Guys? Could we stop being so hyper about stupid shit?

[Rhythm and Blue]

Okay, I know for those of us in the ol' echo chamber, the Stark business seems Really Really Important. So does the General Betray Us ad, and so does symbolic resolutions regarding Iran.

Do you know how much all of that matters? Zero. Look, I know it feels like a huge loss when the Republicans call us names. But that doesn't affect anything, change anything, or do anything to anyone.

And it certainly doesn't change the fact that http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html">Nancy Pelosi's house has registered the highest recorded level of opposition to a President ever, so stop calling the Dems wishy-washy and pushovers, because that simply ain't true. The reason we haven't managed to get everything done we wanted to isn't that Nancy's a coward, it's that the Republicans have blocked, filibustered, or vetoed our best proposals. And that's the same stuff we did to them, so don't get outraged about that. The solution isn't to give up and go home, the solution isn't to whine about Pelosi, the solution is to elect some more goddamn Democrats.

She's doing a good job overall. Don't get mad that she's not afraid to hold us to the same standard of decorum that we want to hold the other guys to. So please, just calm down.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Hrmm....

sensible and reasonable.

BURN THE WITCH!!!

[LoZoccolo]

2. The constant scratching at the Democrats here is not based on truth, but manipulation.

Whining is the only route to change things for people who want progress to come out of sitting around on the computer all day. Seriously, this is the bottom of the political world, engaging in counterproductive idle talk and getting more and more neurotic.

[Forkboy]

7. Well I'm glad you're with us bottom feeders.

:thumbsup:

[Dr Fate]

12. "sitting around on the computer all day." Are you not behind a computer yourself?

If you detest this "bottom of the political world" format so much, then why take part in it?

This is the same crap you were saying in your effort to support Joe Lieberman- that all of Lamont's supporters never left their keyboards.

Counterproductive? You mean like censuring people & organizations who are opposed to Bush? You mean like supporting Joe Lieberman?

Oh well- I guess someone has to come here and defend the censure of anti-Bush voices...

[LoZoccolo]

134. Let me put it another way.

If engaging in a long-term campaign of harassment and dubious accusations against some other anonymous person on the Internet based on something that allegedly happened a year ago is important to someone, then that someone needs to find some even more important things to do. They can start at the links I put in my signature.

[robinlynne]

20. what have you done for democracy this week?

[Cha]

43. Tried to keep us

in our place?

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. Some of us are quite active in our efforts to change the world

Not all of us who whine are lazy-ass complainers.

[robinlynne]

51. exactly.

[Dr Fate]

3. DEMS should be censuring Bush, not people opposed to Bush.

You are wrong-It matters. If it didnt matter, then why did DEMS make an issue of it to begin with?

There was meaning & purpose in attacking anti-Bush voices like Moveon & Stark, or otherwise DEMS would have left it alone. There was indeed a reason for these acts- if it didnt matter they wouldnt have done it.

Good GOD I would love to see DEM leaders go after a censure of Bush with the same effort...

[Rhythm and Blue]

11. Politics is about things that are slightly more important than sending strongly worded letters.

Stark said something that went against generally accepted standards of decorum. Just like Jean Schmidt learned, if you go after the supposed personal motivations of individuals on the House floor, you're gonna get hammered. Schmidt had the sense to apologize. Stark didn't. Stark's getting a letter.

If you believe that who gets nasty letters when is extremely important to you, censure Bush yourself. Seriously. Go write him an angry letter. Send it to the White House. It'll get opened by some temp, thrown in the recycling, and forgotten instantly--just like Congress's censure of Stark.

[Dr Fate]

19. LOL! A "letter" is about all you will ever get from some DEMS when it comes to attacking Bush.

Strongly worded letters, and "press releases" that oppose Bush are plentiful- but when it comes to action against ANTI-BUSH voices like Moveon or Stark, DEMS go well beyond letters- they take action.

I dont even know what you are saying- are you really saying that censuring Bush would be forgotten- or are you saying that it wont happen b/c DEMS dont have the guts to do it?

*I'm* supposed to censure Bush myself? That makes no sense- I would rather the leaders who attacked Moveon & Stark do that-they seem to be able to censure and demand apologies from everyone else. (I- know- fat chance-they only pick on anti-war voices)

So Stark's factual comments are now the same as Mean Jean's??- LOL! I dont think so.

(ON EDIT: I did not realise I was talking to 2 different people- but I'll leave my comments in tact anyway)

[Rhythm and Blue]

25. The "action" that they've taken against Moveon and Stark is

this: they have sent strongly worded letters. That's what censure is--a letter expressing strong disapproval.

[Dr Fate]

33. And it was discussed in the media. A censure of Bush would get 100% more coverage than either.

And it would be a hell of a lot more unifying than attacking people OPPOSED to Bush.

If DEMS are not going to attack Bush, then they should play kissy-face with the people OPPOSED to him as well.

As long DEMS are censuring and demanding apologies from anti-war voices, I can see why Bush doesnt get censured- and it isnt b/c Congress doesnt think censuring has a purpose or meaning or effect.

