us to express our views, not to worship at the feet of all Democrats or to ridicule those who have honest disagreements on the direction of our President-Elect, whether its 17 days or 17 months from the election.

So why try to shut people down when they're just trying to state their beliefs? Do you have no conviction of your own?

[FrenchieCat]

34. Dissatisfied.....?

Folks didn't vote for Obama's SOS or COS.....
and not liking someone in a cabinet doesn't mean anything,
nor will it change a thing.

Constructive criticism and stating one's opinion intelligently on a matter is one thing....

But folks who go around bitching, moaning, ranting, and crying about ties or shoes or Hillary or Daschle or whatever, shouldn't complain if they are deemed as being superficial, impatient, petty, and shortsighted.

I'll quote this ......

I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?

One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.

A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).

But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.

In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.

All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.

To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.

Sincerely,

State Senator Barack Obama

Candidate for the U.S. Senate
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[last1standing]

35. Are you the judge of superficial, impatient, petty, and shortsightedness?

Should your posts, including this one, be held to the same standard you expect of everyone else? Should we make it a point to overwhelm your threads with snark and hatefulness just because we don't agree with something you say?

This site was established to give us a voice, not be a part in shutting other voices down. What is it about that concept that bothers you so?

[FrenchieCat]

36. I'm as much of a judge as you are.......

to quote you...."Why do you object to people expressing their views, FrenchieCat?"

See, that's what you decided. Guess you judged, and so can I....right?


Oh...and I don't try to shut people down (as you erroneously stated), so you can keep on doing what turns you on the most....Just like I plan on doing.

[last1standing]

37. I asked a question, you passed judgment.

If I were to pass judgment I'd say that you are an internet bully who gets off pushing others around while sitting behind the anonymity of a computer keyboard munching on cheetos and screaming at your cat.

Fortunately, I'm not judging you, or your personal life, and have no idea why you do the the things you do. I'm merely asking that you provide others the same courtesy they provide you in expressing your beliefs with respect towards your forum mates. That's what the site was created for, so don't ruin it for everyone.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Don't think so.

your question to me...."Why do you object to people expressing their views, FrenchieCat?"

was only asking why I do something, not whether I do it. So no, you weren't just asking a question, you were making a judgement about me, and asking me why do I do this?

Of course, this is really "respect toward a forum mate"... "If I were to pass judgment I'd say that you are an internet bully who gets off pushing others around while sitting behind the anonymity of a computer keyboard munching on cheetos and screaming at your cat."


I'll put it this way....neither one of us is dumb or stupid.

So know that we both can have the floor, not just you, nor just me.
You can insinuate whatever you want about me and be snarky as you wish if it turns you on, but when I respond by telling you to kiss my ass, don't act shocked.

See, now we all can express our beliefs with respect towards our forum mates....without ruining a thing.

[last1standing]

44. Oh Frenchie, nothing you say could be so low as to surprise me.

No, neither of us is "dumb or stupid", I think. However, my question did not pass judgment on you, it merely asked a response to a fact. When you try to shut down simple discussion over ideas with rude comments you are objecting to people expressing their views. Not judgment, fact. I was only asking why that is.

As for the rest, "DAMN STRAIGHT" it was snark. I object to your support for others trying to shut down discussion and so I thought it would be fun to give back a little of what your cohorts give. Isn't nice, is it?

I'd love to have decent, non-snarky discussion with you, Frenchie, I really would. I hate this back and forth rudeness because it really doesn't get either of us, anywhere. Still, until I'm allowed to post my beliefs without them being pounced on by jackels looking to tear apart anything they disagree with, it doesn't do me much good to try to give respect. Respect is, after all, a two sided venture. If you will give it, I'm happy to return the sentiment.

But that includes respecting ideas you may not agree with.

[BzaDem]

51. Just because you call something a fact doesn't mean it is a fact (or remotely resembles one)

Frenchie was not trying to shut down discussion; expressing dissaproval with your viewpoint is not trying to shut down your viewpoint or prevent it from being expressed.

So when you come and say that it is obvious that your premise is a fact, when in reality the opposite is what's obvious, you are the one who is doing the judging.

[last1standing]

56. Thanks for your opinion.

I'll give it all due consideration.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Let me break it down so that even you can understand......

