Cross Posted in Blue and Orange.
On the Eve of Blogosphere Day, I spent my evening (and a considerable part of the work day) with Chris Bowers of MyDD, BooMan, and the other denizens of Drinking Liberally and stars of the Philly Blogosphere (among them Atrios). Chris and I went to the screening of Inconvenient Truth, which featured a question and answer session with the former Vice President and current legitimate President himself.
Chris and I arrived promptly at 4:00 p.m. I arrived before Chris and had to spurn the advances of Green Party petitioners who seized the opportunity of Al Gore’s appearance for a petition drive to get them on the ballot.
I fended them off by stating “I wish ya luck, but I am a Democrat.” The young man holding the clip board was very nice and said “oh ok, have a good time at the movie.”
I move forward to the entrance, and text message Chris to let him know where I was. (He had the tickets. I apparently won his MyDD ticket contest this afternoon, even though I emailed him three hours after the contest started with a veiled threat that he owed me for my purchasing his Fahreheit 9/11 movie tickets). I light a cigarette and await his arrival.
As I am waiting, the Green Party petitioners are nearby, discussing their plans of action to get more signatures. Feeling bad about my brushing them off earlier, I suggested they would have better luck after the movie at the exit, after the movie goers are energized by the movie and after hearing Al Gore speak. They agreed. I felt better. Because, even though I disagree with some ideas and policies the Green Party advances, and even though I disagree with their strategy of trying to grow a third party rather than joining and trying to take over the Democratic Party and becoming part of the Democratic Party primary process, members of the Green Party and I agree on more, if not most, things. We definitely both oppose Republicans and the Bush Administration.
The movie was great. Al Gore was great. Chris and I luckily chose the two seats right down front and right on the end, where Al Gore both entered and exited. As such, Chris got good pictures, and we both got to shake his hand. We thought about asking him to follow us over to Philadelphia’s Drinking Liberally event, but he was in a rush to leave for another book signing.
We head over to Drinking Liberally and begin to consume and smoke large quantities of cigarettes and beer, not necessarily in that order. Soon enough, BooMan saddles over to the bar, and later Atrios, and all of us discuss politics, Joe Sestak’s chances, Patrick Murphy’s chances, and the horrible crisis in the middle east, among other things.
It occurred to me, and I mentioned this to the both of them, there here were the propreitors of both MyDD and BooMan Tribune, and a famous (infamous?) diarist at Daily Kos, sitting down as friends, enjoying each other’s company, and having a beer.
Indeed, if the denizens of BooMan Tribune knew that BooMan and I were friends, he would probably have a coup on his hands over here.
The reason I say that is that each of three blogs, Daily Kos, MyDD, and BooMan Tribune, definitely seem to have different audiences, and often times there is animosity among us. To a lesser extent with MyDD towards Daily Kos and Booman Tribune, but definitely between Daily Kos and Booman Tribune. And definitely between Daily Kos and My Left Wing. I am not talking about animosity between the actual frontpagers and proprietors of these sites (although often times that occurs as well). But between the many community members of each. Sure, there are some, like myself, that visit all three (or four or five) blogs each day. But we often identify with one blog only. I identify with Daily Kos. I don’t know why, but I do.
I think it is because we all, quite simply, don’t agree on everything. Indeed, the denizens of Booman Tribune are definitely more progressive than those of MyDD and Daily Kos. MyDD entertains what I think is a more analytical audience with respect to electoral strategy and process. Daily Kos has everything and everyone, and hence our interminable flame wars. Indeed, those flame wars often swell the ranks, or even create, other blogs. I think I am responsible for several influxes of new members at Booman and My Left Wing.
The point of this is we all have our differences. We all get mad at each other. Some of you probably think I am an asshole. A lot of you definitely think Armando is an asshole. Some of us think Maryscott is an attention hog. Some of you think Kos is a power mad dictator intent on electing Mark Warner president and controlling the blogosphere. These are what we call personality conflicts.
In the end, we all have more agreements than not. We are all residents of the great blogosphere. The great progressive netroots. We have the same goals. I think we all need to support each other more, and tear down each other less. And, I say this knowing full well that it will lead to conspiracy charges given that Booman, Chris, Atrios and I just emerged from a smoke filled room, we all need to work together more. How, I don’t know.
