“Liberal” Sock Puppets – Right Wing/Corporate Operatives Attacking Democrats From The "Left"

[TomCADem]

In recent years, liberals have begun to push back on and expose the myth that the media is liberal. Websites like Media Matters have done a wonderful job of exposing right wing bias in the corporate media. Likewise, we have had some success in exposing massive corporate funding of astroturf campaigns like the Tea Party, which is controlled by groups like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and funded by oil industry billionaires, the Koch brothers. The media still tends to portray the Tea Party as a legitimate grass roots movement while ignoring the control exercised by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and corporate operatives who manipulate middle class Americans into supporting policies that are detrimental to their interests.

However, what is often ignored are right wing/corporate funded political operatives generating attacks on Democrats from the “left” while giving Republicans a free pass. Of course, these operatives do not announce their intentions, but instead simply launch attacks on Democrats from the left while largely ignoring the far more extreme positions of Republicans or suggesting that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. However, occasionally, such operatives are caught engaging in these fraudulent acts.

The question in 2012 with Republicans and corporate American intent on taking back the White House, killing unions, and privatizing Medicare, how far will Republicans and corporate propaganda groups go in their efforts to organize sock puppet attacks on Democrats from the left in order to undermine support for Democrats among liberals?

Here are some prominent recent examples of right wing/corporate attacks on Democrats from the “left” by alleged Liberals/Democrats/Green Party/Immigrant Rights Advocates:

1. Republican Runs Street People on Green Ticket - Unfortunately, Democrats may not have the corporate funding to bankroll a third party to run against Republicans from the right. Indeed, it is hard to imagine who would be to the right of folks like Rand Paul. Any more right, and they would be goose stepping in brown shirts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html

TEMPE, Ariz. — Benjamin Pearcy, a candidate for statewide office in Arizona, lists his campaign office as a Starbucks. The small business he refers to in his campaign statement is him strumming his guitar on the street. The internal debate he is having in advance of his coming televised debate is whether he ought to gel his hair into his trademark faux Mohawk.

Mr. Pearcy, 20, is running for a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees public utilities, railroad safety and securities regulation. Although Mr. Pearcy says he is taking his first run for public office seriously, the political establishment here views him as nothing more than a political dirty trick.

Mr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona’s Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates.

2. Rand Paul Staffer Reportedly Goes Undercover As A Liberal To Shake-Up Democratic Rival's Campaign – Where have we seen this before. An anonymous “liberal” saying that they are ambivalent about a Democratic candidate challenging a right wing extremist? Indeed, they may even threaten to stay home because the Democratic candidate simply is not liberal enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/rand-paul-staffer-reporte_n_708429.html

A staffer working for Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul's campaign was called out on Tuesday for reportedly pretending to be a progressive blogger in an allegedly stealth attempt to undermine the campaign of the Republican hopeful's Democratic challenger, Jack Conway.

According to the Daily Kos, a progressive blog and online community, Thomas Kubica, a paid intern for Team Paul, has on multiple occasions taken to the site to express his views on the contentious Senate fight under false pretenses.

Jed Lewison writes:

Paul campaign's front desk confirmed Kubica's status as a paid intern on Tuesday morning.

Kubica registered at Daily Kos under the pseudonym "Huey Long" and has repeatedly posed as a progressive Democrat who opposes Paul but does not believe Conway is worthy of support.

3. Univision Will Not Air Latinos for Reform Ad Telling Latinos Not To Vote - The Latinos for Reform sock puppet campaign struck me as particularly offensive, since a Hispanic Republican GOP operative was coordinating a campaign to suppress the Hispanic vote in the Harry Reid/Sharron Angle race.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/19/latinos-for-reform-swift-boat/

Earlier today, ThinkProgress reported that Latinos for Reform — a Republican 527 group — purchased an $80,000 buy on Univision to air ads urging Nevada Latino voters not to vote. We urged Univision not to air the ads. The network, which heads the non-partisan Latino civic participation campaign, Ya Es Hora, has decided to do the right thing and not broadcast the ads. A Univision spokesperson told ThinkProgress:

Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting. It is also important to clarify that while Mr. Robert de Posada has on occasion provided political commentary on Univision, representing one of various points of views, he is not in any way affiliated with Univision. Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote.

Univision’s decision likely has something to do with the fact that Robert de Posada wants to tell their viewers that the best way for Latinos to exercise their political power in support of immigration reform is to stay at home this November — a message that runs counter to its own GOTV efforts. ThinkProgress did some digging into de Posada’s group, and here’s what we found.

To begin with, the group’s 8872 form lists the same P.O. Box number as the one belonging to the Admiral Roy F. Hoffmann Foundation, an organization founded by the chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), Roy F. Hoffmann. For those who don’t recall, SBVT was another 527 group formed during the 2004 elections aimed at opposing Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) presidential bid by distorting and misrepresenting his war record.

4. Mortgage Bailout Infuriates Tenants (And Steve Forbes) - Hey! Freedom Works can run an astroturf campaign on behalf of poor renters against elitist homeowners complete with a faux grass roots looking website! My goodness! It looks like that website was generated out of someone's rented studio apartment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121090164137297527.html

WASHINGTON -- AngryRenter.com looks a bit like a digital ransom note, with irregular fonts, exclamation points and big red arrows -- all emphasizing prudent renters' outrage over a proposed government bailout for irresponsible homeowners.
"It seems like America's renters may NEVER be able to afford a home," AngryRenter.com laments. The Web site urges like-minded tenants to let Congress feel their fury by signing an online petition. "We are millions of renters standing up for our rights!"

Angry they may be, but the people behind AngryRenter.com are certainly not renters. Though it purports to be a spontaneous uprising, AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington.

The housing crisis has sparked broad financial and economic distress. The House of Representatives responded last week by passing a bill that would provide up to $300 billion in federal insurance to help refinance troubled mortgages. President Bush has threatened to veto it, calling the measure a reward for speculators. On Thursday, key Senate Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement in principle on a compromise housing-rescue bill.

This week, officials from FreedomWorks, the organization behind the site, delivered to Senate leaders antibailout petitions signed by 44,500 people who clicked their agreement on AngryRenter.com, at least some of whom thought its grass was real.

5. 'Limbaugh Effect' Softens Blow For Hillary Clinton - Who can forget the PUMA John McCain supporters that was spread in the media and on Democratic blogs?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/mississippi-limbaugh-effe_b_91112.html

Approximately 25% of Clinton's voters in Mississippi were Republicans voting for a candidate they hate in order to try to undermine Barack Obama. Obama's 61-37 margin of victory in Mississippi would have been around 70-30 without Clinton's Republican voters, and Obama would have easily expanded his delegate win there from 19-14 to 24-9.

In the voting during January and February, Republicans were an average of 3.8% of the voters in the Democratic Primary, and they heavily supported Obama. But for the primaries in March, in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, Republicans have been 8% of the voters in the Democratic primary, and now they heavily support Hillary Clinton. This is definite proof of the "Limbaugh effect" coming through. Overall, 1.36% of the voters in the January and February primaries were Republicans who marked their ballot for Clinton; yet, 5.67% of the voters in the March primaries were Republicans voting for Clinton. Barack Obama's Republican numbers in the March primary showed only a modest increase, probably from moderate Republicans who shifted their support to Obama once John McCain's campaign was assured of victory.

In Ohio and Texas, 9% of the voters were Republicans, and they split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton. These votes, more than doubling the percentage of Republican voters in earlier primaries, gave Hillary Clinton a big advantage since Obama typically won more than twice as many voters as she did in previous primaries. In other words, about 3% of the voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans newly voting for Hillary Clinton out of purely tactical reasons, to try to ruin the Democratic race.

6. Rep. Charles Bass (R) aide resigns for fake website postings - Here is another tactic, professing luke warm support for a Democratic candidate, but expressing "concern" about the prospect's poor prospects of winning.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/bass-aide-resigns-for-fake-website-postings

A top aide resigned from U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass's office in Washington yesterday after admitting he posted misleading messages to political blogs using a government computer, Bass said.

Tad Furtado, Bass's policy director, posted messages under the screen names IndyNH and IndieNH professing support for Bass's Democratic opponent, Paul Hodes, but discounting his chances of winning in November.

Furtado's actions were exposed after two bloggers traced the postings to the House of Representatives's computer server and Bass's office investigated.

Bass said he had no knowledge of the postings before last week and that Furtado, who's worked for him for eight years in several jobs before becoming policy director, had violated office policy.

[Kurmudgeon]

1. I've suspected such tactics even here, and no doubt have seen them on other message boards. n/t

[kestrel91316]

4. I don't just suspect it. I am completely convinced of it.

[CrossChris]

77. We know the Koch's gave $ to the DLC---why wouldn't they fund DLC/Third Way online-puppets, as well?

We know they're already funding righties to attack liberalism online. Why wouldn't they use the same tactic with the people & ideology they're already funding---ex-DLC/current Third Way supporters?

[Dr Fate]

103. Is that why "centrist" Democrats rewarded them with such massive tax cuts?

Errr, wait, am I now a rightwinger for saying that?

[CrossChris]

145. Centrist Dems reward the Koch's every day. Union busting, "entitlement" reform, etc.

Again, wouldn't it be more likely that the Third Way/Centrist Dems who favor many of Koch's favored positions were the ones trolling the Democratic Party, using "divide and conquer" along with Rovian techniques?

[bluestate10]

94. They are on forums like DU. Couching as the most ardently progressive

among us. And they have an unwitting and clueless amen chorus doing their bidding.

[Telly Savalas]

134. I'll take this one step further and speculate

that some posters like this are actually Obama operatives pretending to be far leftists who are trying to distract from legitimate criticism of the President by drowning it out with mind-blowingly stupid arguments.

[SlimJimmy]

168. Wow. Time to break out the black helicopters.

:eyes:

[NorthCarolina]

163. That is what OP's such as this one are hoping to convince others of.

Anything to marginalize Liberals. As true here on DU as it is in the beltway media.

[unc70]

183. This OP is total BS. Should have been ignore but I was so mad I took the bait

The OP makes an outrageous claim. Not that there might be false-flag liberal posters, but that they are most of those critical of Obama and other allegedly "centrist Democrats".

The examples he gives do not support his claim.

The article he cites for the PUMA debate misrepresents what was happening in Dem and Repub primaries as the primary season advanced. It has too many problems to justify rehashing them once again.

My main rant is #182

[Cascadian]

199. This is what these Corporadems want!

They are trying to get rid of those of us on the left. They want you angry and they want you to give up.


John

[Mimosa]

193. ^ That's BS and a bit of a silly smear^

All you have to do is look at the registration dates of 'ardent progressives' on DU. Take mine for instance. It says i registered in early 2003 but that may be a glitch from a host server change since I was here earlier.

You could also google for old posts -especially from 2007 and 2008- of members you 'suspect.'

You'll see many of us have been consistent supporters of progressive positions and candidates.

That paranoia is silly.

[sendero]

185. As am I...

... these assholes are not that hard to spot. They always take the "everyone knows" attitude, as if the propaganda we've been subjected to since the Reagan years was actually true.

Hey,guess what - tax breaks DO NOT CREATE JOBS, IF THEY DID WE'D BE AWASH IN JOBS RIGHT NOW SINCE TAXES ARE AT AN ALL TIME LOW.

Guess what - THERE IS NO FUCKING LIBERAL MEDIA, EVEN NPR LICKS THE RIGHT's BALLS REGULARLY AND NEVER NEVER NEVER PRESENTS THE LEFT'S VIEW AT ALL

Guess what - SS is not an "entitlement" is has been deducted from your paycheck all your life and is OWED to you.

Guess what - there is NO FUCKING ECONOMIC RECOVERY and there is not going to be with the current policies in place. In FACT, the second shoe could drop AT ANY TIME.

[tabasco]

6. "Even here."

ESPECIALLY here.

[AsahinaKimi]

18. agree.

unfortunately.

[bluestate10]

95. Yes. I am afraid so. I stated so many moons ago. nt

[CrossChris]

60. Wouldn't most of that corporate lobbying $ go to "centrists" attacking the liberal platform?

Why would Republicans want to advance Keynesian talking points on Democratic message boards just to fracture the party? What if they caught on?

Wouldn't it make more sense for right wing PR astroturf groups to split the party AND push it to the right?

I suspect Third Way, corporate lobbyists, and other groups before I would think that a Republican operative would push criticisms of Obama from the left. How would they even be capable of pretending to think like a liberal for so long on a message board? What liberal would take that job? That just doesn't make much sense.

[Youth Uprising]

65. You're absolutely right...

The OP is full of shit. If anybody is being paid to be a right-wing shill it's all these goddamn centrists. They're the ones who are pushing the party to the right. This seems like a ploy to silence any criticism of the president.

[PotatoChip]

69. I disagree

Speaking as a long-time political observer, the centrists I see here are more in line w/the mainstream of the Democratic party then the far leftists.

Tactically speaking, it'd make more sense to troll from the far left as opposed to posing as someone from the center or center-right of the Democratic party. This far leftist posing would be the best way to divide and conquer, at least among the most activist/politically aware among us. And here is why... Unfortunately, center-right dem or even left-leaning/moderate repub appears to be where are country is right now collectively, and in the recent past. Until they overplay their hand (as the teabaggers seem to be doing) and push the country as a whole farther right then it wishes to go, especially on social issues, it'd make more sense for republicans to attack from the far left. THAT is where they would have a better chance at peeling away otherwise democratic voters.

Take the republican's own situation right now as an example- The Tea Party, as it evolves, is picking up more of the far right extremists of it's base who (at this early point have no choice but to vote republican, until they get mad enough to stay home), as well as their more apathetic, right leaning (not particularly informed) mainstream R-leaning independents who think they are finally part of something "important" without taking the time to learn what exactly is in their best interest. Yeah, I know... :eyes:

BTW I'm NOT saying this is exactly the same scenario, because to do so would be to undervalue the intelligence and (admirable) idealist values of my truly far leftist brethren, however, 'divide and conquer' by peeling off the edges is a tried and true tactic that has worked in politics for as long as I can remember. And the easiest edges to reach are the ones farthest from the center.

[CrossChris]

75. How is the right even capable of attacking from the left? Like I said--what if it caught on?

Why would right wing groups play with fire by touting progressive policies on public message boards? What if they helped spark an active and truly progressive movement? And how are those who advocate cutting Social Security & Medicare, and sticking up for Wall St. & BP to the detriment of the people more in line with "mainstream" Democrats? They're attacking everything the man in your avatar stood for.

When you consider that the vast majority of lobbying money is behind corporate Democrats trying to eradicate the last planks of the New Deal, I don't see how that could be the case.

The more likely suspects are corporate groups like Third Way, who have been trying to divide and conquer Democrats for years ALONG with moving them to the right. It's worked--you even acknowledge this. Why would Republicans do ANYTHING that moved a chunk of people to the left, even if it split the party?

[PotatoChip]

84. Thanks. Good thoughtful questions and I mean that sincerely.

For some reason, it seems that motives are often questioned among those of us w/low post numbers. Maybe there are good reasons for that, I don't know, but nonetheless it sucks.

But here goes my answers as best I can relate them (i'm not the best writer)

First (and this will answer a lot of your underlying questions-- I am an FDR liberal Democrat at heart (which is why I chose the avatar) but often what I want, which it seems most everyone else here wants, does not agree, tactically speaking w/how various others here hope to achieve the same goals. In other words, just as FDR had to compromise at times (there is a ton of proof of this regarding his biggest accomplishments btw) I think we should do so also. FDR was a master at getting things done and I would choose that any day over winning the (idealogical) battle but losing the war.

Furthermore, many of the things I had to say in my original reply, such as my observation on how mainstream America thinks are just that; observations, and NOT duplicative of how *I* personally feel. In fact, I'm quite worried about the move to the right that our country seems to have made in the past 30 or so years. This is why, in some ways, I hope the teabaggers succeed as a far right-wing movement... Get most of the fundie Christian and creepy right-leaning libertarian elements fighting it out amongst the rest of the Republican party and, then well, YAY!!! They will then have their own cats to herd.

But thoughtful questions deserve thoughtful answers, so here goes...

1)"Why would RW groups play with fire by touting progressive policies on message boards"?

Me: Personally I don't see much of that. {Touting progressive policies} I mean. I read a lot of these message boards, but I rarely see the touting of policies (progressive or otherwise) by anyone. Most of what I read is about what is wrong these days, but not not how to deal with it.

2)"What if they {I assume you mean R trolls) helped spark a truly progressive movement"?

Me: How can they spark anything but want they want to 'spark'? A truly progressive movement is not so ill-informed as to be led by some paid-troll-Pied-piper.

3)"And how are those who advocate cutting Social Security & Medicare, and sticking up for Wall St. & BP to the detriment of the people more in line with "mainstream" Democrats"?

Me: Now THIS is a good question and one that I think makes just about everyone say wtf? IMHO it has far too much to do w/money in politics and less to do w/party since both GW and Obama went along w/TARP. Sickening, and this ought to be one of the first things both parties can agree, needs to be changed. As a sidenote: We need publicly funded campaigns! (IMHO)

4)"When you consider that the vast majority of lobbying money is behind corporate Democrats trying to eradicate the last planks of the New Deal, I don't see how that could be the case".

Me: I don't agree w/you on this. Eradicating the last planks of the New Deal are not in their best interests- definitely not politically and in many cases personally. Every loyal Dem voter I know would consider frigging around w/SS, Medicare, and even SSI, SSDI, as well as Medicaid a sacrilege, and Dem politicians know it. I believe, however that there is a message to this the madness. Seek me out and prove me wrong if indeed I am, but I honestly don't believe Dem politicians will go for it when all is said and done, and there may even be a good political reason why they are even letting this come up...


And finally, to address your lobbying concerns, I agree w/you on that. Which is why I again call for Publicly Financed Campaigns!

