What those who want progressives to shut up now don't get is this.

[Ken Burch]

If we DID what they wanted and kept silent for the first year or so, we'd have no ability to start up again after that. It'd be too late.

Everything any administration ever does is set in stone in its first year.

Centrism and hawkishness in the first year means centrism and hawkishness the whole way through.

And it goes without saying that a centrist, hawkish Obama administration would be doomed to political failure, since such an administration would be completely unable to maintain support.

We don't want the Obama Administration to fail.

We don't want Sarah Palin to beat Obama in 2012 by dredging up Reagan's "Misery Index"(which is what would certainly have to happen if centrist policies were used, (as Jimmy Carter's experience proves).

This is why progressives can't be silent.

We strongly believe that Barack Obama wants to be much more progressive than the last two Democratic presidents. It's clear that the American people are ready for a progressive administration(even if "bipartisan")and are ready to make the kind of innovative policy leaps our "insiders" are still terrified to think of.

We aren't the enemy.

There's nothing we stand for and nothing we're saying that can do the Obama Administration any harm.

Barack Obama doesn't want us shouted town.

If you don't like what progressives are saying, debate us on the merits of the issues. Don't just tell us to shut up. Silencing dissent can NEVER be the path to "change".

[MadBadger]

1. OK, but just how many threads are you gonna post about this tonight/morning?

[Ken Burch]

2. This will be the last one tonight.

I only started this one because of the abuse the others received.

I'm sorry, but the windfall tax thing and the all-nonprogressive cabinet are real concerns. There's a limit of what you can ask people to put up with. There've been no progressive announcements about anything since November 4th.

[Radical Activist]

14. That's such bullshit.

I don't see progressives being told to shut up. I do see people being told not to make ridiculous exaggerations like this one: "There've been no progressive announcements about anything since November 4th."
If you really believe that then you have no idea what's going on or you've been suckered by people who don't care about telling the truth.

[Ken Burch]

19. I said anything other than the stimulus package.

There weren't any others.

[Radical Activist]

28. I cut and paste what you wrote. Either way I disagree.

The appointment of Susan Rice to the cabinet, a liberal who opposed the Iraq War.

The appointment of a heavy weight like Tom Daschle to make health care really happen.

The New Deal style jobs program. Keeping his pledge to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

There's no sign that he's backing down from his liberal campaign goals about addressing climate change, the right to organize, closing Guantanamo, emphasizing diplomacy, and other progressive issues.

So I think there's plenty of progressive action happening if a person isn't looking for reasons to be disappointed.

[Skittles]

30. as many as he fucking wants

[smalll]

3. How the hell would today's "progressivism" beat the misery index?

Quit our wars, force Detroit to build hybrids, tax plastic bags, and make gay marriage a civil right -- I just don't see how that all would help the economy. :shrug:

"Let them eat arugula" is not a solution.

[Ken Burch]

5. And staying in the wars, letting Detroit go on building gas-guzzlers that will never sell again

and forbidding gays to marry WILL?

What magical ideas do you have instead?

[No Elephants]

66. You forgot the "sarcasm" icon.

[Occam Bandage]

4. What those who post bullshit like the OP don't get is this:

Telling you that your ideas are bad is not the same as silencing you. You do not have the right to be agreed with.

Telling you that your ideas are bad is not the same as telling you that progressives ideas are bad. You are not "progressives," you are a progressive.

Telling you that your tactics are irritating, transparent, and ineffective is not the same as censoring you. You are fallible, and claiming that you're going about your goal in the wrong way is not the same as telling you not to go about your goal.

None of that amounts to "censorship," or "hating progressives," or "wanting to silence the opposition."

And as for "debating on the issues?" That's what the majority of those threads are. I notice in tonight's spars, you've completely overlooked every mention of issues or political strategy to focus on inane rhetorical questions like "why do you hate progressives" and "why don't you see we have a valuable voice?"

[Ken Burch]

6. You haven't even actually made a case for why my "ideas are bad".

Why is speaking out for progressive policies and progressive appointments a bad idea?
Why is wanting to make sure that President Obama actually has the resources to implement "Change" by making sure the Bush tax cuts for the rich are repealed and the windfall profits tax is implemented a bad idea?

