"The Left" is a term of dismissal by our party leaders.

[madfloridian]

They have had years of training in using it during the time that the centrist, conservative Democrats have been controlling the message of the party. It seems normal to them now, all the more reason to clarify who we are.

In mmonk's post here today he described the situation that exists between our party leadership inside the bubble and those of us outside of it:

The Left is used as a term of dismissal

The term "left" is an imaginary one at this point.

Requesting accountability is not left or right. Those that keep the lies and protections for politicians that break the law will continue to hear from us unreasonable "lefties" and "liberals" and "purists" and "extremists" and anything else corrupt politicians and their mouthpieces across the political and media spectrum love to call reality based concerned Americans. We're not against real bipartisanship to help America, we're against bipartisan lies and corruption. The term "the left" used to describe us is to continue to dismiss our real concerns. It is the speech of political persons.

I heartily agree.

The centrist Democrats who have been determining Democratic policy for years have been more and more catering to the wishes of the far right and the conservatives. They have as mmonk said here recently, used "the left" as a dismissive term. Like we were little annoying gnats to be brushed away.

That is why some of us are concerned. It is not that all of us are "far left" or "fringe" or "noisy activists" (to quote Al From's favorite term)...it is that anyone who is NOT right of center is dismissed by the Democratic leaders as the "the left."

That is why we gripe and refuse to back down.

They have for years been recruiting conservative Democrats and even Republicans to run all over the country. Their beliefs don't matter, only winning matters. The DCCC and DSCC have driven many a good Democrat out of a race so their handpicked candidate could run without opposition. Rahm's interference in Florida has for sure cost us one House seat, that of Tim Mahoney. David Lutrin, a good Democrat, a good man, was forced out just as many others have been.

Another case:

An intelligent, handsome, personable, capable, openly gay man who was doing a very good job of campaigning was sabotaged by Democrats here. They put in a man who was just like the GOP opponent...anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war.....and forced the capable candidate out. We lost that race.

Hey, I could go on, but that makes my point as to how these policies have harmed Florida.

Matt Renner covers the same things that happened in other states, catering to the right wing, shoving "the left" aside.

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would not comment on the DCCC's alleged interference.

However, a source close to the DNC indicated that there was disagreement between Dean and Emanuel over election tactics. In his recent book, "The Thumpin'," Naftali Bendavid, a journalist who spent months inside the DCCC operation and at Emanuel's side, reported a heated conversation between Dean, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) regarding election strategies of the DCCC and the DNC. At the time, Dean was focusing on helping local organizations across the country to mobilize their communities to support Democrats. Emanuel wanted to focus the resources of the national party on specific races that were the most likely to be competitive for Democrats. According to Bendavid, Emanuel said to Dean, "You're nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit ... I know your field plan - it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There is no plan, Howard."

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Hoyer gave in on the FISA bill because he was afraid of the Blue Dog centrist Democrats who are more Republican than Democrat in many ways.

Caving in to "anxious" Blue Dogs

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

Florida Centrist Dems have organized to thwart activist Democrats.

Getting Bubba's vote

The Mainstream Democrats is an offshoot of the party organized by Democratic legislators. It is striving to help Democrats broaden their appeal, especially in rural northern Florida, because the basic electoral math is starting to look tougher and tougher for Democrats. They're faring so poorly in northern Florida and many outlying suburban areas, that it's no longer possible for them to win statewide elections merely by remaining competitive in Tampa Bay and Central Florida and overwhelmingly winning southeast Florida.

"North Florida is going to win the next election," predicted former Attorney General Bob Butterworth, noting that his home county of Broward is steadily diminishing as a Democratic powerhouse.

"We're here to get Bubba's vote," said state Sen. Steve Geller of Hallandale Beach, a founder of the Mainstream Democrats and one of those with a northeastern accent.

The centrist "hawks" have challenged Democrats to resist policies advocated by what they called the "non-interventionist left" wing of their party.

Non-interventionist...just another name for "the left"...which really is a simplistic term.

These centrist Democrats argued that voters are more receptive to the Democrats because of Bush's mistakes in Iraq. But they warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections. Instead, they said, Democrats should concentrate on charting alternative policies for fighting terrorism and succeeding in Iraq.

..."Bayh and others spoke at the launch of a collection of essays on national security policy published by the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The sponsors challenged Democrats to resist policies advocated by what they called the "non-interventionist left" wing of their party while vigorously challenging what they call the "neo-imperial right" viewpoint of many in the Bush administration.

It's all semantics, really. We who are referred to by conservative Democrats as "the left" are really where the center is now. Our standards and ideals fit very well with most of the country.

Which is why we must keep speaking out when the Democrats keep reaching out for the extremist religious right offering palm branches of peace...and warning those of us in their own party to behave ourselves.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Hoyer is a conservative. Obama just caved on FISA. and the DC gun ban. nt

[ClarkUSA]

43. The Clintons are DLC. Hillary voted for warmongering with IWR and Kyl-Lieberman

:)

[Beacool]

102. Yes, but she never pretended to be otherwise.

Unlike a certain candidate who was held aloft by the left only to cave in when it mattered.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

105. Sure she did, with her working-class heroine/populist Rosie the Riverter routine.

A big part of the reason liberals and progressives are sneered at are because of pro-corporate centrist "Third Way"/"New"
Democrats like the Clintons.

Oh, and who pretended otherwise? Facts and links, please. :shrug:

[ananda]

2. Dismissing or attacking the left..

.. has been a tactic of the corporofascist
machine for a long time.

While the attacks have been successful,
the failure to heed the left and implement
leftist thinking and policy has been a
mistake of monumental proportions..

.. leading ultimately to the economic
destruction of the country, and to the
double standards we see in the justice
system, government, and legislatures.

[ananda]

3. And furthermore..

If Obama continues pandering to the right,
and disregarding the wishes of the left,
that will be another monumental mistake.

The righties did NOT vote for him,

So.. while they might be pleased with his
appointments, there are many of us who
did vote for him who are most definitely
NOT pleased.

Me.. I'm royally pissed.. because I'm a
constituent who has supported Obama and
the Dems and I feel completely ignored,
dissed, and undermined.

