The effort to taint liberals/progressives

[cali]

as stealth republicans is transparent, ridiculous and contemptible.

It's happening on a regular basis. It's perpetrated by people who want to shut down any and all criticism of the administration and dems in general.

Talking about 2016? Oooh, you must be a teabagger. Talking about the TPP? Teabagger infiltrator. Talking about anything that isn't positive about the ACA? Part of a republican plot to sabotage democrats chances in 2014.

It's conspiracy theory codswallop with one intent: To shut down progressive voices.

I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it.

[Scuba]

1. Haven't you heard? We're purists who will put Rick Santorum in the White House ...

... because we wanted unicorns and rainbows. Only a tiny handful of Americans are actually liberal and they're all here on DU.

We should all shut up and let the "serious" people decide who can win, policy be damned.

[cali]

2. the "purist" label isn't as offensive

as the bullshit accusation that liberals/progressives are stealth "gop/tea party" members,

[KittyWampus]

34. Not "purists". The correct term is ideologue. It defines the situation exactly.

And I don't tell anyone to "shut up". Nor am I a bully.

It's sad that so many DU'ers are totally unable to really examine their own behavior.

[Scuba]

39. Also that so many suffer from irony deficiency.

[hobbit709]

3. I have a two word response to anyone that accuses me of that.

the first word starts with "F"

[cali]

4. an appropriate response

[SidDithers]

7. Better Believe It!...nt

Sid

[cali]

8. How are politics in Canada, Sid?

[In_The_Wind]

12. Hello ~ Hushkitty. You might want to rethink what you've just posted.

[Puglover]

51. Somehow I doubt that he could possibly

answer your question.

[SidDithers]

53. ...

Sid

[Puglover]

65. My point Sid

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I'll share this because it's encourging to see that most here on DU are not buying it at all

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Your alert was received

Mail Message



At Sun Nov 17, 2013, 08:35 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Hillary spells trouble for you and your ilk. The effort to sow dissension amongst democrats shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4046942

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

"how afraid you Repukes are of her candidacy." calling a long standing DU member a Republican is completely unacceptable

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Nov 17, 2013, 08:42 AM, and
voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.
Thank you.

[cali]

10. thanks. heartening to see.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. and another 6-0 from just minutes ago

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message



At Tue Nov 19, 2013, 07:27 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

You are not going to find one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4056949

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

abusive first trollish first post - please hide

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Nov 19, 2013, 07:35 AM, and voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: 2 posts and telling people to STFU will never fly.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attacks are not cool.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Purposelessly hostile and no actual content or argument. Pointless and inappropriate.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[L0oniX]

64. and the clown jury hides Cali for attacking back ...pffft

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I think you protest too much ...

We get it ... you don't like President Obama and Hillary and the vast majority of Democrats; they are too "corporatist" for your taste.

But your daily string of "President Obama/Democrats Bad" posts, without identifying, or even mentioning, an/the alternative, rival anything found at drudge or the blaze.

The vast majority of posts that I have seen are not calling for you (and other frequent critics) to "shut up"; but for you to act constructively. And sitting in the internet equivilent of sitting in the gallery throwing peanuts, is not acting constructively.

My suggestion would be for you to identify a/the alternatives to your grievances and promote them ... Stop with the "President Obama/Democrats Bad" posts; they are tiresome and leave the impression that you are, at best, a miserable person, or in the worst best, a "sleath republican."

[hobbit709]

15. you have just proved the point of the OP.

[Enthusiast]

16. +1

[msanthrope]

17. No..they've correctly identified the problem with the OP: it's facile.

One hopes that we are not about to be treated to 2&a half years of these rants, and that the OP at some point finally suggests a viable candidate.

[KittyWampus]

28. The OP has no point and the majority of people agreeing w/Cali's crap are the MOST likely

to be calling other DU'er Republicans for being "moderates" or "third wayers" or whatever juvenile, bogie man epithet they come up with .

The OP'er could have just responded to the thread she's referencing. But when you are desperate for attention, I guess starting multiple threads in DU that are intentionally divisive are one pathetic plan to get your fix.

[hobbit709]

45. Looked in the mirror lately?

[woo me with science]

32. +100000

[jeff47]

61. Really? Where's the claim that she's a stealth teabagger?

Or does any attempt to redirect anger to something productive count as calling someone a stealth teabagger?

