A Message To Fellow "Liberals" On Democratic Underground

[matcom]

I HOPE you will notice the QUOTES.

DO NOT - Ask me to "abandon" progressive principals to make YOUR candidate more "electible"

DO NOT - Ask me to "change" my position on fundamental human rights

DO NOT - Suggest to me that "we" need to covet "red states" so we can "win"

DO NOT - Tell me that someone like Zell Miller is better in the White House than *W*

DO NOT - even for one fucking MINUTE tell me (yes, a hetero, white male) that civil rights, woman's rights, CHOICE RIGHTS or gay rights, are hurting MY party.

DO NOT - Tell me that I need some kind of religion in my politics in order to be taken "seriously". THAT IS MY FUCKING BUSINESS AND NOT YOURS.

sit and spin all you "progressives" and "liberals" who would rather "WIN" than "STAND FOR SOMETHING"

SIT.AND.FUCKING.SPIN.

[bahrbearian]

1. But we need to move to the Middle, Right?

[mandyky]

52. No - we are already in the middle

If we move right of center, why have an opposition party called Democrats?

[Lizzie Borden]

72. We have already abandoned enough of our principles.

I have no intention of moving one iota closer to the middle. The middle is NOT where I want to be. I mean, what would be the purpose? I'm NOT a republican and I have no intention of trying to appear as one.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Bouncy Ball]

108. MOVE to the middle?

We are in the middle or to the right.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think the Democratic Party must stand for something

Like rights for gays, women, and minorities. Like saying your faith or lack thereof is a private matter. That we honor fundamental human rights. That we honor progressive principals.

[readmoreoften]

3. 100% in agreement

It's not the platform, it's the spin. We need to use NLP(Neurolinguistic Programming) to our advantage the way the neocons have.

So we're only 20% of the US voting pop. Remember, the fundy base is only 25% and they're winning. So why can't we?

It's not the platform it's the salesmanship.

[Vincardog]

189. It's not the platform it's not the salesmanship it is the vote counting

machine It does not matter how you vote as long as they control the vote counting.

[billie_]

248. I agree, we won, we need to fix the Voting, and WE need to fix the Party..

we are winning and getting cheated & therefor losing, but we are not winning big and we are not fighting back after we are cheated....
the democratic party has tried to hard to be republicanesque....
F-THAT....we need to be proud, progressive, liberals....

[lastliberalintexas]

4. Ah, but if we amend the platform

so that we oppose abortion and affirmative action, favor the criminalization of homosexuality, and demand tax cuts for the wealthy and Corporate America, then we just might be able to win over some of those misogynistic homophobes who've been brainwashed to think that Dems are evil. If we co-opt the repub platform, don't you think we'll make it harder for them to win? And that's what's important, right? :)

[realFedUp]

5. glad to see you got yo slappin hippo back

thought you'd gone milquetoast...

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. fuckin' A

bout damn time someone said this. I've had it up there here with people acting as if this party should be ashamed of its beliefs.

I hate stupid people. :mad:

[Bridget Burke]

7. It's amazing how many Republicans have been waiting for their chance....

To tell us how to be more like them.

[matcom]

9. "trolls" abound

and MANY with 1000+ posts :eyes:

[xultar]

21. Then you'll need my favorite troll signal...

[Darranar]

8. What? You don't think the Democratic Party should...

abandon its values to gain the values vote?

That's.... gasp.... actual logic! How dare you!?

Unsarcastically, excellent post.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I Second That Emotion, Matcom...

Enthusiastically!

[Runcible Spoon]

11. AMEN bruthuh matcom!

SING IT!

[supernova]

12. Amen, brother Matcom!

To borrow a phrase. ;-)

I agree with you. I don't know what makes people say we need to abandon our core issues. :eyes:

The republicans don' thave better policies than we do; they simply market themselves better.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. You left out a couple things:

They steal elections better than we do, and
They are great at overturning the ones that they actually lose.

[Sterling]

156. Yes and as long as we dont takle that you can forget about

stopping the BFEE/PNAC crowd.

[loyalsister]

13. Give that man a hand!

:yourock:

[Maiden England]

14. I'm in total agreement

well said Matcom, well said.
I am so sick and tired of being told to support some DINO, who is trying to 'out conservative' a conservative. Its all utter bullshit. Its like CNN trying to be FOX. Its a pointless waste of time, and while all this is going on, the people who desperately need the kind of principles the democratic party was founded on, the poor, the oppressed are being egded out of the political process because they are not as attractive, or as electable an argument.
Its appauling.

[matcom]

15. "DINO"

they DIE here and now. PERIOD.

NEVER AGAIN

[Maiden England]

30. completely extinct

if they want so badly to be in bed with the repukes, let 'em run as ruddy repukes.
Its time to call a spade a spade.

[Zhade]

95. "Its like CNN trying to be FOX."

That is SO RIGHT ON.

Exactly.

[NurseLefty]

16. I'm with you on this!

:kick:
BTW, did anyone see Harry Reid on MTP today? He is a part of what EXACTLY is the problem w/ the Dems - a party leader who is anti-choice and a move-to-the-middle type!

[Eloriel]

17. Oh! Nice rant.

Good work. I might have to bookmark this. :D

[matcom]

19. careful friend

it may catch on fire in your bookmarks :D

thanks pal :thumbsup:

[Solly Mack]

18. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've seen how well the "win" tactic works.


Fight for what you believe in....but it begins with believing in something. Standing for something.

[lateo]

20. Fucking A Matcom!

All these Republican enablers can kiss my ass.

[karlrschneider]

22. fuckin' A!

How's dadcom?
:toast:

[DireStrike]

24. 'Bout red states

I think we can win em. But not if we change our values. We need to aim for them by reframing our values in their terms. There's a good article on the front page about this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/12/04_talk.html">How to talk to a Bush voter

[noiretextatique]

25. hello!?! thank you

:toast: and the truly pathetic thing is: repug-lite hasn't "won" anything. why go for the lite when you can have the real thing?

[jdots]

26. matcom you ignorant slut

no flames from me couldn't be said better
but it is all your fault ,yes your fault
gimme a dollar ok 50 cents

[Disturbed]

28. Rethug LITE?

NO freakin' way! I have gone further to the Left since the Neo Facsists have stolen the power.

[Squeech]

27. Moreover

The Pukes run on OUR policies. What is "compassionate conservatism" if not a cost-effective social safety net? Then they sleaze their way into office and steal everything not nailed down and blacken the name of our formerly fair country all over the world, and then they bleat that government is the problem, but WE'RE disloyal.

Republicans: the party of lies. The party of crime. The party that'll get you killed. That's my frame.

[ldf]

80. they DO take our policies

everyone knows that liberals "care". that, apparently, is our problem. we democrats are the we, we, we party.

and we have pretty much deduced that conservatives DON'T care, but are only out for themselves. they are the me, me, me party.

so they twist that we care into we care TOO MUCH.

and to try to hoodwink the public that THEY, the conservatives, care, but not TOO much, they come up with this "compassionate conservative" bullshit.

so they are trying to appear as caring individuals, LIKE the liberals, but must couch it in the conservative mantra, thereby showing how they care so much, and since GOD IS ON THEIR SIDE, that pretty much settles the question.

like everyone else has said, we do NOT need to give up our principles, and we DO need to learn to communicate without giving those principles up.

i'm with you matcom. i ain't giving another inch. in fact i'm going the other direction. i am taking back, and will NOT deny, the core beliefs of the democratic party.

matcom, my hero... :hug:

[BlueCollar]

29. AMEN !!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[JanMichael]

31. Well said.

I for one have had it with lost values. If being a Dem means being a Repuke them fuck it.

[Endangered Specie]

32. Is there a reason for this outburst?

not that I dont agree (mostly)... but ive been out of GD for a little.

[NightTrain]

76. Yes.

Matcom's post was in response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2789824&mesg_id=2789824

[Endangered Specie]

77. Yeah,

I had a feeling bc I read that one right after this one.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

198. No, and here's the reason:

You can't hit "Alert" in ignored posts. Hitting "Alert" is exhilarating. Cathartic.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[skygazer]

34. Absolutely

I'm so sick of these people who seem to think that becoming more like the "opposition" is going to help us. How does becoming the same thing offer anyone any choice? They act like this was some sort of landslide victory - "mandate". It wasn't. In my opinion, the answer isn't to abandon all the things we believe in - it is to articulate our positions more clearly.

I knew it was a mistake to leave the lounge...

[m berst]

35. a few objections, if I may

Lumping everyone who disagrees with you on any issue, or even suggests a different point of view, into one category and then describing it as those who wish to put practicality over principle is not accurate.