But even worse, I feel that the people are
being ignored.. not just the people of the
USA but also of the world.

Of course, that's because of appointments
like those of James Jones, Robert Gates,
and Tim Geithner. They are rightwingers,
hawks, and corporofascists.

Some of the social appointments are fine,
but the economic, security, and foreign
policy heads are completely wrongheaded
and regressive.

[elkston]

4. Oh, so you expected to get everything you wanted, huh?

Obama's picks are designed to maximize results. The foreign team keeps us safe at home and patches our reputation and alliances. They are centrist and tough. The domestic team is more progressive and focused on moving the country more to the "left".

Give it a chance before taking your ball and going home.

[Metric System]

5. Did you even LISTEN to Obama during the primaries?

[Lilith Velkor]

10. A lot of his "supporters" didn't.

They were having so much fun harassing supporters of other candidates, they didn't notice Barack Obama done drank their milkshake.

Sucks to be them. :nopity:

[firedupdem]

12. Just curious since I wasn't here during the primaries..

which candidate was your choice?

[Lilith Velkor]

14. Mike Gravel

and you?

[firedupdem]

15. Obama,....I never really followed politics much before this past

election. I had that "everybody is a crook" attitude.

[Lilith Velkor]

16. I still do.

[AllentownJake]

21. Yeah he didn't present himself as a crazy person

No matter how great his ideas were he was going to be dismissed as crazy.

[Lilith Velkor]

37. Hey, crazy people vote, too, you know

At that time, it was down to him and Hillbama, and I like his ideas better than Hillbama's so it was a no-brainer.

After that, it was popular 'round these parts to pretend that there was a difference between the two, and that one was a progressive angel and the other a neoconservative demon. Because I called bullshit on that one, I was relentlessly denounced as "racist Hillbot scum," so I just kinda rolled with it. Now here we are in the transition phase, and the same loud crowd is shocked, shocked! that the progressive angel turned out to be...a centrist.

I'm sorry, where were we? Oh yeah, dismissing someone as crazy. Sure, whatever. :eyes:

[AllentownJake]

40. I'm not shocked

I knew what I was voting for. You go with the best option that can win and won't invade Iran as a first course of action or an answer to a failing economy to get re-elected. Plus I kind of like the guy's story.

[Lilith Velkor]

46. Gosh, thanks for telling me how to vote

That's mighty white of you.:thumbsup:

Is there a Presidential election coming up soon? I thought there wasn't another one 'til 2012. I get so confused sometimes. :crazy:

[AllentownJake]

49. Sorry I was talking about my own philosphy

Vote for whoever the hell you want. I don't care.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. My apologies

I see you were using the rhetorical "you." Oops. :blush:

[AllentownJake]

54. No problem.

Sorry I had a 2 hour drive out of a normal hour drive home in the rain.

[firedupdem]

55. How can the "progressive angel"...I guess Obama.. have turned

out to be anything yet since he hasn't done anything other than name some of his cabinet? I know he wasn't your choice but why label him already? Or will you just never support him?

[AllentownJake]

59. Some people never read the policy papers

some people did. :shrug:

If you read the policy papers you knew where he stood. He hasn't moved to far from his stated policies from the primary.

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Hello, he's already been elected.

My "labeling" is based on what he has said and written. Is he not a centrist politician?

And where are you going with this "will you never support him" nonsense? I didn't pretend he was to the left of Clinton during the primaries, so why the hell should I start now?

[mkultra]

60. and now we must listen to the Criticism of those who didnt support Obama in the primaries.

[Lilith Velkor]

85. I am criticizing those who didn't listen to Obama in the primaries. Cope.

[mkultra]

95. i think they would bitch even if they had.

[Lilith Velkor]

104. Why?

[mkultra]

109. my belief is that the vocal critics

are the same people vocal of Obama before the primary. From my recollection, despite what they may say, most of the people critical now where anti-obama during the primary season. They are just stirring up shit Lilith. Seems like something that should be avoided :)

[Lilith Velkor]

120. My recollection is the opposite

Those who were not so much pro-Obama as anti-Clinton are still feeling a bit stung right now. That will fade as time passes, and we find other stupid shit to argue about. :fistbump:

[mkultra]

134. i was pro obama and anti-clinton

and I'm happy as a peach. I'm glad he appointed Hillary even though i don't like here. It was a unity move which is why i like Obama.


most of the heavy Clinton partisans i clashed with have been bitching about Obama pre-performance.

Know what i mean Lilith? ;)

[Beacool]

103. I got to give it to you.

you have guts.........

:rofl:

[cali]

6. I disagree. I don't think

Obama has pandered to the right. He's done precisely what he said he'd do. Furthermore, it's simply not true that the left doesn't approve of what he's done so far. In fact, self-identified liberals give him high marks. I realize that it's difficult for you to accept, but you are part of a very small and rather insignificant minority. And the right is anything but pleased with him That should be clear from any perusal of right wing websites, journals and such outlets as Fux.

I find it quite funny that you're pissed. It seems to be all "me, me, me" for you.

It's just puerile nonsense to falsely and vaguely insist that Obama is ignoring the people of the world. Worse, it's just a silly and meaningless piece of empty rhetoric. What do you even mean by it?


I doubt you know anything about the people you're railing against. For people like you, every post should be filled by Dennis Kucinich. And Jones is actually one of the few people who has pov on I/P that isn't stuck in the "Israel right or wrong" vein of policy.

But don't stop whining. I don't want you to sit down and shut up. I find the whining rather amusing.

[xchrom]

7. he has done what he said -- he will govern center right.

learn to read before you jump on this particular OP.

[Runcible Spoon]

9. amen to that.

Jayzus.

[cali]

13. lol. he has not said he'd govern center right. learn not to pull

things out of your.... whatever. Sorry, your lame claim without any reference is as useful as used toilet paper.

[xchrom]

70. his admin slection as well as his statements regarding 'far left '

and 'far left' make it clear.

you don't have to like it -- but you can blow it out your -- whatever.

[mkultra]

135. i guess we'll blow it out our "far left"

[creeksneakers2]

24. It doesn't look center right to me

I don't know where Obama is going to get the money for all the left wing stuff he's started on already.

