Fellow woodchucks: I'm wondering if we should all think about where we should draw the line.

[LoZoccolo]

The line I'm talking about is that point in time where we disengage from the same intra-party debate that we've been having for a little over two years, and go straight toward the goal of winning the 2012 elections without being distracted.

I think that most of us feel that the debate should be attended-to every now and then, if only to keep more people from being sucked in to undisciplined, mendacious, disingenuous, hyperbolic, or otherwise manipulative thought, but when the same people are making the same claims that we've never found credible, when is our deadline to stop engaging in it and being distracted by it?

I remember playing a casual baseball or softball game once when I was a teenager, and someone remarking about how after I hit the ball I would try to keep track of where it was while I was running to first base by watching it. He basically said "it don't matter". And he was right. At what point in the election cycle do we tell ourselves that "it don't matter" and make our run for first?

[tekisui]

1. Go for it.

:rofl:

Ignorance is bliss.

[PassingFair]

32. I found the "Woodchuck Manifesto":

Oh wait, what? This was written by Republicans? Could have fooled ME.
Sounds like pure Woodchuck!

1. The era of liberalism is over.
Today there are no liberals in power; there are only radical leftists. They are the enemy, not the opposition. Their ideology is not simply wrong; it is evil.

2. It is impossible to be too cynical about the intentions, motives, and truthfulness of radical leftists.
They will always exceed our most horrifying expectations.

3. Radical leftists are continually seeking to destroy America's historic foundations, particularly our Constitution.
Their goal is to rebuild upon the rubble according to their own evil vision and to gratify their insatiable lust for tyrannical power.

4. Radical leftists are continually seeking to infiltrate and undermine American institutions.
They are especially attracted to institutions where there are unearned wealth, sinecures, and ambiguous standards of accomplishment.

5. Our people must always be seeking to restore America's tested, historic, foundational principles and to guard and protect our Constitution and our cherished institutions.

6. Civility must never trump truthfulness.
Civility is a highly commendable virtue; truthfulness is vastly more commendable.

7. Ideology must never trump truthfulness.
We Republicans need to constantly examine our own ideological principles to make sure they are, first and foremost, true. Then we must proclaim them boldly and straightforwardly.

8. Never try to out-compassion a bleeding-heart radical leftist.
Conservatism is the most compassionate -- and most truthful -- political philosophy there is. Radical leftism, by contrast, is based on false promises intended not to better the lives of anyone, but to recruit gullible, ignorant people as "useful idiots."

9. Challenge radical leftists to live up to their own publicly proclaimed ethical principles.
They never do. They just fake it. (Cf. Alinsky Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.")

10. Refuse to use the favorite language of the radical left.
Their language is always intended to spread lies and propaganda and to create confusion, fear, and retreat, not to convey truthful information.

11. The language our people use should boldly convey real information accurately, precisely, and above all, truthfully.

12. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
This is Alinsky Rule #5, word for word, but we Republicans have a special advantage in applying it to radical leftists because ridicule or satire, to be really effective, must be rooted in truth. That's why leftist ridicule flops; it's usually based on lies.

13. Attempting to reason with intractable, hardcore radical leftists will always end in futility.
Such people are incorrigibly anti-rational, so it is impossible to establish an authentic interlocutory interface with them. The only realistic way to engage them is to crush them politically, using any and all truthful and lawful tactics.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. Let's do something

My cause is because of Gabrielle Giffords: The Community Food Bank of Tucson.

They serve Tucson, Green Valley, Tubac, Nogales, and many, many more communities.

[stevedeshazer]

3. I've read your post three times, and I still don't understand it.

Baseball, softball, lines, woodchucks?

Sounds like a party.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Think of me as being Fleetwood Mac, and this post as being my /Tusk/.

[WheelWalker]

21. Excellent !

[Umbral]

23. You mean Mick Fleetwood's pet name for his penis? OK... nt

[Bluebear]

27. It's your PENIS?? You are getting more far out by the day.

[DeadEyeDyck]

4. Strangely, I think I understand your post

I am not your typical member on DU. I joined when I was in a PolySci class as an assignment. But one thing I have discovered over the years is than there is a cultureal divide in the USA that will not be resolved at the ballot box. There are two basic factions in this country that are as different as oil and water. So, why are we always trying to resolve them? Why not take the split? Maybe it would even be possible to do so without splitting the Republic. Maybe it is the only way to go forward without splitting the Republic! And I think it could be done virtually.