I say all of this because we got an election coming up, a movement and a political party to build. Can we forget about how progressive we all are, and whether or not we are Jewish, Christian or Muslim, or whether or not we support Israel or not? Can we forget our primary differences (Hackett v. Brown, Casey v. Pennacchio, etc.)?
I hope so, because if we all just spent the tenth of the time we spend fighting each other in flame wars and on other battle fields on accomplishing our common goals, the defeat of Republicans nationwide and their enablers, we will really make progress.
Thanks for listening.
Well said. I find it a peculiar thing about us on the left that we have a tendancy to demand a level of ideological purity that can become infuriating at times. The prime example is a Democrat who is anti-choice. You might agree with him on 99 of 100 issues, but one issue becomes divisive. In some cases, it allows a Republican to win who you disagree with 50 times of 100 times.
I like to think that these blog flame wars could serve like a caucus debate. We can argue and name call and disagree all we want, but once a consensus has been achieved we could emerge with a united front and speak as one. Once Democrats are in charge, then you can worry about the details.
is the men in charge deciding womens issues are less important then their issues.
then we get casey for senate and we are all supposed to bend over and take that one up the ass in the name of unity.
id rather see 6 more years of santorum who will be easy to get rid of than 6 years of casey who we will never get rid of….the chance of getting someone pro choice in 6 years is better than the idea of being stuck with someone anti choice for a generation.
most of the dems without uteri have a problem with that kind of thinking.
im worried about the details now…im worried about giving power to dems who will work against my special interests which happen to be damn important to me….these are life changing issues….not just my penis feels bigger when i win issues.
do you want to be right or do you want to change things? (paraphrased from johanna russ)
See, I think that is as counterproductive as voting for Nader was in 2000. If Nader was not on the ballot, we would be the second term of the Gore presidency and how much better would the world be for that?
I know that I don’t have a uterus, but I am very much on the side of choice. I think that the best way to do that is to get the party of choice in power, not to worry about whether or not every individual member of the party holds that view. If there was a Democratic
president and Democratic controlled Congress, Scalito and Roberts wouldn’t be on the court and there would be a solid pro-choice majority. Instead, the court could very well overturn Roe v. Wade and even if the Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, the conservative court could prevent any attempts to strengthen abortion rights. This is why electing Democrats is so important.
Imagine there is a vote on abortion rights in the Senate and the voting is very close. Would you rather have Casey who could probably be persuaded to voted with his party or Santorum who is guaranteed to vote against choice? For me, it’s a no brainer. Elect
Democrats and then put pressure on them because they might actually listen to you! If you do nothing and allow Republicans to win, you have silenced yourself and will have no impact on these decisions. Pragmatism sucks sometimes, but it’s so much better than being powerless.
if you think casey can be persuaded to vote for choice you are deluded.
another dem like possibly reid might…but casey wont….you see its not just that a weak dem was forced on us…its a dem absolutely opposed to choice period…if we had casey in the senate instead of santorum we would still have alito…casey said he would have voted to confirm…so whats the difference again? except that it will be very much more difficult to get rid of the anti woman senator in 6 years if its casey.
why is it that its so easy for you to not support leiberman but you will support casey? they are made from the same cloth except leiberman is probably more left than casey is.
My apologies if I’ve misunderstood Casey’s position, I had initially thought that while anti-choice, he could at least be talked into abstaining or supporting his party in some instances. It seems he is more anti-choice than I thought.
I realize aboption is a very divisive issue, but I would think that it’s better to add one more (D) to the Senate so that the Dems can get control of the Senate. In the same vein, if a Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu is the only sort of Democrat that can be elected from a more conservative state, is it not better to elect conservative Democrats than allow Republicans to continue to dominate the government?
In Nebraska, it might be true that Ben Nelson was the only guy that could win that race. But first, it would be wrong to muscle everyone out of the primary for him. And two, Nebraska is not Pennsylvania.
Tom Ridge was a pro-choice governor here. Arlen Specter is pro-choice. Bob Casey’s father was pro-life. Choice is an issue in this state that is not binding on either party. It’s not a deal breaker. Candidate can and do run successfully while holding the minority position for their party.
Anyone that says we needed a pro-life candidate to win is just plain wrong. Santorum is the only state-wide pro-life politician in power right now, and his position is hurting him and would hurt worse if he faced a pro-choice dem.
Casey was attractive because of his name recognition and money.