I only wish that there were the same outrage here when people talk about free markets, reverse racism, flat tax, free trade - all of these issues and many more have discussions here that defend and apologize for the right wing positions. In my view, 90% of the liberal platform has already been abandoned by the party, and many Democrats defend that compromising with the right wingers for the sake of winning.

On the issue of abortion and on gun control, however, any discussion is met with expressions of outrage that the party is abandoning its principles.

The supreme irony is that some of the people who are most vocal about not abandoning the party's position on abortion and threaten to leave the party over this issue are sometimes the same posters who are derisive toward those who suggest leaving the party over the rightward drift of the party's stance on issues of class, labor and race.

I think it is particularly poisonous to accuse people of being trolls or closet Republicans, as some posters here have done. That, and the use of innuendo and the wholesale casting of suspicion on other members is the real threat to the community in my opinion.

[Cronus Protagonist]

38. You might be a closet Republican

You just "might be" you know...

[m berst]

50. so ironic

On so many issues here I am threatened with excommunication for being too far left and told that I "may be" a closet socialist and that the party has no place for people like me.

Your response reflects a witch hunt state of mind I think, and I strenuously object to it.

What in my post suggests to you that I am a Republican, and what is the basis for determining who is and who isn't a Republican? Should one be determined to be a closet Republican, what should then be done, in your opinion?

[Cronus Protagonist]

68. Lighten up a bit....

I said "might be". Do I need to spell it out?

[m berst]

83. hey can I help it?

:)

Ok, ok so I missed it. Right over my head.

Consider me lightened.

I just might be sarcasm appreciation impaired.

[Zhade]

99. I must agree about "free" trade and other such issues.

You are entirely correct, there really are too many apologists for rightwing propaganda regarding labor and economic issues here.

I also think gun control needs to be reworked (I'll be a gun owner soon, and a few of the Dems' positions are too far for me. AWB was a joke that cost too much politically for no real effect).

But as far as abortion goes, I don't think we can budge on a woman's right to control her own body.

[m berst]

111. wouldn't it be a thing of beauty?

It would be so great to see this kind of universal and aggressive no-compromise reaction from DUers when it comes to so many other issues.

But we compromise everything except choice just precisely as it is stated as a mirror image of the right wing position, and to some extent gun control. If it is a manufactured wedge issue that the Republicans use to bamboozle people and trash the political discussion, we stand for no compromise and no discussion and gladly play the role that the Republicans have assigned to us. Every thing else is negotiable and subordinate to practicality, including it seems, democracy itself if we judge by the number of "move on" and "get over it" posts in regards to the election.

[Zhade]

119. Well, I agree with about 99% of this.

I still do not believe there can be any compromise on a woman's control over her own body.

Understand that I do not like abortion. But I do not think the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. In point of fact, I don't believe the government should be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body, so long as whatever they're doing harms no one other than that person (assuming it even does that).

[m berst]

122. why compromise on it at all?

Why take it up as an issue, as defined by the right wing, so that compromise is even an issue? If the Democratic party refused the invitation to the dance,as it were, neither party would run on an anti-choice platform and the right wingers would be deprived of an issue. The either/or fight to the death scenario was cooked up by the Republicans. Is taking a national platform stance - even if it is the right stance - necessarily the only, or even the best way to achieve the goal?

The point I am trying to make is subtle, the issue is so volatile, and I may not be explaining myself well, so I hope you can see what I am saying. There is some quality of a set up around this issue - a trap. As though we are running on "the sky is blue" - the very fact that we answer their claim that the sky is red gives their argument credibility. And of course the sky is red just often enough to give their argument some credence to the public.

The way the issue is rigged, the Democrats stake everything, and the Republicans have nothing to lose. I am not suggesting a weaker position on this, rather a stronger position.

If you picture a team sport, say, like hockey. Of course, the idea is to go toward the opponent's goal. If the opposition sets up a trap in the direct path, however, you may be wiser to go around or to pass the puck off. To argue against those ideas because they aren't in line with the prime idea of moving toward the goal is foolish.

The Republicans have blocked the direct path, successfully. many Democrats insist on the same strategy because the goal is the correct goal. Anyone who suggests a different strategy is suspected of secretly working for the other team. So we walk into the trap again and again.

I think that Democrats do 90% of the work for the Republicans on the anti-choice issue.

[Zhade]

128. Ah! Yes, I see now. And I agree. This is a very good point.

Perhaps it's a question of framing it, and then dropping it, only to firmly remind everyone of the proper frame if it's brought up by the rightwingers?

[m berst]

131. we could tell the truth

"Good people differ on this issue. It can't be resolved as a national political issue, even if we wish that it could. The opposition has used this as a distraction and has misled people about it and taken advantage of people's deeply held religious beliefs in a disingenuous way for mere political advantage. Let's talk about what we can do for the country, and lets start by taking this contentious issue out of the national debate."

Obviously, I will never be a political speech writer, but you get the idea. Take a position that is based on the whole truth, define it in a way you can indefinitely and universally defend, word it effectively, and pedal to the metal and no more backing and filling and hemming and hawing.

Winning and beating your opponent are not always the same thing, especially if your opponent is setting the ground rules. Can we think of the approach to the issue in new and different ways without people worrying that we are compromising on principle?

While "right" often loses, that doesn't make the loser always right. I see this - I would almost call it a will to lose - in liberal and progressive circles a lot. Since only the best people have the right ideas, and those ideas are often not popular with the stupid masses, therefore we should settle for being right and losing.

I saw this dynamic working in public radio. Since much good music was ignored by the mass media, there was a mission there to bring people music they wouldn't otherwise hear. Over the years this idea - good music doesn't get heard and isn't popular - got perverted to "music that isn't heard and isn't popular must be good."

This attitude works against the premises of populism, and leaves the party vulnerable to the pseudo-populist appeals of the right wingers. The Nazis pulled the same trick on the German people that the Republicans are doing now. We need to be on guard, I believe, to any "the people are stupid idiots" politics.

Abortion is, or could be, a health issue. If the Democratic party ran on a universal national full health care program and went to the wall on that, all of the controversy about reproductive rights would disappear from national politics IMHO.

Do people not have a right to health? Or is that only for wealthy people? Where does the party stand on this? Why is abortion a deal breaker, but sick children is not for many Democrats? Isn't sick children, and poor mothers and women in general having less than full citizenship and less than equal rights the larger context here? Can we not wholeheartedly promote the entire package, and would it not get the support of the American people?

[IrateCitizen]

164. You're on to something with "sick children"...

One of the lines that John Kerry had during the last debate that I thought was one of the best soundbites he produced (of course, his clueless campaign advisors didn't drum it over and over and over again) was, "I'm sick of people who continually talk about 'family values' but don't value families."

I think that a similar tactic could be used regarding the abortion issue. Any time the RW tries to present themselves as "pro-life", immediately shift the debate to the fact that "pro-life" doesn't stop at birth. People who are "pro-life" don't push policies that ensure that 1/4 of our children grow up in poverty. People who are "pro-life" don't deny medical insurance to children. Being "pro-life" takes a lot more work than just producing platitudes about the "unborn". It's also about working hard to ensure opportunities for children after they're out of the womb. Sadly, our opponents have nothing meaningful to offer on this front, so they can only talk about "pro-life" as something that begins and conception and ends at birth.

I've said several times since the election that a good counter against the Republicans is to label them as "anti-child" based on their policies. Of course, this tactic would also mean that the Democrats would have to address several of the important (but rarely discussed) issues you noted earlier that create the conditions in which child poverty develops -- but it certainly couldn't be a worse strategy than the one they're currently using....

[Mandate My Ass]

182. Excellent point -- undemonizing poverty by attaching it to

the self-applied pro-life label. Nobody who claims to be pro-life or pro-family should in any way promote or even condone anti-child policies.

You're correct in pointing out though that few dems broach this subject even though more and more people, a majority of whom are under 18, are moving downward into poverty and homelessness.

[m berst]

211. it is a disgrace

"... more and more people, a majority of whom are under 18, are moving downward into poverty and homelessness."

What if we could feed, clothe, educate and provide health care for every child in the country, but the trade off was that there were some restrictions on abortion along the lines of that which is now supported by 70% of the population?

We can't separate the two issues, you say? They are interconnected?

Right. That's my point.




edited for grammar

[Mandate My Ass]

213. we're not even close to providing minimally acceptable living standards

to the poverty-stricken youth in this country.

When that happens we can address the fact that race and socio-economic status determines who has reproductive choice in this country.

When that happens we can begin to discuss why we feel women should be punished for unintended consequences of expressing their sexuality.

When that happens we can address the fact that homicide by the impregnator is the number one cause of death to pregnant women in this country.

