good god already with the "ideological purity" thing.

[ulysses]

Seven years here, and it's still the Meme that Wouldn't Die.

Folks are entitled - after how much of the party leadership has behaved under Bush - to at least their disappointment with FISA. I'm not more disappointed than I am because I expect as much at this point. I'll still vote for Obama, yadda yadda. But all the carping about the perfect being the enemy of the good and how much we all hate those damned ideological purists (who keep being correct, time after time) isn't helping.

Now back to your regularly scheduled carping.

[senseandsensibility]

1. k and r

:kick:

[ulysses]

3. thanks.

Seems the old standby is still good for a rocking thread.

[rug]

2. k&r

[ulysses]

4. I appreciate that, rug.

[Maven]

5. Another K/R

This is certainly not a dealbreaker for me as far as voting for him, but it's interesting to watch all the cognitive dissonance going down among true believers. The truth is, it's the ones who believe most that Obama is infallible--and, well, perfect--who now blame others for demanding too much perfection.

[elocs]

6. K & R This is where we take the White House and increase our majorities in Congress.

No more worrying about having the votes to override a veto or cloture. There's no point in getting all self righteous and biting off your nose to spite your face when it's the country which will suffer for it.

[skooooo]

7. truth hurts

Folks are entitled, you're right. I'm sick of some of these people who beat up on you and call you names if you don't follow the orthodoxy of the "more liberal than thou." Damn right I'm entitled to express this!!!!!

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

[Forkboy]

9. I love you, dude!

:toast:

[ulysses]

12. you can even have my beer, my friend.

:) Or merlot, in this case.

[Danger Mouse]

10. Jesus christ, I never said people shouldn't be disappointed.

The ones I'm pissed off at are the 'OMG I WON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA NOW' or 'NO MONEY FOR OBAMA FROM ME!!!'
there's a huge difference between being disappointed and taking your ball and going home.

[ulysses]

11. Elrond, yours wasn't the first thread on this.

It was just the straw.

Look - I've heard the "ideological purity" canard since I joined DU, and it simply isn't true. It isn't radical to expect a level of courage and leadership out of your courageous leaders. And yet I can't even bear to count the threads, on the first page of this forum alone, along the same theme as yours - outrage at the damned left purists! As if people are shocked to find leftists on DU, or people who have a *reason* for being involved in politics.

[Danger Mouse]

20. Again you misunderstand me.

I said it's one thing to be angry and disappointed, another thing entirely to withdraw your support over this one issue.
THAT'S what i meant.

[ulysses]

22. no, no misunderstanding.

ruggerson, I believe, has a current thread about how it doesn't really matter that the left is mad at Obama, because we'll all vote for him anyway. In fact, it's a "good" thing, because it allows him to show his independence to indie voters.

Perhaps so, but it's not as if progressives are brain dead. I've seen the betrayal for electoral reasons before and it doesn't shock me. The first time through this cycle I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. Now, I'd be more surprised by a Democratic nominee who *didn't* ditch the left at the first available opportunity.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with the health of the nation. Which is too bad.

ruggerson is probably correct - the left will vote for Obama in November. We'll see what happens after that.

[NorthCarolina]

13. K&R

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

14. I dunno, uly. I'm beginning to "see the light."

It seems that a "purist" is almost as low as a bottom-feeder ... at least on DU. I'm beginning to understand ... and am working up an OM to address this wisdom. (It probably won't be perfect ... but only a "purist" would object.)

[ulysses]

17. you're an impure purist.

The imperfect is the casual acquaintance of the not-so-bad. :hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. *high five* Right on target, as always

[ulysses]

19. thanks, GPV.

Would that we weren't still here...

[Runcible Spoon]

16. what really rubs me the wrong way is the argument that supporting FISA is to garner indie votes

this kind of shit is unpopular with voters across the board. Obama had/still has a cherry opportunity to reach out to the populace: "I WILL STAND UP FOR YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!". That's a message that goes against the grain of everything teh Bush administration stands for, the lying, the secrecy, the collusion. FISA is a LOSER for Obama unless he's no longer courting the vote of the PEOPLE and now has given his ear to the big telecoms...

on edit to stay on message RE: your OP: ideological purity is and always was a canard trotted out to dismiss anything that goes "against message". The interesting thing is that the REAL "purists" are those who blindly swallow anything a politician feeds them and always assumes that said politician has the people's best interests in mind. Some of the justifications I've read explaining Obama's stance on FISA are of such twisted and optimistic logic that is rivaled only by that of some abused women I've known defending their husbands. Of course this is not most or even all of DU, but still that reasoning is here and alive.

I think it's great so many have found hope in Obama but at the same time, I'm not going to swallow bullets because there are certain things that are unacceptable to me; siphoning away my civil rights is something I have lived with under the Bush administration for almost a decade and I'm not about to roll over again.

Obama, I'm READY for CHANGE! Now bring it on...

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. It is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

There should be no compromise. I thought this shit was going to end.

[ulysses]

21. not yet, evidently.

[martymar64]

23. We need to get him into office first

We also need big coattails to bring about a filibuster proof Congress to enact the big changes that need to take place. I'd prefer that the whole bill just sit and rot until after the new congress comes in. But we can't make any of the big changes until Obama is in the WH.

[Forkboy]

24. My personal strategy....

Get Obama into office...then hold his ass to the left's fire, early and often.

[ulysses]

29. yup.

:thumbsup:

[DaDooRonRon]

30. Won't work

Anybody running mainstream is already beholden ten times over to the folks that got him/her there, and trust me that AIN"T you or me, no matter how flowery the speeches are and no matter how many "little people" think they are actually part of the program.

Set the wayback machine to '06, and remember what everyone was saying when the Dems took over Congress.

"We'll make sure to hold their feet to the fire". etc.

How'd that work out?

FISA. Unlimited $$ for King George, no effort to impeach, telecomm immunity, AIPAC running amok, Pelosi and Reid proving what a lot of us said they were all along, etc.

You can say "feet to the fire" all you want - all it does (I feel) is allow those who say it to justify voting for those who have no fear of even getting their feet warm, much less burned.

Someone will get burned, though - and I think we all know who it is.

[rusty fender]

31. Excellent response!

So true, so true.

[ulysses]

32. so, what's your solution?

No, I'm not asking you to get yourself in trouble by advocating for third party votes - besides, as someone who's done it twice, I think it's of limited value.

So what do we do?

[Catherina]

35. Keep holding their feet to the fire or rather

keep their balls in a visegrip by controlling our donations and knocking them over the head with our power of not voting for them while supporting the lesser of the two evils WHILE building from the ground up with politicians whose views are more in line with ours. If we do that consistently, in 15-20 years we might get there.

I don't see what other choice we have.

[ulysses]

36. I suspect that that's correct.

No one with any hold on reality thinks that Obama will inaugurate a new era of progressive government. Personally, I'm hoping for noticable improvement in some areas (we need help in the schools, Barack!) and otherwise taking a longer view.

[Catherina]

39. That's my same cynical hope, noticable improvement

in schools, inner cities, social safety nets and killing less people in the savage quest to sustain our privileged way of life. :hi:

[DaDooRonRon]

44. I must ask this in lieu of your response

When you say "from the ground up", where do you mean? If you are advocating mainstream two party politicians, then no change can be forthcoming, for in order to play the game they must first agree to the rules, and those rules have everything to do with corporate politics and nothing to do with us. You could do it for 100 years and never get there, reason being that none of the people you are voting for really want to go.

If, OTOH, you are speaking about building viable options outside the mainstream then perhaps we are on to something. :)

"I don't see what other choice we have."

Depends on how patient you are, and if you understand how true change begins. :)

[Catherina]

46. I'm advocating independence based on issues

We should have NO parties in this country. All this conniving, back-room dealing masquerading as compromise to push through the corporate agenda makes me physically ill. My personal believe is either NO parties or 1000 parties. If you bear that in mind when I say from the ground up, you'll understand what I mean.

As a Bay area resident, one thing I never forgave the Democrats for was sending in their big guns to interfere with our Mayoral Elections and knock Matt Gonzales out of the ring when he was winning. I'm not a Green but Matt, as an individual, represented our values better. I'd like to see people like that get elected all over the US to step into the vacated shoes of unprincipled politicians in both parties.

I'm very patient and know that at the rate we're going I'll probably die before I see it happen but that's what I'm working towards, a slow transformation based on education and breaking the grip corporations have on our politics.

[DaDooRonRon]

58. I understand completely, and agree about 1000%

Very well stated.

[DaDooRonRon]

42. The answer will, as you know, get me in trouble,

but I wil answer it honestly and hope that the "progressive" part of the rulebook lets it stand.

One has to vote on principle - it is the ONLY way to break the stranglehold. The argument for "limited value" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and whenever I hear it I am reminded of the answer Kucinich once gave in a debate - the question being (paraphrasing) "do you think you can actually win?"

His answer: "I can if you'll vote for me."

Trouble is, so few see a long struggle as being viable. Everyone here wants to "win" NOW, but of course every time we "win" we lose, if you get the drift.

It is the same tired rationale with every election - we HAVE to best Bush, we HAVE to take the Senate, we HAVE to beat McCain. This short-sightedness brings with it a kindler gentler form of no change - BFD. One side tweaks the laws, the other side tweaks them back when it is their turn - nothing changes. If Wall Street was really concerned about Obama bringing this great change they wouldn't be pouring money into his coffers - and they are. Corporate America just wants to know where their bread will be buttered this time around - they have ZERO worries that Obama will take the bread away.

Few here want real progressive change - most just want their side to "win."

Convincing them that we never will as long as they vote Purple is the bitch. :)

[Guaranteed]

45. So, after one disagreement with Obama, you're already talking about voting

third party. Awesome, man.


You realize that this guy was a civil rights advocate and constitutional scholar? Do you think he doesn't "get it?"

Maybe there are reasons other than some profound lack of character on his part that are contributing to this.

[DaDooRonRon]

54. Has nothing to do with "one disagreement"

I don't buy into his act.

Never have.

All I can do is look at his advisers, his rhetoric vs. his actions, his corporate contributors, etc. and make my own judgment.

In answer to your question - no, I don't think he "gets it." He is behaving just like those who put him in power expect him to, and I truly feel for those who expect anything less than Bill Clinton Revisited. That's what you're gonna get, and I'm not willing to invest in another political charade again.

Check his comments on Iran, check his comments on Israel/AIPAC, check his rationale for opting out of public financing (since we can pretty much surmise his whole "I really want public financing" was theater at it's finest and he had NO intention of ever following through), check his FISA vote.

You're looking at centrism with a knack for turning a phrase.

I need a hell of a lot more than that.

[ulysses]

47. a long struggle is not only viable, it's all we have.

That's partly why I'm not all that worried about Obama. No one is really shocked that he's tacking rightward now, are they?

No, this is a generational thing. I hope my son sees America bettered in his lifetime. Meantime, having done so (as I mentioned) twice, I don't see the value in voting third party at this point. Maybe that'll change later, I don't know.

[DaDooRonRon]

55. Understood

No, I'm not surprised he is tracking rightward, as you say. That's what I expected.

I just decided that at least for now I will no longer be a part the facade that is the Democratic Party. They are Republicans when it suits their interests, "progressive" Democrats when they need the votes.

Fuck 'em until they learn the true meaning of the words they pretend to live by.

I can only hope that when the party hacks get fooled yet again they might wake up.

Thanks for the reasoned responses - I "get" where you are today and hope you understand why I've moved off that spot and have wandered a bit farther down the road. :)

[dana_b]

33. yep.

I do believe that Obama does hold a lot of left-of-center values as well as some centrist, but now he is playing to the middle. Is that a good thing? Only time will tell. I do think it will get him elected but he will lose some on the left. I guess that's his compromise.

[Forkboy]

51. Well, when someone shows me a realistic alternative I'll see what I can do.

Not saying you're wrong, because I agree with you. Just saying there's no other real alternative that will get any better results. So we just keep plugging away where we can, when we can.

[DaDooRonRon]

57. All alternatives are viable, if enough effort is put into making them so

It's a struggle, but in order to starve the beast you must first stop giving it food.

Otherwise it thinks you like it.

And you find yourself perpetually hungry. :)

[FourPieRun]

53. if he gets elected, isn't he going to have to think about *re-election?*

[JoFerret]

25. Same people who trashed Hillary

are now having mini hissy fits about Obama.

One wonders what world they inhabit.

We have a great candidate. Get out there and work.

[sandnsea]

27. She didn't vote in Feb at all

Her supporters have no room to trash Obama on this. I don't care how she votes now, when it doesn't matter. When she had the chance to speak out, she didn't.

[JoFerret]

28. What are you talking about?

I think you maybe missed my point.

Never mind.
No need to fight about it.

[Catherina]

26. Error: You've already recommended that thread. n/t

[opihimoimoi]

34. K&R good post....VOTE BLUE

[ulysses]

37. hey, opihi!

:hi:

[opihimoimoi]

38. ALOHA, come, we go laugh, eat, smile, drink, walk on the sandy beach

Come to the LUAU

[LWolf]

40. Big KICK, and thanks.

:hi:

[ulysses]

48. most welcome.

:hi:

[Maddy McCall]

41. This thread separates the rational Obama supporters from the zealots.

I am with you. Obama will do some things that his supporters don't like, and they have every right to constructively criticize Obama's decisions. No politician makes decisions all the time that suit all the people.

Only the zealots can't take criticism of their candidate, because they see him as infallible.

[ulysses]

49. I don't know that it's so much an Obama thing as it is a "pragmatist" thing.

Maybe it is, though. :hi:

[FlaGranny]

43. Some folks never learn that

idiological purity is a very PERSONAL thing - each person has their own and no one else's is the same as one's own. If any person ever felt another person was ideologically pure, then he or she is probably lacking some bit of information about that other person's ideology.

[ulysses]

50. it's a telling line to use, honestly.

I think those who use it usually fall into one of a couple of camps:

1. they have no ideology at all, other than winning. Politics is nothing but the game, not a whole lot of reason *why* you want to win. I put the DLC in this camp.

2. they have an ideology, but are willing to tie it up and throw it in the corner when told to do so.

3. they have an ideology, but it's not being threatened.

Uly's Taxonomy of The Ideologically Challenged. :D

[FourPieRun]

52. yeah but obama was supposed to be 'different.' nt

[Political Heretic]

56. I'm disappointed on FISA. But I understand Obama's reasoning behind his statement

What is tedious and tiresome to some of us are just the hysterics about this issue. Sometimes the polarized all-or-nothing every-issue-is-a-ten shrillness of DU wears thing.

There's not much thoughtful, analytical discourse and a lot of theatrics these days.