OK, thanks for the background BooMan. Being out on the left coast I’m not as familiar with the situation in East Coast states.
I guess I just dislike Santorum so much I would rather see just about anyone else win. Especially with a Senate race since the winner is around for 6 years. One of those lovely Turd Sandwich versus Giant Douchebag races that a two-party system will throw at you sometimes I guess.
but the thing is, nebraska is only split 49-45 pro-life/pro-choice, according to survey usa’s recent poll. philly is 50-45 pro-choice majority. both of the states have roughly half of the population who are abandoned without a fight, and i would assume that in both states the majority of those being written off are democrats.
there’s this assumption that “we can’t do any better” that isn’t borne out by the numbers. yes, nebraska is a hard state for democrats, but not necessarily a wingnut state in every way, and as a pro-life state it’s purple at best, not red. PA has even less justification for such strategery. and that’s not even getting into the whole idea of actually convincing people politically, something that the democratic party and most liberal citizens have utterly given up on.
you don’t win a divided state by splitting the distance, you win it by picking an issue that most people want that also does right by your base, and then roll up your sleeves and convince the electorate that those issues are so critical that they’re worth basing one’s vote for.
philly should read pennsylvania. philly’s gotta be a lot more pro-choice than that.
I’d love to see the system change to the point where Democrats would actually run truly progressive candidates because I think that the notion of “electability” is a big crock. Democrats have been their most successful when they run with energy and with a mission. Roosevelt started a 30 year coalition with his New Deal and it could work again. Republicans have been able to hobble Democrats because Dems don’t run as populists anymore for fear of being labeled as class warriors. When you fight with one hand tied behind your back, you’re going to take a lot on the chin.
However, I guess I place too much faith in the primary process, I had assumed Casey had won the primary because he was what Penn. Dems were looking for. That was my error, I wasn’t sufficiently informed about the details of the situation. That being said, I would rather Casey win than Santorum because Casey seems sort of crappy but Santorum is about as bad as it gets. I can’t take 6 more years of frothy mixture.
albeit nowhere near as bad as casey, jr. and while i will not go the route that anna in philly has decided to with DiFi, i respect where she’s coming from.
agreed that populism, real give ’em hell soak the rich populism not just a weak attempt at branding, would be a far better route than the split the distance pablum that the party lobs at purple states. but then i’m also a believer that losing but giving them hell and stranding for something can be better in defining a part strategically in the long run.
none of this means anything without a local party p[resence, however. nelson is ultimately nebraskans’ problem, even if his votes end up being all our problem. we can aid a local effort, but it is pointless to push a chain. lieberman offered an opportunity, and we smartly took it. i ponied up for pennacchio, but he didn’t have the kind of local support to actually pull it off against the DSCC and most of the local PA dem party. i really wish hafer hadn’t dropped out, though.
booman is right in this thing, schumer is poison to the democratic party,m and the sooner that we’re rid of him as DSCC chair the better. dean at DNC was one baby step, but if we’re seriously thinking about taking the party back, we need to be thinking about next time’s dem leadership too.
you posted this after drinking too much and inhaling too much tar.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t totally suck.
Hey, DD, looks like Cynthia McKinney won her primary bid in GA today.
Good for her. Hope she wins in the fall.
Really? Why not her rival Hank Johnson… you know, the one who is actually crashing the gate here?
I posted that before I knew her “victory” was only a plurality victory that sent her to a runoff. I thought she won the primary outright. If that had been the case, then of course she gets my unqualified support as she is the Democrat running in the general.
The original poster made his (or her) comment due to my Kos Diary “Cynthia McKinney is an Embarrassment,” a diary posted immediately following her attacks on the Capitol Police.
As such, I do support Hank Johnson against Cynthia McKinney in the runoff primary, but if Cynthia wins, then she has my support.
The original poster made his (or her) comment due to my Kos Diary “Cynthia McKinney is an Embarrassment,” a diary posted immediately following her attacks on the Capitol Police.
See, here’s the thing. You should ask why people do things rather than assume you know. I made the comment after being reminded of daily diaries from you and your good friends attacking Cynthia McKinney which appeared on DK for about a week. It demonstrated an unusual degree of focus and coordination from the terminally self important operative ‘leadership’ of DK. I was not at all suprised by the object of your collective hatred. Not her color and not her gender and certainly not her politics. I made the comment to remind you that ‘we’ do not have the same goals, play on the same team or share the same values.
