Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is anyone else sick to death of the "Liberal Smugness" snarl that's going around lately? [View all]HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)44. IT IS UNTRUE. I reserve my right to be harsh to people WHO ARE WRONG.
In case you need that translated, I'm NEVER going to stop calling out Conservatives on their sexism, racism, anti-science, proven disaster economics, red-baiting, logical fallacies or their wholesale need to never compromise.
I dunno, you ever heard of a Conservative NOT guilty of one, two or ALL of those aspects in the 21st century? Their Economics: WRONG. Their foreign policy: WRONG and murderous. Their social acumen: WRONG, repressive and dominionist. Their Red-baiting and consistent logical fallacies in their arguments: PROVEN.
I can be as kind as humanly possible and they can be as vehement and repellent as humanly possible and it ain't going to make them any less incorrect. It's not going to make them any more correct when they peddle the same tired and proven-wrong canards time and time and time again as if they were the gospel.
And Goddamnit, if you hire Republicans like Joe Fuckbag Lieberman, you are not running as a liberal Democrat PERIOD. What are we, trying to revise history and go against what political analysts theorized?
There were a number of theories connected to Gore's loss. Gore, according to a 2002 NPR article, attributed it to "the economic downturn and stock market slide that began earlier that year."[46] His running mate, Joe Lieberman, criticized Gore for adopting a populist theme, stating that he had objected to Gore's "people vs. the powerful" message, as he believed that it was not the best strategy for a sitting Vice President (Lieberman also stated that he would still endorse Gore if he decided to run for the 2004 election).[47] Other critics attributed Gore's loss in part to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader who garnered 2.7% of the vote, enough of whose votes which they argued might have otherwise gone to Gore to swing the result.[48][49]
Another theory suggests that Al Gore attempted to run a populist campaign but failed to separate himself from the abuses of the Clinton presidency. The public was not able to forget the Campaign fund raising controversy at the Hsi Lai Temple 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. There is also a theory concerning Al Gore first campaign interviews on CNN.[50]
However, it has been acknowledged that Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton-whose Gallup approval ratings were well above 50% throughout the year-[51] was a costly mistake for his campaign
Another theory suggests that Al Gore attempted to run a populist campaign but failed to separate himself from the abuses of the Clinton presidency. The public was not able to forget the Campaign fund raising controversy at the Hsi Lai Temple 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. There is also a theory concerning Al Gore first campaign interviews on CNN.[50]
However, it has been acknowledged that Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton-whose Gallup approval ratings were well above 50% throughout the year-[51] was a costly mistake for his campaign
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is anyone else sick to death of the "Liberal Smugness" snarl that's going around lately? [View all]
HughBeaumont
May 2016
OP
Party purity is destroying the Republicans but some want liberal purity for the Democrats
LonePirate
May 2016
#1
Gandhi and MLK both got assassinated for their efforts. And we're not winning.
HughBeaumont
May 2016
#41
Not nearly as many as Sanders supporters who want to purge the party/this site if he wins.
LonePirate
May 2016
#35
She's not my candidate. I did not vote for her. I'm simply stating facts with no candidate bias.
LonePirate
May 2016
#70
Character is merely the excuse given to dislike Hillary, especially when she agrees with Bernie.
LonePirate
May 2016
#34
The far left element want a purity test too, we see it every day and sanders
beachbumbob
May 2016
#31
And on top of that, they're wrong. Every accusation they make is refuted by evidence. nt
stevenleser
May 2016
#62
low post count and parrotting RW talking points and phrases ie: "socialist agenda"
Triana
May 2016
#97
The only people who think the party is drifting right are those on the extreme left.
LonePirate
May 2016
#56
Nonsense. Give the Dems control of Congress and the Presidency and see how leftward the party moves.
LonePirate
May 2016
#65
The trick is, Democrats keep running to the right, and losing their election bids
Scootaloo
May 2016
#100
Just knowing that this is what some folks called him shows where those folks are at.
stevenleser
May 2016
#5
Democrats who are only interested in the social issues like Gore and Hillary.
JDPriestly
May 2016
#49
It just gets more hilarious. Here was Gore's 2000 plan for Prosperity for America’s Families
stevenleser
May 2016
#51
You think so because you refuse to research. Its in the full 192 page plan I talked about
stevenleser
May 2016
#59
When Clinton picked Gore for VP the base howled about him being too conservative....
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2016
#15
Why is it so inconceivable to admit Reagan was a disaster and to reverse his crap?
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2016
#13
yep, and that buying into the saint reagan myth is what's wrong with so many dems
just4lulzidk
May 2016
#20
liberal smugness exists in the same way that the liberal media exists (hint: it's nonexistent)
just4lulzidk
May 2016
#17
What it means is that the Democratic Party is obsolete from a progressive point of view.
Maedhros
May 2016
#38
Re the first reading: I was a grown-ass reading, thinking, liberal feminist woman of the 90’s.
ancianita
May 2016
#24
Yeah, they're saying that pointing out Republicans are nominating a loony for president
muriel_volestrangler
May 2016
#28
I see. So you're in the camp that thinks Nader had absolutely no RIGHT to run.
HughBeaumont
May 2016
#67
Confidence looks like smugness to psychologically projecting dismissively smug RWingers.
Festivito
May 2016
#78
Hillary's trying to be Gore 2.0 (not a great model to begin with), but she's probably Carter in 1980
Vote2016
May 2016
#98
The point I took away is actually going to make me a better liberal.
He loved Big Brother
May 2016
#109