And what do you mean "my tactics are transparent". My tactics are simply in the service of the honorable goals of helping the Obama Administration succeed and working for a progressive Democratic Party and a progressive America. I have no hidden agenda. I'm not working for any anti-Democratic Party cabal, and you know it. I'm just me.

[Occam Bandage]

7. It's funny that you bring up the windfall tax thread.

I started by specifically talking about the windfall taxes, mentioning that the price of oil has halved since then, and that Obama plans record deficit spending short-term, so a short-term influx of cash would have absolutely no bearing on his plans.

You replied with "Are you going to unquestioning defend EVERY tack to the right," and babbled about Pakistan and Employee Free Choice and then declared that "centrism isn't change," all without countering a single point I had made. I'm getting the impression that you don't even have ideas to defend, since your replies are almost invariably lists of non-sequiturs and empty rhetorical questions.

As for your tactics? You chose not to reply to this (instead going for your traditional Post a Big List O' Random Issues reply), so I'll post it again: "The "working to keep him from being boxed in argument" is a sad, cynical one, in which you complain vociferously about things you know are trivial and unimportant, hoping that your endless intellectually-dishonest shrieking is rewarded with reflexive, non-merit-based moves in your political direction. It's a tactic of ideologically-bankrupt partisans, and is a cornerstone of the Endless Culture War strategy that Obama has denounced."

[Ken Burch]

9. What do you mean"things I KNOW are trivial and unimportant"?

What you refer to as "trivial and unimportant" has been every appointment and policy annoucement made during the transition. And nearly every one of those has been a swing to the right from the election. If it were one or two centrist-conservative results, that would be one thing, but, with the sole exception of the stimulus package, it's been all in one direction. And so far, all but the meaningless Cabinet posts have been filled(none of the remaining ones have any real influence over anything)and the whole foreign policy apparatus.


And why do you consider the passage of EFCA or the need to avoid bombing Pakistan as trivial?

Please tell me why ALL of the above simple doesn't matter? What still remains, after all of the above, that even matters?

He's pretty much covered everything by now.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Ken, if you're not going to act like an adult, there's no point in having a conversation.

I think there hasn't been a reply yet in which you have not asked why I hold opinions that I have never once held. If your goal is to simply frustrate me with inanity to the point where I give up, then congratulations, you win. If that is not your goal, but you rather find yourself mentally incapable of presenting ideas without implicitly demanding I disavow your wild speculations as to my beliefs, then I'm sorry, and hopefully you'll figure out how to talk to people you disagree with someday.

[Ken Burch]

17. You're the one who tells me that I KNOW I'm making a big deal about trivialities

What does that even mean?

How do you know what I know?

And who appointed you the official arbiter of triviality?

If what I've expressed concerns about is trivial, what, to you, ISN'T trivial? What, to you, WOULD be an unacceptable swing to the right? What would be YOUR "this far and no further" point?

You said I made assumptions about your views. Well, yes, I did. I took the opinions you've expressed here and simply extrapolated them to their logical conclusions.

If you've been fine with all the post-election "tacking" so far, why SHOULDN'T

I assume that you'd cheerfully go along with all further conservative swings?

Isn't it natural to assume that if you're ok with the sellouts at the start that you be ok with ALL the sellouts?

And, finally, what possible justification was there for further swings to the right AFTER the election? Why should that have been reserved exclusively for the campaign itself?

Don't it just embolden the right to send the message that the new administration won't go to the mat on anything?

[silverojo]

8. To answer your question

{div class=excerpt]Why is speaking out for progressive policies and progressive appointments a bad idea?

[Ken Burch]

10. Er...after all the announcements on policy and appointments.

Hasn't Obama basically covered all the issues at this point?

Is there anything he hasn't yet mentioned that still matters?

[Radical Activist]

15. Thank you.

You hit the nail on the head. Half the time I call people out for their exaggerations or doomsday fortune telling they act like I'm against progressives and trying to silence dissent. Bullshit. Arguing against stupid dissent isn't silencing dissent.

[BigBearJohn]

61. If you hadn't called the post bullshit, you're post would have been 3 x more effective IMHO.

You made some excellent points, but your need to call the OP's post "bullshit"
was uncalled for and unneeded, other than to give you a sense of self-satisfaction.

[cali]

11. What you don't get is you don't own the term Progressive

Not all progressives are on the same page with you. I am a progressive. Bernie Sanders is a progressive.

What you don't get is no one wants you to shut up.

