I read RenaRF’s reply to Senator Obama’s diary.
Her diary clarified for me one of the problems I have dealt with in trying to reconcile my liberal views with reality.
What does Ms. RF want the Senate to do with the SCOTUS noiminations? Stonewall them all until the day the Democrats regain the White House and Senate majority?
Her tears aside, and the tears of frustration at another loss are understandable, the Senate Democrats had no choice but to confirm Roberts. In the absence of any skeletons found hanging in Mr. Roberts walk in closet, a rejection of his candidacy by Senate Democrats would only serve to alienate a voting majority of this nation (republicans and centrist independents)at a time when the future of progressive politics clearly seems to be trending to the positive.
Since Mr. Obama is a politician by trade and not a blogger, his post should be read in that context. The disappointment and the tears by the blogging left over yet another Republican political victory are a supreme waste of emotion for no gain in reality.
I am a Democrat. I see the signs of coming change in the nation’s perception of its conservative led government. Basically, the people know the conservatives are failed and failing in most areas under their responsibility.
The hurricanes are the powerful metaphors of this failure. So is Iraq. So is Delay. So is Rove.
John Roberts is not a metaphor of failure.
Bush himself has been a failed leader, time and again throughout his vacuous life. Clearly, he could not successfully run a small oil company, even with the “genetic” advantages he inherited from his aristocrastic family. His Texas Rangers are forever mired in the second division (and he didnt really run them anyway)and his Dept of Homeland Security the biggest bungled example of government bureaucracy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
John Roberts is not a metaphor of Bush’s failure.
John Roberts is a metaphor of the failure of progressive Democrats in this country to win the White House and a Senate majority often enough to pack the Supreme Court with a majority of progressive jurists.
My advice to Ms. RF and others like her: hang the tears out to dry and join with Senator Obama to change the future.
I am sure this diary will be lost in the shuffle, but I believe it could start a constructive point/counterpoint debate.
What exactly are we fighting for?
An ideological victory or a political victory?
I say you cannot obtain the former without first obtaining the latter.
What say you?
are best expressed by Gandhiji, when a reporter asked him what he thought of Western Civilization, he replied
“I think it would be a good idea.”
Both, and again, this is so simple that it’s almost heartbreaking. We all know that Bush is polling at around 40% approval across the board on all issues, including his so called strong point of his war on terror. Those 60 % want someone to show them a better way. It’s not enough, obviously, to sit back and let them hang themselves. That is what Rena is calling for in her plea for someone to LEAD. It’s there for the taking. If the democrats insist on going along to get along they are offering no opposition or vision for a way out for those 60%. Why should those 60% vote any differently than they have in the last two elections if the democrats are themselves just more of the same?
Bush’s ideology is a failure. People/voters and potential voters see it now. NOW is the time for the democrats to cleary articulate their ideology. PERIOD
If there are so many powerful metaphors of the failure of the conservative leadership, why are the Democrats constantly chasing along behind them to the right? Why are they not calling attention to the disasters we face as a result of failed leadership and corruption, but instead hiding in a corner hoping they won’t piss off the republicans and get another beating?
Why are they asking progressives to give up the things they believe in, instead of standing up for what the Democratic party claims to be all about? I for one am tired of being chastised for thinking that my rights and liberty should count for something.
Actually thats three more or less rhetorical questions and you did not deign to answer my rather simple, non rhetorical one. Kind a rude, isnt it?
Arent your questions really just backhanded comments larded with your own opinion? Are you really wanting a dialogue, or just to talk past me?
No, it’s a question for which I’d like to know the answer. What do you suppose the reasoning behind the center-rightward push is? Admittedly, Bush’s job approval numbers are in the toilet, and the majority of the people in this country think the Iraq war was a mistake and we should bring our troops hoome. Why are so few of our elected representatives calling for withdrawal?
I read this morning about Bush threatening to veto a defense spending bill if had any anti-torture type amendments in it? Why are our representatives not speaking out for us?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this strategy is aimed toward taking back the government, if you can kindly respond without calling me rude for having an opinion of my own.
My opinion is that America is a center rightward country and has been since the founding fathers (who themselves were petit bourgeoisie or aristocratic land owners, not leftists)created a country free from the feudal monopoly of the European monarchies.
The period of liberal or progressive dominance in politics was the result of the Great depression and World War 2 and lasted only about 50 years.
However, war and disaster are again upon us, and I believe the center rightward people are beginning to question the ability of the right to lead the country during troubled times which require a massive central government response. A progressivist turn at the helm may result if we have something to offer besides tears and anger.
Few are calling for withdrawal from Iraq because withdrawal will be a geopolitical disaster in the eyes of most informed politicans on the right and left. Whether or not true is debatable.
And I apologize again for my rudeness.
Actually, scratch that last comment. It was uncalled for!
I reread yours and came to the conclusion: you prefer an ideological victory to a political one. Right?
And I am not trying to tell you what to think or say or feel.
I am just trying to determine what you truly desire from the political process: merely having a voice to express your ideology or the ability to implement it within the fabric of government and society?
Please, show me this political victory of which you speak. And you are being rude to me.
Sorry if you think I am being rude.
I would consider a political victory in 2006 a net gain of seats in both the senate and the house for Democrats.
In 2008, a Democrat elected to the White House and/or the regaining of a Democratic majority in one or both houses of congress.
So we have the same goals. How do you see the ongoing appeasement of the Republican agenda helping with that goal?
Like Rena, I find it disheartening that our Dem reps don’t seem to stand for much lately. I think that having a clear stance on something, anything would go a long way toward those victories. When you have a 50/50 split on voting for or against Roberts’ nomination, the only clear message I get is that there is none. And I, while admittedly no expert, pay attention to politics. What do the rest of the people out there see when they casually glance at the news?
Some days, it briefly occurs to me to wonder why I bother to vote at all…but I do vote, because want to have a say in what happens. How many other people in this country look at Rs versus Ds, and think there’s no difference is there between the two, and why bother to vote at all?
How does one remedy this?
Yes we have the same goals but neither of us is a politican. There is nothing to be gained or lost for us personally by taking whatever position we want on anything.
Politicians on the other hand must be crafty and pick their spots. Now I am not saying that Dem pols are very crafty, but they do have to pick their spots.
I disagree that the Dems are appeasing the Republican agenda any more than the Republicans appeased Clinton’s agenda.
While it might make you feel better if every Dem Senator voted down on Roberts, the result of that type of vote would be triply negative: Roberts gets in anyway, or soemone just like him, the majority of country frowns on the Dems obstructionism (likely costing Dems more polling defeats), and a precedent is set for the next time a prgressive jurist is put forward by a Democratic president.
Roberts is the wrong fight.
In my opinion.
First, the majority of the country isn’t paying attention to the nomination.
Second, Roberts is confirmed no matter how the Dems vote, so it’s not obstructionism to vote against him.
Third, your concern about future “progressive” jurists nominated by Dems is ludicrous on its face. The only precedent worth considering here is the exec branch’s refusal to provide records of the nominee’s past work to the leg branch. That itself was worth the Nay vote.
THANK YOU for saying that. Would it really have been so awful for Democrats to stand together against the nomination without moving to the dramatic measure of a filibuster?
