When does criticism turn into bashing and when does the herd effect replace reason?

I think there are plenty of signs that many on DU have turned into bashers and that the herd effect is alive and well.

I never cease to be amazed that 'criticisms' of Dems are more common than criticisms of Repubs.

I never cease to be amazed at the level of vitriol whenever a Democrat fails to comb their hair to someone's liking, while right wing talking points are endlessly repeated and openly celebrated with great glee.

I can't get past the idea that those who tend to claim to be the farthest left also tend to be the greatest Dem bashers (as opposed to intellectually honest critics).

The howls of self proclaimed righteous indignation over someone's claim to have thought for themselves is all too often outed by their spewing the same tired spew as so many others. Independent thought and intellectual honesty often seem lacking when it is most loudly proclaimed.

I'm not given to conspiracy theory buy-in, but not all weird occurrences are conspiracy theories. It is surely possible, as some have theorized, that the most vocal or influential of the DU Basher Brigade are, in fact, concerned with other than a Democratic agenda.

Whether all of the above holds water or not, it is clear that the tone and tenor on DU has changed dramatically over the last year or so. The rancor is palpable and the common ground has shrunk like an Alpine glacier.

It seems to me that our common foe is benefiting from what started as silly internecine squabbling but has become very close to open warfare here on DU. And this isn't about the primary wars. This is much more about ripping apart the Democratic Party. It is far different from the earlier primary wars.

When the fight gets more serious, just know where I'm coming from.

I'm a Democrat.

There are several groups that make their presence felt here, often to the place's detriment. I can think of a few names but they may not be the names you're thinking of.

Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

I predict you will ignore this challenge.

Come on .... answer.

Come on out and play.

Take the dare.

the only dems we attack are those who earn our scorn. Pelosi is damned close to earning it daily. We shall see how soon she caves on SCHIP and Iraq funding - AGAIN.

Hillary and her non position on NAFTA, her FISA vote, her IRaq votes (plural, consistent, repeated) has justified democrats' anger and mistrust.

Show me where I am an HRC supporter

Show it or shut up and start your own thread against her.

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

That is factually wrong.

I dare you, the same as the one your agreed with, to show where I support HRC or ANY candidate.

I am here to discuss issues. YOU made it about people.

Put up or shut up.

Ya better be able to back it up, dontcha think?

Or are empty words all that's needed to get high fives from the posse?

Hey, you should know the answer to that one by now. :)

I might have to steal that one. "Oh, good. More high fives for empty words." Fits about half of the Greatest Page at any given time.

must be desperate for attention....better stay out your way of flame baiting.



:hide:

Do some of you people just wander around looking for stuff like that?

Geez....

peanut brains...........I could have sworn you've lost it, cause I saw it walking down the road asking for its master.


:evilgrin:

Tell you what. Take your little star and go use the Search function. Waste a couple of hours wading through my posts of the past several months (or years, for that matter) and when you find evidence of your little conspiracy theory, feel free to point it out.

I don't post regularly on DU, and I don't have any "friends" here. I also don't waste my time following people around to nitpick their every move. Most people tend to outgrow that behavior at some point.

indiscriminately insulted me.....twice, first you said this (Do some of you people just wander around looking for stuff like that?)

then you now made this comment

Take your little star and go use the Search function. Waste a couple of hours wading through my posts of the past several months (or years, for that matter) and when you find evidence of your little conspiracy theory, feel free to point it out.

and this



From responses like ones above........tell me, who goes around wondering through post looking for stuff like that (using your vernacular)who? :shrug:


Your rhetoric is not surprising, besides I don't have time to waste searching for your post as I can see from your responses, its completely pointless.

By the way don't hate the player hate the game, 'NITWITS'

:dunce:

He didn't respond to himself. End of story. I guess you are having difficulty comprehending that.

in the first place, you had an opportunity to do just that but you refused, anyway apology accepted.

B-)

"peanut brains"? What are you, twelve?

you have much anger. think more peace. look at puppies or something. Dang.

Yoo Hoo ......

Ya there ......... ?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Take the dare.

You made the accusation. Back it up or admit you're full of shit.

Come on out.

Silence proves you're factually deficient and reduces to zero anything else you say.

YOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO :hi:

now you're in for it. :popcorn:

One of the names

.... a Democrat???????

I can't say I've ever noticed you or anything you've posted. But feel free to call me out. I think I can handle it.

:)

v

I used to enjoy it far more when it was actually a progressive site.

on edit - you simply aren't able to absord the fact that many of us are progressives first (ie., posessing a principle or two) and Democrats second.

In someone's back?

You have NO idea where my moral compass lies. You simply assume I'm talking about YOU. And in making that assumption, you confirm any suspicions.

Democrats cover a wide spectrum. It runs from Left to right.

I'm a Democrat.

What are you?

because they allow the thought process to take a break. This way as long as the label says what its supposed to its A-OK with you. What if Jeb Bush registed as a Democrat and got the nomination. WOO HOOO

Simplicity works for you, obviously.

Democrats supported him that he beat the alternatives?

If that was the Democratic party I'd leave it.

It would, indeed, represent the majority of Democrats and would not be a party with which I care to be affilliated.

That, however, simply is not the case. Fortunately.

If Jeb Bush was to become a Democrat it would mean he had an ephinany and then it would be up to Democrats to determine if that ephinany was real. I trust my fellow Democrats, power to the people and all that, are wise enough to make that determination ,and if they did then John Ellis Bush would
be acceptable...

The hatchet is buried most preferably in the chest area. The idea is to cleave the ribcage and have the hatchet separate the chest cavity.

By the way, please don't think you're so bright that you set an intellectual trap into which simpletons like I fell in.

I have a feeling I have a long wait ahead of me.

Thanks for the physical threat.

writing their final thesis in English Language that warrants corrections, do you? I don't see how that is relevant to his response :shrug:

He won't.

Bet on it.

Can y'all work up a schedule maybe? Sort of even the distribution out a little?

Obviously your little tutu is in a tizzy by it.

But I can't get the old gal running the show. What is up with her and why does she turn my stomach?

Does it make you uncomfortable?

Doesn't cause discomfort at all. It's a feeling similar to sitting in a two hour traffic jam.

That was good.

your assertions with facts.

You called me a Hillary supporter earlier. I'm still waiting for the proof of that. But no. When ya got nuttin' ya go for the cheap shots.

Nice.

you like to wrap them up in neat little insults that attack wide swaths of this community.

Then come back and say what you wish.

I DARED you to do something. I predict you will not because you CAN'T. You're impotent to show what you accuse me of.

Also I was accused of -endorsing- the horrid state this country is in just because I find comparisons to the hideous reactionary government of Weimar Germany to be less than illustrative.

It means you get read and you make an impact. The smaller minds put on ignore the people they don't understand.

I couple of thoughts on that.

First, many of them aren't Democrats so they don't feel any obligation or loyalty to support Democrats, especially specific Dems. To many, they still somehow see no difference between Democrats or Republicans, so supporting Dems anywhere to the right of Gandhi is pointless.

Second, some of the naysayers are in "safe" states, states that are either solidly red or solidly blue. In that case, the naysayers believe that they can "afford" to not support our nominee or other Democrats, simply because they consider their votes meaningless in the big picture. I'd never even thought of that concept until a couple of posters indicated as their justification. That's apparently the "my vote doesn't count, so I'll do what I want" rule.

But I don't understand why they choose to be purely disruptive and patently divisive on a DEMOCRATIC website.

I just don't get it. :shrug:

There's a phase in the sophomore year (that some never outgrow) that says 'putting things down makes me rise above them.' Know what I mean?

;)

They think it's a progressive one.

I had a discussion just last night with someone who insisted that the rules stated that we only have to support "progressive Democratic candidates" and we're free to not support others. I pointed out that the word "progressive" was not a qualifier on "Democratic candidates" in the rules, and the response was that it was inherent. Uh, sure.

Edit: clarification

and "democratic party" website, 70% are here as progressives, 30% see it as "democratic party". I think we should poll ALL DUErs for accurate numbers. But you will see that your group, the party uber alles, is in the minority here.
And as the rules say it is for democrats and other progressives.

so this dem party fight is yours, a minority group at DU. The majority of DUers do not agree with you.

Easy.

I know you like to ignore that next sentence.

But the point is: it's Skinner's board. He can clarify points, he can change the mission, he can change the rules. But it's not up to a poll - it's up to Skinner.

Most of us do not. Because "the party" is not acting in "the party"s best interests. So we criticize those in "the party" who are ruining our party.

And if I thought "the Party" was that divergent from me, I'd leave it and support alternatives.

but I don't think third party is the answer. I think back to the people, the grassroots is the answer. It (dem party) is supposed to defend certain ideals. As is DU.
Don't try your love it or leave it on me. My family has been actively fighting for rights in this country for all people for four generations, within that party.

I think the current dem leadership is dead wrong. And I think the answer is to change it, not leave it. And nobody, not even screamers here at DU is going to take that right away from me/us.

Those who love nancy pelosi can campaign for her. go for it. enjoy. cheer her on. that is your right. It is NOT your right to tell me how to think.

I'm not wed to a party, or a web site.

I'll stick with those that are closest to my agenda, and none that aren't.

The Democratic Party is just a name - as membership changes, so does the party. It's happened before, it will happen again.

And I have no interest in telling you how to think.

To me, this doesn't show their superior abilities to discern things about the Democrats; it shows their INFERIOR abilities to discern things about the REPUBLICANS!!

Just had to say that. :hi:

I personally think that it's often just a convenient excuse, but you're definitely right - if people believe that any of our candidates would be equivalent to Rudy or Mitt or Fred, they haven't paid enough attention to Rudy, Mitt, and Fred. Or Bush, for that matter.

further the same republican agenda with their actions.
(with notable exceptions, of course. )

argument showing up for days at a time. Same people agree and same people disagree. I find it disheartening, as I have heard that DU is an open minded and intelligent discussion board. And it is, most of the time, but I have seen many times where responders often veer so far off the original intent & subject with heated and nasty arguments of personal opinion.

I agree with you and find many posts perhaps are more suited for the Lounge Section.

High-flown critiques of internecine squabbling from the King of Internecine Provocation himself.

Preposterous, as always.

I hope he doesn't see that -- he'll start refusing to do the dishes!! :rofl:

nice.

I'm curious about your user name (ALCIBIADES_MYSTERY).

If my memory serves me right, he was an Athenian General/Politician.

I'm I right or wrong.

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

I was afraid of this.

Whatever it was the Mods deemed it not worthy of seeing the light of day forevermore.