When that happens we can decide why men who serially impregnate women without any reliable mechanism for collecting financial support for his offspring are not penalized in this country.

When that happens we can implement a system providing women of all incomes, as well as those that lack any outside source of income, with quality child care.

When that happens we can discuss why those uninvolved and unaffected by arbitrary restrictions based on subjective morality (no matter what the stated percentage of the general population they make up) get to decide what is a legitimate "tradeoff" between one's individual liberty and another's desire to infringe upon it.

[blindpig]

169. abortion /healthcare

Framing is one problem, goals and intentions another. The tactic you suggest would be a good one IF the Democratic Party embraced the concept of full healthcare for all Americans. Sadly, this is not the case. The party's whoring to the corporations precludes anything serious. The only serious proponent of a single payer system is Dennis Kucinich and he is marginalized at every turn. In retrospect I suspect that the Clinton foray into healthcare was a planned failure.

Before we fix the framing the whoring must stop so that we know what it is that we are framing.

[m berst]

179. right

I hope I didn't use the word "framing" - I don't remember. I can't believe how quickly I got tired of that word, and I am afraid that we have just begun to hear it.

I don't think of it as a matter of framing - as though the true liberal message needs slick advertising gimmicks to help it. You need advertising when you aren't offering anything! I know that flies in the face of all the genius DNC consultants who want to use marketing tactics to help the party "win" - whatever that means anymore. I'd like to see the people win, that is who I am loyal to, and I think the people have had about enough of being framed.

Telling the truth isn't framing - it is telling the truth and meaning it. The fate of the country now hinges on this idiotic, divisive and manufactured abortion issue. It wouldn't be an issue if there weren't a vacuum that was created by the total lack of courageous moral leadership from spineless and unprincipled Democratic party politicians. In stroll the Republicans to claim "values" and the Democratic party sputters and rolls over.

The truth of the matter is that the abortion issue, like dozens of other issues of medical ethics is complex and the people are not served by making it a political football. Medical people have to make life and death decisions every day somewhere, whether it is which accident victims to treat first, or how long to maintain life support for a dying patient. There are no easy answers to these questions, and they are not black and white. As Democrats we don't have all of the answers to these questions, but unlike our opponents we don't pretend to for the purpose of deceiving the American people.

As Democrats - in my not as humble as it should be opinion - we make an enormous mistake to react to and mirror these Republican positions and ignore the fact that they are controlling the discussion. The Republicans say "here is our solution." Instead of saying, "ok, here is ours" why not say in response there is no political solution to this and my opponent is deceiving you when he say that there is.

So this is my roundabout way of saying that I agree with you 100% when you say "before we fix the framing the whoring must stop so that we know what it is that we are framing."

[blindpig]

188. concerning framing

Yes, the term has been used and abused ad nauseum but it does retain some value. By my usage I simply mean that we should not allow them to do the defining, to stop being reactive.

[m berst]

190. that's it

Yes, I agree. It isn't how we frame, it is IF we frame. You can't frame anything when you let your opponent take the initiative, and you can't take the initiative when you are worried about swing voters and not offending people. My only worry about the framing idea is that the party doesn't lack brains, it lacks heart and is too hesitant. So I worry that framing will become another cumbersome, hesitant, intellectualized handicap.

Throw the criminals out!!

This war is wrong!!!

You know, from the diaphragm. You have to believe it, it can't be the product of a focus group test and sessions with a delivery coach. If there is fire and truth in the message, the framing will take care of itself.

I see the Democratic consultants obsessing over fine tuning every detail of a campaign. Why? The Republicans will just smash everything up anyway, and then cheat and steal. Go after them fast and hard, get them on the run, and never let up. Do whatever it takes, not what the consultants tell you will work. The day the image consultants and the demographic analysts, and the media experts started running the party was the day we started losing elections.

[The Minus World]

36. Yes, yes, yes.

If we choose to operate within the paradigm created for us by the right; if we choose to perceive ourselves as being "too far to the left" rather than our opposition being "too far to the right," we will have conceded something fundamental to our party: the integrity that the right-wingers do not possess.

The right-wing has managed to create an atmosphere of ubiquity within their party, pandering simultaneously to war-hawks, fundamentalist Christians, businessmen and paranoid suburbanites alike - spinning multiple plates at once. The message of the left has always been much clearer, focusing on a strict, prioritized set of values. However, when faced with the constant barrage of attack campaigns being lobbed from the right, many liberals are tempted to use force to respond - to use the same manipulative tactics that have elevated Rove and the Christian Coalition to their current exalted status.

While I'm not sure whether it's the quick-fix that most liberals want, I believe that a campaign of nonviolent, Gandhian protest is the best way to bring public exposure to the hatred percolating within the Republican party. We need to resist any force that would persuade us to make a pact with the very party we choose to supersede.

[tsuki]

90. But uneffing able to communicate their positions, and uneffing able

to stand up to the ReThugs. We're the "Gentleman's" party. We want to sound reasonable.

I'd rather stick my finger in the Gravy Boat Liars face, and lose, than try to "appear" reasonable and "above" the gutter tactics.

That's just me tho.

[The Minus World]

105. Temporary Dictatorship

Oh, I absolutely agree that we need to stand up to those who choose to undermine our freedom to promote militance.

A tactical approach to disassembling the right-wing propaganda machine is a necessity, as the Republicans have established the rules of engagement under the assumption that leftists are too unorganized and broad in their message to effectively counter a focused disinformation campaign (to be called a "liberal" is to be named with an epithet, almost tantamount to being called a "socialist" or "terrorist sympathizer.")

However, to me, fighting against disinformation does not require liberals to abandon their principles - in fact, it reinforces them; I simply do not agree with those who suggest that we must become feral in order to defeat the wolves.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[DrWeird]

49. Here's a whole thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2700481

Honestly, I don't know how you do it.

[cali]

57. I attempted to disuade people from forming a virtual

lynch mob. Something I've noticed you're wont to do. Yep, swing that rope over the tree branch, and hang anyone who dares to disagree with you as a rethug traitor.

[DrWeird]

60. Mmmmmhmmmmm.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Metatron]

116. I read the other thread and completely disagree with your views.

I'm not sure that accusing a DUer of being under 25 or being immature is "agreeing to disagree." Concerning the linked thread, some of us feel that seeing the videotape is the evidence on which we base our opinions rather than on a reporter's opinion.

[Runcible Spoon]

123. under 25? EXCUSE me???

I am 24, will be done with my Master's degree in one more semester, and then on to a PhD, hopefully to finish around my 30th birthday. I should hope, sir, that you find better criterion for attacking arguments than arbitrary age/maturity limits.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[IllegalCombatant]

70. thanks for the link

a real eye-opener

[Zhade]

102. Wow, that's kinda scary.

It's obvious from the video, and the fact that OTHER SOLDIERS SECURED THE WOUNDED MAN AND THE SOLDIER KNEW THAT FACT, that there was no need to kill the Iraqi.

But then, I read last night that a DUer supported the war, just not how we did it. Imagine: a DUer saying an illegal war wasn't wrong, but that we just did it wrong.

Frightening.

[hippywife]

141. It should be just as frightening

as the fact that many of our presidential candidates took that same position. Including the one that eventually ran against the incumbent. Gee, I wonder why enough people weren't excited enough to give the Dem Party a win by a landslide?

[Selwynn]

165. Threads like these and this one just help my update my ignore list

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[cali]

46. Not particularly.

Juvenile? Sure
Intellectually challenged response? yep.
Rude? uh huh.
Bit self-righteous? As i said, not particularly.

[robcon]

40. I reject the premise, matcom.

We do not need to abandon any principles, nor do we need Zell Miller as our candidate. No one I've seen on DU has argued for that. Your post is a total strawman argument.

What we need is a foreign policy/defense policy that can stand up to the Republicans. We need a presidential standard-bearer whose position is clear, positive (not just "Bush is a moron") and believable. We had none of these things in 2004. That's why we lost.

We need someone like Bill Clinton: someone who didn't compromise Democratic principles, and who appealed to a broad variety of Americans.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Q]

53. Clinton DID compromise 'Democratic principles'...

...and cleared the way for the Bushies to take power and the media to go 'corporate'. He 'appealed' to some on the Right because he gave them what they wanted.

We should keep in mind that more than just the presidency is at stake. Clinton and his 'third way' DLCers have lost the entire government to the RWingers. The party has NEVER been in this bad of shape. Never.

We've lost too much of our base...pandering to those against unions, public education, woman, Blacks, Gays and the separation of church and state.

The 'centrists' keep assuring us that we're not really sacrificing principles...as they sell off bits and pieces of our party to the highest bidder.

No more. The DLCers and their 'moderate' fans need to take a closer look at what's happening. If the party bosses don't soon listen to the BASE of the party...they're going to jump ship...not giving a shit whether the Dems win their hollow victories or not.

[tsuki]

93. Thank you. You're right.

[Selwynn]

168. That's exactly right, and very well articulated. (nt)

[brook]

42. Agreed..

Stand for that which is right.

Or sit the f down.

[janx]

45. You know, I don't even think this has to do with any "right" or

"left" kind of ideology. It sounds like my parents when they were still alive, and they were old Goldwater independents.

It has to do with integrity and with what has happened to this country as a result of the takeover by the extreme right wing. The principles you mention are very American, and they're good principles. We should stand by them.

So good for you, Matcom.

[hippiechick]

47. Thank you, matcom.

:)


:hippie:

[ulysses]

48. you know I'm with you, Matt.

:thumbsup:

[Scout]

51. abso-Fuckin'-lutely

:toast:

[WillyT]

54. Hear, Hear !!! - I'm With You Matcom !!!

:kick:

[Wind Dancer]

55. Well said, matcom!

I couldn't agree more!

[Festivito]

56. Politics is an imperfect game, and, yet, you demand perfection within it.

Plus you cut discussion short. Foster intransigence, division, self-righteous indignation at those who may even have something valid to say.

If you want to play your game of untold unasked perfection, fine. But, your coarse wish on those others may well become the reality you enact upon yourself.

[Selwynn]

170. There are far more of us here, who agree than those who don't

--and I'm more than willing to live with their "outrage."

[Festivito]

185. I guess it's only 4 years 14 days versus their outrage.

I admire your patience.

[Paladin]

58. One More Heart-Felt "Fuckin' A"

Thank you, thank you, thank you. After tangling all weekend in GU and the Gun Dungeon with anti-abortionists and Gun Huggers who want to eviscerate the principles of the Democratic Party, how refreshing to see a rallying cry like this one. Be prepared to holler over and over again in the near future, matcom. It's definitely needed......

[UpsideDownFlag]

59. but, but, we need to move to the center! we can't lose all this JOEMENTUM

*sigh*

[cmd]

61. Another thank you

I'm here because I'm a liberal, not an appeaser.

[mattclearing]

62. Amen.

eom

[datasuspect]

63. true dat

yep

[NMDemDist2]

64. ROFL right you are you Lefty Liberal Hero Matcom! if we don't stand for

something, we'll fall for anything ---- which pretty much sums up the folks that vote for Bushco doesn't it?

[Arkana]

65. Right on, dude...

I'm really sick of all these 1000+ers outing themselves and telling us that we need to be Puke-lites to win.

[Walt Starr]

67. I'm with you, Matcom!

Damn sraight!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. what he said

[sleipnir]

71. Rock on!!! I'm Fucking with You!

Sit and SPIN!!!!

[bleedingheart]

74. This is why I like you!

:-)

I agree with you completely!!!

[NightTrain]

75. Brother Matcom speaks the truth.

Remember: If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!

[clem_c_rock]

78. AMEN - Couldn't have said it better - I'm sick of conceding moderates

especially the one's that only argue the official stories given to us by CNN like this is reality.

[flaminbats]

79. Isn't this why we have political parties?

so we can all sit down..fart loudly when making modest deals, grin whilst taking huge sacks of money, and forget why we ran for office to begin with?

[robcon]

81. The argument is a total strawman.

Can you name any quote, or any DUer who advocates anything like what you have set them up in your topic post? Or is it just important that you create a strawman argument that is easy to knock down?

Attacking my intelligence, while not even responding to the content of my post doesn't win many arguments, matcom.

[Selwynn]

171. Learn the definition of staw man

This argument can't be a "straw man" argument, because it is not a rebuttal argument. By definition an agrument can only talk the logically fallacious form of a "straw man" if it is an argument seeking to discredit or rebut an original claim by falsely restating the original claim and critiquing that.

What you are accusing matcom of is making an argument without evidence, which is not the defintion of a staw man. However, I can show you plently of direct examples of numerous threads by many different people advcating precisely the things as set up in the original post. My ignore list is full of people who do precisely that. After the elections, there was an jump in the number of posts about how we need to compromise, and be more "republican" in order to win, which is a ridiculous joke.

As far as not winning any arguments, judging by the response in this thread he's clearly won the hearts and minds of a majority of posters here who agree wholeheartedly with both his out rage and his position. If you feel alienated or estranged from the community because it doesn't reflect conservative politics, you're going to have to either get used to that, or find some place that does.

[QC]

219. While we're on the subject of fallacious reasoning...

here's a very nice example of the argumentum ad populam:

judging by the response in this thread he's clearly won the hearts and minds of a majority of posters here who agree wholeheartedly with both his out rage and his position

[rbnyc]

82. God, I love you matcom.

We are not alone. And we are right.

[davsand]

84. I had to walk away earlier today.

I got into that thread saying the Dems need to give up on abortion as an issue, and just about stroked out writing a response. I finally walked away and put up the Christmas tree. hours later, coming back here to the boards-- it was like a moth to a flame to see how the rest of that thread turned out.

I refuse to piss on the ideals that drove men like Paul Wellstone and MLK. JFK and Bobby had it figured out too--along with so many others who paid for progressivism with blood or tears. Every woman that ever died from a botched abortion and every worker that ever bled for the right to collective bargaining would come and haunt me if I tried to be "moderate" with my views. Frankly, if I ever DID try and move right I'd HOPE they WOULD haunt me.

Matcom, thank you for putting it out there. I ain't moving any further right, and the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe or a flat animal...


Laura

[baldguy]

85. FUCKN' A BROTHER!

A conservitive Democrate should be as rare and influential as a liberal Republican.

[Sparkly]

86. I agree with the statement overall, but some thoughts (or "but's")

We DO need to win one or more of the states that went "red" in recent elections by an UNstealable margin in order to make progress of any kind in government policy and legislation.

However, I do not believe we need to "move right" on a single issue to do it. (I believe the Republicans have won in *spite* of their policies, not because of them.)

I also think that some of these statements are addressing past threads and may not be entirely accurate representations of what DUers have said -- ("I need some kind of religion in my politics in order to be taken 'seriously'") -- and if they did, that should be argued fiercely on that thread, imho. Without seeing the exact words actually said, it's an easy "Amen" but a cheap one in the MO of the MSM, and that's divisive.

Finally, I've noticed that threads proposing "moving right" or "compromising" on some issues are met with strong responses (appropriately so, imo), yet others are virtually abandoned to two or three of us to argue the current "left" position. That tells me the very definition of "moving right" isn't agreed upon, even when the topic at hand is indeed "moving toward the rightwing position to garner votes and/or because Democrats are wrong." Do you all think that is the case on every issue? There's at least one issue where people (who may consider themselves "left") will argue like crazy to change course or shut up, and few of the amen-sayers here show up to defend the left/Democrats' position. So I don't think it's as clear as it may seem.

[Sparkly]

92. No bites, hm? Let me be more specific...

Where were all my fellow avowed lefties when this thread was going on? Does this 'no compromise, no moving right' stance only apply to some issues, but not all?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1400320

[Sparkly]

110. To be yet more specific, I started a new thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2792264

[ScreamingMeemie]

87. I'm in.

:thumbsup:

[Blue_Tires]

88. amen to that shit

[salin]

89. when we cede all issues... who would believe what we "say" we stand for

anyhow?

[tsuki]

91. I forgot to say...Great Post.

[Zhade]

94. Matcom, I love you. THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS.

NT!

[twenty2strings]

97. Hell yes...

Don't give a fucking inch. Say what you believe.:bounce:

[Shopaholic]

98. Preach brother Matcom, preach!

Damn straight. We only began to lose when we sold our souls to the DLC and began to compromise who and what we are. We let the Repugs turn the word "liberal" into a dirty word.

[arwalden]

100. I Love You!

Honest! I really do! :loveya:

[Feathered Fish]

101. Truly the voice of reason

in this nightmare that has been GD today.
Thanks matcom. :toast:

[Katarina]

103. Excellent post Matcom!

:headbang:

:yourock:

[chaska]

104. I've been working, forgive me I haven't had time to read this yet, but...

From what I've noticed we here at DU seem to be coalescing around the idea that we want to be Democrats again (praise the lord!).

My question: Do any of you hang at the other Democratic forums? What's the feeling there?

We need to find out what the people are thinking and if we are going to change the direction that we're being lead we need to start letting some folks know about it.

Time to issue some pink slips, people.

[George_S]

106. Again, nothing about the Bill of Rights and defendant's rights

The party ALREADY ABANDONED its principles.

