Democrats as a whole remind me of a football team in the 60s

[SargeUNN]

I think it was 62 the Univ. of Mississippi (Ole Miss) was favored to win the National Championship. They had a new starting quarterback but who had already shown he was extremely talented, so with the talent already on team, Ole Miss was loaded. Ole Miss started sluggish and it became apparent something was wrong. I was at the Ole Miss vs. Kentucky game and the fact Ole Miss was the better team was obvious but once more the inferior team just kept the outcome in doubt because the better team seemed to be fighting another demon. The game got into the fourth quarter and suddenly Kentucky took the lead, the Ole Miss players had seemed to be gathering in different groups with no movement between the groups on the sideline all game but as Kentucky took the late game lead the division was easy to see. Kentucky went on to win the game and Ole Miss struggled the rest of the season. That game defined that team because it became clear they didn't work together and were too involved in internal bickering than winning games. The quarterback had a bad year because his line was divided on who should be starting so as they chose sides the linemen wouldn't block for the one in the game they didn't support and so productivity wasn't going to happen as much as it should.

We are looking much like that as Democrats. We have those who will not support this President or Democrats but rather attack them only, and instead of trying to express our disagreement and crediting for accomplishments, we threaten to not vote, change parties or voting but not working for the one in the office. We make it easier for the Republicans because of this and just like Kentucky against Ole Miss the lack of talent is overcome by the lack of focus on the Ole Miss side. Republicans have nothing to offer, and the Democrats while flawed in some respects are the better side, but because we can't seem to find a way to work to move these people toward us more we just turn on them. To beat a team like that is easier.

I do realize there will be some who will say, "I don't follow football so this means nothing to me." or someone else will say, "This is a game so why bother me with it." Well, if you can't understand the use of a comparison then you probably aren't thoughtful enough to understand the message anyway.

There are those who will say,"but the Democrats and Obama haven't done enough." To those I say, I remember during the healthcare those who said they would accept and support nothing but single payer or public option. So while the republicans opposed any reform these people fueled the chances of stopping or reducing reform.

Ok go after it, let's hear the excuses and the but but statements, but regardless of the replies the results might be worse than any of the reasoning or excuses.

[zipplewrath]

1. Bad metaphor

Sports metaphors are really bad in politics.

Anyway, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, or who you have a beef with.

There are democrats that can't find alot of positive change that has happened in the last 2 years, and they are frustrated at being marginalized by the administration, and by strong supporters of the president. How would you have them express themselves?

[SargeUNN]

3. One thing I find bad about us is

we seem to discount lessons from examples if we don't care for that particular thing. We have become to simple in our thoughts at times, we don't see things we should and only focus on the surface.
The thing I hoped people would look at here was not the fact it was football, or Ole Miss / Kentucky but the larger picture. Ole Miss was much better than Kentucky and had the team focused on being the team they could be they chose to focus on which quarterback they wanted to start even to the point of not doing their jobs. Results was an inferior team won, they didn't come close to reaching expections and failed to even reach the marginal level they should have.

We Democrats, have an element that no matter what we do to improve our nation they refuse to get on board to do more. We attacked Obama for saying something nice but not really that important while we missed the chance to pick up on and emphasis he talked of paying more attention to our own nation, to our own veterans need. Instead those issues dropped off the board and only the statement of Bush got our attention even as veterans suffer, as our people need attention in so many areas. It turned into being about Bush. We let the right dismiss the important stuff and instead turned it into Bush. I see how the immigration issue gets to where real reform is lost and instead more division comes because we can't seem to actually find ways to get to discussing real reform.

We get distracted with Palin, Beck, and all those kind and too often ignore areas where if we would focus and work go with little or no attention. Things we could do something like banished veterans we don't get involved and too often don't really do more than shake our heads and walk away. Then we wonder why we don't get the progress we want.

[zipplewrath]

5. If you don't want people to look at it, don't mention it

I don't know anything about your metaphor so it means nothing to me. Maybe you only thought Ole Miss was better. Maybe it was connected more to their racist past and that's what blocked their ability to come together as a team. Maybe the coach undermined their ability to come together. I don't know the team, I don't even know if you know what you're talking about.

Obama wants to talk about paying more attention to our own nation, while tripling the numbers of troops in Afghanistan and propping up a corrupt Karzai government. The problem with "being nice" to Bush is that it was an attempt to prop up his OWN decisions to escalate a war in Afghanistan. THAT'S why it was "important".

[SargeUNN]

6. hope you don't take offense but I will state it very simple

so maybe you will see.

For Ole Miss substitute United States
For Kentucky substitute Republicans
For the Ole Miss Quarterback subsitute Obama and Democrats
for the linemen subsitute us.

then take the next step in reasoning and see how the failure to get together failed the team as a whole and things went far worse than should have.

