The Democratic party sunk to a new low today. Democratic Leadership was non existent. Harry “Charlie Brown” Reid once again let the GOP set him up to fall on his ass… taking the party and Democratic base with him.
There is a Crisis of Democratic Leadership a vacuum as big as the breaches in the NOLA levies. In this time of crises the only “strategery” Ried could come up with was that the Democratic senators played “Trading Places” with their votes so that no one could be “typecasted”.
The blame for today’s Roberts debacle which will be with us for at least the next 20 to 30 years lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid (I don’t give a “Cheney” how he voted personally). Harry Reid it to blame for not demanding that the minimum qualification of documentation to be forth coming before a vote took place. This was an abandonment of post… and a greivous injustice to not only the Democratic base but to all Americans as well.
Hilliary should not escape blame for she wants so desperately to LEAD THE DEMOCRATS TO VICTORY yet she failed miserable to even persuade 22 of her colleagues to do the right thing. Hilliary showed absolutely NO LEADERSHIP and if this is the preview of what she has in store for the party then it is highly dissappointing.
The only “strategery” Those people in Washington DC with a (D) behind their names did was put all of their votes in a box and randomly pick… so that some “libruls” voted like a conservatives and some conservatives looked librul for one day in their miserable lives… ie Bayh.
This is a Troll diary if I have ever read one. WTF..The party in Crisis is the Republician Party. Crawl out from under your Rock and read the papers or turn on the TV. They are going down in Flames as I type, they are going to jail, their leader and president has approval numbers in the low 40’s & high 30’s. We just lost a Major American City due to their incompetance. I am not familiar with your user name but after reading this pathetic, shitty, Troll diary I will be sure to avoid any future diary or comments that you write knowing you are a Dem basher. If you want to bash our Democrats perhaps you should go do so over at FreeRepublic or RedState where clearly you belong.
didn’t you at least like the cartoon?
Parker has been screaming about this failure to oppose Roberts since the day he was nominated.
regardless of the toon…tired of our own bashing our own, especially during this time when the Repubs are being exposed for the criminals that they are. Blaming Hillary for others votes is DUMB and ignorant. Perhaps there is a method to their madness? A big plan. The Mainstream did not find Roberts (as much as I think he is the anti christ) to be Extraordinary. As if we didn’t try to get all of his papers that were being held back. We lost last Nov 2nd..We all knew the SCOTUS was at Stake. We use the filibuster for Roberts and it’s taken away for the next more important O’Connor replacment that will be very, very Extraordinary and could change the votes on the court for generations to come. I have had it with ignorant Dems or Trolls. I don’t care if this imature poster was against Roberts before he was even nominated. If we are going to use the filibuster lets use it when it is life or death.
Parker is anything BUT ignorant — and yes, I know you can defend yourself just fine, P. — on a variety of topics…..
And I’m sorry, but I have to disagree, I see NO leadership from the dems on a great many things. When exactly have they let matters of life and death spur them to action and/or opposition? Iraq? Katrina? have I missed something?
Curious about, what your definition of “the mainstream” is? ooops, I mean the Mainstream (and why capitalize it?)
I’m pretty sure they are not “my own” but just need to ask first.
They sure did not represent me today either…
I saw that you gave me a 4, but I just wanted to make sure, before I went off and assumed anything!
😉
Yes, all is forgiven…
Not sure that you are actually a huggy person, but just in case!
And, thanks!
Today the day after the Dems caved into Roberts I could use all the hugs I can get ((hugs)) right back at you.
Plant me on Parkers side on this issue…
Hey! I am an ally to all of the Dems I meet in my daily political action. It is the lack of leadership, or possibly a leadership with no cohesive Progressive direction, that is a serious issue.
I am an independent and I see failure on both sides of the aisle, and we the people are paying for it. The difference is that I will try and help Dems redeem themselves since I still think they are salvagable, considering a large portion of the Dem base is suffering right along with me because of their problems with leadership, whereas the GOP has already gone to hell in a handbasket.
In this day and age, if you are going to say you represesent Progressive and Liberal issues than you better show it on daily basis with actions and votes… Political maneuvering will not make up for real substance anymore, given the scrutiny of the internet.
Dems not my own.
The lack of action to stop Roberts proves it.
Vichycrats.
I still have faith in Howard Dean, and I wish him the best, but I have very little hope.
The proof that the Dems are in crisis is simple: The Repubs and their president lose a major American city–Americas foremost seaport–out of negligence, greed, and stupidity. Their party has neither explanation nor excuse. Can the Dems fill in the gap of competence and leadership, point the way to how the country ought to be run? Point the way back to human values? No? Well that really says it all.
“our own” <cough> party shows over and over again it is just fine with the corporate looting of our country. “Our own” party shows over and over again it doesn’t give a fucking shit about human rights: women, gays or prisoners, both foreign and domestic. “Our own” show over and over again that they are fine w/ the US military being used to project US hegemony over the entire globe, even if they use banned weapons like napalm. “Our own” stand up and fight for nothing, and get more upset over questions re: documents and their own perogatives than they do of the actual beliefs the documents would hightlight.
THEY WORK FOR US. We don’t belong to them. We aren’t all on the same team. They are samurai we hire with our votes to protect our collective village, and they won’t pick up their swords. They prefer to sit down for dinner with the bandits and eat the food the bandits stole from OUR tables.
THEY WON’T CHANGE UNLESS THEY ARE CRITICIZED, ATTACKED AND, IF NEED BE, FORCED FROM OFFICE.
As someone said once, this is a political party, NOT a suicide pact. Believe, the business and religious wingers used to go after Republicans all the time until they fell in line or lost a primary. Everybody forgets that.
We need to attack louder. Make more noise. Withhold votes, if need be.
Oh… so now leadership is sitting on the sidelines…watching the other side self destruct… very interesting…. Tell me ONE thing Reid did to LEAD the Democratic Senators…. go ahead… JUST ONE THING
You diary would play very well in Freeperville. I have no interest in bashing our Dems. The next nominee of the SCOTUS will be the test. This one was not it. I guess you would have wanted Reid to lead them into Hell and lose any chance to filibuster the O’Connor replacement. I think Reid is playing his cards the right way. I will get back to you after the next SCOTUS vote, and then we will see if the Dem plan worked. Until then go peddle your hatred and Bashing for our Dems at Freeperville.
yup can’t name one…
You can take pride of place and put your index finger on the football…
You have been calling Reid an “Asshole” going back over 6 weeks ago all over the blogworld. As I have written to you above the “Crisis of leadership is with the Repub Party” Both of their leaders are under investigation or being indicted, the rest of their crisis is on the front pages of every newspaper. shoo fly…go away Troll. I will no longer communicate with you. You are a Troll or either a very angry, bitter, confused person who is clueless as to what the Dems were facing with the Roberts Nom. The real discussion is the next nominee.
The real discussion is the next nominee
You jackass … Roberts will be with us the next 30 years.
Chamonix, haven’t seen you around here for a while.
If this is how you behave, I guess I was lucky.
For all your fear of Parker being a troll, your response is to namecall and whine. I see no articulate response, just a bunch of namecalling (freeperville, etc). Perhaps you would find yourself happier in another locale?
Because frankly, you’re severely breaking rule #1 around here — don’t be a prick.
Bootribbers can attack the Right, they can attack the DINOs, the media, the self-important bloggers, etc.
But we don’t attack each other.
Some places reward snark and infighting. This aint one of them. Thankfully.
Your comment speaks for its self in regards to name calling.
I just did a little research here at Booman Trib..Perhaps you should go and research past comments by this Parker..talk about name calling. It seems this Parker is the King/Queen of calling names, and you accuse me of it. Give me a fucking break. I am severely breaking rule # 1 around here…Get real. Please go do your research on past Parker comments and then do one on mine..You will see who the real prick is. I have been around BooTrib long enough and don’t need you to tell me what is cool around here. In regards to snark and infighting please go do your research regarding Parker..you say “We don’t attack each other..some places reward snark and infighting. This place aint one of them.” Have you in the past written this to Parker who you seem to be blind to this persons past comments. Also just because I don’t post comments or diaries all the time..does not mean I am not around here reading and lurking. Once you do your research..I will expect an apology. thank you.
I’ve been around here longer than you, if you want to play that card.
I’ve read everything Parker (and most everyone else) has written on Boo Trib for the last couple months, and a good sampling before that (when I was busier). And I haven’t really seen boo from you during that duration.
I don’t think I endorsed Parker’s position in this particular diary. I have done so with other comments of Parker’s in other threads, but that’s neither here or there.
So why did I call you out?
Parker called non-tribbers names. Susan’s done it, I’ve done it, Boo’s done it, MilitaryTracy, catnip, and a laundry list of folks — frequent posters and one-shot commenters have done it. There’s almost a pride in the freedom of speech here (vs say other “Democratic” blogging sites). We have no sacred cows — just don’t be a prick.
But we are generally respectful of our own. And when we aren’t (Brinnaine just yesterday), we’re awful darned ashamed of ourselves afterwards (see the reoccuring apology comments of today about yesterday’s event).
Your uid might be 69, but you haven’t been around much lately (at least not as a poster). And your actions in this diary reflect very poorly on yourself. This is behavior I’d expect out of a front-pager on certain other sites, not a Tribber.
Its pretty damn rare for Boo to interject himself in defense of someone, but he did so above, to you. You chose not to take the hint, so I’m impolitely spelling it out for you here.
I like this place. I like the general respect folks have here, even for those they strongly disagree with. You haven’t been troll rated yet, have you? But damn, if comparing someone to a freeper isn’t trollish, what the heck is? That’s one of the great things about this place — tolerance.
Ah well, you’re gonna be mad because you’re mad. I get that.
And you’re an old-timer here, so you know how this place works? Ya, I see.
No need to reply, but just think on it — is the way you acted in this thread how you want new folks to act on these forums?
Isn’t one bright orange cesspool of hate enough in the blogosphere?
Because the folks here are older (on average) and more female (on average), and really aren’t persuaded into taking sides on an issue by one participant calling the other names and making the attacks personal. That goes over well with the young-adult male set elsewhere, but here you’ll just be tuned out.
In fact, the opposite is true. I’ve seen folks with gawd-awful lousy opinions (like the guy who tried to explain to us all why a woman’s right to her own body really wasn’t so important in the grand scheme of things) be debated with civility, if not actual respect. And I’ve seen the same folks who disagreed with him turn around and support him (with comments and 4’s) on other topics in other threads. Civility goes a long way. Calling each other names is for children.
Now, perhaps I should have tuned you out, too. But I believe in standing up for what I believe. And I believe in the civility of Boo-Trib.
Your comments above violate the civility of this place. Its not even about whether one agrees or disagrees with you. If you agreed with me 100% and acted like this, I’d still call you out.
And the reason I called you out? Because I honestly think you’ll think twice before you post like that again. It doesn’t do you any good, and it doesn’t do the rest of us any good. That style is normal behavior elsewhere — not here. And I think you appreciate that as much as the rest of us do.
Peace.
Bashing someone because they still post at Dkos is Bullshit. I am calling you out. Constantly bashing Dems is bullshit. It is trollish behavior. I would expect Boo to tell me if I have violated the community standards and tell me I am a prick not your highness. I was here early on when several people were Banned from the site..I know bad behavior and don’t need you to accuse me of it. Bashing some of our Democrats that have fought long and hard for our party is TROLLISH, unexceptable, and freeperish..I am a member here in good standing and I don’t need you to tell me otherwise. Yaright..you are yawrong. My comments would not be found in freeperville, this diarist’s would. Are you blind? And I don’t care what your uid is, as I would hope others wouldn’t care what mine is. Look back at my history here, it speaks for itself. The history and past of the memeber who posted this pathetic diary is abhorring and uncalled (even the words this person had with KO spoke volumes) and if the majority of the people here condone this behavior (which I can’t imagine they do) compared to me calling someone out, someone who puts some of our best Dems down, as the Freepers do..Then perhaps I shall sit back, lurk and decide if this has grown into something I can support politically. Truthfully I think the BooTrib is doing great..Just a few bad eggs. However The choice for me to stay, I believe is mine. Not yours. I have broken no rules or community standards.
40 Beamster US 2005-03-13 20:27:39
41 TracieLynn US 4 2005-03-13 20:28:02
42 santoriello US 4 2005-03-13 20:28:49
43 UniC US 4 2005-03-13 20:29:30
44 paranoidAmerican US 4 2005-03-13 20:33:11
45 UL US 2005-03-13 20:33:24
46 smashthesymbols US 2005-03-13 20:33:58
47 Chamonix US 2005-03-13 20:35:15
49 dchill US 2005-03-13 20:39:15
50 outlanddish IN 4 2005-03-13 20:39:27
51 smash US 4 2005-03-13 20:46:26
52 MiCHAEL1104 US 2005-03-13 20:47:27
53 folkbum US 2005-03-13 20:48:23
54 moiv US 3.996 2005-03-13 20:51:32
55 lapin US 4 2005-03-13 20:59:11
56 Kidspeak US 4 2005-03-13 21:02:50
57 auntdeen US 4 2005-03-13 21:03:05
58 jmelli US 2005-03-13 21:07:35
59 no3reed US 4 2005-03-13 21:08:00
60 alsauf US 2005-03-13 21:09:15
61 Mike Stark US 4 2005-03-13 21:09:48
62 ginatx US 2005-03-13 21:10:45
63 canberra boy AU 4 2005-03-13 21:13:01
64 dorsano US 2005-03-13 21:16:11
65 sean mykael US 4 2005-03-13 21:20:03
66 Man Eegee US 3.994 2005-03-13 21:26:12
67 NCYellowDog US 2005-03-13 21:26:16
68 Chamonix1 US 4 2005-03-13 21:32:01
Chamonix signed up 9 minutes after Yaright, had some problem with his password or something and signed up again as Chamonix1 an hour later. So, enough with who has been here longer.
