I'm In - And I'm Stayin' In

[NanceGreggs]

The significance of this piece lies in the fact that I want to write it. Whether it is read or not is of no consequence. It is the posting of it that is of significance to me, and for my own reasons.

I am a Democrat – and I stand by, with, and for this party at all times. I do so not only because I believe in its ideals, and find common cause with fellow party members, but because I have seen the alternative.

“I’m tired of always having to choose between the lesser of two evils when I vote.” Yeah, me too. But when it comes down to two choices – as it invariably does every four years – I’ll stick with the lesser (probably way lesser) of those two evils every time. Because I have seen the alternative.

“Sorry, but I can’t vote for someone I don’t believe in, even if he is a Democrat. It’s a matter of principle.” Well, "principles” are great. But if those principles lead you to refuse to participate, ignore the consequences to your country and fellow citizens, fail to vote for that lesser evil as a means to keep the greater evil out of power – well, quite frankly, your principles suck.

This time around, I supported Barack Obama’s candidacy because I believed in his intelligence, his compassion, and his determination. I got lucky – I got to support a man whose agenda, for the most part, meshed with mine. But the truth is, I would have supported him if he was only a fraction of what I perceived him to be, solely because he was the Democratic nominee. Because I have seen the alternative.

I knew going in that this man would, at times, disappoint me, anger me, fail me, not live up to my expectations – while at other times he would inspire me, invigorate me, encourage me to expand my expectations of myself as a citizen.

But I was willing – more than willing – to be outraged, overjoyed, frustrated, elated, infuriated and uplifted by a man who was capable of doing all of those things, and then some, who had a (D) after his name – because I’ve seen the alternative.

“So, my party right or wrong – right?” Yes, right. Because I have seen the alternative. I have seen what eight years – just a small moment in time in the great scheme of things – have done to a nation; eight years of the alternative. Don't want to go there again, but thanks for asking.

When you’ve lived as long as I have, you understand that change doesn’t happen overnight. You understand that it doesn’t come about on its own; it often requires your personal assistance. You understand that it’s not just the guy living at the fancy DC address who has obligations – you’ve got a few of your own.

“I’m not allowed to dissent, to speak up when I am dissatisfied?” Dissent is not only allowed – it is encouraged. But when dissent or disagreement causes you to threaten to walk away from the process rather than stand and fight for improvement, increased cohesiveness, taking a position of solidarity against the other side – well, maybe you haven’t taken a long, hard look at the alternative.

“It’s not fair to bring up the McCain-Palin ticket as an argument to my ‘I don’t like Obama and what he’s doing’ complaints.” In fact, it is. Because they were the alternative – and their ilk will be the alternative in future. These pairings of the ridiculous and the not-so-sublime are not some hypothetical, what-if-all-reason-fled examples of what the other side is offering – and will continue to offer. They are as real as the nose – the one so many of you are willing to cut off out of spite – on your face.

I come not to bury the Democratic party, but to praise it. Not because I believe all of its representatives are without fault – but because I believe that its representatives who are at fault can be eliminated, one by one, by US. Not because I agree with a Democratic president all the time, but because I know I will be in agreement with him more than I will ever be in agreement with the alternative.

If the eight years of BushCo did nothing else, it did accomplish this: the lines have been drawn, and it’s us or them. I’ve chosen my priority, picked a side. I’m with us, and I’m staying in.

And I’m staying in for a million reasons – some of monumental importance, others of trivial meaning, many of passing fancy and/or little/great consequence when all is said and done.

But mostly because I’ve seen the alternative. And the thought of such people being in power scares the shit out of me.

That's the truth. And in light of that truth, whatever your personal truth may be and whatever personal conduct it invokes, is forever devoid of persuasion.

I'm in - and I'm stayin' in.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That's it, in a very well put nutshell.

I'm stayin' in too, my dear Nance...

K&R

[NYC_SKP]

288. Well, if You're in, and if Nance is in...

I guess I'll go ahead and get off the fence about this. :sarcasm:

Happy Holiday Season, Peg!

:hug:

[firedupdem]

2. Rec'd! I'm stayin' in! n/t

[cliffordu]

3. Nicely put, Nance, K&R

[Pushed To The Left]

4. K&R! Part of progressive activism is keeping the Palins, Bushes and Liebermans out of power

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. even if you are not entirely happy with who they are running against. nt

[rateyes]

228. Keeping them out of power??? WTF??

Lieberman is the most goddammed powerful Senator there is, because Obama and Reid have ceded that power to him.


What the hell is progressive about that??

[alphafemale]

5. I'm with you.

This is no time for idealism in the voting booth. This is a stormy, sad period that we are living through, but we must survive it.

[FiveGoodMen]

131. I guess when Hitler started funnelling the Jews into camps that was a sad time

and no time for idealism, either huh?

(Fuck Godwin and his followers!)

[stevenleser]

191. I think what Nance is talking about is more the election of 1933 then what came after

Like when members of the left refused to come together to defeat the Nazis.

[FiveGoodMen]

203. I was just responding to alpha's pejorative use of 'idealism'

which seems to be a slightly modified version of the Pony gambit.

[alphafemale]

272. And BAM! THe Nazi reference.

It's amazing how easy it is for some to go right to THERE.

[FiveGoodMen]

283. And I repeat: Fuck Godwin and his followers!

[mkultra]

291. people like you allowed hitler to rise

people who recognized his evil chose to bicker over minutia instead of standing together against him and his party.

[MilesColtrane]

6. NanceGreggs ain't running things,...

but she should be.

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

7. Absolutely right

[Oldtimeralso]

8. I'm with you and got your back Nance! n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

9. As always, astute, concise, hard-hitting and reality-based.

I'm in with you, Nance. In the political power struggle of the U.S. government, there's no retreat, no surrender because to do so with inevitably give us more of the Bush kind, and we can't afford it anymore.

Thank you for this wonderfully written piece.

[UrbScotty]

10. Staying in - THAT is the key to supporting More and Better Democrats!!

[MindandSoul]

11. Excellent! Now. . .what do we do to get the President to "stay in" also?

[SeattleGirl]

14. A suggestion: write him, call him, email him.

Keep at it. I know it's frustrating, but do it. As my sig line says, "Silence is consent." Let us not be silent, but let us also not continue to form our circular firing squad. It does us no good; it only makes us weaker.

[rpannier]

49. And if they aren't paying attention/don't care

They rely on the theory that we have to support them

They are quick to invite people who oppose their policies from the other side of the aisle to the White House and are damned slow to do the same for those on this side of the aisle

[DWilliamsamh]

118. So then give up...pessimism will not help. We only need those who can HELP.(n/t)

[rpannier]

161. Bite me!

[DWilliamsamh]

162. Mature.

All I was saying is if you are too discouraged to follow through with the fight, and can do nothing but bitch and moan, go ahead and quit. We who are willing to stand and fight will be better off without your negativity. Don't worry, we'll keep fighting without you, with the bonus of not having to listen to you carp.

[rpannier]

257. Actually you said a lot in your short lkittle post

Basically you said f*ck you.

You, unlike the constructive person who also responded, offered nothing more than the typical self-righteous bumper sticker crap.

At least the 2nd poster had the integrity to provide something of substance, ie try and take them out in the primaries

[DWilliamsamh]

261. Yeah... I am blunt...

But what do you think "keep on fighting? means? I will tell you what I think it means....it means supporting primary opponents, as well as keeping up calling pressure to the Senate House and Congress. It means phone banking. It means talking to your neighbors about the realities of progressive positions vs. the right wing scary talking points.

Sorry I didn't go into details - but to be honest with you the person I was responding to didn't seem to be posting a "how can I keep fighting" response. It was a "fuck it, the democrats suck, stop wasting your time," post and I am sick to death of reading them and reacted out of that fatigue.

But I still stand by what I said, if they have nothing positive to say and can only bitch complain and say in effect "fuck the democrats, they are just as bad as the other side," then I do say "fuck you," to those folks. It's hard enough changing the minds of the politicians and citizens who DON'T actually agree with our positions. I don't have time to change the minds of people who supposedly agree with us on the issues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

149. That's what primary challenges are for. nt

[DWilliamsamh]

163. Here, here. (n/t)

[JohnnyLib2]

12. 50 years in, not about to leave.

Rec.

[SeattleGirl]

13. Oh, hells yeah, Nance!

I understand the frustration many here have expressed, but I DON'T understand those who just want to bitch and moan, our own version of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, without DOING something. Without standing with the Dems. Kicking their behinds if they need it. Praising them when they deserve it.

I have seen the alternative too, and it scares the shit out of ME.

Thanks for your great post!

[Undercurrent]

15. I'm sticken' with the Democratic party.

Life long Democrat, and I'm sure not leaving now.

Rock solid.

[LooseWilly]

16. I'm bored, disenfranchised, and utterly demoralized and disconnected.

Your trite fear mongering is yawnworthy :smoke: But I know better ways to deaden my soul.

"I am a Democrat – and I stand by, with, and for this party at all times."

Obedience implies compliance with the direction or command given by the handler. For a dog to be considered obedient rather than simply trained in obedience, it must respond reliably each time the command is given, by what is commonly known as its handler. A dog can go through Obedience training and not be obedient. If a dog is referred to as being Obedience Trained it should comply immediately with every command its handler gives. In the strictest sense an Obedience trained dog is an obedient dog.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_training)

Coincidence is more than dumb luck. It is an expression of synchronicity.


"when it comes down to two choices – as it invariably does every four years – I’ll stick with the lesser (probably way lesser) of those two evils every time. Because I have seen the alternative." -Ohh... scary scary Republicans, with their wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and their wiretapping, and their Patriot act, and their torture sanctioned by legal experts like Yoo... scary.


"When you’ve lived as long as I have, you understand that change doesn’t happen overnight. You understand that it doesn’t come about on its own; it often requires your personal assistance. You understand that it’s not just the guy living at the fancy DC address who has obligations – you’ve got a few of your own." -- Ohh... the irony. I just want to savor it. Like the aroma of a burning bag of dogshit (am I the only one with fond memories thereof?).

Change, indeed, doesn't happen overnight. It isn't ushered in by pedestrian events like elections. It is won only after hard fights... as politicians are always loathe to give up the powers won by previous politicians, even if those previous politicians are of an opposition party...

Obviously, the most effective means of ushering in change is by pledging and living up to pledges of, absolute loyalty, fealty, and obedience to the new power ushered in, in a change of the identity of "the guy living at the fancy DC address"... Change that can be believed in.



"And I’m staying in for a million reasons – some of monumental importance, others of trivial meaning, many of passing fancy and/or little/great consequence when all is said and done."

"But mostly because I’ve seen the alternative. And the thought of such people being in power scares the shit out of me."

Loyalty out of piss-oneself fear... fear of nothing particularly well defined... as opposed to virtues likewise not particularly well defined...

I am unimpressed.

[NanceGreggs]

19. Well, then, let's strike a deal ...

You continue to be unimpressed, and I'll continue to be supportive of those capable of making an impression by sticking together.

"Whatever your personal truth may be, and whatever personal conduct it invokes, is forever devoid of persuasion."

[POAS]

24. Unimpressive reply

and not worthy of any more thoughtful response.

[LooseWilly]

151. I wither in the face of your scorn.

;(

[BlancheSplanchnik]

71. I love your surly eloquence, but

without any productive alternative, clearly enunciated, it comes down to contrarian snark, and nothing more.

[LooseWilly]

159. Clear enunciation in the face of neo-poetry would be in poor taste, don't you think?

But, now that we're a couple of steps away, I'll see about clarifying an allusion that seemed semi-clear when I wrote it... though perhaps not so much so as several ounces of rum might've induced me to believe.

:)

So...

"When you’ve lived as long as I have, you understand that change doesn’t happen overnight. You understand that it doesn’t come about on its own; it often requires your personal assistance. You understand that it’s not just the guy living at the fancy DC address who has obligations – you’ve got a few of your own." -- Ohh... the irony. I just want to savor it. Like the aroma of a burning bag of dogshit (am I the only one with fond memories thereof?).

