No More Namecalling

[whometense]

I agree that Feingold's actions are consistent with who he is as a politician. I believe the same can be said with equal truth about Kerry's actions, Kennedy's, Boxer's, Durbin's, and even Lieberman's. What I do take serious issue with, though, is the implication that the other dems are not signing on to Feingold's proposal out of fear. I just don't believe that is the reason, not for an instant. Where is the evidence? Dana Milbank's editorializing? Please.

Were the other dems afraid to sign on to Kerry's Alito filibuster? Was Feingold afraid to filibuster Alito himself? Was he afraid to vote against Roberts? I don't believe so. There are any number of strategic calculations a politician has to enter into before taking a given action. It's part of their job. Feingold makes his personal calculations just as the rest do. It's arguable whose public positions have been the most consistently courageous, but I don't really want to discuss that here.

My point is that democrats are calling democrats cowards for no good reason except their own frustration with Bush administration policies. How about zinging the policies instead?

Here's what I propose to do about it. The next time I come across a post about democrats that contains the words "spineless" "coward" "gutless" "weak" or any other such term, I will immediately stop reading. I'll take that site off my bookmark list. If I come across them on Kos, I will rate that comment down and explain why. On DU I will put that person on ignore and explain why.

My venom is reserved for those who truly deserve it. Those monsters who betray the public trust at every turn.

Is anyone else with me?

[boobooday]

1. So they're not afraid. I'm okay with that.

But somehow "strategically calculating" doesn't make me feel any better.

[whometense]

3. They

are politicians. Why should they be barred from acting and thinking like politicians? If they're bad representatives they shouldn't be re-elected. But I'm not going to jump all over a politician for thinking like a politician.

[boobooday]

8. So they were born that way? Strategically calculating?

Or is that just how our government is working right now?

Why should one have to "strategically calculate" when to stand up for what is right? What sort of calculations are being made? If you are implying that they are conceding on some issues to win on others, I would like to know of an example where this has been successful.

[whometense]

9. That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm merely saying that a politician may have his or her own reasons for wholeheartedly embracing one proposal while acting coolly towards another.

There's a world of subtlety in the political world that we often refuse to acknowledge. Maybe the proposal isn't written well. Maybe it includes language a person feels is inappropriate. Maybe it is in conflict with something else that congressperson is working on. What gives anyone here the impression that congress is there to respond instantaneously (and positively) to whatever DU requires? The world of DC contains a great deal more complexity than is usually acknowledged here. Or on Kos.

We have the right to ask that a certain politician act in a certain way, just as they have the right to use their own judgement and experience to decide if that ifs the path they wish to follow for the good of their state and their country. I'm sick of people making the assumption that every single pol, dem or repub, is evil and unprincipled (excepting the flavor of the month, whoever it happens to be) and needs to be instructed how to behave.

[Terre]

14. I'm not sure I agree

I'm still mulling over your sentiment, but I'll start with what keeps coming to the forefront of my brain, and using only ONE point:

Bush broke the law. Period.

If Censure isn't the minimum that's called, or worth fighting for, I don't know what the heck is.

I don't claim to know why any of our Dem officials haven't gotten on board with Feingold, and frankly I don't care what their ulterior motives are for not doing so, whether it's for "good" reasons or "bad". I elect my Senators to work for me, to defend the Constitution, and our rights.

If they can't stand up for a position (popular or not) or to defend this nation, what the heck are they doing in office?

[blm]

13. Feingold isn't strategically calculating when he sells censure to press

by offering it as a moderate alternative to impeachment because impeaching Bush would be wrong during a time of war?

[sendero]

48. Look....

.... you might feel like you are making some great point over an offhand comment Feingold made. Do you honestly think that Feingold believes that if Censure is accomplished that Impeachment is now off the table.

Of course he doens't think that, why do you keep acting like he does? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

49. Russ is working hard to prove he's NOT a politician

He's a dedicated public servent doing his job and we should help him.

Here's a diagram of the Republican Party...
maybe it will help Russ

[karynnj]

6. Did you question Feingold in the examples given?

[baby_mouse]

2. Forkmove

Do both. Limit the criticism of Dems to a "poor performance" frame. The language aimed at them is too strong, certainly, but they must perform correctly or there is less of a chance of success, not more.

The big tent is certainly big enough for some hard stares and frank exchanges of views. Actual scuffles, of course, do not help.