Based on your statements to me thus far.....

last1standing - "Why do you object to people expressing their views, FrenchieCat?"
FrenchieCat - "I don't object to people expressing their views, however, since they comment, so can I."


last1standing - "So why try to shut people down when they're just trying to state their beliefs?"
FrenchieCat - "I don't try to shut down anyone, I just state my own beliefs like they are."


last1standing - "Do you have no conviction of your own?"
FrenchieCat -"Yes, I do, just like I imagine you do as well."


last1standing - "Should your posts, including this one, be held to the same standard you expect of everyone else?"
FrenchieCat - "Yes, and they are...."


last1standing - "Should we make it a point to overwhelm your threads with snark and hatefulness just because we don't agree with something you say?"
FrenchieCat - "you're aren't really making any sense, and in so doing not upholding any standard that I can discern."


last1standing - "This site was established to give us a voice, not be a part in shutting other voices down. What is it about that concept that bothers you so?"
FrenchieCat -"That's right, to give US a voice, not just YOU a voice. So, yeah, you don't get to shut voices down, including mine. If you want to complain about our President Elect, you can do so, and you will have to live with the voices in response that you hear."


last1standing -"If I were to pass judgment I'd say that you are an internet bully who gets off pushing others around while sitting behind the anonymity of a computer keyboard munching on cheetos and screaming at your cat."
FrenchieCat - "and you'd be wrong.....unless perhaps you were talking about yourself."


last1standing -"Oh Frenchie, nothing you say could be so low as to surprise me."
FrenchieCat -"Excellent!"


last1standing -"When you try to shut down simple discussion over ideas with rude comments you are objecting to people expressing their views."
FrenchieCat -"I agree, and the things you've said to me were quite rude, weren't they?"


last1standing -"As for the rest, "DAMN STRAIGHT" it was snark. I object to your support for others trying to shut down discussion and so I thought it would be fun to give back a little of what your cohorts give."
FrenchieCat -"judging others again, hey? So only you gets to decide who is shutting down discussion, and only you get to accuse others. Sounds pretty fucked up to me."


last1standing -"I'd love to have decent, non-snarky discussion with you, Frenchie, I really would."
FrenchieCat -"That seems impossible, since you are the one being snarky, rude, judging who does what, and accusing others of shutting down conversation, and in essense telling them to STFU."



last1standing -"Still, until I'm allowed to post my beliefs without them being pounced on by jackels looking to tear apart anything they disagree with, it doesn't do me much good to try to give respect."
FrenchieCat -"The only person being snarky, rude, and pouncing and acting like a jackel and attempting to tear apart anything they disagree with appears to be you. And yes, I can see the lack of respect."

Far as I'm concerned, the conversation's been had.....but I guess you didn't realize that.

[last1standing]

54. So much for suggesting mutual respect.

Did you have to call in help for that little fake conversation or did you paste it together all by yourself?

I really couldn't think less of you, and that's really sad. I don't think I'll converse with you any longer as it just doesn't make sense. There will never be anything you say that I can give merit to.

Goodbye.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Excellent!

[Ken Burch]

127. And stop screaming at the cat! I'm pretty sure it doesn't even CARE who Obama appoints.

At least as long as the appointee doesn't interfere with dinner or litter box maintenance.

[Life Long Dem]

43. At least I have "IF" Obama does this or that in my rants.

It's as if this board went nuts over rumors.

[Milo_Bloom]

134. What about those who didn't vote for Obama?

Are they allowed to be dissatisfied?

[Undercurrent]

32. No to lockstepping,

but yes to pushing the same rock up the hill -- together.

People have a way of becoming myopic, and loose the ability to see the big picture. Criticizing is good, and has it's place, but when snipping, nit picking, crabbing, and outright attacking reaches a certain level it damages our ability to reach the goals we share.

[meowomon]

33. Oh, hell to the NO!

The whole meaning of this democracy if to allow peaceful dissent. Even Obama is using this model when creating his cabinet. You can't be surrounded by a whole bunch of yes people and expect to be anything different from the Bush/Cheney regime.

[cali]

38. Straw man. No one is demanding any such thing.

[political_Dem]

39. What would you call it then?

Would you say that everyone has a chance to speak their mind even though it might not jibe with the majority?

This is without ridicule or being told to be quiet.