What you don't get is that you don't have some holy right to be agreed with.

What you don't get is, well, legion.

Now enjoy your martyrdom and stop telling others who and who isn't a progressive and please stop the false bullshit about how people are trying to silence you.

[Ken Burch]

12. It's never been about "being on the same page" with just me

My ego has nothing to do with this.

I know I have no holy right to be agreed with, but I(and everyone else here)has a right to be able to make their case without just being insulted and told our concerns are "trivial".

And no one can be martyred on a discussion board, so it's absurb to imply that I feel martyrdom.

There are a lot of people in the party and on DU that share my views and my concerns. Repeatedly, they've been told to, basically, know their place.

So far, every appointment and every policy announcement(barring solely the stimulus package)has been something the DLC would've wanted.

This includes the announcements on all major areas of policy and every non-trivial Cabinet post.

If you want to see yourself as a progressive, cali, that's fine, but please tell me how it can be progressive to just "roll with it" as the center-right slowly takes over this administration?

Why SHOULD we just unquestioningly trust this and say nothing? Every major decision about the players and the policies has now been made. The discussion is nearly over.

[cali]

20. no. you truly don't have any right to be told your concerns aren't trivial

anymore than I have a right not to be told that Obama is being held hostage to DLC/centrist/right governing philosophies. You just don't. And neither do I. Where you got the idea that you should be able to dictate what other people say is beyond me. And people can and do act like martyrs on message boards.

There are a lot of progressives like me, who don't agree with you. We frequently get told we aren't real progressives and that we're evil DLCers.

I don't judge things by whether the DLC is happy or unhappy. Or whether YOU are unhappy or happy.

And here's how I call myself a progressive: I've worked for progressive candidates and causes for decades.

I believe that Obama has a greater chance to pass progressive legislation with a centrist cabinet- most of all I believe that by picking a cabinet of highly effective people with a shitload of expertise, he has increased his chances of passing legislation that will be progressive. I believe that much legislation isn't about progressive/non-progressive, but about good/bad. Furthermore, I realize that Obama did not run as a progressive.

Am I happy with every choice of personnel that he's made? Nope, I'm not. But I recognize that I voted for him, in part, to exercise his judgment. The discussion was nearly over when he was elected.

Speak to your heart's content. I support that. I just don't think you can see the forest for the trees.

[Ken Burch]

21. It would be enough to have it be predominately centrist.

There should at least have been a progressive at HHS. There should've been somebody who's actually seen poverty in there somewhere. Maybe someone who actually lived it.

And there needs to be at least one person at State somewhere who's actually had real connections with Third World people.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Nobody who's spent their adult life in nothing but comfort can get what this party's about. The only reason Bobby got it was that the pain of his brother's murder somehow opened his soul and he grew. Without that, he'd never have been anything but the Cold War thug he was in '61(or maybe nothing but the McCarthy lackey of '53). None of these people can grow like that.

[BzaDem]

25. RFK was a 'cold war thug' before JFK was assassinated?

You are disgusting.

We might not even be here today if it weren't for RFK's involvement in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Ken Burch]

27. OK, Bobby was good in the Missile Crisis, but that was the first time.

And I loved what Bobby became in his later years. It's enough that I admired the man he was at the end. I don't have to softpeddle what he started as to do that.

[wyldwolf]

69. right, Cali. You're a Progressive, not a "progressive."

You believe in working towards progress, not whining about "the man" or some other evil phantom keeping you down.

[BzaDem]

16. There you go again with your false history.

You are saying because of Carter's 'centrist' policies, Reagan won? That Carter would have won if he governed farther to the left? That if Obama governs center-left, he will 'certainly' lose in 2012? This is more false propaganda used to further your point without any valid evidence.

The idea that a significant portion of DU tells progressives to "shut up" is ridiculous. Just because posters criticize you doesn't mean they are telling you that you can't speak. You have no right to anyone else's approval of your ideas or your plans for achieving your ideas. These kinds of posts just make it look like you are worried that not enough people agree with you.

[Ken Burch]

18. Carter CLEARLY would've won if he'd put full employment ahead of low inflation

as his primary economic goal. If Carter had done that, Reagan would've had no "misery index" to hit him over the head with in the debates and on the stump.

