The angry "progressives" are the mirror image of the angry conservatives...

[DCBob]

who are only interested in their pet issues like guns, gays, religion, etc. They miss the forest for the trees.

[tkmorris]

1. Spoken like a true wishy-washy Centrist

Take a stand friend. There is right, and there is wrong, and the best position isn't exactly halfway between the two.

[cali]

2. There's reactionary and there's reflective

and it's rarely a black/white world where things fit easily into little slots.

Paradox and complexity always eludes ideologues. And my guess is you don't have a clue as to what I'm saying.

[tkmorris]

26. Keep guessing Cali

Maybe you'll get it right someday.

The fact is I am one of the most open-minded people you have ever interacted with. I ALWAYS consider the other point of view. Unlike you however, I also recognize when the opposing view is just plain wrong. You.... well, you don't. More's the pity.

[cali]

30. lol.

sure you do. too fucking funny for words. YOU? an open mind?

:rofl:

[DCBob]

3. I have heard the exact same words said by right-wing wacko conservatives.

Does not make them wrong but it should make you wonder. The answer is usually between the extremes but not always "exactly halfway between".

[tkmorris]

28. Fair enough, but what we call "Progressive" here in the US

is not really an extreme. A Progressive here would be considered an left-leaning Moderate anywhere else.

[DCBob]

33. I consider myself a left leaning moderate but I don't get hung up on any single issue...

that would turn me away from a good overall mostly liberal/progressive politician like Obama.

[Buzz Clik]

24. "There is right, and there is wrong". Really? Are you quoting George Bush?

That was his philosophy for the past eight years, and this country is in a rightwing shithole.

I have no desire to turn 180 degrees and dig another hole.

[tkmorris]

31. Yes it is a right-wing shithole

Because they are WRONG. Do you dispute this? Do you think their ideas are right half of the time?

[Buzz Clik]

35. Half the time? I'm not sure. Some of their most important decisions were dead wrong.

But all of them wrong? I doubt it.

[tkmorris]

38. "Half the time? I'm not sure"

Defense rests. You don't know which side you're on. They aren't completely wrong, not all the time. But I know which side *I* identify with. I hope you figure it out soon.

[Buzz Clik]

48. What an amazing post.

You know me well enough to say with sure clarity that I don't know which "side" I'm on?

I'd be willing to be that you have no idea of my age, gender, where I live, sexual orientation, employment, or even one single aspect of my philosophy of life. Yet, you just declared, "You don't know which side you're on."

Wow. Have you ever considered selling your autograph on e-bay?

I used to post on rightwing discussion boards because they were populated with noisy people who thought they we so smart that they could judge someone from their screen name. I took great delight in tying them in knots with their own shallow, ignorant "logic". Now that the Democrats are in control, it seems that the idiots are roosting right here. Fresh meat.

[BoneDaddy]

86. I guess you are the definition of an angry progressive

huh?

[leftynyc]

45. What a crap post

I stand with progressives on around 85% of the issues. I don't have a hard on hatred for guns and I do believe that some criminals deserve to die for their actions (although I do not support the death penalty because in certain areas of this country, people simply cannot get what I would consider a fair trial). People who only think one side of all issues are the correct positions to take are exactly the same kind of person Bush is - just on the other side.

[Forkboy]

100. No, spoken like a coward afraid to stand for shit.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

112. Damn straight there is such thing as right and wrong.

And fuck anyone who would say there is a "middle ground" on such issues as torture, bilking the American taxpayer, denying basic civil rights to Americans, allowing companies to run roughshod over workers/the planet, naked military aggression --

Damn it, if the last 8 years taught us nothing, it taught us there is right and wrong -- and "right" must be fought for and "wrong" be fought against.

[ecstatic]

136. I'm guessing he WILL take a stand on issues that matter?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[DCBob]

6. Your post is abusive.

[Buzz Clik]

10. No, it's just stupid.

This is my favorite line: "Yet you have the gall to scold us when we object to what we're seeing in an Obama administration."

It's been four weeks and one day since Obama was elected, and he won't be inaugurated for another 6 weeks. But dipstick doesn't understand why we're just a little sensitive to endless pounding on Obama from a narrow gang of idiots here at DU.

[MadHound]

14. Well gee, perhaps you should get used to it

What a PE does during the transition, the picks he makes, the policy statements he makes are great indications of how he will govern. When is the best time to try and sway the man, while things are still in flux, and when they've been set in concrete.

If the left took your advice, we wouldn't say a peep until after the Obama administration was out of office. Sorry, but that's not a viable solution.

[Buzz Clik]

25. And the best way to influence is through insult and invective?

Tell me how that turns out.

[MadHound]

11. Wow, if you think that's abusive, you wouldn't make it on the left around here

Trust me, liberals are regularly demonized, insulted and ripped way worse that that. Go check out some of the threads during the Kerry campaign. Go check out some of the "get in line and shut up" threads over the past four years. Go check out some of the threads floating around right now.

Puhleeze Vulcan, get a grip. As the DU rules state, grow a thick skin.

[Buzz Clik]

13. And here it is -- the martyred one.

You're the one throwing stones, but somehow you're the one being abused.

:puke:

[MadHound]

17. Hey, thanks for helping me prove my point

When I need a clear cut example of assholishness from the center, I know I can always count on you.

Good job:thumbsup:

[Buzz Clik]

20. So I'm an "asshole" for disagreeing with you?

Nice.

