Our party sends messages to the grassroots, netroots, liberals, activists who speak with emotion.

Our party is sending messages to the grassroots, netroots, liberals, activists, and others who speak out with emotion....

The latest message was sent to Congressman Pete Stark of California by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Stark dared to express views on the House floor that made some on the right angry. So his remarks were condemned by Pelosi in public. Needless to say the folks over at Hot Air are drooling over her putdown. They figure they won another round.

Pelosi condemns Stark's remarks



Guess that will teach Stark to show too much emotion.

Remember when Dick Durbin actually showed some emotion and made comments that the right wing did not like? Well, he sure did end up apologizing also, didn't he? Not really an activist, but he really learned not to speak unpleasantly.

Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse



The Democrats who criticized him also criticized Stark for "stepping on the message" so to speak. Really. I loved the messages they sent. But then that's just me. They always say they had the other side on the ropes. Not sure they did.

Not long ago they took a vote to condemn MoveOn for an ad. The vote to condemn got more votes than the SCHIP.

House condemns MoveOn



Guess we found out quickly where their priorities lay. SCHIP did not get enough votes to override the veto. Amazing, isn't it?

On September 27 one of the most blatant put downs of the grassroots, netroots, liberals, activists was put front and center on the DLC website. The article, which is linked to the full David Brooks op ed was even more insulting to us because the DLC only published parts of it....those geared to put grassroots, netroots, liberals, activists in their places.

The Center Holds

by David Brooks



Ouch, that hurt.



Yes, that is who is in charge. David Brooks is right about who controls the message in DC.



Ouch, again.

The problem is that they consider anyone who is anti-war and anti the corporatist agenda to be in "cuckoo land." That is a whole lot of us "cuckoo" folks. Yes, they actually had this front page and center at the DLC on September 27. Guess that tells us what they think.

All the enthusiasm is squelched almost at once now. Anyone who uses less than carefully chosen words is put in their places quickly. It is going to hurt our party in the long run.

I read some words today in the New York Times, and it essentially confirmed what most of us have thought for a while. The words appear to confirm that when you say too much and are too outspoken, you will be "tamed", you will soon "conform".

It is like a "taming" process. You learn speaking out has consequences. Crossing the established order has consequences.



Don't know who will be next to speak out without the proper caution, but by this time we know their fate. Not sure of all the reasons for the pressure to conform, but I am very sure of one thing.

I am sure it is hurting a party that should be coming together to confront and stand up to a man who once said it would all be so much easier if he were a dictator. It is sucking enthusiasm out of the room, and I don't think the party leaders in Congress even recognize what is happening.

K&R!!

:patriot:

We need to stop these Klanservatives.

GREAT, great post, should be on the front page. I am so sick of the spineless, and your comments about the condemnation of the Move On ad getting more votes than the SCHIP veto override is telling.

For those who have ears, let them hear.

Julie

If we Democrats do not see the lack of leadership in our party by now, and especially with Pelosi's recent condemnation of one of her own, there is no hope for this party.

Their actions have already hurt us a great deal in the present, we don't have to wait until the long run.

We have no one but ourselves to keep fighting for us. Little by little I think it's working. It is so incredibly frustrating because our efforts continue to be questioned by our own party, a party that is full of unaware and uneducated elected officials who piss in their pants at the thought of doing something without Madame Speaker's approval.

We must keep digging in and getting the truth out there,

Kicked!

:hi:

I have had the feeling they look at us without respect. Until the Iraq War I was never that outspoken, really.

I see a change going on, and it is rather frightening.

we allowing NEOCON cheerleader Brooks to tell us how we are supposed to act?

credible source?

:shrug:

Another embittered former public Bush boot licker taking it out on the Democrats when Bush turned out to be, big surprise, an utter catastrophe for this country and the world.

MKJ

edited for spelling/grammer. And, to let madfloridian know, thanks for your work and the post is so good, I just don't like Brooks much.

MKJ

actually I think MadFL fully is aware of that aspect of the lack of credibility of Brooks to judge or pontificate on the balance or sources of power within the Democratic Party.

personally, I have to wonder if trashing the netroots by him is a sign that they think the "netroots" are actually gaining influence and thus needs to be derailed by their usual tactics of "deride, dismiss, and delude" aka "attack, attack, attack"

I can think of no other reason.

Can't upset people. Must please everybody--particularly our enemies, who want nothing more than to destroy us.

Who could ever imagine??

are succeeding in making sure the net has no influence at all anywhere. The grass roots opportunities of the net are choked by extremists who condemn the party at every chance,no matter what, then oppose and drive away every ally the net gets.

""The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying."

I hate it too. That goes for holier-than-thou purists who believe they could win a Congressional seat or a Senate seat without big donations. Get money from small donations from the grass roots? Check out the DU page for donations. The amounts are small for almost all candidates. In return, the net makes impossible demands like instant impeachment.

Just like 2001 to 2004 after Nader showed the party that it couldn't count on the far left for votes, the elected guys all went to the middle. The same thing is going to happen again if unreasonable netizens offer nothing but trouble for the party.

