OK, this is my take, and you probably don't give damn, but I'll say it anyway

[wyldwolf]

You may or may not have noticed that I have not slung too much shit in any of the recent "Obama isn't a real Democrat/liberal/progressive" threads, mainly because the terms really are too difficult to define. But the latest one this morning, "America’s liberals lay into Obama" has prompted me to point something out that I completely realize is a matter of interpretation. And that is this:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks... against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

History has shown our political opponents come from the Right AND the Left. So whether someone here sympathizes with Evan Bayh's new Senate Blue Dog agenda against the President or, worse, the GOP's agenda, OR whether they are proponents of Paul Krugman's or other Progressive attacks from the left, it all qualifies as our political opponents if they are actively undermining the President's agenda.

I haven't yet and I'm not about to take on anyone in any of these threads and I do support you right to say what you feel, but I do feel that many here (perhaps the majority) now believe Krugman, et al. are the Democratic party's political opponents just as much as anyone on the Right is.

[geek tragedy]

1. Krugman is a supporter--it's the NeoNaderites who want to

undermine Obama in order to recruit for McKinney that are the real infestation.

[wyldwolf]

3. Someone's trying to recruit McKinney? Oh, geez!

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

4. Like she needs recruiting.

"Hey Cynthia, here's a microphone and a chance to make yourself look like a dumb ass."

[Lilith Velkor]

54. No, someone's trying to recruit *for* McKinney.

If you see that someone, don't let them know the 2008 election was five months ago.

[Odin2005]

12. McKinney!?! The Neo-Naderites are trying to recruit that raving lunatic?

:crazy:

[omega minimo]

32. So now there's gonna be Neo-Nader Haters?

:crazy:

[Occam Bandage]

41. Fuck Neo-Nader. nt

[omega minimo]

42. Fuck Neo-Nader Haters

:rofl:

[LooseWilly]

44. I voted for Nader in '00, and I concur: Fuck Neo-Nader !!

If I didn't know better, I'd think the fucker had syphillis... I mean he's gone batshit...

[omega minimo]

46. Fuck Neo-Nader Hater Non Nader Voter Neo Haters!!

[tularetom]

2. I don't give a damn

but you're right.

[AllentownJake]

5. No one really understands the process

If Obama's critics on the left suddenly stop talking President Obama has no cover for demanding more progressive things in his agenda.

They are playing a role in this entire dance we do.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Why are so many too blind to see this? It's our duty.

[AllentownJake]

9. They are either new

or they feel any critic of the President is a threat that must be dealt with. They are still in campaign mode.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

31. Looks more like Kool Aid mode

:shrug:

[Cha]

40. You thought it was your "duty" to hate Obama

with nothing but ugly from the very beginning..so "your duty" is a facade with a crap door.

[Odin2005]

14. Exactly. IMO that is what Krugman is trying to be.

FDR famously said "I want to go to the Left but you have to make me do it." As with FDR, Obama can't move left until the "centrist" options are proven to be not enough, only then will he have the political support to go left-wards.

[omega minimo]

33. A coalition of all types opposed to corporate government would do it

[livefreest]

50. well said.

[ananda]

6. Obama veers to the right wrt foreign policy and the economy..

.. and a bit to the left domestically and
wrt to global warming, science, and the
environment.

[Thrill]

16. Veers to the right on the economy? Thats pure bullshit. Have you seen his budget?

And tax breaks for the middle class and tax increases on the Rich. None of this is anywhere near right.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

38. If it's not a pacifist, communist utopia it's too far to the right...

At least that's how a lot of the President's critics here sound like. Single Payer! No war evah! Banks should be allowed to fail, goddamn the repercussions! Hell, the whole capitalistic system should fail so we can start over!

[BzaDem]

8. Ignorance should not be rewarded.

So now, when I read something that I don't like, I will call them a political opponent and try to silence them? What a stupid word game.

I highly doubt that a majority believe Krugman is a political opponent. But even if the majority is that objectively ignorant, that doesn't mean that ignorance should be written into the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

10. "try to silence them" - see, that's the funny part

I don't have the power to silence anyone. I believe people who play the "you're trying to silence me" card are the ones trying to silence anyone who would disagree with them.

[omega minimo]

34. yes, that's #7 is the convoluted bullshit handbook

[mkultra]

17. "try to silence them" is hypocrisy

Its an attempt to silence your own critics through shame.

[paulk]

11. Krugman is a liberal

Your use of "progressive" as a weasel word ain't gonna fly with me.

And I don't see what Krugman is doing as an "attack".

Greider has it right in his interview with Bill Moyers - Obama is in danger of putting the Democrats on the wrong side of history with Geithner's bank bailout. I consider it our duty, as DEMOCRATS, not liberals, centrists, or progressives, to make our objections known.

So I have to disagree, and strongly, with what you're saying here.

[omega minimo]

35. well put. the fact that PKs concepts are considered "attacks" is strange but that's how the public

has been groomed for some time. It's a miracle that Krugman and Sirota are even in the mainstream newspapers.

