I was told to 'go away' from here yesterday. It shouldn't have bothered me, I was on a tear

[bigtree]

I was posing a number of critical questions in several threads which went against the popular grain here. To be truthful, I usually keep things like that myself, like asking whether folks here already regard our Democratic president as the opposition. I presented scenarios where compromise from the President was probably inevitable in response to predictable actions from the legislature.

The thread in question was about the tax thing. It makes little sense to me to start that debate up again on this thread. I'm just providing context. It was a controversial issue here and I knew what I was asking for when I challenged DU orthodoxy and popular opinion.

However, I really didn't expect to get the bums rush that I thought was reserved just for freepers and disruptors. It was just one short sentence, but it felt like the collective voice of many of the folks who responded to my strident queries and decidedly confrontational posts. it's still echoing in my head this morning, so I'm going to ask as respectfully as I'm able whether there is still room for a long-time DUer to question the popular opinion here . . .

I'm not so concerned about the strident nature of my queries any more than others are concerned about their own strident criticisms, but I could imagine that I may have been more unreasonable than I should have or more accusing than I intended. All of that is just asking for trouble, so I would really like to first apologize if I made anyone feel that I was scorning them for holding an opinion or bashing them for their conduct here. That's out of line and unnecessary, and I'm not certain that, in my disturbed state, that I was as careful as I want to be in respecting the viewpoints I was asking for.

I happen to like criticizing the ruling classes. I'm just a working stiff and I'm like most Americans; in debt and cash poor. I've always been on the outside of the political system and I have no personal basis for defending any of the politicians, other than my only affiliation; as a registered Democrat. I do not enjoy criticizing struggling folks who can't find satisfaction or remedy from our politicians. I get as frustrated with government as they do when I hear their stories, and I want to help find answers and to find ways to make government more responsive to their needs and concerns. That sentiment has been almost impossible to actualize. Politics and politicians are a slippery bunch.

I think most politicians can fend for their personal selves and don't really need my heart to bleed for them. I really don't bleed for them, although I admit it might appear so sometimes.

I've been described here in the midst of discussions and debates by some as akin to republicans. I've been described as 'hating liberals' in a thread questioning whether the President is now regarded by folks here as the opposition. I've been told that I've changed from the primaries where I gave a good defense of Hillary Clinton as I was politicking against Barack Obama. 'You used to be critical of Obama,' I was told. 'Now I don't even recognize you.'

Well, I think there's a simple explanation and I think maybe some folks here deserve an answer to 'what's bugging me,' as a few folks wondered aloud.

I'm not, as I said above, associated with any organization or group outside of my party affiliation as a Democrat. I've NEVER voted for ANY republican or supported any republican, and I ALWAYS vote. I ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidates.

My affinity for this party has everything to do with Democrats' philosophy that the federal government is vital and is the primary defender of many of our rights. That defense of rights is important to me as a minority American who, along with other black Americans, was finally afforded full citizenship with the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

The 14th and 15th amendments were just abstractions to me without the commitment of the federal government to enforce those rights. Those concerns and views of mine have never been shared by the republican party in my lifetime, and I don't expect they ever will be. Everything else that comprises our Democratic agenda flows from our party's recognition of the primacy of our federal government in tending to Americans' needs and protecting our rights.

I've always identified myself, politically, as a liberal Democrat. I can't think of ONE issue that is of concern and interest to the progressive community that I don't also care deeply about and support with whatever advocacy and activism I can manage. I do, however, from time to time, have profound differences in what it takes (and should take) to advance those progressive concerns into action or law. I'm talking differences in strategy here; not just a prioritizing of what I'm willing to defend, but differences in the degree and nature of where, when, and how we address these.

I was called a party-uber-alles type, yesterday. I can only imagine that that means. I think it implies that I'm a party loyalist, and I'll admit readily to that. I gave a strong and forceful defense of Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, but I just as sincerely and energetically folded my campaign efforts behind Mr. Obama when he became our party's nominee. I see our Democratic party as the ONLY and most effective vehicle out there for advancing our concerns up the political ladder.

We can't reasonably legislate from the street. I believe that, at some point, our advocacy and activism needs to have a legislative goal and a means to accomplish that legislative goal if we are to do more than just shout back and forth. That's why I defend our party into the majority in the legislature and into the presidency.

I see our Democratic party as a coalition of our citizens' concerns; representing a myriad of disparate and diverse individuals and communities which choose to organize under our Democratic banner. I understand that, in our political system, my own prescriptions for success may well not prevail. Yet, I have enough faith in our democracy, and conviction about the issues and concerns most important to me that I'm willing to commit to working to find support for my positions within the system.

They're so important to me, that I believe it's imperative to have our Democratic coalition in place (and in the majority) to enact them. That's no guarantee that I'll be heard, but it is an opportunity. I don't think we get to the resolution of our needs and concerns without our Democratic party as the primary vehicle.

So, I'm ticked to see such little support for our Democrats here. That's to be expected among such a critical bunch as us, I suppose. But, it's gone much farther here. Now I'm seeing attacks on DUers which center on their loyal and steadfast support for our Democratic President and party. That's hard for me to abide, as I spend much time defending Democrats against more pernicious and determined opposition from the right-wing.

The attitude has made me bitter and somewhat detached from the very progressive agenda that forms the base of my liberalism. I'm hindered in defending these here using our Democratic president and party by the personal attacks, and by the attempts to define me and my positions as outside of the Democratic party.

Moreover, there is an attitude that pervades the debate here which suggests that winning elections is secondary to the desire for ideological purity and allegiance to narrowed povs. I see it differently. I believe our party's political position is vital and determinate of whether there intends to be some resolution or remedy to those needs and concerns.

I don't believe in the value of 'teaching our party an lesson' by withholding votes. Too many variables to follow that strategy to success. I certainly don't believe in abandoning our party over these differences that I'm certain we all share in having.

I'm as frustrated and dismayed by the suggestions that we divide our party between Democrats along ideological lines as I am with the suggestion that I 'go away' if I choose to strongly disagree with tactics, strategy, or politics that are popular in the debate and discussions here. I've been feeling like I was actively being considered by many here to be a candidate for that sentiment for some time before someone had the nerve to vocalize it. It would be amazing to me to find my defense of this Democratic President and party were no longer welcome here. I'd be floored.

What say you, DUers?

[originalpckelly]

1. I say I'm too illiterate for me to read this.

Good effort, however.

PEACE!

[patricia92243]

20. Me too :) n/t

[Warpy]

2. Maher said it best

when he said a disappointing friend was far better than a deadly enemy.

Obama has been a disappointing friend some of the time. He's going to get criticized for that. If he has anybody watching this site, he's going to hear about it and that's probably a good thing.

However, no sane person would suggest abandoning a disappointing friend in favor of a deadly enemy, and that's really where this site is at.

[patricia92243]

18. Excellent post! Certainly helped me clarify my thinking. n/t

[tularetom]

3. Can you give us the Cliff Notes version of your post?

I think there might be some thoughts in there that I agree with, but they are hard to dig out.

[sketchy]

4. I think you should keep on keepin' on

We need people who really care, and you obviously do.

[End Of The Road]

5. Best thread of the day.

There is no longer much debate in GD. It has become much like cable news in that people tune in to see the outrage du jour.

[davsand]

6. We are diminished when any voice is silenced here at DU.

While I understand the desire to protect from disrupters, I also worry that too often valid discussion points are lost to the lack of civility that is inherent to the online world.

"Moral purity" tests--especially in political subjects--are a huge signal (to me anyway) that minds are starting to shut down. On that path lies a huge danger, and it is one that the Dem party (and the Progressive movement, by extension) has GOT to avoid if we want to stay viable over the next few years.

YMMV, but I figure the guy I need to listen to most is the one asking questions I'm kinda uncomfortable with.



Laura

[readmoreoften]

26. I hardly think that Obama supporters are "silenced" here.

They don't often make their case very well. But that's their own fault and no one else's.

[davsand]

31. Given your pro-union avatar, I have to ask this!

Is your user name somehow linked to the Mother Jones quote, "Sit down and read. Educate yourself for the coming conflicts."

If so, check my user page you'll see that same quote!


:hi:


Laura

[readmoreoften]

85. Actually...

it originated as a reminder for me to get the hell off the internet and get back to reading books. I figured if I saw it after every post, I'd shut down the browser and crack my books.

Hasn't worked as well as I hoped! (Makes me sound like I'm scolding other people... oh well.)

[laughingliberal]

41. ""Moral purity" tests...are a huge signal ... that minds a that minds are starting to shut down."

I would argue I feel the same way about "loyalty oaths."

[readmoreoften]

86. +1

[readmoreoften]

87. It's not a "moral purity" test. It's a POLITICAL COHERENCY test.

Did you oppose military black sites under Bush? You should probably oppose them under Obama.
Did you oppose the privatization of education under Bush? You should probably oppose them under Obama.
Did you oppose cuts in social security under Bush? You should probably oppose them under Obama.