I like what Yaright is trying to do, in defending and explaining the importance of respect. At the same time, Chamonix1’s reaction was not all that surprising. Parker expresses her opinions strongly and gets strong reactions. Why don’t you both chill out and let the disagreement die?
It’s not worth getting worked up about. You are all valued members of the site.
Thank you for your respect Booman. Consider it dropped by me. I look forward to continue to be a valued member of this community, and I value and respect your leadership. Sorry you had to get involved in this spat. btw/ your diary over at Dkos yesterday Rocked.
and thank you for the compliments.
IIRC, I personally invited you to the site by email because I admired your writing at dKos. So, of course, I have always valued your presence here. At the same time, Yaright is correct about the basic idea of letting it rip against everyone but each other.
And Parker? Well she is always walking that line when it comes to civility. But she does her best to conform to the rules. I know it isn’t natural for her.
Why are you doing this?
still posting a dKos — a LOT of people here still do, including me. There are also people who don’t by choice and people who don’t because they have summarily been thrown out on their ass (i.e., banned). Nobody cares where you post, hell, I post over on RedState once in a blue moon, just for shits and giggles.
The point that everyone is trying to make is that the rules are different here. Parker is not a troll. Bashing dems is allowed, hell ANY opinions on things are allowed — people debate, people think, people often agree to disagree. I am not a Democrat. One of the first things I asked when I signed up here was if that was a requirement. It is not. And I think that is pretty much the bottom line as concerns this diary and your reaction to it.
No one is telling you you have to like it, we are just asking you to respond differently.
…is that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll, that being critical of the Democratic Party is “trollish,” that taking exception to being repeatedly attacked for one’s values is trollish.
Whatever.
A freeper cries “My party, right or wrong!” A freeper indulges in ad hominem attacks. I really don’t think it’s an epithet you want to be throwing around.
A lot of people like to say the words “big tent” and pat themselves on the back. But when it comes to actually tolerating other opinions, well, I suppose I thought the metaphor related to how wide the tent was, not how tall.
Calm down man.
Now you’re namecalling me because I’m disagreeing with you. Sheesh.
We have no sacred cows
We do not pledge blind loyalty to the Democratic party here
We are not only entitled to “put some of our best Dems down”, we are encouraged to, when we disagree with what they’ve done
If you’re looking for a Democratic Party Cheerleading Blog, you may want to keep looking. This place isn’t that.
But if you’re looking for a caring community of concerned and politically passionate people — you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyplace better.
Just drop the silly calls for conformity in opinion, okay? Persuade, don’t berate. Don’t be a prick. Its just not that hard to get along.
by the way/ I stand by everything that I have written, not only in this dairy but all of my writing.
hey, i resemble that remark!
I am not familiar with your user name
An hour and 15 minutes later, you have read all of Parker’s posts going back over 6 weeks ago all over the blogworld?!?
Even if it the case that you are a speed-reader or have a super-duper search engine, but that seems HIGHLY unlikely to me.
Look at this crap… one would normally think you would have to DO SOMETHING in order to give hell… not just roll over and put up a billboard about yourself…
Reid is even more pathetic than I realized.
ClearChannel owns billboards, too?
It should read:
Go to Hell Harry
I know you meant that to be serious, but damn, that was funny. LOL!
Billboards are a very profitable and large part of Clear Channel’s business.
They have in the past rejected billboards for causes they disagree with:
BOLTON, have you no short term memory left?
I’m not familiar with it. Or maybe I am and just don’t know it?
Something about drying powder, one granule at a time. HTH.
LOL!
That about sums it up, doesn’t it?
The Dem plan: “wait til next time! We mean it…No really…Seriously…We’re keeping our powder dry for the next battle…Okay not the very next time, but the time after that…unless of course we might appear unreasonable in which case it’ll be the time after that…Oh, wait…midterms elections will be coming up, so that won’t work either…We do have very lovely press conferences, though…”
Hmmm — now that I think about it a bit, the plan is to wait for the second nominee and then fillibuster?? Is that it?
But here’s what I don’t get — since they were outnumber in both committee and on the floor, how would this plan have been in any way incumbered by the democrats voting as a block and presenting a untied front?? Wouldn’t they be taken more seriously as an opposition force if they did so? Or am I just missing something politically important here?
the Dems, proudly wearing the official party uniform of pink tutus, split a pefect 22-22. So the take-home message is:
Roberts won’t reveal what he thinks, and
The Dems won’t reveal what they think, and
Yours is not to wonder why.
LOL! Pink tutus — priceless image!
Ah, it all becomes clear now — government of the catatonic morons, by the catatonic morons — apologies to all catatonic morons, where applicable.
So, if I understand you correctly one is a troll if one criticizes Democrats for not standing on principle. If that is your definition, let me know where to sign up to take the official troll pledge.
🙂
Parker & Others: If you want to see me make my case, please make my previous comment thread visible.
O/w it’s just suppression of dissenting (perhaps of the green kind) opinion, isn’t it? 🙂
because some people thought it was offensive, and it was your first comment on this site. Also, you haven’t written any diaries, or rated anyone other than giving bayprairie a ‘1’.
However, you’ve shown me on this thread that you do intend to discuss your thoughts, so I uprated your comment. I hope some other TU will too, because you are showing that you are, in fact, not a troll, regardless of how productive your first post was. It doesn’t deserve a zero.
*disclaimer : I’m at work and I can’t see whatever picture you put up there b/c it is blocked. So I hope it wasn’t something really offensive.
uh… it is
Then I apologize for subjecting everyone’s sensitive little peepers to it, but I still don’t think that txchili is a mega-troll.
no worries… it is kinda cute in a “trollish” sorta way.
“no worries… it is kinda cute in a “trollish” sorta way. “
There you go, Parker, I knew you were a good sport, after all ! 🙂
still don’t think that txchili is a mega-troll
yeah he is … he followed me from MyDD, where he posted the same pic and said the same rubbish.
but he is engaging in real discussion down below in this thread. I’ll leave the jury out for now, from my standpoint.
Damn, you’ve got me curious to see what this picture is now.
look I visit both the sites, it turns out. I did NOT follow you here. Sure, calling you a troll was a bit harsh, but I DID NOT downrate you over there, if you notice.
and so you were free to rebut my strong comments there, without having your comment vanish into thin air.
anyways, I’ll try to resume on the content.
lol 🙂
TXC
thanks, ejmw. I understand the newness factor, and I will try to do justice to your confidence!
Parker: my picture was mostly in jest and essentially a repartee of your funny peanuts comic picture 🙂
I probably share a good bit of your resentment towards what’s going on in DC. Where we are at odds is how we wish to redress the same. I’ll try to return to this loose-end below.
Thanks
TXC
for reviving my comment.
I will try to address the points raised since I reponded earlier.
thanks
TXC
You may also want to reconsider (and rerate?) your 1 rating of Bayprarie. I would hope it would take more than a dispassionate single sentence disagreeing with you to mark a person as a troll.
We do not use ratings to dispute other’s opinions over here. I know its common elsewhere, but this isn’t elsewhere, which is a large part of why most of us are here.
Seriously, 4, comment, or walk away. You’d be surprised how damn refreshing it really is. The fact you’ve gotten 0 rated is not par for the course around here. Heck, that’s more zero’s in one post than I’ve seen in all the diaries in months. We just aren’t like that here — so the fact that you received them is really a red flag, something you’re doing is way outside of the excepted norms of behavior.
If you disagree with someone, write it don’t rate it. After all, you may not convince the person, but you may convince someone else who is following the discussion. The numbers here exist to weed out real trolls not to diss others.
I think ejmw spelled it out pretty clearly. I’m certainly not happy with your behavior so far, but I haven’t troll rated you, either. I also wouldn’t have uprated your comment like ejmw did.
I hope you can appreciate how different and special what we have here really is, and why we voluntarily comply with these “unwritten rules” of behavior.
–>”You may also want to reconsider (and rerate?) your 1 rating of Bayprarie. I would hope it would take more than a dispassionate single sentence disagreeing with you to mark a person as a troll.”
Did so (0–>4) 🙂
But, in my defense, my “1” was a response, kneejerk I admit, to his quick “0” while at the same time he/she was expressing his disagreement to which I was responding (has he given a “2” or higher, I would’ve ignored it. had he given “1”, i would’ve been tempted to reciprocate, but may not have pursued that urge). Hopefully he’ll change his rating after he hears me out as well.
anyways, thanks for your good comment. i’ll try to address the issues raised below.
thanks
i’m a her
thanks. I shall remember it henceforth 🙂
but as far as I am concerned, Parker is a TROLL trying to erode the democratic supporter base:
I think the Democrats, the DLC and the DLC made over as the NDN manage to erode the Democratic base quite well on their own.
I absolutely oppose the DLC-led agenda such as support for the war etc, but DLC’s foothold on the Dem. party will weaken (it already has to a good degree since the Dean movement, and the emergence of the netroots) if we all (I mean progressive dem leaders, progressive democratic netroots, and liberal/progressive third party/independent voices) join hands. I’ll say more on this below.
thanks for your comment.
and your post is adding nothing to the important conversation ongoing in this thread.
its simple.
When the Dems were in power (from 1993 to 2000), they proved themselves to be quite capable at running the country (turning deficits to surpluses rings a bell?)
But, with the help from the greens (remember the sham “enviromentalists against Gore?), we now have the corrupt regime in place.
So, you want more of the same, then go for splintering the left further.
If otherwise, help the democrats come back to some power (say the house in 2006), and then sit on their heads until they do the right thing.
Don’t sabotage and whine at the same time. Pure and simple, ain’t it?
Sure texaschili,
think you can get the elected democrats to do the same?
think you can get them to quit sabotaging me?
im a democrat too.
House Democrats who supported HR 748 TRAP law
I have no wherewithal to promise a full congressional decision on a given bill/legislation.
But I can tell you this much: if you and all progressively minded folks out there stand with the democratic party and help it gain the majority in the house and/or the the senate in 2006, I will join you and them in protesting as effectively (and vociferously) as I can, every godforsaken non-progressive vote by any democrat out there (i.e. provided they’re in control of the one or both chambers of congress).
Do you have any idea just how hard it is to get anything pushed through congress, committees and subcommittees when you’re warming the benches in the minority?
The dems have but one controlling handle: senate filibuster, and even that by the thinnest of the threads, and this MUST be used when hell would break loose, and ONLY when hell would break loose.
I personally would’ve supported filibustering Roberts’ nomination, but am not going to pillorize them for not doing so. I will look closely at the next nomination and be there upfront to voice my positions this time.
The Democrats lost the White House in 1980. In 1984, Mondale carried what, one state? In 1988, Dukakis ran away from the “liberal” label, and Bush the elder won.
In 1992, Clinton won … on a plurality of popular vote, and would have lost if Ross Perot had not gone in and messed things up.
In 1994, the DLC planners lost Congress, and haven’t come close to winning it back yet.
In 1996, Clinton won again … without a majority.
In 2000, Gore ran on a more progressive platform, but lacked personality. Even so, Bush the lesser was appointed by the Supreme Court, though all indications are that Gore really did win, and “lost” thanks to the election fraud (a topic Kos forbids, by the way).
In 2004, Kerry ran on a “I can equivocate on everything” platform, being for the war but against it, for gay rights but against marriage, and so on. And like Gore, he had a personality deficit. The campaign amounted to Anybody But Bush. This time Bush carried a clear margin. There probably was fraud again, but maybe it wasn’t necessary. People did not know what Kerry stood for, if anything.
And now we’re told that it’s really those of us who have progressive values who are the problem, and that if we speak up we’re hurting the Party.
We’re just trying to get the party out of its 25-year-old losing track. “Stay the course” has lost its appeal.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way (.pdf).
Your summary of the last 25 years of politics is dead on.
What continues to frustrate me–especially so given Senator Obama’s missive today–is that We The People so clearly have a progressive majority, yet the Democrats we elect immediately skew rightward of middle. Ending the war, providing health care for all Americans, letting women make their own decisions about their bodies, and treating all Americans equally regardless of color, ability, or sexual status are issues that polling shows have broad support from well more than half of America.
Yet we elect many Democrats who run away from one or all of these popular and just core principles.
Why would anyone vote for a Democrat who will not say clearly what she would do differently from the Party in power? But even in the current “throw the bums out” mood, we’ll see most 2006 Democratic candidates straddling the mythical fence again.
And losing.
Yes, it seems quite clear that the elected officials are to the right of the general public.
And I think that works for both parties, with the GOP leaders way way right of the average of Americans who voted for them, and the Dems to the right of the average Americans who voted for them.
And if we don’t like it, we’re scolded. Tsk tsk.
please see if some of my comments in the vicinity, address the points you raise here.
In Gore’s defense, he does seem to have found his stride after being freed of his “party obligations” and chains. His speeches in the last 2-3 years are quite phenomenal and very progessively oriented.
