I'm hearing cries these days from many people who voted Democratic and now feel betrayed. Used and abused by what they consider "the party". They're yelling loud and clear that either the party changes or they're outta there. What they really mean is either the leadership changes or they're gone, but by their actions they're working toward killing the entire party.
I won't go along in order to get along, no matter how much I admire some of the very people making those charges. I'm a Democrat. This is my party. The Democratic party is one of only two viable parties in the United States at the moment, and I'm getting more than a little alarmed at the calls from every quarter for the destruction of the one party that has consistently worked for protections for all.
We are the party of the working class. The only party of the working class. We don't always choose our leaders wisely, but very often, we do. We've had some great leaders, some good leaders, some mediocre leaders and some truly bad leaders. But through it all, we've been the only party dedicated to advancing the needs of the people who some would consider "the least of us". We're still doing it; we the people of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is made up of people--millions of people--some of whom have worked tirelessly to keep it going. Over the years we've changed the entire landscape of this country for the better. If we're being forced to take a back seat to stronger, more powerful forces bent on erasing all we've done, the reasonable course of action is to band together to make us stronger, not weaker. And yet what I'm seeing now is a rage against my party because some of our elected leaders aren't delivering on what they've promised.
The anger against certain politicians is, for the most part, justified. But the politicians aren't the party. They are representatives of the party, and they can be replaced. The party, once it's destroyed, will never come back.
I'm prepared to fight our enemies. I fully expect that battle to continue. But when I find myself having to fight against those who were once allies, I can't help but think it won't be long before the final surrender.
I'm not going to let that happen without a fight. I'll defend my party as being the better of the two, and I'll work at making it the best it can be. Because I'm a Democrat. That's who I am.
*
*
Comments
when I find myself having to fight against those who were once allies
While I understand how frustrating it must be for you to have deal with the lefty attacks in the blogosphere, I also think you shouldn't get too distracted by that. Because your real problem is that much of the youth that came out to support Obama did so because they liked the whole post partisan theme of his campaign, and were not interested in either traditonal party.
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:21pm
Those hordes of young people were never really with us for the long term. We never could count on them to stick with us. it's the majority left that worries me. They're willing to kill the entire Democratic party because of some notion that only out of the ashes will the true Progressive leaders rise.
My point here is that it's the leaders who are expendable, and not the party. This is my party they're trying to destroy. Too many people worked too hard for it to let that happen.
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:54pm
Well said Ramona, you are a much nicer than I am. I agree with you, but I've pretty much given up on bothering with the folks on the extreme left. Here is why, when they do something, for example take pictures and participate in protests, they gather round one another and cheer! WooHoo... But for the people who have worked equally as hard for their beliefs, they are roundly criticised. There seems to be no tolerance of how as individuals we develop of our personal philsophies and employ them in their daily lives.
Mine are and were developed by my experience in Asia, I was raised there, it affected my life greatly, and I took it with me when I attended university, in both my undergraduate and graduate education I spent much of my time studying China and the Philsophy of Confucius along with Computer Science and Applied Mathematics.
One of the main tenets of Confucianism is the belief that in order to make change you must change yourself and what you do, and that may very well impact others who see your work and your change. It can and in fact does have a ripple affect, in that, when other individuals see you working towards a cause, it isn't necessary for others to participate to be happy, what is necessary that they see those working for their causes that they take them seriously, deeply and if occasionally one person might be persuaded to participate in their cause, and eventually it spreads throughout the world.
I feel this concept works, lets take recycling, first it was small communities and individuals who pushed recycling and now where ever I go, even in small places out in the Province in the Philippines sometimes recycle bins would pop up, the many hotels already recycle. I think preaching has little influence on most people, I think when we act we are able to sway.
by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:57pm
I appreciate your comments,and understand your meaning about actions rather than preaching. I've heard from others that it's not enough just to write about whatever I'm most passionate about; somehow I'm supposed to get down in the trenches and DO something. Well, this is what I know to do. I write. I try to convince. I whine, I cajole, I sweet-talk, I argue mindlessly. I do whatever it takes. But I can only do it by writing. I'll leave it to others to take to the streets. Those days are behind me, I'm sorry to say. (But that's not to say I don't do what I can locally and individually. That'll never stop.)
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:00pm
Writing is, and always has been, one of the most important tools for helping to motivate action/change. Or to suppress it, really. Very powerful either way. You do it well (IMO).
by kgb999 on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 12:42am
Don't get me wrong Ramona, writing is good. But I do at times give up here on the web. It is a place to constantly fight, almost like fight club but in writing. It it what you do locally that makes the most difference, just one person can influence the world through their tiny little actions. I think it is the little actions that really count, what you do for your community, and it is that way we influence what is around us. And words do count, particularly if they are eloquent they can sway at least one open mind out there.
Like I wrote, you said it so much better than I did. I am a Democrat and I am pretty proud of that fact, because I think as a small group or a large group we've made changes. I think it counts, the local and individual work, I think it counts because that is how we influence very small groups of people, maybe just one and sometimes they too take what they saw and spread it to maybe just one other person.
I think we agree, I think I might not write it correctly.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 12:45am
OMG, one of my favorite all time films, T! Fight Club! I love the dark humor in it, I love the way it makes one want to stand up for one's self and just leave the silliness behind. One thing about Dag Blog is that we kinda have that here, and I can jump in here and catch up with it, when I'm not sitting over there in peaceful Paradigm.
You bring up a great point in that all of us approach our party differently. We have all grown up looking at politics from our own family/single viewpoint. None of us has marched together here. But we all praise those who march.
It's THAT that is so important. That we all keep praising each other in our efforts to do what we can how we do it, to support our party, that's what's important.
I love you, Ramona and T, and you this is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2PM0om2El8
:)
by LisB on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 1:13am
Oh, I think you get your message across just fine. Do not underestimate your value as a writer at all, ever.
The work we do locally spreads far and wide, and can influence those whose minds are open to the possibilities when we work together.. We can make changes. It happens all the time. But we're in the midst of a crisis now, and we can't forget that. The focus has to be on short-term and quick fixes first, with long lasting results taking second place to necessary emergency measures. That's where we shine on the local level. We're not just looking at problems from a distance, we're facing them head on, up close and personal.
But at the same time, we have to recognize that our problems are nation-wide and need radical fixes on a massive scale. We can only do that as a huge group with huge ideas. Together. In solidarity.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:53am
Much as I sometimes get disgruntled, whether it be by our political leaders or by our fellow Dems, and much as I've sometimes floated the idea of starting a new party (one for labor, for instance -- which is, really, what the Dem party supposedly stands for), I have to be honest and say that it scares me that us Dems are getting so fractured. I would rather see the Republican party fracture and split up through the Tea Party movement, the remnants of the Religious Right, and the otherwise "crazy right" fringe folks who think Palin would be the perfect President -- but not us.
I really had high hopes in 2008 that the Independents, the Green Party peeps and even those moderate Republicans who voted for Obama would somehow coalesce, and that we would all stick together in fighting the most rabid of the Right. But now, it just doesn't seem like that will happen, and it worries me. All this fracturing, it worries me.
So thank you for writing this. We need reminders like this, now and then. We need to stick together.
by LisB on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:15pm
I had high hopes, too, Lis. And of course I was extremely disappointed by those folks I had so counted on to keep us strong enough to vanquish all thought of ever going back to the Bush days. But we can only win by getting stronger. We didn't stick together; in fact, we all grew farther apart and our clout has diminished because of it. We need to get that back. I hope it's still possible.
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:06pm
Bill Clinton, the darling of the Democratic Party, helped destroy the Unions. Under his leadership NAFTA was the nail in the coffin for labor.
The Corporatist nightmare coming to end, “Thank you, thank you, Bill Clinton, we will finally rid ourselves of the Unions powers, eventually we can get rid of collective bargaining too" said the Corporatists
That side of the Party leadership, is not about to let us upstarts, interfere with their control.
Ramona, I am afraid that you are reminiscing, what the Democratic party was forced to become.
Forced to become, because of all the suffering of the people during the Great Depression, The post Democratic Party of FDR, hasn’t seen enough suffering yet. So don’t count on them changing.
I like what FDR did, but I believe he was facing an upheaval, a revolution was occurring in the country, because a very angry populace, who were ready to tar and feather the Capitalists, FDR was the one to "stand between" the angry people and the banker corporatist class, the people blamed for the Great depression.
FDR in order to “stand between” the banker class and the pitchforks, had no alternative than to accept socialism or socialism- lite or watch as Capitalistic America fall, and that class knew just as you have stated, “once it's destroyed, will never come back”.
Before FDR left office, he was challenged in the Courts to overturn what the Capitalists knew would cause them trouble.
Since FDR’s UNTIMELY death, attempts have been made to take back from labor, the power the Capitalists had to originally cede.
The Democratic Party is not the Peoples party. They are a diversion, intended to make sure there is someone to "stand between" the banker class and the pitchforks
Ramona, I could google; “Obama stand between” and find the exact quote, if you want to deny he said that?
I ‘d much rather point out what was recognized at the turn of the Century, but has become so disguised, so the control stays right where it belongs, in the hands of the industrialists the Corporatists.
Can you believe the below quotes were spoken in 1904! Thirty years later the Capitalists class had to rightfully fear, the people were recognizing the class war.
Ramona, it isn’t the Democratic Party protesting in Wisconsin, it is the labor party, the peoples party, and rest assured, the Democratic party will jump out in front of the marching people, claiming to be the leaders of the movement........because their masters will want someone to take the reigns, someone needs to “stand in the way” in the event it gets out of control.
Social/Democractic is not the direction the Democratic Party intends to go, until the masses have suffered tremendously, are you there yet?
Where will your power come from when the Unions are destroyed?
You think The Democrats will still be the better of the two evils
The Republicans taking control outirght and the Democrats "standing in the way" as defensive linemen.
by Resistance on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:18pm
As usual, you've missed my entire point. You're not a Democrat, so just ignore. I'm not addressing this to you.
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:37pm
I hope you'll join those of us driven out of the party,
On another post we discussed NADER and how he siad he would take on Corporate power.and you said you would never vote for him; why is that? Did he lie to you? Were his credentials for taking on Corporate power insufficent? ....The Democratic Party drove him out too, I guess he too isnt a pure enough Democrat?
When it came time to band together to fight the enemy, as your post stated, where was your vote on the fighter of corporate power?
Why would you expect any EX communicated Democrats, to support your Corporate candidate, knowing what we know?
If we have to burn, come join us.
Really, I wish you the best Ramona, I believe you're a passionate person, full of vigor and hope, just as many ex communicated Democrats used to be.
by Resistance on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:35pm
Haven't seen Nader get anywhere near to winning, Resistance; why is that?
by LisB on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:51pm
Ramona told us why
Nader has always been the crusader against Corporate power. Did he ever lie to you? Did he not, devote his entire life to taking on corporations?
Why didn't the people do the reasonable course of action, banding together to make us stronger, together around the fighter of corporate power?
Instead a majority of Democrats voted for the Corporate power candidate instead; then crying the blues, because Corporate power has a strangle hold on us and the fighters of Corporate power are now weaker.
DOH !!!
It is hard to fix stupid, even harder when the enemy gets stronger and we get weaker..
by Resistance on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:05pm
There is a kind of bizarre denial or un-reality that seems to inflect people in this country. That as long as their life is OK and everything in their own little area appears to be OK, then there isn't any problem. Rather like those partying in the promenade room on top of the Towering Inferno. Choosing not to acknowledge that the fire below is rapidly going to make any escape impossible and go on partying.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:16pm
Twice you've commented here, C, and I haven't understood either one of them. Care to be clearer?
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:24pm
My goodness, C, I had no understanding until now that you've become Buddha. Pardon me for not rubbing your belly.
by LisB on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:29pm
You really do need to improve your HTML editing. You forgot the </snark> ending tag again.
by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:10am
I think this is perfectly understandable, if a tad poetic. Americans often live quite stoic, rather lonely lives, in their bubble, in their cocoon, in their private hell or heaven.
by David Seaton on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:49am
"Americans often live quite stoic, rather lonely lives, in their bubble, in their cocoon, in their private hell or heaven."
Americans, and only Americans, right David?
by brewmn on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 1:22pm
Resistance, you said,
"Nader has always been the crusader against Corporate power. Did he ever lie to you? Did he not, devote his entire life to taking on corporations?
"Why didn't the people do the reasonable course of action, banding together to make us stronger, together around the fighter of corporate power?"
. . . Because Ralph Nader is an egomaniac, and his ego is directly responsible for Bush being elected in the 2000 election, and thus, directly responsible for all of the neocon atrocities that's taken place since.
The best way for Nader to have tried to promote his point of view was not to run off half-cocked and create a third party, because as everyone knows, the only purpose a third party serves is to promote the interest of the opposition.
Thus, if Nader cared as much for his cause as he did his ego, he would have promoted his point of view the Democratic primary system. Then, if his agenda didn't prevail, he should have fallen in line for the greater good.
But not Nader. Instead, acted like a petulent child and purposely set out to punish the Democratic party for not embracing his candidacy. As a result, he did more to hurt his cause than any man in American history.
Such a man is not mature enough to be president.
by Wattree on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:02pm
Best response ever.. I concur heartily Wattree.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:11pm
Likewise.
by LisB on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:14pm
I bow down to you, O Wattree. Yes!
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:26pm
Bowing down to Wattree? What
You defend the adulteress Democratic Party and now your into idolatry? WOW
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:08am
Oy.F'n.Vey.
by LisB on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:12am
I, for one, welcome our new postal-deity overlord.
by kgb999 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:25am
Are you sayin Wattree went postal?
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:28am
Don't read much of his stuff, I take it? He's OK in my book. I do disagree with his take on Nader. That said, I didn't vote for Nader either ... for my own reasons.
You've gotta admit though, busting out with Nader is kind of flame-bait in Dem circles ... I can't see you getting much love on this one ... so here this might make you chuckle.
And to reduce the blood pressure of everyone else who may have just followed the above link ... this is almost guaranteed to make you chuckle.
There ... you're ALL welcome.
by kgb999 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:46am
I do read some of Wattrees stuff when I can, I agree with much of what he writes.
Same with Ramona and Lis.
I hope others read the links you provided. I think they're funny Thanks
kgb999 Is there a name?
If the Republican party has it's tea partiers
What is the equivalent name for the left side
The Tea party is to the Republicans as the _____to the Democrats
As to the flame bait Nader, I think how Nader was treated, exposes the weakness of defending the Democratic Party. .....They had it and blew it.
They won the Presidency, and blew it
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:32am
Adultress? I didn't realize the Democratic Party was a female. That's gonna make a lot of people MAD.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:59am
Good morning Ramona.
Nice discussion you stimulated...I hope you dont take it personal, I find more agreement with you, than disagreement
……. Boats are a truly interesting case in English, as they are among the only inanimate objects that take a gendered pronoun, whereas most others are called it. Countries are also called she, as are cars sometimes, but the latter example is almost certainly an extension from boats.
I would list the source, but it pops up ads
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:39am
I replied below.
The rest of you can get off your knees.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:01am
Resistance, there are no excommunicated Democrats. You're talking about people who are angry at the leadership and are taking it out on the entire party. They're leaving of their own accord, and going out into a virtual desert. The Republicans are loving it.
Ralph Nader cannot create a party the size or influence of the Democratic Party. Instead of working from within the party, where his knowledge and his clout would have been welcomed by many, he chose to pick up his toys and go home. Looks like you're doing the same. Good luck with that.
by Ramona on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:23pm
The Democratic Party blocked Nader, he wasn’t one of them good ol boys, and he wasn’t beholden to the corporate puppeteers.......Surprise, surprise; Nader the corporate fighter, being blocked by corporate controllers
Nader was more of a Democrat, than the whole lot of the corporate shills.
It appears you want to rewrite history?
Are you unaware, of how difficult the powers that are, make it for third party candidates? . Grass roots candidates who aren’t strong enough or rich enough to fight the deeply entrenched corporate control.
Or how Corporate controlled media influenced the voters minds, about Nader.
Can you say Propaganda
Work within the corrupt party with all of their influence? That is insane.
"Work with us Ralph Nader the Corporation fighter , you really don’t want to reign in our corporate control, do you" ?
(Obama to the Canadians after his NAFTA comments in Ohio, ….Wink, wink I really do not intend to do as I said I would)
People like you abandoned him. Many Democrats saw the influence corporate power was having on the government and on the courts, but they were told work within the system, Be patient
WHOSE SYSTEM?
People Talking the talk; but when it came time to do the reasonable thing, they sold out, giving their vote instead to the corporate candidate,
INSANITY
Then crying about the demise of the Democratic Party, and how we must find candidates to take on the establishment Democrats,
Yeah right, were going to take on the establisment Democrats with all of their rich donors.
Can you say "futility"
Will you too parrot his detractors, as you belittle him about taking his toys home,
Will you always be badmouthing the courageous ones, willing to take on the two
TOOcorrupt parties?Wondering why we can't find good candidates?
Many have claimed he was bitter, We of the working class should have been pissed for the way he was treated.....For stepping up, to try to help the working class, he's told "take your toys home" Thats graditude for ya
You say "We need to work within the system"?.....The system is broken Ramona. It can't be fixed by us , they don’t want it fixed by you.
It's FIXED, just the way they want it.
by Resistance on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 5:28am
---------------------------------
I can tell by the pie on your tie
you're an American, well so am I!
Hi bub, How are ya? How do ya' do?
And while we're on the subject...
And while we're on the subject...
