The best trick the GOP ever pulled: getting leftists to blame the Democrats for bad GOP policies

[jpgray]

The genius of this lie, as in most GOP PR endeavors, is its pleasing resemblance to the truth. And, of course, the tantalizing simplicity of exclusive, black-or-white thinking created by that lie is intoxicating. People don't like to think in grey areas, they prefer right or wrong, they label heroes and villains. Defining a group based on extreme behavior from a minority is hardly progressive, but it's too tempting to resist. Thus, with a few helpful marketing pushes, people are easily manipulated. Leftists are easily tricked into blaming bad policies on the party who opposed them most. How does this happen?

A minority of conservative/hawkish Democrats exists, and they enable the worst GOP policies. This is the ugly truth from which the GOP creates their productive lie. Focus on that problem is necessary, but at some point this focus has obliterated another operant truth: the core of any serious opposition to the worst GOP policies -always- comes from the Democrats. Who were the twenty-three senators opposed to IWR? Who pushed the investigation of Blackwater? Which party was most represented in opposition to the Lieberman/Kyl amendment? In nearly every case you can imagine, wherever a significant group of legislators opposes fascist policy, the majority of congresspeople defending our values will be Democrats. The majority of those consistently trying to -destroy- our values will always be Republicans.

So when exactly did we decide that a minority of ambitious, enabling cowards defined the entire party? How did the worst people in the party come to represent "Democratic" while a similar number of solid progressives in the party are ignored, or viewed as an aberration? And who benefits? Who has something to gain from having a small group of truly craven, spineless, unethical Democrats define the only party with a considerable number of true progressives?

I shouldn't need to answer that question. Republicans know the value of splitting the progressive vote well--witness their gleeful funding of Nader's campaigns.

So when you're yelling "Fuck the Democrats--they are nothing more than fascist-enablers and I can't vote for such a party," ask yourself to think specifically instead of generally. Is Al Gore a fascist enabler? Is Russ Feingold? Is Dennis Kucinich? Is John Conyers or Henry Waxman? Were the twenty-three senators opposed to the IWR fascist enablers? Were the nineteen opposed to Lieberman/Kyl fascist enablers? If no, you have to admit a significant percentage of the Democrats is -not- to be blamed for GOP bad policies, and in fact the Democrats can be credited with mounting the -only- significant opposition to those policies.

So again, who benefits when the only party that represents consistent opposition to the GOP gets blamed for their horrible policies? And why are leftists so eager to engage in broad-brush blaming of the entire party? Why make an uglier lie out of an already ugly truth?

[NanceGreggs]

1. Right on ...

:kick: & REC'D!

[Kagemusha]

2. Because leftists don't want to just shut up until Nov 2008 and take it.

They want to do something about it, that's why they're leftists, and they thought the Democrats were allies in that.

Oh, guess not. So sorry.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. I blame the Democrats who vote with/enable the Republicans.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Amen! While our "opposition" party is far from perfect...

attempting to destroy it, not repair it, from within is a fool's errand.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. Succinctly stated and,...true.

:applause:

As much as I WISH we had like five or six or more parties, we have two. Undermining the one that CLEARLY comes closer to building democratic principles rather than the one that CLEARLY works against democratic principles is irrational, to say the least.

[Raster]

26. True according to you. That would be an "opinion."

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

27. Yup. It is true to me. That's truth enough. nt

[robinlynne]

73. Right now there is no opposition party. But I agree, we need to take back the dem party

so it can become one.

[OzarkDem]

84. The first step in "repairing" it

is to get it to stop acting like the GOP. Dems in Congress are voting with them on nearly all major legislation.

GOP and their ideas are under attack. If Dem leaders in Congress are dumb enough to stand so close to them, they're going to get attacked to.

Message to Dem leaders: Remember the old campaign tactic - run AWAY from your opponent instead of embracing his ideas. Especially when he has less than 20% approval rating.

[ProudDad]

103. I'm WAITING FOR opposition

to war and business as usual...

Still Waiting...


<Crickets>

[tritsofme]

5. Now that we control Congress, every piece of bad legislation the direct fault of the Dem Leadership

More specifically in the House where leadership can roughshod over the minority and there is basically nothing that can be done to stop them.

If the Majority Democrats don't like a bill, it never has to come to the floor.

The problem isn't the majority of good Democrats, or even the minority of hawkish Democrats, the blame lies solely with the leadership who has the ability to see that repugnant bills never see the light of day.

[Nite Owl]

22. That's the way I see it

also. The leadership is not leading. Even within the party there are things that can be done but they seem to refuse to do anything but give in to GOP votes.

[Raster]

23. Sshh!!! You're not supposed to bring that up... It interferes with the GO TEAM GO bullshit!

And by all means, don't mention responsibility or ethics or...for God's sake, honoring the wishes of constituents that elected you. And always remember posturing and positioning count more than human lives.

Wake up America!:kick:

[sniffa]

28. ....