Little late there, aren't ya?

[Bouncy Ball]

107. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Thanks.

[salvorhardin]

109. Thanks

You've expressed my feelings exactly.

[Individualist]

112. Terrific post, Matcom

I agree wholeheartedly. Those who are attempting to move our party to the right while ignoring the base are destroying the party.

[mitchtv]

113. count me in

I'm not progressive I AM A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
Gay, Union and I vote

[PassingFair]

114. Just talking about this tonight with Ms. Grumpy....

If we back down on reproductive rights,
If we back down on equal rights,
If we back down on separation of church and state,
If we back down on social programs that ensure the health of our children and the elderly,

Then what the hell will we be?

Certainly NOT democrats!

[clyrc]

115. very good!

I agree

[Metatron]

117. Thanks for articulating my views so well, matcom.

I haven't heard "sit and spin" in many years! :D

[number6]

118. don't hold back, tell us how you really feel ....

DO NOT - Tell me that someone like Zell Miller is better in the White House than *W*

Zell Miller is *'s evil twin ;)

[Sparkly]

120. May I now politely point out that a great majority of you are dishonest.

Either you stand on some issues and bend on others, or what's "left" and what's "right" -- what's a "progressive principle" and what's "Repuke light" -- is simply not agreed upon here. You do NOT all agree with Dennis Kucinich, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Michael Moore and many others OR you are too afraid to stand up for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2792264

[WLKjr]

121. Matcom, I really like how you said this

I feel the same way, 110% with you on this one:

"DO NOT - Tell me that I need some kind of religion in my politics in order to be taken "seriously". THAT IS MY FUCKING BUSINESS AND NOT YOURS."

and to add to it, if you really want to piss people off with that comment, tell them what I tell them:

"My religion is between me and God <insert other religious figure here> and is none of your fucking business."


I have gotten righties all flustered with that one.

[Susang]

124. I don't think I have to tell you anything, Matcom

You seem to have a handle on things. ;-)

[Castilleja]

125. I like you, Matcom!

Thanks for saying that, I agree. :thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

127. Give 'em the red ass!!!

:thumbsup:

[Cadence]

129. Here here!

You go booooy!

[devilgrrl]

130. You tell 'em dude!

:headbang:

[FizzFuzz]

132. YAY!

:loveya:

lies and hypocrisy should always be called what it is! LOUDLY!
And respect for human dignity shouldn't look for window dressing, even if it isn't fashionable at the moment.

did that make sense?
its 3 in the damn morning and I cant sleep.....

[Skittles]

133. THANK YOU

it needed to be said

[boi1946]

134. SHOUT IT OUT!

Thank you. Wish I could have said it half as well.

[imenja]

135. What's wrong with winning and standing for something

The two aren't mutually exclusive. If you want ideological purity, the Democratic party isn't the place for you. American politics is about compromise. If not, nothing can be accomplished. I don't, however, believe that means moving toward the center. But if we don't start winning more states, we become irrelevant.
Even now, the Dem's don't have enough power to operate as an effective opposition party. The Republicans, as the fight over the intelligence bill makes clear, have become their own opposition.

[Selwynn]

177. Nothing is wrong - but the DLC doesn't do that, and we do.

It loses, and has a long history of losing, and "standing for something" and moving to the right are not congruent with each other. The DLC always boasts of the Clinton years. But Clinton got elected by a small majority, with a lot of help from circumstances and Ross Perot. That was followed by MASSIVE LOSSES as the Republicans took over congress and made life a living hell from then on. Since that time they've lost more and more ground and have little to show for the strategy but their own benefit.

If you're arguing that conservative democrats trying to be more and more like the republican party are "standing for something" you'll be hard pressed to defend that claim. And if you are arguing that conservative democrats trying to be more republican has actually been a winning strategy, you'll be never more hard pressed to defend that claim.

Talking about "ideological purity" is a pretty term that people like you like to throw around in a debate as a "catch all" as though somehow this it is a universally accepted truth that we can't stand on or have principles and be successful democrats. This is a ridiculous joke, and in fact it is the chief reason why we lose and why the democratic party is in such bad shape - because people like you keep on bloviating about how we can have "ideological purity" as some kind of a justification for standing for all the wrong things.

Get this through your head - the essences of politics and the essence of life is about two things: AGREEMENT IN ESSENTIALS and FREEDOM IN NONESSENTIALS. That's the whole problem. There ARE ESSENTIAL principles that cannot be compromised. I cannot compromise with a political opponent who wants to gas Jews in this country. I can't say, "well OK - what if we only gas half of them?" There are certain essential core values that are not up for discussion or debate. At the same time, we must also have freedom in non-essentials, and the willingness and ability to give on those non-essential things whether they be the specific way something is done in a certain context, or whether it be things that are not in conflict with core essentials of a morally respectable political philosophy.

Every time someone with half a brain cell jumps on the boards and responds back to someone saying we are not backing down from our principles by saying "you can't have ideological purity" I want to throw up, because it is the most unreflective, unreasoned, uncritical response I've ever heard. News flash, all life includes compromise - but not compromise of core, essential fundamental principles of moral politics. Life does not include compromising on core things that you believe to be fundamentally right and wrong.

Agreement in essentials, freedom in non-essentials. Please keep repeating that to yourself over and over again until it sinks in. The issue today is not "ideological" purity. It is a statement that says there are some fundamental principles of a morally decent political philosophy which cannot be rationalized compromised or traded away, and that for too long our "party" has been trying to do exactly that.

[imenja]

192. I argue nothing that you imply

I explicitly said I don't believe the answer lies in moving to the middle, so obviously that means I don't favor becoming even more like Republicans. I responded to the idea that winning red states wasn't an important concern. Obviously we do need to stand for essential principles. The problem is, the party doesn't seem to know what those principles are and they haven't effectively communicated them to the American people. It is our job to make our influence known so that we can insist our core principles--and I certainly agree that human rights is an essential one.
For years, I looked with disdain on the Democratic party. They didn't come close to articulating the positions I supported, since I sit much further on the left than is acceptable in American politics. The Bush administration, however, knocked some sense into my head. The consequences of adhering to my own ideological purity were too dangerous. I realized I needed to work with the Democratic party to effect change. If not, the Right will make this country unrecognizable.
Winning red states is essential to regaining power, because if we continue to lose, the Right will continue undoing the progress of the last seventy years. In order to do that we have to seriously think about our core principles and long term strategy. We must win, but to do so we need to advance a clear ideology and system of policies that represents the interests of the American people. We also need to think carefully about cultural and religious issues. I believe we should take the Right's language of morality and turn in on it's head. Christ's mission on earth was not to persecute homosexuals. Most of what he spoke of had to do with caring for the poor. These, I believe, are core democratic principles.
In practical matters, compromise by those in the Senate and House is important on those issues with which we can find common ground, but that does not mean rolling over out of fear.
In short, there is nothing noble in continuing to lose one election after another.

[imenja]

201. "people like me"

As though you know me and what I believe based on a few sentences that you misread. Here you are arguing against someone, perhaps Al From, but not me. I make a request here. That DU posters seek to learn from each other, to understand one's point of view before condemning it. If we try to do that, we will end of learning more and better advancing progressive goals.

[KnowerOfLogic]

136. Say it , Brother. nt

[donheld]

137. Matcom i love it

you said what i've been feeling for quite awhile. :thumbsup::kick: :thumbsup::kick: :thumbsup: :kick: :thumbsup: :kick: :thumbsup: :kick: IMHO this post needs to be pinned for a long time!

[mhr]

138. Right On MATCOM - Death To DINOs!

eom

[VOX]

139. A-bleeping-men, matcom!!!

We've already got **one** Republican Party -- no sense making another.

Better to go down "standing up," than to bend and sink under the weight of "rather-switch-than-fight" compromise.

:yourock:

[TWiley]

140. Hallelujah Matcom

Well said. My sentiments exactly.

Our task is to show the world what brutish, greedy, warmongering, racist, murderous, and anti-Christian the bush republicraps really are.

Our mandate is not to assimilate into their immoral beliefs.

[cleofus1]

142. less red meat my friend...

I curse and spin at times...but it never helps an argument. I do agree with you 100% on all your points. The first point is problematic as "progressive principals" means different things to different liberals...as illustrated by the schism between greenies and democrats.

[Q]

144. That's where you're wrong...

...'Progressive principles' don't mean different things to different people (liberals). There are no shades of gray when it comes to principles...otherwise it's not a principle at all...just mushy rhetoric used to win elections.

[cleofus1]

145. no I'm right and you're wrong...

You're reducing politics of individuals to dogma. There are no absolutes when It comes to Liberal politics. Getting a groups of liberals to agrees on a variety of positions is nearly impossible. The proof of that statement is evident in the dialog we are having right now.

