What does standing by the Pete Stark comment gain us?

[LoZoccolo]

However I look at this, I think this is another case of emotions over clearly-thought strategy.

Disadvantages of the statement:
- Due to it's unverifiable nature (it's a speculation about the private thoughts of an individual), it will make no one dislike Bush* who doesn't already have another reason to.

- Also due to it's unverifiable nature, it focuses attention on something that, upon further debate, will not reveal anything more damning about the Iraq War or the reasons for starting it. An effective attack on the Republicans would be one that digs a further hole for them as they try to argue their way out of it; this is not one.

- It leaves the impression that opposition to the war is unduly personal, rather than moral or material.

- With 74% of the population opposing the war, it is unlikely that any more people can be persuaded to oppose it; this statement, however gives reason - whether or not you agree it is justified - for at least part of that 74% to pay less attention to the antiwar movement, as it is seen as putting out information that is less concrete and more speculative.

Advantages of the statement:
- Emotional satisfaction.

I think some people think it intimidates the Republicans, but if that were the case they wouldn't be the ones bringing it up. Nancy Pelosi et al are skilled politicians, well-versed in what actions will get them more of what they want, and which ones expose them to unnecessary loss and risk; this is why they hold the positions they do while you are sitting at home complaining about it.

[ixion]

1. one more advantage: speaking Truth to power

which trumps all else, IMO.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Does it trump stopping the war? n/t

[stevedeshazer]

91. Your avatar makes your opinion outdated and irrelevant

Can't you see that now, so many years later?

[ixion]

92. that's a strawman. Pelosi has continued the war, not stopped it. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

94. You said it was the most important thing.

That implies that some things are important than other things. If there were a situation where you had to choose, would speaking truth to power or stopping the war be more important?

[ixion]

99. if the truth were spoken, the war would be stopped

so my premise stands. :)

[Writer]

114. Actually people are not rational enough to listen to "truth."

So I really don't think you can squawk said "truth" at others and get them to suddenly make a change. A person brings his or her own experiences to a statement, so one person may see truth in it while another may not.

[timtom]

124. The people listen to that which is

repeated over and over, like a drumbeat.

The only (pardon the expression) meme that has been presented repeatedly is the one about Iraq and Iran are bad and must be invaded, bombed, decimated.

In a better world, the opposite would have occurred and that would have been the reality for the people.

Goebbels and Bernays are absolutely correct.

[ixion]

130. when I think "Truth" the verb "squawk" does not come to mind...

more appropriate, in my opinion, would the something like "the ringing of the spheres". :hi:

And it's something that you can't ignore, rational or not.

Simply because you choose to ignore the truth does not make it any less true.

[Sneaky Sailor]

128. How will this statement stop the war

?????????????

[ulysses]

2. the image that we'll stand by *something*...

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

6. There is no other way to do that?

There are a hundred other ways to express Bush*'s incompetence and/or indifference to the consequences of this war. Why does an unverifiable and personal one have to be the one? Standing by this particular one will convince no one of it because it cannot be proven either way.

[ulysses]

11. of course there is.

Stark's commentary doesn't have to be the one by any means - in fact, there have been more than a few better opportunities in recent months. The party just hasn't taken advantage of them.

[patrice]

108. It's not "the one". It's one. nt

[Richard Steele]

4. People like STRENGTH, and Stark is one Dem who cannot be portrayed as WEAK.

It's a GOOD thing.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I'd like for someone to be able to follow through on this question...

...all the way to the effect it will have on getting the Democrats more of what they want and less of what they don't want.

[ulysses]

17. what was the B. Clinton quote, reposted here recently,

about how people, in times of fear, want a leader who is strong and wrong more than they want one who is weak and right? If BC is right, then doesn't standing by Stark's comments make the electorate feel better about Democrats than would meekly apologizing?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Not really.

Clinton was talking about strength that guards the peoples' every day personal safety.

[ulysses]

27. ? how does "strong but wrong" guarantee anyone's personal safety?

[LoZoccolo]

29. It doesn't.

I apologize; I should have said strength that people perceive as guarding their every day personal safety.

[ulysses]

31. so my previous question stands, then. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

33. I edited my reply to elaborate. n/t

[ulysses]

44. ok, but then I refer you to the list of outrageous repuke quotes that Will Pitt has posted

a couple of times recently, including in response to the Stark thing. They don't seem to have hurt the GOP too badly.

[LoZoccolo]

58. At best it encouraged some motivation or cohesion within people already within the GOP base.

Look at the cost it took to do that though.

- Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter went from being somewhat obscure figures known amongst hard-core conservatives to household names, and this is not necessarily a good thing. As they've become known amongst the general public, there is a stigma to people seen associating with them. We might not see it because he deal with hard-core conservatives who are shameless in this, but the mere mention of Ann Coulter brings an "ugh" amongst a lot of normal people now, whereas before the conservatives could consume her screeds without other people knowing the slightest thing about who she is. But even so, the conservatives were wise to use these two as "cat's paws" to say the things that the Republican politicians couldn't, gaining advantages for the Republican politicians while keeping their hands clean from the disadvantages. That's not the case with Pete Stark. Randi Rhodes could get away with saying the same thing.

- As far as some of the religious right figures, you'll notice that the Republicans are distancing themselves from them, and the most prominent religious right politician you can find right now is a Mormon who at least some evangelicals are wary of. The other candidates for President are pro-choice, leaving James Dobson threatening to splinter from the Republican Party.

- Some of the people too are out of power, like Tom Delay and Rick Santorum. I would posit that the same hubris that drove Delay to say some of the things he did got him into the trouble that forced him to resign.

[LoZoccolo]

95. I thought of another angle to this.

If the attacks the GOP put out end up on a Democratic website, even just out of outrage, then there is some political cost to them. Whether or not the cost outweighs the benefits is debatable and may be difficult to measure.

However, the best attacks are those that your opposition does not even want to think or talk about at all, because doing so would only cause further damage and discredit or embarrass them. And every now and then they do happen.

[ulysses]

101. only if one is trying to be acceptable to all voters.

Outrage here at Coulter, for example, doesn't cost the GOP anything - they weren't planning on getting our votes. There might be a cost if we're successful in creating greater awareness of something they say in the population at large, but they don't much need for the reverse to be true, because they'll demonize anything we say in public short of "George Bush is the greatest president in history".

Standing by Stark's comments would entail tacitly telling a certain segment of American voters where they can put their "W" stickers. I'm ok with that kind of cost.

However, the best attacks are those that your opposition does not even want to think or talk about at all, because doing so would only cause further damage and discredit or embarrass them. And every now and then they do happen.

Every now and then, yes. When a madman is trying to kill you, you don't wait for the best weapon to come along. If it presents itself, of course you use it, but until then, you pick up the nearest rock and have at.

[Richard Steele]

19. Do you claim that radical rhetoric ever stopped REPUBS from "getting what they want"?

What the voters want from Dems is more SPINE, more
fire. Stark showed some.

It's a GOOD thing.

[Bonobo]

5. Lozo, you're not really asking a question. Like always, your mind is made up already.

[VP505]

7. It give us

a sense of empowerment that is so clearly lacking and badly craved from Pelosi.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Learn to get that sense of empowerment from some other means...

...that doesn't carry political risks and/or limit strategic political options, and you will have a much greater sense of empowerment as you will then have power.

[VP505]

36. I don't for

a minute believe that. What political risk is there in speaking strong and truthful? This isn't Sears the right is not always correct and shouldn't be allowed to believe that are.

[LoZoccolo]

39. I outlined these in my original post.

At the very least it steals attention from an attack that could have dug the Republicans into a bigger hole as they tried to work out of it. The nature of this attack is such that at best we will be locked into a battle of "he doesn't think that way" "yes he does" "no he doesn't" "yes he does" for a few days.

[Chulanowa]

38. Hiding from political risks is why we are where we are now

Democrats constantly hedging our bets have resulted in extremely lackluster results, time and time again. It's time we started taking chances again.

[LoZoccolo]

40. Where we are now...like with the 24% approval rating for Bush* and all? n/t

[Chulanowa]

80. He's certainally not winning the '08 nomination with those numbers!

...Oh wait. He's not running. So fuck Bush, he's irrelevant.

No, where we are is a democratic-led Congress that will not even think about starting impeachment on him, even though he's broken numerous laws, and even though his numbers show that America wants it to happen.

Where we are is a Democratic presidency race that we will likely just squeak by at best, against such wonderful candidates as Rudy "Humping 9/11" Giuliani and Fred "Catfish face" Thompson.

Where we are is a Congress that will, if all goes as best as possible, will keep its slim, barely-there Democratic majority, and if things go less than well, will switch to a Publican majority in the same straits.

As things now, we have the lead, but just barely. We're a foot ahead of the competition in this race, and we only got there because they tripped. It's time to put some speed on to widen that gap. That mans taking stands, taking risks, and not caving to pressure to do otherwise.

[Shae]

97. where we are now ...

I don't think that Bush's low approval rating has anything to do with the fact that the Democrats have been slow to criticize.
He's mostly dug his own grave. But ...

After 9/11 no one wanted to speak out against Bush for anything in spite of the hundreds of political scandals that involved him. He could do no wrong. It's only just recently that the scandals aren't getting buried after a few days. Negative news stories about Bush get more airplay, and Bush's numbers are going down. I don't know that that isn't cause and effect.

While I don't entirely disagree with the points in your original post, I don't think Congress needs to apologize for moveon.org or that Pelosi needs to "condemn" Stark's remarks. I would rather hear her say, "Well, he's not entirely wrong, you know, " than to hear her judge his remarks as "inappropriate."

And a little emotional satisfaction is not entirely uncalled for.
We've spent almost seven years under a president who has robbed us blind, who feels he can do any freekin' thing he wants to - law or no law -- and who answers to nobody.

Do I think Bush is "amused" by the deaths of American soldiers? No, not really. But I don't think cares much either.

[Paladin]

57. Oh, I Get It---Be An Ineffective Chickenshit

Pelosi and Reid are doing a bang-up job of that already. They're avoiding every political risk they can, they're following political options to nowhere, and their sense of empowerment outstrips their actual power by a factor of a thousand to one. You must be overjoyed with the job they're doing.

And you wonder why so many of us are heartened by Stark's words....

[LoZoccolo]

61. Avoiding risk does not equal avoiding strength and fight.

Anyone who fights to win has to manage risk, and choose battles wisely. One could have been chosen that would have amounted to more than unverifiable speculation on the President's private thoughts.

[Chulanowa]

85. Except they're not private

Why are our troops in Iraq?

To fight terrorism? No, there was no terrorism from Iraq
Saddam was an evil dude? No, we went three years without dropping troops in there
To find and destroy WMD's? Don't hurt yourself laughing at this one
To hold Iraq together? Wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

So... Why?

Profit? Vengeance? Eschatology? All for the benefit and pleasure of the president and those at his side - i.e., his amusement. He's laughed about it plenty, publicly. Remember the "where are those WMD?" reel that Bush made?

We're losing men and women, Iraq is losing men and women, because this man and his Frat Pack decided they wanted to look tough and make money. Clearly documented.

[Paladin]

87. I'll Tell You The Same Thing I've Said On Other Threads

By criticizing Stark's statement, you are effectively allowing Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter to dictate what Democrats are permitted to say in public. What evidence do you have that attempting to placate the right-wing vilification machine has ever worked out well for us? The current crop of Democrats in D.C. have "managed risk" and "chosen battles wisely" to the point of shameful impotence, allowing an already insane regime to run through the night, unchecked and emboldened. If Bush starts bombing Iran tomorrow morning, just what the hell are Pelosi and Reid going to do about it? Explore new ways to "manage risk and choose battles wisely?" Probably so. Will that make you happy?

[LoZoccolo]

90. His right to say it and whether or not it should have been said are two separate issues. n/t

[Paladin]

111. Completely Non-responsive. (n/t)

[patrice]

109. Nothing wagered, nothing gained. nt

[MADem]

9. Well, I agree with the statement. I just don't think the venue where he delivered it gave him the

best bang for his buck. He invited, no, begged for, the "decorum" and "propriety" arguments to override what he ACTUALLY SAID. He might not have intended to do that, but that is what happened.

The points are lost to a larger audience, because the punditry has a complaint that replaces/overrides/eclipses the original commentary.

[JDPriestly]

50. Tell that to Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is past master of making statements so outrageous that they blind the listener and elicit support. Democrats need to be more, not less honest about the horrible, stinking corruption in D.C.

[MADem]

68. Which is why Newt left the Speakership. And the House.

That, and those bj's he was getting from Calista in the "Speeeeekah's office..."

And why, try though he might, he can't get back into politics in any meaningful way.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. If emotional, personal, snarky comments were politically disadvantageous

there would only have been a handful of republicans left in office after the 1990's.

[gollygee]

15. exactly

if it doesn't work, why have the Repubs done so well with it?

[pa28]

46. Right. It has not hurt them a bit.

The difference is they don't go around wringing their hands, apologizing or condemning each other. We have a certain way of making it worse on ourselves.

[melody]

12. He spoke truth that I agree with -- that a lot of people agree with

I'm a great believer in Parliamentary procedure. I am a strong Democratic team player.
But I just emailed Pete Stark to praise his courage. And I emailed Nancy Pelosi to tell
her how disappointed I was that she agreed with rebuking him.

[cosmik debris]

13. Dignity.

If we back down every time the Repukes demand an apology we will never have any dignity.

[patrice]

110. Excellent point. nt

[daninthemoon]

14. If this were England, we would expect our majority in congress to

be calling for bushler's head on a pike. Our reps need to raise a loud angry voice over the death, waste, and destruction this beast has wrought. At best he is indifferent to the suffering he causes, at worst, he actually does enjoy it. We've seen him joke about it in public. Who knows how he laughs in private. Every effort should be made to stop him and bring to justice. What Pete Stark was not outrageous given what's happened.

[fenriswolf]

16. what stark did was break a barrier

he stated for everyone to hear that one of our representatives knew that the war was a fraud started by a fraud who has blood all over his hands and no one on a congresional level (except for a very few) is acknologing this. I stand by stark's remarks because he is speaking truth to power and because we should stand by our representatives who are calling bullshit on this entire fraud of leadership.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. Well said.

MKJ

[JDPriestly]

51. I support Stark. I agree with his statement, and I commend his

courage and candor in making it in the Congress.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I gains us nothing, really, since...

what he said was exactly the sort of thing we sideline scribblers say but complain about when Coulter, Limbaugh, et al say something just as nasty and rehtorical. An escalation in the war of insults gains nobody anything.

This is more DC theater, with the sound and fury signifying nothing, so why bother to make it bigger than it really is?

[LoZoccolo]

28. I see where you're coming from about making it bigger than it really is...

...but my intentions are actually not just to discuss this particular incident, but to give people one example of how an emotional win can be a strategic loss so that they can apply those considerations to more incidents as they come along.

[babylonsister]

22. Because he spoke the truth which is heard too little, and yes, I did get

great satisfaction out of that, for once. And to counter the continuous onslaught from the right that goes unchallenged:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2089536&mesg_id=2089536

[MadMaddie]

23. Standing by him proves that there are "no apologies necessary"

I suppose that he should do like all of our Democratic representatives everytime they make a truthful and honest statement...and apologize?

Guess what the "The Truth hurts" and people need to say the truth outloud..

Pelosi Rebuking him is ridiculous..

When the Rethuglicans attacked Clinton for a blowjob...I don't recall any of the them apologizing for their boorish and disrespectful behaviour...

Wake up people...keeping the truth in thought bubbles is for the comics..

* proved that he thought the search for war (whick got a lot of military killed) was comical when 2-3 years ago he made his little "There are no WMD's here" (as he pretends to peak under a desk)at some dinner he attended.

Guess it's okay for the very man to send our men and women into war to go for the comedic laugh at our soldiars expense.

This is exactly what is wrong with our party. Always playing by yesterday's rules and getting our asses kicked..:rant:

[NMMNG]

24. I choose to stand with a Dem who has spine enough to speak the truth

Those who want to do otherwise are free to do so.

[KansDem]

25. The recent revelation by Valerie Plame on CBS gives weight to Stark's comment

It appears BushCo wanted Iran to get nuclear weapons, or at least to have the perception of getting nuclear weapons. That's why they exposed Plames: to get her out of the way.

The comment, "Get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," pales when considering the President and His Men conspired to make Americans more vulnerable to attack. "Operation Northwoods" anyone?

Bush and the GOP have no respect for American troops and American citizens.

[chaumont58]

30. For one time, show the repukes that someone will stand and deliver

Dealing with repukes is like trying to french kiss a rattlesnake. Who possible could Nancy Pelosi please by trashing Pete Stark? Certainly, not me. Rush Limbaugh? John Boner?
First Moveon and now this? Why would anyone want support these lilylivered, spineless, wishywashy, bend with the winds fools?
Anyone who spends 24 hours inside the beltway is fucked forever. Its like watching wall to wall coverage of the Stockholm Syndrome.
I stopped contributing to the Democratic Party years ago. Whenever I get a call from the DNC asking for a contribution, I tell them I don't contribute to politicians anymore. Instead, I give the money to the Humane Society.
I like Howard Dean, but he runs an outfit not worthy of any support from decent men.
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi would call on the newly minted Gold Star Mothers to trash Pete Stark?

[LoZoccolo]

32. Do you think there is not a more effective attack to intimidate the Republicans with? n/t

[chaumont58]

55. Intimidate? He was telling the god damn truth!

Who gives a fuck what pukes think? Well, maybe Nancy does, but I sure as hell don't.
As soon as all Dems realize that they are in an Eastern Front type war with the pukes, and that they can take no prisoners, and must kill the wounded, they sooner they will do this country better.

[LoZoccolo]

63. No one can prove that.

This thread isn't about whether or not it is true; it is about whether or not the venue chosen for battle against the Republicans is one which will hurt them. I argue that it won't. No one who likes Bush* will dislike him due to this unverifiable speculation.

[chaumont58]

100. If pukes had brains, or a conscience, they wouldn't be pukes

It is not a good idea to shit on one's friends. Former friends would be a better way to say it. Pete Stark sure as hell is not Nancy Pelosi's friend now. As for picking a place to tell the truth, I don't need to pick a finely chosen venue to tell the truth. Nor do I need to prove it. It is the plain truth, just as much as Bush is ugly and evil.
Its crazy. This is a public relations conflict, not some debating society at Harvard, or Yale. I read that the pukes are going to introduce a measure on Monday, censuring Pete Stark. Let them. And, if any Dems votes for the censure, I sure as hell am leaving the Democrat Party. I won't even call it the Democratic party. They don't deserve my respect. They will have become a stench in the nostrils of decent men everywhere.

[TwilightGardener]

34. I don't stand by it, and I don't think anyone should go out of their way

to defend it or assert that it's truthful. I DO think the decision of whether or not to apologize or take back the remark should be up to him. He is obviously disgusted and bitter (as are we all), and his over-the-top statement reflected that, but it's really nothing to be ashamed of either, in light of the last 7 years of pointless bloodshed, pillage and ruin.

[backwoodsbob]

47. if he was my rep

I would vote against him

Sorry but some things go over the line and saying what he said is over the line

[TwilightGardener]

67. That's fair--you do have to question the judgment of making that sort

of statement on the House floor during an unrelated debate. But it's up to his constituents to decide whether or not to "censure" him at the ballot box--Stark is responsible for Stark's comments, and he should decide for himself what he should do about them. I hope no one else from the "D" side demands his apology--that's simply not necessary.

[PA Democrat]

35. Only a despicable sociopath would state that it "feels good" when he is about to announce the start

of the invasion of Iraq. Someone who "feels good" about a poorly planned, preemptive war based upon lies, that will undoubtedly result in many deaths deserves every bit of Stark's criticism and then some.

Heres' the proof that Bush gets his jollies from war:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/ron_hutcheson/story/8918.html


President Bush announced the attack in a four-minute television speech to the nation. "On my order, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war," he said. "These are the opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign."


Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said.


Edited to add "based upon lies".

[hobbit709]

37. There are certain types

where you must step on their toes until they apologize. As long as the Dems keep backing down on any statement made instead of saying "Yeah I said it and what are you gonna do about it" They will not get any respect from the pukes. Did the pukes make this kind of outcry on one of their own after Mean Jean made her statement?-No they didn't. They should take lessons from Parliament on making comments about the opposition.

[Quantess]

41. Hey, it's said and done.

Sooner or later it will be forgotten, anyway.

[robinlynne]

42. truth. the truth needs telling in this country. more so every day.

[LoZoccolo]

43. If it was "truth" we'd be able to prove it.

We cannot prove the private thoughts of any individual are this way or that.

[Bjorn Against]

56. We can prove he has gotten amusement out of it...

Remember the video he showed at the White House Correspondents dinner? "Those WMD's have got to be here somewhere".

[robinlynne]

62. yep. I'll never forget.

[daninthemoon]

73. Exactly. If he jokes like that in public, who knows how he acts in

private. Stark spoke the truth, and a dem who finally does should be supported, not silenced.

[robinlynne]

60. If it were

[robinlynne]

64. let's see: "we now know Sadam Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction."

Who could have imagined that someone would fly a plane into a building?

We did everything we could in new orleans?

We didn't know the levees would break.

There is going to be a terrorist attack over the summer, so if congress doesn't pass our fisa bill, it will be congress' fault when we can't protect the american people.

I will fire the person who leaked valerie plame's identity.


so, as I said, truth is refreshing.

[LoZoccolo]

65. What does this have to do with what Pete Stark said? n/t

[robinlynne]

69. You said noone should be allowed to say anything in congress unless it can be proven.

And that if not proven it is not truth, therefore you want to censor COngressman Stark. I'm pointing out how ridiculous that would be. Congress would simply stop existing if people were only allowed to say things which had been proven.

[LoZoccolo]

72. No I didn't.

I said it brings the debate into useless territory. You gain nothing by engaging your opposition in a game of "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" "no it isn't" over some article that cannot be decisively shown either way.

[robinlynne]

76. Pete simply said the truth. You are the one debating yes it is, no it isn't.

And we need a whole lot more debating in congress about the crimes Bush is committing. And a whole lot less "making a deal with the republicans that Bush won't veto". The war is one of them.

[LoZoccolo]

No I'm not. n/t

[robinlynne]

84. now you're saying you don't like the republican reply to Stark.

I'll include Pelosi as a republian in this particular case.
(I agree. The reply to Stark IS the problem, not what Stark said.)

[LoZoccolo]

88. If you're going to call Nancy Pelosi a Republican, I'm not even going to waste my time.

There are a couple dozen other people in this thread now, and they deserve my attention more than someone who's just making these inflammatory hyperbolic statements.

[stimbox]

138. Ahhhh that's right, you are the only one allowed to make inflammatory hyperbolic statements.

:rofl:

[gollygee]

74. Congress isn't a court

and opinions are warranted there.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. because we cannot 'prove' it doesn't mean it ISN'T true either-

and given all the intentional lies that have filled our lives and been parroted by the corporate media- it is kind of .... a relief to hear a politician who isn't just playing orator.

He was pissed- he can't pretend that the kids who are being denied health care deserve to go without-
(unlike so many economically advantaged politicians and elitists)

He can't just trot out some kid dressed up in a new outfit courtesy of the local Wal-Mart, have a photo-op, and then return to the comfort of his hallowed hall. People call him- write him- come to his office and ask for HELP- they trust him to listen to their situation- to put himself out on their behalf- he isn't the 'decider' who lives behind a wall of security and insulating 'importance'.

This issue isn't about the right to burn a flag- or who should be allowed to say what on public airwaves- in some instances, having access to health care will make the difference between life and death.

Yeah, he spoke like someone would in a less 'hallowed' institution- but what good are endless noble words, if no one hears them.

People heard him.

Like it or not- he got the message out. Loud and clear.

It was worth it for that reason alone.

peace~

[LoZoccolo]

86. I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not it's true.

I'm saying that it brings the debate to a battlefield (Bush's private thoughts) where everything is rampant speculation; this will get us nothing at best, and wear at our credibility at worst. It is also not a debate about whether or not we should fight the Republicans and speak out against them; we should. It should take place over matters that will make things worse for the Republicans as more and more attention and debate are focused on them, however. Arguing about who thinks what about what will not do that, because none of it can be proven. There are a hundred other things to argue about which can.

[Bluerthanblue]

96. no, i realize that and neither am i- what is important to remember

though, is that this statement said far more than what *'s private thoughts might be.

This said- endless money (imaginary money at that) for killing, destruction, war- instruments of war.

No money for building up- maintaining the health of children. People who can't be held accountable to themselves, because they have yet to fight their way through our 'capitalist' system-

The republican party has all too often been one which has bottomless pockets when it comes to weapons and military spending- but which refuses to acknowledge the very present, urgent needs of the most vunerable and fragile people in society.

Mr. Stark spoke for them.
Loudly- passionately- and angrily.

I can't fault him for this.

He didn't do it for himself.- he did it because those who oppose SCHIP don't listen to the children.
And don't care enough to do something about them.

peace~

Personally i don't care what amuses *. I do care that the American people take notice of what this administration is doing-

[radiclib]

45. The ONLY "problem" with Stark's statement is the "president's amusement" part

and in all the media chatter and phony outrage I'd like for SOMEONE to cite Bush's childhood proclivity for torturing small animals, his cruel mockery of Karla Faye Tucker, his nervous giggling when body counts are mentioned, his "feels good" fistpump at the outset of shock & awe.
It's not like Stark's assertion is indefensible. Someone on the TeeVee? Please?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

126. So would I. Thank you! I mentioned Karla Faye Tucker on a couple of other threads about this. Don't

forget his looking on the floor of the oval office for the missing WMD. Soldiers were killed looking for them.

[JDPriestly]

48. What does not standing up for Stark's right to speak his mind get us?

Ridicule from the right-wing. An increase in the disunity in our own party. A lost chance to tell the truth to voters.

This morning I met a Republican voter. She said her family was Japanese and had been interned in prison camps in WWII in this country. She described her dad as a staunch Democrat and categorized herself as a staunch Republican. Why, I asked her are you a Republican. She answered that she if a Republican because the Democrats are not unified. Democrats are not clear about what they stand for. She wanted the Democratic Party to speak with one voice as to the Republicans.

I explained to her that we Democrats believe that good ideas emerge from the creativity that is released when ideas are freely exchanged. I told her that we believe in individualism and the right of the individual to have his or her own ideas.

If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers, you will learn that they expected Congress to be a place in which representatives spoke as individuals and disagreed with each other. The movement in Congress to censure diversity in political expression, whether aimed at Move-On or Stark betrays the dream of those who wrote our Constitution and who founded our country.

LoZoccolo, you will not long enjoy your rights if you do not extend the same rights to others. When we stop extending the right of free speech to others, we will lose our own right to free speech. There is always someone stronger or richer or more brutal than we are who can deprive us of our rights. We need to protect Representative Stark's right to speak from his heart. We have the freedom to say whether we agree or disagree with his point of view, but it is not up to us to judge whether he was wise or foolish in saying what he thinks. Our job is to let the world know that we support his right to say what he believes whether or not we agree with it. That is the only way that we can ensure our own right to say what we believe.

You are suggesting that Representative Stark, indeed the Democrats in Congress, should weigh their statements according to what effect they will have on the electorate. That is pure cynicism. It is what the Republicans have done, and look where it has gotten them. Sure the got elected. But those who have been elected must perform as the tools of a tiny but very greedy minority. Their conformity and lack of creative ideas are ruining our country.

I admire Stark for having the courage to say what he believed. If he decides that he spoke in haste and apologizes, so be it. If he does not, so be that also. This is his opinion. It is up to the voters in his district to judge whether he represents them or not, not up to the rest of the country. It is OK if you say you disagree with him. But I object to your chastising him for making a strategic blunder by saying what he thinks. That is sick cynicism.

[backwoodsbob]

103. so if..

Rush or some other riech wing windbag starts saying Reid and Hillary drool while they personally perform third trimester abortions we would argue there right to say so?

Some things go too far and saying Lord Pissypants likes seeing soldiers die is going too far

[JDPriestly]

117. They have the right to say that. Rush says such things all the time.

It is in bad taste and ugly, but it is his right. It is an opinion. The First Amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to say such things. People who disagree may criticize the person saying these things, but Congress, i.e., the government may not punish anyone for saying such things.hat Public opinion may not like it, but the government cannot punish anyone for saying such things. Libel and slander occur when a person represents a falsehood as a a true fact. Statements of opinion are not libel or slander under most circumstances.

The question with Stark's remarks is whether certain Democrats side with Republicans to condemn other Democrats with whom they disagree. It is particularly troubling when Democrats in Congress suggest that another Congressman might be officially censured by Congress for a statement of opinion. The Constitution grants members of Congress immunity with regard to anything they say on the floor of Congress. So even if a statement is not true, members of Congress have the right to say it on the floor of Congress. That is the Congressional privilege. The Constitution does not grant the president and members of the executive branch such a privilege.

[FreepFryer]

49. Democrats are strong, we are tough and we stand up for the truth... remember? (nt)

[Disturbed]

71. There are plenty of examples that Busholini is Silver Spoon

Sociopath. He is a War Criminal & delights in it.If America was a Parliamentary System, Busholini would have been expelled long ago.

[patrice]

52. Not a genuine question. Just a rhetorical one. Ergo no point

in trying to answer. All answers will just be used to support the assumptions that are the basis for your rhetoric. Some people are more interested in the OLD BS than they are in honest change.

[BlueJac]

53. Good on Stark...

Oh yeah, Nancy Pelosi knows how to get what done? Give Bush more spying, say impeachment is off the table, roll over on every important civil liberties violation. Real leadership? I don't think so. Real insider same old same old shit! Good on Stark!!!!!

[Malikshah]

54. Honor and the courage of one's convictions.

An obvious answer to a question that I am shocked would need to be asked. Of course, during these times nothing shocks me any more.

[rodeodance]

59. those last 4 words by Stark were and ARE political fodder for Wingnuts.

[Cha]

70. OOOOOOOooooooooooUUUUuuuuuuu

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[patrice]

66. Anyone who is afraid of words, any word, will always be

vulnerable to them.

Reactionaries never lead.

[LoZoccolo]

75. No one is afraid of any words here. n/t

[patrice]

77. Apparently the Democratic party is vulnerable to the word

"amusement", it is likely, therefore, that it is afraid of that word.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Nope. n/t

[patrice]

82. Good!

Then people can say what they really think. Honesty is a good place to begin what **needs** to happen.

[hisownpetard]

79. Sometimes, no analysis is necessary. Sometimes, words strongly spoken and

emanating from deep pockets of frustration, can produce the kind of immediate relief
that the manufacturers of Rolaids and Tums can only dream of duplicating.

Those moments are few and far between. Thank you, Pete Stark. Thank you.