[tomp]

115. shall we give him our insignificant votes in 2012? nt

[Runcible Spoon]

8. off to Greatest with you!

KnR

[JeffR]

11. It's also a term of dismissal used by a small but loquacious group of DUers

who only rarely offer anything but myth and innuendo to justify their scorn.

[AllentownJake]

18. Well I consider myself to the left

and I think that we play into the center right coalition's hands alot of times in the way we present ourselves.

[JeffR]

27. I wish you were wrong about that

but I think you're right.

[AllentownJake]

30. We need to divorce ourselves from the people that think that the 60's generation tactics worked

The only thing that worked was the civil rights movement...and that's because the people protesting looked normal and acted normal.

[JeffR]

50. You and I may differ in age and therefore in outlook on that.

To me, the people getting their heads busted open in Chicago in '68 looked and acted pretty normal. So did the kids at Kent State.

Not to be glib about this, because I think what you're getting at is that in-your-face, upraised middle-finger stuff doesn't win many friends or influence many people, and I'd have to agree. John Lennon sang: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

OTOH, 60s tactics were anything but easily pigeonholed. They encompassed a lot of things, and despite the excesses of the movement I think you're referring to, modern-day community organizing, (non-violent) mass protest and using the media to promote awareness and raise consciousness - as they are practiced today - owe much to the activists of the day. Some (not all) of those tactics helped to convince the majority of Americans that the Vietnam War was immoral and unwinnable. Some of those tactics woke millions of people up to the idea that women should not be second-class citizens, that reproductive freedom was a hallmark of real democracy and social justice.

The saddest thing for me (though maybe I'm digressing) is that I learned as a kid that the problem is the system, the Establishment. True then; true now.

But yes, some forms of activism are totally counterproductive. It never hurts to examine what works and what doesn't. It never hurts to allow pragmatism and practicality to inform even our most passionately held beliefs.

[AllentownJake]

53. A smart thing the Obama Campaign did

was take the American Flag during the General Election and place it everywhere. I attended an Obama event and they were handing out American Flags to everyone to wave for the cameras recording and taking pictures of the event. They learned their lesson from the flag pin nonsense.

They could call us all sorts of names from the pictures. The one thing they couldn't call us though was un-patriotic or American hating.

Dissent is patriotic. Following blindly is an un-American thing to do. We need to take the flag back and hold onto it from the fascist.

[JeffR]

98. Couldn't agree more about that

and for the first time in a very long time, seeing the flag made me feel good instead of bad, hopeful instead of despondent, positive instead of cynical.

Damn right it needs to be taken back by those who understand what patriotism really means.

[Gman]

132. Reminds me of what happened to me in 1992

I got dragged by my wife's family and mother in law to a Lee Greenwood concert at the rodeo back then. Right before he sang "that song" they passed out little US flags. I didn't take one. Wouldn't take one. Then he started singing "that song". Everyone in the place stood up. I sat down and stayed sitting down. My wife kinda looked at me and I said as loud as I could, "I'm not going to be part of a commercial to reelect Bush (Sr.)!" They gave each other the "you know how he is" look and resumed waving their flags and singing.

Up until this year, this is what those waving little flags reminded me of. But not any more. Not any more. In fact, I was very proud watching Obama's speech the night before the election and watching all the little American flags. It was one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard at any time from anyone. And I was proud to be an American.

[madfloridian]

61. So if everyone acts all nice and proper the party will accept us as part of it?

You think?

[AllentownJake]

69. Not exactly

and I'm not saying we act all nice and proper sometimes an angry crowd is a good thing however the attire of the crowd has to look like they just walked out of a Wal-Mart so the pictures are sympathetic. Its a tool you use as a last resort not a first tool in the kit.

If there is a left wing of middle class looking people who seem rational and communicate why their ideas are good for the country than the party will have no choice but to accept us because we'll win them elections.

On economic, defense, and healthcare issues the party under Harry Truman was far more left than it is today. There has to be a reason for that.

[tomp]

116. that's right, we left vietnam because nixon and kissinger really wanted to.

it had nothing to do with the protests of "the left".

[EFerrari]

31. No wonder, when both the right and the center do everything possible

to attack the left in the media.

That's like my little brother deciding to back the Japanese when we took him to see "Tora! Tora! Tora!" because he was a smart kid and he figured out they were winning.

[AllentownJake]

32. Yes

but we supply them with no shortage of material or images to attack us with.

If given a choice of following the crazy creationist in a suit and tie or the angry woman in a pink shirt who just threw a pie at someone, the stupid college kid wearing the Che shirt who just smashed a window, or the guy burning the American flag while a guy behind him hangs the President in effigy. People go with the creationist because at least he doesn't look or act crazy on camera.

We need to America and middle class our image up.

[EFerrari]

36. I agree with you about talking to people in a way they can accept and hear.

That's just good communication.

But: Code Pink doesn't do violence. The vast majority of anti-war protesters never, ever would engage in it. The whole image of flag burning, window smashing unpatriotic rabble rousers is a right wing pretense. It's actually THE RIGHT that generates and perpetuates the majority of the violence in this country, not the left.

It's so funny because the left gets it coming and going. We're holding hands and singing Kumbaya WHILE we're breaking windows, throwing pies and burning flags. It's like we all have six arms or something. :)

[AllentownJake]

38. We just need to middle class it up

Jeans, T-shirt without any S. American Freedom fighters, and waiving American Flags.

The RW is excellent at marketing themselves we need to get better at it too.

[EFerrari]

41. You have to know your audience, that's very true. n/t

[The Magistrate]

56. Well Said, Sir!

You have put the matter very well, and the exchange above has been a very good one....

[AllentownJake]

63. Thank you

If we look like who we are which is mostly middle class Americans who just want to make a decent living have a decent home and not destroy the planet in the process and want everyone with equal opportunity to make it here we'll do alot better.

If we treat this as a theatre production...well we'll get get crazy creationsit who believe in Social Darwinism (isn't that an odd set of beliefs they juxtapose).

[EFerrari]

87. Only to find out later, he didn't believe it at all.

lol

Well, if I show up at my neighbors house in clean cut clothes, they'll think I'm a Mormon missionary and throw a pie at me. :)

But, you make a great point: if you're going to talk to a community, you need to be visibly IN that community, whatever that means. Or else, don't bother. Do something else.