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. How so? ...

Unless calling someone on their daily "I hate President Obama/Democrats" and suggesting that one mention a more favorable politician that is more to one's liking is, now, an "efffort to taint progressives/liberals."

[Bluenorthwest]

19. I think your post encapsualtes everything that is wrong with DU.

Rude, personal attacks filled with hyperbolic insults.
And what is with this plural 'we get it'? Are you a pair of conjoined twins? Is there a rat in your vest pocket? Are you saying that you are part of a roving clique that attacks others for sport?
There is a certain group here that tends to speak in this plural form 'we say' and 'we know' which means either they indulge in the 'Royal We' as if they were HRH Queen Elizabeth or that they are in fact a group that intentionally posts this sort of attack on others.
Which 'WE' is it? The ego soaked 'royal we' or the confessional 'cliquish we'?

[woo me with science]

33. Exactly. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

54. I guess "we" in that post are the people who call progressives Republicans.

He seems to be offended by cali's post, and the post is calling out the people who do that. I'm guessing they're the same people who were calling progressives Libertarians for a long time. Everybody figured out that was bullshit so they switched to another name.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. How is ...

calling someone on their daily "I hate President Obama/Democrats" posts and suggesting that one mention a more favorable politician that is more to one's liking rude, a personal attack, or a hyperbolic insult? I realize that you describe anything that you disagree with in those terms; but, come on mannnn!

And what is with this plural 'we get it'? Are you a pair of conjoined twins? Is there a rat in your vest pocket? Are you saying that you are part of a roving clique that attacks others for sport?
There is a certain group here that tends to speak in this plural form 'we say' and 'we know' which means either they indulge in the 'Royal We' as if they were HRH Queen Elizabeth or that they are in fact a group that intentionally posts this sort of attack on others.
Which 'WE' is it? The ego soaked 'royal we' or the confessional 'cliquish we'?

The we I refer to is those of us that would rather not read daily "I hate President Obama/Democrats" posts that do not mention a more favorable politician that is more to one's liking ... cliquish or otherwise.

And yes ... there is a certain group that end to speak in the plural, "we" ... that would be damn near everyone on this site.

Finally, re-read your post to me and really think about your "Rude, personal attacks filled with hyperbolic insults" statement. Notice something? Your post is far more of a hyperbolic, insulting personal attack than my post. Self-reflection is a beautiful thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Oh please, I said nothing personal to you. What a precious comment that is!

I addressed your manner of speaking to others. In return all you did was repeat the same tired characterization of any disagreement with or criticism of Obama as 'hate'. That same roving band of slander merchants that likes to use the royal 'we' likes to run about calling any dissent or difference 'hate'. 'Hate, hate, we see hate!!! We casually accuse our fellow DUers and Democrats of hate because they don't like Larry Summers or a Trade Agreement, it's hate, we see it, all of us, we are legion!!!!!'

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Okay ...

It is clear you really don't see you?

That is such as shame.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Why does she need to post an alternative to the TPP?

The alternative is to not pass the silly thing.

[pampango]

29. She does not need to post an alternative. The WTO governs trade between all these countries, except

for those with which we already have trade agreements, and will continue to do so. In those cases - Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile, Singapore and Peru - those existing trade agreements will stay in force.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Obviously the TPP involves new issues beyond the WTOs current purview.

If not the administration wouldn't be negotiating it.

Cali and many other good Progressives are being called RW trolls for opposing a RW corporatist trade pact -- as if that makes sense. My previous interlocutor -- in an apparent goalpost moving exercise -- said cali and the others ought to provide alternatives to the policies they disagree with. To me the solution to being shot isn't to propose hanging or bludgeoning but to simply accept not being shot.

[pampango]

58. That is true of TPP and of every trade agreement that any country negotiates. Otherwise

there would be no point in new agreements if they did not go beyond current WTO rules.

I agree that cali does not need to post an alternative but, in the real world, the alternative is a continuation of WTO jurisdiction except for those countries like Canada and Mexico with which we have trade agreements that supersede the WTO.

[JoePhilly]

18. That's some serious projection.

The folks calling other Democrats "Republicans" on DU are not the supporters of the Obama administration.

Its the detractors of the Obama administration.

