Concerning the "with the party or against" mentality

[jpgray]

It's completely wrong. Or at least, too simplistic. I assume everyone here is ready and willing to work and vote for the victory of Democrats or at minimum the defeat of Republicans. This is a form of "with or against" I can wrap my head around with no complaints. The form I can't understand is that which would argue we need to support emotionally and intellectually everything party leaders do. To any self-respecting individual, this level of fealty to any party or politician should be impossible, or at least abhorrent. I'll try to explain why.

Politicians and parties will do things for expediency's sake at one time that flatly contradict their stated ideals at another. If you subscribe to an exclusive view of "with or against," you will frequently find yourself in bizarre positions.

At one moment, you are praising Obama for a pledge to keep meetings with interested parties during any health care reform debate transparent. At the next you are defending his secret meeting and deal with the pharmaceutical industry to cap their losses and nix any provision for open-ended negotiations on drug prices. At another moment you are lauding Obama's pledge to deny lobbyists positions in his administration that are connected with their prior lobbying, yet soon after you have to explain why a lobbyist for Raytheon belongs as the no. 2 guy in the Defense department, or why a lobbyist for Sempra belongs as the no. 2 in Interior.

The rejoinder one could make to this discrepancy is "Hey! Be a fucking adult. Promises get broken! Politics ain't beanbag, etc." Fair enough, but this sequence of events is often reversed. After defending the secret pharma deal and explaining how Baucus's involvement has nothing to do with his five former staffers lobbying for the two most interested health care industries, you suddenly have to explain why Obama's claim that the days of lobbyists writing legislation are in the past isn't the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever heard. After arguing that Obama realizes the serious problems with the bill on financial regulation--namely that it does nothing to end "too big to fail" or the debt-bubble, crisis, bailout sequence--you are blindsided into defending Obama's claim that his critics have no real argument against the bill beyond meaningless derivatives arcana.

To anyone with self-respect, this level of fidelity must be absolutely exhausting. Worse, I can't understand how or why it is necessary. Our job as progressives is certainly to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans, but it is also our job to criticize Democrats when they shrink from what is hard and cling to what is expedient, particularly when such expediency is an insult to the universal ideals of the party. Just as for Republicans there is no time, boom or recession, when more tax cuts are inappropriate, so it seems for some that there is no time when Democrats can be asked to do what is hard in upholding party ideals. As a minority party without the presidency? Nope. As a majority party with the presidency? Nope.

There will always be an argument from expediency, since there are always powerful and influential opponents to any policy that cuts in the slightest against the establishment. Make no mistake--Obama fought a hell of a fight even for the mediocre bills mentioned above. But just because an excuse is always at hand doesn't mean the behavior is laudable or exempt from criticism. I'm unclear as to why anyone would argue differently.

[liberal N proud]

1. Too many are abandoning this candidate or that simply for one issue

To abandon the Democratic Party or candidate because the economy has not been fixed yet is like throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire, its not out yet but exposing it to the fuel again will flare it back up.

Putting Congress back in the hands of those who got us in trouble in the first place is like throwing fuel on the recession.

If the economy was in better shape and the GOP was so vengeful against a Democratic President, things wouldn't be such an issue. We all know that should the Republicans take over the House, they will bring one investigation after another against the White House just to cripple the Obama Administrations ability to function.

All the while they are going to be giving away whats left of the country to the wealthiest.


Just saying!

[ProSense]

2. Hmmmm?

At one moment, you are praising Obama for a pledge to keep meetings with interested parties during any health care reform debate transparent. At the next you are defending his secret meeting and deal with the pharmaceutical industry to cap their losses and nix any provision for open-ended negotiations on drug prices.

The meetings were not secret, they were announced.

The Obama White House has made little secret of its intent to meet frequently with industry representatives in hopes of gaining their cooperation on reform efforts. One March 5 health-care summit, for example, was hosted by Obama and featured more than 150 people, including physicians, business leaders, union representatives and consumer advocates. Four of the industry group leaders on the new White House list attended that summit.

more

This is one of those memes that people keep repeating until it becomes accepted as fact.