[Sterling]

157. I think liberal positions are very clear contrasted with Neo Con positions

Give an example of something you think true progressives can fundamentally disagree on.

[cleofus1]

174. hunting

of course only a "true" liberal has the lowdown on hunting...so many people here have opposing views on predator control...and the way hunting is done.

[Merlin]

143. Yessirreee ! Godam! WE LOVE TO LOSE! WE JUST LOVE IT!

We is just like the simbol of r party the dunkey.

We don't gotta do shit or think or nuthin, man.

We is so fuckin right and man them other folks is so fuckin wrong we jus ain't gonna listn to nobody what don't say everythin we agrees with.

Tha's cuz wee'ze edicated libruls, man. We'ze smart. Sure were loosin lections. But when yur STUPID WHITE GUYS like us, you jus don't give a shit what's happening to your country while you play politically spoiled brat and refuse to do what's necessary to win.

Jus us dum folks here! We don't give a shit 'bout nuttin and nobudy but rselves!

[matcom]

147. no oh enlightened one

we care about OTHERS! women, minorities, gays, etc... and ALL THEIR RIGHTS!

there is NO compromise on that. you are willing to give up WOMEN'S rights to "win". fuck that. your colors have shown and i will have NO part of it. neither will 99% who responded to this thread so far. YOU go ahead and "win" by giving up somebody else's right. I WILL NOT

buh bye

[cleofus1]

149. lots of assumptions there...

No one (certainly not merlin) said anything about giving up on women's rights...or any human rights for that matter. And we must remind you what happens to those who make assumptions...

[matcom]

151. assumptions my ass

do a search on his thread from yesterday where he says we must give up on abortion issue

[cleofus1]

154. sorry...

I can only spend a limited time on this board so I may miss these things. I support a woman's right to choose and feel it should always be a part of my politics.

[Sterling]

159. It's good you do.

But when you ASSUME that others here feel as you do then you make an ASS out of U and ME. That the point you were getting at up the thread right?

[cleofus1]

175. I'm trying not to be mean spirited in my arguments...

maybe that's not coming across.

[Selwynn]

178. agreement in essentials, freedom in non-essentials

that is my response to everyone who throws around the bullshit about wanting "ideological purity" because we have core convictions that cannot be compromised. No, that just makes us good people instead of bad ones. :)

[Merlin]

214. The other 99% are fools, too. Follow the leader means nothing.

It's easy to cheer on the guy who spouts the mindless cheerleader claptrap. Ask Bush. That's the whole secret of his success. You've learned well from him.

Your reaction to everything seems to be to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NaNaNaNaNah."

It would be nice if you would at lease attempt to conduct a rational conversation instead of waving the bloody shirt in front of a bunch of young bulls who can't think any better than you can.

I laid out a perfectly rational, well reasoned, well written assertion of what we should do to win. We can't do shit about those fucking principles you keep spouting off about unless we win. But you have never tried to deal with that fact.

Instead you've responded with nothing but hyped up, outraged invective. Like as if that takes either courage or genius. You're nothing more than a lynch mob leader. From now on, when I read you, I'll consider the source. I thought you were smarter than that.

Go ahead. Lead your troops. Onward to further defeat.

Meanwhile, I'm going to take my views to broader forums. I'll be damned if I'll give up what I know to be the right thing to do because a bunch of stupid white guys are standing in the hallways screaming and hollering and pounding on doors. I don't give up that easy.

[Forkboy]

227. "Meanwhile, I'm going to take my views to broader forums."

"I don't give up that easy."

:eyes:

[Merlin]

237. Roll em, forkboy. n/t

.

[Mandate My Ass]

155. We love opression as long as Dems have implemented it!!!

Yesiree, I can't wait to have my rights taken away by Dems. That will rule! The third-worldization of America, democratic style. Maybe we can bring back honor killings female castration, that'll win us tons of red state votes.

[Sterling]

160. Yes it feels wonderful to be under siege by both parties.

Makes it easier to know who your enemies are anyway.

[Mandate My Ass]

173. Let's show em we can make women and children suffer more

intensely than they ever dreamed of doing.

HAHAHAHAHA, you pansy pukes, all you did was encroach on women's reproductive choice and we totally obliterated it. We've caused crushing poverty, starvation and abuse on an unprecedented scale in the world's wealthiest nation. We followed your agenda and implemented philistine policies that reward the few at the expense of the many and have wrested back the seats of power. No price is too high for victory when it's the sacrifice of others that will pay for it.

[Merlin]

215. Rights "taken away" my ass.

You didn't read a godam thing I wrote. You just jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of lynch mob.

Were will the "oppression" be? Nowhere. Except in your mind.

[Mandate My Ass]

221. Testy, aren't we though?

Sad that you can't accept the fact that your corrupt, callous sellout of women's fundamental right to reproductive choice didn't meet with the rousing chorus of agreement you obviously expencted. Lynch mob? You tried to lynch 50% of this country's population and now you're crying because one of them called you out.

There's really nothing more pathetic than someone who shot their credibility wad selling out another gender for their own benefit then stamping their little feet in a fit of self-righteous temper when their moral and ethical bankruptcy is laid bare for all to see.

[Merlin]

224. Oh you are so fucking righteous!

Man, blast away with indignation. Lay it on.

Callous sellout, am I? How about you and your bretheren of fools selling out everything else on the Democratic agenda.

Here's what you're selling out so you can rant and rave about a precious "fundamental right" that NEVER EXISTED before 1973:

You are selling out:
-------------------
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
The right to a decent education in decent schools
Universal health care
Decent college loans and grants for students
Transparent accountable electronic voting
Prevention of the further consolidation of the media
100,000 Iraqi lives lost in a war based on lies
1,300 American lives lost in the same
6,000 or more grievously wounded GIS who will live out their lives in agony
A future war with Iran.
A new arms race with Russia
Prevention of development of new nuclear weapons
The clean air standards that took decades to put in place
Federal forests and parks with environmental standards
ANWR
The compromising of the constitution
The willful violation of the Geneva Conventions that mankind spend centuries working toward
The sellout of the United Nations
and on and on...

All of these things will be laid at the doorstep of people like you who think with their hearts instead of their heads.

All of this will be the fault of people like you who take the easy way to popularity by waving a bloody LYING shirt of "traitor" in front of the eyes of the mobs.

But, I'll tell you something. I really don't give a shit. I'm not on this board to win some kind of popularity contest--like you apparently are. My writings and reasoning speak volumes--as does my integrity. I don't need approval from you our the rest of this pack of jackals.

The reason I posted this essay was in order to draw as much criticism as possible so I can perfect it. It is going to get much broader attention in other venues.

I'm proud of this proposal. You call it selling out. I call it strategic retreat. Far better to win, sieze control of government and THEN go back and regain your lost grown than to be frozen out in the cold and be unable to do a thing about the things that are so incredibly important in this world.

So thanks a lot. You all did me a big favor.

[Mandate My Ass]

225. "My writings and reasoning speak volumes..."

at last, something we can agree upon.

I'm glad you weren't in it for the popularity seeing as how things turned out when you outed yourself as a misogynist. I hope those other broad-mindedvenues work out a bit better for you. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya! :hi:

[Merlin]

238. Yes they do.

You couldn't match the competence of the article I wrote in a million years. You can't think that rationally.

Wouldn't want you to be me either.

BuBye!

[Sterling]

158. I think you tried to make a joke?

But not much of what you posted makes any sense even in an ironic nature.

If you are suggesting that Matcom does not want to win elections I suggest you look at the recent results of the "lets be like them" path to unvictory.

If to you the overriding agenda is aligning yourself with power the Republican party has a lot of power. You may find that it agrees with your value system more. They hold winning over all else the constitution, democracy, human life, the list goes on.

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

228. And we have MELTDOWN folks!

[Iris]

235. We've lost a presidential election.

I heard a woman from TX on AAR yesterday talking about how the Democrats there WON seats in the state congress for the first time in a lot of years.

[Hephaistos]

146. False dichotomy

"progressives" and "liberals" who would rather "WIN" than "STAND FOR SOMETHING"

The two are not exclusive. Winning may sometimes require tuning the message to the recipient, but not changing the message. The message is WHO WE ARE. F**k the DLC.

[Sterling]

161. Give an example of "tuning" the message

I think we have been down this road before here but I am curious what you view as adjusting the message.

[Hephaistos]

206. Take F9/11, for example

The movie would have been more effective, IMO, if Moore had left out a good deal of the * - Saudi connections, which are suspicious as hell, but not 'wrong' in any moral way, particularly since Moore failed to make issue of any of the implied LIHOP/MIHOP evidence. Nobody was hurt by Poppy and Bandar holding hands.