:patriot:

[lateo]

112. Indeed.

How dare we "leftists" remind those DLC types that they are part of the problem. Sit down, shut up, and get with the program they say! Sorry, been there done that in 2004 and my ass still hurts from it. What is going on, right now, in the Democratic party started long ago in the Republican party. In the 70's the Republicans began to (arguably before then) abandon the principles of the party. A few really corrupt Republicans created an inner circle that just kept growing. Soon the party was just an shell of its former self, chock full of ideologues and criminals. I see the same thing happening in the Democratic party...remember it took decades for this transformation of the Republicans. But it is undeniable what is going on in the Democratic party. They have abandoned their principles and now only want to "win" elections. Well, if the same bunch of corporate enable clowns keep winning and aiding the Republicans it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you where that is headed.

[jpgray]

48. That's fair enough. Do you think the fractured nature of the party influences the leadership?

If 20% or so of Democrats are telling Pelosi/Reid to avoid confrontation, do you think that's the impetus? Or are Reid and Pelosi making those decisions more on their own, and thus party disunity doesn't really play into it?

[ProudDad]

104. It's the ones with large piles of CASH

that's the minority who are telling Pelosi/Reid to avoid confrontation...don't rock the boat...Just wait until '09...

We've heard that tune before, and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before and before...

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. So my team is right no matter what

and their team is evil no matter what

Got it

Let me go get me flag and face paint

GO TEAM

Unfrigging unbelievable!

When our leadership does something wrong, they begin to own politically what they didn't before

Here, a spine, if you find a way to put it into the backs of the leadership, and they start using all the tools in the quiver. Until then, well you know

GO TEAM...

Where is my face paint?

[sniffa]

8. quiet you

didn't you hear? the dems are fucking up because they're being threatened and bLackmaiLed. :scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. There is some truth to that

I've talked to a particular US Senator about this

But as I told him some years back and Pelosi in a letter

GO FUCKING PUBLIC, the best defense in this is offense

[Oak2004]

118. It's interesting to hear this

I've been applying what I knew of the Republican Party (I'm an ex- Republican, ex- CR in fact) and of legislative dynamics (learned by lobbying a state legislature) and coming to the conclusion that at least some key Democrats are being threatened or bribed. Threats, I have no doubt the GOP would use (the CRs teach anything goes, power-at-all-costs, and always tend your little garden of opposition research files). Bribes, I suspect, actually take the form of "vote one way we'll crush you, cooperate and we'll run weak candidates against you and you can be our token Democrat enjoying the percs of your office for as long as you live", which, I suppose, is a sugar-coated threat.

We live ina very scary country right now.

[mod mom]

32. I guess brown shirts are ok as long as their our brown shirts.

Those Dems who voted with the repugs to disapprove of the Moveon ad (did they even read it?) or

those Dems who voted for Freetrade despite it's ill effects on our middle class, or

those Dems who supported the bankruptsy bill because they needed to keep those banking lobbyists/donors happy, or

or even worse THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THE KYL/LIEBERMAN AMENDMENT-THAT MIGHT BE A IMPETUS FOR A WAR W IRAN, shouldn't be condemned but should be praised-just because they are Dems.


Sorry, but it should be principle over party. We all blast repuglicans for sticking with the party despite what it is doing to the country but if we dare question the actions of our Democratic leadership we're blasted. We need to put an end to the Democratic Money Party.

If anyone wants to criticize me for speaking our against the Hillarys and Rahms and others who I believe are destroying the party go ahead -flame away. I stood up to the repuglican bullies who stole our votes in Ohio when the same Hillarys and Rahms rolled over and played dead. I fully intend to fight what I believe is destroying the backbone of our party. I've been called a conspiracy theorist by the Chairman of our own Democratic county party for saying voting machines where mis-allocated in low income Af Am precincts. I fully intend to go on fighting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. But we have a better taste in tailor for the brown shirts

;-)

You are so right...

Oh wait, I am expected to get out the team flag, paint my skin up, and scream at the top of my lungs GO TEAM

Where do I go get fitted for a brown shirt?

And what is so funny is how some call the critiques of these folks loony lefties, or crazies.

[mod mom]

44. I came here as an activist to get the word out about a Fight for Democracy Rally

in OH after '04 (before that I was a luddite who rarely used a computer). I'm not willing to let the party go over the cliff. I truly believe that when this coup was planned out by the neocons, they planned infiltrating the Dem Party just like they did the DoJ, BOEs, and corporate media. Why wouldn't they? Just look how some members of the DLC signed on to PNAC. Was that coincidental? They assumed an ignorant public would side with either D or R so why not make sure both (read: all) bases are covered.

If some folks here want to support the party regardless of who is controlling it, good for them. I am fighting to educate folks of just who the DLC are and how their ties to PNAC, and to the corporate take over are HORRIBLE to the populace. They are trying to kill the middle class. Their policies are aimed with the war neocons. I want no part of it and REFUSE TO SUPPORT THEM.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Well said, the cancer is the DLC

and many of us get it.

But there are a few, or many, depending on the day of the week, that just don't

[mod mom]

64. Your posts, as well as Understanding Life's, Octafish, Seemslikeadream and others

played a major role in educating me.

I recommend to all who read these posts, not to trust what they read, but to DO THEIR COUNTRY A FAVOR, AND RESEARCH THE INFORMATION FOR THEMSELVES.

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner

A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

70. Strategy is still a matter of course.

To suggest allowing a GOP candidate win over a DLC candidate is, well, simply irrational considering where we are. It is irrational.

Now, suggesting we GET INTO the DLC and run an insider(s) is a different matter. Strategy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Given how much the DLC shares

wiht the Neocons, that is actually starting to become a false choice

They feed from the same teet, and I do not only mean the economic one, but also the ideological one

A neo liberal is a neo liberal, whether neocon or dlc

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

86. Can we be more specific than merely "DLC" because I have seen members,...

,...both former and present who do not exactly fit your characterization.

Specify all those who are "neo liberals". I think we have a handle on the members of the "neo cons". Let us, now, identify the "neo liberals" and their associations with the "neo cons".

Wouldn't that be a good thing to do?

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. It's been done before

but for example Joe biden did sign the PNAC documents.

There are others, you can even go and look it up yourself

Oh and many of these folks attended the Chicago School and studied both under friedman and strauss.

They are in some ways married at the hip

[mod mom]

92. I never suggested allowing a GOP candidate to win. I am suggested that GOP and DLC

are both disastrous to our nation and both should not be supported.

I intend on supporting the best Dem for the position. I believe we need to expose the DLC for who they really are and make this an issue orientated campaign instead of name recognition as pused by corporate media. It became very apparent last week when HRC appeared on all 5 networks while others were shunned all the while Bill, too was making very visible rounds. I am not going along with this annoitment.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

93. I'm sorry. I never intended to accuse you of that. You are NOT that.

Exposing the DLC is important but not to the point we simultaneously DESTROY the only party we have to advance democracy and ADVANCE the FASCIST CORPORACRATS DESTROYING ANYTHING IN THEIR WAY TO POWER.

I guess I am one of those fully in touch with my own capacity to be human, to err, to make mistakes. I am also capable of recognizing and distinguishing between innocent error and intentional evil.

I have accepted that those who attack me as some weak, purpose-less liberal are those who INTEND EVIL, whether recklessly or otherwise.

[mod mom]

45. Oops...dupe.

[Union Thug]

53. Spot on. It's a difficult issue to addresss...

...because pragmatically, the Democrats are the only de facto political choice we've got.

But as the influential Democratic leadership continues to abandon progressive ideas for corporatist ones, and progressive ideas are represented only symbolically in the fiery but ultimately futile efforts of those like Kucinich, it's becoming increasingly clear that that our ideas are unlikely find real political expression. Our ideas have become relegated to the realm of archetypes and dreams and I don't think our leadership has any investment in them outside of their marketing appeal.

I'm a 'leftist.' The original poster can sling names all they want - whatever. What matters to me is, as you say, principle, and action, and I refuse to do all the woo-hoo, rah-rah for a party that has invested so heavily in the concept of loyalty to leadership that opposition is politely (or impolitely) asked to hush up and be happy for the table scraps that hit the floor.

I'll vote for the Democrats, this time. But there will come a day when I finally give up hope that they are capable of returning to the principles that inspired the New Deal and then I'm gone. Yes, I've bitched and threatened to leave the party for years, but I've always come through for the Dems. It won't last forever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. We may be in the midst of a perfect storm

that will lead to the death of one if not both national parties

And one of the reasons is that the base on both parties feel betrayed by the leadership

[Union Thug]

66. You make a good point.

My frustration is ultimately the result of alienation. Although I can't speak for others, I suspect there are thousands like me.

[ProudDad]

105. It's actually MILLIONS

or, tens of millions.

Most are so alienated that they vote by not voting...

The MAJORITY are so alienated that they vote by not voting...

[mod mom]

76. We "feel betrayed" because we were betrayed.

[mod mom]

75. OH '04 + party silence. I was a former straight party voter, but now I'd rather

write in a real Dem rather that vote for more of the same with a gentler voice. I don't want to be any part of the corporate take over.

I said after 2000, they would never allow it to happen again. Then came 2002 and 2004. Even now little has been done to prevent another theft. they are annoiting HRC so that when the vote is stolen they can say "she was too devisive-the anti-war left didn't come out for her".

At first after witnessing the blatant disenfranchisement of Af Am voters in Ohio, I thought the party was working behind the scenes. I had a moment of self doubt-maybe it wasn't enough to change, but as more and more info came out, I was fortunate enough to be on a conference call that included attorneys within the judiciary and we convinced them. Remember Conyers' "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio" ? We also convinced Bobby Kennedy Jr and Mike Papantonio. So why the continued silence? The Clinton's, especially Bill was in a position where if he cried FOUL, then the stolen elections would have gotten coverage, but he didn't did he? Isn't it just a little too convenient that the "losses" in 2000 and 2004 have benefitted his wife?

[Union Thug]

82. I principle, I agree with you. But the futility of the act is

unbearable. There's a part of me that thinks the whole goddamned thing needs to collapse before any change is likely to occur, and this gives me the inspiration I need to write in or vote for a third party that represents my pov. But then the internal debate begins.

On the other hand, real change is initiated on the streets. We have to drag the politicians along kicking and screaming. Unrealistic as it may sound, I firmly believe that we will only see real change when the kind of militance seen in 1934 amps up, where Teamsters fought the Citizen's Alliance and their proxies on the streets of Minneapolis, or in SF with the Longshoremen, or Toledo with the Autolite strike. The American people have been castrated. Maybe it's time to reattach the gonads.

[jpgray]

42. Who are you talking to? I've said none of this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. When you edited the OP it helped to clarify the message

but it wasn't that clear

Sorry

[MuseRider]

7. Looks to me like

they (?) were also successful at getting the Democrats to blame the leftists for everything bad that they do. Was it not just the other day that I read that it was the leftists fault we were in this war in the first place? Who said that? Hmmm? Hint: it was not a Republican OR Nader.

[sniffa]

9. bingo

i'm so sick of this shit. i'm sick of the "moderates" or whatever they caLL themseLves. i'm sick of the excuses. i'm sick of bLaming the Leftists.

aLthough the gay community hasn't been bLamed yet, so that's a pLus.

[MuseRider]

20. Ahh give it time

they will. Remember after Kerry lost? They wondered out loud if dumping abortion rights and equality for the GLBT community would help them do better. One more loss and it is over for those two issues I would guess.

[Zensea]

10. Read Marx

This phenomenon is a lot older than the current situation and you are not giving much credit for intelligence to the Left. The Communist Manifesto talks about this exact type of enabling on the part of so-called Socialists at the time, when they discuss why Marx and Engels called themselves Communists instead of Socialists.

Plus you are engaged in broad brush rhetoric yourself regarding the Left.

"the Democrats can be credited with mounting the -only- significant opposition to those policies."
Sure they can be, but that doesn't make it true that they are the only ones mounting significant opposition to the policies.

I, for one, have not decided that a few represent the entire party. The critique of the Democratic party is deeper than reference to recent events ... on a philosophical level. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the critique in the sense that it will stop me from voting for Democrats, but what I am saying is that your analysis here is relatively superficial as to what the critique is.

Essentially the critique would be along the same lines as Marx's regarding Socialists in his time. That is, that they were Socialists in name only and were more beholden to bourgeois interests than to working class interests. The term these days in reference to the Democrats is corporatist.

[jpgray]

40. A great activist and political thinker, Marx, but not the best strategist

Correctly identifying the problem is great, solving it properly is something else.

[Zensea]

49. Agreed

which is why I said the critique would not stop me from voting for Democrats.

[ProudDad]

106. Being a good strategist in a corrupt system

is still being corrupt...

I'm tired of enabling corruption...

Won't do it any more...

[The Magistrate]

113. Not A Very Good Fit With The Present Sitiation, Mr. Zensea

The split referred to in the Manifesto is between 'revolutionists', who took for their aim the complete overthrow of the existing system through a program culminating in violence, and what the revolutionists called 'collaborationists', or Socialist figures and bodies who took for their immediate aim the actual improvement of the condition of workers, and considered the most effective tool for this in the long run to be actually entering government and taking advantage of the opportunities offered in democratic polities by the numerical predominance of working people at the polls, in order to convert the order to a Socialist pattern via Parliamentary actions. Revolutionists quite rightly understood that any real gains gotten by working people, either in terms of better wages and conditions, or influence on government policy, would put paid to hopes of revolution, as this could only be hoped for in conditions of extreme exploitation and suffering. Thus, to actually, say, raise the pay of coal miners, was, in the view of a revolutionist of the period, a counter-revolutionary act betraying Socialism and allying with Capitalism against the working people.

If you want to take from this that the Democratic Party is not a revolutionary organization, dedicated to the overthrow of the existing economic and political order, you would be correct to do so, but would have only given us a particularly dazzling example of 'a blinding flash of the obvious'. Outside the most retrograde and reactionary elements of the far right, no one seriously imagines the Democratic Party to be a revolutionist body. Nor will any major political party in the United States be in any sense a revolutionist body, as any such party will necessarily seek to reflect views that are widely held among the people of the country, and native revolutionists could be gathered in the basket-ball court of a large rural high school without undue crowding. The great preponderance of the people of our country want reforms, tinkerings even, with the present economic and political order, but are vehemently opposed to its overthrow.

"Conservative, n.: In politics, a statesman enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, n., who wants to replace these with new ones."

[Zensea]

114. How is it not a fit then?

The "revolutionists" today would be Nader and Camejo and others in that camp.

