I think it is wrong to criticize any of the Democrats anymore.

[madfloridian]

The election was fine, no problems there. We should just quit being critical. We should mourn, quit crying in our teacups, just get over it, and move on.

We should not speak out about the votes this last week-end that included anti-abortion sections, gave the House leaders a way to use IRS records against anyone they chose, and I believe a portion of it cut college Pell grants.

But that is ok, we should not complain.

We must not criticize someone who was not a member of the party until he announced he was running. That is wrong as well.

I notice though that criticizing seems to be the thing when it concerns an outspoken candidate whose initials are HD. Maybe I am imagining things, but that is how it seems to me. That seems to be ok. Fair game.

We should not be critical anymore. It does not pay, it makes the conservative wing of the party mad and they attack more.

The funny thing is, that even saying something the least bit questioning is called bashing. Questioning is not attacking. My greatest fear is that the few voices we had have had will be kept quiet now. It has been almost a month since Dean on in TV. Wonder why? The voices who want us to go to church more and relate to the Southern folks more (I am a Southern Christian), are the ones who will be the spokespeople.

And we will say nothing, but sincerity and outspokeness have been called questionable by the right wing. We need to be cautious and careful, they say. The Republicans have lectured us so many years on being proper, that we think we have to be that way now.

I was told the other day that is I should put sarcasm tags, but this is only partly sarcastic....it is partly very very sincere.

And I will say this: I love the outrageousness of Howard Dean. It has done a lot for this party in good ways, though it has made so many of the leaders angry. You would be amazed at how many people here told me that they loved that Dean guy....he called it like it was. These are people who voted for Bush. They might have voted for Dean, maybe not. They like that he was outspoken.

[Lizzie Borden]

1. Sorry, don't agree.

If the'they' get out of tline and start spouting nonsense they deserved to be slapped down just like any republican. It helps them stay on their toes.

[madfloridian]

3. All or just some?

That is my sort of question. Remember, I said part was sarcasm, part of sincere.

[lojasmo]

2. Only a small part very sincere, methinks

I think we need to knock heads. Democrats who fail to stand up for democratic values should be shown the goddamn door.

[welshTerrier2]

4. i didn't vote for Dean ...

but perhaps more than anything else, I'm looking for democrats who are willing to be combative ...

those who continue to vote for the Iraq invasion (a war is when there are two armies) will never get my support ... never, ever, never ... the "appeasing for victory" strategy has been buried ... no more ...

I hope that the Democratic Party begins to function as an opposition party ... there were things I didn't like about Dean ... but, you've gotta give the guy a lot of credit, he's a fighter ... he's exactly who the party needs as the DNC chair ... frankly, i don't care whether he ever runs for office again ... but as DNC chair, Dean would show the kind of combative leadership that could wake people up ...

I've got one foot out the door at this point ... the "we're all Americans" post-election slop has turned my stomach ... it's time for Democrats to start talking about bringing the troops home ... if they don't, let them go over to Iraq to help kill more Iraqis ... it's also time for Democrats to start imposing some fiscal discipline ... how the hell could they vote for even larger deficits ...

Not every Democrat should come in for this kind of criticism ... but those who deserve it are going to get a lot more than just criticism ... next time, they'll be losing my vote and my support ...

[Sparkly]

5. Two categories of issues: Current battles, and things to 'move on' from

I'm not sure who you're talking to or what they're saying, but I think there are at least two categories here: Things that are in the past, for which it does no good to continue arguing about; and things that are legitimate gripes whether for the present and/or the future.

Election fraud, abuses of power in Congress, free speech issues, and party strategy etc. are all present and future concerns.

However, to continue to bring up the desire to "criticize someone who was not a member of the party until he announced he was running" does nothing constructive at this point. I think General Clark has proven himself as a Democrat now.

I also don't understand who you mean by "voices who want us to go to church more and relate to the Southern folks more ...will be the spokespeople." Who's saying "go to church more?" And what's wrong with relating to Southern folks?

Howard Dean is a great presence in the Democratic party -- a dynamic force, an outspoken voice, and someone who knows how to get things done. I think he'd make a great leader of the DNC, I think DFA is doing good things, and I hope to hear more from him on TV, as you say.
But I think we DO need to "move on" when it comes to re-fighting the battles of the primaries. Let's focus on that *first* category.

[madfloridian]

6. Then that should be true of ALL candidates.

Why just have one who is fair game.

[Sparkly]

7. I don't understand. Do you have some specific examples?

Where is Dean "fair game," others not?

[madfloridian]

10. I can not explain further, if you don't understand...I can't explain.

I would like to do so, but I can't.

[Sparkly]

13. Okay....

If you mean on DU -- I see both support and criticism of ALL Democrats here -- from the Clintons to Obama to Edwards to Vilsack to Kerry to Dean to Clark to Gore, you name 'em, all the way around and back again Democrats are both supported and criticized here.

If you mean in the media -- I wouldn't know, because I haven't watched it since the last election. I agree that during the primaries, some candidates were unfairly criticized, some got "black outs," some were propped up. Maybe there's something new going on I'm not up on.

Sometimes people can't explain something because they're really talking about their feelings, which can be hard to explain. Sometimes people can't explain something because they haven't thought it all through, and may be confused between fact and feeling. Sometimes people can't explain something because they feel unable to disclose it without violating something related to order, politeness, secrecy, rules, etc...

I don't know if any of that applies, but without further clarity, I have to say I don't quite understand your original post. I tried.

[ooglymoogly]

8. would you fukn get real. i mean really

the election was stolen. we no longer have a democracy. are you fkn insane.... oh lets just lay down and roll over and wait to get f*cked wait for crystal nacht...wait for the jack boots to kick in our doors. get real you fool this election was stolen and don't you mean those were folks the machine voted for bush. oh dear the repukes will be mad at us pulleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze

[madfloridian]

9. Read my post again, remember that part is satire. Don't call me a fool.

Remember the 2000 election in Florida that I did not get over.

[ooglymoogly]

38. apologies for the fool comment

twas over the top...tryed to edit, but too late

[Q]

15. Perhaps you don't get the context of the thread...

...because you're relatively new?

It seems that only certain Democrats are 'fair game' for criticism. You risk the danger of being called a 'basher' if you complain about the party darlings or about the party in general.

The more conservative faction of the party wants to appease Bush* and his supporters. In theory...this is suppose to appeal to the so-called swing voter and bring them over to our side. Thus...every Democrat is 'encouraged' to support the Iraq war, embrace the zealots and accept that the corporation is more important than the base of the party.

The New Democrats never have acknowledged that the 2000 election was 'stolen'...and they have no plans on 'making a fuss' about this Nov. They haven't offered any kind of real opposition for the last four years and in fact have no plans to oppose Bush* in the next four. There are expections...like Dean and other progressives...who have actively spoken out against the Bush* agenda. But they are considered too 'liberal' and radical by a party that has been taken over by conservative democrats.

[Sparkly]

20. Please be clear

"It seems that only certain Democrats are 'fair game' for criticism."

Criticism on DU, or by the media, or by party leadership? I'm trying to understand...

Who's trying to "appease Bush* and his supporters" in order to appeal to swing voters?

Who's encouraging "every Democrat" to "support the Iraq war, embrace the zealots and accept that the corporation is more important than the base of the party?"

Who are these "New Democrats" you're talking about, and where are you hearing these things from them? Are you talking about people on DU, or public representatives of the party?

Who's currently saying Dean is progressive, let alone "liberal" or "radical?"

[Q]

27. You have to understand the BACKGROUND

...and how the (DLC) 'New Democrats' have been transforming the party. They have actively worked to keep anyone but their 'kind' from attaining any real power within the party. Some of us knew long before the primaries that ONLY a DLCer or someone the DLC approved would make it as the nominee.

In brief...the DLC is trying to appease Bush* and his supporters: the religious zealots and corporations.

Once again...the New Democrats are promoting the Iraq 'war'...only differing from Bush* by degrees in how they would fight the war...not whether the war is just.

Check out the DLC website for the background of the New Democrats.

The DLC considers anyone 'liberal' that doesn't agree with them and actually uses the word in the same derogatory context as the RWingers.

[Sparkly]

29. Of course I understand that

So your gripe is with current DLC leadership? Who do you see as the people carrying that torch, and why can't we be specific in naming THEM as the people you're mad at?

[The Crazy Canadian]

11. Dean is a fighter and that's what the Left needs.

We need fighters too in Canada and i hope the Left in this country produces some Deans.

Right now, the Left leadership (in Canada and US) is totally bought off by the corporate establishment. It's time to clean house!

[LittleClarkie]

12. Oh, take Dean off the cross, already

And knock off the martyr complex you got going there. He ain't the messiah.

And folks are bashing everybody in turn. When they do, that person's supporters come out of the woodwork. That's all that's happening. Dean's supporters may be getting more of a backlash because there appear to be more posts stating that if we don't all support him NOW, then the party is doomed. DOOMED I TELL YOU!! (Aiiiiii)

You'd be amazed how many people here say they would have voted for Clark. And these are people who also voted for Bush.

Dean is not the be all and end all. I will still be here, even if the leadership isn't Clark, or Kerry, or any of the other Dems I like.

[madfloridian]

14. Martyr complex? Not again, not that one.

There was one thread attacking your candidate. It was locked. It was not started by anyone who supports Dean.

I am sorry you find me so worshipful? Is that the proper word? I am critical of him and anyone other Democrat. That is my job as an Anerican.

I don't attack you or your candidate. That is sort of my point.

[Sparkly]

18. Your point

You say it's "sort of" your point that you don't attack General Clark, yet you did make a remark about him that could be construed as an attack; and you say you are critical of "him and anyone other Democrat."

The thread that was locked was 100% pure flamebait -- a fully-pasted "article"/interview from a hostile source back in January that's surely been hashed and rehashed here already.

That goes with what I'm saying -- there's no sense in re-fighting the primaries now. I think this is a forum for valid criticism (and support) of any public figures in the party, but one with sensible rules for the debate. If there's a problem with the rules or their application, address the Admins.

I'm still guessing at your point. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

23. You almost got it.

I am just as critical of my candidate as I am of others. I may not do it here, but few Dean supporters post here anyway.

When Dean is being attacked with threads they go on for a couple of hundred posts. Everything said about him in this thread and a couple of others going, are things that have been rehashed as well.

That is sort of my point. I don't really care, I guess. It really is a an attempt to anger us, but it just angers me toward the party. That may not be logical, but that is how I feel. My husband is furious at so many things he has quit going to the local DEC.

They do not want anyone to mess up their business as usual mode of sitting on their butts and being yes men to the GOP here.

Hey, I guess we need to all get along.

[Sparkly]

33. Trying for clarity

There's a reason Dean gets 100-post threads here. It shows he has power. (You'll notice there are not 100-post threads here about Daschle or Lieberman.)

I dare say many Clark supporters would say they're none too happy with "the party," either. I imagine that could go for Kucinich supporters, as well, and probably many others with no specific candidates in mind.

I think we need to be clear about who we mean by "the party." The party leadership? Registered Democrats? Posters on DU? Spokespeople with voices in the media?

No, I don't think anybody is actually trying to anger you, although I'm not saying you don't have reason to be angry. I just think it helps to sort it out as specifically as possible: who is saying/doing what that's making you angry? Once you can answer that and start a thread that specific, I think you'll be able to pare it down to what can be done about it.

[madfloridian]

36. Leadership who don't want the people to have a chance to say.

If I were to pare it down and be frank, I would get in trouble. I will say that part of what you said is true, but when it goes beyond a forum and the views of the participants...

[ElectroPrincess]

28. No, the Pink tutu brigade led by Daschle ...

and supported by flaky DLC supporters like Brazille does NOT work. Yes, we need fighters but we also need to plan a strategy to counter Rove and his surrogates. In the meantime, the house is goin' friggin wild and drunk with Republican power.

[madfloridian]

30. The more I think about what you said, the more confused I am.

Where did you get the Messiah thing? Please find a post where it says we must support Dean. Frankly, most of us are quite aware....quite well aware...that Dean is not going to be acceptable to the party because he called them out.

I am very realistic about his future with the party as it stands now. I only ask that others be realistic as well.

I think that saying I have a martyr complex is bordering on a personal attack. If I said it against anyone, I am afraid my post would not stand.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Singling out Dean in your post seemed overly dramatic to me

As if no one is allowed to attack the candidates, but an attack on Dean is "okay" somehow.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm oversensitive. It seems like there have been alot of "We need Dean," "If Dean isn't DLC Chair, I'm leaving," "Dean could have won," "Dean was unfairly attacked in the primaries," "Dean is our last hope!" and other such topics in the last few weeks. It starts to work one's nerves after a while.

It was that aspect of your post that pushed my button. No one likes it when their candidate is attacked. I come out for Kerry. Others come out for Clark, still others for Gore. Any of us could say the same as you, "Apparently it's okay to attack so and so."

Dean's supporters come out too. But to act as if their candidate is being picked on more than the others seems ludicrous to me. If his name wasn't being mentioned for DLC chair, it wouldn't be coming up with any more frequency than any of the other candidates.

That he's being seen by some as the "savior" of the party is what several of us are reacting to. Some say no he isn't, others don't want to hear that. So the fight continues.

[madfloridian]

35. If I become independent, which I might......

It has nothing to do with Dean. Hubby and I are life-long Democrats, and we are very upset with the party since the war vote and the NCLB and the Medicare and Social Security issues.

It has nothing to do with whether Dean is DNC chair. If he stays with DFA and runs again...we are with him 100%.

The thing is that there is a time to face up to the primary problems so they don't continue to happen.

I think you know what I mean, and I am not saying more.

[robbedvoter]

16. Mixing sarcasm with sincerity is a mistake - especially in confusing

times like these when everyone is running in a different direction.
I disagree with everything you wrote - sarcastically AND sincerely.
Well, I do like outspokedness, but when there's content and consistency to it. (no finding jebus, OBL innocent, shoot him BS etc)

[madfloridian]

19. Which of those were wrong statements?

Please give them and present your case. I think OBL should be considered innocent until proven guilty, don't you? Not sure what you mean about Jebus and BS....but he was right about Saddam as well.

These times are confusing because there is nothing left in our country to hold on....the times are confusing because our party lost its way.

The times are not confusing because I mixed sincerity and sarcasm. Most here are quite bright enough to know what I am saying.

[robbedvoter]

39. Each of your statements, starting with "not criticizing the party"

As for the presumption of innocence for Osama, Dean first declared, then went to AP press and said "What I meant was : "shoot him on sight". Both your guy's statements, pick the one you disagree with. Finding jesus was his Chrismas present to the democrats last year. he announced that as he's campaigning in the South, he'll be more religious from now on...

[Radical Activist]

17. I think Dean is fair game because

he's still very much an active figure that is influencing the direction of the party. He still matters as a candidate for DNC chair and someone who can bestow a lot of money and liberal credentials with his Dean Dozen lists to candidates that may or may not be liberal. I would say Hillary and most other Democratic leaders are fair game as well.

Some people like Clark, Gore and Sharpton don't have that kind of large role right now, so why bother talking about them? Just be glad that Dean is still relevant enough to be talked about. I don't see any news articles about Kucinich outside of Cleveland.

Personally, I think the way to win the South is to appeal on economic issues with a populist message. As a millionaire, economic conservative from New England, Dean is very poorly positioned to do that. I think he's the wrong man to lead the party right now if we want to win more votes in the south and midwest.

[chiburb]

21. I understand the intent of your post, but...

I don't understand why you aren't happy. Kerry lost, which is what you predicted all along. Don't you want to be a "good winner"? YOU won, can't you leave the rest of us alone?

[madfloridian]

24. OMG. I am NOT glad Kerry lost. I am sad for my country.....

and my party.

How did I win? This was a no win situation.

[BeFree]

22. It's time

Now or never. We either change the democratic party now, or it's all over but the wailing.

As someone who has staunchly supported dems- left and right- and fought many a pitched discourse here on DU defending the leaders, it now comes down to this: It's time for a change.

Bash the weaselly politicians. Bash the do nothing congress people. Bash the Kerry campaign. Go ahead, I know longer care for them, they fell down on the job, they flinched at the election, they ran into the arms of their corporate mothers.

It's up to us. We, the people. But I don't think we got it in us to do what must be done. We have failed as Americans, and we deserve the leadership we have, dem or pub. Who has given up polluting the air with our cars, electricity, and ruinous consumer ethics? Who can truthfully say they have done their part to alter the certainly disastrous course the country is on, both environmentally and fiscally?

Stone cold silence from the people to these questions is all we shall ever hear, as America spirals downward into the abyss.

Go ahead, bash 'em, they aren't really our friends anyway.

[janx]

25. You're right. It has to be changed, because the Repubs are

now a bunch of fundies and neo-cons.

Reasonable people have to go somewhere. This should have happened ten years ago. The Democrats are having a hard time keeping up.

[BeFree]

32. The only course now

Is supreme radicalism. We are in a hole, a deep slimy hole we the people have dug with shovels provided to us by our corporate masters.

Throw down those shovels! The only way we get out alive is for us to claw our way past the freaks who would hold us back. And it's not just the freaks in the pub party, it's the freaks in our own family!

Either you believe the present course will, in due time, bring about a better world, or you believe, as most of us do, that our future is bleak and headed for calamity. Now, most of the sheeple have their heads down grazing and will never be brave enough to rise up and revolt: Let them go to their slaughter willingly.

We need our Lions to roar, our radicals to radicalize, and our fighters fighting to the bloody end, if we are to stay out of the abyss we, as a country, are headlong plunging ourselves into.

"Ah, rousing words, there, Be Free,"

I can hear the chorus say,

"but words that shouldn't be uttered in mixed company", eh?

[madfloridian]

26. This post was very little about Dean, a whole lot about speaking out.

Sorry. That is what it is about. Dean is only incidental to the whole post. His unscripted moments appealed to many Republicans I know who feel they just lost their party, too.

The key words are outspoken, unscripted, sincere.

[PrisonerLazy8]

31. Ok fine

If someone claims to be a Democrat he or she will not be examined no matter what position they take or hold. ABR it is!

[flaminbats]

37. perhaps it is right to not criticize nonfreepers some part of the time,eh?

or it is wrong prehaps to not fully study or analyze lurkers who have no opinions, and remain neutral on countless issues....

"I hope he is not going to tempt me with fresh insults?"..asked Monte Cristo :wtf:

[hippiechick]

40. MF, you ROCK !

Thank you for this post !!!


:hippie:

[The Flaming Red Head]

41. They criticized US ( the party faithful). We're too far left for them.

They want new party members who think conservative, go to church, hate homosexuals, and who believe that life begins at conception.

Our Democratic leaders are now praying that we all see the error of our ways.