Republicans are the enemy; our generals suck.

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Abraham Lincoln had a big problem with his generals at the start of the Civil War: they'd win battles, more or less, but wouldn't press their advantage to decimate the retreating enemy and end the conflict.

So Lincoln replaced his generals, one after the other, until he found ones that would fight. Really fight. And the Union was saved.

If you asked Lincoln who the enemy was, he surely would name the Confederacy, not his pusillanimous generals. But he still fired the generals, because he wanted to get the job done. And getting the job done required more than saying the Confederacy was mean. It meant fighting them, and beating them, and generals are the people who lead that effort in modern warfare.

Let's suppose that Lincoln's generals came back to him after each battle boasting of how they began the battle by offering the Confederacy half the territory being fought over, then after negotiations agreed to give 'em three-quarters.

"We kept a quarter! We could have had nothing! Huzzah!"

And what if, after each of these giveaways, his generals' bank accounts suddenly grew by leaps and bounds? I suspect they'd be court-marshalled, not honored.

And this is what we Democrats face today. Our generals are, by-and-large awful at best and likely deeply corrupt. Just look around. Use your eyes and your brains, and see what's happened over the last 30 years. (Spoiler alert for some: we're @#$%ing losing, big time. Huge.)

Some of us Democrats want to give the same generals a few more decades to figure out how to win. I have a different idea, one that seems to discomfort many Democrats: I think we should follow Lincoln's lead, and find people who might get the job done.

No more excusing giveaways to bankers and the rich by saying it could have been worse. No more horrifically cynical wars fed by hundreds of thousands of human lives, and trillions of our dollars.

New generals. New generals. New generals.

Until we get ones that don't suck.

[el_bryanto]

1. Well said. nt

[RobertEarl]

20. Dear readers

You will witness below why it is the republicans rule. You shall witness posters below suggesting that we not fight. That we give up ground ... because.

Hard to believe in this day and age that they would give in and accept the way things are and beg us to continue with the same generals that lead us here, but there it is.

Thank you, Manny. Too bad you have so many enemies even here on DU.

[hrmjustin]

23. Huh? No one is talking about not fighting.

[RobertEarl]

24. How will you fight?

What is your plan to change the course of history?

More of the same?

Do tell us your plan to fight the republicans. And remember what buddies Bill is with bushco before you begin, eh?

[hrmjustin]

25. How will I change the course of history?

I really don't see myself doing that.

How will defeat Republicans? With Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

28. Wow your getting a bit nasty here.

I don't answer to you.

[hrmjustin]

34. Who are you to question why I post here?

I don't answer to you.

[Dragonfli]

29. It appears the plan is to beat them by joining them

In bipartisan projects that help concentrate the wealth created by our productivity upwards.

That'll show em!

[sabrina 1]

72. Do you agree that we need new representatives who are FIGHTING not COMPROMISING with, the Enemy?

We know who the enemy is, they are those who have been bought, an entire Party called the Republican party by the REAL enemy.

Republican Koch/Wall St owned politicians are merely the puppets of the real enemy. They do their work within our Government.

Now some in our party are being bought by the same enemy. Big Money, it doesn't come without conditions.

So, logically, if the enemy offers you a bribe which will help you get elected to a powerful position, do you think that comes without strings attached, that they are merely being altruistic?

And the more they give you, logic says, the more they want from you once you get into power.

Since I consider money in politics to be the first and most important issue we are facing right now, I will be looking for a candidate who has taken the least amount of bribes from the real enemy.

Naturally that excludes all Republicans who are all heavily funded/bribed, by that enemy.

So we are left with our own party. Some of whom are as heavily funded/bribed by that same enemy, because that enemy is neither Dem nor Repub, so they will buy as many politicians as they can.

Litmus test for me now, and for many other people, is 'look at the money, follow it and decide, what is it buying'.


What can you buy for 2.5 billion dollars?


So I'll be focusing on Congress and the Senate, where we still have a chance to overcome that massive amount of money and kick out those who have shown us with their votes, what money buys and replace them with real representatives of the people.

[hrmjustin]

73. I have been volunteering in the special election in my district.

Ny 11th. Gentile is a great Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

74. What state are you in? Not familiar with Gentile.

[hrmjustin]

75. NY.

It is Michael Grimms old seat.

[sabrina 1]

82. I remember now, Grimm convicted of tax crimes. The seat has been empty for months.

That's a pretty Republican district. Do you think Dems have a chance there?

[hrmjustin]

83. Yes. Donovan the Republican is getting bad press for not knowing the federal minimum wage.

Gentile bested him in a debate. Gentile is against TTP and for a deal with Iran.

[sabrina 1]

84. Donovan refused to take the bail money from Ramsey Orta, the guy who videotaped the killing of

Erik Garner and who was harassed afterwards by the cops. He was arrested twice, had a high bail set which he could not afford. His family set up a gofundme site and the public responded by getting enough to cover his bail. Donovan refused to accept it, keep him in Rykers Island where he feared for his life, AFTER inmates became sick from rat poison.

Public outrage forced Donovan to accept the bail. But his unprecedented attempt to keep Orta in jail shows what little respect he has for the law. He has the Cop union on his side though.

Staten Island is a Repub stronghold, can't see voters there worrying about Donovan's abuse of the system to keep someone in ail who exposed the cops brutality.

I hope the Dem beats him.

[hrmjustin]

85. Yeah he did Garner wrong with no indictment of that cop who killed him.

And what he did to Orta.

[billhicks76]

80. He Means Our Leadership Is Neutered

[hrmjustin]

81. Ok i agree but ok.

[rhett o rick]

98. Will Clinton fight for economic equality? Will she fight Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs?

Will she fight the NSA/CIA and Gen Clapper? Will she fight the MIC?

In 2002 she had her opportunity to be a fighter and tell George Bush and Dick Cheney to go straight to hell. She didn't fight, she in fact not only took their side she helped convince other Democrats to believe the Bush lies.

Maybe Manny wasn't clear. I think he meant that we need generals that fight ON OUR SIDE.

[hrmjustin]

99. Yes I think she will fight for us.

[rhett o rick]

104. Will she break up the banks? Regulate dirivitives? Support transaction fees?

Challenge Gen Clapper and the NSA/CIA Security State? Cut defense spending in favor of infrastructure?

I don't believe she will.

[hrmjustin]

106. Nomone is ever going to break up the banks.

[hay rick]

2. K&R

[Fumesucker]

3. Remember that Sun Tzu said all war was deception

And Clausewitz said that war is just politics by other means.

The Democrats are lulling the Republicans into a false sense of complacency and then they will spring the trap.

Sort of like the British did to the Germans at Dunkirk.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Dunkirk was a glorious victory for Britain

"These are not the Huns we are looking for."

[Fumesucker]

12. Pah, Dunkirk was nothing

Iraq now, that was a victory to ring through the ages, such a subtle and sagacious campaign to destabilize the Middle East and throw it into chaos.

It's a shame more can't understand the brilliance of the plan.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I can't even count the number of dimensions

of chess that were played in that one.

[Scootaloo]

15. hey, any battle you can run away from... n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Sir Robin is a FIGHTER and a WINNER

[Scootaloo]

21. That reminds me, I'm cooking pork for dinner. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Excuse me?

I always gain a few pounds in winter from sitting around. They come off in the summer.

No need to rub it in.

[QuestionAlways]

59. In fact, Dunkirk was a glorious victory for Britain

because they lived to fight another day

[sabrina 1]

76. You mean they are keeping their powder dry?

I can't remember what Sun Tzu said about how long you can keep your powder dry without the risk of a strong wind blowing it all away.

[Joe Turner]

86. The only ones being deceived are the HRC supporters

Some people are good at campaigning, others are not. Romney didn't have it and neither does Hillary.

[L0oniX]

93. Thanks for pissing off all the "right" people.

[hrmjustin]

4. And that is why our party will nominate Hillary.

Our best general.

[JaneyVee]

6. I see they finally mailed you a check.

Good post. And we don't need a General, we need a Diplomat.

[hrmjustin]

9. I want my $2!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. What were General Hillary's few greatest victories, to date?

In your opinion. For the 99%.

[hrmjustin]

31. She as a senator supported minimum wage increases.

She supports raising taxes on the rich.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. And she won those battles? nt

[hrmjustin]

37. not all by herself if that is what you mean.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Since Hillary became a general,

has the minimum wage kept up with cost of living increases?

[hrmjustin]

42. No but that is not her fault.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. The point of my post is that great generals win

Not just lose less than they could have

[hrmjustin]

44. And who are our great generals?

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Certainly Elizabeth Warren fought and won on CFPB

And has arguably turned things around in our Party.

Other than that... Lincoln didn't know if Grant would make a great general, until Grant had the command. But he knew McClellan sucked.

[hrmjustin]

47. She is not running. i agree she coukd Hillary a race but she has not shown any desire to do it.

And the later it gets the less likely she will change her mind.

And we don't know how she would do on a national stage.

To be president you have to want it and she doesn't want it.

[QuestionAlways]

63. Manny, I know your heart is in the right place, but Warren is not running

You need a new general. Be quick about it, or soon the war will be over.

[Agschmid]

78. .

And has arguably turned things around in our Party.

I don't agree... she is part of that party and guess who the leading potential nominee is. I'd say as a General she lost that battle, and we only want general who can win right?

[KMOD]

53. Hillary has not been a general yet.

My goal is to make her one.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. No?

Is there only one general in the country?

[KMOD]

61. Obviously not.

But she has not had the power and influence that you believe she has.

It's amazing how much blame you can place solely on her, and act like she alone has the power to single handedly stop things you do not agree with, yet on the other hand, claim she is unqualified for office because you believe she's weak.

You can't have it both ways, Manny.

[840high]

39. She's going to raise

taxes on herself?

[hrmjustin]

40. Sure she will.

[Dragonfli]

36. She tried to end the scourge of flag burning that hurts the 99% deeply?

Did I win a cookie?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Who could argue as to the great benefit to America,

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

if only she'd won that battle.

[rhett o rick]

100. If she is nominated it will be because she has the backing of big money. Has nothing to do

with fighting for the 99%.

[hrmjustin]

101. It will have to do with the fact Democrats who are the 99 percent voted for her.

[rhett o rick]

103. I hope you don't deny that money can influence voters. That's why big money donates so

much. To assure victory for their candidate. Otherwise, Citizens United wouldn't be effective.

[hrmjustin]

105. I think Democratic voters are smart and can see who is the best choice.

I am not denying money helps.

[BainsBane]

7. There is a problem with your analogy

(besides the obvious one of Lincoln's being a Republican).

You begin by identifying Republicans as the enemy and say we need generals who are up to the challenge. Then at the bottom of the post you say:

No more excusing giveaways to bankers and the rich by saying it could have been worse. No more horrifically cynical wars fed by hundreds of thousands of human lives, and trillions of our dollars.

If Republicans are the enemy, the goal is to defeat them, and we would then nominate someone best equipped to do that. If bankers and war are the enemy, then your selection of a general will be different. For that last point, I'd add that a general alone does not make an army. The confederacy fell because poor whites, the rank-and-filed soldiers, abandoned the cause. The best general in the world, even Lee, couldn't fight a war without troops.


(Then there is something particularly strange about using war analogies to oppose war).

[SidDithers]

10. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?...nt

First-Way Bluto

[msanthrope]

11. Thank you Senator Blutarsky! nt

[Bobbie Jo]

14. Forget it, he's rolling.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. No, Dean, it wasn't

[rhett o rick]

102. You have a point. This war, and we are in a war, a class war, is not between

Republicons and Democrats. That's a dangerous simplification. This class war is between the wealthy 1% and the rest of us. All Republicons support the 1%, that's a no brainer. However, not all Democrats support the 99%. It would be swell if life was that easy.

Some Democrats support many of the issues that are dear to the heart of the wealthy 1%. Like fracking, the TPP, domestic spying, drone killing, Wall Street, and the MIC. What I hear Manny saying is that these DINO's are not our best choice to fight for the 99%.

You can't claim to support the 99% if you support the TPP, fracking, domestic spying, Wall (frackin) Street and the MIC.

[BainsBane]

108. I addressed that kind of dismissal

of the interests of the majority of Americans in this thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026535531

Firstly, 1 vs. 99 percent isn't a class. It's a neoliberal, media fabrication that masks real class differences. It's particularly convenient for the top 10-20 percent who like to pretend their rights trump the majority of Americans who have never had the kind of wealth and privilege the white upper-middle class is so angry that they have recently started to see erode.