I fear no one is really in charge. So Senator A will compromise on issue X and Senator B will compromise on issue y and so it goes… Pretty soon all of our issues are compromised and we utterly feed our own marginalization.
I was not suggesting in my original letter that we dig in and fight on every issue. But we have to fight on the important ones and with the point by point capitulation of Democratic issues it isn’t happening.
I would agree with Pete if we were standing up for something. But I don’t and never will agree that minority status equates with ‘punching bag’.
Would it really have been so awful for Democrats to stand together against the nomination without moving to the dramatic measure of a filibuster?
No, of course it wouldn’t. Bogeyman raised here and elsewhere notwithstanding.
DEM POL (and CAPTAINS OF THE BLOGOSPHERE) to the rank and file: <patting head> on’t hurt your little heads by assuming your requests are reasonable, ’cause you just can’t see the big picture. Just relax and do what we tell you. Us experts will lead you to the Promised Land.
Precedent may not be important to you, but I can assure you it is very important to each Senator and Representative in the house.
Votes are made up and down on a number of laws simply as a way to position a member for a future vote or election. Its strategery.
Unfortunately though, there are more examples than just the Roberts’ vote. How about the bankruptcy bill? How about the tax breaks for the uber-wealthy?
We’re not talking about an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of behavior. Add in the fact that the Dem leadership has now instituted a policy of annointing candidates, rather than allowing a democratic selection of who will be the nominee in an open primary, and you have a recipe for voter disillusionment. When progressive candidates are drummed out by the party political machine, how do we even know where the country stands on the political spectrum? We have a choice between center or right.
And to have our representatives (particularly Obama) whine to us that we need to keep giving up even more rights so that they can be in the majority is just too much to bear.
As Rena said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And that’s what I see the Dems doing. The aren’t leading, they are following. The Republicans.
Well it all leads back to the same conclusion for me. Win the white house and congress and you will roll back the bad policies.
The Democrats are FORCED to follow the Republicans lead because the Republicans are in control of the federal government in toto.
Remember, Clinton rolled back the Reagan tax cuts and the Reagan deficit and got two liberal jurists named to the Court. It can and will happen again.
It will happen again, but it takes a victory (to paraphrase Mrs. Clinton).
I undersstand what your are saying. “Win the white house and congress and you will roll back the bad policies.”
But with regard to “The Democrats are FORCED to follow the Republicans lead because the Republicans are in control of the federal government in toto,” the Democrats are not forced to vote for these policies. They choose to do so. I certainly would hope they would choose more wisely as the majority. And now we get back to the overarching feeling that neither party is interested in representing the people of this country.
I think we’re both in the same spot we started in with the first cup of coffee this morning.
Probably we are. I am on my 5th cup!
I undersstand what your are saying. “Win the white house and congress and you will roll back the bad policies.”
i’m not sure i agree that if the dems win the white house and congress it will make much difference. oh sure, it will make some difference, but just how much?
about 25% of the dems in Congress are actively opposed to reproductive rights for women, and there is a sincere effort to recruit more of them.
dem’s don’t have a great record of consistency on labor in the last 20 years, and don’t forget it was bill clinton who “reformed” welfare to the great disadvantage of poor women and disabled people.
and its this abandonment of core dem consituencies and values that has led to the perception that the dem’s don’t stand for anything.
so if the dem’s think they can win back the white house and congress by chasing swing voters at the expense of their base, they are wrong. and frankly, a dem party that one that way, wouldn’t role back any of the rethug bad policies.
last sentence should read:
and frankly, a dem party that won that way, wouldn’t roll back any of the rethug bad policies.
btw, at Our Word and other Drupal sites, you can edit comments!
good points. What or who should the Democrats represent? The core constituencies, blacks, working class whites, unions, have all shrunk precipitously in the past 20 years.
Without the middle class votes, it appears Dems cant win. WIithout winning, the core constituencies dont get fed.
I just posted (Sunday morning) a diary about Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer and other attorneys general who have recently won statewide office since 2002 ( there have been 22 including Salazar and Napolitano in the deep red states of Colorado and Arizona).
Spitzer polls better among men and middle class voters than more tradional Demslike Hillary and Shumer.
That was actually my point, although poorly worded with not enough prior caffeine intake. In other words, If they can’t vote together as a group for core Democratic values now, why will they suddenly start doing so if they are in the majority?
this line of reasoning.
Take the country under Bill Clinton, even with the GOP in control of Congress, and compare it to the country under George Bush.
And then tell me there is no difference.
Compare the Oklahoma City Bombing to 9/11 and Katrina.
What’s more, when Clinton came into office and attempted to enact some progressive legislation (HillaryCare and gays in the military) he and the whole party were pummelled for it. Now, he handled those fights very poorly. So a lot of blame can laid right at his doorstep. And the GOP handled it brilliantly, so a lot of blame can be laid at their doorstep. But, you still need to be careful that your legislative priorities are not easily demagogued. The result was that he was limited to passing his more DLC orientated priorities like Welfare Reform because he lost control of Congress.
So many things are changed if the Dems have control of even one house of Congress. The number one thing, the most important thing, is that is gives subpoena power. It enables us to initiate legislation, and have power in bill conferences. If we control the Senate, we can control whether judges are confirmed or not. Judges are tremendously important.
It’s either the Dems in power or more and worse of the the same. What possible alternative is there?
I understand the debate over how to get a majority but not the debate over whether there is a choice but to vote for the Dems.
I think that there are many Americans who are quite simply unable to conceive of an alternative, much less recognize the alternatives that stand before them, waiting, some smiling shyly.
is different from any possible connection with reality.
Especially when you hold the focus knob in your own hand.
The reality is, there WILL be an “alternative” because the status quo is simply not sustainable nor compatible with the continues existence of human life on earth.
Either the US will choose to move toward legitimate statehood and democracy, or the rest of the world will do what it has to do to protect itself.
The illusion is that 200 other countries will continue indefinitely to base their own policies on fear of American warlords and cartels.
This is a particularly dangerous illusion because it is based on the premise that the populations of all other countries are as willing as Americans to sacrifice their societies, their children, their future, to American business interests and culture of bloodlust.
In my opinion, it would better serve the interests of ordinary Americans if they voluntarily choose a more realistic reality for themselves.
at a time DF. Also, a variation on ‘you can’t get there from here’. Never actually true, but often true enough.
other windows that could open.
The decision of which window that will be is quickly slipping from the hands of the American people into the hands of their victims.
I am not without sympathy for the plight of the blind man who tries so hard to comprehend when people explain to him what “red” means, but at the same time, I realize that it is probably not a good idea for him to drive a car, especially where there are traffic lights.
You are realllly loading up on the metaphors. My hats off to you, metaphorically speaking, that is.
Some of us tend to resort to metaphors when attempting to convince someone that a train is coming, even though the person we address cannot conceive of the existence of a train, or that it is made of hard metal, goes fast, and will cause fatal tissue damage when it hits.
Our intentions are good.
There you go again! Train is coming. I can hear it friend. Its only a make believe train in cyberspace.
Do you converse in metaphors or is this a writerly trait only?