Some will say that each party has those that tend to side with the other party on some issues, and therefore each are representing the "middle" in states where there aren't extremes that are powerful on either side. There may be some truth to that, but there's an important distinction I think that needs to be made of what I see to be true about "moderate" Democrats vs. "moderate" Republicans. Mind you, this isn't necessarily ALL of these that would be "moderate", but many that have coopted the label of "moderate".

"Moderate" Republicans are those Republicans that vote on some votes the "liberal" side. The key question is on what side do they vote on the IMPORTANT votes to what core Republicans want. Or put in another way, if we equivalence Republicans goals as being the same as corporate America's, they would appear to be allowed to deviate on votes that don't matter to corporate America, and therefore the Republican Party, but on key votes to maintain corporate dogma, they fall into line with the other Republicans and vote party line.

In the case of "moderate" Democrats, these Democrats also vote on some votes the "conservative" side. But in the case of Democrats, are they voting for votes that aren't as important to the core constituency of the Democratic Party, if you consider the core constituency of the party to be that which is NON-corporate in nature? HELL NO! They vote with the Republicans on these KEY votes and therefore that's why we get NOTHING done for the really important issues for Democrats. In the case of these "moderates", they only vote WITH the Democrats on those more "meaningless" issues but that raise their "liberal" overall voting ratings, like abortion, gay marriage, etc. They champion themselves as protector of these rights in their selections for the supreme court, etc. too. So on some of these issues they are an improvement on the Republicans, but they really are NO different than the "moderate" Republicans on those issues as they relate to corporate power in America. And THAT is the rub! By allowing these so-called "moderate" Democrats to control key votes in our party, we take AWAY those key votes from taking down corporate power in America, which is what the core constituency of the Dems want, and is so *key* to fixing other issues such as the Iraq War, outsourcing, global warming, etc. when these so-called "moderates" work against us on these very important issues.

In short, the moderates on both sides work equally hard to promote the concerns of the corporate lobbyists that pay them, which is why many of us "bash" them so much. We see through this pile of illusions that they throw up to try and protect what is in effect "one party rule".

Now if you get some TRUE middle of the road folks that might have some conservative viewpoints on some things like gun ownership, etc. like Paul Hackett that still don't want to have corporate rule, THEM's the moderates I WANT in our party to attract the larger electorate and the independents into our mix. But those kind of candidates won't work against us when the chips are down to fix the really important issues that Corporate America stands in our way on. And people like Hackett were those that the DLC types try and keep out because they know that folks like him expose that they aren't moderates and won't cowtow to their notion of "moderation" that is really corporatism being disguised as being "moderate".

I think even many of those in the religious right are starting to see where their party works against them at times. Even though these potentially rational people are only a small part of this segment, these are the kinds that are NOT appealed to by our current so-called "moderates", as they don't address their middle of the road concerns, and still promote corporate concerns. They either still vote for hard-lined social conservatives or stay out.

Many of us may be called "bashers". But many of us are just passionate Democrats and we see a real cancer that is screwing up our party and feel the need to speak STRONGLY against it being infected even more. Call it bashing if you like, but I'd call it being strong willed in the face of those trying to corrupt the power of the people's will versus corporate will.

..... if my definition of things matters at all, I would not define you as a basher. I actually saw myself (philosophically if not strategically) in much of what your wrote.

I guess big difference is (might be) that I can't get all red faced about, lets say, a Ben Nelson as many tend to do. He is what he is and he serves the purpose of giving us the majority. Would I *prefer* someone more liberal? Hahahahaha. Of course I would. But I find my pragmatic side allows me to tolerate him.

What frosts my ass of late is the constant bashing of our leadership. Nancy Pelosi may not be doing everything we want in the way we want (even **I** wrote a post in the form of an open letter to her), no one can convince me she is working against us. Yet we see on this forum day after day calls for her impeachment or removal or demanding her resignation. I posted a poll asking who you least prefer - Bush Cheney, Pelosi, or Reid - and two actually voted for her. Come on. Someone PREFERS Cheney to Pelosi and posts on DEMOCRATIC Underground????????

The two who prefer Cheney to Pelosi are bashers.

You are not.

In my opinion.

DSB

explains the essence of ideological hegemony in this country's politics.

basically Corporate America is Moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans, here lies our problem.

This is total misrepresentation all round, we might as well call them as it is which is 'self interest'

Moderate Democrats/Republicans(SELFISH BUNCH)

The difference between criticism and bashing is simply that the former is directed at ideas, the latter at the person.

The illusion of anonymity and privacy often leads people to treat others differently than they would in a face-to-face conversation.

That's really all there is to it.

and about time, too.

Not one word of discussion from you in the entire thread, but a few aimed at me. And for that it should be locked? The OP was quite fairly phrased and clearly an opinion. You're among those who chose, instead of discussing, to bash.

Mirrors can be painful to use.

I wrote about Pelosi and her well-earned position of disrespect. Not to mention the fact that Congress, under her leadership, polls even lower than Bush!

what is your problem?

I consider my "foe" to be those in power, of whichever party, who use that power to the detriment of humanity.

I've been a "lesser of two evils" Democrat since 1965. I will continue to "bash" those of either party who put politics above common humanity.

I **think** understand your sentiment. I also note your liberal use of quotes. I don't see anything wrong with issue-related criticism when, in your personal view, it is due. I actually feel the same way and am not a go along to get along type (as evidenced by this thread, for example! :) )

The point I want to discuss is the strategic viability of your posture (again, I am NOT trying to bash ... but rather to discuss).

I may be going to far with assumption here, but I am assuming you will not only criticise Dems but would vote against them if you felt they didn't completely deserve your vote.