(And while we're on the subject)
How's your old Wazoo ?!
by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:40pm
Ramona,
I think you are projecting your progressive values on the Democratic Party, because there is nowhere else to project them. American progressives are orphans, realizing that could be the start of something important.
by David Seaton on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 1:56am
Okay....so tell us, Mr. Seaton, what important movement will come now?
by LisB on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 2:00am
If I may offer a movement to consider
The American Movement revitalized ?
BOTH UNIONS AND SOCIALISM. ARE LUMPED TOGETHER, IN THE CLASS WAR.
A very good list of character references mentioned in "The American Movement"
George Ripley, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Greeley, James Russell Lowell, John Greenleaf Whittier, ’William Cullen Bryant, Albert Brisbane, Ellery Channing, James Freeman Clarke, Theodore Parker, A. Bronson Alcott, John Thomas Codman, Henry D. Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, George Bancroft, Charles A. Dana and George William Curtis.
See if you find yourself in agreement with these men and their cause?http://www.brainyquote.com/
by Resistance on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 5:17am
That is the $64 question, isn't it? Just because there is no foster home or orphanage waiting will not bring an orphan's parents back from the grave. The third world is filled with street children in that situation... politically we can count ourselves among them.
by David Seaton on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 5:19am
Please see my relevant comments posted at kgb's blog discussing "Union-Busting in Idaho."
I welcome any discussion.
by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 2:46am
SJ, I really wish you had made that comment into a blog post. I agree with almost everything you've said there, and, of course, I applaud the way you've said it. I've been there on your side throughout it all. I've gone through the ups and downs, the rage, the disappointment, the hope, the pride. . .I've been through it all, and I understand it completely.
I only wish you could understand what I'm saying here. My simple argument is that the leaders aren't the party, even though we've given them the power. We as a party can take it back. Just as the Tea Party swooped down on the Republican Party and changed it radically, we as members of the Democratic Party can do the same.
You wrote:
And then you wrote:
You can't go around insulting the people you call "Dem Loyalists" and then challenge us to join you in "your" fight against the Class War, as if we're some clueless morons who just don't get it because we still insist on being called Democrats. If you've ever read anything I've written you know that I understand and rail against the very same Class War that you're talking about.
I fear for us all if we don't band together and do something about it, but we'll never get it done as long as some of our best spokespeople use their mightiest efforts to snipe at and ridicule their allies instead of using their skills and talents to engage in this very real fight against a very real enemy.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:19am
I respond to you Ramona out of an appreciation of your credentials and my respect for you as a Labor Democrat. Your response to my comments included the following:
Well, then, DO IT! That's all I am asking! DO IT, fer chrissakes! And do it NOW!
Failing to act decisively and with a sense of urgency NOW to "take our party back" will probably ensure that there will in fact BE no more "tomorrows." Dead will be OUR Dem Party itself for many years to come, if at all.
Your last cite in your response - which you find objectionable because of it insistence that you, me, and every Democrat needs to get off our asses immediately and join this fight - is the concluding portion of my previous comment for a reason.
I'm doubling down. I sound an urgent alarm here for ALL Dems and ALL working people in my Dem Party's constituency to immediately rise in defense of themselves in the face of this most brutal assault waged against US! (Not just me, but US!) And I'm not particularly impressed or moved by the subsequent protestation to my previous posting that this "Call to Arms" is somehow too shrill or too offensively "alarming" in its expressed urgency.
Sorry, but there IS only one question to be asked by the observers now on the sidelines as we struggle at the front lines to maintain the momentum and keep the enemy in retreat. And time's a-wasting at great cost to our momentum whilst those who can make a difference in this fight ask for a proper and "respectful" invitation to join in to help fight our (meaning YOURS and MINE!) political war in which (y)our political lives are themselves held in the balance.
Heed the alarm, ramona. Yes, this is a "hair on fire moment." If it is insulting or somehow uncivil of me to now figuratively grab you (and all other Dems and fellow working class stiffs) by the lapels while insisting "Quit dithering, and get active!" so be it! There ain't time for pleasantries anymore. This ain't just another day to be spent in the marketplace of ideas, trying to cajole and induce others to adopt a different point of view or to strategize how best to approach our "tomorrows" or to play the politics-as-usual game in the roles prescribed for us in previously established "rules of engagement." The game has changed. This is war, fer chrissakes, not an exercise in political persuasion or diplomacy or even democracy in action as we commonly understand it in these United States.
Take your party back, Ramona, Do it TODAY! Begin by calling upon ALL Dem Pols to get into the fight. IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner!
From Our President to our Congressional Reps to our members in the various statehouses, we need to insist they take the lead offered to them by 14 courageous State Senators in Wisconsin who jumped to the alarm and took urgent and dramatic defensive action in response to the withering salvo offered in the opening skirmish. If not for their IMMEDIATE response, this war would already be over.
Their actions provided the space for a grassroots uprising to occur that has now been sustained going into its third week. Remarkably, we've STILL got the enemy on the run, but it can't be sustained forever. The opposition is simply too well organized with too many resources trained upon us for this limited force to withstand this assault.
You see, ramona, Citizen's United (aka the Koch Brothers) is in it for the duration. And it's YOU and the Dem Party they are targeting! And yet you chide ME for failing to extend a proper invite to you and the others to join in EFFECTIVE and ACHIEVABLE opposition? Read what's happening in Wisconsin. I mean, really READ the links included here and other descriptions and analysis with an eye for understanding ALL it's implications. You'll see that the invitation's already been proffered - not by me, but by the Citizen's United Koch Brothers as a roundhouse sucker punch delivered in the halls of State legislatures throughout the country. And then dare tell me you need a "Please support my cause!" lapel pin from me before registering a proper response! Excuse me, but that offends me as assuredly as you claim such offense in receipt of this alarm I sound out to you now.
'nuff said about that.
So what shall we do now that we got everyone's attention?
Our immediate response here begins by raising our voices loudly, instructing your (our!) Dem pols to answer the alarm with all appropriate determination to fight back, and fight back HARD!
Obama (and Reid and everyone calling themselves a Democrat pol) should be telling the GOP and the Tea Party and their Citizen's United (CU) Americans up my Posterior (AFP) Koch Brothers financiers that this existential political war they declared on the Dem Party and its constituents has now been joined.
"All bets are off!" begins the new message that will mark this Presidency in history, launched with Obama standing in the Square in Madison outside the locked doors of our statehouse. "The overreach in the abuse of our political system by those who would corrupt democracy itself in pursuit of strictly political objectives shall not stand!
"Citizens United is every bit as disastrous a decision for the very fabric of this democracy as I warned about in my State of the Union Address last year," Obama says. "But even I could not have envisioned just how quickly it would result in an existential threat to our core system of governance under which this country grew to become the greatest nation in the World.
"With a vast war chest provided by their corporate backers and the Citizen's United authorization in their hip pocket, the Republicans have now embarked on a strategic political assault on the Democratic Party itself and, in so doing, have also targeted the middle class and working families that make up its core constituencies. Their objective is the virtual annihilation of any political opposition that stands in the way of what they see as the proper role of government in this society. These coordinated attacks against worker's rights that we have seen spring up so suddenly in statehouses across this land are not an accidental coincidence of some bright, new American ideal that has suddenly sprung forth from our people. These highly controversial - yet remarkably similar - assaults on worker's rights aren't about budgets. These aren't about differences of opinions being worked out in our national and state legislatures as a marketplace of ideas wherein the People's work gets accomplished in good faith and compromise.
"No, instead what we see happening here is a well-orchestrated and well financed strategic abuse of our state legislatures to achieve the supreme dominance of one political party over another. It's a gross overreach of the powers vested in these political operatives by those who elected them into office.
"This shall not stand! And so I am proud to stand here tonight in the Capitol Square in Madison in exercise of my responsibilities as President, duly sworn to defend our Constitution and this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And it is a high honor to stand alongside these many fine citizens of this great state of Wisconsin and this country; beside these working men and working women and their families; with the firefighters and the police; with the teachers and their students; small business owners and large. Together, we call out to Governor Walker, the Republicans, and to those who have financed this extreme political assault upon our principles of sound governance and fair play in our politics and cahllenge you to once again 'Open these doors into the People's House in Wisconsin. Tear down these walls! And let's get back to the business of governing and abandon this all-out war you've declared and prosecuted on your political opponents that has poisoned our discourse and dsirupted the advance of the people's business for these many days and nights.
"Failing that, know that as a President who happens to be a member of the political opposition targeted by your efforts, I will continue to stand firmly beside these Wisconsin families and their counter-parts throughout the country to ensure that they and everyone else in this great nation will always have a voice and access to the democracy upon which our system thrives..."
Well, you get the picture. I'd even allow for a little more "refined" and "calculated" and less inflammatory rhetoric in place of this sample draft. ;O)
But the intent of my call here is clear. We NEED to get all hands on deck - including and ESPECIALLY Obama! - in the fight against this abominable abuse of power now being exercised by the Kochs and their political agents.
It is your Party? It is my Party? We CAN get it to respond to us? Let's test that hypothesis once and for all. We need everyone who would consider themselves to be a credentialed Social/Labor Democrat to raise their voice loudly now and sustain it to make certain Obama gets and complies with his marching orders. We can't afford to lose. We've got Walker and the Kochs on the run. Let's win this one -whatever it takes - because the stakes are too high and there just may not be another tomorrow, regardless of whatever "political affiliations" are left to us at that time from which to choose, for they will all be redundant and will be kept on Koch's mantel as a valued relic acquired in this war..
by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 3:34pm
Excellent, SJ, and recommended. In tone it reflects how I feel about the urgency of the current situation.
Beyond things I have done--calls to Wisconsin residents urging them to contact their representatives, a letter to one of my Senators, Warner, last Friday informing him that his and others' efforts to reduce the deficit through austerity proposals for the middle class and the poor strike a deeply discordant note with this supporter given the larger context over the past 3 years in which this is taking place, writing at dag, talking to friends and neighbors and suggesting things they might do, supporting people I know who are more fully and intensely immersed in the Madison and other state struggles than I am--I will get around to write down and post soon what information I can obtain on organizations which have been involved in Democratic candidate recruitment for US Congress races.
I am trying to find out what criteria or questions these organizations ask when they approach potential candidates in re to their issue stances prior to deciding whether or not to support their candidacies. There are about half a dozen issue questions I would want to see asked and responded to in considering whether, and if so which, potential candidates I would want to try to support in some way. I also have no idea what the process is for these groups to decide on the issue-related questions they will ask, whether they are open to input, etc. I will see what I can find out about that.
If what has been happening in Madison stays in Madison, it will be an opportunity lost in my view.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 5:35pm
SweetSleepinJeezus, that is a powerful little speech you drafted for the Big O. I hope you actually sent this to the WH and every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. What would it take to get a full page ad in a Madison paper challenging Obama to stand up and give this or a similar speech? Hell, even challenge him to put on that "pair of comfortable shoes" and walk with the workers. Really, what would an ad cost? "Come to Madison, Mr. President. This is where Democrats are standing up."
by TJ on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:25pm
Excellent, Ramona I never had any doubts where you stood. You and TMC are anchors that keeps the rest of us from drifting off and running aground on the shoals of conservatism. As a crew member, here's some scuttlebutt.
The crew gives a lot of respect to the ship's masters and expects them to steer a course to safe harbors. Admittedly, there are hazards to be encountered and everyone is expected to do one's duty to keep the ship from foundering or capsizing in the swollen seas of political turmoils as we sally forth.
For some time now, our ports of call haven't been as exotic as we have dreamed they would be. We've petitioned our desires and have received our orders with implicit acknowledgment of our desires being addressed. However, our port-of-calls are still not at the level we believe we can service. So there are rumbling of mutiny. Some are jumping ship and hiring on to crew other ships looking for those exotic port-of-calls they desire and expect to find them with their new masters. Others think sabotaging the vessel is a means by which they can force the masters to obey the will of the crew. And others, like me, aren't happy, but can't see the sense of deserting the ship or ruining our only way to maneuver thru the seas of politics. We have to keep the ship safe, sound and afloat at all costs. But we also expect the masters at the helm to understand the plight of the crew too. Without us they'll never get under-weigh.
So that's were we stand. The crew is ready, willing and able to harness the power of the political winds in their sails so the masters at the helm can take us were we all desire. The question has always been why are the masters taking us here instead of where we thought we were going?
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:06am
The answer would be to investigate not what the masters say to those who vote for them, but what they say to and do for those who pay for their campaigns.
by David Seaton on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:10am
BINGO !
by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:41am
Agreed however it's the master's duty to the crew to explain the why. True, the benefactors who bankroll the voyage are also a part of the mix, but the crew needs to know who their second masters are and if the cargo being hauled is worth the effort to run the gauntlet of conservative frigates armed with better guns and swifter ships.
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 11:01am
Not if the master of the ship and his cohorts have other plans,
http://www.thepiratesrealm.com/pirate%20code.html
"Hey matey, you aren't stirring up a mutiny are you? "
"You dont like the way the ship is running do you ; well why dont you take it up with Davy Jones
I wonder if you ever heard much from mutineers?
by Resistance on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 12:49pm
If the Master's and the unnamed benefactors have other plans, there will come a time when those loyal crewmen left on board will do what they must and scuttle the ship including the cargo. Like I said originally...Without us they'll never get under-weigh...because they can't man the rigging and sail the ship by themselves cause...they need us to do the hard and dirty work.
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 1:26pm
Brilliant analogy, Beetlejuice. Love it! It's a keeper and I'm keepin' it.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:59am
Gee Ramona I appreciate your support! In high school I never learned how to how to get my point across other than analogy so I'm not much of a writer other than to put my thoughts to the printed word.
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:54am
That's what writing is, BJ, and you do it very well.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:59am
blush
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:06am
If I can say this nicely, it's almost not worth discussing. The Republicans want a different world than I do/we do. Not because they're bad human beings but because those are their values. I work with some Republicans in various charities. Nice people. They want a different world than me.
That means the Democrats are the only game in town. And will continue to be. Voting for a third party is just a way of electing the Republicans.
Here's a suggestion. Enough talk. Pick a candidate and work for him/her in the next election. You'll be welcome, you'll meet some nice people. You might make a difference. Go for it.
by Flavius on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 8:57am
I think on a local and state level, that's what we do. I want more Democratic leaders who lean toward liberal/progressive values, and you're right that we have to start the process by choosing liberal/progressive candidates and working hard to get them elected.
But the fracture in our party makes this worth talking about. We can't function as a national party if we don't agree on at least some of the most basic ideas. My thought is that it's worth whatever we have to do to defeat Republicans, as well as any of the people, Democrats included, who work at keeping class warfare going (as SJ reminds us). But we can't do anything if we're so divided we're putting all our energies into useless, internecine wars. That's just a basic fact.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:11am
I am with you Ramona.
I am a Democrat.
On some issues I am more liberal than other on other issues.
Like Rachel was saying last night, the repubs offer no choice for 98% of Americans. They simply use slight of hand bringing up non economic issues to bamboozle the public into voting against their own economic interests.
Would you rather have Senator Webb or Senator Allen?
Let us argue fervently within the party.
But let us not forget who the enemy is!
by Richard Day on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:23am
Apparently there's some question among the ranks about who the enemy is, The enemy is unemployment, underemployment, poverty, inequality, outsourcing, poor or unaffordable health care. . .and any number of issues that affect the working class. That's where I think most of us draw our battle lines. At least I hope we do.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:12am
by Resistance on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:14am
First, just when did Democrats become the GOPer's object of intense hatred? I'd say about the time the GOP'er came up with their Contract Against America...1993. So was there any event prior to 1993 that may have had a something to do with this vilification of Democrats? Perhaps the demise of their decades long arch-villain the Soviet Union? So without some group or thing to outwardly focus their zealous hatred towards they looked inwards and decided the Democrats would have to suffice as their dog to kick.
So we Democrats need to find them another dog to kick.
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:07am
You are wrong, the GOP have always hated the Dems big time. This goes way back. Business men have been talking this way about Democrats since the 1940s... I lived in an intensely Republican area and even when I was a kid in the 50s, they would sit around and turn purple in the face when talking about "that man" (FDR). The only thing that changed it all was the Reagan "revolution". Watch this episode of the "Century of Self" to see how they pulled off their revolution:
by David Seaton on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:43am
Agreed. I can't remember a time when the Republicans weren't trying to break the working class. They've always despised the unions, and had absolutely no respect for blue collars. How they manage to get those people to vote for them is beyond me. Short memories are what they count on, and it works.
by Ramona on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:55am
Okay Dave, I'll make time to review the entire series. Should keep me busy for a couple of days.
by Beetlejuice on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 11:22am
PSY-OPS
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223
by Resistance on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 2:41pm
It's not that complicated.
Democrats vote for Democratic candidates.
Even when the Republican is a more appealng human being. It's not a date, it's an election.
Even when the Republican is better on the issues. Give him an attaboy but give your vote to the Dems who're trying to control the Legislature.
Even when the Democrat's a crook. Time to deal with that is the Primary. Otherwise, see above.
The only reason to vote against a Dem is if he says he's going to caucus with the Reps. Turncoats should be punished - provided we can afford to.
by Flavius on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 10:21pm
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:24am
yes
by Flavius on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:56am
I've sat out of this discussion (you know I am not a Democrat, not trying to step on a meta thing). But this intrigues/concerns me. Are you really endorsing Flavius's formula that in the event of a Democratic candidate who is both worse on the issues and a crook that you would bring that person to me as an independent and say "This guy is totally awesome on your issues and he is a totally honorable candidate - vote for him."