Reading her line of justification of obedience to the party, I felt nearly assaulted by the irony... because from where I sit... The call to stay within the confines of the Democratic Party, even when one feels betrayed by the party, is an expression of the lack of patience for the required hard work of building an alternative party. It is an expression of a belief that change will come about, not "on its own" but rather "by means of the leaders" of the party, which one is being implicitly urged to continue to follow. The call above was not for "personal action", it was for "personal assistance"... and the urging goes on to exhort "it’s not just the guy living at the fancy DC address who has obligations – you’ve got a few of your own ..."- not a call to do what's right, fight for better policy... but rather we are being reminded of our "obligations".

Obligated assistance... obedience... or just stepping away and trying to use, manipulate, buy/bribe, and threaten (as befits the occasion) officials, and choices of future officials... not according to the obligations of assisting Democratic Leaders, but according to policies that representatives are willing to support and fight for if need be.

I owe the Party no obligations, rather the reverse, they owe me. The sooner that people wake up to that fact, and begin holding their representatives to that obligation that they owe to those that they represent, the sooner politicians are liable to become responsive to their constituencies...

Of course, snark is a fine way to pass the time...

[NanceGreggs]

184. It's unfortunate you can't tell the difference ...

... between loyalty to a party's ideals and goals and blind obedience, the latter of which I certainly didn't advocate.

Try browsing through this site sometime. You'll see people working hard for change and progress - calling their reps and making their anger known, organizing protests, etc. They don't look like obedient little dogs to me. In fact, a lot of them strike me as vicious attack dogs - and I'm grateful for every last one of them.

As for what you have termed "fear-mongering", the BushCo administration was not an imaginary boogey-man, nor were its disastrous consequences.

As a nation, we lived through eight years of hell, and are still feeling the effects of that experience. We have seen the alternative - we know how it looks, how it works, and how destructive it can be.

And the GOP have plenty more where W came from.

We ignore such facts at our peril.

[LooseWilly]

202. It's unfortunate that you can't tell the difference between party ideals, and party leaders...

I have never advocated abandoning the party's stated ideals or goals. I have advocated abandoning the party insofar as they themselves abandon their stated ideals and goals. If you reflexively conflate the two, you are bound to misunderstand me.

Obedience to ideals is often known as "idealism". It is thrown around as a bad word by many here... connotive of and generally conflated with notions of immaturity, stupidity, ignorance, and selfishness. Yet here you are, asserting that "loyalty to a party's ideals and goals" is suddenly a good thing, and a basis for staying in the party... and meanwhile trying to contrast it with "blind obedience".

On the other hand, my quotation began with the words "Obedience implies compliance with the direction or command given by the handler." A political party has its leaders, and the party follows their "lead" (directions). To say that you will stay with the party, "right or wrong", is to assert that you will follow the lead of the party's leaders "right or wrong". Or, to quote you specifically:

“So, my party right or wrong – right?” Yes, right. Because I have seen the alternative. I have seen what eight years – just a small moment in time in the great scheme of things – have done to a nation; eight years of the alternative. Don't want to go there again, but thanks for asking.

So, you are explicitly calling for/ proclaiming your allegiance to the party "right or wrong".

Now let's examine "right or wrong". What is "right" and what is "wrong"? Presumeably, as the point of the party is encapsulated in its stated "ideals and goals"... "right" would be all aspects of the party and its behavior that is in accordance with said "ideals and goals", while "wrong" would be all aspects and behavior that is not in accordance (or even in direct contrast to) its stated "ideals and goals".

To proclaim "my party right or wrong" is in fact a proclamation of negation of "loyalty to a party's ideals and goals", but to rather assert in its place "loyalty to the directives of the party's leaders". In so doing, you are not only demonstrating, but indeed proclaiming and implicitly calling others to join you in demonstrating, obedience.

"Obedience implies compliance with the direction or command given by the handler."

You have turned the leaders of the Democratic Party into the "handlers" of the rank and file members of the party... and are proclaiming the virtues of obedience to the handlers "right or wrong".

Further, you go on to justify your proclamation as follows:

Because I have seen the alternative. I have seen what eight years – just a small moment in time in the great scheme of things – have done to a nation; eight years of the alternative. Don't want to go there again, but thanks for asking.

"I have seen the alternative... Don't want to go there again..." the diction and tone of fear. Dread. Ennui. Reminiscent of the tone I might use for describing being jumped by frat boys, knocked down, and kicked in the head a couple of times. PTSD tones and diction. Implications of something so awful that even trying to remember it, let alone relate it to others, is too painful to contemplate. ("Don't want to go there again")

Using that fear to push for obedience is fear mongering.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering)
"Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle."

Whether or not your OP "exaggerated" the fear of another GWB-esque administration is certainly debatable. That you are using the fear of another administration similarly traumatizing I think I have clearly demonstrated. That there is a "specific end" toward which you are using this fear, namely "obedience" to "party, right or wrong", I think I have also clearly demonstrated.

:)

I hope this post clears up for you the difference between what you say you are calling for "loyalty to a party's ideals and goals", and what your post was actually calling for "obedience to Democratic Party handlers".

And, as to your comments about "people working hard for change and progress - calling their reps and making their anger known, organizing protests, etc."... well you'll be reassured to know that I called a Senator and my Congresswoman today, to ask them to kill the shitty healthcare bill if it has mandates but no public option. Just doing my part in the name of "loyalty to the party's ideals and goals". If the party decides to be "wrong" though, and stray from their stated "ideals and goals"... well, I don't owe them obedience or loyalty, they owe it to me and their own stated "ideals and goals".

[NanceGreggs]

216. Thanks for your comments ...

... on what you are insisting I said, rather than what I actually did say. :hi:

[LooseWilly]

225. Your welcome :) By the way, any chance of getting your definition of "say"?

Because I responded to the digital representations of words that were transmitted to my doo-hickey here in a format suggesting that they were the words that you typed at some point.

I'm accustomed to treating those representations of words as being "what <one> ... said".

Are you using a different definition of "say"?

Or, are you perhaps having a hard time reconciling "what <you> ... said" with what you "meant" (or perhaps "meant to say")?

I could certainly take a guess about what you "meant to say". I could likewise take a guess about what you "meant", as well as what you might have "meant to mean", what you "thought the words you used meant", or even what you "ought to have said in order to have said what you meant to mean". I could also engage in any of a number of other activities that involve "putting words into your mouth", or indeed which involve "taking words out of your mouth".

I have the distinct impression, however, that you would be averse to my taking such liberties. In the meantime, however, what I did do is comment on what you actually said. I even quoted your words (as I here defined the term "your words") in my process of commenting on "what <you> actually did say".

Were my quotes inaccurate? Would you care to point out when, where, and how any of my analyses are problematic?


Absent any of the above... all I can say is:

[patrice]

249. So you can't imagine those obligations, which NG spoke of, as anything other than obediance?

Assistance can be provided in oh so many very creative ways, take it from someone whose CEO is known for having practically campaigned for McPalin in our work place, take it from someone who taught Bible-belt teenagers for 5 years.

Your assumptions about obligations and assistance are very top down. Sometimes the best assistance you can provide others is to be completely honest about who/what you are.

[LooseWilly]

256. I do here admit that you have completely confused me.

I feel like you're using "obligations" in two contexts at once... and expecting me to answer... but not sure with respect to which of the two contexts.

(Heh, I'm kind of a fan of the sense of confusion... so thanks. That was kind of fun. :) )

As I read NG's OP, the obligations are not "charitable obligations to give back to the community". They are "obligations within the structure of the party, and in pursuit of working toward party goals". Except that, as I think I've fairly clearly laid out... I get the feeling that "party goals" in the context of her OP doesn't mean "ideals and goals of the party" as expressed in a party platform, but rather "current goals of party leaders"... whether or not they coincide with the "platform" for which I, as a voter, signed up.

I would also disagree about my assumptions of "obligations", which I think are very bottom up. And I really don't think that anyone here wants me to be any more honest about who/what I am than I have been thus far.

If anyone would like to order an advance copy of my biography, however... which I'll arbitrarily price at $15... $5 for an e-book pdf... well, if I get 10 takers, then I'll write it. (PM me, and if I get 10, I'll set up a paypal payment method... then write another book. Check my profile if you think I'm bluffing.)

[patrice]

258. Never having been a great supporter of "author's intent", I read OP in re

obligation as "First to thine own self be true, then it shall follow as night doth day that thou canst not be false to others." That is Shakespeare isn't it? Can't remember which play, but I extrapolate it into something like: when authentic individuals coalesce into a group, the group benefits from their authenticity. Though the individual's primary responsibility is to his/her own authenticity, there is nothing wrong with his/her valuing the group. There is a dynamic that benefits both.

One thing that goals of whatever type/level would have in common, thus making them goals, would be that they are "thing" toward which various behaviors are purposefully directed, though that's a little misleading because behaviors can be direct or in-direct and still serve purpose, which brings us to the current question. Is it possible that a behavior, such as Obama's HCR related behaviors, can indirectly serve a particular type of reform goal and, thus, deserve our support, while appearing contrary to that goal? I believe so, but that belief is an inference, not a logical necessity. Only time will tell the purpose of Obama's behaviors and even then we may never know the real valence of Obama's behaviors if real HCR succeeds or fails for reasons un-related to Obama's behaviors.

Like everything else, you do the best you can with the resources, individual and/or group, at hand and let the outcome(s) reveal themselves. Rinse and repeat. It's called life.

[LooseWilly]

271. "Author's intent" has nothing to do with what I was saying.

"In literary theory and aesthetics, authorial intentionality is a concept referring to an author's intent as it is encoded in his or her work. Definition-the reason a play or drama is written. ex. to persuade or inform"

I was analyzing the words that were written, their denotative meanings & connotative meanings, as well as the interactions between them. Contextual analysis technically, though the only "cultural archaelogy" that I concern myself with is the connotative associations of the words, as a poet or advertiser would examine them (or a propagandist). I never made any conclusions about "the reason a <post> is written". I am frankly unconcerned about the reason behind the writing, or the intended message/meaning. I was, rather, examining the actual/de facto message/meaning contained in the words themselves.


And shoehorning Shakespearean valuations into the word "obligation" whenever you come across it seems to me to be projection of meaning that you as reader happen to like into the words that a writer has put on the "page". (I suspect it might well have been in Hamlet, by the way... possibly in one of the exchanges with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.) The extrapolation you make is... swell, but I don't see how it is relevant to the words that were actually in the post.

As I read it, and as I explained, "obligation" seemed to mean "obligation", and rather than "to thine own self be true", it rather seemed to be "to the Democratic Party be true". Juxtaposing this with the call "my party right or wrong", as I have said before, suggests the obligation to party is not to the ideals or platform or policy goals of the party, but rather obligation to the leaders of the party, whatever actions they choose to take (right or wrong).

When you ask "Is it possible that a behavior, such as Obama's HCR related behaviors, can indirectly serve a particular type of reform goal and, thus, deserve our support, while appearing contrary to that goal?"... I think you get to the point of considering the absurd.

Is it possible?, yes.

It is also possible that Obama is a space alien and he's in league with semi-human collaborators who have been placed at the highest ranks of the for profit health industry (notice the dead fish look in the eyes in board photos distributed in the shareholder information pamphlets??)... and the real goal is to derail a public option because then the parasites that the space aliens are using us as "farmland" to raise might be detected by any medical personnel not "vetted" by the space alien COOs of the medical insurance corporations.

It's also possible that the Republicans really are worried that the Democrats do mean to use the public option to deny medical treatment to Registered Republicans. And it is also possible that they are right to be worried.

And it's also possible that Sarah Palin seems incompetent and dumb, but had McCain won, and then promptly dropped dead... Palin would've "grown into" the job, and would've become the best President the US has ever had.

And it's also possible that I will win the lottery this week, without even bothering to buy a ticket. (I'll just find a ticket on the ground that happens to be worth 22 million dollars.)

I doubt all of the above spun scenarios, including the one that suggests that Obama's actions this far "serve a reform goal", or that they "deserve support".

:+

[patrice]

245. Precisely. And not one of these contrarians will tell you what they are willing to

"throw under the bus" to get whatever (????) it is that they think should happen. And surely they don't expect us to believe that whatever they think should happen is going to do so without a cost of some sort, but they don't tell you which of our various issue groups they are willing to make the sacrificial lamb to "change".

Personally, I think they just want destruction as some kind of great experiment out of which something "new" will rise, no matter the cost in actual pain and suffering to others.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

263. I don't even think they go that far....

I suspect that they're just admiring their own way with words, and getting off on the thrill of the kill (crush your opponent with words).

