tossed under the bus?

[Two Americas]

Feeling a little tossed under the bus? Check in here.

The winners are all moving on - perhaps you didn't get an invitation, or the invitation seemed to have a certain "bite" to it or a certain degree of superiority or element of coercion? You, too, may be on the "do not invite" list.

We can't let just anyone be an Edwards supporter, don't you know.

The Democrats - or "progressive" or "Edwards progressives" or whatever - hang a sign out: "we welcome the downtrodden. We are on your side. That is just the kind of beautiful people that we are." But then they complain and turn mean when the downtrodden actually come in and track up the beautiful "progressive" carpeting.

[Greylyn58]

1. Absolutely tossed

I'm tired of not being able to speak my mind, say how I feel about both Clinton and Obama. The nasty, ugly behavior that has taken hold of DU has become so pervasive. I, as well as other Edwards members, who find themselves left out in the cold because they don't support either of the two remaining people, shouldn't have to justify our feelings to anyone here.

Yet, time and time again, we are screamed at, called names, told we needed to get on board and support--insert either candidate name--because we must win the WH.

I'm am so freakin tired. I had such high hopes for this election cycle. We should have won this election in a cake-walk, but the Democratic Party has managed to turn it into the biggest clusterf*** because of the infighting.

John Edwards would have walked through fire to fix all the ills facing this country, yet the Dems decided they needed to make history and threw him head first under the bus.

Damn all of them!!!

[iris5426]

2. Yup.

:mad: :cry: :banghead: :scared: :grr:


:hug:

[cindydivine]

30. I'm with ya... 100%

This has just turned into a disgusting mess...

Back when everyone thought John McCain was out, I told all my friends that he would be handed the presidency for the support he had shown Bush. Everyone thought I was crazy... now look.

This whole Clinton/Obama thing is spinning off its wheels and we are going to have another warmonger for president. At least when John was in the Democrats were active and real discussions were taking place...

[shireen]

45. welcome to DU, CindyDivine

:hi:

and i totally agree with your comments. i miss John and Elizabeth too. In the "history-making" hysteria that's permeated this primary, it's too bad he happened to be a white middle-aged rich guy who just happens to know what this country really needs to get back on its collective feet. A real shame ....

[Andrea]

48. Yep

McCain sold his soul to Bush in return for getting the nom this year. It was disgusting. How can any of them support him? It's just because they are ignorant. After what the Bush scum did to him in 2000, he should have had enough pride to never do a thing for Bush. Apparently, he has no self-esteem. And he's already demonstrated publicly, by supporting Bush in return for this nom, that he can be BOUGHT. He's as disgusting as the Bush crowd. What a worm.

Yes, when John was still in he forced a real dialog to take place and he kept this race from deteriorating as it has. We would be so much better off if he were still in, even if he didn't ultimately win the nomination (though I think he would have, if he had stayed in until the end).

[Two Americas]

56. welcome

Hi cindydivine. Welcome aboard.

[shireen]

44. off-topic, sweet pup! is he a g. retriever ? nt

[Greylyn58]

47. Yep he's a Golden. That's my boy, Sheridan.

He's my baby even at 12 yrs of age. :)

[Andrea]

49. He's beautiful

My friend had two Goldens. They were among the sweetest, most delightful dogs I've had the pleasure of knowing.

[shireen]

51. you have a wonderful little boy ...

i love dogs so much. they are such sweet loving little souls. Give him a hug for me. :)

[Ninga]

3. Do not fret children, another bus will come along and you will be able to hop on if you

choose!

By the way, say what you will, but John Edwards went willingly. Just watch as Hillary snarling and bitting at the ankle of the process, hangs on and on and on.

John could have done that. I think he would have given people a huge surprise on Super Tuesday. But no. His campaign was raising new money and it was only 5 fucking days before Super Tuesday, and he suspended???? Who promised him what....and did John throw the poor and the working class under the bus by suspending 5 days before Super Tuesday?

So you see dear Edwardians......there is plenty to question right on our own door step.

So if you honestly know why he stepped down, fess up. Otherwise all reasons must be considered, and if he sold the American people out for a promise by one of the other two......what does that say about his devotion to the little people? What does that say about his promise to go all the way to the convention. Does that mean he lied? Talk about a broken promise. What happened to the people under the bridge? Did anyone tell them Edwards has left the building? Are they still there waiting for him?

So see....when any of you call out a candidates heart, or their worthiness, or their character, or their devotion......it opens the door for all questions to be asked about everybody.

