I refuse to endorse or vote for

[LWolf]

any human being who supports the war in Iraq in any way,

who supports the Bush administration agenda in anyway,

who supports the PNAC in any way,

who supports the DLC "third way" in any form.

I might be persuaded, though, to vote for my beautiful Australian Shepherd for president. She demonstrates the following qualities:

She's a democrat. Her policies and judgements concerning living things are amazingly consistent:

1. If you are part of her pack, she will guard and protect you, happily chasing any intruder off the homeplace.

2. If you are part of her pack, she will never chase you, bite you, or engage in aggression against you.

3. If you commit an offense, she will administer justice fairly and impartially. It does not matter if you are friend, family, or God herself, you will not get closer to me than about six-ten feet without her gently "pushing" you out of my "space." If you dare to actually try to get between she and I, she will bark, jump, and paw at you until you retreat. If you shout or engage in any aggressive behavior, she will drop her head and flatten her ears, putting herself between you and the object of your aggression.

4. If you have a job to do, she will race ahead to clear the way, and then stay close by to observe and offer assistance when needed.

5. If you are in any kind of trouble, she will literally meld herself to you until the trouble is resolved.

6. She will babysit the national herd, making sure no one strays.

7. When the rams or roosters are feeling aggressive, she will administer just enough discipline to cause them to back down.

8. When there are young to be cared for, she will bathe them, play with them, cuddle them, and watch over them with special intensity.

9. If I'm running late at feeding time, she will round me up and lead me out to the evening feeding and watering routine, making sure that all are fed, watered, safe, and secure for the evening. She does this again in the morning, and if I try to sleep in, she'll haul me out of bed.

Really, I'm beginning to think my dog would make a better president than most people. I might just write her in.

[rodeodance]

1. Purists do not advance the Party

Really, I'm beginning to think my dog would make a better president than most people. I might just write her in.

[LWolf]

3. Do purists allow cross-species election?

Which "purists" are you referring to?

Party purists, or constitutional purists, or ideals purists?

There are so many kinds of "purists" these days. :crazy:

I don't think they all have the same goals. For example, only the party purists are in it to advance the party.

Others believe that democratic participation exists to advance issues, and that parties are tools, not the goals themselves. Tools that when broken or inefficent, can be replaced.

[Totally Committed]

10. Somewhere down the road, you'll find yourself thinking we were right.

And, maybe even wondering why you didn't see what we see now, sooner.

This Party is in the shitter right now. As LWolf said, I refuse to vote for (endorse) someone I don't really think should be POTUS.

TC

[rodeodance]

19. I am so concerned with who is right or wrong. I do know that voting is a chance

to see improvement. I work hard each election to get out the vote--mostly voluntary organizations.

I certainly am not satisfied with the Dems at the moment--but I see the determination of the Repugicans to hold onto power. I can help change that.

[TahitiNut]

34. Yeah... only the "slightly (or more) corrupt" are acceptable.

After all, who the fuck are WE to deserve to have an honest liberal as President, huh? Criminals deserve a break at the polls.

[ulysses]

71. what does the party advance?

[LWolf]

99. That's a key question.

The party advances the agenda of its stakeholders.

Just who are those stakeholders?

The big money that pays the campaign bills?

The louder voices? The segment of voters who will vote for them no matter what they say or do?

The politicians themselves, looking to make sure they have a less risky career?

[f the letter]

123. amen

The party has advanced very little of late, despite the best efforts of some amazing people in it (who are sadly outnumbered by those who are bought by industry lobbies)

[mod mom]

82. Neither do corporatists. We need a leader w vision who works for the people

instead of where the big money is.

[timtom]

117. And I can't, for the life of me,

think of anyone who...wait a minute.

Yes I can.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

2. She's obviously perfect.

Unfortunately, humans are flawed. And until the Constitution is changed, we have to vote for humans. (Of course, I'm sure many will find fault with your dog once she gets national press coverage too.)

[LWolf]

5. She's not perfect.

I "forgot" to mention her little flaws, in that rush to convince everyone. I figured we could all just overlook her shortcomings:

She raids the trash when it's not covered.

She has way too much hair, and sheds enough hair, all year long, to make a new pillow every month. Her grooming bills would probably equal Edwards if she were actually making public appearances.

Her tail is too short. One of those long, sweeping, table-clearing tails would probably be more presidential.

Still, in my judgment, she's smarter, more principled, more loyal, and more reliable than most of the human pack.

[rucky]

4. What's your dog's stance on forced sterilization?

and where can I contribute some freeze-dried liver to the campaign?

[LWolf]

8. Let me ask:

She's ambivalent on forced sterilization. On the front paws, she likes babies and thinks that all moms should be supported. On the back paws, she remembers that her own mother had an "accident" late in life that resulted in pregnancy; the delivery almost killed her mom, and only 2 of the 3 pups survived. She says she she's glad she's sterilized, because it keeps the pushy boys from hovering all the time, and she doesn't have to expend energy better spent elsewhere in chasing them off. Still, I didn't ask her opinion before the procedure, and she hopes I've learned better.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. I'll have some meat scraps airlifted to your dog's campaign coffers

:rofl:

[LWolf]

44. Oh, she'll definitely favor you! :D n/t

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

50. Now shel'll owe favors to a special interest group.

LL will get extra stuff. Your dog has already been bought! :rofl:

[LWolf]

51. Extra stuff from the dog includes:

Extra tail wagging and extra close company. She'll definitely be paying attention when LL is around, to be sure. :D

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

52. Next thing you know she'll be letting LL stay in her

doggie bed because LL is the biggest fund raiser. And LL will get invited to all the WH parties.

See how that works?

[LWolf]

57. I do.

I have to say that temptation only goes so far with this dog, though.

She's been mightily tempted by my grandson, who has been known to sneak her stuff under the dinner table that he doesn't like.

That's led to her hovering presence at meal times, and she sometimes needs reminders about where she is NOT supposed to be--under the table. While she pays close attention to the table at dinner, when dinner is over, she won't play with him. Not unless he is in the room with me, and then not for more than a few minutes. She, like a dog with a bone, :D, will not let go of what she sees as her primary duty: me.

[Myrina]

6. Aussies - shepherds, cattle dogs, and border collies - are so brilliant!

I'd vote for that ticket! :applause:

[LWolf]

9. They could definitely teach our government

some things about public service, couldn't they?

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

37. Uh... And LOYALTY!

I'd vote for my dog any day. She's awesome!

TC

[LWolf]

46. Dogs have much to teach us about

loyalty, and about unconditional (if you don't count dinner, lol) love, don't they?

[TahitiNut]

35. Dogles to herd sheeples!! Ubetcha!

Let's get those Free Speech Corrals ready!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. At least a dog wouldn't try to convince you were being kissed when he bit you.

Or, tell you that funding a war was necessary to end it.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. Well, the biggest war supporters are the DHLs

Democrat-Hating-Leftists (remember how they hated "Republicrat" Al Gore?) elected George Bush and Dick Cheney back in 2000.

All of the blood in Iraq is on their hands. All of it. They are the one group in America who had both the ideological responsibility to understand what a Republican-controlled federal government would mean, and the Constitutional voting power to prevent it. And they chose not to, with arrogance and dishonesty. Democrats aren't going to forget the impossible position they put us all in. Nor the blood and treasure that DHLs have forced to be spilt. Not for a long, long time. Maybe not ever.

So don't vote for anyone that Dem-Hating-Leftists support and you'll be OK, per your own criteria.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The supreme court selected Bush.

But do tell us how we democratic hating leftists stood by last november and didn't lift a hand or empty our wallets to get a democratic congress elected. Tell me again how back in 04 we refused to support Kerry because he wouldn't come out openly against the war. Yes we have done so little for the party, and so much to destroy it, it is a wonder they don't send all our money back and refund us all for the hours we put in.

[Tactical Progressive]

29. That argument sounds like an arsonist

joining the bucket brigade four hours after setting the fire, with the building already burning out of control.

Then a couple of hours later contributing some bucks to the fire-fighter's fund.

As if they honestly believe that "holding their nose", or whatever other snot-ass euphemism DHLs tend to employ, while voting for John Kerry, obviates in even the slightest way what they have done to this country, let alone clears the books. Tell that to the families of the dead Marines in Iraq. For starters.