Theatre, on the other hand, has its uses. During the Bush administration, I myself preferred even bad theatre to the nothing that was the other choice. May we all have better choices in the coming years.

[AllentownJake]

17. Well if we didn't make ourselves out to be such Cartoon characters

at times it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss us.

[madfloridian]

19. I do NOT consider myself a "cartoon character". Don't let them do that to us.

I think for so long we have been put on the defensive that even standing up to be heard is criticized.

[AllentownJake]

20. I'm not talking about you personally

However, everytime a code pink protester does something crazy, or the people with the puppets come out, or there is a gay rights protest where people act over the top instead of the normal middle class people they are who happen to be gay. Those people become who America thinks of when they think of when they think of left.

In the 60's it was easy to beat the left because the Hippies looked different and un-American and Richard Nixon loved it.

We need to be who we are but we need to tone down the crazy people. They do not help us.

[madfloridian]

22. Yes, but think about the crazies on the right they are pandering to.

I would not be the type to do things Code Pink does....but in my heart I am glad someone is doing something.

I am cautious by nature, but we need those who are not fearful to be criticized.

Look at the young earth creationists our party is trying to reach by leaving abortion and gays off the table?

Talk about weird? Their beliefs flaunt science. Catering to them is dangerous indeed.

[AllentownJake]

29. Yes but the images aren't disturbing

Most people hate Abortion protesters...that's why abortion is still legal. Plus the people protesting for Abortion rights generally look like normal Americans. The assclowns that come to clinics to harass people are not liked because they are over the top.

The RW has mastered looking normal. Most people in the country believe in God. When they do a good job of getting creationism in they normally frame it in a way that the left is somehow trying to preach atheism (instead of preaching nothing) in public schools.

The anti-war protest were better than the 60s but not good for being effective yet. If we ever have to do it again every person in that protest needs to be waving an American flag and talking about how much they love their country. The reason being is there are alot of people with military in their family. If we are burning flags or hanging our leaders in effigy we look like we want our country to lose a war. Than even though our motives are to not have a war because we think its bad for the country we just come off as America and Soldier haters.

Sometimes doing something is actually doing worse. If you are hurting the cause by your actions than it would be better if you did nothing.

[EFerrari]

33. Richard Nixon lost so it doesn't matter what he loved. n/t

[AllentownJake]

35. Yeah he won 2 elections

The last one by a landslide. People didn't vote for him. They voted against us. We won one 4 years later only to lose it again to someone who made Nixon look like a Pussy cat

[EFerrari]

39. The Democrats were in chaos and the anti-war movement can't be blamed

for that. The Civil Rights Act went through, remember, and no one was prepared to figure out what to do without the South.

And Nixon left the capitol in disgrace.

The Democrats continued to be disorganized well into the Carter years. There were no anti-war protesters in Congress whispering in the ears of Senate and House Democrats and urging them to brawl with him.

[AllentownJake]

42. No Carter was a failure on his own

He didn't take anyone who understood the Senate or the House and didn't play well with the Senate...Clinton made the same mistake than learned how to work with GOP congress better than he ever did with his own party.

[EFerrari]

44. The flip side is he was an outsider. I expect that's what a Dean presidency

would have looked like -- not with respect of policy, but in the way the beltway people needed to mark their territory more than they needed to collaborate with the incumbent. At least Howard didn't have to go through that.

In a way, we're in much better shape than we've been in since Kennedy was elected. Our political strategies are much more tested and mature and we have a cushion of support. The down side is the media is mostly owned by the opposition. The Democrats can't keep dissing the internets AND expecting them to support them. There's a balance that needs to be reached right there.

[suzie]

141. I'm one of the North Florida Democrats that you so love to put down.

There are few opportunities for Democrats to win office in my county.

So, for the past 8 years my friends and I have dedicated ourselves to working as hard as possible to get out the vote for statewide and national offices.

In that time, we've worked for and given money to candidates that some might consider 'liberal', but who were mostly unelectable and terrible candidates. But, I'm assuming that they would have passed muster with Mad Floridian because they weren't from North Florida.

The OPs posted here remind me a good deal of my "voted for Ralph Nader friends". They were too good, too pure to vote for Al Gore and handed Florida and the nation over to George Bush and company. But, they've been the best at whining about how horrible Bush is these past 5 years.

Mad Floridian, you constantly complain about how leftists get dissed by the Democratic Party and especially the Florida Democratic Party.

Perhaps you might consider that the next time you complain about other Democrats in your state who are trying to get Democrats elected.

But I suspect not.

[creeksneakers2]

23. Another complaint about being called "the left."

I'm still waiting to hear what the far left would like to be called, beside "progressives." Progressives applies to too many people and the name was already taken. If there ever is a word the far left likes to be called, I'll use it.

[madfloridian]

25. You miss the whole point. But doesn't matter at all.

They could call us anything. We are just not supposed to be seen and heard on policy issues.

Ask yourself: Why do they keep warning us?

[EFerrari]

28. Maybe because if the center keeps carping about the left, then

it's harder for the right to call them out for being "too liberal". Essentially, they're building up some cred at our expense. And, that's a shame.

[H2O Man]

90. A damned shame,

at that.

[EFerrari]

26. Um, isn't "progressive" what the center named the left when the center

allowed the term "liberal" to be demonized?

And "far" left is now anything to the left of Nixon.

"Liberal" works fine. It's about damn time we take the word back.

[leftstreet]

34. "And "far" left is now anything to the left of Nixon."

Isn't THAT the truth.

x(

[EFerrari]

45. I was 16 when the transcripts were published. Who knew we'd spend

30+ years just to get back to the future?

lol

[tomp]

117. everyone to the left of center is, by definition, "progressive"...

far rightists want to go backward, far leftists want to go forward, "center-ists" want a 50-50 split on "tradition" vs "progress". everyone falls on the scale at some point.

the "far left" should call themselves by their real names....socialist or communist. when ordinary people who want reasonable change are called "far left" this is what is being referenced and it is wrong both factually and morally. it is capitalist propoganda, period.

many countries have socialist parties which are active in mainstream politics. everybody knows what they stand for so it's harder to call names.