If you are honest with yourself, you will consider and call into question his suspension 5 days before Super Tuesday. And if you are honest you could say he threw his supporters under the bus by not giving the process enough of a chance to work itself out. He threw the poor and the working class and all of us under the bus by not fighting to the end as he said he would do. If he did it for a possible appointment, then he sold us out for sure.

HE HAD A CHOICE, AND HE MADE IT. PERIOD.

You can cry and protest and call me every name in the book, which I expect some of you will do, but at the end of the day....it does not change the fact that he suspended 5 days before Super Tuesday. A very curious time, when he was raising new money and ALL READY HAD HIS STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS ON THE GOUND IN THE SUPER TUESDAY STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doesn't it make you wonder and wonder and wonder?????????????? IT SHOULD IF IT DOESN'T

Please do not throw meaningless speculation about " he did it for the greater good" huh? "he did it because he was forced" huh? Hillary is not going any where, she is fighting.

So you see children, there are lots of ways to look at things. While you are so busy chattering and being woeful, and sad and crying over and over and over about how much you miss him, Edwards has driven his bus to Californina and will be stopping by to see Jay Leno. Sounds to me like he has gone on with his life.

[cornermouse]

4. Stop it.

You're not doing Hillary or Obama any favors. A condescending tone never works.

[Ninga]

6. I stand by my words and sincerely welcome.............

honest debate.

Which part of what I wrote would you like to debate?


I couldn't do either of them a favor if I tried. I did do favors for John Edwards, at a great personal cost of money and time. But he didn't appreciate it. Never did hear from him. I don't think he even knew I went from Ohio to Charleston to work for him. Ungratful bastard!!! (I gave up being smarmy for Lent, but sorry to say, I am not perfect).


Satire or not???????

[Two Americas]

23. I am sincerely willing to debate

You say "choose." I will debate that. Politics is about people having the power to make any choices, not about them making the "right" choices.

The political left wing says that politics is about power and econimics, and that power is distributed unequally and unfairly, and that this represents an injustice and is the cause of our soical problems. Only a few have any power to be making any choices, and it is absurd and cruel to lecture people about the choices they are making.

The political right wing says that personal choices are what is most important, and that if you are weak or suffering or powerless you must have made the wrong choices and so you belong where you are and should stop feeling sorry for yourself.

The political left wing says that it is a bad system that is making people bad and promoting bad people, limiting and restricting choices for most people, and rewarding anti-social and exploitative and greedy behavior. The right wing says that individuals making bad personal choices is what is causing the problems, and people need to be reformed or punished and forced to get with the system.

Liberals who promote the view that politics is a matter of personal choice are supporting right wing politics - the very foundation of right wing politics. Liberals who tell poor people and suffering people, and those advocating for them, that they should stop whining and sobbing and "move on with their lives" are supporting and defending right wing politics.

I am supporting the left wing point of view.

[waiting for hope]

5. Ninga - I seriously question

if his suspension was a free choice. I know a lot of Edwards supporters, many that know him personally and this was not something that they think he did willingly. I'm not ready to throw Edwards under the bus with that assumption.

[Ninga]

7. My dear. What illusions do you live under for goodness sake. If all of the protests and

calling out we do to others here, why is our candidate exempt from honest questions?


Unless he was blackmailed or threatened with his life.......he went willingly after he told us he was in it to the end.

Sorry, but speculaton only will make us feel better and avoid critical thinking.


Perhaps now it the time to have an honest talk about the birds and the bees of politics.

[waiting for hope]

8. I offer you this:

http://community.livejournal.com/southern_hope/401123.html

And I have done a ton of critical thinking on this matter. I have spent a year on this campaign and have gotten to know a ton of Edwards supporters all over the country, many that have been to his house, many that are delegates for him. Time may prove me wrong, but I think there is something dark behind all of this. The media blackout of him alone was part of it but until I hear him say something like, "I just gave up" (I believe his character wouldn't allow that) - I am giving John Edwards the benefit of the doubt.

[Ninga]

9. He said he was in it to the very end. His campaign continued to raise money, and his

Super Tuesday organization was in place and working.

The media blackout was not new, he was dealing with it for months. Going to someone's house is not a test of their sincerity.

I am trying to get a debate on what we know vs. what we want to feel good about.


My whole point in this exercise is to get people to think honestly.


No one is caring to address the facts surrounding the time of his suspension. All I ask, is why?


Am I correct in thinking that you have blind faith when it comes to Edwards? And if you do, is it only OK for you, and not OK for other supporters to have blind faith?

[bpeale]

10. i think it is a-okay not to listen to this crap!

sorry, Ninga, but much as i respect you, i'm putting you on ignore. i come to this forum not to hear crap but for peace & quiet. off with you.