Do not listen to those who may tell you otherwise. Anyone who can make it to college age still convinced that it is all make believe is indeed blessed, and I am confident that with a minimum of effort, you can sustain this state of grace for as long as it is needed.
What are we talking about exactly?
The problem of using metaphors is that we may attach different meanings to the metaphors, thus the communication is made false and leads nowhere.
That was my point.
What is yours, exactly?
as a compliment, or so it is intended. The implication is that the individual spoken to has the capacity and intellectual sophistication to comprehend the metaphor within the context of the discussion, such comprehension being based on a sound foundation not only of literature, but of life.
You are quite correct that their use is not universally appropriate, and your humility in recognizing this in your own case is commendable.
My point is that not all are as fortunate as you, things that to you are clearly make believe are not so to other people, you should not fret about this, but enjoy every day.
It seems from my reading that the rest of the world is pretty much loaning us all their savings instead of investing much in their own economies, except China which is 50-50 loans/investment in own self.
I read that as the world betting on America, not against America. That could change in time, but at what cost to the debtors?
Well now you and I are in agreement!
That was my initial point. You have to find a way to win first.
Thats what Bill did and Al and John didnt. Ok maybe Al did win but it was too close for SCOTUS.
The Democrats are FORCED to follow the Republicans lead because the Republicans are in control of the federal government in toto.
The are FORCED to? Then what exactly is the point of an opposition/minority party? Really? Why doesn’t everybody just go home after the majority is won and wait until they are back int he majority.
As far as rolling back the policies, I’ll believe THAT when I see it — do you really believe in your heart of hearts that the PATRIOT Act is going to miraculously go away once dems are in power? Do you think they’ll be rolling back the bankruptcy bill? I don’t think so.
I believe the Patriot Act, or substantial portions of it, will one day be rolled back, scaled back, amended, what have you.
Dont know anything about the bankruptcy bill. I am too young to have declared bankruptcy…yet.
What drives you to believe this? I am very curious because I see nothing specific going on with ANYone that would allow me to reasonable believe this…
You should read up on the bankruptcy bill — it affects more than just people declaring bankruptcy. And check the dems who voted for it while you’re about it!
I’ll read up on the bankruptcy bill. The Patriot Act is bad legislation that was written in the aftermath of 9/11 when not many in our govt or nation had avery clear head about anything.
I believe it will eventually be amended or find its way to the scrap heap, but the Democrats, backed by good independent voters like you, will have to be back in power for that to happen. Unless it has a sunset tied to it, which I doubt.
Same fate for the Dept of Homeland Security. What a joke. Another useless bureaucracy cretaed solely to mismanage a lot of existing, useless bureaucracies.
I read the goddamed thing from start to finish — why couldn’t I count on the people whose salary I pay in Congress to do the same. And I screamed from the rooftops withmy hair on fire about it BEFORE it was passed — to no avail (have you checked the votes on this??)
Yes, it had sunsets, they were THIS year — did you follow the debates and committee procedings about that one? While you’re there — check the votes. Your faithful dems helped make them permanent.
And I’ll make you a little bet, pete, those tax cuts that are up for renewal? I’ll bet you your faithful dems help make most of them permanent too….check back with me.
as i understand things, and i might be wrong about this (but we’ll see), in less than a month (or 2?) when the new law goes into effect all credit card companies are going to double their minimum required monthly payments due to provisions in the law.
you don’t hear a peep about this in the papers or the media, but as i understand it, within two or three months everyone that has to pay down on credit card debt is going to be painfully aware of the new bankruptcy law. of course, the new minimums don’t go into effect until after the new law passes.
gee wonder why.
I am aware that credit card rates are out of control. Mine charges 30% interest. My dad tells me the Mafia loans money for less vigorish.
Dont borrow on credit cards is my advice. I stopped using mine even though I go hungry in the dorm once in a while.
I will add some more.
Don’t get sick
Earn sufficient income to pay all your bills
Avoid unexpected expenses
Be sure to follow all these simple steps and you will not worry about financial problems, even after you leave the dorm.
And I will add one more that covers all of your advices: don’t have children, as they are a drain on income and a significant source of unexpected expense…
Great advice from both of you.
I plan to take you up on all, except someday I would want to have children. But I know I need to make some money and have health insurance first.
And then you have to make absolutely sure that you never get laid off from said job, never lose you health insurance, not even for a week (epsecially if you or your family has a pre-existing condition), never have any kind of prolonged illness, or other unexpected expense and yeah, you should be just fine.
My dad got laid off his job a few years ago and has since started his own business. Its been hard, but he is starting to make almost as much money as he did when laid off—and he is a lot happier now.
He has advised me to stay away from corporate life. I tell him with a History degree will I have any choice?
You seem pretty bitter about things. I hope and pray things get better for you soon.
and another issue equally as important. what about the democrats who actively assist republicans in helping erase women’s reproductive rights? we have a snakesnest of them doing that.
54 House Democrats who supported HR 748 TRAP law
this is all part and parcel of the same problem. the republicans by and large hang together as a party. democrats don’t. they dont on reproductive rights, they don’t on roberts, bankruptcy bill, and on and on and on.
As for why democrats should have voted against Roberts? thats an easy one.
Here Comes John Roberts, There Goes Roe v. Wade
reassure the female base you care about our issues! a vote FOR roberts tells us the opposite. a vote FOR roberts tells me they don’t care.
After reading this:
I disagree that the Dems are appeasing the Republican agenda any more than the Republicans appeased Clinton’s agenda. [emphasis mine]
I just have to ask, and of course you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, how old were you and where did you live during the Clinton years?
The reason I’m asking is not to berate you but to try to better understand the contextual influences on your point of view.
I was born and raised in Wisconsin. I thought Clinton had a lot of problems, but on balance I liked him a lot better than what came before or after.
My dad tells me he reopened the federal student loan program so I could afford to go to collede. Funny I thought that student loans were always available, but my dad syas they were much more restrictive and expensive until Clinton.
Now, let me ask you a question. WHY ARE YOU AN INDEPENDENT? Just so you dont have to take abuse like I am on this thread, or is there a true philospophical underpinning? I think you said you voted for Kerry and he’s pretty mainstream…
So you are currently a college student? You were born in the 80s?
You can see my response to “why are you an independent” above. Sorry that you feel you are being absued in this thread, but it is rather amusing to me becuase many of the people who are responding to you also identify as democrat …
Anyway, yeah, I voted for Kerry and Gore before him — I endured 8 years of Bush as my Governor and the last thing I wanted to see was him in the White House — I like Gore much better than I liked Kerry, which isn’t saying much since I think Kerry’s run for president was a pathetic demonstration of how trying to saddle the fence on every fucking issue makes you TOTALLY impotent. I don’t think he would have been a good president particularly, but was fairly confident that the people he brought into his administration would not be the crooks that Bush surrounds himself with.
If there is a philosphical underpinning to my being an independent, it is that until a part comes along that I can trust to work for my interests and needs ALL of the time, not just duing the campaign season, and with ACTION not words and platitudes, then I will remain independent of party affiliation. I don’t do organized religion either, and unfortunately, i see a lot of distrubing parallels between the two.
I was born in the 80s. The abuse hasnt been so bad, and anyway I expected it because my diary sort of challenged the CW at least as its expressed here.
