General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Far-Left Wins Nothing. Again.
Cory Booker Wins Senate Primary. The Far-Left Wins Nothing. Again....There’s another dimension to this election, meanwhile, that only appeared briefly on the blogs and via social media. Were it not for the divisiveness on the left created by the Edward Snowden NSA drama, with far-left activists supporting Snowden’s leaks and with pragmatic center-left liberals expressing disdain for the hyperbolic, outraged sensationalism of the story, the New Jersey special election would’ve surely been a huge battleground between those two factions.
Honestly, I didn’t really think about how the far-left, which orbits around writers like Glenn Greenwald and publications like Salon.com and which essentially helms the progressive movement, would regard Booker’s candidacy. But in hindsight, this faction coming out in sharp opposition to Booker doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. For some reason, be it ideological purity or self-immolation or both, the far-left appears to enjoy losing spectacularly and in a way that serves to ostracize it from the policy-making grown-up’s table...
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/cory-booker-wins-new-jersey-primary-the-far-left-wins-nothing-again/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pscot
(21,044 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where a 21st century Dr. King would sit.
But, looking at his history and expolating from his 1960s strategies, I would suspect that:
1) He would have sided with the candidate that could win the election; rather than, the candidate that could only win a moral victory. Dr. King was on the outside; but recognized that "knocking on a door is a futile effort, when there is no one inside, inclined to open the door and let you in." And,
2) As revolutionary as Dr. King was, he believed in the system ... in changing the system, even gradually; rather than attempts to burn the system down.
But that is just this Black man's guess.
sheshe2
(97,633 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I did not/will not go into the evidence of where Dr. King have sat in a contest between a credible Black candidate and equally credible white candidate ... It would destroy the myth many have built for themselves.
pscot
(21,044 posts)or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism....he said.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I respectfully ask that you refrain from co-opting Dr. King's I Have A Dream speech to serve your narrow aims. In that speech, Dr. King was speaking to a specific topic ... Racial Equality ... that cannot be extended beyond the topic he chose to address. (You would have done better citing to his Where Do We Go From Here speech ... but then, he did not speak of "gradulism."
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)pscot
(21,044 posts)of social justice was universal, transcending race. His words seem especially relevant in connection with the surveillance state, since he was the subject of continuous FBI spying and wire taps for the last 10 years of his life. For good or ill, his words belong to all of us, to make of them what we will.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you had a grounding in Dr. King’s complete message of social justice, you would understand that it does not “transcend race” … it is all about race.
And to suggest that his words on race would be relevant to a surveillance state (because he knew he was being surveilled) takes a very special kind of twisting. Dr. King was fully aware that he was being watched and listened to, yet he chose not to decry or lament … he saw that as part and parcel of his action.
I have no problem with Dr. King’s words are to be heard by all of us; but I strongly disagree, that his words “belong” to us, especially when taking ownship of them, allows folks to extend those words for their own, unrelated purposes.
Dr. King’s words belong to the man.
pscot
(21,044 posts)
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)Dr. Kings audio that one can publicly get, Dr. King was far left of today's Democrats on labor, economics ,war and poverty. definitely father left than Obama on those issues. I think if King were alive today he would be pushing the democratic party to help the week and disenfranchised something the party gave up on in 1980.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Dr. King’s positions on labor, economics, war and (not so much) poverty, may have been to the left of President Obama; but understand two things: First, activists have the luxury of not having to govern … they elect politicians to do that; which brings me to a second point, that should inform your future opinions on what Dr. King would, or would not do … Dr. King always supported (campaigned for) the main-stream, establishment candidate, not the 3rd party candidate on the left.
Why do you suppose he did that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)He got somewhere.
He could have stayed pure and got nothing. Refuse to work with those he did not always agree with. Sit home writing about how wrong things were without doing anything.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn’t let him talk, ’cause they couldn’t make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn’t let Baldwin get up there, ’cause they know Baldwin’s liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight — they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown.
- Malcolm X, A Message to the Grassroots
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/message-to-grassroots/
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Dr. King was above all a pragmatist. If he were alive today, based upon his writings and history, he likely wouldn't accept the philosophy that setting oneself back is somehow progress.
pscot
(21,044 posts)He was the leader of much of it. Read a little deeper. The man died for our sins.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Right and left were different back then, first off. Some of his views would be considered on the right today, others on the left. He was a man of character and integrity, so he's difficult to pigeonhole.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And this is exactly why I get so angry when folks, on the left and right, take snippets of Dr. King’s speeches and writings, only to twist them to serve they own agenda.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)which is what he was.
That table no longer exists.
leftstreet
(40,681 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)for the entire decade, and won one of the two presidential elections held in that decade. They also held a good number of governorships and statehouses.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . but we only won one Presidential election: Carter, in '76, who did not get re-elected to a second term.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)success rate. Not as good as 100% but a lot better than 0%.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)"I don't believe people should be slaves, but it's an electoral LOSER!"
