POLITICS 101 FOR THE FAR LEFT: LESSONS #1 THRU #9

[VeryConfused]

When all is said and done, if you want to know why the politics in what should be a liberal country such as the United States has been dominated for 30 years by people who should be situated on the fringe, if you’re on the far left, look in the mirror. If not, look at the far left.

A quick perusal of the leftist “blogosphere” shows people who like to spout facts and figures, and who obsess over everything that happens, as if they’re doing play-by-play for a baseball game. But they seem to neither know nor care about the average person, and they definitely lack understanding of basic politics. It’s amazing how little they know, yet they act like experts, despite the fact that the only people who actually buy their bullshit are like-minded people who are gullible.

Yes, folks; a lot of the far left is JUST LIKE the far right in that way.

Most actual liberals are very cool, and not very dumb, politically speaking. The liberal side of the aisle encompasses a wide array of different types of people, with different types of experiences. The denizens of the far left are almost all white, they’re almost never poor and they have college educations. They have very little contact with any of the people they claim to be advocating for, yet to listen to them, they know more about being poor or being a minority than the poor and minorities do.

The liberal side of the political debate has been sitting on the sidelines for the better part of 40 years, primarily because a very noisy segment of our ideology is ruining it for the rest of us. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of it. It’s time we taught basic politics to the far left.

The 9 rules are located at this link:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/06/politics-101-for-the-far-leftlessons-1-thru-9.html

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. Yup, the far left is just SO HARD to ignore in this country...

(and here it comes...I hate this smiley, but never was it more appropriate.)

:eyes:

[bluestate10]

383. I ignore the far Left. I look for usefulness. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

400. And what, exactly, do you find?

The status quo, I assume....

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The 'far left' doesn't exist. unrec for troll bait.

[pscot]

172. Unrec for DLC propaganda

[VeryConfused]

196. Do you appreciate that the DLC wanted to move the Dems to the center

while the author of the article doesn't want to change the party's ideology but rather wants the far left to improve its tactics?

[pscot]

209. That's a generous interpretation

of what that artcle is about, and does not square with my reading of it. I found it gratuitously insulting and patronizing in the extreme. FYI; the fact that you have managed to thoroughly piss off some of the calmest, most rational and most committed Democrats on this board should give you something to think about.

[VeryConfused]

242. It's an important point, not an interpretation

[21st Century FDR]

267. The purpose of the DLC is Republican infiltration, to destroy the Democratic party from within

And that remains the goal, no matter what they call themselves this week ("Third Way", "No Labels", "New Democrats", etc.)

[VeryConfused]

289. Didn't the DLC go belly up?

Besides you are confusing tactics with ideology and reaching false conclusion.

[21st Century FDR]

296. No, they just changed their name.

Doesn't matter what they call themselves really. DLC, Third Way, No Labels, New Democrats, or just be honest about it and call themselves Republicans. These fools are so deluded by corporatist funding that they believe rebranding can save them.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, A Republican, known by any other name, still stinks like shit

[VeryConfused]

299. Still your comments are a strawman argument

as this is about tactics not moving the party to the center or right

[txlibdem]

420. Tactics? "Liberals are all white and college educated, wouldn't know poor if it's in their face"

Sounds like a pitbull attack dog smear of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Not a discussion of tactics at all. Can't unrec but you get a WTF:

:wtf: ????

[Youth Uprising]

437. Jane Hamsher was spot on on her description of the Obamabots.

Obama's most fervent supporters seem to carry a right-wing authoritarian streak with a tinge of racism. As a working-class liberal of Hispanic descent, I find that statement highly offensive.

[JackRiddler]

205. Unrec for pure fantasy.

The whole thing is rhetoric, counterposed against other, unattributed rhetoric that the author wishes to call "the left." The author comes off like a grumpy centrist angry that he doesn't get to define the "liberal" label.

That's the miracle of the written word. Why bother with empirical examination? You can just invent your own realities, define the antagonist you wish, imagine him in whatever terms please you, and slay him, valiantly, with your superior wisdom. Victory is yours!



(except I accidentally recced - immaterial).

[JackRiddler]

332. Oh, and one more thing about it: the utter contempt for ordinary people.

Just read what is attributed to (and excused) the supposed normal folk whose little brains can't tolerate all that leftist criticizin' and readin' and negativity about our wonderful system of government and don't want to hear the ecological soshialism stuff. Ya gotta talk down to them, in simple dichotomies! (Never mind if these correspond to reality.) Hope and Change! Ya gotta treat'em like idiots, and be an idiot yourself, or you're a loser! Ya gotta talk only about stuff they know directly affects them (the Arctic meltin'?! Wha?), see? Or else you're an egghead and they'll follow the demagogues and the demagogues will totally rule. This attitude of always sticking to platitudes and trying to define the bogus "center" with feel-good soccermom/hockeydad archetypes has done more to dumb down the people about their government and politics than practically anything else, and this author of course sees it both as good and immutable. (Oh, wait, I used a WORD. Sorry about that.)

[ThomWV]

3. What a load of horseshit.

[VeryConfused]

22. Thank you, I just asked that you read it with an open mind

and address the specific points raise. Thank you for doing that.

[ThomWV]

33. I did read it with an open mind, and that one comment addresses each issue raised.

[VeryConfused]

81. That hardly seems like an approach that will lead to

a productive exchange

[bemildred]

189. The OP pretty much obviates any chance of "productive exchange", to begin with.

It is one-sided simple-minded tripe, like most propaganda.

[VeryConfused]

192. To suggest room for improvement

prevents productive exchange. That is a dim view to take of the far left.

[bemildred]

199. To suggest false simple-minded stereotypes as a base for "improvement"

also prevents productive exchange.

When you start out with false premises, the rest of your "reasoning" never has a chance.

You don't speak for the "far left" or any other part of the left.

[VeryConfused]

201. "false premise"?

the article talks about the pride of ousting blue dogs. Is that a fiction?

[bemildred]

204. Yes. It is complete horseshit. nt

[VeryConfused]

212. I am pretty sure I have seen celebrations in liberal circles

over the loss of Blue Dogs in general elections.

[bemildred]

217. That's not the "far left", that's what Mr Dean called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

[bluestate10]

380. Wrapping in the mantle of sainthood? I expect to see angels fly into DU

and lift the self appointed worthy to heaven any moment. Listen, you are no more of the democratic wing than any other segment of the democratic party.

[bemildred]

393. You seem to have a rich fantasy life. nt

[bemildred]

214. FWIW, the very use of "far left" throughout is all one really needs to know.

The equating of anyone who opposes the national party hacks' control of the party as "far left" is a lie.
The assumption that one must support incumbents no matter how they vote to be politically astute is another piece of bullshit.
But it is all bullshit, it attacks the left under the guise of "helping" the left, what could be more bullshitty than that?

[sabrina 1]

208. Give an example of these people on the 'far left'

as described in this article.

[VeryConfused]

218. Fire Dog Lake and PCCC

would be two good examples. Huffington Post prior to being sold would be another.

[sabrina 1]

231. Seriously? All this is about a blog? Are you aware of how many

blogs there are on the internet? Airc from several years ago, FDL was not all that 'left' at all and people were complaining back then that they were rightleaning.

Are you new to politics?

[VeryConfused]

234. FDL has and PCCC is a PAC

that means money We are not just talking blogs

[sabrina 1]

254. Yes, and they support PROGRESSIVE candidates, not

Republicans with a 'd' after their names. What is your problem with that? Everyone has pacs these days, what's the big deal about another one?

[VeryConfused]

264. They fail the 9 points raised in the article and as a result

the nation's politics move farther and farther to the right. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[21st Century FDR]

278. "They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Like electing DLC candidates and expecting them to act like Democrats?

[Jefferson23]

335. You wouldn't answer my previous questions, and this is who you identify

as the "far left". So give an example, what exactly have they done that is the same as the "far right"
regarding as you stated to me their shared mind set, their tactics, their attitude?

You list the Huffington Post prior to being sold, what is different now?

Finally, is this all you identify as the "far left" or are there more of them?

[fishwax]

306. neither does the approach in the OP

Paragraph 1: The far left is primarily/solely responsible for 30 years of right wing government.
Paragraph 2: The far left is stupid and knows and cares nothing about the average person
Paragraph 3: A lot of the far left is JUST LIKE the far right.

Yeah. Hardly seems like an approach that will lead to a productive exchange.

[bemildred]

106. +1. nt

[Scuba]

4. Seventy percent bullshit, one hundred percent managing expectations. n/t

[VeryConfused]

20. Glad you were willing to address the topic

and not dismiss all those points out of hand. Well done

[Scuba]

26. The unasked question is: why did you post it?

[VeryConfused]

29. The far left while well meaning has often caused more damage

than good. So by dealing with things in a smarter more effective manner, the right can be better countered and progress can be made toward progressive goals.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

35. You don't even know what the far left is

You are the poster child for circular firing squad.

[VeryConfused]

40. The far left would be the poster child of the circular firing squad

which is what this article attempts to eliminate. Still I suspect you understand that the article is correct or you wouldn't have pulled out that well known and spot on critique of the far left when it comes to real world politics.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

42. You dont even know what the far left is

You are in the wrong political party. You are spewing right wing tripe.

[VeryConfused]

46. I thought this was a board for the Democratic party

I guess you feel it's for a different party. Which one would that be?

[pmorlan1]

48. lol

Yup, VeryConfused.

[Union Scribe]

136. You post this bullshit and have the audacity to say that?

Can't wait for you to be tombstoned so I can cyber piss on it.

[VeryConfused]

163. Why do suggestions for improvement send you into a blind rage

is there an assumption of perfection at work?

[sabrina 1]

211. What is 'real world politics'. Would that be

ending the New Deal programs, eg, or maybe privatizing them? Enron? The Economic Collapse, several wars going on at the same time? Torture as a policy?

This is very confusing as the article appears to be very rightwing to me, but then, maybe I'm too 'far left' not to appreciate the direction this country has been taken in.

[VeryConfused]

222. Tactics are ideologically neutral so how can you call them

"very right wing"?

[sabrina 1]

232. How would you describe, eg, the tactics of Karl Rove?

Would you say they were 'neutral'?

Tactics are USED to push ideologies, so how can YOU say they cannot be defined one way or the other. One can recognize ideologies from the tactics being used. You really must be very new to politics.

[VeryConfused]

233. Take the political tactic of the wedge issue

the right has used that tactic for years on various issues like marriage equality and a woman's right to chose. Now there are calls for the Democrats to use the Republicans desire to eliminate Medicare as a wedge issue. So the tactic of wedge issues can be used by either side regardless of ideology.

[sabrina 1]

245. So you approve of rightwing tactics then?

I thought the Dem Party was against those kinds of tactics since they kept women and gays oppressed for decades. Are you seriously saying what I think you are saying?

This is childish garbage and dangerous. I remember when the DLC first came up with these stupid ideas, just a few years ago, they were thought up by 20 something, right-leaning 'Reagan Democrats' who thought they were brilliant. And I can assure these morons were anything BUT brilliant, they were spoiled, offspring of wealthy parents with little to do but sit around thinking up this kind of bs.

YOU DO NOT USE THE SICK AND THE OLD TO PLAY POLITICAL GAMES WITH! Sorry to yell, but this makes me ill.

And for you think that these are just 'tactics' to 'outwit' Republicans shows how naive you are. They are NOT. They are tactics intended to harm the most vulnerable people in this society, and if you are not aware that the DLC gang SHARE The views on social programs of Rightwingers, then you truly are truly politically naive.

The DLC WANTS to privatize these programs just like the Repulicans. And you are buying their stupid pretext that these are just tactics??

Are you really buying this BS?? Jane Hamsher was on the inside and saw what they were up to, THAT IS WHY she has tried to warn voters about what they are up to. And that is why they are using people like you to try to discredit her.

Here's one thing about the 'far left' you need to know. They are way, way smarter than the DLCers and than the Far Right and they do NOT fall for 'tactics' right or left.

Thanks for at least answering the questions. I knew the answers btw, most of us did. And we will fight any effort to use 'Medicare' as a 'tactic' on the right or the left because you DO NOT PLAY with people's lives and you don't have to be 'far left' to understand that. Even my Repub sister and her husband would NOT do this.

The DLC is despicable, just as bad as the far right. If you work for them I suggest you not waste time trying to sell their rightwing ideas to honest people. They are NOT honest as you just verified.

How about Democrats not emulate the rotten ideas of the Right and come up with some ideas of their own?

Sickening, but at least you were honest about it.

[VeryConfused]

247. So you are saying the Democrats shouldn't exploit the Republican's

unpopular position for political gain? The reason you are giving is that it's a "right wing tactic"? In the end I think any tactic that involves dishonesty or hurting innocent people should be left the exclusive province of the right. Any other tactic is fair gain. It would be foolish not to learn from the right's successes and copy where applicable.

[sabrina 1]

290. You don't use corrupt, liars as your models unless you agree with

them. This argument is specious.

Wedge issues. You want a wedge issue, you want to use Rovian tactics against them. Then you take what they say they want, to SHRINK GOVERNMENT, they say, they want to 'REIGN IN GOVT. SPENDING'.

So, what would a smart strategist do to use that against them? They would agree, and they WOULD USE THE MILITARY BUDGET to hit them with. What would that do? It would force them to say 'no' which would expose their hypocrisy AND the public would be behind US, not THEM.

You need to understand that the reason the DLC is pretending to be using 'tactics' by using Medicare is NOT because they disagree with Republicans on Social Programs, it is NOT a tactic, it's what they want, it's because THEY AGREE WITH THEM. And they agree with them on WAR.

You are being fooled, you are being led by a bunch of deceivers to defend deceptive tactics. And that is what is harming Democrats.

[VeryConfused]

294. What is harming the Democratic party is your insistance

as branding any tactic ever used by a Republican as corrupt and evil, rather than consider each tactic on it's own moral and ethical merit.

[sabrina 1]

324. I live in the real world. Are you seriously defending Karl Rove here?

Wow! No wonder this party cannot get anything done. YOUR admiration for one of the country's biggest con artists and criminals, unindicted so far, is exhibit A of what is wrong with the Dem Party since it was infiltrated by Reagan 'Democrats'. The stupidity of their thinking is beyond belief. Blind, childish, unrealistic, thinking you can 'win' by being a poor imitation of the worst of our society.

That OP is one of the worst pieces of drivel I have ever read. Whoever wrote it won't go far in the literary world, and as far as politics, clearly they have no idea of what it takes to win elections and it scares me to think that this kind of thinking even exists anywhere other than in the Republican party.

I sure hope this President doesn't subscribe to the idea that Karl Rove is a brilliant and decent guy. If I wanted to vote for someone who believes THAT, I would vote for a Republican.


Republicans are NOT evil, I have many friends and family members who are Republicans. Why did you accuse me of something I did not say?? Another failed tactic of the far right and the DLC/New Democrats who are so close it's hard to distinguish one from the other, and they are the worst of the far right, not the moderate Republicans who are decent people with whom we simply disagree.

[VeryConfused]

328. I can't figure out the point you are trying to make

It seems like you want to far left to fail, but in that failure to be able to say they never sullied their hands actually participating in real world politics.

