DU Wars

[Cyrano]

I read DU threads far more often than I post. And, trolls aside, I often get the impression that we are at war with ourselves. All too often, I have to remind myself that we are not the enemy.

Our common enemy is the Republican Party, their teabagger shock troops, the MSM that defers to them and rarely calls them out on their lies, and the host of institutions they’ve set up for turning out propaganda, (The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute and others). But mostly, our enemies are the corporations and billionaires who fund it all and are bleeding us dry.

Enemy is a strong word. But I don’t know what else to call people who are trying to destroy America by wrapping themselves in the flag, claiming that some God is their own personal property, and defining the rest of us as socialists and perverts who are destroying “family values.” They’ve gotten very good at the shit they peddle.

But here’s my gripe. Every ounce of energy we spend fighting among ourselves is energy that should be used to do battle against those who are trying to destroy our way of life. Their followers are ignorant enough to buy what they’re selling. But those running the show, along with their elected and pundit/editorial henchmen know exactly what they’re doing.

We can and do disagree on specifics. But why don’t we try to minimize the fighting among ourselves, and put our efforts and ideas into fighting those who couldn’t care less if they were stepping over our bodies in the streets?

[MineralMan]

1. K&R. I wish I could do it 100 times.

[Cetacea]

2. I'm kinda getting off on being hated here

Good OP. Happy to send this to Greatest.

[tavalon]

38. Well, even if I don't agree with all you write

I'm never going to be hating on a fellow cetacean lover.

[zipplewrath]

3. That which does not kill me, makes me stronger

"Every ounce of energy we spend fighting among ourselves is energy that should be used to do battle against those who are trying to destroy our way of life."

I disagree. Refining ones positions, through socratic debate, makes one stronger and more well informed. Think of this as a workout. It doesn't weaken one for the upcoming competition. It strengthens one.

[Cyrano]

13. Yep, I agree. And I wish that all the debates here were socratic.

Having said this, so many of the sub-threads I read here are personal pissing contests in which the participants are trying to demean their opponent and trying to get in the last word.

I wish that your ideal concept represented reality. And perhaps I'm a bit too cynical regarding the posts of others. Nonetheless, too much of what passes for debate here is IMO, nothing more than "I'm right and you're an imbecile."

I know that you must have seen many of these back and forth sub-threads and mercifully, many of them are deleted. Nonetheless, there is nothing socratic about them. To borrow from Shakespeare (in "Macbeth") far too many arguments here are nothing more than "... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

[zipplewrath]

92. You get what you put into it

You can stay out of pure pissing contests. Often, I'm able to "turn" a pissing contest into something else (okay that's rare). But also I can often "use" a poster to work on my own thoughts. The truth is, in many cases, the less engagement one gets often is an indication that ones position is relatively strong, or well thought out (doesn't mean it's right, just that it is on a solid foundation). That in an of itself is useful.

[Cal33]

18. Idealistic and philosophical. Unfortunately there aren't many

like you.

[JNelson6563]

90. lol "socratic debate"

Is that what the kids are calling it these days? In my day we called it monkeys flinging shit. That's what it still appears to be.

Julie

[leftstreet]

4. There isn't really much fighting here

The bulk of membership is solidly left. You see it time and again with polls and the Rec feature.

There's just a few....uh, what are we calling them now? Moderates? Ardent supporters? I forget - who excite things.

Much solidarity here actually

[RandomThoughts]

5. I understand that, but much of the energy that helps in battles against bad.

comes from many good concepts. And those concepts if part of a bigger concept shape things in forward movement, if not they fall off and it doesn't work out.

So while moving for concepts of better justice, including against the groups you mention, better concepts of kindness goes along with that, since that is the base concept of better justice.

If some person in the group you mention does many good things for a smaller empathy circle, and is very kind, and also kicks 1000s out of homes, and those people only get angry and hate from those situations, it is really hard to help them. It is like their doors to the ability to help them get closed if they get in despair or worse feelings, why some create despair in the first place.

It is hard to explain, but part of why some treat some people badly is to close their doors to things like caring and feeling so they can't get help. So while moving forward on issues, also finding ways to share thoughts on better feelings, and keep hope and better passions, is necessary to help people.