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I believe that politics is the art of realism. You build a coalition that contains people who don't agree with you on 100% of issues, and you make progress in areas you agree on. If your opinions are sufficiently out of the political mainstream (say: single-payer health insurance) you have the choice of standing on your principles and getting nothing, or moderating your position and getting something for the purpose of building a broader coalition that will achieve something.
At the end of the day, I'd prefer incremental progress and the opportunity to improve as times goes forward, rather than the self-satisfaction that I "stood my ground" with no change whatsoever.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Of course the mainstream GOP of today is pretty much the KKK-Birch crowd from the 60s, too...
cyclezealot
(4,802 posts)In Corker, who really won is Wall Street.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)The political parties don't actually exist anymore but in name only.
That's how badly everything has been screwed up.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(97,633 posts)"In a word: nothing. Nothing. Actually, I take it back — they’ve won the sanctimonious self-satisfaction and hipster cred that goes along with taking a principled stand and then losing by embarrassingly horrendous margins, while subsequently being tagged as politically impotent. Other than that, it’s yet another example of the utter strategic foolishness of this crowd."
From the link
They never cease to amaze me freshwest....
I have been watching a disaster move tonight on netflix, thought it was fitting.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Although it's hard to get into it when you don't *believe.*
On second thought, gonna watch Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone.
Spoiler: It does not end well.
sheshe2
(97,633 posts)I have always had a thing for them...they always find a solution in the end. They have to fight for truth and justice to get there. In the end the world has changed, but there is hope that we will learn from our mistakes.
Sort of like politics freshwest.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(97,633 posts)The day I watched that, we were having a major blizzard in Mass. Work was called off that day.
What was so bizarre, I felt like I was watching the news. We had been seeing some major weather phenomenons across the country for weeks. Severe storms, major flooding, weird thunderstorms...with hail and tornado touchdowns. The movie was the reality of what was and is happening.
That movie was a prediction of what will come unless we change our habits.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That movie doesn't end well either.
sheshe2
(97,633 posts)However it was changed. Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes.
Climate Change is real. So is our political future. We must stand up and be heard.
JI7
(93,617 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It took the center decades to get the kind of pull it now has in the party.
dawg
(10,777 posts)selling out to Wall Street for millions of campaign dollars.
rug
(82,333 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)... Did the goddamned media finally call out the John Birch Society/Tea Party's extremism at any time in the last TEN YEARS or have I missed it? (granted "thedailybanter" is hardly mainstream media but until one of them LOUDLY calls out the John Bircher snakepit from Hell known as the current Tea Party for its psychopathic extremism, I'm in no mood to be lectured about the Left).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I see condemnation of the right every day.
That's where most Democrats are.
Triana
(22,666 posts)You know, CNN, TIME magazine, etc. Show me where they've recently reported (or really, ever) on the extremism of the Tea Party and how this band of snakes is just the old John Birch Society. There's a whole history to this crap. Where is it reported?
defacto7
(14,162 posts)about the John Birch - Tea Party connection. I have tried to push that one up here on DU for almost a year. More should be said here, in the media, everywhere possible that the JB's have been slowly, quietly and painstakingly pushing their agenda for decades. Enter the Koch brothers... and you know the rest of the story.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)They have no idea what hit this country.
Everywhere, we need to start linking Tea Party with JBS and recounting that history so people know from whence this came. It needs a national bright light burning on it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That the JB/TP connection gains no traction here because … there is a, equally strong JB/libertarian connection (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229520/-INSIDER-Proof-Tea-Libertarian-Parties-ARE-The-John-Birch-Society)that our (relatively) new, and vocal, friends would rather not have to address?
defacto7
(14,162 posts)They must address it. If they don't, they'll find themselves part of a 60 year old movement to make the US a fascist, corporate owned state.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that most are already the useful idiots for that 60 year old movement; but don't know, or are unwilling to admit, it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)running right up the spine of the modern right wing movement. It is a rigid authoritarian rule that can be scaled up from the family, to a business or school, projected further to a political party (as it has) and onward to an entire nation, as is happening.
We need to continue to expose this to those that are being swayed by faux liberal libertarianism. Those who have been psychologically affected in their upbringing will not be able to become free of this, though.
That is the source of their fiery obsession, their total hatred of liberals and Democrats that comes straight through them and motivates them to do things that are not appropriate.
Others are neophytes and looking for answers and might be reachable. If we don't do something to enlighten them on the scam, we are undone as a nation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)these new "Civil libertarians" ...
Youth and/or political sophomoristry + personal frustration + racist (in denial) = Civil Libertarian.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Further, drop the gloves.