If you want to undermine the influence of the DLC (a wish shared by yours truly), it can be done, we just need to bet on the right horses which exist even among democrats.
consider the overall electoral picture, and the need for runoff elections.
thanks for your input.
I never admired Gore more than when, in the Katrina aftermath, he took matters into his own hands to do what FEMA and the state and local governments couldn’t or wouldn’t. And without posing in front of firefighters or fake relief tents to sell the image of doing something.
Up until now, Republican apologists have liked to say, pointedly, “…and what if Gore were president?” — with the implication that Gore would have been worse.
Well this is a case where I think it was clear our country would have been much better off with Gore in charge, and with the agency leaders that actually could do their jobs, rather than political patrons and pals who like to wax self-righteously even in front of their own party.
True, the Dems had the White House from 1993 through January 2001. The Dems also had the House and Senate during Clinton’s first two years in office. What did the party accomplish in those two years? Not a whole lot. The party’s leadership in Congress was largely mired in scandal at the time. Clinton’s popular vote performance was underwhelming in both 1992 and 1996 – he was helped out only in that he ran against underwhelming opponents. The two issues that would have had the most resonance with us progressive types – health care reform and equal rights for gays in the military – were badly botched by Clinton’s team, and by the Dem leaders in Congress. The last six years of Clinton’s term consisted of him working with the Dems as a minority party, and one that had largely lost its way. They sure didn’t figure out how to act as an effective opposition party during those six years. The only saving grace for Clinton was that the Congressional GOP members were quite adept at making asses out of themselves. But sitting around and watching the GOP acting like asses was not enough.
I’ll respond to your comment pt-by-pt, but first let me get this out there, so folks understand my disposition about third parties.
I wholeheartedly support a multiparty system, but only when there are runoff elections and schemes (such as IRV). This need for runoff elections is especially acute for the electoral college way of selecting the most powerful branch of the government, namely the Whitehouse (in a parliamentary system, in contrast, there is greater divisibility, and hence greater continuity of the outcome). Note that a similar predicament applies to US senate elections too.
In the absence of runoff elections, with the GOP sticking close and tight, it will be a long hard journey to launch sufficient momentum for viable third party alternatives to emerge, since the GOP will continue to win the elections, and will, more so than the democrats, continue to thwart runoff voting, in turn.
So, in my opinion, the top priority for third party supporters could be to get full-force behind the “runoff elections” front, and I for one will support any and all such efforts.
TXC
(there are tons of typos below, which hopefully the reader will look past, as I really do need to get going :))
Here are some thoughts in response to your comment.
–>True, the Dems had the White House from 1993 through January 2001. The Dems also had the House and Senate during Clinton’s first two years in office. What did the party accomplish in those two years? Not a whole lot.
As Clinton/Gore took office the most critical need was to curb the recession (which was slightly taming when they got there, but was still no where near gone), and to curb the deficits. From what I gather, this was the top priority from the day the got there. An example of that push can be vividly seen in this May 14, 1993 briefing.
So next time you hear the wingnuts trying to take credit for the deficit reductions by Clinton/Gore, you know that they are spinning. It was relentless efforts on the part of that adm. that the economy turned. Another key piece in this thrust was the so-called “reinveting the goverment” initiative that Gore apparently lead, and hopefully more reading on that at a late time.
You see the stunning economic results of Clinton/Gore admin. were neither fluke nor were freebies from anyone. They were the result of application, hardwork, and dedication, by some committed Democrats.
So, to say that the Dems did not do much is quite inaccurate. Now contrast that with the first two years of the Bush regime, and you’ll see why the Dems (good ones, I mean) have delivered when they were able to.
–>”The party’s leadership in Congress was largely mired in scandal at the time.”
True, and I can’t and won’t offer much defense of that relic of the dynosaur era of democratic-held congress, but WH more than tried to make up for the pathetic congress, IMO.
–>”health care reform and equal rights for gays in the military – were badly botched by Clinton’s team, and by the Dem leaders in Congress.”
Atleast the WH tried, and tried hard enough (Hillary did make a full-fledged healthcare reform proposal). Keep in mind that it takes a certain rapport between the WH and the congress to get all cylinders firing esp. on a monumental overhaul such as healthcare. But, before that rapport could fully evolve, Kaboom, Newt came in with his “contract with america” rebels and wiped out any chance for that to materialize.
Call me what you will, but “don’t ask don’t tell” appeared to be a fair compromise considering public opinion and other political forces of the time. You see, significant social change requires a coming together of political will and popular support. Any time of the day, the dems will be there more on your side than the GOP will.
–>”The last six years of Clinton’s term consisted of him working with the Dems as a minority party, and one that had largely lost its way.”
Well, Clinton had to resort to “triangulation”to get anything done from 1995 onwards till Jan, 1998. Especially with the K-street lobbyists now coming full-force to attack the congress. He tried quite a bit it seems, at least on the economy front and the surpluses that they left behind are pretty good proofs on that.
Come early 1998, TADA, we had Ken Starr banging down Clinton’s door, and the hammering (of Clinton/Gore/Dems) that went on since then until the election was stolen on 12/12/2000 still rings in my ear. They did what they could keep the country running, and that’s about it.
If you break things down, you will see that Dems did try, and try hard, and did get at least a few things such as fiscal discipline and economic success accomplished under extraordinarily extenuating RW pressure, pounding, and spin.
thanks for your comment.
Thanks for refreshing my memory regarding the efforts early on to tackle the budget deficit by the Clinton White House. I’ll definitely give the Big Dog and his team their due for that. The deficits that we saw during the Raygun/Bush and Bush/Quayle years and of course the Bu$hCo/Cheney regime are a cancer when one thinks about setting the nation on a course for a sustainable future. Then again I’ve been arguing for some time that keeping the books balanced is a core progressive value – we owe that much and more to future generations.
(again, many typos to follow :))
These are my views concerning Dems/Inds/3rd_partyers:
All in all, I think that we agree a lot more than we disagree, and there is an ample opportunity to harness the progressive spirit, voice, and the legs and boots, from within the democratic party. More so than it has even been, IMO.
I believe that these steps will work in our common interests in the short as well as the long term.
thanks for your thoughts and opinions, and welcome more of the same.
TXC
in America have, to say the least, been greatly exaggerated for some time now. The sad truth is that all these people are basically playing for the same team. Just think about it for a moment. Overwhelmingly, nearly all of our elected reps come from the same narrow socio-economic strata – namely, the upper class, or the upper middle class.
And they mostly all go to the same universities, live in the same neighborhoods, and circulate in the same social circles. Hell, sometimes they even inter-marry, as witness the Gropenator and Evita (oops, Maria) Schriver, not to mention the not-so-Ragin’ Cajun and the Wicked Witch of the West (wing).
Moreover, they all get the lion’s share of their campaign loot from the same infinitesmally small fraction of the populace, those that comprise the truly filthy rich. Check out opensecrets.org, and you will find that for the most recent reporting period 83% – that’s 5 out of every six dollars – of all itemized contributions to both Pubs and Dems came from the same 235,000 or so people, which is something like 6/10ths of 1% of the total US population.
The very same folks who will inevitably make life ridiculously soft and easy for those smart enough to play ball… lets see, cushy lobbying or board of director or TV talk show jobs, sweetheart book deals, six-figure speechifying fees, free plane rides, all expense paid vactions, you name it. Think of it – all this and more can be yours for the mere price of a soul! Such a deal… hell, the real surprise is when these fuckers ever do anything remotely ethical, which in this day and age is a rare occasion indeed.
Given the current rules of the game, how anyone can expect the Dems to represent anything other than a sad, hollowed out mockery of a fake opposition party is beyond me. Hey – you live in a sewer, and it won’t be long before you smell like shit. And it really is just about that simple.
Thanks Doctor for the clear diagnosis.
What you said is 100% true. Bush is horribly unpopular, and a clear majority thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction. Even in that environment the so-called opposition hasn’t managed to challenge anything they could have blocked. Not CAFTA. Not today’s horrible vote on destroying the Endangered Species Act. Not the horrible bankruptcy bill. Not the horribly unwise tax cuts for Paris Hilton. Nothing. You get nothing from Democrats. They’re as useful as tonsils.
While I agree with much of what you say, it is also very clear there are HUGE and IMPORTANT differences between Dems and Reps.
The GOP would love nothing more than to see the left take up cleaning up government as their cause. We’d be walking right into a 30 year Republican rule. This repeated tendency to eat our own is mind boggling to me.
This repeated tendency to eat our own is mind boggling to me.
What is staggering… is the Democratic leadership repeatedly fucking over it’s own base.
By “base” of course you mean YOU. I consider myself firmly implanted in the Dem base, but definitely don’t feel “fucked over” by my Dem representatives and probably disagree with you on many issues.
Yes there are many “Log Cabin Democrats” who feel privileged being apart of a political party that is intent on destroying their civil rights.
Absurd and offensive, which is pretty much your MO.
Log Cabin Republicans are gays who are non”purists” in their ideological and issues stances in the GOP even when the GOP hates their guts…
it is the exact same bullshit Kos and Co are preaching… for all the “special interests” groups to stop being purist and to be non ideological and to drop the issues…
in REAL LIFE that looks like the “Log Cabin Republicans” so the DLC/NDN wants all the special interest groups to be “Log Cabin Democrats”…
You didn’t need to spell out your insult. It was clear.
Just being thoughtful…
Just being a prick!
whatever..
Whatever? You are so hostile and narrow minded. I am done with this thread. Grow up.
You call me a prick and then say I am hostile…
It took me two days to come to the conclusion(although I have felt this same way on other threads).that you are being a prick in your responses to many people here if they don’t agree with you. So yeah, without any hostility just based on fact in regards to some of your responses you are being a Prick with a capitol P.
The real problem is that the Dem lies are no longer working.
It is a lie that the Demcratic leadership has regard for the base.
It is a lie that the Demcrats in DC vote in the best interest of it’s own constituents.
It is a lie that they are trying to be an opposition party.
The only truth is that they want our money and votes, but they want us to shut the hell up.
This diary is rightly called a “Crises of Leadership” what kind a leadership can only muster ONE SENATOR to speak out on the rights of disenfranchised African American voters (who happen to be their staunchest votign block) yet somehow happily find TWENTY ONE SeENATORS to vote on behalf of a man intent of removing or limiting the civil right of women and minorites (largest voting Dem blocks)… now that is what I call are gargantuan CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP… wouldn’t you agree?
So you have proof that Roberts is intent on taking away a woman’s right to choose? Show me that proof please. Link?
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/9/27/121923/737
That is the Bush Administrations stand not Roberts. ANy other “evidence”? Look Parker I don’t have alot of confidence in anything this administration does, you know that but this is a done deal. I hate it, I really do but you have not given me any proof ROBERTS will vote to overturn R v W.
Here Comes John Roberts, There Goes Roe v. Wade
Of course Roe doesn’t matter anyway. They can remove women’s reproductive rights by putting all the doctors out of business. thats the real plan. that way we’ll all have the right
but no health care providers will touch it. a plan, i hate to admit is supported by democrats.
HR 748 TRAP law
So fight the system. What good does it do to rehash what Roberts may or may not do? He has been sworn in folks. Do we want to concentrate on the next nominee or not? Do we want to fight against things in our states that are trying to inhibit getting a legal abortion or not? There is nothing we can do about Roberts. Let’s move on PLEASE and work together with all that we have all that we are to get the flippin majority back. That is the only way we can fight these bastards once and for all. I am not asking you to hold your nose and vote for someone uou don’t want in. I am asking you to find ways to make the change you want in the world instead of beating each other up here.
EVERYONE should read this diary NOW!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165
I already mentioned this above:
Obama is being Colin Powell-ized …
This is the second time Obama has been sent out with his trusty “Power Point” presentation to convince the natives that a Democratic spine “really” does exist… maybe it is hidden in a roving “spine mobile”… perhaps he should break out the satellite photos.
Is there anyone in the Democratic rank and file that you like Parker? Powell-ized? Give me a break. I have nothing but respect for Obama and I admire that he is “hearing what we are saying” and agrees with alot of our dissatisfaction. He voted the way you had hoped ALL dems on Roberts and you still are not satisified. Pretty narrow minded if you ask me. Just who can pass your Litmis test?
Speaking only for myself: Cindy McKinney, John Conyers, Sen. Obama, and Sen. Boxer are generally kosher in my book. I’m sure I’m probably leaving someone out. My thing is that just because the person has a “D” beside their name doesn’t mean that I’ll give them a free pass.
I agree with you 100%.
It ain’t just parker that thinks this…
A lot of kossacks think that Obama has been sold out the left based on today’s speach and his diary…
—————-
What do you think of Barack Obama?
Pretty face, same old DLC crap 964 votes – 59 %
The savior of the Democratic Party 549 votes – 33 %
I want to bear his children 112 votes – 6 %
Votes: 1646
—————–
All that remains is the support of the centrists by centrists (In other words, the moderate right wingers of the Dem party support themselves)… Because they are selling out the left.
And all of the “promoting diaries” by the front pagers over at dKos to support this mad agenda doesn’t change the reality… Think about it.
And of course some of the rejoinders on that thread should be read and considered as well:
Dem Beans and Big River Bandido express quite nicely the dissatisfaction that many of us who make up the Dem party’s presumed base feel.