If the upper Dems were more willing to actually *exchange* their frank views, resolution might be achieved more quickly, a'course...

[whometense]

4. I'm sorry, but

"perform correctly"?

Who's to be the arbiter of political "correctness"?

[baby_mouse]

45. You.

And me. It takes a while, but consensus can be reached...

Okay, "correct" is a little extreme...

Some positions are correct. Some aren't. It's too easy to get caught up in relativism.

I just think one has to be careful how much one compromises. The dems could probably win by a massive landslide if they simply tacked on a gay marriage ban to their policies.

That would be incorrect.

[MH1]

7. "less chance of success"

seems to me, is more likely to follow on successfully convincing the American public that Democrats are "poor performers". I thought that was the Republicans' job???

MORE chance of success would come from convincing the American public how much better off they will be with Democrats - which must mean that Democrats are relatively speaking, "good performers."

Ooops, I was thinking of TEAM success - that is the party as a whole. Perhaps someone else is thinking of individual success, which may possibly be enhanced by painting one's teammates as "poor performers"?

[baby_mouse]

46. Woah!

I'm not a republican!

The spin of "poor performance" wrought by the pubs is easier if it's TRUE, that's all. I didn't say they were actually performing poorly ATM, in fact I'm hearing more and more dems voices making more and more sense, I just think one should leave oneself the freedom to criticise one's own party as well as the opposition. After all, they are politicians.

[MH1]

58. Oh, didn't mean to imply you were!

Sorry if my post gave that impression!

I think Dems should be careful of blanket criticisms of the whole party. My last paragraph was referring to, for example, Feingold's bullshit declaration that other Dems were "cowering". He is certainly not alone in making those types of statements (I'm only mentioning that because it is recent and got a lot of play), and I'm just saying it feeds into the noise machine in a way that is bad for electing more Democrats. That doesn't mean that I think criticism of specific positions shouldn't be allowed at all - just make it very specific. None of this broad-brush stuff. That's all.

[baby_mouse]

69. Yes, I agree, and can't refute the suggestions elsewhere on this board

...that there's too much shouting at Dems from the left.

A lot of the Dems apparent spinelessness is the media's fault, but then over here in the UK the media usually focusses pretty heaily on whoever's in power and I wonder if the same thing applies in the States. During the height of "New Labour"'s power cycle you wouldn't have known the Conservative party existed. I think some of the ignoring of Dems over there is bound by the same rules, it's not active partisanship as such that silences them, more that the actions of an administration actually *in power* always make better news, if you see what I mean. It's kind of a conscience versus ego thing, I think. Newsrooms have to present things that people can identify with and it's always easier to put out stories about the party that runs the country, no matter which side, as it feels kind of *more directly applicable* to the citizen, even if the administration's fucking things up. I think the pubs were probably just as frustrated during Bill's tenure.

Certainly it's going to be difficult to convince undecided's (although who *they* are or what they're thinking these days is likely to be a hot topic on this board) to vote for a divided camp.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. I'm with you.

Expect to be flamed by those who think DU's rather liberal trolling policies entitle them to do nothing but tear down the Democratic party, however. :eyes:

I fail to see how calling Democrats "cowards," "spineless" or saying they have "no balls" is any more mature, less ignorant, or more enlightened than Freepers who screech and gibber over moonbats and Commies and pussies and queers, or whatever epithets they've invented for those they perceive as RINOs.

Answer: it's not, and if you're a DUer who frequently engages in such namecalling, please be advised that you look like an ignorant, belligerent ass.

[MasonJar]

10. I totally agree. What is accomplished by doing the Pugs' job?

I support all dems in their individual efforts to get rid of the forces (pug) destroying our world for personal gain, robbing our treasury for their rich constituents, ignoring the plight of American and world poverty, and all the other inhumane acts of this pathetic and criminal administration. Leave the dems alone. Go after the real dangerous cretins..."morans."

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. But what is accomplished by pretending that Dems are doing their jobs?

I know that sounds harsh, but we belong to the opposition party, and it's long past time for our guys to get on the damn bus and start acting the part.

I want our guys (and gals) to straighten out. I want their guys to retire.

When you employ a worker who does well, you praise them. When you employ a worker who is marginal but redeemable, you coach them. When you employ a worker who is irredeemable you document what is necessary to get them gone.