She did not make “attacks” on the Capitol police.
You grant me more power than I actually have. There was no conspiracy to destroy McKinney. And to allege one does not really persuade me to see your point of view. I am not in the leadership of Daily Kos. I am not a front pager. I do not have super Armando style powers. I have spoken to Markos face to face exactly twice.
I was embarrassed by her actions and attitude and I voiced my opinion. Others agreed with me. It had nothing to do with her gender, her hair style, her race or whatever bullshit -ism you want to throw up as an excuse. It was about actions. Her actions.
There was no conspiracy to destroy McKinney. And to allege one does not really persuade me to see your point of view.
I alleged no such thing. Indeed I would have to be insane to believe that the combined influence of DK ‘centrists’ could destroy anyone with an actual constituency. What I did was note the demonstrable fact that over a period of approximately a week some of the more unpleasant elements on DK (several of whom who are likewise FP posters on TNH) wrote or actively participated in a series of diaries viciously attacking Cynthia McKinney (using, I would note, the exact same talking points then being repeated every half hour on Fox news who were also so, so embarrassed) I have no idea if you fellows discussed this amongst yourselves and do not care nor do I care to persuade you to my view. I was simply noting the touching display of bonding that took place.
It had nothing to do with her gender, her hair style, her race.
In all fairness I believe the multiple diaries (2 or three a day) had more to do with her politics. I believe that women and people of color willing to sell out wouldn’t evoke nearly the same intense dislike I’ve seen demonstrated for McKinney on DK long before this small incident. I mean, after all, you and the others who were so embarrassed that McKinney reacted to being grabbed from behind by striking at the man who grabbed her with her enormous fist haven’t objected at all to the corruption and ineffectual ‘leadership’ of DLC members Jefferson, Blanco, Landreiux or Ray Naglin. Not even when DLC Jefferson was caught with all that traceable bribe money in his freezer did any of you so publicly demonstrate your ’embarrassment’. Mr Jefferson is, of course, much more tractable and way less uppity…
You, of course, were so anxious to rid the Democratic party of the unindicted Cynthia McKinney you were at one point eagerly embracing a challenger who was an overt, rather than a covert Republican.
Well said, Colleen! Well said.
Even though Pelosi kicked him off the W&M cmte, no one was going around saying how “embarrassed” they were of him. (Everybody had jokes, of course but it’s still not the same.) Not even the CBC. In fact, the CBC (as a group) defended Jefferson vigorously (also read here) while they were mostly quiet about McKinney (also read here). There were individual CBC members who stood with her, but all in all, it was very … interesting.
but all in all, it was very … interesting.
There’s a really obnoxious ad pandering to the white male pocketbook up on Daily Kos. Mr ‘netroots’ Johnson promises not to be “shrill” and to “restore dignity to progressivism”. He also denounces divisive politics and sounds very much like a liberal hating ‘centrist’.
Trouble is Mr Johnson appears to be a somewhat….compromised ‘faith based’ conservative abeit reportedly quite well funded. Some folks can recall when he called himself a Republican. I’ll have to investigate his funding sources…
He sounds very like the sort of black man DD and his friends could get enthusiastic about.
Yes, our F.O.C.(Feet of Clay) problem.
That’s what I call our insistence on ideological purity of belief (e.g. agreement with MY list of essential Democratic issues) above almost anything else. My brother and I made a list of possible Dem presidential candidates for 2008 not long after the 2004 debacle, and put in a column for FOC – those issues that we thought would set us all against each particular candidate.
Frankly, it reminds me of the doctrinal purity demanded in that very conservative religion of my upbringing. . .
Standing together we can “beat the shit” out of them (hat tip to Wes Clark on an open mic). Fragmented by our most-favored causes, we’re dead meat. Let’s don’t do that to ourselves. Let’s beat the shit out of them instead.
Earlier this morning, a very strong and dear woman (by the name of Nancy) shared a poem, titled “Strong Women”, written by Marge Piercy.
Although the focus of the poem is aimed toward the strength of women …I’m sharing a passage from it, because Ms. Piercy’s writing crosses all genders and beliefs – reaching straight to the core of solidarity among us all.