[sabrina 1]

337. Of course you don't. You are confused. That's what I meant

about living in the real world, not the fantasy world of failed political operatives. They do not represent the American people. And they lost the House for Democrats in 2010. And if we lose again in the next election, get ready for the extreme anger against them for screwing up this party's chances of winning yet again. They will take the full blame if Republicans win the next election.


Here are some rules for you that actually work when you want to win an election. Ask your heroes, the Republicans:

Rule #1 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #2 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #3 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #4 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #5 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #6 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #7 ~ Do not attack your base!

Rule #8 ~ Do not attack your base!

And Rule #9 ~ Never adapt the failed policies of the Far Right and expect to get Democrats and Independents to vote for you rightleaning candidates.

And since I live in the reality based world, I can even prove why your article is such BS. Last Nov. all but two progressives held their seats, because the 'far left' worked for them and went out and voted for them.

Blue Dogs lost. Where were the DLCers? Did they not go out and vote their favorite candidates? Progressives kept their Democrats in office, DLCers couldn't do it for theirs.

QED:

'Far Left' Wins

DLC/New Democrats Lose.

[VeryConfused]

248. So you are saying the Democrats shouldn't exploit the Republican's

unpopular position for political gain? The reason you are giving is that it's a "right wing tactic"? In the end I think any tactic that involves dishonesty or hurting innocent people should be left the exclusive province of the right. Any other tactic is fair gain. It would be foolish not to learn from the right's successes and copy where applicable.

[sabrina 1]

251. Wow, you really are very confused. The DLC is a cult

willing to destroy the lives of the most vulnerable Americans.

You approve of Rove's tactics, I knew that as I was there a couple of years ago watching as immature, naive DLCers with plenty of money from the mommys and daddys came up with these must stupid ideas and the adults in the room slapped them down as they deserved.

Would you rob a bank to 'exploit' the tactics of bank robbers? Because THAT is what you are promoting.

The DLC EXPOSED. Thanks, they are usually more careful not to admit to these vile, Rovian tactics which have destroyed our political system.

No wonder we can't win anything with the DLC in this party. They copy Rove because they are bereft of any ideas of their own, and mostly, because they SHARE MANY OF THE VIEWS of the right.

The Dem Party needs to get rid of this Rovian element which has infiltrated and destroyed the party and lost so many elections with their far right beliefs. I am more convinced than ever.

[VeryConfused]

253. I thought we covered this

the DLC is about moving the Democrats to the center. This article isn't pushing to move the party to the center. On the contrary, it's pushing for more effective liberal tactics so we can see more progressive accomplishments.

[Scuba]

334. Bullshit again. The DLC is pushing the party farther right, not towards the center.

[sabrina 1]

'Effective liberal tactics' do NOT

include using Medicare as a bargaining chip with Republicans.

I thought we covered it also.

Effective Liberal Tactics include using Republicans own talking points AGAINST THEM. That would mean slamming them every chance you get with their own claim that the Govt is filled with waste and challenging them to actually do something about it. By slashing the grossly wasteful Pentagon Budget which is actually responsible for the Deficit.

This article is so far from being liberal or even democratic, it's amazing you would try to pass it off as such. Maybe you really do not understand what real Democratic and winning Liberal tactics look like because the DLC/New Democrats took over the party and we've failing ever since.

Now, we, the left, have to take it back.

I don't follow people who set out to deceive the American people, and that is what this article is about. Playing games. The American people are not stupid, they are sick and tired of political games, on all sides of the spectrum.

They are desperately looking for honesty, NOT deceptive tactics like playing with their lives, there medical care when they are old.

Nothing works like being honest, or didn't you know that?

[tblue37]

403. Whoah! Did you just say it is right wing to use the Republican attacks against

SS and Medicare as wedge issues? I think we should push those particular wedge issues hard!

[bluestate10]

382. Krugman, Chomsky. Much hoof, little beef. Yes, I know, Krugman has

a Nobel Prize, so does Milton Friedman, AND, Friedman got his first. Don't give me the shit that a Nobel Prize imparts logic on how to make everyday economics work, application of Friedman's principles was a disaster for the country during the 80's and early 90's.

[Jefferson23]

396. lay out your arguments against Krugman's economic advice, we'll get to Chomsky later.

Then I'd like to hear your opinion of Joseph Stiglitz.


on edit for clarity.

[Jefferson23]

429. You're not willing to discuss your arguments against Krugman's advice bluestate10?

In post# 382 you offered this: Krugman, Chomsky. Much hoof, little beef. Yes, I know, Krugman has
a Nobel Prize, so does Milton Friedman, AND, Friedman got his first. Don't give me the shit that a Nobel Prize imparts logic on how to make everyday economics work, application of Friedman's principles was a disaster for the country during the 80's and early 90's.


Btw, who's advice on economics do you support and why?

[LanternWaste]

102. You will of course lead us to valid and objective...

"The far left while well meaning has often caused more damage than good."

You will of course lead us to valid and objective links which illustrate this point, yes?

[Scuba]

111. Bullshit.

[PassingFair]

114. The "far left" wants Financial Regulation.

Strong, well-funded public schools.

Separation of Church and State.

Affordable Health Care for ALL.

Social safety nets for the poor and the infirm.

Strong Unions.

No unnecessary wars.

Transparency in Government.


Real anarchists, huh!

Those are our "ponies", and NO the current
administration is not interested in championing
them.

These are the things that Obama voters VOTED FOR.

[VeryConfused]

124. Those are the same positions held by the left

and don't differentiate with the far left

[PassingFair]

128. Then please tell me who "the far left" IS.

As the positions I have enumerated are NOT
being fought for by the current administration.

What is the difference between "the left" and
"the far left", and who is in control now?

"The Center"?

[VeryConfused]

132. See there is the mark of the far left

they refuse to accept that politics is a difficult and messy business. As a result they take extreme and inaccurate positions like the "politicians are not fighting for my views". Of course if you had read the article you would understand that "fighting" is a very ineffective political tactic and doesn't achieve the desired goals.

[PassingFair]

155. And if you knew ANYTHING about HUMAN NATURE and VOTERS...

You'd know that the office holder must at LEAST
be PERCEIVED as fighting for the principles on
which he was elected.

You saw the "positions" I posted....
they are not extreme.

2010 should have taught them SOMETHING!

[VeryConfused]

162. Don't you think if the far left knew anything about human nature and politics

the right wouldn't be so dominant in this Country?

[PassingFair]

180. The "right" is really only "dominant" in the south.

Don't expect the "far left" to become racist,
religion-driven voters to try and counter-act
THAT mentality.

(...and I know ALL southern people are not
racist, religioninst voters...just ENOUGH of them
to send ENOUGH idiots to DC to cause trouble.)

By the way, you STILL have not defined "Far Left".

[VeryConfused]

184. If the right only dominates the south

why does it also dominate Washington. In my mind that says we have some failed tactics that the right is exploiting.

[PassingFair]

195. It shouldn't dominate Washington.

The "Center" is the "failed tactic" that
keeps killing progressive legislation.

[sabrina 1]

219. Name someone, you know, a real person, so we can understand

better what this is all about, that is on the 'far left' who doesn't understand that politics is a messy business.

You seem to me, no offense, to be very naive and unrealistic about politics yourself. But that could be because you are parroting DLC/Rightwing propaganda and you don't seem to be aware of it.

Just so you know, DLC/Rightwinger propaganda always uses the term 'far left'. Especially rightwing propaganda. I know, I spent a few years talking to them and every second word out of their mouths was 'far left'. Did you know that?

I'm having fun watching this. I hope you are too.

[VeryConfused]

221. I am not so naive to mistake the DLC call to move the party with to the center

with the author's call for the far left to improve its tactics so more progressive goals can be achieved.

[sabrina 1]

226. Then as you have been asked several times already, give some

examples of 'far left' positions and some names of people on the 'far left' who don't understand that 'politics is messy'. If you can't do that, and you seem to be having a problem with it, then I'll just assume you are very naive and don't recognize Rightwing BS when you see it.

[VeryConfused]

228. I already answered that up thread

[PassingFair]

235. When forced into a corner, he/she answered "Jane Hamsher" and "Huffington Post"....

(before it was sold...)

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

239. I just saw that.

Too funny, so now that Huffpo is a multi-million dollar Corporate entity like the rest of the MSM it's okay? :rofl:

[fishwax]

330. sounds like you're saying the difference b/w left and far left lies in tactics rather than beliefs

that's weird.

[truedelphi]

422. And folks at the Pew research

Have taken polls that show again and again that the MAJORITY of people want these things.

[RegieRocker]

280. This is one of the best posts as of late.

[myrna minx]

5. Such spleen draining silliness. n/t

[cali]

6. oh please. Do you provide any evidence for these assertions? "A quick

perusal of the internet" Snort. What dung.

[RegieRocker]

281. Prove that you exist.

[WonderGrunion]

7. Kick and Rec

I hope some of President Obama's constant critics read this whole article.

[Number23]

426. I am soooo sad I missed this thread. And I'd like to say I'm shocked by the responses to it

but I'd be lying through my teeth. :)

Can't rec, but I can damn sure kick! :kick:

[H2O Man]

8. legalize lonnie anderson's hair

[GrantDem]

131. +1

[EFerrari]

9. Not only wrong but badly written wrong. n/t

[VeryConfused]

21. Which specific point did you have an issue with

I assume you were open minded enough to read the article and provide a reasoned response

[EFerrari]

39. The whole thing is right wing tripe.

But in particular, yes, the two parties themselves are similar because the DLC went out of its way to capture successful Republican strategies. And no, the left in no way mirrors the right. The right wing is a fear-based, authoritarian freak show, and the left organizes its thinking and behavior nothing like them which is why the DLC's project will eventually fail.

Plus someone should introduce this author to the 2010 midterms, where the public ousted Blue Dogs, not progressives.

And that's as long as I intend to think about this silliness.

[VeryConfused]

43. I think one needs to look no farther than the Supreme Court

to see how wrong your assertion is. There is no similarity between the Democrats and Republicans. The reason that is so, is the Supreme Court strips most of the political limitations from the Justices so they can show their true stripes.

[EFerrari]

49. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with party politics

and actually illustrates my position not yours. Justices go there not as Democrats or Republicans but as liberals and conservatives. Their behavior couldn't be more different.

[VeryConfused]

53. If you believe the Supreme Court has nothing to do with political parties

then you have not been paying attention over the past decade or two starting with the lawsuit against President Clinton and moved on to the SC stealing the election for Republican George Bush.

[sabrina 1]

216. Yes, we know the 'SC' is the scary reason for voting for Republicans

with a 'D' after their name this time, but you're not explaining how the 'far left' has anything to do with say, Clarence Thomas. Was he THEIR candidate? Any of them vote for him?

[VeryConfused]

225. Consider this passage from the article

Lesson #3: Until there are at least 218 progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not a source of pride; it’s just plain stupid.

Many on the far left seem to be enormously immature, in that they want their political change to happen immediately. they’re like the rich kids who “only” got a Mercedes for graduation, when they wanted the Jaguar. Real people have to earn their reward, folks; no one gets anything without tons of blood and sweat.

After more than 30 years of neocon-driven politics, why would anyone be surprised that there are a large number of conservative-leaning districts out there? Yet, a large number of far-left “progressives” were actually crowing at the “silver lining” in the 2010 election results; that about half of all “Blue Dog” Democrats lost. Yes, that’s right; they were HAPPY. Nancy Pelosi was replaced by an orange Boner, the committee chairs all went from being progressive Democrats to being right wing Republicans. We went from having a House of Representatives that passed hundreds of relatively progressive bills to one that has repeatedly tried to kill Medicare and damage Social Security.

And do you know WHY this happened? In part, it’s because about 25 “Blue Dogs,” almost all of whom voted with Democrats at least 80% of the time, were replaced by right wing Republicans and teabaggers.

Does that sound like “progress” to you? Really? If you do, then you must be one of those geniuses who thinks both major parties are the same. And that leads to:

[sabrina 1]

236. Are you aware that the Obama Admins in the form of Rahm

Emmanuel et al BLAMED the Blue Dogs when Dems had a majority in both Houses and the WH as the reason why they could not get progressive, democratic issues passed in Congress?

Why did they tell people one thing, and now they are trying to pretend the Blue Dogs were necessary?

I think the DLC is very confused. They worked AGAINST Progressive Dems who had a very good chance of being elected in dists where THEY pushed the Blue Dogs. Then they BLAMED the Blue Dogs for not pushing more Democratic policies.

Do you see how naimve they are?? They thought people would buy their BS and as a result the lost the House in 2010 as we on the left tried to warn them against.

And before you blame the 'far left' for that, it was Independents who stayed away. The DLC drove them away. All but two progressives held their seats. Who do you think went out and voted for them?? Republicans?

The DLC is going to lose, as they did in the past, the next election if the 'far left' doesn't take over and get them out of the way.

The DLC is completely responsible for almost all the losses of the past few decades of the Dem Party.

And they are about to do it again. I blame the DLC completely for the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat and for the losses in 2010. They don't know what they are doing.

[VeryConfused]

240. Blue Dogs are a double edged sword

on the one hand the Blue Dogs helped the Democrats capture control of Congress and all the benefits that entails. On the other, the Blue Dogs made it difficult to pass more progressive legislation. In the end it would be nice to be in a position not to need the Blue Dogs, but at this point in time it's not possible.

[sabrina 1]

Anything is possible if you don't have negative people telling

you it's not. And that is why the DLC is so bad for this party. There WERE progressives who could have won in some of those dists and the DLCers did everything to stop them.

The Blue Dogs were ousted by their constituents. Progressives who went out to vote for every progressive who was running.

Explain this please. What good is 'holding on to power' if you cannot use it to get anything done? That's not power.

[VeryConfused]

285. Why do you keep bringing up the DLC?

This article doesn't have anything to do with them or their organization. Besides didn't they go out of business?

[sabrina 1]

301. Lol, this article has everything to do with the 'New Democrats'

How do you recognize the infiltrators in the Dem Party? Like the far right, their main target is always the 'Left'. Always, just like the Right. So the article is either another piece of 'New Democrat' propaganda or it is a rightwinger pretending to be Democrat. But one thing is certain, that article was not written by a Democrat.

[VeryConfused]

307. I prefer to avoid conspiracy theories

Frankly results speak louder than unsubstantiated claims. Failure to get the public to move to the left is far more of an issue than where you would like to believe that Matt came from or who he is working for.

[sabrina 1]

319. Are you the author of this drivel?? I never heard of this person

however what s/he wrote, is old, well-known propaganda, from the right, not even subtle as some of it from the rightwing of the Dem Party tries to be.

Results DO speak louder than words. NOW you're talking, and since the DLC infiltrated the Dem Party we have been LOSING elections.

The public IS left. Do you know anything or are you so indoctrinated by this rightwing drivel that you cannot think for yourself. All polls show when no party is mentioned, this country if overwhelmingly on the left regarding the issues.