I understand that people who grow up with privilege believe themselves entitled to speak for the rest of us who don't count, but when they insist they rather than we are the only ones who know what's best for us, in that regard, they are much like bankers. They always think they know what is best for the people, but the fact is they never do because the one thing they refuse to do is acknowledge that the less-privileged have a right to articulate their own concerns.

That kind of elitist attitude that excludes the majority from the body politic is precisely what classism is all about. You are entitled to speak for yourself, but you have no right, no right to assume you know what is best for me and others who, as you can see in the linked thread, are fed up with having their lives so contemptuously dismissed.

[rhett o rick]

113. I agree I have no right to speak for you and the same goes for you speaking for me.

I do have a right to express my opinion. There is clearly a class war going on. The wealthy control our government and have substantially eliminated our Constitutional rights. You act as if you know where on the economic ladder I stand and apparently hold that against me, and then call me an "elitist". Wow!
In the last 30 - 40 years the wealthy have changed the laws to unravel the FDR safeguards for the middle and lower classes. Don't you agree that that is a problem for all of us except the wealthy?

Edited to make it clear that the above is my opinion and I am not speaking for anyone else.

[BainsBane]

114. I have never tried to speak for you

but I have seen you time and time again look down dismissively at people like me and many other Americans.

Yes, things have gotten worse for the white male middle- and upper-middle class during that time period. Yet some of us have also gained the right to vote, marry who we choose, and no longer be considered property of men. The halcyon days you hark back to were only great for a small segment of the population: not the poor, not people of color, not LGBT Americans, and not women who didn't attach to and identify with middle and upper-middle class men. Now you have made clear time and time again that the rights of the majority pale in comparison to your own anger that you are starting to feel some of what has afflicted the rest of us. Yet rather than seeking to join us, you look down and treat us with scorn, as less than you because we dare to think our own interests matter, while you assume your own experiences and class concerns are universal. That is what betrays your background. No one who did not grow up in the white middle-class longs hearkens back to the era of Jim Crow and subjugation of the rest of the population that was not male, white and middle class. Your entire political ethos comes from a position of class, race, and gender privilege, and that might not be so bad if you didn't treat the concerns of the rest of Americans with such contempt.

I don't need to worry about trying to speak for your interests, even if I were so presumptuous. You look after your own well enough, to the point of ridicule of others who dare to think about anyone else.

[BainsBane]

119. That's good of you

Do you also tell they are aligned with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent if they don't vote how you want, or they fail to devote themselves to a relentless focus on defeating a single politician? Do you see them as your equals or people who aren't fit to make their own political decisions? I truly think it's a wonderful thing that you help people less fortunate than yourself in real life, but you should also understand you encounter people online who are also less fortunate, yet you have insulted some of them as being aligned with the 1 percent. Think about that for a minute. Think about what that must feel like for someone who has grown up on welfare, and/or who has been subject to daily racism, gay bashing, or gender violence to be accused of collaborating with Goldman Sachs.

I see you as the enemy because I have seen you insult people who have lived with discrimination their entire lives, because you have continually insulted me, never bothered to ask my views on a position but instead looked for signs of heresy because I ask a question or pose something in a way that doesn't conform to your frame of reference. If you don't want people to see you as the enemy, don't insult them. Don't tell poor people they are aligned with Goldman Sachs. Don't tell gay men they are in bed with the 1 percent. Don't accuse someone of being for Fast Track when they merely point out they recognize the investor provisions of TPP as being modeled after Chapter 11 of NAFTA. Don't accuse something of being complicit with torture because they ask what laws and jurisdiction prosecutions should proceed under. Don't enter threads about Marxism and insist it is some cryptic plot to get Clinton elected, and then refer to Marxist theory as "centrist" and Third Way. In addition to being insulting, it's off the charts bizarre. Acknowledge that people may see things somewhat differently because their experiences may differ, and that doesn't make them corporate sell outs. Understand that your perspective is not the only conceivable one, and that there are many worldviews and many different experiences that are valid.

How's that for starters?

[sabrina 1]

116. What???

Are you sure you are addressing the right person here? YOU certainly do not speak for this woman. Please, do us a favor and when you decide to speak, speak for yourself.

You have just launched a despicable personal attack on a good Democrat, an advocate of Civil Rights for all Americans and I am totally shocked to see this kind of personal attack on this forum.