Etc.

It has not a thing to do with "moral" purity. It has to do with intelligible political positions.

[political_Dem]

7. K and R. I read it. Please maintain your ideals and fight for what is right.

Please don't be discouraged. Always have courage and strength when fighting for your convictions. Don't give up.

[leftstreet]

8. Whoever told you to go away obviously has no authority

or is it 'whomever?'

I wouldn't worry about things DUers say.

You're still here. Enjoy yourself!

It's a great forum all in all

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[DJ13]

10. Every time I see a Democrat rail against 'ideological purity'

It points out (to me) the reason the GOP is so much more successful now than our party.

The GOP welcomes ideological purity, they demand it from nearly all of their politicians and base, while our side hates it and believes in compromise to (hopefully, if were nice) end up getting half what we hope for.

We'll never achieve the few goals our party agrees on if we continue surrendering to the GOP's purity of message, and there are a lot of frustrated Democrats here who believe Obama is leading the charge of compromising our goals to the GOP which leads to many heated discussions here.

[readmoreoften]

24. +1

I am "ideologically pure" when it comes to not capitulating to the right's ideas.

[bluestate10]

71. You are partially right, but mostly dead wrong.

President Obama must buck and show some spine of tax cuts. We can't afford any tax cuts. But if cuts do happen, set the upper figure at $0.5 million and tax anyone above that level at the pre-Bush rate.

But if you think democrats should morph into lemmings and remove any outlying voices, you miss the point of what being a democrat means. The modern democratic party is and should be a big tent party. Recent election setbacks were about the economy. If republicans do not make an honest and sustained effort to help President Obama right the economy, voters that sat out the midterms will return with a vengeance in 2012. I heard a stunning statistic tonight. 80% of midterm voters were white. The figure says that many blacks and hispanics sat the election out, republicans should not expect a repeat of that showing in 2012. The big tent will return. Tolerating opposing viewpoints and discussing policy differences will make us stronger as a party.

[SidDithers]

11. K&R...nt

Sid

[Fumesucker]

12. You and I disagree far more often than we agree..

But I have no desire to see you go away, you have as much right to post here as anyone else (bar the admins of course).

I suspect most of our disagreements are more about strategy/tactics than ultimate ends but strategy/tactics discussions seem to take up far more bandwidth here at DU than do discussions about ends.

[bemildred]

13. You sure talk a lot for somebody that's been silenced.

I am not a fan of incivility among posters here, and to that extent I'll go along with you, but internet political discussion boards are not places for the sensitive either.

This place is very "noisy", and you will be driven nuts if you take it all too seriously.

:hi:

[Obamanaut]

In response to 'what say you' I say this is simply an internet forum.

Some like what they read, others do not. Some agree, others do not. Some are offended, or offend - others do not.

It's simply an internet forum.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. I say our party is doing next to nothing for us.

And sternly lecturing us that if we don't keep on voting for their pathetic bullshit, we will get Sarah Palin, and then sliding the bar further to the right at every opportunity and repeating the process, with even less then the 'next to nothing'.

The path we are on is going nowhere.

[readmoreoften]

25. I agree with you.

[BzaDem]

49. Why do you assume that there exists an alternate path that would get you any further?

You seem to be against "stern lecturing" about the consequences a non-Democratic vote. But since such stern lectures are actually true, aren't they unambiguously a good thing?

Posts attacking "fear-mongering" as a general concept are silly. It seems that fear-mongering is obviously bad if it is FALSE (such as fear mongering about weapons of mass destruction). But if the facts surrounding the "fear-mongering" are true, spreading the truth far and wide could only be a good thing. The more, the better.

You keep assuming that because THIS path isn't "getting you anywhere," that doing something else will actually "get you anywhere." But why do you assume that? Isn't it logically possible (and in fact somewhat obvious) that doing the opposite of what gets you nowhere doesn't necessary get you any further? I mean, if not-bashing-your-computer doesn't fix your computer, it's not like doing the opposite and bashing your computer is going to fix your computer. It will just make your computer more broken.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. So the only choice is to continue as we are?

Seriously? What a pile of tortured logic.

"I mean, if not-bashing-your-computer doesn't fix your computer, it's not like doing the opposite and bashing your computer is going to fix your computer."

rather a classic false dichotomy.

The choice I think works is to do what the Tea Party is doing on the right to the Republican Party on the left to the Democratic Party. It is not an easy choice to realize, but it is the only path I see as having any possibility of success.

Certainly more of the same gets us exactly nowhere, which appears to be acceptable to you.