This past eight years has all been the result of DHL treachery. They are simply not to be trusted, which unfortunately means that Democrats must move to the right. Just another way that DHLs continue to destroy the world around them with their petty arrogance and lack of political acumen. And those are the nicest things I can think to say of them.

[jgraz]

58. I think I see your problem here

You think it's like a sporting contest, where you support your team no matter what. I understand. I grew up rooting for the Packers (back when they really sucked) and no matter how bad those guys are, I will always be a Packer fan.

Unfortunately, too many people have brought that mentality into politics: you "root root root" for the home team no matter what they do, and you attack anyone who demands better as "fair weather fans."

But it just doesn't work that way. You can't control the natural reaction of millions of people to a politician doesn't deserve their vote. It's like blaming the rain for your getting wet when really the problem is that you're just too dumb to come inside.

The "DHL" didn't lose 2000. 2000 and 2004 were lost when we nominated candidates who did not appeal to enough voters. Plain and simple. Of course, there was also the bit where both of them seemed fine letting the "monsters" steal the election in order to avoid being called "sore losers".

You want to get rid of the "Democrat Hating Left"? Here's an idea: let's give them less to hate.

[Tactical Progressive]

65. Wow, could your arguments be any more absurd?

I've been talking about the real-world consequences of Democrat-Hating-Leftist behavior. War, dead marines, an ongoing right-wing corrupt Supreme Court, debt beyond belief, etc and you're talking about games. Then projecting your gamer attitude on me.

I used the seriousness of arson as a metaphor. You talk about Bart Starr and "home teams". And project your gaming mindset on me.

I'm talking about the real-life struggle of stopping monsters who destroy lives and decency when they get power, and you're talking about people who don't "deserve" your high and mighty ideologically pure vote, like Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Tell that to the families of dead National Guardsmen and women. Tell them what they deserve and how you don't play games, like DHLs did throughout 2000 and continue to do about Democrats. I'm sure they'll be as impressed with DHL sanctimoniousness as DHLs are impressed with themselves.

One of us understands the struggle and the real-life implications that underly the politics, and it isn't the ideologically self-infatuated but politically obtuse Dem-Hating-Leftist brigade.


And surprise, you got the last part wrong too, even though I already explained that:

"You want to get rid of the "Democrat Hating Left"? Here's an idea: let's give them less to hate."

I don't want to give DHLs less to hate; I want to give them more to hate so they can go off and start their own politically useless party, but feel good about themselves, which is really the only "game" they know. My point is simple, and it is the opposite of cowtowing to DHLs: Democrats need to move to the right as DHLs are completely untrustworthy. The sooner the better and the farther the better. Sadly. That's my only gamesmanship: stop playing games with backstabbing DHL's, because the consequence of DHL involvement in politics is catastrophic in the real world, for nearly a decade now.

[jgraz]

67. Yes, I could copy yours.

You go right ahead with your "serious" arguments. You want to blame all of these problems on the left? I have news for you: we can stop these monsters now, and if the left were in power, we would.

You don't like dead G.I.s? Take it up with the Democrats who voted for the IWR and won't stop the funding.

Hate the current SCOTUS? Why don't you talk to the "Gang of 14" members who undermined any chance of filibustering Alito and Roberts?

Don't want debt? Why don't you see how many of your centrist buddies plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts?


This is not just the posters on DU. There are millions of Americans who hate what the Democrats are doing right now. In fact, more Democrats hate the Congress than do Republicans, by about 14 percentage points.

But you go ahead and keep bitching at the rain. I'm sure you'll be dry real soon now.

[Tactical Progressive]

72. Sorry serious arguments bother you so much

If I knew more about Green Bay Packer football maybe we could communicate better.

Dem-Hating-Leftists made sure that the left was out of power, so everything after that is moot politically.

The dead servicemen are all on DHL heads. There isn't one thing on earth anyone could have done to stop this war once you put George W Bush and Dick Cheney into the most powerful positions on the planet. Stop blaming anybody but yourselves. Hillary could have walked onto the Senate floor with an M16 in each hand blasting away and it wouldn't have stopped an Iraq invasion. You put Hillary and every Dem into the snake pit, along with the rest of the country. And watching you rant and whine about why everybody else didn't stop your treachery from coming to fruition has just been, and continues to be, nauseating. Look in the mirror if you honestly need a villian for what's happened in the past eight years.

As far as the politics of the DHL, rain is a pretty good analogy, though spittle from the ranting left is perhaps more accurate. The bitching - is all yours. Democrats have learned to simply ignore 'the rain' and not bother getting a little wet in order to effect change. I am so happy and proud of Hillary and the Dems for not caving into bitching DHLs. You just keep getting nastier, and the nastier you get, the more Dems ignore you.

Keep it up. Vote for your pets. I love it.

[jgraz]

73. No, I'm just not sure how to respond to incoherent ranting

You are just making no sense. I understand that you're angry about the state of things, but you're angry at the wrong people. You are offering no productive solutions, just lashing out at whoever seems to be in the way.

The "DHL"s are the people who would have gone to the ends of the earth for Gore had he decided to fight the theft in 2000. We would have overwhelmed Ohio with protesters had Kerry not conceded. And we're the ones in 2006 who staffed phone banks and walked precincts and registered voters in order to bring down asswipes like Richard Pombo and Conrad Burns. Remind me again what you were doing during that election?

The DHLers didn't let the party down. It's not possible since none of us owe the Democratic party anything. The Dems continue reneg on their promises and we keep working our asses off for them. And that earns us the right to bitch about anything we want to.

[Tactical Progressive]

75. Oh please, how dishonest are you going to get

Go back and find who's talking sports game analogies and who's not. Then find who is pointing to the other for doing it. That's pretty damn dishonest, JG.

And you're wrong about me being "angry about the state of things". I'm real happy with the way things are going. DHLs are the ones who are mightily pissed. You keep projecting DHL problems on me. Here, let me clarify: I don't like DHL's and they piss me off. The way things are going is that DHL's have been, and are increasingly being, marginalized. I like that. I like "the state of things". So, wrong again.

And then this: DHL's are the people who "would have gone to the ends of the earth for Gore".

I'm sure some would have, but in broad terms DHL's were the people disparaging Gore and Democrats throughout the entire 2000 election. Some of them 'held their nose' to vote for Gore like they did for Kerry four years later. Now you've promoted the very people who lost Gore the election to Gore stalwarts. Again, you turn the truth inside-out, then claim that I'm incoherent. Look in your own posts for incoherence.

"The DHLers didn't let the party down."

Oh yes, they did alot worse than let the party down, they backstabbed the party. Backstabbing is subsumed under 'letting down'.

And lastly, I don't believe that DHLs 'don't owe the Democratic party anything' as you say, but I'll let that go with the turnabout understanding - that the Democratic party doesn't owe DHLs anything. I like that most of all.

Please though, continue your bitchfest, which this entire thread and so many more are all about, and blame those of us Democrats who are quite happy with the way things are going, for the bitching you do.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then call us incoherent too.

[jgraz]

79. I really have to ask: what is your point here?

When I said you were being incoherent, I meant that literally. Your arguments don't hang together and you don't have any clear direction to your thoughts. And you're not able to justify a single one of your assertions other than that you really really think they're true.

You just seem bent on attacking those who don't agree with you. That gets very boring very quickly.

[Tactical Progressive]

87. My points have been pretty clearly made

contrary to your ongoing dishonesty. I even prefaced them with things like "My point is simple: ". If anything I've been a little repetitious of my main issues, making your feigned inability to discern them even more blatantly dishonest.

I'm not going to reiterate everything I've already said. You can go back and simply read it if you want. But I will give you broad answer to your question. The bottom line is that while DHLs have been shitting on Dems for a long time now, they can dish it out but they can't take it. When I saw this thread, basically titled DHLs are great and Democrats are garbage in not so many words, I just had to drop in a little reality of who truly is culpable for what we see around us (hint: the sanctimonious ones). If I did that, say, a hundred and fifty thousand times, you might get some inkling of what real Democrats have to put up with with the DHLs around here.