[Steerpike_Denver]

47. OK, this is probably going to get my comment deleted again..

But if you want a genuine party of the left, you will need to form another party.

Now, attention oversensitive mods with twitchy mouse-fingers: I am not "advocating a third party candidate". Please hear me out, and give my fellow Democrats a chance to weigh in.

It is clear there are elements of the Democratic Party that do not agree with the "mainstream" leaders. Just as there are Republicans who disagree with the neo-con, imperialist and evangelical mainstream of their party. They call themselves "libertarians", and they are increasingly leaving the GOP for the actual Libertarian Party. Likewise, there are many Democrats who are fully aware of the OP's point, and are joining the Green Party, among others. I think this is absolutely healthy for the country, and for the Democratic Party itself.

Now, as long as the constitution requires a presidential candidate to receive more than 50% of the electoral vote in order to win the presidency, no third (or fourth or fifth) party candidate has any chance of sitting in the Oval Office. Even if someone like Nader (or Buchanan, McKinney, Perot)managed to buck every historical trend and win, say 40% of the electoral vote, with the major party candidates dividing the rest, the election would be referred to the House of Representatives. As long as nearly every member of that body is either a Democrat or a Republican, the outcome will hinge entirely on who holds a majority at that time.

BUT. If a genuine left-wing third party, whether Green or Socialist, or Naderite or whatever, could be convinced to back a Democrat as a coalition choice, then the Democratic Party would be forced to make concessions to the true "left" position. As a separate party, the left would have a cohesive voice; they will be negotiating from a position of strength as an outside entity, rather than as a taken-for-granted wing of the larger party, and their positions would have to be heeded in order to give the Democrat a chance to win.

[AllentownJake]

57. or we could back liberal candidates in primaries in office

other than President and maybe build a stronger left portion of the democratic party and a larger pool for higher office.

[madfloridian]

67. No, we can't....not if the party leaders push everyone out of the race but conservatives.

Which is what they have been doing. Read the article I posted by Matt Renner in the OP.

We can only vote for what's there. Then they say oh looky, a conservative dem won...so that must mean that is what the people want.

That's tricky and it is hurting us all.

[AllentownJake]

71. Depends on the race and the district

I think we should have ran a moderate dem in my district this time but we ran a left dem and she got slaughtered by the moderate republican by the same margin Obama slaughtered McCain. She wasn't the greatest candidate and had an ethics scandal with a charity she ran a few years back too so its hard for me to tell what caused her to get beaten so bad.

It's a tricky calculation...however we need to get people on the ballot for the reason it forces conservative dems to move left in the primary.

[madfloridian]

75. I think we should run all conservative Dems who are anti-choice and anti-gay...

then we can be just like the other party. :sarcasm:
But my point is correct....if they kick everyone out of the race but the conservative dems, then we have no choice.

[AllentownJake]

78. Oh those are deal killers for me

I wrote in my Obama campaign field organizer's name for Attorney General because the dem candidate was anti-gay and extremely pro-death penalty. He won anyway.

I voted for Bob Casey but he's liberal on everything but abortion and my choice was Santorum. I actually gave Casey money cause the choice was Santorum.

[madfloridian]

101. But that's who they are choosing to run in the South.

That's one of the problems. They are not giving us the chance to learn if a more progressive Dem can win. They withhold funding and force them out. :shrug:

[leftstreet]

111. I hope your comments stay

:hi:

People need to think about what you're saying.

Look at Gore in 2000. Those who love to blame Nader (even though Gore won) could ask why Gore didn't embrace some of Nader's platform with a "coalition" mindset.

Unfortunately, everyone's wedded to the either/or mindset.

[Steerpike_Denver]

128. We NEED more than 2 parties

It's ridiculous to pretend that the wide spectrum of opinions in this country can only be represented by 2 parties.

A point I tried to make earlier (and which was locked by certain overzealous moderator whoi shall remain nameless--cough! cbayer cough!) was that the tone of elections would be improved by having more voices. Consider how having just one additional candidate would change the political process in this country. With only 2 choices, all races are reduced to a zero-sum, win/lose tug of war. Anything that hurts my opponent helps me, and vice-versa. It's always easier and cheaper to run a negative campaign, rather than lay out an affirmative case for voters to support your candidate. If there is a third candidate, on the other hand, the calculus changes fundamentally: if candidate "A" slings mud at candidate "B", the net recipient is likely to be candidate "C". It will behoove all comers to run more positive, issue-oriented campaigns, rather than just rely on slime and innuendo about one other candidate.

Does this mean I would necessarily join a third party, or encourage others to vote for a third party candidate? No it does not. But a viable third party of the left would make the Democratic Party work to court those voters, by embracing candidates and issues that they care about.

[JAbuchan08]

48. Left or "liberal" is simply the term given to any position advocating real change

or accountability.

Accountability especially, because if we know where money is coming from and going to. If we have a real accounting of the state of our country, from the billions spent and lost in Iraq (where is the dividing line?) to the billions spent on tax cuts for the which, if we were allowed to see the exact size and shape of the corruption no-one would think of those who denounce it as "leftist."

Basically anyone with a reform agenda is called "left"

[nolabels]

107. Left = anybody who thinks they can heal the world with politics and voting

It makes a good place for divide and conquer. More than a reason to move more to a world with a multitude of different types of coalitions. The rest of the planet functions like this and for our own survival we all would be smart to do the same. The homogenized one fits all world only fits a world where command and control are king :shrug:

[madfloridian]

52. Sounds like the Senate is giving in to busting the UAW somewhat.

I was listening to Rachel and Robert Reich, and it infuriated me.

That's what I am talking about. Unions helped make this country great and gave us a strong middle class for years.

Now the conservative Dems in the Senate are caving to the Southern states with foreign auto plants and no unions.

That's how things have been going for years now. When does it stop?

And "the left" will have no say. Just like we had no say on Iraq, FISA, or anything else.

We who are called "the left" have been so right on so many things.

[firedupdem]

58. missed it...dangit!

how are they caving? What did they agree to that will bust the unions?

[madfloridian]

62. Reich did not present details, but sounds like UAW will have to concede a lot.

And Harry Reid ain't talking.