The critique that the revolutionists at the time of the Manifesto made regarding Socialists is the same type of critique Camejo makes regarding the Democrats today.

I must be missing where your point of disagreement is because it looks to me like you are elaborating on what I was thinking about when I made my original post.

[The Magistrate]

115. Those People Are Not Revolutionists, Sir

They are boutique marketeers, appealing to a little niche that likes its political entertainments all 'edgy' and 'indy' style, and best of all, free from the responsibilities of ever actually wielding power.

Revolutionism is a serious business, and revolutionists are serious and ruthless people; it is most unfair to such men and women to compare them to the sort of posturing dilletants you have mentioned.

[Zensea]

117. That's why I put revolutionists in quotes

I could also have written "so called revolutionists" but I prefer not to use that term since "so called" is one of those terms that has two opposite definitions. Or I could have written those who claim to be revolutionists but are essentially keyboard commandoes (I almost did write that originally).
Once again, I don't disagree with what you have written except in the sense that I doubt true revolutionists would be particularly concerned about my making such a comparison, whether it is fair or not.

[Beelzebud]

11. The 2nd best was getting Democrats like you to refer to liberals as "leftists".

[MuseRider]

19. No kidding!

The first thing most people around here where I live think when they hear that is Communist! YIKES! You are a Communist? Their reaction is priceless when I tell them that I am actually a Socialist although not registered or active in that party.

Nuttin like a little bating is there? Leftist and proud. :hi:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

24. Yikes! I never even thought about that. Most liberals are NOT "leftists".

*shit* "Leftists" as in 'extremists' comparable to the right-wing? No no no! NOT!!!

[jpgray]

35. What nonsense. Check out TahitiNut's political compass thread. We -are- leftists

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

39. NO!!! I AM NOT A "LEFTIST"!!!! I AM NOT AS EXTREME AS THE RIGHT WING!!!!

"Leftist" are and have always been as willing to engage in violence and destruction as the "right-wing" or "fascists" which is the composition of our present opposition.

I am NOT that!

[jpgray]

41. Yes, those violent destructive leftists in Sandinavia really bear out your theory

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? "Leftist" doesn't denote extreme radicalism, it just means "left of center," where, by any object standard, 99% of DUers and liberals and progressives are.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

47. Standard english vocabulary. Who LABELED them "leftist"?

Okay. Let's take a moment, here, and acknowledge common understanding of the word, "leftist". I don't want to talk to you if we are in mutually 'defensive' positions. Well, we CAN'T talk to eachother that way.

What do you understand as the common, standard english sort of understanding of the word, "leftist"?

[jpgray]

52. "Left," according to the OED, is a catch-all term for socialists, communists, and liberals

DU includes all of these.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

56. That is way too broad and an all-consuming deft vulnerable to attack by anyone.

Since when is a "catch-all" characterization, OKAY, at ANY TIME IN OUR RECENT PROGRESSIVE HISTORY?

I'll tell you when,...when a perverse right-wing elitist group wants to control the perception of the masses.

If you MUST CHARACTERIZE "DU", why pick a "catch-all" that the RW-destruction-machine most benefits? Moreover, do you WANT to characterize ALL OF DU as being on the extreme end of reason?

[jpgray]

57. Why are you letting the right-wing marketing machine redefine a word's 200 year-old meaning for you?

Isn't that a more operant question? I refuse to accept the right's destruction of language, why are you insisting that I be bound by it?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

65. HUH? UH, I came AFTER the age of reason and am capable of distinction, whereas,...

,...the RW utilizes the emotional "cattle-calls" of everyone into a lot that must be destroyed E.G. the "leftists", the "witches", the "gooks", the "guerillas", the "commies", the "terrorists",....

DO YOU FALL INTO 200 year-old meanings?

What about common understanding of a word?

Do you accept the common understanding of the word, "leftist"? Do you care? If you don't care, you will NOT have the ability to communicate well with common others. Does that matter to you? If not, please define what democratic principles you advocate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Here are some radicals you may be familiar

with

Jefferson

Paine.

Washington

Yep, they were radicals and liberals

Many of us see ourselves as their intellectual decendants

And yes, I am liberal, pround and radical

Oh some other loonie left radicals that I am proud to identify with

Teddy Roosevelt, who proceeded to break down monopolies, and of course his cousin FDR.

Here is another radical from our history

JFK

And of course Martin Luther.

Is the list complete?

Nope, but for the American Whig party all these people are the enemies of the state

If you choose to self identify with the right, then don't be too shocked if you are told you are full of it... at least round these parts

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

77. NONE OF WHOM OWNED A BRAIN-WASHING VEHICLE (the media)!!! It is a different age.

Please, do not demean me because I happen to do something MLK did,...acknowledge reality.

HE KNEW HOW TO ACCESS PEOPLE! HE HELD HIMSELF OUT TO THE FLEDGLING MEDIA, ON PURPOSE!!! DID HE EVER EVER EVER HOLD HIMSELF OUT AS A "LEFTIST" OR "RADICAL"?

no

no no no

My hero utilized languaged that flowed through every human being. He TALKED to all of us because he was/is one and all of us. He may have been called lots of names by those who he most threatened but he wasn't ANY OF THOSE NAMES.

He was a man who was willing to take a stand for humanity, all humanity,...and it's capacity to be decent, respectful, cooperative, honorable.

Why you feel compelled to tell me I am choosing "to self identify with the right" is beyond me. I can only figure that the one "full of it",...is you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. They didn't have a brain washing media?

Ok.

Actually they knew how to access the media and contact people.

Perhaps people have forgotten HOW to write panphets, for example

Common Sense was not distributed by the Royalist media

In fact in some areas of British occupation is was a hanging offense to have it.

As to self identify with the right, you repeated a meme about them dirty liberals, and that is a right wing meme.

It is a right wing meme that has been pushed forth since Goldwater

Them dirty hippies, they are loonie doncha know?

Mission accomplished

As I said, I self identify as a liberal... problem with that?

And yes leftie, problem with that?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

87. I have no problem, whatsoever, with how you choose to identify yourself.

Why you fill in, on my behalf, lots of stuff I have no capacity to think, let alone express,...is simply YOU,...filling in.

Did I repeat a meme about them dirty liberals?

NO!!!! READ what I posted!!! The answer is NO!!!

I am accused of being a "hippie". I wonder where that comes from but I do NOT READ SOMETHING INTO NOTHING OTHER THAN A WORD.

No offense,...but you seem to be stuck in a position of persecution. I did not persecute you. Yet, you accuse me of persecuting you when I never did and am the kind of person who would NEVER do so.

What is going on, with you?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

78. btw I am repulsed by the attempt to shut me down with your final accusation "round these parts".

False pride and radicalism on MLK's vision is,...beyond comprehension.

But, some MUST do shit like that,...for whatever personal issues.

*shaking head*

[mmonk]

12. If the congress backs his policies or allows his crimes,

it lies with the congress and those that allowed it of both parties. Currently, the dems have a clear majority in the House. The parties are even in the Senate. Nothing has to be made up or plotted by anyone. The facts speak for themselves.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. yup. now we are responsible for the war, state of health care etc.

its tragic how we buy into this shit too.

[Romulox]

15. Sorry, but the leader of the corporatist Dems has been anointed as our candidate...

So when exactly did we decide that a minority of ambitious, enabling cowards defined the entire party?

[hfojvt]

30. but she has not won yet

I am still praying for some sort of miracle to stop this dire happening from, er, happening.

[Zandor]

16. K & R n/t

[The Stranger]

17. The best trick was turning the Democratic leadership against its Base.

Time and time again, example after inexplicable example has been posted showing these valiant Democrats acting like nothing but Republicans. They have abandoned their base, one of the worst of political sins, and the GOP got them to do it.

[Raster]

25. Unfortunately they seem to have PLENTY of collaborators.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

29. "they have plenty"???? Examples?????? eom

[robinlynne]

74. more than half of the senate dems voted against the moveon ad. same with war funding.

same with the end of the FISA courts.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

79. Why are you responding? Are you acting in stead of the poster I asked? nt

[robinlynne]

81. because this is a conversation. a forum to discuss progressive politics. that is what we do.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

85. Is "democratic" speaking on another's behalf without election to do so?

:shrug: Or, have you been nominated and elected to speak on that posters' behalf.

I'm sorry.

I am only "snotty" when I feel like I am being "snotted" upon. *LOL*

So,...let us get back to your point.

What was your point? :shrug:

[jpgray]

58. Which Democrats? How many? All of them? Should those Democrats define the party?

Or should we recognize both bad -and- good Democrats, and refuse to broad-brush the party as one or the other since it contains -both-?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. They, uh, kinda' operate like that devil they "say" they battle, huh.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Seriously, though,...the GOP operates precisely like any chronically abusive predator, projecting blame on any and every one other than themselves who hold the entire blame. They also focus on the "free will" of the less empowered rather than the power of the most powerful. And they ALWAYS blast the victim,...ALWAYS.

[Virginia Dare]

31. But it's the party of slavery lovers and war mongerers...

:sarcasm: (sadly, it's needed).

[ljm2002]

33. When they stand up for me...

...I will consider standing up for them.

Until then they can cower in their corners and continue on with their charade. They weren't much of an opposition party in the face of Republican majorities; hell, they aren't much of an opposition party even when they have the majority.

I know all about the numbers, and I know all about the browbeating by Republicans and the continuing betrayal by conservative Democrats. So how does that end? It ends when enough leaders stand up on their hind legs and start fighting. If it is a minority of Democrats who are causing this weakness within the party, then WHERE is the party discipline that will make them toe the line? NOWHERE, that's where. That would be a leadership issue within the party.

No one forced them to vote against Moveon.org; in fact no one forced them to bring that piece of shit resolution to the floor in the first place -- it could have been stopped from ever reaching that point. That would be a leadership issue within the party.

[jpgray]

46. Some of them -are- standing up for you. Some of them aren't.

Why does one get to exclusively define the party and negate the other?

[ljm2002]

63. Did you miss the part...

...where I cited two examples of our leadership allowing the conservative wing of the party to drag down the rest of us?

That is exactly how the minority Dems get to define the party as a whole -- because the leadership allows it.

[Lilith Velkor]

34. Do the Democrats want leftists to VOTE for them, or not?

Perhaps a tactic other than, "You are stupid, fuck you, vote for me" is in order in that case.

[Lerkfish]

36. thought not a perfect fit, this thread reminds me of my other thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3572354&mesg_id=3572354

essentially, for complaining that dems are acting in accord or enabling the republican agenda, the irony is to accuse dems who are appalled by that as being right wing is a bizarre thing.

[jpgray]

38. There is no call to blind loyalty or criticism censorship in this thread. Yet I'm accused of such.

Since when is it fine to just argue with a stereotyped caricature of someone's argument, ignoring what was actually said? Oh right, this is GD. The standard of debate is "So you think (mischaracterization)?" repeated again and again until someone gives up trying to explain how words generally mean what they say.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

43. If your intentions are true, no need to invest in either of those criticisms.

Yes?

If your concern is about definition of words, simply define your interpretation of that word(s).

Remember, we live under the dictate of a powerful few who have maligned the common meaning of words. So, the best way to combat that is to share your interpretation and reach some consensus.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Hear! Hear!

And the loudest result of that GOP effort seems to be right here on DU.

Slam-A-Dem is the name of the game.

[ProudDad]

107. Do you have any links (other than this rediculous OP)

any authoritative source that supplies any proof of a plot by the GOP to get "Leftists" to do their dirty work for them???

You have the names of "Leftists" who got their marching orders from the GOP and have gone on to do their dirty work for them???

I can produce LOTS of evidence that we "Leftists" work always in the interest of "We the People" against the interests of the corporate capitalist masters who own the system.

Where your proof that the GOP is controlling us, eh bunky?

----------

Dog Damn. You denigrate us, marginalize us, insult us, lump us together with the fascists, call us tools of the right-wing and then ask for our fucking vote for your fucking ephemeral "Party"!!!

You steal a few of our good ideas (the least costly to your corporate capitalist masters) and crap on the rest of our ideas or, even worse, say -- well, where are the votes?

Pretty damn stupid tactics...

[guitar man]

54. I don't blame the Dems

For bad GOP policy. God knows this country has taken a hell of a beating from having a GOP majority in the House and Senate under this disaster of an administration. That kind of mess could take quite a long time to straighten out.

What I DO blame them for is not taking action against the criminals who have perpetrated this disaster. If they want my respect, they could start by growing a spine. How about putting impeachment back "on the table"? How about sending the Sergeant at Arms out to drag some of the smug assholes in front of the Senate in handcuffs to answer the subpeonas that have been issued as a result of the investigations?

When I see them floundering "powerless" before this dictatorship of an administration, I don't get the warm fuzzies about the future of this country at all. We need someone with some guts.

[jpgray]

55. Absolutely. Every reasonable person has this viewpoint

The question is, how does one vote in '08 with these two imperfect choices? Just punishment for enablers would be to abandon them at the ballot box, but doing so splits the progressive vote and enables the GOP, which is horrible as a whole as opposed to just in parts.

[guitar man]

60. that's a tough choice

I may not even be here anymore by the '08 elections, I may be an ex-pat by then. If the people's house (congress) no longer has the ability or will to keep the executive in check, that means we are living under a dictatorship right now. All that is left is for it to fully manifest it's authoritarian teeth and start biting. I don't know if I want to hang around and wait on that to happen...:scared:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

62. Maybe, one is "imperfect" while the other is "destructive".

Hell, we can even agree that one is GROSSLY imperfect and lacking assertiveness while the other operates in reckless disregard of human life in order to expand its power.

It seems to me, the choice, in spite of the environment, is obvious IF what we seek is representation of our interests.

But, hell,...maybe, I've completely lost any sense of center as a result of TOTALLY WORTHLESS ASSHOLES ABUSING MY FELLOW CITIZENS AND MY COUNTRY.

:shrug:

[lpbk2713]

67. They figure it's worth a shot ...

if the American voter put Shit-for-Brains in the White House not just once but twice. The way they see it is they will fall for anything and at this point they don't have a whole lot to lose.

[Skidmore]

69. "So when exactly did we decide that a minority of ambitious, enabling cowards defined the entire

party?"

They exist because we choose continually to go with incumbents regardless of how odious they are in their votes. They contribute to the perception of the party because for years the strategy was for the national party to concentrate on a few states and ignore many other states during elections. As rabid consersvatism--for want of a better word--became institutionalized we refused to acknowledge that as they drug the party away from populism and toward free trade they were doing us real harm. This is what "wink, wink..nod, nod" get you.