If a person is hurting, and you help them, you help them with the care in material, and also the sharing of care in spiritual by wanting to help them and feeling with them, from that their doors can open to get more help and find better paths. And your doors when helping them also open wider to get more help to help people.

[Greyhound]

6. KoKo put up a good thread a couple days ago that, I think, lays out the fundamental

problem, and a problem it is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9160919&mesg_id=9160919

There is a false assumption at work here and it has persisted for years, that being that we are all on the same side. By defining every issue as Democratic or republik we fail to see that the division is not along party lines, rather our basic political/social philosophy.

We can quibble over semantics and we can lay claim to various labels but it comes down to conservatives vs. liberals. At this point in history there are virtually no liberal republiks, but there are a significant number of conservative Democrats and they, being among the beneficiaries of this money before people philosophy are not interested in changing that system that has worked for them.

Conservatives, disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Liberals, favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible.

One only need look over that thread to see this in action.

[Individualist]

8. Thank you for posting that.

[Greyhound]

10. You're very welcome.

:kick:

[laughingliberal]

16. +1000 nt

[Ignis]

23. +1 and thanks for the link.

I'd missed KoKo's thread. :thumbsup:

[Jamastiene]

33. That is the elephant in the room.

You nailed it!

+a zillion

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

9. Will you tell all the teachers that their only enemy is the GOP?

Many are wondering lately.

[JuniperLea]

22. Must every thread be a teacher thread?

Seems to me hijacking threads causes a lot of problems around here... and not everything is about teachers.

[Missy Vixen]

25. Oh, absolutely it is

>and not everything is about teachers.<

Teachers ensure children can read, express themselves in a clear and logical manner, and show them that learning is a lifelong pursuit. The great ones have influence over their students that lasts a lifetime.

An excellent public education determines a lot more than whether or not one's read "Moby Dick" or can recite the multiplication tables. It determines what you're going to do with your life, and what your offspring will do with theirs as well. That education also helps you to think and reason.

I don't think there's enough hijacking of threads around here. After all, maybe we should spend some time talking about the things that are vitally important to the citizens of this country.

[Scurrilous]

11. K & R

:thumbsup:

[obxhead]

12. Our common enemy is the corporations.

We need to get any politician that supports corporations before the people out of office. Dem or Repug. It really is becoming a party of 1 in many ways, the party of the corporate supporter.

[femrap]

89. and after watching Olbermann

last night, we find out that it is also 'small businesses,' which does not mean small number of employees, not small in the way of profits....No, they are small because there are a SMALL number of OWNERS!!!!

[Fumesucker]

14. It's far more hurtful when someone you think is on your side does you dirty..

You expect your enemies to try to cause you harm, it's much more upsetting when it's someone you trusted does it to you.

[nashville_brook]

29. that's where the heat comes from -- political is personal, and there's many people

hurting right now who are perceiving that they are further being attacked with dog whistle politics within the party. broad brush smears...gaping strawmen...and personal attacks...and that's just from the WH spokesman.

[TBF]

31. Exactly. FWIW, I see owners as the enemy - not fellow workers. nt

[Cleita]

15. So where do we go when our Democrats are

thinking, talking and acting like Republicans? Sorry, I can't go there.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I believe the best strategy is to elect even more Democrats as a means to reduce

the size of the at best; margin of error and at worst; fig leaf, depending on your point of view on the cynic scale.

If we had 65-70 Democratic Senators instead of 60, the nation would definitely take a corrective course and be pulled to the liberal/progressive/populist,libertarian/left, if it didn't; the Democratic Party would lose it's moral authority to represent the people and a viable Third Party would rise.

As it is they can blame the Republicans and a few blue dogs for holding up progress.

[Cal33]

19. You're right. But how to do it?

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Recommend that folks don't pee in the pool.

That would be a start.

[Uncle Joe]

111. I believe it's totally ok for the left wing to constructively criticize a Democratic Administration

and/or Congress, in fact I believe it's necessary, there must be pressure felt from the left in the game of political Tug of War or we will surely be pulled over in to the Republican ditch.

But there are two critical caveats, stay loyal to the Party and stay on the offense in re: to the Republican Party whether you approve of every policy the current administration has done or not.