These excuses are interesting, but he fact is that certain DEMS in Congress will attack and censure anti-war voices, but are afraid or unwilling to censure pro-war voices.

[Rhythm and Blue]

35. Okay, so what would be accomplished with censuring Bush is

"The media would discuss how the Democrats called him bad names." Forgive me if I would rather our Congress focus on more important issues.

[rodeodance]

37. i don't know but when Russ Feingold tried it. he got skunked

[Dr Fate]

53. I would rather them not censure anti-war voices if they cant censure Bush.

And you are right- most of the DEM "leadership" certainly would let the media roll over them and paint them as name callers- what is new?

And I hate to tell you this, but most of the public would agree with a well worded censure against Bush, no matter what FOX news says. The key is not to CAVE.

A LOT more voters would be cheering for that as opposed to the caving in and censuring of people opposed to Bush.

For once I wish we could be strong instead of saying "But if we do that, the media and the GOP will say mean things about us." Boo-hoo. So we attack Liberals instead. Makes no sense.

We still come to the same conclusion- Many DEMS are too weak to attack Bush or fight the pro-Bush media, but are willing to cave to both by censuring anti-war voices.

[incapsulated]

54. Yeah.

Like I said HOW LOW does this man's approval ratings have to go before it is safe to say the king has no clothes?

[Rhythm and Blue]

57. Yeah. But does it really matter? At all? No.

[incapsulated]

58. The low approval ratings for congress

Among Democrats say otherwise.

[Rhythm and Blue]

61. Yeah, Democrats want to be pandered to more, I guess. But far more than that,

they want to see shit actually get done. And the Republicans have blocked them time after time, despite their best efforts.

[incapsulated]

65. Pandered?

Or represented?

[Rhythm and Blue]

67. "Representing" someone on meaningless issues

while doing absolutely nothing to help that person is indeed "pandering." And that's what censure is: pandering.

[incapsulated]

72. Who are they pandering to by threatening to censure Stark, then?

Hmm?

The outraged democrats demanding an apology?

[Dr Fate]

79. Mostly people who will never vote for or give money to DEMS-- Rush listeners.

Polls suggest that most folks wouldnt have a problem with elected officials who strongly oppose Bush on the war.

We are being told that it is okay for DEMS to pander to the FOX news crowd, but dont expect to be "pandered to" ourselves.

A fine how-do-you-do, no?

[Rhythm and Blue]

80. The five Dems who voted for it?

Their constituents, probably. I assume they came from conservative districts.

[incapsulated]

83. I see, and they set the agenda do they?

They tell Pelosi and Hoyer what to do?

Who are these all powerful 5 that can demand the party turn on itself for their own little constituency?

[Rhythm and Blue]

86. The Party didn't turn on itself. Most Dems voted against the censure.

Pelosi allowed it to come to a vote to get the story to die down quickly, because it's nothing but stupid shit and there's nothing to be gained by turning CNN into a flamewar over stupid shit, especially when you went on the record castigating the Republicans for not allowing a censure vote on Schmidt for similar remarks.

[incapsulated]

94. Rather convoluted.

She is the leader or she isn't.

You think the republican leader would give in to this whiny shit from five idiots who wanted to censure another republican?

Oh, and once again, we care so very much what the republicans might SAY, oh, please save us from those righteous republicans, what might they do? Who refused any censure of their own, who defended every horrific spew that came out of their own members mouths?

WE HAVE THE MAJORITY NOW.

Why are we using it to humiliate our own side?

[Rhythm and Blue]

101. Welcome to politics.

Things are often convoluted.

She's the majority leader. She sees an embarrassing situation involving a guy who shot his mouth off on the House floor. It's a complete waste of time, and she knows it. She knows four more things, too:

1. The situation is politically embarrassing. Most Americans disagree with the assertion that Bush kills soldiers for fun.

2. She's backed into a corner with her demand that the Republicans censure Schmidt. It will be even more embarrassing if the Republicans harp on a double standard.

3. It will all go away if she allows a censure vote. It might pass, it might not.

4. If it does pass, what-the-fuck-ever. It's a totally meaningless Republican attempt to pander to their base. It'll be forgotten in two days.

[incapsulated]

105. Wrong. It's called how to lose at politics.

It is not embarrassing to stand up to a president with the worst approval rating in history. It is not embarrassing to defend your own against the other side. It is weakness to give in to bullying tactics over bullshit from the party you just beat.

They didn't want to censor Schmidt. So if they bring it up she says what is good for the goose is good for the gander and calls them the hypocrites they are.

I find it interesting that you call this a republican attempt to pander to their base.

And why in the fuck would we want to help them with that?

You do realize that it was constant fear about being "embarrassed" or "criticized" by anyone that made them go along with Bush for years, until they actually LOST seats over this kind of self-destructive behavior.

I tell you what is embarrassing. Seeing them humiliate their own while the republicans, in the minority, laugh their ass off.

[Rhythm and Blue]

107. And the Republican slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners, never-admit-defeat, fuck-the-other-guy

style really worked well, didn't it? Why, they had control of government for almost six years, before that completely doomed their party to the sorry state it's in now.