Some of the spats on DU seem to be involve attitudes about policy "tax cuts" and not the bigger systemic picture that Greider and others are talking about.

[Odin2005]

13. IMO people are engaged in too much black-and-white thinking.

Some (the Krugman-haters) are having trouble distinguishing constructive criticism from bashing, others (the Obama-is-a-corporatist types) prefer ideologically-based fears over understanding what Obama and Geithner are doing.

(There, have I pissed of both sides, now?) :yoiks:

[zulchzulu]

18. I agree... and I also think people don't really know Krugman's position

It's easy for fishwrapper publications and lazy former Miss America contestants now delivering the news on cable to say that Krugman disagrees and thinks Obama is "wrong"... What they fail to say is that Krugman is on record saying that Obama needs to spend more money, not less, as you'd think if you didn't understand what's going on.

If the media hair dolls would say that Krugman thinks Obama is not spending enough money quicker, then you'd see a different story.

Krugman is a college professor trying to give advice to those in the real world. How many times have you thought about how what you learned in college was pretty worthless once you stepped into the office and saw how business is REALLY done...

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. That college professor has a Nobel prize in economics.

And this is not about 'business'; it is about economics, the structure upon which business is built.

And right now thousands of businesses are in jeopardy because the underlying structure is collapsing - NOT because of the way those thousands of businesses were operated.

You are talking apples to lugnuts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. You are confused as to the meaning of the word "our"

I don't know if the OP is a parody of some sort. If so, it's skillful.

If, however, it is serious then you seem to have confused a personality cult with a political philosophy.

Evan Bayh is a Democrat. I don't like him but that's hardly definitive.

Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat.

Krugman is a key ally of the Democratic Party. (I don't know if he uses a party label but he probably hasn't voted for any pugs for several decades.)

Your "our" seems to mean "my"

[wyldwolf]

20. "Krugman is a key ally of the Democratic Party" - Then so is Evan Bayh by your reasoning

Allies don't undermine or plant doubt in the public's mind about the actions of the party's leader. Things like that are done behind the scenes and behind closed doors.

Krugman is guilty of the same thing Bayh is.

[Doremus]

21. I like the way William Greider puts it.

(paraphrased) "I love the president but he's got it wrong."

We owe it to country, our loved ones and ourselves to vocalize our concerns.

We also owe it to our president because he NEEDS us to set him on the right course. I can't imagine the pressures being applied from the other side right now.

[omega minimo]

25. Seconded

:bounce:

[Overseas]

55. And DU's Time for Change expressed that well too

I do not believe that criticizing President Obama from the left is at all likely to wound his administration or our country. To the contrary. He gets, and will continue to get, no matter what he does, plenty of criticism from the right. If we sit silently by and refuse to counteract that criticism with our own criticism, that will just mean that President Obama will feel all the more pressure to move towards the right. Furthermore, balancing out the criticisms from the right by criticizing from the left makes President Obama appear somewhat moderate, rather than as the Marxist that the right wingers would have us believe him to be. In that way our criticism not only helps to negate the right wing spin, but at the same time pressures the Obama administration to move in a direction that we believe will be much better for our country.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/447

[omega minimo]

24. "Allies don't undermine or plant doubt in the public's mind about the actions of the party's leader"

Nonsense. That's a cult of personality you're talking about there. President Obama doesn't need that. #21 has it right. :thumbsup:

There are a lot of urgent truths about the economy and state of democracy that a sleepy, go with the flow American public doesn't really want to hear.

Did you see the Greider interview? Very well put. Crosses the lines of dissension DU is tripping over, too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. Barack Obama is not the Democratic Party, let alone the summation of liberal or progressive ideals

Sorry, but you're off the rails.

You are describing a fairly conventional fascist ideal of government.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Krugman is aiding Repukes?

Krugman is trying to kill the Senate majority, while calling himself a Democrat?

Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist speaking from his area of expertise. Evan W. Bayh is a pathetic little puke who only occupies a Senate seat because of who his father was.

I don't see the equivalency there.

[omega minimo]

23. wow

:wow:

"Progressive attacks from the left, it all qualifies as our political opponents if they are actively undermining the President's agenda."

So progressives are "our" political opponents.................. not welcome in "your" party?

Thanks for saying it, it sounds extreme. Anything you want to clarify?

[ecstatic]

27. I think he has it right. Most democrats are progressives, but there

is a disruptive element on our side that won't be happy until a republican is in power again. None of their attacks/ideas are constructive--they just attack, attack, attack.

[omega minimo]

30. I wouldn't assume that "most democrats are progressives" or that progressives are not welcome

As for that "disruptive element" a lot of them are not "on our side" they are trolls.