Fight.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)That's what he does in his area in a very red state, talking one on one to people and changing their minds. He has broken the mold that they have been caught in by gentle persuasion and reason and made them see the light of things.
I am very pleased at Triana's posts on this and wish to give her all the encouragement I can to post more on it. This is what is undoing the nation and all progressive gains from the past.
Many Democrats believe that if something works well for people, it is the best advertisement there is and it will never go away. When people take these victories from the past like SS, MC, VRA, CRA, RvW and other for granted, they cease to think about them.
And I try to tell people that this country has had for most of its history two or more parallel social systems, that have not gone away. At this time we have been out of balance for some time, but many people looked the other way.
The mentality that made the MIC was the chief cause of the problem and funder of the problem and it still is. It is the reason I and others went with 'follow the money' research and marched against the Vietnam War and nuclear power plants, etc. When we showed up to do peace marches, there were so many of us that we could not be stopped and had to be heard.
I met Daniel Ellsberg and he signed my copy of the Pentagon Papers and the publication spurred even more thousands to get in the streets. The first time I got teargassed was in Washington, D.C., but I have to add that it was provoked by some who thought it was funny to 'fuck with the pigs' as we'd listened to them the night before in the church that housed many of us bragging how many times they had been arrested and their parents bailed them out. We were with the SWP and did not have anyone to bail us out, but damn it if we weren't going to travel the country and get there and have our voices here. It was the first time I heard John Kerry speak in person.
Then we did, as the war was escalated by Nixon, as John Kerry told the government in hearings before running for office we would do. 'If you do not end this war, we will come back and transform this government to do it.'
That happened, and the nation achieved the most progressive era in laws to protect all, and it was a good time to live in. As equality was on the rise, of course it rankled the Birchers, as it always has because it took from their system of economics and brought more power to those they despised.
Now after the wars have ended essentially, in the massive way they were going on in those earlier years, after the orgy of murder and profit taking in the Bush ear, it has morphed into a more personal way of making money off the Commons and all of us.
The Eisenhower tax rate is said to been punitive on purpose to those who made fortunes supplying the government with needed equipment for WW2. Vast fortunes have been made in wars for which future taxpayers have paid historically, and knowing that, it was decided that they should be required to pay for their takings from the public to build more for the public and take care of people.
That began to fade in the Nixon era, when ripping on the poor in public housing began, turning over various assets of the Commons to private interests, making them homeless. I watched this upclose, not because I was in public housing, but worked around it.
That's the era when much homelessness of those with mental illness began, as the mantra was, 'run the government like a business' and the 'private sector does it better.' Which is bullshit, since business and the private sector exist to make a profit, not serve the needs of a just society and maintain a floor in the social safety net and things fell apart. But the JBS and its incarnations have taught half the population and more, that socialism = death.
Add the Bircher mentality which was still strong from the Cold War and hated FDR's New Deal programs, vowing to destroy them and paying media to say why it had to be done, and most of the Koch influences have not all been under the wire. Just to those who didn't follow the money and connections.
We are living with the loss of so much following the Koch brothers' fascist social system. The hard thing for liberals and progressives to accept is that there is money to be made by common people off the destruction of the social order that so many have paid into for all of their lives.
And they all vote. It's why I post a lot on this, too, as Triana does. But she is focusing on this and I am very grateful.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Great post. Thanks for spending the time.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was not suggesting that she leave DU ... only that DU, as of late, is no where near representative of the rest of the Democratic supporting world.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)This place can be terribly negative.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)to those stuck in the muddle., unlike their imaginary "far left"
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)And print it out and send it when I get the please donate letters from the DNC. Perhaps the grown-ups can chip in a few bucks since us kids apparently aren't worth even having around.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I'll be sure and print a copy to anyone that wants me to knock on doors or man phones, too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The DNC has got to stop taking the actual leftists in this country for granted.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)salon.com is far left now
I thought Snowden supporters were the libertarian right?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)since they support single-payer healthcare (somewhat bregrudgingly, but they support it nevertheless), which puts them to the left of Obama, and about half the folks here.
But apparently, concern about unwarranted government surveillance is the prerogative of the fringe-dwelling Communist far left these days. It would have come as a surprise to Stalin no doubt.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)believe that during the "dictatorship of the proletariat" civil liberties by necessity have to be limited until true socialism is established, But we see here many people who would probably be more in the "centrist" Democratic Party territory who simply do not believe in a free and uninhibited press and do believe in a strong and powerful surveillance state which is enforced by the strong arm of a police state. What do you call that? They sure the hell don't believe in liberal western democracy.