Shameful false accusations against a long time DUer about whom you clearly know nothing about.

You owe Rhett an apology for this.

[daleanime]

8. K&R.....

[KMOD]

13. The part I agreed with the most

Some of us Democrats want to give the same generals a few more decades to figure out how to win. I have a different idea, one that seems to discomfort many Democrats: I think we should follow Lincoln's lead, and find people who might get the job done.

That is why I'm supporting HRC.

[Scootaloo]

16. There's a difference between "get the job done" and "finish the job"

[KMOD]

18. Ya gotta help me out here.

Maybe it's because I'm exhausted at the moment, because I usually get your clever posts, and yes, your sometimes clever and funny snark, but I'm not getting this comment at all.

[Doctor_J]

17. our generals are republicans

That's the problem

[Dragonfli]

22. Said another way, OUR republicans are our generals

The DLC Republicans in (D)rag are the leaders of the party rather than the Democrats that actually give a damn about the well being of the people.

Well, at least our Republicans help us when it is not too inconvenient in the pursuit of social justices that don't impede the concentration of the wealth created by our productivity upwards to those that feather their gilded nests.

Their Republicans make a point of fucking us both ways sideways, while ours leave the ear and nose orifices alone.
I am told I should praise them for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[Sancho]

45. Sorry, but I disagree with your assumption...

maybe Lincoln would have fared better if he had not replaced the generals, or maybe things would have been the same. It's not certain that changing generals won the war.

Having an inspiring general may feel good, but wars are also won because of resources, battle plans, and lots of soldiers. Maybe the general is less important if all the troops are mustered.

Sooooo...your challenge is to create a well-regulated militia, not undermine any general you don't like.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Do you have any examples of generals who consistently lost battles for decades

then turned things around?

[kwassa]

54. We haven't had wars that lasted decades ...

until Iraq.

[Sancho]

62. A rather lackluster military man who turned things around in the end was..

Winston Churchill.

Great inspiration, but not successful as a sailor or soldier after decades of trying.

Britain didn't win WWII because of generals. They won because of resources and determination.

That's the first person I thought of as an "example".

[MannyGoldstein]

65. They won because of Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton. nt

[Sancho]

87. The won because of greater resources...

and more soldiers. People were united and committed to win.

A general may win a battle, but over time the best military has the advantage.

The GOP has proven that they can win with awful generals: Reagan, Bushes, Nixon! They unite their minority of voters, gather the most resources, create a plan, and win elections with dumb generals. When their party splits, they lose.

No matter how great the general, you can't win with divided forces. Remember Al Gore? How many votes went to Nader? More than enough in Florida alone to have saved us a decade of war, environmental disaster, and economic collapse. If you voted for Nader or the Green party instead of Gore, how did that work out?

I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate. No matter if it's the best general, it's the only way to win the war.

[JDPriestly]

69. To a great extent, the allies in the West won because of ENIGMA.

The allies did not know everything that the Germans planned to do, but they knew enough to be ready to defeat the Germans in the end.

The book Ike's Spies tells the story.

[Agschmid]

79. Yup.

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[JDPriestly]

67. I recommend the book, Team of Rivals. Obama is said to have liked it too.

[Mbrow]

49. Couldn't have said it better,

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, here in Idaho it doesn't matter who I vote for but I support people all over the U.S. who have my interests at heart. Like Bernie Sanders and others. I still will vote for the person who's a Dem, but it's getting harder.

[BainsBane]

88. If you're in a solid red state

There is no reason you should have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Might as well vote for whomever you want. And then I don't see the lesser evils argument germane to the primary at all. That is when you vote for the person you most want to represent the party. The challenge is that those people often drop out before many of the states get to vote or caucus.

[zeemike]

50. Just a comment on the history you refereed to.

When the north started winning the war was when Lincoln appointed U.S. Grant to lead the army of the north...he was nicknamed Unconditional Surrender Grant because when the Southern General sent him a note wanting to negotiate conditions of a surrender he replied "No conditions will be accepted other than unconditional surender"...and he got it...and he became famous and popular overnight because of that.

And his good friend General Sherman said "I can make Georgia howl" and he did and the war was over.
Both of them understood that you don't negotiate from a weak position...And ours don't get that.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. They, and their families, seem to profit handsomely

by not getting it.