What I will say is not intended as a diss against Obama or for those who’ve expressed somewhat similar views on this thread: the Dem party has little left to lose. What the party needs to do is to 1) have a clear and concise set of principles that 2) its members articulate and act upon forcefully and 3) in a reasonably unified manner. As it stands now, I have no idea what the Democrat party stands for as a party. I don’t say that to be hyperbolic – I sincerely have no idea, and it isn’t for lack of looking or trying. Hence, I cannot communicate to others what Dems stand for. The party’s leadership got lost in all the attempts at nuance and their fears of losing the ever-elusive center.
After watching 2004 come and go, and watching how events have unfolded over the last few months, I’ve gone back to my usual mode of being a liberal/lefty independent. If the Dems can figure out how to get it together, and demonstrate to me that they can and will stand for the interests of guys like me who live paycheck to paycheck, I’d certainly be interested. Otherwise, no dice.
Dr. Laniac has done a detailed analysis on the House and the Senate. I have the links here.
Dr. Laniac is part of the “Indie 500” bloggers against torture.
Good stuff. Thanks for the lowdown.
…a public critic of much of Kos’s commentary (both tone and content) regarding “single-issue” groups, let me say that your claim that Kos says such groups should “be non ideological and to drop the issues” is an utter distortion of what he and others who agree with him say.
Their point, for instance, on NARAL’s endorsements is that the organization’s stance on supporting Republican pro-choice candidates (even when Democratic pro-choice candidates are available) is counterproductive because those GOP candidates wind up being Congresspeople who support anti-choice GOP leaders (who also are anti gay rights, et cetera). Thus, NARAL’s stance is short-sighted for “purist” reasons.
Now one can disagree with Kos’s argument on this. But misrepresenting his views is not disagreement, it’s sophistry.
Kos, in his own words:
and this
If that doesn’t add up to a war cry against progressive values, then I don’t know what is.
He doesn’t even have his history straight. The idea that progressive advocacy groups have dominated the Democratic agenda is laughable, and a claim I’d expect to hear from Lindsay Graham or Trent Lott, not someone whose stated purpose is to get Democrats elected.
…critic of Kos’s stance (tone and content), whether it was his shriek about the “sanctimonious women’s studies set” (a true low point), environmentalism, gay rights, or, most recently, his stance on antiwar protests. He is, as you point out, often wrong when it comes to the history of such movements.
When it comes to electoral political strategy, however, I believe he’s right. The Democrats have been losing ground for 25 years, 37 years if you reach back to Nixon’s first election. And this has not been because the party has retreated on progressive issues (until Clinton arrived).
As a person of color who has been involved in the civil rights, antiwar, feminist, gay rights and environmentalist movements for decades – with a string of police beatings, arrests, targeting by COINTELPRO and prison time for my efforts – I say we need a united front if we ever hope to win back Congress and the White House. When that day comes, I’m happy to start dragging the party back to the “left.” When we have a majority, we will have the strength to do that. Right now, all we do is grind each other up with claims that our views represent the party’s base.
Politics, of course, aren’t just electoral. Single-issue groups must, as they always have since at least the time of the Abolitionists in this country – fight like the devil to make their views the majority view. But, when it comes Congress, to electoral politics, you take what you can get and regroup to fight another day.
MB, I totally understand this electoral strategy from a sort of distached, rational point of view (mine), but, and this is a big but, nowhere in all the the ranting and raving that I have seen over my last 6 months in bloggy-land, have I seen any strategies for bringing voters (ro non-voters, for that matter), aside from “those in the Center” TO the polls to vote for dems.
I look around at a lot of my neighbors and think (and this is in AUSTIN, mind you), no way, you give ’em a choice between repub and repub-lite they are going to vote repub every time. Why? Partly because of interia, but mostly becuase of trust. In some cases (like mine), the trust is violated on BOTH sides, so they will either stay home, or vote third party…and the ones who don’t vote? Nothing I have seen will be in any way motivating to them….can you show me, aside from Paul Hackett, where this is happening in the party?
Funny you should mention Paul Hackett. He is exactly the kind of person who, when actually in office, purist progressives love to beat up:
Hackett’s a pro-death penalty, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, stay-in-Iraq-until-real-victory, good-on-social-issues, moderate Democrat.
Why was he exciting? Because he was willing to trash his opponent, as Republicans have been doing for so long, without being mealy-mouthed about it. That’s great. I wish he’d won. But he’s no progressive icon, and would, I am sure, if he had won, vote in a way that would greatly upset many people here. Me, too. But he would add to the chances of retaking the House. And THAT would be a good thing.
For the record, as soon as somebody can show me an electoral alternative to the Democrats, one with a ghost of a chance of winning even a statewide office, you can maybe persuade me to spend my organizing time in their camp. Until then, I’ll be fighting to get as many Democrats – conservative Democrats, centrist Democrats, liberal and left Democrats – in office as we can so that at least some of the agenda I agree with can be brought to fruition. This electoral season, my target is David Dreier. Replacing him with a Democrat – a difficult task, to be sure – would help make a practical difference in Congress, and thus in what happens in people/s daily lives. Anyone who thinks that’s bogus should devote their time to other deserving political causes, which, by the way, will ultimately need a Democratic congressional majority and Democratic president to make headway on.
Purists…heh
you have been hanging around your buddy DHinMI too long…
Perhaps we should “invite” into the big tent racists, homophobes and mysognists… we don’t want to be considered purists or have any litmus test… no would we.
I disagree with your reading of why Dems have been losing. The fact that nobody today can point to anything the Democrats stand for I believe is very telling.
Also, we’re talking about primaries right now.
Also, these so-called “single-issue groups” (which is a Republican frame, by the way) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the exclusive interest groups being embraced by the Dems, in a strategy applauded by Kos, are the anti-choice groups like Democrats for Life (when pro-choice already is “the big tent”).
And then people whine and cry about how the Democrats can’t seem to hold together on anything. Ever wonder why? Could it be that this “big tent” has invited in misogynists and racists and plutocrats and their allies and defenders?
You want a united front? How about something to united around, like civil rights? Equal protection for all? Privacy? Liberty? Why are these treated like dirty words?
To rally around “anybody but a Republican” is not effective. It motivates only so many people. It offers no vision. No future. It’s hollow, and the people know it.
You want to win? We need a Bobby Kennedy, not a Hubert Humphrey. More of the same-o-same-o ain’t gonna cut it.
I like this:
“…these so-called “single-issue groups” (which is a Republican frame, by the way) are not mutually exclusive.”
Those of us focused on civil rights, civil liberties, the environment, etc. have a hell of a lot more in common. Let’s try to recognize what those commonalities are – and generally members of these groups are on the same page when it comes to respecting privacy, equal protection for all, liberty, and so on. I take the perspective that if your freedoms are being threatened, so are mine. I tend to hold those wanting elected office to a standard: if they don’t respect privacy rights, if they don’t respect civil rights, if they don’t respect basic civil liberties, if they treat equal justice as a joke then I’m not interested. I don’t care what party they come from.
My own two cents: I think various progressive groups should recognize what they have inherently in common, join forces as a sort of popular front, and not affiliate with any political party – rather, wait and see what those wanting to hold office have to offer. If they’re kosher, cool, then give everything you’ve got to get them in office, and as long as they stand by their promises keep them in office. Otherwise, no dice.
…but, much as I loved Bobby Kennedy’s speeches, and his latter-day transformation on civil rights, he was contemptuous of civil liberties and ushered in an era of eavesdropping, of massive violation of privacy. Moreover, he was a plutocrat and practically a poster boy for misogynism.
It was, on the other hand, Hubert Humphrey, who as a long-time backer of civil rights, did more to break the Southern bloc’s 1964 filibuster of the Civil Rights Act than any other Senator. Of course, he backed LBJ’s stance on the war in Vietnam, and many leftists refused to support him on those grounds alone, helping to boost Nixon into office.
I’m with you when it comes to demanding that Democrats stand against the rightwing’s efforts to dismantle progressive reforms that have cost the sweat and blood of not a few Americans. I’m with you regarding holding Democrats’ feet to the fire over everything from reproductive rights to “free” trade. Personally, I’d prefer a Congress where every Senator to the left of Barbara Boxer and every representate to the left of Bernie Sanders. But I’m not with anybody who says there’s no difference, philosophically or practically, between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
The Administrations of Carter and Clinton, pale centrist shadows, were far and away better than those of Reagan, Bushdad and Bushboy. Kerry’s, for all his damnable faults, would have been better than what we have now.
As my first election experience was having Reagan declared the winner before I even got to the polls, I know about as much of ’68 as, well, as Kos knows about ’80. And so I defer to you on the details.
And I appreciate your point that, in many ways, Humphrey was indeed more progressive than RFK.
But when we talk congressional races today, all this talk of backing people who really should be Republicans just rings false to me. I mean why are they Democrats, if they hold such conservative views? Gang politics?
What upsets a lot of us is that we’ve been freeped by Kos and friends. The whole epithet of “single-issue voters” is case in point. Well, let me give an example of this “single-issue voter’s” attitudes:
If Alberto Gonzales is nominated to the Supreme Court, I will be strongly opposed, even though he is purportedly pro-choice. Why? Because he does not respect civil rights, civil liberties and even human rights. He’s an apologist for authoritarian police and military procedures that make a mockery of the constitution. That makes him no friend of the people or the constitution.
And if you flip that coin over and consider a candidate who’s the opposite on all those things, I’d still be a “no.”
But when it comes to party politics, we’re admonished for being obstacles. Hence the strong rhetoric from progressive circles. And hence the very active activity on this thread.
…moderate, centrist or conservative Democrat in the upcoming primaries. We need to fight these battles, fight them hard, to move the party. But, if we lose the primary, what is gained by voting – except in the most extreme circumstances – for the Republican, or for a third party candidate who has zero chance of winning? One less Democrat in Congress?
Being in the majority moves everything, to the left (just as the big turnaround in ’94 moved everything to right). The Democrat elected may be bad on half a dozen things you support and good on half a dozen, but that’s always better than the Republican – though there have been past exceptions before the GOP had become what it is today.
Let me give you the obvious example. Lincoln Chafee. NARAL backed him. Kos and others of us warned NARAL about how their support for Chafee played into anti-choice hands even though Chafee is pro-choice. Ours wasn’t an attack on reproductive rights, which all of us fiercely favor. It was an attack on NARAL’s inability to see the big picture. And the big picture is that Bush backed Chafee, and Chafee voted for Roberts. That wasn’t the first time he voted against NARAL’s (and yours and my) interests. He approved Priscilla Owen to the Circuit Court as well. And I’ll wager he’ll vote for the next SCOTUS nominee, too. But, thanks to NARAL’s endorsement, no major Democrat in this overwhelmingly Democratic state has declared to contest Chafee’s seat.
I agree with you regarding Gonzales. If he or someone like him gets the nomination, I hope s/he will be filibustered.
But your comment just proves we all have our litmus tests. You didn’t mention his potential views about the environment, economics, the death penalty, guns, religious freedom, et cetera. When does someone become a “Vichy Dem” regarding a nominee? On which issues is it OK not to follow the “party line,” on which is it OK to be a maverick?
As for Kos’s “freeping.” I was one of the first and most vociferous respondents to Kos’s “sanctimonious women’s study set” comments, and I deplored the departure of so many good voices who, amply provoked, decided to go elsewhere. I have consistently objected to his stances (and his tone with people who disagree with his stances) on a variety of issues, including the war, environmentalist and civil rights. I opposed purges.
But on one thing, I strongly agree with Kos, in the absence of a truly progressive party, one that can and does win elections, getting more (and better) Democrats into office is our only electoral option. Flawed as the party is, wimpy and wrong-headed as some of its members and leaders are, it’s what stands between us and something truly horrific. That may sound like the Maginot Line to you, and it may well turn out to be so. But I’ve listened to third-party promises for 40 years, and my grandfather heard it for 40 years before me. They have nothing but words to offer us.
Well, Kos seems to be working very hard to not ever have a progressive Democratic party.
But the bigger point is this: If the Democrats continue to ignore the interests of their constituents, and mainstream Americans, who by and large hold progressive views, then the Democrats just will not win. And that’s not because I vote or don’t vote, but because people can smell bullshit and will not bother to get out to the polls for more of the same old crap.
And THAT is the message that party loyalists are missing. They seem to think that the party wins when the people obey, but in fact it’s the other way around — the party wins when it represents the interests of the people. And right now they are not.
They. Are. Not.
I want people to get interested, get engaged, and get back to believing about what’s possible, instead of what’s less odious. That’s the only way the Dems will win.
my litmus test is extremely simple.
it is premised on this.
i now know that the demcratic party, in its push to the middle, is willing to play the values game and kill women’s choice. my eyes are open. want proof? got proof. lots of it.
i dont vote for any candidate that plans on supporting laws that enslave me, democrat or republican.
surely you can understand that.
this issue is going to be a big problem for you guys.
oh. operative word right there.
you guys.
we gonna make some kinda noise. you see some of us think that both parties have nothing to offer us but back to the old days female slavery. theres your problem.
…15 others co-founded the nation’s first non-profit abortion clinic in 1975, a clinic that was the first in the nation to be firebombed, I have more than a passing understanding of why you would choose to oppose any person who seeks to reduce women’s reproductive rights.