[MadHound]

23. No, I don't care if you disagree with me,

It's your insults and ad hominem attacks that make you assholish. You don't attack my posts on the merits of ideas that I express, but simply the fact that I express them. You are part of the "sit down and shut up" brigade around here, and when you can't debate on the merits of a post, you simply pour on the insults and invectives. That's why I think you're being assholish.

[Buzz Clik]

27. Once again, you staple yourself to a cross of your own construction.

No one -- NO ONE -- told you to shut up.

What a whiner.

[MadHound]

29. Oh geez, did you lose your memory again?

There's a search function on DU, I suggest you use it.

[cali]

32. lol. the whiny baby defense.

not to mention a sterling example of stinking hypocrisy.

You run around calling others assholes and then whinge about how picked on you are

Tough shit, dear.

[MadHound]

34. Another prime example of the centerist "sit down and shut up" crowd

Thanks for participating, we can always use another fine examples like yours. Good job:thumbsup:

[cali]

37. sorry, dear. I'm a progressive. I'm not a reactionary moron like....

and I'm not telling anyone to shutup. I'm ever amused by people making fools of themselves. Keep it up. I like laughing early in the morning.

:rofl:

[PassingFair]

39. He tells the truth and you call it "abuse".

Yep, you're a centrist.

:rofl:

[cali]

41. yeah, because one DUer calling another DUer is a sacred and eternal truth

dog, I hate fucking stupid.

[PassingFair]

44. Then don't try to make sense of your own post here.

:crazy:

I hate vicious posts and foul language, especially
when they make no sense and add nothing to the
conversation.

[Buzz Clik]

8. "Who are willing to demonize anybody who objects to their corporatist agenda"

Unintentional irony.

[MadHound]

19. Especially when you go on to prove my point.

Good job, thanks for holding up your end in this show and tell.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[cali]

9. And then there are the stupidists

just sayin'.

[ddeclue]

12. amen!!! Make this an original post please!!! nt

[Buzz Clik]

18. I agree. Put that inane bullshit up for everyone to see.

That poster seems to be under the very twisted immpression that anyone who doesn't agree with everyone word that drips from his/her mouth is the enemy.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Yes it is just tweedle-dum tweedle-dee here.

For example: the angry conservatives, as you so correctly point out, want to impose legislation that directly and explicitly discriminates against LGBT people, 'the gays' and their twins the angry progressives want to guarantee that 'the gays' are not discriminated against and have all the same rights as other non-gay people. Just two sides of the same coin. No difference we should care about there. Simply a 'pet issue'.

:sound of head exploding:

[DCBob]

16. If Obama pushed for full total rights, marriage, etc. for LGBT he would not have won the election.

Right or wrong that's the reality. Progress takes time.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. That is a very different point you make here

As opposeed to the OP, in which you call the fight for equality for my family a 'pet issue'. Do you want to pay the differnece in our tax and the tax paid by a couple approved by your religious conservtives? Those conservatives are just like me right? Because if I fight for equal rights, I am the same as those that refuse equality to others, in your so called thinking.
I find the wishy washy fence sitters to be homophobic at the core when they attempt to demand that others self oppress for the sake of political expedience, and call basic human rights 'pet issues'.
Sorry buddy, sorry all of you. This is a long and ongoing political battle. It is an issue of life and death and family and finance.
But let me repeat, calling the fight for equality a 'pet issue' is not the same as your cop out here. Everyone knows that progress takes time, do you think that is sage wisdom? Do you think in your hubris that all of the progress for GLBT people appeared automatically? The slow progress we have had was made by us. So we know what it takes, thanks, and we will be continuing to do what it takes. That's the reality.

[DCBob]

51. No. They are very related.

Many so called progressives are so hung up on a few issues that they think Obama has failed them and failed the country. They need to look at the big picture and the longer term picture. There are many roads to progress -- it does not have to be an arrow straight bulldozed highway -- it usually takes twists and turns to get to a destination -- and I think Obama has the roadmap well planned.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Kaysie- gotcha!

Human rights = a pet issue. As always, I note that the heterosexualits make big noise, act in patronizing ways, and yet refuse to even speak about the actual financial losses and excess legal fees my household has to pay.
I have never said that Obama has failed me or the country, and for you to imply that displays the weakness of your argument. As a citizen of this country, my intention is to assist Obama and keep him moving in the direction I want to see, that is my duty. That is what Obama has asked of all of us.
You use the 'many say such and such' tactic which is bad on the right and just as bad from others. Who, Bob, is many, and what did they say, specifically? And why are you telling that to me? If another says a thing, Bob, what has that to do with me, and our exchange? I am a specific and actual human being. I say what I say. Can you talk about that?

You have generalites and axioms to offer. Many roads, twists and turns, roadmap...but still you can not come up with any specific points to make other than the fact that you think GLBT families fighting for basic human rights are 'hung up' rather than righteous. With that, your only actual point, I disagree with great passion.
I offer to you that I have been an activist for decades and have seen great progress and results from our ways. And your addition to the conversation is that progress is difficult and hard won? Do you really think that is news? Do you really?
Read some histories of the movements you presume to lecture, while being devoid of knowlege of those movements. Uninformed pontification is just not impressive. Just an opinion based on opinion. Or at least, that's what many say.
Characterization is not the same as reportage.

[girl gone mad]

104. Then I guess LBJ was a better man than Obama. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

7. Tree. Singular.

A tree isn't a forest, nor can it be.