[Cleita]

26. Unless those five to ten extra senators turn out to be

Blue Dog DLCers like Max Baucus. I really would like to see a third party arise out of the DLCers and give us back our old Democratic Party. The one of FDR, Truman and Paul Wellstone. The one who took care of the working class.

[Uncle Joe]

110. I doubt all of them would turn out

to be Blue Dog DLCers, I also believe the increased overall number of Democratic Senators would serve to dilute the power and the Party wouldn't so easily be held hostage.

[bigwillq]

21. As long as we're fighting for good causes IRL,

and fighting against those that try to suppress progression IRL, then I don't care if it's WWIII on message boards.
People take message boards way too seriously. If we dare to disagree with a Democrat or Obama or Hillary, some think we're anti-Democrat or a freep or a troll.

I think IRL, all of us know who the real enemies are. And, hopefully, we are fighting against the forces of evil when it really counts.

[Greyhound]

24. Nighttime kick.

[grantcart]

27. It makes you wonder if people who consistently habitually search out

any reason to pick apart Democratic office holders are not in fact "common enemies with the Republican Party".

[depakid]

28. Seems that you missed the point of the OP completely

[grantcart]

30. seems like you have no grasp of the words "consistent" and "habitually"

although they certainly fit your mode of posting.

[depakid]

34. Proving my point emphatically

Hence, the much discussed enthusiasm gap.

btw: many of the posts that you're inartfully describing are aimed at Republican policies enabled, legitimized or adopted by members of the party in power.

So when it boils down- who really is the enemy of Republicans?

My money is on those who oppose their policies and stand up for traditional Democratic values and the interests of our constituencies. Yours?

[grantcart]

39. In the last 24 months since President Obama was elected we have seen

the fastest expansion of Federal authority in more areas than anytime since Lincoln's.

The President retains high positives among all traditional base sectors of the Democratic Party.

Your money is on seeking out critiques of the President at any cost for any reason. It may pass in NSW as plausible commentary but except for DU and a few other corners of the blogosphere it is seen as meaningless drivel. Here we are actually 'fighting in the trenches' by going door to door working for actual progressives.

In the real progressive world the appointment of Warren is seen for the bold move that it is, in DU it is the source of a hundred conspiracy theories and patronizing comments that extend the slander now to Warren.

[depakid]

40. Once again, you prove the point emphatically

The same one that Krugman, David Sirota, Glenn Greenwald, Digby and others have been making.

You rather dysfunctionally feel the need to "hector the base" to use Digby's term- while failing to even acknowledge their concerns-much less their legitimacy.

Sort of like the post harping on "how great the jobs recovery is" in GD today. None too bright, when the (non)effects of the half measure stimulus are so readily apparent and widely felt.

As to constituencies like labor (or say, the teachers unions to use but one specific example) it's generally not a mark of support for their leadership to go out of its way to ensure that no administration official appear at their national meetings this summer. That oil drilling triangulation was impressive as well- don't you think?

Regarding Warren- after seemingly endless dithering (and the avoidance of a fight that every astute observer of politics has stated was worth having, to say the least) she's got some interim appointment which has left no certainty about how much (if any) real power that she'll have. Political- and perhaps policy fail there as well, although as to the latter, only time will tell.

There's a reason why there's an enthusiasm gap- and why people are tuning out and not getting involved. And quite frankly by demonstrably endorsing and furthering it- you bear as Sirota notes: responsibility for the outcomes.

<on edit> Since you bring up NSW, the last election here in Oz was instructive. The Labor government was widely perceived as having failed to stand up and fight for its policies- and hence, lost its majority. This despite successfully keeping Australia out of recession and enacting what Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz called, to paraphrase: the most success implementation of stimulatory economic policy that he'd ever seen.

Had the Labor government not pandered to the right and had it actually stood up and fought for its policies- rather than backed away as the Democrats also have- they'd wouldn't be dealing with minority government.

Something to think in the run up to November.....

[cliffordu]

43. I dunno, lots of opinion and rehashed bloggerel involved with your

Little screed.

I understand you might think that the concerns of the base are being ignored when people reject pejoratives like 'not too bright' or jamming all the talking points you can into a paragraph, - like the one mixing teachers and oil-

And the complete and useless pastime of mixing up your impatience with actual policy and personnel decisions "endless dithering".