To what extent do you think hiding the truth from me to get my vote is justified? And at what stage does knowingly cramming someone who sucks-ass down my district's throat steal the right to qualified, non-criminal representation from me in order to advance the goals of maintaining a "majority" that really doesn't fall into the paradigm of a constitutional citizen-candidaterepresentative relationship at all? Don't you have some responsibility as a party to actual voters on a specific and individually localized level? What Flavius is doing is lumping real people into whatever number-pie gives him power and using that as a proxy to replace the interest of actual humans.
I think that's where your party is failing. It's focus is on majority power not individual service. If you continue to allow those who's purpose for placing people in government has nothing to do with how well they will perform the duties of office [to set priorities], you may take power for a time ... but our government is always going to suck. I think America deserves a good government more than the Democrats deserve a majority. MHO.
(Edited slightly :)
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 1:12pm
KGB, that certainly is not what I read into what Ramona wrote. In my opinion she wrote exactly the opposite. To me she wrote that it is acceptable to vote for an R, if the Democrat is a nutcase, criminal, idiot. And most democrats agree with that concept, although we might just not pick anyone in that case which is the same as picking the other guy, without compromising ones principles. Because you see, for Democrats like Ramona and I voting for a Republican, is antithetical to our beliefs but voting for a criminal does nothing to further our principles either.
To me that is precisely what she has written.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:54pm
I didn't read her taking a position on it. I saw the response as quite correctly focused on the fact that if the party is doing what it's supposed to do nobody with those characteristics would get through the apparatus to confront the voters in the first place. Which really does seem to be the exact point where focus should be concentrated to improve the party. So, yeah, I recognize she and I are mostly on the exact same page with this (and that's really the point of her entire post - which I enjoyed).
I was just curious about her thoughts in the event that the "pragmatic" in the party (who really do seem to be in charge) decide some crooked SOB is most likely to advance their goals and trot his ass out for the general. Guess I did sort of meld a larger critique of what I saw as the impact of Flavius's missive there ... but I'm not sure the question would have made sense without explaining how I see the implications. Wasn't trying to say she believed that - was asking if she did.
I'm heartened to see your decision matrix is pretty close to my own - I wasn't saying to vote for Republicans if the Democrat is lame. I'm pretty sure in the races where I am aware of the party of the person I voted for, I have not yet come to the conclusion voting for the republican was the best move, but if it ever is I'll jump on it (wait ... not true - I voted Otter for congress one time because he started out fighting against the Patriot Act). There usually is some third party that I can at least relate to that can be voted for so I don't just skip - in the end I vote for nobody before I vote for someone I can't justify supporting too.
But you've got to bear in mind that the "Flavius Formula" presents we non-dems with a dilemma. Imagine the difference we would be seeing in Wisconsin right now if a Republican house/senate were bulldoging a Democratic Governor .... with the media all screaming about how America wants people to be bipartisany and stuff (and they *did* just give legislature a mandate dontchaknow). Do you think Union members would have the same level of backing as they do currently from the position where supporting their fight is a vehicle for the "pragmatic" to regain power? I imagine you see the kink this adds to the modeling for desired outcome.
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 4:28pm
kgb, as I told McCarthy, I actually did vote for a Republican once--well, more than once. Bill Milliken is a Republican and probably the finest governor Michigan was ever privileged to have. He's been sneered at as a "Progressive Republican" but I think he takes that as a compliment. I wish more Democrats would take a page from Milliken's book, but I'm afraid he was one of a kind. This--among other things--is why I think so much of him:
He endorsed our new Republican governor, Rick Snyder, so I'll give the guy a chance. I hope for our sakes he's right about him.
Here is another piece on Milliken. He really is a Republican worth knowing.
I have to add this, too, since it's exactly how I feel about being a Democrat:
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 5:33pm
I don't think you should stop being a Democrat (overarching belief that the current political duopoly serves nobody's interests notwithstanding, of course). Like I said, I think your focus is great here. There are quite a few different competing currents running through your party, the logic driving some of 'em scare the bajezus out of me.
I know this is an intrapartisan discussion - not trying to hijack it sideways. Thanks for the response.
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:11pm
Actually you did when you wrote:
Then you went on to lecture her about how bad that is, when that isn't what she wrote at all. Then you claimed this is not at all what you were saying she took a position, but you went on to write:
To me it seems you have a bias or are deliberately misreading what Ramona wrote, so you can draw a line as to how much more sound your ideology is than hers or ours. You seem intent on this as you continued:
Your own bias is quite clear, when you lecture her about how awful it is to support Democrats no matter what, when she did not write anything of the sort. I also don't think it is quite right for you to deny what you wrote. When it is quite clear what you've written.
I don't know kgb, but it seems as though you are itching to tell us how awful it would be to do that, when it isn't what we do at all, we do look for the best candidate who supports our ideologies most closely. We are American's too. We make choices to and we make them as soundly as we can, and not in the way you suggest we do. Even though you deny what you've written, we want good government too, but to us we think more Democrats serve the needs of America. If a politician is as you describe, why do you assume we woud try to get that guy elected. We won't and we don't.
It just seems like you came to lecture about how much cleaner your politics are, but in reality they are not any better than ours, you just want them to seems so.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:55pm
Ok schoolmarm. "I didn't INTEND to..."
I got it from your first comment ... I totally merged the question for Ramona with the critique of Flav's stated opinion ... awkwardly as hell in a way that made your response to me make total sense. I was *trying* to clarify that wasn't my intent and just sort of chat - not claim I hadn't done it.
BTW. Is offering one's own strongly held belief really bias? Isn't that just opinion?
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:27pm
Thank you, TMC. You said it better than I could have myself. I've actually voted for a Republican once, and if he were running I would vote for him again. He's former Michigan governor Bill Milliken, as fine a governor as we've ever had. I'm going to go and tell kgb999 about him.
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 5:13pm
Is he in Idaho? If not ... send him on up/over! The poor republicans in this neck of the woods could use all the help they can get (that seems to go for any neck of the woods these days; honestly). Hell, so could the Idaho Democrats (srsly).
Lots of new leaders pleaseandthankyou. (If I 'figger out where they're hiding, I'll let everyone know and we can go beat 'em out of the bushes).
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 5:50pm
We prefer to keep him in Michigan. You'll have to find your own Good Guys. (Ha! Won't we all?)
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:19pm
Put that on a bumper sticker - sounds like an election-winning philosophy if I ever heard one! /s
(this is why we non-dems aren't really that dedicated to keeping Dems in office; a party willing to elect and support crooks is a party that elects and supports crooks .... nice donkey ears.)
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 12:24pm
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 12:49pm
I'm an American. I support individuals who I feel best advance my personal goals and the goals of my nation. Period.
To do any less allows a secondary interest to override my duty to country and fellow Americans. History shows an ebb and flow where both Democrats and Republicans (and the odd-third party) have all been on the right side of history moving us forward - a party is a means not an end.
by kgb999 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 12:56pm
A reminder that many Democrats allover heavily Democratic NYC had no problem with continually electing a Republican (the last time Independent) mayor since 1993. And they did that as registered Democrats--without having an open primary system (i.e., however you register, that's the only primary you can vote in.) Clearly they are still highly supportive of Dems for national office, but clearly they gave up on changing a local corrupt and ineffective Dem machine any other way except by voting them out of the main local position of power.
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 3:52pm
And got Bernie Kerick as chief of police.. .
by Flavius on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 4:15pm
Suffice it to say that enough people didn't change along with you after that. Good luck on stemming the independent voting patterns tide and returning to the days of party line voting, as I don't think the younger generation is with you nor is the movement to organize around issues via new technologies.
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 4:32pm
All generations are younger than I.
by Flavius on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:21pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:46pm
Wanna bet?
by Ramona on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:32pm
Give me a break!. If I can't claim to be the oldest dagblog hangeron I'll have to look for some other distinguishing characterisitic.Baldest? Most irrelevant?I've certainly got a shot at that.
Time to go have a nap..
by Flavius on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:47pm
You've got me at baldest, Flav, I'm a girl and half Italian at that. I'm pretty sure I've got you beat in the age department. We may tie at most irrelevant, though which of us really wants to be the winner?
And no naps. We've got work to do!
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:51pm
Do you have gas?
by TJ on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:42pm
I agree that it wouldn't make a good bumper sticker. But it's honest.
My concern is what the government will do, not what some particular candidate has done..One more Republican in the Wisconsin Senate would let Scott Walker to end collective bargaining for Government Employee. To prevent that I'd elect a democratic crook.
As the Republicans would do to give Walker that extra vote.
And then wait till the next primary.
by Flavius on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 2:48pm
You want to make the Democratic party listen to the needs of the voters, start moving your votes to these platforms. When the Democrats see they are losing voters, as the alternative party gains ever more strength, the Democratic Party will try to woo the voters back or they’ll adopt policies similar or they’ll become just another party in the dustbin of history…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_movement
Check out these Party Platforms, you don’t have to be held hostage to the Democrats, we need to hold the Democrats hostage
Change to meet the needs of the people or lose the peoples vote.
Unless forced to change, why would they change?
In the market place of ideas, we aren't forced to accept crap.
Time to give us our moneys worth. oops I guess the money I give, doesn't buy their time.
You think I can get someone else to give me the time and product I want?
"Hey Democrats look, you just lost my business, because you're not the only vendor"
http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/civilrights.html
by Resistance on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:29pm
Wattree , you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts.
Disclaimer: I do not agree with the authors conclusions below. Gore and the corrupt Democratic party did everything to block, to destroy, to slander Nader.
Nader would have been the Democratic contender, if not for Gore.
Gore knew Nader would beat him for the Democratic nomination.
Excerpts from http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/01
Gore was clearly Republican - lite
Just think about that...... Johnson the encumbent, did not run for reelection, because he sensed Democratic disapproval.
Imagine that; instead of accepting the establishment favorite as some of you whiny demoncrats crying about saving the party, would actually SAVE OUR PARTY
Johnson forced to admit, Democratic voters with firm convictions and the guts, to take on the Party machine, voting their conscience instead of bowing or bending over .
POWER TO THE PEOPLE, NOT TO THE PARTY
The Good people of the Democratic party were deprived, they were manipulated, they were deceived.
IF not for Gores ego, his winning at all costs, (except I recall he lost Tennesee) the REAL Democrats would have had the choice; Democrat (Nader) or Republican- lite(Gore)
Betrayers of the Democratic principles, sold us out, then claiming the party belongs to them.
I will not drink the kool-aid, I will not plug my nose, because you all screwed up.
As for the maturity label, you make me laugh. Wattree
Help me recall Obama’s resume, and how we could ascertain his maturity? We already had one of those great mature, orators, actors, named Reagan he was definitely mature.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:38am
tl;dr dude,
You lost me at "Gore was Republican Lite"...Are you serious? Jeebus... WTF do you think George Bush was? Not Republican lite, I'll tell you that, he was a conservative, lying scum. You are weird, and at times I think you are some sort of act with each treatise an attempt to have an endless circle of discussion that goes no-where. You talk about VP Gores ego, well what about your ego dude, talk about a self-centered ego maniac, pot, meet kettle!
You wrote:
You wildly make this claim in almost every single treatise you construct! Democrats are bad... times one million! You write it every time you respond. It's old, the meme is wearing out. On other thing, corporatist Democrats, well buddy, take a good close look, it is Republicans that are outwardly attempting to kill any regulation for many industries, not Democrats. Is it Democrats trying to get rid of collective bargaining for Unions? No it is not. Your meme is wearing thing. The messiah BS, Oh god, get a new insult, that is just one more item you make sure you throw in every poorly constructed thesis. It isn't even insulting anymore, it's sad.
Like I keep saying to you and others, you want to make change, you'd better step up and participate, otherwise, what you say literally doesn't matter, you have no impact.
Look at that, I said my piece in less than 10,000 words!
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:58am
Well clearly, it satisfies your ego, to insult others in so few words.
You admit you didnt read the entry, but you're so quick to reply. Making you look stupid.
You wouldnt have made this telling admission and then asking a stupid question.
I didnt lose you, you're already lost
Give a prize,...... Your absolutely correct,,George Bush WAS NOT the Republican-lite candidate, he was the Republican.
The correct answer of who then was the Republican-Lite Candidate........Gore was the Republican lite candidate.
You would have discovered the republican-lite GORE had many of the same views as George Bush.
Why don't you tell me; WHY did Gore and Clinton sell out labor, when they promoted and passed NAFTA? Once the Unions were destroyed by these two betrayers of labor, why would there be collective bargaining?
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:58am
It would seem you have identified the essential question here, Resistance, relative to all this talk about "My guy might well be a compromised, even corrupt, Republican-lite jackass who consistently lets me down and votes against my interests and the interests of the rest of his supposed constituency while consistently voting in favor of the corporations and the wealthy, but at least he ain't as bad as the other guy. So, tell me, why WOULDN'T I promote his candidacy and then support him with my vote?"
What a bunch of dangerously self-defeating hooey I'm reading on this thread, all written by people who should know better. Yeegads! The lack of confidence in our ability to police our own democracy is staggering. And the decidedly cavalier admission that they disagree with the "purist" notion that honest brokers in politics are not only required to preserve the very future of this democracy but of the middle class itself is (not to put too fine a point on it!) STOOPID! ESPECIALLY in light of the losses we have suffered over these last decades for lack of same.
Take a look around, people! Can you honestly say that this system is working at all in your favor? Is the status quo so beneficial in promoting your causes and your interests that you are willing to continue sacrificing principals (and last I looked, "political integrity" and "lack of corruption" are still recognized as principals to be admired in a candidate. Qualifying principals, even!) sufficient to maintain this system of governance in its present stasis?
You rhetorically ask, Resistance, "How could a 'Good Democrat' vote for and promote a candidate who would then promote and support NAFTA?"
Could it be because we have so totally abandoned any REAL democracy here in favor of political puppet theater, wherein the Democratic candidate sits on the one hand ("left") of the master and the Republican sits on the other? That virtually everything that occurs in Washington happens on that puppet stage, and that the script allows the Dem Liberal puppet just enough maneuvering room to establish credentials as the "Liberal Puppet" in contrast to the "Conservative Puppet" on the other hand? That the puppets will be allowed to respond to direction from the audience, thus keeping the rapt children in attendance fully engaged in the story being told by nature of convincing them that "their guy" on the stage is an agent acting on their behalf; that somehow this fucking piece of cloth draped over a hand can actually hear what they are saying and that it actually responds to them?
Feh! That puppet on that stage is completely dependent upon the puppetmaster for whatever movements and hearing that occurs on stage, and it is the puppetmaster, too, who enables every "thought" and "action" undertaken by the puppet.
But look upthread, and you can see just how invested these children can become in the story being told. Enough, apparently, to invest their lives and the lives of their children into the outcome of this drama occurring between two soulless puppets; indeed, to even continue placing into the hands of these puppeteers the future of this country itself for them to tell us how it all turns out in the end.
Fuck it. Perhaps it's time to simply quit trying to talk sense to these people and simply make a living picking their pocket whilst they're so blissfully engaged otherwise.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:24am
To Resistance and SleepinJeesus; I've had enough of your freakin' lectures. I started this thread by saying I am a Democrat. I'm not a Demoncrat, I'm not stoopid--and neither are any of the others who are posting comments here. You don't have all the answers, and you don't have the right to insult and belittle those of us who are trying to do what's right within our own party.
You both just keep repeating what you've said before, without coming up with a single solution. Insulting, attacking, demonizing--no solutions there.
I'm a Democrat and proud of it, and I've said all I'm going to say to both of you about this. I'm done.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:41am
What? So it's okay if your mutual admiration society can name call?
In fact you said about me “You are no Democrat”
How insensitive.....You're not welcome you unwashed creature, agree with me and you will be blessed?
“Oh Wattreee you’re the man, put that ol Resistance in his place” (We love it when you attack and slander R's choice)
Evidently you don’t mind insulting my candidate choice,
Freakin lectures, about how we were considered Undemocratic for expressing our loving, desire for the Democratic Party to return to us, how we want to free it from captivity. For that we are ostracized?
Are you directing this to McCarthy who couldn’t be bothered by the facts. Not interested in answers, to solve the working mans plight?
Then to say “ we didn’t offer a solution” then you attack us for offering one? It just that the solution is one you don’t want to hear.
As for me, I want to win elections for the working class, I want to get past consoling one another.
You and others offered your viewpoint, we offered ours.
We were insinuated as being betrayers, Undemocratic.
Please don’t let one disagreement consume you with hate. Why not direct the hate where it belongs.....at the Corporate Democrats
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:57am
Breathe
by Flavius on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:05am
Give it a rest, R, all that righteous indignation. You can give your opinion without insulting. I said you were no Democrat because no Democrat would go against all Democrats. When you call us "Demoncrats" you're no Democrat. If you call what I said to you an insult, I wonder what you call the things you say to me and everyone else?
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:34am
As for my response to Wattree, I was agreeing with him about Ralph Nader. It had nothing to do with you.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:41am
truths
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:43am
Yes that is it Jeebus, we are all stoopid because we don't follow you like you are the Pied Piper of Hamelin. You are simply so much smarter than we are, you come to your opinions much more honestly, cause we are too stoopid to know any better, oh and you took pictures, you are so awesome and great. (*note to self: insert link to some firedog lake rant about Democrats here, wait wut?*)
Yes, we've all seen the error of our ways, your rants are just so convincing. Please lead us out of the personal hell of our own opinions and experience so we can all reach the Promised Land together. I am convinced you know its location. Once we arrive in Shangri-La and the world is perfect forever, and you are its benevolent ruler, will we be young forever unless and until we leave your kingdom of perfection?
Let me ask you something, do you believe in Zenu too?