Consider the Lieberman treatment as "coaching". Pull your head out of your ass Joe, don't be the first guy to jump up to applaud the failing president at his SOTU speech - it sends mixed messages and makes you look stupid.

[BootinUp]

11. Yes!

Together we will beat back the spine meme!. :)

I hope to unveil a DU Journal about this in a week or two, I will focus on debunking some of the arguments used to call our elected Dems spineless.

[whometense]

18. That's great!!

I can't wait to read it. :-)

[blm]

12. There's even more to it - it's based mostly on LIES from the mediaspinners

They went after a storyline on censure to promote discord in the Dem party so they could ignore the ISSUE OF CENSURE and Bush's illegal activities and all the Dems who support the investigation of NSA spying and will censure after debating it in committee - just as Feingold wanted.

There less than a handful of Dems who don't want to pursue censure and media found them all but refuse to note that MOST Dems are in favor of investigating NSA spying and censure after debating the evidence.

What sucks is that so many left blogs and pundits are too obtuse to GET that they're siding with the GOPs who want to pressure senators to declare theimself on censure right away to avoid investigation of NSA spyng.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. Agreed - maybe we can get some unity going - worth a try. nt

[NativeTexan]

16. EVERY POLITICIAN uses political strategy and that includes...

...priority setting for THEIR own re-election AND timing for the biggest impact!

I think the "others" are more concerned, rightly or wrongly, about the timing of Feingold's move. I know that I AM ALL FOR IT, as well as IMPEACHMENT. I am just not sure about the timing.....but I have waffled on this fence more than once, so don't listen to me....LOL

[bvar22]

24. Not True.

"EVERY POLITICIAN uses political strategy and that includes priority setting for THEIR own re-election AND timing for the biggest impact!"

Not true. Our very best Democratic represenatives have been the ones who gave priority to Doing the Right Thing regardless of how it affected their re-election or timing.
EG. Paul Wellstone and his vote against the IRW.

[NativeTexan]

25. Inarguably.....but THAT is THEIR....

...priority. I did not say that ALL political priorities are bad!

[rman]

32. well, you did say "EVERY"

but what the heck.

You're carefull to phrase the things you say so that they are literally true, just misleading. (as Krugman would say).
Or maybe you mean well but kinda screwed up.

[NativeTexan]

44. I used "every" because every one of them DOES have priorities......

....some for good, some for evil. Wasn't meant to be misleading or otherwise.

[rman]

31. Their re-election supposedly depends on the voters

(if this is a real democracy)
If it does then they should cater to the voters, not to whatever it is they try yo have the biggest impact on. If they are trying to have the biggest impact on the voters in trying to get elected, then why do something that the voters don't like?
If the way for them to get re-elected is to cater to interests other then those of the voters, then this is not a real democracy.

[The Magistrate]

35. An Interesting Point, Sir

The problem with it is that a great many voters may well like something you do not, and so whether or not a politician is pleasing you may not suffice to demonstrate he or she is or is not pleasing a majority of the electorate.

[whometense]

47. Indeed.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

[sendero]

50. On the other hand...

... with Bush**'s polling numbers, the war's polling numbers, etc - one could make the case that the voters are waiting for the Democrats to take a stand. I certainly don't believe that Democrats (except for a handful of states) in the Senate would be taking some huge political risk by standing up to Bush**, and one could also argue that occasionally even a politician has to take a stand and do something just because it is good for the country. Said politician's job description includes being able to convince his/her constituents of the correctness of their actions.

[The Magistrate]

62. That Is Certainly Possible, Sir

Bold action can pay unexpected dividends at times, and this does have the look of one of those occassions to me.

You are certainly correct that one of the requiremrnts for leadership is the ability to bring people along to support of your views, and that doing so is a leader's duty.

[rman]

73. Non-action to can pay dividends

It's not like not-acting has no effect - it facilitates those who do act.

[The Magistrate]

77. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

A sensible reply could not be made without some clarification of it.

[rman]

72. Practically nobody likes privatization of social services

Polls show that a clear majority is in favor of "nationalized" healthcare; affordable healthcare for everyone funded by means of taxes.

Yet privatization is largely supported by both parties and has been increasingly implemented over the past decades, with all the negative effects for many to experience in their daily lives.

I consider an issue such as abortion mostly an artificial wedge issue created by the RW noise machine and perpetuated by the MSM.