[cali]

42. Yes to the first question and no to the second.

At least no to the demand not to be ridiculed. And actually no to the part about being told to be quiet. YOU are tacitly telling people to be quiet. And your post is all about ridiculing people that YOU disagree with as being like repubs, etc.

Ironic, no?

[political_Dem]

45. On the question of irony, it would be ironic for someone to quiet another person

down just to push a viewpoint along.

But, personally, I don't think I've ever done that in this topic. I've just asked whether people would like the Democratic party to march in lockstep.

I've also asked whether we should be like the Republican party and silence dissent.

Some people agreed. Other people didn't. And I asked questions why. That's all. Nothing more.

[Two Americas]

48. ROFL

"Yeah, could you all shut up about this, because no one is telling anyone to shut up."

[cali]

53. yeah, because that's what I said. NOT.

and you even put it in quotation marks, as if it's something I actually said. How sweet. How dishonest.

[H2O Man]

75. Correct. n/t

[rhett o rick]

87. Agree. nm

[elleng]

59. Never have,

never will.

HERDING CATS?

[TexasObserver]

62. Yes, we are BORG.

Asking Democrats to stop having a conniption fit over every Obama appointment is not asking Democrats to be in lockstep. When you make such an argument, it makes you appear incapable of formulating a sane, rational argument for the position you want to represent.

Having an opinion is one thing. Getting the vapors with every announcement is another.

[political_Dem]

63. When does dissent stop from being described as a "conniption fit"?

And why, if you are expressing alarm over something that you don't agree with, does it make you incapable of formulating a sane, rational argument? Maybe simply expressing an opinion is simply that: an opinion and nothing more.

[TexasObserver]

65. When it is rational and sane.

Instead of ridiculously posed, as in your OP.

It's clear you employ a strategem of dramatically overstating whatever point it is you wish to make, and you're not capable of seeing that habit as ineffectual. Such an approach necessarily makes the focus your emotional response instead of the substantive point you think you're making.

It also suggests you like to pose your side of the argument as those being victimized, likely a long employed method of trying to get your way.

[political_Dem]

68. I do? How do you figure that?

I just asked a question. After that, I asked a couple of more questions.

When I stated my opinion, I did it like everyone else.

But I will not presume to describe how you pose your questions or your comments. I rather let your replies speak for themselves on this regard.

[TexasObserver]

71. Easy. Did you forget to carry the two?

[agentS]

64. I voted for Dems to run the government, not to run my brain.

If they aren't up to the task, then there are others out there who are.
That doesn't mean rethugicans, though.

[chemp]

67. Hell no

I spent eight years criticizing Clinton when he leaned too far to the right, as well as defending him from trumped up charges.

He was the best president in my lifetime. He could have been much better.

Lock step? Hell no. We are not republicans and we do not condemn for thinking differently.

Just for thinking like a republican.

[polichick]

69. Nah - we're more like a team of rivals. :)

[happychatter]

113. "best of" responses in this rhetorical, loaded and insulting OP - no text

[political_Dem]

117. I'm sorry that you were so offended.

I didn't know it was a part of DU rules that we were supposed to create threads that everyone liked.

:sarcasm:

[DCBob]

70. Not lockstep but at least united and working together for the main goal.

Many are already throwing up their hands and saying Obama is too centrist and not being progressive enough even before he has had one day to govern. That is not helpful and hinders progress.

[atimetocome]

72. of course not.

[Vinca]

74. Of course we shouldn't walk in lockstep, but we should be smart enough

to give Obama some time to prove himself before we start tearing him to shreds.

[Arkana]

76. Until he actually does some governing, I'd wonder how people are

managing to find things to piss and moan about.

[Danger Mouse]

77. Look, I've never said we have to be in lockstep.

However, I do get sick of people who have a raging fit over everything Obama does. They have a right to express their opinion, and I have a right to tell them I think they're wrong. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't say it, but they shouldn't expect to be able to say whatever the fuck they want and not have anybody object to it. That's just absurd.

[slackmaster]

80. Your view of the Republican party is simplistic and not current, and my answer is No

With the exception of the last two-year election cycle, people in my state have been leaving both the Democratic Party and the GOP in droves. As of October 20, independents (known here as "Declined to state") account for 19.9% of California voters.

The California Democratic Party is back up to 44.4% from a 2004 low of 43%. I attribute that small bounce to widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, and I doubt that many among us would disagree.

