There's some idiocy in this thread

[jpgray]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1158623&mesg_id=1158623

Who thinks like this? A bunch of spoiled kids who are more interested in meaningless symbolism than actual results. People who think that strongly-held beliefs are all that is needed to make progress despite the failed candidacies of Kucinich and Dean still smoldering at their feet. People who think that a first step in the right direction is worthless unless it goes all the way to the finish line. People who would willingly cast out all senators but Boxer as useless and spineless because politicians are either white hats or black hats based on the latest hypocritical litmus test, with nothing in between. You're either with them, or against them.

If you don't belong to the above group, I apologize. But if you do, then you are getting in the way. You are getting in the way of fixing the problems of our electoral system. You want to give the GOP exactly the PR framing it tried so hard to entrench during the two hour debate--a way to condemn all inquiries into voting as sore loser whining by the Democrats. Without control of Congress or any evidence that Kerry won, no overturning of the electoral results will ever happen. Period. That people still cling to the fantasy that this election will be overturned and attack all who try to secure what victories we can deserve the harshest criticisms and the lowest respect. Voter fraud is an incredibly serious problem, but the strategy of some who claim to care about it seems like it was designed to forever undermine and destroy the few avenues the Democrats have to do anything about it. They attack those few who speak out on the issue as not speaking out enough, or not using the right words, or not meeting the impossible (yet strangely meaningless) litmus test of the week, which in this case involves voting "no" during the objection to OH certification. That this would have been a political boon of incalculable size to the Republicans--a means to write off all electoral problems as Democratic whining--and provide no advantage to Democrats or make any progress in addressing voter fraud whatsoever makes no difference. Some egotistcal halfwits must have their sensibilities validated by empty ceremony, it seems. Empty words and empty ceremony matter more to these folks than results. And if they don't know that it's idiocy, I'm here to tell them in this thread. Give me people who will act in order to fix some of the problems rather than someone who will talk and posture in a way I like while undermining and sabotaging any hope of change.

To those people, I have this to say: You're getting in the way. You are causing active harm to any movement that is dedicated to fixing these problems. Your personal fetishes aren't more important than fixing the voting problems in this country. Should Democrats stand up more than they have been? Absolutely. Are there leadership problems? You bet. Should Democrats lead a People's Crusade that eschews strategy and reality in favor of the faith-based idea that saying something or wishing something hard enough will make it come to pass? No.

[imenja]

1. I share many of your frustrations, but

calling other members idiots is not helpful. Your point is an important one, but the insults only detract from it and serve as flame bait rather than encouraging a thoughtful discussion of an important issue.

[Time for change]

11. I agree

This is a very complex and difficult to understand issue, with many different points of view by well meaning people.

I don't agree with Kerry's decision to concede, nor with his decision to be so quiet about what I consider (but which he may not) to be a grossly fraudulent election. But I wouldn't denigrate his character, dismiss his years of service to our country, nor call him an idiot for his decisions on this matter either. And perhaps you are right that he and the other 43 Democratic Senators made the right decision by not voting "no".

But at the same time there is a tremendous amount of emotional feeling about this on the part of thousands of DUers. Many of us believe that the failure to expose the election fraud (And we do believe that the evidence strongly suggests that Kerry won the election) will likely end for all time democracy in our country, because this will mean that it will inevitably continue to occur, leading to more and more power by the far right wing, and it will be a rapidly accelerating vicious cycle.

Consequently, we feel that this is the most important issue in the world, and we continue to look for ways to do something about this. It's true, I believe, that some of us are too critical of Kerry and other of our elected representatives. But that is not because we are idiots, but rather because we believe that we are now living under extremely repressive circumstances and we are terribly concerned and frightened about the future of our country and the world.

[uppityperson]

41. I agree with you here and thank you.

I appreciate all Kerry has done and said to help continue democracy and a positive future in this world. I also am frustrated with his cecision to be so quiet about this election as you say. I do not see that this makes me an "idiot", but capable of feeling 2 different complex things about the same person.

If Kerry were president next yr, I would continue to be critical of some things he does as this is part of being a political representative and being in the public eye. However, he isn't, bah. Does this mean I cannot be critical of him now? Being critical of someone does not mean I am not working for positive change, on election reform, etc. It means I have an opinion I wish to share.

Again, I appreciate all he has done, and, while not expecting him to be the big daddy or knight on a white horse as some accuse, I was disappointed in his decisions, as Posted by Time for change puts so well.

