Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Velleity** · 04-25-2012, 08:43 AM

Full Article Here

WASHINGTON -- It was a not-so-super Tuesday for Pennsylvania's Blue Dog Democrats.

Reps. Tim Holden (D-Pa.) and Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), both members of the dwindling conservative Democratic coalition, lost their primary races on Tuesday. Before the defeat of the two incumbents, there were just 25 Blue Dogs left in Congress, after the coalition's members were wiped out in the 2010 election.

Holden lost to progressive candidate Matt Cartwright, an attorney who attacked the incumbent for voting against President Barack Obama's health care reform. Holden is the second House member to lose to a newcomer in the 2012 primaries. The other lawmaker was Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio). Both were also targeted by the anti-incumbent super PAC, the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

Getting a progressive Democrat into Pennsylvania's newly redrawn 17th Congressional District was a priority for progressive groups, including MoveOn and the League of Conservation Voters. The latter ran the largest independent expenditure campaign in the race, which included a $230,000 TV ad buy on broadcast and cable networks in the Scranton media market. The spot criticized Holden for opposing Obama's clean energy plan.

The League of Conservation Voters "targeted Representative Tim Holden for defeat explicitly because he has opposed policies that will curb harmful global warming pollution and build a clean energy economy," said Gene Karpinski, the group president. "Tim Holden is the first candidate this cycle to lose because he is out of the mainstream on global warming and clean energy, but he won't be the last.”

**Velleity** · 04-25-2012, 08:43 AM

Good riddance, I say.

**jaxx** · 04-25-2012, 08:45 AM

I agree, good riddance. We need Democrats holding those D seats, not people who vote with the R's.

**Brewman_Jax** · 04-25-2012, 09:07 AM

If they want to be repubs, they can do like the scumbags in the state legislature and change their party affiliations. We don't need anymore DINO's.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 04-25-2012 09:16 AM by suzie.)

Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Although I disagreed with this congressman a lot and was displeased with many of his votes, on a lot of issues he voted for Democratic legislation. In fact, he often voted with Democrats when progressive favorite Dennis Kucinich voted with the Republicans.

His replacement is one of the most conservative guys even within the Tea Party class of 2010.

We'll likely never get another Democrat in that seat--maybe some can consider that a good thing. I simply can't.

**jaxx** · 04-25-2012, 09:24 AM

(04-25-2012 09:13 AM)suzie Wrote: Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Although I disagreed with this congressman a lot and was displeased with many of his votes, on a lot of issues he voted for Democratic legislation. In fact, he often voted with Democrats when progressive favorite Dennis Kucinich voted with the Republicans.

His replacement is one of the most conservative guys even within the Tea Party class of 2010.

We'll likely never get another Democrat in that seat--maybe some can consider that a good thing. I simply can't.

I think the idea is that the winner of the Democratic primary will win in Nov. The voters obviously like the idea of someone other than the two who lost. Newly redrawn districts don't always mean the incumbent will survive....look at Kucinich.

**Willinois** · 04-25-2012, 10:16 AM

(04-25-2012 09:13 AM)suzie Wrote: Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Yes, it is better.
First, because it sends a message to other Democrats that they may be defeated if they consistently oppose Democratic policies. They won't be so quick to vote against the party if they're afraid of losing a primary. That's how we avoid having a "Democratic" Congress that blocks half of Obama's agenda.
And let's remember, those conservative Democrats blocking Obama's agenda are why many Dem voters stayed home in 2010. They had nothing to vote for. We can thank the blue dogs who held Obama back for the tea party landslide.

Second, sometimes it's better in the long run to let Republicans have a seat for one or two terms and come back to defeat them with a decent Democrat in a future election. It's very difficult to take out an incumbent in the primary no matter how bad of a Democrat he/she is. Odds of defeating an extremist Republican in the general election are better.

The failures of Obama's first two years should be enough of a lesson to everyone that it's not enough to elect just anyone with a D next to their name.

**Peacetrain** · 04-25-2012, 09:17 AM

fingers crossed this works good.. if blue dogs are replaced with tea party.. it is a lose lose game.

I will take 80% over 0% any given day.

But if we can get a Democrat in there with a capital D who will not cave on critical votes.. that is even better.

Just have to know what the local populace is and the chances of getting enough people to back you up.

Many blue dogs were originally much more liberal..but the constituency they represented demanded a move to the middle.

**Velleity** · 04-25-2012, 09:49 AM

Of course a reasonable conservative is better than a radical right "conservative". I assume the local Democrats know what they're doing in their primary, so if they're booting the Blue Dog I assume that they believe they can win with the person they're putting up as their candidate.

I would also assume that Teabaggers are going to be suffering the same kind of fate as the Blue Dogs. I believe our base is motivated and if that's true, we're going to win a lot of seats. If we vote, we win.

If the base isn't motivated then I'm stunned and speechless.

**janedrake** · 04-25-2012, 10:03 AM

I hope the Cartwright campaign is ready for the onslaught of GOP "J'Accuse!" ads that will try to smear him as a, gasp!, trial lawyer (I read on ThinkProgress that he's a personal injury lawyer.) I can see the Koch-fueled minions smacking their lips now and poring over any TV ads he may have put up as an injury lawyer. On the plus side, it's pretty cool that he has the same last name as the beloved Bonanza TV family.

**Willinois** · 04-25-2012, 10:09 AM

Great news! This is how to move Congress left instead of hopeless third party campaigns.

**KonaKane** · 04-25-2012, 03:34 PM

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Blue Dawgies.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-25-2012, 04:55 PM

I'd love to add a progressive to the Tx Dem Congressional crew, but would certainly consider a blue dog an upgrade to the current line of repukes.

**suzie** · 04-25-2012, 05:13 PM

I couldn't disagree more.

To me, it's this attitude, "just go ahead and lose the seat and maybe sometime in the future we'll get it back," that has lost the Democratic Party statehouse after statehouse. This has enabled Republicans to control redistricting, which allows them to retain Congressional seats election after election.

Democrats who have insisted on ideological purity in their candidates have already ceded whole groups of statehouses to Republicans, which makes it highly unlikely that many of the seats will ever be available to a Democrat again.

I don't blame the Blue Dogs for the 2010 electoral losses. There were a lot of causes, but the constant noise from so-called progressive Democrats that Obama is worthless, that there is no difference between the two parties were just as harmful as anything the Blue Dogs ever did.

Plus, no matter how much people who live in blue districts in blue states want to tell us that in their fantasy world, people in conservative districts will elect the candidate that they'd choose, it just doesn't happen that way.

What does happen is that the more you lose, the fewer people who are wiling to run, the smaller the organization that you have to help people run. Losing doesn't breed winning, it breeds losing.

**Willinois** · (This post was last modified: 04-26-2012 12:28 PM by Willinois.)

(04-25-2012 05:13 PM)suzie Wrote: I couldn't disagree more.

To me, it's this attitude, "just go ahead and lose the seat and maybe sometime in the future we'll get it back," that has lost the Democratic Party statehouse after statehouse. This has enabled Republicans to control redistricting, which allows them to retain Congressional seats election after election.

Democrats who have insisted on ideological purity in their candidates have already ceded whole groups of statehouses to Republicans, which makes it highly unlikely that many of the seats will ever be available to a Democrat again.

I don't blame the Blue Dogs for the 2010 electoral losses. There were a lot of causes, but the constant noise from so-called progressive Democrats that Obama is worthless, that there is no difference between the two parties were just as harmful as anything the Blue Dogs ever did.

Plus, no matter how much people who live in blue districts in blue states want to tell us that in their fantasy world, people in conservative districts will elect the candidate that they'd choose, it just doesn't happen that way.

What does happen is that the more you lose, the fewer people who are wiling to run, the smaller the organization that you have to help people run. Losing doesn't breed winning, it breeds losing.

I think statehouses are a separate issue. There's a general lack of interest among the progressive netroots in anything below the Congressional level. I saw no coordinated effort to make the connection to Congressional redistricting and statehouse races. That's a failure of the entire party that has nothing to do with Blue Dogs v. Traditional Democrats.

You wrote: "There were a lot of causes, but the constant noise from so-called progressive Democrats that Obama is worthless, that there is no difference between the two parties were just as harmful as anything the Blue Dogs ever did."

It was the blue dogs who gave credibility to the claims that both parties are the same. It's impossible to blame Republicans when Obama's bills are being blocked by a half a dozen Democratic Senators and a few dozen Democratic Congressman. It allows progressives and even moderate voters to say "both parties are the problem because they're both in the pockets of special interests." That makes it harder for EVERY Democrat to run for re-election. It's the Blue Dogs who alienate many moderate voters across the country when they make Democrats look like the party of corporate special interests.

When you never run progressive candidates then progressive viewpoints aren't heard. The inevitable result of that is that the conversation drifts farther right election after election. Running Democrats who don't espouse Democratic values is ALWAYS a losing game in the long run.

**KonaKane** · 04-25-2012, 05:42 PM

I have to disagree with you on this one, suzie.

What I see happening is a political force moving Democratism in the South to the left, which means closer to it's true orientation in regards to the rest of the nation. The old Democratic conservatives are losing their jobs because people are coming around to the truth that the blue doggies help the GOP as much as they ever help the donkeys.

Southern Democratic ideology is being reframed, the narrative is being pushed left, and frankly that's a good thing. The era of "well that's the only way it can work for Democrats in the South" is obviously wrapping up.

**suzie** · 04-26-2012, 06:12 AM

(04-25-2012 05:42 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I have to disagree with you on this one, suzie.

Southern Democratic ideology is being reframed, the narrative is being pushed left, and frankly that's a good thing. The era of "well that's the only way it can work for Democrats in the South" is obviously wrapping up.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about the South at all in this discussion. We're talking about Blue Dogs in Pennsylvania. I was thinking about them in any red state or red part of a blue state.

I think that whether you call them Blue Dogs or whatever, you're going to have moderate Democrats elected from moderate/conservative areas or you'll always get Republicans in those areas.

I was also thinking of Wisconsin, where the kinds of folks who want to just "wait a few cycles" are discovering that when Republicans get in power they change the rules, they redistrict, they make all kinds of election rules that permanently harm Democratic chances. At least that's what I hear from people who are very involved with what's happened in Wisconsin.

There are candidates that certainly should be voted out of office, whether Blue Dogs or fake progressives like Dennis Kucinich, or just corrupt jerks. But I wonder if people from outside the district who want to see a candidate lose because they think they're a Blue Dog or whatever really take a serious look at that candidate's voting record. I did compare Kucinich once with my Blue Dog congressperson's record and was surprised at how much more he voted with the Democrats on issues that are of importance to me than Kucinich--who voted more often with the Republicans.

And yet, I doubt that anyone from Moveon.org or many of the prominent "progressive" voices would ever consider that my guy's record was in many ways the better one. Because a lot of what even "progressive", liberal Democrats think about various congresspeople is a lot based on media spin.

But, even my congressperson lost primarily because he was redistricted out of office by Republicans, who kept increasing the Republican footprint in his district, not because of his philosophical differences with liberal Democrats.

**sandnsea** · 04-25-2012, 06:42 PM

Well at least the people in the district will hear what real Democrats want. It might take a few cycles, but that is the only thing that will ultimately break the back of the right wing rhetoric the Blue Dogs have been feeding back to their people. Joe Manchin comes to mind. I get the people in WV need coal jobs, but that in itself isn't enough to excuse some of his stupid stances on Obama's policies and just downright hatefulness.

**Treestar** · 04-26-2012, 07:42 AM

I think we need the people in the middle elected, in order to get things done. That person will be replaced with a Republican, and that adds to the chance Rs hold Congress. Even if the more progressive D wins, they won't get much done, as the rest of Congress may be R or with more moderate Democrats.

That's how we have showdowns over every single budget. Both sides preferring their extremists who won't "cave" (compromise).

**Velleity** · 04-26-2012, 09:57 AM

(04-26-2012 07:42 AM)Treestar Wrote: I think we need the people in the middle elected, in order to get things done. That person will be replaced with a Republican, and that adds to the chance Rs hold Congress. Even if the more progressive D wins, they won't get much done, as the rest of Congress may be R or with more moderate Democrats.

That's how we have showdowns over every single budget. Both sides preferring their extremists who won't "cave" (compromise).

Pendulums swing. What's true today isn't necessarily true 5 or 10 years from now. Right now we don't need baby splitting. Right now we need to make Republicans pay the price for being radical and extreme.

**Treestar** · 04-26-2012, 10:40 AM

But how? If they are part of a Congressional majority, they won't pay a thing. Or even just 40 of them in the Senate (at least for President Obama. I wonder if the president elected in 2016, likely to be white, will have this problem? Maybe, if it is a woman).

**Velleity** · 04-26-2012, 10:51 AM

(04-26-2012 10:40 AM)Treestar Wrote: But how? If they are part of a Congressional majority, they won't pay a thing. Or even just 40 of them in the Senate (at least for President Obama. I wonder if the president elected in 2016, likely to be white, will have this problem? Maybe, if it is a woman).

<sigh>

Frustrating. Isn't it?

We have to hope our leaders do what they have to do to get our vote out and win. You and I can only do our small bit.

**KonaKane** · 04-26-2012, 02:19 PM

We're battling inertia. In this case, the objects set in motion back with the Nixonian "Southern Strategy" which effectively made the South Republican. Relying on inertia as an argument is, well, no good argument. It's the same as saying "we're doing it this way because we've always done it this way and people won't cotton to any other."

There comes a time you have to commit to changing the force. An object in motion remains in motion unless it is met with another object or energy of greater force. It's time to do the hard, possibly thankless at first, work to change the narrative which will change the face of Democratic politics in the South. "It's not how it works down here" has worn out its welcome.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-26-2012, 11:26 PM

The one that moves an electorate that barely goes for a conservative Democrat to elect a moderate Democrat? Is there really some kind of purple to blue magic dust?

(04-26-2012 02:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote: It's time to do the hard, possibly thankless at first, work to change the narrative which will change the face of Democratic politics in the South.

How many Congresses should we forego the electable blue dog for this thanklessness to work?

**Velleity** · 04-27-2012, 07:30 AM

(04-26-2012 11:26 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: The one that moves an electorate that barely goes for a conservative Democrat to elect a moderate Democrat? Is there really some kind of purple to blue magic dust?

(04-26-2012 02:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote: It's time to do the hard, possibly thankless at first, work to change the narrative which will change the face of Democratic politics in the South.

How many Congresses should we forego the electable blue dog for this thanklessness to work?

None. We should forgo none.

All politics is local, don't you think? If the local Democratic Party thinks they can replace a Blue Dog with a more liberal candidate, so be it. If they lose then they have to do better the next time.

Likewise if they feel they have to go with a Blue Dog to win, then so be that as well.

It's kind of hard for me sitting here in Chicago to second guess some other Democrat in Jo Davies County, or further out. They have my support, for whatever it's worth.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-27-2012, 09:22 AM

(04-27-2012 07:30 AM)Velleity Wrote: All politics is local, don't you think? If the local Democratic Party thinks they can replace a Blue Dog with a more liberal candidate, so be it. If they lose then they have to do better the next time.

Likewise if they feel they have to go with a Blue Dog to win, then so be that as well.

It's kind of hard for me sitting here in Chicago to second guess some other Democrat in Jo Davies County, or further out. They have my support, for whatever it's worth.

Here in red state hell, we truly appreciate that support!!! Big political tents are raucous environs.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 04-27-2012 11:51 AM by suzie.)

(04-27-2012 07:30 AM)Velleity Wrote:
(04-26-2012 11:26 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: The one that moves an electorate that barely goes for a conservative Democrat to elect a moderate Democrat? Is there really some kind of purple to blue magic dust?

How many Congresses should we forego the electable blue dog for this thanklessness to work?

None. We should forgo none.

All politics is local, don't you think? If the local Democratic Party thinks they can replace a Blue Dog with a more liberal candidate, so be it. If they lose then they have to do better the next time.

Likewise if they feel they have to go with a Blue Dog to win, then so be that as well.

It's kind of hard for me sitting here in Chicago to second guess some other Democrat in Jo Davies County, or further out. They have my support, for whatever it's worth.

In the elections in Pennsylvania, money was poured into the primary race from Moveon.org and the League of Conservation Voters. My guess is that those aren't very local to that district.

Primary voters tend to be the extremes of both parties, which means that the General Election voters are often unhappy with the candidate chosen by the special interest primary voters and those from outside the district.

Which means that they get discouraged with voting and are less likely to turn out the next election.

The one thing that I know about elections is that the candidate who gets more of their people out to vote on Election Day, or in early voting, wins.

Seems kind of a strange kind of GOTV strategy to start out with a candidate that people in other parts of the country like, but don't care if they're electable in one's local area.

Not one that I can wrap my mind around.

**Willinois** · 04-27-2012, 02:36 PM

(04-27-2012 07:30 AM)Velleity Wrote: It's kind of hard for me sitting here in Chicago to second guess some other Democrat in Jo Davies County, or further out. They have my support, for whatever it's worth.

It's hard for me to think of a good reason why a Chicago district that's heavily Democratic enough to elect a socialist is sending a blue dog like Lipinski to Congress.

The winning strategy in rural areas is often an economic populist message. Unfortunately, the Blue Dog playbook is to cozy up to special interests in search of campaign donations. That helps them raise a big enough campaign fund to get re-elected but that doesn't mean they're representing the views of the district any better than a more progressive populist Democrat would.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-27-2012, 02:57 PM

(04-27-2012 02:36 PM)Willinois Wrote: The winning strategy in rural areas is often an economic populist message.

Jim Hightower would be in his third term rather than vacuous Governor Good Hair.

**Willinois** · 04-28-2012, 09:58 AM

(04-27-2012 02:57 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:
(04-27-2012 02:36 PM)Willinois Wrote: The winning strategy in rural areas is often an economic populist message.

Jim Hightower would be in his third term rather than vacuous Governor Good Hair.

How come this argument never works the other way? One liberal loses and it's used to argue that liberals are unelectable. By that logic, the Blue Dogs who lost prove that blue dogs are unelectable. Right? What's good for the goose...

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-29-2012, 09:06 PM

(04-28-2012 09:58 AM)Willinois Wrote: How come this argument never works the other way? One liberal loses and it's used to argue that liberals are unelectable. By that logic, the Blue Dogs who lost prove that blue dogs are unelectable. Right?

No, cuz a conservative district is closer to going for a blue dog Dem than a liberal. Weak equivocation, unless you have some of that purple to blue magic dust.

**KonaKane** · 04-29-2012, 09:26 PM

(04-29-2012 09:06 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: No, cuz a conservative district is closer to going for a blue dog Dem than a liberal.
........

Do you realize what you actually just said here?

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-29-2012, 10:55 PM

(04-29-2012 09:26 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(04-29-2012 09:06 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: No, cuz a conservative district is closer to going for a blue dog Dem than a liberal.
........

Do you realize what you actually just said here?

Yes. Do you have the wondrous purple to blue narrative yet?

**KonaKane** · 04-30-2012, 12:57 PM

(04-29-2012 10:55 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: Yes. Do you have the wondrous purple to blue narrative yet?

I gave you a few examples in response to your assinine snark. Didn't you bother reading it?

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 12:07 PM

(04-30-2012 12:57 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I gave you a few examples in response to your assinine snark. Didn't you bother reading it?

...you didn't bother to reply to the subthread.

**Willinois** · 04-30-2012, 05:39 PM

(04-29-2012 09:06 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote:
(04-28-2012 09:58 AM)Willinois Wrote: How come this argument never works the other way? One liberal loses and it's used to argue that liberals are unelectable. By that logic, the Blue Dogs who lost prove that blue dogs are unelectable. Right?

No, cuz a conservative district is closer to going for a blue dog Dem than a liberal. Weak equivocation, unless you have some of that purple to blue magic dust.

I don't know. I think many districts are more likely to elect a populist who focuses on economic issues than a corporate suck-up blue dog. There are plenty of Blanche Lincoln's to prove the point.

**KonaKane** · 04-27-2012, 01:32 PM

(04-26-2012 11:26 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: The one that moves an electorate that barely goes for a conservative Democrat to elect a moderate Democrat? Is there really some kind of purple to blue magic dust?
.....

I'm not sure about dust, but there is an ancient formula for this sort of job which usually gets it done:

Will + Motivation + Organization

Personally, I think it's worth it.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-27-2012, 02:36 PM

blue dog district Dems wielding their new-found "Will + Motivation + Organization"? Shrug

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 04-27-2012 05:55 AM by suzie.)

After this discussion, I went and looked at the histories of the Blue Dogs, yowza.

The Blue Dogs were all over the country, not just the South. In fact, Florida has always had more Progressive Democratic Caucus members than Blue Dogs. Mississippi and Georgia had equal amounts of Blue Dogs and Progressives.

Many of the Blue Dogs were elected in the 2006 reaction against Bush or carried in during 2008 with the Obama election. They were in very marginal districts, often in rural areas. A lot of their districts would not have been easy to hold in 2010 because they tended to be conservative.

However, most Blue Dogs that were defeated or retired because they expected defeat did so because of REDISTRICTING.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-27-2012, 09:14 AM

(04-27-2012 05:53 AM)suzie Wrote: However, most Blue Dogs that were defeated or retired because they expected defeat did so because of REDISTRICTING.

...2008 voters who did not show up in 2010 were about 2:1 Dems. Thatz deadly in marginal districts from which most blue dogs originate.

**KonaKane** · (This post was last modified: 04-27-2012 03:02 PM by KonaKane.)

"Wondrous narrative"? Excuse me while I wipe some of the cynical, sarcastic poison off of your post here...

There, that's better.

Now, what is it exactly, that you'd like to see change there? If anything? Perhaps you are just fine with the pseudo-GOP blue canines and the way they so often operate as a ball and chain on the legs of Democratic change on the national level. Me? I'm not. I actually think it's possible to move the narrative to the left in the South. The conditions are there. The message is there. The time is right. With a public dialogue that reframes the vital issues and is hammered on a daily basis, we can finally put a stake in the heart of the GOP monster in the South that Nixon built. The "wondorous narrative" that obviously twists your nips is already at hand.

Support unions instead of appease their destruction by being brow-beaten into anti union legislation based on cries of attacks on the free market.

Support the rights of the minority, instead of wither into your chairs as the usual suspects thunder about "reverse racism".

Reasonable regulations on firearms is not equal to the disarmament of an entire nation.

A sufficient defense is not the same as a muscular, read that, outlandishly expensive and morally reprehensible foreign policy.

Government serves people. Stop pulling a paycheck from it while working for it's destruction at the same time.

The list can go on far longer. That's the work that needs to be done. I would suggest more of that and less of the cynical, stick in the mud defeatism.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 12:21 PM

Boilerplate Dem positions, some new-found "Will + Motivation + Organization" and faith-based hooey are going to turn red states blue.? No, but I do concur that matters are moving our way, principally due to one thing: DEMOGRAPHICS which can certainly be aided by concerted messaging.

(Sorry for the tardy reply. Methinks a bout of viral meningitis has well and truly kicked my ass.)

**KonaKane** · 05-03-2012, 01:42 PM

(05-03-2012 12:21 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: Boilerplate Dem positions, some new-found "Will + Motivation + Organization" and faith-based hooey are going to turn red states blue.? No, but I do concur that matters are moving our way, principally due to one thing: DEMOGRAPHICS which can certainly be aided by concerted messaging.

(Sorry for the tardy reply. Methinks a bout of viral meningitis has well and truly kicked my ass.)

Core Democratic principles are "squat" to you?

Interesting....and revealing....viewpoint.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 03:41 PM

In the last several decades "Core Democratic principles" have done squat to move the Southern electorate leftward.

Quote:Core Democratic principles are "squat" to you?

You know I didn't say that. I just don't believe they have any magic juju.

**Willinois** · 04-27-2012, 02:47 PM

Let me just reemphasize this in response to several comments. In most cases, it's not voters in the district blue dogs are moving to the center for. It's the views of corporate campaign donors that they're pandering to, not the views of voters. That only makes them more electable in swing districts because it allows them to raise large campaign funds. In some cases, such as Blanche Lincoln, her cozying up to special interests actually made her MORE vulnerable to defeat. Her Blue Dog views were what DC lobbyists considered the "center" but they were NOT what people in populist Arkansas wanted.

There are many, many examples of principled progressives getting safely re-elected in rural swing districts because they worked hard and campaigned effectively. Sucking up to special interests by becoming a Blue Dog is one way to get re-elected in marginal districts but it's not the only way.

**KonaKane** · 04-28-2012, 07:15 PM

(04-27-2012 02:47 PM)Willinois Wrote: .....
There are many, many examples of principled progressives getting safely re-elected in rural swing districts because they worked hard and campaigned effectively. Sucking up to special interests by becoming a Blue Dog is one way to get re-elected in marginal districts but it's not the only way.

On top of that, it's "being on the ropes" as far as Democratic principles go. It's like telling yourself "this is the only way I can possibly get elected in the South with w D by my name." Self perpetuating nonsense.

**suzie** · 04-29-2012, 06:50 AM

(04-28-2012 07:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(04-27-2012 02:47 PM)Willinois Wrote: .....
There are many, many examples of principled progressives getting safely re-elected in rural swing districts because they worked hard and campaigned effectively. Sucking up to special interests by becoming a Blue Dog is one way to get re-elected in marginal districts but it's not the only way.

On top of that, it's "being on the ropes" as far as Democratic principles go. It's like telling yourself "this is the only way I can possibly get elected in the South with w D by my name." Self perpetuating nonsense.

One more time, the two Democrats that we're talking about weren't from the South. Many of the Blue Dogs aren't/weren't from the South. Of those currently serving, only 1/4 are from the South.

But, keep up the South bashing. It makes us all so excited to work for the Democratic Party, knowing that we're all stupid and lacking in courage.

BTW, my Blue Dog congressperson had a rating of voting with the Party of 95%, Barney Frank's was 97%.

But since he was a Blue Dog from the South, that rating must not count.

**KonaKane** · 04-29-2012, 11:55 AM

(04-29-2012 06:50 AM)suzie Wrote: .....
But, keep up the South bashing. It makes us all so excited to work for the Democratic Party, knowing that we're all stupid and lacking in courage.

BTW, my Blue Dog congressperson had a rating of voting with the Party of 95%, Barney Frank's was 97%.

But since he was a Blue Dog from the South, that rating must not count.

I would certainly say that is out of character for a blue dog, but hey...small blessings.

I'd also say that, far from bashing the South, I have great faith in the South. I believe they can become true blue, instead of purple. It's too bad that faith isn't shared.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-29-2012, 09:10 PM

(04-29-2012 11:55 AM)KonaKane Wrote: I'd also say that, far from bashing the South, I have great faith in the South. I believe they can become true blue, instead of purple. It's too bad that faith isn't shared.

Born and raised in the south. Diddy, G-Diddy and GG-Diddy were all Southern Baptist Ministers. I recognize misplaced faith all too well.

**KonaKane** · 04-29-2012, 09:27 PM

(04-29-2012 09:10 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: Born and raised in the south. Diddy, G-Diddy and GG-Diddy were all Southern Baptist Ministers. I recognize misplaced faith all too well.

I was born and raised in Utah, birthplace of Big Bill Haywood, the icon of the IWW.

Yer point?

**yowzayowzayowza** · 04-29-2012, 10:57 PM

(04-29-2012 09:27 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(04-29-2012 09:10 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: Born and raised in the south. Diddy, G-Diddy and GG-Diddy were all Southern Baptist Ministers. I recognize misplaced faith all too well.

I was born and raised in Utah, birthplace of Big Bill Haywood, the icon of the IWW.

Yer point?

Utah is not in the south.

**KonaKane** · 04-30-2012, 12:58 PM

(04-29-2012 10:57 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: Utah is not in the south.

No, it's arguably redder. So please don't try to lecture me about growing up in da trenches.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 12:08 PM

(04-30-2012 12:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No, it's arguably redder. So please don't try to lecture me about growing up in da trenches.

...recognizing misplaced faith, not the color of the trenches.

**Velleity** · 04-30-2012, 09:39 AM

(04-29-2012 06:50 AM)suzie Wrote:
(04-28-2012 07:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote: On top of that, it's "being on the ropes" as far as Democratic principles go. It's like telling yourself "this is the only way I can possibly get elected in the South with w D by my name." Self perpetuating nonsense.

One more time, the two Democrats that we're talking about weren't from the South. Many of the Blue Dogs aren't/weren't from the South. Of those currently serving, only 1/4 are from the South.

But, keep up the South bashing. It makes us all so excited to work for the Democratic Party, knowing that we're all stupid and lacking in courage.

BTW, my Blue Dog congressperson had a rating of voting with the Party of 95%, Barney Frank's was 97%.

But since he was a Blue Dog from the South, that rating must not count.

Does it matter whether your congressperson is called "Blue Dog"? Does it matter what others are saying about the South?

Is this congressperson representing you and the rest of the real people in your district? If so, that's great. If they're not representing you and the rest of the real people and instead he or she is representing some special interest, not great.