In this day and age of such fear and ugliness around us – you are definitely on to something, Delaware Dem … something I’ve been speaking about with fellow Tribbers…….”Out of Many. One.” Thank you.
(Excerpt from “Strong Women”)
A strong woman is a woman who craves love
like oxygen or she turns blue choking.
A strong woman is a woman who loves
strongly and weeps strongly and is strongly
terrified and has strong needs. A strong woman
is strong in words, in action, in connection, in feeling;
she is not strong as a stone but as a wolf
suckling her young. Strength is not in her, but she
enacts it as the wind fills a sail.
What comforts her is others loving
her equally for the strength and for the weakness
from which it issues, lightning from a cloud.
Lightning stuns. In rain, the clouds disperse.
Only water of connection remains,
flowing through us. Strong is what we make
each other. Until we are all strong together,
a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.
you first
we”ll follow your lead.
I don’t know if you are willing, given your comments in this thread. Are you voting for Santorum?
i am definitely voting for santorum…i was going to just skip that lever and vote for neither…but decided it was better to vote for santorum because it will nullify your vote for casey.
thats how pissed i am at the assraping i feel we are getting.
thats how important this “single” issue is to me.
im not going to vote for rendell either.
i know it wont happen but if the pseudo dems lost the easiest race out there maybe it would send them a message to stop ignoring true progressives and womens and gay issues.
failing that at least i wont feel dirty like i did when i voted for kerry.
Voting for a Republican makes you one.
so does voting for Casey. Rimshot.
Nice. He still has a (D) after his name. He is still voting for Reid as Majority Leader.
Meanwhile, Santorum actually is a Republican. I rather vote for a sinner than the devil himself.
yeah, yeah. I know. I’ll probably pull the Dem lever and pretend Casey isn’t on the ballot. That way I can pretend I’m not a Republican.
Reid, that hack anti-woman, forced birth, pro-corporate, winger-judge-loving hack …
of course he will. Now explain to me why that would be a GOOD thing. Reid is a Republican. He supports and votes for Republican policies. If the Democrats were a party that actually fought for PEOPLE instead of money and Wall St., our Majority Leader would be someone like Durbin.
However, since the party has been hijacked for two decades by center-right Rockefellar Republicans like you, that’s too much to hope for.
Anybody who votes for someone like Casey who considers themselves a liberal, or who actually believes in women’s freedom, is a fool.
Ok. I think the Green Party is too ultra conservative for some of you.
you’ve got no idea where most of us stand, because you DON’T listen to what we say and you DISTORT our beliefs w/ repetitions of Limbaugh-like charicatures. Every lefty’s interaction with you is met with the EXACT same “debating” techniques one would get from any Hannity listener.
Anybody like you who can’t see that an insistance that ALL Americans have equal protection under the law, EVEN IF THEY OWN A UTERUS, that this is a fundamental AMERICAN value, has no right to lecture anybody on politics. What is more American that that basic value, a basic value that hour country IGNORED for MOST of its history?
Throw it overboard with the rest of the misogynist bullies, but don’t come here offering some bullshit olive branch that you really want to use as a switch to swat at HALF of the population.
OK, I just can’t stay silent even though I know I should. I am so utterly sick of this “you’re so wacko, Michael Jackson looks sane next to you” kind of mentality. OMFG, I want to care for our people instead of spying on them or letting them die alone. Sheesh. I am sick of Dems like you saying it is ok to fuck women, children, gay people, people of color, immigrants, etc. because some right wing hack is okay because they have a “D” after their names.
But even more than that I am sick of having my ideals catergorized as “too far left”. Shit, I want health care, and education for my kid, and a decent wage for all our workers, and respect for all people, and a culture that understands and works with the environment instead of raping it, and I am called a “radical”, someone who is just “too far left”. The idea that I am unwilling to vote for some neocon hack with a D after his name makes me a republican is just too absurd for words. I want Lieberman and Casey to lose. Then, maybe just then, the Dems will realize that Dems want what is right and just for all and no some political hack with a fucking D after his or her name.
you see DD….it was comments you made to me just like this one on DK (before i got banned) that convinced me to vote for santorum to nullify your vote for casey…and its comments like this that lead me to believe your call for peace and cooperation in the party is bullshit.
i have voted for many republicans in my life mainly when i lived in camden county nj where the local dems are completely and totally corrupt…that did not make me a republican..that made me someone who wont be bought or threatened or bullied into voting against my conscience.