[greenman3610]

15. whenever there is an absolute 'us" and "them" stand

you risk fundamentalism.
worse, you almost guarantee that nothing will get done, or
whatever gets done will soon be undone.

I think the strength of Obama is that he gets this, and
has had the iron discipline not to go for right wing
baiting, and instead continue to reach across divides.

For example. Fundies say, "Abortion is murder".
When you formulate it like that, there is only a right and
wrong. How can there be any "in between"?
Result, they have been politically impotent to enact their
program.
That's why I think the better approach is to say,
"Abortion is a tragedy, but making it illegal has
never worked. How can we make it less likely?"
That approach was working under Clinton, and
Fundies hated him for it - because of their absolute need
to be "right".

I think we on the left have to constantly examine ourselves,
to ask how we can best achieve our goals by bringing people
IN to the fold, not driving them away for ideological impurities.
After all, self examination is the strength of liberalism,
it's what fundamentalists and right wingers think is a weakness-
for them, self examination can only bring loathing, revulsion,
and fear.

Being "right" is the booby prize of life. You have to
get things DONE.
The next 10 thousand generations are depending on us.
We have to do more than be "right". We have to win.
We have to change the world. We have to put humanity
on a sustainable track.

[DCBob]

22. Well said greenman!

I like your way of thinking.

[Buzz Clik]

36. kick, kick, kick!

God I love discovering sentient thought at DU so early in the morning!!

[Marrah_G]

53. Agreed!

It's one of those posts that makes me say "now THAT guy gets it"

We (liberals) are at risk of becoming what we hated most in the opposition party.

[PassingFair]

42. Beautiful, sob....

tell it to the 4 million displaced Iraqis
that wander from their homes because "centrist"
democrats voted to authorize a war based on
KNOWN LIES.

Tell it to the bankrupt, and soon to be bankrupt
Americans whose savings will soon be wiped out
due to "centrist" democrats who aided and abetted
in deregulation of the markets.

Progressives are not comparable to right-wing fundies.
Progressives are not "radical leftists".
Progressives are believers in transparency in government.

[greenman3610]

158. I have fought against lies all my life

I work a tough job, and then go home and put in long hours, driving
thousands of miles and working hundreds of un-remunerated hours
to point out lies, and bring out truth.

No one hates what has been happening more than I do, and
I take a back seat to no one in my long term commitment to
bringing about change.
But, right now, we have the initiative. We have the ball.
We have already gotten one great big gigantic, unexpectedly
revolutionary thing done. Good for us! We are powerful!
Sure, it's our job to push and jostle and get our voices heard.
By all means, get out there and work!!!
But there is a universal principal that every action causes a reaction.
That's not mystical mumbo jumbo, it's as real as gravity, and anyone that
doesn't respect it will lose big, and probably cause a lot of
unintended damage along the way. Guaranteed.

I'm into Aikido politics. I think Obama is too. Bring the opponent
into your circle, move with him, use his momentum.
The art is to keep your center, use his energy, -- in a political
sense, his motivations and rationales, to move him where you want
him to go.

[vanderBeth]

43. Very well said

[leftynyc]

50. Excellent post

Now THAT should be an OP.

[Marrah_G]

52. Amazing post !

But then I should have expected wisdom from one named the Green Man.

Your post is dead on.

I wish I could recommend it.

[Raineyb]

60. Then please tell that to the Centrists since the majority of the posts have been ones

attacking Progressives.

Apparently we're not to their ideological tastes.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

65. There are infinitely more posts of "progressives" attacking centrists than vice versa..

... and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of posts where centrists attack "progressives" are just counterattacks.

We're both donors, so we can search the archives for proof.

[Raineyb]

85. That is not true

There are more OPs like the one we're responding to than Progressives making OPs attacking centrists.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

88. for every ONE like the OP you can give me, I can give you TWO that is the reverse

[cali]

87. speak for yourself and stop trying to speak for all progressives.

I'm a progressive- both my voting history and my history of activism support that. I do agree with many here who label themselves progressive, about Obama's first post-election weeks. And it's no one group that gets attacked "more" here.

[Raineyb]

90. I don't claim to speak for all progressives.

I'm not sure you can make that same argument.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

63. yeah.. it's called the third way. "Audacity of Hope" - best third way book ever.

[Moochy]

70. ROFL

You are like an Amway salesman.

[wyldwolf]

71. ROFL!!!

Would you like a point by point examination?

[Moochy]

72. No we agree on this

I have never been confused about Obama's positions, no surprise or outrage at his appointments from me.

I'm not sure if he'd agree with you slapping the Amway, er DLC label on the slipcover though ;-)

[wyldwolf]

73. dupe

[wyldwolf]

74. At least in his book, he did borrow some major policy proclamations from the DLC. It's a fact

Here's one passage I like:

"It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

I'm also partial to the part where Obama expresses disdain for the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal." He says the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes."

[Doremus]

149. "He says the left and right have become "mirror images of each other"

I see one difference.

The right doesn't treat its base like a poor step child.

Perhaps if the "left" didn't scoff at and berate its own base so often we liberals would be more inclined to join the group hug in the big tent occasionally.

Just to clarify, the above is not a statement about Obama's actions to-date. I'm liberal but I'm not impatient. And I am watching.