[The Magistrate]

76. They Say They Like It, Sir

And then balk at the cost in terms of taxes, and recall a deeply ingrained belief the government's ability to service needs is best exemplified by the lines at D.M.V. station. It is not clear, therefore that they really want it, as opposed to make a pious noise at something that has a nice ring to it in the abstract. One of the things that makes a good practical politician is an appreciation of the difference between that and a genuine demand for action....

[wiley]

17. I'm down with that

People often confuse passion with anger. Direct it to the gutter. You'll hide a repuke lying there.

[ginnyinWI]

19. well said, whome!

Recommended #5!

Anyone who is so smart that they can make a snap judgement about the motivations of anyone else had better just get out there and run for office and see how easy it is. Espress opinions about policy, yes. Rush to judgement, no.

[sandnsea]

20. 100%

I really like Howard's new program and that is what we need to focus on, it's known as changing what you can.

And I'm back into blogging about what needs to change and who is working to change it.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

Enough is enough of the Bushit, and the Dem negativity too.

[Mass]

21. I agree. We need to fight against the Repugs, not among ourselves.\nt

[babylonsister]

22. I'm with you-great post, whometense! nt

[TayTay]

23. I agree. This is great.

I hae only a limited amount of political venom that I can spew in a given day. I tend to spew it all at the no-good bastards in the Rethug Party who are actively trying to destroy this country.

I am not going to go after Dems. They are, for the most part, fighting the good fight for us.

[Blaukraut]

26. agreed, whome

Lets not make the repugs' job easier than it needs to be. They and the media (I know, same thing) have been hard at work spreading the new talking points; 'The Dem party is fractured. They can't even unite towards a single goal, they have no coherent message'. I guess some Dems have taken it upon themselves to make it true. Count me out!
As Tay said above; there is only so much energy for anger in a day; I'm directing mine towards the rethugs.

[pacalo]

27. Yes!

[wisteria]

28. I 'm with you! I will not acknowledge any post that calls out other

Dem's and refers to them as gutless, spineless, afraid, weak or coward. Maybe they will actually go away and we can focus on those who really are responsible for screwing up this country.

[rucky]

29. Voting records don't lie.

and if you can't judge them on that, what should you judge them on?

and if they won't give clear & reasonable explanations for their votes, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt?

[tatertop]

52. You have found the rub!

We need to write a platform (we have none)
as iron clad as the republicans' and we need to
vote that platform in lock step.
I am not sure if you have noticed but we have
lost virtually every battle.
That will not win the war.
We are losing grip and it feels like we are losing steam.
This is no time for parlor politics.

[BootinUp]

96. LOL.

I find this to be a very naive view of politics.

[rman]

30. Fear, self-interest

whatever.

At this time in history they are proving themselves near useless to us. We're pretty much on our own - which will hopefully cause us to turn to each other (as opposed to turn on each other).

[whometense]

34. There's a world of difference between

making angry demands and trying to understand the finer points of what people in congress (the democratic ones, anyway) are trying to do.

I was not talking about self-interest. I was talking about the ways in which congresspeople have to negotiate to get what they feel is the best deal they can for the people they serve. Negotiation is in fact what congress is historically all about.

A lot of the time the tone on DU resembles that of a mob. Some days are tar-and-feather days and some days are genuflect-in-front-of-a-superior-being days, but the place is often truly schizophrenic. Give me a reasoned, experienced pol who is operating in a calm and thoughtful way any day over the rule of the mob, or rule by emotional outburst.

I just don't believe that screaming at elected representatives who are people of integrity and calling them names is any way to build a relationship with them, or to bring about meaningful change. I count on that list a lot of people who at various times have been called out as spineless cowards on DU, because for one reason or another they displeased the mob. It's just possible that Russ Feingold AND John Kerry AND Dick Durbin AND Barbara Boxer (etc) are all good people who are trying to do their best for us in their own ways. We can honor all of them at the same time, while accepting that they will have their differences along the way.

[Usrename]

36. I am not so sure that you have thought this through.

People are waking up to the fact that they are being played by their own party. There isn't much point in having a discussion about it. They will not go back to sleep.

There are shared goals among the political leaders of this nation. Those goals transcend party loyalties. Those goals are not the same as the goals of the people.

They are messing it up for everybody. The world is watching. This is not a drill.

