Hey Pro Left you can't bash the Dems 364 days a year and then expect victory

[NJMaverick]

The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

[Born_A_Truman]

The purity brigade isn't interested in the big picture. They live to nitpic. Nobody is left enough, pure enough, does exactly what they want when they want. Sad.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

i am going to have to disagree with the reasons for the loss in Mass and in 2010. The candidate in Mass approached the election as if she had it in hand. i think the victories of 2010 were the success of astroturfing by the right.

In terms of tactice what thos of us in the center-left coalition need to do is learn the lessons of Paul Virilio's Speed & Politics. Part of the lesson in that book concerns very practical matters. For instance the reason the nazis defeated the left in the German elections concerned not simply a message that seemed to address the needs of the working classes (which the tebaggers also claim to do) but the speed with which it was disseminated. That is to say, the right got its message out faster, for example, in the mass delivery of broad sheets using fast trucks, etc.

Relying on corporate media to get out a correct political message, or, to search for facts is an error. Their goal is to make the race as close as possible in order to drive up their revenues.

[NJMaverick]

(08-10-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

i am going to have to disagree with the reasons for the loss in Mass and in 2010. The candidate in Mass approached the election as if she had it in hand. i think the victories of 2010 were the success of astroturfing by the right.

In terms of tactice what thos of us in the center-left coalition need to do is learn the lessons of Paul Virilio's Speed & Politics. Part of the lesson in that book concerns very practical matters. For instance the reason the nazis defeated the left in the German elections concerned not simply a message that seemed to address the needs of the working classes (which the tebaggers also claim to do) but the speed with which it was disseminated. That is to say, the right got its message out faster, for example, in the mass delivery of broad sheets using fast trucks, etc.

Relying on corporate media to get out a correct political message, or, to search for facts is an error. Their goal is to make the race as close as possible in order to drive up their revenues.

John,

If you look at the current political messaging system you have those on the right and those on the left competing to get their message out. For the most part independents and moderates don't put out that many messages, rather they listen to what the two sides have to say.
It's always going to be a given that the Republicans and right wingers will take every opportunity to bash the Democrats. After all even Ronald Reagan, as simple minded as he was, understood you don't take down members of your own party. Now the liberals on the other hand, don't seem to understand or care about that absolute political truth. When the liberals go out their they represent the counter point to the messaging being put out by the right. If the liberals waste their messaging resources criticizing the same people the right are attacking, the Democrats don't stand a chance.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of your typical non-political, moderate, independent or swing voters. They hear "well the Democrats destroyed the economy with their free spending ways and high taxes. Then they listen to the other side and hear, "well the President wants to take away your social security and have you eat cat food" and "there's no difference between the parties" and "the President and the Dems are weak and don't represent the people".
Now with those being the competing messages, what motivates the large section of voters, I have already described, to vote and if they do vote to vote Democratic?

Liberals can't turn around on election day and say "I know I have ripped the party and the man or woman I want you to vote for, but you should vote for him anyway". Frankly that's simply not a winning message.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 07:39 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

i am going to have to disagree with the reasons for the loss in Mass and in 2010. The candidate in Mass approached the election as if she had it in hand. i think the victories of 2010 were the success of astroturfing by the right.

In terms of tactice what thos of us in the center-left coalition need to do is learn the lessons of Paul Virilio's Speed & Politics. Part of the lesson in that book concerns very practical matters. For instance the reason the nazis defeated the left in the German elections concerned not simply a message that seemed to address the needs of the working classes (which the tebaggers also claim to do) but the speed with which it was disseminated. That is to say, the right got its message out faster, for example, in the mass delivery of broad sheets using fast trucks, etc.

Relying on corporate media to get out a correct political message, or, to search for facts is an error. Their goal is to make the race as close as possible in order to drive up their revenues.

John,

If you look at the current political messaging system you have those on the right and those on the left competing to get their message out. For the most part independents and moderates don't put out that many messages, rather they listen to what the two sides have to say.
It's always going to be a given that the Republicans and right wingers will take every opportunity to bash the Democrats. After all even Ronald Reagan, as simple minded as he was, understood you don't take down members of your own party. Now the liberals on the other hand, don't seem to understand or care about that absolute political truth. When the liberals go out their they represent the counter point to the messaging being put out by the right. If the liberals waste their messaging resources criticizing the same people the right are attacking, the Democrats don't stand a chance.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of your typical non-political, moderate, independent or swing voters. They hear "well the Democrats destroyed the economy with their free spending ways and high taxes. Then they listen to the other side and hear, "well the President wants to take away your social security and have you eat cat food" and "there's no difference between the parties" and "the President and the Dems are weak and don't represent the people".
Now with those being the competing messages, what motivates the large section of voters, I have already described, to vote and if they do vote to vote Democratic?

Liberals can't turn around on election day and say "I know I have ripped the party and the man or woman I want you to vote for, but you should vote for him anyway". Frankly that's simply not a winning message.

i think as long as you rely on media outlets to get your ideas across you will be disappointed. Let me give an example. Earlier in the year we had elections in Chicago. My son did the ground work for a campaign that had no chance of winning. The media was against him and the candidate was going up agaist the hand picked member of the third most powerful member of the fabled machine. The guy also had the advantage of being the head of the party in his ward. The result? Goliath, with all the advantages, lost by more than 5 points. Who beat him? The man who is now the first alderman of Asian descent in Chicago history and a 15 year old kid who got out the vote. That is how you beat the bastards.

[NJMaverick]

(08-10-2011 07:45 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:39 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

i am going to have to disagree with the reasons for the loss in Mass and in 2010. The candidate in Mass approached the election as if she had it in hand. i think the victories of 2010 were the success of astroturfing by the right.

In terms of tactice what thos of us in the center-left coalition need to do is learn the lessons of Paul Virilio's Speed & Politics. Part of the lesson in that book concerns very practical matters. For instance the reason the nazis defeated the left in the German elections concerned not simply a message that seemed to address the needs of the working classes (which the tebaggers also claim to do) but the speed with which it was disseminated. That is to say, the right got its message out faster, for example, in the mass delivery of broad sheets using fast trucks, etc.

Relying on corporate media to get out a correct political message, or, to search for facts is an error. Their goal is to make the race as close as possible in order to drive up their revenues.

John,

If you look at the current political messaging system you have those on the right and those on the left competing to get their message out. For the most part independents and moderates don't put out that many messages, rather they listen to what the two sides have to say.
It's always going to be a given that the Republicans and right wingers will take every opportunity to bash the Democrats. After all even Ronald Reagan, as simple minded as he was, understood you don't take down members of your own party. Now the liberals on the other hand, don't seem to understand or care about that absolute political truth. When the liberals go out their they represent the counter point to the messaging being put out by the right. If the liberals waste their messaging resources criticizing the same people the right are attacking, the Democrats don't stand a chance.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of your typical non-political, moderate, independent or swing voters. They hear "well the Democrats destroyed the economy with their free spending ways and high taxes. Then they listen to the other side and hear, "well the President wants to take away your social security and have you eat cat food" and "there's no difference between the parties" and "the President and the Dems are weak and don't represent the people".
Now with those being the competing messages, what motivates the large section of voters, I have already described, to vote and if they do vote to vote Democratic?

Liberals can't turn around on election day and say "I know I have ripped the party and the man or woman I want you to vote for, but you should vote for him anyway". Frankly that's simply not a winning message.

i think as long as you rely on media outlets to get your ideas across you will be disappointed. Let me give an example. Earlier in the year we had elections in Chicago. My son did the ground work for a campaign that had no chance of winning. The media was against him and the candidate was going up agaist the hand picked member of the third most powerful member of the fabled machine. The guy also had the advantage of being the head of the party in his ward. The result? Goliath, with all the advantages, lost by more than 5 points. Who beat him? The man who is now the first alderman of Asian descent in Chicago history and a 15 year old kid who got out the vote. That is how you beat the bastards.

Great story John and you're right that's one way to beat them, especially at the local level. However the liberals are not confining themselves to the MSM. You have Jon Stewart doing it on the Daily show, you have the PF doing it all over the internet and you have Bill Maher doing it on his cable show. Frankly the only place you don't see it is with the Democratic foot soldiers out trying to get people elected. Unfortunately they face an uphill battle against the media and the wealth on the right that is made infinitely more difficult thanks to the "friendly fire".

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 07:54 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:45 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:39 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

i am going to have to disagree with the reasons for the loss in Mass and in 2010. The candidate in Mass approached the election as if she had it in hand. i think the victories of 2010 were the success of astroturfing by the right.

In terms of tactice what thos of us in the center-left coalition need to do is learn the lessons of Paul Virilio's Speed & Politics. Part of the lesson in that book concerns very practical matters. For instance the reason the nazis defeated the left in the German elections concerned not simply a message that seemed to address the needs of the working classes (which the tebaggers also claim to do) but the speed with which it was disseminated. That is to say, the right got its message out faster, for example, in the mass delivery of broad sheets using fast trucks, etc.

Relying on corporate media to get out a correct political message, or, to search for facts is an error. Their goal is to make the race as close as possible in order to drive up their revenues.