Hey, I'm just here to comment. I didn't ask you to comment on my post - you chose to start a confrontation with me, and now you're all victim-being-attacked. If you don't like it you can go to another thread, or another board. But either way, expect to see more Democrats less inclined to take DHL garbage.

[urgk]

96. I beg to differ.

Saying "My Point is Simple" or "My points have been pretty clearly made" doesn't make either of them true. Your somewhat convoluted point seems to be that, despite interference by the Supreme Court, the American media, voter fraud, etc., losing the election(s) and the ensuing Iraq war was entirely the fault of the so-called DHLs.

That literally cannot be true. Nobody needs to prove you wrong, it's just not logically possible. No matter how much you try to belittle them with words like "spitting" "ranting" and "bitching," any one group can only bear part of the burden, and I don't think it would take a lot of effort to put most of the blame on the crooks in the White House.

So, take a deep breath, relax a little, walk outside and figure out what you're really trying to say. If it's that you feel DHLs are also responsible, yet feel no responsibility for what happened, then say it. Better yet, find citations or posts to prove it. I'm not sure how that argument would apply to the OP exactly, but at least it would have the possibility of being true and therefore worthy of discussion.

[jgraz]

107. Well said, and welcome to DU

:hi:

[Tactical Progressive]

111. Well of course that doesn't MAKE them true

None of what we say MAKES anything true. Everything we say on this board is 'in my opinion', but fifty-thousand IMO's every day would be pretty redundant.

I don't agree that my points have even been 'somewhat' convoluted. They've been pretty straightforward. But I'll try some short-sentence explanation:

DHLs most definately did split off from the Democratic political base in 2000
They most definately did employ dishonest not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference rhetoric throughout
They most definately did vote in politically-pivotal Florida in numerically sufficient amounts to throw the national election to the right-wing

You're welcome to try to DISprove any of that.

And probably most importantly, though not numerically measureable, ie no proof either way, they did in any reasonable presumption, turn undecided voters and middling Dems away nationwide. I know blue-collar Dems, not far lefties, who were spouting that not-a-dime crap that DHLs were peddling. You've got to realize that there are alot of people in this country, tens of millions, who are just not into politics and the whole thing turns them way off, so much so that they are always just a hairs-breadth away from just saying fuckittheyreallthesame. The cynical lies (you do understand that they were lies, right urgk?) of Dem-Hating-Leftists played right to those people's weaknesses. I'm guessing it was million>s< of voters across the country that fell prey to those lies and either didn't bother to vote or voted for Bush because he seemed like a straight-forward guy. Why not, if they're all the same anyway.

And we all know what has happened since. Same as would have happened with Al Gore as the President, right urgk?

Right?

Either that or DHLs have given us this fascist hell.

Nobody has to tell me about the media. I've been onto them from well before DU'ers noticed. And there's no doubt about voter fraud. Or the Supreme Crooks. I'm in with all of that, totally. But those are all outside forces. You have very little control over them. You fight them. DHLs are inside the wagons. They are backshooters. That's a whole different thing. And in 2000, whether you want to admit it or not, their treachery cost the Florida vote, in numerical ballots. That's a fact. And with their rhetorical dishonesty, millions of other votes across the country. That will never be proven but it's a pretty safe assumption. WHATEVER ELSE HAPPENED, DHLs put the right-wing over the top, and that's all that counts in politics.

So you can talk all you want about contributing factors and I'll agree all day long. But when it comes to progressives using their one tool - the political power of the vote - DHLs used it against Democratic political power. Here's a turnabout question for you: How can you not hold DHL liars in AT LEAST the same contempt that you hold the media, the vote fraudsters and the Supreme Court?

And they're acting the same again, only now without the cohesive force of a third party to project their crap. Which makes it not as bad, but still dangerous to Democratic politics.

So my two main points, which I think are 'worthy of discussion' whether you do or not:
- DHLs put us here, not the DLC or Hillary Clinton
- They, the far left (of which I am a member) simply cannot be trusted - Dems need to move right.

I intend on making those points on this board as long as DHLs are bitching and slandering everything they don't like, which they've been doing incessantly for a while now. Have you been upbraiding them for all of their garbage against Dems, urgk? I know you haven't because you wouldn't have even had the time to adress me. Funny how reams of anti-Democrat vitriol doesn't get people's attention, but little ole me does.

Sorry for the long post. Yes "DHLs are also responsible" - in a big way - for where we have ended up here. And yes, I've seen little indication from most that they understand or accept responsibility for that, mostly by the way that they intensely blame the Dem victims of THEIR actions for the situation we're in, and the way that they'll 'vote for anybody but' a Dem.

[jgraz]

121. Your statements are ill-informed and poorly reasoned

Seriously, I wish you would take some time to educate yourself on recent history. I think it would go a long way toward dissipating some of the misplaced anger you have.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that some lefties voted for Nader in 2000. And because of that you blame them for all that has come afterwards.

Firstly, your premise is flawed. In order to show that Nader voters cost us the 2000 election, you have to discount the following FACTS: 1) The disenfranchisement of blacks (screamed about by the left and ignored by the DLC) cost the Dems far more votes than did the Nader candidacy; 2) The Democrats nominated a candidate who couldn't even carry his home state and refused to fight one the election had been stolen; and 3) By any independent count, AL GORE WON. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to "cost someone" an election that they actually won.

So, let's say you find some way to get around all that. Now you have to show how the so-called DHLs caused the Dem capituations on the IWR, the Roberts vote, the Alito vote, the Gonzales vote, etc etc etc. Then you have to show how they caused Kerry to be such a weak candidate and then concede rather than fight yet another election theft.

Finally, you have to explain how the ONLY Dem election success in the past 6 years came because your so-called DHLers turned out in droves and elected a bunch of progressive candidate.

Good luck with that.

[urgk]

125. I stand by my post.

"So my two main points, which I think are 'worthy of discussion' whether you do or not:
- DHLs put us here, not the DLC or Hillary Clinton
- They, the far left (of which I am a member) simply cannot be trusted - Dems need to move right."

Worthy of discussion? Yes. Severely flawed nonetheless? Absolutely.

The DHLs did not put us here. Several factors conspired to put us here. The fact that you can't accept that, despite the fact you've pointed it out several times, make me wonder whether it's even worth my time to try and set you straight. I'd also like to mention that some of those factors are actually illegal. To put more blame on any group legally exercising their Constitutional mandate to participate in the Democratic process is ludicrous.

By the way, as long as we're blindly conjecturing and assigning blame without proof or citation, how many centrist Democrats or Independents do you think were soured on the party because of rabid, territorial Right-leaning Democrats who threw insults around as if they'd somehow magically turn into valid points of argument?

[iaviate1]

110. "the Democratic party doesn't owe DHLs anything"?!?

Any elected official owed ALL Americans nothing but their BEST. I'm talking honesty, peace, security, freedom, and a fighting chance at the American Dream. Many politicians, including Dems, are simply not meeting those obligations and they cannot be trusted to do that while in office. They shouldn't be elected and they will not get my vote. There are Democratic candidates who I believe will work for the things we're all longing for... let's work to get one of them through the primaries because if a right leaning democrat is put forth, they will not always get the progressive vote.

[Tactical Progressive]

112. Yes, I pretty much agree with all of that.

So tell me, do we owe anything back, like honest discourse?

For instance, is it OK for a political party or movement to continually promote Al Gore as no different from George Bush, and Democrats as no different from Republicans, just so they can win some votes from people who have a hard time understanding politics?

[kenfrequed]

118. Look in the mirror

The arguments you made are so completely absurd.

You blame those that opposed the war for the war. While your DLC friends voted for authorizing Bush and repeatedly funding the war with no strings attached.

You blame those that BEGGED the democrats to fillibuster the nominations of right wing justices, all the while giving a free pass to your "third way" friends that preached compromise and folded to the Repuke "Nuclear option."

With samples of this and legislative cowardice on display why should we support any of your candidates. Why shouldn't we point out the obvious problems with the "Eventuality of Hillary?"

You honestly know what part of the Democratic party we don't need? The DLC. We can win just as easily without them. Probably even more easily since we won't have to parse language as much or run non-populist candidates that turn people away from the process?

I should also ask how much you like liberman? I mean he ran against the Democratic party and the funny thing is that the DLC website NEVER took him to task the way they castigate leftists within the party, or blame DEMOCRATIC leftists for supporting NADER (even when many didn't).