But, with all due respect, the election of an anti-choice Democrat to Congress would be less likely than the election of a pro-choice Republican to improve our chances of keeping reproductive rights from back-sliding any farther than they already have. Anti-choice Democrats are hemmed in by a party that is adamantly pro-choice.
The Democrats, as a party, have not reduced their commitment to the pro-choice movement. Indeed, the party’s stance has improved. In 1972, McGovern fought to keep a pro-choice plank out of the platform. Ever since ’76, however, a pro-choice plank has appeared. Even presidential candidates who assert that they personally oppose abortion make a point and risk losing key support – as Jimmy Carter did, as John Kerry did – of standing firmly by the pro-choice position of the party. The GOP, on the other hand, continues, as it has in every platform since 1976 to assert the need for a “human life amendment.” Over those 29 years, the GOP has become increasingly anti-choice.
Every vote, or non-vote, that assists in maintaining a Republican majority in Congress or a Republican in the White House, assists in bringing the anti-choicers closer to their ultimate goal.
You must be joking. This is the same lie that Kos keeps spreading all over the front pages…and it is clear you have not read ONE Democrats for Choice diary…. where one they refused to endorse Kerry… yet they are seen as part of “The Big Tent”.
Democrats for life openly admit that if it were not for Democrat anti-choicers not of these regressive legislations would be confirmed because there are as many pro-choice Republicans. So it is an alliance between anti-choice DEM and GOP who pass this filth.
Now the anti-choice Dems are soon going to try and force Dean to acknowledge them as part of the DNC.
…to government control of women’s bodies. I’ve been involved in the action end of the pro-choice movement for a long time, including being arrested a couple of times in front of Los Angeles clinics for counter-harassment of anti-choice harassers.
But let’s leave that aside for the moment. Let’s assume that I agree with your and parker‘s assessment that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans in this matter. What’s your alternative? I’m not talking about marches, sit-ins and whatever innovative protests can be come up with – I’m all for whatever in that regard.
What I want to know is how exactly we go about getting a majority party in which every elected member – or, at least, enough of them – don’t vote for anti-choice legislation? How do we keep the Republican Party, with its double handful of pro-choice incumbents from consolidating its power and passing a human life amendment on to the states legislatures?
Put up pro-choicers in primaries against anti-choice incumbents? I’m with you. I don’t have that problem in my district, but you give me a name and here’s my $50 contribution to her or his campaign.
What else do you have in mind?
If they want my vote, they will honor civil rights. You keep saying what are “we” going to do. Me, I’m going to vote for the people, not the party. I’m going to give money to candidates and organizations I can trust not to sell me out.
And I’m going to keep making noise. And if the so-called “big tent” folks don’t like it, I suggest they take it up with the right wing, who’ve been making noise since Goldwater. It’s those people who don’t like the “big tent.” We progressive stand together just fine, thank you.
And if someone thinks I’m a roadblock to be shoved aside, I’m going to shove right back. And I wouldn’t bet against people defending their own turf, their own rights.
…problem with “making noise” or defending one’s turf. I presume you’re not keen on doing that at Daily Kos, which I think is too bad, because there remains there – despite what you may believe – a large faction of people dedicated to a progressive vision, which includes, as it must, reproductive rights and civil rights. But I understand that you may feel opining there is a waste of time and energy.
For the record, while you and I disagree on strategy, we don’t disagree on outcome.
feel opining there is a waste of time and energy.
What to be attacked and called “purists” by “radical centrist”… that is the most unpleasant place in the entire blogosphere.
I’ve done just that, and often get coordinated trolling of my crossposts from the likes of DH, Biminicat, AlanNYC, Mikeandabunchofnumbers, Cookiebear, Slackerinc and others. They come into LSF and throw around misogynist crap. Uncivil, hateful … they ban longstanding members like Marisacat and Wilfred while they run lose attacking women, “hippies” and others they don’t agree with, and you wonder why people leave?
I keep coming back, and get wonderful support for trying, but more and more it seems like a waste of time.
I love your writing, man, but …
… why do you buy these people’s arguments? It is not “purist” to stand for the gains that generations of women, of civil rights activists of ALL creeds, colors and origins fought for. I would be ashamed NOT to.
I feel that going there ends up being ugly and unpleasant. I get the same feeling whenever I follow a link or log entry from Capns Quartrs or LGF. Same kind of rhetoric.
There are a few who do respond positively there, and with very rare exceptions I get nothing but 4s there — which I suppose is remarkable given the troll-rate fetish there.
But it’s just a bunch of shouting. If I felt like I was actually communicating with anyone there, maybe I’d continue. But most of my efforts end up with accusations that I’m just stirring up trouble to draw traffic to my site, or that I’m just envious of Kos and want to “take him down a peg.”
And Kos has proudly proclaimed that he refuses to engage in any of this discussion, as if he came down from the mount with stone tablets.
Ironically I feel like Armando actually engages in discussion, albeit in a hotheaded way. If he starts his own site, I’d certainly visit there and see what he writes about outside of the SuperBowl.
But I don’t have the spare time to waste at dKos. They’ve proudly declared themselves irrelevant to any real netroots effort, preferring to steal the DLC formula and make it shine more. No thanks.
And you know what? I think progressives and Democrats can do fine without them. I don’t think “more of the same” will be missed.
Hackett went up against the President of a rabid anti-choice organization in a bright red area… and he was OPEN about being pro-choice.
It certainly does not help whenwe have candidates like Kerry… OPENLY saying he would nominate anti-choice fed judges or Dems being called purist because we don’t want to see our daughters having to go into back alley for abortions… or jail.
This is why this diary is called “Crisis of Leadership” Democrats have let the DLC eat the heart out of it’s platform. The Democratic party is now like those ancient trees that “look” strong and still bears leaves but has been hollowed out in the middle.
The first thing I would do is to recommit to the prochoice plank and slap down and Democrat that votes on anti-choice legislations…
…the use of the word “purist.” I used it cavalierly, it’s a poor descriptor of what I mean, and I apologize for making it sound as if I’m ridiculing you for standing on principle, which I decidedly am not.
Slap down? As in remove from positions of authority on commmittees, and the like? Good idea. I’m for it. But, once again, that won’t really have an impact until you can take chairpersonships away. And that can’t be done until the party has a majority.
NO WAY IN HELL should Democrats for Life be given safe haven in the DNC…
You say
But, with all due respect, the election of an anti-choice Democrat to Congress would be less likely than the election of a pro-choice Republican to improve our chances of keeping reproductive rights from back-sliding any farther than they already have. Anti-choice Democrats are hemmed in by a party that is adamantly pro-choice.
hemmed? hell in my state they’re in the majority. haha. hemmed? thats funny. get a clue.
anti-choice votes anti-choice every day of the week. thats proven. women’s reproductive rights is an isssue that TRANSCENDS party. it goes without saying that anti-choice dems (would you like the lists?) vote anti-choice and go against party and MY interests every time the issue comes up to vote.
so the real way to handle it is to NEVER support anti choice, regardless of party. you’re arugment is making slight distinctions between slave holders, that is all. good massa vs. bad massa.
i reject massa. thats my goal. we’re going to do our best to change the way progressive women vote.
i’d be glad to post links proving how anti-choice democrats side with anti-choice repugs every time but hey your mind is already made up isnt it? whats the point. if you’re seriously interested though, let me know.
as far as what you did in 75 thats great. thats the past. our battle is now. that clinic you helped set up is still in business yes? the one in denver?
see if that doctor agrees with me on this issue.
oh by the way, he does. seems to me too that his experience would tend to validate his opinion much more than others.
he agrees. no support for anti-choice dems.
supporting anti-choice dems is the being on wrong side of human rights.
you choose.
I will not support anybody who will cross the aisle and give bi-partisan cover to Republican party. Chaffee or not, what I stand for is still fucked.
I’m lucky. I’m represented by Feingold (who’s right more often than not), Kohl (who I’m hoping will face a strong primary challenge, and I will support his challenger), and Gwen Moore, who is pretty solidly progressive.
I’m not asking for perfection, but I think sitting things out and letting the “centrists” fall on their face a few more times may be the only choice left to progressives.
Really, how else do you get rid of the Shrums? They keep losing, they keep getting hired, and when they do win they get some guy like Nelson into office who may as well be a Republican, only with the D after his/her name, making their odious winger ideas look “mainstream”.
I can’t believe you are still beating this dead horse. I happen to think NARAL was right. They should have put up a stink when Schumer tried to put up a rabid anti-choice Dem over a pro-choice Rep. You and Kos both forget how this started.
There is a very interesting episode on an earlier West Wing about a librul Republican who gets squeeze between the DLC and the wingnuts of his party. He tells Josh the reason there are more wingnuts is because the Democrats keep running more conservative Democrats against them. He warned that if they attacked (the DLC) him like that he would “run to the right…that is where the money is”.
Chaffee’s running to the right is more of a response to Democrats trying to attack him on his right. A particular strategerie loved by the DLC … too bad it does not work… ie Brad Carson. Salazar won not because he ran to the right but the people of Colorado were fed up with the Coors company exploitation of water rights… in a dry state that is not looked upon kindly.
But the fact that YOU are still bringing up this NARAL crap just tells me that “the powers that be” are still intent on trying to put the women back into a box. Because if this were REALLY the point, Kos would have ALSO called out Andy Stern and SEIU who gave the Republican Governors Association it’s biggest donation last year of 575,000 dollars… not a peep from Kos and Co.
Oh, BTW I think Kos wrote about 3 FPs that NO ONE ELSE could win against Chaffee…while women were begging him to shut up and get on board with the new candidates in RI… nada… so do give me this “It’s NARALs fault”.
Kos has done more HARM to the progressive netroots movement than good. He has single handily destroyed the good will and community spirit that used to be in the threads with his gang of hench men bulling anyone who disagrees and indiscriminate purges… all in the name of “empire building”… his.
Kos is ignorant in regards to social issues and backwards in regards to political strategery.
And since you know him so well … tell him that A million web clicks does not make a “Movement”… that my dear friend you have to earn… and you do not do that by dismissing 50% of the party.
Wow, I step out to get something to eat and the battle rages on….
Ditto everything you just said
and what is mind-boggling to me is that partisians, on BOTH sides, forget that there are plenty of us out here that reject both parties as they currently stand.
I am one of those, BTW. The phrase “our own” is increasingly chapping my ass these days.
I have supported individual democrats in the past, and am more open to local party activities, but the national party can kiss my ass — what have they done for me lately??
Rejecting both parties, in my book, essentially means you don’t really take issue with the GOP majority in all three banches of the federal government. You don’t really think there was much of a difference between the 8 years under Clinton (much of which he had to deal with a Republican congress) and the last 5 years under Bush.
Am I understand you correctly?
I think my problem is I am on the wrong blog. This seems to be the blog for people pissed off at Democrats and considering starting a third party. Do I have that right?
essentially means you don’t really take issue with the GOP majority in all three banches of the federal government.
Is there something …I have missed… becauase I could have sworn that the Democrats have ALREADY HANDED the GOP all three branches of the federal government in lieu of two terms for Clintion…
No you aren’t understanding me correctly, but I have an appointment with my bankruptcy lawyer, so I will have to respond in full when I get back — if you are actually interested in what I think — let me know because I am more than happy to engage in discussion and debate about this, but I don’t want to waste my time if you aren’t really interested. And that’s not snark, it’s honesty.
I should be back by 12:30 or 1.
It’s up to you. I’m not taking some sort of “oath” in order to extract your opinion.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, it’s not an oath — is a QUESTION — are you intersted in what I think? Yes or no. Either answer is fine with me, I am not hugely invested in my broadcasting my opinion. I am asking you if you care to have a discussion?
It’s that simple — if it isn’t worth your time to answer my question, it sure as hell isn’t worth my time to answer yours….christ on toast, why make things so combative?
You’re on the right blog if you appreciate wide ranging opinions, including being tired of democrats refusal to stand up. We can’t benefit from the differences between the parties because the democrats are doing little to nothing to get themselves in a position to show how they would do things differently.
BTW, I’m not a democrat. I’m a green, and yes, I definetily would like to see third parties, and fourth, and fifth parties get in.
Well, that’s kind of what I thought. I am on the wrong blog. I do appreciate and benefit from wide-ranging opinions, but not when the focus is on whether or not to go Green. I went down that route in ’96 before the reality of just how bad the Republicans are slapped me in the face.
I’ll bow out from this and look elsewhere for blog discussions about taking our government back from the GOP. I’m really not interested in a blog where Parker is the star blogger.
Umm, sorry. That’s just plain lame. Like I said, this is a blog with wide ranging opinions. You asked questions, and got answers. You don’t like the answers and your solution is to leave and to label this blog as a place for greens. It is a place for greens. And democrats, libertarians, and so on.
What are the democrats doing, in your opinion, to reverse republican rule?
discussions about taking our government back from the GOP
and I suppose that discussion would center around … keeping powder dry and “bi-partisanship”… great you go discuss that else where… this community is grounded in reality not fantasy land.
If the Dems can not lift a finger in opposition during the LOWEST POLLING EVER for this administration that signals a CRISES OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP
wow, too bad for us. I was hoping for some fresh pithy insights into how important it is for me to deny everything I hold dear in order to get “less bad” leadership than the Republicans.