[waiting for hope]

11. Your first three sentences

don't add up to your presumption that he backed out willingly. And like I said, until I hear John Edwards say "I just gave up", I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. That's not blind faith, that's being open-minded and what indicators do you have that he is not sincere?

I support John Edwards because of the message he brought to the table, because of the policy platforms he laid out. The other two come up short and the level of discussion here has turned into a free for all - neither set of supporters want to discuss the issues, they would rather pander personality. If that is what they want, it's okay with me. I have no place on the other forums anymore, any critical thinking there and you are branded a racist, bigot or a Clinton supporter. I have read your posts since Edwards suspended and I see that you are angry at him - we are all angry, but I chose to be angry at the process. The process in place stole the last two elections, the process that allowed Kerry to be swift boated, the process that gave Michigan and Florida the hubris to screw with the primaries for their own personal glorification. I grew up right outside Washington, DC - my Dad worked for the government for the majority of his working career and I know that politics is a very dirty and underhanded game that is played. Edwards challenged that process and he is where he is now because of it.

As for being honest, and I mean this with all sincerity, why are you posting in the Edwards forum? There are quite a few here that you would brand "delusional", so why bother?

[Ninga]

12. Then I have been mistaken in posting here. I apologize. Regarding "process".

Process is a dynamic that requires human participation. Otherwise is does not exist.

Edwards participated in the process, willingly. And for anyone to say that they know the reason is to have blind faith.


Kerry and Gore were great people but the minute they blinked, the other side capatilized. Both of them should have won by numbers that overcame vote stealing, especially Kerry.

Edwards said they would fight. Kerry withdrew.

Edwards did the very thing Kerry did.

Not one of you, has answered why Edwards could not wait until after Super Tuesday?


Here is another way of looking at it. If he were forced, then what could the leverage possibly be? Is John Edwards just a nice guy who can be easily pushed around????

[waiting for hope]

13. Did you read the link I provided up thread?

Edwards participated in the process, yes, but he also wanted to change it. Almost every policy platform screamed change and he said about a zillion times the system was broken. I don't know what else to offer you Ninga, I have enjoyed your posts in the past, but let's just leave it at we differ on opinion and leave it at that.

[Ninga]

14. For all that we have in common, there is much more that we do not. For that I am sad.

I give up.

[Two Americas]

24. the battle

I think you are right that there is a divide within the ranks of Democrats, and now sadly we see it within the ranks of Edawards supporters. I wish you would not give up.

I know that I am saying the same things I said two months ago, three months ago, and ten years ago, For a brief period of time, while Edwards was running, people were hearing and considering what I was saying. Many stopped listening over the last couple of weeks. What changed?

I am not so worried about Edwards quitting a political race. Political races come and they go. More disturbing to me is watching most Edwards supporters quitting on something that is much more important.

Without the "cover" of the Edwards campaign - the emotional safety and security that it provided - Edwards supporters are no scrambling to find a safe and secure place to hide and are viciously turning on their former allies and comrades who are standing fast. They are choosing to align themselves with the reactionary and gentrified wing of liberalism, choosing to be driven by fear and to run with the herd, and dismissing, ridiculing, invalidating, marginalizing and attacking those who are bearing witness to this transformation, this "moving on," this "getting over it," and who are daring to speak about it.

[Ninga]

27. Life is a quest for the reasonable alternative. At least some are scrambling. The ideal is to be

rich. The alternative is to have a job. The reasonable alternative is to be able to have a job that does not consume your life.

Compromise is the mother of the reasonable alternative.

[Two Americas]

28. community

Life is a quest for community, for togetherness, for shared purpose and meaning, for love and acceptance, for creating and contributing to the welfare off others, for ways to make life better for everyone.

The ideal is not "rich." The ideal is not self-actualization. That is Hell. That is Republicanism. That is social suicide. It is lonely and empty and meaningless.

[Ninga]

31. Try spending an abundance of community, togetherness, shared purpose and

meaning at the drug store, the grocery store and the doctor's office.


There are scores of people who live under Edwards bridge who would gladly accept money from me and pass on the love.

[Two Americas]

34. not following

Not sure what you are saying here, Ninga. I don't doubt that you are a charitable person. We are talking about politics, not personal choices. No matter how good or generous or charitable the personal choices, they still do not offer a powerful or effective alternative to political action.

[Ninga]

36. I responded to your words as follows: Some times reading is not hearing. I must have misheard.

Life is a quest for community, for togetherness, for shared purpose and meaning, for love and acceptance, for creating and contributing to the welfare off others, for ways to make life better for everyone.