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:39am
You simply make me chuckle and like I wrote last night, you are so weird. And you have this meme you are pushing, you know how three times awful Democrats are, how they've destroyed the country, and your newest bullshit, Clinton and Gore destroyed the Unions. Huh? Your meme is calling you time to brush up on actual facts!
Dude, name calling, you just cannot take it because I pointed out your failings, your penchant for spreading misinformation, and ultimately your need for attention. I know how awful it is for your type, but as long as you want to mix it up here, you are going to have to put up with the responses to your latest Kaczynski style rant. For the record, these are what we call dead on observations of your latest drivel. You don't like it, too bad.
As to name calling, ooh nice one, but let's review, you've called me a traitor, a Messiah worshiper and now stupid! Which still makes me laugh! You sound like every single TBag I've come across in real life. These are the methods you employ to attempt to discredit what I have to say. You name call, simply because you are unable to respond with a well thought out, concise, intelligent argument that might support your opinions.
Hey your god is calling, he wants you to stop lying.
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:22am
I said the question was stupid.
Considering you admitted you didn’t read the article or the link I provided, Then you raise such stupid questions. Questions that could have been answered by reading the article, you were too lazy to read.
(Remember you do have to do some heavy lifting to preserve Democracy, I wouldn’t think reading was that heavy a load)
Then you come back in this reply, with another stupid question
Fact: NAFTA has hurt the Unions and helped Corporations
Fact: NAFTA has been an integral part of Corporate Profits, and the destruction of the TAX base in America.
Fact: The Tax base is an integral part for the financing of the American workers safety Net .
Fact: Clinton and Gore promoted and passed NAFTA
Therefore, any reasonable person could extrapolate, Clinton and Gore's promoting and passing of NAFTA not only hurt the Unions, it also allowed Corporations to use their record profits, to finance campaigns, in opposition to worker causes.
It also financed Corporations not only with capital to invest overseas; the Government of the Corporations also gave Tax subsidies to these destroyers of workers right.
The corporations with their new found leverage, to get more demands from Unions because Unions had been effectively neutered with the passage of NAFTA.
The Tax base of good manufacturing jobs exported overseas; the importation of foreign goods in order to undercut workers pay in America, undercutting the financing of pensions and retirement benefits.
With the Tax base destroyed and no revenue coming in, to finance two wars, promoted by the Two Corporate Parties; there is no money in the treasury only IOU'S that are unable to be paid back.
Causing creditors (Corporate banks) to raise fears about our nations ability to pay back the IOU's. This risk aversion allows for the raising of interest rates.It also allows the Government to not stimulate the economy to help American workers, The worlkers movement is not DEAD YET, the Croporate controlled politicaina must drown the baby. starve the working class to get more concessions.
As the interest rates go up, business is stifled and unable to get affordable financing, Unemployment goes up.
With unemployment up, workers are unable to make demands.
What good are Unions and collective bargaining it the demands cannot be met or wont be met?
All because Clinton and Gore; although warned of the disastrous effect it would have not only on the workers here at home but abroad; Clinton and Gore promoted and passed NAFTA, the American labor movement brought to it’s knees by Democrats
Is it too complicated for you? Probably a little to long for you too stay focused?
That’s what the Corporations hoped would happen, they knew you couldn’t fool all of the people, just some.
Demoncrat is a typo, but in your case with your attacks on faith I thnk the term fits you well
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:21pm
What do any of you think about this piece in the Nation quoting a Times piece about the White House discovering that the DNC and OFA (state organizations, I think) were helping organize for WI protestors?
"Now the New York Times reports that top White House officials were furious about the DNC’s intervention in Madison:
The White House mostly has sought to stay out of the fray in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals where Republican governors are battling public employee unions and Democratic lawmakers over collective bargaining rights. When West Wing officials discovered that the Democratic National Committee had mobilized Mr. Obama’s national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at the party headquarters.
Administration officials said they saw such events beyond Washington as distractions from the optimistic “win the future” message Mr. Obama introduced with his State of the Union Address.
In other words, the White House would prefer to endlessly repeat a lame slogan rather than get involved in one of the most consequential political fights of the present day. It seems like the new White House team, the subject of the Times article, isn’t much different from the old; still more than willing to throw grassroots Obama supporters under the bus."
Campaign Obama said he'd put on his soft shoes and march with Labor; I wish he would. And I remember a flap a year or so ago about the DNC fretting that OFA was taking over the DNC.
If we are the Party of Labor and Working People, shouldn't the President show that?
p.s. TMcCarthy: FDL is a Dem site, and Jane Hamsher has no patience with third party or primary Obama movements there, to my dismay. I don't give a fig if you diss it, but I'd rather have you get your facts straight. ;o)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/158999/white-house-odds-obama-supporters-over-wisconsin-protests
(I'll try to be back; my computer is acting up, and websites keep seeing me as spam (ouch! the truth hurts!)
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:06pm
Who could possibly be surprised by this story at this point?
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:14pm
Wow! Good for the DNC and the OFA. Isn't that what grassroots organizations are supposed to do? Especially those from "the Party of Labor and Working People"?
Since when does the White House dictate what either of those two groups do? They're not housed in the Oval Office, they're there for US.
This just sickens me: Under fire from the GOP, the DNC quickly backed away from its active stance, saying that its role in the protests had been “exaggerated,” according to DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.
And if this is true, it's pretty outrageous: Administration officials said they saw such events beyond Washington as distractions from the optimistic “win the future” message Mr. Obama introduced with his State of the Union Address.
Joe Biden's been very quiet lately. Wish we could get through to him to see how he feels about all this. I'm guessing he's on our side, but it could be he's been muzzled, too. Oh, to be flies on the walls. . .
The grassroots are where it's at. That's how we'll win. With or without the Big Guys.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:07pm
Russ Feingold and Progressives United might be a good start:
http://www.progressivesunited.org/home/
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:23pm
I wonder how everyone would feel if a future Republican president swooped in to assist with the power of the White House some tea party folks working to undermine some state Democrats who had won a majority in the previous election and were attempting to implement liberal legislation.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:26pm
I would expect it
by Flavius on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:53pm
The question is not whether one would expect it, but whether the White House should be marshalling its powers to intervene in state and local political fights. An issue most certainly with a lot of fine lines.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:51pm
Who cares? To me the real question is: when Obama pisses off labor (which Democrats unquestionably need to keep the white house) and through sheer political incompetence brings about a Republican president, who has any doubt that the new Republican president will certainly swoop in and and work to undermine state Democrats at every opportunity?
Thus far, the brilliant strategy you advocate has been to use the power of the White House to undermine your own base in cases where it looks like they might have a chance to win - or to sit above the fray and let them be diced to ribbons in all others. Pretty hard to imagine a more moronic strategy, really.
That's why Republicans are winning and you aren't. You are now down to arguing that Obama should be more worried about giving the GOP a sad than promoting what is right for America - and exactly what he ran on and exactly the very essential core of Democratic idololgy. It sounds to me like you are literally siding with the GOP here against the American worker. A linguistic inversion doesn't change that.
So. In the event you dumbasses keep the iron grip you hold over the party and insist on driving it over a cliff - resulting in the GOP doing exactly what you propose as a speculative - I suppose I'll feel as if the GOP's agenda sucked but have to acknowledge that at least they have some clue about how to accomplish enacting an agenda.
by kgb999 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:55pm
First off Obama has come out verbally on side of the Unions on this one, but ultimately this is a state issue. The thing that people don't want to really face is that is the People who elected all these Republicans. I disagree with the end of collective barginning for public employees, which is why I wouldn't vote for a Republican (which ever since Reagan took on the air traffic controllers has been part of their unstated platform). I say this living in Indiana which did the same thing as Wisconsin and hand over all the power to the GOP, and now have to live the consequences.
And the Unions, that is those in the Unions and their supporters, are undermined only to the extent they believe they are undermined. Nothing is standing in their way of getting together to restore Democrats to power in 2012 and, thereby, set in motion the restoration of what may be lost in the short term with the Republicans in power. Even if they aren't in a union anymore, they can still be the boots on the ground.
What I am simply stating is that the White House, regardless of who in power there, shouldn't be intervening on issues like collective bargaining for public employees, just as I wouldn't want the White House coming in to help fight a state trying to implement a single-payer health care system. Beyond that, I'm not sure what "brillant strategy" who think I am advocating.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:46pm
Of course Obama should fight to keep workers' collective bargaining rights! Not only did he campaign on the issue, but he also campaigned on passing EFCA, which really just didn't fit his Wall Street agenda after his first few months in office. AND he campaigned on rewriting NAFTA-like Crap Treade deals in favor of fair trade, and more ecological and environmental restrictions. NOW he is working like the devil for more Crap trade deals to export even more jobs, has frozen pay levels for all Federal employees, and speaks of the middle class needing to 'share the pain' of cuts to (wait for it!): 'entitlements'.
And in case you missed it: this IS a national issue! The Republican Governors made it one! Have you seen what the Ohio Legislature just passed because they didn't have enough Democratic Senators to leave and prevent a quorum? Google it.
Wisconsin Dems and now workers have sparked the first fight we have seen in decades, pushing back against crap corporate policies and faux-budgetary crises where the middle class is again supposed to foot the bills for tax breaks to the 'business class'. The states wouldn't even BE in the financial mess they're in but for the criminal crap pulled by Wall Street. And Obama's DoJ has YET to prosecute ONE bankster for fraud, and now his Treasury is allowing banks to conduct their own round of stress tests. And his FDIC now lets banks know if they are under rudimentary investigations so they can go cut a deal for some paltry fine to forestall prosecution, like Countrywide CEO Andrew Mozilo!!!
Meanwhile, since the big banks are still TBTF, and no one has cleaned up their balance sheets for them, no one knows who is holding how much toxic debt, so the dollar is tanking, and there is serious talk that there are already de facto reserve currencies that ain't the dollar!
Yeah; Obama and the Dems in Congress missed the boat on this one, and I have a suspicion they just may pay for it. But please don't call this a state issue!
And for anyone who cares, he has the power to call Quantico and make sure Bradley Manning isn't kept in isolation any longer, and not forced to be naked seven hours a day. Naked.Seven.Hours.a.Day. Assholes.
And he's the man who could end the war in Afghanistan in which Petraeus has given up all pretense of COIN strategy, and is now conducting ober one thousand night-raid bombings a month, killing plenty of 'enemies' and a whole lot of civilian families and making a whale of a lot more enemies FOR US.
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:27pm
Putting aside all the other issues covered in this comment, how do you propose Obama alter the course of Wisconsin government as it plays out according to the rules of State of Wisconsin?
And by the way I know what has happened in Ohio. And the attack on public unions started well before Walker. He just went further than others before him, like Christie in NJ.
No matter how "national" it is, this is still something being legitimately decided by Wisconsin's governmental representatives, no matter how much you or I disagree with them.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:09pm
"...hand over all the power to the GOP, and now have to live with the consequences." This takes the cake, Trope. No one has to take any of this shit, in your state or anywhere else. We don't have to wait for the next election cycle to correct this. Take it to the streets, man. This is the United States.
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:29pm
And exactly what do you propose the people do when they all get to the street besides express their outrage, which they should do and have done? I ask that seriously. There is also actually the process known as the recall, which the citizens of Wisconsin could employ but that would take a little time. But beyond that, what else there to do that isn't a dismantling of the current political system?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:00pm
What should the people of Wisconsin do?
Well, first thing they should do is tell poseurs like yourself - who do nothing but babble on and on and endlessly on about their great forest protests of the past - to piss off and get out of the way. I've never heard anyone bleat on as much about the greatest act of civil disobedience blah blah blah, and since then FAIL TO SUPPORT ANY FUCKING ACTION AT ALL, EVER, BY ANYONE.
You have no hope.
You can't see the value in taking any action.
Obama should sit in the can and practice squeezing out bowel movements til 2012.
WE GET IT.
Now. If you have nothing else to say other than "Let the Republicans proceed," would you please just fuck off back to your port-a-potty and let people try to save their lives. If this really isn't too too much trouble for you.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:07pm
Where do you I say that they shouldn't be out protesting it. What y'all can't get through your head is that the people of Wisconsin went to the polls and said to the Republicans "here, have the power." The People spoke. But oh y'all don't give a crap about that. Ignore those People. They don't count. Fuck elections. Except when our side wins. Now that people are in the streets, and good for them, suddenly we are suppose to listen to the People. Well, maybe now some of those who advocated sitting at home in 2010 know others protested that so loudly. Because now we've got this shit to deal with. And all this energy is going into this shitty brushfire.
So to put it simply: I support the protesters (and I would support nonviolent civil disobedience) and I support the people who went to the polls in November 2010. I support them both, because I support democracy and our political process. I support everyone who calls and writes and emails their senators and representatives and tells them how they feel, regardless of which side they fall on the issue.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:52pm
Trope. You. Don't. F*cking. KNOW. Anything.
There. I've said it.
And your political theory is about the only thing worse than your political advice.
You say, "Here. Have the power." What, are you an idiot? THAT'S what "power" is? That's how power is distributed? That's your great and grand conception of "power" and how it works politically? It all sits there in a ball, and every few years there's an election, when it gets handed to a few dozen reps who have banded together into a "majority" party, who then "have" the power for a few years? Jesus Christ, you don't even know your civics, do you?
Here. Lemme try and help. "Power" is something juuuuuust sliiiiiightly larger than the juice rolling through the Governor's office. Explore.
And "The People spoke." Your conception of democracy is maybe even worse. People have voices, and they use them in 1001 ways, in dozens of spheres of life. But for you, it's 2010 or 2012 or whatever, and that's pretty much the show.
Which leads to, what's the point of even arguing this sort of shit? You're like a troll for despair. And when you comment, it's ENDLESS, Trope. Dozens of comments, constantly shifting ground, and you make perfectly clear your ennui because you can't even be bothered to spellcheck or look for the words or phrases missing or extra words doubled or inserted. It's pathetic. e.g.
Where do you I say that they shouldn't be out protesting it.
Well, maybe now some of those who advocated sitting at home in 2010 know others protested that so loudly.
You're like the goddamn Clearthinker of Despair, you are.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:40pm
It isn't the governor's office, but also the house and the senate which the good citizens of Wisconsin gave power to. And this blog as many others are filled with those on the left that are upset that the Dems didn't push through a more liberal agenda seeing that the elections of 2006 and 2008 gave them the mandate to just that. And when someone like Obama comes in and tries to look for some collaborative effort between both parties, everyone screams, "we've got the majority." So I yeah I guess then I don't get it. You have a majority given to you by the voters, and when that majority power, as it relates to the state constitution or whatever set of rules the collective has agreed to abide to, regarding how many votes it takes to pass something, then this is wrong?
And I have a more complex and nuanced view of power, but of course when I express that all you and others like jollyroger can do is mock it rather than offer some substantive rebuttal to post-structuralist views. Which I take as meaning you have no rebuttal, but at the same time you can't let the comment slide because it threatens your views regarding such notions as power, democracy, and the People.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:57pm
And with that display of superior intellectual firepower committed to print, I take my leave.
Jesus. H. Christ. This guy just tried to slap me with "post-structuralist."
I think I got the giggles now.
Ta.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:14pm
I will join you 'forthwith', Quinn. I am likely a 'pre-structuralist', even though the thought of being anything like that almost makes me...crazy, since it will require googling. Arrrgghh!
'Night all.
by we are stardust on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:58am
So we're done watching the Id argue with the Superego?
by Donal on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:03pm
Yup. It's time for the Lameass Sheep vs the Dunderhead Goats.
Since the sheep are here, I best go get the goats.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:57pm
And so far no one has substanstively made one argument against what I have said.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:04pm
Stands to reason when no one can even figure out just what a substanstively looks like? Is it bigger than a breadbox?
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:09pm
I just got here, how the fuck did I get dragged into this?
by jollyroger on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:59pm
well when you choose to mock someone making a serious attempt to address the issues rather than offer a serious response, then you have to "suffer" the consequences. Sorry. But being a joker has its consequences.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:03pm
It's "Everybody into the pool!" time here tonight, jr. Here, grab my mai tai. I'm about to perform a cannonball! LOL!
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:04pm
can you please just counter with some kind of argument rather than this "everybody in the pool" stuff which basically means nothing.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:07pm
Excuse me. I was just passing through anyway. I gots a substanstively to catch.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:12pm
I seen it, Jolly. I seen the WHOLE thing.
There was these two guys, see? All post structuralist lookin'. Nasty. French, if you know what I mean. Anyways, one of 'em had a gun. Well, from MY perspective, he had a gun. I'm sure there are perspectives from which it appeared not only that there warn't no gun, but that there was a giant vegetable up your arse and you were dancin' the Hokey McPokey. Substanstively.
Mebbe I better go check the instant replay.
Anyways. You're in. In fact, I blame you.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:34pm
Well I"m countin on you to come to court--but let's talk some more about your female family members...
by jollyroger on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:43pm
That's the problem, we the voters of Obama were misled, WE didnt want a collaborator.
We knew who the enemy was, and our False Hope leader sold out.
Obama in effect saying .....we dont want to retake lost ground, why dont we sue for peace, why don't we compromise, why dont we collaborate, The enemy is not that bad and they say they wont hurt us"
Gore picking Lieberman should have tipped us off about collaboration.
The republicans dont have a majority will of the people.....They took advantage of a weakness in our lines, as our troops questioned the Generals madness.
Stay safe Democratic Senators of Wisconsin, reenforcements are on the way. With or without the General.
Do not allow the Republicans to build the RAMparts.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:27pm
Obama ran on the end to partisan politics. Folks such as yourself are just like Bush: either you are with us or you are against us. You can't have an end to politics as usual and still be partisan 24/7
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:09pm
You're way O/T on the blog topic in pursuit of your regular trope, as it were. But I'll bite. In the event you hadn't noticed, this mono-partisan politics that Obama is delivering ain't working out so well for those of us on the outside of the parameters established by the GOP Talking Points. And, yes, Trope, that is a substantial argument that you continue to ignore at your peril in attempting to promote and legitimize this "post-partisan politics" puzzle. What's next? Post-carnivorous meat-eating? Or maybe post-coital virginity? (The last not so much a direct corrollary, but equally as absurd.)
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:25pm
I will regret commenting again; the gods will punish me for me weakness.
I will say, as you've asked: Yes. If Republicans can pull a gotcha, and gain enough popular support from a majority of American REGULAR people, not just corporate and pundit-class hacks who aid the Elite Business Class, god stike me down if I gripe. The reason this has take off, brought to us by our fellow Wisconsites, is that people are beginning to get what's at stake, and the workers who made this country what it is ...or WAS, in days of yore.
They remember when average Americans were the recipients of the benefits brought to us in the battles by (yeppers) Socialists and Communists who fought the Robber Barions of the day (now Koch Bros. and their ilk, including a plurality of the Supreme Court) and won better conditions for all of us. They weren't playing by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules: it was life or death. As it is now, when the Prez and too many others are wont to negotiate away those hard-won rights for what? Re-election and campaign donations? Let me say: fuck them. We hired them, we should fire them.
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:04pm
I really hope people are waking up in this country. If the majority in the recall votes say to recall the Repubs, we need to respect that vote and the will of the majority. My point is that respect isn't just for the outcomes we agree with.
One thing I find a little puzzling, however, is that with all the people on our side, why there isn't a few more of them that can't run for political office. Maybe now those few others (who have the squeaky clean past one needs to win elections) will get the courage and run on a workers platform. I'm not being snarky here. I think this a moment when such a movement could get some real traction if the right folks step up to the plate and seize the opportunity.
And I would argue that momentary loss of bargaining power by the public employees in Wisconsin is something that could be endured (just as it will have to be endured in places like Ohio for the moment), if in the near future we are able to turn things toward a liberal agenda which is embraced by the majority of people in places like Wisconsin (and hopefully Indiana).
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:20pm
It won't be a momentary loss. With the Unions destroyed the financial support (the front line) for Democratic ideals will be overun. We will be on the run with the enemy on our heals preventing us from regrouping.
They are not like our general Obama, that did allow the enemy to regroup, so they could launch a counteroffensive after the heavy losses sufferd after the last campaign.
Why did he do that, is it because the enemy of labor are his friends?
With friends of labor like that, who needs enemies.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:37pm
Well, since federal employees don't have the right to collective bargain over their wages, I suppose, using your logic, we have always been doomed. We might as well throw in the towel. But here are a few thoughts to ponder: (1) the primary value the unions offer the democrats is the boots on the ground, that is people going out and knocking on doors and making the phones calls to get people to be aware of the issues and to get out and vote, something the "union members" can do whether they are part of an official union or not; and (2) the union dues that are automatically taken out as part of being part of a union are funnelled into the PACs that are utilized to fund the efforts to inform people and get out the vote can be voluntarily donated to the same effort. In fact it would undermine a lot of Repub talking points if people who were not forced to give those dues, but rather gave them voluntarily for the same effort to get liberal candidates elected.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:19pm
Now you're talking, Trope! Tell you what. Get them to dismantle the corporations, and then we'll talk about dismantling the unions. Every man for himself! LOL!
I shouldn't even have to state the obvious here, but, well...
Corporations were created as a means of pooling resources and gaining the efficiencies and the economies of scale that could be realized in doing so.
Unions? Guess what. Kinda' the same idea. But who needs them, right, ol' Trope? Far better to stand alone in the hallway outside the boardroom with our hat in our hand, just waiting to see which fat bastard will stop by long enough to shit in my hat. Yeah, now THAT'S the ticket! LOL!
I'm smiling, now! You are too funny!
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:57pm
"...just waiting to see which fat bastard will stop by long enough to shit in my hat." Where the hell is DD when you need him. Oh well, I hereby blah blah line of the week blah blah.
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:14pm
They ain't going to end corporations which has a long history. Hell, the nonprofit I work for is "incorporated." So let's be realistic. Please. Public unions are a different beast than private unions. If we can't acknowledge that, we will lose the debate. Even if the attack of the public unions is ultimately part of an attack on private unions. But if you want to keep reducing things down to a "us" vs "them" then we are doomed.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:14pm
So unless we agree to abandon public unions without a fight, we'll "lose the debate?" What specific debate do you imagine we're having? We're not in a debate club dude - we're in a fight for our futures.
Shorter Trope: "Screw public unions - defending them is more politically risky than defending private ones .... it is a better political move to let them get totally screwed. Everyone who knows anything about the way politics *really* works knows that if Dems don't get reelected because they stupidly fought to protect public unions - they will never be *able* to fight to protect public unions from the evil Republicans!!1!1!" Uuuuh. Yeah. You are one hell of a strategist for the working class there, Trope.
The thing I find most intriguing about your consistent frame is how frequently you assert some sort of truism as a given related to being "realistic" for which there is literally zero supporting data ... and then proceed to use this completely specious "fact" to advocate people do the exact opposite of what history shows has been successful - time and time again - at advancing the goals of working Americans.
Public unions are indeed a different beast than private unions, but not in the way you are implying. They are a canary in the coalmine. If Democrats hold office and refuse to fight for their protection or to advance their intrests - these are workers sitting directly under the protective wing of mama-hen Democratic party - it pretty much definitively proves those Democrats don't give a crap about American labor. If you are willing to sell them out - you are willing to sell all of us out.
I say injury to one is injury to all. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 3:10am
We already lost all the private unions.
So dismantling the public ones is just the last step.
by Desideforyourself (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 6:36am
AT, I wouldn't expect the White House to get actively involved. That's not their role. But they're overstepping when they try to discourage or forbid outside groups from taking a stand.
The DNC shouldn't be under their thumb. This is still on their website from 2/17. This is what Democrats should be doing. It's who we're supposed to be.
I thought OFA was a true grassroots movement, too, but I see from their website their only function is to spread the president's agenda. Apparently, unions and labor don't fit in. That means I'm out.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:05pm
I suggest the WH is actively involved, but reasonable minds can disagree on that point. One question then: what is the role of the WH if actively involved ain't it?
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:43pm
Not all "active involvements" are the same. I would suspect one thing that concerns them, but which they won't talk about publically, is the Democrats who are refusing to come back to take the vote. Regardless of where one falls on the public union issue, the question of whether avoiding the vote through this strategy is also one that reasonable minds can disagree about.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 3:56pm
Of course not all involvement is the same. But one is either actively involved or not actively involved. And sure, reasonable minds can disagree about the strategy to avoid a quorum and consequently delay a vote on a shitty bill (like we did here last week on a thread Genghis started). You got a better idea how the Senate Dems in Wisconsin could stop this madness?
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:41pm
My personal opinion is that there is no way to stop it if the Republicans want to go through with it. I think the people of Wisconsin and beyond have made their point on how they feel. If the Republicans, elected by the people of Wisconsin, decide to do it in spite of those feelings, then that is our political process in all its glory and warts. The recourse is to "toss da bums out" in 2012 and give the Democrats a majority in the House and Senate, who can then restore what had been lost.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 4:55pm
"No way to stop it if the Republicans want to go through with it?" They've stopped it so far, Trope. Nothing is inevitable until it actually happens.
How about making the Republicans no longer want to go through with it? Like by making them painfully aware that 60% of the Wisconsin public opposes the bill? Like by launching recall petitions against the eight Republicans who are legally subject to recall? Like by winning those recall votes and taking away their legislative majority? Those things might work.
As for "The people of Wisconsin and beyond have made their point on how they feel," Trope: Fuck that! Wisconsin isn't (and shouldn't be) about registering a polite objection. It's about fighting back, and winning. Or losing, if it comes to that. But either way, doing it with dignity and courage.
That's your "political process in all its glory and warts," Trope. Hey, I'm no Democrat, no Republican, not even a citizen. And I have more faith in the power of American people and their democracy than you do. You're urging people to wait two years to "restore what had been lost," when it isn't even lost yet!
by acanuck on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:25pm
In another post, I mentioned the recall process as one avenue that can go down. But I don't think that the minority leaving town and shutting down the government is a legitimate strategy, aside for doing it for a few days or so to draw attention to something serious that the citizens may not be aware of.
So I take it then you would totally support a Republican minority in another state doing the same thing so the Democrats are unable to impose a liberal agenda. At what point do we accept the results of an election and at what point do we ignore it?
And this isn't about faith or no faith in the "American people." It is about how we have collectively agreed to govern our states and our country. If I remember things correctly, a good portion of the folks here wanted the Dems to ram the "liberal agenda" past the objections of the Republicans in D.C., because elections have consquences and the people have spoken, and all that.
In the end, it all seems to be another case of people being for something only when it benefits their side, and against it when it doesn't.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:42pm
Did you read some 1950's Civics book, in which they explained the ways "the democratic process" works? (And did you get your information about sex from the same source?) What part of the political history of the past, oh, 50, no, 250, no 2500 YEARS have you missed?
They've made their views known, and now they should go home and let the Republicans rule? Good God.
The meds - change 'em up.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:11pm
You obviously only read what you read of my writing. How many freaking times do I have to say that I think the people should hit the streets and voice their opinion on the matter. And as Stardust posted below, I fully applaud and support the recall efforrts that have been put into motion. Where I draw the line is advocating the shutting down of govenment by the minority party. If the force is with the public unions, then even if the Repubs do take it away, a number of them will get recalled. But I am not willing to let the whole political process go by the way side just over this issue. Because while we believe in principle of democracy, we still have constitutions at the state and federal level which need to be abided by. For instance, had US Congress done the right thing and supported Obama's attempt to begin to shut down Gitmo, I think you would applauded that even though the majority of Americans would be opposed to it. And you wouldn't support a storming of Bastille over that Gitmo decision, although I take it you would support the people gather to voice either their support or opposition to it.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:14pm
"You obviously only read what you read of my writing."
Whatever this means, I agree with it. Or disagree. Whatever.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:43pm
I was distracted by your adolescent male use of an attack on my views of sex as some pathetic attempt at a witticism.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:02pm
I'm sorry you're so dumb, but it was not a comment on your views on sex. Rather, it was a suggestion that your political conceptions are so antiquated that - if adopted - you might as well take on-board all that pre-1960's worldview about sex as well. Thus, not an attack on your views on sex, but on your views about politics.
Nice try on the "adolescent male" front though.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:11pm
Maybe then you can explain to me why you felt this comment added anything to the discussion: (And did you get your information about sex from the same source?)
And while you're at it, maybe you can explain to me how is supporting the outcomes of elections in a representative government antiquated? What is the new way of thinking on this matter?
And for the record: I am not saying that supporting the outcome of an election means a citizen has to then sit down and shut up until the next election.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:29pm
And beside the current protests, which I support by the way, how would suggest that people make the Repubs "painfully aware"?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:47pm
Thank you, acanuck, for answering. I was holding my head in my hands in speechlessness that people can so forget what activist democracy can look like, what a President can do with speeches on behalf of the rights of Americans...what this one could have done and could still do with 'Organizing for America' for US, not his re-election and fundraising...that winning every battle isn't necessary to winning the war... and that when there are sincerely life and death matters in front of us, we engage in some messy politics. Or used to. Gotta go bang my head against a wall.
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:58pm
AT comes on threads and reduces them all to discussions of the various flavours of despair.
Unless, of course, you agree with him that inaction is safest and best... that most people are idiots... and how little - so very little - can be done.
Gag.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:15pm
Some of this seriously makes me want to shoot myself in the head and ship my body to Canada. Think I'll go hit the vodka now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsd0WNl8u0
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:35pm
I don't advocate inaction. I fully advocate Wisconsinites to go to the streets to express their opinion, regardless of where they stand on the issue. However, I don't advocate minority parties running from the state to keep the government from functioning. It seems that folks around here are just for our political process when our side wins. And to accept the political process as it is is not despair. It is not despair to try to look at the situation as it is as closely as possible, and ask what is possible? what do I find acceptable?
So will you be the first to say you advocate Republican minorities to pull the same stunt in Dem controlled states?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:39pm
Maybe you better stop commenting til you figure out which of the 17 asinine things you've already said in this thread you're willing to stand by, and where you want to focus your defence.
Maybe just safest to keep it a discussion of this one particular little issue, with the run-away legislators and all.
I suspect you'd feel you're safest on those grounds, and could simultaneously both recommend inaction and appear to be taking a high-minded stance.
Seems a perfect fit for you, Trope.
by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:04pm
I'll take that as a "no." You don't have any suggestions for the Senate Dems or the good folks of Wisconsin who are doing what they can to stop Walker's bullshit. Oh, except "Just wait 'til 2012!". I'll be sure not to pass that along.
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:38pm
Well besides shutting down the government until 2012, I don't here any suggestions (other than vague things like "take to the streets") as how to stop it. I would suggest people begin recall process on all the Republicans (although I would suspect that conservative elements in Wisconsin might also do the same thing with the Dems hanging out in Illinois.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:45pm
Trope, what are you talking about? There's nothing vague about "taking it to the streets." It's what's going on in real time in Wisconsin. And so is the recall. And so is the delay in the senate as a result of the Dem's absence. (see acanuck above) I'm not suggesting shutting the govt down. I'm saying "keep it up good people of Wisconsin. You're winning this fight." Iit's a victory for working people everywhere. And whether you like it or not, Trope, it's helping you and yours in Indiana. So c'mon, three cheers for 'em already.
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:05pm
Of course they have taken it to the streets and voiced their opposition, as they should. And I think they have done a great job of letting their voices be heard. And I cheer them on to continue.
Now, ass long as the Senate Dems stay away they have in effect, shut down the ability of the government to deal with anything regarding the budget.
As for recall process - here is some details on that. About six months from beginning to end if all goes well. So we're looking at this standoff lasting until the leaves turn and people's thoughts turn to Badger football.
So that kind of sounds like advocating shutting down the government to me.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:23pm
and http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/03/02/wisc-citizens-file-recall-petitions-against-anti-worker-senators/
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:57pm
That's great. I hope they are ultimately successful. This is democracy in action.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:01pm
What can we do? Oh, but what can we do?
How about script the final word. From Forbes fer chrissakes!
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/03/04/gov-scott-walker-has-lost-t...
Now, I'm not so naive as to pretend that this thing is even close to being over. Not by a long shot.
But I DO know what the political landscape would look like today (Meaning "today" - Saturday, March 5, 2011) if it were not for the courage of and the actions taken by 14 State Senators in Wisconsin who decided they weren't going to let this tyrant Walker succeed in his planned Blitzkrieg one-week assault on worker's rights.
What would that political landscape look like?
Can you say: "Madison, who?"
Walker (and his Koch-headed backers) committed a declaration of war against political opponents with this initiative, mind you, that would have compromised future efforts of the Dem Party to win ANYTHING around here for decades to come. (see Citizen's United v. FEC)
The Dem Senators foiled his plan, and they were the ONLY ones who could have done so. They bought time to generate a proper response from the Wisconsin people. And they have responded. Walker's numbers are now in the tank. He's about as popular hereabouts as a wine-sipping, foies gras supping Bears Fan on the south side of Milwaukee.
The Senate 14 remain at large. Who knows? They just might force capitulation altogether on the issue, removing ALL the union-busting language from the "budget repair" bill.
Imagine the rally in Madison to welcome them back home at that time.
But, we are told, it really isn't the way it should be done. The sage pragmatists and "grass roots" Dems writing here at dagblog prefer a more civil and measured approach. We should complain maybe, if YOU must.Yes, we can agree with that! Have some really awesome rallies, even. (That is, of course, if you can generate any interest in the issue after it's a fait accompli.) We can even sign petitions. Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe we can organize a study group - call it "Democrats Grass Roots Activists Dreaming About the Future Club" (Members only)
But stand in the way of a duly elected official? YeeGads! What good could possibly come from that?
That would be anarchy! (GASP!) And sheep don't do anarchy. Bah! Bah! Obama. Have you any wool?
I have been horrified to read what has gone before me in this discussion. I look here, and I understand just how Walker had it all planned. He was counting on these typical and oh-so-proud "grass roots" Democrats and their not-quite-so-anointed-ones ("Sure they're crooks! But they're better than the OTHER guys!") in Washington to respond just as you have. Lot's of talk about how this ain't right, and just wait until we get our guys to mount an effectively measured response to it. And, dag gum! If Obama and the DNC and our elected pols don't do anything to stand up for us this time, we'll just have to stand up to THEM from the grass roots and hold our breath until our face turns blue! They won't take us for granted then! No Sirree! You just wait and see!
And in just over a week's time from announcement to completion of passage of this Bill, Walker and the Kochs and Rove would have gotten just what they wanted. We would have experienced right here in Wisconsin the decimation of the unions and the entire labor wing of the Dem Party and its infrastructure as the legacy of the first three weeks of this Administration. And not hardly one of the experts here at dagblog would have even noticed. We'd already be on to discussing just how righteously "grass rootsy" and "Democraticsy" we were going to feel when the NEXT goddamned crisis came along to run us over in the street where we stood, caught between "Walk" and "Don't Walk." whilst our DNC elected leaders did nothing to stop it.
Indeed, Obama apparently did everything he could to PREVENT us from defending ourselves in this instance!: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158999/white-house-odds-obama-supporters-o... It ain't hyperbole to say that this news article should stir thoughts of mutiny in ANY Labor/Dem who sails on the Dem ship. Somebody in charge (looks like Obama calling the shots as Captain, according to the article) needs to walk the plank!
An existential war launched against the unions and the middle class by Republicans in a coordinated assault on battlegrounds throughout the country. And OUR GUY calls it a distraction??? Afraid it will distract from his aptly named WTF? Have you seen his WTF? Lots of GOP Talking Points. Virtually nothing to promote anything that is relevant to the many challenges faced by working class families, but a whole lotta promises to help WallStreet "grow the economy."
This single line quoted above from an administration official is wholly unambiguous about where the priorities lie for this Administration and for this Congressional Caucus. And guess what, folks? You didn't make the list!
Now, tell me again just how you're going to kick ass and take names from your vaunted place at the grass roots to compel these Dem pols to at last stand and fight for you? And tell me when it starts? Cuz the jig's up, and you are looking pretty foolish standing there without a dance partner as everyone walks away arm and arm heading to the corporate boardroom for a few cigars and some rewarding "conversation."
Don't bother accusing me of lecturing and assuming a righteous air here. Because you are right! I AM lecturing! I AM being righteous! Feel insulted? I would, too, in your circumstance. Here, have a tissue. Get over it! And maybe LEARN a thing or two from what others are trying to tell you!
I'm too angry to be judicious in my comments and to be all "friendly persuasive" and all. I've tried that. Here, have an "I'm a bona-fide Liberal Dem" sticker for your lapel. Feel better now? Excuse me while I pause this discussion to avoid that roundhouse blow coming our way!
Yes, I AM venting my spleen! I'm goddamned pissed off at the lot of you (and you know who you are!). And, yes, you should (at last!) feel ashamed for yourself. In the event you haven't noticed, the status quo in politics ain't working, and it hasn't worked on behalf of the middle class and working class families for over a generation. And your hide-bound insistence that we need to preserve it; that it somehow "beats any alternative" is precisely what has allowed it to continue in its oppressing downward crushing of good people along with all their hopes and aspirations for any degree of prosperity in their future or the lives of their children. And for what? WTF???
Wake up and smell the coffee. This is Class War, and our leaders like Obama and most in Congress continually try to manage YOU so they can keep a foot in the other camp. They ain't Generals. They're not fighters. They're war profiteers, at best. Camp followers at worst. And they've got absolutely NO business calling the shots as the standard bearers of MY Democrat Party that stands as the champion for the working families against all comers, or doesn't deserve to stand at all.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:37pm
Obviously you haven't read every comment I have made on this matter, and I am sorry I don't put my full standing on this issue in every response. Yes, there is a value in the Dems that ran to Illinois because it provided some time for the issue to get to the people. And I agree with this strategy for this purpose. But one has to agree that if there is a person in Wisconsin let alone Indiana and Idaho who is not aware of this fight by now, they won't be a month from now. It is time for the Dems to come home to let the vote be what it is. And if the people are truly on our side then there will be as they say "hell to be paid" for those who vote in favor of the end to collective bargaining for public employees. In essence, what are you really afraid about the Dems coming back allowing the vote to happen?
And by the way: how is that y'all voted them into power in the first place? What were you thinking? I can tell you what we mindless Hoosiers were thinking? But my only exposure to Wisconsin was one weekend in Madison and it reminded me of being back in the Northwest so I am at a lost.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:50pm
You are framing the phenomenon as voting vs. not voting. But you can vote with your feet. cf the US House Repugs who refuse to play as their proffered sanction in the game of chicken.
Just as the pugs are grinding us to dust with their threatened shutdown, so we will let them choke on their overreach every day the headlines continue.
by jollyroger on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:08pm
so will you be the first to say that republicans who use this tactic to stop the majority democrats from imposing a liberal agenda is a also a good thing?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:22pm
With the support of the people rising up behind such an action in numbers that would make a bookie blush?
Why, yes, Trope! I think I would support the use of such a tactic. And that's the call, here, Trope that ensures such a tactic isn't abused too injuriously. Without the support of the people, it becomes an exercise in futility at best, and most likely a counter-productive act of political suicide.
But you know what? Sometimes, extreme acts REQUIRE an extreme response. Walker's extremeness garnered a very appropriate - and successful! - response in like measure.
by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:32pm
what is good, what is best?
winning is best.
by jollyroger on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:53pm
Lecturing, angry, assuming a righteous air. We're the weenies, the know-nothings and you're the leader. Who the hell do you think you're talking to here? No, it's not all right that you've decided you're going to take over and everyone had better listen.
Pissed? Too bad. You've put us all under one big umbrella labeled Koolaid drinkers and sideline-sitters and it makes you feel real good to be the top bully because you've got a message, by God, and you're too mad to listen to what anybody else has to say. If you want to call out Dem leaders, I'm with you there, but stay away from picking at the good people here on dag just because you're feeling some kind of righteous might. It's getting real old real fast.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:02pm
Not by a fucking long shot is it getting old. In fact, I'm counting on you just getting warmed up, Sleepin.
by kyle flynn on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:45pm
Well, I offered you a tissue, fer chrissakes! Snap out of it! You're a much stronger woman than one to fall into a heap because some schmuck who bears no personal consequence to you somehow hurt your feelings!
More importantly, I also issued you a challenge on substance:
If you feel insulted, you should. But not because of me. I've got no real impact on your life. But Obama and our Party's elected pols do, and he insults you every time he ignores our key needs to instead pander to the "corporate wing" of the Dem Party.
You tell me that you and the rest are all ready to "call out" the Dem leaders. When does it start, ramona? What does that look like? What consequences do you invoke when you read such things as the cite from the Admin Official in the Nation article?
Or is it perhaps possible that you can read such a slap in the face to Labor and swallow hard, passing it off as just a slight problem requiring no real response? You can read that a no-holds-barred assault upon unions is a "distraction" to the more important work of promoting GOP talking points, and it doesn't enrage you and fill your Dem Party soul with mutinous thoughts?
Can't you see just how out of control this corruption has gotten and the way in which it actually contributes to the downfall of the middle class? And yet you are still willing to give Obama a pass to actually LEAD this Party against some time in the future when you will "call him out," whatever THAT means?
I afford you the respect of believing that you are legitimately placed in the Party as a Labor/Dem. (Believe me, that is a great measure of my respect, and it isn't necessarily one that I afford to all supposed "liberal Democrats" who appear on these dagblog pages.) You and I are political allies. But I question your effectiveness when you continue advocating for the same old "loyalty uber alles" perspective that enables these poseurs and whores to continue the dismantling of our Party, either through their negligence, their opportunism, or - more horrifically, in the case of Obama's "distraction" concerns - by design.
Yes, Ramona, I agree that we need to "call them out" when they fail to represent OUR interests. But it's way past the time since we needed to be prepared to boot them square in the ass when they refuse to listen.
Perhaps we get the discussion back on track by reflecting on that report in the Nation. What do you think the proper response of the grass roots element of the Labor Dems should be to such a response from OUR Party to the well-orchestrated and well-capitalized assault against unions launched against us by the Kochs and the GOP. More bi-partisan (mono-partisan?) involvement in exploring GOP talking points about deficit reduction and budget cuts and Wall Street profits?
Or does the Party respond in kind to a declaration of war against US and say "All bets are off! This is Class War, and we're coming at you!" And then shove WTF up their ass and ride herd on the populist revolt that started these last three weeks in Wisconsin. And ride hard! With or without Obama. He is, ultimately, of no real consequence in this discussion about what is the right course for OUR Party to take at this important juncture.
You tell me? What would George Meany do? What would Reuther do? What would Joe Hill do? What would "Big Bill" Haywood do? Darrow, and Altgeld, and Sinclair? What would THEY do?
You tell me, Ramona. Where to from here - today! - for the future of our Labor/Dem Party? And how do you propose we get started?
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:29am
you talk of parties, yet you also want to destroy the system in the parties operate (because the outcome of the last election didn't go your (or mine) way). Either you want to play within the system or you want to blow it up. You can't have both. Either we accept this representative government and the generally disengaged populace that drives it (and work on getting a greater engagement), or we seek to impose something different. Your choice?
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:36am
"Work on getting a better engagement?"
Don't look now, sport, but that "lever" you got hold of between your legs ain't the gear shift.
Do nothing. But get a better engagement. And you see no contradiction in these two directives. Sheesh!
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:05am
still...no explanation how Wisconsin so behind the "worker" now gave all the power to the party that went after the air traffic contollers back in the early '80s.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:23am
I guess they made the calculation that "Yeah, the Repubs suck. But they ain't as bad as the other guy at serving my interests." Probably too close a call for 'em would be my guess.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:06am
Sleepin, I hear your truths.
I wish I had your ability to write as you do.
It's interesting that we are attacked for being outside of the Mutual Admiration Society of Kool aid Drinkers, for taking a position of activiism. Then watch as they all jump on the bandwagon of those in Wisconsin, Now they are fairweather friends of labor, in the comfort of their easy chairs.
To Obama: Don't expect me to be there for you, when you disowned me in my time of need. Your supporters need your helping hand, not your lip service....Obama, come join the fight in Wisconsin, instead of trying to run your reelection campaign of 2012.
Keep up the good work your doing Sleepin, I appreciate it
We have a lot in common, we want to make the Democratic Party work for US, not to be enslaved by it.
by Resistance on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:10pm
What ridiculous nonsense. That out of all the people here on dag who have commented on this thread, you and SJ are the only two who are activists? The only two who haven't drunk the Koolaid? The only two who are not enslaved by the Democratic Party? You don't know what you're talking about.
And how DARE you call me or anyone else here a fairweather friend of labor? How DARE you? You have no idea what I or anyone else here has done, but I guarantee you, Resistance, I've done a hell of a lot more for labor, for the poor, for the disenfranchised than you could ever dream about. How DARE you. You have crossed the line. You had better decide which side you're on.
by Ramona on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:13pm
Thanks for expressing the anger that I feel towards these jerks in a more appropriate manner than I am typically capable of. I think if they were one-tenth as committed to "the cause" as they claim to be, they wouldn't be spending every waking hour tooting their own horns and haranguing every comment on the internet that doesn't adhere to their crabbed little orthodoxies in every respect.
I am, however, gradually coming to the conclusion that dignifying their nonsense with a response is waste of time. In the case of our current head bloviators, Resistance comes off as mentally unstable, and SleepinJezus as a cartoon. The guy even stole Mike Royko's "I grew up above the tavern my father owned" when making up his ridiculous persona, so he can't even claim originality as a redeeming feature of his belligerent, idiotic scribbling.
So, now they are All Union, All the Time. Solidarity Now, Solidarity Forever! Funny, they fail to mention that well over 40% of union members consistently vote Republican (at least until Walker hopefully bit off more than he can chew), or that union members voting for Reagan and his racist demonization of welfare mothers were the vanguard of the Reagan Democrats that changed American politics. As a Michigander, you probably know the recent history as well as anyone, what with Macomb County being Exhibit A for the conversion of white urban/suburban ethnics into Republicans.
But none of these facts fit into these screamers and bullies preferred narrative of the moment. Nope, it's all due to a Democratic sellout of the working man, not that the white working man chose solidarity by race over solidarity by class three decades ago, and forced the Democrats to find another path to electoral success.
But, let's face it: if they were doing anything meaningful in the fight to rescue this country from the problems that it is facing, they would be picking a fight with the real enemies of social and economic justice in this country, instead of spending their time hunting down imaginary heretics on left-of-center blogs.
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:12am
Glad to hear from the corporate wing of the Dem Party. Welcome, brewmn. As usual, you are your same old misinformed yet legitimately liberal '"Real Big-D Democrat." (Liberal with the truth, I mean, which I suspect they teach in banking school given past experience.)
No hard feelings for all the ad hominems you introduce here right out of the box. Honest! Tell you what. I'll buy you a beer sometime at Ray's Place in Eau Claire. On Water Street. I knew Ray personally. He's dead, now, but he ran that tavern for over 50 years. His son, David, owns it now. I think he just recently celebrated 20 years as co-owner (now sole proprietor) of the joint. It's a nice place. Working class neighborhood bar kind of establishment. A Union House.
I've known most of the workers who frequented the joint, going all the way back to the retired lumberjacks and millwrights who worked the woods and the sawmills in the early years of the 20th Century. Did yo know that they call Eau Claire "Sawdust City?" No? Well, then, now you do.
I also knew the truck drivers fro all the terminals in the neighborhood who frequented Ray's Place, and I saw how hard they fought to become Teamsters and how much this meant to them and their families in subsequent years. Likewse with the Uniroyal Workers (Rubber Workers Union) and the Paper Mill (Papermakers Union). I knew 'em all.
But don't get me wrong. It ain't like I'm a lush on a barstool or something. It's just that I got to know them all by consequence of growing up in the neighborhhood. In the apartment that sat over the tavern. Right along with Ray (Who I called "Dad" to the day he died), his wife Betty ("Mom," now deceased), my brother, Dave, and the rest of my seven siblings.
But do me a favor, ok? Assure me that you will never let facts ever get in the way of a good brewmn story, ok? I appreciate your consistency, and don't know if I could handle "the truth" - leastwise if it were to come from you.
Ok, your turn...
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:59am
Not to intervene between the two of you and all....but....how do you explain the past election. As in: why do the Repubs now have the majority in House and Senate, along with the Governor's Mansion. Living in Pence's district, I get why Indiana went all "red." But having visting Madison, I had better hopes for my cheeseheads up north.
by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:29am
Pretty obvious, really. Because the workers looked around. They tried to determine "Which candidate serves my interests."
They listened to the answers to that question as they were framed by the Republicans for both sides.
"Who's best at torture and being bad-asses?" Republicans. Check!
"Who's best at cutting deficits?" Republicans. Check!
"Who's best at war-mongering?" Republicans. Check!
"Who's best at providing for Wall Street as the exclusive consideration in our 'economic recovery?'" Republicans. Check!
"Who's best at WTF issues?" Republicans. Check!
Need I go on?
The issues get defined as the GOP talking points as Dems continue to try to exist just this side of the Repubs, thinking they will win when they capture their base PLUS the moderates because the Dems are not quite as crazy for Koch as the other guys.
I guess they miscalculated. I guess it has gotten to the point where many of the electorate figure they might as well vote Republican than vote for the opportunitic Republican-Lite.
And - perhaps most importantly - they didn't vote for Dems because the Dems weren't appealing to them with any of the real issues that concern them. (see Keynesian relief from this deep recession as just one example. For Dems, it was all tax cuts and deficit talk, all the time!)
You and others here (see above) express contempt for the electorate for supposedly voting against their own self-interest and choosing Repub candidates. That simply defies common sense and any understanding of human nature.
Far better to understand that they voted Republican because they perceived it to be in their best interest. It would seem to be an indication that the Dem message didn't appeal to them (Check!) and that the election campaign was defined along issues that they perceived were best served by the Republicans.
People don't fail to buy a product they think they really need. But they will leave on the shelf one that they think is useless to them. What's not to understand about working people choosing Republican? Chalk it up to impulse buying of the very best ceiling fan in the store because the floor mop you needed wasn't available.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:33am
Care to respond to any of this:
"...well over 40% of union members consistently vote Republican (at least until Walker hopefully bit off more than he can chew), or that union members voting for Reagan and his racist demonization of welfare mothers were the vanguard of the Reagan Democrats that changed American politics.... As a Michigander, you probably know the recent history as well as anyone, what with Macomb County being Exhibit A for the conversion of white urban/suburban ethnics into Republicans....
[but SJ and Resistance claim] it's all due to a Democratic sellout of the working man, not that the white working man chose solidarity by race over solidarity by class three decades ago, and forced the Democrats to find another path to electoral success..."
or is it all about comparing resumes and personal narratives to you? Are the only facts you are able to process the ones you experience first hand, or can you get your head around the fact that many, many working people, including many union members, are voting Republican, and have been in earnest since Reagan? Or that many of these stalwart Eau Claire yeoman whose praises you sing almost certainly voted for Nixon,Reagan and G.W. Bush, and therefore are more responsible for our country's problems than I am?
And, given that this phenomenon dates back at least thirty years, it makes little sense to blame it on the DLC, which was formed in 1985 in response to white working class people voting for corporate tax cuts and deregulation? Do you have an answer for any of that, or do you just want to keep trying to suss out who's a "real" Democrat and who isn't? Do any of the issues raised by the protests in Madison have any meaning for you beyond validating your own personal biases?
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:20am
Substance! YeeGads! Is it really you, brewmn?
See my response immediately above as given to Trope. It includes:
And
Expect it to get a lot worse post-Citizens United unless the Dems seriously start selling something of real use to the Middle Class instead of trying to out-do the corporations in the ceiling fan department.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:41am
I'll give it a shot, brewmn, even though you were addressing Sleepin.
Mebbe the 40 % of union members who consistently vote Republican are voting on other issues besides labor. Union members are NOT one dimensional. Mebbe strong religious beliefs cause them to vote with the candidate who is anti-abortion (usually a Republican) instead of a pro-labor candidate (usually a Democrat). That's the main one I can think of off the top of my head.
Just a thought.
by wabby on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:26am
Or, as I stated in my comment, they voted out of pure, unadulterated racism and unenlightened self-interest. But, if you want to believe they voted for Ronald Reagan, a divorcee who abandoned the children from his first marriage and wouldn't recognize the inside if a church if he fell into one, out of religious beliefs, knock yourself out. After all, now that they are finally waking up to what their support of Republicans has caused, we mustn't speak ill of the sainted Union Men or Women, who vote only out of conviction, never out of perceived self-interest.
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:41pm
And, yes, brewmn. Your contempt for the members of the working class is well-documented. Not much new here.
It's the reason I decided quite definitively quite a few weeks ago just where you are in response to the question: "Which side are you on?"
Thanks for the confirmation.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:49pm
So, you support union members' decision to defect to Reagan and the Republicans? Unlike you, I am not willing to excuse their racism, and their support of policies that have sent the middle class into a death spiral just because the guy voting for them washes his hands before he takes a leak, instead of after. And the working class people I have spent my entire life around would be just as offended by your condescension as by my supposed contempt. You're an ignorant, contemptible, McCarthyite. You do Tailgunner Joe and Scott Walker both proud.
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:16pm
I really appreciate your perspective, my friend. Your broad-stroke mis-characterizations of myself and others in the working class are about as soundly fact-based as everything else you write. (See earlier comment from last night. Ready for that beer, yet? LOL!) But they continue to undermine your credibility as a bigoted elitist. I'm sure there's a political Party someplace that welcomes such hatred and contempt for me and others involved in this fight. See you at the front! LOL!
Keep on with it, pardner. I encourage you to do so. After all, the higher that the monkey does climb, the more he shows his tail.
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:24pm
I am certain that my credibility as a bigoted elitist is already completely undermined. And, I'm guessing that in my work, which involves mostly financing for commercial real estate development here in Chicago, I am responsible for keeping far more union workers on the job than you do by sitting on your fat ass, stewing in resentment and failure in a shithole like Eau Claire, WI, and incoherently claiming the moral high ground and solidarity with Teabaggers and Reagan Democrats.
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 7:28pm
I'm digging on a guy whose work is financing commercial real estate handing out lessons on the working class. Because - WHOOPS! - it's you and your own proud members of the financial sector baby, who poll as being the MOST opposed to the unionists in Wisconsin.
So why don't you eat your own self-hatred and resentment, Brew, instead of coming on here and spewing it all over people? I mean, with me, sure, my fights are personal. I was badly abused by post-structuralists as a child. (Just in case, that's a joke, Trope.)
But you? You're just out of control hate. I mean, here we see Mr Already-Been-Banned-As-A-Blogger-In-29-States telling a Wisconsin Union Democrat that he's "... an ignorant, contemptible, McCarthyite. You do Tailgunner Joe and Scott Walker both proud."
This is what I love about Dagblog. I get a finger-wagging if I say "shut the f*ck up" to someone. And yet, I'm fairly sure that calling Sleepin' a McCarthyite is about 145 times more personally and pointedly offensive than "STFU."
But poooor poooor widdle Brew feels he's being bullied. Even though Obama has fine majority polling support nationwide. Plus the party machinery behind him. And so much money that they're talking about him raising $1 BILLION next election. And the Mayor of your fine city, Brew. And pretty much all the big names here at the top of Dag, who tell us regularly how they don't like Wikileaks and those scummy little hackers and who aren't what anyone would call effusive in their support for those anti-democratic types in Wisconsin, and.... well. Best to leave it there.
I guess what I'm saying, Brew, is that you're... what was it again?... Oh yeah. Stewing with resentment and failure, a voice of pure unadulterated self-absorption and preening self-interest, a fat-assed, big monied, blow hard drunken piece of shit.
Not sure that's 100% what you said about working class union members, but hey - I edited out "racist" from your list. Figure I don't want to stoop quite that low. Like you did.
P.S. And you wanna know who REALLY made Ronald Reagan, Brew?
Assholes like you.
by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:19pm
Wait a minute, you are an attorney, as you've reiterated time and time again. If any profession has destroyed society it is you all. How self-righteous of you to as usual place yourself above all others, but to paint with a broad brush, it certainly is what you wish to do, let us all know how fantastic you are and how Brew has sold out and ruined the world. Wow, just wow dude. What a half-assed asssement of the world. I suggest taking a good look in the mirror. Oh and by the way, every time you call someone you disagree with names you lose the argument. Everyone does something for a living dude, Brew supports his growing family, he loves his wife and kids, his job is equal to yours, but I know the meme, if you don't agree with every-single thing you say, that means you get to berate and degrade others.
Signed, the Professor of Computer Science.
AKA St. Joan
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:51pm
Right. Before one can claim the moral high ground, one needs to write a very long blog explaining how one is ... claiming the moral high ground. Preferably from an international airport.
dateline: St. Moritz Grand Hotel, Schweiz
by Obey on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 9:21pm
by we are stardust on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:17pm
"..it's you and your own proud members of the financial sector baby, who poll as being the MOST opposed to the unionists in Wisconsin."
You're a baldfaced liar. I'm absolutely, 100% behind the protests in Wisconsin. What I'm opposed to bullshit-spewing hacks like SJ, who has been stomping all over any thread issuing veiled threats to and questioning the loyalty of anyone who isn't using his pre-approved language to discuss the issue. And, for what it's worth, I pull down a salary in the high five figures as a "financier." The people I work with are building small plants and storefront offices, and yes, they are using union labor to do it. I'm proud of the work I do, even if it hasn't gotten me the Gold Coast apartment or the Mercedes. So, you can all take your vows of poverty and sack cloths and ashes and shove it, Mr. Son of a College Professor with a Family Estate on the Atlantic Coast.
"So why don't you eat your own self-hatred and resentment, Brew, instead of coming on here and spewing it all over people?'
Let's see, SJ has called me "effete," a "limousine liberal" and now has threatened me with physical violence (although, I'll note, he's too much of a wimp to challenge me directly, but instead has to have his imaginary union buddies do it for him), and I'm the one spewing hate. You really need to get your eyes checked, quinn. You can apparently only read one side of an argument objectively.
"And you wanna know who REALLY made Ronald Reagan, Brew?"
Let's see, you're claiming that someone who was eligible to vote for the first time in 1980, didn't vote for Reagan then, and has never voted for a Republican for any office, whether national, state or local, is more responsible for Reagan's rise than the white ethnics who switched party affiliation in the '70's and '80's, largely in response to RR's overtly racist appeals? Care to flesh this argument out a little bit, because to the unenlightened it looks, um, batshit crazy.
by brewmn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:57pm
by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:19am
You're in cover your ass mode, pal, because you (stupidly) just launched (another) series of insults and rants against anyone working class out into the ether. So as far as I'm concerned, you can suck on your own fumes for the next few months. Starting with your comment earlier, "they voted out of pure, unadulterated racism and unenlightened self-interest."
As for your throw mud back line of "Son of a College Professor with a Family Estate on the Atlantic Coast," stay off the booze, lout-boy. Because, as before, it'll get you booted out of here. My Dad and his two brothers had 21 kids and worked a mixed farm in rural Nova Scotia. Somehow, in your addled memory, this becomes... an estate? A college professor? Ahhahahahahahaha. Yeah. The old man would enjoy that one.
But that's vintage you, Brew. You attacked Sleepin' by saying you were in the financial sector, and were creating jobs for all those in the trades. And then, when someone accuses you of being... in the financial sector!!! Well, you get uncomfortable, and so, you turn and attack, and you.... MAKE SHIT UP.
Maybe you and TMac should swap notes some time. She thinks I'm a lawyer, says I go on and on about it. (Though I DO agree with her that lawyers are swine. Swiney von swine.)
And yes, you're Dag's #1 spewer of hate, Brew. I've watched you come on blogs for a long time now, and you hunt people down, and you hate on 'em - until you're thrown off or banned. There's almost never a blog from you (is there?), almost never a friendly exchange of words (is there?) - but there's lots of personalized hating. Anyone who opposes a policy of Barack Obama has to deal with a stream of personalized hate from the Brew. Oppose Obama and get a stream of personalized hate from you.
You're a hater alright - but in this case, your words are stuck in amber.
Looks good on ya.
And yes. It's people Just. Like. You. That made Reagan happen.
by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:20am
"And yes. It's people Just. Like. You. That made Reagan happen."
Are you hoping that, if you say it often enough, it will start to take on the appearance of truth?
When did all you allegedly progressive types adopt the debating tactics of Sean Hannity? Whatever happened to the reality-based community?
And jagoffs like you waltz around these blogs, proclaiming your moral and intellectual superiority, making up history and twisting logic into unrecognizable shapes, and casually deriding anyone who has a different take on things as a deluded, uninformed fool (that is if they are not morally bankrupt servants of the plutocracy), yet wonder why you get treated with contempt? You should be more concerned about the people who simply find you ridiculous and have stopped caring about anything you have to say. Which, given the diminishing number of regular commenters here at dagblog, is a pretty significant number.
by brewmn on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:09am
At bottom.
by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:12am
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:47pm
Nice threat Jeebus.. yeah, that is it, threaten to mail people back home in an envelope, it makes you seem like such a terribly reasonable person. You all need to quit with the threats, it's unseemly and ridiculous, makes you appear like a bully and a lunkhead.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 9:03pm
RU crazy? Some financier pops off with a totally a-holeish "I create more union jobs than [insulting tirade specifically belittling a guy and his home town for having just been out walking a union protest]." and you would criticize ANYTHING provoked in response?
If some Chicago schmuck were to go and talk that kind of shit to a Wisconsin union man (or woman) standing in -4 degrees fighting for health care for their family ... that person deserves a Darwin award for stupid.
Brewmn doesn't need your apron strings to hide behind. He needs to get a grip on his mouth.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:53pm
And T-Mac? You know how I'm an attorney? As I've "reiterated time and time again?"
Well... actually, I have never - not once - claimed to be an attorney.
Why? Because I'm NOT one.
See, the "Esq" is short for "Esquimaux." Or "Eskimo," if you prefer.
Which makes you... a bit of an idiot.
Because you just completely made up that bit about me reiterating being an attorney. As well as showing that you never read a word I say (perhaps a good strategy, come to think of it) because it's only been a question asked and answered about 39 times.
So... to sum up. You're a vegetable platter.
And... wow.
by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:23pm
Dude. You just made the entire wasted meta-half hour all worth it.
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:14am
Indeed! LOL!
Maybe brewmn can buy her a beer in some shit-hole like Eau Claire. I know just the place! LOL!
by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 7:31am
Eau Claire has kinda reached mythic status for me after all this. It's like some beautiful mirage, like how you'd imagine a Beer Éclair would taste, if you lived in the sky.
"Aaaaaaaah. So beautiful. So refreshing. Eau Claire."
And if I ever get to Eau Claire, we're going drinking, Sleepin'. We can invite Brew down from Chicago. Whip his ass at checkers. Buy him rounds, get him all likkered up. Make him buy us the expensive imported stuff. Like.... Molsons. Maybe Moosehead.
I have a dream....
by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:56am
Sheepshead in place of checkers, and we gots heaven! Love it!
by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:19pm
Schaffkopf,
My father gets mad, because I don't get the trump out of the way..
by Resistance on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:40pm
Pssssssst! (Brewmn is the attorney! He may have reiterated it endlessly, but I forget....)
by we are stardust on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 7:38am
I did not realize you meant the 40% Republican vote was specific to the Reagan era.
Still, as I stated in my comment, union members are not one dimensional. They weren't then and they aren't now and it stands to reason there may be racists or the self-interested among them.
As for the 60% of voters that did not vote Republican...oh, yeah, those voters...it stands to reason there would be racists and self-interested among them as well. Such is life.
A GPS is not needed to see what path you wish to lead me down, so I probably won't return to this conversation. Feel free to insult me at will...won't hurt a bit...I'm UAW strong.
by wabby on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:51pm
Thanks, brewmn. These on-going attacks are mystifying to me. I agree with your assessment here. It's such a time-waster when there are bigger, more important fights out there:
by Ramona on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:43am
Ramona, You are correct; I should have chosen a word more descriptive of active rebellion.
“Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by
lying supinely on our backsand hugging the delusive phantom of hope, (Obama) until our (Republican) enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”Bold words, not from original quote found at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry
I am sorry our difference of opinion has stirred so much hatred from you....Taking sides? You allow those who agree with you, to attack me or others and then if I or anyone defends ourselves, you get all butt hurt.
Okay Ramona your original position has taken many adaptations.
Tell me again what side your on?
Are you for telling Obama and the Corporate democrats/ republican- lite, we will not be their patsies any longer?.....Will you tell them and follow up with action, that we will not be voting for the lesser of the two evils any longer,
because our conscience bothers us if we do? ,
Will you tell we are sick of the corruption, we are sick of the wars, we are sick of the torture, we are sick of the bailout for bankers and sick of the people being kicked out of there homes, sick of the back room deals.
Are you going to tell the Democrats seeking our votes, that our conscience is important and in good conscience, unless they change, they will not get our votes, to do otherwise makes us an accomplice? We will no longer appease our conscience by siding with the lesser of the two evils.
Will you tell them and follow up with real action at the voting booth?
“We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Recognizing your vote is YOUR voice in a democracy
We do not accept patience as a solution to end suffering.
Our friends need us now.
If so; …………. Ramona I am on your side
by Resistance on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:46am
Thanks, Res. Very poignant use of MLK. Damned ingrate that he was. Probably hurt someone's feelings, talking like that!
Seriously, he wasn't as "in your face" in expressing the anger I have felt over this. So, slap me down for style points. (And you, Res, have suffered in the past for my failures in style no less than anyone else here. Right? ;O) Put me to bed without my supper. But know one thing: My message is the same as MLK offered in his time of disappointment with his friends.
Silence? Or fierce advocacy for a righteous and badly needed course of reformative action?
Which side are YOU on?
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:50am
You do realize Resistance made the very same argument you are pillorying me for back in November 2008, don't you?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/12/myth_of_the_reagan_union...
by brewmn on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:11am
"The file you are looking for has not been found"?
Interesting;....... the topic is about myth
I dont know if I should feel honored, that you would have kept a compilation of my words from 2008.
Or feel threatened that you've kept a dossier? ....Maybe instead of a tricky Dick(Nixon) we have a tricky Brewmn .........Brewmn is another tricky Dick?
by Resistance on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:33am
by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:39am
Who the hell do you think you're talking to? Do you understand the word "condescending"? If you've read even one of my blog posts for the past two years on the internet or read what I've written or seen what I've done for the past 50 years in other places, you would see all of the above.
But no, you read past everything everyone ever says here, grab a single line, yank it up on your soapbox and spin it until it's unrecognizable so that you can claim your superiority about things you have just come to lately and know nothing about.
You could learn a lot by sitting at the knees of many of the people here who have been in the trenches and are working hard to get this country under control. You'll recognize them by their intelligent, compassionate, articulate arguments for the common good. You might try giving them the respect they deserve.
As I've said so many, many times. We're all on the same side here. The enemy is not here, it's out there.
by Ramona on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 7:25am
SleepinJeezus, I'm moving your comment to me down here at the bottom because there isn't room on the side anymore. This is what you said:
Don't talk to me about labor leaders of the past as if I couldn't possibly understand the sacrifices. I've been at this for over 50 years now. Don't tell me you respect me and then go on the attack as if I'm some ditzy bimbo who couldn't possibly understand the problem unless you're screaming in my face.
I'm not going to go line for line and answer what you've said above. I've read the Nation article and agree with it. I commented on it somewhere else here. Don't come at me with it as if you expected me not to agree. It shows how little you care to know about me.
Let me be clear: I'll be out there fighting tooth and nail for the unions, for the poor, for the disenfranchised and against the power brokers, both political and corporate.
I have to agree with brewmn. We waste our energies fighting in here with the same people who are essentially in agreement. I don't have to defend myself because I'm a Democrat. I don't have to waste my time or my energy giving you a rundown of my activities so that you can grade me on it. I'll just be out there doing it.
You're hurting yourself by attacking me and everyone else here--most of whom have had deep respect for what you've had to say over the time we've come to know you. You keep repeating the same challenges over and over, insisting that we're not getting it, when clearly WE ARE. We have. We get it.
Yes, you insult us by ignoring who we are and what we're doing, and you insult us further by glorying in your insults. This is not who I thought you were. I'll back you in your efforts because I admire what you're doing out there.
In here, not so much.
by Ramona on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:16am
No Ramona you set the tone,
What they really mean, Excuse me
You asume I agree with what they REALLY mean?
Then you and your bulldog TM attack me for being all knowing, condescending, and whatever little dig you could throw in.
Hmmmm when was that? during FDR? Because FDR was forced to give into the demands of Social Ideals becuae the Socialist Party was gaining advocates
NO YOUR YOU’RE NOT.
Earlier I gave you two other party platforms that have always been dedicated to the working class
The Greens and the Socialist Party.
Thats just a few of the remarks that ALARMED ME.
Alarmed that those we need as allies still want to prop up a party that only gives lip service, in order to garner votes. They want to maintain, that they are only one of two VIABLE Parties
The only reason they can draw that conclusion or even belitle our intellignce or our conscience, is because the two viable Parties make sure, other options are never going to become viable.
You're right, I guess you could blame the leadership, but I say it's not only the leadership (your scapegoat)
When I mentioned and even provided proof that the so called Democratic Process was highjacked, manipulated,
Just as Nader had said and was a victim of .
Now you may not have liked Nader, but dont come back and put the blame solely on the leadership.
By your silence not exercising your voice at the ballot box, you in effect gave your support to the leaderhip of the Democratic Party. Did you know they were blocking NADER?
The Party denied the working class an option, Did you know that? Did those who blocked the process, do so because they and they alone, knew what was best for the country Did you know and then ask which side your on?
In return people gave the parties he right to continue controlling the process.
The right to undermine Democracy?
If you did know this type of shenanagins were occuring...The leadership couldnt have done it without YOUR Vote ?
That is ALARMING to me, where is the conscience? WHY CANT THESE POEPLE SEE they are complicit in the enslaving of the wage slaves, for the service of the Corporate Masters.
Corporate power through propoganda telling the folKs there are ONLY two viable Parties to choose from folks, ,Republican or Republican lite
When I and SJ look around, because we see, WE DONT have much time left folks, the enemy is at our doors ready to take away things WE hold dear. things you say you hold dear too, but you and others do't seem to realize the URGENCY,
We cannot accept as I gathered from this post, "that we must Work to save the Party"
No matter how much whitewash you slap on this. This party never has to change, as long as you think they will change
They'll just keep stringing you along, "Where else you going to go" you have no other viable option.
I am ALARMED that many have been seduced.
I am not a good writer I'll admit, and beause I use the word You many times, please dont take it personally, YOU is talking to the greater readership that may peer into this site, They may get the feeling that YOU is them.
It is them, the unseduced I am trying to ALARM
Be Afraid be very Afaid, BE ALARMED, the two Corporate Parties are in the process of eliminating any chance for another vialble Wokers Party. They're not about to let their cash cows go anywhere else.
They're not tired of milking the herd, they just want to remove those with HORNS.
by Resistance on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:15am
Resistance, I'll say it one last time. I'm a proud member of the Democratic Party. We've done more for the people than any other party ever has. We, as the party of the people, are still doing more for the people than any other party. If you have a problem with Democrats, it's a problem that's yours to own. It's not mine. It's not anyone else's here. It's your problem.
Our problems in this country are immense and require focus and intense concentration. Most of us have better things to do than to spend days, weeks, months arguing over the same shit. Now please. Stop repeating yourself and find something useful to do.
by Ramona on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:38am
I thnk if Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt were still alive, they'd disagree
The only reason were argung over what you presume to be shit,...... I'm not peddling it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OR6HkGS11c
@ 2:47 Stay away.... Democratic Party Woman
Not really, Besides, we need each other.....I don't let words in defense of a position or slight differences, cloud my love for you.
I love and will defend my Country with Words and deeds to the best of my abilities. Washington warned us about the sinister Party movement
You say your proud to be a Democrat and I say I'm proud to be an American, supporting Union causes. Tired of betrayals.
by Resistance on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:19pm
end
by kyle flynn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:23pm
Ohh, if only your compatriots could hear your plaintive cry, TM,(that's me), attack dog, has to be enlisted by Ramona to attack you, hahahahaha. Poor Resistance, the Rodney Dangerfield of Dag. Hahahaha, yeah, although I prefer to think of you as the Ted Baxter of Dag.
Ramona doesn't have to enlist me to come point out your prolific failings, you leave yourself open for that with each and every comment you publish. There is an overly self-righteous persecution complex that weaves throughout each and every one of your seemingly endless diatribes.
When you called me a traitor, you indicated that you lack in basic ethics, and that we are enemies, pure and simple buddy, make no mistake, you and I are enemies. But your lengthy, bitter mis-characterization of what others write, reveals you have a hereditary belief that your opinions are worthy, while others are not. How exceedingly vainglorious of you.
The daily narrative you float here can be shortened to this: Barack Hussein Von Kenya Obushma is a Republican, everyone in congress is a Republican, there are no democrats only corporatist, sell out, disloyal, stoopid followers, Patrick Henry would hate you, Eugene Debs was the greatest, no one is like Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt, Trumka sucks, he should never speak with the President at all, go to the socialist or green party website, Eugene McCarthy should have been President, Clinton and Gore were worse than Republicans, don't vote for Democrats, vote third party candidates and this one, Nader could have solved every problem evah! Do you go to freestate.com, theblaze.com or any of the winger websites and copy and paste endless tirades against Republicans? Hmm... makes one think, who are you really Resistance and why are you here?
In the words of Chrissy Crocker: Leave Brittney Resistance Alone.
To me you are still a clown.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:17pm
Please see my comment below, as respectfully offered to Ramona.
You insist on expressing the following as RE: those who insist the time has come at last to stand up and fight back in the Class War unleashed against us:
On the contrary, TMac. If you read my assessment of the realities we confront, you will see that I speak from the perspective of one who feels strength in what we are accomplishing in Madison. We're coming at you! Lead! Follow! Or get the fuck outta' the way! It ain't the relevance of the Labor Movement that's on the line here, but rather just how relevant the Dem Party is itself in responding to and shaping today's political reality.
And if you read the Labor perspective as offered on the continually shabby treatment they receive from their supposed Generals and diplomats in THEIR Dem Party**, it should give you and everyone else pause about just how vigorously you wish to defend the status quo.
***
**And, yes, I do still consider the Dem Party to be the political arm of the middle class and working people. There is no other constituency that really matters. Let's just say a rising middle class floats all boats, and will otherwise torpedo any other yacht that dares gets in its way. How's THAT for a persecution complex! LOL!
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:38pm
tl;dr dude, you already did that blog, why copy and paste it here? You have your worshipers, why must I worship you? Is it a requirement to be at Dag, worship Jeebus? Hahaha, you going to call me some more names since I vehemently disagree with your methodologies of convincing people by calling them stoopid? I think you are here to make sure no one gets heard except the gang who hate Barack Hussein Von Kenya Obushma. Get over yourself, you simply have no impact on the daily work that goes on to register voters, to introduce policy, to help form legislation, and to make a difference in society at large. And you hate those of us who continue to work for the change we want to see. It's called participation. To me you are just another member of the Progressive Hate Club, which is no different than the TBag hate club, you are so convinced of your righteouness, that there is no room for other opinions or other means of advancing liberal ideals.
Remember, I already escaped Shangri-la, but your acolytes will be more than enough to laud your efforts to do whatever it is you do. I simply am not one of those people, nor will I ever be, you need to get over it Jeebus, it shouldn't be that important to you.
Yours truly,
Saint Joan.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:37pm
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:55pm
And.... wow. Nutbar City Limits.
Rock on, Sleepin'.
by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:28pm
It was kind of cute when you bit TLDR once ... now, it's kind of coming off like a noob trying too hard to be cool by shoehorning a meme into every circumstance.
Also, it loses quite a lot when you make it obvious you read every word written. If one goes for the TLDR, (a) you should only have read a reasonably tedious amount of the opening ... and if you are feeling the masochist, the ending bit (or at least pretend this is the case) and (b) response should be limited to a snappy line. A lengthy response to the comment/post you are asserting not to have read creates a tl;dr vortex of lame.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:51pm
You are spot on kgb
Here is a good article and much work has gone into it, except I suppose this too, will be considered by some, TLDR?
Unless you could put it into a 15 second soundbite?
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/turning-down-radio-slice-budgetary-slice-9288
by Resistance on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:30pm
Yeah. I really like David's stuff - and I really like the attention to detail he puts into his footnoting (not enough to *emulate* mind you). He probably is a good candidate for driving the short-attention-span set into fits of mindrage. To use the currently discussed device the *other* way it is apropos:
[tl;dr: tax the rich SOBs to increase revenue and keep grubby corporatist hands off of public radio]
I'd say you could get that out in around 3 seconds.
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 2:12pm
What are you talking about? Or are you taking out of context again
When was this? Any one that is familiar with your reasoning abilities knows, you overblow and take out of context anything you disagree with. Everyone knows you lack the reading skills or the ability to comprehend what is written.
NO, you're not my enemy, your just a bigmouth, full of fangs and venom.
Run along now, don’t you have homework to do?
I tried http://dagblog.com/politics/i-am-9208#comment-109205
by Resistance on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:14pm
Sift and winnow, Resistance. It's a time-honored Wisconsin term.
Given the level of discourse from some quarters, you gotta decide if they're really worth the time.
Just a suggestion. ;O)
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:40pm
You're right, I came back to redit and take down my comment, but I was too late.
It's really not worth the time. This person started the personal attacks a few weeks back.
Somtimes it's hard to sit back and take it from some .
Thats what I didnt like about John Kerry's campaign, he wouldnt respond and his foes framed him.
Thanks for the reminder SJ, ...... and I have really enjoyed your perspective.
by Resistance on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:49pm
Thanks, Ramona. I'm glad to lower the temp and continue on substance.
First, it was not my intent to talk about the sacrifices of the union leaders of the past. I believe you know and appreciate the history as well as anyone here on dagblog. I only wished to remind you of their work and their passion - to pull it to the very front of your consciousness - as you consider the present situation. I even carefully concentrated on an initial listing of a few of the heroes from the history of the autoworkers because I know that is where you cut your teeth in this Movement.
I honor these historic figures as being fundamentally very important to you, and I believe it is highly relevant to consider them within the context of this discussion and this question:
"What, today, would be (Reuther's) response to a Democratic Party that is so out of touch with the needs of its members that its Dem POTUS would shut down its organizing resources from assisting in response to all-out war being declared against worker's rights. What would (Meany) have to say in response to Obama's complaint that this all-out, take-no-prisoners Class War that has been launched against us is 'a distraction' from the work of selling the talking points defined by the enemy."
I appreciate the depth of allegiance you feel for the Labor Movement. And so it was my intention to put you in a place where you could picture Reuther and the others paying a visit to the Oval Office to discuss this with 'their" President Obama. I was hoping like me you could relish such a scene, whilst appreciating just how craven and weak Obama (and our Dem Party) have become in pursuit of the "post-partisan" (easily translates as "mono-partisan") surrender to the GOP/corporate agenda.
I mean really, Ramona, wouldn't you like to be a fly on THAT wall? And within that context, can't you feel the rage and the sense of betrayal that would be within the heart and soul of every Labor leader in that room?
The events in Madison have presented an amazing "Aha!" moment that has exposed the debauched nature of our supposed two-party system. On one side, you have the GOP/corporate launching an all-out, scorched earth war against the middle class and our working families. Not only in Madison and Columbus and Trenton, etc., but (in more refrained fashion, but equally effective) within the Halls of Congress itself.
On the other side, you have Obama and the Dems (supposedly "our side" in this Class War) refusing to fight back. Instead, they continue trying to negotiate a downsizing of the weapons of war (i.e. "entitlements cuts"; home heating assistance; tax cuts; etc.) that the GOP/corporate enemy will use to bludgeon us to death.
This "Class War" has been going on for certainly the last thirty years if not, in fact, since the earliest days of the Labor Movement. And for those thirty years, the response from the Dem Party has become increasingly aligned with what I outlined above. The resultant downward trend in the status of the middle-class working families has been staggering when considered over that larger context, and it has slid downward virtually unabated:
So successful have the GOP/corporate Party been in advancing against "their enemy" (Working Class Families) these last thirty years, that they have now developed a strategic "kill shot" to be orchestrated through state legislatures nationwide. Beginning in Madison and stretching to Columbus and Trenton and Lansing, they would launch a full-scale assault against the Public Service Employees Unions (The last guys standing in their way) themselves and thus cut off all resources and supply lines to the other side. They could starve out the enemy once and for all, and at last have dominion over the whole political territory to themselves as their prize.
They overreached. They overreached in extremely injurious fashion. The Labor troops saw what was happening, and they rallied:
And it wasn't just the Union members who rose in defense of the workers against this all-out assault. Middle class families from throughout Wisconsin quickly assessed what was at stake here and stormed to the front to do everything and anything they could to impeded the forward advance of the enemy. State Senators went into hiding, thus depriving the other side of storming right through their intended target for their initial assault - OUR state legislature in Madison - in blitzkrieg fashion.
So far, we're winning:
According to Forbes Magazine, we've already won in Wisconsin.
I don't pretend to assume that we have achieved anything sustainable here in Wisconsin. There's a lot of skirmishing and clean-up to be accomplished, and we still have many defensive engagements to undertake that will be bloody and will most assuredly result in setbacks and even crushing disappointments.
But we sure put the sonsabitches on the run here in Wisconsin in this opening fight, and it feels GREAT! After thirty-plus years of seeing this enemy encroach on our front lines, taking this skirmish from us and that while everyone was sleeping, it has been refreshingly inspiring to see the people rise up in their defense and say "Enough!" in this decisive battle waged in Madison. This has been a rout, and Rove and the Kochs and the GOP/corporate Party were last seen moving on to Columbus and elsewhere ("Anyplace but Madison!" they were heard screaming as they scurried into the night.) to see what they could salvage from their initial battle plan.
And, yes, the battle continues. Kochs haven't surrendered. In fact, they have doubled-down in their intensity, using every tool they were granted by the Supremes in Citizen's United v FEC. The airwaves in Wisconsin are filthy with astroturf ads selling the corporations' line of Koch intended to scramble the brains of an unwitting populace. And I am sure a similar amount of resources are being applied elsewhere in the country as the artillery pieces to be used in the next punch into the frontlines.
We've got no time to celebrate any victories here. All we have accomplished in Madison is to prevail in the first skirmish sufficient for the middle class to live and fight another day. But don't kid yourself. That day is upon us. The situation is dire, and it requires a forceful and IMMEDIATE response that gets all hands on deck so we can successfully beat this enemy back. Such an intense assault requires a focused, intense, and proportional response. This is war, goddammit, and we will not be beaten. The army has been mobilized in defensive maneuvers in Madison and Ohio and elsewhere. They have performed admirably and with great vigor and valor. But they can't sustain the fight indefinitely.
So what do we do? For openers, we Democrats call back our Generals and our diplomats (Obama, our Dem Congressional delegation, and our Dem Party leadership) and we inform them that "All bets are off!" in their efforts to negotiate a "peaceful coexistence" with the enemy. And we direct them to respond to the declaration of war pressed upon us by going to war with all the tools at their disposal. And we tell them to do it "Now!" before we suffer casualties in numbers sufficient to make any future such response irrelevant.
We've done that, Ramona. That's where we are at in this crisis, and our hold on the frontlines in this war is tenuous, at best. We can still lose this war altogether if we don't maintain this rout while limiting our casualties. But time's a-wasting. The moment is "Now!" to respond. And the consequences of losing now are simply too catastrophic to even consider.
So we call upon our Generals and diplomats to become engaged in this effort; to redirect their focus from negotiated compromise to all-out war.
And what are we told?
You cannot even begin to describe insubordination in a more concisely horrifying sentence.
And we ain't got time to wait until the next Party Caucus to argue what the correct response should be to such an insult. The Dem Party IS your Party and mine, Ramona. It IS the Party of the Middle Class and the working stiffs and their families. And we cannot accept for a gnat's-blink moment the notion that somehow a battle for the very future of the middle class itself is a "distraction."
We need all hands on deck, and we need it "Now!" and the suggestion that our Generals and our diplomats might instead choose to become engaged at some later date in this Class War we fight is no longer acceptable - if, in fact, it ever really was an appropriate response as given, lo, these last thirty years.
What would Reuther do?
by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:56pm
ditzy bimbo
I rise to be heard in defense of the dagblog ditzy bimbo caucus as a whole, and on behalf of any individual members who wish to come forward..It's a .Big Tent, Ramona, big tent, now.
by jollyroger on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:45pm
All struggles for freedom have the same song, I think. "We who believe in freedom can not rest." Good Sunday to all.
by we are stardust on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:32pm
Love this, Stardust. Thanks.
by Ramona on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:39pm
Brew. Quit being such a punk, willya? There's no need for this. Labour has been taking beatings for 30 fracking years, and YOUR ideas on how to run the Democratic Party have been in charge. While the "progressives" have been miles from power, on anything. So first thing you need to do is OWN THE GD MESS WE'RE IN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Which means, I really can't fathom your attempt to position yourself as the embattled outsider, it's such a pathetic maneuver, after preaching responsibility and accountability and all that other centrist cant to the working class, lo these many years.
And now, one of those incredibly rare things comes along, and old labour shows it has some remaining twitch fibre and a bit of muscle. Something which - even if it's never heard from - I believe we really really really need to help keep people from all being crumbled down to individual units and their incomes reduced to dirt. And it's only in one state, and the next national election doesn't hang on it, and yet... what do we see from yourself and some of the other geniuses here?
THEY COME IN AND THINK THEY NEED TO SPEND TIME CRAPPING ON THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS AND LABOUR! It's a bad joke. It really really is. In the midst of a brawl between labour and the bosses, the bosses having won for 30 years solid, you, you little twerp, think now's the time to go on and on and on about the 1980 and 1984 elections, and the deep racism of labour, and how so many voted Republican.
You have no clue on TIMING, I'll say that.
And then you PERSONALIZE your attacks, with the Tailgunner Joe stuff? Look, Brew, you have to be beyond fucking insensitive to say shit like that. That's a bit more than calling a black man an Uncle Tom. For many people - liberals and progressives and such - and including real life people at this site whose families got hurt - that's in precisely the same real life league as cheering on JFK's assassin.
And then you have the nerve to announce that YOU'RE the one creating jobs, by financing commercial construction? And you don't expect a kick in the balls? When it's FINANCE, and certainly finance related to COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE that has put these very workers on the hit list?
But when called out on it, you start CRYING ABOUT HOW YOU'RE HURT, AND HOW OUR TACTICS ARE ALL DIRTY.
Get a grip on where you are in life, and who your allies are. I don't actually give a rat's if you're in finance. Fine. I got lots of friends in it, life is complex. I also think you got a good brain, and probably lots of good intentions. But what the fuck are you doing, launching attacks on these people at this time? Jeeeezus, because they're carried away with excitement, and really pretty pro-worker right now? And you come in like it's your job - and Trope's and Genghis' etc. - to cool them down, and be a cooler heads? IT'S BEEN 30 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN LOSING DO IT YOUR WAY, AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY, IN YOUR LIFE, ON THE SIDE OF THOSE BENEFITTING MOST FROM THE CHANGES. MAYBE IT'S A MOMENT TO.... PAUSE.
Shorter: Are you completely without tact, timing, and any sense of political grace?
Come ON man, I know you're truckloads better than this.
by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:18am