You’ll be missed, because this place could use someone who is able to articulate clearly how important party is over policies, how little our voices and votes count for. After all, I don’t get enough of that kind and thoughtful advice at dkos and mydd.
Go there, you’ll fit right in. Maybe you can get invited to one of the nasty fratboy blogswarmers who sweep into women’s and hippy’s diaries and troll them into quietude.
I know you can come up with a better insult than fratboy, Madman.
That is probably my biggest pet peeve in all my time reading the progressive blogosphere. How can we preach equality, respect, and understanding for everyone when we can’t even get over our own stereotypes?
Yours truly,
a fratboy
Hey buddy :o)
I was thinking of you when I saw Madman’s comment. We all know he doesn’t mean you. You’re an enlightened fratboy!
That means a lot to me 🙂
And I know it wasn’t intended to be offensive…I’m just trying to ‘elevate the discourse’, as Scotty McC would say.
well, I was mad, and it came to mind first. I went to a VERY greek university, and my personal experiences w/ fratboys wasn’t in the least bit positive.
One of my blindspots.
hmmmm, hyenas might be better. Jackyls?
That truly was a “prickish statement Madman. I personally know paulucla and he is anything but a “fratboy” and left dkos along with alot of others quite awhile ago.
I think we are all frustrated to the extreme with the dems are rightly so but right now what is our alternative? The Greens? I don’t think so. Might as well put a check mark next to the repubs box then.
Hi Lee,
I put a check next to Kerry’s name but the result was the same. So where should I go with my frustrations except for the streets of Washington?
So did most of us Super. I still strongly believe the Ohio votes were manipulated but that is a whole different diary. What I am saying is that the yelling and name calling here is exactly what others have complained about loudly about dkos. I have found the lack of respect for differences of opinion on this thread absolutely appalling. Isn’t it time to get over the anger and the bitterness and stop yelling at each other and try and find some flippin common ground? I do not see any solutions in this thread. I just see alot of yelling. I HATE that Bushco gets to pick these nominees, you all know that. Would I have loved to see everyone of the dems vote no…absolutely but it still would not have changed the outcome. Roberts is Rehnquist, its a wash. NOW we need to write, call, scream at the dems on this next one and make sure they completely vet this nominee. NOW is not the time to turn on each other. I am not in the smae exact place on either side of the holdoing ones nose and voting. I am for if you don’t like the candidates for ’06 get out there and find and support someone you do believe in and that will work for the constituents that elect him or her.
except
chamonix called parker a troll. That started it. Argue points w/ parker, that’s cool. Booman does. Paul went on to imply that we were naive or foolish if we got fed up w/ the “centrists”. That’s what we’re reacting too, and once again a “centrist” tosses out insults, and when “leftists” respond in kind we’re told we’re being uncivil.
I’m going out to see “Serenity” now and enjoy my day off. Have fun kids.
Guess I missed that, however I have read and reread the thread and don’t find that to be the case. I agree about the troll calling and that started it. but that’s all.
Aloha, I generally like your comments, but Madman’s got this one right on.
Reading all the comments here, it really looks like it was Parker’s reply to Paul’s latter comment that was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” to you.
But I read it the same way Madman did. Paul came into Parker’s diary, and in his first post, actually said he agreed with much of what she was saying/feeling. Then he said some things in reply to her reply that she took as condescending. As Madman explained, to many of us they do come across that way. Implying how someone feels now is invalid simply because one felt that way in 96, but grew out of it is… well, you see?
Anyhow, that conflict is between the two of them. But since then you’ve posted repeatedly attacking Parker. And its coming across (to me anyways) that you’re somehow defending Paul by attacking Parker. That may not be your intent, but that’s the impression.
Anyhow, as you yourself say, parts of this diary do read like something from the orange place. But rallying to the defense of a friend by attacking someone else was also par for the course over there.
In your rejoinder to Boo’s last call for calm, in which he defended Parker’s right to post and declared that in his opinion Parker was within the lines, you turn around and call Parker a troll? I thought he made it clear it was time to stop attacking Parker and each other.
Yeah, this does remind me of dKos.
And that includes the meta-discussions I’m involved in. But I hope by pointing this out like yourself, and Madman, and others have done, we can put an end to it.
I hope we’re all over this funk and things are back to normal come Monday.
Peace.
Um…excuse me, I called parker a prick not a troll. Parker can post any damn diary she wants. I don’t give a hoot. And I will defend whom ever I want and i have consistently(if you look at the time stamps)tried to make different points here.
Our dear leader even said:
“Madman (none / 1)
c’mon. Don’t you think you’re getting awfully high and mighty with pauluca? I mean, they are making a point I largely agree with. I don’t believe in third parties in national elections, and I don’t believe is abstaining.
I believe in fighting for the party and candidates you want, and voting for the result. But I don’t get dissed like pauluca for feeling that way.”
What a shame this whole thing has become. I cannot even begin to tell you how disappointed I am. I think it may be time for me to take a break away from the blogs for awhile. I am now in tears. I have been a part of this community from the start and have always thought I was in pretty good standing here and am so disappointed that you feel this way about me now. I am hurt and pissed and oh I don’t know. Fuck it. When someone as harsh and venomous as Parker can spew the mean spritied remarks and name calling toward Brinnainne yesterday and now myself and paulucla and that is acceptable behavior here then I guess maybe I am in the wrong place too. I need to go away for a few days and think about it.
I won’t comment here anymore about anyones opinion of your comments on this diary or your opinions of others comments. I’ll only say that I really hope it’s only for a few days because I for one would surely find it sad to lose one of my favorite blog sisters and a Crawford Kindred Spirit.
Thank you for your kind words.You have always been so dear to me. I have to back away for awhile and regroup in my mind. I need to figure out just where I belong. I am not sure it is here anymore after the last couple of weeks. Too much negativity for me. I am not sleeping at night and I need to step back for a bit. I am an addict though so I probably won’t be gone for too long…lol!
Just asking cause I posted a comment 20 minutes ago in reply to you and you didn’t reply — email me if you want to instead of talking here…or not!
Just making sure I haven’t pissed you off in some way I am unaware of!
Personally, I’d prefer you stick around. It’s selfish of me I suppose, but generally I’ve appreciated what you’ve had to say here.
Peace.
thank you…I try.
I was shocked actually that no one leapt in a took my side or defended me in that whole thing as well, not one of of you, though Susan did send me an email, and I was pretty damned hurt and pissed off about it too, as I consider many of you RL friends as well. I had the same response as you did, and when my husband asked me (as he does on occasion) “how’re things in blogworld?” I said, dunno really, I’m thinking of giving it up all together…
But then I thought to myself, hmmm, well, I guess the rules really are the rules, and took responsiblity myself for what I did…and I felt better.
I’m going to stick around for a while and see how Red Harvest’s series turns out — he seems like he might actually be reflecting my views.
I have to tall you in all honety i purposely stayed out of it yesterday because I knew that what has happened today would be the outcome when it comes to Parker. I try hard not to participate in any of her threads because they are in general quite hostile but today unfortunately I hooked in. Boy am I ever sorry I did that.
oh stop it…
Now I am hostile…
I will not apologize because YOUR arguments didn’t hold water. You are the one who degenerated into name calling not me.
You are a liar!
Lee, what are you doing? I have never seen you like this — just disengage — email or call me if you need to vent!! I’m all ears, I promise!
Someone would come into a diary that SHE took the time to write and call her a troll??
Am I missing something, Lee?
I’ll admit it…. I am in a damn pissy mood today at THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP not at anyone on this board. I am here to commeserate, and frankly I think this on one of the better debates we have had here in a long time. We have just been sold down the river and I’ll be damned if I am going to sing Cumbaya today… as I see front pages around the net fill up with pleas for money…. they must be joking
No honey… no money
I agree. When Booman said above that he thought this whole thread was unfortunate, I was thinking like you that it was cool to get into some meat for a change. It is unfortunate that you were attacked right off the bat and I think that’s what set a bad tone from the start. If that’s not trollish behavior, I don’t know what is.
Roberts I think was the straw that broke the camels back… even an anti-Obama thread made the recommended list over there… this is more than just a vote… we are going to have to live with this shit for the next 30 years and these Dems are playing games with peoples lives.
Yeah, that part of Obama’s post asking not to be too harsh in reaction to “one vote” was condescending to me. Jesus, it’s not just one vote. It’s the latest in a long list of single votes that’s given all the power to the republicans and allowed them to strip away our rights and our security one cut at atime. I’ve had it. I want something different. I went against my principles and voted for Kerry. he turned his back and walked away, and now he wants more money. They always want more money. I did go with my principles in 2000 and now all I get is shit about it. There’s more of it upthread in txchili’s posts. 1000 Green votes in Florida gave us Bush!?? I guess you can look at it that way if you can’t face the fact that your candidate was incapable of inspiring people to vote against a drunk moron from Texas (nothing against Tx). That election should never have been close, and besides, from all accounts, it looks like Gore won anyway. If Gore would’ve shown half the passion then that he does now, he would’ve had my vote hands down. Instead his new fiery approach just leads me to the same questions I had about him then, who is he? What is he?
Allright, now I’m ranting :o)
1 “anti-Obama thread”, and one “really pissed at Obama thread”, as well as 1 “lack of leadership thread” are the list over there right now…
There are a lot of reverberations from this.
there are some post on it that are “unfortunate”, but hell, I have no place to preach about “unfortunate” comments at the moment (not that I would preach in any case, LOL!)
And we DO need to have these debates — I know we are not all on the same page about politcal parties and the like, but that is one of the things that makes BMT so great, we find our points of agreement FIRST, sometimes it never even occurs to me to ask about party affiliation — for example super, I learned today for the first time that you identify as Green…
So, it’s mostly good, I say!
I never defended the person that called her a troll last night. I didn’t agree with his comments whatsoever. It was uncalled for. That had nothing to do with the way she has treated both you yesterday and paulucla and then me for defending paulucla. Oh just fuck it. I am done with this crap. I am not going to sit here and defend myself. This is absurd. Go back and look at my comments early on. I even said I agreed with some of parker’s points but because I or anyone else disagrees we are berated and called names and so I did so in return after being tired of trying to debate and be reasonable. Fuck this shit!
I didn’t say that you defended Cham’s comments, and I am not asking you to “defend” yourself — I didn’t understand what you meant when you said that you knew this would happen and that is why you avoided coming into the discussion and getting my back … that’s what I was asking about.
But, sure, we can ‘”fuck this shit” too — works for me. [shrug]
Ok…maybe because I am so royally pissed right now I am not making myself clear. my fault. I did not get involved in your back and forth yesterday because I did not want to get into the back and forth with Parker. Maybe I should have defended you there too yesterday. As I said I mostly try to avoid certain diarists and I wish I had done so today. It has nothing to do with you personally Brinnainne really.God I hope you know that…I care for you so much and highly admire and respect all that you do. We are going to have disagreements from time to time but this is just beyond the pale to me. I get frustrated with people that cannot try to have a civil debate no matter who they are.That is why I left the other not to be named site. I couldn’t stand all the name calling and personal shit.
I gotcha, thanks for explaining — and I really had to laugh at myself anyway about feeling hurt and pissed off about it — I was behaving fairly badly after a while myself — so what did I want you all to do? Jump in and behave badly with me?
It is very silly all in all….the name calling is over the line, and that is why I apologized for it. I have not gotten one in return, just forgiveness, but that’ll do — we all hav better things to do, I agree with you 100% on that!
Get offline for a while — it helped me yesterday, a LOT!!
Love you, lady!
😉
But Bri…thats just the point. She never apologises for the condescending and the name calling. EVER! But she will forgive YOU doing it. BS! Yep, you are right. I am getting off now and going to relax away from all theis for now. Thanks for your understanding.
I must have missed it when it was going down (I just did a quick check to see what you might have been talking about) – was this about Gaggypoodlepod? The dude was trolling LSF a couple days back, so I guess I’m not entirely surprised he came here too. He was a prick to you – and hey if he think’s namecalling is so wonderful, here’s some karma back at him (Gaggypoodlepod – I kill me 8^D ).
Hey Alohaleezy, I do hope you stick around. You are part of what makes this place what it is.
I really think this whole thing is being blown way out of proportion.
I like all of you — you, Parker, Stu, Boo, Susan and everyone in between. I’ll agree or disagree with you each individually depending on the topic at hand. But I apprecate we can do it and still remain friendly with each other.
You think Parker went over the line. I get that. I’m coming from a different angle, and I disagree, but I don’t dispute your right to feel that way.
In the end, its Boo’s call. He’s made it. I wish we could all just let it go. Making snide remarks about Parker isn’t refuting Parker’s points, or addressing Parker’s ideas. Its attacking Parker. I wish you could disagree with Parker without the attacking.
It really hurt me when Brinnainne and Parker were fighting the other day. Brinnaine was one of the first two or three people here to make me feel welcome here. Brinnaine is one of the very very few people to ever comment on my pathetic attempts to write a diary. I’ve never met Brinnaine, but I consider her a friend.
I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Parker is saying. We haven’t interacted much yet, but I’d like to consider Parker a friend too.
I stayed out of it when they got into it, and they worked it out. I’m very glad they did. I doubt they’ll see eye-to-eye on everything, but that’s not the point.
I certainly didn’t mean to be part of why you’re crying over this experience. Whatever I was attempting to convey to you obviously backfired. I truly and sincerely apologize.