[jpgray]

4. Why muddle? Isn't it exhausting?

I can't understand the point of trying to obfuscate this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

[ProSense]

5. Why conflate?

Referring to announced meetings as secret is inaccurate. The terms of the agreement are not the meeting, and even Congress was pushing for an agreement.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

23. Right,

the President's negotiations with the drug companies in conjunction with Congress are the same as Cheney's energy task force.

"Pray away the gay with Donnie! The DLC way! Hallelujah!"

Some issues at play here I see.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Look here. I did not say they are 'the same' you did.

Both were announced, while the contents of the meetings were kept secret. In that way, they are the same, in others, not the same.
Tired of the anti equality crowd defending lies in the name of the faith. Obama is opposed to equal rights for my family because of his 'religion'. He emplyoed ex-gay hate speakers on his campaign.
If you want to call that 'some issues' fine. I do have issues with religioius bigots who oppose my family's secure future. Why don't you?

[ProSense]

6. Look at the date of the NYT article and

the date of the President's announcement:

Statement from the President Obama on Agreement to Bring Down Drug Prices for Americans Seniors

"I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation's pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America's seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year. The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors. This deal will provide significant relief from that burden for millions of American seniors".

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade. We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform. Key sectors of the health care industry acknowledge what American families and businesses already know - that the status quo is no longer sustainable. The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in October. I want to commend House chairmen Henry Waxman, George Miller and Charles Rangel for addressing this issue in the health reform legislation they unveiled this week. This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American".

The statement doesn't mention the exact amount, and $80 billion is nothing to scoff at.

[jpgray]

8. I take no pleasure in calling these posts exhibit A, but honestly--

First you neglect the primary point--Obama promised transparency in any meeting with industry players, even pledging they would be broadcast on C-SPAN. Apparently we agree he failed to meet that standard.

Next you argue the meetings were not secret, since the existence of the meeting was known. A closed-door meeting without any public observers still meets the standard of a secret meeting, as I understand the phrase--secret in terms of what happens there, not in terms of its existence.

Finally, you argue that an extremely limited depiction of the meeting from the administration means the meeting and deal were not secret. I again point you to the actions of the House--based on the White House's depiction, the House remained free to legislate a far tougher deal, including open-ended negotiations for drug prices. They were not at all free to do this, and had no way of knowing it. The White House -secretly- agreed to limit the losses of drug companies on -any- health care legislation. Pharma was exempt from any tougher legislation, and nobody knew it except the parties to the meeting, whose dealings and agreements were--you guessed it--secret.

To me, all this spells "secret meeting" and "secret deal." If you prefer to disagree, feel free, but I doubt you feel very confident in your disagreement.

[ProSense]

14. Oh please

"Obama promised transparency in any meeting with industry players, even pledging they would be broadcast on C-SPAN."

All media spin.

QUESTION: During the campaign, you promised that health care negotiations would take place on C-SPAN, and that hasn't happened, and your administration recently turned down a request from a watchdog group seeking a list of health care executives who have visited the White House to talk about health care reform.

Also, the TARP inspector general recently said that your White House is withholding too much information on the bank bailout. So my question for you is, are you fulfilling your promise of transparency in the White House?

OBAMA: Well, on the list of health care executives who visited us, most of time you guys have been in there taking pictures, so it hasn't been a secret. And my understanding is we just sent a letter out providing a full list of all the executives. But, frankly, these have mostly been at least photo sprays (ph) where you could see who was participating.

With respect to all of the negotiations not being on C-SPAN, you will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here on C- SPAN and, at a certain point, you know, you start getting into all kinds of different meetings. Senate Finance is having a meeting; the House is having a meeting. If they wanted those to be on C-SPAN, then I would welcome it. I don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there.

And the last question was with respect to TARP. I -- let me take a look at what exactly they say we have not provided. I think that we've provided much greater transparency than existed prior to our administration coming in.

It is a big program. I don't know exactly what's been requested. I'll find out, and I will have an answer for you.

link

[jpgray]

18. Careful of whiplash. Exhausted yet?

Seems as though Obama agrees with me on this.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/01/obama_finally_admits_he_broke.html

Once he got to Washington, the promise was soon abandoned. The Obama White House only once invited C-SPAN in--and that was not a real negotiation session, but a day of several workshops with health care stakeholders, in an invitation list the White House controlled. Inviting cameras into dealmaking with members of Congress--never happened.

