An oath of office for DU'ers

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

"I shall not damn any Dem leader to eternity, or conversely, elect President immediately, based on any single statement or act of the said leader."

:-)

[Semi_subversive]

1. Sounds reasonable to me

[Walt Starr]

2. Return of the loyalty oaths?

:eyes:

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

3. Read carefully.

"...based on any single statement or act..."

;-)

[Walt Starr]

4. I reserve the right to take any single statement or act

as the final straw.

sorry if you don't like it, but that's reality.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

5. Your prerogative, of course.

I only gently point out the futility/pointlessness ;-)

However, I see even the last straw argument (used in the service of delivered ultimatums) as self-defeating in the end.

It is much more powerful to support people when they are doing right (most especially when they are generally known to have their hearts and minds in the right place) than to threaten to withdraw support when they are acting up (down!): witness how empowered Conyers and Boxer are acting!

In my opinion, repeated (either by the same person or by different people at different times, but essentially using the same frustration argument) threats expose powerlessness.

Act. Show that a third party is actually viable.

Or, lay your lot in one of the two camps and work from within, with constructive criticisms, not DUDQing.

(The "you" in my statements do not refer to any one single person, even though this is in response to you, Walt ;-))

[Walt Starr]

12. There's your mistake, you think of these as threats

I consider my statements about my belief that there is but one hope to save the party and, failing the realization of that hope, the party is dead to be simply statements of fact about the consequences of what the failed Democratic "lack of leadership" has done to not only this party, but to the nation as a whole.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

13. Sometimes, we do not realize the full impact of our own actions.

I think this is the case with the Dem leadership -- they are almost totally clueless of the impact of their right-ward drift; coupled now with the Rethuggery, the consequences are dire. That does not make them any more guilty than their original guilt of power-induced complacency.

It is up to us remove individual elements that typify this attitude from that corrupting power. Abandoning a party (which is really as good as its embracers will make it, not merely determined by the leadership) is not the solution, it is a new prescription for old disasters...

So Hillary is not responsive to the Democratic yearning? Vote *her* out of office. Boxer is, eminently? Empower her and watch her roar. As a matter of fact, watch Byrd on TV now -- what do you think it is a result of? People giving up on the Democratic party? Or people writing him on his actions?

The consequences of our actions in nudging/supporting the people we elect to office couldn't be clearer -- the course of action, even more. The choice is yours, of course.

[Walt Starr]

16. You really don't understand, do you?

I've watched the failed Democratic "lack-of-leadership" do this for more than two decades. I'm at the end of a very long string. I hold out a single hope now for the party and that is decided on February 12.

I'm not giving any more chances. I'm not playing the bullshit games any more. If, after the events of February 12, I no longer see any hope for the Democratic Party, I will be done.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

18. I actually do understand the frustration.

I have been there and sometimes still am...

But I also worry about the consequences of my *own* actions, not merely of those that I am free to critique. What good does it do to quit on the apparatus, based upon a frustration with the current contents?

Take the object lesson of Nader, for instance: what has he really achieved, trashing the Democrats and running against them?

On the other hand, note what Dean has been able to achieve, working from within.

There are two models in front of us -- one is clearly more viable and successful than the other...

[Walt Starr]

19. I can tell you one thing Nader has achieved

he has fully convinced me that there is a purpose to voting third party. He's convinced me fully that if you gave me a presidential ballot with Hillary Clinton, andy Republican, and Ralph Nader on it, I'd have to go with Nader as the lesser of three evils.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

20. Let me then ask you t o ponder this, then.

How long are you willing to tolerate Rethug reign?

The contrasts and consequences of our actions do not get any starker than they did in 2000 and 2004. Stay and fight from within: this is our only real(istic) choice...

[Walt Starr]

21. Let's look at this realistically

I voted straight Democratic tickets in every election my entire life and look at where that got me!

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

25. I did not say that either! :-)

I am not advocating voting blindly for the Democrats either.

(Believe me, I do sympathize with your frustration; been there, done that, though not as long ;-)

Voting is not even what I am talking about.

I believe very strongly that there is a fabric of opinions that gets woven into the public conscious, one way or the other, despite the Corporate Media black-out of sensible Democrats/Democratic opinion; so...(I am afraid to finish the thought in writing :))

I think the best way of correcting the situation with the Dem leaders therefore is to keep giving positive reinforcements to good Dems and negative reinforcements to people that get attracted to destructive Rethug positions.

We could also run for office ourselves...

[Walt Starr]

26. Been there, done that

didn't work. Next time I run for office, it'll be as a third party candidate.

[Warpy]

8. I agree

Antichoice does it for me.

[Taxloss]

6. Sounds a bit McCarthyite, loyalty oaths and such.

We have a rulebook; that should be enough for anyone.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

9. Sheesh! n/t

[Taxloss]

11. Why sheesh?

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

15. My original comment was fairly wry.

Not really to be taken literally...

I mean it, but not in a narrow, literal sense. I find it amazing that people jump off to sweeping pronouncements based upon just a statement here or there. People are the sum totals of their lives, not fleeting snapshots of isolated comments.

Be patient, gather evidence on each elected official, and decide whether individuals are worth supporting; dont extrapolate from one statement of one office-bearer to the entire party. The party is what we let it be, too...

[Taxloss]

17. Well, that's the problem with internet bulletin boards.

Stripped of time, context, body language, and so on, comments can be very easy to misread. That is something that has to be considered when posting on them. Often a reader will write their own feelings into what the writer wrote. But that's why the rules are there; to settle disputes.

As for your oath, I'm a furrn fighter, so I couldn't take it. Does that mean I can't come here any more?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "Are you now, or have you ever been...."?

Loyalty oaths are for sheep.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

10. God help us all! n/t

[ulysses]

14. OR

we could simply laud where there's opportunity and criticize where there's need. Like we do now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Am Suprised So Many Smart People Took You Literally...

I guess wisdom and ideological purity are often mutually exclusive...

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

23. Me too...

I am still puzzled...

[Walt Starr]

24. You weren't here during the primaries

so you will not understand the vehement opposition to the abomination that is a "loyalty oath".