If that's okay with you (again, I am assuming this and welcome being told my assumption is wrong) what good does it do to vote either against the Dem or for another candidate who has NO chance of winning and, by so voting, could swing the election to the worst candidate possible?

Maybe I am parsing this out too far?

I have, and will, vote against politicians of any party that exceeds what I consider common humanity.

I don't give a rip if a Democrat votes to name a bridge after Ronald Reagan. I'll even hold my nose in the face of some "compromises" over a variety of issues as the "best we can hope for".

But, when Democrats vote with Republicans on such issues as funding, or giving acquiescence to, a murderous war, torture, withholding a woman's right to choose, only in an effort to retain their seats, I will refuse to participate in a system that puts "practical" or "party politics" above humanity.

I have the quaint notion that my vote belongs to me and I am free to cast it for the candidate I think most fit.

In my opinion, all political parties are vehicles of convenience in which individuals join together to advance certain concerns, ideals, desires, etc. The triumph of The Party should not be the goal, and if the party departs from some of those ideals, concerns, etc in the name of political expediency then it becomes antithetical to it's purpose.

Or, as Thomas Jefferson said:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

How many politicians do you find that meet your standards?

For nearly all politicians, "party" is significantly important, compromise is a fact of life, and pandering is a necessary evil in the election process. In my personal experience, I have seen very few people that could consistently steer clear of those things in decision-making and still get elected to or remain in office.

I recognize that politicians are, first and foremost, politicians. I fully expect them to devote themselves to getting in office and staying there above all else. They, as you say, will compromise, pander, and toe the party line in order to do so.

I have no expectation of a "perfect" politician who will meet my "standards". But, I do demand some basic elements of a concern for humanity and responsibility for their actions.

And, I feel it is the responsibility of each citizen to demand that all politicians be held accountable.

I tend to place more emphasis on post-election actions of politicians than on the promises that they make to get elected. Obviously, we can't hope to push a more progressive agenda if they don't get elected in the first place.

That being said, we do need to do what we can to ensure that, once elected, they pursue an agenda that is responsible and has a social conscience.

and it reflects my sentiments exactly.

Thanks for raising the level of discourse on DU!

I think it's more than just left vs. center vs. somewhere in between.

I do a lot more looking than posting on this board, and, recently, I have tended to see the splitting off of the following groups:



1. Democratic Party Loyalists, regardless of left/center/between status.

These folks feel that despite all disagreements (and they do have them), they will support whatever Democratic candidate ends up getting the nomination. They see the election as a war that must be won and the installing of a Democrat as the top priority, above all other issues. Their positive side is that they tend to try and accommodate different points of view as long as they can be assured that people with these points of view will vote (D) on election day. Their negative side is that they often tend to see things only from the party's perspective and sometimes defend the current inaction of the Democrats in Congress to the point of absurdity, at least to the other groups. They also have a tendency to feel betrayed when people of conscience say that they will sit out the election or vote for a 3rd party candidate based on their beliefs.


2. Progressives of Conscience

These folks have a set of ideals, some in common, some different from each other, that they wish to see implemented as policy by the US government. Many of these are concerns we all share: ending the war, reversing climate change, stopping the imperial presidency, reversing the 25% poverty rate among American children, reversing the erosion of the middle class, etc. The difference is that to the Progressive of Conscience, these issues are so crucial that using them as pawns in an election strategy is flat out wrong. Pelosi's and Reid's inaction on impeachment, for example, is incredible to them because Bush's power grab has been so obvious and so obviously unimpeded, even with Democrats in control of Congress. The Progressives of Conscience see very clearly how the Bush administration is setting up the Presidency as "unitary executive", with signing statments, executive orders, a reinterpretation of torture, etc. They are like the people who see the approaching tsunami from a cliff and run down to tell the townspeople, only to be told by the town council that this isn't a good time politically to talk about the weather. The positive side of the Progressives of Conscience is that they are often willing to go out to protests despite all the subtle and not-so-subtle threats of the police and US military. They provide energy and vision. Their negative side is that they don't tend to have any patience with politics or the political machinery that makes things go in Washington. As a result, they become impatient and sometimes despair of change, and they express that on this board.



3. The End the War at all Costs group

This is also a group of conscience, but with a single goal: to stop the war in Iraq and prevent the coming war in Iran. To this group, the 2006 election was a mandate to anti-war Democrats, and they don't understand why the Democrats are still funding this immoral and illegal war. They are most likely to see the Democratic party as complicit and are most likely to support Cindy Sheehan in her run against Pelosi, despite Sheehan's inexperience or ability to really win. For them, Sheehan is "sending a message" and they wish to be part of that message. This group has clear positives in their understanding of the issues surrounding this war and they are targeted and focused. The negative is that they often don't get the whole picture, not only of the politics in Washington but of the sheer magnitude of the problem in Iraq and the net effect of removing troops all at once.

"Democratic Party Loyalists" can also be "people of conscience." Their consciences urge them to do everything possible to prevent another Republican administration and Congressional majority.

They may also agree 100% with the issues outlined for your #2 and #3.

It may be more an issue of tolerance, and what difference people are willing to tolerate for the sake of any progress at all, or for the sake of stemming the backslides we're seeing now.

Like letting more American soldiers die until your party can get in and fix the problem.

