tmccarthy0's picture

    The Definition of a Democrat

    Dateline: Narita International Airport

    Blogs and the online world are crazy, a troll's paradise my young adult children tell me, and a place where if you do not learn to troll back, you simply will not survive. In a sense, they are probably quite correct, troll back or do not survive on-line. At times is it so out of control in the larger on-line community, the mob mentality takes over and there are efforts to silence those people who simply live a different reality, who sees things differently. For a very long time it was the wingers, the Beck U attendees, the illiterate right who literally rely upon TV and radio for all their information without ever reading a book, a journal article, anything, and they blurt out what their propagandists tell them to, it is comical enough to watch them wallow in their stupidity.

    However, since January 2009, days after the current President took the oath of office; there has been a concerted effort by those passing themselves off as progressive by using the same tactics to build their own echo chamber of hate. On-line bullies, who make a concerted effort to shut down any exchange of ideas, to literally pile on and chase people away who are on the same side of many issues but who believe continued hard work is necessary, and we make change in increments. Certainly, we are not all meant to believe exactly the same thing, we don’t even develop our ideas in the same way, people develop their ideologies through a variety of ways, I’ve been in academics so  long, I generally research issues, and attempt to become somewhat of an expert in any given issue that I have an interest. I also develop my ideologies through my work and my volunteer work.  My political ideologies have also been heavily influenced by my work with the Democratic Party. 

    More recently however, the demands of the so-called progressive community, I say so-called because progressives who make concerted efforts to shout down others are no better than the Republicans I have been fighting for some 30 years, I digress. No site is immune from bully pile-on tactics to shut down the exchange of ideas. Bullies are on the move, too.  It is so out of control out in the blog community, it becomes a mob mentality, attacking people who they often agree with, because agreement is not absolute, because some people see a different path to attain the same ends. Never enough, the bully community is on the attack against all democrats who are not Dennis Kucinich/Bernie Sanders type Democrats, who by the way are a very small part of the real Democratic Party. In the zealotry of some, they have begun to feel as though they get to define who is and who is not an actual Democrat. Sigh… I wish these folks would actually show up to our meetings, cause let me just mention this, as someone who attends the monthly meetings of our local district, every month since 1987, I have not seen these folks attend anything. They simply do not participate, so let me put this out there, they have no business attempting to define who is a Democrat and who is not a Democrat. Where are you folks when we have our local organizing meetings?  Yeah, I am talking to all of you right now, and I demand an answer, where the hell are you? Yeah, you showed up for one damn election, but as soon as the election was over you stopped participating and retreated into the mode of constant  bitching and moaning about your damn  sparkle pony and how it is never available to ride. Sigh, it is beyond tiring watching the a concerted efforts by hordes of bullies attack reasonable people who have been working for years to expand the base, and you are scaring away people who would otherwise be democrats.

    These same progressives prattle on and on about the greatness of Unions yet seem unbelievably ill-informed about who is running the Democratic Party at the local levels. Let me tell you who they are, who we are, UNION MEMBERS. How would you know who we are, if you do not show up for our monthly meetings? You really do not know who we are. Zealotry and demagoguery is not excusive to tea bags or to extreme conservatives it is alive and well in the progressive community.

    So the progressive demagogues are trying now to define what a purist Democrat is, and if you do not fit their definition exactly, they claim you are a Republican, not a Democrat. Huh? I have been a Democrat since 1984, I voted for Mondale, but it was not until 1987 I became a true registered Democrat and began to work with the party as a volunteer.

    I remember the first meeting I ever attended, I was the youngest person at the monthly meeting, and we lived in Tacoma, Washington at the time. I was 25, when I showed up there were several people there, almost exclusively union members, the majority were men and we had two minorities.  There were probably 15 people, who attended every meeting, and the long time members ran the meetings. These people would represent the district at the state and national level.  In Tacoma, the Longshoremen ran our local district but we had a number of Teamsters working there as well. Tacoma is a working person’s town, a union town and in the early 1980’s the majority of union members voted for Republicans. In fact, I would surmise that Walker in Wisconsin would still be a county official, if many union members had not voted for him.  You like the blame the Kochs and not doubt they played a big part of funding Walker and getting him to roll back taxes on corporations, but the voters of Wisconsin put him in office, but so did progressives who continue to confuse the situation by continually deriding the one party that does move from the ground up.