I don't think their motivation to trash goes any farther or deeper than that! ("Dig me! I'm baad.")

[patrice]

277. That would be even worse than what I imagine - no rationale, no deal

[jamesatemple]

77. Well written and astute, Loose Willy, but as full of tripe as the inside of a cow.

I agree that any fear mongering is yawn-worthy. Yet, you've failed to convince me that Nance's OP falls into that category. Perhaps you do know better ways to "deaden my soul" but I would opine that you might be better advised to refrain or slow down in your practice of those ways.

I'm personally offended that you have the audacity to compare steadfast Democrats to dogs. And, that offense is not ameliorated by your suggestion that the dogs with which you compare us are well trained and obedient.

Certainly, Democrats are outraged by a plethora of actions of the Republicans during their recent tenure (...their wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and their wiretapping, and their Patriot act, and their torture sanctioned by legal experts like Yoo...). I feel that most reasonable folks would share that outrage. What I don't understand is why you feel that it is incumbent upon you to describe the outrage as fear. The emotion that many of us feel about the travesty of those actions you have delineated is hardly fear; it is more likely to be revulsion.

I don't see the irony of stating that change is hardly ever immediate and calls for personal actions of supporters of that change. Further, I can't fathom why you would desire "...to savor the aroma of a burning bag of dogshit".

The loyalty that many of us have toward the Democratic Party is motivated by hope and reason. It is certainly not motivated by "...piss-oneself fear... fear of nothing particularly well defined... as opposed to virtues likewise not particularly well defined...", as you have so described it.

Whether you have been impressed by the OP or not doesn't matter to me. I am impressed (though I disagree) with your ability to construct an unfounded, unsupported, factually-deprived critique of another's heartfelt opinion.

[LooseWilly]

164. Mmmm... tripe.

:)
(I'm going to take the liberty of assuming you mean tripe like the tasty stuff I got in a bar in Mexico City one dieciseis de septiembre, a little treat for the Independence Day drinkers... rather than that clumsily made stuff from the Zapotec villages.)

Not fear mongering? My party, right or wrong, lest the (R)s will get us... not fear mongering? Cold hard pragmatic analysis? That the (R)s are that much worse than the (D)s, assumed on faith? -Just thinking about inhabiting that perspective reminds me of the taste of that greasy Zapotec tripe. (To be fair, they were cooking it in cast iron pots over wood fires... so it might've been dumb luck that the batch I had was so awful.)

Compare Democrats with Dogs- never. Compare party allegiance with doggie obedience, well... yeah. If you are uncomfortable with the connotations, let's pretend I compared party allegiances to military discipline. Following orders is following orders is following orders. ;)

Ohh, and all that bad stuff that you concur in outrage over, are still going on, essentially on the same timetable as that which was passed on from the (R) administration... although the (D) is officially no longer engaging in torture (I reserve judgement regarding the possibilities of what is going on at Bagram, as well as potentially continued renditions to warm and fuzzy countries like Kazakhstan)... they are nevertheless going to every effort to curb any attempts to hold Yoo or his cohorts accountable.

By all means, continue to reason and hope and remain loyal. If the Democratic Party is more for you than merely the Lesser Evil... then I am frankly a little jealous. Enjoy being represented. ;)

(Ohh, and why would you expect factual support in a critique of an opinion? Especially an opinion couched in neo-poetry? Does one generally critique the likes of WB Yeats with citation of the three laws of thermodynamics? Not that I mean to compare Nance with Yeats... }( )

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. Do you disagree with this:

The worst Democratic administration is better than the best Republican administration.

[LooseWilly]

160. Yes. I disagree with that (in theory).

Name some specific administrations and I'll be happy to make personal judgments.

(Of course, you may want to provide some parameters for your use of the word "better", as the underlying assumption that what I mean when I use that word and what you mean is liable to be proven false under even the most cursory examination.)
:+

[RaleighNCDUer]

266. Let's just take it back to the beginning of modern politics, with FDRs

Democratic coalition.

FDR - Very good.
Truman - Pretty good, except for the fucked up A-bomb and Korean War thing.
Eisenhower - Probably the best Republican administration in the last 80 years - gave us Joe McCarthy, the Cold War, the rise of RW extremism with John Birch Society, Minutemen, et al, and of course VP Nixon, but was relatively moderate, good economy, and he did warn about the MIC.
Kennedy - kind of an either/or, started out rough but he was learning quickly
Johnson - Great Society vs Vietnam, kind of a wash
Nixon - yeah
Ford - Nixon redux, minus the war - don't think we can really count a placeholder.
Carter - probably the poorest Dem presidency, but one with firm moral foundation, making human rights a part of national policy and a part of the national debate. Biggest problem was Brzezinski and the ill-conceived response to the Soviets in Afghanistan - started at the very time that Islamic radicals in Iran were crippling his administration.
Reagan -
Bush -
Clinton -

Were ANY of the Repub administrations better than even Carter or Clinton (though arguably, Clinton's was a Republican administration)?

[TankLV]

218. Why so all you idiots assume we'll vote for a fucking REPUKE then?!!!

Why do you always play that fucking phoney card ALL THE TIME!!!

LET'S MAKE OURSELVES COMPLETELY CLEAR: WE WILL NEVER VOTE REPUKE OR FOR A REPUKE. EVER!!!

So all you idiots - yes you're IDIOTS for continuing to spew this shit - can just SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THAT PHONEY STRAW MAN!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

264. If you abandon the process, or if you give your vote to a third party

that can't possibly win, then you are just stepping aside for Republican bloc. You don't have to vote for them to enable them.

Simple math. Ten votes. 4 Republican, 4 Democrat, 2 independent. The independents could swing either way. 1 Dem, in a fit of pique, votes for the independent candidate, while the independents are split between the Republican an Democratic candidates, for a total of 5 Repub, 4 Dem, 1 Indep.

Who wins?

[salguine]

215. You speak for me LooseWilly.

[mkultra]

292. if you dont think repuclicans are dangerous, just ask the 10 million without jobs

if you don't see it, then that's why you sound so stupid to the rest of us.

[girl gone mad]

17. I've seen the alternative..

and the alternative is us.

[lamp_shade]

18. Present.

[DesertFlower]

20. you're absolutely right. we have

seen the alternative. don't want to see it again.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Not now ...

... not ever again.

[whatchamacallit]

91. Problem is, we're still seeing it

The us or them dichotomy is getting weaker all the time. I'm only in if it's truly working. Be true to what you believe.

[Mojorabbit]

153. Exactly

and I think there is nothing more dangerous than pledging to remain loyal while corporations buy our representatives. If this keeps up neither side will be worthy of support. I will support financially and otherwise those reps that fight for the principles the party is supposed to stand for. The rest can go pound.

[patrice]

250. Right, don't get suckered by a 3rd party drive to power. Purge this one of DINOs.

[Goldstein1984]

197. Dichotomy

It isn't just a choice between the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

Both parties are bought and paid for. Corporations own them.

It's become a choice between a government that protects the interests of the people, or one that protects the interests of corporations.

Switching back and forth between Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses isn't going to create change.

[IsItJustMe]

229. The same wars, with a Democratic face on them now. I don't see the change, or even an honest attemp

at change. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

[Prism]

21. Even children know this is an awful way of seeing the world

Loyalty out of fear, the hallmark of every henchman and second rate villain in children's stories. It's a trait and mindset so empty, so damaging to our moral sense, that the subject is usually approached from places of deep pity. We empathize with those characters, because their moral weaknesses could be our own should we ever choose to shirk the hard choices and fail to remain true to ourselves.

They are the cowards, the subservient, the led rather than the leaders.

This is not an admirable political trait to be encouraged.

After eight years, I'm tired of seeing fear as the guiding principle in how we approach the world.

And I don't even need to be very old to know that an existence defined in this way is a very diminished one indeed.

You fear and cry out to shadows, if you must. The rest of us will get on with the work.

[NanceGreggs]

26. In case you haven't noticed ...

... there is a distinct difference between fear invoked against WMDs that never existed and fear of a party who rely on such fairy tales to persuade a nation to do their bidding.

But by all means, you and yours "get on with the work". And don't let those shadows of reality stand in your way.

[Prism]

32. A simplistic understanding

Much like hate, the reasons we eschew fear isn't only because of their practical political or human effects, but because indulging in them is as corrosive to ourselves as it is to those we employ them against. People don't understand that about things like fear and hate - they never think that far. Fear, like hate, is not more justifiably employable because our cause is more just. We use it at our own moral peril.

"Sarah Palin, ooga booga!" is a politically irresponsible response to the collapse of health care reform - reform in which, I must once again iterate, others have far more skin in the game than you.

It is because of your obedience and loyalty to fear-based politics that we consistently receive far less from our government officials than we deserve. Politicians know they can escape without much political damage when the electorate can be reliably brought in line with a few well-chosen bromides that will touch their fear buttons.

Rather than appeal to the best nature in people, fear-based exhortations appeal to their worst.

You may be comfortable in appealing to the worst parts of human nature. For the greater good, I'm sure.

But your attitude is how an unjust status quo is perpetuated. You serve as an apologist for injustice by proclaiming you have no expectations, that there is nothing you will not tolerate before doling out obedience and loyalty to the powerful.

I can think of few things that are more illiberal than that kind of impulse. Apologias for power are not what we need right now, not after Bush, not with our nation in such dire straits. To happily serve them up with simplistic notions of fear and right-wing bogeymen is about as far away from responsible discourse as I can imagine at this point in time.

[CTLawGuy]

41. So how does not voting for Democrats produce better policy?

It is not disputable that in 95%+ of federal races, either a Democrat or a Republican will win. If you want to try to refute that, be my guest, but you can't. That's the simple truth.

It is also a truth that, esp. after the rise of movement conservatism, in any federal race, the Democrat will be more to the left than the Republican. How much more to the left, is a different story, however. Regardless, in the current environment, unless her name is Olympia Snowe, any Republican's vote in Congress is dictated by the far right noise machine and by fear of the Club for Growth and the teabaggers.

It is also true that the failure by someone on the left of the spectrum to vote for the Democrat is effectively a vote for the Republican, because a rational person left on the spectrum, given the above, would vote for the Democrat every time. The same is true for the righties vis a vis the Republicans.

So it's essentially your contention that it is not rational to always vote for the Democrat. Will it somehow make the Democrats better? Did a bunch of "progressives" voting for Nader in 2000 and throwing the election to Bush make the Democrats more liberal? No not really. And neither will not voting in 2010.

It sure wasn't good for the country policy wise. Let's say, because we're all pissed off, we stay home and the Rs sweep into power(i.e. the Repub obstruction strategy works to absolute perfection), do we suddenly get health care we want, or do we get 2 years of a party spending all its time trying to bring down the president? A Repub controlled congress will not give us health care, that's an undisputable fact. It is not rational from a policy perspective to not vote for the Democrat.

If you want to regulate the Democrats, the primary is the way to go. Primaries are where real democracy happens because you can vote for the person rather than the party. If you aren't happy with Obama in 2012, run a primary challenger. Its our right as Democrats to give the nomination for any office to whomever we want. We can both get the candidate we want AND prevent the Republicans from grabbing the reins of government.

[Prism]

79. My contention is that a "kick me" sign is counterproductive

Politicians, typically speaking, will generally do the bare minimum required of them. The less you expect of them, the less they will do. Here's the problem.

"I hate this war, but . . ."
"I loathe inequality, but . . ."
"I really want health care reformed, but . . ."

As long as that "but" is attached to your principles, who really cares what you think? I guarantee you the politicians do not. Every time you declare "I will vote for you as long as you are slightly better than the Republicans," a politician will see that and perform exactly to expectations. If you declare you will vote for them no matter what, they will dismiss everything you have to say from that point forward and trot off to entertain someone else who is nearer the fence.

And even if your position is true, even if you will vote for that politician saving only the devouring of a puppy on television, you don't tell the politician that. They lie to us out of habit. We can certainly do a bit of lying right back at them. If they don't think their seats could be imperiled by their lack of support for progressive policies, what motivation do they have to actually veer Left in any meaningful fashion?

This whole thread and OP are a complete embarrassment, as far as I'm concerned. On the day health insurance reform collapses into a total debacle, people decided that was the prime moment to start busting out the loyalty oaths?!

Are you fucking kidding me?

And these are the "realists", or as I like to refer to them, the utterly politically clueless who seem to regard politics as a kind of sport, because their constant refrain that we have to do the "realistic" thing has done little else but enable and support the slow slide of American government firmly into the center-right. And the center-right is not a fun place to be in our skewed political spectrum to begin with.

Support Democrats til your dying day? By all means. But keep that close to the vest. Make the politicians sweat. Make them think they have to work for it. Make them believe, if only for ten seconds, that there could be some sort of consequences to hosing the American people.

If only for ten seconds.

Because this "For verily I adore you until the end of time no matter how many murders you commit" is the absolute worst form of "support" I can possibly fathom. It really no wonder our party, our government, and our country are such a stinking mess.

[enigmatic]

105. great, great post

Should be it's own OP :thumbsup:

[Tailormyst]

113. This should be an original post.

[FiveGoodMen]

132. !

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[CTLawGuy]

166. you don't take into account

that any Democratic politician can be held accountable in a primary. I don't give a crap if Dennis Kucinich runs against Obama in the 2012 primary, whereas I would be pissed if he ran as a Green or independent in 2012.

[Prism]

171. I do take it into account

In fact, I'm currently trying to make primaries the focus of my activism over the next several months:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7233652

However, many incumbents don't particularly fear their primary opponents. A dramatic shift in the 2010 general is more palpable concern for many of them. Every pundit in politics is predicting a disaster for our party in November. Many of them are now wondering "Could I lose my seat in the coming maelstrom?" Right now, if we're not telling them "Yes, you too, unless you get it together," we're throwing away our political clout for nothing in return.

[CTLawGuy]

174. you are saying that we are telling them we will support them

no matter what they do. This is not true. If they are really bad we would run a primary challenger a la Lieberman in 2006.

[Prism]

176. But it is true.

It's what this entire thread is about.

[ImOnlySleeping]

179. specifically

"I am a Democrat – and I stand by, with, and for this party at all times."

[CTLawGuy]

181. this thread is about supporting the Democratic PARTY

not about supporting any particular democrat against a primary challenge.

[ImOnlySleeping]

187. but

but support them wholly up until the day of the challenge? It's nonsense. If you are going to oppose someone's actions then, why support them now. Because someone else is worse? Vote for the Democrat, that's fine, but pretending what's going on fits the ideals of your party is lunacy.

[CTLawGuy]

190. you can say whatever you want between elections

but staying home or voting third party is going to hurt you in the long run.

[LooseWilly]

205. Sometimes you gotta take a beating to get a message across.

I'm just saying...

[CTLawGuy]

206. just like in 2000?

NT

[LooseWilly]

221. Unfortunately, yes.

And yes, I voted for Nader in 2000. After Bush demonstrated the sheer fucktardery of the (R)s, it seemed to me that the (D)s began to recognize that they needed to embrace, rather than reject, the left. Kerry and Dean were both, in my opinion, far more "left" than Gore, and especially more so than Gore was when he was running a campaign trying to distance himself from Clinton and his penile adventures. (Which was ironic, because I never saw/heard so much support for Clinton as I did when he was being persecuted for a blowjob... nor felt so supportive myself either :9 )

Kerry was actually in line enough with my pragmatic compromise ideals that I actually registered again as a Democrat for the first time since 1988. When '08 came around, Obama spoke "bipartisan", but he also spoke "idealistic". He spoke of transcending the old divides from the '60s, but about pragmatic policies like Public Options and No Mandates. He spoke of being a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights and repealing DOMA. Etc. Again, it was within the reach of my pragmatic compromise ideals.

But now... with every step further rightward, he and every party member who follows him, get closer and closer to my personal "line"...

I have voted for Nader, and I will vote for another "Nader" if the party decides to behave as if the "left" can be taken for granted. I think taking the "left" for granted is what cost Hillary the primary... and I had hoped that Obama wouldn't make the same mistake.

I call it accountability for a politicians actions. The cognitive dissonance between the promises and tone of the campaign, and the actions in office.

Set your own "line"... but if you are too afraid to "walk", or "Nader" a candidate, no matter what they do... then ask yourself if you really deserve anything but whatever scraps of policy a politician decides no one else will pay/fight for...

And meanwhile... the further a politician wanders from their own campaign rhetoric... the more lines they will cross... and it can be a problem- at least, it can be if their constituents aren't too cowed with fear of the "other" party to do anything about it.

[patrice]

252. I see we aren't as far apart as i had thought, but I think there's a problem with what

you're talking about if people think it's just election year behavior, or just political behavior.

It really should be more of a way of life.

[CTLawGuy]

282. "nader" the candidate in the primary

don't punish our country with Republican rule because the Dems don't go as far left as you want.

So you "nadered" Gore, and did you get a more liberal party? Did the strategy work? Certainly not by 2002 when the Dems were happily following Bush into Iraq including Kerry, the nominee 2 years later, and Dem candidates for senate were showing ads saying how they worked/would work with Bush. Certainly not by 2004 when the party chose Mr. Kerry over staunch anti-war Howard Dean. Obama himself never ran as a flaming liberal, rather as someone who would work with the other side to pass legislation to improve our lives. I was attracted to him because I thought he would bring a fresh perspective and that, out of anyone, he could get something done in this country, because he wasn't so tarnished.

The costs of voting Nader were pretty tangible: war, deficits, torture etc. But what was the benefit?

[patrice]

242. Are you volunteering to experience the pain, LW, or will that be somebody else's function?

[Vattel]

235. well-said n/t

[ProgressOnTheMove]

269. I think Nance has come to a smart decision, as with the lottery we have to be in it to win it...

Sniping from the sidelines is just ineffective, run opponents in primaries when they go the wrong way, that is a good threat but jumping ship doesn't add up for me, personally. And hell yes, the Democratic party is likely to tick me off as much as the next person, but incrementally this will get better because there is simply no other way from here. I'm threading everything I have seen Pres. Obama do and say than is said to of said and based on what I see with my own eyes Pres. Obama is overall working on our side. Where he isn't those who still have the will, will guide him that way.

[patrice]

251. Ding, Ding, Ding!!!! THIS is the question. And the answer is "Not until one whole hell of a lot of

time and suffering, *****IF****** ever!"

Sorry LooseWilly et al, the odds aren't nearly good enough. I'm sticking with those I know and with whom I have a higher probability of achieving change.

[BigBearJohn]

55. Very well said, Prism. I concur.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. Children don't really understand how the world works

If the Republican Party put up people like Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller or Gerald Ford like they used to then yes there would be nothing to fear. But they don't put those people up anymore. They put up people who are either incompetent or crazy.

I am from New Orleans and yes I am afraid of having another President who is completely incapable of responding properly to a natural disaster.

[Hekate]

275. Having read this far, I don't think Loose Willy gets this AT ALL. After Bush, I have seen the Abyss

[johnaries]

294. Correction: ONLY children know.....

Try reading Sun-tzu, sometime.

[Itchinjim]

23. KNR

I'm stayin' in.

[Divine Discontent]

25. I stand by principle & policy over party, but I nonetheless appreciate how you support the party of

FDR & JFK!

We've had some of the best presidents, men of true compassion (Carter), and men of great bravery (Ike), but at our heart, we have men & women who believe that the Democratic Party stands for the people - and they should give you a medal for supporting them the way you did here! You make all of us with progressive hearts for justice very proud to be called Democrats!

When NanceGreggs supports you overall, you are very well supported indeed...

[RT_Fanatic]

103. Ike?

I like Ike, but wasn't he a Republican?

[Divine Discontent]

133. Yes,he was, and he was a good one. I wrote that very early in the morning and meant Truman for his

WWI bravery. But good catch.

Although, Ike would be a pretty damned good Democrat by today's standards. I think he was for civil rights.

We need a more progressive Democratic party, which starts with who we vote for, if given the choice of a real progressive.

[Hekate]

276. Yes; Ike sent the 101st Airborne Div. into Little Rock, Arkansas to escort black students to class

Later he federalized the Arkansas National Guardsmen, and 125 of them were sent to watch over the school.
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/school-integration/lilrock/eisen.html

:patriot: to President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R).

Hekate

[Pirate Smile]

27. Kick and Recommend.

:thumbsup:

[Kind of Blue]

28. In for a penny in for a pound.

The fight never ends and I'm not quitting now. KnR

[truthrocks]

29. I'm -right -there -with -ya'!

:thumbsup:
:hi:

[Hutzpa]

30. The alternatives has no alternatives

is the bottom line.

[DCBob]

31. Yes, the alternative sucks and gets worse by the day...

Thank God we do not have a Bush or a McCain or a Palin in the WH. That in itself is cause to rejoice.

[puebloknot]

33. Party loyalty, even if ...

... the Patriot Act continues under the Democrats? Even if foreign wars threaten to bring the country to its knees under the Democrats? Even if the Democrats continue to waffle on health care?

"I am a Democrat – and I stand by, with, and for this party at all times." At *all* times, regardless of whether the party has gone off the rails and fails to live up to its promises for change? Bad medicine is bad medicine, whether it comes from the left or the right. And politicians in both parties love to hear that they don't have to worry about a thing because no matter what course they pursue, they will be enabled and supported by those who stand with them *at all times*!

It is a disturbing and confusing time for anyone with enough sincerity and intelligence to give careful thought to the issues we face. For eight years, we could all depend on the absolute corruption of the Right as a target for our concern. Now, with the changing of the guard, we need to be even more watchful. The litmus test for Democrats is what they are doing, not merely what they are saying.

The Republican Party has gone through a sea change over the last decade. Many who belong to it (or did) say they no longer recognize it. There's an object lesson in that for progressives. We need to see bona fides, not empty claims, as prerequisite for political support. The Democratic Party is not immune to a hostile takeover. Some feel it has already happened.

It's a little lonely to be outside of whatever it is that has defined one's life, such as political party or religious affiliation. And generally it is only the strong who follow the call of their own drummer.

[rasputin1952]

35. Hmmm...I have to wonder if you even thought of what would...

have happened under McCain/Palin. I get the notion we would be heading toward a theocracy, or perhaps worse.

The point is, there were two viable choices, the better one is in the WH...if one does not see that, even thought here are some faults, then one is incredibly blind.

The alternative was sheer horror...the 3 years left in this term can produce quite a bit that is progressive...the first year under McCain/Palin...and we'd be lucky to be alive as a nation.

[olegramps]

74. Have you ever given thought to the possibility that their election could have actually brought about

change. It could have been so radical that resistance could have been a ground swell that exposed them to be little more than fascist nitwits. Perhaps it could have resulted in bipartisan reaction as people rushed to disassociate themselves from these raving McCarthyists. It could have put the final nail in the neo-con's coffin. Just speculating.

[rasputin1952]

87. I think that is happening right now...

sometimes it is best to sit back and watch the opposition implode...;)

[Hippo_Tron]

120. That's what people were saying four more years of Bush would do

And well it certainly did damage to the Republican party, no doubt. Being from New Orleans, of course, that's a small consolation for me.

[FiveGoodMen]

141. I think that's why Obama was allowed to win.

[puebloknot]

210. I have speculated along those lines, too. DISCLAIMER: I am not advocating ...

... passively letting that happen. But I have often wondered if it is going to take complete political collapse for things to change in a meaningful way.

[Hekate]

278. If 8 years of Bush didn't do it, what makes you think a Palin/McCain theocracy would?

For gods' sake, we had million-person marches on Washington DC during the Bush admin! We had massive protests at the WTO in Seattle! And what happened? Did the admin fall? Did the republic tremble? Did The People rise up?

No, the marches in Washington were IGNORED and the protests in Seattle and at the RNC were SUPPRESSED.

Finally, after almost a decade of the horror that was the Cheney presidency, we had the POLITICAL fight of our lives and we ELECTED a DEMOCRAT.

NOW we have to CONTINUE with POLITICAL organizing and community organizing and the long, hard work that entails. The drudgery. The real nitty gritty.

Hekate

[puebloknot]

167. Why would you assume ...

... that a discussion of what is going wrong with our party is an indicator of not having thought about what would have happened under McCain/Palin? The one does not suggest the other, and I frankly grow tired of the knee-jerk assumption on this board, by some, to any criticism of the Dems as an indicator of lack of insight and foresight .

There is *no one* posting on this board who has greater concern about the development of a theocracy in this country than I. I'll spare you the personal details, but I assure you that the thought of Sarah Palin anywhere near the seat of government put me in a state of shock. I have posted here many times about The Family, which Rachel Maddow has been covering over the last few months.

Election 2008 is over, and we dodged a bullet with regard to McCain/Palin. Now we are dealing with current reality. And I *fully* understand the ramifications of another shock wave of possibilities with the upcoming elections and all that we might lose. That is precisely why we *loyal* progressives need to speak up, rather than engaging in blind party loyalty.

Truly, there *are* none so blind as those who will not see. In less than one year, the Democrats have squandered many opportunities to turn things around and by so doing ensure success in the elections of 2010 and 2012. Their failure to act responsibly and in concert with their stated promises while campaigning is *the* prime factor that threatens us with the specter of a theocracy.

The chances are far greater that the next three years will produce quite a bit that is progressive if there is open discussion and holding the Dems accountable than public rallying 'round the flag and accusing people with intelligent concerns of not being loyal to the party. Blind party loyalty and tired cliches are the mark of small minds.

[salguine]

217. You know, the old "it would have been worse under McCain" meme really needs to be

taken out behind the barn and shot, too.

McCain didn't win. Obama did. And Obama is fucking up left and right, as far as I can see. After a point I begin to fail to see why it would have been so much worse under McCain. Sure we'd have another war or two on by now, but at least I probably wouldn't go to bed at night wondering if I might actually end up in prison for failing to pay my protection money to the Health Insurance cartels.

McCain didn't win. He is not the President. So the whole point is moot. I'm suck to death of being royally fucked over by Democrats time and again and being told it would be so much worse if I were being royally fucked over by Republicans.

[Kind of Blue]

54. I don't blame you for following the call

of your own drummer. And I definitely agree that the party has been taken over by a few conservadems weakening the majority. But perhaps our difference is that neither politics nor religious affiliation defines my life. I survived Reagan and I survived Bush. My ancestors survived the atrocities of slavery and colonialism and the ramifications from both continues in battles to this day. So I'm just of the mind that change does not come in one fell swoop and the strong working for change with the cards they're dealt do not quit.

I mean this sincerely because I think it's a deeply personal decision: if you find your strength again outside of the party, so be it.

[puebloknot]

170. We have all survived Reagan and Bush ...

... but mere, bare survival is not sufficient to the issues at hand.

I sense a deep personal history that we could probably both benefit from discussing, but for now, I am reminded of one Martin Luther King, who spoke out against the Vietnam War and social injustice.

I do not personally give over a lot of my own life energy to either politics or religion, either, but both are the elephant in the room right now, and both are enjoying an unprecedented incursion into all our private lives, without our consent./

Mine is only one of many voices addressing concerns about the direction of our party. I am basically an Independent, voting Democratic exclusively for the last ten years because I abhor what "Republicanism" has wrought in that time. There is a need on this board for people to stop slinging insults which suggest that openly talking about problems and concerns is the mark of someone who is demanding to have it their way, with temper tantrum assumed as part of that stance.

I appreciate the sincerity of *your* post, however!

[Kind of Blue]

182. Well, I guess it depends on life experience.

I've known lots of refugees and people from my birthplace who survived to live and fight another day. They are my inspiration and so is Dr. King. I don't underrate bare survival. I just have to include that JFK dropped the ball once in office, though he did campaign on a civil rights agenda and King's pressure as well as the violence forced JFK to act. I don't remember - not that I would, I was barely walking back then :) - King saying I'm leaving the party - he did switch from Republican to vote for Kennedy. So I'm saying just because one decides to stay loyal to the party does not mean laying low and giving up the fight.

I brought up Regan and the Bushes because for me, this incursion is nothing new, and I get tired and weary and angry as well, but the question is whether one is sticking with the party or not. Being an Independent doesn't necessarily appeal to me and have only voted for one republicrat in the past, I've decided to stick with it to help see that conservadems are ousted, because on balance I see more good than evil.

I just wanted you to know that I understand - without the slings and arrows - if you're too disgusted right now. I just hope that soon us Dems will reach a consensus but if not I don't fear (though I don't want it) a future of a splintering party. I think we've all lived the worst past that's incredibly complicated to clean up. So let's figure out together how and who can be dealt with efficiently now. My core beef is with Conservadems.

[puebloknot]

213. Thoughtful response, and your balanced view is much appreciated. nt

[whatchamacallit]

94. Excellent, this should be an OP (n/t)

[puebloknot]

172. Thank you. I'm working on an OP. Coming soon. nt

[truedelphi]

128. We wanted bread - they offered us mush & now they want us to settle for swill n/t

[puebloknot]

173. The big question is, Will we? Settle for swill, that is! nt

[FiveGoodMen]

175. Many on this thread have clearly and proudly stated that they will.

[puebloknot]

209. I know, and there begins to be just the slightest tinge of ....

... the flavor of the Nuremberg Rallies, via cyberspace.

Cliches and/or memes have power in propagandistic postings which appeal to group think and group comfort.

When I was 21, I left a Fundie church that I was forced to grow up with, and in doing so, I left the familiar (though unsatisfactory) for nothing -- for a spiritual/philosophical vaccuum. I could not say I was an atheist. I thought I *might* be an agnostic. But I had to step out into the unknown and make my way to the Authentic.

We are faced with that kind of scenario with regard to our politics in America in our time. It is not easy. And divisions occur when one person's choice is seen as a total refutation of another's. And envy sets in because the ones who step away to another reality leave the perceived bad taste in the mouth of those who stay behind of being diminished and demeaned by those who set forth on a journey of discovery. And there are claims that those leaving the tribe will endanger the tribe.

Somewhere, a demand for morality, ethics, and intelligence have to come into play. Otherwise, we will continue further down the path to complete tyranny.

The best choice would be reform within the Democratic Party. But as long as Democrats proudly proclaim that they will support whatever choice is made for them, there will be no real change.

[truedelphi]

230. Very eloquent and pls allow me to offer

A small :toast: your way.

[martymar64]

293. Interesting take on it, I always think about Plato's parable of the cave

Those who have seen the way things really are get disparaged by the ones that cling to their "reality" when they try to reveal the truth to others.

It almost sometimes seems a little like a Stockholm Syndrome reaction, identifying with your oppressor rather than addressing the issue that they are abusing and betraying your trust.

It saddens me that expectations regarding our elected officials are so degraded that people are willing to swallow and accept mediocrity rather than push for meaningful and popular change.

[skepticscott]

34. Those who are ready to ditch voting Democratic

because of their anger and disappointment over the health care bill and other issues should be considering not how far short the current administration and Congress have fallen short of their expectations, but how much worse off we'd be with John McCain and Sarah Palin (remember her?) in charge. Is it just that they hoped for so much more from Obama than they would have from a Republican administration? Apparently, for such people, getting screwed even worse is OK, as long as they expected it going in.

[babylonsister]

36. Rec'd, and I'm in! Thanks, Nance! nt.

[JTFrog]

37. KnR, I'm with you! n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

38. I am witchoo! Shoulder to shoulder. (N/T)

[TexasObserver]

39. Recommend. Because the alternative is unthinkable.

If I could get up every day and start my day by kicking Ralph Nader in the balls, I would.

[placton]

40. I too am a Democrat - BUT

I will not support Dems who sell me out

[jamesatemple]

70. That is understandable. But that position requires a good deal of clarification.

Is your position, for which you will "not support Dems", merely a personal stance or does it reflect the hopes and expectations of a majority of the folks who do support Dems? Even when those Dems disappoint?

Do you support Repugs "who sell (you) out"? Have you an alternative to the two parties who, you feel, that (by some divine miracle) performs to your exact demands?

Your post implies that you will not support the Democratic Party because of the actions of some Democratic representatives who, you feel, have somehow "sold you out". Nance's OP is concerned with support for the Democratic Party, not each representative that labels him/herself as a "Democrat". Further, she exhorts us to work to oust those within that Party who don't support or (worse) work against what the majority of liberals desire.

I think I understand your missive to mean that you will not support each and every Democratic representative but, hopefully, you still support the Party.

[RT_Fanatic]

99. Damn straight

I fully *expect* Republicans to sell out working Americans. I supported Obama big-time, but he has cozied up too closely with banks, insurance companies, LIEbermans, Republicans, and everyone else who puts self before country. Until there is a better party available, sigh, I will vote Dem. NEVER Republican.

[Imagevision]

42. Point well taken - just look at the alternative...

[democrank]

43. I respect you and your writing, NanceGreggs....

but I have a different point of view.

Dissent ISNT`T encouraged. Just go back and read the brazillion DU posts disproving your point. I don`t need to be reminded about the Republican alternative, since I`ve voted, donated and volunteered for the Democratic Party for more decades than most people on DU have been alive. I also don`t need to be reminded about the importance of compromise since that`s how I live, that`s what I taught my children. I don`t expect things to get better overnight nor do I expect I`ll always get my way. Now that I have all that covered,I`ll wrap it up.

Based on principle, I`m still against the same policies I was against during the hideous George Bush reign. I`m also against reappointing old Bush cronies to important positions, particularly to positions responsible for war/defense policy. Had I known that the "Change President" would rehire Gates and the rest, I NEVER would have voted for him. I also wouldn`t have voted for anyone who would fight for John Yoo or actually take guidance from General McChrystal. In addition, I`m not too fond of the selections for economic policy and don`t see much "change" there either.

What we`re seeing in Washington right now should make the average citizens ashamed. Pigs at the trough is putting it mildly. Why should my hard-working neighbor hitchhike to work because his new tire money is spent in taxes to help bail out Citi Bank? Why should my elderly friend have to pay $53.00 for a bottle of medicine that she could get in Canada for $16?

We should be D-O-N-E making excuses for these politicians and start demanding real change. If they continue doing the same old thing in the same old way with the same old people and aren`t held responsible, then we only have ourselves to blame. It`s the policies that "scare the shit out of me" not the (D) or (R) after each name.

[MissDeeds]

65. Excellent, thoughtful post Democrank

I agree completely. :thumbsup:

[whatchamacallit]

97. Word! (n/t)

[pleah]

156. Exactly! n/t

[ChiciB1]

234. Well Said democrank... Well Said! And It's A Real Shame We Have To

FEEL THIS WAY!! I kind of feel like I've been gut-punched one too many times!!

[freddie mertz]

44. I totally understand "staying in"... but "praise"?

I don't think praise is warranted right now.

Maybe in the long run, my view will change.

Right now, they look like the gang who couldn't shoot straight, at best.

[NanceGreggs]

123. We sometimes forget ...

... that the Party consists of all its members, and not just those we have elected to office.

I do praise the Party for its ideals, and the hard work of the many who fight to bring it closer to our common goals.

As for the can't shoot straight gang - either they improve their aim, or we replace them with sharp-shooters at the first opportunity.

[mrs_p]

45. i'm staying AND fighting

like any good dem

[OneGrassRoot]

46. K&R n/t

[Diamonique]

47. When I close my eyes...

... and think of a future with the Democrats in charge, and then think of a future with the Republicans in charge, there's no question.

I'm in. Always was and always will be.

[rpannier]

48. Agree in part

Disagree with you here:

“It’s not fair to bring up the McCain-Palin ticket as an argument to my ‘I don’t like Obama and what he’s doing’ complaints.” In fact, it is. Because they were the alternative – and their ilk will be the alternative in future. These pairings of the ridiculous and the not-so-sublime are not some hypothetical, what-if-all-reason-fled examples of what the other side is offering – and will continue to offer. They are as real as the nose – the one so many of you are willing to cut off out of spite – on your face.

That train has left the station.
He IS President of the US and to use the hypothetical is to basically say, "I have no coherent argument to disprove your point, so I'll use this hypothetical instead."

The only way your hypothetical is valid, is if the person says he wishes he hadn't voted for Obama in Nov 2008

[Maeve]

50. Thanks for the sweet reason, Nance

I barely read DU anymore--too much of it sounds like people who forgot the past eight years and live in the constant "now". I still write my Congresscritters (altho now sometimes to praise; Sherrod Brown's my Senator and I'm proud of him) and I follow the debate--but not too closely, just like I don't watch sausage making too closely. It's messy and some things that go into it aren't the most savory...but I can do without the doom-sayers and foot-tampers who want it all and want it now. Like you, I've seen the alternative and this is better. By far.
Happy holidays, Nance.

[Vinnie From Indy]

51. I'm with Howard Dean and the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

I would frame it as them leaving us. I am not giving up on being a Democrat, I am giving up those that choose to represent corporate interests over people.

Get mad, get frustrated and get active!

[QC]

52. +1

[saltpoint]

57. Vinnie, I'm guessing you don't care much for your junior Senator

presuming you are still in the Hoosier State.

What strategy can be offered for creating a climate in which Evan Bayh would not support George Bush on Iraq in such a public way, and a climate in which Evan Bayh would not withhold support for health care reform?

If you have the answer to that question you would become the most insightful person on this board. I would love to know the answer or find it myself but to date, after some decades in observing people like Bayh and Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and their predecessors, the answer remains unknown.

My suspicion is that you get people like Evan Bayh because there are corporations like Eli Lily and other recalcitrant pharmaceuticals whose chief interest in public policy -- their own greed and profit margins -- would be imminently jeopardized were meaningful reform to advance.

It does appear, sad to say, that Lily's lobbyists have a fatter rolodex than Senator Bayh, and so out here in the local districts and grassroots party we get Evan Bayh when we would greatly prefer getting Sheldon Whitehouse or John Kerry or Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold, etc.

Dean is a good man but apart from the media appearances on health care he does not have much clout with the Democratic Party, no longer serving as Chair and turned away by Democrats in the 2004 primary.

[madfloridian]

223. He has clout elsewhere than with the party leaders...think about that.

I am on his side on this debate.

We have given and given and given.

[saltpoint]

I don't dispute that he may at some point later have clout with

the others you reference but remember that his innovative, impressive, and energized campaign couldn't do any better than third in Iowa in 2004.

Again, he is without a base. It will be interesting to see what he does. He remains formidable, IMO, no matter what he does.

[madfloridian]

267. Yes, he is without a base, you are right. Rahm says there is no base...

so that means no one effing has a base.

So what does it matter then to have a base?

And what does it matter to have a party if they don't stand for anything.

[saltpoint]

281. Rahm is one opinion, albeit a high-profile opinion. The work of the

election is done by county chairfolk.

There is no critical mass among the men and women who chair county Democratic organizations. There was in 1968, and RFK and McCarthy rose on its tide.

There is no corresponding rationale now.

[BlueMTexpat]

59. The thing that you have to remember though is that Howard Dean,

while he may be in the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party, will never leave the Democratic Party for the same reasons that Nance articulates here.
Dean is deeply disappointed right now, as am I. But Dean also knows how to play the game. And he will. Never velieve that he won't.
The alternative isn't.

[Cha]

107. Zactly! Dean is a realist and I like

that about him.

What I don't get is if the bill is killed and they're to try again in a couple of years when Dean predicted Dem losses then how will the bill ever see the light of day again?

[David Zephyr]

130. +1

[mzmolly]

138. Keep in mind that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are TWO people, and only ONE is a Democrat.

Over 98% of Dems support PROGRESSIVE health care reform.

[FiveGoodMen]

142. 98%

Source, please.

Surely that doesn't apply to the Dem politicians...

I've seen no such poll...

Where does that number come from?

[mzmolly]

143. Simple math. The Senate has 59 Democrats and

all but Bill Nelson support the latest effort. Not to mention, the house passed a bill with a public option.

[FiveGoodMen]

145. No.

You said, "Over 98% of Dems support PROGRESSIVE health care reform" (emphasis yours)

There's nothing progressive about what they are proposing.

[mzmolly]

147. Ahhh, I didn't realize you got to define "progressive"

pardon me! ;)

I was going with my definition as well as Howard Dean's.

[FiveGoodMen]

152. Howard Dean is against the bill from what I hear.

[mzmolly]

155. The latest version, yes. However my point was that Dean supported the same bill/change that 98%

of elected Democrats do.

[patrice]

239. 1+!!!!

[saltpoint]

53. I'm staying in the blue castle, too.

It's well-built of deep-earth stone and the company's terrific.

Recommended.

[Vinca]

56. I'm still mulling it over.

I'm leaning toward reregistering as an Independent and supporting some Democrats. I'm sick and tired of being taken for granted.

[BigBearJohn]

58. Oh yes, it's MUCH easier to be a loyalist than actually go out and truly go out and FIGHT for better

Here, have another bone. That's a good dog.
At least you're alive and not in the pound.
Good dog. Now, go lay down.

[NanceGreggs]

117. Loyalty to the party ...

... means fighting to improve it from within. And there are people here who do so every day of their lives.

The passion to fight for betterment and loyalty to an ideal are not mutually exclusive - in fact, they produce the best results when they go hand in hand.

[SoFlaJet]

60. Great post Nance

I'm right there with you. I have also seen, first hand an election stolen and myself purged from the rolls back in 2000. At that point I vowed to never vote for a republican again. You see I was one of those "I'm voting for the best person for the job" guys but after that day in 2000 down here in Palm Beach County when I saw GOP operatives running the polling booths and not doing anything to help fix my 'situation' I said never again. All you people who say you're not voting for Obama or think that some pie-in-the-sky politician with all his fake outrage and higher standards (Kucinich) are some kind of solution, well go ahead and waste your votes and see what a Boehner or McConnell run congress will do for you, for US.

[watercolors]

61. KNR and wiyh you also!

nt

[BlueMTexpat]

62. You speak in your own inimitable style, Nance, and thank God for that.

Probably the single thing that struck me most was this: "If the eight years of BushCo did nothing else, it did accomplish this: the lines have been drawn, and it’s us or them. I’ve chosen my priority, picked a side. I’m with us, and I’m staying in."

**********
For eight LONG years after watching incredulously as a Presidential election was stolen, I cried, raged, sorrowed, wrote letters, was outraged by the deliberate failure of BushCo to listen to the valid security concerns of experts like Richard Clarke and the consequences of that behavior, was totally mortifed by our own savage behavior towards people that we do not understand and apparently have no intention of trying to understand (Obama does give me lots of hope there, as he does in many other ways even though yes, he disappoints as well), sent in financial contributions, and worked for Democratic candidates even though I was living abroad. I will literally die in the service of Dems, even though they will indeed disappoint me, before I do less than my utmost to prevent such from ever happening again. Ever.

[asdjrocky]

63. Nance, I love ya,

but I won't be abused by these bastards any longer. They can feel free to try to win me back, flowers, maybe a card.

I'd settle for them doing what we sent them there to do.

[saltpoint]

64. What if they sweetened the pot, Rocky? INstead of the flowers and a card

ONLY, what if they threw in free gas for a year, a blond live-in stripper from Reno named Trixie, and exclusive access to the Beatles MP3 on-line catalog?

Would that do it?

[asdjrocky]

67. Lol...

First of all, Trixie was my third wife and she stole the Beatles catalog from me.

(I'd ask how you know Trixie, but I'm pretty certain your band played Reno at least once.)

Trust me here Saltpoint, no one wants to clap their hands for Tinkerbell more than me.

[saltpoint]

69. LOL! You've got it together in a kind of post-Trixie grown-uphood.

But dammit, I'd lover to get my hands on ...

... that Beatles catalog.

[asdjrocky]

72. Dude, I've got every album the Beatles put out.

On wax, in the cellophane. Started buying them up with paper route money when I was 11 and I'd always buy two. One for keeping, one for playing. But the Beatles weren't my favorite at the time, don't get me started on the Temptations and the Supremes, and well, we all know about Ray. (I'm also a closet Johnny Rivers nut for some reason.)

[saltpoint]

199. Make no apologies on the Rivers fascination. Johnny was a night

ranger and he knew which end of a battery to put in a flashlight.

Temptations? Terrific. Supremes? Terrific.

Beatles albums times two -- priceless.

[Clio the Leo]

66. mmmmmmmwaaaa! I kiss you! NT

[StillHopingForChange]

68. I've always respected your opinion and motives.

But frankly, I've got to respond to this one.

The concept "Party over principle" has led to some terrible things in the history of this world.

I've lived through the oppositions regimes too and seen the results. But this isn't the Democratic party I believed in anymore. I don't identify with it' policies and I'm questioning it's motives. This is not a pleasant experience for me. I've seen everything I believed in, and that made me a Democrat, negated as 'you can't please everyone' or 'we can't all have our pony' or 'change takes time'.

I don't fault anyone else for being more resilient than I am. But I can't turn blindly away and wait patiently anymore. Waiting since LBJ for me, is too long.

[mullard12ax7]

106. +1

I'm tired of reading about how I'm supposed to stick with criminals who do nothing but rob me. That means I will never support any repuke or any dem that acts just like a repuke. This "if you don't support me you support repukes" argument is complete bullshit.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

73. I'm thinking that I'll continue to do what I can to support Dems and progressive ideals, but

I'm also getting myself psychologically ready to become an expat. There are books on how to do it; I'm thinking it's time to start researching, because IF the dreaded worst should happen--should the christofascists take power, I will get out, I MUST get out.

[newtothegame]

75. Bitter and bullying, as usual. n/t

[Cha]

101. You should stop then.

[azmouse]

76. You, and those like you on DU,

are among the few reasons I stay at DU. :)

I'd very much miss your posts if I left.

[Laurab]

208. +1 !

[euphoria12leo]

78. I get frustrated and that's for sure

angry at times but I'm in and I'm staying in. I can't imagine the Republicans running the country again. If Democrats don't stick together that's what will happen. I was able to get alot of first time voters out to vote. My daughter and her friends and everyone they knew. I got them up at 4 in the morning and they were excited. Some of their friends were wishing they could vote. So we're going to start all over again in 2010. They are ready and so am I. Hispanic voters, some family some not joined in with us. We're set and ready to go. We are not changing our support for Democrats and we are not going to stay home.

[bluescribbler]

80. I'm staying in, too

Philosophically, I'm probably more in tune with the platform of the Green Party, or maybe even the Socialists, but since they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected to any office more important than county treasurer, I can't count on them to be able to affect any meaningful change on either the state or national level. Therefore, I am a Democrat, and will always support a Democrat over a Repug, even if the Democrat is a DINO, like Ben Nelson.

[Peacetrain]

81. I am in for the long haul!..

I come from "fighting" dems.. generational as it were.. old line liberals.. and we have fought many a battle and it can get messy.. but that is where the work is.. in the mud.. so I am in ... and staying in

:kick:

[Orsino]

82. How the heck else would I have a chance of steering this enormous failpile of a party toward sanity?

I can't fix two parties, and the GOP has already oozed down the pipe into the sewer. I'll stick with trying to unwedge the Democrats from the toilet.

[treestar]

83. Well put. They can complain about McPuke/Palin comparison

all they want, but reality is just not optional.

[NJmaverick]

84. I am not a quitter and I am not fair weather, so I am in too

[madamesilverspurs]

85. K & R, because we have seen the alternative,

lived the alternative; and, through either grace or serendipity, survived the alternative. It's going to take a while to move completely out of survival mode and into forward motion. Meanwhile, I checked that button I wore last year: yeppers, it still says "Yes WE Can", not "Yes HE Can". Imagine that.


---

[Leftist Agitator]

86. Keep those rose-colored glasses on...

Smile while you eat your shit sandwich and keep smiling until you get it all down.

People like you are the reason that the Democrats can act like Republicans and get away with it.

One day you will realize that.

[Cha]

104. And, I think you're the one munching on the shit sammy.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Shit sandwiches are much nicer than the forced beer bonging of diarrhea that is the alternative

Thirty years ago we we're tired of our Wonderbread and Kraft singles and now shit sammiches are for the well heeled. I see a pattern that leads me to work on improving my shit rather than embracing being force fed that vile greenish muck shot down a forced air powered funnel welded onto my face.

[dave29]

88. Here.

I am a proud Democrat and always will be. I will not lie and say this entire HCR exercise hasn't put my mind through a meat-grinder, though. I don't like yelling and screaming at those I generally agree with. As I have repeated frequently -- if we cannot work together, then what's the point. Maybe there is a slight flaw in that logic. We can at least try to like each other.