[The Magistrate]

37. To Be Perfectly Clear, Sir

Are you in fact stating that the goals of the leaders of the Democratic Party are identical with the goals of the leaders of the Republican Party?

[Usrename]

38. yes

[The Magistrate]

39. And On What Do You Base That, Sir?

[Usrename]

40. These two pieces to start. They share the same theme.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=735395&mesg_id=735395

This is more detailed. Quite lengthy. Both parties answer to the same masters. All of the levers of power are being grabbed at.

http://home.att.net/~resurgence/L-overclass.html

But in any event, this race to tyranny is nothing that has not happened before.

[The Magistrate]

41. So You Are Of The Opinion, Sir

That it makes no difference who one votes for? Or at least, whether one votes for a Democrat or a Republican?

[Usrename]

42. I think it makes more difference what you vote for than who.

This is not about abortion, or gay marriage, or even Christianity in the larger sense. It is about fascism and tyranny. Those that try to divide us on those issues are my enemy. This fight will be over what has always been the greatest injustice.

Most likely it will not be chattel slavery, but it will be slavery just the same, that is why there is such a huge drive for apartheid. A sub-human species of mankind is being created as we chat. You know, the ones who are not human and are not born with the same rights that we hold dear.

The rank and file of either party cannot stop this alone. We don't have a choice. Open your eyes. Lieberman is being strongly backed by our own party. Our party leadership loves him, and have no complaints. He's right on the abortion, gay, and (because of his faith) the Christian issues so shut up and vote for him. But if he were President right now, what policy would change? He's loves this war and the rest of the crimes. Loves em, I say. So, no, this is no longer a partisan fight.

<edit> typos and syntax

[The Magistrate]

43. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

Are you stating people should vote only on referendums, and not for candidates? Because that is about the only practical import your words could carry.

It would seem, from your first paragraph, that you consider, say, persons who support a woman's right to choose an abortion equally your enemy with the anti-abortion promotors of the religious right: both, after all, could be accused of "dividing us", and whoever does that you say is your enemy.

[Usrename]

90. I wish to stand together with all my brothers and sisters,

against the oppressors that will take away our liberties if we let them. The OP is only seeing the illusion.

The republicans are no more responsible for the current landscape than we are. We, the rank and file of both parties, can share the blame equally, there is more than enough to go around.

The "Bush policies" are also our Democratic leaders policies. That should be apparent to everyone that is paying attention.

"70% of the people in this country support return of the government back to the people, rebuilding and maintenance of the public infrastructure for the benefit of all, rights and protections for workers, land use planning and protection of the natural world, equal opportunity and protection under the law for all citizens, and have no interest in harassing their neighbors because of their race, gender, religion, gender preference or for any other reason." - mberst

I believe that statement; and so it follows that, I have nothing to fear from the people. The danger lies in a completely different direction. Right now, I believe that 70% of the people stand against Bush and his policies. So how can those same policies still be relevant and dominant? Because the leadership of both "sides" are standing against us. Dividing us. Granted, this requires cooperation and the most effective propaganda machine that the world has ever seen, which is being tested to its limits.

The more people that see this and truly understand it, the harder that it will be to keep a lid on it.

[The Magistrate]

92. All Very Stirring, Sir

But a rousing chorus from the old hymns does not actually answer the specific question, which was this: It would seem, from your first paragraph, that you consider, say, persons who support a woman's right to choose an abortion equally your enemy with the anti-abortion promotors of the religious right: both, after all, could be accused of "dividing us", and whoever does that you say is your enemy.

There is an odd quality to the position you set out, and it took some while to put my finger to it. You say that seventy percent of the people are united in feeling exactly the same as you, and then you say they are divided, and that if enough realized it, the jig would be up, somehow. Which is it, Sir? If seventy percent are united, then to state they are divided later is nonesense; if seventy percent share some conciousness, how many more must before it is enough?

It does not seem to me remotely accurate to assert that seventy percent of the people are united in desiring the utopian goals, and ideals of behavior you claim. Most people who say they want government "returned" to the people also imagine the people as a whole think just like them, so what they are really saying is they want the government in the hands of "people like me". Similarly, people do not want the expenditure of public funds to benefit all; they want it to benefit themselves, and begrudge what benefits others. The slice that wants pure preservation is very small; most think natural resources should be exploited in ways that both benefit, and do not inconvenience, themselves. Harrassing neighbors on a variety of pretexts has been the principal sport of humankind throughout its existance, and there is not the least shred of reason to suppose that interest has lapsed in the present day.

[Usrename]

97. Because seventy percent of the people don't give a damn.

They don't care what you or I think about abortion.

Only the party leadership does. They want to engage the 30% that are rabid opponents over that issue. Why?

Because it serves another purpose. Think about what can really effect change on that issue. The courts?

Our own leadership helps to divide us to serve another purpose, or do you think they really care about abortion?

Alito - 41 votes needed to stop him - 42 think he should not be a judge - there he sits.

Why not just face the most obvious issues?

Treason, Bribery, other High Crimes

[rman]

70. "finer points"? Corruption i say. nt

[Rebelry]

33. Thank you - well said.

[sendero]

51. Not really...

... first of all, I've never sent an angry letter to a politician. Why? Because I'm well aware of the futility of such an action.

However, I feel justified in being critical of the Democratic senate, and until I'm booted off the board I will continue to be. I will admit that my initial unhappiness over the Censure mess may have been unfair, that the process underway might be actually leading to a good result.

That said, the senate has fallen down on the job so many times now, it is hard to believe they are really seriously interested in doing anything to stop the historical excesses of the Bush** administration.

After being built up to be let down over, and over, and over again, they are like a friend who has borrowed money from me 5 times and now I'm just not playing any more. Saying that "well, they are better than the Republicans" is not helpful. The margin is too small to be useful. At this point, one wonders if just giving the Repugs enough rope to hang themselves to thoroughly that the electorate is done with them for decades isn't a bad strategy. One could make the argument that they are already almost there, certainly the Dems in congress have been no obstacle so maybe that was the plan all along :)

Personally, I believe the Dems are playing with fire. If they want to win in 2006 they'd better do something different. The Anything But Republicans vote is not to be relied on to carry the day. It is not merely a media construct that Dems as a whole do not have a message, do not have a real alternative, and they have only a few months to correct that.

[whometense]

56. I can certainly understand your

frustration and the feeling of having been "played."

I also have to keep in mind that my two senators (Kerry and Kennedy) have given me far less reason to feel that way than most. If I lived in, say, Kansas, or (ack) Oklahoma, it would be a lot harder to take the position I have.

It just causes me actual pain to hear these words flung about in a kneejerk way, in blanket statements. Not all senators are created equal, and they shouldn't be lumped together like that. There are plenty of democratic senators who are as frustrated and stymied as we are, who are trying to do right, and who, for their efforts, are labeled "spineless jellyfish". That's just not right.

[sendero]

60. I really doubt..

... that insults tossed around here really cut many politicians to the quick.

Fact is, every organization of people, a business, a party, a team of scientists, needs internal self-criticism. I've seen more companies fail because they ignored internal criticism than I have that were brought down by it.

As far as I'm concerned, Democrats who really are Democrats have every reason to be utterly and dismally dissapointed in the performance of this Senate.

[whometense]

61. I'm not really worried about

hurt feelings. More concerned about hurt causes.

And my issue stands - all democrats are not the same.

Democrats who are really democrats are - guaranteed - bitterly disappointed in what's going on right now in the senate. How does it help to lump them in with the appeasers?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[whometense]

75. give me a break.

I never said a single word about not criticizing appeasers.

I just said we should not be making blanket statements that democrats are spineless. If you can't see the difference between those two positions I don't know what else I can say to get it across.

The post was titled NO MORE NAMECALLING. It was not titled No More Criticizing. Sheesh.

[Pithy Cherub]

83. those appeasers were spineless.

[Efilroft Sul]

53. If the Democrats did wrong by us, they deserve no break.

Were they with us on blocking Alito? Remember the energy we all spent calling Democratic senators and how few took our position? Yeah, they treated the grassroots and the netroots seriously -- not.

Are they with us regarding the protection of civil liberties, specifically what's been done with the Patriot Act and Bush's warrantless domestic spying? So far, only Feingold really is.

How many Democrats sided with Americans legitimately falling into bankruptcy? Certainly not the Joe Bidens of our party.

Do they regret their vote enabling Bush to invade Iraq? I've only heard Murtha call his vote a mistake.

While we need to take down the monstrous machine made of right-wing neocons, Democrats are not above criticism. Many have enabled the Bush administration's eeevil policies. And if a Democrat can't take a stand for the people, the Constitution, and what's right, then he or she has got to be replaced by another Democrat who will. Period.

While I understand the original poster's opinion that namecalling can be beneath us, not calling a Democrat spineless when he or she really is an invertebrate gives him or her a free pass to be a self-serving politician instead of a public-serving Democrat.

Sometimes a jellyfish is a jellyfish. And we shouldn't be afraid to say it.

[whometense]

54. Yeah, well, no.

Sometimes a jellyfish is a jellyfish. And we shouldn't be afraid to say it.

There's that word again. I'm not afraid. I don't think anyone here is, either. Afraid?? Give me a break.

I see namecalling as a form of temper tantrum. It's unenlightening, juvenile, and thoughtless.

And that's all I'm saying. If we're going to criticize democrats, we ought to do it in a mature and constructive manner. Namecalling is beneath us, or it damn well ought to be. Someone calls me a name, and I'm no longer listening to what they have to say. Why should a politician react any differently?

[Efilroft Sul]

66. Here's what you assume:

You assume that a politician who does wrong by us will actually listen to you if you address him or her in a mature and constructive manner. The fact is, Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden won't listen to you regardless how respectfully you address them. Such politicians are far removed from our concerns. They don't care what they're called as long as the money keeps flowing their way and they stay ensconced in power.

Here's the distinction: Real Democrats listen to your concerns and are responsive. They stand for the people and the Constitution. And even if they respectfully disagree with you (respect flows both ways, especially since we are their bosses), positive dialog has been opened.

As for being afraid, I don't think anyone here is afraid to criticize politicians. Heck, it happens a jillion times a day on DU. But there is a certain chilling effect when you say you're going to completely ignore someone who hurls a name at a Democrat. Maybe said person doesn't have the literary skills of Will Pitt to eloquently express himself or herself, but a valuable point might have been made. You can't completely close your mind to the crux of ideas just because someone who's frustrated and who has no other outlet gave hell to the home team. (Well, you can, but that's your choice.)

[whometense]

57. Well,

Were they with us on blocking Alito?

Yes, some were. Why do they deserve the label "jellyfish"?

[Efilroft Sul]

68. The Democrats who stood with us against Alito weren't jellyfish.

On the other hand, most Democrats who wrote off our concerns about Alito aren't going to be featured in the sequel to "Profiles in Courage."

[Pithy Cherub]

65. Agreed.

[LSK]

55. i dont need Dana Milbank to tell me what I already know

Yes, some Democrats are fucking afraid of the I-word and the L-word.

IMPEACH

LIAR

FUCKING USE THEM ALREADY DEMOCRATS.

[CBHagman]

59. I'm with you that we shouldn't spend our energy...

...attacking members of our own party. We have to be as clear as possible, as united as possible, and picking up (NOT discarding) allies as rapidly as possible in order to succeed at getting elected and at making policy/wielding influence.

[AtomicKitten]

63. I'm with you.

And kudos to you for trying to elevate the discourse.

[whometense]

74. Thank you for the encouragement.

Right before I read your post I was thinking, "why bother? people just hear what they want to hear."

So, thank you.

[AtomicKitten]

78. no, thank you.

I believe most DU'ers have a good heart and good intentions, but sometimes get shouted down by the faux anarchists who haven't a clue what democracy is all about (compromise).

You have set a standard I believe many support and are only too glad to get behind.

Forward. :)

[paulk]

67. Reagan's eleventh commandment

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican"

Maybe that had something to do with the Republican's success these last thirty years?

There are a lot of voters out there who could give a fig about policy issues - they vote from baser instincts -
things like strength and weakness - they see the Republican party standing united (strong) - they see the Democrats constantly bickering and biting each other's backs (weak)....

[espera17]

79. Election Website

For updated coverage of House, Senate, and Governor elections check out http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com . I recently stumbled upon the site and found it quite interesting and it has a wealth of information.

[radio4progressives]

80. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to disagree with the premise

entirely and in it's totality.

[leanin_green]

94. Another closed mind enters the ranks of the unenlightened.

Name calling is just, so, well, icky, ya know?

[lwcon]

81. I agree with your sentiment but not your purity test

Maybe this means "set me to ignore," but I'm from the party of ideas and nuance, dammit, and I don't think we should give those up.