    Yeah, that is the truth and the truth hurts sometimes. We all know what happened in 1988, our caucus was small, few people attended, and George HW Bush was elected. Really the Republicans had it down, as Democrats turned on Michael Dukakis, there was much infighting in the party, and we began to work hard on attracting a new breed of voters to the party, we needed to attract Union members again and by 1992 that candidate happened to be a young man named Bill Clinton. In the primaries, that year I worked for Jerry Brown until he dropped out, quickly our district began to work on behalf of Bill Clinton. He was much more conservative than we would have liked, but you know what the time was ripe to get a Democratic President and we worked hard to get out the vote. I had never seen lines out of the door in the fire department we went to vote in, yet they were, and we knew at that time because the turnout was so large and Washington State was really beginning to turn deeper blue, that Bill Clinton had a big chance of winning the west coast.

    In 1992, universal access to health care was a big issue in our caucus. The referendum Massachusetts had passed in 1986 was beginning to spread across the nation as something in which we should strive harder as a party. If you have followed me at all, you know what a huge issue universal health care is for the Democratic Party and something the nation has been striving for since 1912. A side note, back then in 1988, I was a volunteer as well for planned parenthood, I escorted women into the building at Operation whatever-the-fuck (Rescue - I know what it was) members were everywhere trying to intimidate women who were just trying to get access to health care. 

    By 1993 we moved to a different county, no longer was I in Pierce County where Longshoremen ruled the Democratic  Party, I moved to a county  that often verged on red, and it was strong in the  government unions, IFPTE, Machinists, and Shipyard Unions. It was becoming a light blue county but by 2000, the Clinton scandals left the party demoralized.  Gore won Washington State, the party was in a shambles, with the likes of Lieberman, who did his party to play up the Clinton scandals in his own way. Our caucus was small that year, it was obvious Gore would be nominated and the same people attended the caucus who always attended. We all said hi to each other, had some coffee and conducted our monthly meeting, took our vote and left. It was all done in who no democrat really liked, to Nader, who labeled everyone as corrupt and Gore and Bush exactly the same, well the country didn’t really chose a leader, basically it was a draw and the supreme court did what we all witnessed.

    Let’s fast forward to 2004; that was the largest turnout to a caucus I’d ever seen, seriously there were more than 100 people in attendance. There were many Dean supporters and many Kerry supporters, but John Kerry won, and in 2004, he also won my county. However, we know what happened in that election as well.

    Then came 2008, the biggest caucus of my life, a least two thousand people were crammed into the gym and cars were everywhere. When we broke off into our voting groups the groups were big, 3- and 40 people from each neighborhood. These are people, who had never in their lives attended a caucus meeting! It seemed like GWBush turned all kinds of people into Democrats. (not really, they just hated him, his policies, the people who worked for him, etc) Nevertheless, deep down inside we knew better than to truly believe that. In addition, in the caucus people came to bitch about Bush.

    However, right after the election it was back to the regulars again to run the party. The same 10 – 15 people come to the meetings; we are the same people who keep running things when no one else shows up. We are the same people who are going to vote no matter what, and we are the same people who understand the differences we all have.

    So for those of you who label this President a Republican because you didn’t get your sparkle  pony, what I have to say to you is, you are merely a fair weather Democrat, you came out when everyone did, and you voted,  and  then you went away. Like you always do, while those of us committed to getting more democrats elected stayed to run the district and to contribute to our parties policies and who will be there whether you decide to vote or not. But the one thing you don’t get to do is throw people out of a party that you really are not a member of, that you don’t care about, because you are too busy being a WIIFM. You know what that is right; they are the "What’s In It For Me" crowd. You don’t get to call this President a republican and be taken seriously by those of us who continue to work to make those small changes that turn into big societal changes. You don’t get to do that.