IMHO.

Where this gets troubling, of course, is when one starts to think about why real people would subordinate themselves to the special interests. But hey, if most of us subordinate ourselves we're screwed.

**suzie** · 04-30-2012, 04:40 PM

(04-30-2012 09:39 AM)Velleity Wrote:
(04-29-2012 06:50 AM)suzie Wrote: One more time, the two Democrats that we're talking about weren't from the South. Many of the Blue Dogs aren't/weren't from the South. Of those currently serving, only 1/4 are from the South.

But, keep up the South bashing. It makes us all so excited to work for the Democratic Party, knowing that we're all stupid and lacking in courage.

BTW, my Blue Dog congressperson had a rating of voting with the Party of 95%, Barney Frank's was 97%.

But since he was a Blue Dog from the South, that rating must not count.

Does it matter whether your congressperson is called "Blue Dog"? Does it matter what others are saying about the South?

Is this congressperson representing you and the rest of the real people in your district? If so, that's great. If they're not representing you and the rest of the real people and instead he or she is representing some special interest, not great.

IMHO.

Where this gets troubling, of course, is when one starts to think about why real people would subordinate themselves to the special interests. But hey, if most of us subordinate ourselves we're screwed.

It seems to matter a great deal in this discussion, because I've tried to focus it away from THE SOUTH several times, only to have it come back there.

What does matter to me is the idea that those of us who work our butts off just to get someone elected in the reddest of districts are now going to be told who we can vote for by outside "progressives". That these "progressives" find it acceptable to pour money into campaigns where they don't know about the local candidates and who is electable in the General Election.

Sorry, but that's not something that I find pleasant to contemplate.

**Willinois** · 04-30-2012, 05:30 PM

(04-30-2012 04:40 PM)suzie Wrote: What does matter to me is the idea that those of us who work our butts off just to get someone elected in the reddest of districts are now going to be told who we can vote for by outside "progressives". That these "progressives" find it acceptable to pour money into campaigns where they don't know about the local candidates and who is electable in the General Election.

Sorry, but that's not something that I find pleasant to contemplate.

I see your point, but the alternative is usually a blue dog the party is pushing because he can better raise money from corporate donors who have more similar views. Sure, the left is more visible about it because they rely on communicating with the grassroots to raise money and get the word out. But, conservative Democrats are pushed by people from outside the district just as much, if not more so.

**KonaKane** · 04-30-2012, 05:19 PM

(04-30-2012 09:39 AM)Velleity Wrote: Where this gets troubling, of course, is when one starts to think about why real people would subordinate themselves to the special interests. But hey, if most of us subordinate ourselves we're screwed.

What wrinkles my prunes about all this is that there is such a snubbing of a chance to actually let people (as opposed to a small group forcing it) push the ideological paradigm left. I mean come on, how bad is that? It's people voting or not voting for these candidates, so what is the problem if they are getting sick of the blue dogs and want more progressive Democrats in office?

If someone can explain that one to me, I'm all ears.

**Velleity** · 05-01-2012, 08:16 AM

(04-30-2012 05:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(04-30-2012 09:39 AM)Velleity Wrote: Where this gets troubling, of course, is when one starts to think about why real people would subordinate themselves to the special interests. But hey, if most of us subordinate ourselves we're screwed.

What wrinkles my prunes about all this is that there is such a snubbing of a chance to actually let people (as opposed to a small group forcing it) push the ideological paradigm left. I mean come on, how bad is that? It's people voting or not voting for these candidates, so what is the problem if they are getting sick of the blue dogs and want more progressive Democrats in office?

If someone can explain that one to me, I'm all ears.

I think you might be disrespecting their accomplishments. I'm not saying that is the case because I am not them, but I can see how what you're saying here might be taken that way. Actually my representative is a "conservative". Would I take a Blue Dog over Bob Dold? You bet I would.

Bob Dold, "moderate" my ass.

Would I personally take offense at your suggestion that I should hold out for a full blown liberal? No, but that's just me. Everyone is different, and it takes all kinds.

**KonaKane** · 05-01-2012, 11:29 AM

(05-01-2012 08:16 AM)Velleity Wrote: ......

Would I personally take offense at your suggestion that I should hold out for a full blown liberal? No, but that's just me. Everyone is different, and it takes all kinds.

I think you misunderstand me. I never suggested "holding out" for a full blown liberal (as in sitting out elections and so forth) I suggested that we look at what's happening and consider assisting the movement of this party to the left in traditional red areas. When blue dogs are starting to lose in primaries there, something is definitely afoot.

To repeat, in the elections, support the Democrats absolutely. But don't snub a a candidate that garners popularity just because he's left of the traditional paradigm there.

**Velleity** · 05-01-2012, 12:28 PM

(05-01-2012 11:29 AM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-01-2012 08:16 AM)Velleity Wrote: ......

Would I personally take offense at your suggestion that I should hold out for a full blown liberal? No, but that's just me. Everyone is different, and it takes all kinds.

I think you misunderstand me. I never suggested "holding out" for a full blown liberal (as in sitting out elections and so forth) I suggested that we look at what's happening and consider assisting the movement of this party to the left in traditional red areas. When blue dogs are starting to lose in primaries there, something is definitely afoot.

To repeat, in the elections, support the Democrats absolutely. But don't snub a a candidate that garners popularity just because he's left of the traditional paradigm there.

I am understanding you. I am just trying to empathize a little with those who are taking offense.

You asked. I just tried to answer. Take it for what it's worth, if it's worth anything. Wink

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 04-29-2012 06:37 AM by suzie.)

(04-27-2012 02:47 PM)Willinois Wrote: Let me just reemphasize this in response to several comments. In most cases, it's not voters in the district blue dogs are moving to the center for. It's the views of corporate campaign donors that they're pandering to, not the views of voters.

How do you know that if you don't live in this kind of district?

My impression of people that actually run for political office is that they spend years punching all the right tickets, doing all the things that will enable them to run for office. Do you think that how the voters of their district feel simply escapes them?

**Willinois** · 04-29-2012, 08:59 AM

(04-29-2012 06:36 AM)suzie Wrote:
(04-27-2012 02:47 PM)Willinois Wrote: Let me just reemphasize this in response to several comments. In most cases, it's not voters in the district blue dogs are moving to the center for. It's the views of corporate campaign donors that they're pandering to, not the views of voters.

How do you know that if you don't live in this kind of district?

My impression of people that actually run for political office is that they spend years punching all the right tickets, doing all the things that will enable them to run for office. Do you think that how the voters of their district feel simply escapes them?

I do live in that kind of district, as I have for most of my life.

Unfortunately, punching all the right tickets means raising huge amounts of money, which means spending most of your time talking to people who can get you those campaign donations. Those big donors and lobbyists aren't the average voter in their district. I've seen both new candidates and experienced incumbents listen to the "expert" consultants about messaging. I've seen candidates mistake the opinions of donors and political leaders for the views of the average person. I've seen them get manipulated by a small number of people who are angry and vocal over an issue, even though most people in the district feel otherwise.

I've also seen progressives in more conservative districts discover that if people see you a as a principled person who sticks to his values that many people will respect that and vote for you even if they often disagree.

**suzie** · 04-30-2012, 07:55 AM

(04-29-2012 08:59 AM)Willinois Wrote: [quote='suzie' pid='92562' dateline='1335702970']

I do live in that kind of district, as I have for most of my life.

Unfortunately, punching all the right tickets means raising huge amounts of money, which means spending most of your time talking to people who can get you those campaign donations. Those big donors and lobbyists aren't the average voter in their district. I've seen both new candidates and experienced incumbents listen to the "expert" consultants about messaging. I've seen candidates mistake the opinions of donors and political leaders for the views of the average person. I've seen them get manipulated by a small number of people who are angry and vocal over an issue, even though most people in the district feel otherwise.

I've also seen progressives in more conservative districts discover that if people see you a as a principled person who sticks to his values that many people will respect that and vote for you even if they often disagree.

I was thinking of the candidate who participates in the community and goes to all the civic functions, meets with the voters when I said "punch the right ticket."

What I've seen are candidates who I've been told are "progressive" or "liberal" that are totally unable to make contact with individual voters. Or sometimes, they're just downright offensive.

We've had a number of gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the "liberal/progressive" wing of the state Democratic Party who show up and just offend the individual citizenry by acting as if they just don't matter. Somehow, that didn't give me great confidence that they had any interest in the average person.

**Willinois** · 04-30-2012, 05:34 PM

(04-30-2012 07:55 AM)suzie Wrote: What I've seen are candidates who I've been told are "progressive" or "liberal" that are totally unable to make contact with individual voters. Or sometimes, they're just downright offensive.

We've had a number of gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the "liberal/progressive" wing of the state Democratic Party who show up and just offend the individual citizenry by acting as if they just don't matter. Somehow, that didn't give me great confidence that they had any interest in the average person.

Personality issues like that are a much more likely reason for why someone is defeated than what their voting record is. Personally, I don't think how liberal/conservative a person votes is in the top 5 reasons of why they win or lose an election.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-01-2012, 08:20 AM

(04-30-2012 07:55 AM)suzie Wrote:
(04-29-2012 08:59 AM)Willinois Wrote: [quote='suzie' pid='92562' dateline='1335702970']

I do live in that kind of district, as I have for most of my life.

Unfortunately, punching all the right tickets means raising huge amounts of money, which means spending most of your time talking to people who can get you those campaign donations. Those big donors and lobbyists aren't the average voter in their district. I've seen both new candidates and experienced incumbents listen to the "expert" consultants about messaging. I've seen candidates mistake the opinions of donors and political leaders for the views of the average person. I've seen them get manipulated by a small number of people who are angry and vocal over an issue, even though most people in the district feel otherwise.

I've also seen progressives in more conservative districts discover that if people see you a as a principled person who sticks to his values that many people will respect that and vote for you even if they often disagree.

I was thinking of the candidate who participates in the community and goes to all the civic functions, meets with the voters when I said "punch the right ticket."

What I've seen are candidates who I've been told are "progressive" or "liberal" that are totally unable to make contact with individual voters. Or sometimes, they're just downright offensive.

We've had a number of gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the "liberal/progressive" wing of the state Democratic Party who show up and just offend the individual citizenry by acting as if they just don't matter. Somehow, that didn't give me great confidence that they had any interest in the average person.

It's amazing how out-of-touch liberals/progressives are. I think the Democratic party should go Blue Dog - woot! Nanner

**Velleity** · 05-01-2012, 08:51 AM

(05-01-2012 08:20 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(04-30-2012 07:55 AM)suzie Wrote: I was thinking of the candidate who participates in the community and goes to all the civic functions, meets with the voters when I said "punch the right ticket."

What I've seen are candidates who I've been told are "progressive" or "liberal" that are totally unable to make contact with individual voters. Or sometimes, they're just downright offensive.

We've had a number of gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the "liberal/progressive" wing of the state Democratic Party who show up and just offend the individual citizenry by acting as if they just don't matter. Somehow, that didn't give me great confidence that they had any interest in the average person.

It's amazing how out-of-touch liberals/progressives are. I think the Democratic party should go Blue Dog - woot!

Blue is such a pretty color! And who doesn't like dogs?

**jaxx** · 04-29-2012, 10:11 AM

If a liberal Democrat is running in a primary against an incumbent blue dog, the liberal gets my vote. I am for progress, not wobbling on the fence. Which ever wins gets my vote in the GE.

I don't care what part of the country is involved, using that as a reason to not vote in progressive Democrats to represent us doesn't make much sense.

**suzie** · 04-30-2012, 10:47 PM

As I said before, I looked at some bios of Blue Dogs, ones that I was familiar with. Many of them were from quite modest backgrounds, a good many had served in the military, probably more than the average for current Congresspersons.

Somehow, they don't exactly fit the image of "corporate suck-up's" that you seem desperate to portray.

**KonaKane** · 05-01-2012, 02:02 PM

I guess from my perspective, Gods forbid it's ever an "offense" to take an opportunity to move this party to the progressive left.

**suzie** · 05-02-2012, 05:29 AM

Perhaps any/all of you, Velleity, Willinois, Kona, could explain why it is that, in a far, far more liberal district than I live in, Alan Grayson lost his seat and is trying to regain it this year?

**Velleity** · 05-02-2012, 07:34 AM

(05-02-2012 05:29 AM)suzie Wrote: Perhaps any/all of you, Velleity, Willinois, Kona, could explain why it is that, in a far, far more liberal district than I live in, Alan Grayson lost his seat and is trying to regain it this year?

Believe it or not I don't presume to have all of the answers. Individual elections turn on all kinds of factors including voter turnout, which must have been light in an off year election, and the candidate's own campaign. All politics are local.

And please don't read into my posts any effort on my part to judge you. I'm just trudging my way through this like everyone else.

**Willinois** · (This post was last modified: 05-02-2012 08:54 AM by Willinois.)

(05-02-2012 05:29 AM)suzie Wrote: Perhaps any/all of you, Velleity, Willinois, Kona, could explain why it is that, in a far, far more liberal district than I live in, Alan Grayson lost his seat and is trying to regain it this year?

And we're back to that again. If the anecdotal example of Alan Grayson proves that liberals can't get elected in marginal districts, then the fact that many, many more blue dogs were defeated that same year is proof that blue dogs are even LESS electable. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

**suzie** · 05-02-2012, 03:53 PM

Various anecdotal discussions of Blanche Lincoln are not anecdotal, but mention of Alan Grayson is?

Going on and on about Blue Dogs being corporate suck-ups is not anecdotal, but mentioning Alan Grayson is?

This is an anecdote from the my district, where never having been here, you're completely certain that the locals would be totally and completely receptive to the 'progressive' message that you would insist upon if only it weren't for we lazy, dumb, suck-up Southerners getting in the way.

Our guys have said that in this campaign they will not drive an Obama decorated vehicle in a public event in a county in our district where they were told "Get that thing outta here, I'm going to get my AK-47 and my Bible," by a guy who looked like he meant it.

Or maybe they just fantasized all that--and from far away, you are totally correct in every bit of your anecdotal analysis of what happens in districts that have elected Blue Dogs.

**KonaKane** · 05-02-2012, 04:02 PM

suzie,

1. If some nutbar had actually threatened an Obama campaign worker like that, it would be cause to get law enforcement involved. Last I checked, it's still part of the USA in your environs.

2. What I can gather at this point in the discussion is that you are genuinely hostile to any attempt to move the Democratic party in your area to the more Progressive direction, even when it has primary energy behind it.

I'm sorry to see that.

**suzie** · 05-02-2012, 07:13 PM

Calling me a liar.

Because you don't like what I have to say about my own district.

Amazing.

**KonaKane** · 05-02-2012, 09:56 PM

Oh good hell, I'm not calling you a liar. You said you got that story from someone else. I'm doubting them, not you. And I'm also wondering why no one got law enforcement involved over such an obvious and nasty threat.

Please don't twist my words into something they never intended.

**suzie** · 05-04-2012, 04:51 AM

(05-02-2012 09:56 PM)KonaKane Wrote: Oh good hell, I'm not calling you a liar. You said you got that story from someone else. I'm doubting them, not you. And I'm also wondering why no one got law enforcement involved over such an obvious and nasty threat.

Please don't twist my words into something they never intended.

I got exactly what your words intended, Kona.

And the story came from my husband. Who spent 40 years in law enforcement.

Perhaps you want me to doubt his credibility or his judgment.

I choose not to do so.

**KonaKane** · 05-04-2012, 11:41 AM

(05-04-2012 04:51 AM)suzie Wrote: I got exactly what your words intended, Kona.

And the story came from my husband. Who spent 40 years in law enforcement.

Perhaps you want me to doubt his credibility or his judgment.

I choose not to do so.

Just to clarify, it happened to your husband or it was told to your husband?

Be very careful about throwing false accusations around. You never know where they will land.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 12:32 AM by suzie.)

I took them exactly as they were intended.

You directly accused me of lying.

And now I believe I'm done with this discussion. Call me whatever you want, make whatever assumptions you want about how stupid and lazy and conservative I am.

That's fine--you surely know how to appeal to folks in a conservative, red community better than a liar like me.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-03-2012, 07:21 AM

(05-03-2012 12:04 AM)suzie Wrote: I took them exactly as they were intended.

You directly accused me of lying.

And now I believe I'm done with this discussion. Call me whatever you want, make whatever assumptions you want about how stupid and lazy and conservative I am.

That's fine--you surely know how to appeal to folks in a conservative, red community better than a liar like me.

You can also attempt to see things from perspectives other than "oh, woe is me the put upon one in the deep red South." We all have our crosses to bear. Playing the victim does not suit you.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 09:09 AM by suzie.)

Maybe if you tried really hard, you could be just a little more condescending.

I've seen some of the Blue Dogs that y'all so love to hate on out visiting in the most rural areas of their districts, long before they were elected, and visiting in those same districts afterward.. Which is why I find Willinois's characterizations of them as starting out as corporate suck-ups as incorrect.

I gave an anecdote about what it's like in the most red of red districts, because Kona is totally certain that he understands what would have an appeal--and that seems to me at best, naive.

In previous times, I've worked with small communities as a consultant--and you may consider it "playing the victim", but I have to tell you, I don't know anywhere in this country where people like being called a liar.

As for your condescending labeling, we have great laughs about that incident on the campaign trail. Both the people involved grew up in small, rural, Southern communities and they just left the scene. But we joke about it quite often. If that's "playing the victim" to you, well so be it.

The reason we all liked the Obama campaign so much is that the staffer they sent grew up about 20 miles from the community of the incident and didn't accuse the guys of being liars, or doing the wrong thing by just driving away.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-03-2012, 10:36 AM

There's only one person in this thread who is so angry and defensive that they can't see that nobody is intending any sort of personal insult when they possibly mischaracterize the South or can't always see things from anothers perspective - especially while they are being yelled at.

You can either work with us or slam our faces to the mat for not wanting to concede that Blue Dogs, while they may be a necessary evil, are not the be-all end-all in Democratic politics, no matter how cordial they are when attempting to get elected. I'm sure Republicans seem all nicey nicey when they're out shaking hands, doesn't mean they are good for the country.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 05-04-2012 06:31 AM by suzie.)

(05-03-2012 10:36 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: You can either work with us or slam our faces to the mat for not wanting to concede that Blue Dogs, while they may be a necessary evil, are not the be-all end-all in Democratic politics, no matter how cordial they are when attempting to get elected. I'm sure Republicans seem all nicey nicey when they're out shaking hands, doesn't mean they are good for the country.

Your last paragraph perfectly describes Bill Clinton, TINS. Do you want the Obama Campaign to forgo using him as a spokesman, as they've planned?

Willinois's description of corporate suck-ups perfectly describes Joe Biden, whose pet Bankruptcy legislation has been very harmful during the foreclosure crisis. Are you agitating for him to be off the ticket in 2012?

My family found office space and raised the private money to open an Obama campaign office in a community so red the campaign will not pay for one. Do you want me to quit that effort today and walk away from the Obama campaign because I'm considered insufficiently ideologically pure by you, Willinois and Kona since I see Republicans controlling redistricting as the important issue here?

**Velleity** · 05-04-2012, 10:04 AM

(05-04-2012 06:17 AM)suzie Wrote: [quote='There Is No Spoon' pid='93099' dateline='1336062975']
My family found office space and raised the private money to open an Obama campaign office in a community so red the campaign will not pay for one. Do you want me to quit that effort today and walk away from the Obama campaign because I'm considered insufficiently ideologically pure by you, Willinois and Kona since I see Republicans controlling redistricting as the important issue here?

I don't we are about ideological purity. We were fighting that idea not too long ago.

I think my posts have been supportive of you even though I am more inclined to be against the Blue Dogs. I personally think there is room for Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and believe you're a necessary part of our coalition. I'm willing to give you as much leeway on that as you need.

So I turn the question back at you: can you remain in the coalition even though many of us aren't enamored with Blue Dogs, and are willing to express our disapproval?

**suzie** · 05-04-2012, 01:52 PM

(05-04-2012 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:
(05-04-2012 06:17 AM)suzie Wrote: [quote='There Is No Spoon' pid='93099' dateline='1336062975']
My family found office space and raised the private money to open an Obama campaign office in a community so red the campaign will not pay for one. Do you want me to quit that effort today and walk away from the Obama campaign because I'm considered insufficiently ideologically pure by you, Willinois and Kona since I see Republicans controlling redistricting as the important issue here?

I don't we are about ideological purity. We were fighting that idea not too long ago.

I think my posts have been supportive of you even though I am more inclined to be against the Blue Dogs. I personally think there is room for Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and believe you're a necessary part of our coalition. I'm willing to give you as much leeway on that as you need.

So I turn the question back at you: can you remain in the coalition even though many of us aren't enamored with Blue Dogs, and are willing to express our disapproval?

I'm not arguing with you, Velleity, as I have perceived your posts as being supportive.

I asked the questions because I was wondering how much others were willing to compromise their own versions of ideological purity for the sake of winning this fall's election.

Which is what those of us who live in very Red places have done about Blue Dogs, accepted compromise to try and retain some Democratic control.

I send money to Alan Grayson and hope that he's re-elected, but I don't expect that he'd be elected from my district. And I'm aware that his chances depend a lot on current redistricting, which I've said various times in this thread--from my first post to my last (which you replied to) is my great concern.

Which involves holding onto statehouses, which may not be as exciting to the NetRoots, at least according to Willinois, as targeting individual Congresspersons, or disparaging other Democrats online.

**KonaKane** · 05-04-2012, 11:39 AM

(05-04-2012 06:17 AM)suzie Wrote: My family found office space and raised the private money to open an Obama campaign office in a community so red the campaign will not pay for one. Do you want me to quit that effort today and walk away from the Obama campaign because I'm considered insufficiently ideologically pure by you, Willinois and Kona since I see Republicans controlling redistricting as the important issue here?

Oh, lovely. Hold your work for Obama hostage if we don't doff our caps and offer proper indulgence to Blue Dogs and renounce our desire to see more progressive Democrats in office. Shall I lay prostrate as well?

By the way, have you read the banner at the top of this site? The word in italics?

**Peacetrain** · 05-04-2012, 12:03 PM

[/quote]

Oh, lovely. Hold your work for Obama hostage if we don't doff our caps and offer proper indulgence to Blue Dogs and renounce our desire to see more progressive Democrats in office. Shall I lay prostrate as well?

By the way, have you read the banner at the top of this site? The word in italics?

[/quote]
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

By the way, have you read the banner at the top of this site? The word in italics?

**KonaKane** · 05-04-2012, 01:58 PM

(05-04-2012 12:03 PM)Peacetrain Wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Read post #88. Hostage politics.

**suzie** · (This post was last modified: 05-05-2012 03:55 AM by suzie.)

deleted duplicate.

**suzie** · 05-05-2012, 03:54 AM

(05-04-2012 01:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-04-2012 12:03 PM)Peacetrain Wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Read post #88. Hostage politics.

You don't read very well, Kona.

I threatened nothing, simply asked a question about how far people would go for their ideological purity.

You want those of us in red districts to forego winning elections so that we can live up to your ideological choices. I was curious about what choices you and the folks who agree with you were willing to make in pursuit of your version of "progress", in an election where it actually mattered to you.

**KonaKane** · 05-05-2012, 11:34 AM

(05-05-2012 03:54 AM)suzie Wrote: You don't read very well, Kona.

I threatened nothing, simply asked a question about how far people would go for their ideological purity.

Now who's being less than honest, my dear?

Quote:You want those of us in red districts to forego winning elections so that we can live up to your ideological choices.

I know this will probably go as far as the last time I requested it of you, but care to post, verbatim, where I ever said that?

Quote:I was curious about what choices you and the folks who agree with you were willing to make in pursuit of your version of "progress", in an election where it actually mattered to you.

It's been made pretty clear all along, and I can't figure out why you're so eye crossed angry at us for the view. We said we support Democrats, would vote for Democrats while doing what we can to assist a more progressive Democratic picture in red states.

I'm still not sure what is so outrageous about that.

**KonaKane** · 05-03-2012, 11:20 AM

That's about the size of it. Some see the Blue Dogs in red regions as the best that we can possibly do, forever and ever amen. I'm one of those starry eyed weirdos who actually think we can do much better.

----

One day while conducting a piano lesson for one of his virtuoso students, Frédéric Chopin lightly stopped her hands from playing the piece she was storming through. The student asked what is wrong, and noted that she was playing everything exactly as it was written without missing a beat or a marking.

"Yes, it is true, Madame, that you are playing many notes" remarked Chopin. "But I am not yet hearing any music."

**KonaKane** · 05-03-2012, 03:58 PM

it looks like some change is stirring in these primaries down yonder.

My question remains: why is that such a bad thing?

Would you prefer to "squat" on core Democratic principles just to force the conservatives to hold sway in the party in red regions?

I hope not. That would be a perfectly odd position to take.

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 04:22 PM

(05-03-2012 03:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote: it looks like some change is stirring in these primaries down yonder.

My question remains: why is that such a bad thing?

If MoveOn has some solid numbers supporting a push to the left in these Pa districts, ie. the electorate is unduly resorting to a blue dog, I'm all for it; if not, MoveOn is meddling and may well deny the Dem caucus a couple of crucial votes.

(We really need to choose betwixt the threaded and linear view. Mixed postings make longer threads difficult to follow.)

**KonaKane** · 05-03-2012, 04:32 PM

Again, I'm wondering why you would refer to core Democratic principles as "diddly squat" or "nothing"....and why loss of primaries wouldn't be a good signal to you that the days of the blue dog are drawing to a close?

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-03-2012, 05:06 PM

(05-03-2012 04:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote: Again, I'm wondering why you would refer to core Democratic principles as "diddly squat" or "nothing"

As a prescription to move the existing Southern electorate leftward, rhetoric based on our principles hasn't accomplished much in the past. I see little reason to expect otherwise in the future. As I said, among the growing demographics we may get some traction.

(05-03-2012 04:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote: why loss of primaries wouldn't be a good signal to you that the days of the blue dog are drawing to a close?

If MoveOn is pushing primary voters beyond the ability of a majority of the district electorate to support a Dem, this is not a good thing. Overall, I agree with you: the fewer blue dogs the better, but unduly abandoning potential Dem representation, however lame, is stupid.

**KonaKane** · 05-03-2012, 05:48 PM

(05-03-2012 05:06 PM)yowzayowzayowza Wrote: As a prescription to move the existing Southern electorate leftward, rhetoric based on our principles hasn't accomplished much in the past. I see little reason to expect otherwise in the future. As I said, among the growing demographics we may get some traction.

So you sort of fell for a trick question; one part of which was to point up that core principles should never be thought of as squat, the other part was, when we do bring up those principles, unapologetically, forcefully and relentlessly, they can work. In other words, a simple case of our core principles can equal that "magical purple to blue dust" you keep droning on about.

Quote:why loss of primaries wouldn't be a good signal to you that the days of the blue dog are drawing to a close?

If MoveOn is pushing primary voters beyond the ability of a majority of the district electorate to support a Dem, this is not a good thing. Overall, I agree with you: the fewer blue dogs the better, but unduly abandoning potential Dem representation, however lame, is stupid.

Something I never even insinuated, by the way. But moreover, can you point to any proof of this insideous evil plot by MoveOn.org to purposely push primary voters into a position to be self defeating?

**KonaKane** · 05-04-2012, 02:01 PM

That's it, if you all don't agree with me right this second, I'm taking down my Obama sign, canceling the check I just sent to his campaign, and not voting.

*sticks out tongue*

**suzie** · 05-06-2012, 02:31 PM

"Less than honest?" That's twice in one thread where you've questioned my veracity. Well, one time my husband's veracity.

I think it's genuinely time to exit this discussion.

**KonaKane** · 05-06-2012, 03:28 PM

Two things I wish for Santa to put in your stocking next year:

1. Reading comprehension.

2. A thicker skin.

Bon jour.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 07:37 AM

It's sort of interesting and slightly troubling that we would have conflict along ideological purity lines. It seems to be inevitable but given our experience I would have thought, and hoped, that we might be above that sort of thing.

Of course we are just human beings, so a little humility is always in order for each of us. We are above nothing.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 10:25 AM

Am I wrong, or do we have real live malicious "conservatives" to fight?

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 11:12 AM

Yes, we certainly do have conservatives to fight. And that fight need not be made harder by a strain of entrenched conservative Democrats who appear destined to aid them.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 11:58 AM

(05-07-2012 11:12 AM)KonaKane Wrote: Yes, we certainly do have conservatives to fight. And that fight need not be made harder by a strain of entrenched conservative Democrats who appear destined to aid them.

I don't regard "conservatives" as being conservative. I regard "conservatives" as being radical, fascist, and malignant--to the right of conservatives. "Conservatives" cannot be accommodated or negotiated with, by their nature. Conservatives, on the other hand, can be negotiated with and accommodated.

I have room for conservative Democrats up to a certain point. I'm not sure where that point is exactly, but compromise is anathema to "conservatives". If conservatives are willing to compromise, then I'm pretty sure I have room for them so that may be where my boundaries are.

Why wouldn't we work with conservatives who are willing to work with us?

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 01:03 PM

(05-07-2012 11:58 AM)Velleity Wrote: Why wouldn't we work with conservatives who are willing to work with us?

Go find me some and then we'll talk.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 01:18 PM

(05-07-2012 01:03 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 11:58 AM)Velleity Wrote: Why wouldn't we work with conservatives who are willing to work with us?

Go find me some and then we'll talk.

Even Ben Nelson, whom I would consider to be the worst, works with us. I don't know about Republicans per se. I would point to some rational work by David Frumm, David Brooks, and Buddy Romer to name a few.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 01:20 PM

(05-07-2012 01:18 PM)Velleity Wrote: Even Ben Nelson, whom I would consider to be the worst, works with us. I don't know about Republicans per se. I would point to some rational work by David Frumm, David Brooks, and Buddy Romer to name a few.

David Brooks? Are you serious?

http://titanicsailsatdawn.blogspot.com/2...n-and.html

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 01:41 PM

(05-07-2012 01:20 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 01:18 PM)Velleity Wrote: Even Ben Nelson, whom I would consider to be the worst, works with us. I don't know about Republicans per se. I would point to some rational work by David Frumm, David Brooks, and Buddy Romer to name a few.

David Brooks? Are you serious?

http://titanicsailsatdawn.blogspot.com/2...n-and.html

We're talking about conservatives, not perfection. I don't believe conservatives will ever be perfect and it's irrational to believe that. But there are differences. Conservatives are not monolithic. Yes, I have serious problems with Brooks at times but at other times he has come out against the extremism.

He is not the best, but he is not the worst either. Put another way, if he were the worst we would be a lot better off than we are right now.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-07-2012, 01:43 PM

(05-07-2012 01:41 PM)Velleity Wrote: ... Put another way, if he were the worst we would be a lot better off than we are right now.

Yep. Brooks has torn some Republican arse hole. If all R's were like him, society would be infinitely more civil these days.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 02:11 PM

(05-07-2012 01:43 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(05-07-2012 01:41 PM)Velleity Wrote: ... Put another way, if he were the worst we would be a lot better off than we are right now.

Yep. Brooks has torn some Republican arse hole. If all R's were like him, society would be infinitely more civil these days.

Right after President Obama was elected, for example. He said that the "conservative" ideology had failed.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 01:58 PM

Rather than sachet over to "what we can get" or who is the least repugnant example, I'd really like to pull the other direction. The one of positive change, for a change, instead of a comfortable appeasement while the shitpile actually gets deeper.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 02:09 PM

Kona, compromise and negotiation do not equal appeasement. Our system was built in large part on the art of compromise and negotiation.

The real conservative tradition is valid and honorable. Today's "conservatives" are to the right of that tradition. Today's "conservatives" are radical and reckless, but this too shall pass. Republicans go through these cycles. They end up hitting the bottom and the more reasonable and moderate conservatives take over for awhile.

A Dwight Eisenhower was an example of a reasonable and rational conservative.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 02:43 PM

(05-07-2012 02:09 PM)Velleity Wrote: A Dwight Eisenhower was an example of a reasonable and rational conservative.

Dwight Eisenhower is long dead, as is Goldwater and their version of Republicanism.

Let me be clear...I do not want any compromise and negotiation with extremists. I want them defeated and kept out of power. Ironically enough, Goldwater said much the same thing.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 02:53 PM

(05-07-2012 02:43 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 02:09 PM)Velleity Wrote: A Dwight Eisenhower was an example of a reasonable and rational conservative.

Dwight Eisenhower is long dead, as is Goldwater and their version of Republicanism.

Let me be clear...I do not want any compromise and negotiation with extremists. I want them defeated and kept out of power. Ironically enough, Goldwater said much the same thing.

Goldwater was an extremist. 1964 was most definitely a radical phase for Republicans.

I am not suggesting compromise and negotiation with extremists. That's the whole point I'm making. Nix the extremist "conservatives" but find common ground with real conservatives.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 02:55 PM

For example, the idea of limited government when not taken to an extreme clearly has merit. If you can weigh the facts and circumstances, then you might lean toward limited government in certain cases.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 03:14 PM

(05-07-2012 02:55 PM)Velleity Wrote: For example, the idea of limited government when not taken to an extreme clearly has merit. If you can weigh the facts and circumstances, then you might lean toward limited government in certain cases.

Limited government "in certain cases" is not where the head of the majority GOP is at these days.

You are yearning to connect with an animal that is nearly nonexistent today. The best we can hope to do at present is to exhaust all efforts to keep these loons out of power until and IF a more sane flavor of conservatism decides to surface.

**Velleity** · 05-07-2012, 03:17 PM

(05-07-2012 03:14 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 02:55 PM)Velleity Wrote: For example, the idea of limited government when not taken to an extreme clearly has merit. If you can weigh the facts and circumstances, then you might lean toward limited government in certain cases.

Limited government "in certain cases" is not where the head of the majority GOP is at these days.

You are yearning to connect with an animal that is nearly nonexistent today. The best we can hope to do at present is to exhaust all efforts to keep these loons out of power until and IF a more sane flavor of conservatism decides to surface.

Except that I am not "yearning" anything. People range all over the spectrum. We were discussing Blue Dogs, for example. I haven't noticed that Blue Dogs are in lock step with the radical right.

Yes, some have been bought. But there are some rational conservatives who haven't gone down the rabbit hole.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 04:19 PM

"Some rational conservatives" - not enough to take up my time and efforts these days. Sure, there are a few out there, but they don't need to be hand held by me or anyone else to see what is wrong (Huntsman, for example). Our resources are wasted on chasing after this thin strand. Instead, appeal to the fence sitters, the independents with a shred of grey matter left.

Again, this doesn't justify in my mind, effort in going after conservatives with hand wringing beggings for compromise and negotiations.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-07-2012, 04:46 PM

(05-07-2012 04:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote: ...

Again, this doesn't justify in my mind, effort in going after conservatives with hand wringing beggings for compromise and negotiations.

And of course, nobody is suggesting anything close to this. Now you've cornered yourself and are unable to see other perspectives. What the fuck happens to people when they go down this path of argument? God, it drives me nuts watching the specific arguments get turned into all-encompassing generalizations and building-sized straw men. C'mon!

**yowzayowzayowza** · 05-07-2012, 05:34 PM

(05-07-2012 04:46 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Now you've cornered yourself and are unable to see other perspectives.

... have great difficulty with context.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 05:38 PM

(05-07-2012 04:46 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: And of course, nobody is suggesting anything close to this. Now you've cornered yourself and are unable to see other perspectives. ....

Unable to see? No. Unwilling to buy? Most certainly.

Never confuse refusal to accept, with inability to understand.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-07-2012, 07:35 PM

(05-07-2012 05:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 04:46 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: And of course, nobody is suggesting anything close to this. Now you've cornered yourself and are unable to see other perspectives. ....

Unable to see? No. Unwilling to buy? Most certainly.

Never confuse refusal to accept, with inability to understand.

And there's also something known as a "discussion" that goes beyond the politics of the day and hopes that we don't need to have Civil War II to resolve this mess.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 08:21 PM

(05-07-2012 07:35 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: And there's also something known as a "discussion" that goes beyond the politics of the day and hopes that we don't need to have Civil War II to resolve this mess.

Ok, you lost me here.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-07-2012, 08:26 PM

(05-07-2012 08:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 07:35 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: And there's also something known as a "discussion" that goes beyond the politics of the day and hopes that we don't need to have Civil War II to resolve this mess.

Ok, you lost me here.

No. You can't say that11!!11!

This thread needs to go on for all eternity.

C'mon, find something in my statement to argue with damn it.

Redbanana

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 07:12 AM

(05-07-2012 05:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-07-2012 04:46 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: And of course, nobody is suggesting anything close to this. Now you've cornered yourself and are unable to see other perspectives. ....

Unable to see? No. Unwilling to buy? Most certainly.

Never confuse refusal to accept, with inability to understand.

Umderstand that elections are close, by design. You would think that the radical extremism of the current Republicans would shift 80% of the electorate against them but it hasn't. I don't want to lose in November and small numbers of voters could easily tip the balance.

One thing that "conservatives" have sold well is hate "Liberal". In fact when it comes down to it that hate may just be the only glue that binds them and that thoight virus afflicts many moderates too.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 11:28 AM

(05-08-2012 07:12 AM)Velleity Wrote: Umderstand that elections are close, by design. You would think that the radical extremism of the current Republicans would shift 80% of the electorate against them but it hasn't. I don't want to lose in November and small numbers of voters could easily tip the balance.

One thing that "conservatives" have sold well is hate "Liberal". In fact when it comes down to it that hate may just be the only glue that binds them and that thoight virus afflicts many moderates too.

I'm sorry but I'm simply not concerned about what the approximate 20 percentile thinks about liberals. That is truly about the number of really hardened extremists who will not hear a thing you say. Many of the rest still have some thought in play. Some are even open to other ideas, or changing a view here or there. It is not so monolithically Teatardian as you imagine, in my view.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 01:01 PM

(05-08-2012 11:28 AM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-08-2012 07:12 AM)Velleity Wrote: Umderstand that elections are close, by design. You would think that the radical extremism of the current Republicans would shift 80% of the electorate against them but it hasn't. I don't want to lose in November and small numbers of voters could easily tip the balance.

One thing that "conservatives" have sold well is hate "Liberal". In fact when it comes down to it that hate may just be the only glue that binds them and that thoight virus afflicts many moderates too.

I'm sorry but I'm simply not concerned about what the approximate 20 percentile thinks about liberals. That is truly about the number of really hardened extremists who will not hear a thing you say. Many of the rest still have some thought in play. Some are even open to other ideas, or changing a view here or there. It is not so monolithically Teatardian as you imagine, in my view.

You miss the point. It's not the 20% or 30%. It's that they have successfully propagated the thought virus and we have not successfully countered it.

You have to admit that the hard right has been exceedingly good with their messaging.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 02:11 PM

(05-08-2012 01:01 PM)Velleity Wrote: You miss the point. It's not the 20% or 30%. It's that they have successfully propagated the thought virus and we have not successfully countered it.

You have to admit that the hard right has been exceedingly good with their messaging.

I do get the point, and you are exaggerating. The extremist right has been good at making their message stick, but like other extremist groups they have also been real good at exaggerating their size and importance. The facts are, they aint all that.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 03:14 PM

(05-08-2012 02:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-08-2012 01:01 PM)Velleity Wrote: You miss the point. It's not the 20% or 30%. It's that they have successfully propagated the thought virus and we have not successfully countered it.

You have to admit that the hard right has been exceedingly good with their messaging.

I do get the point, and you are exaggerating. The extremist right has been good at making their message stick, but like other extremist groups they have also been real good at exaggerating their size and importance. The facts are, they aint all that.

You are entitled to your opinion. It is your opinion that I am exaggerating the "conservative" hatred of "Liberal" and the deleterious effects of that philosophical underpinning.

I don't find your opinion to be particularly well taken. "Conservatives" are reactionaries and as such they have to have a boogeyman. They have to have something to rub up against and the idea of degradation of society due to alleged decay of the morality is as old as humankind.

In this instance the reactionaries harken back to the '50s. Of course the morality is mythological, but that's a different tangent. You will also find that these people look back on the '60s with disfavor, and particularly the loss of the war in Vietnam (although I haven't seen them whine about that and pretend that the war was win-able for quite some time).

You are correct, IMHO, about degrees but I have found that if you dig a little below the surface you can find at least traces of this hatred of "Liberal" in every "conservative". It means something a little different to "moderates" perhaps, but it's definitely there and the appeal to this hatred is no accident.

**Willinois** · 05-07-2012, 05:41 PM

**jaxx** · 05-07-2012, 05:48 PM

(05-07-2012 05:41 PM)Willinois Wrote:

Ain't it the truth. I never thought blue dogs were worth it. Grin

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 05:42 PM

Too true! Lotta stubborn love for them blue dogs, I have to admit that.

**KonaKane** · 05-07-2012, 08:47 PM

No thanks. The Satanic dancing banana is a conversation ender, sorry.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-07-2012, 08:54 PM

(05-07-2012 08:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No thanks. The Satanic dancing banana is a conversation ender, sorry.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 03:20 PM

Being led around by the nose, by their hate, will not win you any ideological battles either. They have been scoring points by continuing to frame the discussion on their own terms. When you start worrying about how to appeal to their worst fears and hatreds, you have become captive to their narrative.

I counsel against that.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 03:32 PM

(05-08-2012 03:20 PM)KonaKane Wrote: Being led around by the nose, by their hate, will not win you any ideological battles either. They have been scoring points by continuing to frame the discussion on their own terms. When you start worrying about how to appeal to their worst fears and hatreds, you have become captive to their narrative.

I counsel against that.

Ridiculous. As Sun Tzu said:

知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆

Translation:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

I Googled "liberal degeneracy" for the fun of it and read some of the stuff that my browser barfed up. There was a lot of it.

http://newsfromatlantis.blogspot.com/201...ating.html

You do miss the point Kona. You most definitely do. I just wonder if you miss that point intentionally. As with most of Sun Tzu, it's just basic common sense that you need to know your enemy.

And you're suggesting here too that I don't know myself. You're wrong.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 04:39 PM

(05-08-2012 03:32 PM)Velleity Wrote: You do miss the point Kona. You most definitely do. I just wonder if you miss that point intentionally. As with most of Sun Tzu, it's just basic common sense that you need to know your enemy.....

Knowing your enemy is not the same as being controlled by your enemy. That is where you err.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 03:21 PM

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 03:34 PM

I am enjoying this conversation. It's okay for a thread to continue. It's not hurting anyone.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 03:38 PM

(05-08-2012 03:34 PM)Velleity Wrote:
(05-08-2012 03:21 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:

I am enjoying this conversation. It's okay for a thread to continue. It's not hurting anyone.

Just having fun with it - I'm taking a break for a bit Wink

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 04:52 PM

You think I am controlled by my enemy?

You are wrong about that too. Actually, Kona, you're mailing it in. You can do better than ad hominem. I give you a Mulligan. Try to make a real argument this time.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 04:54 PM

You're certainly controlled if you are culled into caring about what all of their BS propaganda about you says. Don't feel bad, a lot of us suffer from that susceptibility.

Be aware of it, but don't waste your time fighting it among their ranks. Take your arguments to those who can still be reasoned with.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 05:08 PM

(05-08-2012 04:54 PM)KonaKane Wrote: You're certainly controlled if you are culled into caring about what all of their BS propaganda about you says. Don't feel bad, a lot of us suffer from that susceptibility.

Be aware of it, but don't waste your time fighting it among their ranks. Take your arguments to those who can still be reasoned with.

It doesn't work that way. You ought to read Robert Cialdini's book on persuasion. There are a bunch of really good recent publications on this too.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 05:43 PM

If. Mr. Cialdini has gone to the trouble of producing a book which tries to claim that you can convince the die hard extremist of anything outside of their riveted parameters, he has wasted his effort and everyone else's time and money.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 06:16 PM

(05-08-2012 05:43 PM)KonaKane Wrote: If. Mr. Cialdini has gone to the trouble of producing a book which tries to claim that you can convince the die hard extremist of anything outside of their riveted parameters, he has wasted his effort and everyone else's time and money.

Now you're just being obtuse.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 07:13 PM

This thread has really gone off the rails and lost focus. It was about Blue Dogs.

Now, if you want to start a thread on how to get die hard extemists of the right to love liberals, you should start one and we can pick it up there.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 07:22 PM

(05-08-2012 07:13 PM)KonaKane Wrote: This thread has really gone off the rails and lost focus. It was about Blue Dogs.

Now, if you want to start a thread on how to get die hard extemists of the right to love liberals, you should start one and we can pick it up there.

Do you suppose that anyone is impressed by your game here? I know I'm not.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 07:21 PM

[Image: 492-terminator-like-this-thread-it-just-wont-die.jpg]

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 07:43 PM

Not sure what game you're referring to. I was just suggesting starting a new thread because this one has pretty badly forked. Did you find that offensive?

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 07:47 PM

It would be more functional, Kona, if you simply said you didn't have the skill to keep up with the discussion. Or too you could just say nothing.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 08:08 PM

(05-08-2012 07:47 PM)Velleity Wrote: It would be more functional, Kona, if you simply said you didn't have the skill to keep up with the discussion. Or too you could just say nothing.

Or here's a better idea - why don't you take up my suggestion to create a new thread instead of completely running this one off the rails? That way it might be easier to follow.

Or is that offensive, too?

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 08:42 PM

(05-08-2012 08:08 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-08-2012 07:47 PM)Velleity Wrote: It would be more functional, Kona, if you simply said you didn't have the skill to keep up with the discussion. Or too you could just say nothing.

Or here's a better idea - why don't you take up my suggestion to create a new thread instead of completely running this one off the rails? That way it might be easier to follow.

Or is that offensive, too?

Better for whom? If I wanted to start a new thread don't you suppose I would do that?

Why don't you take your own advice, since you admit you can't keep up with the discussion here, and start your own thread where you can whine about what I've posted here?

And as far as your little obtuse act being offensive, I've seen better. You give yourself too much credit.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 08:10 PM

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 08:13 PM

TINS put a sock in it...I'm goin' for a record here!

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 08:32 PM

(05-08-2012 08:13 PM)KonaKane Wrote: TINS put a sock in it...I'm goin' for a record here!

Uhh, with that post you just broke the record (>151 replies).

So now you can shut up. Smartass

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 08:37 PM

I win!!

OK, I'll shut up now.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 08:39 PM

(05-08-2012 08:37 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I win!!

OK, I'll shut up now.

I'll see that when I believe it.

Creep

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 08:48 PM

(05-08-2012 08:39 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(05-08-2012 08:37 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I win!!

OK, I'll shut up now.

I'll see that when I believe it.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I give Kona a solid 3. No points for originality and the tired obtuse act is executed in an obvious amateurish way.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 08:47 PM

OK TINS, you win.

Velleity: I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this little tiff/last word thing you're attempting to perpetuate, but I surely hope it is doing your fractured ego a service.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 08:49 PM

(05-08-2012 08:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote: OK TINS, you win.

Velleity: I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this little tiff/last word thing you're attempting to perpetuate, but I surely hope it is doing your fractured ego a service.

And what is it you think you're doing?

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 08:51 PM

(05-08-2012 08:49 PM)Velleity Wrote: And what is it you think you're doing?

Cooking some spinach penne. Want some?

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 09:00 PM

(05-08-2012 08:51 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(05-08-2012 08:49 PM)Velleity Wrote: And what is it you think you're doing?

Cooking some spinach penne. Want some?

No thanks. I smoked a brisket on my Big Green Egg this weekend and still have 2lbs to work through. I finally got it right too. Third time is the charm. Low and slow, baste with apple cider every hour and wrap in foil after 4 hours. Oh and don't trim the fat until after it rests.

Awesome. Bobby Flay's recipe from Food Network. His beans were even better but those went Sunday night.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 05-08-2012, 08:54 PM

OK kids, chill.

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 09:02 PM

(05-08-2012 08:54 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: OK kids, chill.

You you too have seen worse.

**KonaKane** · 05-08-2012, 09:07 PM

Getting too hungry now.

[Image: homer_simpson31.jpg]

**Velleity** · 05-08-2012, 09:13 PM

I always mean to take pictures but never do. Best thing I make on the egg is pizza.