[Bluerthanblue]

83. People HEARD him- they listened, and

regardless of how it made them feel, they couldn't ignore him-

That alone- is reason enough.


I wrote this above, in another reply to you-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2097260&mesg_id=2097596

[Tactical Progressive]

89. It gains us nothing

It was over the top and should be apologized.

[Disturbed]

93. He should never apologize. He should ramp up his vitrol.

He should be be nominated for Speaker of the House.

[Bluerthanblue]

98. it was HEARD- that gained us something.

Vetoing SCHIP is over the top-

that should be apologized for. *'s continual lies about the program should be apologized for.

Pompous politicians who pretend their shit doesn't stink should be apologized for.

We aren't talking platitudes here.

We honor our soldiers, which is good- but even though they never expected to be abused and used in the way they have, they did have a choice as to whether to enlist or not.

What child ever asked to be born?

[Tactical Progressive]

102. No, it lost us something

Credibility.

As valid opposition, rather than just "Bush-haters".

Vetoing SCHIP is over the top, but that in no way makes what Stark said not over the top. What kind of logic is that?

Instead of talking about Republicans vetoing SCHIP, we get to talk about the inappropriateness of Stark venting his own anger. Thanks Pete, just what we needed. Hope it was cathartic for you, because we all get to pay for it.

[Bluerthanblue]

107. i disagree- you may be caught up in the

belief that what he said was over the top.

Those who are troubled by what was done in vetoing SCHIP but who have no defense may try and deflect the glaring proof that their 'compassionate' conservativism is nothing of the kind by pointing to Mr. Stark's remarks- but they wouldn't have even bother to notice he'd said anything.

There are those who pay little attention to govt- who have heard about SCHIP only because of Mr. Starks comments-

that is worth it.

"Pete"- didn't do ANYTHING to 'us'- that 'we' have to pay for.

Your dramatic claim is just that-

at least in my opinion- which is no more or less valid than yours-

peace~

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. Should honesty be poll driven?

Gosh, a politician states his thought honestly. How very impractical of him!!

[stirlingsliver]

105. Truth. To. Power.

Stark spoke Truth to Power.

Truth. To. Power.

He showed real courage.

He unmasked Bush for what he really is -- a sick, psychopath who led this country to war for the sick pleasure of seeing young people die.

Someone like Stark -- someone brave enough to speak The Truth in a fascist police state -- deserves our respect and our support.

Would that there were more brave patriots like Pete Stark.

[renie408]

106. I dunno...maybe our testicles will drop?? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

112. Who would have thought I'd ever agree with LoZoccolo on any issue. But I do.

Great post.

There is no advantage to barking off rude statements on a national stage against someone the country already does not like.

Nicely stated.

[EFerrari]

113. When Nancy Pelosi gets this district one thing we need, get back to me.

[Beelzebud]

115. Are you going to make a FUCK STARK avatar next?

[AuntPatsy]

116. What does ignoring the very real need for impeaching this cabal get us? or better yet

with each day that passes what new outrage do we face from them by keeping it off the table?

[EST]

118. Quite a discussion.

I'd like to weigh in on whether or not we are asking the right questions and whether or not one can and should be responsible for one's words, as well as the importance of truth.

Cspan came along with satellite tv in 2002 and I became enthralled by politics and those who practice that dark art, but my experience is limited.

First, congress critters almost never tell the truth about anything. Democrats seem to be a bit better at this than republicans, but both chambers are loaded up with falsehoods, fibs, lies and never telling the straight story, only making points that support your own thesis and even making stuff up, knowing that they will rarely be challenged.
This takes away any demand than Stark run counter to habit and custom and expose himself by telling the truth or having to prove anything he said.except for the demand for truth and honesty by us--and we mostly don't count.

Next, democrats are guilty of being "obsessively intellectual; " we wool things, trying to understand and account for all angles surrounding any issue. We forget that elections and most floor votes are not won necessarily by who is best qualified or who makes the better case; they are won by emotions and emotional appeal. If that emotional appeal also has the facts on its side, so much the better, but it is not essential. Even where the facts are overwhelming, it's the emotional involvement that remains supreme.

Case in point--there is proof, beyond question, that sex education at a fairly young age and ongoing, coupled to a liberal policy on abortion and a growing middle class, is the best course toward lowering both abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Yet, for the most part, our approach is primitive and the currently growing rates of both stand as proof.

The primary reason for the current low polling numbers for congress is the perception that democrats stand for nothing, that they are spineless wimps and can be whipped up into any adventure or bad policy that a stronger, not necessarily better informed, critter wants.
There is ample evidence to support this notion.

Stark was pissed! Not only was he pissed, but he was not about to be railroaded into eating shit and backing off. That simple act has done more to encourage us rank-and-filers than just about anything else could do. No amount of being calmly right and sternly informative will motivate many people to do or support anything. It's all about emotional involvement and a commitment to a cause, not whether a cause is just or pragmatic nor is it about correctness or whether or not in offends someone.

As much as I would like to agree that Stark's comments were offensive enough that they should be retracted, a long lifetime and a lot of study tells me that people don't work that way. Not one person in a hundred has ever heard of representative Stark, but now a hell of a lot know who he is and they will pay attention to the next thing he says. Any retraction now and the "aw, I didn't mean it, I'm sorry" will guarantee chortles and teehees all across the wingnutlery and a virtually total loss of respect by democrats for congressman Stark and the entire entourage.