I feel sorry for you. Did you really think this was some brilliant piece of 'writing'? I mean it's so familiar and so bad in terms of accomplishing anything, I thought the Dem Party had kicked this kind of propaganda into the gutter after their devastating loss, totally caused by the DLC/New Democrats last Fall.

I can't think of a worse way to try to win elections than to attack the people who are the most likely to vote for your candidates. Karl Rove NEVER did that. HE attacked the 'LEFT' but never the base of the party, that is why the New Democrats are such failures, they are attacking their own party. How stupid can anyone be?

[VeryConfused]

326. No, the author is Milt Shook, who has solid progressive credentials

[sabrina 1]

366. Lol, never heard of him. And if he has 'solid progressive credentials'

they are not apparent in this piece of 'I hate Liberals' (*yawn* doesn't everyone on the right?) trash. Did he think this was unique or something? Same old, rightwing garbage written by someone pretending to be a liberal. There are lots of them around these days.

[fishwax]

333. that's a silly misreading/distortion of the reaction to the blue dogs loss

Lesson #3: Until there are at least 218 progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not a source of pride; it’s just plain stupid.

It didn't take the author long to break his own admonition (under "lesson" #2) that calling/treating people as stupid is no way to make progress :rofl:

Many on the far left seem to be enormously immature, in that they want their political change to happen immediately. they’re like the rich kids who “only” got a Mercedes for graduation, when they wanted the Jaguar. Real people have to earn their reward, folks; no one gets anything without tons of blood and sweat.

Etc.

After more than 30 years of neocon-driven politics, why would anyone be surprised that there are a large number of conservative-leaning districts out there? Yet, a large number of far-left “progressives” were actually crowing at the “silver lining” in the 2010 election results; that about half of all “Blue Dog” Democrats lost. Yes, that’s right; they were HAPPY. Nancy Pelosi was replaced by an orange Boner, the committee chairs all went from being progressive Democrats to being right wing Republicans. We went from having a House of Representatives that passed hundreds of relatively progressive bills to one that has repeatedly tried to kill Medicare and damage Social Security.


That's a pretty elementary misreading of the reaction. They weren't happy that dems lost the house. The point was that, of the democrats that lost, most of them were on the conservative end of the democratic scale. If 20 democrats lost, better they be of the blue dog variety than the progressive variety. Nothing naive about that.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

10. Idiotic OP

Belongs on Freerepublic

[VeryConfused]

19. As long as you read it with an open mind

I appreciate that you were willing to consider the opinions and points of others

[Hand_With_Eyes]

32. Open mind?

I work in a fact based world. I'm not 'open minded' to Rush Limbaughesque OPs, sorry.

From looking at your posts lately, I conclude the only thing you hate worse than the GOP is the Democratic party, or as you would probably call it, the 'Democrat' party.

[VeryConfused]

34. Your comments indicate you don't live in a fact based world

the irony is after making that declaration you went on with a string of unsubstantiated speculations and didn't quote a single fact. How have you been able to resolve such a glaring dichotomy?

[LaydeeBug]

84. wow. Just. wow. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

213. So now you want people to "spout facts and figures"?

Make up your mind, Oh Confused One.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

243. Right wing tripe is not fact

You are in the wrong party for that crap

[sabrina 1]

309. You are using DLC talking points.

Let me help. 'Reality based community' 'fact based world' 'ponies' 'magic wand' 'the left wants everything right now' 'martyr' 'pet issues' etc. etc. all 'talking points'.

Real people say what is on their minds without using talking points. This is something the DLC/New Democrats stole from the right. They are so naive they thought that Karl Rove was brilliant, rather than just corrupt, so instead of coming up with their own ideas, instead of being able to express their views in an honest way, they came up with all these 'talking points'. And who are those talking points aimed at? Just like the Right, always at REAL Democrats which they refer to with another talking point 'the far left'.

I'm laughing at this whole thread. Seriously, if you want to make points, don't do it with the same old, old, ancient actually, Karl Rove wannabe material. We all recognize it too easily.

And it is just plain stupid, devoid of any reality and only confirms that the New Democrats need to go, they are not smart enough to win elections. And maybe that's the goal, they want Democrats to lose.

[Lasher]

402. I love irony.

[pipi_k]

56. I didn't find it

"Rush Limbaugh-ish" at all.

In fact, I found it to be a pretty accurate picture of what I have seen around this place on occasion.

For example, what is wrong with telling people that screaming and yelling at others instead of engaging them in a calm rational manner will not get you what you want?

If you are the type of person who will sit and listen to someone screeching at the top of his lungs at you...or two people screeching at each other, then be my guest. I would prefer dignified, adult conversation. And that was one of the points presented in the article.

And point #2...in order to get a progressive government, you need a progressive populace. Is there something blatantly false about that? I think not. It makes sense. If you can't convince someone with science, then go for the personal approach, as it states in the article with regards to climate change.

And point #7..

"It’s really simple; it’s been 32 years, and the neocons are still in office, and still dismantling the mechanisms we built back in the first quarter-century after the war. Despite the fact that we know how to fix the economy, because we did it before, the wingnuts are still pushing the same tired crap they’ve been pushing for 30 years. And they get away with it because a large portion of the left side of the political debate likes to SAY they have principle, but they really don’t. The fact of the matter is, supporting someone who says everything you want to hear, when that person has neither the intention nor the ability to actually get into office and do what he or she is saying makes you gullible, not principled.

If the person who says what you want to hear has absolutely NO chance in hell of being elected, then you're spinning your wheels and making it possible for Neocons to keep pushing their crap. Does this look like something a Rush Limbaugh would say? Yeah...to the Republicans, maybe...who, stupid as they may be, do not have a tendency to cut off their own noses to spite their faces by voting for some Third Party asshole who has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

There are so many things I see far Lefters do to sabotage the entire party.

As for myself, even if at times I have to hold my nose, I will vote for the Democrat...not some Third Party or write-in candidate just to make a point. Because once a Republican gets in, you can write letters and make phone calls till you're blue in the face, but a Republican isn't going to give a rat's ass what a Democrat wants from him. I think it's far better to get the Democrat in and then hold his feet to the fire.

That is what I understood from that article. And unless I'm absolutely and totally mistaken, that is NOT something a Freeper would care about...how to make the Democratic party stronger.

[hfojvt]

223. except that the only time that 3rd party vote mattered was in 2000

So that type of behaviour has not made a huge difference otherwise. Okay 2000 was huge, but only in the Presidential election. President Al Gore still would have faced a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate.

Second, okay some screeching and yelling does happen on the blogosphere, but since when does the blogosphere rule the world? Since when does it matter more than what is said on TV, what is written in newspapers, what is said on the radio. It's kinda nice to think that my blog posts can make a difference, but really they probably have less impact than an LTTE.

[VeryConfused]

227. With President Al Gore

there is a very good chance there would have been no 9/11 (he wouldn't have ignored the warnings)

there wouldn't have been the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq

there wouldn't have been huge tax payer giveaways to the ultra wealthy


All that would have been hugely beneficial to our nation

[hfojvt]

257. sure, like I said, it was huge

but some of what you mention could have been stopped by having Democratic control in the House and Senate as well as Democratic victories in the 2002 congressional races. And the losses there cannot be blemed either on Nader voters or the left blogosphere. Neither can the losses of 2004.

[VeryConfused]

268. What about the money that was wasted attacking Democrats?

Do you think that money would have been better spent attacking Republicans and conservative positions? Could that have helped swing a few elections away from the Republicans?

[hfojvt]

298. What money?

And sorry, but Joe Lieberman deserved to be attacked and defeated. He himself spent more time going on TV and attacking Democrats than anybody else who was supposed to be on our side.

[VeryConfused]

308. Trying to push out Joe was a good idea, with less than ideal results

still the far left was spending money attacking Blue Dog Democrats after the 2008 election.

[sabrina 1]

348. Point #2 is incorrect and has been proven so in

every poll taken on the issues. This country is far more progressive than right-leaning. This is the fundamental mistake made by the New Democrats. They have bought that rightwing lie and then follow the lie by running right-leaning candidates.

Point #7 couldn't be more wrong if it tried. Although buried in it is some truth. The losses Democrats have suffered over the past three decades correspond almost exactly with the infiltration of the DLC/New Democrats and their failed ideas. Only when Dean fought that wing of the party did we manage to win again.

The false premise regarding this imaginary left couldn't be more incorrect, but it is a rightwing/DLC lie.

Explain please how Democrats won in 2006 and 2008? Was it because the 'left' didn't vote because they weren't 'getting their ponies'? And if so, WHO voted for all those candidates even ones they knew were not the best?

You cannot make good points with lies. This article if you can call it that, more like the usual far right wing of the party's attack on those who actually do the work to get democrats elected, is filled with false claims and outright lies.

I hope this is not going to be the way the Party runs the campaign, because if it is, it is going to lose the next election, NOT because of the 'left' who will as they as always do, vote for Democrats, but because they will drive away Independents and the 'left' will not be knocking on doors for a party that is going in the wrong direction.

This article represents FAILED STRATEGY. Fortunagely it's some unknown blogger just spouting the usual 'I hate the left' nonsense far more suitable to a rightwing board. I'm sure FR would love it.

[canoeist52]

11. VERY confused...

[fasttense]

12. There has not been a far left in this country for over 30 years.

And the few remains of it, this article wants to kill.

This article is nothing but pure, unadulterated crap.

The 1st rule about getting the most votes? Yeah cause we all know the 5 supreme court justices counted every last vote in Florida to ensure that the People's voice was heard. Oh wait, no, they selected a right wing idiot W as our president because they knew what was good for the country better than "We the People".

[leveymg]

13. The OP has a well-chosen screen name

and obviously doesn't like this community very much.

(S)he is free to leave anytime.

[elocs]

23. Or they are free to stay, like anyone else, until they break the rules & get tombstoned.

I can tolerate hearing somebody sing who is not in the choir as long as they can abide by the rules. I can also tolerate reading things I don't like here, even when it comes from the choir.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[VeryConfused]

36. Do your posts conform to the rules of these forums?

Are you allowed to tell people to leave or call them trolls? Is their some sort of special exemption you are operating under?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

15. In others words the left needs to sit down, shut up, and let the "adults" run the show,

What a load of crap. But hey, it falls in with the general attitude of the modern day Democratic party, sadly enough.

[VeryConfused]

17. Agreed, we shouldn't let the adults run things

what did maturity ever do to help anything?

[MadHound]

27. Notice, I put the word in quotes,

Basic understanding of written English, learn it, love it, live by it. Don't try to make things I write out to be otherwise, got it?

Your little hit piece not only gets its history wrong. Not only were large parts of our "mechanism" built before WWII(ie the New Deal), but the writer seems to want to neglect the simple fact that Democrats have had a large part in dismantling it.

Further, the writer's advice to left about fighting is simply flat out wrong. Most of the best domestic Democratic legislation was pushed by presidents who went out and fought. Were you obstructing LBJ? He would go out into your district, your state, your home town and beat you about the head and shoulders, and guess what, he used that tactic not only to break a filibuster, but to pass the Great Society.

This is simply another hit piece on the left, and you know it. The fact that you are posting it here tells a lot about you and your character, none of it good.

[VeryConfused]

31. Quotes or not your disdain for adults and maturity were duly noted

by this post as well as your quoted post

[MadHound]

38. Oh, yeah, right, whatever.

I think that the conception of adults and maturity that you and this article display are not the same as others are perceiving it. Perhaps that is deliberate on your part, perhaps not, but either way, you simply don't get it.

Besides, if I disdained adults and maturity as you say I do, I must be self hating, since I'm definitely an adult and mature.

But the biggest thing I noticed about your post is that you glommed onto the "adult" part that I wrote(and got faux insulted by), but you haven't touched any of my other criticisms. Why is that? Can't argue with the truth?

You are simply posting more bullshit designed to denigrate and marginalize the left. Is this what adults do?

[alarimer]

16. Except the left (far or otherwise) is reality-based.

And mostly correct. Whereas the right (all of it) is by no means reality-based. They believe things that are simply untrue and are complete liars in every way.

[VeryConfused]

24. Ideology is about ideals not reality

so there is no way one can say any ideology is reality based or not reality based.

[JackRiddler]

207. Keep repeating that and maybe reality will go away.

[TheKentuckian]

252. Ideology can indeed be matched with outcomes and deemed real world applicable

or false.

If you prescribe a laundry list of demonstrably failed ideas and policies then the ideology is by definition, not reality based

[City Lights]

18. I love your screen name!

So fitting! :applause:

Unrec.

[TBF]

25. As a leftist myself I can tell you this blog is written by someone very right

wing who is indeed very confused as he thinks "far left" and "liberals" are synonyms.

My friend, leftists were driven out of this country by Palmer and McCarthy and there is very little organization of the current socialists/communists (leftist) who happen to be in the country now.

As for liberals (he calls them "far left"), I do agree that liberals sometimes are elitists who wouldn't even take the time to talk to an average worker, but that is not always the case. And I would comment that the same is true of well-off republicans - they ain't letting you into their country clubs either unless it's to park their cars or caddy for them.

The folks running this country, the elite 2-3% or so who are much richer than many can imagine, have very little day to day contact with workers (unless it's someone bringing their car, caring for their kids, or doing their yard). It really doesn't matter if they identify as republican or democrat because it's the money that controls things, not the title.

Unrec for trolling.

[RegieRocker]

284. Mob mentality. Don't agree with them, you must not be one of them.

[HereSince1628]

30. It must be campaign season...

availability of lessons about how to have a 'proper' political attitude are increasing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

45. It has begun in ernest.

Yup, many here have noticed it as well. :crazy: As WillyT so perfectly noted, it's like the swalllows of Capistrano. :D

[mmonk]

37. Sorry but I can't believe in unicorns no matter how much it enrages

people that promote their existence or write how impractical we are or that we don't care about average people.

[VeryConfused]

41. I reread the article and didn't see any suggestion that people believe

in unicorns. Did you make up that position just because you could knock it down. Since it would have been easier to knock a real point in the article, I have to think you were unable to do so.

[mmonk]

61. No. Not at all.

I agree on its strategy of educating.

[H2O Man]

44. Er, which part?

The tail? You don't believe unicorns have tails? Horses have tails. Zebras have tails. Ponies have tails. John Lennon wrote a song titled, "I Dig a Pony." Are you saying that you don't believe in Beatles?

The Far Left hates the Beatles.

[mmonk]

50. I actually believe in teaching the left.

So I agree with that.

[mmonk]

52. The part I do not agree with is we are like the far right.

[VeryConfused]

57. Both sides share extremist positions

So it stands to reason there would be other shared traits.

[mmonk]

66. Maybe one can explain what extreme positions are being proferred.

I can't find an extreme position from the left that is being offered up as an official position. I do see a quest for basic economic fairness from what is considered left in the US.

[VeryConfused]

68. Please reread the title of this post

it's addressing the FAR left, not the left in general.

[mmonk]

72. I know that and agree with the premise of educating people.

However, I cannot be docile to the right's nonsense.

[Jefferson23]

74. Extremist positions are shared by both sides? Pick one position and

let's start there.