"You know, I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right," Obama said.

"But I had campaigned on process. Part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up transparency and I think it is -- I think the health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.

"Now I think it's my responsibility and I'll be speaking to this at the State of the Union, to own up to the fact that the process didn't run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more," he said.

[ProSense]

25. Wait

taking responsibility for the fact that the perception of back room deals was created is agreeing with you?

SAWYER: Health care -- going forward, should all the conversations, all the meetings be on C-SPAN?

OBAMA: You know, I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right. But I had campaigned on process. Part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up transparency and I think it is -- I think the health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.

Now I think it's my responsibility and I'll be speaking to this at the State of the Union, to own up to the fact that the process didn't run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more.

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida...

OBAMA: Let's hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that's point number one.

Number two is that I think it is important to know that the promises we made about increased transparency, we've executed here in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I mean, this is the first White House in history where you know anybody who has walked into my office, anybody who has walked into the White House, you actually have a record of who comes in. We have put more stuff on the Internet than ever.

15:16

We've eliminated lobbyists from all the boards and commissions that historically, you know, they dominated in this town. So it's not that we haven't made significant progress, but we haven't changed it as much as we needed to.

Now, in terms of the health care bill, the product of making sure that we got historic insurance reforms that people have been fighting for years so that insurance companies can't take advantage of people, making sure that we're bending the cost curve, and -- and actually starting to reduce health care inflation in this country, which is a huge problem, making sure that 30 million people have access to health insurance, making sure that small businesses have tax credits -- it's important that people look at the core elements of what both the House and the Senate passed.

And every health economist out there, who's serious about this stuff, will tell you it's a vast improvement over the status quo. It doesn't -- that doesn't excuse the stray cats and dogs that found their way into legislation. It is point out that as we move forward, we've got to make sure that we're focused on what is actually helping the American people deal with what is a very serious problem.

link

[jpgray]

37. If he did nothing wrong, what, then, was his mistake? What is he owning up to?

Obama came as close to acknowledging the secrecy and the breach of faith as I can expect from someone who has to sell the bill. What, apart from that, do you believe?

1. Was the negotiation and ultimate deal with the drug industry secret, or transparent?

2. Did he break a campaign promise by not ensuring full transparency of crucial policy meetings with special interests on health care?

[vi5]

3. Well put....

If many on here put as much energy into holding our elected officials accountable for their promises and their commitments as they did getting people on here, most of whom no matter what will end up voting Democratic anyway to cheer louder and be more loyal then perhaps we'd get a democratic congress that would respond to our efforts.

The cheerleading echo chamber of party fealty and loyalty did nothing to help Republicans. The people could see what was wrong and no matter how much they chided people into believing in some alternate reality, it just didn't work. And it's not going to work now.

[VMI Dem]

7. Rec.

[flyarm]

9. when do we see the meme..The Democratic leadership and Democratic party is either with the people or

or with the Republicans?

Maybe we should be asking ..is the Democratic party wanting Sarah Palin?

Because the Democratic party leadership is failing we the people of this nation and party and has now become.. instead of the Party of the people..it has become the party of Corporate power!

The either or rhetoric needs to be addressed to the leadership of the Democratic Party.

The leader of the Party, is the President.

And it isn't just about health care..

It is about an unsustainable war.

It is about Womens reproductive rights again under assault only now by Democratic leaders.

It is about Civil rights and rights we own through our constitution and signing statements that now say any of us could be killed without justice through our justice system and rule of law..another words..shoot to kill us, as deemed by one person of power..as long as we are not in the USA!

It involves wiretapping us and reading our emails, and it now being sanctioned by the Democratic party leadership.

It involves selling out our public school system to the highest bidders, with Pentagon people being put in the administration of our children in charter schools...for the greed of the wealthiest in this nation, and fully being sanctioned by the democratic leadership and being sold to the American people with all the propaganda bullets they have!

It has to do with our tax dollars bailing out the very crooks who robbed us, on Wall Street and the banking Barron's.