He had about ten seconds in which he could have softened his comments but that time is long gone. Now we should stand for the justified anger at recalcitrant pukes for their obstructionism and anti-social policies and attitudes and anger at weak-kneed democrats who seem so intent on not waking the monster and making him mad.

People don't respect politicians for their clarity of thought (most anyway) nor their grasp of nuance and detail; they respect them for the stands they take and their ability to drive opinion through emotional appeal.

As an emotional example: Hitler didn't rise to power because of his intellect or because he was right--he wasn't. He won the support of millions, perhaps billions, through emotional appeal.
Bush did not get to where he is (well, was) by dint of intellect, thoughtfulness, values, or pragmatism. He got there because of emotional people who were willing to ignore the facts for reasons that have nothing to do with truth or reality.

[defendandprotect]

119. R E A L I T Y . . .. !!! !!! !!! !! Speaking the feared truth --- !!! !!!

[The Magistrate]

120. Rep. Stark's Comments Were Appropriate, Sir

And he must stand by them, having made them....

"Never apologize, never explain."

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Showing backbone

yes that's simple

Don't expect the neoliberal wing of the party to get it though.

[ConsAreLiars]

122. Integrity?

Oh, sorry. That's not important to the opportunists/centrists/moderates, or whatever you call yourselves, who want to show they are no different than the Chimpy faction when it comes to supporting the ruling powers and denouncing those who challenge the status quo.

[LoZoccolo]

125. This actually is another example.

...who want to show they are no different than the Chimpy faction...

You have moved the discussion into the realm of my hidden thoughts, which you not only cannot prove, but about which I am the first person to know that you are incorrect. This may be the most uncompelling way to convince me of anything.

[Sneaky Sailor]

129. "...who want to show they are no different than the Chimpy faction..."

We are showing we are EXACTLY like the Republicans by decending to this level....

[dbt]

123. You need to lay off the Kool-Aid a month ot two. n/t

[Didereaux]

127. Pete Stark added CALCIUM to the Dem Party...THATS what he added! n/t

[Telly Savalas]

131. Retreating in the face of faux outrage with our tails between our legs is bad politics

Stark was venting and his off-the-cuff remarks gave the GOP some ammunition for their petty little political games. These cheesy political games, however, play big role in what what's hurting our nation. Rather than playing (and losing) such games by issuing an insincere apologies, the Democrats need to call it the bullshit that it is.

I firmly believe that "speaking truth to power" is pointless masturbatory nonsense. (Power isn't known for its listening skills.) But this isn't about "truth to power". This is about combating bullshit. The proper response is neither "Stark speeks the TRUTH!!!111" nor "We're so sorry, if we promise to mow your lawn every week next summer, would you please consider forgiving us", but rather somthing like this:

We're risking the lives our our troops for a mission with no clear purpose or focus, and all these fools can talk about is the offhand comments of some guy nobody heard of a week ago. While only a total moron would take Stark's comment literally, given the lack of direction from the White House, the war might as well be for the President's amusement. And we're still waiting for a response to Stark's actual point: how is it we can afford to spend $30 billion in five weeks to fund Bush's war, but we can't afford that amount over five years to ensure that our kids can go see a doctor.

[LoZoccolo]

132. You might not see it, but you essentially backed off of Stark's comments in your remarks.

We're risking the lives our our troops for a mission with no clear purpose or focus, and all these fools can talk about is the offhand comments of some guy nobody heard of a week ago.

"Offhand" is dismissive, as if they were said without thought and therefore not true. People on DU are saying that we should all agree with them and say they are true.

[Telly Savalas]

136. Well, only a fucking idiot truly believes that the motivation for our foreign policy

is merely the amusement of Bush.

Stark's comments were the mild hyperbole of a guy venting frustration. The outraged response of the Right is phony. So instead of apologizing for Stark's non-offensive comment, Democrats should be calling bullshit on the GOP's phony outrage and refocusing the attention on Stark's actual point, which was that it's moronic to say that we can't afford to pay for SCHIP while paying for a much more expensive war.

[mmonk]

133. What do we gain in condemning dissent or free speech?

[LoZoccolo]

134. Lame. n/t

[mmonk]

141. Only lame to people who put politics over what is happening to

this country over some sick loyalty and laughable excuses for a weak political party leadership.

[Tsiyu]

135. Your cold, hard opinion

may seem logical to you, but the repukes didn't hoodwink the American public on 911 with logic, Dear.

They played on Americans' EMOTIONS.

EMOTIONS are running very high in most households these days, even if your home has been spared.

There are thousands upon thousands of MAIMED SOLDIERS and DEAD soldiers and SICK CHILDREN and FAMILIES STRUGGLING.

Your spreadsheets and your high dollar calculator and your statistics software aren't going to reach them.

Pete Stark did reach them. More Americans are on his side than in the cold, hard, logical side you inhabit.


but nice try there, LZ and ENTIRELY expected :boring:

Edit for clumsy fingers

[LoZoccolo]

139. You can think logically about how to cater to emotions. n/t

[Tsiyu]

140. I did n/t

[WinkyDink]

137. Its "unverifiable nature"----TO THE DEAD, maybe. Sentient beings see it clearly.