[incapsulated]

108. So, we should never take a stand

Because a bunch of crooks and psychotics used the slash and burn tactics and give them what they want, instead.

Yeah, that makes sense. Invite them to tea.

Funny, I really don't equate the emotional outburst of this man with nearly destroying our democracy.

[Rhythm and Blue]

109. Wrong. We should take a stand on issues that matter. Bullshit censure resolutions

are not issues that matter, or even issues at all.

[Dr Fate]

112. It would have been nice if the DEMS who attacked Stark & Moveon agreed with you.

As it is ,they thought that "Bullshit censure resolutions" that attack anti-Bush speech were worth the time effort.

[Rhythm and Blue]

113. Yes, but I can't really see getting upset over five Dems pandering

in a totally-meaningless vote that affects nothing whatsoever.

[Dr Fate]

118. If this were the first & only time "centrist" DEMS attacked anti-war voices- you would have a point

As it is, it is not meaningless when certain DEMS have gone on TV many times to attack anti-Bush voices while essentially agreeing with Bush and Rush Limbaugh...

You may say that the public ignores it, but I know plenty of people who watch the news and read the papers.

[incapsulated]

114. If you think it doesn't matter

That we drag our own representatives in front of the house to beg forgiveness of the fucking republicans who would destroy us without a second thought, I don't know what to tell you.

[Rhythm and Blue]

116. You could start with

"I believe that the targets of strongly-worded letters are the most important issue facing America today."

[Dr Fate]

121. You could start with

"Opposing Bush himself instead of opposing the very people who fight Bush makes more sense, no matter how you slice it."

I hate to tell you this, but opposing Bush and his party is an important issue facing America- a hell of a lot more important than making tired excuses and censuring anti-war speech.

[Rhythm and Blue]

122. Yes. Fortunately, they are. (See link in OP and sig)

Just not on meaningless bullshit like censures.

[incapsulated]

125. They are

When they are used as threats to get members of their own party who dare to speak in less than polite terms about the bloody mess in Iraq and the criminal who started it to beat themselves up in public, on the floor of congress for everyone to see.

[Dr Fate]

110. No one is saying we imitate Repubs. In fact, we want DEMS to DISAGREE with them on this.

As opposed to yet again taking their side.

Most of us have a pretty simple request- dont attack anti-war DEMS or anti-war organizations if you cant muster up the courage to attack Bush himself.

We are saying to STOP acting like Republicans, not to imitate them!!!

Suggesting that we be strong against the right is not the same as saying we follow their unethical tactics.

No one is saying we lie about them or commit crimes like they do.

[stranger81]

129. ummm, don't know where you've been for the last seven years,

but not only do those tactics work for the other side -- they're still working.

[incapsulated]

133. Just now, someone posted a transcript of Limbaugh laughing

About what total wimps the democrats are for doing this and how he "never apologizes" he "stuffs it down their throats".

I'm so glad they made his day. Hell, I'm sure they gave a lot republicans a good laugh over their cocktails tonight.

[Dr Fate]

74. I dont think that oppostion to the war is a meaningles issue.

And if DEMS can "pander" to the FOX news crowd by attacking anti-war voices, then they can certainly PANDER to they people that give them money & vote for them.

OR- not do it at all.

If DEMS were not censuring or demanding apologies from ANYONE, then you might have a point.

There is a meaning when DEMS can pander to Rush listeners but not to their own. That has meaning no matter what you say.

[incapsulated]

76. Word.

This Fate guy makes sense.

:D

[Rhythm and Blue]

81. Toothless opposition is.

Anyone can say "I oppose this." It's actually doing something about it that counts. And the Dems have--but they've been vetoed and filibustered at every turn.

[Dr Fate]

100. So these DEMS attack anti-war Liberals so that they wont get filibustered or vetoed?

Makes no sense. Toothless oppostion indeed. Great to know we are still "the opposition" rather than in control of congress.

The excuse of filibusters & vetoes doesnt explain why certain DEMS join Rush, FOX and Bush in attacking anti-Bush voices, but cant even discuss a censure of Bush, much less his impeachment, much less even say that he lied or commited a crime.

[stranger81]

130. the Dems have not been filibustered -- they've walked away from the fight

every time the word "filibuster" is whispered by the other side. We don't even make them go through the exercise anymore.

If you don't get why the base is pissed, you're not paying attention.

[Dr Fate]

131. In other words, we keep our powder dry so that the GOP doesnt have to.

n/t

[Dr Fate]

68. It matters. The DEMS who are attacking Bush critics think it matters.

And the DEMS who are afraid to attack Bush have their reasons that "matter" as well.

I've never heard the idea that things that politicans do on TV and in congress dont matter and dont have an effect on direction of politics. Everything they do or refuse to do has a purpose and it matters in the negative or positive.

It matters when DEMS can attack anti-Bush people better than they can go after Bush- it speaks volumes & volumes. Not symbolism either, but the stark (no pun inteneded) reality of the situation.