Here's where I agree with you: We Dems, being idealists, sometimes cause friendly fire, which puts us at a disadvantage against the "Code of Silence" Rethugs. We should be very thoughtful about how we talk about the party. I agree we shouldn't be pointing up and down our ranks and yelling "coward." We should be damn proud of the differences we have with the party that is running this country straight into oblivion as fast as it can. Every one of us should watch "Life of Brian," then look ourselves in the mirror and pledge not to be like the bickering Judean People's Front and People's Front of Judea.

Here's where I don't agree with you: When a Joe Lieberman becomes the butt-boy for Bush and says that raped women should be able to tour around until they find a hospital that will help them, he shouldn't be beyond reproach just because there's a donkey on his business card. Ned Lamont is challenging him for that seat, and let's hear him out, instead of closing ranks around an incumbent who jumped the shark and landed on the elephant.

We need to be loud, strong, and supportive, but we don't need to be Fascists. Our honesty is one of our most important qualities, and if it makes us a bit messy sometimes, it also is what makes us the party of true American heroes like Russ Feingold -- the kind of person we should rally around.

Speaking of Kos, isn't his new book supposed to be a wake-up call to the Dems to make them more attuned to the true Left? Does that mean you're going to flip the bozo bit on him, too?

I know we're burdened with being the party of "nuance," but it's "Revenge of the Nerds" time. The American people are ready to hear how smart, competent people who actually practice what Jesus preached can lead them out of the miasma that the Repugs have dug us into.

We can be true to our school without resorting to Repug blind faith. It's a balancing act, but when we're on our game, we're good at that. And we're getting ready.

___


Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[whometense]

84. I still maintain

we can do all that without resorting to namecalling.

As for Kos, I'm not sure what you mean by "flip the bozo bit on him", but he's a primo name-caller, and I'm not one of his fans.

[lwcon]

85. Then perhaps we're closer to agreement than I thought

Again, I do appreciate your sentiment here. I just want to make sure we don't take "no namecalling" to mean we have to lobotomize away our critical faculties, the way a Mr. McCain seems to have done on the other side.

"Flip the bozo bit" = decide that someone is officially not worth listening to.

Just curious, who would be your favorite bloggers?


Thanks,
Vast Left

___


Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[whometense]

88. hmmm...

My favorite bloggers. That's a fun question. I really like Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report) - he's my morning newspaper. I like Liberal Oasis. I love Shaun at Upper Left, and I have two favorite Boston blogs that I read every day (The Chimes at Midnight and 201K.com). I've enjoyed firedoglake's Patrick Fitzgerald coverage. I subscribe to Salon, and read Joe Conason, Peter Daou, and Tim Grieve there. Love the Rude Pundit, esp. when I'm angry. And James Wolcott.

There are a lot of others I check in on regularly, just not every day.

Which ones do you read?

[lwcon]

89. Thanks, you've named a few I don't frequent yet

I'll check 'em out.

For longform, I like firedoglake (especially Jane Hamsher -- she just keeps cranking out insightful, well-written stuff) and digby's hullabaloo. For quick hits, I like The Sideshow and Atrios/Eschaton. Other good sites are Shakespeare's Sister, World O'Crap, and Sadly, No!

My own site is primarily short-form, with a dose of gallows humor. I am working on a couple of longer pieces, but I mostly want the site to be a quick read.

___


Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[whometense]

91. I like your blog -

I'm a fan of gallows humor, actually. And how could I have forgotten to mention Digby? I love his writing.

If you'd like you can check out my blog, ToughEnough.org, which I co-write. I try to keep my posts somewhat light (sometimes it's hard). The news is depressing enough.

[lwcon]

95. Ditto

Thanks, I've added you to my blogroll.

BTW, which Tough Enougher are you? If you'd rather take this offline (which we probably should since this seems to have narrowed down to a one-on-one), please contact me via the Profile link on my site.

___


Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[bmbmd]

82. A perfect example of Occam's Razor.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the most likely. They are, indeed, cowards, seeking only their own re-election.

[ncteechur]

87. AMEN!

[ncteechur]

86. EXCEPT---WHERE ARE THEY WHEN IT IS TIME TO DEFEND EACH OTHER????????

The fucking GOP defends this sorry excuse of a president all the time. Where are those who will stand up for Feingold even if they won't sign on to the censure even though they should.

Silence speaks volumes!!!!!!!!

[Vektor]

93. Amen, sister. Well said.

:hi: