Matt Damon, asshat

[RoyGBiv]

(12-25-2011 11:48 PM)jaxx Wrote:  <..> Most of the time, the Working Families Party cross endorses Democrats or (occasionally) Republicans who promise to fight for issues that matter to working people. But we do run our own candidates, if we think we can win. Letitia James was elected to the New York City Council, Luci McKnight was elected to County Legislature in Albany, and Wayne Hall was elected mayor of Hempstead, Long Island, all solely on the WFP line.

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/about/

This is how so-called third parties involve themselves in politics effectively and productively. At this level of politics, a major party affiliation is less important than the issues a candidate considers important and intends to pursue when elected. I have, for example, actually voted for a Republican who was running for city council. It was one guy, several times for council, and then I voted for him once for a state legislator. His Republicanism was not dogmatic, and the with issues that were important to the city, he held the correct positions. His Democratic opponent was an aging crony who had been in office since segregation was still legal, and he had not given up his racism or his firm belief that "those people" were the cause of all the ills of our little town.

When the guy ran for legislator, I gave him a chance. His Democratic opponent wasn't much different on the issues expressed and was in any case clearly not a liberal. This convinced me that at worst the Republican would vote similarly to how the Democrat would if elected. Unfortunately, at the state level, the guy became dogmatic and adhered to a party line with national influence behind it, apparently because he wanted a higher office. I did not vote for him again, nor did most of his former supporters. He now operates a tire and alignment shop.

At the national level "fusion" voting is an effective strategy for liberals and progressives and has been for a very long time. One of the least understood things about the 1864 election, for example, is that Lincoln didn't run as a Republican. He was the National Union candidate, which was a fusion of Republicans and "War Democrats." This, along with a little help from good old Tecumseh Sherman, worked. Disavowing the Democrats who helped would have proved disastrous.

There are many other examples of this sort of thing. It seems the people who work with WFP have studied their history.

[There Is No Spoon]

Well, I'm learning more about this group - uh, er, party.

They are fighting for Democratic Party ideals, though it appears they are a local level "party" - which is cool I guess. I wouldn't exactly call them a group that can't coexist with Democrats though - I think that's relatively obvious.

[RoyGBiv]

(12-26-2011 12:08 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Well, I'm learning more about this group - uh, er, party.

They are fighting for Democratic Party ideals, though it appears they are a local level "party" - which is cool I guess. I wouldn't exactly call them a group that can't coexist with Democrats though - I think that's relatively obvious.

This is the kind of group that can effectively promote liberal Democrats since they work outside the official Democratic party channels and are not bound by official party doctrine. We have a similar group in Oklahoma, and every progressive Democrat who manages to get elected here has been heavily supported by them while at the same time having received almost no money or support for the Democratic party itself.

As I've mentioned at other times, Democrats aren't even running opponents to most of the Republican candidates here. Those who are running are often supported by these "third party" organizations.

[KonaKane]

(12-25-2011 11:31 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  WFP is not a party, they are a group. I was reading this discussion and was interested in this group that I was previously unfamiliar with. As with everything else, I see no reason to reflexively reject said group based on their said "pragmatic" approach. In the end, achieving their stated goals is important to them and after seeing what those are, I can't see myself rejecting their goals out-of-hand simply because they do some clever things to promote/achieve said goals.

I don't get it either. Everything they promote, every principle they espouse, is right down the line in sync with Democratic Progressive values.

I'm not liking this trend of chucking the baby out with the bathwater simply because the right keywords were not uttered, or some verbotten ones were.

[azmouse]

And I ask myself why, if he generally supports Democratic values, he would chose to tear down this president knowing the 'ihateobama' is hanging on every word, the same so-called Democratic crowd who will lift on their shoulders and carry around any person who spews negative words about the president and who will elevate to a possible contender for the Democratic nomination anyone who hates the president?

Damon knows he'll get attention and that's what it seems to be all about for him. Doesn't seem to matter to him if it negates any positives he may have accomplished. Unfortunately all anyone will remember or talk about is his dislike for a Democratic president. It becomes all about bad publicity for Obama.

Notice the news stories do not balance out Damon's words with what he may have done for other causes... only the negative words on Obama get press. He's not helping any causes he may espouse with his words. And he knows that and obviously doesn't care or he wouldn't continue to spew.

[KonaKane]

azmouse, why are you so quick to dismiss Damon as nothing more than an attention whore? It took me very little research to find out the dozen causes and organization the guy is involved with, and how he gives copious amounts of his money and time to them. Recently I saw a video clip of him going to bat for teachers, raking the "reporter" from some rightwing net rag over the coals in the process.