It has to do with protecting g( and even President Obama saying he admires GW Bush..1 week ago) war criminals and criminals who committed the worst treasonable crimes against our Constitution and this nations people! And admiring a murderer in the Name of GW Bush!

and that is just for starters.

If anyone wants to tell me I have to be with anyone or I am against anyone..please address the above and tell me what of any of this represents the Democratic party I have belonged for 40 years..and will they kindly address the crimes against humanity that our leaders have sanctioned and signed off on..and tell me ..When they will be with us ..or our constitution or with WE THE PEOPLE AND WITH WE THE PEOPLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND VALUES OR EVEN ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM!

[gkhouston]

41. This should be an OP. n/t

[mkultra]

10. If you have problems with Dems, you hash them out in primaries

Generals are not the place for ignorant dissent. The democratic party is not and has never been a party of principle. Its only purpose is to stand against the immoral war mongering, benefits to the rich, economic destruction, and bigotry of the right.

[flyarm]

12. THEN THEY ARE INDEED ..EPIC FAIL!

[mkultra]

27. they are what they are and always have been

The question remains, where have you been.

[Gman]

32. I thought people quit saying "epic fail" a couple of years ago

It got so old.

[Electric Monk]

36. Calling things on the internet "old" is so 2003

;-)

[flyarm]

53. this is the only place i have ever seen it ..and repeatedly!

I never saw it or heard of it until this past year on DU..

[mkultra]

34. REPUBLICANS ARE THE EPIC FAIL.

[treestar]

67. Then quit!

This is a board for Democrats. You're about advocating against them because they aren't good enough for you. Then go find the party for you and post on its boards.

Sick of this shit.

[jpgray]

15. You know, I don't know why this reads to some as "abandon Democrats"

I tried to be very clear in saying it is our job to work and vote for the victory of Democrats, or at minimum the defeat of Republicans (which in essentially all cases amounts to the same thing). Political work exists in the months not named November, and in order to do it some independence from the party line is necessary if one wants to see significant change that cuts against the establishment.

If the only way to support the party at any time is to believe that what the party chooses is always exempt from criticism, I'm confused as how one argues for the party to make harder choices in support of our ideals. In my view criticism of the easy, expedient choices that blunt or ignore our ideals needs to exist in order to argue for making those harder choices.

Again, this has nothing to do with staying home in November. It has more to do with giving people more reasons to come out and vote in the November two years from now and beyond.

[mkultra]

29. im pointing out that you missed the actual drive behind the "with or against" mentality

Its not and never has really been "with or against the democratic party." what it really is about is "with or against the Republicans." They are an Evil of single mind. We, on the other hand, stand in many different places, but we always stand against them.


get it?

[jpgray]

40. Wanting to get out of Afghanistan isn't with the Republicans

And it isn't with the Democrats. It should be with the Democrats, and that's the whole premise of my argument. We should not shy away from -telling- the Democrats we want out of Afghanistan at every opportunity. It doesn't mean we should all sulk come November because they don't currently support withdrawal, nor at the same time does it mean we should forget that we want the Democrats to support withdrawal.

[mkultra]

63. if you say so, frankly is has no usefulness

because in reality, your not really telling anyone anything. Your just complaining on a message board and then saying that you will communicate your concerns through lack of support or sitting out the election. Like i said, before, work to elect candidates that fit your agenda in the primaries. Realize that if your candidate doesn't win in the primaries, then your concerns are in the minority and thus may not be served. Your best chance of getting your concerns met is not "telling" the candidates how you feel but working to change public opinion and get better candidates elected.

I am a long time Dem and I am fine with the Afghani war. Iraq was a different deal and i voted for Obama BECAUSE he made it very clear that Iraq was an immoral war and Afghanistan was the war we should fight. No one has been able to present facts that show me otherwise. Perhaps doing that might be more productive to your goals.

In truth, i think some people are just intellectually lazy and want to bitch about everything rather than act. Once people begin to act, their ideology meets reality and they realize what the world is really like. Engaging only in intellectual viewpoints, in that sense, can turn people into a sloth because it keeps them from engaging in real life.

[displacedvermoter]

22. Aren't standing against immoral war mongering and all that other

good stuff you say the Party does "principles"? Why would you want to be a member of a party that doesn't stand for principles.
That is the complaint a lot of us have, the party has indeed stopped being such a principled party and we want it to return to being so.

