General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCory Booker: Concern Troll
This Digby paragraph cracked me up:
...
No, attacks on Bain are not the equivalent of attacks on Jeremiah Wright and no, it is not a distraction from the campaign, it is the campaign. Or it should be.
If Romney can't be criticized for his vulture capitalism and we can't "indict" private equity then what does he think this campaign should be about? The deficit? Some abstract notions of "jobs" and "the economy" without any reference to the fact that it was the financial sector and "private equity" that caused this situation in the first place? Sounds perfect. For Wall Street.
Sadly, this is exactly the kind of concern trolling that will make the Village declare that the Democrats are hitting below the belt by criticizing Bain Capital and the Dems will fall in line. Indeed, the fact that it's Cory Booker who's saying it today indicates that it's the Democrats themselves saying "stop us before we hurt the Masters of the Universe's feelings again."
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/et-tu-cory-booker.html
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I know Obama isn't planning on deviating from it. Dems need to stand strong.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Because the tetm itself indicates a mocking refusal to buy the bullshit and call it chocolate?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)This predates the examples Wikipedia gives - a Dec 2006 Time article by Ana Marie Cox: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570701,00.html , or a broken link to an Oct 2006 Vanity Fair article by James Walcott.
You'd think it would develop from a discussion board that had a particular angle (probably, but not necessarily, political) that would call out suspected infiltrators. So, it could have been DU, but Daily Kos, FR and others might have said it first.
aquart
(69,014 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,295 posts)While bunkerbuster1 does seem to be the first user of the term on DU (I found one even earlier use by them from June 2005, and a thread started by them in June 2006, to pin down the definition - which made it into an MIT publication "Building Successful Online Communities":
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lIvBMYVxWJYC&lpg=PA127&ots=zXC-juq7MD&dq=%22lifelong%20Democrat%20but%20I%20just%20feel%20the%20party%20is%20being%20damaged%20by%20association%20with%20Howard%20Dean%22&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q=%22lifelong%20Democrat%20but%20I%20just%20feel%20the%20party%20is%20being%20damaged%20by%20association%20with%20Howard%20Dean%22&f=false
)
but then I found it used on Daily Kos in April 2005: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/03/02/96182/-Am-I-an-Abortion-Surrender-Monkey-
But DU, especially bunkerbuster1, was ahead of the curve with the term, I think.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Gordon Gekko is running on his "business experience", which includes Bain Capital. I can understand why he considers it as a successful venture; his offshore bankers must love him for it. But people have a right to know how this man who wants to be president solves problems.
enough
(13,256 posts)Quoting comment by whodoes:
"Cory Booker: caught in the Very Serious Person trap. He probably saw a chance to really impress the VSPs in the media - I mean, here's his star turn as the Democratic Maverick. Where else to play the role but on Meet the Press? I'm sure the Sunday show crowd was eating it up and Bob Schieffer was probably working on booking him every week for the next ten years. It's just too bad for him he was incredibly wrong and managed to infuriate just about every Democrat (along with every progressive) in America. Using President Obama - Mister Middle of the Road - for your Sistah Souljah moment? Wow, smart guy fell for that VSP trap hard."
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)This perhaps burns me up the most with this fuck. I don't want any fucking room made for Obama or the party to move to the corporate right and more so I am nuclear on the effort to shrink the spectrum from supposed to be Democrats which only strengthens the right wing's ideology as a force in this country and functional deprives anyone who doesn't buy the state secular religion of any representation at all. Just choices in vehemence for stupid but dangerous voodoo.
The two are not even in the same ballpark and if you can't see why then one only has to make the "what" something more clearly defined in the mind as absurd and/or horrible like eating babies and be willing to carry the logic back whether one agrees or not. You know you have group (R) that wants to eat raw and alive every baby (can't have that clearly suicidal for the human race and horrible to behold), then there s group (C-R) that only wants to eat brown babies and some of them think whether you eat them raw or not they shouldn't be awake(well...at least they know you can't eat all the babies, perhaps they can be worked with), then we have group (C-D) which does not believe in eating any live babies and generally thinks that any race of baby can be eaten or allowed to grow into an eater but based on the ability of the family to support a child (well eat the poor ones and do it humanely), and then we have group (D) which not only is 100% against eating live babies, is 100% against eating babies based on race, gender, or even projected orientation but also thinks that not all of the poor should be eaten and support initiatives that allow even more fair and balanced approaches to a system of baby eating. Some on the fringe even want to put limits on the number of babies eaten.
Those who wonder why eat babies at all can do nothing but put ketchup on dogshit and get humane and balanced or they can lean nihilist and certainly radical and be sure the practice will end in for sure pretty damn soon by letting the full on eaters have their way.
Rocky road, vanilla, and strawberry are all very different but that shit is all ice cream no matter how distinct the flavor and texture.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)This is yet another media circle jerk...one of many we'll have to endure until November. It's a story that will fade in time and have little to no significance come Election Day. What this story does do is keep Bain's name in the news. The old PR saying goes "say good, say bad, just say"...and that is happening here. Voters will determine Bain's merit on their own...and I firmly think it will be a negative with the "independents" and "swing voters". It also gave the President a chance to pivot on the topic to the central question which is the difference between making money for investors vs. looking after the welfare of a nation. It puts focus on Mitten's claims of being a "job creator" when it was wealth that he generated.
As long as Mittens can't defend his record with Bain...the longer it remains a main issue in this campaign...the more it will hurt him. While people see capitalism in a positive light, they don't see greed that way...
heaven knows
(26 posts)who was supported by Goldman-Sachs!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
heaven knows
(26 posts)Parroting all the right viewpoints like the good little shill that you are.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)heaven knows
(26 posts)Isn't that a bit childish and simplistic?
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)who made millions off of the backs of the middle class.
heaven knows
(26 posts)It's ya birthday!
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)Very poor attempt by an Attack-from-The-Left GOP troll. Rove or the Kochs need to train them to leave out the wingnut phrases.
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)campaign contributions and a major contributing corporation belonging to said industry's record was attacked by your own political party, would you be concerned?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101629001
Bain and Financial Industry Gave Over $565,000 To Newark Mayor Cory Booker For 2002 Campaign
(snip)
Contributions to his 2002 campaign from venture capitalists, investors, and big Wall Street bankers brought him more than $115,000 for his 2002 campaign. Among those contributing to his campaign were John Connaughton ($2,000), Steve Pagliuca ($2,200), Jonathan Lavine ($1,000) all of Bain Capital. While the forms are not totally clear, it appears the campaign raised less than $800,000 total, making this a significant percentage.
Theme song time.
Thanks for the thread, cthulu.