I am not saying I disagree with waiting, or moderation on the part of the Democrats right now. There are good political reasons for all of these things. But if you're truly a person of conscience, these waits are immoral and the results unjustifiable. I am honest enough to admit that, as a party loyalist, I've had to make some compromises. I tend to see it as "being realistic", but I am under no illusions that these compromises won't be killing others in the meantime.

Instead of letting them die while waiting, it's letting them die and die and die....

What's the opposite of "compromise" in this case? Instead of getting something done slower than we'd like, it's getting NOTHING done whatsoever. That's moral integrity?

Just trying to get clarification on what you meant.

If a Democrat does not get elected, a Republican will.

Therefor, yes -- if a Democrat doesn't get elected, then more will die.

and that the Republicans will not. You are also assuming that a 3rd party will never win.

What you and I both do is put political calculations before conscience. We've picked a party that seems better than the other, and we both are dedicated to getting that party elected in the hopes that that party will take moral action. In that sense, we consider ourselves moral.

But true morality involves not counting the political cost. One does the right thing regardless of the political winds. That is why so many on this board admire Al Gore: he talked about climate change when he was ridiculed for it, without counting the political cost.

The Progressives of Conscience will not make the same calculations we will. They will vote exactly what their conscience dictates, regardless of how that vote affects the whole. (That is why those of us who have made our peace with our compromises are so upset with them.) They will vote for Sheehan, even if it sends Pelosi back in a weakened political position. They don't care about the politics of it, just that the right thing is done. (And they are not so sure that Pelosi will ever do the right thing, even with a Democratic President, House and Senate.)

I have no illusions about the morality of my stance. I think you and your husband do, which is why you get so drawn into these battles with Progressives of Conscience. You are trying to prove to yourself that you are still moral, good people, despite your political compromises. I don't need to be a nice, good, moral person. I need to get my party in a get certain goals accomplished. That's how I see it.

I assume Republicans will NOT stop our military involvement in Iraq.
And yes, I assume a 3rd party will not win.

MY conscience thus dictates that I vote against Republicans, and thus for Democrats. To me, it's immoral to do anything else.

So I don't see this as a "compromise" at all.

The compromise is saying "we need 60 votes", when we don't.
The compromise is saying kerry didn't have the "proof", so he did the only thing by stepping down.
the right thing is what Boxer and the black caucus did, fighting the false ohio vote count.
the compromise is dianne feinstein pushing the FISA bill, and dems even considering it for a vote! The compromise is the dems taking 20 minutes to debate the FISA bill.
(I don't see it as compromise, I see it as criminal.)

To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval, To endure resignedly or patiently, To answer affirmatively, To receive something, especially with favor. Often used with of.

I think what you say is right on. and true. And it isn't about enver amking compromise. compromise is ok. but not when compromise means giving up on all the big issues, and accepting a minimum wage increase as enough.

Russ Feingold has a campaign for progressives as does dfa (read Dean). There are also the clean money fights to get corporate money out of the process, and the election protection. There is also putting our officials feet to the fire to represent the democratic majority. And I don't think it is just compromise we're talking about. It is the deepest, dearkest of compromise, as someone else put it. continuing the war, for example, is not compromise.

They'd all have mud slung at them, and all would have to get into the mud to fight. It's a dirty game, and none are saints. Just the nature of the beast.

Fight in the primaries, fine.

elected? or the great candidate (forgot name) madfloridian posted about. or the feingold group? There are people who will take office and fight the good fight. we have already seen that a dem majority is not enough, when the dlc as actively making sure that only "third way' dems get in.

No reason why not.

WIll kick it

The only reason the Republicans are in power is election fraud. The majority of americans are democrats. In addition to election fraud, we have another problem, which is that the dlc has actively wasted money and energy fighting progressive democrats, to make sure that the Democrats elected represent the "third way", as the dlc calls it. Some of us call it republican lite.
And that is where the big divide is.
between those who support the dlc strategy: because you see their strategy as a way for dems to be in power.
There are other ways for the dems to be in power: honest elections, where the people actually vote, and corrupt corporate interests are NOT the deciding factors.

There were at least 13 Congressional seats stolen in 2006. The democratic contenders, in each instance, protested and asked congress to investigate. Our dems chose not to. What does that say for our dem majority? It tells me, that dem leadership is fighting the wrong fight. Leaving those 13 seats unchallenged, giving them to the republicans, just as we gave the republicans the presidency twice. Is that the sort of leadership you believe in?

Come on, the dlc handed over the presidency twice. I don't believe their priorities are the same as ours. They care more about having a center-to-right government than a dem government.

.... the media is the even bigger problem. If we had an honest media, the average American would be OUTRAGED that his vote was manipulated.

If the DLC were better known, their currently lingering waning days would have been long gone.

media, but we are all out there fighting election fraud. that is something we can actually change as citizens. And eliminating corporate influence in government will change the media, by re-regulating.

'RE-REGULATING' the media.

bringing in stronger measures, now how we word that is another thing.

power are not going to do what needs to be done.

They are in the media's pockets and gethering largesse from such a relationship at the expense of the rest of the party AND their supporters.

In my opinion, the ONLY solution to our problem is build an opposition party FIRST, THEN go after the Republicans. Otherwise, half the guys on our team are trying to score for the other side and the other side will automatically win every time. Pretty much what we are seeing now.

"Democrats of Conscience" or maybe "Reasoned Democrats"

This group sees the party as the best way to achieve their long term goals (most all of which are on the agenda of your groups 2 and 3). They see that there are problems with the party and they see some shortcomings in the leadership and in the candidates. But they also see that, in the USA, with the system of governance we have, short of armed revolution, the change comes in small, incremental steps. And sometimes the steps are painful in their omission or commission.