John,

If you look at the current political messaging system you have those on the right and those on the left competing to get their message out. For the most part independents and moderates don't put out that many messages, rather they listen to what the two sides have to say.
It's always going to be a given that the Republicans and right wingers will take every opportunity to bash the Democrats. After all even Ronald Reagan, as simple minded as he was, understood you don't take down members of your own party. Now the liberals on the other hand, don't seem to understand or care about that absolute political truth. When the liberals go out their they represent the counter point to the messaging being put out by the right. If the liberals waste their messaging resources criticizing the same people the right are attacking, the Democrats don't stand a chance.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of your typical non-political, moderate, independent or swing voters. They hear "well the Democrats destroyed the economy with their free spending ways and high taxes. Then they listen to the other side and hear, "well the President wants to take away your social security and have you eat cat food" and "there's no difference between the parties" and "the President and the Dems are weak and don't represent the people".
Now with those being the competing messages, what motivates the large section of voters, I have already described, to vote and if they do vote to vote Democratic?

Liberals can't turn around on election day and say "I know I have ripped the party and the man or woman I want you to vote for, but you should vote for him anyway". Frankly that's simply not a winning message.

i think as long as you rely on media outlets to get your ideas across you will be disappointed. Let me give an example. Earlier in the year we had elections in Chicago. My son did the ground work for a campaign that had no chance of winning. The media was against him and the candidate was going up agaist the hand picked member of the third most powerful member of the fabled machine. The guy also had the advantage of being the head of the party in his ward. The result? Goliath, with all the advantages, lost by more than 5 points. Who beat him? The man who is now the first alderman of Asian descent in Chicago history and a 15 year old kid who got out the vote. That is how you beat the bastards.

Great story John and you're right that's one way to beat them, especially at the local level. However the liberals are not confining themselves to the MSM. You have Jon Stewart doing it on the Daily show, you have the PF doing it all over the internet and you have Bill Maher doing it on his cable show. Frankly the only place you don't see it is with the Democratic foot soldiers out trying to get people elected. Unfortunately they face an uphill battle against the media and the wealth on the right that is made infinitely more difficult thanks to the "friendly fire".

Like i stated before, if you are going to rely on the media to get your message out you have already lost.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 08:06 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Like i stated before, if you are going to rely on the media to get your message out you have already lost.

But that's not the point. Mav isn't talking about the media. Mav is talking about firebaggers.

Are firebaggers going out as foot soldiers in favor of Democrats? I don't think so. They are feeding the "conservative" trolls exactly the kind of meat "conservatives" crave. Further they are in some kind of strange state of denial that goes so far at times that they think they're better off forming some kind of coalition with teabaggers.

How bizarre and dysfunctional is that? They cannot form an alliance with moderate liberals but they can cozy up to the most radical of the "conservatives?"

You have not exactly defended these people John, and I know you and I know you are not dysfunctional. However I don't think you have adequately explained the extreme left. I know that "extreme left" is not a good description but I don't know of anything better. I know that the ones I have encountered are disaffected gays and lesbians, anti-Israel conspiracy theorists like Holly, PUMAs, and Greens. My apologies to the non-disaffected gays and lesbians, but we have discussed this here before and they don't seem to be offended when I say that.

So it's very difficult to really explain this or put your arms around it, let alone deal with it. But clearly the naysayers are not helping our causes and clearly they are helping "conservatives." Nowhere is this more true than at the ballot box.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 08:20 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 08:06 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Like i stated before, if you are going to rely on the media to get your message out you have already lost.

But that's not the point. Mav isn't talking about the media. Mav is talking about firebaggers.

Are firebaggers going out as foot soldiers in favor of Democrats? I don't think so. They are feeding the "conservative" trolls exactly the kind of meat "conservatives" crave. Further they are in some kind of strange state of denial that goes so far at times that they think they're better off forming some kind of coalition with teabaggers.

How bizarre and dysfunctional is that? They cannot form an alliance with moderate liberals but they can cozy up to the most radical of the "conservatives?"

You have not exactly defended these people John, and I know you and I know you are not dysfunctional. However I don't think you have adequately explained the extreme left. I know that "extreme left" is not a good description but I don't know of anything better. I know that the ones I have encountered are disaffected gays and lesbians, anti-Israel conspiracy theorists like Holly, PUMAs, and Greens. My apologies to the non-disaffected gays and lesbians, but we have discussed this here before and they don't seem to be offended when I say that.

So it's very difficult to really explain this or put your arms around it, let alone deal with it. But clearly the naysayers are not helping our causes and clearly they are helping "conservatives." Nowhere is this more true than at the ballot box.

The specific people medioned were media figures.

[The Desperate Blogger]

[Sheepshank]

I read over and over, how important it is to be oppositional and voice complaints (always couched as constructive critisim), because it's how the elected official learns what the public wants and desires.

The result is that in their haste to outshine the next guys "individulality", in their desire to promote a single albeit well deserving policy, many have forgotten what it takes to work together as a team. Putting certain differences aside, even for a moment, to acheive a goal.

To scream, pout, and rage and whine....is this what the Extreme Left sees as constructive? Is it the Left that does this within their own body politic, or are the Extreme Left listening and responding to a message created by outside forces to acheive failure? Who would design such a message? Why does the Left capitulate to this type of message and permit this stype of splintering, rather that invoking some Socialist types of sentiments and work together for the betterment of the whole?

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 08:20 AM)Sheepshank Wrote:  I read over and over, how important it is to be oppositional and voice complaints (always couched as constructive critisim), because it's how the elected official learns what the public wants and desires.

The result is that in their haste to outshine the next guys "individulality", in their desire to promote a single albeit well deserving policy, many have forgotten what it takes to work together as a team. Putting certain differences aside, even for a moment, to acheive a goal.

To scream, pout, and rage and whine....is this what the Extreme Left sees as constructive? Is it the Left that does this within their own body politic, or are the Extreme Left listening and responding to a message created by outside forces to acheive failure? Who would design such a message? Why does the Left capitulate to this type of message and permit this stype of splintering, rather that invoking some Socialist types of sentiments and work together for the betterment of the whole?

Good question. I am just left scratching my head. I wish I had a better answer but as best as I can tell it's just craziness and there's no explanation for crazy.

[jaxx]

(08-10-2011 08:20 AM)Sheepshank Wrote:  I read over and over, how important it is to be oppositional and voice complaints (always couched as constructive critisim), because it's how the elected official learns what the public wants and desires.

The result is that in their haste to outshine the next guys "individulality", in their desire to promote a single albeit well deserving policy, many have forgotten what it takes to work together as a team. Putting certain differences aside, even for a moment, to acheive a goal.

To scream, pout, and rage and whine....is this what the Extreme Left sees as constructive? Is it the Left that does this within their own body politic, or are the Extreme Left listening and responding to a message created by outside forces to acheive failure? Who would design such a message? Why does the Left capitulate to this type of message and permit this stype of splintering, rather that invoking some Socialist types of sentiments and work together for the betterment of the whole?

You make a great deal of sense Sheepshank. The criticism has gone way beyond being constructive when President Obama is touted by the far left as being a republican, being weak, caving etc. Or primary him. The futile aggressiveness demanding he be FDR or LBJ is nothing more than a brat sitting on the floor screaming do this or else.

The far left needs to get over themselves and either be a part of the Democratic Party or move on to other pastures. What they are doing to muddy the waters isn't the least bit constructive. We figured out that PBO wasn't their choice, that they didn't get who or what they wanted. Ok, life is tough, nobody gets it all.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 09:28 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 08:20 AM)Sheepshank Wrote:  I read over and over, how important it is to be oppositional and voice complaints (always couched as constructive critisim), because it's how the elected official learns what the public wants and desires.

The result is that in their haste to outshine the next guys "individulality", in their desire to promote a single albeit well deserving policy, many have forgotten what it takes to work together as a team. Putting certain differences aside, even for a moment, to acheive a goal.

To scream, pout, and rage and whine....is this what the Extreme Left sees as constructive? Is it the Left that does this within their own body politic, or are the Extreme Left listening and responding to a message created by outside forces to acheive failure? Who would design such a message? Why does the Left capitulate to this type of message and permit this stype of splintering, rather that invoking some Socialist types of sentiments and work together for the betterment of the whole?

You make a great deal of sense Sheepshank. The criticism has gone way beyond being constructive when President Obama is touted by the far left as being a republican, being weak, caving etc. Or primary him. The futile aggressiveness demanding he be FDR or LBJ is nothing more than a brat sitting on the floor screaming do this or else.

The far left needs to get over themselves and either be a part of the Democratic Party or move on to other pastures. What they are doing to muddy the waters isn't the least bit constructive. We figured out that PBO wasn't their choice, that they didn't get who or what they wanted. Ok, life is tough, nobody gets it all.

I know for a fact, too, that the far right is infiltrating the far left and they're whipping this up. Why? Because discord and discontent is their only real strategy.

The far left has an odd affinity with this and I don't pretend to understand it.

[johnhp]

Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

We support President Barack Obama because we believe he is doing the best he can to implement the policies that we want, and that the PL wants. We are not President Obama. We are not the administration. We just believe that we need to elect Democrats and that at some point dissent has diminishing returns and actually is counter-productive.

If we are right on this, and I think we are, then whom are we supposed to negotiate with? I am grateful to all who worked hard in 2008, but so what? I am no different in that respect than they are. I don't expect them to be grateful for my hard work. What I expect is that we are all in the streets fighting and defending in the most effective way.

I don't know whether they can be negotiated with. All I know is that they jump all over me, call me names, and act as atrociously as the worst of the "conservatives" that you and I know simply because I identify myself as a mainstream Democrat and ask them not to undermine what we're trying to do. And the worst of it, John, is that when I made any overtures toward them, anything at all, they twisted that into something negative.

My friends here know exactly what I mean. You have not behaved that way. You are being rational. That we can deal with. The other stuff I don't think you really understand.

[Sheepshank]

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that? I've seen attempts at conversation regarding DADT, NCLB, Bin Laden, What Obama says v.s what he means with regards to Medicare & SS, Obama's desire to be the weakest POTUS, Obama's desire to be RW, etc etc etc. Without fail (and unfortunately I'm talking about other sites where such discussions take place)...they fail to pull together any sort of concensus whereby the Left as a whole looks like they are on message and on target.

I'm not sure what conversation you think will be universally accepted and agreed on? Doesn't matter what the topic is, how successful a policy may be, the crap fest whines about everything else that hasn't been done. It's exhausting trying to tie down that moving target.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for thehard work they did in 2008. So those working the trenches feel like they only got scraps? What was their expectation? And what scraps would that be? Why is it that those trench workers feel their being fed scraps, their perspectives, their wants and issues are more prevalent that that of the whole? Was there an expectation that their personal issues would received 1st and front approval from Obama and Congress? if so, they were working in the trenches for the wrong reason IMHO.

As for the idea tha trench workers feel they are bing fed scraps and the rest of us are ungrateful for their work. I don't believe that this is the case at all. I think most of those that worked in the trenches see and realize the political process and are willing to do this again. My experience is that frequently the loudest and whinest of one issue complainers haven't sullied their shoes by working in any trenches.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 10:09 AM)Sheepshank Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that? I've seen attempts at conversation regarding DADT, NCLB, Bin Laden, What Obama says v.s what he means with regards to Medicare & SS, Obama's desire to be the weakest POTUS, Obama's desire to be RW, etc etc etc. Without fail (and unfortunately I'm talking about other sites where such discussions take place)...they fail to pull together any sort of concensus whereby the Left as a whole looks like they are on message and on target.

I'm not sure what conversation you think will be universally accepted and agreed on? Doesn't matter what the topic is, how successful a policy may be, the crap fest whines about everything else that hasn't been done. It's exhausting trying to tie down that moving target.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for thehard work they did in 2008. So those working the trenches feel like they only got scraps? What was their expectation? And what scraps would that be? Why is it that those trench workers feel their being fed scraps, their perspectives, their wants and issues are more prevalent that that of the whole? Was there an expectation that their personal issues would received 1st and front approval from Obama and Congress? if so, they were working in the trenches for the wrong reason IMHO.

As for the idea tha trench workers feel they are bing fed scraps and the rest of us are ungrateful for their work. I don't believe that this is the case at all. I think most of those that worked in the trenches see and realize the political process and are willing to do this again. My experience is that frequently the loudest and whinest of one issue complainers haven't sullied their shoes by working in any trenches.

The really odd part of this is not that we're being asked to meet these people half way on policies, but that we're being ridiculed and belittled for no reason other than that we don't ridicule and belittle President Obama and Democrats. We're supposed to meet them half way on this or what?

[NJMaverick]

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

I agree and add that the only path toward getting more is through President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

[NJMaverick]

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

John,

There seems to be a misconception of many on the left that you negotiate bills in Congress the way you negotiate the price on a used car. The fact of the matter is that you can't inflate a bill in you favor to improve your bargaining position. If you try to do that you bill simply becomes a non-starter and never gets out of committee. Think about Dennis Kucinich and how few to none of his bills ever make it to the House floor.

[johnhp]

(08-11-2011 06:32 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

John,

There seems to be a misconception of many on the left that you negotiate bills in Congress the way you negotiate the price on a used car. The fact of the matter is that you can't inflate a bill in you favor to improve your bargaining position. If you try to do that you bill simply becomes a non-starter and never gets out of committee. Think about Dennis Kucinich and how few to none of his bills ever make it to the House floor.

Sorry, i am not an intimidated newbie. Try the truism approach with someone else.

[NJMaverick]

(08-11-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:32 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Here is also an idea. Instead of complaining about the Left and their criticism, why not have a conversation and establish a minimal program that everyone can agree to and struggle for that?

i know you will claim that these people cannot be reasoned with but i disagree. There will be some people on message boards who hold out but in a practical senseif those in leadership positions in leftist organizations are assured that instead of pursuing the politics of things not getting worse, we will together pursue and defend the minimal program then you would have people working in the streets and fighting and defending.

Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one. But you will not get anywhere as long as that is seens as an excuse.

I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

John,

There seems to be a misconception of many on the left that you negotiate bills in Congress the way you negotiate the price on a used car. The fact of the matter is that you can't inflate a bill in you favor to improve your bargaining position. If you try to do that you bill simply becomes a non-starter and never gets out of committee. Think about Dennis Kucinich and how few to none of his bills ever make it to the House floor.

Sorry, i am not an intimidated newbie. Try the truism approach with someone else.

Can you provide a historic example or two that shows the approach you suggests works?

[johnhp]

(08-11-2011 07:23 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 07:16 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:32 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:10 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  I appreciate you sharing these insights. My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.
So I expected that we would get a President that would push for things that liberals wanted like healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, stimulate the economy, save the Detroit automakers, but liberal leaning Supreme Court justices on the bench, ensure that gays received long over due civil rights, get Stem Cell research back on track, deal with Climate change and our nation's addiction to imported oil and so on. Now I didn't expect revolutionary change, because that's what our nation is all about and our Constitution was written to prevent drastic rapid change. What I expected and got was evolutionary changes and improvements. For that I am quite happy especially in light of the mess our President was handed.
Now you talk about only getting scraps. When I look at the long list of things the President has already accomplished I am puzzled by that characterization. Then I realize that if the same far left, pro-left or whatever you wish to call them would pause from their nonstop criticism and demands and acknowledged all that has been accomplished, maybe there wouldn't be such negative attitudes and over the top criticisms.

i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

John,

There seems to be a misconception of many on the left that you negotiate bills in Congress the way you negotiate the price on a used car. The fact of the matter is that you can't inflate a bill in you favor to improve your bargaining position. If you try to do that you bill simply becomes a non-starter and never gets out of committee. Think about Dennis Kucinich and how few to none of his bills ever make it to the House floor.

Sorry, i am not an intimidated newbie. Try the truism approach with someone else.

Can you provide a historic example or two that shows the approach you suggests works?

Yes. The 1995 government shut down.

[jaxx]

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

Getting any form of health care passed was a monumental win. Remember, for 100 years people had tried and failed. When it was presumed to be dead in the water PBO brought it back and worked until there was a passable bill. Was it perfect? No. But neither was Social Security when it first passed, it was woefully inadequate....but it was a start. As is the Affordable Care Act, which is making a difference in peoples lives.

Slow steps is still moving forward, which is the goal.

[johnhp]

(08-11-2011 09:36 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:14 AM)johnhp Wrote:  i do not think the president is electede to take represent anyone but to be a caretaker for the common good, the general welfare, if you will. i also agree that the president has had to fight to win everything he has accomplished. My only real criticism is that he gives away too much before bargaining and therefore what is won is anemic. This is not a criticism of negotiation but of the tactics of surrendering some things in advance.

Take health care, for example. He began with a plan similar to Mittens' (which, let's face it is based on the privatized Swiss model, but is also better than our previous model). i understand the tactics behind that. However, if he had started from a stronger position, say "Medicare for all" (which would not pass) he could have negotiated the congress to a Romneycare+ position. That is all i am saying.


i think, speaking as a leftist, that it is the willingness to begin at a weaker place that i find unsettling.

Getting any form of health care passed was a monumental win. Remember, for 100 years people had tried and failed. When it was presumed to be dead in the water PBO brought it back and worked until there was a passable bill. Was it perfect? No. But neither was Social Security when it first passed, it was woefully inadequate....but it was a start. As is the Affordable Care Act, which is making a difference in peoples lives.

Slow steps is still moving forward, which is the goal.

That was part of my point.

[mzmolly]

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008. No one denies the current political complexities. No one.

Obama was elected with votes and hard work from Democrats, Independents and Republicans. He did not win with the sole support of Firedoglake readers.

[CTLawGuy]

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Instead, however, they are treated as being ungrateful for the less than scraps for the hard work they did in 2008.

The repeal of DADT, for example, is "less than scraps?" Insurance companies no longer allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions? Scraps? Insurance companies required to keep children on parents' insurance up till 26? Scraps? My goodness! The consistent minimization or disregard of the good that Obama has accomplished stinks of racism. I cannot think of any other explanation.

(08-10-2011 09:21 AM)johnhp Wrote:  No one denies the current political complexities.

I disagree, I think that is the heart of the rift between the PL/frustrati and the mainstream Democrats.

[johnhp]

You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 09:55 AM)johnhp Wrote:  You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:55 AM)johnhp Wrote:  You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 10:56 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:55 AM)johnhp Wrote:  You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

[johnhp]

(08-10-2011 11:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:56 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:55 AM)johnhp Wrote:  You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

[Velleity]

(08-11-2011 06:15 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 11:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:56 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:55 AM)johnhp Wrote:  You seem to assume that the Democratic party is a community instead of a group of constituencies. Movements have leaders. Unless what you all are complaining about here are message board postings.

I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

[johnhp]

(08-11-2011 11:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:15 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 11:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:56 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:04 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I can't go parsing out all of the constituencies. That's not practical. I have to paint with a broader brush and the bottom line here is that we need to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. If that's not a sufficient common goal then I know what would be.

Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

Depends on the policy. Quite frankly, i am with Ron Paul on the decriminalization of marijuana. Nothing else, but there you go.

[Velleity]

(08-11-2011 12:35 PM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 11:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:15 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 11:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 10:56 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Then you are committed to a politics of disarray.

I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

Depends on the policy. Quite frankly, i am with Ron Paul on the decriminalization of marijuana. Nothing else, but there you go.

I did say one Republican who might work for a better policy and you answered, but I did mean "a better policy" in terms of all of the policies they might work for. I agree with you on Ron Paul with respect to decriminalization of marijuana. That just makes so much sense all around. I would add that his anti-war stances are attractive for the most part, but then from there he goes off the deep end as far as I am concerned.

And the point here was that you criticized me for saying that I would only vote for Democrats. My counter-point was that I am really left with no other choice, so I may as well just say that I support Democrats, period.

You seem to agree that I can write off Republicans. I don't ever see a third party ever being a viable option, so where's your problem with my position? You wouldn't want me to vote for Ron Paul, would you?

[johnhp]

(08-12-2011 08:36 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 12:35 PM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 11:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:15 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 11:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I am committed to voting for Democrats and against Republicans. I see no good reason for any rational, average person to think otherwise. Republicans are insane.

Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

Depends on the policy. Quite frankly, i am with Ron Paul on the decriminalization of marijuana. Nothing else, but there you go.

I did say one Republican who might work for a better policy and you answered, but I did mean "a better policy" in terms of all of the policies they might work for. I agree with you on Ron Paul with respect to decriminalization of marijuana. That just makes so much sense all around. I would add that his anti-war stances are attractive for the most part, but then from there he goes off the deep end as far as I am concerned.

And the point here was that you criticized me for saying that I would only vote for Democrats. My counter-point was that I am really left with no other choice, so I may as well just say that I support Democrats, period.

You seem to agree that I can write off Republicans. I don't ever see a third party ever being a viable option, so where's your problem with my position? You wouldn't want me to vote for Ron Paul, would you?

i agree with the policies but for different reasons. He totally schooled Frothy Mixture last night on Iran. In fact his statement on Iran went much further than ANY Democrat on the issue.

Other than that, he is kind of a nut.

[Velleity]

(08-12-2011 08:48 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 08:36 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 12:35 PM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 11:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 06:15 AM)johnhp Wrote:  Really? That is your solution. Looking at the title of politicians rather than struggling for better policy?

Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

Depends on the policy. Quite frankly, i am with Ron Paul on the decriminalization of marijuana. Nothing else, but there you go.

I did say one Republican who might work for a better policy and you answered, but I did mean "a better policy" in terms of all of the policies they might work for. I agree with you on Ron Paul with respect to decriminalization of marijuana. That just makes so much sense all around. I would add that his anti-war stances are attractive for the most part, but then from there he goes off the deep end as far as I am concerned.

And the point here was that you criticized me for saying that I would only vote for Democrats. My counter-point was that I am really left with no other choice, so I may as well just say that I support Democrats, period.

You seem to agree that I can write off Republicans. I don't ever see a third party ever being a viable option, so where's your problem with my position? You wouldn't want me to vote for Ron Paul, would you?

i agree with the policies but for different reasons. He totally schooled Frothy Mixture last night on Iran. In fact his statement on Iran went much further than ANY Democrat on the issue.

Other than that, he is kind of a nut.

Of course he's a nut. His mind is riddled with the Ayn Rand thought virus, a/k/a ideological syphilis.

[johnhp]

(08-12-2011 09:07 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 08:48 AM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 08:36 AM)Velleity Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 12:35 PM)johnhp Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 11:56 AM)Velleity Wrote:  Name one Republican who might possibly work for a better policy.

Depends on the policy. Quite frankly, i am with Ron Paul on the decriminalization of marijuana. Nothing else, but there you go.

I did say one Republican who might work for a better policy and you answered, but I did mean "a better policy" in terms of all of the policies they might work for. I agree with you on Ron Paul with respect to decriminalization of marijuana. That just makes so much sense all around. I would add that his anti-war stances are attractive for the most part, but then from there he goes off the deep end as far as I am concerned.

And the point here was that you criticized me for saying that I would only vote for Democrats. My counter-point was that I am really left with no other choice, so I may as well just say that I support Democrats, period.

You seem to agree that I can write off Republicans. I don't ever see a third party ever being a viable option, so where's your problem with my position? You wouldn't want me to vote for Ron Paul, would you?

i agree with the policies but for different reasons. He totally schooled Frothy Mixture last night on Iran. In fact his statement on Iran went much further than ANY Democrat on the issue.

Other than that, he is kind of a nut.

Of course he's a nut. His mind is riddled with the Ayn Rand thought virus, a/k/a ideological syphilis.

ewwww

[suzie]

That Drew Westen article seems to be getting a lot of traction in suggesting to average liberal Democrats that Obama should be primaried, at least among forums that I read.

I've even received quotes from it emailed from people I know. Since they are activist Democrats--it's a pretty awful thing.

African-Americans have been traditionally asked by the Democratic Party to set aside the rules and do what's good for the Party. I watched representatives of the African-American caucus in my state Party do that with no hesitation in 2004--when it seemed crucial to promote Party unity to try and defeat George Bush.

Why shouldn't the mostly white Professional Left be requested right now to do that for 2012? It's just as crucial to keep Republicans from taking over all three branches of government in 2012 as it was in 2004.

I agree with Jaxx, the Far Left needs to get over themselves.

[Sheepshank]

Quote: ..... My feeling is this, when the President is elected he goes from representing the people that helped get him elected to becoming the President of all 330 million Americans. One of the most unforgivable crimes George Bush committed while in office was not being the President of all Americans. To not be the President of all people is simply not acceptable as that is not what the office is all about.....

And THIS is what I also don't understand. Obama has clearly taken his office/ representing ALL people, seriously. The Far Left expects Obama to take positions that would only make the Left as content as the fox who just swallowed the entire hen house, and there is not room for anything else...ever. Close to 50% of the nation votes in a non liberal direction. Is Obama not their President too?

[Velleity]

(08-10-2011 10:19 AM)Sheepshank Wrote:  The Far Left expects Obama to take positions that would only make the Left as content as the fox who just swallowed the entire hen house, and there is not room for anything else...ever.

I am not so sure. This discussion has led me to conclude that the far left would be sowing discord and discontent regardless.

[suzie]

I'd say the opposite--it's the Professional Left that has long been committed to the politics of disarray and has acted it out election after election.

I'm one Democrat who worked for and voted for Obama because he and his staff were the first Democrats I'd seen in a long time who took seriously the business of campaigning. They understood the necessity of getting out and working the streets. And actually doing organizing to get out the vote, rather than organizing to milk the Party for money to fund themselves.

[Cha]

Oh, the public hears them..Especially when the US corporatemediawhores have those blog whores on the tv to peddle their shyte like they had something to contribute besides the relentless whine.

Adam Green bashing President Obama at every turn and then trolling for money for Wisconsin Dems.

[kahuna]

Exactly!

[mzmolly]

(08-10-2011 07:02 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  The public hears you. You simply can't spend 364 days a year bashing and attacking and criticizing the Democrats only to turn around and then ask those same moderates, swing voters and independents to vote for the people you seem to have no use for. It simply doesn't work and we saw that in 2010, we saw that in the special election in MA and we saw that in Wisconsin. If the professional left would learn to focus the majority of it's criticism and attacks on the GOP and Tea Party and learn to give some credit to the Democrats for all the good things they accomplish, elections would turn out a bit better.

That's an excellent point. The same people who say Obama doesn't fight the Republican agenda, are not using their platform to battle Republicans.

[jaxx]

I must have missed that point as I saw he shoulda.

[nofurylike]

(08-12-2011 08:26 AM)jaxx Wrote:  I must have missed that point as I saw he shoulda.

hey jaxx. i am confused about what you are saying here. i do not see which post it replies to. the OP?

no worry, really. i've just been trying to figure it out.