[mkultra]

33. well, that point is good aside from one important fact

that a party of principle truly is a party of one mind. Republicans have principles and they stand together, but they are truly evil. Any group of thinking people will have many disagreements. That is a reality of a thinking party. Deciding suddenly that you will no longer tolerate the differences within a greater subset and cede power to a greater evil essentially lacks principle itself.

Our party NEVER was a principle party. We are a party of people with principles. its a mild difference.

[displacedvermoter]

38. And I am seeing that the party doesn't embrace even the

pretty no-brain "principles" you talked about above, like opposition to warmongering or supporting the poor and disenfranchised over
the elites, with anything like the passion it used to.

Deciding over how long a period of time that you will support a party that has no principles at all but to be better than the other guys in some nebulous way also seems to lack principle.

[mkultra]

62. then i think you are just confused

because the differences between democrats and republicans is stark. If you cant see that, then the problem is with you.

[displacedvermoter]

64. People dying in Iraq or Afghanistan die better when a

Democratic Administration signs the paperwork? Is there a stark difference between how the GOP would hold Cheney and Co. accountable for their crimes and how this administration have done on prosecuting war criminals? Explain to me, oh unconfused one, again, why a Democratic administration feels the need to let a nut like Alan Simpson chair a commission on the future of Social Security (among other things).

Stark differences between GOP and Dems on education reform. Not seeing it.

Stark differences on Bush v Obama on Internet and telecommunications spying, not so much.

Actually the problem may just be you, that you suffered so much emotional pain during the harsh Bush years, that a new president that can string off a couple of paragraphs without screwing them up actually brings you comfort.

Enjoy your bliss.

[NoNothing]

11. It's about strategery

If you do not support Obama, you are "objectively" pro-Republican.

[HughMoran]

16. Not a single person is saying that

You're post is based on imaginary vapors.

[jpgray]

20. I'm being told in this very thread that a secret meeting is not a secret meeting

It's not imaginary vapors--an inarguable fact is being contested right under your very eyes on this thread. Or do you not see it that way?

[vaberella]

24. It's not a secret meeting when everyone knew about it the day it happened. n/t

[flyarm]

55. everyone DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT THE DAY IT HAPPENED! In fact i believe

if you stood on a street corner and asked Americans walking by if they knew about it , you would get blank stares ! In fact, I can assure you I stood up a a DEC meeting in my State to object to these private meetings and that they go directly against our party platform, and I was the only one in the room who knew about it the privte meetings! Oh and it was a very big meeting!

[HughMoran]

26. "we need to support emotionally and intellectually everything party leaders do"

"I can't understand is that which would argue we need to support emotionally and intellectually everything party leaders do..."

That is the premise of your post and it's bullshit.

[jpgray]

39. On what other basis can one argue the pharma deal was not secret?

The only explanation is that the same behavior denotes a secret deal if one party does it, while it does -not- denote a secret deal if the other party does it. Isn't this exactly emblematic of your quote from me above? It's intellectual fraud, to say the least.

[HughMoran]

42. I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about

You're off in outer space here bringing up a specific instance that has nothing whatsoever to do with your general statement that is the premise of this thread. You're lost.

[jpgray]

43. Houston, when Cheney's energy deal can no longer be called secret, we have a problem

Refusing to call something transparent when it is plainly secret is to my mind intellectual honesty. To deny or affirm this on the sole basis of which party is involved seems to me a wholesale subordination of one's intellect to the whims of political tribalism. If that's space cadet talk to you, well, consider me blasted off.

[Cha]

46. We all knew about it. Of course the professional left needed some

red meat so that's their screed. "Secret":scared:

[Electric Monk]

28. you are post?

I'm really enjoying reading this thread. Keep it up :)

[CakeGrrl]

17. Who's asking you to support everything they do?

But come election time, which is the point that some are making, there is no category for "Well, I really don't agree with many things that are being done, but I'll hold my nose and vote".

It's D or R. Any vote for another party will simply count in favor of one of those two depending on the party. Any non-vote in protest helps the opposition to the extent that they are more motivated.