[AndrewP]

69. Perfectly stated

[DevonRex]

89. Oh my. I think I'm in love. That was absolutely beautiful.

I am in awe of your ability to put your thoughts into words. Your post encapsulates what I love about Obama, too. He has a genuine desire to reach consensus in a way that moves us all beyond all the hateful rhetoric of the past that has only rendered us impotent and angry.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[nini]

102. This is exactly how I see things

well said.

We will never get anything done if we don't compromise on some things to show things can be accomplished.

The country will never take a big jump to the left at once - we have to pull it back by proving things will be better when it does. People are brainwashed by the far right and have to be de-programmed basically.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

114. That's nice and all but...

sometimes there IS "right" and we damn well better be ready to fight tooth and nail against what is "wrong".

[pecwae]

46. K&R

[JHB]

47. Aren't you missing the "sarcasm" tag?

If not, perhaps you could elaborate for those of us who took a vacation and unplugged last week.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Just read this thread from top to bottom.

The OP attracted quite an array of single-issue types.

[JHB]

55. Yeah, but with the possible exception of gay marraige none of those single issues are stated...

...at least, in non-deleted posts.

It would also be instructive if the OP stated exactly what s/he considered "single issue" opposite numbers to the RW nutjobs.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Guaranteed, every issue in the OP has been discussed with great vigor (and venom) this week.

I could help you find some of the threads, if you enjoy train wrecks.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

54. So...

another STFU and tow the line of the status quo thread.

Never question anything.

I'd say that about covers it.

[Buzz Clik]

57. Nope. You completely missed the point.

Those of us having been labeled "corporatists", "assholes", and similar labels in this thread are simply asking for some degree of patience and some degree of vision. Obama is no longer just representing the conglomerate of single leftwing issues but the entire country; it's part of the job description. In his new role, he could give the bone to everyone who did not vote for him (and some who did vote for him) by instituting only those policies and directives that are important to him and his rabid base, or he could make some attempt to heal this fractured country.

If a single burning issues are important beyond that which is best for the greater good, then those single issue people are likely to be disappointed to some degree.

BushCo screwed up this country is a serious fashion, and it will take time to get it right again.

Can we wait until he's inaugurated and made his first official decision before declaring him a failure?

[Raineyb]

64. You mean the same degree of patience that you're affording us?

Every single one of these STFU posts are designed to make sure that the Progressive agenda is not heard. It is a redux of what happened in the 90's.

There is one major difference this time. It's already been proven that the corporatist agenda doesn't work. As the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result I don't really see why you'd expect Progressives or anyone remotely interested in economic justice, health care, and ending the war to go give the corporatist agenda the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't see any posts calling Obama a failure but I did see people express concern over who is in his cabinet and as a result who has his ear. That is a lot different from the hyperbolic accusations you're making.

Regards

[Buzz Clik]

67. Okay, let's drop back just one step. This is your request:

You want to be able to criticize Obama's decisions, pending decisions, and speculated decisions with unbridled venom, but you don't want to be criticized for it. Anyone who dares suggest that you might be a bit premature in your judgment is a) a corporatist and b) telling you to STFU. That's just a bit inconsistent, isn't it?


(And please -- enough with the "corporatist agenda" bullshit. Try speaking without using worn out cliches.)

[Raineyb]

76. Well when you put the corporations ahead of actual living people what do you call it?

As to your unbridled venom? What unbridled venom? The venom I see only comes from people like you.

I didn't see anyone declare Obama a failure. That's just shit you made up. So yeah I don't think that any argument that I'm being premature is at all legitimate. And considering that I've used no invectives and actually came up with alternative picks which were roundly ignored you have a hell of a lot of nerve accusing me speaking with said venom.

I've seen people wish that some of the cabinet picks were more progressive and that is completely legitimate. So yeah I think that people have every right to make their arguments respectfully without being constantly called names and being told the STFU that's why it's called a discussion board.

And if you don't like how I make my arguments feel free to put me on ignore. You won't be hurting my feelings and it's your loss. But when I see a corportist agenda I damn sure will call it out.

(BTW, bailing out Wall Street banks while not doing a damn thing for the people on the bottom from which demand comes from is a corporatist agenda. It is not a cliche to call a spade a spade.)

Regards

[Buzz Clik]

92. I've had enough. Tossing you on the trash heap.

[Raineyb]

96. Right back at you

I've tried to be reasonable and respectful. I guess it's too much to expect the same from you. And I have better things to do with my online time.

[JHB]

91. Speaking of steps back, we're not a hive-mind here

Please limit accusations of "unbridled venom" and such to those individuals who display such. (I know the above was not directed at me, but the principle holds).

[Buzz Clik]

93. I've been called an asshole on this thread for simply disagreeing.

That's unbridled venom.

I've been called every fucking name in the book for simply saying we should wait and see how Obama's plan plays out. It's called unbridled venom.

No apologies from me for the abused spewed at me by others.

[Raineyb]

97. I don't apologize for what other people say.

But based on how you treated me, I can see why they called you an asshole.

[Moochy]

66. hey if the labels fit...

"Assholish" "Corporatist" or maybe "Epic Douchebag"

[QueenOfCalifornia]

120. I read the OP

I didn't miss anything.

The OP wants to stifle any thought or insight that the non-corporatists - liberals - who worked to get Obama elected would like to enjoy along with the right leaning Democrats who are thrilled with Gates staying on - Gates is not change and keeping a neocon, PNAC, Wolfowitz supporter in charge of the Pentagon is something that troubles a lot of people who see the occupation of Iraq as a major blunder and a money sucking pit with no end.