The ideal is not "rich." The ideal is not self-actualization. That is Hell. That is Republicanism. That is social suicide. It is lonely and empty and meaningless.

[Two Americas]

38. ok

You said "try spending an abundance of community..." and I assume you were then talking about making charitable financial contributions to the less fortunate, and saying that they were grateful, and that they were then passing along "the love," no? I am saying that spending money is not the same as love nor is giving charitably "spending an abundance of community." Charity is fine, but you offered it as an alternative to communal and collective political action.

[Ninga]

39. I clumsily tried to say the essence of the quality of love unfortunately includes money.

"spending" was the verb to community, etc.

ya, can't take a wallet full of community, or love, to the grocery store.


And.

Philanthropy (as in money) contributes to the quality of life, and is separate and aside from the political arena. I agree, that charity IS NOT an alternative to communal and collective political action.

[Two Americas]

41. thanks

I understand. Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we would not say that money being part of the mix was "unfortunate" were we living in a more just system, eh?

I would say that compassion and understanding and better communication do more to improve our quality of life than financial donations ever will. Too much charity comes with strings attached - a demand that the recipient take a certain view or posture, and not challenge or mention the injustice and power imbalance that is an inherent risk in the helper-helped dynamic, especially when that is transmuted into a defective-fixer dynamic, as it often is.

Have to run some errands, but I much appreciate your willingness to explore these issues, Ninga, and I hope we can pick it up later.

[Ninga]

33. Sorry about this, but one more thing about the rich.

The underpinnings of the infrastructure of this country have been overwhelming supported by the wealthy and their foundations.

Historic renovation
The Arts, Visual and Performing
Philanthropic Foundations set up to fight disease
The scores of scholarship monies available from thousands and thousands of sources

[Two Americas]

37. thanks for the discussion

I love rich people. They are my fellow human beings. Michael Moore was a neighbor of mine, for example. I worked with and for automotive magnates from the Ford, Chrysler and other wealthy families at various times, for another. I have had the opportunity to meet and informally speak with the founder of Windham Hill, the founder of the Renaissance Fairs, new age guru Werner Erhard, rock impresario Bill Graham, and wealthy entrepreneur and current White House advisor Doug Wead among others, and once was able to talk with Robert Kennedy in an intimate setting. I found that they all put their pants on one leg at a time, if you will forgive an old-fashioned expression. Even though they may be blessed with material wealth, spiritually and morally they suffer from being trapped in the same system that kicks so many less fortunate people to the curb, which is what motivates them to do charitable works - it is an attempt to regain their own souls and seek spiritual redemption. Henry Ford spent the latter half of his life trying to compensate morally and spiritually for the first half of his life, as one notable example with which I am very familiar.

This is about the system, a system that is destroying the cultures and communities around the world that have sustained human existence through all time, and that is impoverishing, torturing, imprisoning, and oppressing millions of human beings, and that is destroying the very planet we depend upon to survive.

This is also about the regrettable tendency among modern liberals to settle for the consolation prize in politics - being "right" in a selfish and limited way, and about the willingness to embrace and promote reactionary politics, such as seeing private charity as a substitute for political action and public infrastructure and collective power to promote public welfare.

It is the realm of religion to create a better society through improving individual human beings. It is the realm of politics to allow human beings to become better through improving the system within which they are forced to live - taking the shackles from people and giving them a share of the power and resources they need to live their lives and build strong communities.

[shireen]

46. "realm of religion"

It is the realm of religion to create a better society through improving individual human beings.

As a devout agnostic, i'd have to disagree with that comment. Personally speaking, religion has no role in making me a better person. Nor do I need religion for that or any other purpose. I think the motivations that many of us have for creating a better society are a complex mix of several reasons. Compassion. Empathy. Security. And I'd also suggest it's a form of wise selfishness because we're only as strong as our weakest link. Maybe religion is the prime motivator for some people, but that's a sad excuse because it sounds like they're doing it because they're told to do it.

Anyhow, history shows that religion has a lousy track record for creating a better society through improving individual human beings.

Perhaps you meant spirituality, which is different from religion?

Oh, I dunno ... thinking of this stuff gives me a giant headache. :banghead:

[Andrea]

52. I agree with you completely

I consider myself a theist. Religion has no role in my life at all. In some cases, it can be benevolent. In many cases, it has been a primary force in oppressing people. "A complex mix of reasons" sounds right to me, and I agree with the reasons you've cited. I'd include a concern about karma, too.

[Two Americas]

55. religion in society

I wonder, has religion been a primary force in oppressing people, or an excuse? Since there has rarely been a society without religion, and since almost all cultures have oppressed people at one time or another, it is impossible to establish cause and effect.