But without you we could easily court all of those voters and run an ACTUAL progressive-populist campaign with real universal healthcare that doesn't have billions for insurence companies and big pharm. So if you really want to help the Democratic party become strong again convince the DLC to go away.

[jgraz]

120. Edit: I'd actually be interested in hearing TactProg's take on Lieberman as well

[Tactical Progressive]

128. No, my arguments are solid and very accurate

Of course, there is little that is ever completely 100% one way or the other. But it has been pretty obvious since immediately after the 2000 election that most DHLs just don't accept any responsibility, even when the vast majority of the responsibility rests on them. Just one big part of the reason they can't be trusted, which is something Democratic politicians, and increasingly many rank & file Dems, have realized about them. Thankfully.

>> "You blame those that opposed the war for the war."

No, that's just DHL silly-talk. I blame the war on those that handed complete political power in this country over to the right-wing. Once Bush and Cheney and their obedient legion of evil in Congress got that power, an invasion of the Middle East was a done deal. Even without 9/11. 9/11 merely set the go-time.

Read the second sentence of the last paragraph again. That's what it's all about: political power. The far left just doesn't get this at all. It's like a complete absence of political acumen. DHLs did that to this country. Everything after that is just the inevitable aftermath of their betrayal of the left. Watching DHLs complain that 'the DLC' let the war happen is just laughable.

There's not a dimes worth of difference between DHLs backstabbing Democrats in 2000 and all of the death that has resulted.


Oh yeah, and Lieberman. Asshole, from well before 2000, and moreso after.
But still better than a Publican. You get that part, right?
Tell me you at least get that little bit of political reality.

[robinlynne]

26. What the hell are you talking about?

[Tactical Progressive]

36. Why, the eight years of hell that Democrat-Hating-Leftists

have plunged this country into, and the twenty or so more years of right-wing Supreme Court we'll have to endure as well.

You know, the hell that Dem-Hating-Leftists don't even have the honor or integrity to realize they are responsible for. Let alone admit. Blaming, to the point of screeching at, everyone else, instead of looking in the mirror to see who has wrought what.

That hell.

[robinlynne]

55. have you considered therapy? or just reading the news. The elections, my friend were

stolen. The democrats WON the elections. all of them. They simply did not take office. It is called election theft. In one case, it took the supreme court. Blame the supreme court if you will; they deserve it. Especially miss swing vote.

[Tactical Progressive]

66. Oh Robin Lynne, I understand all about election theft

Never been a doubt in my mind. Nor the corrupt treacherousness of the Supreme Crooks, who are more right-wing now than ever thanks in no small part to Dem-Hating-Leftists and their dishonest politics.

So tell me Robin, just how did Republicans get close enough to steal that 2000 election? Any thoughts?

[robinlynne]

86. We don't even know if it was close. And we won't ever, because the ohio ballots were destroyed.

It was definitely much less close than anyone thought. When you add up all the votes they stole....Even in 2006, the demds would not investigate the stolen congressional elections, 13 seats were so outrageous that they were contested. Those are the ones with thousands of missing votes. thousands. and our congress decided not to investigate...I understand why you are against voting third party, but you cannot for a minute blame 2000, or 2004 on a third paraty. As a matter of fact, they are the only ones who had the guts to file lawsuits in ohio 2004.They almost made the recount happen, and with it a sure kerry win, but again no support from the dems.....
excepting boxer and conyers and the black caucus who stood up.

[Tactical Progressive]

88. I agree, I agree, I agree.

Especially about the 2004 elections. The elections were stolen since 2000, from soup to nuts. And I agree Democrats didn't do enough about it. I'm guessing they knew they couldn't do much, with the right-wing in power and the American media fully on their side, until they get into power. I doubt they just decided to not do something that they could do. Frustrating and dispiriting for sure.

It's not about "third party". It's about politics against the monsters of the right. I appreciated the apparent political awakening of my fellow far-leftists in 2004, though I didn't appreciate their snotty holding-their-nose attitudes towards John Kerry. The fact that we failed doesn't mean that the politics of unity against the right is a failing strategy.

Unfortunately, that political maturation of the far left seems to be in remission, or maybe just short-lived, with them treating Hillary as badly as they treated both Gore (oh the irony of Al being their hero now), and Kerry. And that's just unacceptable to me.

So now I'm reminding everyone - who exactly shoved us all into this fascist hellhole. No one on the left should ever forget the political treachery of the DHLs, no matter how indignant or how much in denial they get when it is brought up. Their past and recurring behavior against the mainstream left, and its consequences, needs to be regurgitated and understood by everyone on the left, because the mainstream left sadly needs to move right based on the far-left's repeated unreliability and even betrayals.

I know, it's not a fun consideration. But it is one with, quite literally, deadly consequences and worse.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

68. I do blame the Supremes which is why I'm voting Dem.

If you remember, the judges appointed by Dems voted to keep counting the ballots.

[TahitiNut]

38. The Hate-Nader Virus is like syphilis ...

... it eventually rots the brain. :shrug:

[Tactical Progressive]

39. But at least it doesn't turn the country over to monsters.

Which is important to some people.

[TahitiNut]

47. Actually, it does and it has.

Can't fight the monsters? Scream at the mice. Yeah. That works. :eyes:

[Tactical Progressive]

53. No, Dem-Hating-Leftists are what put us here

You can practice as much avoidance as you want Tahiti, but it doesn't change what happened in 2000, and I'm not talking about just the Florida Nader voters, though numerically that is undeniable. It was more though; it was the whole arrogant, dishonest DHL movement that set the stage.

I don't recall you being in that camp Tahiti, but those who were are for the most part far too arrogant and dishonest to ever accept what they did or be chastened by it.

And I don't see that it has changed much if at all.

OH, and you're more than wrong about the screaming too. It is the mice that have been screaming incessantly since their handiwork almost immediately started affecting us all. And are still screaming their ugly dishonesty every day here on DU.

I don't know why you'd want to defend them Tahiti, but to each his own.

[TahitiNut]

54. Sheer nonsense.

Just WHERE were the Florida Democrats when blacks were being disenfranchised? When the "Butterfly Ballot" was approved?

Where were the millions of Gore voters needed in the streets of D.C. when SCOTUS issued the most reprehensible ruling in its history since Dred Scott?

Try EARNING the vote. Try doing the job. Pink tutu's don't give folks a lot of confidence.

[Tactical Progressive]

69. Oh, I forgot. It's everybody else's fault

but the people who made a nationwide crusade of slandering Al Gore and Democrats with total not-a-dime's-worth-of-difference dishonesty. If anybody else made a campaign mistake then massive DHL backstabbing is OK?

Sorry, it's not OK.

Unfortunately O'Sandra Day Connor and her terrorist cell in the cave in Washington DC would never have had the opportunity to violate America without the Democrat-Hating-Leftist liars setting the table.

I guess that part is a little inconvenient for you, huh?

[TahitiNut]

70. No, blame-shifting seems to be your specialty I voted for Gore and did GOTV.

And the people "who made a nationwide crusade of slandering Al Gore and Democrats" are the Republicans. The Democrats, seeking to "go along to get along" have been doing their best to look like 'GOP-lite' though. After all, it's hard work being called names and shifting the blame. Poor babies!

Forgotten the "Gang of Fourteen"?? There's a collection of indistinguishables for ya. :eyes:

So, here's a question: Just how low does the standard have to get before the Democrats can exceed it? Without putting in much effort, of course. After all, can't give them "lefties" a real resons to support the Democrat, right? I sure hope Dubya is a low enough standard ... it's hard to imagine a much lower one. I guess that makes me question the whiz dumb of trying to be a "little bit like him." Strange.

[Tactical Progressive]

74. It's great that you voted for Gore

But it doesn't clear the slate of what the DHLs did to Democrats and this country in 2000. Not numerically in Florida nor across the broader electorate across the country.


To your question, I really don't know, but to my mind at this point there is just about no low that the Democrats can exceed to get political power, considering the forces arrayed against them:

a thoroughly corrupt corporate media, expert at promoting every angle of right-wing ideology,
a nasty, ugly, deeply dishonest right-wing electorate,
a lying, cheating, right-wing-political electoral cheat-machine,

and a backstabbing Dem-Hating-Leftist contingent that pushed Dems down just far enough to let those monsters over the wire to maul us all.