I have in no way ever said Obama is a failure. Please do not make it seem as though that is my intent - I believe that we are about to see more of the same shit about staying the course in Iraq and a military build up in Afghanistan. That is worthy of discussion on a political discussion board.

The greater good for who? Certainly not the 4207 families who will "celebrate" the holidays minus a family member who has been murdered in Iraq.

Nope - I did not miss the point of the OP.

[Buzz Clik]

123. "Nope - I did not miss the point of the OP." The OP made no mention of Gates.

[Danger Mouse]

127. Can you point to where the OP says that?

[leftofthedial]

58. It is far better not to care about anything

and to accept uncritically whatever you want to believe is true about your pet politician. Evidence and actions be damned. This is a cult, dammit! A cult of personality. So leave him/her/it alone!

[DCBob]

139. It's far better to give our new PE some breathing room...

so he do what he was elected to do.

[leftofthedial]

141. yes! we should pretend that all the decisions he's making now are irrelevant!

we should check back in January after the inauguration--no! Wait! he will not have had time to do anything then. Make it 2010! Yes! No! No! These are HARD problems that will take at least a full term or maybe two to fix. So let's just give him a free pass until 2016. That's the ticket!

That will give him enough breathing room to weave his magic genius spell over all the repukes and corporatists and free-marketeers and supply siders he's putting on his team. Yes. By 2016, he better have accomplished what he was elected to do.




Hold on a minute. I "elected" him to be accountable to the people and to the promises he made. What did you "elect" him to do? Appoint republicans?

[DCBob]

143. In case you didn't notice Obama has not asked for input on his cabinet appointments.

That is because only Obama knows who he can work with to get the job done. I dearly hope he would not listen to anonymous posters on some political forum on such a critical issue as cabinet appointments.

[leftofthedial]

144. Obama defenders sound more and more like they are singing some weird version

of "Jesus Loves Me."

"The Obama works in mysterious ways." "It is not our place to question the plan of the Obama." "I have faith that the Obama is mightier and wiser than we mere anonymous poster creatures."

This is (still, sort of) America. I have EVERY RIGHT--*maybe even the responsibility*--to question the decisions of our leaders.

Appointing supply-siders to "change" the current economy makes ZERO sense, no matter how fervently you believe in the magical powers of the Obama. Appointing republican hawks to "change" our military policy may be a shrewd short-term political move, or it may be a disaster. Either way, it's not "change." Appointing, top to bottom, nothing but DC insiders to "change" the corrupt federal government makes ZERO sense. With the possible exception of Melody Barnes, Obama has not appointed a single person to his left on any issue. Regardless of where you think the "center" is, he is giving the finger to tens of millions of Americans, most of whom voted for him.

You may celebrate the apparent fact that our leaders are not listening to us (mere "anonymous" civilians that we are). You apparently prefer that they receive only the counsel of the wealthy, the privileged, the powerful and the "connected." Good luck with the kind of world you seem to want.

[DCBob]

145. So based on your post Obama is all f'ked up...

You might as well find a new candidate that pleases you and begin the 2012 campaign to oust him.

[leftofthedial]

146. so far, I think he's made a couple of good moves:

Clinton as SOS is a great choice, I believe.

Barnes, in any role, promises to be excellent.

Other than that, I think Geithner and Summers are the *problem* not the solution economically.

I understand the politics of having Gates as a repuke lightning rod for the Iraq debacle. I just pray it is the *end* of the Iraq debacle and not some sort of son-of-quagmire nightmare. But I believe the US military budget needs to be cut by at least half; two-thirds or three-quarters would be better. Gates and Jones are NOT the men for that job. I never expected much from Obama's pro-insurance-company health care plan, but he seems to have no one in position to make even his plan a reality, much less actually fix the enormous problem, which is the system itself.

I hope his presidency is successful beyond our imaginings. By putting together a conservative, establishment team of insiders, I think he's off to a completely wrong start.

[Raineyb]

59. What have you been reading?

I've heard progressives talk about their disappointment in the the choices in the Cabinet. I myself have expressed misgivings about the center right leanings of the picks. My "pet issue" would be fixing the economy, ending the war, and making sure everyone gets health care (and I do not mean forcing everyone to buy insurance from companies who would gouge people who actually need the insurance in the first place while dropping the rates for people who seemingly have no use for it.) Since when are these "pet issues?" These are supposed to be issues the Democratic party cares about.

And anyone who isn't angry hasn't been paying attention over the last 8 years.

Regards

[Bodhi BloodWave]

61. I think the Rude Pundit has my view quite well explained in regards to that

If you wanted to, say, change the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our strategic relationships around the globe, who's gonna do it without pissing people off? Secretary of Defense Dennis Kucinich? Fuck no. You get the guys and gals who were proponents of the war in at least some way or have cozy goddamn Capitol Hill relationships. If the great and glorious David Petraeus and the shiny Robert Gates are saying, "Bring the troops home," then you've defused your enemies. It ain't Clintonian triangulation, which involved embracing a watered-down version of your opponents' beliefs. It's just fuckin' smart. The same goes for economic policy and it will go for domestic.

Yeah, if Obama lets his hawks run the place and make him break his promises, then we can squawk. But for now, can we just take a breath and see how it all works out?

[Buzz Clik]

68. What? Be patient? Oh, HELL no!

It's a lot more fun to get red in the face and bitch endlessly before the game has even started.