[robinlynne]

72. Here's the problem with your analysis: the facts. If it were only a minority of

Dems going along with the repubs, or better if the dems unified around ending the war and fascism, instead of spreading both, we would not have: FISA courts undone, more war funding, more war funding, more war funding, moveon censured by congress... At least half of the dems are consistently voting with the republicans on the big ticket items: the war, the end of civil liberties.

[OzarkDem]

83. DLC Dems stick close to GOP in policy and talking points

It comes from the old, discredited belief of DLC that if you pretend to be a Republican, then Republicans will vote for you. They remind me of the 98 lb weaklings who want to hang out with the big bullies on the playground.

The problem with the DLC strategy is that doesn't work when the GOP's policies are so unpopular with all voters. The voters proved that in spades during the 2006 election - when DLC's GOP lite talking points failed to resonate with voters. Ask Harold Ford.

If Vichy Dems in Congress don't want to be blamed for bad GOP policies, they should stop promoting and praising them.

[creeksneakers2]

88. Excellent point

I'm tired of seeing the entire party blamed for the actions of a minority within the party.

List of Senators who signed Harry Reid's letter to MoveOn.org:

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

[dysfunctional press]

89. Bill Clinton SIGNED INTO LAW- Telecom Act of 96, Defense of Marriage Act, Welfare Reform, Nafta...

real tricky, those devious gop'sters

[JackRiddler]

90. Democrats blaming everyone but their own pro-Republican votes...

Also, make a strawman - who said "fuck Democrats"? I say, fuck those who voted for

USA PATRIOT

Iraq War

Continued Iraq funding

etc.

[ulysses]

91. "How does this happen?"

http://dlc.org/

You knew that.

[ProudDad]

108. Check this shit out

This fucking shit could have been written by fucking g.w.bush (if bush could read and write)...

http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254444

FUCK THE DLC AND ALL CORPORATIST BASTARDS - DEM OR PUKE!!!


They dismiss the Health Care SOLUTION that the Civilized world has decided is the ONLY one that works -- Universal Single-Payer, in favor of (triumphalist fanfare) the USAmerikan solution -- hillaryCare II, health insurance MANDATES (that don't fucking guarantee ANY level of health care -- just more billions for the health insurance mafia and big pharma!!!)


Who needs the GOP when you've got the DLC...

[L. Coyote]

94. THANKS Blackwater USAs Creepy Freeper Erik Prince donated to the Greens.

This editorial is so overdue. But, how do we weed out the trolling freepers who perp this stuff daily?

[L. Coyote]

95. K & R

[L. Coyote]

100. Kick for the evening.

[shadowknows69]

96. Getting the Dem leadership to do whatever they say

was a pretty good one too. I didn't expect it.

[Totally Committed]

97. I disagree. I don't blame the Democrats for bad GOP policies at all.

I blame them for colluding with those policies, enabling the GOP, voting with the GOP FOR those bad policies, and generally rollingover and playing dead the rest of the time.

TC

[stimbox]

98. The best trick the DLC ever pulled:

Getting Democrats to blame the Leftists for destroying the party while the DLC goes along with bad GOP policies.

[JVS]

99. I think the getting "Democrats" to carry water for them trick was much more impressive

[western mass]

101. best GOP trick? The DLC!

Fortunately, both have equally lame talking points.

[ProudDad]

102. Give it a fucking rest... You right-wing Dems

constantly denigrate the Left because we always have the best ideas and are best able to see through the bullshit...

Most Democrats in positions of power are corporate tools just as nearly ALL republicans are... That's completely understandable in a nation owned lock, stock and barrel by the corporate capitalist masters.

We're not surprised at that fact.

We ARE somewhat surprised when allegedly intelligent, allegedly compassionate, allegedly "liberal" people get pissed at US for exposing the emperor's enablers lack of clothing.

And as for this bullshit:

"leftists so eager to engage in broad-brush blaming of the entire party?".

That's bullshit and you know it. When we talk about the cowardly Dems, it's the Dem (alleged) "Leadership", not the poor bastards working two jobs to keep their heads above water due to the shit that the cowardly Dem "leadership" won't do anything substantive about.

The fucking "Democratic Party" is;

1) Anyone who checks off the box that says "Democrat" on their voter registration form...

2) The owners and shapers of party "policy" and "practice" (a rather right-wing pro-corporate lot of relatively rich, conservative, pro-corporate fucks) who determine what's ACTUALLY done in the Halls of Power...

We are in brotherhood/sisterhood with the first group.

We are at WAR with the 2nd.

[Raster]

111. Thanks Dad!

Wake up America!:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

109. LOL!

[JNelson6563]

116. Amen, amen, amen! Can I get a witness?

Fabulous point. Yet the suckers even here on DU will line up at the trough and slurp it up,

Julie

[angstlessk]

119. I seriously believe some of those 'blue dog' DLC types are GOP infiltrators

they get to be in on Democratic planning and can report to the GOP ... I am NOT paranoid, so stop saying that!