[boppers]

139. In short, they don't think it will catch on.

"What if they helped spark an active and truly progressive movement?"

Seizing all "corporate" property?
Rounding up and imprisoning or executing private business owners?
Taxing the overweight extra for health care costs?
Regulating the media to only allow "truth", or even "balance", as determined by the government?
Nationalizing the banking system?
Doubling the price of gasoline to pay for alternative energy?
Taxing religions?
Legalizing all recreational drug use?

These positions are too "far left" for them (the agitators) to believe it will, or can, happen. Indeed, the further "left" a position is, the more dissent and division that can be created.

[CrossChris]

152. I have never seen one of those strawmen advocated in any online forum, troll or not.

You might as well be speaking in Greek to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. Those are exaggertions of some very valid left positions -

Seizing all "corporate" property?
Nationalizing public resource corporations, which should be held by the people, is not uncommon around the world. I think extraction industries should be state-run, because as we have seen, the alternative is they run the state.

Rounding up and imprisoning or executing private business owners?
Holding executives accountable for their crimes, rather than giving them bonuses and electing them governor.

Taxing the overweight extra for health care costs?
Unnecessary with single-payer healthcare.

Regulating the media to only allow "truth", or even "balance", as determined by the government?
Deliberate distortion of the Fairness Doctrine.

Nationalizing the banking system?
Restoring strict regulation of the banking system.

Doubling the price of gasoline to pay for alternative energy?
As opposed to doubling the price of gasoline to line the pockets of oil companies and speculators?

Taxing religions?
Tax exemption of religion gives them special status in defiance of the 1st amendment. It leaves the government in the position of determining what is and what is not a religion, in defiance of the 1st amendment.

Legalizing all recreational drug use?
Decriminalizing recreational drug use - not quite the same thing. DUI laws, public intoxication laws remain in effect, restrictions on age availability as per alcohol & tobacco in place. Someone caught violating restrictions goes to treatment, not to prison for 20 years. Our prison population drops by half.

Trolls present these in exaggerated ways to make the left look ridiculous, moving the dialogue to the right.

[CrossChris]

160. I've never seen it, and frankly this seems like a left-discrediting, divisive tactic in itself.

I haven't been here as long as most, but I've never seen anything close to these exaggerations in the forums I've participated in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

162. That was my point.

Whenever any of those are broached by real lefties, the trolls - both right and left - blow them up in that way so as to (for the right-trolls) discredit the idea and (for the left-trolls) discredit the left itself.

Look at the way healthcare reform was turned into health insurance reform - the troll right saying 'the public isn't ready for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE - lets argue for a public option' and the troll left saying 'screw single-payer, we need to have SOCIALIZED MEDICINE now!'. Together, the made the starting point for the debate the public option, forcing the democrats to compromise from there - the result being a pro-corporate institutionalizing of health insurance that eliminates any real chance of national single-payer for at least a generation.

The right-trolls take republican positions and call them 'moderate' - and self-describe as liberals.
The left-trolls take outlandish positions and call them 'left' - and self-describe as radicals.

Hang in there, keep reading. You will soon recognize them. But when you do, don't call them out. That's against the rules.

What you can do is put them on ignore. I have an ignore list that is, now, populated by 18 of 20 who were eventually tombstoned as they revealed their true colors. Just waiting to the last two.

[CrossChris]

165. I could not disagree with you more. This whole thread is misdirection, IMO.

I have read this entire thread with an open mind, and no one has convinced my why it would be more likely that right wing groups would pay trolls to act "radical" (which I'm not seeing AT ALL) than they would pay trolls to attack the Democratic priniciples they ALWAYS have.

Frankly, the Third Way touting "center" are the ones who seem to be on the attack--using Rovian strategies, swarm & attack tactics, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

166. See my post 151, below.

I believe they are coming at us from both directions - working to empower the corporate right of the Dem party, and delegitamize the left. In both cases, the end goal is to weaken Democratic principles and the Democratic base.

I do think there are far more infiltrators coming in to the right, trying to sound 'reasonable' - but there are undoubtedly a few coming supposedly from the left, saying really silly things that no serious lefty would ever say (I know, that's verging on 'no TRUE Scotsman') with the intent of discrediting the left overall.

[boppers]

172. Ding ding ding!

Well put, and you got the point of the "lefter than thou" straw men.

[OnyxCollie]

191. Self-delete.

[RaleighNCDUer]

151. Perhaps a bit of both?

I speak from what is these days the far left - forty years ago the same positions were moderate centrist democratic - and from my perspective we have two different kind of infiltrators.

1) 'Mainstream' DLC, "if you can't beat em, join em" types who refuse to entertain any lefty notions because "that's not where the Democratic majority is", and accuse Kucinich of being a closet Republican for his votes against compromised Democratic legislation, while explaining away, or ignoring, the conservadem votes that join with the Republicans. They try to split off the far right of the party. They say "we MUST compromise".

2) 'Radical lefty' types who take the most extreme "I'll burn the place down around me" statements, whose attitudes might appeal to the most pissed-off, but generally undermine leftist arguments by making them look off-the-wall unreasonable. They try to split off the far left of the party. They say "we must NEVER compromise".

Both are very active here.

Real lefties, OTOH, acknowledge, sometimes compromise is necessary BUT there are some people you CANNOT compromise with, no matter how hard you try (i.e., birthers). That's why we argue as far left as possible, even if you KNOW the country is not ready for that position - if you START with single-payer, you can achieve a public option. We've been compromising all our lives, and we know you cannot achieve anything be starting at the desired end point and then 'hold fast', because a compromise will then be forced on you.

By their works you shall know them.

[Kurmudgeon]

82. One reason only, to convince centrists either to change their vote to right wing or stay home.

And if they can do the same to liberals or anyone not automatically prone to vote GOP, for them, more the better.

[CrossChris]

92. If they do that, our party moves left. Why not do the same thing, but move it to the right?

I'm still not believing that corporations are reversing 25 years of policy and attacking centrists from the left, instead of vice versa.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. See my post 153, above. nt

[bluestate10]

96. No. Moderates are easy to out if they attempt to mole in. But progressives

would escape concern. I have read many posts by so called progressives on DU and read as they have incessantly attacked democrats. Never one virulent attack on even the most vile republicans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. Bullshit. When the left attacks Democrats it is because the Democrats

are acting like, and voting with, Republicans.

Who was the big bad guy in the senate between 2008 & 2010? The republican, who we know is not going to vote for Democratic issues, or the turncoat Democrat who throws away the Democratic majority and blocks Democratic legislation by voting with the Republicans?

[Cascadian]

200. Hear! Hear!

Sometime these so-called Democrats or Vichy Democrats CANNOT nor WILL NOT handle the truth!


John

[Kurovski]

201. +1

[cliffordu]

132. My "Buddy" list here is a collection of people I am convinced are RW trolls...

And they NEVER disappoint.,.......NEVER, EVER.

We are just not pure enough for them.

[AllTooEasy]

159. Just signed up to Freepers; Fighting them at their own game.

[RonboKC]

187. Don't fail to mention sites like Bob Cescas Awsome Blog where

they have conservative moderators and "posters" who work to move their readers to the right. They will delete comments from true Progressives, Liberals and Democrats. They push everything Obama does as ubber-liberal and fail to recognize that he is on the far right of the Democratic party. Mention his conservative actions, as opposed to his liberal words, and you are sure to be attacked viciously.

These sites pretend to be Democratic - but they push their readers to move the "center" which is far, far more right than even Richard Nixon. They praise RomneyCare and detest all mention of Single-Payer. It's disturbing how a few often-posted commentors can bully everyone else into pushing their line that Obama is a Progressive president who needs to yield to the American public - alway to the Republican position. It a clever way to move their readers into supporting Republican policy.

[K8-EEE]

2. The Freepers brag about their "operatives" here

To me it's relatively easy to tell sincere criticism from the RW operatives (I mean does anybody REALLY think there is "no difference" between Obama and Bachmann, or whatever? Or that we should show Obama for "betraying us" by never voting for any Democrat?) Sheesh...

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Thanks for the memories, especially #2

"Kubica registered at Daily Kos under the pseudonym "Huey Long" and has repeatedly posed as a progressive Democrat who opposes Paul but does not believe Conway is worthy of support."

I sometimes wonder. Hmmmmmm..... :tinfoilhat:

[markpkessinger]

42. Well, I have never registered or commented under any name but my own. . .

. . . using the same username as I use here: markpkessinger. I think it's important to attach one's real name to political convictions if one is authentic in those convictions, hence I don't hide behind surnames. I've had plenty of criticism of this administration. But you can Google my name and you will find many years' worth of my comments on many dozens of sites. Read those, and then tell me I'm a paid right wing troll!

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Hit a nerve? You seem to be taking this way too personally.

It's the internet. People can be whomever they want to be, on the internet. ;-)

[markpkessinger]

46. I am passionate about my views . . .

. . . so when a fellow Democrat dismisses what I (and many on the left) believe are very legitimate concerns about many of the decisions taken by this Administration as nothing more than paid trolling by the opposition, I'm afraid it is then very personal!

