Think Republicans are our worst problem?

[KonaKane]

Perhaps they are. But running a close second are all the Congressional Democrats who have done plenty to hamper Obama's agenda and aid the hell bent GOP mission to drag this nation down in flames.

So who are these so called Democratic allies of ours?

After Obama moved to seal up his campaign promise to close Gitmo, these five stepped up to help the Republicans defeat cessation of funding for Gitmo, which keeps it open today:

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Pat 
Leahy (D-VT)
Carl 
Levin (D-MI)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Thanks alot, guys.


When Rethugs proposed their outrageous "Hack and Slash" budget plan, these five tireless warriors for Democratic change fell over each other to hop on the GOP bandwagon:

Dan Boren (D-OK)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)


As the days of Don't Ask Don't Tell drew thankfully to a close, 15.....yes FIFTEEN...of our fine Democratic representatives chimed in to try and keep it a functioning policy of the military.

Boren (D-OK)
Bright (D-AL)
Childers (D-MS)
Critz (D-PA)
Davis (D-AL)
Davis (D-TN)
Marshall (D-GA)
McIntyre (D-NC)
Ortiz (D-TX)
Peterson (D-MN)
Rahall (D-WV)
Ross (D-AR)
Skelton (D-MO)
Tanner (D-TN)
Taylor (D-MS)


And in another stunning display of solidarity with Obama and his promise to make things better for Americans with no health care, 13 so called Democrats lined up to give those Americans the finger by voting NO:

Ben Chandler (D-KY)
Jason Altmire (D-PN)
Tim Holden (D-PN)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Larry Kissell (D-NC)
Dan Boren (D-OK)
John Barrow (D-GA)
Mike Ross (D-AR)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)



So before you expend all that eye rolling, neck vein bulging anger at Michael Moore or the OWS protestors, why not concentrate a bit on the REAL enemies within; the ones who are helping the GOP push their laws through?

[Cha]

MIchael Moore is a fuck up..and I can extend what I want back at his disingenuous shite. The dems are dinos but that doesn't absolved MM, IMV.

[KonaKane]

Glad to see your priorities are in order.

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 04:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Glad to see your priorities are in order.

You know nothing about my priorities.

[Baltoman991]

Yeah, we should blast those in Congress who have worked against Obama. But let me ask, why should we give people like Moore a free ride? He reaches a lot of people and he's done nothing but slam Obama every damn step of the way.

Speaking for myself, I have my priorities in order. Moore, like those you mentioned above in Congress are one and the same. They're ALL working against President Obama so I will not give him a free ride.

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 04:20 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Yeah, we should blast those in Congress who have worked against Obama. But let me ask, why should we give people like Moore a free ride? He reaches a lot of people and he's done nothing but slam Obama every damn step of the way.

Speaking for myself, I have my priorities in order. Moore, like those you mentioned above in Congress are one and the same. They're ALL working against President Obama so I will not give him a free ride.

Thank You, Baltoman991! I think your priorities are reality based.

[jaxx]

(11-22-2011 02:44 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Perhaps they are. But running a close second are all the Congressional Democrats who have done plenty to hamper Obama's agenda and aid the hell bent GOP mission to drag this nation down in flames.

So who are these so called Democratic allies of ours?

After Obama moved to seal up his campaign promise to close Gitmo, these five stepped up to help the Republicans defeat cessation of funding for Gitmo, which keeps it open today:

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Pat 
Leahy (D-VT)
Carl 
Levin (D-MI)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Thanks alot, guys.


So before you expend all that eye rolling, neck vein bulging anger at Michael Moore or the OWS protestors, why not concentrate a bit on the REAL enemies within; the ones who are helping the GOP push their laws through?

Senate blocks Obama's Guantanamo closing plan. Burris, Durbin split. Durbin backs Obama.
By Lynn Sweet on May 20, 2009 12:16 PM | 4 Comments

WASHINGTON--On an overwhelming 90-6 roll call, the Senate balked Wednesday on funding for a key pledge of President Obama--closing down the military prison holding alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Illinois senators split on the contentious issue, fueling debate over whether U.S. communities will accept the detainees at local prisons.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was one of the six Senators backing Obama's cornerstone campaign pledge. Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) voted with the majority.

<..> THE SENATE SIX

The question: "To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States."

Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/...tanam.html

These are the 6 who had the guts to vote with President Obama on the Guantanamo Bay closing and funding. These are NOT the Democrats who voted with the repubs as erroneously portrayed. The vote was 90-6....these are the 6 who stood with the President.

I didn't bother to check anything else, obviously from this snarky remark:

Quote:So before you expend all that eye rolling, neck vein bulging anger at Michael Moore or the OWS protestors, why not concentrate a bit on the REAL enemies within; the ones who are helping the GOP push their laws through?

this is just a hit job and not something anyone should take seriously. It seems that some have their priorities mixed up and choose to protect those who undermine President Obama.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 04:28 PM)jaxx Wrote:  this is just a hit job and not something anyone should take seriously. It seems that some have their priorities mixed up and choose to protect those who undermine President Obama.

Bringing up Democratic Congresspeople who are working AGAINST Obama is a "hit job"? I'd like to see the psychedelic dictionary you're pulling that from. They do far more damage than Moore could ever do.

[jaxx]

(11-22-2011 04:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 04:28 PM)jaxx Wrote:  this is just a hit job and not something anyone should take seriously. It seems that some have their priorities mixed up and choose to protect those who undermine President Obama.

Bringing up Democratic Congresspeople who are working AGAINST Obama is a "hit job"? I'd like to see the psychedelic dictionary you're pulling that from. They do far more damage than Moore could ever do.

Did you bother to see that you were wrong? You maligned 6 good Democrats who voted to close and fund the move from Gitmo. And here you are railing at me.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 04:37 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Did you bother to see that you were wrong? You maligned 6 good Democrats who voted to close and fund the move from Gitmo. And here you are railing at me.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I had those wrong, my apologies. Any comment on the much longer list of the rest? Or will this just get brushed aside so you can gnash your teeth at Michael Moore and perform other vital duties for change?

[jaxx]

(11-22-2011 04:43 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 04:37 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Did you bother to see that you were wrong? You maligned 6 good Democrats who voted to close and fund the move from Gitmo. And here you are railing at me.

Yes, thank you for the correction. I had those wrong, my apologies. Any comment on the much longer list of the rest? Or will this just get brushed aside so you can gnash your teeth at Michael Moore and perform other vital duties for change?

I said I didn't check the rest, no need to. You are out of line, I have made sure not to mention any of the naysayers since the last blowup here. There have been a couple instances when I could have within the last week, but I chose to keep the peace here and not post about it. Today you blew it open with some comments about other posters that really aren't what is needed here at DFP.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 04:48 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I said I didn't check the rest, no need to. You are out of line, I have made sure not to mention any of the naysayers since the last blowup here. There have been a couple instances when I could have within the last week, but I chose to keep the peace here and not post about it. Today you blew it open with some comments about other posters that really aren't what is needed here at DFP.

Oh boy, how out of line was I, really? I did a little better research on the Gitmo issue and it is SO MUCH WORSE than I originally thought. 6 Democrats? Hell that was small potatoes to the REAL list of "Democrats" who gave President Obama the finger over closing Gitmo. Ready for this?

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)


There. Now tell me how out of line I am again, and ignore those in power who are working against us while wearing a donkey on their lapel.

[jaxx]

(11-22-2011 04:56 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 04:48 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I said I didn't check the rest, no need to. You are out of line, I have made sure not to mention any of the naysayers since the last blowup here. There have been a couple instances when I could have within the last week, but I chose to keep the peace here and not post about it. Today you blew it open with some comments about other posters that really aren't what is needed here at DFP.

Oh boy, how out of line was I, really? I did a little better research on the Gitmo issue and it is SO MUCH WORSE than I originally thought. 6 Democrats? Hell that was small potatoes to the REAL list of "Democrats" who gave President Obama the finger over closing Gitmo. Ready for this?

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)


There. Now tell me how out of line I am again, and ignore those in power who are working against us while wearing a donkey on their lapel.

Yes, we all figured out that 90-6 meant that the rest of the Democrats voted against the President. I said you were out of line for the remarks you made about posters here. Please don't try to spin my words.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 05:08 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Yes, we all figured out that 90-6 meant that the rest of the Democrats voted against the President. I said you were out of line for the remarks you made about posters here. Please don't try to spin my words.

How odd that you had not a word to say that the number of D's who voted against Obama in this instance were actually several times greater than my original number. Doesn't bother you at all? You can't address that, which was the actual topic of the thread, without flying like a banshee to the throat of anyone who brings up Michael Moore's name?

Thank you for helping me illustrate one of our biggest problems, even if it wasn't intentional.

[jaxx]

(11-22-2011 05:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 05:08 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Yes, we all figured out that 90-6 meant that the rest of the Democrats voted against the President. I said you were out of line for the remarks you made about posters here. Please don't try to spin my words.

How odd that you had not a word to say that the number of D's who voted against Obama in this instance were actually several times greater than my original number. Doesn't bother you at all? You can't address that, which was the actual topic of the thread, without flying like a banshee to the throat of anyone who brings up Michael Moore's name?

Thank you for helping me illustrate one of our biggest problems, even if it wasn't intentional.

You are out of line with the personal attacks.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 05:58 PM)jaxx Wrote:  You are out of line with the personal attacks.

There was no personal attacks. No one was singled out. It was a general comment, and I still find it incredible that neither you nor anyone else so offended have actually commented on the thread topic.

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 04:48 PM)jaxx Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 04:43 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Yes, thank you for the correction. I had those wrong, my apologies. Any comment on the much longer list of the rest? Or will this just get brushed aside so you can gnash your teeth at Michael Moore and perform other vital duties for change?

I said I didn't check the rest, no need to. You are out of line, I have made sure not to mention any of the naysayers since the last blowup here. There have been a couple instances when I could have within the last week, but I chose to keep the peace here and not post about it. Today you blew it open with some comments about other posters that really aren't what is needed here at DFP.

Thank you, jaxx.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-22-2011 05:01 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 04:48 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I said I didn't check the rest, no need to. You are out of line, I have made sure not to mention any of the naysayers since the last blowup here. There have been a couple instances when I could have within the last week, but I chose to keep the peace here and not post about it. Today you blew it open with some comments about other posters that really aren't what is needed here at DFP.

Thank you, jaxx.

Thank you, Cha.