So this group is not about the left/right continuum at all. It is about strategy for achieving the goal(s). It isn't emotional. (**Not** to say that the people within the group are unemotional.) The shortfall of this group is that they appear to those emotionally invested in an issue or issues as uncaring and unconcerned and cold hearted and uninformed and blindly faithful to the Party. In fact, they may or may not be. What they ARE committed to is winning so they can have the actual ability to actually make those actual incremental changes that move us, as humans and as a planet, forward.

for political expediency.

The problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too: you want to be a moral person and allow an immoral war to continue by supporting those on your own side who are allowing it to continue. When the Progressives of Conscience call you on this, you get upset and that's how these DU flame fests start.

I have long since admitted to myself that political expediency is a necessary evil, and it is an evil because it allows immoral actions to continue. But humans are political animals and power is always a nasty struggle. I am more of a realist than you are, I think, and more honest. I don't put hearts and flowers around allowing this war in Iraq to continue; it's an abomination. And, to a certain extent, I am participating in allowing it, mostly because I know how politics works. But my conscience is not completely clear and I know that. You still want yours to be, which is why you fight so hard.

the troops home, but letting the embassy stay there. That would be a compromise. What we have here is full out surrender to the neocons. A compromise would be letting Bush step down without going to jail. A compromise would be counting the votes in ohio, and having kerry take his place as pres, albeit a little late.

But I do believe you are missing something.

There is a difference between blind loyalty to the Democratic party, and voting for and/or supporting individual Democratic candidates when no third party candidate has a chance to win - and the Republican candidate is worse than the Democratic candidate. What you do not take into account in your classifications is that acting with conscience can dictate voting for a less than ideal candidate, because that candidate (among all the candidates opposing a completely unacceptable candidate) who has a chance to be elected. That is not being a party loyalist, nor is it (by your definition) a progressive with conscience.

Who one votes for (or works for in advance of the election) is only one part of conscientious actions, yet you have made it the (or one of the) primary division in your schema between "loyalist" and "conscience." It would be far down the list on mine.

"Progressives of conscience" do too.

.... then you and I are alike, I think (if I understand correctly what you're saying).

I have no desire to see this war go one day longer. I am at a loss to understand why they have voted to fund it and I am not happy about that.

But I also understand that what I think and what I believe has to be tempered with the realities that are DC and national politics.

Does that, then, make me a person who tolerates an immoral war? Technically, I guess it does.

But since I never caused it and there is nothing I can do to end it, then I just have to live with my outrage. That said, let me quickly add that those who now have the power to end it didn't cause the war either. That they can been seen as perpetuating the war is real. The fact that they are is debatable.

I'd also like impeachment. But that won't happen until the majority of the country and the media is on board with it. I can't change the politicians and I can't change the media, but I'm sure as hell changing the populace one person at a time. That's the best I can do.

I gather you see yourself as part of group 2.

I will vote for a dem for president, and yes I want that dem to win, even if it's Hillary, but it's far, far larger than supporting a party. It's about the desire to see positive change in this country; to see programs like SCHIP and ENDA passed AND expanded. It's about reversing the poverty rate, raising taxes on the wealthy, providing programs for the working class and the poor. It's about closing existing loopholes for corporations, and enacting new regulations on industry. It's about making progress on climate change. It's about appointing decent Justices on SCOTUS and judges on the Federal Bench.
It's about getting the hell out of Iraq.

And it's about more. It's about recognizing that if a Dem isn't elected, NONE of the things I listed have even a ghost of a chance. And before you start in with how that agenda doesn't stand a chance, let me say that you have no crystal ball and neither do I. The reason I think those items stand a chance is that all of the candidates, flawed as they are, have far more liberal/progressive positions and records than any of the repukes.

Oh, and I've been to D.C. to protest 3 in the past 5 years. How about you?

to give myself some leeway in criticizing the Dems. I've not jumped on the impeach Pelosi bandwagon because I think that sort of shit is unproductive. But, on the other hand, I will write scathing critiques of some of the more stupid crap I see.

I've also posted my disagreements with the notion of HRC as the nominee to the point where I'm not going to bother anymore. Anyone who doesn't get it by now just isn't paying attention. I'll vote for her, but I'm going to be bitching the whole time about corporate bootlicker Dems...and they'll deserve it. We're being led down the primrose path to hell by the corporations and those who feel beholden to the status quo and I, for one, am PISSED about it.

It's all well and good to launch into the Repugs for everything THEY'VE done, it's quite another to stand idly by and watch Democrats continue insane and criminally stupid policies just because to do otherwise would be politically inconvenient.

You, in my opinion, fall into the honest critic category.

I hope you read the OP that way.

No worries. :)

you in a debate based on your post, as you have pointed out my concerns too and furthermore you've expressed it more than what I would have done. There is one word I can think of thats happened on DU and thats 'INFILTRATION' period. They come in disguises by their time in posting till they get to the wonderful pass mark, then they start their disruptions.

Food for thought....watch out for the Russians,(metaphor) they have an agenda. :think:

I mean, c'mon, a dozen times a day we're harrassed about who we'll vote for?

if you keep poking a lion with a stick, if you get scratched, its your fault.

how about you guys leave everyone alone in the first place, and let the primaries actually happen before you start your purges?

mmmmkay?