In any event, if we cant censure Bush, then we shouldnt be censuring people OPPOSED to Bush- if that was the case, you might have apoint.

[Rhythm and Blue]

70. All 5 of 'em? They "think it matters" because they're pandering to their constituents.

I've never heard the idea that things that politicans do on TV and in congress don't matter.

That is because you are naive, and that is why pandering works.

[Dr Fate]

89. Dont forget the censuring of Moveon.org. It's more than 5 DEMS who attack Libs but not Bush.

And dont forget the behind the scenes pressure- it's more than just 5 DEMS and you know it.

You might be the one being naive- what is said in the MEDIA and in congress certainly does effect public opinion and the direction of the country.

It's how we got into the war to begin with-and it is how we lost 3 elections in a row: basically people on TV and in congress saying the right or the wrong things.

Again, if DEMS can Pander to the Rush Limbaugh set, then they can pander to their own base- OR, not at all.

If there was NO pandering to anyone at all- much less Bush supporters on the part of DEMS, you would have a point.

[Rhythm and Blue]

91. *sigh* Democrats are not pandering to the Rush Limbaugh set.

They are allowing the Republicans and the most conservative Democrats to pander to the Rush Limbaugh set, and in doing so make an embarrassing story disappear from the papers.

[Dr Fate]

103. I see- it's not pandering to Rush listeners if the DEMS really do agree with them.

I never saw what was so embarassing about making factual statements- and I never saw who disagreed with Stark (Except for Rush, Bush, a sliver of the remaining pro-Bush voters and certain DEMS)

[truedelphi]

Exactly. For a moment I thought I was on

Bush Reconcilitators Underground Dot Com.

What is important is that we were lied into an illegal war, that the country of Iraq has been decimated, that the military industrial complex has so much control over the goings on in Congress.

ADDITIONALLY - Nancy Pelosi et al have NOT stopped this, AND they have done things that have hurt small businesses such as the May 2007 approval of the new Postal Fees and Regulations that are destroying what is left of small businesses here in the USA.


But hey, at least that bill helped Time Warner!

[Common Sense Party]

55. "Reconcilitating Bush"?

So, THAT'S what you kids are calling it these days.

[racaulk]

4. Makes sense to me!

:thumbsup:

[Fresh_Start]

5. Wishful thinkers believe that Nancy can do more

but between slim majority and Blue Dogs and others dems who think they need to vote in a particular way, things just are not going to move fast.

Instead of beating each other up on DU, we should be moving about in the broader community with productive discussion.

[incapsulated]

6. Look, I rarely ever unload on them

And I blame Hoyers for this as much as Nancy.

But this is just unacceptable. We are in the majority and censuring our own for making comments the likes of which come out of republicans mouths every day, without apology.

I can only take so much of this crap.

I wasn't even on the Stark bandwagon.

But he IS going to be on the nightly news, crying and asking forgiveness because his own party is threatening to censure him and he is also a coward because he gives a fuck if they do.

And it makes most democrats want to puke. Yes, now I do think most democrats are in agreement with DU, this is sickening.

[LoZoccolo]

8. "...the likes of which come out of republicans mouths every day..."

Are you talking about the list Will Pitt compiled? I don't think a single one of those quotes came from a congressperson on the floor of the House or Senate.

[incapsulated]

14. Oh, so it matters that it's on the floor, now

It's alright if they call us every name in the book on tv, though?

Like we do. Never.

Get off your knees.

The republicans would NEVER, EVER censure their own for talking smack about the democrats, ANYWHERE.

EVER.

[Rhythm and Blue]

18. Yes, I do think it's fair that we hold remarks on the House floor

to a higher standard of decorum.

[incapsulated]

23. Tell it to the opposition

Remember when that twat called Murtha a coward ON THE FLOOR?

Remember when the Republicans STOPPED any censure?

I do NOT extend respect to a pack of thugs who would use any filthy, dirty tactic against my own side. That is called playing the fool.

[Rhythm and Blue]

26. Yeah. Schmidt apologized. Stark didn't. There's the difference.

And regardless, the Stark, Murtha, and Moveon "controversies" are the three biggest crock-of-shit pander-fest "issues" that have come out of Congress in recent years.

[incapsulated]

30. *Her party defended her*

They didn't ask the democrats for forgiveness.

They couldn't imagine such a thing.

They aren't stupid that way.

[Rhythm and Blue]

32. And we thought they were a bunch of immoral fuckheads for having done so.

And we'd have been the same if we defended Stark.

"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," then-Minority-Leader Pelosi said. What's so bad about holding yourself to the same level of decorum to which you hold the other guys?

[incapsulated]

39. Ah, I see

Etiquette trumps all.

This is the president of worst, most corrupt and criminal administration in US history. But you think a outraged outburst over his bloody and endless war is even worth remarking on? Let alone being "censured"?

[Rhythm and Blue]

42. No, I don't think it ought have been censured.

But the fact that it was is hardly worth getting the least bit excited over. Censure generally occurs when someone attacks another's personal motives on the House floor. Stupid, but it's what happens, so it's not like it's a shocking outrage. And it doesn't mean jack shit--it's just an excuse for people (in districts where the offending statement doesn't play well) to pander to their base.