    The fact is,  that you all never show up to help make change, you bitch and moan, you name call and the height of your own hubris is to claim to make the rules about who is and who isn’t a democrat. You don’t get to do that, and the lesson you need to learn from that is, we Democrats are not going to let the purity folk take over our party, you are a minority. In addition, when you don’t show up to help make change, (the election is a very small part of that) you don’t get to stamp your feet and be taken seriously. But hell, if you want to come to the meetings and yell at us and call us names, we will welcome you because at least then we have a starting point. However, you don’t get to control our party, my party, because you aren’t around enough to make a difference.

    Bottom line kiddies, until you show up all the time you don’t get to define who is or isn’t a Democrat.  Step up or shut up, show up or shut up, make and effort or STFU. The Democratic Party is not the Republican Party; we don’t bow to the every whim of the loudest craziest voice. When you demand to know whose side we are one, we hear just another GWBush, who said those exact same words, you either are with us or against us, my response,  get bent, you don’t control my party, you cannot even participate long enough to get anything done. I will say this one more time; this is not the Republican Party, where every little whim of each xenophobic, loud, lunatic gets to make the rules.  You don’t show up to help make the rules, to help change policies, to register voters to contribute in some small way or large way, with or without money, you don’t get to scream DINO, because you don’t participate. Democrats are not in business to do your bidding, because you do not show up. To be frank with you, to us, you are nothing more than TBags of the left.

    Oh and PS you don't get to use the term massah in the same sentence while referring to this President without the rest of us thinking you are a racist. There I said it.

    Comments

    I take it then that a  Democrat who is President is one who visits Cleveland while union workers are in the streets of Columbus, and finds it inconvenient even to reference that fact  while he bemoans the divisions between business and labor?


    Hang on jolly.  I think this might just be really bad satire. 


     Oh shucks, and I fell for it....more fool me.


    The lady doth protesteth too much, me thinks.


    To hell with the definition of a Democrat.  I need the definition for sparkle pony.

    (Sorry, but this post doesn't invite a serious response) 


    (Sorry, but this post doesn't invite a serious response)

    I beg to differ with you, Mr. Flynn, with whom it appears I largely agree substantively on the labor question.  I don't know if what I will write counts as a "serious" response or not; it's just my response.

    TMac, I'm totally with you when it comes to according respect to the people who show up, put in the time and do the work.  While I'm perfectly prepared to accept that, in your experience, the people who show up and who do the work are not people you see as purists, and also apparently do not generally have strong views on the labor question, are you saying that is the case pretty much everywhere?  I know there are people who have had different experiences on that--probably including some of our fellow denizens.  I have. And I can no more dismiss their experiences than I can yours.

    I'm in favor of doing work, including reaching out to people who initially don't see things similarly and in many cases will never see things similarly, and treating other people with respect.  I'm sorry, but I just don't observe any "camp" as having a monopoly on respectful treatment of others. I see disrespectful treatment of one group by those who treat anyone who has strong views on the labor question, in particular, as a purist, a rigid ideologue, another Chairman Mao on that account.  And I see disrespectful treatment of another group by those who routinely make accusations of cowardice and lack of any real, apparently meaning their, beliefs.   

    There may be some people who respond positively to insult and browbeating, to being told they are stupid, they don't get it, they are cowards, they are crazy extremists, etc.  In my experience that is not most people.  I think you and I agree on that; where we appear to disagree is on attributing nasty behavior entirely to any one camp.  I am not by any means endorsing passivity, pulling punches, or unwillingness to speak candidly and directly.   

    I certainly respect you, tmac, your long-term efforts and commitment.  Knowing that about you, you earn standing in my eyes.  I hope that you won't typecast individuals (as being in effect all talk and no action) or points of view on the basis of past experiences you have had with (other) people supporting those points of view--just as you don't deserve to be typecast in the negative ways you refer to by others who may be making inaccurate assumptions about you based on some of their past experiences. 


    Ah, the High Road.  I always miss it.  Character flaw.  And please, call me kyle.  Mr. Flynn is my father.


    Ah, the High Road.  I always miss it.  Character flaw. 

    I'd prefer a small "h" and "r" on "High Road" but I don't think you always miss it.  I certainly miss it sometimes.  As my late grandmother used to say, charmingly, "Nobody's perfect."

    And please, call me kyle.  Mr. Flynn is my father.

    Gladly, Kyle--thanks for letting me and us know on that.  HT.