We are supposedly under the rule of religious men right now - that is what they claim, and that has been a rallying point for them to use to gain support. Yet Cheney, for example, is the least spiritual man I have seen in high office in my lifetime, and Bush is the first president ever to not attend church while in office. Are they religious? Or are they using it to dupe people? If it is the latter, than religion is not at all the primary force behind their evil actions, their cynical deceptions about religion - and they are deceptive about everything - are merely being used by them.

[Two Americas]

53. sorry, yes

I make that mistake a lot, because I take the longer view on this and forget that people are caught up in and believers and participants in the historic spiritual shift that is occurring in America. At this juncture in history, and for a brief period of time, people are making a distinction between "spirituality" and "religion." I think that is because we are "between" religions. The traditional religions are collapsing, and a new religion - called "spirituality" in its infancy - is forming. When new religions start they are never called "religions" because there is a need to differentiate them from the old - and discredited and rejected - religions. New religions are always seen as "the truth" when they are forming, not as a religion.

For the purposes of my political point, there is no distinction needed between "religion" and "spirituality." Today's "spirituality" is always tomorrow's "religion."

[Two Americas]

54. a little more on that shireen

I probably should have said -

It is (properly, historically, and traditionally) the realm of religion (or spirituality to seek) to create a better society through improving individual human beings.

That makes my meaning more clear.

We are living in very interesting and volatile times for spirituality and religion.

During Luther's time there was a priest - can't remember his name and can't put my finger on it right now - who predicted that the Reformation would eventually lead to the "church of one." That is to say, that each individual would have their own personal beliefs and be the only member in their personal "church." I think his prediction has come true, and we are now there. People, of course, don't see their personal beliefs as religion, nor do they see themselves as a church. That does not mean that religion does not play a role in their life, merely that it is hard to see it and identify it as such.

You can take a person out of religion, but taking the religion out of the person is a more difficult task, and many people project beliefs and modes of thinking that are very religious - or
"spiritual" in the current vernacular - into all aspects of their lives every bit as much as the traditional church goers do. When there is no established and traditional religion in people's lives, they turn other things into religions to fill that emptiness. Much of modern liberalism is approached by people as though it were a religion, and we see cult-like faith based behavior all through our society and in the most unlikely places. People have actually based their personal spiritual beliefs on things like the Star Trek TV series, or on certain sci-fi novels. Much of the Obama following has had disturbingly cult-like religious overtones. Science has even become a belief system for some people.

[shireen]

57. it's disturbing to see how susceptible people are to charismatic influences.

It is (properly, historically, and traditionally) the realm of religion (or spirituality to seek) to create a better society through improving individual human beings.

If i understand your correctly ... you're referring to the idealistic pure-goodness flavor of religion and spirituality, the ultimate saintly existence that people likes to think they're practicing, except they're seriously deluded. :P


You can take a person out of religion, but taking the religion out of the person is a more difficult task

So true. It's a profound life experience that can exert a powerful and diverse range of outcomes. I'm still traumatized from being forced to attend church and sunday school, and get very uncomfortable in churches. But my siblings, who went to the same church and sunday school, essentially exposed to the same religious influences, are quite comfortable with church and religious holidays like Christmas. I don't know why I developed such a strong aversion towards organized religion, and they did not.


People have actually based their personal spiritual beliefs on things like the Star Trek TV series, or on certain sci-fi novels. Much of the Obama following has had disturbingly cult-like religious overtones.

I've seen "cultish" behaviour in other campaigns too. In 2004, campaigning for Wes Clark, I interacted online with some Clark supporters. A few individuals displayed some rather extreme blind adoration towards him that was a bit creepy.


The complex psychology of religion is extremely hard to understand .. as i indicated earlier, banging my head against a brick wall, over and over, hurts less than thinking about religion! :banghead: OWWW!!

[Two Americas]

60. religion in modern society

If i understand your correctly ... you're referring to the idealistic pure-goodness flavor of religion and spirituality, the ultimate saintly existence that people likes to think they're practicing, except they're seriously deluded.

Historically, the persistent urge to perfect or improve oneself has been what has been called "religion." When that gets crossed and intermingled with commerce, or politics, there is always much grief and confusion.

The theme of all successful religions has been "clean up your own backyard." Look at the mote in your own eye, don't judge others, don't raise yourself up into a big shot, give the underdog a break, suffer the little children, the meek will inherit the earth. Since the survival of human societies absolutely requires that we cooperate, that we have shared values of self-sacrifice, compassion and charity, religions are the "glue" that holds societies together, because it reinforces and promotes our sense of social responsibility and caring for others rather than the alternative - merely selfishly pursuing our own desires.