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #36)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:50 AM - Edit history (1)
down the road of an ever increasing and ever more technologically advanced surveillance state cannot lead to an ever increasing authoritarian order. I don't dispute the need for an intelligence system anymore than I dispute the need for a police force or a military - But needing a police force does not mean needing to have police state. Needing a military does not mean that we need a permanent and unsustainable global military empire. We do not need to destroy democracy in order to save it.
It not just the far left and the libertarian right that sees the current surveillance state as dangerous.
"It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - former U.S. Senator Gary Hart
RC
(25,592 posts)It is not the "Centralest Democrats", it is the DLC, New Democrats, DINO's and such, that are to the Right of any Centralest Democrats, that are for the crippled press and the strong surveillance police state. Do not confuse the current, apparent "center" with the real center. As mentioned elsewhere, what is considered as Far Left now, used to be main stream centralism. Even the Republicans back then were way to the Left of the current crop of so-called Democrats.
mick063
(2,424 posts)But the long established candidate is going to get beat up if his record proves to be what people suspect it will be.
That is, of course, if he can beat a Republican in Christie's state.
Cerridwen
(13,262 posts)I love when people make it a game of sports.
"How's that workin' out for ya?"
Life better or worse? Pay; better or worse. Health CARE available or not?
Well, at least them "damned leftists" didn't win.
Priorities.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)or learning, or cooperating, or leaving the world a better place than you found it. It's about scoring points and keeping our masters on top.
Blue fascism is much better than red fascism, dontcha know?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)lmakes for healthcare or better pay or eaves the world a better place.
branford
(4,462 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and those seeking perfection, in real life, rarely find it. But they can always comfort themselves in their purity, while others suffer because of it.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Remember 2010, wasn't that a great victory for the Democratic Party?
Do you think that was caused by the leftist agenda that the Socialist Kenyan pushed through (jury: that was sarcasm)? How long do you think the "not a republican" strategy is going to work assuming you think it is working? If you were in charge of the party, would your strategy be to count on your opponent continuing to nominate a rouge's gallery of side-show freaks to run against?
You're a damn smart guy, do you think this is really what is going to win people over, and if not, who benefits from the losses?
Republicans totally control 27 state houses to the Democrat's 17, and there are 30 republican Governors. Do you really think that is because the Democratic candidates are just so left that the voters can't abide them?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I remember 2010 well.
As I understand it, the 2010 result was a confluence of a number of factors, some historically predictable, some not; but most commentators attribute the Democratic loss to two related factors ... first, it was a mid-term election that historically has lower turn out among the traditional Democratic coalition (e.g., women, African-American, GLBT, the Youth, etc.); and Two, a drastic decline in the youth and independent vote; ... none of which was related to a "not republican strategy."
But I'm headed to work ... so I'll have to flesh out this post this evening ... stay tuned.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As I understand it, the 2010 result was a confluence of a number of factors, some historically predictable, some not; but most commentators attribute the Democratic loss to three related factors, none of which were related to your “not a republican” voting scheme.
First, 2010 was a mid-term election that, historically, has lower turn out among the traditional Democratic coalition (e.g., women, African-American, GLBT, the Youth, liberal whites, etc.); whereas, republicans do not, historically, see much of a mid-term drop off.
2010 was no different, except where Democrats experienced the normal drop off (2%-Liberal and 5%-Moderates), Conservatives (republicans) saw an 7% increase in mid-term participation … partly because their base saw what they perceived to be an aggressive progressive Democratic agenda. Remember, President Obama (Democrats) had just passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, passed ObamaCare, passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed Dodd-Frank, bailed out the auto industry, repealed DADT, reformed the Federal Student Loan Program and expanded PELL Grant spending, extended unemployment insurance, and a bunch of other things.
To their credit, the rightwing talking heads were able to whip up the conservative base by casting these accomplishments as “socialism”, “dictatorial”, and don’t forget about “Chicago Thuggery” and just plain “uppity” (remember, the thinly veiled, “Take Back America” and the “exotic other occupying the Whitehouse” twin rallying cries?).
A second factor was that the 2010 mid-term electorate was 4% whiter than 2008 election; but significantly, the “white-No College” (white, working class), while showing no increase in participation, voted significantly more republican (62-35%).
I think this was a result of a largely unmatched tea party effort. The tea party, effectively, pitted private sector workers against public sector workers around issues of workplace protections, pensions and benefits; they pitted union-deprived workers against union workers, around the issue of workplace protections wages and benefits; they even pit the marginally employed against the unemployed, around taxes and the social safety net. They argued, “You don’t get these things, why should you pay for them to have what you don’t get?” And it worked, working class whites flipped and voted republican. This was because Democrats and the far-Left failed to establish an organized effort to combat the tea party’s talking points; rather, we laughed at them because surely no one would believe that a company’s bottom-line was less effected by a CEO’s $100,000,000/yr salary than by a union member’s $50,000/yr wages (I mean, come on … We D. People can do math! And know that 1 CEO salary equals 2,000 union member wages, with the CEO producing zero product, right?)