I am very frightened of what has happened and will continue to happen under bushits. I will continue to work on positive change.

[KittyWampus]

24. No One Was Called An Idiot. It's The Sentiments Expressed That

exemplify idiocy.

[imenja]

28. that is splitting hairs

I get very frustrated with the people on DU waiting for John Kerry to ride in on a white horse and claim the presidency. It's a waste of time and keeps them from examining the problems the Democrats face and taking action to change things. That sad, using terms like "idiocy" is not productive. Many members were offended and angered by the comment. As you can see from the posts below, such name calling prompts hostility rather than thoughtful engagement.

[Cheswick2.0]

2. ahhh a whole thread to compare yourself to others and declare them lacking

brilliant.

[jpgray]

7. I've engaged in at least as much idiocy on this board and elsewhere

And doubtless I will in the future. We all do from time to time.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. you should have kept the discussion to that thread

I can't imagine why this is not locked yet.

[KittyWampus]

Yes, The One Thread NOT Intended As An Emotional Tirade Against A

sitting Democrat must be locked.

[KittyWampus]

25. Yes, The One Thread NOT Intended As An Emotional Tirade Against A

sitting Democrat must be locked.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

37. The Insane at Work in the Dem Party

Seems there is a battle for the hearts and minds of DU. Maybe a civil war. There is a substantial faction here at DU that apparently believes that it is an absolute physical impossibility that Kerry lost this election. Therefore, the only other possibility is that Bush and Rove and Diebold stole it. It's the only theory that their brains can allow once they start with the presumption that Kerry must have won.

The other side of the coin (and the side to which I belong) is that Kerry lost, Bush won, and that it is time we focus on what we really want to accomplish in the Dem Party. What do we stand for? What can we offer the American people? How can we get our message out? If we just jump up and down, red-faced and screaming, no one will listen to us and no one will take us seriously. Personally, I have little patience for those who would rather whine and bitch instead of actually thinking constructively about ways to improve the party.

I am willing to state on the record that Bush won the election. If you refuse to accept that, you are essentially saying that the Dem party can continue on the same path and that everything will be OK. That is not the case, folks. We haven't just lost a presidential election. We've lost a number of elections over the past 10 years, and have been out of power for quite a while. It can't all be Diebold's fault, can it?

[Vektor]

3. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN...

I agree. I cannot see the merit in scapegoating and negativity. Positive action is what's required now, not searching for a whipping boy upon whose shoulders we can lay all blame and angst about the state of the world. Thanks for this post.

[Gay Ranger]

4. Maybe...

If a few Senators poured gas on themselves and set themselves on fire in protest on the steps of the Capital, they would garner some words of approval from this bunch. It appears that nothing less will do.

[blondeatlast]

5. They aren't idiots, they are full of blind faith.

And it's absolutely useless in politics.

You make some very good points here, though. There's an awful lot of "if I can't go two steps forward, I'll stay where I am" on DU.

That gets us nowhere.

[Goldeneye]

6. Thank You.

I saw the thread and left after reading the first few posts. Kerry finally speaks out on the issue and he is attacked? What is that?

There are far better ways to spend our time. Be the change you want to see.

[blm]

10. heh. Kerry has spoken out at least 4 times and each time they say the same

thing, "Where was he before now.....Too little, too late....Finally....etc...."

How could those posts be legitimate every time?

Some Dems think being nasty towards the latest standard bearer makes them more righteous somehow. Republicans glorify their people, no matter what, because they know it STRENGTHENS their party to do so.

I am still waiting for just ONE of these self-righteous Kerry haters to describe how they earned the right to condemn him in such vile ways.

I want to see just ONE person who thinks they can sit in judgement of the man who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history and helped to put an end to three wars.

Just one.

[dweller]

8. Not once is either Dean nor Kucinich mentioned

in that thead as of now.

did you mean to start a new thread just to bash the D or K supporters?

:eyes:

dp

[jpgray]

9. Try reading my words next time--you're talking to a Kucinich supporter

Their candidacies are proof that strongly-held beliefs do NOT get results by themselves in American politics. If that were the case, Kucinich would have been our nominee. Now, where in my post do I bash Kucinich and Dean supporters? I'm waiting.