So no matter where one falls on the opinion spectrum regarding this administration, the only thing that counts at election time is D or R. And those who don't really think it matters may be in for an ugly refresher.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Then why is DU allowing posters to promote Crist and

campaign against Meeks, the Democratic candidate? I've actually been sniped at here for saying that I vote for Democrats, not recent Republican rejects like Crist. I read posts that state that Meek can not win, no matter what, so people should vote Third Party Recent Republican. They actually say that Democrats win the seat if Crist wins, which is simply false, a lie.
So as a DUer, I have a hard time with this. On the one hand, I am being castigated for supporting the Democratic candidate Meek. On the other, I am being told 'with us or against us'. I'm not with Crist. Sorry. I'm not with the Democrats who are advocating for him.
I stand with my own family. I vote Democratic. I have good Democrats to vote for, in part because of my own hard work. I do not support Chralie Crist against Meek. If that is what I'm supposed to be 'with or against' forget it.

[CakeGrrl]

48. Honestly, I have to read up on that one. I saw Wexler supporting Crist

and given Wexler's positive history on these boards, I'd have to understand his reasoning.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. So if supporting Democratic candidates is no longer a given

then the whole idea of declaring that Party loyalty is vital is nutsy. We don't even stand by our nominees as Al Gore stumps for them, why the fuck should I be 'with us or against us'? It is a Party, save when it is not convenient? In that case, why should I vote for anti equality Obama types for the sake of the Party? What is a Party if we do not vote for the candidates of that Party, and in fact campaign against them here? As long as Crist is being pumped here, and Meek is being attacked, the very idea of 'with us or against us' is absurdly out of place. With who? Against whom? Is 'us' Democrats, or is 'us' Recent Republicans? If this place and Party is about Crist, I am not with that at all, not at all. Wexler? Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama have endorsed the Democratic nominee, who won a nomination, and does not praise Palin.

[jpgray]

49. The point is that the universe doesn't end with D or R on the issues

D or R encompasses the vote, and the work leading up to an election. D or R doesn't encompass or define political thought or activism.

It doesn't matter that neither major party supports immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. I support it.

It doesn't matter that neither major party supports gay marriage. I support it.

Concerning the vote and the work leading up to an election, I'm D all the way. Concerning the issues I have my own views, and seek to have those views represented in my party as much as possible. This is not a responsibility for progressives that begins and ends every other Fall. Criticism of what we view to be poor or wrong policy must be expressed. This is not in contradiction to the goal of a Democratic majority, but rather it helps to ensure a larger and better majority in the long term, even as we must vote for what we can get in the short term.

[CakeGrrl]

61. But who is suppressing your expression?

Someone out there is bound to disagree with any position expressed. That disagreement, wherever it occurs, is not equivalent to suppression.

Unrecs are not equivalent to suppression.

I've seen outright derision for the President and the administration expressed here repeatedly and increasingly. I think I can come here any day at random and see at least one new thread criticizing the handling of Afghanistan.

I don't really see censorship or suppression as a problem around here.

[The Uncola]

19. I don't do..

..the blind loyalty thing. I expect those I work to help put in office to look out for my interests as well as others. My interests and those of millions of others have taken a back seat to the interests of those who can fill the campaign coffers, yet again. I've reached the end of a lifetimes accumulated resources and so, not being in a position to contribute, under the bus we go.

[vaberella]

21. I don't know how a well known meeting between him and pharma is secret.

And as for the rest...I don't know where it's coming from. You're assuming a lot.

[Gman]

30. Rule #1 is never, ever fall in love with ANY politician

as they will, without fail, break your heart.

That is what has happened to so very many with progressives and Obama. They drew imaginary pictures of him in red and blue and became so enamored of him, the mass perception was he transcended the reality of who he was in their minds. Now they are so bitter, as is any jilted lover, and they want revenge. It's the progressives' own damn fault. They should have never fallen in love with Obama to begin with. It was stupid.

Now, they're content to stand by and let the teabaggers take over Congress and undoubtedly impeach Obama. That's the progressives' revenge.

But, oh no! Don't tell any of them who to vote for. If you do, you're pulling what they think is the George W invented, for us or against us thing. But they're too stupid and bitter to see what's about to happen to the country if they don't vote for the Democrat.