[Treestar]

IMO Michael Moore and the OWS represent the PL - in other words, they blamed the President rather than even acknowledge the roles of those conservative, uncooperative Democrats listed.

Invoking them as victims here does not work. It's that they blamed the President, not that we blamed them instead of the conservadems. When we mentioned conservadems, it is the PL that yells "excuses."

The PL is a minority that feels entitled to get what it wants without having to get people elected who will vote for those things. They cry that our system is no good - why? Because it works, and we can't just get things we believe to be "right" when others disagree. We have to work at it rather than just blame the people who did get elected for doing what their constituents wanted.

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 04:29 PM)Treestar Wrote:  IMO Michael Moore and the OWS represent the PL - in other words, they blamed the President rather than even acknowledge the roles of those conservative, uncooperative Democrats listed.

Invoking them as victims here does not work. It's that they blamed the President, not that we blamed them instead of the conservadems. When we mentioned conservadems, it is the PL that yells "excuses."

The PL is a minority that feels entitled to get what it wants without having to get people elected who will vote for those things. They cry that our system is no good - why? Because it works, and we can't just get things we believe to be "right" when others disagree. We have to work at it rather than just blame the people who did get elected for doing what their constituents wanted.

Michael Moore has been trying to blame the President for the police crackdown on OWS. I was not going to post this because of the sensitivity around here for MM but since his big ol' stink bomb has been thrown out..

"Michael Moore Goes The Full Wingnut On President Obama Over Occupy ‘Crackdown’"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-m...crackdown/

[azmouse]

I'll happily gnash my teeth at Michael Moore and have plenty of time left over to go after the Democrats who hurt our own causes.

Quote:http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/11/04...s-enemies/

With Friends Like Michael Moore, Who Needs Enemies?

Like many others in the “firebagger brigade”, since the election of President Obama, he spends most of his time criticizing Democrats. Personally, I’m sick of his whiny “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately” shtick and based on the actions he takes every election cycle, he doesn’t seem very concerned about electing liberals to office. If he were, he would be more careful about what comes out of his pie hole. In fact, I see his shtick as very harmful to liberal politicians.

Lots of info at this page on how Michael Moore is hurting liberal causes. Why shouldn't we be going after him and anyone who stands in the way of progress?

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 04:54 PM)azmouse Wrote:  I'll happily gnash my teeth at Michael Moore and have plenty of time left over to go after the Democrats who hurt our own causes.

Quote:http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/11/04...s-enemies/

With Friends Like Michael Moore, Who Needs Enemies?

Like many others in the “firebagger brigade”, since the election of President Obama, he spends most of his time criticizing Democrats. Personally, I’m sick of his whiny “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately” shtick and based on the actions he takes every election cycle, he doesn’t seem very concerned about electing liberals to office. If he were, he would be more careful about what comes out of his pie hole. In fact, I see his shtick as very harmful to liberal politicians.

Lots of info at this page on how Michael Moore is hurting liberal causes. Why shouldn't we be going after him and anyone who stands in the way of progress?

Yeah. Like we can't freakin' multi-task. Thanks for the link, azmouse.

[Baltoman991]

If the Dems in Congress going against Obama was the actual topic, then there was no need to take a shot at those of us who blame Moore just as much as we blame the Democrats who go against the President. You took the shot, others just fired back.

[KonaKane]

Incredible. Enjoy losing the election, because that's where we're headed with this appalling lack of will for introspection.

[Baltoman991]

(11-22-2011 06:24 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Incredible. Enjoy losing the election, because that's where we're headed with this appalling lack of will for introspection.

Oh for shits sake, now we're throwing in the towel because we choose not to just blame Democrats in Congress for going against Obama and allow others like Moore and the rest of the PL'ers to run around slamming him unchallenged?

Sorry, as I said before, I will call out Dems in Congress and I will call out Moore and the rest of his ilk.

I would venture to guess that Michael Moore has more of a following than any member of Congress and his negative bullshit is reaching lots of people, people that Obama is going to need to win re-election. Allowing Moore to grandstand without calling him out on his BS is what will cause the loss of the election.

So you can be appalled at me all you want, but I will not sit around and let Moore or any other so called "liberal" slam the President with one lie after another.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 06:30 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Sorry, as I said before, I will call out Dems in Congress and I will call out Moore and the rest of his ilk.

Interesting....so where can I find all this outrage? I sure isn't at DFP. Maybe you have some hidden threads?

[Baltoman991]

(11-22-2011 06:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 06:30 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Sorry, as I said before, I will call out Dems in Congress and I will call out Moore and the rest of his ilk.

Interesting....so where can I find all this outrage? I sure isn't at DFP. Maybe you have some hidden threads?

You and your holier than thou attitude are pathetic.

I write my Congressmen and voice my opinion. Because I choose not to rant and rave on a fucking message board doesn't mean I'm not outraged.

And yeah, I just called you out as you did me with your bullshit post.

Whine to the mods and have me fucking banned. I don't really care. You started this bullshit thread with a slap to people who slam Michael Moore and you damn well know it. You didn't like the responses to your post and I say to damn bad. Don't want to be called out? Then don't call others out.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 08:04 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  You and your holier than thou attitude are pathetic.

I write my Congressmen and voice my opinion. Because I choose not to rant and rave on a fucking message board doesn't mean I'm not outraged.

And yeah, I just called you out as you did me with your bullshit post.

Whine to the mods and have me fucking banned. I don't really care. You started this bullshit thread with a slap to people who slam Michael Moore and you damn well know it. You didn't like the responses to your post and I say to damn bad. Don't want to be called out? Then don't call others out.

You seem to be confused. I didn't "call" anyone out. I made a broad statement about fuming over Michael Moore instead of talking about our own supposed lawmakers in Congress that can't manage to help this president with his agenda so much of the time. You can huff and puff about me all you want,, but I don't call for people to be banned. I do prefer they address the topic thread though, so far only one person has been willing to do it.

If discussing something that needs to be discussed (and has so far been curiously absent from our dialogue here) is so offensive to you, I'm not sure what to offer that would calm you down and help you focus.

[azmouse]

(11-22-2011 06:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Interesting....so where can I find all this outrage? I sure isn't at DFP. Maybe you have some hidden threads?

I've often heard when we find ourselves saying 'why doesn't somebody do something?', we should be asking ourselves, 'why don't I?'.

I think you've zeroed in on a topic not discussed on DFP and one that should be - how are our Democrats in DC voting, and are they helping or hindering Democratic causes?

I look forward to many great discussions on the topic.

[KonaKane]

(11-23-2011 11:05 AM)azmouse Wrote:  I've often heard when we find ourselves saying 'why doesn't somebody do something?', we should be asking ourselves, 'why don't I?'.

I think you've zeroed in on a topic not discussed on DFP and one that should be - how are our Democrats in DC voting, and are they helping or hindering Democratic causes?

I look forward to many great discussions on the topic.

Thank you AZmouse, that is exactly the discussion I was trying to start. No matter how much we support Obama here (and I know everyone does, including me) if we do not have the ability to address the 800 lb. gorilla in the room called Self Shanking Democratic Congresspeople, then we have no hope to succeed. We need to have an in depth conversation about why so many of our "own" have hindered the best our President offered, on the Hill.

[Julie]

(11-23-2011 11:05 AM)azmouse Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 06:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Interesting....so where can I find all this outrage? I sure isn't at DFP. Maybe you have some hidden threads?

I've often heard when we find ourselves saying 'why doesn't somebody do something?', we should be asking ourselves, 'why don't I?'.

I think you've zeroed in on a topic not discussed on DFP and one that should be - how are our Democrats in DC voting, and are they helping or hindering Democratic causes?

I look forward to many great discussions on the topic.

I have no doubt that the traitor Dems in Congress need to be addressed in a big way. How very sad that the OP decided to get in a gratuitous slam against those who take issue with MM and his big ugly mouth. Otherwise this may have actually been a discussion on what the OP claims was the intention.

Kona, you are not nearly as clever on this as you seem to think you were being. How utterly transparent your true purpose was.

Julie

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 11:47 AM)Julie Wrote:  I have no doubt that the traitor Dems in Congress need to be addressed in a big way. How very sad that the OP decided to get in a gratuitous slam against those who take issue with MM and his big ugly mouth. Otherwise this may have actually been a discussion on what the OP claims was the intention.

Kona, you are not nearly as clever on this as you seem to think you were being. How utterly transparent your true purpose was.

Julie

My intent was clear from the first post. It's no secret that I have a thinly veiled irritation with those harboring an irrational hatred against Michael Moore while ignoring bigger threats to a Democratic agenda. I remind you, I was the first one to say so on DS. I therefore have no problem standing by what I said, because I believe it's true. The next greatest threat to Democratic Progressives, after the two-headed GOP/TeaParty beast, are the Blue Dog quislings in Congress who have done serious damage to this president.

Choosing to believe one large guy from Michigan is worse, is certainly your prerogative. But it also doesn't make sense, and has no proof.

[Julie]

(11-28-2011 12:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 11:47 AM)Julie Wrote:  I have no doubt that the traitor Dems in Congress need to be addressed in a big way. How very sad that the OP decided to get in a gratuitous slam against those who take issue with MM and his big ugly mouth. Otherwise this may have actually been a discussion on what the OP claims was the intention.

Kona, you are not nearly as clever on this as you seem to think you were being. How utterly transparent your true purpose was.

Julie

My intent was clear from the first post. It's no secret that I have a thinly veiled irritation with those harboring an irrational hatred against Michael Moore while ignoring bigger threats to a Democratic agenda. I remind you, I was the first one to say so on DS. I therefore have no problem standing by what I said, because I believe it's true. The next greatest threat to Democratic Progressives, after the two-headed GOP/TeaParty beast, are the Blue Dog quislings in Congress who have done serious damage to this president.

Choosing to believe one large guy from Michigan is worse, is certainly your prerogative. But it also doesn't make sense, and has no proof.

"Hatred" of MM? "Choosing to believe a large guy from Michigan is worse.."??


I think I misread you over the years. To see you using hyperbole and putting words into the mouths of others....either you have changed or I just didn't read enough of your stuff in the past to see this part of you. How sad.

Julie

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 09:23 AM)Julie Wrote:  "Hatred" of MM? "Choosing to believe a large guy from Michigan is worse.."??

I think I misread you over the years. To see you using hyperbole and putting words into the mouths of others....either you have changed or I just didn't read enough of your stuff in the past to see this part of you. How sad.

Julie

The funny thing is, you are misreading me right now. If you want a grand example of putting words in the mouths of others, take a little jaunt upthread there and see how amazed I am to discover that I voted for Nader, when I actually never did.

I'm suggesting your anger is getting the best of you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

My thoughts are as follows:

First, although there are Democrats that vote against our interest, most of them mostly vote with us. Just as we didn't move to the right overnight, we can't move back left overnight. The only way to do this is have dems win elections. So that is priority one and those that discourage this from happening are a thorn in our side. Priority two is to have the more liberal democrats win in dem heavy areas.

[KonaKane]

(11-22-2011 07:52 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  My thoughts are as follows:

First, although there are Democrats that vote against our interest, most of them mostly vote with us. Just as we didn't move to the right overnight, we can't move back left overnight. The only way to do this is have dems win elections. So that is priority one and those that discourage this from happening are a thorn in our side. Priority two is to have the more liberal democrats win in dem heavy areas.

And when they do win elections, expect them not to turn around and plant road bombs under a sitting Democratic president's feet. If we can't trust our force in Congress, we've got little else.

Also, thank you for the first sensible response on this thread so far.

[There Is No Spoon]

Lots of blame to go around.

Republicans are our worst problem, because without them we'd be arguing about how socialist our leaders should be.

Democrats who side with Republicans at the worst possible times undercut Democrats and therefore nearly as bad as Republicans.

Unelected pundits have the ability to influence those who for the most part already agree with them in my opinion. Let them blather on, I will not give them power when they are negative, I will promote when they speak sensibly.

[sandnsea]

See - Michael Moore should be blasting those guys - then the people would understand the problem.

[Cha]

(11-22-2011 11:15 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  See - Michael Moore should be blasting those guys - then the people would understand the problem.

Really, sandsea. Right to the heart of the matter. He'd rather blast PObama with his sneering inuendos.

[Julie]

(11-22-2011 11:15 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  See - Michael Moore should be blasting those guys - then the people would understand the problem.

Oh snap!

[NJMaverick]

before we turn our attention to the Democrats. The worst Dem is infinitely better than the best Republican

[jaxx]

(11-23-2011 08:48 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  before we turn our attention to the Democrats. The worst Dem is infinitely better than the best Republican

Amen. The worst Dems vote with the party most of the time, which is why we get most things passed.

[Cha]

(11-23-2011 08:48 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  before we turn our attention to the Democrats. The worst Dem is infinitely better than the best Republican

I can multi-task.. I am dealing with the gopropaganda machine. There're enemies on all fronts looking to cash in on Obama hate. It's people like Michael Moore who should be turning his attention to the republicons instead of trying to smear President Obama.

[KonaKane]

If memory serves, Mr. Moore has made several films attacking the Cons. I still don't think a little healthy introspection and self criticism is such a horrible thing.

[There Is No Spoon]

[kahuna]

I don't excuse those Dems, neither do I excuse MM and his cronies on the PL. I don't know why you would assume that anyone would. What is the point? Didn't you see the thread where we took John Conyers and Maxine Waters to the woodshed over their disrespectful comments about the president? I don't think you can genuinely make the case that we are being hypocritical.

[KonaKane]

(11-24-2011 07:55 AM)kahuna Wrote:  I don't excuse those Dems, neither do I excuse MM and his cronies on the PL. I don't know why you would assume that anyone would. What is the point? Didn't you see the thread where we took John Conyers and Maxine Waters to the woodshed over their disrespectful comments about the president? I don't think you can genuinely make the case that we are being hypocritical.

Oh, but I can. We have practically given the Quislings in Congress a pass here at DFP. Oh sure we've had he odd thread about one or two of them, but not yet have we seriously tackled the BODY of the problem, which is why so many Democratic Congresspeople have shanked this president on major policy issues he promised to deliver.

Do you know how successful the Right has been in branding the failure to close Gitmo solidly on Barack Obama, while the truth of it is that Congress voted down that closure, with the help of a long list of Democrats? The fascists are winning the war of words as we are led to attack those who have in the past praised and propagated our views.

It cannot be said too often: if the Congressional Democrats cannot produce a more united front while we have a good Democratic president, then get set for a string of failures.

[kahuna]

(11-24-2011 01:52 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 07:55 AM)kahuna Wrote:  I don't excuse those Dems, neither do I excuse MM and his cronies on the PL. I don't know why you would assume that anyone would. What is the point? Didn't you see the thread where we took John Conyers and Maxine Waters to the woodshed over their disrespectful comments about the president? I don't think you can genuinely make the case that we are being hypocritical.

Oh, but I can. We have practically given the Quislings in Congress a pass here at DFP. Oh sure we've had he odd thread about one or two of them, but not yet have we seriously tackled the BODY of the problem, which is why so many Democratic Congresspeople have shanked this president on major policy issues he promised to deliver.

Do you know how successful the Right has been in branding the failure to close Gitmo solidly on Barack Obama, while the truth of it is that Congress voted down that closure, with the help of a long list of Democrats? The fascists are winning the war of words as we are led to attack those who have in the past praised and propagated our views.

It cannot be said too often: if the Congressional Democrats cannot produce a more united front while we have a good Democratic president, then get set for a string of failures.

The next time one of the Dems serve as a surrogate for ralph nader running against the Democratic nominee, then you can equate the two. Until then, trying to conflate the actions of elected Democrats trying to serve their constituents with a bunch of loud mouths, elected by no one, just doesn't work for me.

[KonaKane]

(11-24-2011 04:06 PM)kahuna Wrote:  The next time one of the Dems serve as a surrogate for ralph nader running against the Democratic nominee, then you can equate the two. Until then, trying to conflate the actions of elected Democrats trying to serve their constituents with a bunch of loud mouths, elected by no one, just doesn't work for me.

If what you say is true, and the problem Democrats are just "serving their constituents" then this president's policies have much less support in the general public than we have hoped.

That is a bigger problem than just self shanking Democrats.

[Treestar]

(11-24-2011 01:52 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 07:55 AM)kahuna Wrote:  I don't excuse those Dems, neither do I excuse MM and his cronies on the PL. I don't know why you would assume that anyone would. What is the point? Didn't you see the thread where we took John Conyers and Maxine Waters to the woodshed over their disrespectful comments about the president? I don't think you can genuinely make the case that we are being hypocritical.

Oh, but I can. We have practically given the Quislings in Congress a pass here at DFP. Oh sure we've had he odd thread about one or two of them, but not yet have we seriously tackled the BODY of the problem, which is why so many Democratic Congresspeople have shanked this president on major policy issues he promised to deliver.

Do you know how successful the Right has been in branding the failure to close Gitmo solidly on Barack Obama, while the truth of it is that Congress voted down that closure, with the help of a long list of Democrats? The fascists are winning the war of words as we are led to attack those who have in the past praised and propagated our views.

It cannot be said too often: if the Congressional Democrats cannot produce a more united front while we have a good Democratic president, then get set for a string of failures.

We can get their votes on some things, and they allow the Speakership to go to Democrats and all of the powers of majority party. And then consider the states they are from. So they are at least some help to the process and better than Republicans. The PL on the other hand, practically seems to help Republicans.

[KonaKane]

(11-24-2011 10:03 PM)Treestar Wrote:  We can get their votes on some things, and they allow the Speakership to go to Democrats and all of the powers of majority party. And then consider the states they are from. So they are at least some help to the process and better than Republicans. The PL on the other hand, practically seems to help Republicans.

So let me ask you...do you seriously think someone like Mike Moore or Glen Greenwald actually have more power in the long run to guide the Democratic agenda than the Democratic Congresfolks in in office right now?

If so, how is it that all the rallying Mike Moore did with his powerful film "Fahrenheit 911", and all it's standing ovations around the nation in the run up to election 2004, didn't land Kerry right into the White House?

[Treestar]

(11-24-2011 10:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 10:03 PM)Treestar Wrote:  We can get their votes on some things, and they allow the Speakership to go to Democrats and all of the powers of majority party. And then consider the states they are from. So they are at least some help to the process and better than Republicans. The PL on the other hand, practically seems to help Republicans.

So let me ask you...do you seriously think someone like Mike Moore or Glen Greenwald actually have more power in the long run to guide the Democratic agenda than the Democratic Congresfolks in in office right now?

If so, how is it that all the rallying Mike Moore did with his powerful film "Fahrenheit 911", and all it's standing ovations around the nation in the run up to election 2004, didn't land Kerry right into the White House?

Don't know - how many people are convinced by them and will it really affect elections - but the thing is there is no point in crying about Blue Dogs when we have the rightists we have. There are people who would vote for Palin. Politics is the art of compromise - we need to fight against the right, not the middle. Alienating the middle could drive them to the right!

This is why MM is a dummy (or just trying to make money). If he were sincere, he'd still be making fun of and exposing the right.

[KonaKane]

(11-25-2011 08:39 PM)Treestar Wrote:  Don't know - how many people are convinced by them and will it really affect elections - but the thing is there is no point in crying about Blue Dogs when we have the rightists we have.

........

See this is where I think you are mistaken. The right doesn't have to do much when our own Congresspeople are shanking this president on the major policy issues with which he assumed office. If we don't have even a semblance of cohesion with our Democratic lawmakers, we are looking down the barrel of failure after failure.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

REPUBLICANS are our worst problem IMHO. I don't have much love for the Blue Dog Dems, particularly some of them in the House right now, however the only time they really have a lot of clout is when Republicans control one or both chambers or we have a narrow majority and lockstep Republican opposition (particularly in the Senate) like we saw from 2009-2010. If there were some Republicans willing to vote their conscience on some issues and cross over and vote for some Democratic proposals or at least not filibuster everything to death, the Blue Dogs wouldn't have as much power to interfere and gum up the works. I should also point out that most Blue Dog Dems don't usually filibuster (or join in on Republican filibusters) even if they ultimately refuse to vote for passage of something and, at the end of the day, most of the time they do usually end up voting with the rest of the party, so, no I don't believe they are our worst problem. Also, until some of those red states turn more purple, we're almost definitely have to deal with some Blue Dog Dems- if we want to have a numerical majority in the House and/or Senate, anyway. I don't think that we can even maintain a numerical majority in either House without at least having some Dems from red states. IMHO a long term solution in terms of achieving a more progressive Congress rests in building more progressive infrastructure and encouraging more progressive candidates in red states to run for office or even primary Blue Dogs. Until we reach a point where more progressive candidates can win in more conservative areas, we still need to support the Democratic candidate over the Republican Tea Party candidate regardless of the outcome of the primary IMHO. Where a Blue Dog Dem might be frustrating or even loathsome at times, the Republican Tea Party candidate is going to be appalling IMHO. Also, Blue Dogs run for office on the Democratic ticket when they can just as easily (maybe easier) run as a Republican if they really wanted to, so they obviously care about the Democratic Party agenda to some extent, right?

[KonaKane]

There is a lot of truth in what you say. There is also much that begs the discussion, namely, why we still have such a counter-Obama element among us from the red states' Democratic enclave. I tells me that we do not have yet the same consolidated, iron resolve about the direction of Democratic ideas to help this president through with his agenda and campaign promises, as the Republicans do theirs. Frankly, I am just jaw-dropped incredulous that he has managed to what he has, considering all that's been arrayed against him - from the Republicans AND his own party in Congress.

It also tells me that we still have tons of work to do in getting the message out and changing minds so that they lean on their representatives to back Democratic Progressive ideals. I know this may be considered inflammatory but let me ask you: What is more professionally "left" than our full time representatives on the Hill? Or, should they be?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I was rather surprised at how difficult Blue Dog Dems have been towards President Obama too. Racism might play a small role (these are mostly lawmakers from the south, after all), as well as the Republicans' pretty thorough demonization of Obama's policies as "socialist" (the new anti-liberal/anti-progressive Frank Lutz focus group tested "buzzword") that probably scares many of them into seeking to distance themselves from President Obama and "liberal" Dems. Of course, I think it's pretty stupid of them to distance themselves from President Obama and other Dems because, no matter what, even the most conservative Democrat still gets called a "liberal" or "socialist" by the Republicans in their home state (people here in Indiana were calling Evan Bayh a "liberal") and running scared from Obama validates the Republican's assertions that there is something fundamentally "bad" and/or "wrong" about Obama and his policies. If they aren't going to stand up for Democratic policies, which are hardly "radical", what exactly are they going to stand for then? A lot of them were thorns in Clinton's side too as I recall- and he was from the south himself. A lot of them just seem to be afraid of the Republican smear machine. The Blue Dogs dilemma is certainly a real problem that will have to be dealt with though I think we'll be seeing a lot of the Blue Dogs gradually retire over the next few years to make way for some new (and hopefully more progressive) individuals to run for office on the Democratic ticket.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is more professionally "left" than our full time representatives on the Hill? Or, should they be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I fully understand this question. Could you please elaborate a bit?

[KonaKane]

(11-25-2011 12:50 AM)Proud Liberal Dem Wrote:  I'm not sure I fully understand this question. Could you please elaborate a bit?

Sure. We see a lot of heat here about the "professional left" which usually includes the bloggers, columnists, TV bobbleheads who attack anything that Obama does because it's never enough. My question to you is, would it be appropriate to include Democratic Congresspeople in the category of "professional left" (Leftish Democrats, of course)? What could be more professional than making your living in politics?

Where I'm going with this is why I started this thread. We need to spend more time on the problem of Democratic Congresspeople who have road bombed Obama and his agenda off and on from the get go. THEY are our biggest problem outside of the Republicans themselves.


Passing Note:

This thread has the highest number of views and responses on this page, and a ZERO rating. Oh the story it tells....

[Proud Liberal Dem]

(11-25-2011 12:25 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-25-2011 12:50 AM)Proud Liberal Dem Wrote:  I'm not sure I fully understand this question. Could you please elaborate a bit?

Sure. We see a lot of heat here about the "professional left" which usually includes the bloggers, columnists, TV bobbleheads who attack anything that Obama does because it's never enough. My question to you is, would it be appropriate to include Democratic Congresspeople in the category of "professional left" (Leftish Democrats, of course)? What could be more professional than making your living in politics?

Where I'm going with this is why I started this thread. We need to spend more time on the problem of Democratic Congresspeople who have road bombed Obama and his agenda off and on from the get go. THEY are our biggest problem outside of the Republicans themselves.


Passing Note:

This thread has the highest number of views and responses on this page, and a ZERO rating. Oh the story it tells....

You make a good argument for the importance of dealing with those Dems whom have, as you say, have "road bombed" Obama and his agenda from the get-go. The question remains, though, what can we do to address the problem without potentially alienating them? Have the DNC deny them funds for re-election? Have the DNC run ads against them? Primary them? Republicans are great at enforcing message discipline, mostly because most of their voters/pol are used to being told what to do and their hatred of Dems, libs, socialists, et. al seems to be so intense that very few of them are going to defy their own party on votes and/or leave the party entirely and the few that do usually don't speak out much until they leave office. Since we have a more fractious coalition, it requires some pretty serious "tightrope" walking to keep everybody loosely united around the party. If the party appears to veer too much to the left, the Blue Dogs might bolt. If it appears to veer too much to the right,the PL might bolt. I would say that maybe the DNC should demand (and enforce) that all Democratic candidates should ascribe to at least a few basic principles but then that could end up being too much like Norquist's anti-tax pledge in terms of preventing candidates from fully representing their constituents.

I've always thought that it's a good thing that our voters/politicians aren't mindless lemmings like Republicans tend to be but IMHO we do need to figure out some reasonable way to crate at least a little more cohesiveness as a party, particularly when we're in power.

[azmouse]

If anyone isn't sure where to go for information on what our critters in DC are up to http://www.senate.gov is a good website to check out.

[Baltoman991]

So before you expend all that eye rolling, neck vein bulging anger at Michael Moore or the OWS protestors, why not concentrate a bit on the REAL enemies within; the ones who are helping the GOP push their laws through?


Does that line look familiar? It should, it's from your post to start this thread. Perhaps if you didn't want Michale Moore to be brought up you should have left your little dig at those of us who think he's a piece of shit out of your post.

You see, we are responding to the thread. You brought him up, people are responding.

[KonaKane]

(11-25-2011 08:49 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Does that line look familiar? It should, it's from your post to start this thread. Perhaps if you didn't want Michale Moore to be brought up you should have left your little dig at those of us who think he's a piece of shit out of your post.

You see, we are responding to the thread. You brought him up, people are responding.

Yes, I recognize my own post, and you are helping to prove me right.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-25-2011 08:49 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  So before you expend all that eye rolling, neck vein bulging anger at Michael Moore or the OWS protestors, why not concentrate a bit on the REAL enemies within; the ones who are helping the GOP push their laws through?


Does that line look familiar? It should, it's from your post to start this thread. Perhaps if you didn't want Michale Moore to be brought up you should have left your little dig at those of us who think he's a piece of shit out of your post.

You see, we are responding to the thread. You brought him up, people are responding.

Let's all react as expected.

[KonaKane]

That's the devil in the details. We've had more than one "Democrat" in the south pout over Democratic principles and either jump to the GOPs or start speaking for them, like good ol' I-Challenge-You-To-A-Duel Zell Miller. But, rather than worry about keeping the Blues interested in staying in the Party, how about something more ambitious like floating more leftish Democrats in the red states, who have the charisma and potential backing to at least get elected? My home state is a good example of how this is a possibility. Utah is arguably the "reddest" state, having given GWB the biggest amount of state support in his second election out of any others. YET, Utah produced Democratic Mayor Rocky Anderson, who is known as one of the most staunchly leftist, populist Democrats in the nation. I'm saying let's not write off the South, or at least red states, as "lost territory" and electing Blue Dogs there as the only possibility forever after.

We can do better.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

(11-26-2011 01:46 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I'm saying let's not write off the South, or at least red states, as "lost territory" and electing Blue Dogs there as the only possibility forever after.

We can do better.

I do agree with you in general. Like I said in my initial response, we should be growing progressive infrastructure in the red states and concentrate on getting some progressives to run in Democratic primaries but still supporting whichever Dem wins the nomination and fight them over the Republican in the general. In many places this will be a long-term solution but the sooner we get started on it, the sooner it might begin reaping results.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-26-2011 01:46 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I'm saying let's not write off the South, or at least red states, as "lost territory" and electing Blue Dogs there as the only possibility forever after.

We can do better.

There is a significant problem of party organization with this. I barely participate in formal Democratic party events in Oklahoma anymore because the leadership is dead-set against promoting left-leaning candidates for national office. If you even bring it up, you're shouted down and thereafter ignored.

And part of the problem with this -- a significant part I suspect -- is that the national party has all but written off states like Oklahoma, leaving the state party apparatus to deal with raising money on its own. The only people who have money in Oklahoma are in some way tied to the energy, defense, or agricultural industries, and those people only support Republicans or conservative Democrats.

We still have a fair number of what I'd call liberals in state government, but they tend to be popular individuals in their communities and have no success when polling for support outside them. With the way our congressional districts are drawn, they have no chance.

It's frustrating to say the least.

[KonaKane]

See, that's where we're going with this. It's is going to require a sea change in national party leadership, with a mission to push the Democratic enclave in Congress SOLIDLY Democratic, instead of accepting so many DINOs because the red states are considered "lost".

Whether the national party leadership will ever figure this out is a question for posterity, I suppose.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

Didn't Dean's "50-State Strategy" attempt to address this while he was DNC chairman and didn' this help lead to our victories in 2006 and 2008? Was this strategy more or less abandoned after he left the DNC? If so, I wonder why?

[RoyGBiv]

(11-26-2011 10:20 PM)Proud Liberal Dem Wrote:  Didn't Dean's "50-State Strategy" attempt to address this while he was DNC chairman and didn' this help lead to our victories in 2006 and 2008? Was this strategy more or less abandoned after he left the DNC?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Quote:If so, I wonder why?

Lots of reasons. I can't answer definitively of course, but we can work out some possibilities based on what information does leak and how various party officials behave.

One thing to keep in mind is that the "50 state strategy" is not universally appealing to all elements of the Democratic coalition, in part because the premise upon which it rests is branding the Democratic party according to a certain, universal ideal. In practical terms, this removes power from the state parties in favor of the national party structure. When you boil away the chaff from that, this comes down to local power and money.

[KonaKane]

You're right, Dean's strategy was largely responsible for the Democratic victories that year and it was spot on. It's just too bad that his insight and intelligence in getting Democrats elected was so easily abandoned in favor of so much hand wringing about the "PL".

If I were a GOP strategist, I'd jump to this griefing about the PL like a bee to honey and work it against the Democrats by getting them to ignore the DINOs in Congress as they stick a shiv in President Obama at every turn. It's golden stuff.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

(11-26-2011 10:34 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  If I were a GOP strategist, I'd jump to this griefing about the PL like a bee to honey and work it against the Democrats by getting them to ignore the DINOs in Congress as they stick a shiv in President Obama at every turn. It's golden stuff.

I'd say that by gumming up the works in the Senate so badly in 2009-2010 and forcing President Obama into a series of compromises with Blue Dog Dems (and, initially some Republicans) the Republicans did a *terrific* job of helping get the PL mad at President Obama, as well as getting the public mad at Congress and President Obama for not getting much of anything helpful done thus leading to the disastrous (for the Dems) 2010 midterm elections.
A lot of "low information" voters, as well as some of the PL (apparently) either don't seem to understand how government really works and/or remember how President Bush got most of his agenda rubber stamped by a very compliant and cooperative Republican Congress from 2001-2006 and think that if something important isn't getting done (or done how they think it should be done) in Washington DC it's somehow the President's fault (and his party). Of course, now that the House is controlled by the Republican Tea Party they can't quite so easily escape blame- though pundits and the media still try to muddy the waters and find some way to make both parties own the failures and ineffectiveness of the federal government.

[Treestar]

Looking at just the thread title, the answer is yes.

Biggest Problem: Republicans
2nd: Professional Left
3rd: Blue Dogs

Republicans still have to the power to get votes and win elections. They definitely stand for things we can't abide. If they win, we lose.

[KonaKane]

Putting the "PL" above the Blue Dogs is crazy. And hence the point of this thread.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-27-2011 05:01 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Putting the "PL" above the Blue Dogs is crazy. And hence the point of this thread.

I agree - that's the whole "thinking what we do here on the internet is significant" thing.

[Baltoman991]

No one here is putting the PL above the Blue Dogs or anyone else in Congress who is making Obamas life miserable.

Some here choose to give the PL'ers, and Michael Moore in particular a free fucking ride. I won't. Both are equally responsible for whats going on.

It almost seems some here have a vested interest in Michael Moore and thats pretty fucking pathetic. Talk about him and you make the shit list. Well, thats one shit list I don't mind being on.

I can do two things at once and calling out the PL and the Blue Dogs is what I will continue to do. I won't choose to ignore one for the other.

[KonaKane]

Don't worry, no one's going to get in your hell bent for leather determined way to slime Michael Moore at every turn. The topic I raised had to do with what is doing this administration the most harm, and obstructing important accomplishments, the most. It stands to reason that the culprits are in fact those in Congress who are supposed to be Democrats but instead have been instrumental in not only keeping the Obama admin from making good on campaign promises, but successfully got themselves somewhat ignored while the spotlight is turned on a handful of bloggers and bobbleheads.

If you still insist that the site boogeyman called the "PL" is responsible, and the Blue Dogs relatively irrelevent, I ask again why it is that Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and massive promo effort in the run up to the 2004 election was barely a bump in the road for GWB to take the White House for a 2nd term? Also, why is it that so few know - or WANT to know - how the Blue Dogs almost in concert stood in the way of Obama's most important policy decisions?

[kahuna]

(11-27-2011 06:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Don't worry, no one's going to get in your hell bent for leather determined way to slime Michael Moore at every turn. The topic I raised had to do with what is doing this administration the most harm, and obstructing important accomplishments, the most. It stands to reason that the culprits are in fact those in Congress who are supposed to be Democrats but instead have been instrumental in not only keeping the Obama admin from making good on campaign promises, but successfully got themselves somewhat ignored while the spotlight is turned on a handful of bloggers and bobbleheads.

If you still insist that the site boogeyman called the "PL" is responsible, and the Blue Dogs relatively irrelevent, I ask again why it is that Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and massive promo effort in the run up to the 2004 election was barely a bump in the road for GWB to take the White House for a 2nd term? Also, why is it that so few know - or WANT to know - how the Blue Dogs almost in concert stood in the way of Obama's most important policy decisions?

You keep glossing over the FACT that in 2000 Moore was a surrogate for nader till the bitter end. How many votes did bush carry FL and NH by? You think MM could have persuaded some of those folks to vote for his boy ralph? So what he had a guilty conscious in 2004, and thought he could somehow UNDO the damage he did in 2000. So sad, it didn't work in 2004. But it sure as hell worked in 2000, when we learned that it only takes a few votes to throw an election.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-27-2011 07:31 PM)kahuna Wrote:  You keep glossing over the FACT that in 2000 Moore was a surrogate for nader till the bitter end. How many votes did bush carry FL and NH by? You think MM could have persuaded some of those folks to vote for his boy ralph? So what he had a guilty conscious in 2004, and thought he could somehow UNDO the damage he did in 2000. So sad, it didn't work in 2004. But it sure as hell worked in 2000, when we learned that it only takes a few votes to throw an election.

The pertinent question is to what extent Moore specifically influenced votes. That is, did he convince someone to vote for Nader who was otherwise intending to vote for Gore or who had perhaps not made up his or her mind?

I do not know the answer to this question (I don't even know how to test it), but it is worth asking, and the answer is not self-evident. A lot is being read backward into Moore's influence vis a vis the 2000 election. It is simply a truism that he became much more prominent after 2000 than he was before it, so it is not clear that he himself can be said to carry that much blame for it.

At the time of the election, Moore was mostly known for being that guy who made that little Roger and Me film, made a horrible comedy movie, and did that very obscure cable show on Bravo. (Bonus points if you can remember the name of it without searching for it.)

[kahuna]

(11-27-2011 07:44 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-27-2011 07:31 PM)kahuna Wrote:  You keep glossing over the FACT that in 2000 Moore was a surrogate for nader till the bitter end. How many votes did bush carry FL and NH by? You think MM could have persuaded some of those folks to vote for his boy ralph? So what he had a guilty conscious in 2004, and thought he could somehow UNDO the damage he did in 2000. So sad, it didn't work in 2004. But it sure as hell worked in 2000, when we learned that it only takes a few votes to throw an election.

The pertinent question is to what extent Moore specifically influenced votes. That is, did he convince someone to vote for Nader who was otherwise intending to vote for Gore or who had perhaps not made up his or her mind?

I do not know the answer to this question (I don't even know how to test it), but it is worth asking, and the answer is not self-evident. A lot is being read backward into Moore's influence vis a vis the 2000 election. It is simply a truism that he became much more prominent after 2000 than he was before it, so it is not clear that he himself can be said to carry that much blame for it.

At the time of the election, Moore was mostly known for being that guy who made that little Roger and Me film, made a horrible comedy movie, and did that very obscure cable show on Bravo. (Bonus points if you can remember the name of it without searching for it.)

He was nader's surrogate, which means he campaigned for nader and represented him in person where nader could not appear. I remember seeing him on my tv talking smack with that stupid cheesy grin of his. Bush's margin in FL was 535 votes. I'll give MM and crew credit for at least that many votes. Those people didn't get the idea to vote for nader without getting his message from nader and and his campaign surrogate, MM. Please.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-28-2011 05:39 AM)kahuna Wrote:  He was nader's surrogate, which means he campaigned for nader and represented him in person where nader could not appear. I remember seeing him on my tv talking smack with that stupid cheesy grin of his.

The fact Moore was Nader's surrogate is not in dispute. The fact Nader's campaign, particularly in close states, detracted from Gore's campaign is also not in dispute with me. (Others may still disagree, but I've seen enough statistical data to convince me his campaign in specific places, Florida being one of them, took away from Gore overall.) That does not, however, address the question of to what extent Moore was personally responsible for it.

If you're making a moral argument that Moore is responsible simply due to his support, that's fine and not really disputable. But by this measure everyone who said anything positive about Nader and especially those who voted for him are equally responsible. This is a point without much meaning.

It seems to me, however, that some would like to single out Moore as holding a special responsibility for Nader, and for that we need evidence in the form of data. A lot of claims are made in all elections about why people voted this or that way, and for the most part those claims are nothing more than someone's own untested hypothesis that fits their own preconceptions. (In Moore's case, a lot of it is post-conception that grew out of 2004.) When you submit these hypotheses to actual testing, the vast majority of them don't hold up under scrutiny. For example, a lot of people still believe that Carter lost because of Kennedy. (I was one of these for a very long time, right up to the point I started actually focusing on hard data.) The data shows something quite different. By some interpretations, Kennedy's influence on the 1980 election actually kept the election from being more of a landslide than it was.

Quote:Bush's margin in FL was 535 votes. I'll give MM and crew credit for at least that many votes. Those people didn't get the idea to vote for nader without getting his message from nader and and his campaign surrogate, MM. Please.

And you give him credit for those votes for what reason?

Are you factoring in those who refused to vote for Nader who otherwise might have because they didn't like Moore? Have you considered Gore surrogates who brought in Gore voters who were planning on sitting out the election? Are you including in your calculations voter repression from the Bush campaign or Nader surrogates employed by the Bush campaign who were essentially anonymous to the media but who otherwise were heavily involved in pushing Nader in close Florida districts?

OnEdit: I want to make clear I am not saying you are wrong or that anyone else is correct. I am saying I don't know and that for any of us to know, we need more than assertions that fit with our core beliefs. For my part, being pissed off at Nader (and I've been pissed off at Nader since long before his troublesome meddling into 2000) is not enough to tell me Nader's presence in the general election screwed up an entire decade (and counting). I had to see, for example, that Nader voters in Florida were not simply non-voting citizens who simply decided to vote because Nader was there. If that were the case, Nader is not responsible for anything. I had to see, in other words, that Nader's presence flipped votes, and that evidence exists.

[kahuna]

(11-28-2011 09:52 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 05:39 AM)kahuna Wrote:  He was nader's surrogate, which means he campaigned for nader and represented him in person where nader could not appear. I remember seeing him on my tv talking smack with that stupid cheesy grin of his.

The fact Moore was Nader's surrogate is not in dispute. The fact Nader's campaign, particularly in close states, detracted from Gore's campaign is also not in dispute with me. (Others may still disagree, but I've seen enough statistical data to convince me his campaign in specific places, Florida being one of them, took away from Gore overall.) That does not, however, address the question of to what extent Moore was personally responsible for it.

If you're making a moral argument that Moore is responsible simply due to his support, that's fine and not really disputable. But by this measure everyone who said anything positive about Nader and especially those who voted for him are equally responsible. This is a point without much meaning.

It seems to me, however, that some would like to single out Moore as holding a special responsibility for Nader, and for that we need evidence in the form of data. A lot of claims are made in all elections about why people voted this or that way, and for the most part those claims are nothing more than someone's own untested hypothesis that fits their own preconceptions. (In Moore's case, a lot of it is post-conception that grew out of 2004.) When you submit these hypotheses to actual testing, the vast majority of them don't hold up under scrutiny. For example, a lot of people still believe that Carter lost because of Kennedy. (I was one of these for a very long time, right up to the point I started actually focusing on hard data.) The data shows something quite different. By some interpretations, Kennedy's influence on the 1980 election actually kept the election from being more of a landslide than it was.

Quote:Bush's margin in FL was 535 votes. I'll give MM and crew credit for at least that many votes. Those people didn't get the idea to vote for nader without getting his message from nader and and his campaign surrogate, MM. Please.

And you give him credit for those votes for what reason?

Are you factoring in those who refused to vote for Nader who otherwise might have because they didn't like Moore? Have you considered Gore surrogates who brought in Gore voters who were planning on sitting out the election? Are you including in your calculations voter repression from the Bush campaign or Nader surrogates employed by the Bush campaign who were essentially anonymous to the media but who otherwise were heavily involved in pushing Nader in close Florida districts?

OnEdit: I want to make clear I am not saying you are wrong or that anyone else is correct. I am saying I don't know and that for any of us to know, we need more than assertions that fit with our core beliefs. For my part, being pissed off at Nader (and I've been pissed off at Nader since long before his troublesome meddling into 2000) is not enough to tell me Nader's presence in the general election screwed up an entire decade (and counting). I had to see, for example, that Nader voters in Florida were not simply non-voting citizens who simply decided to vote because Nader was there. If that were the case, Nader is not responsible for anything. I had to see, in other words, that Nader's presence flipped votes, and that evidence exists.

How many times do I have to repeat. MM wasn't just a supporter. He was a campaigner and a surrogate. As a surrogate, he was also a campaign stand-in for Nader, where nader could not physically be there himself. It's just illogical to imply or state that someone who actively campaigned for nader in person AND on TV and radio, did not give nader at least that 537 vote advantage to swing the election. Out of 97,000 votes???? Really???

And as far as kona's contention that hardly anybody even knew who Moore was before the election: 1:, that doesn't matter because he wasn't speaking for himself, as a surrogate, he was speaking for nader. 2:, while he may not have been widely known before the election, he certainly did gain fame as a result of the election, which helped him to move books and sell movie tickets.

P.S. According to exit polls, 38% of nader voter said that they would have voted for Gore if nader had not been a candidate.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-28-2011 12:01 PM)kahuna Wrote:  How many times do I have to repeat. MM wasn't just a supporter. He was a campaigner and a surrogate. As a surrogate, he was also a campaign stand-in for Nader, where nader could not physically be there himself. It's just illogical to imply or state that someone who actively campaigned for nader in person AND on TV and radio, did not give nader at least that 537 vote advantage to swing the election. Out of 97,000 votes???? Really???

You can repeat it all you want, but it's still not logically sound. The same argument you are presenting has been used innumerable times by those advancing a hypothesis explaining the result in some election, and almost as many times those people are never able to back it up. I could use the very same logic while picking a random Bush surrogate and claim that one individual was responsible enough for Gore losing Florida that we should all continue to criticize him indefinitely for it. Or, I could randomly pick another Nader surrogate with some notoriety and blame that person. It's all just a tossup. I don't know if you don't understand this or are just choosing not to, but the thing you (and others ... it is not my intention to make this about your argument specifically or you personally) are not including in your judgment is the potential influence of other surrogate for any of the candidates or the potential of negative influence for Moore.

The only logic this is based on is a personal choice to focus on Moore, which is fine if that's what you want to do, but we're back around to the moral responsibility argument again, which I don't think has much use.

Quote:And as far as kona's contention that hardly anybody even knew who Moore was before the election: 1:, that doesn't matter because he wasn't speaking for himself, as a surrogate, he was speaking for nader.

Yes, it does matter unless you would like to claim that anyone can go out as a surrogate for a candidate and influence voters equally irrespective of who they are. And if you do want to argue that, then we've brought in a ton of other variables in the equation of trying to determine Moore's influence.

Quote:2:, while he may not have been widely known before the election, he certainly did gain fame as a result of the election, which helped him to move books and sell movie tickets.

This is irrelevant to his influence on the 2000 election. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quote:P.S. According to exit polls, 38% of nader voter said that they would have voted for Gore if nader had not been a candidate.

This addresses the question of whether Nader was a factor in Gore's loss, and as already stated, that is not in dispute. In fact, without giving the numbers, I even said that there is in fact evidence that Nader's presence flipped votes.

[KonaKane]

(11-27-2011 07:31 PM)kahuna Wrote:  You keep glossing over the FACT that in 2000 Moore was a surrogate for nader till the bitter end. How many votes did bush carry FL and NH by? You think MM could have persuaded some of those folks to vote for his boy ralph? So what he had a guilty conscious in 2004, and thought he could somehow UNDO the damage he did in 2000. So sad, it didn't work in 2004. But it sure as hell worked in 2000, when we learned that it only takes a few votes to throw an election.

You have no proof for that, in the least. Pure conjecture.

[kahuna]

(11-27-2011 07:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-27-2011 07:31 PM)kahuna Wrote:  You keep glossing over the FACT that in 2000 Moore was a surrogate for nader till the bitter end. How many votes did bush carry FL and NH by? You think MM could have persuaded some of those folks to vote for his boy ralph? So what he had a guilty conscious in 2004, and thought he could somehow UNDO the damage he did in 2000. So sad, it didn't work in 2004. But it sure as hell worked in 2000, when we learned that it only takes a few votes to throw an election.

You have no proof for that, in the least. Pure conjecture.

Willful ignorance. Bush carried FL by 535 votes. We all know the contortions team bush went through to come up with that meager lead. However, MM campaigned for nader in FL. He was nader's surrogate. When most others on the PL had abandoned nader, MM stuck it out and made in person and tv appearances for nader.

Nader got 97,000 votes in FL. I believe I can attribute at least 535 votes to MM's superb campaign skills.

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 05:53 AM)kahuna Wrote:  Willful ignorance. Bush carried FL by 535 votes. We all know the contortions team bush went through to come up with that meager lead. However, MM campaigned for nader in FL. He was nader's surrogate. When most others on the PL had abandoned nader, MM stuck it out and made in person and tv appearances for nader.

Nader got 97,000 votes in FL. I believe I can attribute at least 535 votes to MM's superb campaign skills.

Again, that's all assumption at best - because you have been goaded into doing a dance with a trick question. There IS NO way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how much even a well known advocate of a candidate influences the election one way or another. There is only conjecture, as you are continuing to illustrate.

Simply wishing it so because you detest Michael Moore does not make it so.

[kahuna]

(11-28-2011 12:10 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 05:53 AM)kahuna Wrote:  Willful ignorance. Bush carried FL by 535 votes. We all know the contortions team bush went through to come up with that meager lead. However, MM campaigned for nader in FL. He was nader's surrogate. When most others on the PL had abandoned nader, MM stuck it out and made in person and tv appearances for nader.

Nader got 97,000 votes in FL. I believe I can attribute at least 535 votes to MM's superb campaign skills.

Again, that's all assumption at best - because you have been goaded into doing a dance with a trick question. There IS NO way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how much even a well known advocate of a candidate influences the election one way or another. There is only conjecture, as you are continuing to illustrate.

Simply wishing it so because you detest Michael Moore does not make it so.

YOU goad me... Don't flatter yourself. And for the record, I do not detest moore. I never have. I just don't think he's as wonderful as you do, and I do not hold him blameless concerning election 2000.

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 12:24 PM)kahuna Wrote:  ....And for the record, I do not detest moore. I never have. I just don't think he's as wonderful as you do, and I do not hold him blameless concerning election 2000.

The volume of posts you've lobbed at him paint another picture, but hey - whatever gets you through the night.

[kahuna]

(11-28-2011 12:34 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 12:24 PM)kahuna Wrote:  ....And for the record, I do not detest moore. I never have. I just don't think he's as wonderful as you do, and I do not hold him blameless concerning election 2000.

The volume of posts you've lobbed at him paint another picture, but hey - whatever gets you through the night.

Why bother to tell me what you think when you already know, I think what you think is twisted.

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 12:41 PM)kahuna Wrote:  Why bother to tell me what you think when you already know, I think what you think is twisted.

Perhaps because I am addressing an entire forum, and not just you personally?

[kahuna]

(11-28-2011 12:52 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 12:41 PM)kahuna Wrote:  Why bother to tell me what you think when you already know, I think what you think is twisted.

Perhaps because I am addressing an entire forum, and not just you personally?

Oh! So you told the entire forum you were goading them? Here we go again....I NEVER SAID THAT!

[KonaKane]

(11-28-2011 03:07 PM)kahuna Wrote:  Oh! So you told the entire forum you were goading them? Here we go again....I NEVER SAID THAT!

No, but you are mightily attempting to make this aaaaaall about you - which would be a mistake.

See if you can pull yourself to actually address the topic (Blue Dog Dems and sabotaging Obama) instead of pursuing a personal attack. This isn't DU, and I'd hate to try turning it into one.

[kahuna]

(11-28-2011 03:20 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-28-2011 03:07 PM)kahuna Wrote:  Oh! So you told the entire forum you were goading them? Here we go again....I NEVER SAID THAT!

No, but you are mightily attempting to make this aaaaaall about you - which would be a mistake.

See if you can pull yourself to actually address the topic (Blue Dog Dems and sabotaging Obama) instead of pursuing a personal attack. This isn't DU, and I'd hate to try turning it into one.

If you voted for nader just admit it instead of trying to twist logic to suit some fantasy scenario. Anbody who doesn't believe that a surrogate can't move at least 537 votes out of 97,000 votes is surely defying logic. That was the purpose of him being a surrogate, otherwise he could have stayed home and chilled. The fact that moore was widely known after the election speaks to the fact that he had an impact. He became well known enough to have a book that enjoyed 50 weeks on the NY Times bestseller list and 8 weeks at number 1.

Maybe you and kona didn't see moore on nationwide tv advocating for nader and the importance of a third party challenge. I did, much too often. I speak from what I know. To suggest that his appearances did not move at least 537 votes is ludacris. But maintain you defiance of logic if you must.

And how stupid is it that I'm being accused of making this about me, when I'm the one who is being attacked personally. Yes, Kona. If you admit that you have goaded me, then YOU have singled me out. You made it about me. I didn't make it about myself. That is a weak strawman attack to try to avert attention from your failing arguments and personal attacks. You accuse me of DU behaviour? (another personal attack) Goading (your word) is what they do best on DU. That is surely DU behavior. Suggest you look in the mirror on that front.

Kona, once again, you have created a thread with guaranteed responses, because you already knew how a lot of DFPers feel about the PL. Another DU tactic..continuing a toxic flamefest in a new thread after the original thread was locked.

In the interest of the community, I will not comment further on this thread. I've made my point. I don't need to beat a dead horse.....any further,.

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 06:42 AM)kahuna Wrote:  If you voted for nader just admit it instead of trying to twist logic to suit some fantasy scenario.

OK, I'll play. When on earth did I ever say I voted for Nader? (HINT: I have never voted for the guy in my life) For the life of me I cannot figure out what encourages you to put words in peoples' mouths like that. Bizarre. I think I even noticed this in my brief time at DU.

Quote:Anbody who doesn't believe that a surrogate can't move at least 537 votes out of 97,000 votes is surely defying logic. That was the purpose of him being a surrogate, otherwise he could have stayed home and chilled. The fact that moore was widely known after the election speaks to the fact that he had an impact. He became well known enough to have a book that enjoyed 50 weeks on the NY Times bestseller list and 8 weeks at number 1.

I still don't know how that all translates into votes for Nader. I ask you again, if MM was so powerful, how come he couldn't manage to tip an election to Kerry in 2004 with all the movie promos and speaking tours he was doing to crash Bush? Your logic isn't holding together here.

Quote:And how stupid is it that I'm being accused of making this about me, when I'm the one who is being attacked personally. Yes, Kona. If you admit that you have goaded me, then YOU have singled me out.

You misunderstand. When I said you allowed yourself to be "goaded" into a dance with a trick question, I didn't mean a person did it - I meant the question itself did it. I noticed that you gradually argued yourself into a corner over the issue of how one proves how much an advocate for a candidate has in actually moving votes for them. That point sort of developed on it's own and you were taken to task on it here by more people than just li'l old me.

Quote:Kona, once again, you have created a thread with guaranteed responses, because you already knew how a lot of DFPers feel about the PL. Another DU tactic..continuing a toxic flamefest in a new thread after the original thread was locked.

You can whine all you want about how "DU" all this is, but the fact is not everyone here goes so nuts about this so called "PL". Frankly, it's starting to turn into a comical boogeyman with less and less meaning outside of being a receptacle for growing irrational anger. Ironically, it is making the "PL" more important than it actually is, and marginalizing he importance of the Congressional Democrats who are obstructing Obama at all of his major policy initiatives.

That doesn't make me real happy.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 06:42 AM)kahuna Wrote:  Anbody who doesn't believe that a surrogate can't move at least 537 votes out of 97,000 votes is surely defying logic. That was the purpose of him being a surrogate, otherwise he could have stayed home and chilled.

Whatever point you think you've made, the one you've actually made with regard to Moore is meaningless. Do candidate surrogates convince people to vote for those candidates? Yes. In the history of the United States, we've known this since 1789, so it is not a great revelation. The point you seem to be trying to make, however, is that Moore is more responsible than anyone for taking votes away from Gore, implicitly declaring him personally responsible for the 500-odd votes that were the margin of difference in Florida. You have not proved that. I'll simply end this and say flatly that you cannot prove it.

Further, I'm going to invoke coaches everywhere when their teams are perceived to have lost due to a bad referee call. If Gore hadn't been in a position to lose Florida by a mere few hundred votes, Michael Moore doesn't matter at all. And the point of my saying that is the point you seem determined to ignore. It took a lot more people than Moore to take away enough votes from Gore for it to matter. I am personally inclined to place more blame on the known Bush operatives who were pouring money into the Nader campaign in Florida and themselves going out and campaigning for him in districts where Gore was strong.

For the same reasons you cannot say Moore was more influential than they were, I cannot say these people were more influential than him. I can, however, say that there were hundreds of these people who went house to house, showed up at campaign events, drove people to the polls, etc. while what Moore mostly did was talk. I know who I *think* was more influential.

Quote:Maybe you and kona didn't see moore on nationwide tv advocating for nader and the importance of a third party challenge. I did, much too often. I speak from what I know. To suggest that his appearances did not move at least 537 votes is ludacris. But maintain you defiance of logic if you must.

Through all of this, I have not accused you of ignorance or ill intent. I will ask you the same favor. But if you'd like to compare resumes ...

I know more about the 2000 election through the study of actual polling data, candidate interviews, voter interviews, ad nauseum than I even have the desire to explain in a forum like this, much less the time. I was a member of a statistical research team (as a part of a graduate seminar) *during* the election itself, collected data in several states on the ground, analyzed data from numerous states later, and wrote various reports about it all. I still have some of what I was personally responsible for in storage, and I have access to the digital archive of all of it.

I speak from what I know as well.

[There Is No Spoon]

And there is no proof that I know of that the superduper boogiepeople known as the "PL" had anything to do with the 2010 losses. If they did, I'm still waiting since my last thread on this topic for some definitive evidence of the "PL" involvement in the 2010 losses (and no, speculation is not fact.)

And stating that the "PL" is getting a "free pass" just because some choose not to waste all their energy fighting liberals when looking to elect Democrats over Republicans (are there any "PL" running for office?) is as big a straw man as has ever existed anywhere.

[Baltoman991]

(11-27-2011 06:43 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  And there is no proof that I know of that the superduper boogiepeople known as the "PL" had anything to do with the 2010 losses. If they did, I'm still waiting since my last thread on this topic for some definitive evidence of the "PL" involvement in the 2010 losses (and no, speculation is not fact.)

And stating that the "PL" is getting a "free pass" just because some choose not to waste all their energy fighting liberals when looking to elect Democrats over Republicans (are there and "PL" running for office?) is as big a straw man as has ever existed anywhere.

Me stating that you and others here are giving the PL a free pass is no more a straw man then saying that me and others here are only concerned with the PL'ers. See how that works?

And if you choose to believe that the PL'ers didn't knee cap Obama and the Democrats in 2010 then you need to wake up to reality.

[KonaKane]

(11-27-2011 07:39 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  ....
And if you choose to believe that the PL'ers didn't knee cap Obama and the Democrats in 2010 then you need to wake up to reality.

What "kneecapped" Obama and the Democrats in 2010 was not enough Democratic voters voting. And you have zero proof that the superbad "PL" hogtied them and kept them home. What's much more likely is that voters were not paying enough attention to the so called Democrats from the South who were shanking Obama at practically every turn, and the forces of GOP/FuxSnooze successfully turned that into "evidence" that the will of America was not with Obama.

[Treestar]

(11-27-2011 07:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-27-2011 07:39 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  ....
And if you choose to believe that the PL'ers didn't knee cap Obama and the Democrats in 2010 then you need to wake up to reality.

What "kneecapped" Obama and the Democrats in 2010 was not enough Democratic voters voting. And you have zero proof that the superbad "PL" hogtied them and kept them home. What's much more likely is that voters were not paying enough attention to the so called Democrats from the South who were shanking Obama at practically every turn, and the forces of GOP/FuxSnooze successfully turned that into "evidence" that the will of America was not with Obama.

The PL is a pain in the ass. OK, if they are nothing, then fine. They think they control everything - until 2010 when they denied it. They help Republicans, our biggest problem.

But Republicans are a far bigger problem than Blue Dogs.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-27-2011 07:39 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Me stating that you and others here are giving the PL a free pass is no more a straw man then saying that me and others here are only concerned with the PL'ers. See how that works?

That type of tit-for-tat reasoning worked in high school I suppose.

Quote:And if you choose to believe that the PL'ers didn't knee cap Obama and the Democrats in 2010 then you need to wake up to reality.

So I'd simply like to see some hard numbers that prove that what a few malcontents said had any effect on the voting patterns of the majority who pay no attention to the basement dwelling wing-nuts on either side of the aisle.

[Treestar]

(11-27-2011 08:26 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(11-27-2011 07:39 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  Me stating that you and others here are giving the PL a free pass is no more a straw man then saying that me and others here are only concerned with the PL'ers. See how that works?

That type of tit-for-tat reasoning worked in high school I suppose.

Quote:And if you choose to believe that the PL'ers didn't knee cap Obama and the Democrats in 2010 then you need to wake up to reality.

So I'd simply like to see some hard numbers that prove that what a few malcontents said had any effect on the voting patterns of the majority who pay no attention to the basement dwelling wing-nuts on either side of the aisle.

They do try as hard as they can to suppress voting - discouragement regarding Democrats. But say they are marginal malcontents. We lost Congress in 2010 due to independents not voting - and that could be centrists or those easily falling for the latest M$M themes: "Obama is a disappointment to those who voted for him" thing - that helps Republicans, so it is in the news and the Greenwald group therefore gets attention.

Every time the M$M can, it starts on the "Obama is losing this or that group" theme, specifically designed to get those mushy middle voters to jump off of the bandwagon.

[azmouse]

[RoyGBiv]

(11-28-2011 01:44 PM)azmouse Wrote:  

FWIW, I have absolutely no problem getting along with people I disagree with. Disagreement on matters of opinion is not, or at least does not have to be, personal. If I have an indictment of a person's character to make, I will make it, after which I'm sure we'll probably not get along, but that's not the case here so far.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-28-2011 03:24 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  FWIW, I have absolutely no problem getting along with people I disagree with. Disagreement on matters of opinion is not, or at least does not have to be, personal. If I have an indictment of a person's character to make, I will make it, after which I'm sure we'll probably not get along, but that's not the case here so far.

I, on the other hand, hate any mofo that dares to disagree with me.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-28-2011 04:15 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I, on the other hand, hate any mofo that dares to disagree with me.

No you don't.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-28-2011 06:53 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  No you don't.

You tryin' ta piss me off?

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 12:48 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  You tryin' ta piss me off?

Where's that poking things with a stick smiley ...

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-29-2011 03:29 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 12:48 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  You tryin' ta piss me off?

Where's that poking things with a stick smiley ...

If it was up yer A$$ you'd know about it!

[azmouse]

(11-28-2011 03:24 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  FWIW, I have absolutely no problem getting along with people I disagree with. Disagreement on matters of opinion is not, or at least does not have to be, personal. If I have an indictment of a person's character to make, I will make it, after which I'm sure we'll probably not get along, but that's not the case here so far.

Just trying to inject some levity into the thread so everyone doesn't take themselves too seriously.

[Velleity]

I guess I spoke too soon on the other thread.

BTW, I think Republicans are our worst problem.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

If you would like to know what the professional left is, check out Naomi Klein's latest piece for the Guardian wherein she implies the white house is behind the OWS crackdown with her evidence being an anonymous source on Examiner.com and a Wonkette post that does not say what the headline claims. I do believe Moore has jumped on this wagon as well.

Are they solely responsible for pushing people away? No, but they are helping. And for what? A claim that is not proven at all.

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 03:11 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  If you would like to know what the professional left is, check out Naomi Klein's latest piece for the Guardian wherein she implies the white house is behind the OWS crackdown with her evidence being an anonymous source on Examiner.com and a Wonkette post that does not say what the headline claims. I do believe Moore has jumped on this wagon as well.

Are they solely responsible for pushing people away? No, but they are helping. And for what? A claim that is not proven at all.

If true that would be very disappointing, because Naomi has contributed some brilliant thought in the past.

I'm not inclined to believe their stories because so far the Obama administration has been very understanding of the OWS, and certainly not badmouthing it.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 03:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 03:11 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  If you would like to know what the professional left is, check out Naomi Klein's latest piece for the Guardian wherein she implies the white house is behind the OWS crackdown with her evidence being an anonymous source on Examiner.com and a Wonkette post that does not say what the headline claims. I do believe Moore has jumped on this wagon as well.

Are they solely responsible for pushing people away? No, but they are helping. And for what? A claim that is not proven at all.

If true that would be very disappointing, because Naomi has contributed some brilliant thought in the past.

I'm not inclined to believe their stories because so far the Obama administration has been very understanding of the OWS, and certainly not badmouthing it.

My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Guardian piece AFAIK.)

I do agree with SCQ that these are examples of what the so-called "professional left" actually should be defined as if they are not. (And I agree with what I think you believe in that the term has come to be used to mean a wide array of things such that it has become a catch-call for people we don't like and is thus meaningless.) Wolf, certain people on Wonkette, Greenwald, etc. are indeed making a living off pushing this pseudo-ultra-left bullshit in opposition to Obama and nothing else. When you look deeper, as the crooksandliars expose did, a lot of their sources are right-wing sources, i.e. not left at all.

I *think* Moore's association with this is casual, i.e. asked a bone-headed question. Wolf and others were the ones who presented supposed evidence for an affirmative answer.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 03:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Examiner piece AFAIK.)

The crooksandliars piece with a video of Moore.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/shockin...assertions

Quote:It's a factless, incendiary assertion dripping in hyperbole, grounded in speculation that's been going on for a couple of weeks now. It began with a tweet. A tweet from Michael Moore speculating that the coordination seemed like something being coordinated by DHS and sanctioned, nay, possibly even requested, by the Obama administration.

Here are the two links Wolf provides as evidence: One to Wonkette; the other toWashingtonsblog.com. Both articles point back to this absurd article on the Examiner.com site (a very, very right-wing Phil Anschutz, write-out-of-your-butt-with-no-evidence kind of site). Washingtons Blog goes one step further, updating with this:

Go to the link for links to the Examiner, etc. articles.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(11-29-2011 03:27 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 03:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Examiner piece AFAIK.)

The crooksandliars piece with a video of Moore.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/shockin...assertions

Quote:It's a factless, incendiary assertion dripping in hyperbole, grounded in speculation that's been going on for a couple of weeks now. It began with a tweet. A tweet from Michael Moore speculating that the coordination seemed like something being coordinated by DHS and sanctioned, nay, possibly even requested, by the Obama administration.

Here are the two links Wolf provides as evidence: One to Wonkette; the other toWashingtonsblog.com. Both articles point back to this absurd article on the Examiner.com site (a very, very right-wing Phil Anschutz, write-out-of-your-butt-with-no-evidence kind of site). Washingtons Blog goes one step further, updating with this:

Go to the link for links to the Examiner, etc. articles.

No, you are correct, it is Naomi Wolf I was thinking of. I do not know how to copy links on my phone or I would have copied that as well.
Thanks for posting it.

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-29-2011 03:27 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 03:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Examiner piece AFAIK.)

The crooksandliars piece with a video of Moore.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/shockin...assertions

Quote:It's a factless, incendiary assertion dripping in hyperbole, grounded in speculation that's been going on for a couple of weeks now. It began with a tweet. A tweet from Michael Moore speculating that the coordination seemed like something being coordinated by DHS and sanctioned, nay, possibly even requested, by the Obama administration.

Here are the two links Wolf provides as evidence: One to Wonkette; the other toWashingtonsblog.com. Both articles point back to this absurd article on the Examiner.com site (a very, very right-wing Phil Anschutz, write-out-of-your-butt-with-no-evidence kind of site). Washingtons Blog goes one step further, updating with this:

Go to the link for links to the Examiner, etc. articles.

Interesting stuff...

Thanks for fleshing this out for us here.

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 03:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Guardian piece AFAIK.)

.....

Thanks for the correction. I really do like them both, but certainly wouldn't welcome conspiracy theories coming from either because they are just too damn smart for that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(11-29-2011 03:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 03:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  If true that would be very disappointing, because Naomi has contributed some brilliant thought in the past.

I'm not inclined to believe their stories because so far the Obama administration has been very understanding of the OWS, and certainly not badmouthing it.

My understanding, based on an article from Crooksandliars and my personal recollection of the time frame (which may be flawed) is that Moore asked one of those leading questions that draw a conclusion just from the form of the question and then Naomi Wolf did the article based on that crap from the Examiner via Wonkette and some other site. (Klein may have done a similar article. I don't know, but Wolf is the one associated with the Guardian piece AFAIK.)

I do agree with SCQ that these are examples of what the so-called "professional left" actually should be defined as if they are not. (And I agree with what I think you believe in that the term has come to be used to mean a wide array of things such that it has become a catch-call for people we don't like and is thus meaningless.) Wolf, certain people on Wonkette, Greenwald, etc. are indeed making a living off pushing this pseudo-ultra-left bullshit in opposition to Obama and nothing else. When you look deeper, as the crooksandliars expose did, a lot of their sources are right-wing sources, i.e. not left at all.

I *think* Moore's association with this is casual, i.e. asked a bone-headed question. Wolf and others were the ones who presented supposed evidence for an affirmative answer.

Ah you're right Roy. I always get my Naomi's crossed. My apologies.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 04:09 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  Ah you're right Roy. I always get my Naomi's crossed. My apologies.

I get them confused too.

I just try to remember that Klein is the one who thinks she's an economist. (Not a huge fan.)

[There Is No Spoon]

(11-29-2011 04:33 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  ... (Not a huge fan.)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(11-29-2011 04:36 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 04:33 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  ... (Not a huge fan.)

ROFL, I dont know why but that tickled me just right.

[cannae1]

The GOP are, in my view, our biggest problem. Many of them are nihilists. We need to keep that in mind.

We do have, as shown in this thread, Democratic legislators who not co operate well with the WH. They were an important reason why the bills that were passed ( or were not passed at all) turned to be as mediocre as they turned out to be.
We have weak party discipline in the Democratic party and that makes easy for them. We need better and wiser people in office.

As for the 'professional left': they are dilletantes and entertainers who seldom make sense. I have no problem with people pointing that out. Personally, I think that they are a minor irritant and are more trouble than they are worth.

[KonaKane]

Naomi Wolf did a series of spoken word appearances where she fleshed out the characteristics of forming fascism and corpo-fascisms. Should be textbook stuff for those of us trying to avert them.

[RoyGBiv]

(11-29-2011 04:34 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Naomi Wolf did a series of spoken word appearances where she fleshed out the characteristics of forming fascism and corpo-fascisms. Should be textbook stuff for those of us trying to avert them.

My problem with Wolf is rather arcane, but it can be partly summed up by some of her feminist critics who say she has a poor understanding of history and of the methods involved in analyzing history. She is, in other words, one of these people who acts as though she thinks she's a historian because she happens to know a few historical factoids and is a talented enough writer to make sense of them for others.

And the bigger problem is that I tend to agree with her. No one irritates me more than someone who comes to a conclusion I agree with but gets there in a way that allows critics to tear it apart in a way I cannot defend.

Strangely enough that is also my problem with Klein, though I think Wolf is much, much better at winging it than Klein is. Klein's _Shock Doctrine_ suffers, for example, because she applies purposeful motives to some of the wrong people and provides a definition of "Chicago School" economics that is a swiss cheese of errors. It makes the whole thing come off as the rantings of a lefty lunatic if you're not already predisposed to agree with her.

Wolf's errors are more matters of interpretation and lack of professional discipline in a given area, i.e. not so glaring unless you happen to have more detailed prior knowledge of what she's talking about. I am guessing you're referring here to her speaking tour in support of her book _The End of America_. This is a perfect example of coming to the right destination following all the wrong streets. She basically equates Italian fascism and German national socialism as the same thing that arose in the same way. They are not the same thing. This is a rookie error that anyone who disagrees with the conclusion is going to rip apart and declare the whole thing void for being based on a flawed foundation.

But I'm rambling and being a bit of a pedantic prick I suppose ...

[KonaKane]

(11-29-2011 05:13 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Wolf's errors are more matters of interpretation and lack of professional discipline in a given area, i.e. not so glaring unless you happen to have more detailed prior knowledge of what she's talking about. I am guessing you're referring here to her speaking tour in support of her book _The End of America_. This is a perfect example of coming to the right destination following all the wrong streets. She basically equates Italian fascism and German national socialism as the same thing that arose in the same way. They are not the same thing. This is a rookie error that anyone who disagrees with the conclusion is going to rip apart and declare the whole thing void for being based on a flawed foundation.

Yes, that was the book she was promoting at the time. Funny thing is, I've long been acquainted with the historical differences between German National Socialism and Italian fascism, and compare/contrast accuracy of the two didn't even concern me coming from Wolf because I thought she was so spot on with the basics (with which I'm sure you are well acquainted) of fascist and quasi-fascist governments. Those things don't change over time, and she delivered an attention grabbing presentation to audiences who can scare you with how little they knew about the subject.