Job One is dealing with the treachery close to home: the backstabbing Democrat-Hating-Leftists. The more they rant and scream, the farther right we'll go. We'll call it "Centrist" and point to DHLs with horror - "We're not them!" That way at least they'll be contributing something productive to the debate.

[motocicleta]

81. You seriously need some help.

This will be my only missive on this topic, and therefore likely my only directed at you.

To hold on to the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party talking crap about Gore in 2000 as the reason * has destroyed our country verges on stalker wackjob territory. It is so out of line as to be laughable, as long as the person holding it doesn't also own a gun. Please tell me you don't own a gun.

I am not joking. You are so wrong it is not sane. Liberal Democrats have a right to their opinions; they are not treacherous, they are a part of the voting public. And generally a part that gets screwn by election fraud. Please, for your own sake, let this go.

[TahitiNut]

83. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[motocicleta]

91. Whoa.

Somebody needs a little fresh air.

:freak:

[Tactical Progressive]

84. Politics has real consequences

The fact that you don't see this now, after all that has been lost over the past seven years, speaks very poorly as to your connection with reality.

The Democrat-Haters on the Left most certainly did split off in a nasty and dishonest way from the Democratic party in the election cycle of 2000, and thereby did most assuredly hand this country over to a very ugly right-wing for eight years.

To believe anything else is to deny reality. You should look in the mirror if you want to question anyone's sanity.

Liberal Democrats have a right to their opinions of course. And everyone else has a right to their opinions as well. Like the opinion that DHLs betrayed not only Democrats but all the citizens in this country, and across the globe, in exercising their opinions in such a dishonest way back in 2000. And as well that their exercise of those opinions cost more than can ever be gotten back in lives and honor.

You don't like that your treachery has cost all of us so much. You can't face it. I understand. I'd suggest living in your little fantasy world where you're the good guy and people who realize what you've done are wrong and insane. That's probably what I'd do if I had helped this group of right-wingers gain power.

[motocicleta]

90. Who said anything about my treachery?

This is exactly the disconnect of which I speak. What did I do? I hated Bush and voted for Gore. Since when did I become a "DHL"? You're victimizing Democrats with this lunacy.

Since I do sometimes enjoy kicking people when they are down, perhaps you could try and explain this phrase: "... in exercising their opinions in such a dishonest way back in 2000." And this one: "The Democrat-Haters on the Left most certainly did split off in a nasty and dishonest way from the Democratic party in the election cycle of 2000". These are clearly the premise, or two, that you are relying upon yet not demonstrating in any substantive fashion for your attacks on Democrats. Maybe you should get one more chance to explain your logic in a coherent manner before you go on Ignore.

[Tactical Progressive]

108. I simply assumed since you took such offense

to my berating DHLs, that you are one. Sorry if you're not, but that then just takes your presumed reason for posting an ad-hominem attack on me away, and makes that post, and you, all the more offensive.

What the DHLs did to the Democrats in 2000, and through that to the country and the world, doesn't need any 'substantiation' by me. It's well known and accepted here by everybody but that strain of anti-Democratic Party subversives that did it.

And lastly, you attacked me first, and pretty offensively, not the other way around. So where do you get off acting like this and expecting some kind of apology? That's just over-the-top obnoxious. You are on ignore now - my only one.

[motocicleta]

127. A. it was neither ad hominem nor an attack.

You truly sound unhinged. I figure if you can't tell someone they need help over the internet, when can you? I truly want you to get help. No attack.

B. You did not answer my question regarding dishonesty. If you want to believe in democracy, and I do, I do not see how you can hold a small group of people honestly expressing their opinions through voting responsible for something in which many more people also took part. I have no idea what you mean by dishonesty, nor do I particularly care, but it matters that you are either too cowardly to respond or too disconnected to be able to explain.

C. I did not ask for an apology. I do not need an apology from someone so out of bounds wacky.

D. Why are you so illogical and unhinged? It is well known that some small percentage of votes were taken from Gore because Nader was in the race. It is not well known that because those few percentage points of voters existed, no one else is responsible for Bush. In fact, not only is it not well known, it is highly irrational and stupid. Whatever happened to the MSM, Congress, SCOTUS, and populace? You want to blame all evil on 3% of the voting electorate? The mind boggles.
So when I ask for you to explain your rationale, you cannot lean back on the small percentage of Nader-haters who share your views. Because you share opinions with a miniscule group of people does not make you rational. I seriously doubt "everybody but that strain of anti-Democratic Party subversives that did it" agrees that we can blame all Bush's evil on those Nader voters, even while we all regret that those voters did what they did.

Tactical

Progressive

appears

to

be

neither.

And I am shocked that I am the only one on your ignore list, but I wear it as a badge of honor. You are one of the most hate-filled and least intelligent people I have had the displeasure to interact with here at DU. I did want you to find help; now I do not care.

[bvar22]

78. Let me explain it for you, TahitiNut

The reason we are at War in Iraq is that too many people voted for the Anti-War Candidate.
If more of us voted for Pro-WAR politicians, then the WAR would disappear. Its like MAGIC.

So, if you want to END the Iraq Occupation, you MUST vote FOR the most conservative Democratic Candidate who has promised to keep the WAR/Occupation going indefinitely. If you don't vote FOR the ProWar candidate, then the WAR will be all your fault.

If you insist on keeping the WAR going by supporting PEACE candidates, then the Democratic Party will have to "deal with you" (whatever he meant by that.)

Understand yet?
Didn't think so.

Let me send you some hypno tapes.
If you play them everynight for a year, everything should clear up.
Think how much better you will feel once you let go of values, self-determination, & reason.
The brain just shuts off, and you drift away just thinking what they tell you to think.

In NO time at all, you will be shuffling peacefully through the streets mumbling repetitively,
"To END the War, vote FOR the Warmonger...
to END the WAR, vote FOR the Warmonger...
to End the War, vote FOR the Warmonger..."

Are you concerned that voting FOR Warmongers and Corporate Profiteers will keep you awake at night?
Stop worrying!
You won't have to sleep at night, because once this program kicks in,
you never really Wake Up!!!



Cue the Music:
Now SING!:

Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.

Feel Better?

[TahitiNut]

80. (lol!) We're singing from the same songsheet, I see.

We're fucking for chastity again. :rofl: Or are we GETTING fucked for chastity?

[LWolf]

135. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[robinlynne]

56. Yopu missed history. It is all available for you to read about and see the videos on the net.

There are films and more films about the 2000 election.

[iaviate1]

109. A vote for somebody like HRC is a loss for progressives.

If you support the rightward shift of the Dem party, you have to realize you're going to leave moderates and liberals behind. Personally I'd love to vote for a Dem, but I think we need to return to our values and put forth a candidate who is actual electable. If you don't think HRC is electable because of the DHL's, take some of your own advice and don't vote for her because if you do, your vote may be helping elect a Repuke. Not my logic - yours.

[Tactical Progressive]

113. I do think Hillary Clinton is more electable than anyone

I'm not quite sure what you're saying...

I do think Hillary is progressive, probably more than most on DU.
I'm very far left and she's not leaving me behind.
I don't think the DHLs will stop her, in fact will probably strengthen her.

But I do believe that she has to move to the right. That's just GE politics, but even moreso because of the unreliability at best, and subversiveness at worst, of the DHLs who are so very politically obtuse.

Sure, some recalcitrant liberals will be 'left behind', but it won't be long before they come back and think they have every right to dictate policy.

Again, here I'm not sure what you're saying about helping to elect Publicans, but in moving right she becomes MORE electable by dropping unreliable DHLs and picking up centrists, so my vote helps.


Somewhere in there should be a few answers to your questions.