Now we have a serious breakdown - Protestantism has splintered off into all sorts of bizarre and perverted directions - "judge your neighbor harshly. He is gay or liberal or something. Don't be critical of yourself, you are saved." We have "win with Jesus" - as material prosperity and Christianity are shamelessly intermingled - and Jesus as a used car salesman (see "Amway") Jesus as the persecutor of the oppressed and downtrodden raining bombs down on impoverished villages (see Iraq) Jesus as the avenging angel of white male privilege and all sorts of abominations.

We also have a growing New Age spirituality that is completely contaminated by the American "winners" mentality, and that justifies and promotes selfishness, and we have the Ayn Rand "libertarian" spiritual sickness that tells us that selfishness is the highest moral ideal and we should all become as selfish as possible!

"Visualize abundance!" Spirituality wed to greed and the pursuit of material wealth. Watch Oprah. This pernicious and destructive doctrine is promoted everywhere now.

So true. It's a profound life experience that can exert a powerful and diverse range of outcomes. I'm still traumatized from being forced to attend church and sunday school, and get very uncomfortable in churches. But my siblings, who went to the same church and sunday school, essentially exposed to the same religious influences, are quite comfortable with church and religious holidays like Christmas. I don't know why I developed such a strong aversion towards organized religion, and they did not.

It is not organized religion. It is an aversion to organized anything. The problems with "organized" religion just reflect the broader social problems. ALL organization is breaking down, all organizations have been corrupted and are oppressive. We are rejecting organization to such a degree that it is now almost impossible to organize people around any project, and people are forgetting how to form and run organizations. We only have one model - the "free market" hierarchical corporate organization and marketing model. When we fall back on that model - and all liberal organizations do, and it is impossible to get people to think in any other way - we keep getting the same results.

All of these are probably warning signs that the people are sliding into a willingness to accept tyranny. Most of the "political" debates today are about what flavor of tyranny we will have. People have forgotten how to be leaders, and forgotten how to be followers. Employers complain about finding good help, employees complain about finding good jobs. Try to organize people for a cause - people will ONLY follow dictators (liberal petty dictators are more pleasant and are not seen as dictators) and will only accept an organization that does not ask much of them and that just tells them what to do. People are only comfortable in an organization that is driven by money, and where strict corporate protocol is adhered to. Petty dictators and bullies are everywhere. People accept this, knuckle under to this, and then can’t figure out why the national leadership is all screwed up. The Bush administration is a perfect reflection and representation of what our daily lives have become.

[shireen]

61. thanks, thoughtful comments ...

and pretty depressing. :(

[Two Americas]

20. it is the rule

Coercion is the rule, not the exception in politics.

Hundreds and hundreds of excellent books are available with intimate accounts of American political history - the back room deals, the power plays, the coercion, the threats, the horse trading and the arm twisting. There really is no excuse for the modern view of politics we hear so often - sanitized and smiley-faced as though it were all sweetness and light. I think that view is symptomatic of a larger problem on the political left - gentrification. A facade of nicey-nice illusion is smeared over harsh realities for the sake of making people feel good, while denying the realities of politics and ignoring the truth about the crisis we are in.

[bobbolink]

16. I also remember, waiting for hope, that THREATENING letter from the national head of COC.

That was what, about a week before he suspended?

When the head of the National Chamber says some of the things that were in that letter, it should have made all of us take note. I know it definitely got my attention.

I think there was something "dark", too.

AND,,, the way John stumbled through his speech that day... that's not like him. SOMETHING was up.

[waiting for hope]

18. I had forgotten that -

Thanks bobbo! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story

The COC also vowed to take down the Kerry/Edwards ticket too. John was right about the Status Quo, and it doesn't like to be poked.

[bobbolink]

19. "when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,"

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

Well, John bled.

Mission Accomplished.

:cry:

[Two Americas]

21. divergent realities

I am glad you posted that link. Denial of the reality of power and economics in modern society, as proved by that article, is the core foundation of failed modern liberalism. Those of us who refuse to turn our backs and ignore that harsh reality are the ones now being thrown under the bus. This reality must be suppressed because it interferes with the narrative, it challenges the self images of the liberals, it gives lie to their views and actions. Those who speak from this reality must also be suppressed - we are using hateful verbiage, or are angry and hostile, or are hurting the goody two shoes liberals - "offending" them, outraging them and shocking them; making them very uncomfortable.