Both parties need to broaden their appeal. They aren't going to achieve that by tightening down a particular ideology and alienating more and more classes of people.

As for the GOP, some of the more insightful, moderate, and least dogmatic among them understand that their biggest problem is allowing one far-right faction to define who they are.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/first_steps_to_gop_recovery.html

[political_Dem]

94. The work of John Dean and Bob Altemeyer is not current enough?

[stillcool]

81. We should be, as Democrats..

in lockstep with our dissent regarding the Democratic party, for any and all reasons regardless of how baseless, contrived, and media driven the reasoning is. Let the Republicans stick together and move their party forward. We don't need that.

[treestar]

82. No one ever said that

But we need to act together a great deal. There still are Republicans in this country and they will win if we don't put purism aside and work together.

All this whining less than 3 weeks after the election makes it look like we prefer losing and being on the outside. We have been used to it for 8 years but we have a chance to readjust and move the country to the lefgt.

So supporting Obama over abandoning him over one issue or appointment is smart - doing otherwise means getting marginalized once again. When you're winning, you don't stop and find what's wrong and let the opponent use that time to move ahead.

And moving the whole country leftward means taking advantage of when you're winning, not backing off and losing again due to not winning the exact right way. There are still plenty of right wingers in this country with plenty of influence, and don't think for a minute they will not jump in there and take advantage when you're eating your own.

[PeaceNikki]

83. No, but comparing Clinton to Stalin and Pol Pot and identifying as "Independent" due to the SoS pick

is ridiculous and melodramatic.

[Froward69]

84. Not just NO but HELL NO!!!

Dems should always have different opinions and be willing to compromise inside the party. Then the Ideas put fourth become all encompassing. excluding no one.It makes for better governance. Like Marriage EVERYONE should have the ability to decide if they want to get hitched or not.

Single mindedness (lock-step or goosestepping)is what dooms the repubes to failure.

[jefferson_dem]

85. Cute.

:hi:

[rhett o rick]

86. Did you actually expect anyone to honestly answer Yes? First we had to get Bush out.

Then we have to try to hold our new president's feet to the fire to undo the damage done by BushCorp. But we should never sit back and be quiet, ever. If someone is writing a thread or post that you don't think is positive enough, move on to something else. There is a good chance they are just starting a flame war. You don't have to participate.

[gristy]

88. Oh, yes. Most definitely.

Next question.
:eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. No! We shouldn't be like the Republicans. We should be Democrats that respects all points of view

I vehemently disagree with the Blue Dog conservatives and the pro-corporatists, neocons of the Democratic Leadership Council, but we should respect each other as Democrats. My only issue is that the Yellow Dog progressives have been shut out of most policy discussions even though we work hard to get Democrats elected. I don't understand the disdain, even hatred, by some Democrats against the liberal wing of the party who have, for the most part, been the most loyal to the Democrats. I just don't understand why many Democrats give in to right wing talking points to trash and demonize liberals.

[political_Dem]

93. Thank you, Liberal_Stalwart71. You mentioned one of the points that needed to be said.

These are some of the things I wonder as well. But as long as there are people who are bullying other people into falling into one "mainstreamed" line, I doubt we will ever find out.

Ever since Reagan came to office, the word "liberal" has been demeaned and relegated into a corner. And it is very sad that to this day that there isn't a public figure bold enough to deconstruct a generation-long trashing of the ideology and the people behind it.

[Raineyb]

96. I too despise the DLC and for some reason people forget what happened in the 90's

Progressives were basically told to STFU because one of our own was in the White House. Look what that got us. If Progressives don't make their voices heard it will be drowned out and ignored in favor of the corporotists who we already know don't give a damn about the rest of us. And frankly I don't think it's asking too much to have an actual progressive (actually more than one) in the cabinet. So far I am not seeing the progressive voice. I've not made too much of my potential displeasure known except for Senator Clinton for SOS. I don't want to see her in the cabinet at all.

Regards

[political_Dem]

102. Exactly, Raineyb. You've said it better than I could. :)

I swear some folks have a short memory around here.

[Ken Burch]

121. For some of them, it's still about 1972.

They still pretend our defeat that year was all the liberal wing's fault, when it was obvious that, after the China trip and with the Dirty Tricks squad, Nixon would have carried 49 states or close to 49 against anyone we could have nominated, including Scoop Jackson (whose election would have been pointless since he agreed with Nixon on everything.)