Why did they shove Obama down everyone's throat in 08? At least they knew what they were getting with Hillary.

[jpgray]

51. He walked, talked, and finally acted like a moderate new Democrat

There were no surprises, no love affairs, no unrealistic expectations. There was hope, hope that he would be better than he seemed or we had reason to expect. There was also a determination, at least among the progressives I know, to call out bad policy as bad policy, as should have been done far more often in the Clinton years.

Again, everyone seems to miss the statement I made above that voting and working for Democrats is the overwhelming obligation for all progressives at present. But just as equally, we have an overwhelming obligation to make noise when the party fails to uphold its stated ideals. A party, like a flag, does not uphold ideals by virtue of its existence. Its ideals are determined by what is done in its name, and all critics desire is that better things are done in the name of this party.

[Gman]

59. Many said in the primaries about Obama and Hillary that

there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between them. They were almost identical on everything. Ultimately, once I realized that, I was a lot better with Obama getting the nomination.

But I really thing that he was deified by the progressives. When he proved to be something less than a deity, the progressives turned on him with a viciousness only matched by the teabaggers.

[struggle4progress]

35. We'll change DC politics only if we build strong grassroots organizations

that have clout on locally issues and are coordinated and organized well enough to pressure Congress on national issues

The reactionary and anti-democratic forces, that affect our political system, are systematic and will not go away -- and they cannot be confronted simply through Congress or the President or the Courts

The problems we face have a structural component: many of the problems are predictable, and many of the anti-democratic reactions to the problems are also predictable. The situation in the United States may actually be quite unstable today: we depend on petro for our daily lives; television occupies much of many people's time; and most people have only the most rudimentary ideas about the actual power structure and the range of possibilities for political action

In this context, "criticism" alone is inadequate. What is actually needed is rather more: one needs an analysis of the problem that leads to a specific action plan that will produce concrete gains. Consider, for example, the recent raids on peace activists' homes. It is, of course, disgusting. But can we give an account of the situation leading to a strategy that would improve the situation? I think we can: these raids seem associated with states where Bush-appointed US attorneys are still in office, more than a year and a half after Obama took office. A grassroots movement to dislodge these bitter dead-enders could educate the public about political prosecutions, and if we dislodged them we'd have a grassroots win and a more responsible Justice Department

[bvar22]

45. I'll give this a K&R.

I'm too simple minded to follow all the reversals and contortions necessary please the Party Commissars at DU.
I am a PROUD and LOYAL FDR Democrat.
I am committed to fighting FOR the Issues I have always fought for.
Let the chips fall where they may.

*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again

*Iron clad Environmental Protections

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

These are values I strongly believe in. I have fought for these values long before I ever heard the name "Obama", "triangulation", or "Centrist" Democrats. I will keep fighting for these values no matter who is in the White House.

It is an "Issues" thing, not a matter of Political Personalities.
When politicians move toward the above, I will support them.
When they move away, I will oppose them.
I don't expect to get everything, but I DO demand respect for these values, and a voice in the Party that is asking for my money and support.
If a Political Party does not at least acknowledge these values and give them a seat at the table, I will find another Party that will.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[beforeyoureyes]

47. Odd post. If you don't qualify your support for real representation, it doesn't make a dimes worth

...of difference...

If you bitch about the policies that you dislike and find harmful to the people of this nation...

If your vote and gotv campaigning is a given, and you will do it no matter what, no wonder the democrats shit on their base.

The democrats are failing to goven according to their own party platform.

You keep electing people who fail to represent you, you will have no representation.

Period.

[jpgray]

50. Even if you take that view, I argue this country's worst impulses should not be represented

Toward that end, voting and working for Democrats is almost always the best and most effective means. Encouraging 2% of the country to not vote or vote third party has, to my recollection, never had an appreciable impact on the rightward tumble of our discourse. Vocal criticism and activism that impacts a major party, however, has had an impact. Witness the inexorable shift in the debate concerning equal rights for GLBT folks--this happened in the utter absence of any major party interest, and will continue to happen by sheer force of activism. That's the sort of long-term effort I can see making a difference in other issues.

[Lilith Velkor]

52. "To anyone with self-respect..."

That's they key phrase here.