What we are seeing, I think waiting for hope, is divergent realities not divergent opinions or political philosophies. One view, taken by those who live in a world of relative ease and security, is that things are more or less OK. Sure we need to help a few poor people and work a little on the causes we keep on a list, and get rid of those weird Republicans. But life is more or less good, so we can put on a happy face, "think positive," and keep making the "right choices" and all will be well.

Some of us have seen, or live on a completely different reality, and we know that millions arwe living that other reality. We know that the "good life" touted and defended by the faction of people that dominate liberalism - mostly professional people, mostly suburban, mostly white, mostly from the upper 10% in household income (and people get extremely angry and defensive when you point that out) - is a thin veneer, a very shallow view of the world and the country that leaves most people here and overseas out of the picture. They cannot or will not see their own prejudices. The combination of their own personal success and their liberal "caring" and their inflated sense of their own sophistication and education and knowledge and intelligence makes them the ones in this society who are most resistant to change and most close-minded and most intolerant of other views. This is an exquisite irony, since they fancy themselves to be "for change" and the most tolerant and open-minded.

There may be nothing more painful then having your reality - your perceptions of the world - denied and ignored. This is why the gentrified upscale liberals fight so hard against "radical" ideas. The gentrified "success" view of the world aligns with power and privilege in this society, so taking that view is the oath to more security, more status, more acknowledgement and recognition. It is much more dangerous and painful to resist the herd and challenge the gentrified view of the world, to challenge the modern American notions about "success" and "right choices."

We can see with the Edwards supporters, that many got scared and are now running hard toward the safe and secure sanctuary of accepted and agreed upon reality - the myth of an American society that works, that is predictable and rational. It is just too damned hard and painful to stare reality straight in the face and accept the implications of that. They are going for happy, for security, for reassurance, for safety, they are trying to get back into the middle of that herd called "like minded" people, the "progressives" so that life will make sense again and not look so dark and frightening.

Of course, as we are seeing, the program is "get happy OR ELSE" and those who refuse to get on the "get happy" program are now being attacked and accused, and accused of what exactly? Accused of being themselves the angry or hostile or destructive ones. The ones thrown under the bus are blamed for causing themselves to be thrown under the bus, and anyone complaining about being thrown under the bus is then characterized as "hurting" the beautiful people, as "offending" them by being "so ugly" and "hateful."

[waiting for hope]

26. Well, I'm scared and not running.

Scared that things are going to get much worse, regardless if it's a D or a R in the WH. The delusion I see is denial and avoidance and the reality there is when the other shoe drops, they will play the victim and not take ownership for their actions. Edwards said it best: Silence is Betrayal.

I saw this earlier and thought you may find it interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/hagel-us-may-need-new-po_n_92512.html

If someone from the right is calling for it, when is someone from the left going to step up?

[Two Americas]

29. and I stand with you

I stand with all who are willing to face the fear, willing to walk into the dark places where we all must now walk if we honor the truth, if we are to be truly and fully human, if we would rather face the fear than to turn our backs on millions of our fellow human beings who are suffering and persecuted.

[Andrea]

50. Very interesting link. Thanks.

I had not read that. It's very interesting and well documented.

[waiting for hope]

59. After seeing Edwards on Leno -

It makes it more plausible. Especially with the statement that he (or Dean) didn't see it coming on how tight the race still is. And you are welcome. :)

[bobbolink]

15. You say you welcome sincere debate. Then, you get a sincere, polite response,

and your reply is condescending, at least, and more like biting.

I get that you're very angry with Edwards.

That's fine.

but that reply was beneath you.

[Two Americas]

22. objection

I object to this most strongly.

"So you see children, there are lots of ways to look at things. While you are so busy chattering and being woeful, and sad and crying over and over and over about how much you miss him, Edwards has driven his bus to Californina and will be stopping by to see Jay Leno. Sounds to me like he has gone on with his life."

I am not a child, I am not "being woeful" nor am I "sad and crying over and over and over about how much I miss him."

[Ninga]

25. Metaphorically speaking, crying and sadness are child ego states. My comments were global

and not specific to anyone person.

I apologize if you were personally offended. But on the other hand, you could have chosen not to be offended. Or maybe you could have not seen your name, and know I did not point my comments to you directly.

IE.

Adult: John Edwards was a candidate

Parent: John Edwards you need to stay in the race.

Critical parent: John Edwards you have no business suspending

Nuturing parent: John Edwards it's OK to be who you are and suspend

Child: Hey John Edwards, let's play!! Oh, no don't leave, I won't have anyone to play with. I am sad and crying

On edit: One more ego state: Victim: I will never be happy until John Edwards returns. Oh, woe is me.