When they discuss that year, the anti-liberal wing of the party sound like the bad guys that get unmasked at the end of each episode of "SCOOBY DOO":

"...and we'd have done it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

[high density]

91. It would be nice at least until we actually see Obama making bad policies

The endless bitching and moaning right now is about who he is putting in the roles to carry out his policies, not about his policies themself. It's all 'what if' speculation that is assuming Obama's administration will be made up of 100% Benedict Arnolds who will not carry out his policies. I mean voting for the bailout, voting for FISA, these are real issues people can disagree on. Disagreeing on the guy's personal choices about who will be close to him in his job seems irrational.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. Ideally yes, but the cost of achieving it would be too great.

To each question, there is a best possible answer or solution.

Ideally, we'd all be in lockstep, supporting that position.

However, since we don't have good ways of working out those answers, any attempt to force people to get into lockstep would inevitably miss most of them, and do more harm than good.


"Somebody complained, I think, to Matthew Arnold that he was getting as dogmatic as Carlyle. He replied, "That may be true; but you overlook an obvious difference. I am dogmatic and right, and Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong." The strong humour of the remark ought not to disguise from us its everlasting seriousness and common sense; no man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error. " -- G. K. Chesterton, 'Heretics'

[Gregorian]

95. Both. Yes and no.

It is my opinion that we didn't do a good enough job discrediting Palin. She should have never been allowed to run. Why not run Ronald McDonald? We should have done everything to oust her. Although I'll admit that having her probably was the best thing for us. I wouldn't have taken that chance. We let people like Charlie Gibson do our work. I wanted to see us lockstep like the goons that Republicans always are on that one. There was one critical talking point that we could have all used that would have made it impossible for her to continue. Not just the hypocrisy of it, but the absolutely dangerous and wrong concept of someone who could be president also being a secessionist. That's as "bad America" as it possibly gets. But we don't operate that way, because that's how small and jealous repub minds operate.

As for dissent, that would be like taking away the First Amendment. Without that we'd have nothing.




Actually, now that I'm waking up, I realize that if we had a real media, we wouldn't have to have a uniform, lockstep mantra. She would have had far more trouble than she surprisingly had with couric and Gibson, et al.

[Uzybone]

98. No

[LanternWaste]

99. Aren't we on many issues? Choice, Environmentalism, etc.

Aren't we on many issues? Choice, Environmentalism, etc.

I imagine there's a precise and relevant difference between reaching consensus, and walking in "lockstep" (but I also imagine that the word "consensus" wouldn't be as melodramatic for the purposes of comparing us to the GOP when someone disagrees with a particular sentiment of yours... ).

[mzmolly]

100. No, but we should give our nominee at least one day in office

before we start the Bitchfest.

[cooolandrew]

101. Yeah, in the congress we can contest congress but Obama is not really in any office at >

present. Anyway everyone free to differ, I wouldn't expect anyone to fall in line with Obama if he is going wrong. His cabinet selection to me seems more his personal decision overall, just how I personally feel anyone can differ.

[old mark]

103. pD, how the hell could we ever agree on anything?

One of the amazing things about the Democratic Party is that it works at all.

15 minutes after we had ALL elected President Elect Obama we started sniping at him, his wife's dress, who he would pick, what he would do and of course at anything possible about all our fellow Democrats.

It's part of the whole deal, and it's really great when it works.

mark

[political_Dem]

105. old mark, I agree. It is part of the whole deal.

That's why every channel of communication must stay open so that all viewpoints are heard. This is where the core values of the Democratic party come alive.

[old mark]

116. How boring would all this shit be if we aggreed on everything?

We certainly are NOT Republicans, after all, and "lock step" does not seem to fit us well.

mark

[political_Dem]

118. Even the answers in this thread proves that our party is not boring in the least.

;)

[BlooInBloo]

107. In the immortal words of the racistly-named Tonto...

who, upon he and Lone Ranger being surrounded by hundreds of hostile braves and hearing Lone Ranger say "Well Tonto, it doesn't look like we're gonna make it out of this one" responded:
"Wutchu mean 'we', white man?"

:rofl:

Bah - fine - you don't get to pick your teammates... - we're a team... (grumblegrumble)



EDIT: Explained the entire joke.