My call is to work together to defeat Republicans. You are voting for a Republican.
well maybe you should quit while your not ahead.
because not only am i voting for casey…im not driving all my little old lady neighbors to the polls either like i do every election….and they changed our polling place a few months ago and the ladies couldnt figure out where to vote in the primary.
so you see DD the ass raping dems didnt just lose a vote for themselves, they lost boots on the ground, money, and all the other efforts i used to make to get dems elected….and do you think im the only disgusted woman out there? how many are staying home this time because they are offended by their choices?
not only am i voting for santorum
Well, progressive purists like you are the reason we lose. Conservative purists have the strategic and practical sense to suck it up every once and a while, and vote for a candidate that does not meet their qualifications (i.e. Ford, Bush I, Dole), so long as they continue to take over the party and the party infrastructure so that eventually their movement wins out.
You want to kill the Progressive movement while it is still in the crib. The peace and “working together” is not possible with the likes of you. It is either your way or the high way, so obviously you can’t work together with anyone.
DD- that is just silly. All this means is that Anna is not going to vote for Casey. She is perfectly willing to work with you on a whole host of other issues. Who is being a puritan here?
She’s not voting for Rendell either. She is not taking people to the polls. She says she is against every “ass raping” Dem (which to me is anyone who disagrees with her on anything).
Even still, she will be there to work with you on issues that you share in common. Electing Casey just isn’t high on her priority list. And while there are good reasons to hope Casey wins, there are also reasons to hope he isn’t our Senator for the next 18 years.
It is a thankless task to ask women (especially pie-war refugees and Kos-exiled women) to suck it up and vote for Casey. The more you push the less likely you are to be persuasive.
I think a huge part of the women/Kos rift is related to your side not knowing how you sound, or how you come off. It’s not that you mean to be dismissive. But that is how it is interpreted.
My objection to Casey is mainly over his coronation. That’s why I am still on a holy jihad against Schumer. The Netroot model should be Lamont. It could have been Pennacchio, who had no chance without a concerted blogoswarm because he had no way to pay for media or to raise money without us. We are not allies of Schumer. And until he agrees to primaries, we (at least I) am going to after his centrist candidates like my name was Zarqawi.
It’s personal.
If you had read all the things I have read from the refugees over the last year, you would feel the same way.
Betraying women to win elections is bullshit. And Pennsylvania ain’t Nebraska.
Schumer also betrayed Hackett and his followers. He just doesn’t like primaries. Well, we do. A lot.
that clearing the field was problematic, and in the end I think unnecessary.
If it was Casey v. Hoeffel, I think Casey wins. If it was Casey v. Hafer, I think Casey wins.
no
i want the dems in power to A) stop ignoring the will of the people as in dont clear the field of possible primary candidates and annoint your own, and B) stop ignoring womens issues.
how do you propose to do that?
and i dont think progressive purists are the reason dems lose…are conservative purists the reason repubs lose…oh yeah they dont lose much these days.
the reason the dems keep losing is they look just like republicans and dont offer a coherent simple message that is different than the republicans and that people will support….we arent republican isnt good enough.
I mean, really. I understand your complaint on the clearing the field in the primary. I agree, that was wrong. But to say that Democrats ignore women’s issues is like saying the NAACP ignores civil rights issues.
no its not the same thing DD
but let me tell you its the big issue because an unwanted unintended pregnancy changes your life forever…its not like the war or minimum wage or the price of gas or whether or not you can get your porn on the internet…and its always the first issue to get thrown under the bus…its just not important to men especially when it comes to winning (a penis issue) and regrettably and sorrowfully its not even important to gay men….when barney frank started campaigning for casey at the very beginning of the primary and asking local gay leaders to join him i was shocked then i just shook my head and remembered that its not the first time women were abandoned by gay leaders.
and i blame women…we arent leading on this issue…we arent flexing our muscles and uniting to break the back of the male democratic cabal….thats why they can do what they did and will continue to do it….there are no consequences.
Thank you for your comments here, Anna.
You are stating all of this wonderfully, though you’re wasting your words. He couldn’t give a shit about women, or their children, or anything remotely resembling civil rights for ALL Americans. NONE of those things matter to DD, blogheeling bully boy that he is.