Everybody complains but no one has much of an idea of their own to make things the way they want them to be. A lot of it is very immature thinking in my opinion, and I am only 21. Just a lot of wah wah, and woe is me, except they filter it thru a community so it is woe on us and lets blame everybody else for our problems.
Even Obama, who was a progressive poster boy (excuse the term) just a few months ago in 2004….
The name calling and the condescending are a bit hard to take, like people telling me I have a simple minded view, dont know my history, when clearly based on their writings I know as much or more than they do.
Respect is a 2 way street all the time. Its no wonder some people lose it and turn trollish to counteract the trollish behavior of the community.
I think you are jumping the gun in professing to know what the CW on this blog is after having been here such a short time.
I think you will find that people won’t condescend as much if you don’t tell people they are wrong and/or take a lectury tone — don’t be rude, don’t be defensive and people will be happy to engage with you. You are correct that respect is a 2 way street and some of your earliest comments on this thread were less than respectful. You get what you give is my experience. You continue to call people trolls, or “inverted trolls” (whatever that is supposed to mean) who are respected members of the site — that doesn’t really go over too well, or work to build trust, which goes hand in hand with respect….
Everybody complains but no one has much of an idea of their own
This is patently untrue, you need to do a bit more reading around here…calling people immature 9especailly given your age) is not going to get you very far if you actually want people to discuss things with you…
when clearly based on their writings I know as much or more than they do.
try to be a bit less arrogant and abrasive and repectful of the fact that there are a lot of people here with much more experience (not to mention different) than you have.
</lecture>
I meant the CW as defined in RenaRFs diary. Do you disagree that the CW was pretty accurately expressed in her diary, which made the top of the recommended list.
About the other statements, I guess my response would be that only respected members of the community have the freedom to be arrogant and petty towards others?
I have been studying community blogs and I have pretty solid evidence. A respected member can say something and receive a bundle of 4s, while a newcomer can say virtually the same thing and be troll rated off.
This is why I never have posted on Daily Kos.
You are at the absolute pinnacle of your knowledge, knowing, as you do, more than people several times your age, regardless of how much they think they know, imagine they have lived, none of that is any competition for the omnipotence of 21.
I can appreciate your frustration, the only consolation I can offer is that when you hit 30 or so, you will be astonished to discover how much we geezers have all learned in only a few short years 😉
What I’d really like to see is some politicians who clearly stand for something, instead of falling for everything. What does it hurt them to vote no once in a while?
Pete, I think it’s kinda rude to direct a personal insult to someone who responds to you. Maybe CabinGirl didn’t say it just right for you, but I’m with her. I’m with you, too. What I really want to say is if you want to post on the BooTrib, you are going to get responses from women and usually we have an emotional response. I know, it’s hard to deal with but there it is, we are radical and extreme.
I agree. I retracted my comment almost immediately and apologize if anyone is offended.
Did you not read my retraction?
Do you have any copmment upon the substance?
I actually found your retraction equally offensive, if not more. However, I have responded to your other comments with some thought and effort.
thanks for the thought and effort. why did you find my retraction offensive?
There has been far too much dismissing of “ideological values” and “purity” on the blogs lately. I’m sure if you read it again you’ll understand what I mean.
I knew what you meant. Thats why I am puzzled that you were personally offended. My question addressed what you meant and its an important one that has been completely unaddressed here:
Is ideological purity more important than political victory?
Is there truly any ideological “purity” in practice?
Certainly, Bush has failed the purity test if you read the words of his detractors on the right.
Hey, I think that politicians aould serve themselves well by voting in accordance with what is the right thing to do for the PEOPLE they represent, and would go a long way toward winning political victories.
It would at least be a refreshing change from the current approach, don’t you think? 🙂
Is that your answer? That women are more emotional, radical and extreme than men?
Really your answer?
If true, I am not sure I could vote for Hillary in 2008.
An emotional, radical and extreme leader can do great harm to the world. In fact you’re defining Hitler, Stalin and even Bush II as well as women.
Do any women disagree with Alice’s characterization of women? I think I would be offended as a woman…
Are you trolling for a fight, r do yu wnat to discuss the content of your diary?
Just askin’-
I am responding to each poster in the context of their post.
I am not a troll. I am also not a robot.
I am a student.
I am learning.
You give the lie to your main argument here in this post — according to your diary, you should vote for Hillary because she is a Dem.
Emotional, radical, and extreme don’t matter, just as positions on policy don’t matter, as long as you’re a Dem. Right?
Where did I say I must vote for Hillary because she is a Dem?
I said that I could not vote for Hillary if I truly believed (apparently as Alice does) that women are emotional, radical and extremist.
It was an analogy based upon Alice’s comment.
I will state that at this moment, I would tend to be in John Edwards camp for 2008 but its early and my thoughts could change greatly by 2008.
I like that Edwards is no longer in the Senate. He doesnt have to be pragmatic like Obama.
Hillary is a lousy example. One presidential family crime regime is enough.
I agree that Hillary is a lousy example but she is the only potential female presidentioal candidate for 2008 (of whom I am aware) to use in my analogy in reply to Alice.
I will confess to you that I have no belief in Hillary. Without Bill, there would be no Hillary, politically speaking anyway.
but that may just be me…
Well after Monica you may be right. Otherwise, Bill is the best politician to sit in the White House in a long time. Hillary rode his coattails into the Senate.
Do you know the history of the Clintons? Go back to the early 70s through the mid 80s and see who was doing what in that family — Hillary was most definately the political “maker”, and she knew she would, as a woman, have to bide her time before running herself…
Yes I know it quite well. I am not saying that Hillary is not important to Bills advance as a politician, just that without Bills advance as a politician Hillary would never have had the opportunity to reach the Senate, especially from New York.
Their relationship is symbiotic. However, Bill is considered by most political observers, friends and enemies alike, to be the most charismatic and effective politican they have ever encountered.
Even Gingrich admits to having been entirely captivated then roundly beaten politically by Bill on a number of occasions when he was speaker in opposition. How Bill managed to entrap and defeat the “Contract with America” is a lesson in political skill we surely have seen little evidence of in my short lifetime.
Bill lights up the room. Hillary’s light appears to be a reflection from Bill. She is not known for charisma or any special political skill.
A good behind the scenes advisor yes, but a successful front person only because of Bill’s success
Yeah, that’s sort of what I meant…
This:
Bill managed to entrap and defeat the “Contract with America”
I have to totally disagree with though — take a look, if you can find it, at the original tenets of the “contract” and see if you can find any that haven’t been brought to fruition in practice today — if you can, let me know!
Well the federal budget certainly has not been balanced lately by any republicans, the Dept of Education has not been abolished, sixty percent of votes are not required to raise taxes, and there are no term limits set on the congressional level, to name a few.
Like all things political, the republicans claimed victory and so did the Democrats. After scanning a few web pages, it appears basically only Gingrich himself and his apologists side with you on the 100 % success rate of the contract.
about the social policy side — sorry I didn’t make that clear. And while they haven’t “abolished” the Dept. of Ed., they are working to dismantle the entire public education system and doing it quite well, so far.
Ont the others, I conceed the point!