[BzaDem]

72. The Tea Party prevented Republicans from taking the Senate and blocking all his judicial nominees.

Not only that, but their actions will mean that even if 2012 turns out badly and we lose the Presidency, they won't be able to get 60 Senate seats to repeal HCR. If the Tea Party stayed out, they probably would have a (narrow) path to 60 seats in the worse case scenario for Democrats. Now, that path is completely non-existent.

You assume (like the Tea Party assumes) that their actions (or your proposed actions) would actually get the policies you want. But that is false, as the Tea Party's actions have shown. Your proposal does not get you what you want. Your proposal gets you the opposite of what you want.

You call my logic tortured. But you provide absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion. You just assume it is tortured logic out of faith that there is some way to get what you want. Your logic is

a) X doesn't get you what you want.
b) There must be some way to get what you want.
c) Given a) and b), the opposite of X can get you what you want.

The problem with that logic is that you provide absolutely no evidence that b) is true, or that c) is true even if b) is true. You just assume both out of faith.

In reality, there might not be any way to get what you want. (You provide no evidence that there is -- you just assume it). And even if there is a way to get what you want, the opposite of X might not be that way. Doing the opposite of X might make things even worse (as is clearly the case here).

In reality, b) might or might not be true. You certainly shouldn't assume it is true -- that is the biggest logical flaw in the arguments you (and others are making).

[Warren Stupidity]

76. The Republican Party won a huge victory fueled by their right.

An energized base brought their people to the polls and captured the discontent in the middle. The GOP will now move even further right. I'd say from the hard right's perspective, this was a roaring success and their prospects for moving the other half of the duopoly even further right and winning the white house in 2012 are looking pretty good, especially if the economy still sucks.

Yes I see how this was a losing strategy. My mistake.

[BzaDem]

78. If a "huge victory" can't actually enact the policies they want, how is that a "huge victory?"

As I pointed out, if the Tea Party fielded electable candidates in the Senate, they would have taken the Senate.

Given that they didn't, they won't get 60 votes in the Senate EVEN IF they take the Whitehouse and keep the House.

So what's the point of having a symbolic victory if you can't actually use it to enact policies they want? It is amazing to me how anyone could see what the Tea Party did as good for conservative policy now or in the future. The only way Republicans will actually ever have a full governing majority is if the Tea Party dies out (or becomes irrelevant).

[Warren Stupidity]

81. pretty short memory.

The republican party had no problem enacting their programs without 60 votes in the senate under Bush. Our party is as ineffective in opposition as it is clueless in power. You keep holding on to that 'victory' of yours, that they didn't capture the senate, that they can't rule without 60 votes there. We will see how that works out.

[BzaDem]

83. SS privatization? Nope, that failed. Immigration? Failed. ANWR drilling? Also failed.

All of them required 60 votes, and all of them died.

[bluestate10]

74. You idea of left wing disruption has been tried.

The result was electoral disaster for democrats. Like it or not, the democratic party on average is a centrist party and should stay that way. Republicans are headed for disruption driven by tea party people. What is happening and happened during the months leading up to the midterms is that democratic leaders were either outsmarted or did not have the guts to force bloody votes by republicans on vital issues like jobless benefits, and funding for the Small Business Administration. Democrats paid for coming in January 2009 and seeing that jobs and the economy were the most pressing issues, yet allowed themselves to get side tracked into tough votes on Cap and Trade and Health Care Reform. Republicans having the House and more power in the Senate gets the target shifted to their heads, they can no longer sit back and yell, they must come up with policy proposals and have those proposals face intense scrutiny that none of their pre-election secret plans faced.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. "left wing disruption" -

I see. So for example, successfully pushing left candidates in primaries and getting left delegates into conventions is in your view a "disruption". Of what?

[PassingFair]

93. That "alternate path" BROUGHT us Obama.

Letting shit fall to ruin is the only way
to bring "change". It's the only way to
get everyone to get out and vote.

We are better off letting disaster happen
and calling in the calvary than we are dying
a slow starvation death inside the fort.

Obama only got in because Bush sucked so bad,
and people BELIEVED that Obama was an ALTERNATIVE
to the CORPORATE DEMS.

Turns out to have been a Hobson's choice.

Maybe next time, we'll get a REAL Progressive.

Dean was, unfortunately, ahead of his time...
like most honest people are.

[L0oniX]

92. The repukes are getting more lip service than we are.

[mmonk]

15. I certainly support your being here and your right to post your opinion.

What I don't like is elected Democrats telling loyal voters and organizers that our ideas will not get a hearing and that we are a problem.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[leftstreet]

17. I thought "Obama haters" was considered a pejorative term here

:shrug:

No one here "hates" Obama

[readmoreoften]

23. But it is a nice smear, isn't it?

How can you deny them their right to use a nice smear?