As for people who have different points of view and are willing to respect and correct the President when necessary, that is not "actively undermining the President's agenda." I hope that's not what the OP means.

see #21

[WeDidIt]

28. K&R

[stillcool]

29. I'm done with the crystal balls...

and I'm done listening people advocate things they have no knowledge of. I think every knowledgeable voice..from Paul Krugman, to Ralph Nader, to Ron Paul could add, and be very beneficial to our national discourse..but attacking is not conducive for that conversation. It's too bad.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Krugman and Bayh both voted for the President thus neither are our political opponents, but...

There is a difference between Krugman taking on the President and Bayh doing it and it has nothing to do with left vs right. Krugman is a New York Times columnist. He might be a Democrat but he is not part of the party's leadership in any way and he really doesn't have any obligations to the party.

Evan Bayh is a Democratic US Senator meaning that he is one of the party's leaders. Because we win as a party and lose as a party, Evan Bayh has the responsibility to show a little more party loyalty. I find it dispicable that after all of the millions of dollars that the Obama Campaign spent in Indiana turning the state from 15 points red to a dead even state that Bayh has the nerve to obstruct the President's agenda. The President made it substantially easier for Evan Bayh to be re-elected in 2010 and for the rest of his career and IMO he has an obligation to return that favor by helping the President get things done.

Krugman, on the other hand, doesn't owe his future job security to the President nor does he have any obligation to the Democratic Party.

[Dr Fate]

57. I think conservacentrists need a boogeyman- and they don't really want it to be other conservatives.

After all, DLC types may have to wind up saying that they agree with Blue Dogs and even Republicans soon enough- out of "pragmatism." Safer to characterize some "leftist" writer as "the enemy."

I've basically ignored Krugman but have been very concerned about the Bayh/Lieberman cabal- for the very reasons you post.

Even though we can clearly see who's side many of these powerful "centrist" DEMS are really on, relatively powerless "far left" writers, bloggers and protesters will continue to be scapegoated and presented as "the real problem."

B/f I'm accused of putting words in the OP's mouth-The OP did not say this. *I* said it. I see it as an underlying theme in many posts around here.

[depakid]

39. Recent event show that the so called "conservadems" -and their enablers are the opponents

Just as they were in the Clinton era.

[ms liberty]

43. K&R n/t

[LooseWilly]

45. Your take sounds like you're looking for some sort of tactics board...

A place to discuss the tactics of advancing Obama's agenda, rather than a place to discuss the merits of Obama's ideas for an agenda, or discuss the merits of other ideas that one might hope Obama might address.

I am personally perplexed by the notion that Krugman is a political opponent. I'm confused at the notion of any criticism being considered toxic. It seems to me to be an extension of the notion that the Democratic Party has to become more like the Republicans in order to win elections... and now a cacophony of DUers are decrying anyone who behaves like an "old school" Democrat in failing to provide a shield wall of opinion (like talking points)...

Rather than plead for people who have differences of opinion with Obama to just censor themselves, why not address some of the concerns? I think that's all that any of the "critics" are looking for...

[omega minimo]

47. .

[Mithreal]

48. DU is a website for Democrats and other Progressives AND

now according to the OP, progressives are the enemy.

I have seen the similar argument used here to say that anyone to the right or left of President Obama is the enemy. Will you all make up your minds who your opponents are? I am sure you will find more enemies if you look hard enough.

So, ok, only those "actively undermining the President's agenda". Hear that everyone, if you disagree with any part of the President's agenda and do not keep it to yourself, you are now the enemy. This is getting to be too much.

I am losing patience for this epic stupidity.

[livefreest]

49. I support Pres Obama.

However i think that Paul Krugman columns are necessary to help Pres Obama remain on a progressive agenda. Since republicans and other right-wingers never relent to stop Pres Obama's agenda, is it not right to have some one pushing to the left?

[biopowertoday]

51. This comment of yours is unAmerican--simple as that........

..........
History has shown our political opponents come from the Right AND the Left. So whether someone here sympathizes with Evan Bayh's new Senate Blue Dog agenda against the President (which I am on the record as being against) or, worse, the GOP's agenda, OR whether they are proponents of Paul Krugman's or other Progressive attacks from the left, it all qualifies as our political opponents if they are actively undermining the President's agenda.....................

[Orsino]

53. "Actively undermining"?

Seriously? On a free message board? I think you're seriously overestimating DU's importance--or at least the importance of an individual poster on DU.

Only by conceding some significant influence by dissenters can you reasonably accuse them of "undermining" much of anything.

[Dr Fate]

56. I'm more worried about "Blue Dogs" with actual power as opposed to some obscure writer.

I call him obscure, b/c outside of DU , political junky and cable news culture, few people even know who he is- much less what his criticisms are.

Ask everyone at your bar, barbershop, bus stop, church or office who Krugman even is if you dont believe me. He has little or no influence compared to high profile, entrenched conservative senators.

I'm with you in that leftist bloggers & writers on obscure websites should be more pragmatic when they type about Obama's strategies- however- it is the conservative, so called "centrist" congressmen who actually hold power and actively oppose Obama who I am MUCH, MUCH , MUCH more worried about.