[nvme]

115. Is it really the DHL's or is it us?

I can not honestly say "I did not do enough" during the past elections. I stood on the sidelines rooting for the home team. I voted. and bush won. On 9/10/01 i was still stinging from the devastating loss and only took solace in the fact that, the change of power (however fraudulent happened without bloodshed). I didn't know about PNAC. I really didnt care I was trying to piece my life together. I didn't send money, Write congressmen, protest, phone bank about the injustice of the election. I just lived my life. On 9/11 we all collective were stunned. I was outraged shocked and dismayed. yet i continued my life. when we invaded Afghan I uneasily supported. I thought it must be done. I continued on and changed my jobs. In 03 I was anxious about our troops going in while Blix was screaming for more time. my big brother died of AIDS, My Mom Died 6 weeks later. During that time the war raged baghdad was looted. election 04 came and went and it more of the same. my life was in tailspin

The point is rather than just assigning blame to this group or that group, assume some responibility and do something! Don't just live numbed by lifes events.

with 300 million people in this country, evenone has their own opinion about how things should be why not take an extra step stand up and be counted

[Tactical Progressive]

131. I'm so sorry

about all of the hardship you've had to deal with over the past few years, nvme. Personal tragedies have a thousand times the depth and resonance of anything political that could ever happen. Politics only has affects you when you choose to let it, unlike personal loss. I couldn't even blame you if you voted for Bush in 2004.

You didn't do anything to hand this country over to the right-wing in 2000, nvme. You didn't run an entire campaign lying and slandering Democrats from their side of the political spectrum. Dem-Hating-Leftists did that, dishonestly and purposefully, and cost this country dearly. And they most obviously have never shown the integrity to even admit it to themselves, nor stop from continuing their behind-the-lines behavior in succeeding election cycles.

None of that applies to you. I hope the next election cycle, barely a year away, will bring you, and all of us, some relief from at least the oppressive dysfunction of the outside world. Nothing can ever make personal loss better, but maybe a Progressive woman as President will provide a better background for all our lives.

Thanks for sharing, too. Politics is intense from the inside and it's easy to lose perspective on the real world.

[kenfrequed]

116. Intellectual dishonesty on display

Oh you mean like candidates that so-called "DHL's" would support? Like Wellstone who was against both Iraq wars?

Actually if you look at the hard core anti-corporate candidates that some of us that you have accused of being Dem-hating. Most of the more serious lefties voted agaisnt war powers for Bush. It was all your useless DLC spineless cowards that were cowed universally by Bush and his phoney war.

One more thing. You can say DHL all day long. It will change the fact that the DLC and their pro-corportate, pro-free trade, pro-war, poor kicking, rollover, consilatory, non-impeaching, non-fillibusting, whining, liberal hating ways will and have destroyed the democratic party worse than a bunch of liberal idealists that believe in actually being democrats.

[Tactical Progressive]

132. Wow,

so you don't understand anything about politics at all?

[lateo]

129. I have 2 words for you.

Joe
Lieberman

[Tactical Progressive]

133. Well, Joe Lieberman

is an asshole, in my somewhat considered opinion.

You do understand that Joe Lieberman wouldn't be supporting an Iraq War, if there wasn't an Iraq War?

When DHLs handed full power over this government to the right-wing in 2000, they gifted us all with a Mid-East invasion. Joe would never have had a chance to be a bigger asshole than he already was without their actions. He'd have been voting on Democratic initiatives.

So, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank DHLs for yet another gift they have given us all: an even bigger asshole-Joe than we already had.

DHL treachery: a gift of so very many dimensions.

[CreekDog]

12. She's not 35, she can't be elected

Still, I would trust a faithful dog more than the current president.

[LWolf]

21. By the time my late primary rolls around next spring,

she'll be 35-37 in "dog years," at least according to this scale:

http://www.pgaa.com/canine/general/dogsage.html

Does that count?

[jgraz]

77. Hey, she's 35 in dog years

I think that would stand up in court.

[Ress1]

13. Nothing personal, but I don't like democrats like you.

Always using their vote as a threat to pull away and not participate in the goal of defeating Republicans. It's contrary Democrats like your kind who put the idiot in the WH and ultimately losing over 3500 soldiers in Iraq and God knows how many wounded. They need to get off their high horses and re-think their positions and realize how damaging their fickleness can be. They're either with us or not, it's infuriating to constantly watch the childish games of so many posting why they're not going to vote for the nominee because of this or that. I don't agree with everything the Democrats are doing, but I sure won't let my personal dislike let it help elect a Republican. (Sigh) It gets so old.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. "the goal of defeating Republicans"

That isn't actually the goal. It might be a tactic toward the goal, but it isn't the goal. That you think defeating Republicans is the goal indicates that your view of politics is basically that it is a sports contest. I don't blame you for that, the bullshit media system has done its best to make sure that many people are equally deluded, and certainly the duopolistic bipartisan corporate kleptocracy and war party offers little in the way of real and substantial choices, so as long as they remain in control of both institutionalized political parties, it might as well be a team sport.

[jgraz]

22. This post should be its own thread.

Excellent point and well-stated. Please consider making a standalone post on this.

[LWolf]

25. My dog is smiling at you, Warren Stupidity.

Ever seen the patented Aussie smile?

Disclaimer: This isn't mine, it's the first aussie smile shot I found; there is a definite family resemblance, though:

[liberaldemocrat7]

31. The people who believe in public private partnership between govt. and corporations

do not belong in my Democratic Party.

I want Medicare Part D repealed and replaced and I don't want Medicare Part D replicated in other areas of social programs.



I don't see a public private partnership between the police and criminals.

[Totally Committed]

40. Whoa! Great post!

Right on, my friend! :applause:

TC

[bonito]

41. I agree with the previous poster

Your post should be an op.

[bahrbearian]

18. Newt Gingrich is that you?

Party lines ... My way or the highway. When it comes to War ,I'll take the High Ground.

[Gregorian]

20. I'm glad both you and the original poster posted your thoughts.

I'm right in the middle of all of this. I'm furious that Americans aren't all in line with Kucinich, one of the finest people to come to the presidential lineup in decades. Maybe ever. I think all of our candidates are good enough. But I also cannot fathom how these clowns just gave away our Constitution by letting Bush invade a country. And even I knew Saddam wasn't an imminent threat.

But, we're also at war, as a party. The Republicans are demons. We simply don't have the luxury of voting our hearts. They've worked hard to erode this democracy. And to let them take us down any further would be a disaster.

I think we fear that if we end up with someone like Hillary, we are not advancing the Democratic cause, but just going right down the middle, between evil and Democratic. It's not the middle of the road. It's yielding to the devil.

But I think you're right. The alternative to working as a team is much worse than not getting Kucinich for a president. It's getting Giuliani.

But here is one tiny reason why I tend to agree with the original post- We are where we are today, in American politics, because Americans didn't care enough to think and vote. Bush, a second term!? That was simply insane. Yes it was stolen. But to be even close enough to steal was a disgrace to the world. A testament to our idiocy. So maybe America needs ten Giuliani's. Maybe then they'd realize what they're missing. But that sucks. That hurts everyone.

Well. That's my silly thinking. Not much, in a lot of words.

[sellitman]

122. America needs 10 Giuliani's? WTF?

We just went through 8 years of that.

Have you been in a closet?

I too support Kucinich, but I'd take Hillary and day to Giuliani or worse.

[Gregorian]

124. I'm really speaking about the Republicans when I say that.

I mean that maybe things need to get bad enough that even the right wing authoritarians reevaluate themselves. I'm afraid we'd all be dead by then. So ignore my Guiliani statement. It's cruel to those of us who need change NOW.

But I am so distraught by the polls. After these last 8 years, everyone should be hoisting Dennis Kucinich high over their shoulders. And maybe they are, but the polls are inaccurate.

[LWolf]

24. Nothing personal,

but "your kind" are giving people a bad name.

You know, judging others without evidence. Spouting propaganda as if it's fact. Generally driving potential allies away with bad choices, bad attitude, and bad propaganda. Acting like a street gang.

Playing the blame game, instead of taking responsibility for acknowledging and addressing inner corruption. Always finding a way to blame those who disagree with them for their own failures.

Giving the party a bad name, too, equating it with a street gang.

You know, the people who are pissed because my horse is higher than theirs; she only stands 15.2, but height isn't everything. Her standards stand higher than she does. I wasn't suggesting that she be the nominee, though. She also follows the dog's lead. Literally.

Good thing I can get by ok whether or not you like "my kind" of democrat.