Sherman was fascinating. He knew from the start what was needed.

[zeemike]

56. Yes he was and yes he did.

And he got the job done...without that march to the sea the war could have dragged on.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. And he hatedhatedhated every minute of it

But hated the alternative more.

[zeemike]

66. Yes he did and as you say he was a fascinating man.

To ad some quotes;

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over

War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. Yeah, he helped win the war by raping, looting, and pillaging civilians

Then he went on to rape, loot and pillage Indians after that war.

Not my kind of role model.

[zeemike]

70. Well he is the one who said war is hell.

He just did not have any illusions about what it was.

[Art_from_Ark]

117. He seemed to enjoy the hell he created for others

[MannyGoldstein]

71. It was necessary to end slavery

Sherman was disgusted by it.

I'm not familiar with his history with Native Americans, I'll look that up, thanks.

[Art_from_Ark]

118. If Sherman had done the same thing in this day and age,

he'd be sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosovic.

Sherman's army in Georgia was the American equivalent of Viking raiders. The South had essentially lost the war in July 1863, when they lost at Gettysburg and Vicksburg fell. After that, the North was like a cat playing with a mouse. The South had no hope, as its ports were blockaded, it was severed in two when first New Orleans, then Vicksburg fell, and it was unable to import supplies.

The sheer brutality of Sherman's Vikings was just one of the myriad reasons for the vitriol in the South in general and Georgia in particular toward the North for decades after that. And while the North liberated slaves, it had no problem with killing Indians, or child labor, or company towns where workers were paid pittances in scrip that could only be used at overpriced company stores.

[haikugal]

52. I'm with you Manny!

[edgineered]

60. The rec counter, unlike perks for the generals,

or perks for the politicians whose nests are feathered by bankers and commanders of the DLC, limits to ONE rec for your thread, but I want to keep clicking REC, REC, REC.

[JDPriestly]

64. K&R. Excellent, Manny. Thanks.

[GoneFishin]

77. But they have a D after their names, doesn't that count for anything?

[Scuba]

89. K&R

[justiceischeap]

90. I love how you start this off as "Republicans are the enemy" and then talk about Lincoln

a Republican... Yes, he did great things but still, a Republican. Oh, the irony. Anyway, now that you've stated for the millionth time that the current field of Democrats are losers, how do you propose we actually go about getting these new generals? The generals you despise are not only running for President but also run the DNC--the body who decides who gets to run and who gets the money to run?

I'd say that 99% of politicians that get to the national level have been corrupted in some way or are beholden to someone (and it isn't the American people). It's very rare that they aren't. So in order to get good generals I see the following having to happen:

Win the House of Representatives and fill it with good generals.
Win the Senate and fill it with good generals.
Win the Presidency and fill it with good generals.
Fill the DNC with good generals.
Put good generals on the US Supreme Court (cause all the good generals in government mean diddly without the good generals on the USSC)

How do you propose we do all this by 2016? What with the gerrymandered districts in most states leaning in favor of Republicans... we're lucky we held on to the Senate with good or bad generals. And if it can't be done by 2016, what do you propose we do, let the Republicans win to prove a point?

It's one thing to create heartfelt posts about wanting something different but it does no good if you don't outline how we as a party work together to get that different thing. Otherwise it's just repetitive whining.

[99Forever]

91. K&R

[Progressive dog]

92. If Republicans are the enemy,

how come so many of them are also our generals?

[dirtydickcheney]

94. Excellen Post - nt

[Zorra]

96. "Forward, he cried, from the rear, as the front rank died. Generals sat, as the lines

on the map, moved from side to side..haven't you heard? It's a battle of words, and most of them are lies".
~ Roger Waters

[Cosmic Kitten]

107. Winning

[MineralMan]

109. Do you include President Obama in that group of

Generals who suck, Manny? He's the 5-Star General right now, if I'm not mistaken. Do tell...

[hrmjustin]

112. Read through the top responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6547015

[samsingh]

110. well said

[Orsino]

111. Fight, yes. But charge the matador, not the cape.

The Republicans' (and Dems') paymasters are the enemy.

[Rex]

120. Is this a two part article or are you going for a trilogy?

Who gets to play Frodo?