[HuckleB]

19. REC!

[Jamastiene]

21. You almost had it, but you just HAD to put that

"ideological purity and allegiance to narrowed povs" insult in there.

You obviously haven't learned anything from your experience yesterday, have you?

[readmoreoften]

22. I share all your ideals and I thank you for your well-written piece.

I think the major difference between us is that I do not see any evidence that the current Democratic Party represents those goals, platforms, or ideals anymore. I don't think that this started with Obama, of course; however, I do think he is a bitter disappointment to many because they believed he would revitalize this platform and he hasn't or can't or both.

I suppose one's emotional disposition on this depends on how much "benefit of the doubt" you give him Obama. But in the long run, I don't see that Obama as a person is the issue at all. He's probably a nice guy. He may care about the American people. Or he may be a politician who only poses to care and is in actuality concerned about his own personal gain. In the end, none of that matter to me.

The issue is that in the last two years, we have not reversed the Bush Doctrine. Obama has continued operating Gitmo and he has expanded Bagram Air Field, which is a black site engaging in torture as we speak. He extended the Patriot Act. Obama's Attorney General's ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project has eroded our civil rights far beyond anything Bush ever did. Counseling organizations labeled "terrorist" on the Geneva Conventions and teaching them how to fight for their claims through peaceful, legitimate channels is now considered an act of terrorism. Even speaking to a "terrorist" or person in a group considered terrorist is now considered giving material support to terrorists. So lawyers and journalists are completely cut off from investigative journalism, on one hand, and representing clients on the other. How are we, who fought against Bush and the Republicans, supposed to accept an extension and hardening of their policies from the pen of a Democrat?

The Charter School promotion and subsequent erosion of public education is unacceptable. The squashing of LGBT gains. The Shirley Sherrod incident.

I could go on and on. This is the kind of stuff (particularly the domestic surveillance and destruction of public education) that Democrats have been staunchly opposed to for years. People just aren't going to accept this change to their party's platform. And why should they?

[CakeGrrl]

27. k/r

The "If you don't think like I do, you must be (an idiot/delusional/homophobe/DLCer)" crap is tired. Calls to go away should be answered by increasing your posts.

:)

[GoCubsGo]

28. I saw that yesteday, and I couldn't believe what I was reading.

FWIW, it bothered me, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I almost invariably disagree with your "moderate" stance but I don't want you to go away.

"Disagreements are what make horse races." Mark Twain

[NNN0LHI]

30. This DUer thinks taking what someone says on an anonymous website too seriously is a huge mistake

[laughingliberal]

32. I say it's all about the policies & if you're still hanging on to enough to survive...

you're unlikely to understand the anger and frustration felt by those who are watching a party they supported all their lives sell them out to a right wing that would just as soon see us dead.

Every little 'compromise' to the right gets us further from any hope that help will arrive in time for us.

The issue is not whether I see the President as the opposition. It is whether I can support the policies he's enacting (or not enacting). I, too, am a lifelong Democrat who has voted in every election from the time I was able and who has always, every time, voted for Democrats. I find myself shell shocked to watch elected Democrats support policies I spent my life fighting against and abandoning policies I spent my life fighting for.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Donnachaidh]

67. stalk much?

:wow:

[closeupready]

33. Maybe you take all this a bit too seriously.

DU is just a place to hang out and talk, really, amongst like-minded people, don't you think?

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Strategic success at what cost?

I understand what you say, bigtree. I have always voted Democratic. But the dialogue slips further and further to the right. When we have a Democratic president and a Democratic majority Senate, and yet we are compelled to defend Social Security against the politicians now, we will find no place to rest. We have no hope to win the battle to preserve what our party has accomplished toward a just society, let alone make new inroads toward that end.

If we sit down and shut up because we have a Democrat in the White House, we will lose the ideological battle. You are one of my most favorite OPiners here on DU, and I would miss you if you chose to stop, but I won't ever agree that the way to a better society is to support bad policy just because we have politicians from our party in power.

If we support our party as it abandons our ideology, we gain nothing, and our voices will be silenced. I have a huge personal affection for our President, but we truly need a strong defender at this point in our history, not an agile compromiser.

[BlueCheese]

35. Please don't go away.

I don't know who said that, but you don't have to listen to that person, nor should you assume that person was speaking for more than himself or herself.