[Raineyb]

82. The problem is that that is the same argument people made in '92

I don't think that there are many people who consider themselves left of center who will buy that argument again. To be honest, I don't blame them. I think that for the people who are making their displeasure known it's about eternal vigilance. I don't think we should have a problem with that.

Regards

[happychatter]

75. these attacks on activists are pretty much NON STOP up in this house

wtf is WRONG with you?

[Armstead]

77. Ho-fucking hum...

Personally, my "pet issue" is economic and social justice. I'm willing to give and take on a lot of specifics for the sake of the big picture.

But after the wholesale abandonment of anything challenging the corporatist status quo by the "centrist" Democrats for too many years, I'd sure like to see some "progressive" input in this new era of change.And I'll sure be angry if we simply get more of the same old unquestioned "free market" Rubinoniomics that helped to bring down the economy.

Call me a dreamer....but change implies change,

[wyldwolf]

78. Obama, from "The Audacity of Hope"

"In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal. Like all good conspiracy theories, both tales contain just enough truth to satisfy those predisposed to believe in them, without admitting any contradictions that might shake up those assumptions. Their purpose is not to persuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes--and lure just enough new adherents to beat the other side into submission." (page 24)

[cali]

79. hey, wolfie. feel like setting off some fireworks?

Post this as a stand alone thread either here or in General. If you don't want to, I will.

[wyldwolf]

81. no, but you can and here's two more quotes:

"I understand the frustration of these activists. The ability of Republicans to repeatedly win on the basis of polarizing compaigns is indeed impressive. I recognize the dangers of subtlety and nuance in the face of the conservative movement's passionate intensity. And in my mind, at least, there are a host of Bush Administration policies that justify righteous indignation. Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in "either/or" thinking. (pages 39-40)"

... and another of my favorites:

"
"It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

[Armstead]

83. The devil is always in the details

I totally agree with Obama on the need to recognize complexity and paradox that exist within issues.

However, ultimately specific choices have to be made. A choice to, let's say, allow big mega banks to do whatever the hell they want without any restraints or accountability, is a BAD choice.

[baldguy]

80. Except that the "angry conservatives" objective is to kill all of their opponents.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Huh? Are you dead? I'm not.

[baldguy]

103. Wake up.

"The wages of sin is death." For the insane conservatives *WE* are the sinners. And they'd be more than happy to help their God deliver.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Define "etc."

The angry conservatives have an extremely small universe of big issues. Progressives, on the other hand, have a myriad of issues, and since we don't all share the same set of progressive concerns, we are forced into a coalition.

The only coalition on the conservative side is between the big money folks and the dupes they conscript into their cause via god, gays and guns.

[Buzz Clik]

94. At DU, the coalition is highly dysfunctional.

[eridani]

98. Yep, universal heath care and doing something about global warming--

--are every bit as trivial as God, guns and gays. How could I have missed this obvious insight?

[Forkboy]

99. Those pesky gays. They should just shut the fuck up.

As a matter of fact, everyone who cares about anything I don't should just shut the fuck up.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Are you sure you shouldn't change your name to DLCBob? You're OP-obsessed w/ "angry progressives"

How many OPs have you posted about it, Al From? Why don't you stop with your delusional fantasy-based, no fact OPs
because we progressives have a President now who supports progressive causes, since he was the most liberal senator,
ya know. Stop whining and tell it to Obama Is 44, because Hillaryland's Clintonian money-grubbing pro-corporate DLC
priorities is dead. Good riddance, too.

Case in point:

An aide to Barack Obama reaffirmed the President-elect's support for the labor movement's chief legislative priority in a
one-word statement issued to the Huffington Post on late Tuesday.

Asked if Obama's support for the Employee Free Choice Act remained as strong as his public proclamations suggested on
the campaign trail, transition spokesman Dan Pfeiffer responded, succinctly, "Yes."

The reaffirmation may not seem like a political breakthrough on its surface. But in the current political climate, in which the
Obama team has steadfastly refused to comment on various legislative priorities, it does signal that the President-elect
is not shying away from progressive pledges made during his campaign.

[Chulanowa]

105. Well, except for one thing...

The Angry conservative wants to ruin the nation by turning it into a Theocratic police state.

No matter how your tastes run, you have to admit the angry progressives aren't out to mangle the nation in any such way. You're therefor drawing false parallel.

the only things they have in common is anger and idealism. hell, even the anger isn't comparable. The cons are angry because their policies aren't being instituted by Fiat. The progressives are angry because the people they worked their asses off to get elected are now publicly mocking and dismissing them.

[girl gone mad]

106. I'll let JFK make my point.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy


We just witnessed peaceful revolution in this country, and it wasn't a movement for more middling, pro-corporatist, pro-war policies. People demanded change. What happens if they don't get it? This country is falling apart. We simply can't afford another 4 years of the foolish DLC agenda. I hate to think what will happen if we continue down this path, flailing about while our leadership clings to the same bad ideas that put us here. Even China has been making more equitable choices on how to spend their fiscal stimulus money. But, then again, violent revolution is still fresh in the Chinese government's consciousness.

[Buzz Clik]

119. How many days are you willing to wait to see what happens?

Will Obama take office before you call for the violent overthrow of the federal government?

[girl gone mad]

125. wtf?

You think that JFK was calling for violent overthrow of government?

I think there's something seriously wrong with you.

[wyldwolf]

135. yet...

Obama is a big proponent of what you call "the foolish DLC agenda."

[girl gone mad]

159. If so, he will..

not win a second term.

Every one of the DLC's extremist ideas has proven disastrous upon implementation. We are experiencing the devastating economic fallout of those policies. The DLC has wreaked financial terrorism on the middle class. More of the same will simply not be palatable to voters.

[Romulox]

107. What has come to this board, where "leftist" and "progressive" are common insults?

Center/Right Underground?
Status Quo Underground?
Acquiescence Underground?

And wtf is "underground" about middle of the road pandering? :shrug:

[mikelgb]

108. Justice, Equality, Peace

not "pet" issues

[jonnyblitz]

109. gay is my life, not my "pet issue" you status quo apologist

ASSHOLE. :puke:

[Forkboy]

116. And funnily enough, these people never consider *their* issues "pet issues".

Funny how that works. Don't mind the hypocrites. ;)

[Jade Fox]

110. I'm sorry, but that's just garbage. n/t

[smoogatz]

111. The "angry progressive" in relation to the Obama pre-presidency

is largely a media-driven myth--a lot like all of those angry Hillary supporters who were going to vote for McCain: a few loudmouths, wingnut plants and whackos got way more than their share of media attention. The same is true now, I think--no rational progressive is going to get his/her panties in a bunch over Obama's cabinet choices; the guy hasn't even taken office and suddenly he's a sell-out? Kos did a poll of their readers and only about 5% held that view: most likely it's about the same here.

[DCBob]

113. I suspect that is correct but those 5% can be awefully noisy.

:)

[Sunnyshine]

115. Obama is progressive. No doubt about it and he explicitly states that here:

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said.
“The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like."

You seem to be angry because progressives exist here at DU and elsewhere. We are Democrats, one and all. Barack understands the political map as it is, and as it should be if we want to see change in our politics. Starting here, with you and me.

edit out "a" for wording

[bvar22]

117. Just another ideologue demanding purity to "Centrism",

....and ideology without a foundation in Issues or Ideals.
No wonder "Centrists" are so uncomfortable with those who fight for "Issues".
Much easier if one has no "issues" at all.

"Centrism": an fundamentalist Ideology without any Ideals.


"The only thing in the Middle of the Road are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos"---Jim Hightower

[cascadiance]

118. Without angry progressives, we wouldn't have had the New Deal or the strong country we have today!

... or I should say the strong country we used to have when the New Deal programs still were strong and not torn down like they are now.

We are at a point of history where we'll need some radical reforms to fix the problems that the extreme right have pushed on us for the last decade or so. We can't have someone that's just trying to "keep both sides happy" and does nothing substantively to address these programs.

Obama needs to show that he's flexible in certain areas where the consequences of meeting in the middle aren't as severe for society and hopefully will make some on the right or in the center happy that we're not going to be a "socialist" state, but on some issues like universal health care, jobs, tax policy, etc. we need him to be FIRM and willing to make big changes that might not make the right or the center happy, but that are necessary to fix the problems they've wrought on us for so many years.

I earlier wanted a politician like John Edwards that was speaking strongly for the things we wanted, but have seen perhaps that Obama's approach of being more nebulous and waiting to be lobbied by the grass roots for changes was a perhaps a better way to get elected, and a better way of ensuring he could say he had a mandate to make changes.

I'd really like to see him perhaps not push so hard for these changes himself. They do need to come from us in terms of vocalizing the need for changes, but he needs to exercise leadership in providing us means to communicate with himself and congress what the American public truly wants, which is so broken down with the way our corporate media is getting in the way of that communication, and we don't have adequate union representation vs. corporate interests, lack of public campaign financing, etc. If he would fight hard to fix those other problems and speak strongly that he's doing so to foster better means of the public telling him what they want he and the congress to do, I think that's a better approach to get consensus support from the American people of more political stripes than just saying its needed to help out his progressive base.

[Mass]

121. I guess that you are part of those "angry centrists", in this case.

You post something that is so empty of substance and so generic that it is meaningless. I have no clue what you're talking about. All I know is that you are as intolerant than the people you denounce, and it is not better.

[last_texas_dem]

122. I get annoyed by some liberals who seem to practically be one-issue voters

but at least they stand for something. What exactly do you folks who see the "forest" stand for? Recently, it doesn't seem to be much besides praising Obama and writing "fuck you" posts to anyone who criticizes anything about him.

[mvd]

124. I've always wondered what progressives are supposed to compromise on

Universal health care? I believe health care should be a right, and therefore we shouldn't give in on this.

War? I want all of our troops out of both occupied countries, and soon. That's what I feel is best. But if Obama sees a threat or wants to keep residual forces, I would at least listen.

Gay marrisge? Comprmosing on this would be giving into discrimination.

Taxes? A fairer system is needed to help the economy. Wealth will not trickle down; put it with the majority of people (who are in the middle class and lower.)

There are some things that can be discussed, but stands also need to be made IMO. Progressives aren't like Freepers, since progressive policies actually help more people and keep the entire system working for all.

[amborin]

126. why is 'leftist' or 'progressive' a bad word here? it's important to fight for progressive values,

the right wing conservatives have been working to influence the populace for decades

people don't naturally adopt a progressive viewpoint

just looking at trends on this site shows how diffficult the progressive agenda will be to implement

[blm]

128. Really? Open Government Democrats who believe in accountability are just like anti-gay, pro-lifers?

Gee - can you prove that using the dictionary?

[madfloridian]

129. What an awful statement.....and 7 recs as well. Pretty sad.

DU is changing before our eyes.