It certainly isn't reason for the breast-beating "OMG WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP PELOSI IS WORTHLESS" threads that have been popping up.

[tsuki]

71. And to the Republicans benefit. Every time the Democrats cave

on censure, wiretapping, funding the war, not enforcing subpoenas, they are alienating their "base." And the Republicans will use it in '08.

Democrats are weak. That will be the talking point.

[robinlynne]

24. Then impeach Rice and Cheney and Bush fast because they lied blatantly on the

floor and almost a million people have been killed as a result. decorum? you care about decorum with murderers on the loose?

[incapsulated]

27. No shit, censure Bush and his entire administration

For the lying to congress for lying every minute, for SEDITION.

No, what's important is to be polite to these criminals, fuck that noise.

How low does his approval rating have to go before they stop sucking his dick?

[Rhythm and Blue]

29. And what exactly would that accomplish?

You'd feel good that the other guys had been called bad names. Anything else?

[incapsulated]

31. What does censuring Stark accomplish?

Other than making us look like weak fools?

If they have their panties in a bunch to censure someone, censure the fuck who deserved the remark in the first place, he just happens to be a criminal.

[Rhythm and Blue]

34. Nothing at all. So why get whipped up about it?

The Republicans pander to their base a bit, call us names, and then we move on.

[incapsulated]

41. The problem is you don't see this as the symptom

Of a much larger problem.

If these thugs weren't a bunch of such obvious criminals and scum, we would have never won the majority.

We only had to allow them to bring us to the edge of world war three and the repeal of our constitutional rights before the PEOPLE woke up, because this party sure as hell have not.

[Rhythm and Blue]

44. Um...yes, the Republicans are obviously criminals and scum.

Sending them letters telling them we think that isn't exactly going to change anything, other than making DU feel all warm and fuzzy. Most people will just shrug and think, "Eh, Congress playing politics before the election."

And they'd be right to think that, because your stated aim is to convince the general populace not to vote Republican by calling them names and hoping they stick.

[incapsulated]

46. I never said, "censure Bush just for the hell of it"

I said if the Democrats are going to start censuring their own for being impolite to this jerk, I have a better suggestion, censure the jerk in question.

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. I never claimed you said that.

But a censure motion is a completely pointless waste of time. I oppose it for that reason, but allowing a completely pointless waste of time--and not balancing it out with completely pointless wastes of time aimed at the other party--is hardly worth the "WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP" threads.

[incapsulated]

49. Actions like this

Make me agree with them.

Even my own mother can't stand Pelosi at this point and she is no radical.

[Rhythm and Blue]

50. Your right to decide what's important to you, I guess. nt

[LoZoccolo]

92. Yeah. Republicans are smarter than that, actually.

It's better to employ a cat's paw to do those things you can't, the way that they let Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say things which benefit them, all the while not having to take the blame for it. Law #26 of The 48 Laws of Power is "Keep your hands clean."

[Fresh_Start]

48. how dare you insert Facts into an uproar

eom

[AntiFascist]

36. Exactly, and why do so many commentators like KO keep talking....

about Dems growing a spine? There must be something to that, don't ya think?

OPs like the above are just the continuing barrage of bullcrap we are going to have to endure in the runup of Hillary as the annointed queen of the Democratic party, triangulating toward the hawkish centrist agenda.

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. Well, let's think why that might be.

1. Left-wing commentators always have an interest in pressuring the Democrats to move even further left, and to register even stronger opposition. Calling your party "spineless" works well enough there.

2. Right-wing commentators have an interest in portraying the Democrats as weak. Calling them "spineless" works well enough there.

3. Lazy commentators don't bother doing any research, and so they call them "spineless" because that's what they hear other people saying.

[frylock]

59. the dems do a damn fine job of portraying themselves as weak without the help of RW commentators

[Rhythm and Blue]

66. No, I think you mean

"ostensible Democrats do a damn fine job of calling their party weak without the help of RW commentators, despite the fact that no House has ever been recorded as opposing a President more consistently."

[AntiFascist]

64. Let's analyze three commentators on teevee then...

(I wouldn't want to appear to fall into Category 3)

KO, Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty. (I'd rather leave right-wingers out of this since I'm not that familiar with their propaganda, nor do I want to be).

KO tends to focus on the illegality and corruption of the Administration, and also sometimes veers into "nexus of terror and politics" terrortory. He, like so many DUers, wonders why some in Congress don't call out Republicans for their obvious abuses. It's not always a matter of having the right number of votes, its often just a matter of pointing out the obvious.

Lou Dobbs is often overwhelmed by the ineptitude of both the Executive and Legislative branches and he thinks people should register as Independents in order to make a statement like "we're not going to take it any more". He's also extremely concerned about the destruction of the Middle Class. I wouldn't say he wants people to move further left, and he certainly isn't lazy.