    "Ah, the High Road.  I always miss it.  Character flaw."

    One of many, based on your contributions here. 


    Brew, how right you are.  I'm a truly lousy, mean, clumsy dickhead with a face only a mother could love.  I'm the worst. 


    I'd like to second that. 

    See? And Brew says he gets no support around here. 


    I need the definition for sparkle pony.

    There you are.


    Ha.  Yes, Em, we know what the sparkle pony looks like.  We--some of us, that is--just want to know what the sparkle pony does and where she stands on some key issues.  Where does she stand on single payer health insurance?  On incrementalism as a policy change strategy (and if she's against that, which strategy is she for?) On Howard Dean?  :<)


    My burning question is this: are the sparkle pony and the unity pony blood relatives?


    Hmmm...don't know.  I would check but gave up my ancestry.com subscription. :)  

    Do figments of imaginations even have blood?

    I forgot how cute that image is.   I may start using it as an avatar. 

    This conversation reminds me of the best doll name ever:  Polly Esther, an early Cabbage Patch Kid. It was almost punny enough to get me to pay its exorbitant 'adoption fee' --- almost.

     


    STOP THE EXPORTING OF JOBS AND THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN GOODS….

    That is the key to our taking back our power, until WE recognize this, we will continue to be enslaved. Our forefathers warned us of this truth.

    Definition of a Democrat? A WARNING?

    I think the title should be Exposing the Corporate shills?

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs “The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production, and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class……

    The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles

    Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear-sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it, the struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle, and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class, they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and achieve their full and final emancipation.”

    Just like Teddy Roosevelt who took on big business in his day. Nader was the better voice for our generations struggle against corporatism.......Ross Perot warned the American  American worker about NAFTA and corporate power.

    I could give a crap about Democratic two- faced corporate shills. The answer to keeping "WE THE PEOPLE"  FREE,  lies in joining forces with other Independent thinking AMERICANS, throwing  off the yoke, placed upon us by corporate parties.

    STOP THE EXPORTING OF JOBS AND THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN GOODS…….

    The exporting jobs and importing foreign goods helps the Corporations more than the benefits we recieve. Why should the American worker cut our own throats?

    What real benefits do we recieve if we keeep allowing the export of jobs and the importation of cheap goods?  How does no benefits sound? No healthcare benefits, no retirement benefits?   

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader....Green Party Presidential Candidacy Speech (2/21/2000)........the Democratic and Republican parties, two apparently distinct political entities feeding at the same corporate trough......Up against the corporate government, voters find themselves asked to choose between look-alike candidates from two parties vying to see who takes the marching orders from their campaign paymasters and their future employers. The money of vested interest nullifies genuine voter choice and trust.........Like knowing hostages, the AFL-CIO and its unions march in tandem to endorse the Democratic presidential nominees early in the primary season. They have given up their capacity for negotiation, so frightened are they of the Republicans. Meanwhile, the rank-and-file workers suffer their dwindling status in silence...........organized labor...rushes to support the party without demanding a turn away from corporatism toward workers’ needs. This is the logic of the lesser of two evils. It tethers labor to a relentless slide deeper into the corporate power pits year after year..........the Democrats know that no matter how many GATTs, NAFTAs, empty OSHAs, and other betrayals...they heap on those labor leaders, they can be had because, once again, the Republicans are deemed worse………

    Unlike members of Congress, Big Business knew what the WTO agreements contained. That's because corporate lobbyists helped draft them.” 

    AMERICA WAKE UP  !!!!!!!! before "WE"  are totally enslaved.

    The Democrats are not the lesser of the two evils, they’re a part of the TWO - FACED  AMERICANS  ,...... quit being fooled into believing they are something more.  

    If the Wisconsin experience should give a united voice or message, this is the moment to regain our freedom.......Collective bargaining is putting the cart before the horse.....Hurt the Corporate powers in they're pocket book. Quit cutting our own throats  

    STOP THE EXPORTING OF JOBS AND THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN GOODS or we’ll not have a free America,  only a colony to be exploited by corporate interests.


    Tmc, I worry that your post accomplishes the opposite of the effect that you're seeking. You're challenging those who spend their time attacking "fake" liberals by criticizing those who you feel are fair weather (i.e. "fake") Democrats. You bemoan infighting, yet you are engaging in it.

    If liberals genuinely want to accomplish anything, then they need to recruit a majority, not purge and splinter the minority that still calls itself liberal. So don't tell people that they're being asshats. Persuade them to see your side--and ignore the asshats. I've been trying to offer the same counsel to the left-wingers around here, not that anyone wants to hear it.


    Recruiting a majority is the subtext to every intellgient Obot's defense of the current administration.  But the anti-majoritarians here, as on so much of the lefty blogosphere, parade their own (totally unearned, IMO) sense of moral superiority and engage in false equivalencies and vitiolic ad hominem against anyone who doesn't sing chapter and verse from their hymnal.

    In other words, they do more to hurt than to help the causes they claim to care so much about, and can't step back from their outrage long enough to even acknowledge differing perspectives.  Like the tantrum-throwing children that they so often resemble, a stern talking to is sometimes necessary.

    Excellent post, Tmac.  These things needed to be said, and you said them very well.   


    Brewmn, the degree to which you have misunderstood my point is awesome.

    Let me be blunt. If you, brewmn, truly wish to expand the Democratic majority, then stop insulting people who you feel to be disloyal Democrats. Stop the constant barrage of negativity towards the people that you need to have on your side if you want to get anything done.

    With comments like this one, which is pretty much par for the course for your history at dagblog, you do not build up the Democratic Party; you destroy it.


    Don't be ridiculous.  I'm always ounumbered five to one in these discussions.  Hell, on your own blog, 75-80% of the commentary is anti-Obama and/or anti-Democrat.  And the people commenting here are not the people we need to grow the Democratic Party anyway.  The commenters I engage with here, to their credit, aren't choosing the Republicans due to their dissatisfaction; they are instead supporting unviable third-party candidates or opting out of the process entirely. 

    To the extent they have any effect at all, it's to make things worse; yet they insist on parading their insight and sense of superiority ad nauseum, all while denigrating anyone who disagrees with their tactical approach as either too stupid to understand the "issues, man" or corrupted by the trappings of (in my case, at least) a pretty ordinary middle-class lifestyle.  So yes, I feel it is my right to call these sanctimonious wankers out at every opportunity.    


    You have a "right," within the terms of service, to say whatever the hell you want. But don't pretend that your "right" has anything to do with helping the Democratic Party or that your insults are any less sanctimonious or childish than those you call "wankers."


    I like it! I can see the bumper stickers already:

    Fuck you all! - Obama 2012


    ROTFLMAO!  Great one Obey!


    "Fuck you all" has one word too many to capture the point of this post.


    "y'all"


    TMC, you're hitting the nail, but slightly off centered...IMO.

    Yeah, lots of us are card carrying Dem's and yes we do skirt our civic responsibilities to our hallowed political beliefs and yes we put too much expectations on the few and the brave who have more stamina and guts to face the wrath of political storms.

    I've always worked with either federal or state governments so my participation has always been at a minimum so I don't come across too political in the work place...especially when the GOPer's are the dominate political force in the state...Hatch Act kinda thingy. However, I do pass on info to others in an innocent manner that draws little attention, but makes an impact. For instance, I'm at a military base and frequently discuss politics with a retired military member at the base shoppette. He and I get into some interesting discussions over what's going on in Congress, the US and Europe, and some of the active duty patrons every once in a while listen in...the message is getting out in subtle ways. But what really hurts the Party is the lack of effort to use what is available to illustrate the problems the nation is facing and how the GOPer's are the enablers.

    I'm talking about books like The Shock Doctrine, 13 Bankers and Blowing Smoke (next in line to read) just to scratch the surface. There's enough info in those 3 titles to stir up people's interest, especially if done in a manner where the GOPer's true role as beneficiaries of the legislation they pass that puts the screws to the public comes out. For instance, 13 Bankers squarely puts the blame for the financial meltdown in 2008 in Clinton's corner...Bu$h just added more gas to the fire. However, GOper's used the crevasses Clinton made to ram thru more deregulation that made the crash even more spectacular and shifted the burden of banker's excess and risk onto the shoulders of the public.