[MadHound]

27. Is that really your goal? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your goal

This isn't a horse race, this is real life, and the goal of any democratic government is to represent the people's collective wishes and desires, provide for the common defense, insure a prosperous society that provides for everybody, to guarantee civil rights and liberties, and enable the common good of all.

This can be accomplished by Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Martians, or many other political parties. In fact we've had parties fail in this country because they failed in above said goals. Therefore, having a party going the way of the Whigs can actually be seen as a good thing, since we're shedding a party that is failing in fulfilling these goals.

If you want a horse race, go to the track. This is our government, and frankly I will support any party who will help enable those goals mentioned above. Right now, both the Dems and 'Pugs are failing miserably, so perhaps a change is indeed in order.

[TahitiNut]

49. "Centrists" have been doing that for decades.

Dixiecrats, Southern Democrats, Reagan Democrats, populists, "Third Way" devotees ... absolutely every time. :shrug:

Some of us "elders" have seen it far too often to be fooled by the DLC rhetoric. Same ol' same ol'. Always smearing the liberals and "New Deal" Democrats. Always.

[Breeze54]

14. Very amusing!! Your dog would make a great candidate!

:rofl:

K&R'd

[bahrbearian]

17. You might do better with Rat Terrier's

That doggedly pursue Vermin


Mine do.

[LWolf]

32. I think they are more suited to head

the national guard or the local police force, myself. :D

Is there a "Department of Government Animal Control" to patrol and route infestations of disease bearing vermin?

[renie408]

60. NO! You need a GSD for the local police.

Have the rat terrier as head of the CIA. If only we could sic my rat terrier on Osama Bin Ladin, he would have been dug up a long time ago. She routinely digs moles out of the ground and brings me a vermin 'treat' at least once a week.

Wait...cats might be good for that, too...

[LWolf]

62. Great point!

The rat terrier is better for moles and bin ladin.

Cats will plant themselves outside the lair, waiting patiently for an appearance, but they don't dig them out.

Which is why, when the cat turns mice loose in the house, they often overstay their visit. They find places she can't get to, and it takes her awhile to catch them in the open.

[renie408]

64. Yeah, you're right. Cats are better at surveillance. n/t

[renie408]

59. We have a rat terrier!

She is our itty bitty. The rest are GSD's (plus two found-on-the-road mutts). She only weighs 16 pounds, but packs a shitload of dog into every ounce.

[bahrbearian]

61. I could tell you Stories,,,

[renie408]

63. We took ours as a kind of rescue about seven years ago.

I will never forget the first night she lived with us, we were laying in bed and all of a sudden she hopped up on the bed, came up near our heads and started burrowing under the covers til she was all the way at the foot of the bed. And that's the way she has slept every night for seven years. In the wintertime we like to keep the windows cracked and pile a ton of blankets on the bed. I always think she is going to suffocate under there, but that is how she likes it.

[bahrbearian]

She just wants to make sure your feet are warm.

[bahrbearian]

93. She just wants to make sure your feet are warm.

[jgraz]

23. Sorry, you're going to have to get past my parrot in the primary

Now doesn't he look presidential? Plus he already speaks better than the current occupant of the White House.

[LWolf]

28. Yes, but

THIS looks and sounds more presidential than the current occupant:



He looks like a perfect press secretary, to me. :D

Does he have any pirate skeletons in his closet?

[jgraz]

30. No pirates. But he is "close friends" with another male.

This handsome dude



Do you think America's ready for a same-sex couple in the White House?

[LWolf]

43. Some of America is.

That handsome boy is certainly preferable to "pickles!"


The dog is pretty fond of the cat. They'd be a same-sex female couple, but they wouldn't make a good first couple. I don't trust the cat. She turns her prey loose in the house, to keep it around for future amusement. She'd use the government for catty purposes.

Better to stick with the first single female, than to team her up with the cat.

[bonito]

42. K&R

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. ok then. hopefully there arent too many of you because i am tired of republicans winning

[LWolf]

48. They win in any case, when those I mentioned are elected.

those

who support the war in Iraq in any way,

who support the Bush administration agenda in anyway,

who support the PNAC in any way,

who support the DLC "third way" in any form.

Those are all republican ideals.

THAT's why I'd rather vote for my dog, who won't tolerate anyone raiding the henhouse OR the constitution.

[smokey nj]

76. How does she feel about cats?

So far I like what I see, but her stand on cats could be a deal breaker.

[Lucinda]

85. Yup. I agree.

I've seen the cartoons....I dont want a poser.
She MUST be pro-cat. Or I may not vote at all.
And names are important. "Sweetie-poo" would be a deal breaker.
Hmmmm.....I wonder if she's yellow?

[LWolf]

104. She's a blue merle, and she loves her cat.

She's named after a storm, and her cat is named after a tree.

She has one blue eye and one brown eye. Multi-colored, so to speak.

[Lucinda]

114. Sounds like a winner to me.

You won me over with her pro-cat status and clinched my vote at naming her after a storm. I was born during a tornado and I am heavily pro-storm. :thumbsup:

BTW - Her multi-colored-ness is also a big plus! I met a cat messiah once who was a calico with bi-colored eyes.

[LWolf]

89. She likes cats.

She also has a healthy respect for them, having been born and raised around adult cats.

She and my cat are an interesting pair. The dog is jealous of the fact that the cat is allowed on the bed and in my lap, but she accepts it. The dog speaks to the cat a few times a day with a nudge and a few licks; as long as she stays respectful, the cat tolerates it. If she gets a little over-exuberant, the cat will put one leg and paw on the dog's nose, claws still retracted, and the dog will sit and be still.

The cat will also approach the dog, usually outside, and rub her body along the dog's jaw and chin. In the house, they tend to be together, with the cat hanging out on a chair, table, dresser, looking down on the dog on the floor. A limited, but successful, partnership.

[ileus]

92. Sounds like a nanny state to me....LOL

[LWolf]

94. Hey, let's not bring the goats into this! n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

95. what my friend had to say about a post that was going around at another site....

and i must say that i agree with her.


Hi Cyn,
I read the following bulletin that a friend of mine posted and I so want to repost it and put my comments on it in but I don't want to hurt her feelings...I know that is crazy in a political environment...the truth should out no matter what...but I feel that her feelings are more important than my miniscule ripping of Obama.

Just look at this thing though...sent out by Barack Obama supporters as though it is so worthy and vital. When I read it and compared it with the forthright and detailed manner of Kucinich and with the precise and detailed political statements he makes I just really wonder what the hell people see in Obama. He seems like a nice guy...handsome and also mild mannered and intelligent but I see NO substance whatsoever and I see the stripes of a decidedly political animal who carefully>/i> says nothing.

Here's the bulletin: First we learn he is a snappy dresser and chooses venues well. We learn he will be serious but not what he will be serious about or which direction his seriousness will lead. We learn he can turn a phrase and ride a coat-tail without really saying anything. We learn that he has his finger on the pulse of the American people and knows that we "want something new"...when actually what we want is something old like our civil rights and peace and not in 2013 but now. We learn that Obama recognizes that a variety of people are interested in politics...brilliant. We learn that his taste in music is colored by how "effective" it is and harkens back to Reagan playing the Boss in New Jersey and while Obama may genuinely enjoy Kanye West's music, his use of it still feels like manipulation to me. Don't schmooze me, don't set me up with an "atmosphere"...talk to me and please Barak, say something!

We learn he "touches" on important subjects but "avoids" saying anything yet again. He's too politically "careful" to ever be my president...we need to call a spade a spade at this juncture of our nation's demise.

He says he was an early opponent of the war in Iraq but he doesn't say he'll let it continue till 2013 or that he has voted to supply funding it. He trots out the humaitarian aid and diplomacy cards as though they are solutions in and of themselves when all the while he supports continuation of the war which daily makes the need for humanitarian aid and diplomacy grow and the growing need we create far outstrips the ability to repair the damages.

He talks about the Constitution but again it's more catch-phrases and no subtance. He tells the audience what they are tired of but he doesn't say what he is tired of or what he will do to fix it.

He tries to say he is one of us because he was worried about his mother and how well the insurance would do its job in helping her when she was dying. At least they HAD insurance!He doesn't say what he will do to take our mothers' lives out of the hands of greedy and ruthless insurance companies. He presumes to relate to us, whose health is destroyed by the system he terms as "broken". He says he knows what it's like but he doesn't seem to realize that he doesn't know what it's like at all. He thinks the system is broken and needs a bit of fixing when in reality the system doesn't work at all and needs to be replaced with universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare so that NOBODY's mother has to worry on top of being ill, so that no one in America has to suffer or die an early death simply from lack. Once again he still doesn't say what he will do but he works the angles and tries to sway us without investing his intellectual views, his beliefs, or his strategy for change.

This article makes me sick because it is such a glaring example of politics as usual and at its core it shows a fundamental contempt for the American people. It shows manipulative political manuevering but shows no substance. It shows that like most of the other Democratic candidates he does not trust the People so he has to do what the Republicans all do, he has to create a smoke and mirrors show to keep us from knowing the truth...he doesn't want to rock the boat, doesn't want to change the paradigm, doesn't really relate to us very well at all and most importantly doesn't believe in us enough to think we will know the difference.

I know several good-hearted people who support Barak Obama and who say Kucinich can't get the nomination and the reason they say this seems to be fear. They are so used to being fed pablum that when they hear someone come out with substantive statements for change like those that Kucinich makes they get a little unnerved and they retreat to the soft-sell comforts of the likes of Obama and Edwards or the outright lies of Clinton. They prefer to be served by wolves wrapped tightly in the familiar sheep's clothing.

So there,
Thanks for listening, Cyn. I needed to get that off my chest. Maybe I should blog it...I don't want to hurt _________'s feelings. What do you think? Honestly.

Love,
_________


it was in reponse to this bulletin:

Obama Draws Thousands to NYC Park

By MARCUS FRANKLIN
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 27, 2007; 10:37 PM

NEW YORK -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told thousands at a rally Thursday that he would bring serious change to Washington if elected.

The Illinois senator, speaking in front of the landmark arch in Washington Square Park in lower Manhattan's Greenwich Village, said that to truly effect change partisan politics must be stopped and the people must have access once again to the federal government.

"We are sick and tired of being sick and tired. We want something new. We want some change," he said, quoting the late voting and civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer. The phrase is one he uses often on the campaign trail.

Obama, wearing dark blue slacks and a light-blue dress shirt with an open collar and rolled-up sleeves, came on stage to Kanye West's inspirational song "Touch the Sky," as thousands, including many college students, crammed into the park near New York University.

He discussed the war in Iraq and health care, but avoided direct criticism of any of his opponents in the presidential race.

He also commented on the diversity of the crowd before him.

"You've got young people and old people," he said. "You've got poor folk and not-so-poor folk. You've got blacks, whites, Asians, Native Americans. You've got gay and straight. You've got people with disabilities. You've got Democrats and independents, and, yes, you've even got some Republicans."

He received thunderous applause when he said many came to the nighttime rally because they are fed up with the Constitution being treated as a "nuisance" instead as of the foundation of the country, and with a war "that never should've been authorized and has cost us thousands of lives."

Obama reminded his audience that he was an early opponent of the Iraq war, and that he would step up diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

He also said he would help the millions of people who do not have health insurance, and talked about watching his mother die from cancer at age 53 while worrying about whether the insurance company would pay the bills.

"I know what it's like to watch a loved one suffer not just from illness but from a broken health care system," Obama said.


Read this Article at WashingtonPost.com

[LWolf]

98. I also agree with her.

What she said resonated very clearly with me. For what it's worth, I think she should blog it. She says, in a gentle way, what frustrates so many of us about the way people choose their candidates.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jpgray]

97. In that case, you are apathetic on human rights, the environment, corporate regulation and poverty

You don't care about the judicial branch, you don't care about the cabinet heads, including Interior, Labor, etc. You don't care about veto power, you don't care about the differences between a GOP and a Democratic commander in chief. In other words, you're so big picture that you have argued yourself away from being able to take any action that has any impact whatsoever. When you argue yourself to the point you can't support anyone who can win, you have zero control over any actual policy, and can only find comfort in words that can't be backed with any substantive action.

Congrats!

[LWolf]

101. Refusing to vote for corruption is not apathetic.

Apathy is the condition of those who know their vote is going to someone who isn't really worthy of it, but give them the vote anyway because "there's no other choice," or "they are the lesser of two evils." Refusing to vote for "evil," refusing to toe the line, is not apathy, but resistance.

If the only way to support someone who can win is to support corruption,
then the vote means nothing anyway. There is no gain in furthering corruption.

The point, for me, is to vote people who support any one of the 4 positions I mentioned OUT of office, not INTO office:

any human being who supports the war in Iraq in any way,

who supports the Bush administration agenda in anyway,

who supports the PNAC in any way,

who supports the DLC "third way" in any form.

[jpgray]

102. But you remove yourself from having any actual impact on policy

Because only the person whose ass is in the chair decides on policy. IRV or public financing would fix that, but we have neither of these. The time to weed out the assholes is before November 4th. November 4th is the time to do everything possible to make sure the worst asshole loses.

[LWolf]

105. How about both?

There actually ARE democrats who do not support any of the previously mentioned 4. The obvious thing to do is to vote for them.

The apathy, from my perspective, is from those who know that there are better choices out there, but won't vote or campaign for them. Those that concede the field to the assholes before the battle even begins.

IRV and public financing would be a great start. There's at least one candidate on the current list who supports both. If we recognize that there are concrete solutions to the current corruption, and that a candidate who is willing to enact those solutions is on the ballot,

why wouldn't Democrats support that candidate? Is it that inner party dis-ease is not on their list of priorities?

[lonestarnot]

103. Apathy is doing the fuck nothing approach, just as you are advocating.

[LWolf]

106. No, apathy is the

"we can't change anything, there's nothing we can do about it, so vote for the status quo, so that our side of the status quo wins," approach.

You know; the group that cares more about saying they "won" than actually achieving anything.

The voters who will not stand up, who will not refuse to enable the corruption, who will not hold their candidates accountable. The voters who would rather hide their heads in the sand and guess that if the person who "wins" has a D after their name, then of course everything will be just fine, because of course that "D" couldn't possibly care more about their political career and pleasing their campaign funders than about protecting and defending the constitution, or serving their constituents.

THAT'S APATHY.

[lonestarnot]

126. Apathy:

1. The absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. The lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.

3. Leads to do nothing.

[LWolf]

134. Yes.

The absence or suppression of anger over the corruption rampant in politics and government, the absence of shame for the corruption that exists inside one's own part, the passionate determination to put and end to said corruption by supporting politicians who aren't already bought, and the excitement over finding and working for those who can be trusted to clean the mess up.

The lack of interest in or concern for the direction of the Democratic Party, that other Democrats find to be the crucial issue of the day.

Leads to do nothing to change the problems: to going along with the agenda laid out by those in power who are pulling the strings.

Apathy.

Accusing those who object, who examine and hold their own party accountable, who resist being directed by a corrupt political process, of apathy is a really poor "attack." It can be spun both ways.

It might be more honest, and more accurate, to simply say,

"I don't care WHAT Democrats do once they're in office, as long as they beat the Republicans in the election," and "I can deal with hypocrisy and corruption from my government as long as it comes from a Democrat."

[JeanGrey]

100. She's got my vote.

[cyclezealot]

119. as much as I despise Hillary's triangulation

and don't trust her, in the end , I'd vote for her because of the Supreme Court and Democratic control of the Justice Department. Pretty punny reasons for much excitement , but vital. Even tho she'd continue to tolerate our overseas job drain, she has a positive labor vote record according to COPE. Go figure.

[UTUSN]

130. So you support ANY Rethug!!1 That's YOU!!1 n/t

[LWolf]

136. Oh, sweetie.

Don't think too hard, it's swelling your brain. Here's an icepack:



Those whose brains are limited to linear, polarized choices: black/white, either/or, them/us, do damage to themselves when they try to grapple with a 3dimensional, multi-political world. To reassure you, though, I can promise you that you don't have to support any particular democrat to withhold support from all republicans.

[UTUSN]

137. "linear, polarized choices: black/white, either/or, them/us, " Talking about your o.p.?!1 n/t

[LWolf]

138. Then you not only don't know how to punctuate,

you don't understand the meaning of "linear" or "polarized."

[upi402]

139. namecheck request

I'm looking if Kucinich is ousted.