But if we all just sit down and shut up until after the inauguration it will all be ok.

[firedupdem]

64. Ridiculous...what do they have left to concede? ewww !! n/t

[madfloridian]

66. Not much, you are right. They are supposed to match non-union benefits

according to the show and Reich, but of course all the details are not in.

18 more foreign auto plants are coming to the South...and none will be union. And the UAW is standing alone with Democratic support as far as I can see.

[madfloridian]

65. Did anyone notice that I did not mention Obama's name? That the post is not about him?

Yet people think it is.

How odd.

[firedupdem]

68. After reading the first few comments I went back and read your post

again...I didn't understand why it was going in a negative Obama direction...I even pm'd another du'er asking what the hell was going on. I know you can't police your own thread but read the first few comments...really snarky stuff...I wish that maybe you could have directed it some place else or reminded the readers of what your subject matter was but all in all it's not your issue I guess.

[madfloridian]

72. No, I can't police my own thread when mods are posting in it.

I did not make it about Obama, and I am not criticizing him.

I am criticizing a party that has already started shunnng "the left."

What do you suggest I could have done other than not writing it at all?

[firedupdem]

73. I know you can't....it's nothing you could have done..thats why I though

I stated that "I know you can't police your thread"...You did fine..sorry if you took my comment the wrong way.

[KakistocracyHater]

77. it's a good thread

I agree with it & you; you seem to spot things before most, & yes people of all kinds ARE trying to devilize the "Left", I like to say I'm more sinister than what passes for Left, but old Romans faced south & the sun rose on the left side; much of the Christian Bible was a culture war, demonizing everything that Rome valued back then. Demon, in fact, seemed to mean something closer to "saint" or "guardian angel" & Pandemoniom was a Title of Venus, & she's not exactly a stranger to peace.

[madfloridian]

81. Yes, it seems the only danger to our country is "the left"....

And the ones who are trying to take us back to the dark ages in women's rights and education policies are embraced by both parties. Intriguing.

[AllentownJake]

74. Some people on here are upset with the cabinet picks

and others are ticked off that their particular issue has been moved to the back burner because we are on the verge of a Great Depression and some people on here would bitch he's not liberal enough if Bernie Sanders was President.

[firedupdem]

76. Gotcha! I'm moving on! n/t

[madfloridian]

79. And some people want no criticism at all of what the conservative Dems have done.

Which is why I am speaking up.

I have no particular issue, I am not esp. upset with any pick but one. But I see in the choice of Rahm and the exclusion of Dean that things are going back to the old more comfortable way of doing things.

You simply can not shut people out who helped you win, and then expect them to be there again when needed.

That is what "the left" did, you know. You are so concerned about appearance, about how the left behaves.....I wish now I had done more of that rather than being so proper through the years.

Our party has nothing to be embarrassed about with the left. Their party should be hiding their heads in shame at the haters of gays and the haters of women's right, and the ones who believe the earth is 4000 years old.

But they embrace those people.

You seem to be embrace them because they look nice and behave properly as they continue their crusades.

[AllentownJake]

82. I absolutely love your post and we agree on more things than we disagree

I don't like anyone on the right.

I understand marketing and I understand part of the reason on why we get our ass kicked to the side and its easy for us to be marginalized. You can have the greatest ideas in the world but if they are not packaged in a way people can accept and understand and relate to you are fucked. When you protest something you need to be sympathetic to gain support. When you sell an idea you need to explain how it helps everday Americans and frame it in that regard and sometimes through no ill attentions we shoot ourselves in the foot when we don't behave.

The Right Wing has shitty ideas but great marketing. They win everytime. If a product is wrapped in a shiny happy wrapper you tend to be interested in it. They wrap their shit in smiling children and normal looking people talking about "family values" when the values are anti-family. We market our ideas in burlap sacks. It may sound stupid but how we present ourselves sometimes matter.

Its good to study how our enemy sells things and emulate parts of it, not the ideas but what are the images and angles that work for them.

[EFerrari]

93. It's not only the framing.

They have outlets that we don't have. It doesn't matter how well you've put it together if no one sees it.

The net is making inroads and the corporati will turn our way a little bit for a little while but, we need to find a way to get some balance back. Because there is no substitute for being frozen out of the media.

[Shiver]

113. It's all about marketing.

Anyone who knows anything about marketing is going to groan when I say this, but remember the first rule:

"Perception is reality."

How people see the left is how they define it. When the angry people are all they see, the perception becomes that the everyone on the left is angry. The protesters in strange get-ups using theatre and symbolism to convey their message instead of stating it simply invite the perception that our side is a bunch of loons. Most people won't understand the symbolism, won't understand why these women are dressed in pink, and it obscures the message. When they go home later that day, they won't remember what they heard, the image that will be present in their mind is how the people looked and acted. It's the same thing with gay rights activists, doing demonstrations in (no offense intended) ridiculous outfits with crazy-seeming actions.

No, not all of the left or all anti-war protesters or all homosexuals are like this, not even the majority. But these are ones people see, and that perception is the one they carry with them. Perception is reality.

It sucks, I know, but that's the way it works for most people. Admittedly, the media doesn't nothing to help this - how many times have you seen coverage of anti-war demonstrations or Star Trek conventions, and the only people they show are the guy dressed as Uncle Sam walking around on stilts next to two women dressed as elephants or the fat guy made up like Princess Leia? They represent a small fraction, but that small fraction becomes the whole in the minds of those who view it.

This comes back to the OP, in a somewhat roundabout way; if we get pissed off about EVERYTHING, it implies that NOTHING will make us happy. We get upset and bitch about what we don't like, but when good news comes up, it's practically ignored. Steven Chu was selected as Energy Secretary the other day, an enormously qualified and progressive man, but after those first two days, I have seen nearly nothing in regards to it. Compare this to thread after thread after thread against Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates and Rahm Emanuel.

My overall point, is that we do not need to sit down and shut up. We should not sit down and shut up.

But when we do stand and shout, it does not always have to be negative.

[kenfrequed]

127. Right...

But part of framing is what our leaders say about us in public. When they choose to perpetuate stupid stereotypes or vote to castigate Move-On.org or any number of other bits of pro corporte DLC nonsense this creates a frame that we (as the poor and populist left) cannot escape.