Sorry, but you missed the boat on that one, hoss.

And if I need to tolerate your yammering, you have to tolerate mine ..... mmmmkay?

It's simple, really. On one hand, we have can have reasonable and analytical discourse over the position (past and/or present) a particular candidate may hold. Yet, when that thread begins using phrases like, 'authoritarian', 'fascist', or 'corporatist' in describing that same candidate, we can be reasonably certain that the thread has degenerated into another Bash-Fest

(Bash-Fests-- brought to you by those kind people who think civil discourse is over-rated and unproductive).

I'm right there with you on this. Having been present for the flame-wars of 2004, I see a much different type of candidate-basher in 2007. In 2004, I actually read many, many thoughtful and incisive posts into why I should vote for a candidate. In 2007, the vast majority of threads telling me to vote for a candidate are only supported by why I *shouldn't* vote for another candidate.

And while I can easily overlook a post or two from a DU'er engaging in visceral venting, it often becomes that posters only modus-operandi in supporting their own candidate-- or, in other words, tearing down all the other opponents to raise the status of their own. When done on an individual level, I believe it's called 'self-validation'. When done on the level seen here since the mid-terms, I simply call it destructive to the DU community, and illustrative of that person's emotional level and/or ability to reason.

That's what I think, anyways...

... and if this were solely about the primaries, that woudl be the end of it.

This OP was about those who do nothing but incessantly bash Democrats in general.

I have no candidate and really could care less who gets the points awarded each day in the silly candidate threads.

What I care about is the way this place, which is supposed to be generally supportive of Democrats sees more and more effort expended going after Democrats hammer and tong while we see .... what? .... maybe half of all threads being about what the REAL bad guys (Republicans) are doing.

When a Democratic site is THE place to go to dish dirt on Democrats, something's wrong. No doubt some will say what's wrong IS the Democrats.

today, "I'm a Democrat" means nothing, because the Democratic Party under the DLC has become nothing more than Republican-lite . . . and not even all that lite . . .

what in the past was considered the "far right" is now the center . . .

what used to be the "center" is now considered liberal extremism . . .

and what used to be the worst kind of fascist/corporatist extremism is now the political philosophy of the United States government . . . with the Democrats in lock-step . . .

"I'm a Democrat?" . . . meaningless drivel . . .

"the Democratic Party under the DLC has become nothing more than Republican-lite"
"what used to be the worst kind of fascist/corporatist extremism is now the political philosophy of the United States government . . . with the Democrats in lock-step"

Total B.S.

Tell those things to Kucinich.
Tell those things to Feingold.
Tell those things to the MANY good Dems in the House and the Senate.

You're just pissed that there are a few "LIEberman"-type DLCers that sway the voting in Congress to the Right, and you're blaming all of the GOOD, FAR-LEFT, ULTRA-LIBERAL Democrats for the deeds of the DLCers.

That does nothing to help, it only causes division. Its EXACTLY this kind of post that makes people think someone is a freeper in disguise. (not that I'm accusing you of that.)

completely. Why? :shrug:

these fuckers have controlled Congress for damn near two years, and they have done NOTHING to stop a horrendous war that has been thoroughly illegal from Day 1! . . .

read that again . . . this war is ILLEGAL!!! . . . not to mention immoral, unethical, and genocidal . . .

every time George Bush asks for 50 or 100 billion more (of money we DON'T have, btw), the Democrats go right along with the Republicans and say "Sure, George, whatever you want. Gotta keep feeding Hallibuton, Blackwater, and the rest, don'tcha know. And that little (sic) embassy you're building with slave labor? Brilliant! If we keep this up, we'll reach a trillion in NO time!" . . .

"Oh, but we don't have the votes," they say, "and we wouldn't want to be perceived as not supporting the troops!" . . . Bullshit! . . . shut down the fucking Congress if you have to, because every time you vote to give George more money for this abortion of a war, I and much of the rest of the world retch . . . and tremble for the future of this once great nation . . .

THIS WAR IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, ILLEGAL!!! . . . it's killed thousands of Americans, maimed tens of thousands more (who the VA does not like supporting), killed and maimed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Iraqis, created millions of refugees, and laid waste to every part of the country except the oil fields . . . and contaminted the land and it's people with everything from depleted uranium to God knows what else . . . and all with no legal justification whatsoever!!! . . . we invaded and occupied a sovereign nation, tried its leader in a kangaroo court and hung him, and totally decimated one of the world's most historically and culturally significant regions and its people -- the Cradle of Civilization . . .

if the Democratic majority in Congress can't (more likely won't) see the reality of the situation and put a stop to it NOW, they're just as bad as the Republicans who started the whole thing . . . and just as deserving of my vote, which is not at all . . .

fuck 'em all . . .

but do you seriously dispute that many political ideas considered far right say, fifty years ago, are now deemed centrist? Or that many ideas that used to be considered "centrist" are now deemed products of the "loony left"? Would you deny that many of the programs implemented by New Deal Democrats would now be decried as socialist by the majority of our current Democrats?

I think the refusal to acknowledge this basic shift to the right -- and that saying you're a Democrat no longer means what it did when many voters registered as Democrats in their youth -- goes a long way towards explaining why more centrist, neoliberal Dems are mystified these days by their more liberal peers.

** edited to remove typo **

What you say is true, mostly.

But I think that's more reflective of the country as a whole than of the Democratic party.