I don't even know what to say.

Do you have limits and boundaries which you declare not to be unreasonable?

is the idea that Democrats should be willing to be voted out of office to make symbolic statements that change nothing. Like Nancy Pelosi is supposed to back up Pete Stark.

You believe in giving in apparently.

I guess we have done it so often it just seems natural.

I am very afraid for our party. We are not an opposition party.

You call it "standing up for what you believe". I call it senseless to pick fights over trivial matters that can't be won, if that's the situation. We all need to get along and we can't "stand up for what we believe" every time we have a difference. We'd do nothing but fight with each other.

I don't believe compromise is always "giving in." I believe it can mean sharing authority so both sides might benefit.

I believe pointless battles are part of giving up. Its a surrender of the idea that we might all find common ground. Its a surrender by one side of tactical strategies that could lead to winning. What return does losing a fight bring? Only the chance to release anger.

We are past time for being an opposition party.

Fighting with each other is getting us nowhere. The net has been extremely vocal and stood up and got angry and all those things. Nothing was accomplished by any of it.

Almost everybody in the Democratic Party wants the war to end. The only differences are how and how soon. The Democrats would have a much better chance at success with a united front.

We are dealing with a party which is really not opposed to this Iraq invasion and probably will go along with Iran to sound tough.

Our former president supported Bush in his efforts and defended him against "the left".

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."

Much of our party is not opposed to this democracy spreading.

along isn't ANY message I see coming through!! I realize that "all" candidates do get attacked and have their supporters, but IF you attack Hillary Clinton, there's a specific group of people here who IMMEDIATELY draw long knives and come after you as if you were nothing more than a turn-coat!

And the attacks on the other candidates are especially crude and nasty by them! Then they wonder WHY many of us feel the way we do about her. I realize she does have support, and that is as it should be... but the aggressive nature of the attacks against those who aren't crazy about her is astounding! Then of course there's the comment that "since she's being attacked, it's making me want to support her more" and that makes me wonder too! It could be true, but it's not working for me!

And not ONE vote has been cast, and I'm being told that MY VOTE doesn't count! Without making more negative comments, I will let what I just said suffice for now!

to be said..good post.

...or shared authority with the "left"? Example?

how do you ever expect to win on something that actually means something??

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

increase the minimum to $10/hr a livable wage.

Why? because the netroots use ineffective petitions, rallies, and protests and the Republicans shrug their shoulders and do what they do.

If you want to stop the Republicans, join together, call some of their contributors and demand what you want and tell them you won't buy their products until your demands get done in congress.

But no, the nay sayers on the net say boycotts don't work.

.

re: "nay sayers on the net say boycotts don't work."

Of course they work!

Boycotts don't work, yet sanctions do? Puh-leaze! :crazy:

This country is so infused with propaganda, from every corner, it's unbelievable. But it's true.

And we should all, even for the sake of Principle (remember that quaint word, people?) be boycotting many, many products, things, and countries.
Hitting them in the wallet works!

And it is getting thick and deep.

:hi:

You expect a boycott to work, to convince GE to give up thier war funding in order to save the money they get from consumer goods. That's like giving up a $100,000/year job to take a minimum wage job.

I'm tired of the weak kneed half measure which try to appease the other side. Every time we compromise they set that as a position from which to push further. This tactic has been used by corporations against unions for years and now members of our own party are using it against the base of our party. I will no longer support Democrats in name only, supposed party leaders who don't support progressive principles and resist the destruction of our nation and constitution.:spank:
Thank you Madfloridian.:yourock:

Advocacy is constructive. Standing on principle is constructive.

Camping out in the yards of our allies is not. Members of our own party try to get along with the base. They don't use tactics against the base.

Do you give in when the message is ignored? Do you just sit quietly? Do you cower when your important message is characterized as impolite? :shrug:

and accepting that your aims won't always be obliged.

By supporting those who share your principles and trying to attract those who might. Not by making enemies of potential allies with threats and rudeness.

Not when our party is condemning everyone who speaks out.

I may not like some of the tactics of Code Pink, but the Speaker of the House should NOT have told them they were not her constituents.

We are ALL her constituents. Not just the right wing.

.

One can be decisive and firm without making horrible inferences.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and other blockheads appeal to their base audience and no one else. Cheney, Bush, etc have horrid approval ratings. The gang of idiots running for the GOP nomination are jokes and have limited appeal.

I guess if these are the people we wish to emulate, then we will also be imitating their narrow range of support.

Get money from small donations from the grass roots? Check out the DU page for donations. The amounts are small for almost all candidates. In return, the net makes impossible demands like instant impeachment.

I for one would like our congresspeople to pay attention to us because we as a sizable voting bloc can vote their sorry butts out of office, not because we give them big bucks. Won't happen, of course, until public financing of campaigns happens, but that won't stop folks here from "bullying" for what's (self righteously) right.

you and your pussyfootin' around hillary candidate (who hasn't met a bush enablin' vote she doesn't like) are trying to be the death of the Democratic Party.

:thumbsup:

the current state of the party, and why so many are not meekly accepting the status quo.