As for the coach, he was John Vaught who is in the College Football Hall of Fame and one of the all time winningest coaches in college football. Ole Miss was the overwhelming choice that season to win the national championship based on experience returning and talent rating. They were a team that should have been in contention but because they got caught up in the debate over who should start they stopped playing for the one who was in the game if they didn't think he should be playing. Both were talented and neither had a season worth remembering and up to their talent because they were too divided as a team.

As for your statement about the Bush reference, I have a lot to hate about Bush, probably more than you. I am one who suffered from the Katrina failure, I am a disabled Veteran who lost promised benefits from him, and I didn't care for the statement but I didn't think it was that big and nothing to get all bent over, especially when there was a couple of things that were far more worthy of attention like taking care of our own by spending more on our own people, taking care of all veterans not just the current conflicts, but no let's focus on the Bush reference. As a veteran I really was insulted that that took priority. That is why we can't get progress, we just don't support it if we can find something to be offended by.

[zipplewrath]

7. The problem with the Bush reference

The Bush reference was to provide political cover for Obama with the right wing, and give them a basis to support Obama's escalation in Afghanistan. That's what made it important.

I don't know if that makes Bush = Vaught or Kentuckies coach, or Joe Namath, and I don't really give a damn about Ole Miss football at all. I realize that's really hard for you folks to understand.

[SargeUNN]

9. whatever

I give up. I doubt you will get it anyway even if I put it where a 5 year old would understand.

[zipplewrath]

10. I'm afraid you don't get it

The Bush reference had alot of significance that you don't seem to recognize.

[SargeUNN]

12. what I do see is

You are proving my point very well. Focus on the shiney object and ignore what can be accomplished. Thanks so much.

[zipplewrath]

21. What you are ignoring

You ignore how Obama wants to increase the forces in Afghanistan, and all the associated money, reduce the deficts, and some how "focus on this nation". You want to ignore what he's DOING, and focus on what he is SAYING. He was "kind" to Bush because it defended what he was DOING in Afghanistan. But you don't want to focus on that.

[Recursion]

2. Archie Manning? NT

[SargeUNN]

4. No long before Archie

It was Jim Weatherly who would go on to write the song made popular by Gladis (not sure of spelling) Knight and the Pips called "Midnight Train to Georgia" I don't remember the name of the other quarterback involved. They were competing to replace Glenn Griffin who had been the star for the last couple of years before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. So, you're saying we should have wholeheartedly supported the

half-assed HRC bill that we eventually wound up with from the beginning? Since it passed with NO republican votes anyway, how can you claim that lack of support from the left negatively affected it? You really think it would have passed 'better' somehow if nobody knew how unhappy the left is with it?

This ain't football, and nobody's betting on the point spread. This is about principles. Maybe you've heard of them.

[zipplewrath]

11. You don't get it

There's nothing more important than SEC football. Even a 5 year old gets that.

[SargeUNN]

14. No you are not seeing it

first we did get some progress in healthcare which is better than what we had. No it isn't perfect but it is something better and something to build on. The other alternative was NOTHING CHANGED which would mean even more abuse. We had Democrats that almost or did vote against it, remember Dennis Kucinich was not going to until he accepted the reality it was something to begin working with.

As for the use of an example of football I hope you aren't so narrow minded to see it is a story to help illustrate a point and not about football. Certainly most people here are more intelligent to think that narrow, but some are which is too bad.

Principles are worth standing for but also if they are worthwhile, it is also standing up for principle to move closer to reaching the goal when it isn't as good as we wish. To expect perfection or nothing is a fool's mission and only trying to move toward that goal as much as possible increases the chance of reaching it. You can't want to build a house without going through the process of actually building it, because you have to accept somethings aren't going to meet the hopes you wanted but to get it closer to that is better than giving up and quit building the house.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. BZZZZTTTT!

You understand, don't you (of course you don't) that Kucinich opposed it because of its FAULTS, not for what good it might do. He opposed the Democrats putting up a bill which left 25 million uninsured, which had no cost controls on the insurance industry, which mandated purchasing insurance while NOT mandating providing health care.

All the fucktards claim that Kucinich = Repub because he opposed this misbegotten bill, even though he opposed it for the OPPOSITE reasons. Why was a public option/ medicare-for-all not even addressed when 70% of the public WANTED just that? Never mind single-payer, which was only supported by 55% of the American public.

Kucinich was trying to give the people what THEY want and at the last minute settled for what the fucking blue dogs would allow. The problem was with the BLUE DOGS, not Kucinich. The Republicans didn't even figure in the equation - with 100% opposing this weak-assed bill, would a greater number of Republicans opposed a better, stronger one?

THE PROBLEM IS IN OUR OWN PARTY. Why is it the Dem lefties are always the ones to have to compromise? Why can't the FUCKING BLUE DOGS ever be held accountable and made to compromise with US?