Cafferty is somewhat of a combination of the above two, and rather than focus too much on his own commentary he lets the people speak through their own correspondence. This highlights the growing polarization of the public, and how more and more people are becoming disenchanted with government in general. Not only is it "ugly out there" but there is a growing disconnect with government. The reasoning for this is often that government is paying less attention to the interests of the people and more attention to special interests.

[Rhythm and Blue]

78. Heh, let's go through it:

1. KO is a liberal commentator who has made a living calling for the head of Bush and his ilk. It is unsurprising that he would pander to his audience, most of whom agrees that the most important issue today is getting Bush out of office six months before he would otherwise have to step down.

2. Lou Dobbs is a Republican, who has recast himself as a "populist." He is a rampant protectionist, but other than that, he speaks from right-wing frames. He's an absolute bulldog on TV, and he's the sort of personality that sees anything he doesn't agree with as either evil or snivelling cowardace.

3. Jack Cafferty is a cranky old man who says things to elicit e-mail reactions. He's like a troll, only subtler and on television.

[AntiFascist]

111. So reading between the lines....

you seem to be saying that the situation is not as dire as all 3 of the above seem to paint it as being? KO is pandering to the far left, Dobbs sees an opportunity to push his protectionist and paleo-conservative agenda, and Cafferty is just trolling, trying to elicit extreme reactions?

[Rhythm and Blue]

115. Why, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The first two are commentators who made a name for themselves pandering to their audience, because that's what commentators do. The job of the last is to say things that will get people to e-mail in passionate responses.

[Forkboy]

9. You might as well wish for a billion dollars.

:)

[atreides1]

10. Expressing an opinion isn't being hyper

"Don't get mad that she's not afraid to hold us to the same standard of decorum that we want to hold the other guys to."

That only works if the "other guys" actually play by the same rules, which the Repukes don't. So, you then play by the rules that they understand and when they get their panties all bunched up, then you ask them how it feels.

If they don't like it and are willing to be part of the solution, instead of the problem, then you uphold standards of decorum that apply to everyone.

Right now all Mrs. Pelosi has done is brought a knife to a gun fight!!!!!!

[Rhythm and Blue]

16. If you think Congress is a "gun fight,"

take heart in the fact that Pelosi's managed to hit the other guys 86% of the time that someone was wounded, as per the link in my OP. You're fussing over the trash-talking between gunshots, and that's meaningless.

By the way, the last time I recall that any House member attacked the personal motivations of anyone while speaking on the floor, it was Jean Schmidt calling Murtha a "coward." And she apologized almost immediately.

[monktonman]

13. I respectfully disagree.

I know that pushing bills through congress is not easy, especially with such a slim majority. We cant have everything we want, I'll give you that.
Thing is, there is two sides to this game; policy and politics.

The perfect politician is composed of a mix of both policy and politics. While the dems are doing a fine job introducing productive legislation and fighting it out to try and get it passed, they are doing an absolute miserable job at politics.
Is it any wonder that alot of peoples perception of the Democratic party is that of a bunch of wimps?
When you ask them about specific laws that have impacted their lives, the public overwhelmingly supports Democratic policy initiatives yet somehow, they still look at the dems as a bunch of pussies.
Look no further than Pete Starks FORCED apology.
sad.

[stranger81]

15. Look, the DLC got what it wanted -- an apology -- but it shouldn't

expect us thinking folks to be happy about it, too. I'm plenty pissed about the leverage they applied to Stark, and you're dead wrong if you think it doesn't "affect anything, change anything, or do anything to anyone." Consistently standing behind the bloodthirsty republican war machine most certainly does have a consequence. Just ask our dead soldiers.

[paulk]

21. when you don't have an argument,

invoke the DLC.

[stranger81]

56. the argument's right there in black and white,

and it's no secret who's driving the agenda here. If you're not comfortable with what the DLC does, then don't support them.

[paulk]

82. bullshit

it's just the usual DU bogeyman. When all else fails, blame the DLC. No matter how irrelevant to the subject at hand. It's behind everything. It's hiding under your bed.

cripes.

[Dr Fate]

135. But we should assume that DLCers disagreed with Stark-right?

Is it really that outrageous to assume that the DLC and Bluedog types where among those making Stark apologize?

[paulk]

136. yeah, sure -

when one lives in a world so black and white that your bad guys are responsible for everything that's bad and your good guys are responsible for everything that's good and there's absolutely no space in between, then I suppose you can assume damn near anything...

[Dr Fate]

137. So the DLC and bluedogs were opposed to his apology? They were not for it?

Is that really a credible postion for you to take?

Is it really out-there to surmise that some of the same DEMS (among others, we will agree) who constantly bash the antiwar "nut roots" and voted to censure moveon also had somthing to do with this?

Sure- next you will tell me that DLCers & centrists never supported the war in the 1st place, or never supported Joe Lieberman (I-3rd party).

I'm just looking at their conservative record on Iraq, and it seems like they would be for Stark's apology before they would actually stand up for him against Bush.

I dont know about good guys & bad guys, I just know that this fits in with the DLC's reocord of being conservative on the war, and attacking people who are opposed to it (See Ned Lamont, etc.)