[Two Americas]

32. your scenario

The various psychological states you describe may be important and meaningful for you, but I think that projecting that onto others is not appropriate. Psychoanalyzing those with opinions that differ from yours is a way to diminish and trivialize their opinions, as well as their being. "They only are saying that because of some faulty psychological state they are in." It also is a way to deflect and divert attention away from opinions, and make the messenger - the person in the presumed faulty psychological state - the subject of the discussion rather than their message. That makes it a sophisticated form of ad hominem argument. The one doing the analyzing - or scolding, or "helping" in the way that many modern liberals think of helping - is in the power position in the discussion. Trying to get into the power position, and manipulate your opponent into a weaker position, does not replace the need for making a coherent, logical and persuasive argument.

You would, rightfully, resent it if I tried to psychoanalyze the reasons behind the opinions you are expressing or tried to speculate on your motivations or personal circumstances to trivialize or discredit what you are saying.

I am not offended, nor taking it personally at all. I am pretty well armored against this, since it is so common in modern liberalism and I have seen it for so many years. I am talking about politics, not psychology, feelings, or personalized preferences and choices of any kind.

[Ninga]

35. Ego states can not be checked at the door. It is not possible. Crying and sadness are child states

Every living moment you are alive you are in an ego state.

Words and tone are the revelers of ego states. And there is no such thing as a faulty psychological state unless there is illness present.
It is not my opinion but that of scholars who have studied human behavior for century's.

When a person is crying, they are in a child state. I am astonished that you would assert it to be a sophisticated form of ad homonym argument.

For fuck's sake (critical parent) if your kid is crying, why do you try to calm them down? You calm them down so they will listen, because crying scared children can not hear.

i am not powerful, nor do I want to be. I am disappointed in you that you would assert my desire to debate on a substantial and meaningful level, as an attempt to gain power.

Power over who? A group of nameless faceless people? And what would I do with that power, steal from everyone here, or hurt them? Or perhaps I am so powerful that I will steal their minds.


The death of debate is a sad thing. (natural child is sad, no one wants to play with her anymore).


I doubt you could psychoanalyze me any better than my own therapist, but what the hell, give it a try.

[Two Americas]

40. that is one approach

That is one approach to relating to your fellow human beings - a combination of a psychological-medical-treatment model and in loco parentis. I am not arguing against that, and you are free to see the world that way. I am questioning the application of that to politics.

If my kid is crying, I do not try to calm them down. I try to get into better communication with them. Better communication leads to better understanding and less upset. Demanding that they calm down does not lead to better communication, it makes it easier for the adult to control them and enforce the adult's ideas on them to satisfy the needs of the adult - "for their own good" of course, we tell ourselves. So I would question the effectiveness of this approach even when we are dealing with children, let alone with other adults.

Besides, I see no evidence that the people here are "crying scared children" who "can not hear" and so need you to "calm them down so they will listen" to you. Can you not see how resentful people would be about the way you are describing them?

Power is a factor in all human interactions. In political discussions, there are a number of ways that people routinely try to gain power over the discussion and to dominate others. This is probably because on some level people see the survival of their ideas as aligned with their literal survival, and this is not far from the truth. People who fear they will not be heard or recognized use power to force their audience to listen to them

Being heard, belonging, being accepted by others is actually and literally a matter of life and death. Narrative from survivors of the camps during WWII illustrate this vividly. The physical hardships - that word seems to weak to describe the horrific conditions - that people were able to survive were beyond anything we can imagine. Yet the one thing that was certain to kill people, the one punishment that was a certain death sentence, was when one of the prisoners was put into isolation and separated from the other inmates. Every person put into solitary confinement was sure to be dead by morning.

“Man does not live by bread alone.”

[Ninga]

42. There is much you say that I agree with, and some of which I do not. I am an observer of

life, and have observed I have a lot left to learn.

Healthy debate can only take place when the ground rules are agreed upon.

Being introspective is very very difficult, but even if tiny amounts can be achieved it can lead to fleeting understanding and enlightenment.


Just because people have one thing in common together, does not mean they share common ground.

Cheers!
:hi:

[bobbolink]

17. As one who tracked up the beautiful "progressive" carpeting, I felt tossed

LONG ago.

And, I can assure you, so do most of the poor people I talk with.

Just because we're poor, doesn't mean we're stooooooooooopid.

[Horse with no Name]

43. I'm getting tired of the supposed Edwards supporters

who are now angry at him because he hasn't worshiped at the trough of the mighty King.

[waiting for hope]

58. I'm angry at the system -

Not at him. I will be an Edwards Democrat until the day I die. He represents what the party used to believe in and stand for.