And I will agree with you that my statement about Clinton defeating the Contract was inaccurate. Clearly, the congress has moved more in its spirit and intent than in Clintons direction.
Thanks for educating me.
So here you are thinking outside of the box that Obama wants to put you in with your support of Edwards. Maybe we have more in common than is apparent. What I want is for politicians to speak not just to me but to what should be obvious to them by now, the majority of Americans who oppose this war and the general direction the country is going in. If not now, when?
They look to you to set limits, to make rules, to decide what is allowed, and what is not.
If you permit your children to run around the house destroying grandma’s Limoges, spilling mustard on the carpets, throwing rocks through the window, leaving the refrigerator open so that all the food spoils, and then go over to the neighbors’ house and doing all the same things, and beating up the neighbor kids as a bonus, and then when they stand there and tell you that they didn’t do any of that, but what they did do was something that really needed to be done, because they wanted to do it, and you and your spouse sit around and talk about what they said, and what it means they want you to do, while they run off to trash the property and injure the children of another neighbor, your child’s behavior is not going to change.
You will go bankrupt trying to replace all the things they break, and at some point the neighbors will take things into their own hands, and you will be the ones held responsible for your childrens’ actions, because it is you who brought them into the world, you who are responsible for them, and you who have willingly funded their crimes, and steadfastly refused to exercise any control whatsoever, allowing them to dictate not only their own behavior, but yours.
At least, that would be the case in a democracy. If, on the other hand, your children are in effect holding you hostage to their brutality, and you are utterly powerless, then you will surely be grateful when the police kick in the door and restrain and detain your children by force, and untie your hands.
No, they are not like children. If only we were all like children, the world might be a better place.
Obama’s position is not childish. Those who want the Dem Senators to make an uproar over a SCOTUS nominee they cannot scuttle are the ones being childish, in my opinion. Gimme some candy now! they cry.
Wait until after dinner, says father Obama.
He is being mature, in my opinion and he is only a freshman. Good things to come from him are what I still see.
It is certainly pragmatic not to oppose the status quo, since as we see, that is indeed the will and desire of the vast majority of the American voting class, who are themselves are mature enough to accept that the politicians are there to serve their corporate sponsors, not the public.
We hear no childish demands for recall, no infantile storming of Washington, even when the decision is made to slaughter thousands of Americans and televise it.
Any other country in the world who did such a thing would most certainly see at the very least, some “unrest.”
But not the US, where the people are mature enough to do as the telegenic corporate spokesmen tell them to do, send them their money, and wait quietly for their child’s name to be called.
Not even Kim Jung Il could hope for such a compliant public.
The only thing left is for the voting class to mature just a little more and realize that the one party system is really more suited to Somalia with money.
No, I think you need to find someone else to speak that truth which you seek from pols. Pols are not going to do it, except in rare instances by mistake or because senility has finally allowed their tongues to speak freely.
Politics is not religion, journalism or opinion blogging.
Its a different business which requires winning in order to survive, much less succeed. We must accept that fact or we must want a different form of government altogether.
The Repubs understand this better I think. They allow their guys, especially in Blue States, to act and vote like liberals all the time.
They allow their guys, especially in Blue States, to act and vote like liberals all the time.
What in the hell?? Where? When? I think that my definition of liberal MUST be very different from yours!!
😉
Weld, ex Mass governor prochoice, Bloomberg mayor of NY very liberal policies as far as I can see, are two. There are others I am sure.
I must conclude that my definition of liberal is different from yours — how do you define it?
I know you’re for Edwards, petey.
What I’m pointing out is that your diary is basically saying is to vote Dem because they’re DEMS, dammit.
Just pointing out a wee bit of inconsistency here. You really ought to choose one argument and stick to it.
I have been consistent that we vote for Dems. If Hillary is the candidate then I vote for Hillary. Period. I will not vote McCain or Green Party or whomever as a protest against mainstream Dems.
I prefer Edwards. If he grabs onto a resonant platform he will be a powerful candidate in 2008.
Historically, the Left has defeated itself by splintering into too many competing camps, each thinking they are more ideologically pure than the others.
That was the Left. You’re talking about the Dem party here. They are not synonomous and never were.
The Left and the Democratic Party were synonomous from 1933 until at least 1968.
George McGovern was not a leftist, in your opinion? Humphrey? LBJ? FDR?
Wrong. Socialists and Communists were the American left. A city near me had Socialist mayors back in the day.
The Greens are the American left today.
The Dems were never the left.
>George McGovern was not a leftist, in your opinion? Humphrey? LBJ? FDR?
No. Left-leaning, but not leftists.
I dont want to argue with you, but your definition of the political left is incorrect, by almost any accepted definition of the term as used in American History.
I am a Green who voted for Kerry last year because Bush needed to be removed. My vote for Nader in NY in 2000 was a safe way (in NY anyway) to try to get the Greens to the , I believe, 3% needed to be included in the process, but that’s really another discussion. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2008 I will vote for her, reluctantly, for the same reasons I voted for Kerry. However, it is my STRONG belief that Gore, Kerry, and Clinton, if she is the nominee would win in a landslide if they would only speak to the truth. People want the TRUTH not the same old, same old. Bush should have never come close to winning (questionable) either election. That it was close, BOTH TIMES, is a testament to the failure of the democrats to stand up and tell it like it is. It is their fearful march to the right that has lost them these elections.
What one person calls the truth, another might call a vain striving after the wind. Its so open to interpretation as to be meaningless. And its very risky, politically speaking.
I appreciate your sentiment and agree with it. Thats why I try to be truthful. But I am not running for anything, except for my life, on this thread.
NO.
There are those truths that aren’t open to interpretation such as this one, which is fairly easy to understand. Even for Americans. For all the sacrifice, for all the losses of our young men and women, for the loss of allies and respect around the world, for all the spent and missing billions of taxpayer dollars, what we will have acheived is the creation of an Islamic state aligned with Iran, which is, last time I checked, exactly the opposite of the democracy we were led to believe would be spread instead. Even red staters can understand that.
Stand up straight and say it.
Oh yeah, and dont call me Petey. I hate that name. It reminds me of the dog with the circle around his eyeon the “Little Rascals.” 🙂
Then why did you use it for a screen name for so long if you hate it so much?
My screen name is not “petey.”
Its Pete. So is my real name.
Petey is a form of condescension which if I used it against you, you would probably be howling for my head as a troll.
personally, I refuse to believe in the stereotype that women are “emotional, radical and extreme.”
But I guess its ok to make those claims if you are a woman. If I made them, then I am sure I would be trolled into oblivion.
Hows that for an inconsistency to ponder?
Ah… Pete Richards. Nice to meet you.
Ok. Generally speaking I agree. I can’t, however, join with Senator Obama or any other Senator who counsels moderation at every turn. It has to be balanced by a clear, rational articulation of the things on which we will not compromise. Can you list what the latter things are? I can’t.
I’m all for moderate – I swear I’d lose friends if people realized how really moderate I am – but I don’t need Barack Obama spending his time counseling me to be moderate. None of us needs that. Come over and write a diary that talks about priorities. Come over and write a diary that speaks about leadership approaches. Come over and write a diary about what you will NOT compromise on – but don’t come tell ME, ME who has seen everything that I hold dear slowly stripped away without even one meaningful victory – don’t come tell ME that I have to understand compromise and moderation. I understand it – it’s being shoved on me every single day.