[BzaDem]

22. Aside from words like 'certainly' and 'CLEARLY', do you have any actual evidence?

Most people who try to be faithful to history don't make very broad and sweeping statements about counterfactuals without pretty significant evidence.

Not to mention that the misery index includes both the unemployment rate and inflation. So even if Carter decreased unemployment at the expense of inflation, the misery index would have still been high, and even if somehow the misery index would have been lower, you have no evidence that Carter still would have won at all (let alone CLEARLY would have won or 'certainly' would have won).

[Ken Burch]

24. We lost in '80 because unemployment was allowed to soar

and nothing Democratic(like say, public works programs)was done to get people back to work.

There was also the Iran thing(which happened because Carter did the establishmentarian thing and tried, for no good reason, to keep the Shah in power when it was clear that the entire Iranian population wanted him out, and then gave the tyrant a safe haven. That, and only that, was the reason our Embassy was stormed and the staff taken hostage.)

Take out the massive increase in unemployment and the hostage situation and Reagan would've had nothing to stand on.

[DCBob]

23. Electing Obama was the most "progressive" thing this country has ever done.

Now he attempting to put together a unity government -- another very "progressive" thing. Chill out dude. We are heading in the right direction.

[Ken Burch]

26. Electing Obama was a great progressive step.

But nothing good comes of just "chilling out" and taking things on trust.

[DCBob]

35. There are plenty of things to be upset about. Obama is not one of them.

Sure, he wants to and should hear dissenting view points but at least give him the benefit of the doubt on the bigger picture. Don't forget, he's on our side. :)

[bridgit]

29. Where *is* it clear Americans are ready for a progressive admin?

Where the product placement was for 'change' throughout and consistently so? We would not be here imo discussing even this much if the core of Obama's campaign was 'progressive principles we can believe in'. Nor 'New Improved Liberal Left Is Here Today!!'. Nor 'Vote! We're the middle of the mother fucking road zippity doo-dah!!' Nor even for that matter: *Obama!! More wasteful & neocon than g.w. bush, yeehaw yeppers!!*

You've offered a lofty idealism, to a landscape crisscrossed as well with hog farms, chicken scratch, and crumbling infrastructure. How will you position your ideal to people you may have even less regard for? What facet of political pragmatism, if any, would not impinge upon progressivism? Would you be willing to suspend your progressivism (and I only say 'your' because, well, it's your OP you know yada-yada stuff) if for a time just this side of certain though certain no doubt; if by doing so you were able to form a coalition that made the likelihood of...your progressivism, *even more* certain? Cause I would. I'd get it in writing and make people shake my spitty hand but I would, how bout you?

I believe that Barack Obama wants us all to speak and to contribute...though I believe as well in fact my hope is that he will; when we are found meandering between what should be common themes, seeking no union more perfect, and making fewer contributions to The American Quilt he'll convey that too. Here's hoping we'll still be listening.

[Peace Patriot]

31. I agree with Ken Burch. Shutting up progressives is wrong, undemocratic and dangerous.

Presidents NEED criticism. Haven't we learned that?

Further, our country cannot recover from eight long years of an extremely destructive fascist junta, preceded by two decades of deregulation, "free market" (monopolistic, global corporate predator) looting and chaos, and ever increasing lack of representation of the American people in Washington DC, by MORE of the same.

This is the wisdom of the people speaking. Ken Burch is speaking for the majority. If the majority had been listened to, in February 2003, we would have had no disastrous, unjust, horrid war in Iraq. Nearly 60% of the American people opposed that war (Feb 03, all polls). They were ignored. They were told to shut up. They were made to feel isolated and alone, as individuals. The corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies failed to reflect or convey their wisdom!

That is the danger of the mass psychology of shutting up dissenters. Horrible mistakes are made. And it is the great, historic genius of democracy that we don't shut people up.

But there is a deeper problem that we must address--that underpins the impulse to shut people up. And it is this:

Half the voting systems in this country have absolutely no transparency, and the other half are barely transparent--a completely inadequate 1% audit of 'TRADE SECRET' code vote counting. We basically have to trust the word of three far rightwing corporations as to our election results. And I feel like a 21st century scientist in 10th century Europe having to repeat this time and again. Don't you idiots realize that germs cause disease?!