When our own party leadership cooperates with the right wing by going on Faux news and bitching about "the left" or going after us for not supporting the president (president fricken Bush!!!) well that hurts us and creates a frame around us. It demolishes our position in a way that a thousand code pink grannies marching down Pennsylvania could never do. It hurts us in a way that a million emails from Move On could never manage.

If you want our salespitch to succeed and you believe in progressive values then you have to stop bitching about Michael Moore. You have to stop making idiotic analogies to hippies or the sixties (which are all based on BS media generalizations anyhow). You have to stop telling us to 'Get over' the 2000 election. You also have to kill the words 'fiscally conservative' and wipe them from your lexicon, I mean you may as well say "Democrats suck at managing your money."

[madfloridian]

121. I see your point. But I still think those who believe the earth is 4000 yrs old

should not be pandered to any more than the ones on the often "politically incorrect" so-called left.

[AllentownJake]

83. By the way

my comment was not directed at you as far as critism of Obama and it was other than the Bernie Sanders snark my analysis on why some people are upset right now with him.

[Lilith Velkor]

89. Obama is a party leader, is he not?

And it was his spokesman who posted that screed on HuffPo, wasn't it?

Doesn't seem odd to me. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

125. But in more general terms, I have been writing about this distinction for years.

Before we even knew of Obama. I have griped for years at how they have painted us fringe when we really were not.

Here's one I wrote from 2004.

Dean said the DLC turned its back on its core constituencies

And from January 1, 2005.

The battle and its beginnings early in 2003. The DLC and Dean

[JVS]

80. The right must be smashed!

[H2O Man]

86. Very good OP.

The discussion that follows is fascinating. People "react," quite often to something other than what you stated in the OP.

Nominated.

[madfloridian]

88. I appreciate that from you. Yes, the reactions are unexpected.

It's kind of sad, too. Because it is a serious issue that we face very soon.

[H2O Man]

91. I had actually

started writing an essay today, along similar lines. But when I was about half-way done, I thought that it would be either ignored or misunderstood.

Strange days.

[madfloridian]

92. Well, I think it is important that you finish it and post it. Even if it is misunderstood.

It won't be ignored most likely.

We here at DU have been through years of the Bush horrors, and we have fought so hard to get the party and country back on track. Now it is as if criticism is wrong.

It is odd.

[H2O Man]

106. Done.

I just posted it.

[madfloridian]

112. Thanks for sharing the link.

This part especially rings true today...

"We will need to focus a significant amount of energy in non-governmental "industries," ranging from established groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center to the Center for Constitutional Rights. More, we will need to study and apply the methods of leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and the hundreds of other lesser-known civil rights leaders, in order to bring about the changes we need to make as a people."

Recommended.

I fear where we are today...it's so far to get back to where we should be as a country. We are only 5 short years from the time when Rumsfeld was a media hero.

It's so far to go to get back where we should be.

[madfloridian]

94. I think it is coming down to fewer people speaking up.

Because doing so brings on ridicule and vitriol.

And being called a martyr if we speak up.

I think the drive here to keep down dissent will be pretty successful, after all. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

99. I'd hold up, MF. This is a busy time of year. A lot of people just don't post as much.

Many people are dealing day to day with this economy in a very real way and we're looking forward to inaugurating a Democratic president. For anyone in retail and anyone in education, this is a high pressure time, too.

I don't see dissent shut down here although I agree that the impulse to shut it down is definitely present. Lots of ugly lately. But, there's a change happening here. Nothing is set in cement and it won't be. I don't think this community would allow it.

I think we'll be fine. It just won't happen over night.

[mmonk]

96. Great examples.

They use us to fund raise, canvass, become party delegates, have us write platforms (which they do not follow), and when they win, they ignore us until the next election. Well, we really don't need to be lectured to anymore. There soon will be no bush or Cheney to hide behind and no great numbers of Republicans to provide an escape clause or excuses. There will be only accountability or lack of accountability and we will be doing an accounting as we go. Obama is or seems to be a decent man. We will see how much we mean to the leadership soon enough. And we won't be silent just because bush/Cheney will no longer be in charge. The promise is change and we will remember.

[madfloridian]

97. As you can see, your words inspired me. They were just what I wanted to say.

:hi:

[mmonk]

100. Aw shucks.

:blush:
You did a great job of laying it all out with truthful examples.:hi:

[dpbrown]

108. Roosevelt didn't adopt "the left's" platform until forced to, why should today be different?

Politicians are reactive, and until a constituency can exert clout enough to force change, it won't become mainstream.

Complaining about it won't help. "The Left" has to become better organized and make themselves indispensable. Then the key demands of the left will be incorporated into governance.

[mmonk]

110. The left they speak of is a straw dog.

Anyone who disagrees with a vote or direction they take, they call the left except when they are running for office and need donations.

[madfloridian]

114. Thanks for explaining. There really is no left...which is what my post

is basically about.

[dpbrown]

140. It will be real when it makes itself real

Until then, no government will adopt its platforms or philosophies.

Politics is about amassing the power to force change, not appealing to someone's mercy.

The New Deal came because Roosevelt suddenly felt he needed the Socialists to keep his government afloat.

Until liberals understand that they have to force change, they'll always be on the outside looking in.

[bridgit]

118. Sadly, by much of the rest, "The Left" is a term of dismissal *of* our party...

mmonk is correct enough, perhaps a bit wishy washy dare I suggest 'leftie' in "Requesting accountability" for doings that clearly require it. "The Right" makes no similar requests...they *demand*, vocally up front and behind the scenes where the play books are printed. Though whether the right whether the left whether demanded whether requested thus/therein are introduced the teeters: anima/animus, yin/yang, in/out, up/down, back/forth, mars/venus...so as to say of course, look...

Palm leaves notwithstanding; I'm finding it far too predictable these round & round ways in which the term "The Left" is trying to be renovated into Camelot-anew without feeling much need to define it beyond the feel-good-feeling it gives people for having declared it as their own in the first place, without having to recognize "our real concerns" as being part of a greater human mandala filled with universal, inalienable rights & concerns. And yes, some may need to read that again & again. Some will not. And the rest can consider it comedy I'm approaching the point where I don't care and here's some of that reason why...

As pieces of ground to define or defend; "The Right" has the right and they know they do listen to them, there's no dispute there, they don't have to be proud of it cause there's no shame to their game. Neocons have neo-conservatism, etc. "The Left" has the left but too often only think they do listen to them they *are* proud of it, there *is* shame to our game and some of us are pleased with spoon feeding it to each other. Neoliberals have neo-liberalism, etc.

While I believe in a strong military able to defend America, I don't give a tinker's damn for the DLC let alone two figs. Freedom & Liberty!! aren't left & right either; the center of the field is just there with a huge red white & blue logo that says: Americans!, a bald eagle, some amber waves of grain, purple mountains, some dust bowls, bags of money, and a busted union (add some of your own, this is America after all) -- as the game ball is pushed up field down field thrown to the sidelines receivers tip toeing the in-bound pushed out foul called Hail Mary illegal motion illegal holding too long in the huddle nose tackles kicking grab-ass while running backs smile for the camera ting! up and over piles of meat if not from underneath it all that stuff, and so...

The right walks into the middle and claims it, to use the coinage of the day its seen as "a bleeping valuable thing" so they do that. The left views the middle as the 3rd rail and will not touch it fearing the death of their mortal soul and so they don't leaving too many, sometimes more than half this nation, sometimes people within our own fold: with the impression that "our real concerns" will become dirty, unholy. At that rate; "The Left" would seem to have little interest in being considered Americans! And that is a way to go. Even in a world where people clamor to come to America and be Americans, it remains a way to go

When, however, politics is an endeavor at which one is able to prevail, as did Barack Obama...isn't it able to be seen as a form of game; like chess? And if at the end of the day it *is* a form of a game...don't we need to play it to win it? Are 99 yard field goals day after day even practical as a means to prevailing?

[madfloridian]

119. We need to demand, yes....but we have to be allowed on the field to play.

And right now only the insiders are playing, and that's about how the story goes.

We keep trying to silence those who point out the obvious. The obvious is that most of us who are shunted aside are really quite middle after all.

[Enrique]

122. yes, there's a conflict between more progressive dems and the rest of them

how are we progressives going to prevail more often? By continually whining about being persecuted?

Or by organizing and educating?

[madfloridian]

124. I don't like the word "whining" as used here so often.

We have to do both...organize and educate. But it won't be easy because the money groups have the media and the airwaves pretty much under control.

But "whining" is not what I am doing, despite so many here using that term.

It's a word used when people are lacking for better words.

It's a put down word used here too much.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

123. K&R Excellent analysis, as always

[anonymous171]

126. "The left" (actual Democrats) should keep pressure on Obama.

[madfloridian]

129. Congress has been very wrong on many things which "the left" got very right.

And that is just the honest truth.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3175

[Gman]

130. This OP is so messed up on so many levels

I don't know where to even start.

Just lot's of issues pouring out.

[L0oniX]

131. To hell with the DLC and the right leaning asscarrot centrists. Bunch of imperialist fucks!

To hell with these rich asscarrots who don't give a shit about the common people of this country. To me it seems that it is the leftists who really care about this country and want to see it fixed the right way. All the others are political capitalist vultures who back the terroristic imperialist goals of the rich who are controlling this country. Everyone is selling out or will sell out when the price is right. There are only a few who really care and most by far are taking us for the last ride this country can pay for on its national credit card. Public dissent, civil disobedience (read Howard Zinn)and revolution is the only solution to the problem.

[antimatter98]

133. When John Kennedy accepted the 'liberal' nomination in NY..

he gave this speech:

http://sweetliberty.blog-city.com/john_f_kennedy___im_proud_to_say_im_a_liberal.htm

The Obama team would call this 'Leftist.'

I say to the Obama team: 'nuts.'

Ever Onward. 2012 is just around the corner. Let's find a candidate who is
not GOP-lite.

Good Luck.

[Still Sensible]

136. A few thoughts occur as I read this thread...

The marketing comments and the relation to politics is accurate, but the whole "perception is reality" concept was an important precept of PolySci 101 when I took it 35 years ago!

I believe the biggest problem with "the left" is perception... and it is so ingrained, we have been unable to shake it for decades. In my opinion it goes back to the Vietnam War and the youth liberalization of the 60's (when I was coming of age). Ever since that era, the perceptions of certain actions--perpetuated to great extent by the media--add to the idea of the radical left. What started in the sixties set the table for Reagan in the 80s to cement "liberal" as more fringe and less mainstream. Demonizing liberal thinking has been the key to republican success since 1968.

Consider how certain actions are widely perceived. When people gather anywhere to protest the Iraq war, the perception is that they represent "liberal" or "democrat" broadly. When such protests show any violence at all, its the same perception--"that's just those crazy lefties!" but the broad brush applies to all on the left and all democrats, greens, etc..

Now contrast this with how actions on the right are perceived. When someone on the right bombs a planned parenthood center, it is not perceived as representative of all conservatives or all republicans. When someone--or a group--on the right commits a hate crime, it is not perceived as representative of all conservatives or all republicans.

That's the field we have been playing on for a long time... and we haven't found the key to leveling that playing field.

[madfloridian]

137. Ooh, I like this part of your post especially.

"Consider how certain actions are widely perceived. When people gather anywhere to protest the Iraq war, the perception is that they represent "liberal" or "democrat" broadly. When such protests show any violence at all, its the same perception--"that's just those crazy lefties!" but the broad brush applies to all on the left and all democrats, greens, etc..

Now contrast this with how actions on the right are perceived. When someone on the right bombs a planned parenthood center, it is not perceived as representative of all conservatives or all republicans. When someone--or a group--on the right commits a hate crime, it is not perceived as representative of all conservatives or all republicans."

True.

Our party could go a long way toward rehabilitating the perception of the left...they don't seem aware they are using it. It is ingrained now.

[leftstreet]

138. Excellent thoughts

Plus, the truth is the huge Iraq anti-war protests included many "conservative" and "republican" voters. But the PTB keep telling us it's those lefties!

[The Magistrate]

139. Well Said, Sir!

And welcome to the forum.