[amborin]

132. not too surprising, actually

this is not a particularly progressive place

a few folks here and there, that's about it

[DCBob]

137. I am not familiar with the history of DU. Were moderates scarce back in the good ole days?

Was DU around during the Clinton era? How did that go?

[madfloridian]

147. DU is often used...

as a place to keep us ignorant ill-informed "lefties" and "progressives" in our places because when we speak out too much...people appear to keep us in our places.

For you to compare any of us here to the radicals on the right is very offensive.

It means you are intentionally trying to irritate.

But then that is your problem.

[DCBob]

148. My intention is to point out absurd thinking and comments...

coming from those who claim to support Barack Obama. There are many who seem desperate to tear him down even before he takes office. Their attitude is comparable to the radical right wing conservatives who attacked McCain.

[madfloridian]

150. Well, I don't think you achieved your intention.

I really don't.

[DCBob]

152. Well then I will just have to keep trying.

[madfloridian]

154. Well, it is interesting.

Most of us don't talk to each other that way. I would have a post locked if I did.

None of us on the left or center left are as hateful and divisive as the religious extremists on the right...you should be ashamed for comparing us.

But then it seems okay if you do it.

[DCBob]

155. You don't get it . It has nothing to do with be hateful, devisive or religious.

My point is that extremes are usually wrong, no matter what side you are on. The answer is somewhere in between.

[madfloridian]

156. The extremes on the right are filled with hate and bigotry.

Even the extremes on the left are not that way.

[Ichingcarpenter]

151. So called Centralist and moderates supported Lieberman and Zel Miller

Even Harold Ford was admired. BTW, I gave him money when I had it.
Some are right to work advocates.

You need to define what you believe in being a "moderate" before you take on
what I believe in. What so called moderate Democrats do you like?

Ben Nelson? Ken Salazar?

[EFerrari]

130. Nice wedge you got there!

[davidpdx]

131. Someone call the fire department

Flamewar in progress.....

[amborin]

133. the OP sure drank lots of the Kool Aid

[Mark E. Smith]

134. Agreed

Tiresome bunch.

[Ichingcarpenter]

138. What a naive post that uses freeparian logic

In other words its just white dust

[DCBob]

140. My only gripe with the "angry progressives" is that they are angry.

I have no qualms with progressives. I love progressives! I consider myself one, albeit a moderate one. America just elected a rookie senator, half black guy, with a scary Arabic name, and father who was a Muslim -- that is amazing! Probably the most "progressive" thing ever to happen in this county. Yet, some progressives are still not happy -- in fact they are angry. It makes no sense. I was so thrilled on election night. I had never felt so optimistic about the future. We should still be celebrating! But here in DU, the "angry progressives" are on a mission to change Obama even before he has taken office. I dearly hope they do not succeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

153. not according to your op

not only are we angry, but we are obsessed with pet issues such as angrily demanding that people who happen to be LGBT have the same rights as people who aren't, or more infuriatingly, we get really angry when those rights are explicitly taken away. How dare we?

[ShortnFiery]

142. Yeah yeah, all that Common Good, Social Democracy Ideology is truly dangerous.

:eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

157. I'm a forest type guy. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

The needs of the few are no less real or morally right but their are fewer with their needs. That has no relation to ideology other than triage technique. The most important fights are not the ones most crucial to any group but those that pose the greatest danger or present the biggest obstacles to the majority of people.
Sometimes that means getting the patient's heart going even when they have a cancer that must be dealt with aggressively. The drowning man's situation is more pressing than the woman broken down at night on a lonely stretch of road, even though there's a devil looking for trouble five miles back.

It stinks but it is also reality. Honest discussion of who gets saved, who is left to tread water, and who gets left to sink in order to save as many as possible with the tools and resources available has to be taken with a bit of a stiff upper lip.

I also think its almost inherently dangerous to argue political issues from the standpoint of personal morality, however that system of morals is derived. Debates framed from the standpoints of national security and advancement seem to be more likely to be debated without someone playing the role of god along the way.

I'm not at odds with the "progressive agenda" and have my "tinfoil" areas even but there is some discomfort with the emotion and yeah the sense of "rightness" based on "superior" morality.
This from a person that in a general way embraces the same morality and believes you are right (way more often than not).
This is because from an objective standpoint (if such a thing is possible) its the same logic as the other side until common language and "horse sense" is used to explain why positions are the correct ones for America, which is the #1 failing (amongst many great ones) of the rather larger group of extremist on the right. This is not in any way to say that we even have an extreme left in this country but its not too far off base to say that a few folks in about every issue or personality that are going to dig in like Alabama ticks on their "sacred cow(s)" and that their is a commonality in their thinking that the opposition must be defeated in the name of all that is right.

That has nothing to do with right, left, center, or triangulating but with being in a place where the concept of granting, giving or being asked to give ground is morally repugnant.
Unfortunately, those that cannot compromise must accumulate great power (typically by greatly giving in in other areas) or face a moment where they will realize they lost their desire by holding on to it too tightly.

[Guaranteed]

160. Folks around here need to learn and use the term "moderate liberal."

No, not a DLC centrist.

No, not a Department-of-Peace-pushing-McKinney-supporter.

But a moderate liberal.

No, not a liberal moderate. A moderated, calm, thoughtful LIBERAL. A liberal who understands all ideas turn sour when taken to their extreme.

A John Kerry. A Howard Dean. An Al Gore. A Wesley Clark.

A Barack Obama.