Rather then a geo-secession, why not a virtual secession? Damn, I feel genious coming on. I think I will continue this in myu own OP. I have had a few G&Ts right now and don't want to wonder too far off the plantation until I am sure I have my thoughts in line.

[bluestate10]

10. You may have a point.

Instead of splitting the nation physically, split it politically. The northeast states are blue, but contain conservatives. The far west is blue, but contains conservatives. The midwest is mostly blue, but contain conservatives. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada are pink, but contain large conservative blocks. Liberals in red states should emigrate to blue, but preferably, pink states and help push the vote so far blue that conservatives would leave for red states. Make as many states blue as practical, build the population of those states such that the majority of seats in Congress is perpetually controlled by them.

[cali]

36. Not anymore are the Northeastern states all blue. NH? purple at best and

really more red than purple. Maine? purple. The midwest? mostly red.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. I think we all should've drawn a line some time ago

Had we done so, I think nearly all of us would agree that we had long since crossed over it.

But instead we keep shifting the line and those who perpetually set up camp on the moveable near side of that line keep insisting that we haven't yet crossed it.

[AlabamaLibrul]

6. If you think the woodchucks are all you need at the ballot box, then go for it nt

[bluestate10]

7. I am convinced that the sane action is to start cultivating democratic

leaning independents. I don't see many dem leaning indies voting republican or staying home after seeing what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, et al. I have given up on the Left, I can't count on them for the fight that is coming in 2012.

[BzaDem]

9. The vast majority of the left will vote for Obama -- even those who will claim otherwise online.

There will always be a few who go the full Nader in November, and they will have a come-to-reality moment within a few years of the next Republican President (just like 90% of Nader's supporters in 2000 had). But we shouldn't pretend that this group is a non-negligible proportion of the left. In realty, there will always be a few in both parties who are never satisfied, but never more than a few.

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. Me and the other "negligibles"

will see you at the primary!

:hi:

[BzaDem]

12. Oh, I'm not claiming you'll vote for Obama in the primary.

I doubt Obama has much to worry about in the primary (since his support among liberal Democrats beats any Democratic president going back 50 years), but I'm not claiming you'll support him in the primary. You and others might hold him to 80% or so.

But in the general election, most people who claim they won't vote for Obama will actually vote for Obama.

For the remaining few who don't, the pain they will suffer in the ensuing years of the next Republican presidency (whenever that is) will cause them to run to the polls to vote for Ben Nelson in the following election (if he's the nominee).

Someone could claim otherwise, but their claim wouldn't change their actual behavior. If someone were to tell you that they will always happily touch a hot stove when it is on, you wouldn't believe them -- humans have generally evolved to be rational (regardless of what they say on a message board). Touching such a stove once is usually enough to prevent it from happening again (what they claim on a message board notwithstanding).

[AlabamaLibrul]

24. All I have to say is that I would never vote for a (R) in a general.

Between here and there is all speculation.

[BzaDem]

31. All I'm saying is you'll likely vote for the D in the general, either this election or a more

conservative D in 4 years (after the reality of an R kicks in). You could deny this, but I wouldn't believe you, just like I wouldn't believe someone who tells me they will continue to repeatedly touch a hot stove.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Primary?

The only primaries will be the Republican primaries. The Democratic Party will not allow any challengers to the Big O. So much for Democracy, heh? :shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I went the "full Nader" in 2000

and haven't regretted it for a minute. Alaska was never going to go for Gore anyway, and for once I voted my conscience. It felt good.

[BzaDem]

19. Who did you vote for in 2004? n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

22. John Kerry,

but it wasn't because I was simply voting against George Bush. I have a huge amount of respect for John Kerry and the work he has done on our behalf over a very long political and pre-political career. Had the choice been between Ralph Nader and Ben Nelson, for instance, I would have voted for Ralph Nader. I vote for the person, not the party.

[BzaDem]

30. Something tells me if Kerry ran in 2000 and Gore ran in 2004

you would have voted for Gore in 2004.

Reality has a tendency to do that.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. Whatever is telling you that is incorrect.

I had been a fan of John Kerry's for many years.

And don't presume to read my mind, please.

[tekisui]

37. Nader and Nader voters were not responsible for bush taking office.

Give up that pathetic schtick.

[ZombieHorde]

13. The Republican primary may be a good time.

Candidates always look best in comparison to other candidates.

edit: perhaps sooner...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x659714

[freshwest]

14. K & R, just remember...

:dem:

[Blue_In_AK]

15. So apparently winning is all that matters to you, right,

and that as long as the candidates are Democrats, they can do no wrong and cannot be criticized.

I'm not buying it.

[white_wolf]

17. Seriously, some of these people would cheer president Ben Nelson and then shout us down

when we criticized him.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. It seems that way sometimes.

I don't understand why the progressive vision (which so many of us share) is always derided by the powers-that-be within the Democratic party and their apologists. We know what those ideals are, and we're seeing very little movement toward them. I think everyone expected much more.

[LoZoccolo]

18. No, that's not right; it's a strawman.

[tekisui]

35. Document or retract.

[Bluebear]

28. Sounds accurate.

And don't dare debate that for the next two years. And in the first two years of an administration, don't dare debate that either or else you just want Sarah Palin.

[Marrah_G]

34. To some people politics is nothing but a game.

One can only speculate as to why the OP continually makes the sort of posts that he does.

[Snoutport]

25. Part of that is getting the word out against the right...but the inter-party complaining

does us no good. Obama is our guy in the next election and I'm ready to give him my support.

[hfojvt]

26. your baseball story is wrong

I always watched the ball, (except when I hit a grounder in the infield, in which case you put your head down and run). The point of watching it is to know whether you should stop at first, or keep going to second. Admittedly, if you hit the ball deep enough, stopping at first is not an option, but at some point you need to decide - single, double, triple, homer.

Actually, the first and third base coaches are supposed to make those decisions for you, but we never had those when I played little league, so I learned to do this on my own, and I also had one 1st base coach who was apparently unaware of how fast I could run. I was heading to first at about 3/4 impulse and the 1st base coach said "hold up" and I noticed that a) the ball was still rolling and b) the outfielder was still about fifteen feet from the ball, so I put it into warp drive and safely slid in to second.

So I think it pays to watch the ball.

[Cresent City Kid]

29. The problem with opposing republicans

is that so many want in on it. Well, that's a good thing, but sometimes we celebrate our diversity and at other times we just diverge. A mad king is opposed by nobles, merchants, and peasants, all from different angles with different agendas.

When the Democrats are in charge, we have expectations that are as diverse as our views, and most are only met partially if at all. There is even a diversity of reactions to this situation, some accept it, others call bullshit.

I am of the opinion that the republicans have to be stopped, even with a half-assed one term president. But the top rate tax cut extension and the budget debates crossed a line. The Democratic leadership is trying to look more reasonable than the gop by looking like them. I'll add to your baseball analogy with one from football. You know the guy in touch football that can't cover the receiver so he just yells out something to make him drop the ball? That's the republicans, they seem to have power when they're the minority. At some point the Dems just have to catch the freaking ball yell or no yell.

The intra-party debate and the goal of winning elections are connected. There has to be at least a little something for all the diverse groups to sign off on, not just the abscense of republicans, important as that is.

[Marrah_G]

33. Does this mean less intentionally divisive posts?

If so, I think you should totally go for it :)

[tekisui]

39. LOLOLOL!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That'll never happen.

[Bluebear]

47. !!

[tekisui]

38. Just a reminder, as you have labeled yourself:

[Marrah_G]

40. hahahahahaha

[rusty fender]

42. Blarg...

argh blarggg...:shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

43. DO woodchucks draw a line?........

I thought that any "line" drawn is ideological and not pragmatic.

[Chris_Texas]

45. Serious Question: WHY?

I have absolutely zero interest in winning if "winning" gets me more of the same. Why should I work for politicians who work against me? Particularly when I KNOW that their campaigns are funded by the exact same corporations that fund the GOP.

Let's review Obama and the Democrats signature "accomplishment" Obamacare.

The problem: As many as a hundred-million cannot afford healthcare of any kind, so they do without and die and get sick and hit emergency rooms.

The Obamacare solution: Stick a government gun in these poor people's faces and FORCE them to buy private insurance at monsterously jacked up rates or face fines and prison. You will buy that fucking insurance even if you have to lose you house and car and skip a meal to do it. No law says you have to feed your kids, but you damn well better write a monthly check to your grinning insurance man.

That's the democrats big win. Go team. Or, rather, fuck them.

The same applies to tax breaks for billionares, BP, Patriot, Iraq, Afghanistan, Transparency, Gitmo, Wall Street, Libya. If it's important, ifit actually matters, the DNC is fighting their ass off to do exactly what their corporate owners tell them to do. The SAME owners that own the republican party.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. when the (R)s have a candidate we can focus our anger at

until then it is an intellectual argument and not an emotional one.