Well, we didn’t and We D. Working Class People believed them, hook, line and sinker. And We D. White Working Class People, voted with the tea party.
A third, and frequently referenced, factor was the drastic decline in the youth (11%, down from 18%) and independent vote and an increase in the 65+ vote. And this, I believe is where the “far-left” shot us/themselves in the foot. Whereas, conservatives saw President Obama (and the Democrats) as pressing, too progressive an agenda, the far-left made “the perfect, the enemy of the good.”
They took every opportunity to complain about each and every accomplishment. Whereas, I don’t think it an exaggeration to say the Administration did great work in pulling the US economy from the brink, the far left argued that the Administration hadn’t done enough (ignoring that a little less than half the Congress pledged to be against him) … ObamaCare was crap because “we want single payer/a Public Option” (ignoring the fact that there were not enough Democratic votes in the House or the Senate to pull that off, either); passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was crap because the banksters got bailed out and didn’t go to jail (a surprisingly similar argument as the tea party made), Dodd-Frank was weak, bailing out the auto industry was the same as bailing out the banksters, repealing DADT … well … took too damned long, etc.
And the media gave the far left plenty of press, as the story of the day became “the Administration is dissing its base … listen to them wail!“ … and, admittedly, the Administration made it worse with the “professional left” and “retarded” comments; but none-the-less, the damage was being done.
It is no wonder that cohort of political neophytes, that turned out in record numbers to vote for President Obama’s message of “Hope and Change”, became disenchanted … they did not “feel” any better off 2 years into the train-wreck that took 30 years to occur; and , they were being told, day after day, that the Administration’s accomplishments, really weren’t accomplishments at all … and, besides, they did not “feel” any better off 2 years into the train-wreck that took 30 years to occur.
If the far-left were truly interested in advancing progressive change, they would have argued, “These accomplishments aren’t perfect; but they are better than where we were. Now … let’s get more progressive elected so that we can be more of what we want”; rather than, perfect or bust … the Administration sold us out. The former keeps folks engaged; the latter, not so much.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I sincerely hope that you take the following in the spirit of healthy debate in which it is written, but you've completely missed the actual results and purposes of the actions this President has taken (and refused to take).
Your unquestioning acceptance of the standard narrative, put out by the same people that have been putting it out for 40 years or more, ignores the fact that it has resulted in yielding exactly what it is, and has always been, designed to yield, lowered expectations. Each accomplishment you list, and have been listed uncountable times over the last four years, falls into one of two categories: 1. Socially and politically beneficial to (Democratic politicians and) an insignificant minority that will not have any effect on the course of the nation, but does and did serve to revitalize the opposition that was all but dead, or 2. funneled ever more money from the bottom of the economic stratum to the top.
I can list in detail the effects and results, but I think you already know them. There is a solid and immutable pattern to all of this, and you're argument proceeds from a premise that these actions constituted the only options available, which is also a repeat of the same narrative that has been fed to us for 40 years or more now. If I believed, as I believe that you honestly do, that this is indeed the best that could be done, It would make the decision I am currently wrestling with much easier, I would leave this country and all of my fellow citizens to their fate.
The one undeniable truth attributed to clinton, but was actually coined by James Carville was, "It's the economy, stupid". That's what matters, that's what makes a difference, and that's from where the course and fate of this nation arises, and this President has "focused like a laser beam" on moving heaven and earth to ensure that those that wrecked it lost nothing and have, in fact, been allowed to take even more from it. That is his biggest accomplishment, by far. The parasites for whom he works have done phenomenally well, while the rest of us were left to twist in the wind.
Even though it's far too long for this site, this reply is far from complete, but I have to be up for the east coast tomorrow and I'm not going to kick this atrocious thread again. Perhaps we can start another thread in the near future? I think there's some worthwhile discussion remaining, if you're game.
Either way, thank you and FWIW, I think you're one of the good guys.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Your post is word salad.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)
This post is priceless.
Number23
(24,544 posts)has that poster made a single post on this web site that was NOT a personal attack? I've never seen anything like it. No contribution but big ups to the people they "like" (I would be scared as hell to have that person's approval) and nasty, deranged, typo riddled attacks on everyone else. Every single post.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'll try harder next time.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)has been the mission of the sociopathic MIC since they took power in 2000. Apparently they have re educated a lot of people that this is so.
Nice try redefining issues, but this total lack of empathy makes you look sociopathic too.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)The far-left, indeed.
Y'all aren't actually fooling anyone, you know.
But yeah, keep trying to ostracize the left and see how that works out in 2014, because it worked out so well in 2010.