This is just more of the RW dems "sit down and shut up, cuz where else are you gonna go".

[zipplewrath]

18. See, this is better than metaphors

"first we did get some progress in healthcare"

No, we didn't. We got nothing on health care. We got a Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Package. Health care is the same as it always has been, out of reach of millions upon millions of Americans.

And this is why stating positions, as oppose to pushing lousy sports metaphors, is better. Because we can directly confront your positions, as oppose to trying to figure out what part of football you find to be metaphorical. Because I really wondered who the tight ends were suppose to be.

[TBF]

13. So you're assuming there are 2 different teams that are owned by

2 different folks, correct?

That is where your analogy breaks down.

[SargeUNN]

15. ha ha

in the south college football is a way of life. lol

However, I guess I should tell you I am a Southern Mississippi fan and hate Ole Miss. We are in Conference USA not the SEC so I am not an SEC, but the focus of this post isn't football, it is about let's as Democrats quit focusing on such as Obama said something nice about Bush, or Obama didn't get more progress in this or that, and instead see that we did get some improvement to build on and while we certainly can be disappointed, let's not quit or strength the right by joining them in refusing to credit Obama for he has accomplished and focus on what we feel he failed us on. If we are realistic we realize that we have 2 choices, the Democrats in power or the Republicans and our best bet is to go with the Democrats and work our butts off trying to make them move closer to us. We need to work even harder and not quit. Otherwise wait to see what the Republicans have waiting for us. I am sure it won't be pleasant. Reality is sometimes harsh but it is real after all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. The question is, do we keep the Dems in power by acting more like Republicans

or acting more like Democrats?

It was not Monica Lewinsky that cost us the WH - it was years of DLC pro-republican policies coming from the Dems that cost us the WH. Why vote for a fake republican when there there's a perfectly good REAL republican on the ticket?

Then:
'Welfare reform' - Republican policy.
NAFTA - Republican policy
War on Drugs - Republican policy
War in Iraq/PNAC - Republican policy

Now:
healthcare reform - Republican policy
Race To The Top (reform of NCLB) - Republican policy
War in Afghanistan - Republican policy
Wall Street Bailout - Republican policy
Union busting - Republican policy

WHO the fuck am I supposed to be voting for?

[SargeUNN]

19. I understand your thoughts

however the question I keep coming up with, and not one I like having to ask, is which is going to do us the worse job. Each time the answer keeps coming up Republicans, and we must work harder to get the Democratic Party more where it should be. We can't opt out and expect it to do so, but instead we just have to work harder. Sorry but that is our real choices.

[zipplewrath]

22. And who has been talking about "opting out"?

And what in the heck does that have to do with avoiding noticing that he is escalating the forces in Afghanistan? Now you're talking about opting out, before you were talking about focusing on only the things you liked, not the issues you wanted to avoid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. That's a false dichotomy. Of course the Dems will be better than the Repubs

in charge.

Unless the Dems in charge are exactly like the Repubs in charge. Passing republican legislation under the Democratic banner just waters down the brand. If the Repubs are going to be 100% opposed to the Dems, then it is incumbent upon us to give them something to oppose. The HCR bill would have lost no Republican votes by including a public option, and it would have made the public at large much happier with the Democratic party.

Why isn't Gitmo closed? 80% of the public wants it closed, Republicans included. What do the Democrats gain by NOT seeing it taken care of? Wouldn't doing something favored by 80% of the population draw more people into the party? Maybe bring back some of those millions of independents who claim to see no difference between the parties?

I reckon if we want to claim a difference we need to SHOW a difference. Bring back those who HAVE opted out. They are not going to come back unless we give them a reason to.

[TBF]

26. The focus of my answer

wasn't football either.

To the ordinary worker (not the upper class) it matters very little who is in office. I will certainly be voting dem in Texas to try to get our horrible governor fired, but will it really change things economically? We'll see.

My view is that the problems are systemic, and capitalism rewards profit over people. Everything we deal with is affected by that.

[Better Believe It]

20. I agree. President Obama and the Democratic Party don't have a clear game strategy to win.

That's not our fault.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. The Democratic left does - but they won't listen to us.

That is also not our fault.

[guruoo]

24. So, a few team members inability to view the larger, long term picture created infighting,

infighting, which undermined team cohesiveness, and cost Ole Miss the game, and eventually, the national championship.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Kentucky had slipped in some agents provocateur
to stoke the discord.

[bvar22]

27. The Democrats are playing "Not to Lose."

Not taking any chances.
Not mixing it up.
Conservative, keep it on the ground, short gain, predictable, Middle of the Field,
Give up lots of yards on soft defense, no All Out Blitzes.

As everybody who watches football knows,
that NEVER works.


"Seeking Bi-Partisan Consensus" football....LOL
Lose, Lose, LOSE.