It sounds to me like your beef is with the media rather than with Damon per se, if all you "see or hear" is his criticism of Obama. That's not totally in Damon's control, is it.

I am really bewildered at how quick some here are to completely trash a person's past good works, and even worth as a human being ("asshat who could fall off the face of the earth and no one would notice") if they dare criticize this president. I sincerely hope we are above cults of personality. Can't we leave that to the right-tards, who's intellectual curiosity on any subject is never more than an inch deep?

[azmouse]

(12-26-2011 01:52 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  azmouse, why are you so quick to dismiss Damon as nothing more than an attention whore? It took me very little research to find out the dozen causes and organization the guy is involved with, and how he gives copious amounts of his money and time to them. Recently I saw a video clip of him going to bat for teachers, raking the "reporter" from some rightwing net rag over the coals in the process.

It sounds to me like your beef is with the media rather than with Damon per se, if all you "see or hear" is his criticism of Obama. That's not totally in Damon's control, is it.

I am really bewildered at how quick some here are to completely trash a person's past good works, and even worth as a human being ("asshat who could fall off the face of the earth and no one would notice") if they dare criticize this president. I sincerely hope we are above cults of personality. Can't we leave that to the right-tards, who's intellectual curiosity on any subject is never more than an inch deep?

Damon brought this on himself with his words. As far as I know, no one twisted his arm to say these things.
Yes, I do have a problem with the media too. It's very quick to lap up any words from a Hollywood celebrity who'll say negative things about the President.

Not sure anyone here it "trashing anyone's good works" so much as being tired of the same old tripe of "I didn't get everything I wanted so I'll claim disappointment in the President and slam him in the press".

Someone can criticize Obama all they want, just back it up. Vague crap about a "lack of balls" doesn't help Damon's causes, does it? It would seem to me it distracts from any good he does.

[KonaKane]

I agree with you about his vagueness regarding Obama, and for the record I do not agree with his assessment of this president. But what gets me is, why is that all we're concerned about here, while being satisfied with ignorance or dismissal about all the good he has done for Democratic/Progressive causes and issues?

That simply does not make sense to me. Our minds are big enough to acknowledge the good as well as criticize the bad stuff, aren't they?

[azmouse]

(12-26-2011 02:10 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I agree with you about his vagueness regarding Obama, and for the record I do not agree with his assessment of this president. But what gets me is, why is that all we're concerned about here, while being satisfied with ignorance or dismissal about all the good he has done for Democratic/Progressive causes and issues?

That simply does not make sense to me. Our minds are big enough to acknowledge the good as well as criticize the bad stuff, aren't they?

I don't understand dismissing the causes Damon may have helped.
My beef with him and his words are how does he think this is helpful to the causes he cares about? If he is passionate about them, why not try to arrange a meeting either with the president or a rep of the pres, and express his concerns directly? Trying to do the maximum good with the celebrity he has would benefit everyone. Instead, as you say, everyone is focused on the negative words. I don't understand what Damon thought he was accomplishing this way.

[KonaKane]

Once again, you are blaming Damon for the press ramming a spotlight on his criticism of Obama while ignoring all the great stuff he does for other Democratic and progressive causes. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.

Instead of HELPING the press keep such a one dimensional light on Obama, it might be good to focus on some of the good things WFP and other such organizations are doing to keep the principles which Democrats still stand for, uppermost in the minds of the voters. Good people can disagree on things, it happens every day. Tossing someone who is making a difference generally for the better because of difference on a single issue, is really a case of foot shooting if I ever saw one.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Let me explain this as simply as I can Kona, lest you misunderstand.

A president, by virtue of position, has a bigger effect on our lives than a celebrity, no matter what that celebrity does. Damon may give millions to charity, but with the stroke of a pen a president manipulates BILLIONS. What Damon does with charity is great and has helped dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands. But there are 300 million people in this country and most aren't touched by his actions. ALL are affected by the healthcare bill. If the Republicans win because "progressives" stay home, my aunt loses her health insurance. That's a death sentence. So please understand when people just want to let off some steam without having people look down their noses at them.

Matt Damon will live.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Also, yes, I expect people to know the world in which they live. This means I expect people to know the media hangs on every criticism of Dems. This is why I was pissed at Weiner...not because I care what he does, but because everyone knows how the media is.

[KonaKane]

I understand you perfectly. I hope you understand me when I say that the willy nilly fragmentation of our energies based on personality cult sensitivities will do more permament damage to our agenda than anything Damon could ever say.

Dismissing him as someone not worthy to suck air on the same planet because of something he says about this president is not only ridiculously petty and shortsighted, but definitely emboldens the real enemies of our world view.

[Baltoman991]

Ya know what, I have no problem being called petty, shortsighter, a cheerleader, a guard or anything else you or anyone else wants to call me

You can sit here and dismiss and defend Damon, Moore and anyone else who CONSTANTLY slashes Obama but I choose not to.

You act as though their words aren't really going to have any affect on peoples opinions, I see it differently.

How about instead of you telling us that we should leave these poor Obama bashers alone and work on the bluedogs, why don't YOU tell the likes of Moore and Damon to run their mouths about the real culprits.

[KonaKane]

On one hand, some of you are saying that Damon is only a celebrity and nothing he says matters, and he could "fall off the planet and no one would notice".....yet suddenly, Damon and others have the ability to decide who will be president or not depending on what they say. It's enough to make one's head spin.

It's not my place to "tell" Damon, Moore or anyone else what to "run their mouths" about. Nor is it my place to tell you or anyone else here what they can think about them. But it is my place to tell you what I think about personality cult driven construction of "enemy" lists, who's with us who's not, who's in the club but now out of the club based on something they said regardless of their actual productivity.

Clearly, nothing I say will matter to a clique. I was just hoping upon hope that we were bigger and more thoughtful than that.

My bad.

[azmouse]

(12-26-2011 05:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  On one hand, some of you are saying that Damon is only a celebrity and nothing he says matters, and he could "fall off the planet and no one would notice".....yet suddenly, Damon and others have the ability to decide who will be president or not depending on what they say. It's enough to make one's head spin.

It's not my place to "tell" Damon, Moore or anyone else what to "run their mouths" about. Nor is it my place to tell you or anyone else here what they can think about them. But it is my place to tell you what I think about personality cult driven construction of "enemy" lists, who's with us who's not, who's in the club but now out of the club based on something they said regardless of their actual productivity.

Clearly, nothing I say will matter to a clique. I was just hoping upon hope that we were bigger and more thoughtful than that.

My bad.

Interestingly, we've got far more diversity of opinion on Damon's statement than some other sites (sites I should say that claim to be 'Democratic' but are far from it).
The 'ihateobama' crowd wants Damon to run for president because they regret voting for someone like Obama who didn't have much political experience. They won't be fooled again they say. The irony of this thought is thick enough to cut with a knife.

[KonaKane]

1. Matt Damon is not going to be president.

2. Matt Damon does not have the power to determine who will be president.

3. Why do I give a shit what the "ihateObama" crowd thinks? Nothing we say here is going to sway them in the least, so why care?

[azmouse]

(12-26-2011 05:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  1. Matt Damon is not going to be president.

2. Matt Damon does not have the power to determine who will be president.

3. Why do I give a shit what the "ihateObama" crowd thinks? Nothing we say here is going to sway them in the least, so why care?

And with those thoughtful comments, I'm done with this thread.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(12-26-2011 03:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I understand you perfectly. I hope you understand me when I say that the willy nilly fragmentation of our energies based on personality cult sensitivities will do more permament damage to our agenda than anything Damon could ever say.

Dismissing him as someone not worthy to suck air on the same planet because of something he says about this president is not only ridiculously petty and shortsighted, but definitely emboldens the real enemies of our world view.

No, you clearly do NOT understand what I'm saying. I'm saying he does not have the capacity to impact lives a president has. I'm saying no matter what good he does if we lose the presidency or fail to regain congress because of careless words, a lot of people are going to be hurt. It's the same with you and the same with me...no matter how much we may want to help people, we don't have the tools to do so and consequently most people don't care or know who we are or would miss us if we were gone. And this is a small messageboard, not an interview with a nation wide magazine...don't overdramatize people venting.

[KonaKane]

(12-26-2011 05:36 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  No, you clearly do NOT understand what I'm saying. I'm saying he does not have the capacity to impact lives a president has. I'm saying no matter what good he does if we lose the presidency or fail to regain congress because of careless words, a lot of people are going to be hurt. It's the same with you and the same with me...no matter how much we may want to help people, we don't have the tools to do so and consequently most people don't care or know who we are or would miss us if we were gone. And this is a small messageboard, not an interview with a nation wide magazine...don't overdramatize people venting.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting he has the ability to determine who the president will be? Tell me you aren't suggesting that.