I'd claim it was stupid, if I didn't think it was intentional.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In 2010.....it wasn't just centrists who failed to turn out; there were plenty of progressives who sat out, too. Plenty......and guess where most of these people would likely fall(it's not where you'd think, either!)?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)as much as possible is probably not the best strategy for getting elected.
One of the problems is the party has been acting like they're not only entitled to liberal votes, but our time and energy as well, no matter what. At this point they haven't gotten bad enough to not get my vote, but they're basically only getting it on a small handful of issues. Largely issues that there's no money in being on the wrong side of.
frylock
(34,825 posts)that shit has been debunked multiple times.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You wanna know who, exactly? The very same types that are now complaining that Obama = Bush(or worse than Bush), that Snowden is a hero bravely fighting the big bad administration, etc.....yes, those "Professional Left" type progressives, even as many others *did* work hard to keep us afloat in '10(and even harder in 2012.).
frylock
(34,825 posts)the people who came out for HOPE and CHANGE in 2008. young voters that felt swindled by believing the pretty words that came from candidate Obama. that's who stayed home. this has been shown to be the case every time this topic comes up.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, some young voters did stay home, but, again, it was largely the "Professional Left" type progressives who felt this way(speaking as a former PLer myself I should know!), not the moderates.....hell, I still see a lot of the same basic rhetoric from these types today(including here on DU) as I did back in 2010.
No matter what some may feel, and no matter how strongly some may wish to argue otherwise, there were indeed quite a few progressives(mainly, again, the Greenwald and Hamsher types) who DID stay home(and not just the youth, either) precisely because they thought Obama had failed them already.....
frylock
(34,825 posts)can you provide ANY evidence that would back up your assertion that the "Professional Left," or progressives in general abstained from voting?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout#
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)We elect people like Peter DeFazio and Ron Wyden and we voted in huge numbers while places that feel the need to run 'moderate Centrists' that blur into the Republican competition failed to elect Democrats.
You offer absolutely nothing to support your assertions of pure conjecture. And you won't because there is nothing to support your assertions.
I bet your State ran Blue Bagger Centrists and went belly up big time.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Well, again, as I pointed out, there were indeed many progressives who DID indeed work to elect Democrats to office in 2010.
However, though, I do know that quite a few of the "Professional Left" chronic complainers DID stay home, just as some of the centrists did.....
BTW, I'm in Texas and we were lucky to hang on to whatever Dems we still have in the House. If Wendy Davis runs for any office, you can bet I'd throw my support behind her in whatever way I could. 
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)in straight-party voting in 2010 and 2012, but we were fucked by gerrymandering, and Rs won more seats. The Republican-controlled legislature has now eliminated straight-party voting as part of its voter suppression efforts.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Wow.
RC
(25,592 posts)Or is this real life and death, where you work to elect people that will work for the people and not be bought off?
Number23
(24,544 posts)They won't NEED to be bought off because they won't have the power to do ANYTHING.
And how you worked all of that out of "wow" is simply astonishing.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who will serve the rich at their table.
We definitely should all celebrate.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)This is clearly the work of a angry libertarian that said he refused to vote for The big O.
SO who did he vote for then? And why does he get a free hand crank to peddle this fourth rate blog?
Banana waffle bunny yells at Left.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)I tried explaining there was a pancake on his head, but he just called me a Blackwater Liberal! What the fook is dat?
I am the Kookie King! Blackwater Liberals beware!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I'm no fan of Cory Booker.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)He's to the right of Obama, lol.
Marr
(20,317 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)that "the far left" can't walk and chew gum at the time. Plenty of shitty candidates (like Booker) were winning primaries long before Snowden ever showed up on the scene because they were corporate/Wall Street kiss-asses whom the MSM covered extensively and favorably.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)I've come to the conclusion that people vote for the candidate who gets the most publicity unless s/he's so clearly awful that all the PR in the world can't cover it up.
Corey Booker has been promoted in the media far more than any other candidate, having corporate backing and all that, so the anti-Republicans will vote for him.
I wonder what would happen if the mass media all got together and actually gave some favorable publicity and face time to a "far left" candidate. Of course, their corporate owners would never let them do that.
dflprincess
(29,343 posts)and it's the reason I cringe whenever the possibility of Minnesota giving up the caucus system and going to just a primary comes up. It would be hard enough now to get someone like Wellstone through the caucus system (remembering how the state and national party machinery backed Amy-kins) but it would never happen with a primary.
Yes, the caucus system requires a time investment but, as a rule, the people who show up are better informed about both the issues and the candidates and can do more than recite talking points.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . the far-left, which orbits around writers like Glenn Greenwald and publications like Salon.com . . .
But I thought Greenwald was a right-wing libertarian? I get so confused sometimes . . .
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Nothing screams credibility in politics like some anonymous dude on the internet slaying a mythical dragon.