[bigwillq]

104. No

We should be free thinkers, and be given the right to our own opinions and thoughts.

But we also must give those who will soon be in charge the chance to put their plans into actions before we judge too harshly or critically.

[BlooInBloo]

106. Totally. In fact, we should change our names to "nazi", just so DU whiny ass titty babies...

... don't have so much work to do.


I want it NOOOOOWWWW daddy!

[fadedrose]

108. No dissent or ignoring it is what caused our present situtatio....

Bush lost contact with the real world. Pressure was put on people who disagreed so he never heard about it.

Dissent is good. And no one should personally insult people who show dissent. Lately it seems that there is a ganging up on people who might feel differently about some topics.

Defending and explaining positions is fine, but personal attacks on dissenters is not wise. It reminds me of the Republicans who cast aspersions on someone's patriotism, troop support, party loyalty or intelligence.

[TexasObserver]

109. no, yes, No, Yes, NOOOO!

That GOP example is officially no longer in effect.

[Iggo]

111. Only between the time we choose a nominee...

...and the first Wednesday in November of an election year.

Any other time, hell no.

[smalll]

112. Less than a month after electoral victory? TWO months before actual Inauguration?

Yeah, we should still be pretty lock-steppy at this point. Kind of sucks that we aren't. :shrug:

[Breeze54]

114. Nope

:dem: & Recommended

[ElsewheresDaughter]

119. I can't get behind Pres Obama on his choice of Larry Summers

[quakerboy]

122. Depends

Which one of you wants to poop on universal health care?

Do we all need to agree on everything? No. Do we all need to start pushing the same way on a few things, FUCK YEAH.

[Forkboy]

123. No, and all of you had best agree.

[camera obscura]

124. This is the internet-forum version of "when did you stop beating your wife", no?

[trayfoot]

125. Dems NEVER march in lockstep...........

that's why we lose so many elections! Dems are far more independent thinkers than pubs demonstrate. They determine a direction and they all sign on to it. Dems are NOT that way, nor should they be! Dissent is good and is what defines us.

[BzaDem]

126. Should we, as Democrats, constantly be posting straw man arguments? Yes or No?

[harun]

135. I think the question is posed to say "You know we need to put aside

some of our smaller differences in able to get shit done, otherwise the Repukes will get back in power and all of this is for naught."

I think we should pick the biggest issues that matter to us (in my opinion) Iraq, Health Care and Middle Class support (manifested in many different ways) and stay cohesive on those.

[mkultra]

128. never, but we do need to prune some trolls on this board.

[political_Dem]

131. I'm not a troll.

Furthermore, I have participated fair and square on this board just like everyone else.

This implication that people who disagree or have a different line of thinking about a given topic are troll-like is offensive and rather uncouth.

[mkultra]

132. the idea that people shouldnt express thier distaste for your dissent

Is equally obtuse. You are invoking the age old retardation of trying to silence those whom you claim are trying to silence you. Good luck..

[political_Dem]

136. Thank you.

Now, I've got other subjects on this board to read about. In fact, have you heard that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is putting her hat in the ring for governor of Texas?

[mkultra]

137. your welcome. so cut it the fuck out.

I hadn't heard. That is one crazy bitch.

[political_Dem]

138. No. I'll do as I please on this board according to the rules. I don't need your fingerwagging.

And besides, it was reported this morning about Hutchinson's possible bid for governor by David Schuster on MSNBC.

Now, I will truly put my attention elsewhere on the board. I didn't revive this thread from necromancy. And I certainly won't be the one to continue it.

[mkultra]

140. good point, i guess everyone else will to. No silencing for anyone

sounds fair ignoring this giant finger wagging OP.

[Occam Bandage]

129. Should we, as Democrats, complain about absolutely everything on principle?

Is agreement a vice and disagreement a virtue, regardless of the situation?

[amborin]

130. factionalism is the essence of democracy

[Milo_Bloom]

133. Of course not.

[olkaz]

139. For the next four years, yes.

Way too much going wrong. Time to stop bickering and get in line.

[EstimatedProphet]

141. No, but dissent isn't the same thing as sky-is-falling panic

[Laura PourMeADrink]

142. no, we shouldn't. But, it is what it is, around here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. The fact that you give us a choice reveals your bias n/t

[ieoeja]

144. Maybe (because I refuse to let you lock me into your "yes or no" ideology). n/t