The folks you are talking about are primarily DU's perpetually disgruntled members, who call the President and his supporters, "Republicans" all the time. Not the other way around.

The reason they do it is to shut down the voices of those they disagree with. That part you have correct.

[SidDithers]

21. Nailed it...

Only at DU could posters who support Democrats be criticized as not being true Democrats. Apparently one must continually shit on Democrats to be considered a true Democrat.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

23. YUP ... True Democrats can call the not true Democrats Republicans as much as they want.

Point out that true democrats sometimes select tactics that ultimately help the Republicans, and you're being mean and nasty.

[KittyWampus]

27. Right? I had someone attack me so nastily while calling me a republican> and I'm pretty far left.

The thing is this- it isn't as much about GOALS for some DU'ers.

It's about being an ideologue who will not tolerate any difference of opinion on STRATEGY.

[JoePhilly]

42. Agree ...

I've come to realize that some on DU don't get the difference between Strategy and Tactics.

Strategic goals are about what you ultimately want, tactics are about what you can realistically accomplish now.

They want to live in an ideal world where you have your strategic goals satisfied immediately.

[Gothmog]

85. Tactics are very important and you can disagree on long term strategy

I live in Texas which affects my views on tactics and long term strategy. The GOP can not win 270 votes in the Electoral College without Texas. Making Texas a competitive state is both a good tactic and a good strategy for the Democratic Party. If Texas become competitive, then the GOP will have to divert time, money and resources to Texas which would only help the Democratic Party in the long run.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Yup!

been called it myself.

[Gothmog]

78. Good Post

The people who support President Obama and the DU members who are considering supporting Hillary Clinton are Democrats and liberals. I think that projection explains some of these threads.

Look, I am going to focus on 2014 for now. Texas has a very important race for governor in 2014 that could affect the 2016 race. I admit that I really want to turn my state blue and I can not help but notice the polling that indicate that Hillary Clinton could be successful in that effort. Two of the groups being targeted by Wendy Davis are single white females and Hispanic voters which are two groups who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 (I was in the middle of credential fights in 2008 and know the backgrounds of each group supporting the various candidates).

I am a liberal and a Democrat even though i want to focus on 2014 and I will remain a liberal and a Democrat even if I decide that Hillary Clinton is the best choice for 2016. I am tired of living in a red state and the only way to change things will be to first work like crazy for Senator Wendy Davis and then select the best candidate for the 2016 race in part on who has the best chance of making my vote count in the electoral college.

If the facts change between now and 2016, I will look at other candidates. In the meantime, none of these threads attacking Hillary Clinton or President Obama are going to change my mind as to my priorities and what needs to be done.

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. Marginalize

It's deliberate. The result is that any real substantiative difference between the two parties is mostly rhetorical. The majority of the audience does not know this and they root for their respective heroes and will aid in the marginalization against anyone who suggests that what they are watching is a play. My own personal analogy for what I believe is happening.

[woo me with science]

60. ^^^^^^ Well said. ^^^^^^^

[el_bryanto]

22. It does go both ways. Certainly more Moderate / Centrist DUers have to put up with

these accusations as well.

That said accusing a fellow DUer of arguing in bad faith or in being an infiltrator is always bad form in my opinion. The assumption should be that everybody who's been here a while is probably a good person who wants what's best for America and simply disagrees with you on an issue or two.

Bryant

[Laelth]

72. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

24. K&R The single most important goal of the corporate propaganda machine

is to keep the people quiet and passive about what is being done to us by corporatists in both parties, and to disrupt/silence any talk that might lead to a national populist demand for alternatives.

They fear that if the country comes to realize that we actually have better choices, we will stand up en masse and demand them.

The attempts to smear and silence those who call out the corporate charade are deliberate strategy.

Thank you for this OP, Cali. This garbage about smearing people as Republicans or disloyal or demanding that they shut up during election season was tried last year. It was despicable then, and it's despicable now. And it won't work.

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

[KittyWampus]

36. Right, it's only "them" who use propaganda. You, of course have the singular truth.

[polichick]

37. The stage is set for a populist revolt and the ptb know it...

Hope enough people get it.

[laundry_queen]

66. Everything you said. nt

[KittyWampus]

26. Edit- seems to me it's the ideolouges busily calling anyone who disagrees w/their opinion on stratey

Republicans. So I agree with the poster upthread who thinks the OP is projection.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Seems to me you could easily support that assertion if it were true. You have repeatedly stated

how it 'seems' to you and so have some posters upthread. None of you have any posts to show in which you have been called a Republican. The OP was actually called a Republican in an actual post that was hidden by a DU jury as any post calling a DUer a Republican should be. The name calling thing is bad, bad. Also bad, casting vague and unsupported 'Johnny does it too' excuses when stung by an accurate OP.

[wyldwolf]

30. liberals/progressives are calling each other 'Republicans?' When did this happen? </sacrasm>

[quinnox]

35. Well, I find it a source of amusement, it is the usual gang of swooners who

are going a little crazy because they feel slighted that the attention is focused on 2016 and the spotlight is not on their ultimate hero, Obama, and that people are daring to look past him already.

I just have fun with it.

[KittyWampus]

38. Bizarre, the point is focus on 2014 elections. And one of the "swooners" is WillPitt.

How you could get that so totally wrong is... strange.

[quinnox]

41. Obviously I was not referring to Pitt

I think we both know the group and type of duers I was talking about.

[KittyWampus]

47. Generally, the 2 groups I find on DU are those whose intent is to discuss things and those

whose primary intent is to be divisive, antagonize and stir the pot.

[LittleBlue]

57. Results of your Jury Service

I'm juror 6

At Tue Nov 19, 2013, 10:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well, I find it a source of amusement, it is the usual gang of swooners who
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4057451

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This post is disruptive, rude and over the top. People on a Democratic website supporting the Democratic president don't need to be called names and ridiculed. DIVISIVE and adds nothing of value.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 19, 2013, 10:58 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A bit snarky, but not legitimately lockable IMO.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Lots of bad in this thread. I'm voting to hide b/c as the alerter said, this is a Democratic web site and supporting a Democratic president shouldn't be ridiculed. I wish the OP would be happy just starting one thread per day complaining about Obama, Hillary etc.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another ugly thread. General opinion; not a callout. I don't understand why we fight each other.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Get a life

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[quinnox]

62. Thanks for the results

I humbly thank the jurors who voted to leave it, I believe it was a lot more mild than OPs accusing any duers who dare to talk about 2016 as being republican trolls. If that isn't hidden, then I don't see why my mild jibe should be.

[sibelian]

40. It's sometimes true... but the accusation is waved around like a blunderbuss...

... and sometimes the accusation is active disruption under the guise of being anti-disruptive.

[scheming daemons]

43. The exact opposite is true, cali

Any DUer who posts the slightest positive comment about Obama is called a "corporatist" or "stealth Republican".

Someone above said your OP was an example of projection... I don't know if I would go that far, but I will say this...

DU has gone into bizarro world territory when someone who supports a two-term Democratic President is called a "closet Republican" and someone who bashes a two-term Democratic President is considered a "true Democrat".

And that happens FAR more frequently than the situation you describe in your OP.

Supporting this administration in any way is considered "stealth Republicanism" and is shouted down.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. Support you assertion please. You should be able to show many posts in which a DUer calls another

a 'stealth Republican'. I have never seen such a post, not once. You claim it happens to anyone who posts any thing slightly positive about the President we all voted for. My search found nothing. I have also never seen a DUer call another a 'closet Republican'. These are hearty accusations to be making without bothering to support them in any way, shape or form.
I'll check back to see if you are able to come up with even one example of that which you claim is a DU constant.

[Orsino]

44. The effort is not a new one.

It's exactly as old as politics, I think.

[jwirr]

46. This has been going on since the assasination of JFK. We had a very strong liberal leadership them

but these leaders were systematically taken down by first assassination and later one scandal after another. The reason it seems different is because people are finally catching on.

[ananda]

48. I'll tell you the difference.

Stealth Reeps are racist. Their attacks on Obama are personal and racist.

Legitimate Dem concerns are not personal attacks but rather attacks
on what the President may do or stand for, like the TPP for example.

[Autumn]

49. You got that right cali.

Someone can post a news story that highlights a failure and some of them just go ballistic because "the poster" is being negative and is the one creating a problem.

[JVS]

50. It's the old "We're far too busy to discuss where we're going." routine

[PowerToThePeople]

55. I would respond,

but my post would be considered META. I do not care to risk it in the environment we have here at DU today.