[Scurrilous]

36. K & R

DU is a special place right now.

Hopefully everything will shake out in time for 2012.

[LWolf]

37. I say the Democratic Party earns our votes or we build another that will.

Since that's the purpose of a political party, from my pov: not to represent a "team" that I support, but to be a coalition of people who work, who stand and fight for, social and economic justice. People who ACTIVELY oppose fascism and oligarchy in whatever form they appear in.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. indeed - and that is what the internal fight here on DU is about.

The opportunity presented by the emergence of a successful hard-right faction in the Republican Party for progressives is that it can be used as an organizing tool to rebuild a functional progressive-left faction within the Democratic Party.

Our leadership, which seeks only to control the purse strings in Washington, views every move to the right by the Republicans as a directive to move the Democratic Party right in order to 'capture' a mythical center.

[LWolf]

50. Yes. nt

[BzaDem]

52. If you can't win a majority of the Democratic primary electorate to support your views, why do you

think it is actually possible to build a third party?

It seems to me the obvious way to move the Democratic party left is to nominate the most progressive candidate that can win (in general). Nominating a candidate that can't win (or creating a third party and splitting the vote) doesn't seem to help push progressive views. Rather, it creates essentially a one-party system (Republicans), where anyone with a progressive view is in the permanent minority.

I have yet to understand how enabling right-wing Republican control over the country could possibly be considered progressive or help enact progressive viewpoints in any way.

[LWolf]

69. I have yet to understand how enabling right-wing control over the party

by voting for neoliberal Democrats could possibly be considered progressive or help enact progressive viewpoints in any way. Except those of the "Progressive Policy Institute," of course.

And, of course, that enabling begins in primaries when the "electable" mantra pressures Democrats to vote for the worst on the ticket.

[BzaDem]

73. There's a simple answer to that.

I don't buy your premise that we are enabling right-wing control over our party.

But for the sake of argument, I will assume your premise as true.

Given your premise, you might ask, how could it be progressive to enable "right-wing control" over our party?

That's actually really simple. If the only two choices are an electable Democrat and an electable Republican, then the electable Democrat will basically always be more progressive than the electable Republican. It doesn't matter how far right the electable Democrat is -- if they are the only electable Democrat in a given district, they will almost certainly be less right-wing than a Republican.

So in the end, voting for the left-most electable Democrats makes our policy much better than enabling electable Republicans.

[readmoreoften]

89. This is simply not true. The "most electable Democrat" is not necessarily further more progressive

than the Republican. It depends on the issue. And it depends on the Democrat. Some of Obama's policies are to the right of Reagan. Even Reagan didn't touch social security. Even Reagan didn't privatize education.

Moreover, there are more than a few Democrats these days who were Republicans only a few seasons ago and who didn't change their political views. It's not about who is more progressive (Reagan is more "progressive" than Hitler) its about standing firm on real issues and having real positions.

[LWolf]

90. And that's the argument that loses the votes.

If there were a concerted effort, in the primaries, to nominate the best candidate on issues, who would work the hardest for the best policies on issues, then you'd see fewer Democrats voting 3rd party in general elections. Instead their primary efforts are met with belittling and bullying over who is "electable," which is divisive and hope-killing. And "electable" is partly propaganda; a campaign mantra. If it were left out of the equation, and people voted for who they thought would do the best job, the party would be vastly improved. Anyone can be elected, if they get the votes, and most primary candidates are "electable" in that they've already been elected to other offices.

[readmoreoften]

88. You know damn well that the party apparatus doesn't allow dissent.

Especially from constituents who don't have hedge fund money.

Voting for social security cuts, privatization of education, the creation of military black sites, the further erosion of civil liberties under Holder--that is doing nothing but enabling right-wing control of the country under the Democratic brand. I have yet to understand how framing Reagan era policies as "progressive" could possibly considered anything other than a complete dismantling of the very concept of democracy and civil society.

[riderinthestorm]

39. I haven't been on for a few days so I missed any brouhaha

but if you are a Dem, your "voice" belongs here.

I've taken positions that are outside the DU "orthodoxy" and it can get really brutal. But I believe that this is a discussion board and hopefully we are Dems who actually place some value on our "big tent".

[Dash87]

40. No need to worry.

I think you're analyzing trollish responses more than you should. I get trolled all of the time on YouTube, and I just laugh at their dumb, uninformed responses.

Don't take it as an attack on your character or anything. There's much more important things to worry about. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. .