The Roman Catholic Church of voting machines has shut down your brains! Our elections are being manipulated by hidden hands, and it doesn't matter whether they crown a good emperor or a bad emperor. The basic power of the people in a democracy--our vote--has been taken away. And it is entirely expectable that the "good emperor" would be acting the way he is acting, given this circumstance and all that it means. Vote counting has been removed from the public venue and placed in private, corporate, fascist hands. We don't know, for instance, if Saxby Chambliss was elected in Georgia. There is no way to prove that he was. That voting system is COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENT, as are HALF the voting systems in the country, with the other half being mostly non-transparent except in the rare instance of a recount. Non-transparent, corporate-run vote counting is the coup de grace of corpo/fascist rule. It is the end of democracy--the final blockade against any real reform. President Barack Obama--certainly a "good emperor," in my opinion--owes his power to the far rightwing voting machine corporations who permitted him to be elected, and can throw him out in 2012 at their whim, and install Hitler II--which they may well be planning to do, after the Financial 9/11 they just pulled off hits home.

This is why he is so cautious. This is why he is making the appointments he is making. He has no choice in the matter. If he had put together a "New Deal" team, to clean out the corpo/fascist scum who are looting our country, evicting the workers and the poor from their homes, outsourcing jobs and manufacturing, hijacking our military for corporate resource wars, and 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code, they would destroy him. It would be over in months, not years. They would "Monica Lewsinky" him in their corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, and then Diebold him out of office. They don't have to assassinate progressive leaders any more. They have total control of the media and the vote counting.

The people who are telling progressives to shut up now are very similar to the people who told election investigators and reformers to shut up in 2004! It is wrong. It is undemocratic. And it is extremely dangerous to shut people up. But I will say this: It is quite useless to complain if we don't look to the mechanisms of power by which the people of this country exercise our sovereignty. First among them is the power of our vote. We must--we MUST--restore vote counting to the public venue. WE MUST!

[cali]

32. Except it's a ridiculous charge. No one has the ability to shut up

anyone here. If you're so weak willed that when you're in the minority or ganged up on, you back off, that says that you don't have the courage of your convictions. You are shutting yourself up. I've been in the minority plenty of times here. I do not allow that to dictate my speaking my mind.

Ken is NOT someone who will shut up just because people are telling him to. And I admire that about him, even if I don't always agree with him.

It's just bullshit to state that it's undemocratic to tell someone to shutup. It's not. It may be lousy debating skills, but it's certainly not undemocratic, if it's an empty threat. And it is.

Oh, and progressives aren't some mindless blob of uniform opinion like YOU want to make up. And you don't get to fucking dictate who and who is and isn't a progressive.

[Peace Patriot]

36. There have been quite a few mob psychology posts at DU telling people NOT to

criticize Barack Obama's appointments or policies. It is simplistic to say that attempts to silence dissent shouldn't matter because people who would be intimidated "don't have the courage of their convictions." Suppressing dissent is a gang mentality. It aims at making the dissenter--or the person who is "different"--feel isolated and alone. Not everybody has the pugnacious qualities to fight back. They just go silent. And thus their wisdom, their contribution, their caveats, their insights are lost. It's like a poetic, quiet, sensitive type of child getting bullied into silence, and the gang and the gang leaders then go off and do something foolish or dangerous or cruel. The loudest mouth wins. But the loudest mouth does not always have wisdom.

It's easy to say, "stand up for your convictions." But people are more complex than this. To get the full wisdom of the people, in a democracy, you have to encourage dissent. And not doing so--not encouraging it--and in fact actively discouraging it--is a very bad impulse, within the Democratic Party--that goes back to LBJ and the Vietnam War, and that has led to very terrible crimes as well as destructive policies like NAFTA and GATT. It is the progressive dissenters that Obama should be listening to, right now--to avoid more horrors and more bad policies. And I have seen frequent posts here, telling people not to express dissent.

I am all for a unified front in trying to reform this country. I don't want to see what happened in Germany in the early 1930s happen here--the fracturing of the center-left and its inability to govern. But that is exactly what will happen if the left--the true majority--is suppressed. There will be trouble like we have never seen in this country--worse trouble than the labor unrest of the 1920s/30s, worse trouble than the revolt of the young against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. If Obama's administration goes wrong--if he fails at reform, if he continues the Forever War, if he fails to curtail the war profiteers and the financial profiteers, and the global corporate predators who now rule Washington DC, we could well see serious civil disorder and revolt, and conditions created for the installation--the EASY installation, with 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting--of a Hitler II in 2012. They don't need assassins any more, or "brownshirts" beating up voters and stuffing ballot boxes. They have Diebold & brethren.