[VeryConfused]

79. The extremes believe their ideological positions are flawless

as a result they don't believe in compromise. Heck, they don't even believe in true Democracy as the ideological extremes favor their ideology over the will of the majority of the people.

[Jefferson23]

89. That's not what I asked you. You made this statement in post# 58:

VeryConfused (309 posts) Mon Jul-18-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #53
58. Both sides share extremist positions
So it stands to reason there would be other shared traits.

This was my response in post#75:

Extremist positions are shared by both sides? Pick one position and
let's start there.

I ask again, pick one position for which you base your claim in post#53. Since you have also now added
the claim that "they" don't even believe in true Democracy as the ideological extremes favor their ideology over the will of the majority of the people.


I'd appreciate an example of this as well..what exactly has been done to indicate "they" don't believe in true Democracy?

[VeryConfused]

93. I just gave you an example of their similarities

if that isn't sufficient I am afraid you are going to be left less than satisfied.

[Jefferson23]

98. You are not willing or perhaps able to pick ONE position to support your claim

and discuss it with me? I believe you understand what a political position is, so name one and let's
start the conversation.

[VeryConfused]

99. Positions are different than what I am talking about

I am talking mind set, attitude and tactics. Policy is not something they share similarities in

[Jefferson23]

103. So now you're at least clarifying yourself. Tell me in what manner

do they share the same mind set, attitude and tactics and you need to identify who these
people are that make up the "far left".

[VeryConfused]

I already did that, a few posts up when you said I didn't answer your question

Do you need a post #?

[Jefferson23]

109. No you didn't. I would appreciate you giving me an answer to my question.

What exactly do they share regarding mind set? What exactly are the tactics they both use? What attitudes to they
share? Who are these people?

You have given no specific examples and named no one you believe is part of the "far left"..not yet anyway.

[VeryConfused]

104. I already did that, a few posts up when you said I didn't answer your question

Do you need a post #?

[sabrina 1]

224. Yes, I have asked the same question as this commenter

please answer or give a post#. You seem to be struggling to explain what you mean. So, if you could name some names and give some examples of these positions that might help people understand whatever it is you are trying to say.

PS, you do appear to be very confused.

[sabrina 1]

220. You're really not doing a good job of explaining your position.

You are very vague, parroting only talking points. Be specific if you want people to understand what you are trying to express. Eg, name some of the 'positions' that the 'far left' thinks are 'flawless'.

[H2O Man]

113. Okay, gosh darn it!

The far left believes that things like food, marriage equality, and safe housing are rights that everyone deserves. The far right believes that only a teeny, tiny number of people should enjoy these rights. These polar opposite views are, in fact, exactly the same. How more obvious could that be? Do you need a color chart to see that? Jeepers.

[RegieRocker]

286. It's not only the far left that believe these things.

[H2O Man]

331. Nor did I suggest that.

[pipi_k]

110. Well, if you're classifying yourself

as being on the FAR left, then it's not surprising you wouldn't agree.

Are you on the FAR left?


I'm somewhat left of center, myself.

So yeah...FAR left and FAR right...they're both the same in some respects.

One of the most disturbing being their absolute belief (zealotry) in the rightness of their cause.

Oh, and the absolute belief that the other Party is "the enemy". The entire Party and everyone in it...all ENEMIES to be eradicated.


Far left, far right. Both pretty scary.

[mmonk]

126. I know what I am called. Classifications are for people who like to divide

and conquer.

[pipi_k]

171. And then sometimes

classifications/groupings/labels/titles are used because people recognize that there are significant differences in what people believe or how they go about doing it.

There are people right here at DU who, by their own admission, do some of those 9 stupid things. Some of the other things they don't have to admit to. It's apparent in their behavior on these boards.

They don't even realize that their rants about Freedom of Speech, for example, look pretty stupid when they're off telling some business owner what TV program he SHOULD be showing on his own TVs. Just because they don't like Fox News. They may not like Fox News, but what gives them the right to decide what others will or will not watch?

That's the sort of behavior that makes people think ALL Democrats are assholes.

[mmonk]

174. And then there is reality.

[tblue37]

406. As a customer, a person has a right to request that a business not subject him to

programming that he finds offensive and to warn the business owner that he will take his business elsewhere if the programming continues to be shown at that business.

That is not suppressing the business owner's free speech. It is the customer expressing himself freely.

Besides, the free speech guarantee in the Constitution only forbids the government from suppressing the free speech of individuals. It does not constrain private individuals the way it constrains the government.

[mmonk]

100. That's what I hear.

;-)

[H2O Man]

122. Yep.

I blame Ringo for undermining our society with that tribal drum-beat.

[mmonk]

141. Me too.

That and John's "Give peace a chance".

[H2O Man]

144. John once claimed

that the Beatles were more popular than Ronald Reagan.

[mmonk]

164. I know.

Shows he wasn't worshipping from the right creed. Couldn't trust him.

[Bragi]

47. (Rec'd) Hostile DU reaction just weird

I just read the material at the link in the OP, and while I don't agree with all of it, I thought it was a thoughtful and useful attempt by one person to analyze and evaluate the situation, and to identify some lessons learned from a leftist perspective.

While one may or may not agree with assessment, the hostile reaction here seems to me to be totally out of proportion with the content. I don't see how anyone could read the OP's ideas and share in the apparent great offense taken by critics here.

As for use of the term "far left", I might have chosen another term, but surely we are able to get passed one term we may not like.

[VeryConfused]

51. You raise some excellent points

When offering up some suggestions on how to operate more effectively is met with rabid hostility, you have to wonder what the source is. Are some many people so convinced of their own perfection and infallibility that they believe any suggestions for improvement is the worse type of insult?

[MadHound]

54. Except this article you posted offers no real suggestions on how to operate more effectively

Rather it simply hurls veiled insults and claims that the far left is out of touch.

Not to mention that ignores current and historical political reality, something that you have yet to address.

[VeryConfused]

63. Please reread the article, as there are 9 valid suggestions

[MadHound]

65. No, there are nine topic headings posing as suggestions,

But those "suggestions" are simply a means to berate and belittle the left, again and again. But of course you know this, and posted it anyway. Tells a lot about you, none of it good.

[VeryConfused]

69. This isn't a suggestion?

"If you want the politics in this country to move left, you have to move the electorate left."

[MadHound]

73. No, that is an obvious platitude,

The sort of advice you can find in a fortune cookie. You don't think that the left is aware of this basic fact? How condescending.

Not to mention the fact that the quote of yours, much like the other "suggestions" is nothing more than an excuse to baselessly insult the left, as this quote does, two sentences later, "Many on the far left seem to be enormously immature. . ."

Classy, no:eyes: What you posted is simply another hit piece of the left, another way of telling the left to sit down and shut up. Sorry, that's not going to happen. Deal with it.

[VeryConfused]

75. If the far left is more focused on politicians that the public

which they seem to be, it is a suggestion

[MadHound]

87. Again, you refuse to deal with the context of your quote,

The insults to the left that proceed and follow your quote. You are trying to take that quote and discuss it divorced of its context. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[pipi_k]

76. Not the left...

the FAR left.

Who are, IMO, every bit as scary as the FAR right.


And yes...they should be belittled and shamed. What they're doing isn't working to unite the party. They're fucking it up with assholery.

The thoughts and sentiments are good ones, but the way they go about getting the message out sucks.


Just like the people at PETA. I agree with them 100% with regards to ethical treatment of animals. Unfortunately for them, whenever they try to get their message out, they make themselves look like gigantic fools, and that hurts their cause.

And who suffers in the end?

The very animals they claim they're trying to "protect".


Far LWers need to stop the silly ass bullshit.

[MadHound]

91. And who, exactly, is a member of this "far left" that you speak of?

You berate PETA, yet they have been and are effective in their mission.

Anti-war protesters, are they members of the "far left"?

Please, enlighten us who you think that these "far lefties" are. It should be amusing.

[pipi_k]

107. There are some

here at DU.

I read the article.

Some of those points apply perfectly to some of the behavior I've seen from some DUers.

I don't keep track of the names, and even if I did I would not mention them.


And the fact of it is, it's interesting to see who gets all pissy and defensive about some of the points in the article.

Even to the point of suggesting that the OP is a "troll".

What...people don't like the article and so that's reason to call someone nasty names?

Yeah. That's real open-minded.

:eyes:

[MadHound]

112. Well, after all, it is a post that does a broad brush smear on the left,

And everybody even remotely connected with it. That is surely going to bring some out some anger, it is only natural.

But please, I'm not asking for naming of names, but rather a description, a list of the ideological stances, of the far left.

[pipi_k]

140. No. It does NOT "broadbrush" the entire left

It addresses the failings of the FAR left.

This is not a black and white thing.


There are degrees of leftism just as there are degrees of rightism.


But maybe that's the problem. Many here don't seem to mind painting the entire Republican party with their own broad brush, as if acknowledging that there may be some decent Republicans is blasphemy.

[MadHound]

157. Yes, it does,

It does so by defining the "far left" as almost anything to the left of, oh, roughly Eisenhower.

It is another Third Way hit piece, and not a very well disguised one at that.

[pipi_k]

181. Is that what it said?

I read the article and didn't see any mention of Eisenhower.


Granted, I haven't been a member here since the beginning, although I have lurked since 2003, but I can tell you that I see at least three different levels of Left here.

Just left of Center

Middle left

Far left


And even then, each level probably has more than one level within a level.


I would say that most of DU is made up of Middle left.


This piece is targeted toward the FAR left. Not the entire left. Like I said, I see most of DU being Middle left, and most of the members here (relatively speaking) do NOT do those nine stupid things.

[MadHound]

187. Can you fill out your, and the articles definition of the "far left"

I would be interested in seeing that.

[RegieRocker]

291. Another one needing help to understand definitions.

Type into search engine of choice. What a silly nonsensical ploy.

[mmonk]

55. Maybe the use of the term was to invoke a reaction.

[VeryConfused]

60. The term liberal invokes a hostile reaction?

or does the term lesson? Again it's like people are so sure of their own state of perfection they consider anything other than that point of view the basest of insults.

[mmonk]

88. Far Left.

[VeryConfused]

94. If there is a spectrum it stands to reason there would be a far end

of that spectrum. Plus this article is focused on the far left rather than the entire left, so I am not sure how you can get around the term. It seemed like a less inflammatory term than say extremist.

[mmonk]

101. I can get around it easily.

If there is a 2ft x 2ft box on the edge of the cliff, and if I'm at the end of the box furthest from the edge, am I far away from the edge?

[pipi_k]

71. No shit...

We're being presented with suggestions and ideas for making the Democratic Party better, and people go apeshit.

I didn't read every single reply so I wouldn't know, but I wonder if there are very specific reasons for the freakout besides just the standard "This is bullshit" and suggestions the OP is a troll.

And "No far left for 30 years"????

Holy shit.

These people should come visit my neck of the woods sometime. There are plenty of far LW folks who either live here full time or come in from someplace else to their big summer houses. They honestly scare me sometimes. Mr Pip actually got verbally assaulted by one a while back down in the city over our SUV. These crackpots think just because someone is driving an SUV in the city, that person must LIVE there and they have the right to verbally assault the person. No. We live 20 miles outside the city on a narrow dirt road on the side of a hill in the middle of the woods.

I fully expect to come out of a store someday only to find my tires slashed by some LW fruitball who thinks I don't have a good reason to drive an SUV in the city.

[fishwax]

304. I didn't find it particularly thoughtful or useful

I don't think the hostile reaction is all that difficult to figure out. I mean, the opening paragraph claims that the far left is primarily (perhaps solely) responsible for 30+ years of fringe right wing government. The next paragraph suggests that those on the far left don't know or care about the average person (the same bogus attack that has been launched at the left by right-wingers for years) and that they are stupid. The third paragraph equates the far left with the far right. It's not surprising that people on DU would take issue with that.

The writer earns bonus points under lesson #2, just a few paragraphs after basically saying that people on the far left are stupid and yelling that they are JUST LIKE the far right, he counsels about the importance of civil dialogue: "That means changing the hearts and minds of the people out there. That doesn’t mean screaming at them and telling them what they should believe and writing them off as “stupid” when they don’t think exactly the way you do." :rofl:

[liberalla]

58. Look interesting - bookmarking for later.

I've got to get some sleep now.

[Erose999]

59. What a load of condescending nonsense. I stopped reading after the 4th graf.

[VeryConfused]

62. Sorry, you found the suggestions for improvement insulting

Is it the suggestion that there is room for improvement or better ways of doing something the part you found offensive?

[MadHound]

64. Well, when you couch such "suggestions" in insulting and condescending language

And when those suggestions aren't really suggestions at all, what other reaction do you expect? Flowers? Ponies? Unicorns?

[VeryConfused]

67. Now his is how I get confused

Are you Erose999? I asked that poster a specific question. Do you also post under Erose999 or are you that poster's designated spokesperson?

[MadHound]

70. No, I am my own person,

And I take offense when somebody posts such obvious flamebait that is designed to further alienate the left. When I take such offense, I will respond as I see fit, in a manner I see fit, when I see fit.

If you don't like that, too bad. You post inane crap of others, followed by insulting, inane crap of your own, and I'm not going to give you a free pass. I speak for myself only, and as in any conversation here, other posters are free to respond, as am I. Again, if you don't like that, tough shit.

Oh, and welcome to DU. You certainly have a way of making yourself noticed.

[VeryConfused]

78. So why reply?

You seem to be trying to get this thread locked, by posting nasty and insulting replies all over the thread. Your response seems to indicate your goal is to get the ideas presented in the linked article censored. I always thought closed mindedness and censorship were the traits of the far right, not the far left.

[MadHound]

82. LOL, jumping to that conclusion are you.

I think that you are jumping way too far, and I think that your paranoia is over the top.

The reason I'm posting in different places on this thread is because I want to point out just how full of it you and your article are. You have, so far, offered up no real defense of it, just insults and insinuations. But when confronted by the real and many fallacies of this article, like its historical and political inaccuracies, you slither away and ignore them, leaving a trail of insults and faux outrage.

It is telling that you can't deal with these many faults in the reasoning of your article and your own thinking, very telling. It is also very telling that you respond with insults and such paranoia as this, thinking that I'm trying to get your thread locked. I'm not, I want as many people to see your foolishness and meanness as possible. Perhaps that is what you're afraid of

[H2O Man]

165. Huh?

Isn't it your position that the Far Left and Far Right are twins?

[Erose999]

246. Case in point... your article says..

< article >
if you can’t see a difference between how Republicans and Democrats run things right now, then sit down and shut up, because you’re not paying attention. if you can even imagine Democrats proposing gutting Medicare, trying to kill unions, repealing health insurance reform, and cutting programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich, then you belong under a doctor’s care. < / article >

The problem with the arguments here is that there are "Democrats" who are proposing gutting medicare, busting unions, repealing heatlth insurance reforms, and cutting social poragrams for the poor to hay for tax cuts for the rich. Look at the voting records for these "Blue Dogs" you're defending. You will see that they routinely throw the poor under the bus for their corporate benefactors. They vote in favor of the Bush cuts. They vote in favor of the Bush wars.

< article > If you can imagine Republicans restoring regulations on Wall Street financial activities, demanding that executives limit their pay as long as they were under obligation to the federal government for bailout money, or even demanding that Wall Street even pay back the funds, then have the doctor up your meds < / article >

The problem here is that while I can't imagine republicans doing those things, I can't imagine democrats doing them either, other than Bernie Sanders (who isn't even a Democrat, really).

The current meme among the "centrist" Democrats is that we have to offer up social security and medicare for cuts to achieve a "compromise" that is a 3 to 1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. How is that even fair? Thats not a compromise, its a bully taking our lunch money. And even if offering SS and MC for cuts was just a "gamesmanship" as Obama's most vocal supporters claim, what would happen if the GOOP called his bluff? The cuts would have to be made. Likewise, the only reason the Repug's offered Obama the chance to increase the debt ceiling at will is because they knew he would not take it.

I get the impression that the deal has already been decided in a backroom negotiation (like so many of these deals)and that these "negotiations" are really just meant for the party leaders to "sell" the results to their constituencies.

You can say that the Blue dogs voted with their parties 80% of the time, but if you knew of all the mundane crap congress votes on, you'd realize what a BS figure that is. Most of the things Congress votes on are trivial things like "Resolution to thank so-and-so for unclogging the toilet on the second floor east wing bathroom". Or "H.RES.354 : Congratulating the staff, community, and patrons of the Utah Shakespeare Festival on the festival's 50th anniversary." . The fact of the matter is that as far as the aggregate votes go most members of congress are pretty close regardless of party. Its the 30% difference that makes all the difference because those are the votes on policy issues.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. "... FOR THE FAR LEFT:"

You so funny! :rofl:

[mmonk]

80. I do have one question.

Who is going to teach politics 101 to the Third Way? I don't think they have figured out their failure of meaningful ideas and strategies has something to do with the Democratic Party failing to hold power after election victories.

[Islandlife]

83. WOW! Eye opening. Read it with an open mind and.......

Now it seems the responses to the topic sort of support the theme. And other discussion threads are similar in attitude and tone. Whoa!!!

I need to read it again.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Union Scribe]

148. I think you are very confused.

In all senses of the term.

[VeryConfused]

183. what are all the senses of the term?

I am curious

[tkmorris]

325. Google it

I want to play this game too!

[fishwax]

336. Whoa!!!

[JVS]

394. Strange things are afoot at the circle K.

[TomClash]

85. I have questions

Exactly which "Far Left" policies do the voters reject? And what percentage of the total number of policies does that consist of?

Which politicians on the "Far Left" are we talking about?

I suppose I'm on "the far left" and I come into contact with the poor and working class every day. How do you explain that?

I read a lot of blanket and trite assertions in this piece but where are the facts to support them?

What is the role of corporations and media conglomerates in all this? Don't they play a role in framing the debate more conservatively due to their power and money?

When you disrespected Ted Kennedy I stopped reading. Bad back and all, that guy stood for hundreds of hours in at his brother's chair on the Senate floor to fight for an increase in the minimum wage, which he succeeded in obtaining. We have catastrophic health care because of him. There are hundreds of other progressive laws that bear his imprimatur.

[VeryConfused]

90. Interestingly enough the far left spends the vast majority of their time

telling you what they are against the trying to bring targets down then actually explaining their positions. So it's more than a bit challenging to answer your questions.

[Missy Vixen]

86. Hey, Sparky, let's hear your definition of the beliefs of the "far left".

If you're such an expert on what the "far left" has done to this country, please: Let's hear it. Don't hide behind the theories of a blogger.

Let's hear YOUR thoughts.

:woohoo:

[VeryConfused]

92. The far left focuses almost exclusively on what they are against

so it's not easy to say what they support beyond abstract ideals. As for what they have done, besides from the occasional kneecapping of the Democratic party, precious little. Which is why the far left needs to become more politically astute.

[mmonk]

95. We're for economic and social justice.

[VeryConfused]

96. That describes the entire left, not just the far left

[mmonk]

108. Some may think they are but there is reality.

They may think they are both left and for economic justice but they are confused unless left only means not being far to the right.

[VeryConfused]

150. So if I or anyone else doesn't agree with you on all economic positions

we are guilty of not being for economic justice. Doesn't that seem to be a bit of a narrow view to take? Is it possible that people can differ from you on economic issues but still be for justice?

[H2O Man]

125. That being mmonk's point.

[MadHound]

116. Really, got anything to support that, or are you simply talking out your ass,

I think it is the latter, since if you look at the far left, they definitely do have many issues that they support. Things like single payer UHC, an end to war and our MIC, working towards greener energy sources, etc. etc.

So how do you come to the conclusion that the left is against things, rather than actually for them?

[Warren Stupidity]

118. So you cannot identify one specific attribute of this alleged "far left"?

I call bullshit.

[H2O Man]

121. Doesn't the

totally unsubstantiated claim of "being just like the 'far right'" count?

[VeryConfused]

130. Read the article, there are plenty of attributes listed

[Warren Stupidity]

135. permission to treat the witness as hostile.

[H2O Man]

139. Granted.

[H2O Man]

120. Really?

Seriously? Have you ever encountered a member of the "far left"?

If not, opportunity knocks. I am of the far left. I have been all of my adult life. And the majority of my socio-political activity has centered on doing those things described by the prophet Jesus.

[VeryConfused]

134. I have seen quite a few members of the far left described in the article

online and on TV. In real life they are far less common, but I have still met a few.

[H2O Man]

137. I drove by

a poor person earlier this morning. It was raining, so I didn't get a good look. Still, I'm confident that I know all about her beliefs and actions. I mean, like Spiral Agknew said, once you've seen on ghetto .....

[VeryConfused]

145. Ironically that's one of the points made in the article that you don't like and

didn't read completely. You have people who claim to know what's best for people and situations they have zero familiarity with.

[H2O Man]

149. Exactly.

I have no familiarity with the poor. None. Thank you for pointing out this profound truth.

[Jefferson23]

351. LOL. A truly mockable comment. Can you name one from TV Land?

When you met them, what were the circumstances?

[fascisthunter]

372. it's confusing "Up in Smoke" with reality

[Missy Vixen]

173. That's not a definition

Let's hear specifics. After all, I don't think you can do it.

[bluestate10]

386. Yes. Always what is wrong. No solutions that make sense and can be applied. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

97. The only issue I have is that the "far left" is tough to find lately...

although there are a lot of wannabees out there-- the far left was the hardcore Socialists and Communists that have slithered off into the background.

I prefer calling these others the "whiny left" who don't really have a clear political philosophy or ideology but do loudly complain over the latest issue of the day not going their way. Ands refuse to learn how to get their way.

A couple of points could start a lively debate, but it's particularly depressing to see #'s 2 and 3 trashed. One would think that liberal politicians magically appear in conservative districts. For instance, I'm no fan of Ben Nelson, but I don't live in Nebraska so have nothing to say about it and consider the rest of us just a little lucky they didn't put a wingnut Republican in office.

And 1 & 7? Who really wants to argue with that?

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. K&R. often we marginalize ourselves.

To this you have got to add the ugly fact that most middle-class
Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like
glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige. I remember my
sensations of horror on first attending an I.L.P. branch meeting in London.
(It might have been rather different in the North, where the bourgeoisie
are less thickly scattered.) Are these mingy little beasts, I thought, the
champions of the working class? For every person there, male and female,
bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real
working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked
into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry, and disgusted;
some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses.

- Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

I'm as guilty as anyone of violating those strategic rules.

[creeksneakers2]

401. I've noticed that they love to chuckle at adults living in Mom's

basement. Shouldn't they be asking if that person can't afford to live elsewhere and take pity? They also have no sympathy for developing world citizens who work for paltry wages. If the far left had their way, those jobs would all be given to Americans and the poor third world citizens could starve.

[rucky]

117. Persuasion 101:

1) Don't talk down to the people you intend to persuade

2) Don't minimize the points they're trying to make, or what they stand for.

3) Use their labels & language, not yours.

4) Don't put "101" in the title of your message.

5) Enumerated lists are lazy and usually random.

6) Doing 1-5 suggests that you're not as interested in persuading someone as you are marginalizing them.

[Kaleko]

186. That's really insightful.

I'd like to read more suggestions along these lines from everyone here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Please Cut the Third Way Crap.

Same old tired, "we gotta win the middle" by kicking the left, bullshit.

[VeryConfused]

127. It appears you didn't click on the link and read what was written

pity that you opted for labels and off handed dismissal. If you are unwilling to listen to points that you don't immediately agree with, how do you continue to learn, develop and improve?

[MadHound]

133. Actually I think it is pretty obvious that the poster did read the article,

They gave a very accurate description of it after all, more Third Way crap, crap that deals in historical and political fiction. Why don't you deal with that historical and political fiction rather than assuming that people are wrong?

[VeryConfused]

142. Is there any truth in the assertion

that labels are for the weak minded that prefer to substitute them for critical thought and analysis?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

147. "The Far Left" isn't a label? Where's your, or the author's, "analysis" of "The Far Left"?

[VeryConfused]

158. Professional left would be a label, far left is describing a group

a complex idea, but a sound one none the less.

[MadHound]

151. Ah, but we're not discussing labels, here, nice diversion tactic

What I'm trying, and I emphasize the word trying, to discuss with you are the historical and political inaccuracies presented in your article. Instead of dealing with those is our exchanges, you want to try diversionary tactics, and at the last resort, deal in insults.

A sad statement of how accurate and truthful your article is.

[VeryConfused]

159. "more third way crap" is the epitome of label over thought

[MadHound]

166. No, actually it isn't,

It is a precise and succinct, if vulgar, description of the article.

Calling the left "enormously immature", now that is a label.

But again, you are trying to divert our conversation, as you have throughout this post. You are still refusing to discuss or even refute my contention that there are gross historical and political inaccuracies in your article. Why is that? Perhaps because you realize you can't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

167. All right. Where does the author of the hit piece on the left diverge from the Third Way?

He advocates the idea that the "middle" is the deciding factor in elections and advises that the left must attract the middle. How does he propose we do that? He, essentially, advises the left to shut up about the sell-outs proposed and carried out by Democratic politicians.

He defends the "compromises" (aka sellouts) with the right as necessary in a Republic to achieve some (read Moderate) "progress".

This isn't the usual Third Way, DLC, way of selling out and telling us it's really in our interest?

[VeryConfused]

169. The third way advocates a central ideology while the author wants a progressive

nation and has progressive goals. The author talks about improved tactics not changing ideology like the Third Way does. That seemed pretty self evident really.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

176. The result is the same.

If you sell out to the "middle" to get into power you get the "middle". See Clinton and Obama for evidence.

[VeryConfused]

177. Actually the failed tactics of the far left produce the same results

as those in the middle and even the far right. Tactics that fail to produce results are useless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

185. The escalated war in Afghanistan was brought to us by the "Far Left"?

The new wars in Libya, Yemen, and Somalia were instituted by The Left?

Proposed changes in SS and Medicare were promoted by The Left?

Single-payer was abandoned by The Left?

A deal was cut to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy by The Left?

Whistleblowers were pursued and imprisoned by The left?

The Left, has always been the bogeyman of the right wing of the Democratic Party and is still viewed that way by the "practical" wing favors a little strychnine in the coffee, over the large dose offered by the Republicans, and then tells us that it's good for us.

[VeryConfused]

191. One could argue that if the far left had more effective tactics

the war in Afghanistan may not have expanded. Of course one might also wonder if the war in Afghanistan had been ended and the US was gone, the US may not have been in the position to take out OBL.

Had the far left been more effective, the GOP wouldn't be in a position to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling and there wouldn't be need for talks of cutting.

Had the far left packed Congress, I think single payer could have been passed.

The President wouldn't have had to compromise on the Bush tax cuts if the far left had done more to pack Congress with progressive and kept out the Republicans.

I have seen no proof of whistle blowers being imprisoned

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

197. The president didn't have to "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts.

You might try introducing him to his veto pen. Nor, did he have to escalate the war in Afghanistan. That was his choice and he campaigned on that promise.

The Blue Dogs (including Obama) were the ones responsible for giving the Republicans what they wanted. Not the left.

Bradley Manning spark any memory about whistle blowers being in prison?

[VeryConfused]

200. You left out a part. If the President hadn't agreed on the high end

he would have been forced to raise taxes on the middle and lower class.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

206. The president wasn't being "forced" to do anything.

So, now you're trying the "poor, powerless, president" song?

[VeryConfused]

215. If the president didn't act in some manner the taxes were going to go up for

millions of middle class Americans. So how did that not force some sort of action?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. I did read it and still cosider it the usual 3rd Way crap of selling out to the right.

And, then trying to tell us that it's the only way to "win".

The author claims to be a "progressive" and then lectures the left on being too "progressive" because it attacks the middle. What the hell does he think the Left is supposed to do? Embrace the middle?

[VeryConfused]

146. Don't confuse being progressive with poor tactics and strategy

they are very different things. This article talks strategy and you are (for some reason) talking ideology.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

152. The article promotes selling out principles to win. But, what then is "won"?

[VeryConfused]

175. Quite the opposite

FROM THE ARTICLE:

Lesson #7: The far left’s concept of “principle” is downright bizarre and often detrimental to progressive politics.

This will be a short one.

It’s really simple; it’s been 32 years, and the neocons are still in office, and still dismantling the mechanisms we built back in the first quarter-century after the war. Despite the fact that we know how to fix the economy, because we did it before, the wingnuts are still pushing the same tired crap they’ve been pushing for 30 years. And they get away with it because a large portion of the left side of the political debate likes to SAY they have principle, but they really don’t. The fact of the matter is, supporting someone who says everything you want to hear, when that person has neither the intention nor the ability to actually get into office and do what he or she is saying makes you gullible, not principled.

If you want to claim to be a principled progressive, then you will do anything to move us in the direction of achieving social justice. That doesn’t mean backing Dennis Kucinich, who apparently has to move to Washington to continue in Congress because of redistricting, and who has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of ever sitting in the Oval Office. It means doing whatever you can to see to it that as many politicians as possible are amenable to working toward making this country better, and then working to make sure they have the support they need to do that. If you have actual principles, stop screaming at the politicians, and start educating (without screaming) their constituents. If you’re not doing everything you can to make sure progressive policies are put in place, you’re not principled. Which brings us to:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

179. That's the same old, tired, "The Ends justify the Means" argument.

Which makes about as much sense as killing for peace (see Afghanistan - escalated by a "progressive") or fucking for chastity.

I notice that the author talks about "the neocons are still in office" but fails to mention the neolibs who have replaced them appointed by the "progressives" he favors.

[VeryConfused]

182. If we fail to produce progressive results

what difference does it make what we believe in?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

190. If we are willing to give up what we believe in what progressive results can we get?

Here's what a couple impractical types thought of shunning beliefs:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[VeryConfused]

194. Would you say that Lincoln gave up on the principle of ending slavery?

after all if you look closely at the Emancipation Proclamation you see:

The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states


Now one could see this as huge progress toward ending slavery or one could look at the exemption and argue that Lincoln had sold out his principles and the slaves. Which would be the better description?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

203. The Emancipation Proclomation wasn't about "ending" slavery.

It was aimed at disrupting the Confederacy.

Lincoln was also in favor of colonization of the slaves. Which was hardly a left wing position.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/september/lincoln-slave-colonization.htm

[VeryConfused]

210. You can't argue though that the Proclamation was a major step

toward ending slavery. While not the complete step it was a huge step toward the desired goal. Much of politics is the same way.

[LanternWaste]

329. It appears you equate disagreement or dismissal of your position as...

It appears you equate disagreement or dismissal of your position as "It appears you didn't click on the link and read what was written..." :shrug:

[yardwork]

123. Unrec. It certainly does sound "very confused."

[VeryConfused]

129. Do you have any issues beyond my screen name?

or does the idea that the far left may not be perfect simply causes you to ignore everything else?

[yardwork]

143. Nice straw man. Your OP doesn't say that the far left may not be perfect.

Your OP says:

"When all is said and done, if you want to know why the politics in what should be a liberal country such as the United States has been dominated for 30 years by people who should be situated on the fringe, if you’re on the far left, look in the mirror. If not, look at the far left."

No sale.

[VeryConfused]

154. If not for failed tactics and strategy

why do you think that the nation has failed to adopt a more progressive stance?

[H2O Man]

161. You forgot Poland.

[alsame]

188. Oh my, H2O Man. You certainly are

having a good time with this thread. :rofl:

[H2O Man]

230. I'm trying

to understand.

[myrna minx]

193. This is one hilarious thread.

:hi:

[Enthusiast]

415. It's a teaching moment.

Not for the original poster but as an example of pure propaganda and manipulation. Although this thread has NO recommendations I think it should be preserved as an example of how to recognize weasel words and tactics.

[Enthusiast]

414. Exactly. The OP is COMPLETELY wrong..nt

[Fumesucker]

153. You have not yet given a single defining characteristic of "the far left"..

When you do so then perhaps a conversation can ensue.

[VeryConfused]

170. There were 9 of them given in the article

[fascisthunter]

156. As I have said before...

you are Verrry Confused. You don't even know what "far-left" means. More baiting...

[Lucian]

160. Your screen name fits you well.

Why is this still open?

Oh, and I find your sockpuppet very entertaining.

[VeryConfused]

168. Why do you favor censorship of ideas

even more puzzling why do you think it's wrong to suggest improved tactics for the far left to achieve progressive goals? Do you think things are great and there is no need for improvement?

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

198. While I think these "rules" are valid, they shouldn't be ONLY directed at "the far left."

Americans in general are not very politically sophisticated. Has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest that this be directed especially at the so-called Independents. Many of them are well informed but disaffected. Most of them are "former" Republicans, too embarrassed to admit that they supported Bush. These are the ones most likely to have voted for Republicans in 2010.

[VeryConfused]

202. That's an interesting and good idea

These rules are good for more than just the far left, they are basic political realities.

[Marrah_G]

302. Are those recycled buttons sewn onto your sock?

[TriMera]

229. Oh, look. It's Milt Shook rewriting history again. Unrec. n/t

[VeryConfused]

238. Why do you dislike Milt Shook, he is a solid progressive?

who has been a contributor toward progressive goals

[TriMera]

250. "Progressive". I don't think that word

means what you or Milt think it means. Milt has chosen to plant his ass firmly in the center. When he says "far left", he means anyone to the left of him. He makes his living preaching about the evils of rocking the boat or, in any way, standing up for what you believe in. I'm sure the current Administration loves him. I think he's an arrogant and useless little prig who wouldn't recognize an original thought if it fell out of his ass.

[VeryConfused]

256. What positions on issues mark him as a centrist?

[TriMera]

275. Healthcare and the environment, just to name two.

You might want to read more of his tripe than just what you parceled out for the OP. OTH, one cannot always see the forest for the trees, just as one cannot see the center from the center.

[VeryConfused]

293. This sure sounds like a progressive position on the environment

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GIVE UP OUR OIL ADDICTION?
What will it take to make us get serious as a nation about switching from oil to clean, renewable energy sources? How much of our environment so we have to completely ruin, and how many people have to die before we figure out that what we’re doing is simply killing us?

Even if the terrible ecological disaster caused by BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico wasn’t the unmitigated catastrophe it will probably turn out to be be over time, the reality is, the same scenario is pretty much guaranteed to happen again and again. Why do we continue with the same behaviors that keep leading us to disaster after disaster? Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/week9/index.html

[TriMera]

311. I see you didn't use the piece that was on the same page

as the article you used for this ridiculous OP. I'm talking about the one where Milt downplays "global warming" and blames the "left" for the country's reluctance to stop using fossil fuels. http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/07/skysnotfallingbut.html

I'm done arguing with you now. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. Blaming the "far left" for what is wrong with this country is a huge circle-jerk. Those who maintain the status quo have been using that tactic for years and it has gotten them and, in turn, the country nowhere.

[VeryConfused]

312. Agreed about the last paragraph but strongly disagree

with your characterization of Matt's views on global warming

[Solly Mack]

237. My ass cheeks can blow a melodious tune but that don't make it a flute.

[Forkboy]

404. No, but it would make a hell of a YouTube video.

:)

[Solly Mack]

421. Farts do tend to draw attention

lol

[blindpig]

241. What is this 'far left' you speak of? n/t

[VeryConfused]

244. There must be some truth in this article

after all, would an article that was critical of unicorns draw this much ire?

[JDPriestly]

260. In the 1960s, I was a Democrat -- but too conservative

to march against the War in Viet Nam.

I campaigned for McGovern nevertheless.

Now I am considered to be very progressive.

I haven't changed. I still care about civil rights, poverty (not rich myself, that's for sure) and human rights and have the same values that Democrats had for decades.

It's the Democratic Party that has veered far to the right.

So now -- my opinions haven't changed much, but I am chastised for being "far left."

I am not and never have been a Communist. I believe in a well-regulated entrepreneurial society that encourages small businesses and rewards ingenuity and creativity as much as possible.

I think that our laws regarding corporate and LLC business forms need to be rewritten to discourage huge conglomerates and mergers and acquisitions that are simply means to destroy the diversity that small businesses and independent enterprises bring to our society.

I think we should limit our military involvement overseas to wars in which we respond to attacks.

We need to focus first and foremost on our environment and on ending our dependence on fossil fuels especially imported oil.

If someone wants to label me as far left that is their problem. I am a traditional progressive, liberal Democrat. Always was, always will be.

And I am offended by the right-wingers who have taken over our Democratic Party and self-righteously label themselves "moderates." There is nothing moderate about them. They are to the right of Eisenhower.

[VeryConfused]

262. If the party moved as much as you say it has

one has to wonder if failed tactics from the far left allowed that to happen. Failure should bring soul searching not digging in and doing more of the same.

[Jefferson23]

347. What a ridiculous response. Do you have ANY idea about what you're talking about? Please

identify the failed "tactics" since you also claim the right uses the same ones..I would appreciate a response.

[JDPriestly]

360. No. A well-funded attack from the extreme right did it.

The extreme right funds think tanks that specialize in confusing people and spreading lies and promoting the interests of the very wealthy over everyone else.

That's how they got Reagan elected.

That's how every subsequent president has been elected.

It's a right-wing racket that has pulled the country to the extreme right.

We are way out of sync with the rest of the developed world. We have this huge disparity in wealth between rich and poor. But the right-wing think tanks make sure that the news is full of irrelevant stories about who Social Security and Medicare are about to run out of money. Never mind that they have been saying that for many, many years.

The think tanks have lots of money. They hire lots of hack economists and publicists -- and the American people are completely snockered.

Then the American people vote for Blue Dogs because the Blue Dogs are slightly less extreme than the most extreme Republicans.

It's a mess, and the country is just getting into a bigger and bigger mess.

[blindpig]

276. Try it, you might be surprised.

People believe the damnedest things, and if one thinks that there is a functional 'Left' in this country one might as well believe in unicorns. 'Left' is defined as anti-capitalist, socialists, anarchists, communists. 'Progressives' are not 'left', they are reformists within the capitalists camp.

There once was a left in this country and there will be again, soon. It will certainly not have anything to do with the clowns referred to as the 'far left' by so-called pundits.

[fishwax]

339. lol -- that's a convincing line of argument

:rofl:

(Well, not really.)

[JDPriestly]

249. I would say that the author of the article never worked

with homeless people, never spent 8-10 hours a day in the very dingiest most desperate part of a large city.

The part of the population of our country that is beyond despair is too great to waste much concern about whether Blue Dog Democrats' whose main concern is protecting the interests of their donors are re-elected.

It is very easy for over-paid political experts to sit in judgment on progressives. But if they spent a few days in an urban criminal court where those poor who are too cynical and angry to be present in the courtroom without shackles and outside a cage are held as their sentences are read to them,

if they spent a few hours in a dependency court where the children of the poor are rescued from their frustrated, impatient, angry parents only to be placed in worse situations in foster care,

if they only spent an afternoon a week for a year or so volunteering at a Juvenile Hall listening to the stories of kids whose lives were messed up by the poverty of their grandparents before they were even born,

then maybe they would understand why compromise at the expense of social programs is unacceptable to real progressives.

The poor pay the price not only for their own crimes but also for the crimes of the very rich.

If only the Blue Dog Democrats and "moderates" would spend as much time chastising and passing laws to reign in the crimes of the rich as they do the outrageous thinking of the "far left," maybe our country could make some progress.

I will bet you that the author of the article linked to in the OP lives a comfortable life and knows nothing of the world I describe above.

Because when you see a courtroom with a large cage enclosing angry, potentially violent prisoners in their shackles, when you talk to a teenaged boy who is in Juvenile Hall and grieving in loneliness about the death of his brother in a drive-by-shooting on the previous day, the sorrows of the CEO who doesn't want to pay a slightly higher percentage of tax on his millions just somehow seem trivial.

Sorry, I have to edit so often. I have trouble reading the courier typeface in the drafts of the messages I post.

[VeryConfused]

258. The author addresses Blue Dogs

Lesson #3: Until there are at least 218 progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not a source of pride; it’s just plain stupid.

Many on the far left seem to be enormously immature, in that they want their political change to happen immediately. they’re like the rich kids who “only” got a Mercedes for graduation, when they wanted the Jaguar. Real people have to earn their reward, folks; no one gets anything without tons of blood and sweat.

After more than 30 years of neocon-driven politics, why would anyone be surprised that there are a large number of conservative-leaning districts out there? Yet, a large number of far-left “progressives” were actually crowing at the “silver lining” in the 2010 election results; that about half of all “Blue Dog” Democrats lost. Yes, that’s right; they were HAPPY. Nancy Pelosi was replaced by an orange Boner, the committee chairs all went from being progressive Democrats to being right wing Republicans. We went from having a House of Representatives that passed hundreds of relatively progressive bills to one that has repeatedly tried to kill Medicare and damage Social Security.

And do you know WHY this happened? In part, it’s because about 25 “Blue Dogs,” almost all of whom voted with Democrats at least 80% of the time, were replaced by right wing Republicans and teabaggers.

Does that sound like “progress” to you? Really? If you do, then you must be one of those geniuses who thinks both major parties are the same. And that leads to:

[JDPriestly]

263. In my view, the Blue Dogs were their own downfall.

I agree with the author of the article that the challenge is to educate Americans about where their true interests and the interests of our country are.

The Blue Dogs do not try to explain to their constituents why conservative ideas have failed us and cannot succeed.

That is what I have against the Blue Dogs. They seem to just sort of drift along in terms of their ideas and their contact with voters.

The Blue Dogs are, in my view, are not effective. They do not have coherent ideas about policy, and they do not present their incoherent ideas very persuasively.

They are the ones who are out of touch with ordinary Americans. They usually get into Congress, into power, based on their ability to raise money, not on their vision or even their ability to govern.

So you get folks who look and act like they are just trying to pander to their voters. And of course, they are prone to losing elections once voters realize that they are directionless mouthpieces.

That's what I have against Blue Dogs.

[VeryConfused]

265. Blue Dogs are a necessary evil

until such time as more of the nation's electorate understands the need for progressive values and goals.

[JDPriestly]

359. Problem is that the Blue Dogs do nothing to help the electorate

understand the need for progressive values and goals.

Instead, they very often take center stage and prevent progressives from getting a word in edgewise.

This happened for instance in the process, the White House discussions that lead to adoption of Obama's health insurance revision law.

Blue Dogs drowned out the public option supporters, the progressives.

Blue Dogs do more harm than good in my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

428. I live in Los Angeles. We have a very progressive representative in

Congress and voters really like him.

There are lots of progressives in California. We seem to be the enlightened minority.

So the changes have to be made in the rest of the country. California gives lots of money to progressive causes and to the Democratic Party as do the more progressive areas of other states like New York and Oregon. So if you don't live in a progressive state, why is your state so conservative?

Are you working hard enough? Are you talking to voters about your ideals?

Or are you just working to maintain the Blue Dog status quo?

I lived in the South when I was a teenager. At that time, the people around me called themselves Democrats. I had grown up in a Yankee family, and in my view, they were racist retrogrades for the most part.

It took a liberal Supreme Court and a couple of presidents who were willing to use the military and national guard and the president's bully pulpit (Johnson was great at this) to right the wrong.

Then, we progressives fought the wrongs of racism.

Today, we need to fight the wrongs of class divisions, disparity in incomes, oppressive trade agreements and unjust wars -- in short, rich oppressing the poor.

Obama just isn't fighting the fight of our time. He ignores the real issue: that the rich are oppressing the poor.

Disparity between rich and poor and the stagnant wages of most Americans now are the equivalent of the race issue in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Obama is ignoring it. Hard to support him.

[RandomKoolzip]

255. Awreet! Hippie-Punching Time!!

Man, them hippies are just so damn punchable.

[VeryConfused]

259. No hippies were harmed in the making of this article

You know what's funny? Many of the hippies of the 60s and 70s are now part of the political right.

[RandomKoolzip]

270. You what's really funny?

The center-right defining themselves as "sensible" "adults" who must chide and condescend to their children - the "far" left - because they're "serious" and we are not. Never mind that the "far" left has been right about almost every issue over the last 50 years: Vietnam, civil rights, market and corporate regulation, the Wars in the Middle East; we knew Bush was full of shit from the start and yelled loudly about the damage that Reaganomics, NAFTA, Citizens United, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall would do to the country....in other words, we're usually right, but the center thinks we need to be put on a fucking leash because we're so "immature." The left has been on the correct side of history on just about every major issue and/or policy of the last 50 years, but we are consistently and continually been dismissed as screaming toddlers by those elitists who insist on being just center of the incorrect side of history. The author of the OP is just such an elitist prick.

Yeah, that's REALLY funny.

[VeryConfused]

273. You're mixing up tactics with positions

The article is about tactics not positions on issues

[TriMera]

272. Link? n/t

[VeryConfused]

295. Just Google conservative ex-hippie

[TriMera]

315. Wow. Here's what I found...

http://conservativehippieshangout.wordpress.com/about/

That's definitive and indisputable evidence that many hippies are now right-wingers.:eyes:

[VeryConfused]

316. That's one, what about the other 3,270,000 hits you got?

[TriMera]

323. You're going on hit-counts? Okay, above the one that I posted,

are two that reference a screen name from FR. There is also an article from the NYT that states, "Ex-hippies are not funny and neither are their conservative children." I'm not going to search through 3,270,000 hits when the one's on the first page aren't even relevant. Nice try, though.

[LanternWaste]

349. I googled talking dolphin...

I googled talking dolphin-- lots of hits. Must be valid. :shrug:

[TriMera]

377. +1. n/t

[Forkboy]

405. Just ask George C. Scott.

You think Day of the Dolphin was fiction? You far left fool! :)

[harun]

261. Unrec, crap.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

266. Name names, McCarthy.

Define "far left" and who you think comprises it. I'd like to meet these people.

[VeryConfused]

271. People that are violated the 9 rules

clearly be the vitriol seen on this thread it applies to many people. After all a thread talking about the shortcomings of pixies wouldn't have this sort of response.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

274. Vitriol? Hardly. I'd wager most respondents find you...

transparent and highly amusing. And we all need a little amusement throughout the day, so thanks for that. I can hardly wait for the #10-19 installment!

[RegieRocker]

277. I find you transparent and amusing.

[VeryConfused]

282. Enough with the insults directed at me, what about the article?

that's what's important.

[RegieRocker]

354. Not directed at you

[VeryConfused]

292. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the world vtriol

because calling someone "transparent and highly amusing" would be a good example. Still I guess it's easier to attack an internet screen name than to actually do some critical thinking about important issues.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

300. A dumbed-down, inaccurate, poorly written article likely written by a low-level...

Third Way staffer does not qualify as "important." Maybe in your world, but not mine.

[VeryConfused]

305. It was hardly dumbed down or inaccurate

just because you don't like what it said is no reason to demonize it rather than considering or debating the points raised. Also what proof do you have that this is a "third way staffer" or is that a baseless accusation intended to diminish the points raised in a less than honest manner?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

317. Ah, "prove it" -- like clockwork.

Have any Pavlovian blue links for us to ring?

[sabrina 1]

434. People are just having fun with yet another 'brilliant'

lecture to the elusive 'far left' from some unknown blogger. Did you know they are dime a dozen?
Speaking of tactics, do you get the irony of someone claiming to know more about political tactics than the as yet undefined, 'far left' failing completely himself?

I think I might write up a few rules for Mr. 'I-hate-the-far-left-whoever-they-are' (shhh, he means Jane Hamsher, she is the most dangerous woman in America and she constitutes the entire 'far left' in the minds of Third Wayers') on the difference between successful and unsuccessful tactics.

You are witnessing failed tactics at work. :rofl:


Successful tactics do not alienate, they persuade. This poor man needs to keep his day job, which I hope for his sake, has nothing to do with preaching successful political tactics!

[RegieRocker]

371. I detect snobbery.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

418. Why?

I started out as a low-level staffer, living in an area with a strong economy and lots of opportunity thanks to the big, bad Federal gubmint. And if calling bull$hit on liberals v. (yet to be defined) far left drivel makes me a snob, I can live with that.

[RegieRocker]

269. Bingo! And they will deny it with twisting your words and outright

false accusations. You understand.

[fascisthunter]

373. dumb

but we already knew that

[Kermitt Gribble]

279. This article makes it pretty obvious that the republicans

have taken over the Democratic Party.

[VeryConfused]

283. How so?

[Kermitt Gribble]

376. People who claim to be Democrats

condemning others who are standing up for traditional Democratic Party policies.

[fishwax]

287. lol -- yeah, that's ridiculous

:rofl:

[zinnisking]

288. "Most actual liberals are very cool, and not very dumb..."

LOL! A liberal wrote this piece?

What does he think when *he* looks in the mirror? "I'm not *very* ugly".

I didn't think this piece was very horrible. Sincerely.

ahahahaha!

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

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

[VeryConfused]

310. Thank you, as long as you are open minded and reasonable

what more could anyone ask?

[ItNerd4life]

303. Lol, not 'fighting' part is funny. Insulting the other side is fighting

so the article doesn't even follow it's own rules.

[VeryConfused]

314. That's not what he said about fighting

here is what he said:

And while you’re at it, stop itching for a “fight.”

I know many far lefties LOVE the idea of a “fight,” but the fact of the matter is, most “fighting,” at least as the left wing envisions it, is really bad strategy. Much of the far left thinks the definition of a politician “fighting for them” means shouting, grandstanding and making pointed speeches and calling the opposition “poopy-heads.”

The problem is, that’s not how real politicians “fight” in a democracy. The purpose of electing politicians is to pass laws designed to make our lives better. That means writing a bill, then getting a majority to vote for that bill. Now, seriously; how far do you think they’d get in doing that if they were running around making fools of themselves by grandstanding and making the opposition party look bad? You may imagine that most voters sit around staring at C-SPAN all day, waiting for something great to cheer about, but trust me on this; YOU lefties are the only one doing that.

[fishwax]

322. yeah, the author could use a dose of his own advice

those idiots on the far left need to learn that you're never going to bring about change by treating people like idiots :eyes:

[Scruffy1]

313. And my unicorn farts glitter

Worst piece of ass wipe I've seen in years. Poster can report back to headquarters. I've been around politicians for over forty years and I find this very condescending.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

318. So do mine!

Well, hearts and rainbows, but close enough.

[VeryConfused]

327. I have found that most people who have been around politicians

appreciate the wisdom and insights of the article. Which makes your remarks a bit of the exception rather than the rule.

[Lyric]

320. In your head, in your head...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ejga4kJUts

:eyes:

[Maru Kitteh]

321. "Until there are at least 218 progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not

a source of pride; it’s just plain stupid."



I couldn't possibly agree with this more.

[ej510]

338. Rightwing trojan horses are rearing their ugly head again.

[Enthusiast]

411. The world is full of these fuckers.

It's like an employment opportunity.

[Jefferson23]

340. This OP and your responses amount to unsubstantiated horse shit.

All this in order to give cover for Obama and nothing more.

[RegieRocker]

353. No far left, no far right just democrats and republicans.

Now that is horseshit.

[Jefferson23]

357. What, you want in on the OP, go ahead. Anyone reading this OP should

be able to discern that there is much more than labels being thrown out..or perhaps you prefer to
keep it simple so you can continue to support it.

You may need to understand what substantiate means, giving out more than a label, giving who what where when and how in relation
to policy and name the policies, the same tactics, attitude, mind set the poster claims the "far right" and far left" both share.

Why don't you go ahead and explain it for him.

[RegieRocker]

369. You just proved it.

All the proof in the world won't convince one that won't allow their beliefs, to open up to the possibility they could be wrong. They find anyway they can to discount the findings. Findings themselves are also slighted by the researchers bias. This is a favorite of those that require proof. So in essence, the task you request is a futile one. You have not earned the respect that would cause me to complete such a task. Especially when one refuses by their own accord, to acquaint themselves with the common definition of a word, which Is easily done in this internet age. Yes, there is a far left and a far right. Get over it. Oh, one more thing. Words themselves are nothing more than labels.

[Jefferson23]

385. I asked you to substantiate what the OP claims, and the poster will not do so either.

There have been specific questions asked and you have decided to pretend you don't understand the questions.
This OP is not about the mere existence of degrees of left and right. Since you refuse to respond to answer
for the poster, that is certainly your choice but comes with a price..your credibility. You may want to
reconsider defending an OP with nothing, it will cost you. So yea, I have earned a response, yet it is clear
you have no idea how to defend this garbage OP.

The questions will stand until answered.

Anyone reading this OP should
be able to discern that there is much more than labels being thrown out..or perhaps you prefer to
keep it simple so you can continue to support it.

You may need to understand what substantiate means, giving out more than a label, giving who what where when and how in relation
to policy and name the policies, the same tactics, attitude, mind set the poster claims the "far right" and far left" both share.

Why don't you go ahead and explain it for him.

[RegieRocker]

416. I made it very clear and substantiated why I won't price it to you.

You need to take your own advice and understand what "substantiated" means. Other people have been able to understand the OP. Even agreeing to most of it. Either you agree with it our not. That is your choice. The OP nor I needs to post facts from someone else just for your questionable need for it. Another persons view hasn't helped you so far, why would it help to post more? A person developed opinions about things because of experiences in life. They have a right to voice it.

[Jefferson23]

417. I understand you have offered nothing to answer my questions, nor has

the poster of this thread. Most responses here are asking similar questions, and have been unanswered thus far. No specifics
offered at all.

I expect that to continue in this OP of nonsense.

[KG]

356. +infinity

[rug]

341. .

You're amazing, Hargrave — fair weather or foul, good times or bad, boom or recession, you're always the same.

[Le Taz Hot]

342. Unrec.

This the sophomoric . . . and I'm being kind.

[Enthusiast]

412. But it is the kind of thing

that passes for political discourse in much of the media. Just watch CNN, ABC, CBS and you know. It is full time stupid shit much like the OP.

[dawg]

343. It's all about the tone.

Yes, there are some good points in the OP and the linked article. But the tone is preachy, and it attempts to oversimplify a very complex problem.

The so-called "far-left" has a point. Sometimes practicality has to trump principle, but if that is always the case, then you stand for nothing.

[Dappleganger]

344. Unrec for Monday bullshit.

[JackDragna]

345. Hmm..okay, I can't resist.

..since this thread seems to be begging for it.

Lesson #1: We live in a democratic republic, in which the person who gets the most votes wins and gets to make policy.

Oh, wow, no kidding. Thank you, author, for bringing this to light. I guess all of us in the "professional left" missed out on that one. I guess the author thinks we're all idiots or grossly misinformed.

Lesson #2: In order to get a progressive government, you need a progressive populace.

I actually don't buy the premise of this lesson at all. If you want a thoroughly progressive government, then yes, you do need one. Yet, we've managed to pass things in the past during times when the people as a whole weren't progressive, but supported a particular piece of progressive legislation when the case was made to them and the need arose for it. Our problem now is that few politicians, at least on the national level, are willing to risk sounding "liberal" by arguing with any force for anything progressive. Of course, the national discourse on politics has moved so far to the right that "progressive" policies are now the centrist policies of the past, but that's another slice of bacon.


Lesson #3: Until there are at least 218 progressive districts in this country, ousting “Blue Dogs” is not a source of pride; it’s just plain stupid.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to support politicians who favor dismantling the progressive policies that made this country great, who favor continuing unjust wars and a host of other Draconian policies that are way too far beyond the moral event horizon for me to accept it as "playing politics." If a politician is more conservative than I am on some social issue or wants a bigger military budget than I do, then fine, we can disagree and I'll still vote for them if they're a Democrat. Do not, however, expect me to support a politician who supports doing terrible, morally unjustifiable things. If there is no line in the sand which we refuse to cross, no point at which we cease to compromise our principles further, than what we believe means nothing.

Lesson #4: No matter how many times you tell yourself this, there is NO SIMILARITY between the two political parties at this point in time.

This point alone proves the author hasn’t been paying attention. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the president nominated heads of banking and financial interests to his cabinet. Democratic politicians at the national level take money from the same corporations who fund Republicans. The party at the national level embraces war, cutting programs that were once considered untouchable and belittles people it sees as being too liberal. If you think there's no similarity, you haven't been paying attention. I don't need to be scolded by someone so blind.

Lesson #5: Politics is a game of strategy, but some strategies simply don’t work, like “fighting.”

This entire point, for those who read the article, is essentially a smear on liberals who want to think politics is complicated because we like to think we're "smart." Friend, if you don't think politics is fighting, you haven't been paying attention. The author states the purpose of elections is to "pass laws to make our lives better." If the author thinks this, the author doesn't understand Republicans. They see elections as one thing and one thing only: a chance to solidify their political power. They go for the jugular during the elections and, once elected, always position themselves so they can defeat anything the other party does, no matter how innocuous. If the Democrats wanted to pass a bill declaring the sky was blue, the Republicans was insist it was instead purple, and would use their media mouthpieces to make Democrats look stupid for saying it was blue. The point is that unless you "fight," you get nothing. The author suggests Obama arguing for the public option for health care would've just made him a political target for Republicans, but dear god, did the author even pay attention to what happened to him when he weakly argued for what did get passed? If you don't fight, as a Democrat, you will get nothing you want.

Lesson #6: “We are the ones we have been waiting for” is not just a cute slogan; it’s how the system works, and how we win at politics.

I don't think we on the left are the ones who need to be told this. You "centrists" tell us all the time you support Social Security, Medicare, ending wars, more progressive taxation, yet you throw these things under the bus in a heartbeat in the name of "compromise." You accuse us of "whining" about our politicians, but in case you haven't noticed, much of our "whining" seems to be in step with the general public. Last I checked, going after SS and Medicare and continuing the wars isn't exactly popular, yet you denigrate those of us who campaign against them. The president, the de facto leader of the party, got himself elected on the very principle that the old system was bad and we needed "change." Why are we the bad guys now that we're holding his feet to the fire?

Lesson #7: The far left’s concept of “principle” is downright bizarre and often detrimental to progressive politics.

I agree we need to elect politicians who will make things better, but that also requires electing politicians who A) will actually work towards this when elected and B) will be willing to take political flak from conservatives while doing so. I am not going to vote for a series of imaginary Democrats who immediately immerse themselves in corporate cash and centrist "compromise" as soon as their butt lands in a cushy chair in Washington.

Lesson #8: The overall meme of the debate is far more important than playing micro-politics.

Interesting thread here, folks. Go to the original page and read it if you haven't. It basically says the "meme" of politics (how an issue is shaped in the public sphere) is often more important than the details, which I agree with. However, the article then goes on to slander the left as a bunch of "eggheads" who read too much and know too much for a "working public" who doesn't have the time to absorb information. This, to me, is the crowning failure of this entire article: we're bad because we study the things we care about. In fact, it's at this point the author becomes self-contradictory. If the overall meme is more important, then why aren't we, as Democrats, going out there and strongly making a case for our positions? Republicans have no problem with this: they forcefully go after Democrats, call them names and paint them with whatever insult suits them at the time. When we don't argue back with the same level of vigor, we come off as inept and weak. Perhaps even more importantly, the language and frame of the debate ends up being set by the Republicans, who allow their baseless framework for a political issue to become entrenched face merely because Democrats don't debate the point.

Lesson #9: The people who are elected will (almost) always represent the political center.

Probably true, but the lack of will by Democrats to fight for their beliefs and let the Republicans set the tone for debates has moved the center far to the right of where it used to be. The things that seem to constitute acceptable “center” politics now would doom many national candidates thirty years ago. We now accept as the center a type of jingoistic, Reagan-like conservatism that sees government as bad, the debt as our biggest problem and helping the industrial class as our primary economic goal. I didn’t become a “f’ing retarded liberal” by changing a single one of the bloody positions I’ve held: I simply watched the leadership of my party slide to the right in a vain attempt to avoid being called pinkos or soft on whatever.