Come and tell me that the Roberts nomination wasn’t the time to filibuster (and I agree that it wasn’t) but tell me in the same breath just a few things that let me know that “compromise” has not become the party’s tagline.
It was just too much.
And yes, I want Mr. Obama, of all people, to read my letter. He has great promise – I was appalled to think that he’s getting into the always compromise – never demand camp and that’s why HE, specifically, got my reply letter.
😀
Nice to meetcha.
Nice to meet you, too.
Isnt compromise what the American political system is about? Unfortunately, when you hold none of the three houses of federal political power the compromising never ends.
Especially if you are a politican, which Obama is, and if you have hopes for the future, which we and Obama must possess, or why are we here?
I didnt read Obamas post, just yours. It appeared from my reading that he was speaking specifically about the Roberts confirmation, not the political process in general.
I believe he is being a pragmatic politican, which is dangerous ground to walk among us idealists.
You should read Obama’s post. What I took from it was him asking us to be quiet and to set aside our principles for what he calls the bigger picture. In my opinion, it is just this attitude that has led us to this place where the republicans control three of the four branches of Govt., with the loss of the fourth just over the horizon.
Compromise is one thing, capiyulation is entirely another.
EXACTLY.
And that’s what caused me to write the letter. This was not, in my opinion, a studied evaluation of necessary compromise – it was more a “hey – while we compromise you Democrats over there try not to eat your own” kind of diary.
Now having said that, I don’t necessarily believe that he intended it that way. But it was definitely a forum for discussion and the flint that lit a HUGE fire over at dKos. As of this morning the four Obama-related diaries that have made the rec. list have generated nearly 1,300 comments. In 24 hours. There’s a LOT MORE under the surface than just the original “compromise” message and that nerve has been touched.
Pete – truly – I think I would compromise on a lot if I felt that there were actual things on which we would not compromise. I don’t see that or feel that, though, from the Democratic party. There’s no unified leadership helping to guide those make-or-break types of decisons.
And now, I have to go get a salad. 🙂
what is the 4th branch? media?
Already lost.
Sorry, I meant the Judiciary. I screwed up my math.
You know the best way to attract “republicans and centrist independents”? Run a Republican.
Cabin Girl had the right question: Show me this political victory of which you speak. Point to all those progressive Dems who ran and lost in 2000, 2002, 2004.
Until you can, stop, for God’s sake, PLEASE STOP telling others in the party to shut up and let you drive.
Actually, the Democrats picked up more seats than they lost in stathouse elections in 2004. So there is one victory for you, and one that excites me for the future. Are they all progressives?
No, but some are. I believe this trend will continue and even roll into congressional results in 2006.
By the way, I am not trying to take over or change anybody’s opinion or drive the bus either.
Just posting my opinion like everyone else.
Stop wiggling, friend.
Sen Obama’s comments and the response to them, are on the national level; actually they’re more meta than anything else.
Not wiggling. Answering your question. And all constructs, including national political power, are built from the ground up. It starts at the state and local level.
Ask Rove. Thats where he started.
I read that diary, which is the only reason I’m commenting on this one.
For the pols and the pundits in Washington DC, the arguments are rather academic, except for cutting taxes on the rich which is a nice bennie for the talking heads. For those of us in the real world, the arguments moved beyond philosophical quite a while ago.
I have no more patience with these bloodless advocates of the political strategery of accomodation. Sorry, let me rephrase — the LOSING political strategy of accomodation. I have nothing but contempt for those in the blogosphere (which is not the real world either but should be closer to it than than the elitist arena of DC) who pompously don their pundit hats and pretend it’s all about numbers and putting Dems in office.
Obama’s speech asks for our cooperation but gives nothing in return. If nothing else, the last five years show we can’t make gains by being nice. He’s picking apart our many tactical arguments but not providing us with an overlying strategy. I said in my reply to him we’re starving for leadership, but the truth is we’re starving for effective leadership. The Republican leadership is crumbling, but no one will turn to the current Democrats unless they see a unified vision. He says we’re not lilke the Repubs and don’t do that, and then chastises us for lacking tolerance.
He and the other theoretical leaders on our side must find a plausible platform that we can all support, and then stand up and start shouting it. That is the function of leadership. Otherwise, we will make no gains and the game of Sink-the-Government will go on. If I can’t tell my wavering red state relatives what the Democrats believe in, they’ll never jump ship and I don’t blame them.
Katrina is 30+ years of Republican malfeasance rolled into one horrible package. The Repubs milked 9/11 for years, but here is an event that stands as a rebuke to their every policy that our so-called leadership won’t touch. Nothing will change until the Democrats will start defending our true policies and exposing theirs. Loudly.
be able to expect from our elected officials is a bit of quid pro quo for our vote (not to mention our money and/or time) — it’s pretty damned simple.
If dems fail to regain a majority in 2006, I will not be surprsised this time — I was fairly shocked in 2002, less so in 2004 — this time, it’ll just be par for the course…
not trying to bring attention to myself but this thread pulled a lot of comments and didnt get recommended? Why not Boo? Just curious.
I have to go to work now anyway…Pizza Hut opens at 11 am.
It did get recomeneded: by 3 people — click the link. Not enough to put it on the reco list. the number of comments has nothing to do with it as far as I know.
I recommended it because it looked like it would bring out some intense defense of Rena’s position, which I agree with, and you are articulate in your opinions, which makes for a good point/counterpoint discussion.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m guessing that the way you jumped on some of the initial comments didn’t help in getting more to recommend. It evened off later but that may be what happened. Just a thought.
Hmmm, this is my favorite strawman argument, and one that is a staple of American politics for the last several decades.
So the important thing is THE SEAT, not what you get the seat for? In other words, our legislature is an army of competing mercenaries. Of course, mercs go where the money is, so well over half of this nation has almost nobody speaking to their concerns.
You say that there is no point fighting fait accompli battles.
I ask you, how much of the actual political history of the last half of the 20th Century do you know? I remember when the right wing was a joke, a loud and scary fringe that most people refused to take seriously. I remember trying to warn people in little meetings and get togethers and never-published LTEs the danger in wingers getting onto school boards, county boards. I wasn’t alone, but no one took it seriously. By the time Reagan was elected (and he was a JOKE when he made his announcement in Philadelphia MS, rooting the Republican Party more firmly in the racist underpinnings of the “Lost Cause” than the party had dared to previously) and then he won, and STILL people won’t face what a monster he was, how his fucked up winger ideas have led this country down a road to ruin.
You are aware of this, aren’t you?
You are aware of how the Republicans blocked nominees to numerous courts under both Carter and ESPECIALLY under Clinton? Every parliamentary trick in the book has been used for decades by the right to block progressive change. They (and racist Democrats, don’t forget) used the filibuster numerous times to block Civil Rights legislation.
Democrats have had success when they’ve FOUGHT these tactics. LBJ busted heads to get the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act and “War on Poverty” legislation passed. FDR and Harry Truman WERE NOT paragons of polite reaching across the aisle. The Kennedys weren’t either. “Reaching across the aisle” happened when bloody knuckles were stretched out to shake hands after nasty political battle.