Those are the stakes. And those are the dangers. Dissent is already gravely suppressed in the corpo/fascist media. We don't need to suppress it here, too, at the Democratic Underground. This should be the place that generates the absolutely necessary dissent to warn our leaders about bad policy. Where else are they going to hear it from? Where else do ordinary people have to express their views in a democratic, political context? There are a few other good liberal blogs and news sources, but DU is rather unique in being a wide open forum. It was the only place--THE ONLY PLACE--where investigation of the 2004 election could be done, and information and ideas shared, from around the country, on that vital matter. It was suppressed everywhere else. This is the place where badly needed radical thinking is possible. It is open to everyone and anyone. It is not tailored and manicured toward a particular view. And when post after post says, basically, "STFU!," that vital function of DU is harmed. Some people might keep posting in that circumstance. Others will go silent. And that is harmful to our democracy.

I love DU! I even welcome the Freepers here and the paid agents of the corpo/fascists. I NEVER tell ANYBODY to shut up. I believe in open debate. I believe that open debate is NEVER harmful. The truth will out, if there is open debate. And this business of worshipful silence, as our new emperor puts his team together, is nonsense. We should call it like we see it. For his sake, as well as our own. And for our party's sake. And for our country's. Even if we don't have a democracy any more, we should act like we do. And then maybe people will remember what this country was supposed to be all about: the sovereign rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

:patriot:

[cali]

43. I disagree.

We aren't children here. And yes, standing up for your convictions isn't always easy. Nor are there any guarantees that it will be, not here and not under the Constitution.

There's a difference between supporting the right to dissent and supporting every given expression of it. In other words, I can vigorously support the form, and just as vigorously argue the content, without any dissonance. The freepers and wingnuts are dissenting aggressively. I do not endorse their dissension, but I do endorse their right to dissent.

No, Obama should not be listening to one pov- and he's not. good for him.

It's both simplistic and profoundly wrong to claim that "the left" (pretty vague term) is the TRUE majority. And it's sickening whenever people claim such shit whether it's the left or the right. It's WAY more complex than that. On some issues, the majority of Americans are on the left, on others they're on the right On many issues, they go with the wind.

I haven't told anyone to STFU Calling every criticism of your positions, an attempt to shut you up, is just false.

[anigbrowl]

56. Hmmm...I am not sold.

I take your point that progressive people don't want to be told to shut up. But some people who identify as progressive can't deal with suggestions that they might be overreacting or throwing a hissy fit - and in an open debate, that's just as valid a point for a participant to make. Open debates by their nature mean that sometimes one participant is going to call bullshit on another. One can agree to disagree, or one can go off on a tirade about how people who call it as they see it are trying to repress the progressives, or something.

People have lots of other places to express their views in an open, democratic context. I post on other political boards besides DU, although many of them are smaller. None of them are openly democratic, but rather mixed; this is my personal choice. DU can be suppressive as well. I think people vastly overstate their case about the media for example; it's not 'corpo/fascist' in my view. Oddly enough, the Freepers think the MSM is populated entirely by commies, which I find a hopeful sign; if partisans of both left and right are dissatisfied then it's reasonable to conclude that the media is relatively centrist.

however, I've been pilloried for pointing this out before - just as there are a lot of views which will get you shouted down on DU if you express them. I'm ambivalent about whether unions are really all they're cracked up to be, for example. I call that mild skpeticism, but some people can't handle such a point o view and I've gotten called everything from a corporate shill to a fascist for expressing disagreements with specific union positions here and there. For every person you feel is trying to shut down dissent or suchlike, there's someone else who could be charitably described as a purity troll, bullying people whose views they don't think are sufficiently left. Disagreeing with such a person will quickly lead to all sorts of wild accusations - I've been described as a gated-community-dwelling, country-club-socializing economic parasite (gee, say how you really feel) when in fact I'm a broke indie wannabe filmmaker who sharesa house with 7 people and can't afford to move.

So, calling it as I see it - while I can well understand why some on the left feel rather skeptical of Obama's cabinet picks et., some are also going on and on and ON about being excluded and being betrayed and what-all else, and retreating into purple prose about the noble calling of progressivism and how they will never stay silent in the face of injustice...to which many of say: Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, do you know how self-absorbed and egotistical that sounds? Obama hasn't taken office yet and won't really announce any major policy initiatives until he does (for obvious reasons) and he spent the entire campaign people warning that he's not going to be providing any magic bullet solutions.

People who go on about everything from feeling betrayed to the looming dangers of 2012 should go organize a protest march or something. Fighting elections and working to bring about long-term change are important, but the permanent campaign and amped up rhetoric seems to become an end in itself for some, and it gets really tedious for the majority of people who don't particularly want or need lectures on how they're not committed enough. It's like i I go to a store and a sales person asks me if I need help, I'm glad they're there to assist. If they won't leave me alone, though, then after a while I get pissed off and leave the store because they're trying to hijack my shopping plan. I feel the same way about political purists: it's impossible to satisfy them.

[BigBearJohn]

62. Wow! That is a GREAT response, Peace Patriot. I will always read your posts. VERY GOOD. Thanks!

:hug:

[quickesst]

33. Being under the impression...

...that progressives here are representative of progressives everywhere is the flaw. If you voted democrat in the election, you are a progressive. There are just varying degrees, and just because "the people" have finally rejected the far right insanity wholesale, does not mean they are ready to embrace the far left ideology favored here on DU. And why can't those who decry the rejection of the obvious crybabies understand the difference between healthy debate, and cryin, pissin, and moaning. Equating someone who says "I'm worried about Obama's choice for _____, and here are my reasons, let's debate." ...with someone who just screams inanities is another flaw. Separate yourself from the screamers, and you invite the debate you seek. Scream at people, and you're going to get smacked down, as deserved. Bottom line? I believe you are equating yourself unfairly with those who just can't stand that Obama has made one choice to fuel their fires, and until progressives can get over it, they'll scream at us as loudly as they did during the primaries. That's what it all boils down to for the screamers. Separate the legitimate concerns left-left progressives have from those still fighting the primaries, and you have your debate. Thanks.
quickesst

[camera obscura]

34. I have no problem with progressive complaints. But...

... most of the posts I've seen don't explain:

1. Why they're so upset and
2. Why the problematic policies go against Obama's stated election season promises

Now personally I have one or two problems with Obama's actions, namely Clinton as SoS and Brennan coming perilously close to the CIA post.

But what I don't understand is people getting upset that, say, Obama is keeping Gates on, when he said BEFORE NOVEMBER that he would probably keep him on. Especially when these same people ask why Wes Clark isn't available for the position. If you don't know that Clark isn't even eligible yet then how do you have any credibility...?

Or when people state that they want a progressive for Position X but can't name anyone fit (besides, like, Kucinich). How hard is it to research and see if there even are any progressives qualified for the job?

If someone's post is knee-jerk whining, I think the rest of us have the right to tell him or her to STFU.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Ken,

Do you think that blue dog Dems have the same propensity to play dirty tricks on progressives that we're finding the Republicans have been doing via the Justice Department? i.e. identifying people through quasi-private methods and quietly interfering with their livelihood to try to distract them or silence them as they are faced with worries about losing their jobs or opportunities?

[Ken Burch]

52. That is possible. I'm not sure, though

And I don't think there's enough evidence to be thinking in conspiratorial terms at this stage.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Well, let me know when you change your mind.

[bunnies]

38. Why is everyone all bunched up about being told to shut up?

Just because someone says "shut up", it doesnt mean you have to. Obviously, right? So whats the problem? Ignore it and move on.

[bridgit]

44. Hahaha, spot on bunnies, if I had 5 bucks for every time someone told me to shut up...

I'd be sit'n pretty :rofl: :thumbsup:

[Froward69]

39. 8th REC...

We Progressives are the ones who take so much fodder out of the GOP handbook they have nothing to counter us with.

so instead of telling us to shut up, please use Rational discourse to argue your point of view. As we BOTH know the GOP is merely wounded and there for more dangerous than ever. It is becoming apparent that any fractures in our Armour will be the opening the bastards will exploit.

[pecwae]

40. Obviously, you haven't been silenced

or this post wouldn't be here.

[sufrommich]

41. People disagreeing with you on an internet forum does not

equal "silencing dissent".

[Raineyb]

42. No but ridiculing people and calling them derisive names certainly qualifies as

making the attempt.