    In short, the Democrat Party needs to publicly embarrass the GOPer's...something the Dems in Congress are too afraid to do. And the national Party should have access to the media to get the message out so the local branches duty would be to disseminate the literature, conduct discussion and training classes as to what the material says, how it was created, for whom and how it puts the shaft to the public.

    The serious problem with the Democrat Party is we're expecting a torchbearer. Instead, we should concentrate our efforts establishing solid planks in the Party platform, such as 100% consensus on what health care reform should look like and how to pay for it, campaign finance reform and so forth. We should establish a political test any candidate for office must follow if they seek our endorsement. It sounds draconian, but we need to shed our ethereal political  fabric for political perspectives based on sound and solid facts so everyone can see it for what it is. Fix the message and the public will be waiting at the doors to enter.


    To the dismissive commentariat: you may not like the scolding tone of this piece, but I notice little rebuttal of the analysis. This is not the 3rd grade where everybody gets an A for effort and a gold star for encouragement. The opposition is winning not just because they have billionaires, but because they have lots of dedicated hard working people committed to a decades long struggle. 

    It's naive to think to prevail without matching that level of effort.


    they have billionaires

    If we don't stop or punish the exporters of our jobs or tax with tariffs and duites the imports,

    Foreign imports  INTENDED to undercut the working class of Americans if this continues "WE THE PEOPLE"  of the working class will be penniless,

    Slinging burgers barely supports a family.....Those kind of wages, doesn't buy airtime to mount a defense in the political realm.

    To heck with this One World government of consumerism,materialsim. It's a snare, an entrapment device,  to enslave.

    For what reason would the people want to enslave themselves..........because the corporate world benefits. Corporate contolled media has convinced to many dummies, consumerism is the key to happiness.

    Consumerism depletes natural resources, consumerism enslaves the peasants to debt.

    With no jobs the debt is never relieved, the slaves are forever for the Corporate masters. Because we wanted cheap material things  we allowed cheap foreign goods to undermine our freedom?

    Who benefitted under that scheme?    

    Democrats like Obama stated during the primaries, he understood NAFTA was hurting jobs in Ohio, then he winked at he Canadians and reports said he had no intention of fixing NAFTA.

    Why should I vote for a Republican who has no intention of working for the workers or a Lying Democrat.   

    NOW is the time to take back our country, Wisconsin is the spark. STOP THE EXPORT OF OUR JOBS AND THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN GOODS.

    I don't see that movement do you? Fighting over collective bagaining is delaying the solution to stopping the destruction of the middle class

    What good is collective bargaining if there are no jobs?

    No jobs = No tax base = No government workers = No need for collective bargaining = collectively the Corporations win

    Collectively the poor and the middle class are enslaved.

    WHERE IS THE FIGHT TO PREVENT THIS ENSLAVEMENT?  

      


    This piece would've been rejected at the strict, 3rd Grade Entrance Exam level.

    Also... WOW! A talking horse.


    That was very informative, Teresa. It certainly is easier to glue oneself to the flat screens than to sit through meetings. While I share Genghis' concerns about dividing rather than uniting, I think the forum can stand a small dose of reality upside the head every now and then.



    Just curious about just how Liberal your views would be if it looked like you would give up your fancy car and fancy house and fancy toys and fancy trips and wind up having to live like a large portions of the population now ? And no,  past history does not count.

    "Ten degrees left of center when things are good. Ten degrees right of center when it effects them personally" - Phil Ochs


    One of the most offensive things I found about Limbaugh, when I first heard his broadcasts, was his constant reference to the, "Politics of Envy," as if we were only Democrats or liberals or progressives because we envied the rich. I don't envy the rich, and by the same token, I don't think it is right to fault anyone that works for liberal causes because they also happen to be well-to-do.


    I think it's a valid question Donal. It's easy to be for Liberal or support other causes when you life is fine and dandy and none of those things you advocate will impact your own life style. It's a bit more difficult when your life is not so grand and by advocating certain policies may make it, at least in the short term, significantly less so. When those policies are more just and fair and help those on the bottom rung.


    In other words, it rather pisses people off to be told they will have to make sacrifices by hose who are much better off than they are and won't be impacted much or have to make many sacrifices.