This is why I hate to see personal attacks over here. Even if they were called for, they never lead to anything positive.
I do not see any solutions in this thread
Then you did not read carefully. It seems that common solution is to STOP supporting this madness.
The definition of madness: Doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is what you are seeing here… people saying enough is enough and that this way of supporting any old Dem is OBVIOUSLY not working.
The conclusions that I see is to hell with the party as a whole and to support Dems, Greens, Indy who share the same values. This wholesale buying into a blind, deaf and dumb Democratic party is over.
This is not reality:
NOW we need to write, call, scream at the dems on this next one and make sure they completely vet this nominee.
Pray tell… how in the hell can they do this when they already lowered the bar. I think the pissiness you pcik up is the fact that these Dems think that they are so slick to pull the wool over our eyes… what you are describing is utter fantasy and you know that they WILL NOT do it or they would have done it for Roberts.
Why the hell should we waste our breaths on getting the Democrats to decide betweem Gonzales or Owens… now that is a complete waste of time… I have moved on. I have finally come to the realization that this leadership could give two shits about Democracy and even less about me.
They made their minds up long ago and are voting not based on their constituency but who is putting money in their pockets… even when WE put money in Kerry’s pocket he still shitted all over us.
The onus in on the Democratic leadership and they have made it quite clear that they want our money and for us to shut up and vote for their pathetic DLC candidates… be my guess if that fits your fancy… but even you have to admit that this is how Democrats have lost all three branches of the government… it is madness.
I’ll say this;
Well first, the comments by Chamonix and Paulucla kinda speak for themselves. I will say that Paulucla should have stayed. He mis-charachterized this blog and the posters here in general because he disagrees with a few here who may or may not be democrats. Some of his comments went close to the line, just like at least one of mine. Thats fine, but he should have stayed instead of dismissing the opinions here. Parker walks that line a lot more often. She is blunt. So what? I think a whole lot more people need to start being a whole lot more blunt. The country is going down the tubes and it’s beyond frustrating to watch many democrats standing silently by, twiddling their thumbs. Booman makes the final call here and if Parker went beyond what he considers prickishness, I’m certain he would address it with her.
I have no confidence that no matter how loud I yell scream or call my representatives, that they would actually act on my concerns, let alone hear me at all to begin with. They have divorced themselves from me. That’s how I feel. It’s not unreasonable to feel that way.
You said that now is not the time to turn on each other and I agree with this 5ooo% but I believe that that decision has already been made from the top down, beginning on Nov. 3rd 2000. They are abandoning us.
Ah, I see. Because I disagree with directing temper-tantrums toward Democrats in this unbelievable time of Republican rule, I must be with those who bash women and hippies.
After all, at Booman “you are either with us, or you are with the Kossacks!” Nice.
You came to this thread… to defend the prickish behavoir of the Democrats.. . Let’s just say we don’t see eye to eye on blindly voting for a Chief Justice… I am NOT IMPRESSED… but obviously you are.
The owner of this site IS A KOSSACK, so that is just BS. (see my response to Chamonix1).
you said you were leaving. I was only trying to be supportive of your decision.
c’mon. Don’t you think you’re getting awfully high and mighty with pauluca? I mean, they are making a point I largely agree with. I don’t believe in third parties in national elections, and I don’t believe is abstaining.
I believe in fighting for the party and candidates you want, and voting for the result. But I don’t get dissed like pauluca for feeling that way.
I believe in fighting for the party and candidates you want, and voting for the result.
If we had a Democratic leadership that ACTUALLY respected the people that fund them and vote for them… that works fine… but that is not the case now …is it. Now is the time for a reality check… not in 2006 or in 2008. This is the time to take stock of where we stand… and it ain’t so pretty.
I have never in my life considered myself something other than a Democrat… now I have people telling me to STFU and to vote for people intent on destroying my civil liberities… This blaming the victim is tired.
And it does not work…even when everyone DID play along and voted for Kerry… they just dumped us the very next day. What kind of two bit party is this? They could only find ONE senator to fight for the votes of african americans yet we are suppose to stand and cheer and support *21 assholes who support Roberts…this is insanity.
The onus of retaining people in this party is on the shoulders of the leadership… who seem to only remember that they have a base when they threated to rebel… hence Obama’s soggy plea on Kos to play nice to the sell outs.he should be glad that I an banned over there or I would have given him an ear full. *Obama is becoming the Democratic version of Colin Powell…send out the the old trusty negro to calm down the natives…shameful
.
is what I’m saying:
I’m not happy with the Dems performance and I don’t agree with their current strategy. I’m supporting progressive candidates in the Philly suburbs that the DCCC won’t fund. That is how I deal with it. I’m a Democrat, not a Republican. If my party sucks, I work to make it suck less.
Telling them they suck is part of it. But only a part. No one can make me vote for Casey in the primaries, and no one can make me not vote against Santorum in the general.
I never voted for Dukakis, Clinton or Gore in the primaries, but they got my vote in the general. I believe in fighting in the primaries. Then you live with what you get.
It’s not like I’m just sitting here taking whatever they offer me without a fight.
Engage in the process…
You will say they rely on people like me to do their selling out. That is true. But personally, the biggest crisis right now is the GOP. It makes sense to make the Dems think I might abandon them, but in the end I won’t. The alternative is too disastrous. Sad, but true.
is what I am saying (but I can’t speak for Madman):
Anyway, sorry for butting in to this argument.
Oh I wish I could edit…. should be:
1. We are entering the primary season, so now is the time to be critical of Democrats who pay back Democrat funding with Republican voting.
is unfortunate. Parker got attacked in the first comment. So, I’m not going to get on her case for being defensive. But I do want Parker to think about how this site strives to be more civil than other sites. And everyone should just chill out. It’s okay to express strong opinions. But name calling of members is out of bounds.
I have a ton of fours on this thread how have I been uncivil to anyone… you practically invited Chamonix to attack me.
I tried to hint that you were not a troll and that he was off-base.
Just relax.
How many times have the Dems rigged the primaries. Damn, Carville even came right out and complained that the Dems hadn’t rigged the DNC chairmanship race…. funny he called that a “Crisis of leadership”
They have gotten rigging down to a science and it is a conservative Dem the GOP will let the Dems “borrow” their MSM. It usually starts as a whispering campaign of “The Chosen One” then eventually some one brings comes uo with a bogus poll that shows THEIR candidate clearly in the lead… that in turn kills the fundraising for any other candidates. The DSCC and the DCCC do this all the time and now they are even advocating for no primaries.
We have seen this happen with:
I saw them fucking destroy Dean with lies and and bogus ads.
The only progressive that have managed to ESCAPE are the ones they didn’t see coming until it was too late. Like Obama, Hackett and Morrison. McAuliffe did not even contact Obama until the morning he won the Dem primary… they were betting on another horse and just assumed a Black man had no chance state wide, otherwise they surly would have sabotaged his race. Even this attack on Ben Affleck…WTF… watch them try and run a gross Brad Carson wananbe.
I am looking closely at the Mfume race because the last thing LIEberman and From want is another “progressive” Black in the Senate.
I gotta say Booman that I for one am glad to hear you say that. This whole thread has been “prickish” and hostile and quite honestly it feels as if I am at dkos right now and that is very disturbing to me. I feel I have made an extreme effort to remain civil and have agreed with some points on both sides of the debate here but quite frankly I haven’t seen much of a debate on parker’s side of the issue other than name calling and telling Paul he belongs at Dkos. It is ugly and I for one am tired of the venom and hostility that comes from Parker.
how can we fight if everybody tells us to shut up? If the entrenched parties locally use parliamentary manuvers to keep out newcomers? If the DSCC & DCCC put their thumbs on the scales by supporting center-right candidates IN THE PRIMARIES? If people who come out body and soul to say “no more” are attacked and denigrated by their supposed allies?
What is left to us? Shouting, protesting, leaving and/or a strike. That’s pretty much it.
Over and over we’re told to swallow our values, or beliefs in basic human rights, only to see everything we warned would happen come true months later. I couldn’t believe when I read Armando’s little mea culpa the other week after the Roberts thing came down … after MONTH’S of yelling at those of us warning the Reid was selling us out.
High and mighty? NO, I’m TERRIFIED. I’m watching this country become what the Confederacy would have turned it into if they had won. I’m watching my country, with the support of nearly EVERY institution in this country: the corporations, many of the churches and BOTH political parties choose greed over compassion, exclusion over community, hatred over inclusion. I’m scared to death that those I love, my nephew and my sisters and my friends and their children are living in an increasingly barbaric feudal state where life is cheap, where life is for sale, where there is NO value but that which an actuary can itemize.
I watch and read people raising the alarm, trying to shout “STOP, SLOW DOWN, YOU’RE HEADING FOR A CLIFF” and all I hear/read in response is “don’t be so negative”.
High and mighty? I feel like I want to curl up in a fetal position and drink myself into sweet oblivion.
BTW
I voted for Kerry in 04 only to watch the greens step up in Ohio with the recount effort on his behalf while he basically did nothing for himself or us.
Rejecting both parties, in my book, essentially means you don’t really take issue with the GOP majority in all three banches of the federal government.
That illogical statement is no longer a useful tool for the failed aspects of the Dem parrty platform.
It means we really take issue with both parties because they are both failing the people, regardless of who is in office at any given time.
You can’t guilt people into supporting “moderate right wing candidates” just because they have a D behind their name. And if you try and do that, well, you are just continuing to support some major failures of the Dem platform.
It is always a sad day when a Dem supporter blames everyone else (Nader, the Greens, independents that just won’t buy the BS), but fails to take responsibility for the decisions they made to create the problems.
Dem candidates move to the right… Surprise! The left base (not the moderate right wing supposed “centrists”… I am talking about the real left base) doesn’t follow. Don’t be shocked. And don’t be angry with those that refuse to budge on “left” positions. Positions that some in the Dem party are pushing to dump again.
A party cannot be successful against the right if all they stand for is being functionally “apolitical”.
thanks connectecut man for using the phrase “moderate right wing candidates”. it’s so true isn’t it? and its also the funniest thing i’ve read all day! so thanks for the giggles. the coke literally squirted from my nose when i read it.
lets be clear about what some people would seemingly like to impose. IMHO i feel that what’s expected of us these days is that we, the long-time democratic voters, are supposed to STFU and get in line behind these “moderate right wingers” of the new and improved© democratic party with no criticism or reservations at all.
so get in line people! here’s the new face of your party!
The American Prospect, Raising Kaine
Ouch! 7up and ginger-ale burns a bit… But coke is the worst. (Don’t ask me how I know this, eh?)
You have to begin to define these candidates as what they really are in order for people to get a real clear perspective on these issues.
Americans call these candidates “Centrists”… But they are moderate right wingers. The closest thing to a real Centrist will be found in the far left wing of the Dem party (right leaning Centrists) and the Greens and Naderites (left leaning Centrists).. The rest of the two main parties are all to the right of that.
Most Americans don’t seem to understand just how far right the candidates in both parties have moved over the years.
The first step in re-framing the debate has to be to label the candidates for what they really are. Lieberman, Clinton, Bayh, etc., are all moderate right wingers supported by the moderate right wing DLC. They are not Centrists by any sense of the word.
When you refer to candidates like Lieberman (etc.) as “Centrists” you are playing into the hands of the FARRR right trying to redefine the spectrum of politics in the USA.
On a national level, can you point out some of these HUGE and IMPORTANT differences that have been made manifest in the last 5 years? This is not a snarky question, I really would like to know because I thought I was paying attention.
The Republicans own the corporations that are paying the Democrats off for their votes.
Yes? What do I win?
Geezus, people. The GOP runs everything right now! You honestly don’t think there would be any difference between a Gore or Kerry presidency with a Dem led congress?
You asked for one example: Bolton.
than support us for who we aren’t.
All that will get you is a relunctant vote at election time if the voter feels desperate enough about the other guy. And it may just get you a discouraged voter who decides to stay home.
It definitely won’t get you any active support, campaign workers, dollars, loyalty, or respect.
Voter turnout is generally quite low already.
We don’t need more candidates who are less bad. We need candidates who are worth skipping work to vote for.
There’s no way we’re going to see that from the “take the money, creep to the right” democrats.
AndiF, you make a great point. How many people voted for Kerry b/c they thought he’d be a great president, and how many voted for him b/c they hated Bush? Come on, be honest.
I’d have voted for a cockroach against Bush.
The cucaracha stragegy almost worked in 04, but in 08, we will presumably have two new candidates, so saying “I’m not the Republican” isn’t enough. It’s never enough if you need to get people out of their houses and voting. We need real ideas, expressed very clearly and simply. Our leadership isn’t providing them.
Bush didn’t win the last election b/c people agreed with his positions. They don’t (less so now than back then). He won because, no matter how stupid and misguided his beliefs, they were his beliefs and he stuck by them. He could explain them.
So in 08, when that simple-minded fool from Virginia (I forget his name — that idiot Senator) stands up and says, “I LOVE apple pie!”, we need to talk about …. what? We love it too??? What’s that going to get us??
I don’t understand why “the left tak(ing) up cleaning up government as their cause” is such a bad idea. Now I’ll admit it’s been a while since I read the old “Contract With America” that Gingrich and his ilk were selling back in 1994, but the general vibe of that “contract” was one of cleaning up government. One of the GOP talking points during the late 1980s and early 1990s was that the Democrat-run Congress was corrupt and inefficient – their leaders were using that issue (cleaning up the government) quite effectively leading up to the 1994 election.