[sally cat]

44. Missed it, but I'm glad you didn't leave.

[cry baby]

45. glad you have a tough skin and are still here...i agree with you totally. nt

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Ellipsis]

47. You did?... Regale me ...with a link if you would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Link to bigtree's other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9541728

[Ellipsis]

55. I found it... but, thank you. Always have loved your name by the by.

[dionysus]

48. my, aren't you a peach.

:eyes:

[boston bean]

59. from the lips of king peach.

:eyes:

[Ellipsis]

51. For me content is king... and IMO you have always been one of the most valuable contributors

I wouldn't let anyone bust your chops... even other members you may or may not respect that also provide good info.

[BzaDem]

54. Those who dislike Obama are vocal, but they are a small minority of Democrats and liberals.

Around 80% of self-identified liberals (including liberal Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) support Obama. When limited to liberal Democrats, that percentage jumps to the high 80s. Democratic approval of Obama exceeds every Democratic president since JFK (and exceeds Truman as well).

So while people who consistently criticize everything Obama does certainly appear on many message boards, that doesn't mean they make up anything more than a small minority.

[ProudDad]

57. You are making the common DU logic error of

mistaking criticism for Obama's policies and his ingrained corporatist nature...

As "disliking" him...

Most of us who see the Truth don't dislike him.

He's very charming and, as Joe Biden said, he's "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy"...

A superficially immense improvement over the hayseed model we just had...

But whose policies are as supportive of the corporate capitalist status-quo as the previous model was...

We're just trying to get those with their heads in the sand to recognize that the Democrats are the other right-wing of the Corporate War Party that if allowed to continue on their present course will literally kill us all.

No biggie... :shrug:

[BzaDem]

61. Actually, my numbers are for Obama's APPROVAL rating, not his favorability rating.

And on top of that, similar percentages approve of each of the three main policies (Stimulus, HCR, and FinReg).

[Radical Activist]

56. It's not easy to be a Democrat at Democratic Underground anymore.

Wearing people down is a tactic. Many people have successfully been worn down and left the site.

Most of my posts at DU are correcting false and unfair attacks against Obama. The response is constant personal attacks against me including suggestions that I'm DLC, despite the strongly left position I take on most issues. I was even accused of being DLC on a thread where I was arguing for a move toward socialism! Just because there are people who believe Obama is the enemy and anyone who doesn't hate him must be the DLC enemy too.

It's not healthy. I'd like a forum where rational criticism of Obama can be discussed among Democrats who aren't in an active campaign to undermine everything he does. I've been spending time elsewhere because DU doesn't appear to be that place anymore.

[ProudDad]

60. It's even harder to alert the ostriches...

that this shit is serious...

The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century which are the consequences of a world oil production peak, coinciding with the forces of climate change, resurgent diseases, water scarcity, global economic instability and warfare to cause chaos for future generations.

All supported, aided and abetted by the DLC democrats...and Obama's Cabinet Appointees...

[Radical Activist]

63. Wow.

You're right about there being a problem. Obama has already used his executive power to do more on reducing oil consumption and global warming emissions than Clinton and Carter did in 12 years combined.

The problem right now is the Senate blocking a serious climate change bill. Yes, DLC Democrats like Bill Clinton, who didn't deal with it, are a major problem. I don't see the point of putting blame on President Obama, who just got us better fuel economy and made the stimulus bill spending focus on energy efficiency, high speed rail, electric cars, and renewables. Obama needs our support to pressure Congress to do more.

[ProudDad]

66. I don't "blame" Obama...

He's just the latest corporate spokesmodel.

I never expected anything more than unintended consequences from the landslide of 2010...

But we didn't even get close to that...

I'd say Carter did more than Obama because I think he was beginning to "get" some of the dimensions of the climate/environmental problems. He actually mentioned that there was a big problem and got clobbered by the Dem Congress and the corporate media for it...

A bunch of college kids had to shame the Obama Admin. into saying they'd reinstall the historic Carter solar water heaters on the W.H. roof...(If they ever get there and until Romney takes them down again)...

A few MPG on the CAFE?

When just building more and more and more cars is destroying the planet?

Not enough...there's no awareness of the depth of the problem exhibited there; they're all just preserving the status-quo...

What else has he done for the planet? The EPA COULD do something, but hasn't yet...

Obama does NOT GET IT! Almost no one in the Congress GETS IT! Hell, most of the USAmerican Sheeple don't GET IT!

I'm hoping that they do before it's too late but the examples of human history say they won't...

Humans in the aggregate are just too stupid...

[OregonBlue]

62. Me too. Whatever you do, don't say anything nice about a Dem unless you plan on being attacked.

Sad really.