The last thing I need, and what many of the “f’ing retarded” liberals on this board need, is a lecture by a group of people who are doing nothing to fight what I consider to be the primary political battle of our time: the continuing separation of wealth and political power between the haves and have-nots. I know what the hell the score is in the game and we’re not going to catch up by pretending the centrist road is going to get us out of this mess.

[Enthusiast]

413. One hell of a post! nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

346. I remember when there was an actual far left in America.

They had shootouts with the police, robbed banks and made bombs. I believe by any reasonable standard, there has been no "far left" in America since the late 70s. FWIW, we do have a far right in America. They assassinate abortion doctors, blow up federal buildings, etc.

[MouseFitzgerald]

350. Glad to know that all the political problems in this country are my fault

For a while there I was under this weird assumption that republicans and conservatives were the problem and that speaking out against their insanity from a liberal perspective was a positive thing.

But seriously, whoever wrote this is one egotistical, self-righteous asshole who literally doesn't seem to understand what it means to be progressive. I dont even know how to begin responding to all this mean-spirited nonsense. I would love to have a debate with this person, an actual in-person discussion where they cant hide behind their rantings and actually have to address what the "far-left" is actually saying.

[saras]

352. The far left? The Weatherpeople were far left. The SLA was far left.

It's debatable whether the AIM was left or populist - neither concept fits a sovereign nation well, but they were radicals.
Nothing on the Internet is FAR left unless the government is shooting at the writers with real guns.

And there really isn't enough far left in America for anything about their attitudes to make any difference whatsoever to any American politics. Firedoglake is mainstream progressive - it's easy to tie their values to longstanding American traditions (in longstanding opposition to other American traditions). Preparing to get off the grid in 1970 was radical. It's not now, it's just farmers' common sense, in the middle of the back where the left and right wing meet and the work gets done.

As far as I can read the article after desnarking it, it is saying that the smart, which it unwittingly and repeatedly conflates with leftists, need to stop using their smarts to make things "better" and use them to give the stupid what the stupid want, and stop complaining about it being stupid.

#1 - completely overlooks limits on this process, like the Constitution and established law. People don't get to break the law just because they got elected on a program of lawbreaking. That's mob rule, not any sort of organized government. It's not even anarchy.

#2 - it's never been true historically. progressives have always been educators. part of being a progressive is being able to come up with policies that are beneficial to a wide variety of people. You don't have to sell these people on progressivism, just on the notion that this policy will benefit them without harming others enough to anger them.

#3 - namecalling isn't a sufficient substitute for a logical explanation. replacing a blue dog with a progressive republican (hey, I know it sounds bizarre, but it has happened in historical time in some parts of the country), especially on a more local level, can result in a net benefit for Democratic/progressive values if the replacement votes appropriately. Personally, I think that if namecalling is called for, the most useful application would be separating the Tea Party from the Republicans. This would involve the unenviable task of chucking a bunch of Republicans into the teapot who may not want to place themselves there, but argue and vote that way anyway. "25 “Blue Dogs,” almost all of whom voted with Democrats at least 80% of the time" is rather an overstatement. If it were true, there would be no way to tell that someone was a blue dog - 20% variability just isn't enough. No, blue dogs vote republican much more than that, and more important, they author bills and frame debates differently.

#4 - no similarity? why are we stuck being a two-party system then? That's a HUGE systemic similarity, and a distinction between them and any other parties. Likewise their funding mechanism - more similarities than differences, especially systemically rather than quantitatively. No doubt the Republicans get more corporate money. Dems get laid more. Corruption on both sides is so large it isn't even seen as corruption anymore, even by the public - it's just the way things work.

#5 - "I know many far lefties LOVE the idea of a “fight,”" - yep. This why leftie protests are so violent, why we murder doctors who do their job when we disapprove of them, why there was such a massive wave of aggressive left-wing talk radio, why gangs of skinhead leftists are always beating people up, why leftists in Congress are holding a loonfest to ensure that nothing constructive happens to the country, why evil leftist governors are taking over whole states, voiding entire swaths of law and destroying widely popular institutions and programs, etc. "Watch President Obama’s RESULTS, not his methods." This is precisely why he seems to be a right-winger to so many. Right-wing policies, far to the right of the public, often to the right of the Senate, keep on getting enacted at the end of all the brouhaha.

#6 - this one just baffles me. it simply doesn't make enough sense to be parsed as a unit, possibly because so many parts are false or meaningless. I don't really understand what it means to "support" someone who is attacking me, trying, for example, to send me to prison for something that is not a crime, or trying to confiscate my property for a corrupt business deal. I can't find a definition of "support" that works there. In the sheer bullshit category, "leftists don't vote reliably" "their support is based on what politicians say rather than what they do", "WE lead THEM"

#7 - this is also confusing, and possibly related to #6. Putting them together, the best that I can do is that what is being offered is membership in a primate troup, where you "support", (i.e. suck up to, act submissive to, feed, defer mating opportunities to) an alpha male that, as noted, abuses you and your relationships, for the dubious privilege of not submitting to an even WORSE alpha male, who may kill any other males and/or children of other males so that he can mate freely with the females. Personally I'd rather be a human being, and cannot imagine myself functioning, ever, under the system described.

#8 - there's a grain of truth buried in this one. people who have some intelligence that they can use clearly simply cannot, in general, imagine what it is like to be genuinely stupid - and make no mistake, it's the stupid he's talking about, not the "average joe". And yes, progressives are tired of stupid questions taking the form of "I want to keep on doing this stupid and harmful thing without thinking about it forever, even though it is rapidly becoming obvious to the whole planet why it is wrong. HOW CAN I KEEP ON DOING IT??" And the message people took away from 2010 is not "Democrats suck" but "Democrats had the chance and didn't fucking do anything. Maybe these new folks who aren't Democrats or Republicans are worth a chance." Big mistake that was, but people wouldn't have went that way if the Democrats had come through with some genuine improvements, like less rather than more war, or shutting down the fascist pseudocops.

#9 - Gives lots of reasons not to tolerate corruption in the guise of why we should accept it. Silliness like "the political center" aren't even worth bothering with. I'm beginning to think this is addressed to some very specific small group who either imagines themselves to represent all "leftists", or the author imagines to represent all "leftists". Supported Clinton? It's the "far leftists" fault that Gore wasn't more popular nationwide? Yeah, like Gore was a real populist at the time.

make your own list...

Like most debunkers, it seems to be having so much fun doing the debunking that anything beyond that, like whether they're accurate or not, gets lost. But I suppose if you're going to cut the crap full-time, you may as well just chuck it into the fan.

[craigmatic]

355. That's crazy. The reason we've lost for the last 30 years is because the party continues to listen

to these weak moderates in the DLC who are republican sympathizers. That and the third way is why our party continues to lose and suck even when the polls and public are on our side.

[leeroysphitz]

358. Incessant capitulation is an indication of higher intelligence? n/t

[AverageJoe90]

361. I kinda agreed with most of this, with one major exception.........

And I quote: "The denizens of the far left are almost all white, they’re almost never poor and they have college educations. They have very little contact with any of the people they claim to be advocating for, yet to listen to them, they know more about being poor or being a minority than the poor and minorities do."
That's the only thing I took a major issue with: most of the wealthy self-described lefties tend to be quite moderate........some may not be too far from the center at all!(Just look at many of the Democratic Congressmen in D.C.)

[Rex]

362. Milt Shook reads like a real condecending asshole that doesn't

know his ass from a hole in the ground. More drivel for the clueless crowd. Crying from the people that got us into this mess imo. :eyes:

[bluestate10]

388. Some would say the same about Krugman and Chomsky. nt

[Rex]

395. True.

I won't deny it.

[readmoreoften]

363. The idea that liberals are "far left" betrays a failure to grasp basic political concepts.

Not to mention a complete ignorance of political history. In other words: please cut the crap, you're a fucking babbling idiot,

[lib2DaBone]

364. Unrec for pure BS. This article belongs in Freeper Land.

[ecstatic]

365. K&R. If some people would just use their brains for once, we

could accomplish so much. But certain people just keep setting us back. We can't afford another 10 years of repub/tea party rule!

[fascisthunter]

374. sayeth the right leaning centrist

[ecstatic]

375. You have no idea what you're talking about. nt

[rbnyc]

367. A lot of BS here.

Lesson #1: We live in a democratic republic, in which the person who gets the most votes wins and gets to make policy. -BS

Moneyed Interests make policy: http://www.thenation.com/article/161977/alec-exposed-business-domination-inc

Lesson #2: In order to get a progressive government, you need a progressive populace. -BS

Look at Health Care. MOST people wanted a public option. http://www.proudprogressive.org/blog/2009/08/26/majority-support-for-public-option-in-health-care-reform/

As for the rest of it, it's divisive and unconstructive IMHO.

[TNLib]

368. Sounds like RW propaganda

Is that you Rush Limpballs?

[cheapdate]

370. Some good ideas.

"Lesson #4: No matter how many times you tell yourself this, there is NO SIMILARITY between the two political parties at this point in time." Amen brother!

I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that the battle is for the electorate and the battle will be won by finding the right arguments and finding the best way to communicate them so that people understand it. I agree that the best arguments are spoken concisely and in plain language. Progressives and Democrats are hindered in appealing to the malleable portion of the electorate by the right-wing's consistent appeals to the reptile part of people's brains. This is less of a problem if one recognizes it up front and deals with it accordingly.

[Forkboy]

378. I miss NJmaverick.

[seaglass]

419. Maybe he and Very Confused are friends as they both seem enthralled by this blog post

http://www.democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=7261

[Hell Hath No Fury]

431. Ah, the one person I had on ignore!

It took 9+ years, but I finally used the ignore buttom that one. This one stinks to high heaven too.

[QC]

439. Don't feel sad--he's never far away. n/t

[bluestate10]

379. You aren't confused. You nailed it.

I am one of the most ardent challengers of the far Left on DU. I don't hate the far Left. What they write enrages and hurts me as one would be hurt by a self destructive sibling.

[scarletwoman]

381. Unrec for hippie punching. It gets old.

If the "left" is somehow causing good "liberals" like the author to sit on the sidelines, maybe he ought to be making 9 rules for himself and his pals on how to get off their asses and fucking do something themselves if they're so much smarter.

Sorry, anytime some guy says it's someone else's fault that he can't get a break, I'm reminded of every damn alcoholic I've ever run across in my life.

Message to the author of this piece of tripe: The problem ain't the "left" bub, the problem is YOU.

sw

[MH1]

384. For what it's worth, I liked it.

Obviously we're heavily outnumbered here. :)

[bluestate10]

389. Outnumbered on DU, but part of the silent majority outside of DU. nt

[Enthusiast]

410. You fool yourself.

You sure don't convince the rest of us.

[Zenlitened]

387. K&R for nearly 400 replies without a lock. - n/t

[bvar22]

390. I'm a mainstream/Center FDR/LBJ "Democrat".

I haven't changed.

That makes me "Far Left" today.

[krabigirl]

391. It's the corporate moderates that are destroying this country. unrec.

[grahamhgreen]

392. Bullsh/t. 83% of all Americans want to tax the filthy rich! The "left" is the center.

[Enthusiast]

409. Yes.

They are misrepresenting where the American people are by constantly showing us the far right wing nut cases like Palin, Bachmann and the rest of the GOP loonie toons. This is an act of subterfuge.

[FreakinDJ]

397. Politics is a game of strategy, but some strategies simply don’t work, like “fighting.”

truer words could not have been spoken

[whatchamacallit]

398. The only thing you have right is your name

Tosser.

[creeksneakers2]

399. They are unrealistic

They wanted single payer when all along the real game was to protect the health care some Americans are already entitled to. There isn't enough money for everything and the far left refuses to understand that.

If they could organize, and build a movement, like the tea party did, they could push getting America out of the world policeman/ superpower ego trip. If that happened, there would be some money left to protect what we've got. But the far left will never organize around reality.

[Enthusiast]

408. Isn't enough money?

A single payer system would be FAR FAR cheaper and give us better results.

Every example we have to examine clearly demonstrates this. Where do you get off saying it would cost more money? Giving in and accepting this horrible American profit driven health care system has only allowed it to get worse. This health care system has now reached the state of being indefensible.

Besides, a majority of Americans want a single payer system so that alone proves that it is not some "far left" fantasy. The only thing stopping us from having single payer is the defenders of the status quo such as yourself.

[Enthusiast]

407. This Koch Brothers bullshit is unwelcome.

It is also unconvincing.

They want us to believe that those wishing to preserve social security and medicare are some far leftist loonies. Well fuck that noise.

Most Americans, but a huge margin, want out of the wars right this very moment.

Most Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy RIGHT NOW. And they want social security and medicare preserved for everyone forever.

And they want a single payer health care system.

A huge majority of Americans want to stop subsidies going to oil companies.

Lie all you want but the American people can see through your bullshit.

[suffragette]

423. The mythic "far left," simultaneously powerless and to blame for everything

Add the all caps which make this so extra persuasive.
And the condescending tone which is sure to win everyone over.

[Forkboy]

424. They can never decide which it is.

Funny to watch them flail from one position to the other, sometimes in a single day. :)

[suffragette]

425. Maybe they should just use shorthand of omnipotent impotents

Or "Oi" for short.

And yeah, the flailing is funny, often even in the same post.

But, swoon, ALL CAPS. I just find that so, well, emphatic.

[fishwax]

430. indeed n/t

[Number23]

427. LOVE. THIS.

They have very little contact with any of the people they claim to be advocating for, yet to listen to them, they know more about being poor or being a minority than the poor and minorities do.

Oh my God. The truthiness of this one statement just takes my breath away. Good LORD!!!!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

432. I find that one amusing myself.

Consiering that I am among the working poor. Yes, I indeed do know about being poor, first hand.

[JackDragna]

433. Really? Where have we seen this?

Who is this "they?" that know the most about being poor or being a minority? This whole article smacks of something a Republican would say - that the "left" is just a bunch of rich, elitist college-educated latte-sipping sisses who don't understand or care about the "little people." Guess who a lot of progressives are? Poor and minorities who sure as hell know who's on their side and who isn't.

[Number23]

435. The whole article smacks of something I've heard so, SO many black people say over

and over and over and over again. Not only that, I see it on this web site damn near every day.

It's terribly interesting to me. People here can say the most outlandish bullshit about this administration, Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Democrats in general from a "left" perspective and it's taken as gospel (at least in this forum). But someone critiques the "far left" from a "left" perspective and it's somehow "something a Republican can say." I feel the EXACT same way about so much of the absurd, stupid, over the top criticism leveled at Obama and the Dems.

[Youth Uprising]

436. If you need further proof that the right-wing has infiltrated the Democratic Party

look no further than here. The neo-liberals are using the same kind of tacticts used by right-wing propaganda outlets like Fox News to marginalize progressives. Guess who popularized the term 'the far left' and has used it to demonize liberals? Check this clip out back from '07: http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=l-F-zmTNuk4">Bill O' Reilley Defends DLC Rahm Emmanuel and the 'New Democrat' congress from the Far-Left
Notice the same kind of elitist, condescending attitude and bullshit talking points that O'Reilley shares with these people.

[Youth Uprising]

438. Kick