2. It's terribly amusing that 5 years after the collapse of the worst debt bubble in our history, Wall Street candidates are being cheered because they play for the right team. I'm sure Mr. Booker will have no trouble telling his financial backers to go suck wind when it comes time to regulate them because everybody knows that campaign contributions don't influence politicians, right?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Well played, very well played!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There is nothing center-left about supporting domestic spying. That is right wing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's like a derpapalooza.
delrem
(9,688 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)What, in your view, are their political stances? What does it mean to be "Far-left?"
I ask because you obviously want to ridicule this group but I'm not sure you even know what "Far-left" actually means.
railsback
(1,881 posts)Perhaps the light at the end of this dark tunnel is that Greenwald shot his load too early, as the Greenwald Guardian has already resorted to Plan B stunts to try to keep the 'scandal' front and center. One can only hope.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)There's barely a left in the US. Let alone a far left...
fishwax
(29,346 posts)As the author notes, Booker is going to win the general, barring some truly bizarre developments between now and then. (And much of the far left will vote for him.) I find the suggestion that the left shouldn't have challenged Booker in the primary a bit odd. (Also, I probably don't agree with the author on the definition of "far-left."
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Won't that be the equivalent of a corporate sellout?
fishwax
(29,346 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)attempting to usurp some rightly owned nomination? Do you see this as accurate language? I've never in my life seen a Democratic primary with a far left candidate. Do you endorse the style and approach used in this OP as post primary behavior toward defeated Democratic opponents in a primary? Is this how you'd characterize the other candidates?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,125 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)Wonder what happened to him?
cali
(114,904 posts)and the author can shove his stupid "far left" shit back up his conservative ass where he pulled it from.
Fuck this idiocy.
I have no problem with my moderate dems in red or purple states but in deep blue states? Yeh. Do you see repukes is deep red states electing moderates? Uh, no.
duh.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Mayor of San Diego.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)are "far left"? Jeez, get some perspective. As a leftist I have moments of liking them both, but they certainly aren't "far left."
TBF
(36,669 posts)Clue: these are 4 very different things.
Let's see what you can come up with.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)around to defend the excerpts he or she posts (without any personal commentary or expostion) or the genteel and not-so-genteel red-baiting.
Don't hold your breath waiting for those definitions is what I'm trying to say.
TBF
(36,669 posts)The only question is how the trolls get away with it for so long ...
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Yesterday he was rationalizing away the ugliness of Time's Grunwald's 'drone strike on Assange' Tweet.
He's blindly partisan and is lately taking it to ridiculous extremes and embarrassing himself.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)No truer words have been written about the far Left. I share most of their goals, but I abhor their child-like grasp of how to make strategic choices. It is clear that ANY Democrat is going to be better for progressive causes that ANY republican, yet the far Left persists in setting back their supposed goals by decades if not centuries. I just want them to take responsibility for electing Bush in 2000 and re-electing Bush in 2004, I don't want to see the fucking cop-outs about Gore's running mate, Gore or Kerry running batter campaigns or the Supreme Court selecting Bush. Even if one can accept the preposterous claim that the Supreme Court handed Bush the 2000 election, the far Left must accept the fact that they fucking put the Supreme Court in position to do as they so gallingly call stealing the election. Elections can be stolen only when a cabal of clueless operators put them in a position to be stolen.
I am tired of the false flags. The NSA has more power because of 9/11 and fear among most of the population of being killed by terrorists, even thought death is more possible when we drive, walk or eat. The far Left elected Bush in 2000, who then ignored critical intelligence about imminent terror activities. 9/11 happened, we got Homeland Security, the TSA, militarized police forces nationwide and a more powerful NSA. Instead of crying wolf, the far Left should look in the mirror at the image looking back at them to assign some blame for what this country has become.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Shows how pathetic the state of American politics is. I'm curious as to what positions they hold that are "far left".
Name recognition won here in NJ (where I live) more than any political position. And money buys name recognition. And Booker has a lot of that. And never mind the fact that just under half the voters voted "not Corey Booker".
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Why is it that "pragmatic" "centrists" feel the need to call themselves "liberal" or "left" of anything? They're neither.
I suggest that it serves a specific purpose: to marginalize those who actually ARE to the left of something as "fringe."
By the time they are done discrediting all the "far left" sub groups that used to be the Democratic base, the "New Democratic" party will be those pragmatic, moderate Republicans who no longer fit in their bat-shit crazy right-wing Republican party.
I hope there are enough of those "new" democrats to keep their party viable when more and more marginalized lefties say "Fuck you and Goodbye."
So many have no real clue anymore on what is Left, Center, or Right. Everything is to the Right at the current time and because they haven't fallen off the cliff yet, they think they are Democrats.