Then there's the whole smoke and mirrors crap of the DLC. I'm always amused by some who are or have been DLC members. I think there's a great deal of disillusionment over what direction they've taken. Funny how their membership list and leadership suddenly have become classified information.

aka Hillary.

Show me where I'm a Hillary supporter.

Come on, loudmouth. Show me. Make me look stupid. Show me to be a liar.

You added nothing to this thread but an accusation against me.

Put up or shut up.

not an accusation. You don't even have to answer. Enjoy a glass of wine and relax or something. It seems I may have touched a nerve.

I have been a registered Democrat since at least 1988, when I voted for Jackson in the Wisconsin primary (I cannot, for some reason, remember the elections of 1986. I know I was living in Utah, but I am not even sure there were Democratic candidates, much less a Democratic primary. Maybe it is too traumatic to remember.)

So I am NOT interested in a "Democratic agenda". I am interested in a Progressive agenda, and the putative front-runner, who is now all but a lock, is taking us in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. Hillary supporters have not written anything that I have read here, to convince me otherwise. Maybe they are too tired out from doing their victory dance (or perhaps sick and tired of reading so many vitriolic attacks that are without substance.)

How did you get Hillary from the OP?

That wasn't a rhetorical question.

In fact, to quote from the OP (which NEVER mentioned anyone's name): "And this isn't about the primary wars. This is much more about ripping apart the Democratic Party. It is far different from the earlier primary wars."

How did I get Hillary from the OP? Well, since she is my "worst fu$%ing nightmare" and since her campaign seems to be an unstoppable juggernaut, in the last couple of months I have become obsessed about that old woman.

There has been weeping and gnashing of teeth about the spinelessness of the Democratic party as long as I have been on DU, and it has really intensified since January 2007.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/51

People from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, want said party to fight as hard for its principles and ideals as the Republicans do.

..... we have little disagreement.

But I still don't know why you saw HRC in my OP. The fact you're obsessed with her would not cause you to raise her name if I were posting about ....... I dunno ...... the water crisis in Georgia. Why the need to mention her in the context of this OP?

That's actually a serious question. I have been 'accused' a number of times in this thread of being a Hillary supporter. But when I ask them where that idea came from, all I hear is crickets or deflection.

For what its worth, the HRC supporters have found a good deal to disagree with when they read my posts, too. Just not this one.

You don't see why an OP about "bashing" would make people think of Hillary? Who else would we wanna bash? Nader? Krugman? Gore?

your anger and frustration as well as those that call themselves progressives, I believe Du to be infested with slime so that the true discourse needed someone gets a bit lost in the shuffle of people attempting to filter out the trolls from those with more honest intentions when voicing their concerns.

As far as being a registered Dem I am not nor will I ever be, I like to keep my options opened and therefore am a registered independent. but I come to this site because I have much more in common with what I perceive the ideology of the democratic party to represent though I have to be honest in that some Dem's I find such as Lieberman to be of questionable integrity regarding the wishes of his constitutes...

He is by far not the only one I question but all in all I obviously find more in common with the democratic party which brought me to DU in the first place.

I think we should question each one on their personal actions not as a whole, that is where some people on DU lose me, saying the Dem's are selling us out etc....I don't see the party doing that I see certain individuals doing that, and I believe they should be questioned and or taken apart and made to answer for their actions and or voting records.

Pelosi though one day she is a goddess and the next day a spawn of satan begs for scrutiny with some of her actions of late, I can't help feeling that, I have no desire to destroy this party what I have a desire to do is save it but I can't help agreeing you that dem bashing posts that pinpoint the whole party is self defeating and in no way helps in an effort to see that justice takes front and center stage.

I was disappointed with her statements regarding the protesters, it sounded dangerous and I am more than disappointed that impeachment is ignored, I like many others do not believe that beginning impeachment will in any way shape or form hurt this country, considering the very real danger this administration represents for the future of this country's democracy I consider it more dangerous to ignore them and in effect by not impeaching they continue to run amok and have yet to have to answer to anything or anyone....


But I understand your frustration at what is going on lately.

That's what the rightwing Clinton-bashing whackjobs say. What we say is that we despise people like her strategy director Mark Penn for being union-busting Blackwater lovers.

I guess that's why progressives congratulate themselves on their principles all the time.

If you have principles, you just badmouth whomever you want, see?

I actually agree with most progressive views. But they just have no sense of strategy WHATSOEVER. They think attacking Democrats is the most brilliant thing in the world.

And their ethics just don't keep pace with their principles.

The more they screw things up for Democrats, the more pleased with themselves the progressives become. They have already single-handedly flushed the impeachment movement down the toilet. Now they're inadvertently creating new Hillary supporters.

Yep Husb2Sparkly, I do see the tone and tenor has changed...though I attribute that to two things. First the huge disappointment many Dems feel at the lack of progress via our elected reps to do a damn thing to end the war (as advertised in 06) and at least initiate impeachment articles for a vote.

So the elected Dems deserve a little ass kicking for that.

Secondly, it is primary season. The back/forth stuff between competitors is normal. And if it feels like we are more apt to gang up on Hillary, it is because her positions are to the right of many DUers.

When the dust settles and we move to the General; I'm confident we will close ranks. Imagine looking into the eyes of Rudy, Mitt, or Fred as a common foe and/or ponder the possibility of a even more conservative SCOTUS. In the end, we detest the thought of another rethug administration way MORE then the frustrations we share with each other.

DU will come together by next fall to collectively rant against the real rethug threat. I'm very confident in that! :)