    Or to put it more bluntly - if one is not willing to make exactly the same sacrifices and endure the same level of pain, one should STFU.


    Unless one is willing to face this sort of thing, one is a Fair Weather - Limousine Liberal.


    Touched a nerve, did she?


    Facing what, exactly?  Stupid, over-the-top rhetoric from a random wingnut?  Sorry, dude.  Even us Limousine Liberals face that on a regular basis. 


    Did you read the article Mauk linked to?  The "random wingnut" you refer to happens to be a deputy attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Indiana, as it turns out.  Apparently he tweeted his comments, to whom exactly is unclear.  The Indiana AG's press spokesperson stated that the remarks did not reflect the views of the Indiana state AG's office, and said the matter was being reviewed. 

    Whether Kent State, numerous conflicts between union organizers and public or private security personnel, at civil rights marches where people were beaten, people have been killed when someone(s) used some really bad judgment or just was unable to control their anger.  If the Indiana AG happened to be me, I'd have that deputy in my office for a heck of a talking to.  And I'd look into my options to see if firing him was one of them.


    Yes, I read it.  Knowing that, what the hell is your point?


    My point is that these are the words of a high-ranking official with the government agency the state of Indiana has charged with maintaining public order.  My point is that there are and will be demonstrations and rallies in Indiana in these coming days, demonstrations and rallies at which police officers and others with law enforcement authority are going to be present.  My point is that if this jackass in the Indiana AG's office happens to have on his tweet list police officers or others who will be at those events--and even if he doesn't--his comments are not just completely inappropriate, but dangerous, and should be deplored by anyone who does not want to see people get injured at any of these passion-filled events.  Hardly an impossibility for anyone familiar with some of the history of what has happened at events of this nature in our country. 

    So--hardly just some random right-wing nutbag we're talking about here.

    Got it?


    But what does that have to do with being a fair weather liberal?


    Ok, my interpretation of what mauk is saying--I would ask him to correct me if that's not what he meant:

    He's saying that sometimes it's proven necessary in our history for people to protest and demonstrate and make a peaceful but also very loud and insistent stink and forego the temptation to limiting themselves only to writing letters and making get out the vote phone calls and working in the more conventional ways.  

    And he believes, as do others of us here, that we have received some really darned clear signals from this President--who some of us thought was going to, or might, push harder on a whole bunch of progressive issues he said during the campaign that he supported, that that isn't going to happen. 

    That this President's read of the political situation is, apparently, that given the existing contellation of forces as he sees them, some of the changes that many of us feel strongly about need to happen and need to happen soon in this  country, are not going to happen soon because there simply hasn't been enough pressure on, and support for, public officials to take stronger measures.

    So mauk as I interpret him is beseeching those who have been working only in the more conventional ways to, if they in fact support actions of the sort this President said he supported during the campaign, to get out there and make a peaceful, but loud and insistent ruckus.  And in so doing seek to change the constellation of forces and the perceptions among elected officials about "what people want" in this country and are willing to agitate for.

    I happen to agree with mauk that the conventional ways of advocating are not working and that something beyond that (not instead of that--it's a false myth that the world is divided up into people who meet with their member of Congress or write letters, on the one hand, and people who demonstrate and protest peacefully, on the other hand--a great many people do both, and I believe there is empirical evidence to support that claim although I don't have it handy) is in fact necessary and that now is a good time for folks who believe we need more out of our political system now to consider forms of action they may not have considered previously, ones that may be a bit out of their comfort zone.  Because there are risks that people are taking and sacrifices they are making, right now, to press for action. 

    He is saying please, if you agree with the justice of their cause, consider contributing yourself in ways beyond some of the more conventional ways you have done so in the past.  I take him as expressing as an act of faith that people can change the current highly limiting and dysfunctional constellation of political dynamics, that public opinion can and does change in our country, that sometimes there are critical moments when that is more possible than others and that the time and situation we find ourselves in today may well be one of those times.  And if so, who knows when the next potential opening might appear?

    Not asking you or anyone else if you agree or disagree with (what I take to be) mauk's point of view--but does that help clarify the context of my remarks on this?   And mauk, if I've put words in your mouth and I've got you wrong, please set the record straight.