Are you really taking the position that centrist DEMS and DLCers had nothing to do with this at all???

[paulk]

138. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with your strawmen.

believe whatever you want.

[Dr Fate]

139. In other words, you cant defend the DLC's & centrist's conservative views and actions.

And you certainly cant maintain the outrageous notion that centrist DEMS & DLC members didnt spearhead the intra party preassure for the apology.

So yeah-bowing out of the debate on your part seems about right.

Hard to argue that the people who supported the war and Lieberman (I-3rd Party) were not also in line when it comes to Stark's remarks- isnt it?

It's not about "belief", it's about observation- and it's clear from their and past acts that DLCer's and centrists wanted Stark to apologize.

[tandot]

17. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Now, put on these:

and get one of these:




Because it will get hot in here :hi:

[gateley]

22. Can somebody tell me who the 5 Dems were that voted for censure? Thanks. nt

[tridim]

28. Thanks for posting this..

I've been trying to do the same on all the anti-Dem posts all over DU and it's been mostly futile. Lots of DU'ers have developed a "I hate Democrats" reflex, which is annoying and ironically exactly what the Republics want. Apparently it matters not that lots of Dems have almost perfect progressive voting records.

[Cha]

38. Yeah, and it's too bad My Issue is

life and death..it really is too bad.

[Rhythm and Blue]

52. kick nt

[MadHound]

60. Yadda, yadda, fucking yadda

Look, every single liberal and leftist just got one huge message from the Democratic party today, that we are not wanted, nor appreciated within the Democratic party. Our issues are not to be addressed, our needs, wants and concerns will not be heard. All the Democratic party apparently wants out of the left is their money and their votes, but we can expect zip, zilch, zero, nada, nothing in return. That's the message that is now being sent.

Now let me ask you something, would you stick around any organization if there was no benefit in it for you? Would you continue to contribute money and effort if you weren't going to get anything in return? Well frankly that is the situation liberals face across the country today. We've just been told in no uncertain terms to sit down, shut up and that we can't expect to receive anything in return for our support.

Fuck that! It is past time that the Democratic leadership was taught a lesson, that they aren't the party, but we the people are. Why the hell should we elect more goddamn Dems when they will continue to ignore us and abuse us?

Sorry, but what you're advocating is abused housewife syndrome. Even though the left is going to be abused and neglected, we should continue to hang in there and support the Dems, elect Dems and work for the Dems. Fuck that, I know when I'm not wanted and quite frankly if this is the attitude of the party, then by God, it's time to bring the party down.

[Rhythm and Blue]

63. Oh, the drama.

Apparently opposing Bush more than any other House ever recorded is not quite what you're looking for. No, what you really care about is the "message" that you get from worthless symbolic gestures.

[truebrit71]

75. With what? Strongly worded letters? I am impressed...

...:eyes:

[Rhythm and Blue]

84. No, on votes, as you would have seen if you had clicked the link in the OP,

or in the signature of every one of my posts. No House has ever been recorded as going along less with what a President wants. On the other hand, you yourself seem to be concerned about strongly-worded letters, given your outrage about this censure.

[MadHound]

90. You're little statement that you're making is just a bit off

It isn't opposing Bush that this article is stating, it is the fact that they're not backing Bush's legislation. Big fucking difference.

You want to see Congressional opposition? Hell, look at the impeachment of Clinton, or the investigation of Nixon. That was opposition. Hell, not only has this Congress failed to either investigate or impeach Bush, they took that off the table before they were even seated. No, instead the Dem party continues to ignore, insult and intimidate its liberal base, in essence telling us to sit down and shut up. Like I said before, fuck that. You may be willing to stick with a party that continues to repudiate you and your views, but I'm not. And quite frankly, I would start worrying about the Dems future, for with these sorts of insults the Dems are driving away more and more people, pissing off more and more of their base. Well guess what, when enough people get pissed, they kick out the party that they don't like and install their own. It happened to the Whigs and it can happen to the Dems.

[LoZoccolo]

97. "every single liberal and leftist just got one huge message from the Democratic party"

If hyperbole is essential to being a leftist, then you have some idea why I'm a centrist.

[truebrit71]

62. How are those subpoenas working out? Opposition MY ASS!!!

....I'll wait to get excited when they ACTUALLY HOLD SOMEONE ACCOUNTABLE!!!

'til then it's just apologist bullshit...

[Rhythm and Blue]

69. Yeah, it's totally their fault that Bushco has buried all evidence.

They should be able to hold them accountable without legal justification.

[truebrit71]

73. Are they the majority party or not? If yes, then they need to start..

...FUCKING ACTING LIKE IT!!!

The WH basically told Congress to go take a flying fuck at the moon, and all we get from the Dems are strongly worded letters...

No wonder the rethugs think we're a bunch of pussies...

[Rhythm and Blue]

Acting like what? Doing what? Sending strongly-worded letters?

That's what censure is, kiddo. Personally, I'd rather they save their political capital for votes that'll actually do something--you know, like they have been, given the fact that no House has ever opposed a President more.