Yesterday Howard Dean threw me for quite a loop as I am very much in line with his thinking... and he makes me proud to be a Democrat. I have been watching closely how he responds to the HCR debate, and his announcement really made me question whether or not I could stand by passing this bill. But ultimately I have my own truth -- and it is very much like yours. I also disagree with his assumption that we can pick up the pieces if we were to backtrack now.

I want us to succeed, even if it's one tiny step.

And it does not hurt to be reminded of the alternative -- even if when they are in power it means we all get to be happy in our discontent, since we get to sling arrows all day and all night without consequence.

We're in charge now. I will take what I can get -- and do my best to be a part of progress.

[DeepModem Mom]

89. K&R

:patriot:

[Cha]

90. That's for your inimitable encouragment

during these Rough Patches, Nance.. And, it will pass even if it takes months!

[Popular Front]

92. Not standing by your party means you stand with the Republicans

Kick for the commander-in-chief!

[billh58]

126. Sounds like something

Dubya said, and many neoconservatives echoed...

[salguine]

220. Like, "You're either with us or you're against us"? How positively Bushian.

[graywarrior]

93. He warned us.

He said he'd make decisions that would piss us off. I've decided to take a step back and breathe. I realize I have major control issues that get me in a lot of trouble when things don't go MY way. I'm gonna chill out and observe and accept that I know shit about shine-o-la.

So, I'm stayin' in from a few steps back. But I'm in.

Thanks for posting, Nance.

[Tippy]

95. I'm staying....K&R

[goclark]

96. Nance is my Hero ~ absolutely my Hero

Amazing, each line, each thought is exactly how I feel.

Let's MARCH as Democrats, we are a big family but the only way we will ever continue to progress is if we are Marching together.

:patriot:

[goclark]

98. K and R

[Popular Front]

100. Me too! All true Democrats stand by their commander-in-chief.

Don't fall for the teabag propaganda. We elected our first progressive president, and we should stand by him and let him lead.

[Mimosa]

280. Some of us protested the Vietnam War, escalated by LBJ... n/t

Most of the Democratic party's congress critters are owned by the same corporations which own the Republicans. It certainly has become more obvious lately.

[QC]

102. Weeee-doggy, this makes me more fired up than a hornytoad eatin' cornpone in Del Rio!

You tell 'em Molly Nance!

[Bluerthanblue]

108. i'm in too Nance- i HATE what's become of this HCR but I'm a

Democrat till death.

K&R

~blu

[bertman]

109. I want some of what you're smoking, Nance.

You usually move me with your words, but today I'm not budging.

[Phx_Dem]

110. Spot on, as usual Nance.

[SharonRB]

111. Thank you, Nance, for putting how I feel into words

Yes, I'm disappointed, but I don't ever want to have the alternative again in my lifetime. Eight years of Bush were enough to keep me participating and supporting Ds for the rest of my life.

I, too, am stayin' in.

[fishnfla]

112. with you

[mitchtv]

114. been a Dem for more than 40 years

But what are they? No auto renewal here. bunch of spinelss wimps

[old mark]

115. I will never be anything but a Democrat, but I will vote against Obama, and my

Democratic Senators in the primaries. I am already supporting an alternate candidate for my local Senator, and starting to search for a real Democratic replacement for Mr. Obama.

mark

[quiet.american]

127. Good luck with that. nt

[old mark]

168. Joe Sestak will be running against Specter...Too early to find someone

to replace Obama. I have already been working for Sestak, will be contributing to his campaign.


I only with I could vote against Lieberman.

mark

[quiet.american]

194. You're right, it is too early. About six years too early. nt

[EFerrari]

116. Thank gawd someone here is the custodian of the Truth!

[FarLeftFist]

122. I vote Democrat every time, not just b/c of what they stand for....

But b/c of what the opposition stands for. NOT voting is the same as voting republican. Also if you don't vote, I don't want to see people here complaining about their new republican president, b/c they helped him/her get elected. Republicans will strip away every last freedom, not just political freedom but our social and ethical freedoms as well.

[billh58]

124. K&R!

Thanks once again Nance, for putting into eloquent words what so many of us feel.

[bertman]

125. One last comment: I hope that I never regress to the point that I adopt the

"If a Democrat does it, or if the Democratic party does it, even though I don't like it, I'll still support it" philosophy.

[NanceGreggs]

134. And I hope I never regress to the point ...

... that I adopt the "If the Party does it and I don't like it, I am precluded from changing it - so I'll just walk away instead" philosophy.

[Prism]

157. Declaring 100% loyalty will never change a single thing

I cannot imagine why a politician would ever heed the words of a voter who has pre-declared that she will vote for him no matter what.

[NanceGreggs]

177. Never declared I would vote for ...

... a specific him (or her). Every politician faces re-election, and knows that a loyal Democrat can always work to replace him/her with a better Dem.

But vote to replace him/her with a Republican, or simply not vote at all? That's not a solution; it's a major contribution to the problem.

[bertman]

222. "Walking away" from a corrupt party that no longer represents my views or fights for the

best interests of the people does not mean giving up and walking away from the fight. Sometimes hard choices must be made. No third party ever started out with enough adherents to win a Presidential election. When the two main parties are so dominated by corporate money and shills that we get no decent representation from them it is time to consider the alternatives.

What is very hard for me to swallow is that the President I had such high hopes for has slowly but steadily eroded those hopes through his and the party leadership's fealty to corporate interests and unwillingness to stand for the people.

If the day ever comes that I feel the Democratic party is beyond hope I will walk away with my head held high, then put my shoulder to the wheel of the organization that gives me hope.

In the meantime, I intend to give the corporatists holy hell.

[NanceGreggs]

240. I may not agree with everything you've said, bertman ...

... but you've said it extremely well.

:patriot:

[bertman]

262. And the same back to you, Nance.

:fistbump:

[billh58]

135. Until we can

convince professional politicians to vote against their own financial interests, and legislate Congressional term-limits, and enact public financing for the electoral process, we will always be faced with "lesser of two evils" choices.

We all saw what happened when the "Independents" and Third-Party voters "sent a message" to Democrats in 2000 and 2004, and either withheld their votes, or actually voted for Republicans. Like it, or not, we have a de-facto two-party political system, and either the Republicans, or the Democrats, will control the Oval Office and/or the Congress after any given electoral cycle.

Like Nance, I will vote the Democratic Party ticket because they most closely represent my views, and I have seen what happens when the Nixon, Raygun, and Bushes I & II PNAC-type Neoconservatives are in charge. If I need to hold my nose in order to vote Democratic, it is still better than having to hold back the tears that come from those who are disenfranchised, robbed, and used as cannon fodder by Republicans.

All-in-all, the Democratic Party has accomplished far more for the advancement of social and standard-of-living causes for the citizens of this country, than the Republicans have even attempted or advocated. I have no reason to believe that the future of our country will see a reversal of the Liberal policies championed by we Democrats.

[quiet.american]

129. Right on, sister! nt

[TheKentuckian]

136. Have to agree to a large extent

I mean come on, have some bothered to look at the Republicans lately? They might not be a really great alternative to the actual Taliban. That "party" is a fucking blight to the general concepts of democracy and freedom. Our is at least a semi-rational conservative to center right major political party in a functioning democratically inspired modern nation. Far from what I'm really feeling but not the off the cliff loony tunes train wreck that is the current Republican party.

A Republican party that is moving further to the right and away from the vicinity of sanity with each passing moment.

Shit, you can't let the acceptable be the enemy of the barely tolerable, at best when the only other game in town is the Twin Peaks level absurd heavily blended with batshit insane. When Mittens is your best possible outcome over two cycles but he is way too leftist to be seriously considered by primary voters then you know that you flirt pretty aggressively with oblivion.

I don't get how the lesser of two evils fails to be exactly that. Its not a game with a choice between losing by one or infinity and a loss is a loss because we're actually playing with the real world here.

When you have the choice between a punch in the jaw, a kick in the groin, or face crucifixion (while granting that you were hoping to sit down to dinner and maybe a glass of wine)it would seem best to develop a pecking order that involves skipping hanging on a tree for over a long weekend before a refreshing dirtnap but your mileage may vary, I guess.

[mzmolly]

137. Hear hear! Joe LIEberman is not the Democratic Party. Hell, he isn't even a Democrat!

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

140. Colbert referred to Joe last night ...

... as a hermaphrapublican - pretty concise description!

[mzmolly]

144. Ha!

I like it! :hi:

[cry baby]

139. *locking arms with you* I'm in! nt

[NoSheep]

146. I'm staying in. I'm not happy, but I'm happier than I would have been with the alternative

K&R

[fl_dem]

154. I'm not happy with this bill

But, I'm not going anywhere.... as I too have seen the alternative.

[ShortnFiery]

158. Other than the fact we have not bombed Iran "yet" - I fail to see ANY true differences

between this Democratic vs. the previous Republican Administration.

I'm off the "hope" cheer leading wagon. For IMO, to stay is to live in a delusion, not REALITY that both the Democrats and Republicans are different FLAVORS of the same FASCISM: A CORPORATE DUOPOLY.

The CURE is, over time: Vote-out Corporate Politicians regardless of party. :thumbsup:

[Moosepoop]

165. What you said! :) K&R

:kick:

[slay]

169. One of the few times I can not agree with you

At some point, when I feel totally betrayed, I have to say enough is enough. And it's been enough with Obama and the Dems now. I've had it. He will not get my vote in 2012 at this point. I really hope Howard Dean runs against him in the primary. Sigh.. :(

[Jersey Devil]

178. I'm with ya (nt)

.

[Zomby Woof]

180. AFLAC!

[Mithreal]

183. I agreement with much except for the defense of the >McCain fallacy

If Obama can put Playskool's war crimes behind us then we can leave this tired and lame excuse behind. At least he isn't Bush and coulda been worse are not going to persuade voters.

[NanceGreggs]

185. No, "at least he isn't Bush" isn't going to persuade anyone ...

... but I think he's got a lot more going on than that - just as I think we, as a Party, have a lot more to offer than merely making that statement.

[Mithreal]

188. Just using that excuse puts up a wall immediately.

Some here have overused it and it is nearly as irritating as the words koolaid or cheerleader. I speak for myself though and know not everyone thinks the same.

Don't get me wrong, if Obama was not President, conservatives would be making Supreme Court appointments. That is reason enough to be thankful.

[NanceGreggs]

192. I hear ya.

I didn't proffer being mindful of the alternative as an excuse to vote Democratic, or stick with the party.

But the alternative is a looming reality - and being aware of that reality is (for me anyway) a very strong incentive to strengthen the party that stands in opposition to that alternative.

[Mithreal]

232. Very true and the more it tastes like Coke v. Pepsi the harder it will be

for many to agree.

[Writer]

186. Sometimes I wonder if our nation is so spoiled that we can't accept disappointment.

It's absolutely unrealistic for a politician to make us happy 100% of the time. Why can't we accept being happy SOME of the time?

[Mithreal]

189. Straw Man deluxe version

[stevenleser]

No question that Nance has nailed it here again. But, that doesnt mean we cant give Obama and the

party what for about certain things.

[NanceGreggs]

195. Absolutely.

And there are a lot of things to be givin' what for about these days.

[Faygo Kid]

193. "But mostly because I’ve seen the alternative." So very true, NanceGreggs.

Sad, but this is like the Weimar Republic in the '20s in another nation. The Republicans are now as unified as the Nazis in 1930 ever were - there I said it - no dissent, monolithic. I have never seen anything like it in my lifetime. And never expected it in my nation, no matter our imperfections. Someone will rise up and grab this monolith; it won't be Palin, or Beck, or even the guy pictured below. It may be someone not even now affiliated with the GOP. But the Republicans now tolerate no minority votes, let alone dissent. Someone will harness that. We are in for very dangerous times.

[hulka38]

196. I can admit when I'm wrong.

[Goldstein1984]

198. Nicely written. I disagree, but a clear statement about

what party loyalty is all about.

It's my opinion that party loyalty is the problem.

Those who have stolen government from we the people really don't care which party is in power. They own them both.

[DrZeeLit]

200. Thank you. I have always appreciated your writing.

Recently, I removed the DU button on my browser toolbar.
With all the negativity and hate, I couldn't come here any more.

I love dissent. Civilized, logical, debatable dissent is the lifeblood of the democracy.
But the whining, rude, discourteous, stuff is often too hard to take.
I rarely want to drop by DU any longer.