[dweller]

12. but i am

unless i am not reading your intent correctly, and i may not be...but the first lines are about "spoiled kids ...more interested in meaningless symbolism than actual results. <followed by and i read as expressed as>People who think that strongly-held beliefs are all that is needed to make progress despite the failed candidacies of Kucinich and Dean still smoldering at their feet"

perhaps it's clear to others, but it was not to me.

and regardless of whose candidacy it was, none held a chance against the machines and the manipulation of the votes.
and that counts for Kerry also with his smoldering feet as well.

my point still stands, there was no mention of K or D in the thread you pointed to, and so my question was based on that. Of course, it could have been added to the post by now...

no offense intended jp,
dp

[jpgray]

15. Ok, I understand

The reason I don't use Kerry's candidacy as an example (which is as fully smoldering now as the other two) is that his isn't as commonly identified by strongly-held beliefs as Dean's or Kucinich's. In this case I didn't mean to use Dean and Kucinich as a way to say all those posters I disagree with in that thread are their supporters. I used their candidacies as examples of strongly held beliefs not being enough in isolation.

[KoKo]

13. I'm an "In the Way"...and notice the "Swat Team" who want to throw us off

DU... or beat us into "submission" by attacking us, saying WE are "The Enemy." But...hey..it's all in good fun...isn't it? :D Look in the mirror...often the "Enemy" is oneself. :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

26. Actually, You Lead The Charge In Calling Obama/Emanuel Sellouts

[leyton]

14. Amen - I'm sick of the Dem-bashing that goes on around here.

People seem to forget that we face the biggest deficit of votes in the Senate since 1931. We are not all-powerful, we must fight the battles that we can win and not waste all our energy/capital on futility.

[moggie12]

16. I agree, Pickett's charge resulted in lots of dead Rebs

There's such a thing as strategy and tactics. A full-frontal Democratic assault on voter fraud would have been political suicide given, a) lack of incontrovertable proof, and b) Bush's 4 million vote plurality, not all of which I think can be chalked up to fraud/suppression. I'm taking my lead on the fraud issue from Democratic Senators who I respect for their courage and political savvy: Carl Levin, Weinstein, and Kennedy in particular. I think they acted the way they did because they want to live to fight another day. It's not a sign of immorality or ethical cowardice to pick your battles wisely: I think they would've fought to the death if we had had "the goods" on fraud.

It seems a terrible shame that this issue has resulted in such discord among people who otherwise share common goals. I don't get why people keep attacking Kerry and the Dem Senators so harshly. It seems anger at Bush has been turned into hatred of Dems and that just can't be a good thing in terms of achieving our long-term goals.

[welshTerrier2]

17. meaningless versus meaningful symbolism ...

you made the distinction in your excellent post when you appended the term "meaningless" to the symbolism you criticized ... and i think it's important to draw the distinction you did ...

i will make only a weak defense of those you criticize because fundamentally, i completely agree with you ... but there does exist a problem that underlies some of the misguided excess that you've criticized ... i think we have a very serious disconnect between our elected representatives and the grassroots ... this is not said to justify the problem you cited but rather to look at what might be one of its underlying factors ...

the problem is we don't often have the votes of our representatives explained ... perhaps many would still object no matter what reasons were provided ... but it seems to me poor communication leads to criticism whether the criticism is or isn't justified ... to expect those of us on the outside to fully appreciate the strategic plan when we have no idea what it is may be unreasonable ...

in the end, your arguments stand on their own ... but i do think that those of us who are interested enough to follow the Party's actions should be provided with as much information as possible ... when votes are cast with which we disagree, it would go a long way towards turning down the heat if we understood the Party's thinking ... approval is never automatic but enhanced communication couldn't hurt ... the gap between the "ins" and the "outs" is much too great and it's not healthy ... what is the symbolism when the "why" of the vote is not regularly provided to the grassroots?

[jpgray]

19. That's a good point

Dean for example can get away with his DFA group supporting some pretty moderate folks in the interest of a broader progressive strategy, whereas someone like Kerry or Al From wouldn't be able to without being constantly second-guessed and villified. It may come down to a perceived connection with the grassroots element of the party more than anything else.

[sparky_in_ma]

18. Tired of seeing any Democrat bashed

I hope after this month is over, maybe the focus can go back to putting the Democratic party back in the WH and congress.

[Sterling]

20. There's some idiocy in this thread

Yes, this thread is dumb.