[truebrit71]

93. Don't give me that crap...How have they opposed him? They have given him EVERYTHING he's demanded..

..AND he's gotten the Dem leadership to cow regular Dems into acquiescence as well...

What opposition? You MUST be joking?

[Rhythm and Blue]

95. Yes, everything he's demanded in 14% of votes,

and nothing he's demanded 86% of the time.

[truebrit71]

98. War funding 100% of it. Wire-taps 100% of the time. Habeus Corpus STILL gone...

...yeah...he's REALLY been opposed hasn't he?

[Rhythm and Blue]

106. Habeaus Corpus was defeated in a party-line vote

to break the Republican filibuster. FISA has been amended and the worst parts removed. There's no public support for immediately defunding the war, and conditional war funding was vetoed.

[truebrit71]

117. The phone companies are getting off scott free...

..the vast majority of Americans want the troops home NOW. Simplest way to do that, set timelines on ALL war-funding bills...if chucklenuts decides to veto those too...we need to go on the offensive and ask why the pretzeldent won't support the troops...

But that would require intestinal fortitude and a spine...something that Dems don't have...

[Rhythm and Blue]

119. That is actually completely untrue.

The part about Americans wanting the troops home NOW, at any rate. 18% of Americans want the troops home immediately. 2/3 want a phased withdrawal. And polling didn't support an all-or-nothing gambit on war funding, as much as we would have liked to see it.

And the part about the phone companies is why the far left isnt taken seriously by the Dems any more. They pass legislation for us, and we forget all about it--except for the one clause we wanted to be in there. They throw down a party-line vote on Habeas Corpus restoration, and you blame the Democrats for it failing against a Republican filibuster. There's no winning with you guys.

[truebrit71]

123. In my reply I put the phrase "timeline"...do you think I meant the US wants them home tomorrow?

"the far left"?

Nice republikan speak there my centrist collegue....:eyes:

If the phone companies weren't breaking the law, why do they need immunity?

[Rhythm and Blue]

124. Sorry I took "the vast majority of Americans want the troops home NOW."

to mean that you believe the vast majority of Americans want the troops home now.

I'm certainly no centrist. I'm on the left half of this party. I am not, however, far-left.

(Interesting that the only aspect of FISA you care about is retribution)

[truebrit71]

126. No the part about FISA that most interests me is why they started the taps months BEFORE 9/11...

..THAT needs to get looked into, and one way to rattle the cages is NOT to let the corporate wing of the GOP of scott-free...

What, pray tell, do you think is "far left"?

[Rhythm and Blue]

127. Fortunately, the investigation is ongoing.

Given the new allegations, it'll be interesting to see what evidence Congress can find.

I'm not sure what you're looking for in a definition of "far left." It means about what it is.

[Totally Committed]

77. You haven't even been here a month, and we're already grating on your nerves....

or were you just looking for a way to tell us what lousy Democrats we are -- again?

:nopity:

GMAFB

TC

[HughBeaumont]

85. Banana Republix are teh R0XX0rZ!! Or however you spell that.

Almost like the "center" is coming out of the woodwork to shame-SHAME us for criticizin' our lapdog "Democrats".

[Totally Committed]

87. Please.... I know!

The "center" can have Madam Windsock. She sucks. Period.

I'n just getting tired of all the bossy OPs telling us how tiresome we "lesser" Democrats and our "silly" issues are. This poster hasn't even been here a month... already has 1000+ posts, and I'll bet over 90% of them are lectures about the perils of the Left.

I'm sick of it.

TC

[Rhythm and Blue]

88. Wrong. I've been here since 2003.

My latest name was Kelly Rupert. I wasn't tombstoned; you can click through and see.

[Totally Committed]

96. And in my spare time, I'm a Victoria's Secret Model....

Isn't the Internet a great thing?

TC

[Rhythm and Blue]

104. You want evidence? Look at the semicolons.

Just google both names on site:democraticunderground.com.

lol, nobody uses as many of those bad boys as I do. And R&B showed up right after Kelly Rupert suddenly stopped posting, holding the same positions and the same beliefs. Seriously, though, believe what you want.

[RandomKoolzip]

99. You were Kelly Rupert?

Wow - I agreed with you (Kelly) about 94% of the time. Your input, to me anyways, was always welcome.

So...why do you feel the need to sockpuppet? I don't get it. :shrug:

[Rhythm and Blue]

102. Eh, it's not sockpuppeting. I let old names retire all the time,

on every forum I'm on. The fact that you recognize my name and state you generally agree with me is why I do it. To you, my name made you feel more favorable towards what I'm saying. Others read my posts and were more inclined to disagree, based on that name. Branding is important in politics and business, and I like to avoid that.

Generally, once I start getting people saying "Of course you think that, look at what else you think :eyes:," I switch it up. I like to have my posts approached from a neutral perspective.

[Rhythm and Blue]

128. And here dies Rhythm and Blue.

[babylonsister]

120. No. nt

[AlCzervik]

132. what may seem stupid to you might be important to someone else.