No Respect for the Left Anymore?

[Bullet1987]

Do you guys notice the media and even our elected Dem officials show no respect whatsoever to the Left? Whether it be the anti-war Left or another branch of it. It's as if being anti-war is still taboo, even though we were probably right from the get go in regards to Iraq. But we're STILL deemed extremists and talked about as if most Americans haven't become a little anti-war after the Iraq debacle. I notice how our "top tier" candidates running for President talks about the "anti-war Left" or the "Liberals" and the "MoveOn crowd" as if we're some sort of vile aliens or the red-headed step children of politics. I support Obama, but I've caught him doing this more than once (Hillary too)...and it aggravates me. You don't see Republicans talking down to their base like Dems talk down to us. And we all know what it is...grandstanding to the media who deems Far-right extremism OK (obvious in that people like Guiliani and Romney can openly endorse torture and not get in trouble)...and being anti-war EXTREMIST. Which is also why you don't see a single person running for office calling themselves Liberal.

I think it's a shame...and maybe I'm just venting more after our elected officials bent over for Bush recently.

[Heath Hatcher]

1. They didn't "bend over"

And well I think all the hate towards the left is well, because most of the media is controlled by RW neo-cons that want to totally silence liberals for good.

[Bullet1987]

2. If they didn't bend over then what do you call it? Making a "plan?"

[Heath Hatcher]

3. No I call it facing political reality Bullet

The votes aren't there right for a withdrawal, we need more then two GOP members of the House if we want to override Bush's veto.

[Bullet1987]

5. I don't buy that at all...

...because I doubt they'd do it even if they had the votes.

[Heath Hatcher]

7. Yes they would

[MadHound]

22. Given that the House Democratic leadership could stop this war right now

By holding up supplemental war funding bills in committee indefinetly, no, I doubt that they would.

And yes, once again the Dems bent over for this one. Better analogy yet, the Dems stood by while the American people got bent over and are again screwed.

The Dems have had the power to end this war at anytime ever since they were sworn into their majority position. In fact they were elected with one clear mandate, to end the war ASAP. Yet they continue to allow it to grind on.

[atreides1]

9. You're right

The votes aren't there, but wouldn't fighting be better then surrendering? The Republicans will use this in next year's campaign, I mean who would want to be in charge, a group who will fight tooth and nail for what they claim to believe in, or a group that makes claims and when the time comes can't back them up with action?

By the way we're seeing what political reality is doing to the DOJ, maybe we should face that reality bullet also and stop the investigations, after all the Dems don't have the votes to really do anything about it, do they?

[Heath Hatcher]

18. Ah maybe your right

I am figuring this out now but maybe your right, to show that were not backing down keep sending his the same bill over and over to show were not backing down. Maybe that's the right thing or the wrong thing I don't know, I am just as frustrated as you are atriedes and I want the war to end just as much as everyone on DU does.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Did the guys at the Alamo win respect and support for the cause of

Texan separatists by their tremendous victory?

Sometimes you HAVE to fight the losing fight, just to let the other guy know you were there.

That's something I learned decades ago: when facing bullies and you KNOW you are about to get your ass kicked, the best thing you can do is get the first lick in and go down fighting. It may make them think twice, next time around.

If you just give up, they keep coming back, again and again and again.

[Quantess]

21. They could have tried, at least. (no text)

[atreides1]

4. Please Explain

They gave Bush almost exactly what he wanted, the only exception is the "benchmarks", but those can be waivered by Bush.

And rumor has it that the WH is now trying to get rid of the domestic parts of the bill, which would include the minimum wage increase.

So please explain how you think that the Dems didn't "bend over"?

[Heath Hatcher]

6. If they would of bend over for Bush

Then the spending bill would be a clean bill just money and no benchmarks, no accountability whatsoever.

[Bullet1987]

8. Oh please...the recent Bill isn't even what the point of the OP was.

[Heath Hatcher]

11. I know that Bullet

And I gave my reasons what the media gives no respect for the left.

[atreides1]

12. The benchmarks can be waivered by Bush

What part of that didn't you understand? If Bush chooses to do so all he has to do is sign off on a waiver and the Iraqis get the money, I don't see much accountability there, except that he has to sign off on any waiver.

[Heath Hatcher]

15. All right then.

Hey atriedes1 if you don't mind i'm gonna to withdrawal myself from the debate, I already had one debate on this and i'm too frustratred to debate some more so i'm gonna sign off and get some sleep.

And BTW I must say after being a member of DU for a day I got to say that beyond the negativity this is a very lively place for discussion and I have never met anyone that more conviction towards there views then the people here at DU.

[Nite Owl]

13. What accountability?

Those benchmarks are at *'s discretiom. Geez now he has to go through the trouble of ignoring them, that's all we got. We should have been bargaining from a no holds barred, no funding but to bring them home stance then bargained down to the bill that was vetoed (which wasn't all that good).

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. You might want to check the spelling...

in your signature line .... unless you are purposely trying to imitate a freeper. :)

[Heath Hatcher]

16. I am not a freeper, far from it

I support my party, whats wrong with that?

[Nite Owl]

10. They make no excuses for

this either. And we haven't probably been right we have been right from before we invaded. This whole need to pacify the right is so off base. They show this weakness and think that this will somehow get them votes from the right and the right comes from a whole different point of view. If they want those votes they need to show some strength. They know that this is wrong, they must. I hate to say it but they just made 2008 look bad for themselves. They had this in the bag and just gave it all up.

[SteveM]

19. MSM will always use the best frame term. The RW is best at it...

Even now, in a weakened condition, the far right has far smarter and better educated people running their movement. And they have an ideology marked by simplicity, brevity and clarity. The Dems do not. So, when the RW uses the term "anti-war left of the Democrat Party" or simply the "anti-war left," the media WILL use the term. And in fact, they do; not just on regular MSM, but on PBS talking heads. (For your information, the GOP's equivalent is most often described as "the base.") You will note, of course: The Democratic Party DOES NOT seek to frame issues often and rarely do they do it well. That practice continues to this day because the Dems have no coherent philosophy and policy and virtually nothing in the way of strategy. It follows that if you can't come up with clear and concise ideas about yourself, you cannot come up with clear and concise descriptions of your opponents.

I recall Jimmy Carter, during his address at the 2004 Democratic Party convention, describe the Bush administration as "extremist." Later, Jim Lerher of PBS in an interview, expressed amazement that Carter used the "X word." His amazement wasn't because the GOP wasn't extremist; clearly it is. His amazement was that a Democrat had sought to frame THEM.

Heard anybody doing what Carter did, lately?

[jillan]

23. Gore did.

Did you catch him on Larry King last nite?

He said the same thing, but in a more cautious manner.

[ToeBot]

20. The left gets no respect because they have very little power.

and what little power they have, they are unwilling to use. That's why they are so vocal, making noise is all that's left when one is unable to effect change by less public methods. Until the left collectively agrees to exercise their limited prerogatives, the situation you elucidate will not change - but it's pointless even to say it, it will never happen.