[Eloriel]

21. Sorry, jpgray, you utterly destroy your credibility

with this kind of tripe:

failed candidacies of Kucinich and Dean

Dean was sabotaged. Only if you are someone who believes that might makes right (in true fascist mode) could you believe that that is a "failed candidacy," and I had not previously thought that about you.

Now it may be that you are not aware of the sabotage BY OTHER DEMOCRATS that went on to sink and defeat Dean, but my guess is that you've had ample opportunities to KNOW the truth.

The truth is that NO ONE HERE can know, one way or the other, how Dean would have faired in a full, free and fair election, one which allowed the people to judge him on his own merits. Please don't pretend or imagine or fantasize that you do.

I will also point out that even after the "Dean Scream" speech which some people continue to believe had a lot to do with his undoing, had the primary not been purposely front-loaded so that there was virtually NO TIME between Iowa and NH, he might have done considerably better there too. He was picking up quite a bit of steamm in those closing days but ran out of time.

Dean might NOT have won on his own -- but we'll never know. Please stop lying about him this way. As I said, it does YOUR credibility, and the rest of your message, no good at all.

[jpgray]

22. Sure he was sabotaged. That's the way politics works

Dean's 2004 candidacy was a failed one, though he turned it into an important grassroots organization. It goes without saying that factions of the party that did not have any control or influence on Dean wanted to take him down to maintain their own positions, despite having relatively similar politics. Same thing happened to McCain in 2000 on the other side. That's why I used Dean (and Kucinich) as an example here--two instances of people who really believed in and stood up for their stances, but were brought down in spite of it.

[KittyWampus]

27. YOU Destroy YOUR Credibility With This Dean Sabotage Crap Over

and over and over.

At what point is Dean EVER responsible for HIMSELF?

[WilliamPitt]

34. "Dean was sabotaged"

Here now comes request No. 32,971 for proof of the above oft-repeated assertion.

[eridani]

42. Exactly. If most Dems never get a chance to vote--

--before a handful of voters in early primary states have already decided things, howthehell does anyone know who most Dems would prefer?

[CTLawGuy]

29. This is not about meaningless symbolism

this is about taking a stand, and a good stand.

People are upset about Kerry's coming out about voting issues today is that , becuase there were two opportunities to come out about these issues WHEN ANYONE MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY LISTENED...

1. Nov. 3rd
2. Jan. 6th

The reason Boxer challenged Ohio's votes on Jan 6th was not to overturn the election, nobody expected that to happen. The purpose was to FORCE THE REPUGS TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE ISSUE. Do you think if the Dems had waited a month and introduced some bill, there would be anything close to a floor debate on it? Absolutely not.

The Dems had a chance to establish themselves as the party of voting reform, and the challenge was a first good step.

However, Kerry said nothing about it on Nov. 3rd when the media might have paid attention, in fact his statements were used by the Pugs to poo-poo the challenge.

Yeah, the Repugs would have called Kerry a sore loser had he spoken out, but the message would have gotten out. We can't live in fear of what the Repugs will call us. We can't play by their rules. Those rules are designed to favor them. We need to make our own rules.

Kerry should have been in Washington on Jan. 6th because he would have been a prominent voice in favor of the challenge and the issue, WHEN SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE PAID ATTENTION. He should have made a floor speech or something, ANYTHING, to help.

Coming out now won't do anything. His statements today will be lost in the ether. Kerry lost the opportunity to push the issue when it was ripe, and now it is no longer ripe. Congress will never pay attention to the issue now; the media won't be talking about it.

He doesn't have to say he actually won. I don't believe he DID win. But he is seen as a party leader because he was our candidate and had he spoken out about it at the right time, it might have helped the issue.

Today was too little, too late.

[jpgray]

31. I can show you why I think you are wrong

"the Repugs would have called Kerry a sore loser had he spoken out, but the message would have gotten out."

I don't think so. Would this be similar to how, despite being mislabeled and smeared as a loony liberal who was too angry, Dean was able to get his message out simply by speaking during the primaries? Didn't work out that way for him, did it? The media, if they wish, can easily report on the spin rather than on the fact. In this case, the spin would have been "Kerry is a sore loser" and everything important about voter fraud would be tossed in order to find everything and anything to pump that script.

Making Kerry the main mover and shaker behind the debate just leaves us open for a broadside and a perfect frame to dismiss all electoral fruad, and we don't need to expose ourselves to make progress. Boxer and some other prominent Democrats, in conjunction with the disassociation from overturning anything, can give the Democrats enough room to move around in without Kerry clouding things. Now that it's clear the Republicans' attempted frame is a fraud, let's see what our party can do.