And you are so right! I've been voting for the Democratic Party in every election since I started voting way back ...
I've seen that alternative too many times; lived through that alternative too many times.
And I will vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party in the 2010 elections and 2012.
The Republicans have NOBODY to run against the Democratic Party. NOBODY. Who would vote for Huckabee or Palin or the batshitcrazy former governor of MA?

I'm still "in" -- just won't be around here much any more.
But I'm still WORKING for all the causes in which I believe.

Thank you.

[NanceGreggs]

201. "But I'm still WORKING for all the causes in which I believe."

Thank YOU!

[rudyb]

204. I'm in and staying too!

NGs I have felt the same. The alternative is not an option. Thanks for putting the idea into words I'm sure a lot of us (Me) have had the same thought's but weren't able to put it down on paper or posting. rb

[DinahMoeHum]

207. Thank you, Nance.

:kick::kick::kick:

[theFrankFactor]

211. Simply Put: VOTE THE LESSER EVIL and then get back to working for change.

The "Democratic party" increases in filth and scum the higher you go. Those of us that come to it because we are Liberals and Progressives actually care about those values. The DLC and the "New Democrat" infestations are poison to Liberalism and Progressivism.

[ellaydubya]

212. WOW!!!!!!

That was one of the best things I have ever read and it brought me to tears. Hell, yes!!! I'm in!! Thanks so much for your posts- I enjoy each and every one BUT this one totally moved me. You made me remember how awful it was with bush in office and what they did to this country. Again, I'm in!!! Not a bad slogan, you think??:toast: :bounce: :kick: :dem:

[Roland99]

214. There comes a point where continuing to fight becomes pointless

Until there's a majority in Congress that is NOT beholden to corporate and special interests and is filled with a majority that votes based on what their constituency wants, then we're stuck with the corporate whores that are destroying this country in the name of the almighty dollar.

[felinetta]

219. Thank you. Well said and I totally agree with you.

[angee_is_mad]

224. Than you Sista

Kick!!!!

[rateyes]

226. Nance, I love you, but you are choosing death by a thousand cuts

over death by guillotine.

If I'm going to die, I want it to be as quick as possible.

The Democratic leadership has to change. I'm in the party, and I'm working to change its leadership. But, my patience is wearing thin.

It's like what MLK, Jr. said about Southern White Liberals in that they are afraid to make waves because of what their white racist friends might say. Obama has, IMO, out of fear, refused to bring the pressure he can bring as head of the Democratic party against the likes of Lieberman, Reid, the Blue Dogs, etc.

So, I'm in for now. But, if the Senate bill is the one that gets signed, I'm done with voting for a candidate just because he/she "calls" him/herself a Democrat. A Democrat IS what a Democrat DOES.

Words are cheap. Actions speak.

I'm done with pretty words. No action, no vote from me.

[Bobbie Jo]

227. Rec'ed yesterday, Kicked today.

....and in for the duration. :kick:

[donheld]

231. Sounds like the Church my mother once swore to never leave.

It left here. Yes the church is still around but it's beliefs have gone to where she cannot be a part of it. I'm sorry, but I'll stay as long as I feel the Democratic party is supporting me, but if I feel like the party has left me, to go far to the right, am I obliged to stay?

[truedelphi]

233. And I bet you have your insurance and that you aren't suffering.

I bet you have not lost everything to the monsters that this current bill is a giveaway to.

Well, enjoy being part of something that kills off 44,000 a year.

Enjoy it! Why protest something just because it has that all important "D" (For Dead and dying) of the democratic centrist party label on it.

[saltpoint]

236. Here's a kick for Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, and for

Birch Bayh, and Miles Lord, and Mario Cuomo, and Frank Church, and Dr. King.

[rhett o rick]

237. With the greatest respect Nance I disagree. When Democrats are no longer Democrats it's time for a

change. The DLC does not represent me or IMHO the people. CorpAmerica has used their unlimited powers to buy the Democratic Party. I will stay and fight but it is time for a peoples movement and the Democratic Party isnt going to be the standard barer.

You mentioned how bad we had it for eight years. I might remind you that the Democratic Party was happy to go along with bush* most of the time. They did very little to even slow him down.

The system is rotten to the core. If I am going to die, I want to go down fighting. I see very few Democrats in Congress fighting. Most are capitulating to CorpAmerica.

How many of us have to die before you realize this isnt a Democrat vs. Republican war. This is a class war between the ruling class and us peons. A great number of Democrats in Congress are card carrying members of the ruling class.

Pres Obama may have slowed down our death but he isnt doing anything to save us. It may be because he is one of them, or maybe he just cant fight them. Either way we I am not seeing any help soon.

[patrice]

238. There just isn't enough of a constituency for a 3rd party to be able to split it

successfully between Libertarians and Greens/Progressives. I can see where these two groups might temporarily join forces to fracture both of the other parties, but, then, when it would come to getting things done, we'd have the same shit, only worse, than we have it right now. The prospect of "change" under such circumstances would lead to, IMO, harms that would amount to "6 of one, half a dozen of the other."

This is why I believe that, at this time, the only real possibility for change is in the Democratic Party. Dominated by corporations it may be, it isn't as completely sold as Republicans and Libertarians are and its persona is based upon values that are more consistent with my own.

What we need is to purge the Democratic Party of DINOs, and corporatists and others who are using the party to milk the system.

[NanceGreggs]

244. Exactly. n/t

[patrice]

254. I think the point has been pretty well made though that for a purge to be real

Consequences for DINOs have to be real; those would be either one or both of the following:

1. REAL Democrats to primary DINOs.
2. The willingness to not vote for DINOs.

1. is hard because we have to go out to the party and make the party listen and act on this and because candidates are LOTS OF WORK.
2. is even harder because you're seducing the repulsive alternative of which you spoke earlier. I keep coming up against that point with my brilliant young nephews who don't vote because they think the whole system should self-destruct from it's own sickness. Though I understand and agree, I also think of the long long process of that destruction and the human sadness and despair that would entail and I just can't go there.

[wiggs]

241. Love your posts...lots of good points. But I think it misses something important. I'm

not sure it really boils down to D vs R. It's not Freepers vs DUrs. It's not Teabaggers vs Code Pink. To believe that it is all about left and right would be to buy into the theater that's been created. Polarization is a tool used by opinion manipulators to shape perception, control emotions of an issue, and divide strength. It's gerrymandering of public opinion and public power.

Yes, we cheer Colmes and boo Hannity. Better to recognize how manipulative the formula is and turn the damn show off.

Yes, the Bush administration was the worst ever and yes there's a difference between the two parties. But to draw a line and declare an us versus them battle might be helpful in an individual election but misses the bigger war. There must be a way to win the battles and also keep an eye on the bigger picture. There must be an approach that unites people for issues....not for team logos.

It is really all of us, 95% of the left and the right, against those who believe that the best model for the US and the world is to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. that's the real battle...and to join in that battle we have to get past the fake ones thrown at us every day from almost all media outlets.

A few DU posts are talking about this. DU has been talking about it for years...but this meme hasn't been able to overcome the polarization and team identification that we're supposed to pay attention to.

begin_within
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7248770

FourScore
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7247980&mesg_id=7247980

Nevertheless, thanks again for the thoughtful post.

[wiggs]

247. Mr Scorpio too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7249196&mesg_id=7249196

[wiggs]

248. Scarletwoman joins in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7248136&mesg_id=7248136

[patrice]

255. You're right wiggs and I think the best place to overcome phony polarization and, yet,

maintain valuable differences, is in LOCAL economic relationships. This is also the venue in which media maladies can be remedied.

[puebloknot]

259. Thanks for those links. In the book ...

... "The Creature from Jekyll Island" (and many other sources),the point is made that our PTB have *always* funded both sides of wars, as well as elections, to stay in power.

That book is considered to be something of a right-wing tome because it discusses the birth of the Federal Reserve (which is not federal, but a private corporation). However, our own TmeforChange wrote an article about that book and the implications therein fairly recently, and autorank continually writes articles about "The Money Party."

Sorry, I'm too tired to post links, but check out their journals here for some great information along the lines you're talking about.

I agree that "Us vs. Them" is a hallmark of the Bush years, and we have to find a way to get beyond that kind of polarization. That assuredly does not mean I would vote for any Republican, and in spite of grave concerns, I would have problems voting for a third party. But when the chips are down, I think the only way out is a whole new paradigm, which may very well have us staring into a deep chasm without any certainty about how to get to the other side.

It's time for honesty, not party slogans and accusations of betrayal toward those of us who are openly expressing concerns about what the Democratic Party is up to. They are hiding their activities in plain sight, and only those who are scared and stubborn fail to see that the old "Ways" simply must go.

Thanks for your thoughts in this matter.

[JamesA1102]

243. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Umbral]

246. Go, Stay, whatever. If the public mandates are passed and people are forced to buy private insurance

it wont really matter much; the Democrats will have committed suicide. If you want to hang around with their stinking corpse go ahead.

[yowzayowzayowza]

253. If politics is indeed like making sausage,...

that big red chunk that jus ran thru the grinder was a piece of my heart I won't forget.

[shotten99]

260. It's foolish to do otherwise.

It is us or them.

[dcsmart]

265. NICE..K & R.....

[ProgressOnTheMove]

268. Yes, I'll take a little heartache over mass devastation any day of the week because basic instinct..

syas for me human spiecies must survive. Weighing up all that data and chances of survival are promising if we work to improve harrass and badger the Democratic party. They'll undboutedly upset, frustrate me along the way, but in the end they're coming in our direction they just don't know it yet. Great post Nance.

[BreweryYardRat]

270. Amen.

If the choice is between a Democratic party that's got conservative elements and a Republican party that's sliding ever more quickly toward lunatic theo-fascism, that's no choice at all.

We can work to move the Democratic party to the left, by replacing our conservative elements. It's not going to be easy, but it's doable.

We can't work with either the Palin (slobbering fanatic) or Bush (total corruption and greed) branches of the Republican party, and those are the majority of Republican officials these days. Most of the old-fashioned Goldwater-style conservatives are jumping ship even as we speak.

[flamingdem]

273. Yes we need to keep rowing nt

[Hekate]

274. I'd be your hundredth Rec but you started this yesterday when I was away. Nance, thanks a hundred...

Nance, I could weep with frustration right about now. Or go get drunk, if that was my style, which it isn't, but along about now it's damned tempting.

Thank you, thank you, for putting it all out there and saying what I am too weary and too (momentarily) discouraged to say.

:loveya: :yourock: :hug:

Hekate

[Mimosa]

279. *rolleyes* There's little difference between elected democrats and republicans, or their appointees

At least some Bush 41 SCOTUS justices voted the right way on Kelo v City of New London unlike the 'liberal' justices.

I've been around too long, read too much, seen too much, to have any illusions. And I'm no more loyal to any party (or politicians) than they are to me.

I supported Obama EARLY. And contributed. I have a perfect right to be disappointed.

I'm an individualist who's been around the block many times. I know 'us' will turn on 'us' as readily as on 'them.'

[gardenista]

284. Kicking an oldie but goodie. Quality post.

[Top Cat]

285. kick

[Jersey Devil]

286. kick as best post on the subject (nt)

c

[Tippy]

287. KICK for

“I’m tired of always having to choose between the lesser of two evils when I vote.” Yeah, me too. But when it comes down to two choices – as it invariably does every four years – I’ll stick with the lesser (probably way lesser) of those two evils every time. Because I have seen the alternative.

[butterfly77]

289. Kick &Recommended!

[mkultra]

290. in politics, we will always be part of the problem or part of the solution

you are part of the solution. IM with you every step of the way. Since democracy is always about making a choice between options. I will always choose the best option. Anyone who sits out is part of the problem.

[liquid diamond]

295. I'm so glad you are on our side Nance.

Obama isn't perfect, but I'm appalled at the posters here who would aid and abet another republican president.

[Cha]

296. Kick for Emphasis!

[WheelWalker]

297. I'm all in, too.

:kick:

[quaker bill]

298. K&R

Thanks, you speak my mind.

[tabasco]

299. I'm with ya.'

I'm happy to see the country changing course for the better.

I don't expect utopia overnight.

[archiemo]

300. I'm picking the "D" side too!