[deacon]

84. Same here and agree. n/t

[Tatiana]

58. This is an honest post and it deserves an honest response.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights. I appreciated them even when they advocated for Hillary Clinton (IIRC), while I vigorously supported Obama in the primaries. I also appreciate your loyalty the party. So let me get to the points where we disagree:

1) I believe that we can best support the President by supporting Democratic ideals and positions.

2) At this point it should be clear that the President is not executing some high-minded uber-stealth Democratic strategy. A major problem with the President is that he clearly wants to be part-legislator/part-executive. He is no longer a legislator. His job is to set a clear vision with clear priorities and goals. It is the job of Pelosi/Reid to deliver the votes for the legislation. When the President fails to set a clear mission, we end up with legislation that isn't up to par. The President left the health care debate up to Baucus, Nelson and then Reid and Pelosi. The whole process was aimless and lacked coherence. If the President truly wanted a public option, he should have made clear to Reid that he needed to deliver a bill with the public option. The clarity was absent.

3) Reality says that the most partisan Democratic critics of the President are the ones that are the most reliable straight or near-straight ticket votes for the Democratic party. The White House knows this. That's why Gibbs and the President himself felt comfortable chastising the "professional left." They knew there would be no political price to pay because when push comes to shove, these people always get out and vote (even if they have to hold their noses while doing so). Don't blame the President's critics for the 2010 midterms. Blame the fickle "middle" or "independent" voters who either stayed home because they didn't have a reason to vote or who pulled the lever for the Republicans because they didn't get the hope or change they voted for in 2008.

4) Our President has exhibited a tone-deafness to what many of his supporters are going through. People face being thrown out of their homes due to shady practices by the banks and mortgage industry. Coupled with unemployment or under-employment, the consequences have been devastating. These people have been looking to the President for leadership on these issues and his administration's response has not been adequate to the crisis many of our citizens are experiencing. Moreover, there appears to be a lack of empathy to the true turmoil facing many Americans at this time. Mortgage moratorium? Mortgage cramdown? Something that would force banks to help a significant number of constituents.

These are just a few of the areas in which we disagree, I think.

[Curmudgeoness]

65. You really have to stop taking criticism so seriously. It is that...

or you will be afraid of posting anything. We are a diverse group as I have seen too many times. But do we really want to be in lockstep like teabaggers? Take all comments with a grain of salt. We do not have to agree on everything, but there is a benefit in voicing unpopular opinions---the people who are afraid to say what you say can at least know that they are not alone.

[cornermouse]

70. I say you've completely misread people's posts.

I also say that loyalty is a two way street, not a one way street. Loyalty that only goes one way is little more than fealty and is unhealthy.

[malaise]

75. You just keep on doing what you're doing

I won't always agree with you but I often agree with you.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. A few things...

I just read that thread and I see no comment remaining that asks you to leave. I personally alert on anyone who suggests that anyone should leave, I figure that is the admin's authority alone. Had I seen that comment toward you, I would have done the same. That is a personal pet peeve o' mine.
I see some of your posts and OPs as really aggressive and call out-ish. It is not the content, but the style that in my opinion brings you lots of the same in return. Just a thought. It is aggressive at the core of it to claim to be 'defending' the Party against other members of the Party. You claim to speak for it, without authority to do so, much like someone wrongly asked you to leave without authority to do so. It is rude and way outside your standing to claim to be 'defending' this Party against an attack by other Democrats who are not to your liking.
Support for a President comes by giving him Congressional back up. Advocacy for the President should always reflect the standards and style of that President, if you ask me. Advocating for a man like President Obama with divisive labeling of parts of his own Party, when he himself reaches out even to the other Party, falls far short of what the President deserves. I personally advocate for issues, and expect politicians to cover their own campaigning. But if one takes on the mantel of the President's champion, I say that person or those people ought to carry themselves in a way that represents him well, not consider their self declared position as his 'defender' be license to act out verbally toward individuals or groups they have issues with. Just my opinion of course.

[scarletwoman]

80. Stay or go. Just don't depend on an internet forum for personal validation.

Two of the most useful teachings I was ever given are these:

"Cease cherishing your opinions."

"Stop taking yourself so seriously."

I've been on DU since 2001. I've found that taking breaks now and then to be a marvelous tonic.

sw

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Got somethin' for ya...

I drive past this sign every day on my way to work... Hell I don't think anyone will ever name a street after ME.

You be A-OK in my book.

[bigtree]

91. what a pleasure

. . . to open this thread and find such a kind post.

much appreciated, cherokeeprogressive. Best regards.