:(

I kept thinking they had a plan to start standing up, but guess what? They had no such plan.

The only thing they do is condemn those who speak out.

We are truly at a crossroads, a very dangerous one. :(

and work our way through, remember that we are not alone. There are many of us, each in our own way trying to find a path out of the swamp we find ourselves in.

:hug:

Which I'm sure is what the DLC has wanted all along! Don't they get to keep the trophy when that happens?

Just like David Brooks' piece, they had to pick the parts that slam activists the most and snip the rest.

This is really ugly, and again it points out their view of us who make up the bulk of the party.

Who Bears Blame For Anti-War Failures?

Well, according to Dan Gerstein, Lieberman advisor...it is all our fault.



Oooh, make that another big really big OUCH.

Time to turn the gavel over to someone with brains and guts, things Nancy is sadly lacking.

Or anybody who wants to play smashmouth with this crowd of criminal.

. . .leading Democrats warned...
Time to stop being "Anti-War" and start being "Pro-Impeachment."

No, you can't ride two horses with the same behind.

---

How shocking.

and with emotion. AND we need to support those who do so as well.

for years and it's still working for them, but if Dems fight back with outrage it's somehow "bad" and an apology is demanded and usually given. One has only to reduce this to a personal level to see how well that strategy doesn't work. Anyone who has ever dealt with aggressive people, verbal or physical, doesn't change the dynamic by pretending they didn't mean it or apologizing to them. Avoiding them isn't a possibility here, so the only viable option left is standing up to them and calling them on it. Think about it. Everyone's probably seen "Christmas Story." Remember the bully who followed the kid home every day? How'd the kid get him to stop? He not only stood up to him, but he beat the crap out of him. Unfortunately not a viable option for adults, but we need to do the verbal equivalent. On a personal note, there was a verbal bully at my job when I was much younger, and after a month or two of trying to ignore her nastiness, I was finally able to quash her bullying by laughing at her. Yup, newsflash -- bullies don't like to be laughed at.

So in a nutshell here's my take on it: we either need to go toe to toe with the bullies, or laugh them into obscurity.

Most Americans are opposed to this war. That is most definitely NOT the problem. The one and only problem with Stark's comments was suggesting that Bush was getting amusement from sending soldiers to die.

That's insane, and it will not sell. Period.

If your single objective in national politics is to find politicians willing to make hideous comments to rally the rabble, then you can look forward to a permanent minority.

Which is the simple truth. Although, as some other threads have pointed out, * *does* seem to be very inappropriately amused at times.

I still agree with the statement, my slight edit notwithstanding.

sending soldiers to die? I am quite certain he enjoys it as well as knowing he is responsible for torturing people. His amusement at Karla's death was quite evident.

and we are quibbling over a moment of passion by a great Democrat.

We have a president who wants gynecologists to practice "love" on their patients.

I mean, the correctness is getting just plain stupid and out of control.

It's my first read of the morning and was it ever depressing. My visual image of some of the democratic senators and representatives is they are merely puppets and the neocons are holding the strings. I happened to watch Representative Stark's comments and whooped. Then Pelosi and I thought crap. Did any of the democratic representatives call King and his lies out or just try to take the high moral ground again? If the DLC is totally in control, we are screwn.

and damn anyone who supports them!

Demanding an end to illegal war, a reversal of unconstitutional abuses by the White House, an energy policy not drafted with sweet light crude.

That's just plain nuts, alright.

That is why they have had so much success. The current Democratic leadership, on the other hand, seem to think they can win by being nice. They demand "niceness" from their constituents and the GOP laughs as we fight among ourselves, and their lies and bullying once again rue the day.

This is in many ways a class issue. Many middle-class people are terrified of strong emotions, and are convinced that nothing ever happens that cannot be worked out with by civil discourse by nice people.

Really bad things do happen, and they have to be fought by people who aren't afraid of looking bad, or who wilt when accused of not being nice.

the hawkish centrists who still cling to ideal that a strong presence in the Middle East is required to save America are the ones who are truly nuts, and they are often aligned with the fringe right-wing nutcase Christian zionists who are looking forward to nothing other than Armageddon and the Rapture. The more people like Hillary and Obama push for disabling Iran through the use of preemptive force, the more they reveal themselves as shills for the Bush enablers and war profiteers. Once again, they are squandering the political capital accumulated by the Democratic Party which could be used toward effecting real change. Nancy Pelosi is doing to the Democratic Party what Bush has done to America.

The rules here at DU do not allow us to dump on a fellow democrat, So knowing what we know
what do we do ?

is equipped with nukes, the CIA (etc)., with bought judges and think tanks that do nothing but strategize all day. Against us, against all of humanity. For Chrissakes, we have to learn how to stand up and effectively fight that Machine. Like Linda Hamilton and her son in Terminator 1 and 2, we have to use everything at our disposal, knowing full well that we will be attacked no matter what we do.

This is an assault on all fronts: physical, psychological, spiritual.
I, for one, will hit them hard, any way I can, every time, time and time again. The spirit of simple human decency is indomitable.

Suck it.