[NanceGreggs]

54. What I can't wrap my head around ...

... is the immediate assumption that if one supports a Democratic president and the Dem Party, it equates to complete support of every policy, every action, every position they take - or that we "support emotionally and intellectually everything party leaders do".

"I assume everyone here is ready and willing to work and vote for the victory of Democrats or at minimum the defeat of Republicans."

I used to assume that, too - being as this is a democratic message board and all. But that assumption has been proven wrong, and very sadly so.

[jpgray]

56. Fair enough. I'll try to help you understand what I mean

Take one issue of contention--invocation of the state secrets argument by the administration. Obama has cited this argument to defend several practices:

-warrantless wiretapping
-torture and extraordinary rendition of CIA prisoners
-pursued assassinations of US citizens without any due process

It's my view that these are all terrible practices, and no defense can be made of them without holding supremely authoritarian and unconstitutional views on civil liberties. Yet in several threads criticizing these practices, it has been argued that such practices are not only necessary and defensible, but just and appropriate.

To me, that's tying one's intellect and emotion too much to political tribalism. If these were unquestioned atrocities to you while Bush was president, they must remain so under Obama. Particularly they should remain so when the field of debate is a private internet message board by and for Democrats, where at worst only one's ego is at stake.

The bottom line is that no one on this board will be convinced that such practices are defensible by being told that such is the Democratic Party way, and if you disagree you are against the party. I imagine the hope is that the critic will shut up and/or change her mind, but what she hears is that opposition to these practices has no place in the party anymore, and therefore she is against the party and has no place in it.

I doubt that's really the impression defenders of the administration wish to convey.

[NanceGreggs]

58. I don't disagree with what you're saying ...

... and the explanation was unnecessary.

You haven't seen me defending Obama's actions where I disagree with them. I have also never argued that such practices are necessary, defensible or appropriate.

I have limited my OPs on this board to positive views of Obama and the Party. That was a personal choice on my part - I'd rather save my vitriol for the GOP and the MSM.

I leave the criticism to others, especially those who know whereof they speak far better than I - those who are directly impacted by policies that are detrimental to their particular profession, their particular personal circumstances, and can speak to that direct impact with authority.

As such, I have often been taken as agreeing with everything this administration does. And too often, I have - along with others - been accused of being a mindless cheerleader, too stupid to see the flaws in this president.

It is that assumption that sticks in my craw - the assumption that if one chooses to post positive things when they see them in action, it is a sign of total agreement; a sign that they have absolutely no criticism whatsoever.

My OP - the one yours in response to - was aimed at a very distinct group of people on this board. They post whatever anti-Dem, anti-Obama articles, op-eds, columns they can find on the internetz - to the exclusion of all else, and without regard to the source. They spread negativity and hopelessness with every comment they make, and the doom-and-gloom atmosphere they've created is choking any real debate or discussion about issues.

The internetz is, in some ways, a very small place. And when I see certain people posting screeds on other websites about "taking down the Dems", who then post nothing but negative crap on DU - and then hide behind the "constructive criticism" meme - I feel they deserve to be called on it.

It is now, of course, of no consequence for me personally. I have rarely been here for the better part of this year, and don't intend to participate much in future - if at all. No one who offers valid criticism of Obama or the Party should be made to feel unwelcome here. But, by the same token, no one who supports this presidency and the party, or who believes that electing Democrats over Republicans is important, should be made to feel unwelcome either.

We, the latter group, have been made unwelcome here. And it's not because of what we say, or do, or believe in. It's because assumptions are made about who we are and where we stand, and there are those who encourage those wrong-headed assumptions to be accepted as fact.

That being said, I have enjoyed our exchange of views. Maybe we've both learned something about each other. That kind of exchange is what brought me to DU in the first place. Unfortunately, such exchanges are now all but impossible.

[depakid]

60. +1

particularly insightful is the comment re: political tribalism.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

65. If a person is on a progressive site all points are valid but this is a pro Democtatic site.

[Electric Monk]

68. Democtatic?

Try proofreading.

[treestar]

66. At election time, it's right

If you can't support Dems in a mid-term, you can't really be a member of the party. If they "let you down" so much, you need to find another party. You are NOT the base, so quit claiming it.