Instead, focus could have been put on Rangers owner Bush abusing his powers of eminent domain to rob Joe Schmoe landowner to build a new stadium for his team. It shows what was important in that context: * is not 'one of the guys' but a ruthless cheater.

If there is one 'value' issue where the repugs are vulnerable, it's cheating. America hates a cheater who gets caugth. Yet no single Enron commercial ran in the 2004 elections, as far as I know.

***

Totally different example:

There hasn't been a area in which the US has considered intervening that some on our side haven't suddenly discovered as a prime spot for a new pipeline, framing that as the 'true' reason for a war. Case in point: Serbia. Now, who would want to build a f***ing pipeline through Serbia? To go where?

Pacifists need to engage in a serious discourse about realistic alternatives to war in the specific case, not yell "No blood for oil" every damn time - by the time Iraq rolled around again (where it would have appropriate), that slogan was already stale and tainted.

I could probably go on for days with other examples where our message needs tuning rather than changing. Maybe I'll start a blog or something.

[tx_dem41]

150. Well doing the electoral math....

we do need to "covet" at least one or two "Red" states. ;-)

[Sterling]

162. Not really.

Maybe the purple states but red states like yours are a lost cause.

To get in step with your state we would have to revert to slavery.

[tx_dem41]

166. You obviously know very little about the shifting demographics here. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

152. i'm with you matcom!!!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

153. Amen, brother Matcom!

You go, boy! Well said.

[Selwynn]

163. This so needed to be said, and I couldn't agree more.

[G_j]

167. Count me in on those sentiments! n/t

[opihimoimoi]

172. Yup, You got it right. Its larger than what we now see but beyond our

collective capacity.

Someday soon, the message will fall from the Pali and we will know better.

Come, we might as well party until then...

:bounce: :toast: :beer: :hula: :golf: :bounce: :loveya: :hug:
:toast: :hug: :poi: :ribs: :bounce: :sing: :Smoked salmon: :fun:
:beer: :hula: :golf: :bounce: :loveya: :hug:
:toast: :hug: :poi: :ribs: :bounce: :sing: :Smoked salmon:

[G_j]

196. dance a hole right through the floorboards..

:party:

just started playing in a band again...
seems appropriate..dancing is a form of revolution too..

[chocula]

176. huh?

Wazzup with the lecture? Give me a break. Who is telling you these things - for example, that Zell Miller would be better than ANYBODY in the White House?

No Democrat I know. We all have principles, but principles don't mean shit if you don't have an office to put them into action. Politics hasn't changed in the 200plus years here, ya know.

[TWiley]

180. Welcome to DU

Nice to see ya typin

[chocula]

181. thanks! n/t

.

[Q]

197. It's not a 'principle' if you can change it just to 'win'...

...and who knows...perhaps if the Dem party defended their principles...for a change...it would motivate those who have given up to get out and vote?

[Midlodemocrat]

183. Way to go Matcom.

If anything, I think we need to move further left. If we start abandoning principles, one by one, we will have nothing left. Abortion didn't cost us this election, it was a host of things. I live in a red state, unfortunately, and the whole Christian Shrub garbage played real well here. WE as liberals are morally superior and we need to say it loud and long.

[Trajan]

184. Sound like it's time to challenge you to a duel ....

WHY do you hate America Matcom ? ...

Are you some sort of pinko-commi-homo-feminazi-koolaiddrinkin-devilworshippin-welfarelovin-foodstampcravin-treehuggin-smallcardrivin-hillaryvotin-fascist-atheist ???? ....

(Vive Le' Matcom' ! .....) ...

LIBERAL and proud of 70 years of SUCCESSFUL progressive government ....

Matcom ? .. they HATE us for our freedom ...

[Jackpine Radical]

186. Harry Truman:

When you run a Republican against a Republican, the Republican will win every time.

Put that in your mantra and Zen it.

[YIMA]

187. How about the Greens, etc.....??

I noticed several DUers during the election cycle being asked to abandon their candidate for "the greater good". Given that you're stating you won't budge, why should those who supported the Greens or the Naderites be expected to budge? And if the Democratic Party leaders decide to do part of these things you demand them not to do, will you stay with the party or walk away?

[212demop]

191. You Go Matcom!

:)

[secedeeconomically]

193. Has anyone read "Whats the Mattter with Kansas?"

Explains many things

[Selwynn]

194. That book is next on my list, right after Moral Politics

[catzies]

195. A-fuckin-men!

:thumbsup:

[TankLV]

199. Couldn't have said it better. Really. You have a gift.

Thank you.

If the Dems shift one more inch to the right, they can shift without my support. I will never vote repuke, but they can say goodbye to my support.

[BrklynLiberal]

200. And THAT is why I hate the fact that REID is minority whip!!!!!!

He is Repugnant Lite and should not be representing the Democratic party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: How can someone who does not support women's rights, who supports the so-called "sanctity of marriage"
act, who comes out unprovoked on "Meet the Press" to state his support for Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...how can anyone who has done all this...be someone who can truly represent what we would like to call the Democratic Party?

[underpants]

202. Well I am sitting

:hi:

[mike_c]

203. matcom, you rock, you rock, YOU ROCK!!!

Thank you so much for posting this!

:yourock:

[RUDUing2]

204. Just a question..How many of you agreeing with the no-compromise stance

live in red states? or live in a state with a completely republican controlled state government (meaning both houses and the governor and your two senators?)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

205. Man, oh, man, matcon

I love you.

I really, really love you.

You said it all.

Compromise and die.

I love you, matcon.

[matcom]

210. heh

that's with an "m"

:D

thank you

[bobbyboucher]

207. Right on Matcom!!!!

I can't tell the difference between the enablers and the trolls.

[Duncan Grant]

208. Oh, hell yes! Putting the "underground" back in democraticunderground!

:kick: :thumbsup:

[Book Lover]

209. Matcom for President!

He's got my vote. Thanks for putting in down in black and white.

[opihimoimoi]

212. Matcom for Prez.......................!!!!!!!

If not him, at least he should be part of the filtering process.

[Merlin]

217. Congratulations. It really takes no brains at all to be lemmings.

Only one or two people had the courtesy or decency to discuss the detailed argument I layed out in yesterday's thread that prompted Matcom's rah-rah thread that you all seem to love so fucking dearly.

You folks are trying hard to think with the wrong part of your anatomies.

When you're in a war, and you're losing it because of trying to defend an indefensible position (ala Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam in 1954) you're far better off abandoning that position, winning the damn war, THEN going back to reclaim the position.

I don't suppose any of you Rah-Rah fools would understand that logic.

Let's see if this makes more sense to stupid white guys.

If you're in a football game and your tight end keeps fumbling the ball, YOU TAKE HIM OUT OF THE GAME so you can WIN.

Too complicated, huh? Judging by the mindless prattle on the rest of this thread, I'm sure it is.

[Forkboy]

229. waaaaaaaaah

quit fucking whining...you posted a dumbass fucking thread and got called to the carpet for it...DESERVEDLY!

"Get over it"

:nopity:

[Violet_Crumble]

230. Heh...

Being curious, I went searching for what was claimed to be a well-reasoned, detailed argument, and all I found was a misogynistic proposal lacking in logic and compassion to sell women and their rights down the river in order to gain and hold onto power. Apart from that it showed little to no understanding of the concept of reproductive choice. DUers would (and most are) be rightly outraged if someone popped up with a proposal that the Democratic Party sell out the rights of minority groups in order to appease those bigots who actually vote on those issues, but it's interesting to note that when it comes to women, a small number of DUers feel it's just fine to suggest selling out their rights to grab the gold twinkling shiny prize of power. My feeling of solidarity with US Democrats comes in part from their respect of women. That someone would suggest selling all that down the river makes my skin crawl. Urgh...

Violet...

[Forkboy]

231. Well it's encouraging to see this tripe inspire a "lynch mob"

:)

[Merlin]

240. Yeah, you would be encouraged.

You remind me of all the guys in the right cliques in Junior High. They all grew up to be Republicans. In fact, simplistic reasoning and demogoguery is what Republicans do best. Always easy to jump down someone's throat when everyone else is doing it. Takes not brains, no wits, and no courage.

[Merlin]

239. "the gold twinkling shiny prize of power"

Yeah, lady. That's exactly what it's all about. Guess what. You'd don't get to do a thing about all those precious "rights" you're so concerned about "selling out" unless you're in POWER. So sometimes is better to give up a few things you don't need in order to get the things you want.

[Merlin]

241. A dumbass fucking thread is what followed.

And you were one of the key participants.