Is that an actual policy concern, or is that just more snark from a fake activist who's willing to make grand pronouncements about enthusiasm here in the states from how many thousands of miles away??

I doubt you'd know what is going on here on the ground if you were drug through the streets of Portland behind the Bud Clydsedales

[depakid]

45. Seems to me that the current predicament the Dems find themselves in speaks for itself

That opinions and analysis I've expressed here end up also being expressed by other astute observers and more prominent commentators is isn't something that most people would call "rehashed "bloggeral" or some other attempt at a pejorative neologism.

The accurate word would be "corroboration."

Moreover, the word one would use for the dynamic that I (and others) have been warning about (and posted on this board about) every time a constituency has been backhanded, backstabbed or gratuitously insulted over the past 20 months- or when the administration's or Congress' actions or omissions associates them with such popular groups as banksters, health insurers, PhARMA, etc., is "confirmation."

[USArmyParatrooper]

46. Funny. "the Dems find THEMselves in".... not OURselves.

I'm just a stickler for details.

[cliffordu]

48. Lol

Ya, there's that.....

:rofl:

Well played, sir, well played....

[frylock]

97. he's lives in australia and stated as much in the post..

reading comprehension. it's what's for dinner.

[USArmyParatrooper]

101. And?

"My money is on those who oppose their policies and stand up for traditional Democratic values and the interests of our constituencies. Yours?"

followed by...

"btw: I have a vote- and I use it." In response to cliffordu implying he can't even vote in the midterms this year.

"reading comprehension. it's what's for dinner."
You must be starving.

[frylock]

109. and?

you're the one getting your panties wadded up over the use of plural pronouns. people can vote for democrats and still not be a part of your precious little clique. do you want people like myself and depa to vote for dems, or are you looking for people to sign your fucking loyalty oath?

[Ignis]

106. Quick! See if he floats in water!

:eyes:

[cliffordu]

47. Backhanded? Stabbed in the back???

I feel for you, victim.

[depakid]

58. I'd be more worried about constituencies and progressive interest groups who had it happen to them

They're the folks who aren't donating, volunteering and doing the GOTV for the Democrats this fall.

You know, teachers, union rank & file, human rights & anti-war advocates, environmentalists, health care reform groups, gay rights groups, etc., etc.

Didn't take a genius to see it coming. Same dynamic as 1994.

Except this time there was every in your face reason that Republicans could (and should) have been relegated to the fringe for a generation- or at least made to sit in Siberia for awhile per their electoral mandate, rather than have their policies and interests repeatedly pandered to and legitimized.

[cliffordu]

59. So your basic tack here is to prognosticate a 1994

Style meltdown in spite of the fact that half of the crap you have listed above JUST ISN'T TRUE.

I love it when the self proclaimed experts rely on the scummiest most rancid anti-democratic party screeds to make their worrisome and dire pronouncements.

I guess if you're saying you don't want to vote this year......oh, wait....

Nevermind.

[depakid]

63. Not a "tack" just recognition of a similar dynamic

and not one that's been limited to 1994 (although that's probably the closest example in terms of similar contexts and the politics of disappointment).

I shouldn't have to quote George Santayana- but his famous adage certainly seems to apply. And apply sharpest to those who seem to be the furtherest in denial and the most inclined to engage in rhetorical hyperbole in their characterizations along with thinly veiled personal attacks.

btw: I have a vote- and I use it. As everyone should (but under this and similar circumstances, haven't and probably won't- and won't be more likely to by being browbeaten by politicians and their surrogates).

[cliffordu]

67. I'd say that your last paragraph speaks for itself and says everything

about you and the ideas you espouse that reasonable people need to know.

:hurts:

[depakid]

74. Indeed

It's the difference between recognizing how I (or you) probably behave and how many people (the electorate) and smaller groups of people with priorities of interests (constituencies) actually behave-

And what actually works to persuade and inspire- or enthuse- and what doesn't.

Proof of which can be found in many places. Application of empirical and scientific research- as Westen and Lakoff (among others) lay out.

Qualitative observations, which we can see in Loeb's piece that I've posted several times (or in any of our observations and discussions with folks).

Or in lessons drawn from credible contemporary and consequent analysis -whether from the 1990's, 1890's or from one's own memories.

[canetoad]

71. Deppo, you live in Oz, just like me

And in my book, than makes you an Aussie.

Sadly you are hanging on to the concept of American Exceptionalism which does not and never has really applied to we cobbers down under.

You've heard the old saying, 'Shit or get off the pot'? It's pretty popular among Aussies and is generally aimed at people who talk big but who rarely follow up in any meaningful way.

If you're an Aussie and vote here, then you really shouldn't be talking about how you cast your vote in another country. OTOH, if you are not a resident or qualified to vote here, that sort of makes you ineligible to say much about Aussie politics from a first person point of view.

I kinda like the differences between our nations. We absorb, learn from, each other's cultures while retaining the essence of our own. Where do you stand Deppo (excuse me for using the Aussie affectionate abbreviation, it's a cultural thing)? With the laid back, relaxed Aussies or with the fighting Americans?

[depakid]

72. Actually, I've mentioned a phenomena (or set of 'em) common to both countries

which lost the Labor party its outright majority in government despite it's deft handling and astonishing results (and benefits accruing to Aussies in every walk of like) during the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) wherein our policy makers listed to progressive economists who had track records of getting it right.

Now correct me if you disagree with any of the following observations:

Rudd and Labor lost control of the narrative last January and recalcitrant conservatives (often spouting outrageous things) owned the news cycles.

Rudd's biggest swoon (drop off a cliff) in the polls came after he rather abruptly dropped climate change legislation- a centerpiece of the 2007 campaign, without even a putting up a fight. Even a spirited yet losing one.

This (among other similar things) led people to question what (if anything) the Rudd Government was on about- what they really stood for and why if they really believed these things, why they weren't fighting for them- even if that meant a loss (or maybe even a double dissolution).

This in turn eclipsed Rudd's mostly successful negotiations with and arm twisting of state governments on health care reforms.

Rudd lost credibility with the electorate, and people started not taking his pronouncements seriously- which led to his being rolled.

Julia Gillard the new PM had a short honeymoon but failed to restore the confidence through pandering to the right on asylum seekers (without having, as Americans would say, her ducks in a row) and failing to take a principled stand on climate change legislation. Indeed, her non-position (citizen review) was roundly ridiculed.

Still with me?

Now, look at and apply the same inductive and deductive lessons to the Obama administration's and the Senate leadership's actions and omissions over the last 20 months.

Are there similar patterns?

[suzie]

81. Seems like you still didn't respond to canetoad.

As the old folks in my family would have said, "Is you is or is you ain't?"

[depakid]

82. If you're looking for a shallow gotcha

I've posted many times before that I vote in my former home state of Oregon.

A better suggestion than gotcha's would be: rather than trying to take down, hector or vex individual posters, "bloggers," progressive interest groups or constituencies, have a listen to and a think about what they say and give some consideration to how they view actions on the issues- and/or the political dynamics as a whole.

It's really not that hard- though it does at times require something like what proponents of 12 step programs call a "a searching and fearless moral inventory" about what's gone wrong- or right, and what we can learn from it.

[suzie]

121. Please don't insult those involved in 12 step programs by associating with them

those who simply hate Obama and Democrats and make that belief known every day on DU.

[Cherchez la Femme]

105. Funny

that you're getting these attacks specifically under this OP

Funny as in bizarre funny
not Ha-Ha funny.

At the same time it's very, very sad.

[JNelson6563]

115. Forgot to mention that big heavy cross to drag around!

Damn! That's a tough gig.

[Kahuna]

66. I prefer to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Not voting

for Dems, or against repukes is being part of the problem. I take no glee in seeing the repubs back in power. I've already seen the damage they can do. To allow them back in is unconscionable. I don't care what you think about the Dems, they are always better for America than the repukes. Can you deny that?

[grantcart]

51. and you have proved the point empirically

The critical point that was again pointed out in the subsequent reply is in the term "habitually".



Senator Sanders who is a Socialist regularly supports the President and occasionaly opposes him.

The only people that "habitually" oppose the President are Republicans and those that unwittingly advance their cause.

By agreeing to take exception to my use of "habitual" you revealed the radical nature of your anti Obama rhetoric. Even a Democrat that has had significant opposition to some of the President's policies would readily agree that those that oppose the President "habitually" are not allies of the party. Krugman does not habitually oppose the President and frequently his criticism is in degree and not in kind, agreeing with the President's policy but wishing that he was more aggresive. Krugman is silent on how even more aggressive policies could be adopted in a legislative process that can be stopped by representatives of states that constitute only 20% of the population.

Again those that habitually oppose the President are neither progressives or Democrats but knowing or unknowing allies of the only organized body that is committed to oppose every thing the President does, the Republicans.

[NanceGreggs]

52. A-fuckin-men.

:applause:

[cliffordu]

53. Whoop, there it is!!!!!!

:rofl:

[depakid]

60. If you want empirical (or quantifiable) look to Nate Silver or Drew Westen

Both of which I've posted time and time again along with Lakoff.

What we're discussing on this thread is more on the qualitative side- but as most people who write and do research in the social sciences, the two are closely related.

Speaking of Dr. Westen, he's got some advice here that I've also posted before. Might be a good idea for folks to read it and pass it along on the state and local levels (where prospects also look pretty grim in places for the reasons that I and others have outlined above and elsewhere):

What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/what-created-the-populist_b_699960.html

*Note, these "empirically" based articles have scoffed at or ridiculed by a certain faction here when they've been posted, just as other pieces and advices have- and yet, lo and behold, they turn out to be predictive, too.

[cliffordu]

61. So what you're saying is you have more exclusive

Kool aid than the rest of us, some 'really good shit'........?

[depakid]

64. You can read the material and judge its merits for yourself

[cliffordu]

65. I do, yet I cannot find the pejoratives and the invectives that you seem to

Use when paraphrasing them in your posts......they are in fact correct some of the time, but you don't have to wade through five feet of garbage to get the gist.

[depakid]

68. You can either read the complete piece (and related pieces and books) or skim

Depends on what level of understanding you're looking for.

As to invective and pejoratives- those look to be others' posts on this thread, which is understandable, considering that what some of us say sounds a lot like "we told you so" and that tends to make people angry when staring at the prospects of unpleasant consequences.

A lot of us got the same reaction back in 2002 and 2004 (back then the "in term" for the Democrats' general strategy in those two elections, as some might recall was: Republican lite, and a favorite quote to post came from Harry Truman).

[cliffordu]

70. Well...

:rofl:

[depakid]

77. Sadly, that tends to be the fallback response

when there's nothing more on the rational side to add to the discussion or debate as the case may be.

Anyone who reads these forums can observe that tendency for themselves with various posters.

[HughMoran]

99. Suddenly a sage

not buyin' it

[cliffordu]

107. Amazing how many names he just started dropping

to prove....something.....or another..........

[inna]

75. "you revealed the radical nature of your anti Obama rhetoric" - oh FFS.

Stop witch hunting and targeting progressive posters; it's creepy and sickening beyond words.


Why don't you try discussing *policies* and *issues* (isn't that what political discussion boards are for?), rather than engaging in obvious and vicious ad homs/personal attacks/"campaigns" against other DUers.


This is what killing this community.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Amen!

The baiting is creepy, that is the word for it.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

124. +1

Policies over personalities.

[girl gone mad]

93. "you revealed the radical nature of your anti Obama rhetoric."

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

98. It's self-evident

I'm assuming you agree with depa

[HughMoran]

96. Hear! Hear!

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

114. +1...nt

Sid

[Ignis]

116. Have the DU rules regarding bigotry against region of residence changed?

Let's check the DU rules, under the Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears section...Ah, here it is:

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

Well, that's odd. I guess the rules don't apply to all posters. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

57. Who is that?

You wrote: "My money is on those who oppose their policies and stand up for traditional Democratic values and the interests of our constituencies."

You don't seem to think that's the Democratic Party anymore. Who is it you're referring to specifically that you put your money on?

[Rex]

32. I would say only %5 of DU likes to fight all the time.

Me, maybe 1% of the time.

[LWolf]

35. I thought those who didn't care less if they were stepping over our

bodies in the streets were those that participate in blaming, attacking, and disenfranchising the left.

Gibbs. Emmanuel. Obama. And a core group of DUers. Every neoliberal, Democratic or Republican, is willing to destroy the quality of life for many.

[cliffordu]

44. Well....

:rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

108. All for the defense of one man

They'd fight tooth and nail to shut down anything that wasn't boot-lick worthy
as if he was infallible, just like the Pope is via their (their=Catholic church) own proclamation & of course to many Catholics.

Astounding, isn't it?

[LWolf]

122. It is astounding and dismaying. nt

[inna]

119. +

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. I've been thinking the exact same thing for a long time now

K & R!

:thumbsup:

[tavalon]

37. Very well spoken

I'm tempted to put a moratorium on my complaints about this administration until after the midterms but being the superstitious person that I am, I would be afraid they would do something monumentally stupid (not as unlikely as one might wish) and my head and my resolve will explode.

[southmost]

41. i'm getting over the cynical circular firing squad

which escalates around election cycles (mostly suspect agent provacateurs anyways)

[Born_A_Truman]

42. Elect Democrats!

My Rep is Jerry Lewis. Makes me sick.

I'd trade him for ANY Democrat!

[Lindsey]

50. Cyrano, I absolutely agree with you. I mean...WTF???????? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

49. k&r

[cliffordu]

54. Hey, swamp rat, howareya??

`:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

55. Way'at cliffordu!

:hi: I'm okay, and you?

[cliffordu]

56. That photo says it all.....

:rofl:

Man I love that movie........

[lafayettelonewolf]

62. K & R

You've definately hit the nail on the head, Cyrano. ::kick:: & Rec x 10,000,000 We need to be banding together and not thrashing each other just because we don't like the way things are going now. We need to remember that the Repigs are the ones responsible for watering things completely down and then voting against what we've all tried to do.

[yurbud]

69. some of those ''trying to destroy our way of life'' are doing so from within the Democratic Party

and doing everything they can to erase the difference between the two parties, especially on economic and foreign policy issues.

Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and pretty much every member of the DLC is not trying to make things better for me and my family. They are trying to make the Democratic Party the primary rather than back up corporate tool party.

[ibegurpard]

118. yup

[TexasObserver]

73. Agreed. We're all disappointed in the state of things political.

But the election is in a month and a half, and there's a huge difference between the grousing against the party and its leadership that we all engage in and the systematic undermining of this year's election effort.

The primaries are long gone, and we're in the general election. We're down to the "nose holding" part of the process, where many Democrats may want to hold their nose to vote for the Democrat on their ballot. Time to do it, again.

I've been unhappy with many things Democrats in congress and the executive have done, but there's a time to air that out, and it's not right before the general election.

[tomp]

76. the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

the democrats cooperate with and kowtow to the republicans. THAT is what this war is about.

the dems, for the most part, only pretend to care about us. they really care about the rich.

the two party system and the system of funding campaigns is the enemy.

the country needs to move immediately and decidedly to the left. obama is resisting that with all his might. he is perpetuating problems.

[yurbud]

123. Not ALL Democrats are in the pocket of the rich, but enough to have made the supermajority in the

Senate (and maybe even a regular majority within that supermajority) an illusion.

[tomp]

126. generally agreed.

the ones not in the pockets of the rich are definitely few and far between and generally ineffective because of their miniscule numbers.
i think that is part of the plan too. make it look like a real "rebel" like kucinich or grayson can be part of the system, but that never seems to get us anywhere.

[Roland99]

78. Sometimes that "fighting" means going against those in the party who act like the other side

DLCers MUST go.

[carolinayellowdog]

79. Divisive bullies need to be put on ignore

You asked: "But why don’t we try to minimize the fighting among ourselves, and put our efforts and ideas into fighting those who couldn’t care less if they were stepping over our bodies in the streets?"

There is no way the fighting can be minimized as long as bullying by a handful of partisan fanatics keeps everyone in an uproar. Banning of a dozen flagrant bullies would go a VERY long way to minimize the fighting. But that is apparently never going to happen. How to identify those who should be ignored by us all? Anyone who makes a dozen or more antagonistic posts in a thread is here to be a bully, not part of a supportive community. Anyone who continually addresses other in accusing, demeaning terms, "you...you...you.." is a bully. Anyone who tries to accuse others of thought crimes and tell them they don't belong here and should go away is a bully. Anyone who resorts to accusations of treason against the party is a bully. Yesterday I went down to Tom Perriello's campaign office to make a donation and volunteer to work with GOTV. That DESPITE feeling very demoralized by what I've seen in the way of right-vs-left aggression here.

[Le Taz Hot]

80. Your premise is incorrect.

First, you cannot possibly speak for all DUers. MY worst enemy is not the Republicans and the Tea Baggers. MY worst enemy are the corporatists -- Democrat and Republican alike -- who sell their soul to the corps for money and power and guess who they're selling out? This whole diatribe can be summed up rather quickly: "Ignore the corruption on our side and focus SOLELY on the corruption on their side."

Finally, you BEGIN your missive by referring to us as "trolls," all the while preaching unity. How exactly does that work?

[Cyrano]

102. "... you BEGIN your missive by referring to us as "trolls," ...

I alluded to the fact that there are some trolls on DU. I would appreciate it if you didn't twist my words.

Further, I don't pretend to speak for all DUers. My OP is nothing more than my personal opinion. Agree, or disagree as you will. But once again, please don't twist my words or their meaning.

[NJmaverick]

84. K & R!

[swilton]

85. What's in a Name?

What the Republicans stand for and have endorsed policy-wise are the same thing.

[ThatsMyBarack]

86. Well put!

:hi:

[kjackson227]

87. Great post, and one that should be K & R on a daily basis.

[swilton]

88. What is in a name?

The policies of the Republicans are supported by the Democrats.

[proReality]

91. K&R n/t

[Aaria]

94. Divide and conquer , it's a very old method.

[Cyrano]

113. Could you please elaborate on that?

Is it the Republicans who divide and conquer? Or is it my OP that is the entity that seeks to divide and conquer? While your posting is short and to the point, I'm not sure of the point you are making.

[Aaria]

117. We have the obvious trolls that lurk about the site that stir up.......

as much as they can. Then there are those who are staunch Corporate Democrats that have to keep the pot stirred so that no new ideas grab hold and take. I have always contended that the Reps and the Dems in power, are the different sides to the same coin.

[HughMoran]

95. I agree

:thumbsup:

[Plucketeer]

100. The problem is, we aren't blindly, the party of "yes"

any more than we're an arm of the party of "NO!" We can see what a lockstepped party looks like with the party of NO. By definition, we can't be like that. If we were, we'd be no better than they are.

[earcandle]

103. Yea, what they seem to have that we don't do well is to act in solidarity. We seem to care to much

about right and wrong, instead of what works and what doesn't
work.

We need to focus on bringing our country back to its guiding
principles and to never let these criminals
have their way again.  To do that, we need to focus on common
goals, not independent differences.

Thanks for the post.

[foxfeet]

112. K&R

[LatteLibertine]

120. I've always known the GOP

were mostly soulless puppets of large corporations and watching them roll out their "pledge" really put an exclamation point on that.

I hope we get it together, otherwise most in this nation are going to be seriously further fucked by a return to their rule.

[anaxarchos]

125. Your premise is mistaken...

The Democratic and Republican Parties are not really political parties in the sense that this term is used in most of the world. They are "institutions", the current components of the "two party system" which has both legislated and de-facto elements. In essence, both "parties" are involuntary and changing electoral coalitions of one or many actual political parties, loosely or tightly organized, but with independent constituencies. It has not been uncommon historically for elements of either party to have a greater hostility for each other than for the other "party". In fact, that has been the more common condition. To cite just one example, did the Dixiecrats and the Civil-Rights Democrats owe each other some sort of abstract loyalty?

If you want to test this thesis, try to articulate a minimal program which all Democrats agree to. Now debate the priority of each programmatic element. Not just different opinions but the actual "Parties" within the Democratic coalition will come immediately to the surface.

In truth, there is a political crisis in the composition of both parties at the moment. Both coalitions were created in times which have passed and on economic realities which no longer exist. As a result, the hostility and division is real.

You can try to put the toothpaste back in the tube if you like, but it won't happen unless you can magically recreate the conditions that got it in the tube in the first place.