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Alrighty then. And for the record, Greenwald is no liberal. He's a civil libertarian.

A very scary bunch indeed. Libertarians don't seem to agree with big government liberals about the role of government, except on war. :hi:

[JoeyT]

85. Almost all liberals are civil libertarians too.

The opposite of civil libertarian is kneejerk authoritarianism. The burning desire to do whatever an authority figure says just because an authority figure said to do it.

Now I realize that we do have a lot of those, but they're hardly representative of liberals as a whole.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. Link? Because if true "liberals" understood the tenants of hardcore libertarianism,

I think they'd be appalled. So I don't buy your "alledged" premise at all. Liberals think that government should play a huge role in our day to day lives, and some liberals even think the government should wipe our asses from cradle to grave, I'm not one of those.

I don't even think libertarians think the government should maintain our roads. They are free marketeers, and capitalist pigs, plain and simple.

[bluestate10]

97. The 'there is no difference" progressives do stand out.

Why would anyone take a position that when taken to it's conclusion electing republicans to office, will set their point of view back ten years and be comfortable with that choice? Why would a true progressive stomach such an outcome?

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. Ya got me...

:shrug:

[2banon]

123. No Progressive I know is comfortable with the election of Right Wingers

of either party. Corporate Dems are Right Wingers plain and simple. That's how we see them, because that's how they VOTE once in office. My question is, how are Liberal Dems "comfortable" with Right Wing legislation and policies.

Someone PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT!!!

[bananas]

98. You want a link, here's one of the best: "A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy"

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

<snip - go read the whole thing>

And see how DUers respond whenever that link is posted: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+A+Liberal+Definition+by+John+F.+Kennedy&btnG=Google+Search

[bananas]

101. You're confusing civil libertarians with economic libertarians

There's a big difference.

[bananas]

105. Here's another link - the Political Compass

You can take the test yourself: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Here's how the 2008 candidates stood - almost all were right-wing authoritarians:

While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

US Presidential Election 2008

This chart was constructed on the basis of the speeches, public statements and , crucially, the voting records of each of the candidates. During the election campaign, we'll be tweaking their positions as, inevitably, some of them change. We'll also be adding other charts as the campaign continues.

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office.

<snip>

[bananas]

114. Here's how DUers rated themselves on the Political Compass

Mostly left-libertian: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1946492&mesg_id=1946492
61% far southwest subquadrant,
94% total southwest quadrant (61+16+6+11=94%)

Somebody put the results on the grid, but that jpg seems to be gone: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1946492&mesg_id=1946492

[bananas]

119. Obama is so right-wing, he wouldn't be allowed to post here on DU

Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4422945&mesg_id=4422945

Skinner: "We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry. ... If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

[panzerfaust]

184. Heh, Heh

His denial of The Great Writ (Haebeas Corpus) which insures one's right to be brought before a judge to determine if imprisonment is legally justified: Had I to pick the ONE thing which I thought most defined president Obama's rightest leanings, this is it.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum has been part of English law since 1215 (though it initially did not apply to everyone).

The very first Congress of the United States of America in its very first statute (Judiciary Act of 1789) granted to all Federal courts the power to issue "...writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.”

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution forbids suspension of the Great Writ except in "...in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion..."

The Great Writ protects against, and was introduced because of, arbitrary imprisonment of people by their governments. Shocking it is that an American president would aver a superior right to suspend this basic tenet of a free society.

Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints. Its root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release.

Justice William J. Brennan (For the Court)
Fay v. Noia (1963)



'Twas All In Vain
After All

[JoeyT]

181. Civil libertarians aren't necessarily libertarian.

Just because both words contain the word "libertarian" doesn't actually make them the same thing.

Civil libertarians generally just believe that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be absolute and that any attempt to take them away, no matter which party does it, is wrong. The ACLU are civil libertarians, but they're not Lower-case-l Randroid fetishist libertarians like the political party/philosophy.

An easy difference to spot is that civil libertarians oppose corporate control of a populace, while libertarians would be perfectly happy with a corporate caste system.

[Luminous Animal]

107. A civil libertarian is not a libertarian.

The ACLU is a civil libertarian organization and MLK was a civil libertarian.

A civil libertarian is one who is concerned with an individuals rights as defined by law.

The vast majority of liberals are civil libertarians.

[2banon]

124. Civil Libertarian's are largely Socialist Libertarians

I think Greeenwald might be.. it's a distinction with a bit of a difference.

[markpkessinger]

126. Greenwald is a CIVIL Libertarian. . .

. . . There is a huge difference between a civil libertarian and a libertarian.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. And a huge difference between a "liberal" and a "libertarian" of any stripe.

Take a look at Ron Paul's looney assed policy positions sometimes, not to mention the crazy assed fruit of his loins. Libertarian, Schmibertarian, they're all nuts.

[markpkessinger]

174. This is nonsense!

Being a civil libertarian has nothing whatsoever to do with being a libertarian, and a strong defense of civil liberties has been a hallmark of progressive politics for decades!

[bobbolink]

90. If that is said to you on DU, then it is against the rules, and you should alert.

[boppers]

140. "People can be whomever they want to be, on the internet."

Actually, there are laws about that now.

Here's a starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew

There are both federal and state laws (and even some city laws) about being "somebody" on the Internet.

[mrcheerful]

5. Gee they are fast on this tactic.......not. I knew a long time ago that it was wing nuts that

were behind the left sounding attacks on D's, one dead give away is the constant the D's are just R's in D clothing rants, that the D's ate from the same hand that feeds R's. D's might get some contributions from the same sources as R's, they always have for as long as I can remember and according to my grand father it was that way for his life time, but like gramps kept telling me up to the day he passed, D's have a habit of biting the hand that feeds them. By that he meant that D's put country before contributions which the R's don't attempt to do.

Then there are the ones who try to convince people that Ron Paul shares D values, forgetting that RP votes 99.9% with the R's as well as saying RP is a libertarian, screw that RP is a hard core R who uses libertarian talk to hide behind to get the libertarian vote. This is not news it is just more of the same crap R's have been pulling on everything, infiltrate, get D's fighting and get R's elected, why, because people who get discouraged stay home on voting day.

[Kurmudgeon]

83. Like "Both sides are the same, so vote Republican! " n/m

[bluestate10]

100. Or stay home. Which is the same as voting republican. nt

[patrice]

7. The internet is a house of mirrors. Anyone could be/say anything for any objective. nt

[KittyWampus]

63. Very true. And while I've posted about Ratfucking on DU before, it's a sensitive subject because

it can too easily result in people pointing fingers back and forth at each other.

But as long as we keep your original point in mind, it's all just words on a screen.

[patrice]

67. I think about this a lot. I have decided that it can be "just words on a screen". It can also be

meaningful exercise for those involved at whatever level and whether it is or isn't of any value, and what kind of value that might be, one thing does drive me forward here nonetheless. Given what has become of "discourse" amongst us, and the perversions of the main milieu in which that occurs, MSM, I have realized that I can and must be part of something that is more than nothing relative to all that poised so powerfully against us. So, I have deliberately chosen to cultivate meaning in this environment. It's my small, but satisfying, form of rebellion.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Quick look away from the Koch powered Turd Way that has been eating the party like cancer

for a generation.

Must punch hippies!

[FLAprogressive]

10. +1

[Hardrada]

12. True that!

[FLAprogressive]

23. There's such a difference between what the OP is claiming is occuring and what actually is occuring.

Unfortunately he's just using these "examples", of which only two are actually doing what he says is being done to smear people on the left who criticize Democrats.

[Hardrada]

26. Exactly!

[TomCADem]

29. WaPo (2008) - "Win Points for McCain! Rewards Program for Online Commenters" - Ignore at Your Peril!

Ignore right wing and corporate manipulation of social media at your peril. It happened in 2008. It is happening now. It will continue to grow, and they are not just trying to mobilize the right against Democrats, the propagandists will also try to erode support for Democrats among the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589.html

Spread John McCain's official talking points around the Web -- and you could win valuable prizes!

That, in essence, is the McCain campaign's pitch to supporters to join its new online effort, one that combines the features of "AstroTurf" campaigning with the sort of customer-loyalty programs offered by airlines, hotel chains, restaurants and the occasional daily newspaper.

On McCain's Web site, visitors are invited to "Spread the Word" about the presumptive Republican nominee by sending campaign-supplied comments to blogs and Web sites under the visitor's screen name. The site offers sample comments ("John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan . . .") and a list of dozens of suggested destinations, conveniently broken down into "conservative," "liberal," "moderate" and "other" categories. Just cut and paste.

Activists and political operatives have used volunteers or paid staff to seed radio call-in shows or letters-to-the-editor pages for years, typically without disclosing the caller or letter writer's connection to a candidate or cause. Like the fake grass for which the practice is named, such AstroTurf messages look as though they come from the grass roots but are ersatz.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. +1

:thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

72. The only way to erode support for Democrats on the left

is for Democrats to keep going further to the right on issues of major importance to those who elected them.

This OP is intended to silence critics of Democrats who vote with Republicans or who cave or compromise to them consistently.

It is not going to work.

[CrossChris]

78. Classic Rovian/Third Way projection. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. Is that an agreement or an accusation? nt

[CrossChris]

169. I agree with the poster I was responding to. Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I think her assessment was right on the money.

[RaleighNCDUer]

170. Actually, reading your other posts, I figured that out

but by that time I had already asked.

:hi:

[TomCADem]

135. If so, then why do Republican propagandists engage in such acts? To help the left?

The purpose of the post is remind folks of the efforts of the right to sow discord among Democratic supporters.

This is what I don't get. I am not saying anything about what you post. I am merely noting that what you "read" may, and often is, propaganda by folks who simply do not believe what they are posting. Do you seriously believe that the Rand Paul aide was a liberal? Do you think that Republican operatives trying to get Latinos to punish Harry Reid for not pushing immigration reform had any interest in passing immigration reform.

So, you are comparing apples and oranges when you suggest that these sock puppets are no different than legitimate critics from the left. As the examples in the OP show, often the critics simply do not believe what they are pushing. Republicans who push the Green Party have no real interest in pushing the Green Party's principles.

[sabrina 1]

144. First, I go by issues. I watch what a Democrat DOES, how s/he

fights or doesn't fight for the issues they ran on. Then I make up my own mind about them. I don't need to read what others say. And I have found that most of the people I have known online in nearly ten years now, on the left, are intelligent enough to do the same.

I never said anything about 'sock puppets being no different than legitimate critics from the left'. There have always been sock puppets, MOST OF THEM on Daily Kos. That is how DK started out, filled with sock puppets, political operatives who pretended to be ordinary people who stumbled on the blog. Then when they built up a large enough following of liberals, people began to notice and ask who some of these people were.

As for the incident with the of the Rand Paul aide, that was a joke, blown out of proportion on that blog, something they have always been very good at. DK was never what it presented itself to be in the first place, started by a Reagan Republican and his partner. Kos' partner who is listed as the Godfather of DK, was actually convicted of deceiving people for money on an online Stock forum. Setting up a sockpuppet pretending to be a Paul Aide or whatever, would not be beyond people over there. Literally tens of thousands of people left that blog after spending a short time there, and I hope one day there will be a big expose on the way it became a gate-keeper to control the energy that was around at the time, and to make sure that ordinary people did not get to have too much power online. Aside from the fact that it is a boring place, spending most of its time fighting in the nastiest ways. I wouldn't waste a minute on that blog to be honest, nor would I believe much I read there except for a few people. Most of the real progressives left there long, long ago.

I am extremely unhappy with Democrats right now, and will continue to say so until they start acting like Democrats. And if they touch Social Security or Medicare, you better be prepared for war and so should they. And no one will need any rightwing sock puppets for that purpose. Do you really think we are that dumb? That we are influenced by what people on an internet forum might say in a comment? After being a moderator on a very large political blog several years ago, it's not hard to spot sock puppets, but then it wasn't hard even not being a moderator.

People are unhappy with this president. That is a fact. It's far more likely to find 'left' sockpuppets trying to excuse his actions, since there is so much dissatisfaction with his policies, than to find them slamming him.

[theFrankFactor]

190. Thank you... A million times, thank you!

[boppers]

142. Pol Pot left or Stalin left or Mao left....?

Which left, that refuses to compromise, might you be referring to?

[saras]

40. yep

[mmonk]

57. +2

[FLAprogressive]

9. Fantastic, blanket discreditation of anyone critical of Dems from the left. Fall in line or else

you're a paid GOP operative.

:sarcasm:

[TomCADem]

13. I Know It Is Forbidden To Suggest That Liberals Can Be Mislead By Corporate Propaganda

Aferall, we know that we are inherently superior to our conservative counterparts such as elderly Tea Baggers who depends on social security and Medicare, and can be found in Town Halls strongly supporting the Republican budget plan as they scream that the government should keep its hands off of Medicare.

Liberals are genetically superior. And, corporations and Republicans do have some ethical standards. They would never try to mislead the left with coordinated campaigns to attack Democrats from the left.

These examples I noted must be aberations, because we should trust the Chamber of Commerce and Freedom Works to observe some basic rules of decency in political discourse. It is not like they would ever suggest that Health Care Reform had death panels or that President Obama was born in Kenya.

I apologize for suggesting that corporate America would devote any portion of their propaganda budget to trying to erode support for Democrats from the left. They are way too ethical for that, and we are just way too smart to be duped.

Gaming social media? Inconcievable!

:sarcasm:

[FLAprogressive]

19. There's a stark difference between what your OP claims and what it actually contains.

Only two of your six examples actually involve someone pretending to be someone on the left to attack Democrats.

The rest is just right-wing corporate astroturf which is nothing new. They're not "attacking Democrats from the left" because they don't claim to be on the left. Doesn't make it right, but you're claiming it's something that it's not in order to smear those on the left who criticize Democrats.

Telling Republicans to go vote in the Democratic primary is not "attacking Democrats from the left" or "eroding support for Democrats". It's just telling Republicans to mess with an election. It doesn't make people on the left go to support their candidate?

[markpkessinger]

127. Thank you! +1000 n/t

[CrossChris]

61. Sounds like misdirection from Third Way to me.

That's just my gut feeling.

[XemaSab]

11. Most people I know IRL are way to the left of Obama

:shrug:

[hootinholler]

79. Hell Eisenhower was left of Obama. n/t

[markpkessinger]

128. Ironically, in some ways so was Nixon n/t

[Luminous Animal]

14. Point of information... The AZ Green Party sued to have the sham candidates removed...

http://www.kpho.com/news/24918656/detail.html

"TEMPE, Ariz. -- The Green Party has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Phoenix, in part to get the names of several Green Party candidates removed from the ballot.
Green Party Co-chair Claudia Ellquist said in a news release that the Arizona Green Party is demanding that the courts put an end to sham candidates who do not have the support of anyone in the organization.
Ellquist is referring to several candidates admittedly recruited to run on the Green Party ticket by Republican Steve May, a former state lawmaker who is once again seeking a seat in the state House of Representatives"

[demmiblue]

15. I am more leery of the liberal/dem posters that keep trying to pull us to the right. n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

56. Yes and this sounds like yet another attempt to discredit those of us that would ...

try to reclaim our party from the sellout centrists.

[CrossChris]

62. Sounds to me like they're getting out in front of the charge before we find out what they're doing.

Classic Rovian projection.

[NorthCarolina]

164. Of course it is. Pathetically obvious really.

nt

[socialist_n_TN]

120. Me too. They do it by telling us that they're

"pragmatic". Usually. Well, pragmatic is NOT bailing on your convictions BEFORE YOU EVEN START THE NEGOTIATIONS. Pragmatic is settling for somethng less than you want AFTER YOU'VE FOUGHT AS HARD AS YOU CAN FOR THE WHOLE PROPOSAL.

[myrna minx]

167. Me too. n/t

[Kurovski]

202. Me three. (nt)

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. Tactic number 7:

A prominent Republican operative posts on the site DemocraticUnderground.com under the name "TomCADem", announcing that the people there have been infiltrated by right wingers posing as liberals, and everybody needs to be distrustful of their neighbors, breaking up the sense of solidarity on the site. Classic tactic! :evilgrin:

Kidding, but people do focus too much this stuff IMHO. Of course there are vast numbers of sock puppets, but I realized that a sock puppet and an idiot who doesn't know what his interests really are functionally equivalent. The fact is the web has even more of the latter, but smart boys and girls adapt, dig through the junk to learn things, put out their two cents along with everybody else. We move on.

[TomCADem]

20. I Disagree - The Corporate "Mainstream Media" Ignores The Manipulation of Tea Baggers...

...and how the Tea Party "movement" was largely ochestrated by Fox News and right wing propaganda outfits. Some liberal commentators have thankfully noted this.

However, what I think is underreported, are the systematic efforts to try to erode support for Democrats among liberals. I agree that there is a noticeable difference between a liberal poster who is attacking Democrats and Republicans from the left, but as the examples I attached show, you often have sock puppets who attack Democrats while giving their far more extreme Republican opponents a free pass.

The purpose of my post is to note as you do that people should be critical. Heck, be critical of my post, but is someone seriously going to stand up and argue that corporate propagandists are ethical enough to avoid such fraudulent efforts? As the articles I attached show, this is simply not the case.

So, by all means be critical of my OP, but also be critical of any other content. Even a liberal haven like KoS or DU is not necessarily immune from corporate media manipulation.

In 2008, the McCain campaign offered prizes to bloggers who posted on liberal websites as noted in this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3427968

In 2012, I expect such efforts to game social media to expand exponentially. So, you are right. We must be critical consumers of content. The fact that a talking point is spammed does not necessarily mean that it is right or even popular even on places like KoS or DU.

While it is popular to ridicule the right for its manipulation by corporate propaganda groups like Freedom Works, people on this board are loathe to accept that they too may be the target of propaganda campaigns designed to erode support for Democrats from the "left" by folks who are anything but liberal.

[napoleon_in_rags]

32. I hear you on that point:

DU is NOT immune from this stuff at all. Sometimes I think its one of the worst sites for it. But at the same time, that's why I come here - its a little like the bar from Star Wars. If it weren't for all the puppetry it wouldn't be DU. By that's why the rare gems also come through here and not other places.

But yeah, its true that these manipulations aren't reported. But you have to understand a lot of that deals with what I was saying, its hard to tell a dumb guy who believes something against his interests from a smart guy trying to manipulate dumb guys into agreeing with him. They all look the same, and when you try to call somebody out you end up looking like the grand inquisitor.

But on the other hand, when you understand the manipulations but don't call them out, there gets to be this temptation, you realize you can easily deploy the same techniques. When I turn on cable news I see a zoo of manipulations on every channel. But the problem is once these people start manipulating others themselves, they are invested and their own motivation to call it out becomes that much more diminished. So its growing like a virus, and the end result is a huge block of ordinary people who have NO idea what's going on, but are beholden to crazy rumors that go way to far without people standing up to them.

[chollybocker]

17. "I'm a die-hard liberal, but..."

There's your first clue, right there.

Also:

"Poll: Are you disappointed with Obama's mediocre performance?"
"I was listening to Rush today, just for the lulz, and he said..."
"WE need REAL progressive leaders, not Nancy and Harry..."

Sock-puppetry or just plain stupidity, I can't stand this bs.

[FLAprogressive]

21. Yep, this is how it is now....if you're dissatisfied with the way our "leaders" are doing things

you're a paid shill!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[FLAprogressive]

24. So why should those of us who are critical of the way this administration is doing things shut up

and be quiet?

[TomCADem]

27. Never said that. Read my OP.

Now, if it concerns you that my OP might cause someone reading DU to more critically examine a poster who is proudly claiming that they are going to sit out the 2012 election because Democrats are no different than Republicans, then I offer no apologies. This is Democratic Underground. I am unapoletically partisan. I think Democrats needs to keep control of the White House and re-capture the House, and expand our majority in the Senate. I make no apologies about this position. If you think there is no difference between the parties, then you and I disagree.

While I may not agree 100% with what every Democrat says, I also truly believe that the policies of most Republicans would be far more detrimental to our country. So, I am critical of what I read, even on DU and KoS, particularly if someone is suggesting that there is no difference between the two parties. Union members in Wisconsin discovered that this is simply not the case.

We need to be vigilant of corporate propaganda, and while it is great that we are noticing the astroturf on the right, we should also be aware of right wing efforts to erode support from the left.

[chollybocker]

31. Who is "us?"

Are they the same as the "We" I alluded to above? Just say "I," and you'll already appear 100% more credible. Also, please provide a link to "us."

[FLAprogressive]

36. I didn't say "I" because I am not the only one on this board who is liberal and critical of the

president.

[LanternWaste]

70. I imagine the distinction is in content and format versus valid criticism...

I imagine the distinction is in content and format versus valid criticism. But then again, I'm not very clever and don't pretend to know too much about it

[boppers]

143. The content of turfers is easy to spot. It's bullet point, and lacks nuance,

For example, complaining about GITMO prisons without noting that it's been ordered to be shut down, and was blocked by Congress.

Right-wingers and turfers don't do nuance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. You mean, without noting it was blocked by RW DEMOCRATS in

congress?

Nuance? What's nuance?

[markpkessinger]

39. No, that's not necessarily a clue. . .

I have used similar phrases at times because I've seen too many instances where legitimate criticism from the left has been met with precisely what is being suggested in many of the comments in this thread: i.e., that if someone is criticizing the President, he or she must surely be a right-wing troll, and possibly even a paid one. But while it might be easy for you to take comfort in telling yourself that anybody who dares to voice criticism is somehow not a legitimate liberal, it's a lot harder to dismiss the many solidly left-leaning pundits, commentators and even politicians who share, and have expressed, the same concerns.

If we're going to go down this road of dismissing criticism by questioning the legitimacy of the one doing the criticizing, perhaps those of us who have been critical should begin questioning whether the "He's-my-President-and-can-do-no-wrong" school are likewise GOP plants who are trying to undermine progressive values by hijacking the party. Just sayin'.

[FLAprogressive]

41. Pay no attention to the Corporate Third Way! They're our friends now!

The "professional left" is the REAL problem!

:sarcasm:

[JHB]

71. Since you're name dropping...

...might was well plug:
http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/
Usually NSFW

:evilgrin:

[crickets]

50. +1

[applegrove]

25. I would hazard to guess that the renewed "Trig isn't Palin's son" rumours on the left

are astroturf from the right... trying to make the left look as nutty to the moderates as the birthers look.

[DevonRex]

28. Excellent post.

It would be foolish to ignore this RW tactic.

[MadHound]

30. Oh boy, let's have another excuse to ignore justified criticism from the left,

Not only are they "retards" and the "professional left", but now they can be dismissed as paid RW operatives.

Sickening, absolutely disgusting.

[FLAprogressive]

34. This is their favorite screed. Now they'll tell you that they're not saying what they're saying but

they are and they know it.

[bluestate10]

104. When the criticism truly targets republicans and make a compelling

case against republicans, posts draw my respect. But several big posters calling themselves progressives on DU are insanely anti Obama. Yet I have not seen one substantive post by them tearing republicans down.

[markpkessinger]

33. While I don't put anything past the GOP. . .

. . . There is plenty of criticism "from the left" that is genuinely from the left. I have, at times, had plenty of criticism of this Administration and this President. But I am a lifelong Democrat and liberal voter, who happens to think a large part of the Democratic Party abandoned progressive values when the DLC was permitted to set the party's direction in the wake of the '94 midterms. And the rightward drift has only gotten worse from there. I've seen plenty of other criticism here from people who are legitimately part of the left as well. Much as this President's most ardent supporters (or should I say, "fan club members?") would like to dismiss any and all intra-party criticism of President Obama, one need only look at the number of solidly established left-leaning journalists and bloggers who have likewise leveled much (well-deserved) criticism to realize that most of the criticism from the left indeed emanates from the left. So, unless you're all ready to dismiss the likes of Glen Greenwald, Jane Hamscher and Ezra Klein, to name only a few, as being the rantings of paid right-wing trolls, then you might want to pull your heads out of the sand (or elsewhere) and recognize that there is, indeed, legitimate criticism by progressives that is based on progressive values.

[FLAprogressive]

35. Why, you must be a paid troll. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE that anyone on the left could have legitimate

criticism of this administration. After all, it's not like the president is continuing Bush-era policies and pushing right-wing talking points.

(maybe he's a paid astroturfer, LOL)

[Cerridwen]

37. Post-election, 'democrats' switch to repub - 2010

Then there is the repub infiltration into the party itself, followed by them switching to the repub party.

Nine Democratic Legislators Have Switched to Republican Party Post-Election

State Lawmakers Bolt Democratic Party After Election Day (sorry for the source)

Nine Texas Democrats switch to the GOP

House Democrat switching to Republican Party-aides

At least 5 states had 'democrats' "switching" to repub.

I think that's a bit more of an issue than anonymous posters criticizing the party from "the left."

Let's not forget the Third Way 'democrats' who are dragging the party to the right.

[FLAprogressive]

38. Shhhhhhh.......that talk is not allowed. People trying to pull the party to the right clearly aren't

the problem. They're our friends! It's those damn fake lefties. :crazy:

[Cerridwen]

43. Yeah, I know, huh?

"Well-behaved women seldom make history." I'm only quoted in one book so far so I gotta keep being "noisy and obnoxious."

:evilgrin:

[Baclava]

81. Here's a tip ...If you're anti-war - - - you're a subversive now

Purity Control

[woo me with science]

48. LOL

That's EXACTLY the problem.

[crickets]

51. Well played. -nt

:)

[BzaDem]

49. While I do not think much of the criticism from the left is from paid trolls, I do think people with

similar posts to such trolls should ask themselves whether they are really helping or hurting the cause of a more progressive America.

For example, posts that merely criticize an issue position or action often do not come from trolls.

But posts that expressly state or imply that one should not vote for the Democrat are another matter. Even if someone who posts this stuff isn't a troll, the fact that paid trolls are happy that they are doing it should give them significant pause. It should make them ask, "am I really acting in furtherance of my goal, or am I hindering it?" In short, it should cause certain people to take a good look in the mirror.

In my view, motive is essentially irrelevant. There is little meaningful difference between enabling the election of Republicans from the right and enabling the election of Republicans from the left. What matters are actions -- not words. The distinction in words is meaningless if the result of one's actions is more Republicans on the ballot being elected to office.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

55. He doesn't. As far as I know, when he goes to the voting booth, he votes for Democrats

(not Republicans).

[TheKentuckian]

59. His brand of enabling is the direct and with the force of law variety

[mmonk]

53. The left has no legitimate complaints about Obama.

Any that do belong to Republican "sleeper cells". They are the enemy within.

[MadHound]

66. LOL!

Are you saying that with a straight face?