You do know all of this, right? You do know that they did much of this battle because Civil Rights and Voting Rights and Women’s Rights and Labor leaders were loud and demanding and were all-to willing to embarrass them, support challengers to them.
You are aware that not that long ago the wingers went very publically after Arlen Spector when he dared suggest publically that the Dauphin should consult the Senate before nominating the SIX judges who’d already been rejected. They called for him to be removed from his chairmanship. Have you noticed how much quieter he’s been since then?
Politics is ROOTED in values. The Revolution was a scattered and isolated series of incidents until the Declaration of Independence was agreed upon and sent out for all to read, all to hear, all to rally upon.
I reject your false choice. You can’t capture the high ground unless your troops have a flag to follow, a cause or belief to rally around, ESPECIALLY if you are fighting an opposing force that HAS one. Politics is like war in this respect.
You do know the political history of this country, don’t you?
Thanks not quite Mad Madman
I am at work so have to make this quick. This is not a straw man argument. Its simply true. In the american political system you cannot win ideological victory (macro sense of course) without first winning the seat, as you call it. Majority rules friend. Counting each individual vote as a test of any politicians ideology or purity is silly.
Nowhere did I say ideology was unimportant, nor did I say fighting against fait accompli is wrong. But it is foolish sometimes, especially for politicians in opposition who might someday have a chance to lead a winning fight for their ideology. When they have the chance. Today, voting on a scotus nomination, doesnt give them that chance.
Its wrong and shortsighted to blame Obama and the others who voted for Roberts. Roberts gets in. If not someone of his ilk or worse gets in.
Why? Because Bush and 55 senators are Republican thats why. They cannot be beaten on this one, just like Clinton could not be beaten on his two during his time.
I have read your passionate diaries and find them very passionate. Your comparison of the American 1776 revolution with today’s progressive movement is simply not an apt one.
I stated why I believe so in another comment on this thread.
The 1776 guys were more akin to todays neocons then they are to todays progressives. Sure, they were left of the European monarchies, but they were far right of us by any stretch. They were white anglo saxon protestant wealthy landowners and businessmen fighting for lower taxes. Many were slaveholders as well. Women and blacks were not considered at all. The poor? Nay.
Chicken and the egg, which comes first?
You put someone in a seat, who is going to wait until later to fight for his/her ideology/beliefs, whatever you want to call it??
No. Not me. I will dmeand to see a record of ACTION before sending someone to warm a seat for some far off someday of possibility….you have siad that you are a Democrat and that’s fine, but I am not, and for me, what you suggest is simply untenable.
If you are not a Democrat, then this argument really doesnt involve you at all, does it?
Maybe thats why we are not making any sense to each other.
Context is Obama, Democratic opposition, when to fight and when to hold your powder AS A POLITICIAN.
Not as a community blogger.
If you are not a Democrat, then this argument really doesnt involve you at all, does it?
You are on the wrong blog if you think that kind of shit flies around here.
You’re damn straight it involves me and I am getting pretty damn sick and tired of having to school partisian democrats on the REALITY that there are a LOT of independents out here who would most likely vote democrat, and have in the past (I held my nose and voted for Kerry — fat lot fo good THAT did me) if only the dems would DO something, anything that convinces me that it would be worth my while to support them again.
You are not making a very good first impression.
Boy you are quick on the trigger! You are not schooling me. I know there are a lot of independents out there, right,left and center.
In fact, I meant only that if you are not a Democrat why do you care if Obama or any other Dem Senator voted up or down for Roberts?
Its really more of a partisan debate then isnt it?
As for first impressions, I have read this and many blogs widely. They are fascinating to me, especially the sense that if you dont agree with the mainstream thought the mainstream goes bonkers.
This has been a civil debate, at least for my part.
I have seen other civil debaters who disagree get troll rated off by readers who themselves are the ones acting like trolls. This seems to be a main feature at Daily Kos.
I havent seen it here before but some of the commenters in this diary are coming close.
Inverted trolls.
I meant only that if you are not a Democrat why do you care if Obama or any other Dem Senator voted up or down for Roberts?
Are you fucking kidding me?? Why would I care?? What, all of a sudden because I’m not a democrat, I am not affected by who sit on the supreme court? Again, I repeat, are you fucking kidding me?
And you are right, I’m NOT schooling you — what a waste of energy THAT would be — you say you are herre to learn and proceed to insult everyone who tries to teach you something….
So, you no longer or never did support Obama?
You are not a democrat? You prefer to see a splintering of progressives into smaller, nonwinning coalitions which will only serve to entrench republican power and continue your evident frustration with the political staus quo?
Your way would work in a parliamentary system which involves coalitions of various parties to win and maintain power, but in the USA its winner take all in a two party system.
Hence, Roberts wins and progressive politicians need to keep powder dry for another, hopefully more winnable, battle.
Answers to your questions:
I am not in Illinios, and I have no money to donate to campaigns, so nope, I did not support him, I watched with interest from afar.
Nope, I am not a democrat, never have been. I often vote democratic in various races, but we are talking about the NATIONAL democratic party here aren’t we? At this point they haven’t given me a damn thing to support except “we aren’t as bad as the other guy” and that just won’t cut with me any more.
Splintering of progressives?? When were they ever united?? If the democratic party wants to unite them they are doing a piss poor job thus far — even according to many self-indentified democrats — so what’s your point here?
My way? What is it that you see as “my way”?? I don’t think you’ve asked about it. Are you making assumptions?
For the record, it is my opinion that the two-party system that we have going here is in NO WAY a representative democracy…hence, keeping powder dry, is a bullshit strategy.
And by the way, in case you haven’t been following along, this is not ONLY about the Roberts nomination.
independents and small parties splintered off do make sense in a parliamentary system but you are right.
Small parties make no sense in a two party system, except perhaps symbolically.
I am curious about your claim of being “independent.” What does that mean to you, exactly? Do you sometimes vote Republican, or socialist, etc? Do you vote the person and not the party?What is the value to you of being an independent? Who were the last non Democrats you voted for?
I am asking with all due respect, so please dont reply with anger.
Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I’ll try to answer anyway. If there were a party out there that I felt represented my needs and interests, I would most likely affiliate with them. Since there isn’t, I don’t. What it means to me is that I am free to examine candidates ont heir own merits without being tied to the letter than they choose to display after their name. Yes, person, not party, that is it.
The last non-democrat I can think of right off the top of my head was my pick for railroad commissioner here in TX in 2004 (in case you don’t know, this is the person who is charge of all oil and gas dealings/adim.) — wanted to vote the Green candidate, but he didn’t get ont he ballott, so I voted for the libertarian — he didn’t win but his views on the issues most closely matched mine (after the Green, who wasn’t available).
In 2004, I voted mostly democrat, for state and national (but you would be surprised, I think, to know how many republicans went unchallanged by democrats — when there was a choice of repub and “someone else” I tended to choose “some one else” regardelss), but that didn’t do me much good either, as I am stuck with 2 hideous, repbulican senators, a rep. who was one of DeLay’s gerrymandered beastie-boys, and a state rep. who makes about as much sense to me as Bushie boy himself….