He’s really not worth your time. He is your sworn enemy, and slurs like “purist” only show that he has NO idea what “Democracy” really means, since he sees only in tribal/herd/team metaphors.
I don’t usually jump in the middle of a discussion, but the anti-choicers ultimate goal is the banning of contraception. We see that with issues like pharmacists refusing to fill contraception prescriptions. To yield on abortion is to give up the Pill or other female contraception.
The rabid response to the HPV (I’m not sure about the initials her, sorry) vaccine is also evidence of their real intention. Female sexuality is bad and it must be stopped.
As to the the attention paid to civil rights, lets see how the Dems handle renewing the Voting Rights Act. We’ve seen how Washington has generally handled the rights of all poor folks, black and white and I’m not impressed.
truth be told, bullying people into supporting candidates who will vote directly against their interests and deeply-held values, crying “unity” after you’ve cut them off at the knees, and generally responding to any dissent from the left with STFU is what has deeply fractured our party, and is a major factor in our losing elections. for your part, you have actively worked to frustrate any kind of rapproachment between the left and moderates on daily kos for years now. for you to lob that accusation around is laughable.
i appreciate your short-lived attempt at a olive branch (if that is indeed what you’re doing here), but come on, you are about the worst offender out there WRT dividing people. if anyone here has weakened our ability to find common ground, and do our small part in the collective enterprise of winning elections, it is you. the left came back to the fold in ’04 and busted their asses for the democratic party, and were immediately blasted for the loss of the election the moment the election was over, and have been hounded ever since. loyalty goes both ways, and there has been next to none shown to anyone on the left in the last two years, from the loyalty oath and SYFPH bullshit in 2004 to the present.
enough with that tired old line, DD. enough. if you want unity, you’re going to have to demonstrate some, and rebuild the trust that you’ve spent years tearing asunder.
but im giving you a 4 for saying much more succinctly what i have felt.
now i must go get my massage.
DD,
I’m willing to think some smokes and beer lead to this being a sincere thought… but can you hold onto it?
can you follow up with the harder part, remembering it the next time you have the urge to defenestrate your “allies”?
Maybe you can, but I’d need to watch a long time to know.
Unity this election cycle with persons having the same opinion as Anna in Philly will be next to impossible. I mean, how can you unify with a person who is voting for the enemy.
But in the future, aside from an open primary process, how else do we best achieve a common purpose and unity? Seriously I really want to know. I know there are common ideals we all share. Yes, the evil Delaware Dem does in fact agree with you on most if not 95% of the issues.
But in the future, aside from an open primary process, how else do we best achieve a common purpose and unity? Seriously I really want to know.
You can, for once in your life, STFU and listen.
the evil Delaware Dem does in fact agree with you on most if not 95% of the issues.
I don’t think you’re ‘evil, I think you’re a religious right conservative with an authoritarian personality talking to people who are constitutionally adverse to authoritarians. You act like a guy who is used to being obeyed and cannot conceive of any other sort of relationship. There are tangential issues I’m sure we agree on but I think we’re in fundamental disagreement on a number of very central, core issues and that you avoid recognizing this fact by dismissing the central core beliefs of people you fancy yourself leading once we see things your way. It is, to say the least, an arrogant stance on your part.
I think you’re a religious right conservative.
Wrong. I am religious, yes. But I am a member of the religious left. Yes, I personally oppose abortion, but I believe the government should stay the fuck out of it, so I am pro-choice. I am pro-stem cell research. I am pro-equal rights for homosexuals.
with an authoritarian personality talking to people who are constitutionally adverse to authoritarians.
I guess I can act that way. And I guess that may be a little true.
Finally, besides my personal opposition to abortion (which is meaningless in my mind), what core issues do we disagree upon?
Finally, besides my personal opposition to abortion (which is meaningless in my mind), what core issues do we disagree upon?
Let’s start with the notion that the universe does not revolve around you. We wouldn’t have a “coup” if we discovered you and Boo were friends. We’re not authoritarians or childishly overreactive. I think you would make a piss poor friend but, then, I’m neither white nor male so what do I know.
Boo’s blog does not “exist to hate you” and indeed I do not hate you. It’s just that some of us have had way too much exposure to you and remember when you were wont to habitually threaten to beat people up in your online conversation, remember the tedious conversations about your views on our, not your, sex lives and, of course, your characteristic bullying and tendency to order people off blogs when they express a political opinion from the vast and unexplored territory to your political left.
This blog does not exist to “hate you”. It’s just that we, quite reasonably, do not trust you and would prefer to skip the strawmen and games and serious consideration of the silly notion that the insincere fool who wrote this wishes to build coalitions. Coalition building isn’t
your strength, bullying others into submission is and because this is not Daily Kos, that does not sell well here.
but mostly you need to stop acting like a bully, and listen to people. after that, the rest is a lot easier. in a democracy, noone is worth more than anyone else. the same ought to be true in a democratic party.
My call is to work together to defeat Republicans.
Clearly those of us who are unwilling to have our basic values derided as impossibly pure and “the problem” are reluctant. My own reluctance is based on years of reading what you have to say and watching your interactions with others, paricularly those who aren’t white, male and conservative.
The problem for Democratic ‘centrists’ is that, outside of the deep South, you’ve only a very tiny natural constituency and believe me, people who the authoritarian personalities of DK have banned are not part of that following. People like you and Dana and RonK have done irreperable damage towards (oh make me laugh) your now stated desire of coalition building. Indeed, for the past year I had been under the impression that this was a conscious and collective desire of yours. I’ve long felt your gang wished to make the face of the Democratic party appear as repressive and elitist and repulsive as possible because that’s what y’all have been successful at doing.
So, no. we’re not going to suddenly decide that you’re God’s gift to American Politics.
when i read that line i thought of all those Dems who voted to ‘authorize’ the use of force in Iraq. given how many there were, it’s be a purist position to suggest that those Dems no longer deserve our support. so, maybe we can convince ourselves that they really didn’t vote for war.
unfortunately, the two-party system makes it very difficult to address the enablers.
In 2000, the country was going Green. Now, thanks to stolen elections, staged terror and fraudulent war, Markos Moulitas is radical. Think about it.
OhNo! The radical left of Daily Kos might take over the Democratic Party… And it’s really fantastic because now, with people rightly worried about having their vote even counted, there’s really no room to worry that the electoral system makes a multi-party democracy practically impossible.
one other thing, while i’m rambling: you, Delaware Dem have consistently been one of the most divisive figures in the kososphere. along the same lines, it’s not just that some people think that Armando is an asshole, as if for some mysterious reason other than the fact that he’s behaved like an asshole for so long, among so many. and to top it all off, who has been more divisive than Markos, with his purging policy?
“Can we forget about how progressive we all are…”
more accurate, i think, to have written, “Can you forget about how progressive you all are…”
in short, this strikes me as a typical kossack let’s all get along diary, in that it completely glosses over the divisive culture of dkos, and instead tries to shift responsibility to progressives and their regressive sense of purity.
Look at Anna in Philly. How can we get along when she becomes a Republican out of spite?
So long as there is a demand for purity, the Democrats and progressives in general will always fail to win elections. Especially when progressive vote Republican.
why?
the republicans managed to win exactly that way.
Many conservatives hate Bush’s immigration stances. They voted for him in 2000 and 2004.
Many moderate Republicans (and they do exist), hate Bush’s theocratic and socially conservative positions. They voted for him in 2000 and 2004.
The Republicans energize their base, but also employ Big Tent politics on occasion.
so do the dems when they get the chance but the repubs are just better at it then the dems are.
but i believe conservatives, moderate republicans, and lots of democrats including my lifelong union card carrying democrat party lever parents voted for bush because they had their single issue…fear of terrorism.
there are plenty of dems who supported dean regardless of his stand on gun control and the death penalty.
but in the end (really the beginning if you take iowa as the beginning) they went with kerry instead…why?
because in either party and in any race it almost always comes down to what is the single most important issue to you…which one trumps all the other ones….where is your line in the sand….my line in the sand is privacy and reproductive rights and if you are going to work against that then i will work against you.
What have we here?
A hard core Kossack diving into a pond full of “women’s studies types” who were treated like scum at Kosville, and invited to leave if we didn’t like it, waving an freaking olive branch and singing kumbaya??
Not interested.
when booman writes articles using well known handles of people at other sites… what a bastard!
like DelewareDem would ever write this…..
:p
LOL.
Thanks for posting.
You write:
I say all of this because we got an election coming up, a movement and a political party to build. /
So, know of any plans /if (when)
November elections are canceled?