Are you saying that I'm part of a "Republican sleeper cell"?

[mmonk]

76. I thought it might lose impact with a sarcasm tag.

:)

[MadHound]

80. My bad,

Sorry.

You've got a deadpan sense of humor there, well done:evilgrin:

[unc70]

182. Better turn myself in for re-education

Got to this thread really late but had to check in.

After all I am one of those Boomers who can't let go and move forward. Just another aging Boomer still caught up re-fighting those same old tired battles. Another dirty stinking lazy hippy who hates his country and who should just shutup or leave. Those fights are ancient history.

Just realized I can't remember the "last" time I spit on one of our proud fighting men and women returning from war. Maybe the next I see one of my family members fitting that description (and also a DUer) we can take care of that. Should get a laugh from him.

I have been discussing what I see happening at DU and around the country a lot over the past several years. Check out my journal topics including the archive going back to at least 2007.

Most DUers over the years have been more dedicated to the core beliefs of human rights, individual rights, civil rights, workers rights, equality, justice, open and fair elections, providing for the general welfare and the common good, responsible stewardship of our collective "wealth" -- natural resources, environment, public institutions and services, infrastructures, ... -- and to protect and provide for the weakest, the frailest, the poorest, the most vulnerable among us from the relentless onslaught by the richest and most powerful.

During the primary campaign of 2007 and 2008, Edwards was an early favorite at DU because many here thought he had the best thought out, most detailed, policies and programs and these were often used here as a starting point for debate. Dennis also had strong support at DU back then.

I am a liberal, a populist, a Wellstone Democrat, an angry white male southerner besieged on all sides. After over 50 years working to make a real difference (to the best of my ability), to improve the lives of everyone in NC, the US, and the World, I shall not shut-up and I will not back down.

At DU, I have been labeled a racist, a sexist, an apologist for slavery, a disruptor, a self-absorbed selfish Boomer, a PUMA, a birther, a Republican, and more. But I have been called much worse other places, as an individual and as a member of a group, sometimes by masters at divisive labeling including Jesse Helms.

I care about getting results, not getting credit; about the American reality, not the dream; about the Constitution and laws being for all, not for protecting the wealth and power of the same few; about WE, not ME; about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind.

The OP that started all of this rant makes a claim that is not supported by most of his examples, and only marginally by a couple. The one involving the so-called PUMAs was mostly orchestrated by members of our own party, although Repubs were happy to help it along just as Dems did by letting the Birthers become the public image of the Repubs. The label PUMA was used to discredit those from states whose delegates were at risk because of actions by HC supporters that are now documented as mostly the work of supporters of Obama. I was in neither camp, but those kinds of games should not be how we do things.

I have not been around much lately and really hate seeing this BS prominently on the home page.

[JTFrog]

54. K&R

[SpiralHawk]

58. Yuppers

fer sure

[KittyWampus]

64. It's called "Ratfucking" and the Republicans have a long history of it.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Huge K&R.

Hello????!!!

[JHB]

73. Ratf-ing is nothing new, but neither is dismissing legitimate lefty arguments

So while you're cautioning against dirty tricksters, don't point a "centrist" version of "they're dupes or active agents of Moscow!" at 'the left'.

[markpkessinger]

129. +! n/t

[SidDithers]

74. K&R...nt

Sid

[JoeyT]

86. Yeah, everyone that criticizes people that act like Republicans no matter what letter they use are

Republicans. Sure they are.

And hey, if you pretend everyone that criticizes are all paid trolls you don't have to bother refuting their arguments. You just insist they're being paid by the "enemy" and anything they say is suspect.

[Blue_Tires]

87. We've had #2 and #6 on DU since before the '04 election

FFS...Have I been here THAT long?:scared:

[Enthusiast]

88. If it is dirty and underhanded,

Republicans will do it. That is all.

[Kingofalldems]

89. They are here--I guarantee it

[bluestate10]

93. Spitting image of several far Left on DU. Never an attack on a republican.

But relentlessly assaults any policy proposal by President Obama.

[Dr Fate]

102. In turn, I've seen plenty of centrists on DUand elsewhere...

...who attack and voice disagreement with the DEM activist base more than they attack and voice disagreement with so-called moderate Republicans.

It could just as easily be said that "centrists" are attacking the party from within (ie constantly moving to the right, refusing to oppose the GOP and purposely marginalizing the base) just fine on their own, w/o the help of any RWers pretending to be Liberals.

[Dr Fate]

106. dupe

n/t

[bluestate10]

110. I am a centrist democrat. I view any republican is the enemy.

Their being republican is red flag enough for me. The republican party has not stood for anything good and decent since Nixon's Presidency. I would wet my shorts with joy if a democrat, even a blue dog democrat defeat a "moderate" republican US Senator in a general, in every state where so called moderate republicans win elections.

[Dr Fate]

116. As far as the war goes, centrists opposed the left and agreed with the far right.

Centrist Democrats constantly attacked the far left and defended and agreed with the far right that Saddam had WMDs, that we must vote "yes" etc.

Maybe you were the lone centrist who agreed with the Liberals who got the war issue correct, but as far as national DEMS go, they opposed Liberals and agreed with Bush on WMDs and attacking Iraq.

On that issue alone, real live centrists have done more damage to the party and the nation and the budget than any troll pretending to be a Liberal.

The war is one of the most expensive and most important issues of my life time, and we are there not because of Liberals in disguise, but b/c of centrists who openly agreed with and trusted proven liars on the far right.

The war being just one example of many...Again, centrists dont need conservatives disguised as Liberals in order to make all these wrong choices. Some might argue that many elected centrists ARE the conservatives disguised as Liberals. Maybe this is just classic projection afterall.

[CrossChris]

161. What about Republican ideology? This whole debate seems to center around ideology vs. people.

If you are focused on the person, then any attack on a centrist Dem would seem like trolling.

If you are focused on ideology, a centrist Dem's attacks on the liberal platform seem like trolling.

In my mind, you have to follow the money trail. For 25 years we've seen money cause the Democratic Party to start beating up on liberalism from the "center." Why would their online tactics differ much at all? I think trolling from the center is MUCH more consistent with the Democratic Party's Third Way leadership than some bizarre counter-charge that the left is doing it to turn off centrists.

[fascisthunter]

149. I see more of so-called moderates supporting right wing ideals

call yourselves what you want, it's what you support that is the issue. Have a nice day.

[Skidmore]

99. Yup. You can tell who they are by their screeching and not so transparent

usernames.

[Dr Fate]

108. Centrists dont need right wingers pretending to be Liberals to move the party to the right.

They do that just fine, all by themselves.

Was it fake Liberals or real live centrists who basically funded the Koch brother's political operations with massive tax cuts? Someone clear this up for me!

I thought it was the centrists pretending to be Liberals who are moving us to the right...Right? But now it's conservatives pretedning to be Liberals? Err, okay. I thought centrists WERE conservatives, at least on certain issues.

Then again, whether moving the party to the right is a good idea isnt really the problem or issue, is it? Apparently, even a Liberal who thinks that centrists are moving us too far right is himself a double-secret right winger. LOL! Round & round we go.

[bluestate10]

111. It is easy to make a contribution to DU maintenance. And while you are at it,

there are many food banks in your home region that can use a few bucks sent their way. It is about actions, after all.

[Dr Fate]

115. I agree with that- act locally and put your money where your mouth is.

We agree, and just so there is no confusion, I never said anything to the contrary.

Are you sure you are responding to the right post? Mine was about how centrists are RW enough on their own without any help from fake Liberals, not about how real Liberals like me donate locally, get involved in action, etc.

[mountainlion55]

109. Actions speak louder than words!

It don't make a bit of difference what people say on this site. Look at the elected officials and what they do after the race is over! Mr. Obama talks a good game but his actions say something different! Sock puppets Mock sockets that don't matter just use some common sense!:think:

[Dr Fate]

112. Yup- centrists are either for a Liberal agenda, or they are for a more conservative one.

Fake Liberals (assuming they really exsit on the level the OP charges) dont really change that one way or the other.

A Right Winger dressed up as a Liberal did not "fool" centrist Democrats into giving massive tax cuts the Koch brothers, for instance. No, they came up with that "strategy" all on their own. Same with their support of war spending, same with their failure to fight harder for the PO or unions. No one fooled them into siding with conservatives, they simply made choices that reflected their more conservative, less liberal beliefs on certain issues.

If fake Liberals are "fooling" centrist Democrats into steering the party to the right, then those centrists must be idiots, or the centrists are already sympathetic to the right to begin with.

Sorry folks- but fake Liberals are not the ones fooling centrists into caving to the right- they seem to do that by choice.

[hwmnbn]

113. I hadn't visited Firedoglake in a while...

But the comments on several topics could have been straight out of Free Republic.

I couldn't believe what I was reading!

[AtomicKitten]

150. The firebaggers do give FR a run for their money.

[Dr Fate]

117. Elected centrists who openly agree witht he far right vs. Right wing trolls pretending to be lib?

I'd say that the elected, power holding centrist Democrats have much more power and influence than a few trolls, but what do I know.