You don't ridicule people you want to have a respectful conversation with.

Regards

[sufrommich]

48. In that case,half of DU is trying to shut up the other half.

I don't think leftist,progressives,etc. have the market cornered.Ridicule certainly isn't restricted here to one group of posters.Only mods can really censor you,what you are referring to is asking posters to respond in a way that suits you.Good luck with that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. We Don't Want Progressives To Shut Up. We Want Wacked Out Irrational Fringe Left Zealots To Shut Up.

[Sebastian Doyle]

50. And who would that be, exactly?

I don't see anybody claiming to be a Communist Party member here. Liberal Democrats are not the "irrational left". We're the people responsible for everything good in this country.

[Ken Burch]

51. And if I meet any of them, I'll tell them that.

And it's not you're place to determine for us all what is to be considered "fringe". With you, that would end up being anything recognizably to the left of Bill, from what I can see.

[atimetocome]

71. I hate it when Dems cut down Dems

[iamthebandfanman]

46. NEVER AGAIN!

never again will we be submissive and be walked all over BY ANY PARTY OR GROUP OF PEOPLE.

we are here for good and we aint goin' nowhere!

our influence can and will only get stronger...

I WONT BACK DOWN FROM WHAT I BELIEVE IN!

[bvar22]

47. Unashamed Lefty here,

and I'm NOT shutting UP.

When these p

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.


"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ..."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist


"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.


"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."



"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.



"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.



"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain


"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal


Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.



Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager



"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_republicans_and_war_criminals_rave_about_obama%27s_%27team_of_rivals%27/

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[dflprincess]

58. Bvar - haven't you heard?

Politicians that think and speak like Wellstone can't win. If we want to elect progressives we have to settle for candidates who court the right and trust them to move to the left after they're elected. :sarcasm:

How I wish there was still a Farmer-Labor party.

[amborin]

49. progressives can't be silent b/c it takes a big battle to implement progressive goals

the populace will not naturally adopt a progressive viewpoint

just look at how so many dems here are content with centrist or right of center policies

it takes grass roots movements and organized mobilization to implement any agenda

and progressives have their work cut out for them

first step is calling out bad policies

[dflprincess]

57. I believe the populace would adopt progressive views IF (and it's a big if)

we had a media that honestly reported the issues instead of working with the neocons to scare people into voting against their best interests.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. They want us to stop voicing our opinions, shut up, and go away, but...

...what they don't understand is that they have relied on us to bring the Democratic party pivotal votes. (And that includes the Clintons and Obama!) Don't come crawling back to the liberals after 2 or 4 years, begging for votes but failing to deliver on an agenda or appoint progressives in *some* substantive policy positions. This is how many people feel about the "black vote." Politicians show up at churches every 2 or 4 years, begging for black people to vote for them, and yet the black community is consistently taken for granted by the Democratic party. The irony is that no Democrat can win an election without liberals and blacks. So, stop taking us for granted, telling us to shut up and go away. This is our democracy, too, and we put Obama in office!!!


Note: I write this as a black woman AND a proud liberal!! We will NOT back down!!! We will NOT shut up!! And we refuse to go away!!

DEAL WITH IT!!!

[Ken Burch]

54. Thanks!

Keep Hope Alive, as someone once said.

[mkultra]

60. actually, we just want you to shut up until something material happens

then you can run you giant gaping maws all you want. Until then, your just trolling.

[mkultra]

59. STFU

[bridgit]

65. ding!

:rofl:

[gravity]

63. If the only thing you do is dissent, no one listens

It isn't an effective strategy for doing anything.

[Ken Burch]

64. Which is why that isn't ALL that I or other progressives do.

It's not about "dissent for dissent's sake".

And there's nothing I've said in this thread that could possibly harm the Obama Administration. It's the right that's the enemy, not the left.

[mkultra]

67. so your one as well

your telling people that tell you to shut up to in fact, shut up themselves. By asking people to stop trying to "silence debate" you yourself are trying to silence debate. Nice work genius.

[wyldwolf]

68. I really don't like to do this in a thread.. but... *** YAWN ***

[woo me with science]

70. This reminds me of when I worked in a high school.

There were constant huffy, emotional, defensive reactions when kids felt "dissed" by one another. What a step when "the maturation lightbulb" clicked on for some, and they realized they didn't have to battle until the world agreed with them.