Ds Are Now Firmly Set In Their Circular Firing Squad

[stopbush]

If I were the Rs, I would just shut up for the next 6 months and let the Ds tear each other apart. If DU is any indicator of the divisions within the Party, then I'd say it's the worst I've ever seen it in the 37 years that I've been voting.

With enemies like each other, who needs the Rs as enemies?

[dkf]

1. It's the r's masquerading as d's that are giving us grief.

Or the r masquerading as an I.

[Echo In Light]

46. And worse - the ones who apparently are unable to discern crucial differences

[bemildred]

2. Well, I don't see why the Blue Dogs can't support the rest of the party either.

Why are they always so obstinate?

[NashVegas]

52. + 25

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[AllentownJake]

3. Ummm it is always like this

Even when we are fucking winning we are stabbing at each other, the only time we don't stab each other is after we lost.

[Better Believe It]

4. Circular? It appears all of the bullets are hiting liberals/progressives, centrists seem pleased

[NanceGreggs]

6. Well, here's a newsflash for ya, BBI ...

The "liberals/progressives" are the people who know themselves to be such - not those who you and your playmates have designated as "liberal" or "progressive".

Now run along and read the latest Sheeple Newsletter - otherwise, you won't know whether agreeing with Norquist is "in" or "out" by the next time you post.

It's a movin' target - so best to keep on top of those talking points.

[nofurylike]

9. very well said, NanceGreggs!! concise and sums it up! as always,

i am grateful for your sublime voice...

and enviously dreaming of being able to express so well....


peace and solidarity

[NanceGreggs]

11. Peace and solidarity.

With just three words, you topped anything I could have said.

:patriot:

[nofurylike]

12. ...

such, coming from you....

:blush:

gratitude.


peace and solidarity, always

[spoony]

21. Yes, because nothing screams "peace and solidarity"

like attacking people. It's nice you like the words, now try their meanings.

[nofurylike]

25. disagreeing with that mob is always called attacking and

silencing, by them. and if you are not one of them, one of those being called out, then why are you offended by it, and defensive about it?

they are the aggressors here.
if that mob can't take being disagreed with, even argued with, they shouldn't come here with the... uh... stuff they are bringing here.


norquist? we should not stand up against that? if we do we are attacking them?
alliance with teabaggers? arguing against that is silencing them?
huffy, ah?

"snake"?

they have been offered peace and solidarity here. that does not interest them.
or you, perhaps?

[Romulox]

10. LOL. The centrists are the REAL liberals!

:silly:

[laughingliberal]

17. Yes. Up is down. nt

[NanceGreggs]

24. And just what is a "REAL" liberal?

Is that someone who quotes Norquist, and thinks he's a righteous dude?

(Well, today, anyway. He might be "out" tomorrow. That's why attending the meetings is important - only way to keep up with where that REAL liberal goalpost is being moved to every 24-hour cycle.)

[depakid]

26. One sort of expected more than that sort of juvenile claptrap from you

[NanceGreggs]

27. Snappy comeback ...

... full of insight, thoughtful reflection, and a solid argument supported by facts and/or reasoned opinion that begs intelligent discussion.

Or not.

Sorry, but I never was a fan of the I know you are, but what am I? school of debate.

[depakid]

29. Just a fan of strawman (or woman) and guilt by association/name calling I guess

In any case, unnecessary and not a very flattering quality.

[Romulox]

51. Nah, a "real liberal" is a free tradin', banskter bailin', Afghanistan surgin'

defender of the status quo.

That's why attending the meetings is important - only way to keep up with where that REAL liberal goalpost is being moved to every 24-hour cycle.)

Umm, I was lampooning your comment. Argue both sides of an issue much? :eyes:

The "liberals/progressives" are the people who know themselves to be such - not those who you and your playmates have designated as "liberal" or "progressive".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7337508&mesg_id=7337665

[NanceGreggs]

58. I wasn't debating an issue ...

... I was simply making a statement.

There is a group of people on this board who seem to believe they are the self-appointed arbiters of who are liberal/progressives and who are not - according to an ever-changing set of criteria they themselves have established.

The main criteria is a simple one: If you agree with us, you're a liberal/progressive. If you don't, you're not.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

36. According to her this is true

haven't you read any of her posts?

[Romulox]

50. No, I don't read her. Having a giant pic of yourself as sig is a clue

of one's (possibly overdeveloped) self-regard.

:shrug:

[phasma ex machina]

41. War is peace! nt

[Luminous Animal]

15. What is a liberal? What is a progressive?

What does a liberal fight for?

What does a progressive fight for?

I've heard and responded to many DUers who claim that the Democratic Party is a big tent party and when I've challenged them to explain what that means, that where is the line in the sand, I've found that there is apparently none.

If the Democrats have become the party that embraces anti-unionists, anti-abortionists, anti-public schoolists, anti-single payer, anti-environmentalists, pro-corporatists, pro-abstinence only... where do we draw the line with whom we embrace?

Most of the people that you've attempted to smear with your enfantalizing adjective "playmates" are people who are familiar with the 2008 Democratic platform and most of those people are acutely aware of the vast chasm between rhetoric and reality.

Oh, and kudos for using "sheeple" to denigrate a fellow democrat.

[NanceGreggs]

23. Aww, you think it's terrible ...

... that someone would use the word "sheeple" to describe a "fellow democrat"?

Good on ya. Now go tell that to the people who have been using that term in reference to those who still support this President and this Party.

Don't worry - you won't have to work to hard to find them.

As for the Democrats being a party that embraces anti-unionists, anti-abortionists, anti-public schoolists, anti-single payer, anti-environmentalists, pro-corporatists, pro-abstinence only ... well, you're right about there being a vast chasm between rhetoric and reality - as your post amply demonstrates.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Nance, it isn't like you to just piss on people's concerns

or to be dismissive of real problems.

I've always thought you to be very fair minded but it seems above you're scoffing at what seems a very present issue that is literally resulting in the tail wagging the dog as far as how issues are addressed, its not just the "left end" of the party that is getting trucked it is the ideals and ideas of the mainstream of the party that is also taking a boot to the head here.
We had like 60 reps vote for Stupek, we have enough Senators on record already to scuttle any climate effort, we have a Sec of Ed who is extremely pro-privatization, we've seen even the weakest public option eliminated-even the mere threat of one aka the trigger is unacceptable, card check is off the table and it goes on and on.

Hell, if you really support someone then it is a responsibility to tell them if you see them going down the wrong path and wrong path cannot exclusively be defined as not as far off track as _____.

[nofurylike]

34. " to just piss on people's concerns"? THAT is dismissive. have

you read back and around?

i know you didn't address me. and i know NanceGreggs can more than handle this herself. but if you really do respect her, why not try to hear her. she is as clear as ever, and by daring to step up, is now receiving the putdowns du jour.

respect her? listen, then, please.

you may be sincere, but there is a massive force here that is not.
think "snake" and go from there.


sorry to leap in, but i so admire NanceGregg, who could have stayed silent, but was willing not to....

i apologize for speaking when it was you who had been addressed, NanceGreggs.

[niceypoo]

48. If everyone walked in lockstep, nothing would ever change

[natrat]

49. thank you for discussing the issues, who cares about these du personalities, fucking childish

[NanceGreggs]

60. I am not pissing on people's concerns ...

... nor am I being dismissive of real problems - which are, as we all know, plentiful and daunting in their challenge.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is one's responsibility to make one's voice heard, loud and clear, by those one supports.

However, what I am pissing on is the notion being expressed - even urged - by many on this board that the way to deal with the present challenges we face is to NOT vote, NOT support the Party, start a third party, circulate petitions calling for investigations into the President's staff, etc.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how any such suggestions get us closer to real healthcare reform, or out of Iraq and Afghanistan forthwith.

The thread titles on this board have become as misleading as those we usually see on FAUX-News. Obama's statements are parsed and taken out of context, then proffered as proof of his alleged wrongdoing. Posts about the positive actions he has taken are immediately met with scorn and derision - for some here, he can't do anything right (or, more to the point, they are loathe to have anyone perceive him as having accomplished anything of value.)

The term "progressive" has been hijacked by a small but very vocal group here, who have appointed themselves as the Decider Guys when it comes to who is "in" and who is "out" - something that seems to change on a daily basis. Citing a website, or quoting a politician that agreed with their thoughts yesterday can lead to that same website or spokesperson being dismissed out-of-hand today, should they state something contrary to the Decider Guys' current trend in thinking.

There are many websites devoted to this kind of alleged "progressiveness". I've read them from time to time. It is apparent that their idea of being a "progressive" is to sit on the sidelines of politics and complain about what's wrong with the Democrats, what's wrong with the Republicans, what's wrong with everything - while offering no solutions, nor encouragement to take action for change. "Don't call or write your representatives, they never listen anyway. Don't get off your ass and DO something, because it's all for naught in the end. Don't vote, you're just wasting your time."

This mindset is now infiltrating this website.

What I have been seeing here is:

If you don't support this President, you are en enlightened individual who understands what's going on. If you do support Obama, you're a kool-aide drinker incapable of individual thought. If you don't support the Party you are simply banding together with those who think as you do. If you do support the Party, you're just marching-in-lockstep.

These people are encouraging a black-and-white perception of the world - something we, here at DU, once attributed to the narrow-minded on FR: the President announces his decision on increasing troops in Afghanistan, he is a warmonger; the President announces billions in aid for the homeless, he is a corporatist sell-out trying to "distract" the populace from his true agenda.

What truly amazes me is the contradictory nature of some of the thinking being expressed here of late, e.g. Obama is only in it for himself, and wants to quickly pass a crappy HCR law so he can chalk-up a "win" for his own glory. In other words, this vain, glory-seeking politician wants to go down in history forever associated with a policy he knows will prove to be disastrous. Just how does that work?

The Democrats voting for this bill are doing so knowing that their constituents will wind up in prison for not having coverage, because they're just in it for themselves. Again, these Dems who are only in it for themselves are willing to support something they know will cost them their jobs when they face re-election. Just how does that work?

There is always a lot of discussion on this site about "constructive criticism". Well, it's just MHO, but I see absolutely nothing constructive about posting thread after thread containing comments like, And here's another time Obama LIED, here's another thing he said that proves he's a sell-out, here's another person he spoke to who is totally against everything we stand for" - posted by people who are now defending Grover fuckin' Norquist as one of the "good Americans" we should all be listening to.

And then there is what I call SMS, sudden memory syndrome, where some posters are just remembering now that they never liked nor trusted this President in the first place - although a very quick perusal of their journals shows quite the opposite. But, no, they're not marching in lockstep with those who are encouraging divisiveness within the Party - they just "remembered" that they've agreed with that agenda all along.

OPs stating facts contrary to the opinions being profferred by a certain contingent are immediately labelled as STFU threads. Pointing out that someone encouraging sitting out the mid-terms and NOT voting is detrimental and destructive is met with oh, so I'm not ALLOWED to criticize.

Jesus Hussein Christ - this site has become a madhouse. Those who are inciting divisiveness, in-fighting, and an attitude of I'm just picking up my marbles and going home are being lauded as the heroes who will really bring about progressive change in this country - yeah, by picking up their marbles and going home. As we all know, that's how it's done.

[TheKentuckian]

62. I understand where you're coming from. Maybe, I misinterpeted originally

I see dishonest brokers and a shut the fuck up chorus on both sides of this deal. I certainly don't subscribe to the take the marbles and go home nor can I support garbage for "the good of the party". It makes for a clusterfuck.

I grasp the contridictions but feel they are created by policy which doesn't make much sense.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt response. Keep on doing what you do.

[NanceGreggs]

63. Thanks, Kentuckian.

I agree - there is a STFU chorus on both sides.

There is also a small but increasingly visible group here who seem to not care who stands for what - just so long as they can keep encouraging disagreement between "warring factions", and those who hold views different from one another.

When I see someone pouring gasoline while claiming to be putting out a fire - well, it does make me more than a little suspicious of their intentions.

I'm just hoping that the gasoline brigade get their walking papers sooner rather than later.

[NashVegas]

53. Someone Wrote Me In An Email

A progressive is a liberal who is happy as long as the person occupying the Oval Office is not a conservative.

Not sure that's my definition, exactly, but we seem to have a lot of those around whenever there's a skiffle.

[blondeatlast]

40. Nance, you are gift to DU.

Well said.

[EFerrari]

56. So do those of you "liberal/progressives" in your heart just disregard

the constant slams from the White House?

What a good filter you closeted types must have, much better than your manners, for sure.

[NanceGreggs]

59. Ah, here we go ...

Liberal/progressives in your heart (i.e. not the "real" thing)

"You closeted types" who have a "good filter" (i.e. those who obviously don't understand what's going on)

If you don't agree that there are constant slams from the White House, you're not on the side of the righteous and knowledgeable.

Considering the things I have been called of late on this, a Democratic website, because I am still supportive of the Democratic President and the Party, it's laughable to preach to me about manners.

[blondeatlast]

38. Define "liberal," "progressive," and "centrist." Please--you're a smart guy who can type

a lot.

[KittyWampus]

5. DU is absolutely NOT an indicator of anything to do with the Democratic Party.

[quiller4]

18. You are so right.

[grahamhgreen]

7. It is critical that the Senate Stops shooting! Give us a public option or kill the mandate!

[Odin2005]

8. Circular? The DLC bootlickers are shooting the REAL LIBERALS.

[Unvanguard]

13. DU is not an indicator of anything but DU. Same goes for the rest of the liberal blogosphere.

It is a very small part of the public, one that is in no way representative.

[Number23]

20. Beautifully, perfectly said.

:thumbsup:

[Luminous Animal]

14. It isn't democrats who are shooting at me.

It is Democrats.

[Hannah Bell]

16. you mean landrieau et al, i presume? oh, you mean "the left"? i see.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Indeed. I am curious as to who are stopbush's enemies...

Rahm or Landrieau? Or you and me?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Well, the good news is that DU is not an indicator of the Democratic Party.

On Edit: For starters, DU is overwhelmingly white and the Democratic Party is made up in large part of minorities.

[Better Believe It]

37. Democratic Party is mainly supported by working class and minorities who have no power in the party

and obviously don't control it or its politicians.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. Minorities overwhelmingly approve of Obama. 80% for AAs and 70% for Hispanics like myself.

We are obviously not represented on DU. As we make up a large portion of the Democratic base, this is one of the reasons why DU is not representative of the Democratic Party.

[Better Believe It]

43. What's your point?

That the working class and minorities (who are overwhelming working class in composition) have tremendous power in and control the Democratic Party?

It's obvious that Democratic Underground is far more representative of Democratic voters and their beliefs than the leadership of the Democratic Party on every major political issue.

Pick an issue! Single payer, public option, EFCA, civil liberties, the wars on Iraq/Afghanistan, abortion rights, massive federal jobs creation, etc.,

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. My point is that DU is not representative of the Democratic Party.

I don't know why this is a difficult point for you to grasp.

Polls taken of actual minorities show that our views on the President are not the same as DU's views on the President. Again, these polls are of actual minorities-not just how you think we should feel.

[Better Believe It]

54. And my point is that DU is far more representative of Democratic voters than the Democratic Party ..

leadership which is in reality DLC and other "centrist" office holders and officials.

Of course DU is not representative of the Democratic Party. It is not the leadership body or even a subordinate body of the national Democratic Party. Everyone knows that the Democratic Party leadership is more conservative than DU and most Democratic voters, so what's your point?

Are you suggesting that the centrist leadership of the Democratic Party more closely reflects the interests and opinions of working class people and racial minorities than DU? Is that what you are trying to say? Well, if so, that's absolute nonsense!

And if that's not how we are suppose to interpret your comments, your point is pointless!

[Number23]

55. Semi, I love you. But the numbers for AA approval of the Pres are actually around 90%

not 80%. :) The man gets MAD love from brown people.

[cornermouse]

28. Find some democrats who are actually fighting

for legislation that is based on traditional democratic values and that will actually work to benefit the "little guy" and I think a lot of anger would disappear. Passing a few placebos shortly before the election won't work. We've seen too many of them.

[mmonk]

32. Well said.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. We are in a struggle for the Future that we most passionately DEMAND!

Complete and total defeat by 2012.

The last time, it took seven long years for us to overturn a Republican crash-and-burn; 1973 to 1980.

This time, we will do it in four. Maybe two.

Hell, it only took us about 9 months to turn on the man we were celebrating as our Great Leftist Savior.

There is only one problem: Most of the voters (damn them!) still like him and would vote for him in preference to any other politician out there.

--d!

[mmonk]

33. Election time is always liberal hunting season for the party.

2010 is approaching.

[Fumesucker]

35. It takes all sides to make a circular firing squad..

If Obama is such a great politician who plays all the angles then he has already gamed out this reaction and will use it to his own advantage.

The reactions of everyone involved are far from unpredictable really, if you had told me a year ago there was to be a private mandate but no hint of a public option in the final bill I could have told you that some people would find that unacceptable, to some extent I could have told you which people it was who would feel that way.

I also could have told you that some people would have no problem with the private mandate and wouldn't care about a lack of a public option.

It doesn't matter what you do, Obama is a consummate politician who has gamed out every possible scenario and is prepared to play the cards to his maximum benefit no matter what those cards might be. A good poker player is consistent above all, he doesn't win every single hand but he wins the majority of them and the ones that truly count.

[panzerfaust]

42. We need someone who is not afraid to lose a battle, to win a war.

If our current 'leaders' will not stand on the platform upon which they were elected out of fear of losing a vote (for example, by dropping the public option in healthcare reform because of Fear of Filibuster) and so we end up with no essential change to the status quo, then what earthly difference does it make which party is nominally in office?

We voted for CHANGE, not for another 4 years of government run for the wealthy.

[stopbush]

64. We have leaders who realize that the war has begun, and that the health care skirmishes of the past

were fought and lost.

I'm happy we have leaders today who realized the importance of PASSING HCR and getting past the incessant talking about passing HCR.

This WAS the war, my friend. At least it was the first major and decisive battle of the real war. WE won. Be happy.

[WeDidIt]

45. Only on leftwing web sites

In the real world, the Democratic Party has rarely ever been so united behind a president from their party.

What's seen on DU and FDL is extremely minor and more comparable to the PUMA phenomenon which had no measurable effect on the election.

[natrat]

47. you can tell there is truth at hand by the unrecs

it didn't have to be this way; just a few bones thrown to good causes but instead the country gets wall to wall right wing legislation, not even a consolation prize to the left. Stupidity or by design ? by design

[Individualist]

57. The circular firing squad meme is as old as it is asinine.

Finally, the "firing squad in a circle" line has been a DLC favorite for years. DLC chief Al From has been pimping it at least since the last presidential race. It's time we officially retired this line, which is really just a sorry take on the lame old high-school guidance-counselor saw: "Now, Jimmy. When you shoot spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson, you're really shooting spitballs at yourself." And little Jimmy thinks: No, actually, I was shooting spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson . . . http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows/print/

[stopbush]

65. The DLC didn't come up with the term circular firing squad.

What's wrong with something being old if it's germane to the situation?

As far as asinine, that's in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

You will have no more success retiring the circular firing squad line as you would retiring the sticks-n-stones line.

[L0oniX]

61. They're all a bunch of spineless fucks except for Kucinich and Dean.

Kucinich 2012