[Dr Fate]

121. I dont get it. So the far right is using the far left to fool centrists into being more far left?

The Far right pretends to be the far left, hoping to fool Obama etc. into taking the bait and going with the left on an issue or two? If so, then more power to them, but I never saw this going on.

Or are we saying that the far right is using the far left to fool centrists into being even MORE right wing? That makes no sense either.

As I said above, centrists dont vote with the far right or attack anti-war, anti-tax cut liberals because people in disguises are somehow fooling them- that is the silliest thing I ever heard in my life. A centrist votes with Republicans or otherwise works to steer are party to the right b/c he agrees with right wingers on an issue or two (or ten), not b/c some RW disguised as a liberal "fooled" them.

[2banon]

122. Oh boy.. Hey Truthseekers, Mike Malloy enthusiasts! Did ya know We're Sock Puppets for the Right!

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

No such thing as a true Progressives Movement, it doesn't actually exist! all our handwringing wrt to the decapitation of FDR Social Reforms, Union busting, Social Security, Medicare and such... our cries gone unheard is a grand deception! It's all Slight of Hand!

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

[Dr Fate]

130. Yes, RWers disguised as Liberals are fooling centrists into being even more conservative!

And or more Liberal.Point is, us fake Liberal trolls are the real cause of their bad choices & failed strategies.


It all makes sense now- it's not the centrists who vote with Republicans who are the problem- it's the RWers pretending to be Liberals that FOOL them into making all those unpopular, far right choices on the war(s), tax cuts for the rich, etc.

[readmoreoften]

137. +1

[caseymoz]

125. I've said exactly that I might withhold my vot because Obama isn't liberal enough

Not liberal enough about things like habeus corpus and prosecuting whistleblowers, and I gave $750 to Kerry's campaign in 2004 and $200 to Obamas in 2008. (Last time I'll do that. I've gone broke, BTW.)

"Where have we heard this before?" You heard it because there's a good reason for it! If Republicans are hiring people to say this, it's a stupid plan when it's true and liberals should be saying it for free.

Your article was good until you said that. I realize that might be somewhat beside the point here, but I despise having suspicion cast upon anybody who states the obvious and takes the most basic stand against it, which is withholding their vote.

[Rex]

133. The Left had to do something or the RWing idiots would have taken

over...EVERYTHING! Repukes are despicable people.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[TomCADem]

138. Read the OP - Each Is Story Is About A Sock Puppet Getting Caught Redhanded

If you have a news story about right wingers or left wingers pretending to be moderate and posting to try to undermine moderate Democrats, then feel free to share.

The OP has nothing to do with folks who post criticism who actually believe the criticism. Rather, it highlights the effort of Republicans and corporate propagandists who are pretending to be liberal or progressive.

Isn't this worth calling out and being viligant about?

Why defend or minimize the efforts of Republicans and corporate propagandists to sow discord among the left? Are you saying that it is insignificant or non-existent?

[Armstead]

141. Those may be true, but look into the DLC sometimes

They don't use the same tactics -- but they did a whole lot more -- a WHOLE LOT MORE -- to undermine the Democratic Party as the the liberals counterpoint to the GOP, and to align it with Corporate Oligarchs.

That's a hell of a lot more dangerous than trolls on message boards or pseudo Green party candidates.

[CrossChris]

146. The Rand Paul staffer story always seemed like a fake to me.

Not much about it adds up.

[drm604]

147. Unfortunately it's too late for me to rec this but it deserves a big kick.

I was aware of that angry renters scam a long time ago and posted about it. To me it was obviously bull. Why would renters (and specifically just renters) organize and put up a website to oppose mortgage bailouts? Not only that, they ran banner ads on popular websites. People who rent have money to throw away advertising issues that have no immediate direct impact on them?

It made no sense. Yet apparently tens of thousands of people were taken in by it.

A huge part of the problem is just how gullible people are. If people could be taught to think, rather than just reacting with their emotions, these ridiculous astroturf campaigns wouldn't be nearly as effective. But I guess that's just a hopeless dream.

[fascisthunter]

148. Yes, and I'm sure many DLCers and conservo dems want us to be suspicious of the left

because afterall, the left is powerful and we run the government.

[Avant Guardian]

154. Another broad brush attack against the left

Using the common logical fallacy, 'the hasty generalization.'

Also Known as: Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion, Hasty Induction...etc, etc.

This is the type of post you put up when you can no longer argue or defend based upon facts.

[Cascadian]

197. It's a purge against the left!

Why is there this talk about getting rid of Dennis Kucinich's district? Why does Rahm Emanuel like to bash liberals? Why did Robert Gibbs make attacks on the left? There is this push to silence the left! As far as I am concerned they are playing a dangerous game and it wlll only backfire in the end.


John

[Gman]

171. LOL! Ever read DU? Most of the time they're not even sock puppets here

Just think how much money they're losing. They could be getting paid for bashing Obama here on DU.

[That Guy 888]

173. Most of the sleazy rethuglikan tricks you mention don't seem to be masquerading as "leftist"

Some people on the left were disappointed by FDR. There were legitimate disagreements and valid points, like not allowing more Jewish refugees in before WWII, or using the European strategic bombing campaign to attack the mechanism of the Holocaust. FDR also listened to the rethuglikans of his day during his second term and cut government spending which led to stalling the recovery from the Great Depression.

Saying that these were mistakes didn't make the liberals of his day secret fascists/rethuglikans any more than pointed out that the President is no liberal does today. The OP gives cover to the Presidents unasked for cult of personality to further attacks on perceived enemies of the President.

[cstanleytech]

175. This might well explain some of the anti Obama people here

who have been advocating voting for a different candidate in 2012, nice to know why some of them might be doing it now.

[2banon]

176. oh.. this was a highly intelligent analysis.really well thought out..

Not.

[cstanleytech]

177. Gee, i must have hit a sore spot there.

[2banon]

178. Spot of deep Frustration would be more accurate

it's the nature of the beast I suppose.

edit to add apologies for my snarkiness...

[cstanleytech]

179. Apology accepted and I extend mine as well to you

as I did not mean to offend you but lets be honest, if this story is true it stands to reason that some (and I did say it was only some in my original post) of the them could be here on the DU, after all the DU is a well known forum.

[2banon]

180. considering everything that confronts us

I think we should avoid the classic divide and conquer trap that the OP appears to be engaging in.. in other words, all I'm trying say is stop blaming the Left for the troubles this country is in. Our woes were NOT created by the Left. that's the point of frustration I'm referring to.

[themadstork]

186. Who cares?

If a repub is posting on this site, that's more activity and traffic for us and less for their site. People blogging progressive ideas are people blogging progressive ideas, and in the long run it doesn't matter that they secretly did not "believe" them. I don't give a shit what anyone does secretly. Publicly they're another voice claiming preference for Dems/progressives, and that only makes our overall influence look that much larger. It's like the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" thing. If repubs are willing to represent themselves online as if they are dems, then I say let them. In fact I invite them ALL to do it. Pretend to blog in favor of our ideology instead of sincerely blogging in favor of your own--somehow I doubt that's a net loss for us.

This imho is a case of people outclevering themselves. It'd be like a pro-war activist saying: "I've got it guys, let's pretend to be hippies! Loud, obnoxious, uncompromising and irascible hippes! That will *totally* fool em!--We'll have em all foaming at the mouth in pro-war fervor by this time next week!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

188. So, the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is really the Vast Right Wing Conspiracey?

And, liberals, socialists, Marxists, Trotskyists, anarchists, and anyone else who questions the policies of the Obama administration are really camouflaged teabaggers???

Or, maybe FBI agents looking for "Reds"?

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

[Cascadian]

198. It all seems laughable but it's not!

They are trying to throw out those Democrats that are on the left and it is going to blow back in their faces come 2012.


John

[inna]

189. too late to unrec, what reactionary trash

[FrenchieCat]

192. It's alright. I recced that masterpiece op full of verifiable facts long ago!

Why would you be so upset by it? That doesn't make sense! :shrug:

[inna]

195. yep, decidedly hilarious.

ETA: responding to/agreeing with post #194 here. :hi:

[EFerrari]

194. It's sort of hilarious. n/t

[Cascadian]

196. Yeah. You're right! I am an operative!

:sarcasm:

I am still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers. What a load of garbage! This is another blatant attempt by Corporadems to attack those people on the left and don't share the "Centrist" Democratic Party view! While there might be some operatives that are trying to stir the pot as it were, let's face the facts that the Democratic Party has been hijacked more so by the corporatists and the right-wing military/industrial complex. The DLC is also guilty of being a front for the corporatists to "neutralize" and buy-out the Dems and forsake any real progressives policies. I think what is about to happen is there is a purge. A purge made to silence those on the left and progressives. It will only stop temporarily when Centrists and Vichy Dems try to threaten and intimidate us lefties to support their people otherwise, a Republican will get in! The real threat to the Democratic Party is the DLC and Corporadems who are bank rolled by the military/industrial complex!


John