[CTLawGuy]

35. he did get his message out

and it resonated with a lot of people, however, those people also decided that Dean wasn't "electable" enough, and they didn't want to take the "risk" of running a strong candidate, preferring the cautious candidate.

It's not that they DIDN'T like the message, its that they perceived him as too much of a risk. Wrongly, I might add.

If we weren't running against someone as despised as Bush, Dean might very well have won the nomination.


Regarding Kerry and his role in the debate, we can't worry about what the Republicans will call us, we have to have our leaders step up for us when it might help. The Repugs sure don't care what we think. Kerry is seen as a leader, and his leadership might have helped on Nov. 3rd or Jan. 6th, when the media might have cared what he had to say.

He doesn't need to say he really won and that Bush "stole it". I don't believe that myself. He needs to ask why so many voters were treated unfairly, and why the machines added extra votes for certain candidates. He can make it clear its not about him, but about having a fair election system.

his actions come across to a lot of people as cowardice. Afraid that the Republicans will call him names, he keeps his mouth shut, but also afraid the base will be angry at him, he waits three weeks and puts out a statement which will not get widespread airtime. He's trying to have it both ways.

[jpgray]

40. Another myth--"The Repugs sure don't care what we think."

The caricature of Dems as utterly spineless and Republicans as doing whatever they want is used by some here to try and effect change in the party. But it's still a caricature. They do fear Democratic reprisals and the political winds. They care very much about it. That is why you won't see them rushing to overturn Roe v Wade, or why you won't hear much about gay marriage until the next electoral struggle. When Bush cowered under his desk afraid to support the sunset of the AWB because the ban was so popular, yet at the same time unable to fight for the ban because he is in the pocket of the gun lobby, he engaged in the same weak, middling, strategic pandering that the Democrats do time and again. Same thing with the 9/11 committee's creation, and the various concessions he gave as to testimonies--blatant caves to political pressure. These moves were not reported as cowardice or flip flops, whereas Kerry's much more sensible votes were described as flip-flopping and pandering. So where does that perception of a fundamental difference begin? With the media, and with posts like yours. The Democrats are less on-message and have less skill and capital with the media, but on the whole we behave the same vague, pandering ways as the Republicans.

"He can make it clear its not about him, but about having a fair election system."

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, his quoted "global test" had a clear meaning totally outside any sort of international mandate. In fact it meant the opposite. But the press did not care.

As for Dean, do you agree that he was unelectable? Or were the grounds for that accusation mostly invented and spurious? If it's the latter, then we're straight back to the media easily disposing of someone despite their having a strong message.

Now, the problem with my argument is that there will always be a backspin from the other side that can hurt us. We have to decide when full bore "damn the torpedoes" time has come on an issue--I'm not convinced its time has come for voting fraud. There are some torps in there that can cause mortal damage. If we lose a bunch of ground while we feel good hearing nice words I'm not going to be happy. If we make no progress because we're too scared of being dubbed poor losers I won't be happy either. Right now I think, especially with the objection, that we're moving in the right direction.

[blm]

33. And if he does have Congress investigate further, will you admit you were

wrong?

[CTLawGuy]

36. yes,

in the minisicule likelihood that Kerry's statement causes an official congressional investigation with the blessing of the Republican majority, I will admit I was wrong. Absolutely.

[TankLV]

30. Sure is! The original poster!

Thanks for slurring a whole bunch of persons who are fighting on YOUR side by calling them idiots.

Way to win friends and influence people.

I will ignore this thread.

[T Town Jake]

32. I entirely agree...

...well stated, and quite right. :thumbsup:

[Throd]

38. You nailed it!

The Democrats will continue to stagnate so long as a large percentage of its members continue to scream at the past and base their future decisions through the stinky prism of anger.

[txaslftist]

39. Theres idiocy on every thread...

Also strongly held beliefs, logically based.

The democratic party is experiencing a tremendous battle between idealism and pragmatism. If the pragmatists totally win, we sacrifice ideals. If the idealists totally win, we sacrifice power.

The only idiocy I keep seeing is a lack of respect for others and a disparaging stereotyping of fellow democrats. That and despair threads.

Despair is probably the biggest idiocy of all. I mean, Criminy. We've all got computers and free time to write on them. It's not like we are in jail.