A little over a decade later history is repeating itself, albeit more as a farce. Cleaning up the government strikes me as one of the talking points the Dems will need to capitalize on if they are serious about taking back either the House or the Senate or both.
And just to be a bit nitpicky – I hope you’re not confabulating the Democrat party with the “left”. Those are two separate animals (except in the minds of the talking heads at Faux News). There really hasn’t been much in the way of an effective leftist movement since the McCarthy era. The Dem party, to the extent that one can parse the nuanced double-talk of Dem leaders and make sense of their voting patterns, is probably closer to a center-right party (think Tories or Christian Democrat parties in Europe as analogous).
Mi dos centavos.
Hi,I’m new here but I’ve been following this topic
elsewhere.
Elsewhere it was said Nixon won because of
a backlash against the anti-war protests,wrong.
I got Nixon elected,just couldn’t vote for the
sleezy fixer the Dems replaced my candidate with.
I voted for Gore by holding my nose,Tipper owes
me for Biafra and Zappa.
The democratic party is pro-war.Look at the votes.
I’m not at all optimistic about all this. I strongly suspect that the next nominee will be a conservative woman, probably a minority, and I bet she will be confirmed without a fillibuster and with a split vote from the Democrats. It’s just the (depressing) reality of the fact that the Democratic party is not running things any more.
The “keep your powder dry” theory is bandied about by leftist bloggers, but that’s not the reason given by the Dems who voted to confirm Roberts. I don’t think there is any such theory. The Senators’ reasoning had to do mostly with staying in office by taking a position that would not lose them too many votes, with perhaps a touch of the view that the primary job of the Senate in these cases is to Consent–unless the nominee is unqualified.
I just don’t think that the complicated strategies discussed here (and at dKos, etc.) are connected with the reality of the process. 🙁
I just saw this diary. I have been watching the American Masters series on Pop, Protest, the 60s, and Vietnam on PBS this week.
What watching these shows did was remind me very vividly how similiar times were then and now.
What else it made me realize is that sometimes we have to be passionate, very passionate about our causes. I am a very moderate person, raised in an almost conservative environment. If I can see what is going on with the rights of women at my age and with my religious background, I think others should see it as well.
I am a Christian. I am no longer a Baptist as I find them intolerant now. I am a Democrat still because of one person named Howard Dean who stood up and said that a woman’s health care was between her and her doctor. He was very clear on it. I for one intend to hold him to his passionate views on the subject.
I love people who are emotional about what they believe. I respect those emotions, and I think we need them desperately. I had to keep my opinions quiet for over 30 years as a teacher. I intend to do so no longer.
I realize that most of the men now sort of think we are out of our gourds over the issue of choice. I can’t worry about that. I will never be insulting to anyone, but I will be passionate.
The Democrats are going to give in on our rights to a group that refused to support Kerry and worked against him. Something is very wrong with that picture. They came for the women…the men stood by and said be nice now.
I love Parker’s passion. I do not know her at all. I just think it is time now.
I saw the handwriting on the wall this week, as I had dear friend and fellow DFAer banned at a progressive blog for criticizing an anti-choice candidate. She is one of the sweetest ladies you would ever meet. She has class.
I watched American Masters series, and my husband and I got tears over many of the parts. He said we are back there again.
God bless us all.
It’s worth a great deal.
That took me back so far that it gave me chills. We remember how it used to be, don’t we? And we will never forget.
Never again. Never, never again.
There is no draft today. Huge difference in the radical constituency and outlook. I’d rather see a movement build on King’s philosophy than that of the SDS. But we don’t seem to have it in us.
what do you mean by “Huge difference in the radical constituency and outlook.”
I’m not disagreeing, I’d just like some more specifics.
Sorry ’bout that: today’s radicals are yesterday’s moderates when compared with groups like the Panthers and SDS.
Here is a little food for thought folks. As much as I hate, hate, hate the thought of Robert being on the court for the next thirty years and as much as I would have liked to see every dem vote no, he was going to pass anyway. That is what happens when the other party holds the majority. Think of it this way. Nothing has really changed in the makeup with Roberts replacing Rehnquist. They are both ultraconservatives. The dems know this. The next nominee will be crucial because they will be replacing O’Connor, a moderate and usually the voice of reason swing vote. THIS is the one to filibuster imho. Now if the dems don’t step up to the plate here THEN we can start screaming from the rooftops.
What then we can pick between Gonzales or Owens… this is a false frame… remember Roberts WAS first chosen as the moderate O’Connor position… suddenly he is the conservative when Renquist died… which means they were lying all the time.
So whatever “moderate” they pick will also be a Conservative…
I think by now we can saftely assume that the GOP is not a party that hold truth at a premium. Knowing that is all the more dissappointing when the Democratic leadership fails to stop it…
…the next time…
They will use the same excuse… we lost in 2000 and 2004 so we can’t do anything… or they will put on a bigger Kabuki dance than the Roberts hearing charade.
With respect,
except that they allowed the republicans to lower the bar regarding what information and documents a nominee will be required to release in the future, which now is just about nothing. Not to mention his near blanket refusal to answer questions on the basis of future cases before him and the court. IMO they should have filibustered him on this point alone. At the very least they should have been unified in thier opposition to him even if it meant losing in a straight party line vote. That is principle, and they need to get some and quick.
Parker is passionate and outspoken. As far as I’m concerned, the democrats could take a lesson or two from her. They have left themselves wide open for round two of the radicalization of the Supreme Court.
he was going to pass anyway.
I would certainly agree with you on this.
The issue for me is a crisis in confidence. The bar on SC confirmation has been set abysmally low. The process was empty due to lack of information. The Dems should have held together to simply state to the American people: We have insufficient information for judgment. The highest court in the land is not going to be left to a roll of the dice. These are Your Rights we are talking about.
A lot of ppl think the Dems get a free pass because they are the minority party. So? They still have a job to do.
After 9/11, the kids in the military got called up to duty. I know a 19 year old woman, who, like so many others, enlisted in the NG for college assistance. The nation on the whole was unsympathetic to their plight — “they should have known that war is part of the job”.
Similarly, the minority party in the Senate has a job to do on behalf of the American people. War is part of the job. Bush calls you ‘obstructionist’. So? He isn’t too popular, anyway. Deliver your message.
It would be one thing entirely if the composition of the Senate were 90:10 in favor of the GOP. 55-44-1 is something you should be able to work with. You have enough voices for a unified stand instead of acting like the Know Nothing Party.
On a more general and non-partisan note, I can say that I’ve had several moments in the last 4 years where I’ve felt a crisis in confidence:
[1] 9/11 — when Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to sing. Singing? I saw one of my senators near the front … a songbird.
[2] Katrina — while faxing my Senators and Rep to get off their asses and do something.
[3] And now, this SC confirmation process, which amounted to nothing more than a few colleagues singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.”
There is one thing we now know as an outcome of this process. Having little or no basis for judgment is not sufficient grounds to hold up a nomination. And I, for one, am alarmed at this precedent. In fact, if this were to be the justification for proceeding with a filibuster of the next candidate, the Dems would look weaker yet.
I wish I could give multiple 4’s.
Salazar and his ilk had nothing to lose by voiting No on Roberts. That’s what ticks me off so much. I understand not trying to block the nomination…but they don’t have to just lay down and take it. I just wanted to see some backbone.
Parker, can you define this “minimum qualification of documentation” you refer to and describe how Roberts failed to meet that standard in the nomination process?
My last comment on this diary is that Parker has had plenty of time to fire off insults and get into arguments up and down the comments in this diary, but has apparently had NO time to back up the substantive reason for her temper tantrum. Interesting.
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/images/content/20050922_DO
Jletter.pdf
They exist to perpetuate themselves. The only way to change this is to no longer support the party monetarily. The two parties have sat back and watched the rape of the lower and middle class for over a century now. FDR’s New Deal was a brief respite from this. Parties go where the money is.
There are mild differences between the democrats and republicans…not enough to warrant the continued existence of the either party.
I will vote the individual, but if someone tries to promote themselves as a candidate with democratic party values, I will laugh in their face.
Let the individual run on his own merits and ideas. I won’t give a cent though, to usually well-off people running for office.
Yes, I think it’s over. We are not going to get any one in office from the Republican or Democratic Pary. They are all pro war, pro business.
The only thing it seems to me, to do, is try to break it up as much as possible by supporting somebody from the outside. To give them a little strenght.
But this is all very pathetic at this point. The political system is no longer competitve. Competition is what produces what little trickle down freedom we have and there doesn’t seem to be that any more. The choice is no longer between a Volvo and A Chevy but whether the only car available for sale as presented by both parties should have red or blue tail lights….
What do the two parties have in common, that makes it increasingly difficult to tell the difference between them? I can think of a few things.
This is ALL become a farce. A big fancy f*ucking board game invented by those who want to “profit and rule.”
A government “Of the people, by the people, FOR the people?
Don’t make me laugh.
I see a government “of priviledged, by the priviledged, and FOR priviledged.”
(Disclaimer: I am no “political analyst.” My conclusions are simply based on my personal observations and experiences as an lower middle class (now poor) American woman, collected over 65 years.)
Kos has Obama begging people to to be mean to the sell outs ….
This just proves my point they only stand up and listen when we threaten to slap the shit out of them…
I never said I was for voting for the DLC candidates did I? Again, I understand the frustration and the anger and the where do you go from here that we all are feeling. What is your solution? What are your goals? Have you thought about running for office? Are you actively looking for candidates to support?
The other thing Parker is that the Republicans Empire is who you really should be pissed at. THEY are the ones that have taken us down this road to hell. Pissed at Kerry? Nope! I am PISSED at the American people that were registered to vote and didn’t bother showing up on Nov. 2. They allowed this to happen. I so want things to be different and I will continue to fight tooth and nail for the Dems to take charge but they cannot do that without our support. It means I will write and with hold money when I feel that is necessary to get their attention. Let us get together and fight for voter verification, campaign finance reform to get the GD corporate special interests out of the campaigns. I know there are an awful lot of smart people out there and we need to tap into that.
The other thing Parker is that the Republicans Empire is who you really should be pissed at.
NO THE OPPOSITE… they would have never gotten this far with out the complicity of Democrats…. the same kinds of sell out Democrats that are STILL being pushed on the party… the freaking Salazars barely consider themselves Democrats.
People showed up and kerry had an army of lawyers waiting to turn over every freaking rock and he chickened out. This after videos of GOPers tearing up D registration forms in several states.
The problem with this appeal is that it assumes that one thing has to do with the other. It’s like Republicans complaining that libruls just criticize the military (and therefore excuse the gangbanger insurgents).
Just because the GOP is smoking crack doesn’t mean the Dems get a pass. In fact, the Dems seem downright sedentary. And until they offer a progressive vision of America, they’re going to keep losing, because all politics now is framed in conservative values, and in that frame the Republicans will win every time.
I’m all for the things you advocate. But I don’t think that precludes being very harsh with the status quo. The whole party is broken and needs to be fixed. The party has no identity, and we see the insiders proclaiming that that’s the best thing.
Is it any wonder why people are outraged?
Parker and some of the other bloggers here have a point about progressive values and the Dems. I will support the pro-choice, anti-war, anti-insane taxcut, anti-class warfare Dem. first and with passion. But when it comes down to it, I have to vote against the republicans that our destroying our country. So if its Hillary against Frist I have to vote Hillary because I’ll have gotten a 75% return. Same with Biden. Their views are far closer to mine then the neocons. Its no contest.
I think the Democrats that have survived the purge are really paranoid. We have to stand and show them that after they vote for a tax increase or gay rights they will not themselves be frog marched out like happened in 94. This may take some time. The world will turn.
First of all, keep in mind that both Reid and Clinton both voted against Roberts. But I suggest that the problem is not so much Reid selling out so much as it is philisophical differences. I would have preferred fighting Roberts tooth and nail. But I suggest that Reid is one of those people who believes in picking his battles and deciding which ones to fight and which ones not to.
First of all, he is a head-counter; he has to be. That is why he decided not to filibuster Gonzales or Roberts; he knew he didn’t have the votes. But he knew he had the votes for Bolton; that is why he filibustered him.
But I suggest that Bush will have a much harder time nominating his next judge unless they are a moderate in the Kennedy or O’Conner mold. Even Lieberman hinted at supporting a filibuster if Bush were to pick an extremist.
Also, Reid will not fight the GOP when they are making asses out of themselves. That is why he did not fight the Schavio law transferring the case to the federal courts. He knew the GOP was making asses out of themselves, and he let that effort go through.
I’ll make a deal:
Reid can “Keep his Powder Dry” and I’ll “Keep my money in my pocket”
This is not a matter of him keeping the powder dry 100% of the time. That’s not what I said at all. Reid is very effective when he does fight. I can see where he is coming from. I don’t think we should be refusing to fight for people just because we disagree about tactics.
I think we should have fought Roberts harder, but disagreements about tactics should hardly ever be a reason to refuse to send money to people.
Parker,
before this scrolls off, thanks for an intense diary with straight up discussion.
I like your energy.
I note that, while this diary has had scant presence on the recommended list, it has one of the most active comments threads I’ve seen here. You can’t keep a good progressive discussion down.
This is a great group here.