[dionysus]

56. you must be a teabagger then cali!

[Vashta Nerada]

59. A DUer told me last night that Chris Christie thanks me for voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016.

[JVS]

81. What if Chris Christie became a Democrat? Then there would be high praise for him from the same...

people.

[jeff47]

63. That effort is not only in the direction you claim.

I've been called a "stealth Republican" plenty of times for not thinking GMOs and nuclear power are satanic.

Claiming someone else is not arguing in good faith (aka "Stealth Republican&quot is just an attempt to discredit. Just ignore it and destroy their argument instead.

[kenny blankenship]

67. It's done on behalf of someone who calls himself a Republican of the Reagan Revolution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=52266

which is what makes it doubly funny.

[MisterP]

70. I don't know why they still keep trying, once they blamed *Cast Lead* on *Nader*....

[jazzimov]

71. I don't think all the anti-admin posts here are RW infiltrators,

I think there are a lot are anti-Dem posters trying to get Dem voters to vote Green Party instead of Dem.

I don't agree with everything this admin has done, but many of the anti-Admin posts I have read are misinformed and trying to spread that misinformation. I support discussion, but based on FACTS not knee-jerk reactions. And, yes, many of these posts include RW talking points.

For instance - I am personally against the TPP, but most of the posts I've seen against it here are full of fallacious information. I don't support it, but I don't support spreading misinformation even more. If that makes me seem like I support things I do not, so be it.

[Riftaxe]

76. Three months ago, I was looking forward to gains in 2014

These days I am hoping in 2016 we can break even with the results from the 2012 elections...

WHEN we get a chance again, perhaps a focus on access to Health Care instead of Health insurance companies, because I suspect that misplaced priority is going to truly bite hard in 2014

[Kermitt Gribble]

79. But I like spinach...

[Kermitt Gribble]

80. Dupe...

[TheKentuckian]

82. Such accusations come quick to those that favor corporate dominance, imperialism, treating the

environment like a toilet, tend to be drug war tolerant, ever seek to "meet in the middle" with an insane opposition, can't seem to stomach a liberal, ever trying to swing the party and every dialog right, love drones, and domestic dragnet surveillance.

I find the projection more funny than anything and haven't an issue in the world about calling them a descriptor that fits their policy and worldview - Republicans, which isn't to be conflated with the radically regressive TeaPubliKlans, they aren't anti-government loons, racists, or sexists but they are conservatives in many cases, political fraidycats in others, and or just folks that see politics as highbrow sports.

[Gothmog]

83. My focus on 2014 is based on a number of factors

Back in March of this year, I got into a strong disagreement with some local county party leaders who wanted to forget about 2014 and focus on 2016 because Hillary Clinton being on the ticket would help down ballot races. This disagreement got somewhat heated and I ended up bringing some state party leaders and Battleground Texas leadership to quell the "forget 2014" people. I really believe that you can not ignore an election cycle. Due to disagreement there had been no candidate recruitment for my county until there was a change in party leadership.

Senator Davis' filibuster and other facts have changed things. Now we are getting people signed up to run for most of the races and there is an excitement in Texas that I have not seen. Right now, the excitement and attendance at events exceeds what I saw in 2008 and there is a broader mix of Democrats coming out to work on the race.

If Senator Davis runs a good race in 2014 (or wins), then the 2016 race is going to be very different. The GOP can not win 270 votes in the electoral college without Texas. Between now and 2014, I am going to be out helping people get voter identification and working to help Senator Davis make this race competitive. After 2014, I will look at the facts but right this second the polling showing Hillary Clinton putting Texas into play will be an important factor in my decision if the polling holds up. Again, I was in the midst of the fight in 2008 and I know that Hillary Clinton has a good base of support in Texas.

I am not a bad Democrat or a bad liberal because I want to focus on 2014. People can waste time speculating on 2016 but such speculation does not make sense to me until we know what happens in 2014. If there is a strong showing by Wendy Davis in 2014, the entire 2016 race is going to look very different.

People can speculate or make the case for Senator Warren (who I also like and who I sent money to in 2012). However, right now, my focus is on 2014.

[hatrack]

84. +1 for classic New Yorker cartoon reference!

[bobduca]

86. Kick

[idwiyo]

87. k&r