Appeasement

[Pale Blue Dot]

It's funny that the word "appeasement" has been in the news recently, because it's a term I've also been thinking about lately - just not in the same way that the MSM is reporting it.

For years now the Democratic Party has been about appeasement. How often over the past decade have we heard that we must not fight Bush on Iraq, on the Patriot act, on domestic spying, on environmental issues, on the economy, and on impeachment? We were told that fighting for these issues (and many others) would make the party seem "divisive" and "angry" and destroy our chances of getting Democratic candidates elected. We're going to "need" the votes of Republicans, the common wisdom maintained.

And what have years of appeasement produced? Thousands of New Yorkers on 9/11 DEAD. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis DEAD. At least 4,000 U.S. soldiers DEAD. The city of New Orleans DESTROYED and hundreds there DEAD. A constitution and a way of life RAPED and MURDERED. And yes, after all of that, the Democratic party finally has a chance to retake power because this country is so FUCKED right now that the American people can't stomach any more Republican screw-ups.

In other words, the Democratic strategy has boiled down to: let's not fight. We'll just wait until the Republican party has killed enough people and fucked up the country so badly that the U.S. may never be the same again. Then the voters will elect us by default.

Now I'm hearing this same type of language again. The voices are saying, essentially, "We must appease Clinton and her supporters. We are going to need them in November. It doesn't matter if they seem to be doing their damnedest to take down the party from the inside. Make nice with them."

I've tried to be nice. I've tried to be patient. However, I now believe that Clinton will continue her selfish, delusional quest for the White House all the way to Denver, and it's obvious that she and her supporters don't care if they destroy this party and the country in the process.

You know what? FUCK appeasement.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Well put, and mostly I agree; but it is still true that Dems need to win over Hillary supporters

for the GE. So I'm not particularly into bashing them as a rule, but I understand your point, and it is well taken.

[PFunk]

2. After this mess I'm done with appeasing Rabid Clinton Supporters (or RCS).

I'll gladly welcome any saner Clinton folks who want to come along and help Obama win the GE. Infact more power to them (these are the brave ones folks). However the RCS's can take a giant helping of STFU and take a flying leap in my eyes. Unfortunatly it means that the dems are going to have to reach out more to indies and PO'd repugs (the sane ones mind you) to counter act the RCS's if we still want to win the GE. After today bringing in these folks I now concider a lost cause.

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. Yes. nt

[greguganus]

16. Amen! n/t

[sfam]

3. 1938, 1939 Finnfan...its all about apeasement...

We just gave her Michigan and Florida...apparently that didn't work.

Time to storm the beaches of Normandy I guess...

[grantcart]

4. its been extortion in slow motion a weird game of chicken

and we have a nominee who isn't going to respond to it.

[bigbrother05]

5. For some, more is never enough.

Anything less than total victory is seen as defeat. In the current case, giving just enough to allow your side to consolidate their position can be a smart strategy, just don't miscalculate. There are many that will misjudge compassion as weakness.

[lligrd]

6. So True. nt

[Pale Blue Dot]

7. Kick.

Fuck it.

[K Gardner]

9. Exactly ! I thought the same when the "appeasement" issue came up. n/t

[seaglass]

10. Finnfan it is many Obama supporters who have promoted

a Republican VP, Republicans in major cabinet positions - reaching out to Republicans and bipartisanship above all.

THAT is appeasement and I agree with you, FUCK appeasement.

[sniffa]

14. Fuck those apples

They're not oranges

[Pale Blue Dot]

15. See #13. nt

[seaglass]

21. I agree with you about McCain. I share the same concerns

as the poster you responded to and is one of the reasons I am not an Obama supporter (nor a Hillary supporter).

[Enrique]

11. good comparison

I agree, people throwing around the appeasement accusation are a lot alike.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

[Ravy]

12. Then clarify this....

Why does it not bother you that the bedrock of Obama's campaign is "new politics" that is inclusive of the republicans and their ideas.

That is the top most (by a large margin) concern I have about an Obama presidency. I have essentially equal concerns of my own about a Clinton presidency, but not about the "appeasing republicans" issue.

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. I am not a diehard Obama supporter.

And I agree with you totally about including Republicans in the new administration. However, Obama would still be a million times better than McCain, and he IS the nominee. Every moment that Clinton continues to divide the party is another chance for Bush 3 to get into office.

The time to argue these issues was months ago. It's over now, and we MUST move on - with or without the hardcore Clinton supporters.

[Ravy]

18. I will support Obama, too, but it will be despite his stance on this...

I am hoping it is campaign rhetoric and that when he is in office he will fight vigorously against the republicans.

[iamthebandfanman]

17. we will have control of all three branches

id imagine if we were smart, we would want to seem like we were including EVERYONE instead of having absolute power.
thats just me tho.

p.s.

there will be no republican VP.

[dbmk]

20. Appeasing?

I'd say it was an investment in the future to work as a president for all people - without violating key Democratic principles.

Hardcore parisanship will only get you the White House for 4 maybe 8 years and probably won't get you real change. If you want a longterm shift in values, you need to take baby steps and slowly get the general population to see the Democratic Party as someone who might just represent them and get progress for them.

[Tinksrival]

19. BUSH... CLINTON... CLINTON... BUSH... BUSH ............OBAMA

!!!We are moving on!!! :bounce::bounce::bounce: