dagblog - Comments for "God Bless Bernie Sanders! Go Bernie Go!"

Then I'll try to accept your

we are stardust — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:16:33 +0000

Then I'll try to accept your rejection of my comments, but Lis put you into the mix, and it's true I thought you were agreeing with her that 'the fire' included some of us criticizing Obama. If not, I stand corrected, but I reserve the right to nuke his whales over issues in which he's flat out wrong, which happen to be legion right now, IMO. ;o)

Now you didn't need to

stillidealistic — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 07:28:41 +0000

In reply to "But now you can see where

Now you didn't need to take any of what I said to Lis as a criticism of you...

...except that you said "you and stilli" which sorta makes it about me...You didn't need to mention me in that comment to lis, yet you did. So did I NEED to take it as criticism of me? Yeah, I think I did.

But, really, it's neither here or there. The more important point is, politicians suck, repubs and dems alike (which explains the jumping from the frying pan into the fire comment...had nothing to do with anyone being critical or practical - all you had to do was ask, if you didn't understand it.) Although, I choose to believe the dems are marginally less awful than the repubs, in practice, and way better than the repubs if we could actually pass legislation that reflected our ideals.

As far as lis's comment about dissing the President, unless I'm screwing up my urban usage of the term "dissing" it means being disrespectful. You can criticize without being disrespectful.

We are in complete agreement

oleeb — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:16:15 +0000

In reply to "But now you can see where

We are in complete agreement on one thing Lisb: you really, really don't get it.

"But now you can see where

we are stardust — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:14:36 +0000

In reply to And that is simply enabling

"But now you can see where I'm going with this, yes? Clinton was no ideal either. Carter was no ideal either.

You know, sometimes I wonder why in hell I became a Democrat.

And you don't help. Neither does Oleeb. Neither do a lot of bloggers here. Y'all make me wonder why I woke up and became a Dem. You can understand how Stilli feels too, yes? Because it seems to me that no matter who y'all get in power, he's not good enough. He's not liberal enough. He's not strong enough.

Y'all want a matyr? What do you want? I just don't get it.

by LisB 12/11/2010 - 4:05 am

Much as my family is Republican, there's one rule of law they have always had that I uphold: You don't diss the President. You honor the office that the President of the United States holds and you honor the person in the White House whether you voted for him or not.

If you have a problem with government, you work with your Rep and your Senator and you go from there. You don't diss the President.

I myself broke that rule in the beginning of Bush's presidency, and again after 2006.

That's how I moved to the Democratic Party.

by LisB 12/11/2010 - 4:41 am

Okay, Sleepin', all kidding and music aside now....how is holding our President accountable going to help? You'll lhold him accountable for things that only a liberal far left President would have accomplished, starting with holding Bush and Cheney accountable. From there, you'd have Gitmo closed and from THERE you'd have Wall Street bankers nearly abolished, or at least shamed....somehow. Never mind explaining what would happen once Wall Street was shamed, nor how they would be. After that, what else would your teflon President do?

by LisB 12/11/2010 - 2:27 am

But, yes, the bitching about where we are at could be held to a minimum, thanks. I prefer the plan and path forward. ;)"

by LisB 12/11/2010 - 5:11 am

Those indicate what I mentioned, IMO. Now you didn't need to take any of what I said to Lis as a criticism of you, but I did notice reviewing this that you had commented that you and Lis went 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. Not sure what that meant, but it may have meant that you were uncomfortable that some of are being too critical, and no very practical in your eyes. Only you know what you meant.

I now notice that I might have remarked ALSO that there really is no path forward until we clear our eyes and see what IS going on now. If we don't, why would we chart a different path forward?

Believe me, Stilli; I know this is hard, and it's been hard for many of us to watch our dreams about this man crash and burn. I just noticed yesterday that the scratch pad I use next to my computer says, ""Stand with Obama for Change: Silence GOP Lies!" It sure sounded like a good idea back when I got it...

And that is simply enabling

stillidealistic — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:02:57 +0000

In reply to Lis, I wanted to answer this

And that is simply enabling him, which is my complaint with far too many Dems; it's as though you can't afford to see the Prez, especially, criticized, partially because, as you said above: I moved to this party, and now you guys are wrecking it for me and Stilli! Wow.

Yeah. WOW, is right. I went back and reread all of lis's comments, and I didn't see where she said you guys were wrecking it for us. She expressed a disillusionment that she and I are feeling with the democratic party. We're allowed to feel that aren't we? And, I don't think she objects to criticism of the President, same with me. We just aren't ready to throw him out with the bath water, because we don't see a viable alternative right now.

You are free to feel differently, but your sarcasm doesn't advance the discussion.

It's as though you can't handle criticizing the family authority figure: He/She may be tormenting you/us, but it's not polite to say so, or worse, that you've learned there is some inherent danger in doing so. But really, Lis; if you go into politics, you do so with the express understanding that the voters are allowed, no, expected to pressure you, to criticize, or offer alternatives to your behaviors. That's what politics IS.

I don't see it as not being able to handle criticizing, as much as being unwilling to throw divorce out as an option before all others are explored. I don't see anything wrong with that. We LIKE our "family authority figure." We'd like to be able to keep him if we can get him to see our point of view, and do more to help us out.

But we're as frustrated with our siblings as we are with him, and feel like if they were working together to solve the problems instead of some of them siding with the opposition, and the rest going in a hundred different directions, maybe we could work this out and keep the family together.

It's my biggest frustration,

stillidealistic — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:11:14 +0000

In reply to Frankly, accepting as an

It's my biggest frustration, SJ. I DO believe it. I just don't know what to do about it. AND, I believe that people who don't realize it, or won't acknowledge it, are missing the boat. If we don't find a way to get the money out of politics we are screwed, blued and tattooed. NOTHING is going to change if we don't. And now that our SC has given personhood to corporations, the rest of the world can buy influence, as well, unfettered, and under the cover of darkness.

Welcome to America. Yeah, I may be needing a name change. The flame of my idealism is getting pissed out.

Frankly, accepting as an

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:45:51 +0000

In reply to Yes, lis, we do. Although

Frankly, accepting as an acceptable premise that "they are all bought and paid for" without rising in full anger in defense of democracy itself is far worse than baying at the moon. Might as well lay down in the road and invite them to just run you over. Or, even worse. simply accept the rules as written for us, and allow the pretense of democracy to continue whilst the wealthy have their way with us, unfettered by any insistence upon justice or equality or even "one person, one vote."

Yes, lis, we do. Although

stillidealistic — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:34:04 +0000

In reply to Some days, yes, Stilli, it

Yes, lis, we do. Although there are days, I swear, when I can't tell them apart except by the Ds and Rs behind their names...makes me VERY sad.

And because the vast majority of them are bought and paid for, the far left, whose ideals most closely match ours, will not EVER get all we want in big chunks, unless and until we get to the point where we have the Presidency and a filibuster-proof House AND Senate. That is NOT what the people seem to want. And if you don't think that is true, how do you explain all the red on the map? So how does a relatively small group of people convince the larger group, that what we want is not only what is best for the country, but best for them as well? Until our party gets its shit together and comes up with a "blueprint" that outlines our goals, shows how it is economically doable, and convinces the majority of the voters that it makes our country stronger, we are just howling at the moon.

So we can give up, change the mindset of the majority of voters, or make a bit of progress here, and a bit there. If there are other viable alternatives, I'd like to hear them.

Have no complaints at home

oleeb — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:42:24 +0000

In reply to My goodness but I hope you're

Have no complaints at home thank you very much, but I get pretty pissed off when assholes in Washington threaten my children's future and are actively involved in destroying the things that have made the middle class possible and who have impoverished millions of my brothers and sisters (15+ million unemployed right now). As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't angry and outraged by these matters is not doing their duty as an American. It is our obligation as citizens to vigorously oppose any and all measures that will harm the country and jepordize the prosperity and stability of the nation and it's people in the years to come. We owe it to our posterity every bit as much as those who signed the Constitution understood their obligation to their posterity who happen to be us.

I'm sorry but I do not

oleeb — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:36:30 +0000

In reply to Right back at ya, Oleeb. I

I'm sorry but I do not believe in compromises that put me in a postion of supporting something I know is wrong and harmful for the people and the nation. I refuse to do that. I'm not against compromise. I am against capitulation masquerading as compromise. I have seen enough over the years to know without any doubt at all that going along and accepting horrendous decisions made by lying, ethically befeft politicians of either or (as in this case) both parties is simply wrong. It isn't like most Democrats on Capitol Hill don't know this is the wrong thing to do. They clearly do. Even Obama says his rotten compromise contains things he knows are bad for the nation. Yet, he and other lying politicians flim flam millions like you into believing their lame and demonstrably incorrect claim that this was "the best deal we could get". It isn't. Bernie's dedicated opposition proves that and that is what the long speech was all about.

I was in Washington and working on the House side the day of the fateful vote on Reagan's destructive and corrosive tax cuts in 1981. Jim Wright, then Majority Leader, gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the right wing proposal. I was so struck by his eloquence and prscience at the time that I got a copy of the Congressional Record for that day so I would have that speech word for word. Now, 29 years later the prophetic nature of his speech is as clear as can be. Many argued against his position and poo-pooed what he had to say as too pessimistic, etc... Well time has proved Jim Wright correct and those who took your position as dead wrong. I will look for that copy of the record today if I can find the time and I will post that speech if I find it. I hope you'll read it and carefully recondier your admirable but strategically flawed viewpoint.

One last point and that is that the criticisms of Obama flow not from a simple dislike of him or his policies, nor from a position of not respecting his efforts. The criticism flows from the promises and committments and positions Obama himself took and that many of those who voted for him expected him to honor. If he wasn't being a massive hypocrite on basic principles and if he was actually coming through on any of his major promises the criticism would not be anything ike what it is. He and his boosters like to ignore the fact that he has essentially broken every major promise made during the campaign or compromised to the point where the promises have no meaning. Any and every elected official needs to be held accountable for their actions. Obma's double crossing of the voters over and over again is the source of the criticism being leveled at him from the left. And if he was sincere about some of these matters where he has watered down his position to the point of being a meangless gesture (DADT is one good example since he could suspend it with the stroke of a pen) people would give him credit but it is clear that he has not sincerely tried on most of these matters and he has, in fact, lied to us about them as with the Public Option which he continues to lie about and not own up to the fact that he himself secretly agreed to make sure no public option was included in the healthcare bill long before the legislation was moving in Congress. That is the sort of typically unethical and duplicitous behavior he campaigned against. Every bit of the criticism he has received from the left he has brought upon himself and richly deserved.