Getting over it is not something I do.

[Oilwellian]

218. I'm standing with you Matcom

I will never compromise.

[AmericanLiberal]

220. Yes I concur completely.

The real solution is not appeasement but more hard work.

[seg4527]

222. rock on n/t

[Me.]

223. Sing Out Brother

And keep on singing. I'm sick to death of "liberal" being a dirty word, of having to go along to get along. We aren't winning any elections anyway so why do "our leaders" keep insisting that we should be less than we are? I don't want to be a "Manchurian" voter.

[HuskiesHowls]

226. "You gotta stand for something.....

Or you'll fall for anything".....

[jellybelly]

232. am I liberal?

I don't know anybody wanting anything like that, especially the religion part here on DU.

but we have to appeal to the red states to win. The problem with these people is that they equate being against abortion, drugs, teen-pregnancy, etc. with being "Christian". I personally am not a great supporter of abortion but I also don't believe in the bible. I cringe when I hear America is a Cristian country. Every position these idiots take is followed with 'and I believe this is correct according to the almighty God and his teachings'. How do they win arguments by saying 'Jesus would agree'????

We could make those same arguments but justify them with 'and I believe this because I am a human-being'

[Q]

233. Perhaps you're not getting the point?

We don't think we need to change traditional Democratic principles in order to 'appeal' to the Red States. There are just as many in the RS that would vote Dem for standing on principle than would vote because they changed to please the few.

It seems some people are very afraid that liberals and progressives might take back their party. I know it scares the hell out of the DLCers...who seem to think the party is theirs since the Clinton years.

[Merlin]

243. Foolish words.

"There are just as many in the RS that would vote Dem for standing on principle..."

See this proves you don't pay any attention at all. None.

You just went through an election where we did the best damn job Democrats have done in my lifetime--and I'm 61. That was as good as it gets.

We lost by 3.5 million votes. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Can't you figure out using the brains god gave you that means if we want to win we need more votes.

Do you think Kerry was too CONSERVATIVE? On what issues? Do you think he wasn't seen by at least 70% of the people in the RS as TOO LIBERAL? Read the stats, for chrisake! So your statement is just wishful thinking and political silliness. It's just plain wrong.

It's fine for you to scream and holler when someone suggests we should make some changes to appeal to the DECENT AND MORAL people who didn't vote our way last time; to appeal to THE SAME PEOPLE WHO USED TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC ALL THE TIME before Roe. Stick your fingers in your ears and complain and whine and go "NaNaNaNaNa! Traitor! Sell-out! DLC!" to people like me who courageously make sound, well reasoned proposals so we can win elections.

But YOU are the sell out. You--by your donkey-like bullheaded stubbornness--are selling out every OTHER item on the Democratic agenda--things some people desperately need. Things we will lose because we don't have power because we can't get enough RS.

[matcom]

245. oh yeah. YOU are "courageous"

:eyes:

rrrriiiiiggghhhhttttt

see, YOUR problem is this is like a football game to you. you don't give a FUCK if someone loses their rights as long as "WE WIN!!!"

if Bill O'Reilly got elected to office, YOU wouldn't care as long as he ran with a (D) after his name.

BTW, now that i have your attention, don't flatter yourself that YOU were the topic of this thread/rant. you were but ONE of MANY who have been posting crap about how we need to be repuke-light in order to "win"

get over yourself

[Merlin]

244. Amazing!

You actually had the courage to sail against the wind!

WELCOME TO DU, JB!

[matcom]

246. WHEW!!

have you NOT seen ANY of this on your coveted DU (in your lllllooooonnnnngggggggg history)?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:eyes:

[Me.]

234. Howard Makes Your Point

Howard Dean | The Future of the Democratic Party
By Howard Dean
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 06 December 2004

<<<snip>>>
“Since Election Day, there has been a lot of predictable moaning and groaning about the future of the Democratic Party. Particularly predictable are the suggestions that we need to be more like Republicans in order to win. Democrats need to learn by our previous mistakes - we have tried being "Republican-lite" and it does not work. It is a mistake to run away from the things we believe and I think we can win in the so-called Republican states by being real Democrats.” Cont…

“I truly believe that Democrats can return to national dominance. But, we must not be afraid to compete in every race, in every district and in every state. We can start rebuilding the Democratic Party from the bottom up. Through my organization, Democracy for America, we have already started that process. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 candidates, at all levels of government – from school board to U.S. Senate and we contributed to almost 750 candidates around the country.” cont.

:These candidates helped return Democrats to the majority in the Vermont, North Carolina, Oregon and Colorado State Houses; as well as the Senate in Oregon, Washington and Colorado. These candidates included more women than men, 25 percent were African American and there were members of nearly every other minority group, including American Indians. Nearly ten percent of the victors were from the gay and lesbian community, which included wins in places like Idaho and Missouri. And, 15 of the candidates we endorsed that won never ran for office before.” cont.

“Democrats can win by simply being Democrats. Reinventing ourselves as Republicans is the death knell of our party. We need to get back to basics and start listening to people from outside Washington. Only then can we save the greatest nation on the face of the earth from the twin Republican perils of enormous deficits and constant misadventures abroad,”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_120704U.shtml

[matcom]

247. Howard (So Far) Is My Man

if he holds true, he will remain so

[Me.]

260. Totally! n/t

[SarahB]

236. Yes!

:thumbsup:

[AuntiBush]

242. Great Spin - You tell'um!

[billie_]

249. i agree matcom n/t

[Lone Pawn]

250. LOL. You want principles, go join the greens or libertarians

You want a party that makes sacrifices to advance other issues, go with the Dems. You want a party that refuses to sacrifice principles--and loses because of it--go with the Greens.

[orpupilofnature57]

251. rock and rule,warts and all LIBERAL,don't run from it,own it!!

[cidliz2004]

252. NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE...WAKE UP

People voting for Bush don't have hard and fast "stances". They wanted to throw Clinton out of office for lying about have sex, yet Bush has been caught in lie after lie after lie and they defend him. It is a "you against me" mentality. They want to win at all costs, we don't. The radicals will lie, steal and kill to get what they want, we won't. How do you even begin to compete against that and remain a person with integrity....you don't.

[matcom]

253. don't worry. i'm awake

:eyes:

YAY Zell Miller!!

give me a "D"!
give me a "D"!
give me a "D"!

i'll keep my "integrity" thank you. YOU fucking go sell out and sleep at night (in this case on the backs of women's rights).

[cidliz2004]

257. Selling out does not equal integrity

Thinking of the good for all is more important than thinking of what is good for me. Sorry if I have a tendency to think of what is in the best interest of our country as a whole rather than "holding out" for what I think is best for "me".

The assholes that support Bush think the same way you do. They just think that "their" views are right. They are not willing to compromise their values in the face of many failures that are so obvious by this administration, they are standing on their principles for their beliefs that they hold near and dear, even if the person representing their beliefs is a total fraud. They won't see the fraud because they are so busy trying to hold onto every one of their beleifs. Stepping back and looking at the WHOLE picture is ALWAYS the best choice. Your views remind me of either someone who is very young or someone who is very rigid.

Good luck!

[cidliz2004]

258. Oh by the way..have you ever heard of

"You can win the battle, but lose the war" Your way loses wars.

[yardwork]

254. Have I signed on to agree with this thread yet!

There have been a lot of threads like this on DU recently - AND I THINK THEY ALL ROCK!

Appeasement is never the answer. Stand and fight.

[mmonk]

255. We can't win not standing for something

And by standing for something, I don't mean standing for the repubs and their war or supply side economics with massive debt, or removing the safety net, or eroding the Bill of Rights.

[Catchawave]

256. Thanks matcom....

...I'll keep defending the animals and environment too!!!

[shugah]

259. aye! this much and no further

some things cannot be compromised. CAN NOT BE COMPROMISED.

Oppression that is clearly inexorable and invincible does not give rise to revolt but to submission.
-Simone Weil

[Sara Beverley]

261. Matcom, I love you!!! I agree 1000%

It's not about principle, purpose, or progressiveness. What have we gained if we lose our soul in the process of winning the WH? I say that it is much more important to win the House and the Senate! Screw the President. As it is being proven right now by the Republicans who are in control of both houses, they don't reaaly give a rat's ass about the President if he not a Dem. They and their snotty-nose staffs control our very lives and future. I say we have concentrated too much on the "head" because of the glory days of Clinton and the smear campaign against him. We forgot to concentrate on the "body" that really wags the tail of the dog we call our government. Forget the Presidential candidate except for being an ambassador of good or ill will for the US. Concentrate on those CONGRESSIONAL, STATE and LOCAL elections where it really matters. This should be our new strategy going forward!