Just look at the DU'ers that support the NSA, vilify Snowden as a traitor, approve of our involvement in the Middle East and Obama's double strike drones. None of these are Democratic values. Not even close.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He's proof there aren't any real political parties anymore, just hacks for the parasitical class while everybody else can go to hell.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Why did so many Dems vote for him in the primary? Why not chose the more liberal candidate?
BTW, these same Dems will likely vote for him in the general.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He is literally the Manchurian candidate, a fraud.
You need to do research on this man before posting about him.
A lot of billionaire money and media propaganda go a long way in helping a career.
He. is. a. fraud.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)that his talking points sound so much like those who claim to be centrist, and even "pragmatic liberals," isn't it?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Because if you think "the left" can win without every single body voting left, that's a delusional position.
Unless you want people to quit voting, climb into a hole of depression, never to get out again.
I'm a Democrat. I'm far better than that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Define "Far Left". I'm sure you can keep it to 60 seconds since you rail against it constantly. I'll bet you can tell me in 30 seconds or less.
I'll wait, like I wait for world peace, the perfect pho, and fries with that.
Generic Brad
(14,374 posts)And I say this because I have experienced the perfect pho. Pho Saigon in West St Paul has a special pho that cannot be improved upon. I'm still waiting for world peace, but not perfect pho.
Jasana
(490 posts)Look, aside from my stance on guns, I'm left. In comparison to the current administration, I'm far left. I helped get Elizabeth Warren elected. If Mr. Booker wins and ends up being an asset to Senator Warren so much the better. If he gets in her way then he's a DINO.
I doubt I will end up agreeing with everything Senator Warren does but I do know that she's sitting at the grown up table and the wording of your post is nothing but worthless flamebait.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)spouting a lot of ridiculous hyberole.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)He suggests that Booker would have been just as receptive to left wing ideas as Holt, so they all should have supported Booker in the primary ("It would've cost the far-left nothing to pursue this far wiser approach" . No, of course he wouldn't be; that's why Cesca likes Booker, because he's further to the right. There would be a cost for settling for Booker. Holt might have won against Lonegan (with a narrow lead in the last comparison poll), so he was far from a lost cause.
Either Cesca is a moron, and really can't understand basic calculations made about primaries; or he thinks his readers are, and is just using this as an opportunity to insult people to the left of him.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)His attacks on Lt Dan Choi were stunningly mendacious. I mean, Choi served this country and contributed to the progress of equality in this country and for his community, and Cesca went after him because Choi criticized Obama. And he did so with falsehoods and duplicity. Cesca has never contributed to the progress of anyone but Cesca. He does not write, he acts out.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)fucking mainstream liberalism. I hate the political culture in this country of ours. So fucking dishonest. We don't even debate policy and ideas with each other anymore; it's all 'gotcha!' bullshit.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)More jobs shipped overseas.
More American jobs handed to foreigners.
Flat wages for most workers.
More people on food stamps.
More people in poverty.
Wall St. criminals run free white the rights of the rest of us are violated.
Pensions and retirements destroyed.
Crappy healthcare bills written to benefit a few.
Little or nothing made in America.
Enjoy your "win". If you aren't in the 1% you are as foolish as the Republicans who vote against their own interests.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The competition is fierce, but I end up going with the comparison between Rush Holt and Ralph Nader. ("The far-left fumbled the ball again. They did it by supporting Ralph Nader in 2000...."
In the continual DU wars about Nader's 2000 candidacy, I've been firmly aligned with those who criticized Nader. My major point has always been that we have open primaries. Progressives who aren't satisfied with the "establishment" Democratic candidate(s) should challenge them in the primary, where there's no risk that dividing the left will elect the Republican. Then, if you lose, you almost always vote for the lesser evil in the general election.
That's exactly what Rush Holt did. As a proud Holt voter, I will now join him in voting for the corporate tool Booker.
Runners-up for stupidest statement? Well, we get some strong contenders just by completing the sentence where I used ellipsis: "The far-left fumbled the ball again. They did it by supporting Ralph Nader in 2000, they did it by supporting John Edwards in 2008 (can you imagine the disastrous Edwards presidency?), they did it by teaming up with Grover Norquist to kill the healthcare reform bill, they did it by primary-challenging Democrats in 2010 and they did it by threatening to primary-challenge President Obama in 2012."
So, if some people on DU hadn't expressed the wish to see Dean or Sanders or Kucinich or someone like that mount a primary challenge in 2012, then Obama would have given us a seat at the table and would by now be pursuing an aggressively liberal policy. He's supporting chained CPI just to spite us far-left types.
Hmmm, I may have to reconsider my pick.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)You stirred the pot and got 27 members to Rec - and not the ironic rec of "let's get this garbage on the GP" kind of rec.
Welcome back!