When democrats start challanging EVERY race, I might feel a bit better about them in terms of giving two-shits about MY choices.
Do these answer your questions?
yes thanks. The libertarians are considered to the far right but some of their social positions sort of overlap with the far left, particularly on “freedom” issues, such as legalizing drugs and all immigration.
Im sorry. One more and I’ll let it go. You have been very open and responsive so I keep picking on you.
This is a tough question, so please think about it before replying. If you dont wish to reply, dont. No hard feelings either way.
In your belief, are you primarily engaged in community blogging to advance certain political positions or because you enjoy the sense of community and communication with others of like mind?
I realize the answer is both to yes, but in your heart of hearts, which of the two is most important to you?
Thanks again, and I promise I wont bother you with any more personal questions.
Personal questions? You haven’t asked me any personal questions. And the answer to this one is that I participate (on THIS site, on other sites I have different purposes, and I don’t post 1/10 as much as I do here) for the sense of community and for the engagement with people BOTH of like and different minds — to have discussions about things that I do not often ahave the opportunity to have in RL.
I feel the same way about proselitizing about political viewpoints that I do about proselitizing religious view points, which is to say, I don’t do it and I tune out when others do it to me…
Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin … men of the enlightenment, we TO OUR RIGHT?
Which history books are you reading, only ones approved by the Kansas Textbook board?
You failed to answer any of my points. I’ve read your other comments, and they didn’t either. Oh, and if you want to see what is wrong w/ such strategic voting, go HERE and watch the ad called Principle
GO WATCH IT!
They laugh at our representatives. They play them like fiddles. They play voters calling for “bi-partisanship” like fiddles. They are playing all of us.
We are right where we were in 1775, and the Founders I mentioned above stepped up and led BY STATING STRONG AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
Yes indeed. Far to our right. Remember, in 1776 capitalism did not even exist. Therefore, the working class, unions, socialists, etc did not exist.
Theocracy, Monarchy, Hereditary landowners ruled.
Working people? Chattle. Indentured servants. Slaves.
You are fooling yourself if you believe the American Revolution was anything but a rightist revolt against the English monarchy.
It was the neocons versus the paleocons.
there were also strong calls for women’s right to vote (Abigail’s famous “Don’t forget the ladies” letter to husband John), for an end to slavery and indentured servitude. They didn’t win, but the foundations were laid.
You betray a very simple-minded view of history and politics. You are much too accepting of the idea that only those who already hold power have the right to set the rules. If politicians only followed counsel like yours, nothing would ever change.
You betray an ability to read things that arent there, both from history and my posts.
You also accuse me of being simple minded when I simply challenged your romanticized view of the Founding Fathers.
As I said I have read your passionate diaries and admire their…passion.
you look only at the class and immediate effects of the Revolution, not the context and the other players involved. That is, to me, simple-minded. History has an arc, and context is very important. You concentrate far too much on the immediate victors and not on the greater sweep. Why were so many common farmers and tradesmen willing to risk all for this particular band of rich landowners?
The view you are presenting is a simplified junior high textbook’s version of the Revolutionary period.
Say what? The entire point of my diary and all these comments is lets step back and take a longer view, instead of demanding our promising politicians like Obama turn into pit bulls for our frustrations today, instead of plotting to regain federal power.
This isnt the time or place but I have placed the founding fathers in their proper context–white anglo saxon protestant males who didnt consider women, minorities to be human beings, and whose primary beef with the English monarchy was Less Taxes and Less Government.
Jefferson was enlightened–for a slave owner. How about Adams, Hamilton, Washington, et al?
It is you who dont have the historical context accurate, but keep insisting that the American progressive movement is somehow linearly descended from the founding fathers. Let me repeat: that contention is simply without merit. You are simply romanticizing and fantasizing, much like elementary school children.
What, next you are going to insist Washington never told a lie and he really did throw that coin across the Potomac?
Its more true to say that today’s Republican neoconservatives are a more direct descendency from the founding fathers, but that would mess up your point so you keep arguing and name calling me.
but let me throw something out for your consideration.
I’m one of the few people that prefer the label ‘progressive’ to the label ‘liberal’.
I like the idea of permanent struggle for progress versus any ideological fealty.
Anyway, we (modern-day progressives) are all more progressive than our predecessors by default. We are not fighting for labor laws, female sufferage, or an end to Jim Crow laws.
But if we had to, we would. It’s simply wrong-headed to look at our antecedents as somehow to our right because they were fighting in a different era.
No one was more progressive than Jefferson, and yet he is often considered the representative of landed interests, held slaves, etc.
exactly
Jefferson fought for an agrarian concept of America based upon states rights and a weak central govt. He has long been romanticized and fantasized as a sort of founding father superstar of the Democrats and progressives in general. Maybe he was maybe he wasnt. Legend and time have obscured the reality.
And of course, he was only one among many founding fathers and his political view clearly lost in the political power struggles of the early Republic.
Hamilton won. Hamilton the anglophile believer in strong central institutions, particularly central financial institutions.
So lets be real. The founders of this country were not progressive in any way that we would define it today.
Our version stems more from the struggles against capitalism by 19th and 20th century pioneers of the labor, voting and civil rights movements.
Outsiders all. Not founding fathers.
oh yeah and I have a question for you, Boo.
and please donttake it wrong. I am not looking for aggrandizement, but why did my diary not make the recommened list? I got a few recommends and 100 comments last time I looked. I have seen other diaries with about the same number of recommends and maybe one comment elevated automatically.
Again, dont humor me now by putting me up there because thats not what Iam after, but why were you afraid of my diary? I’m really just curious, as always about the in and outs of community blogging. I really find this stuff interesting while at the same time a bit depressing….
….to see how far the progressive dialogue has fallen that we cannot even talk with each other except in cliches and platitudes…and that honest debate is replaced by name calling and dissing, and inverted trolling by community members against honest voices of dissent.
What!???
with what gets on the recommended list. That is purely a matter of how many members recommend your diary.
This was explained toyou earlier — did you miss those comments?
I am an unaplogetic capitalist in the proud tradition of the New Deal. So, I have little personal sympathy for anti-capitalists. Freedom involves the right to engage in free enterprise.
I support labor laws and I support regulation and oversight of business practices. But I don’t equate those things with any struggle against capitalism. I equate them with a struggle against fascists, and a middle way between national socialism (in the strictly economic sense) and communism.
I am typing fast because at work but the left was born as a reaction to the excesses of capitalism, the famous struggle of the proletariat described so vivdly by Marx, Dickens and Engels in the 19th century.
The american left was born of the struggles of the working class against the excesses of American capitalism, the often bloody struggles for economic justice and for unionization which were not completely ended until the Taft hartley Act of 1947.
And please, I am not endorsing T_H 1947, just educating Boo.
one part of the left. Another part was born through the Progressive movement. Starting with women’s suffrage and temperence, it moved toward direct elections of Senators, breaking the party machines, and agitated for child labor laws, food and drug regulations, trust-busting, and other issues.
The left was born of a lot more than the excesses of capitalism.
There were other causes taken on by the left, as you suggest, but historically, the left began as a reaction to unfettered capitalism. Many of your own examples bear this out—trust busting, food and drug safety and child labor laws were all a reaction to capitalist excess.