    So let me get this straight: the person who spends years going to party functions and precinct meetings is a fair weather liberal? and the person who doesn't do any of that isn't?


    I don't agree with that.  I would like to see less in the way of tuning out from the Democratic party and more of the dissatisfaction channeled into changing the party (in some cases) from the inside at the local level in addition to greater mass participation in rallies, protests, and non-violent forms of direct action.  Different individuals obviously have different preferences and views on how they want to spend whatever time they are going to devote to these matters.  I don't see these as necessarily either/or although many people have preferences for some types of action over others. 

    Sam Tanenhaus made this point about Bill Buckley in The Death of Conservatism, that far from encouraging people dissatisfied with the Republican party to form a third party or drop out, he urged them to increase their influence by organizing to take over the party from the inside.  So a lot of that energy went into building the Republican party and moving it in a broadly rightward direction, as we've seen.  (He doesn't seem to have anticipated that it might end up going off the cliff.)  It took time.  But it worked.  As CJ said to a "Rock the Vote" rally on a West Wing episode once, "Decisions are made by those who show up."  Yes!

    I thought tmac overreached when she seemed to be asserting that people who protest loudly, and not always helpfully to the cause they're trying to promote, are as some sort of general rule not otherwise doers, not people who will go to and maybe even help organize protest rallies or do the patient work of trying to move the party in a different direction from the inside. (We all, I suspect, know a "type": the loudmouth who doesn't actually *do* shit, other than protest or just criticize others.)   

    I think it could be useful if tmac or others who see themselves as having tried to push the party in what they see as a more progressive direction (please define what you mean by that) by becoming more active within the party shared some of what they have learned along the way.  I don't have a sense from tmac's post whether she saw herself as trying to do that, or whether she was comfortable philosophically with where the party was on the issues.  If the latter, that may be a point of disagreement in this thread and at the site.   

    I don't know if cmauk thinks the only way one can change the Democratic party's, or the country's, direction is by taking to the streets, or whether he thinks an inside-the-party grassroots strategy (or some other type of strategy altogether)--could also be effective. It seems to me that one or both of these broad types of strategies--and maybe some strategies that don't fall into either broad type--is probably necessary if there is to be a possibility of the Democratic party becoming more effective, sooner, in advancing a progressive agenda.


    I get tired of wasting time, focusing on baby steps hoping the next generation benefits from the struggle. ....What good it did those Union organizers who gave they're lives a generation ago?

    Only to have stupid Americans, allow Unions to be destroyed, by bad trade agreements.

    When will the populace figure out we are in danger now.

    When the Unions march on Washington demanding the Stopping of jobs being exported and the Unions insisting that tariffs and duties being imposed to reduce our debt and for protecting American jobs…….We will never have the political clout if we can't finance the resistance.

    Going to a caucus meetings or attending another “faux peoples movement” is a waste of time, a diversion. 

     We are asked to change from within; taking back our power will take time. BS 

    The time is running out. I am tired of hearing lies and empty promises, being told, "give it time"

    Where is the movement to Stop the export of jobs? Is it at the Democratic meetings? Is it at the Tea party meetings?

    Tell me so that I can support that meeting, everything else is a diversion, a waste of time and energy.

    Tell me what party supports American workers over foreign workers; before it is too late?  


    I get tired of wasting time, focusing on baby steps hoping the next generation benefits from the struggle. ....What good it did those Union organizers who gave they're lives a generation ago?

    Only to have stupid Americans, allow Unions to be destroyed, by bad trade agreements.

    Making progress means having further to fall, and there will always be relapses, whether progress is incremental or revolutionary. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to progress, of course.


    This is not a relapse, we are in the ICU and near death, life support is being withdrawn. 

    Obama on NAFTA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0 

    Perot on NAFTA;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRvJ-o30Sk8&feature=related

    The NAFTA Super Highway

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOhBmOD71B4&feature=related

     


    So, then do you feel things are worse than when children were considered valid hard laborers, overtime didn't exist, you could be forced to buy things from the company store, sick pay didn't exist (let alone maternity leave), and the closest thing to a minimum wage was $0?

    Don't get me wrong, I know things aren't perfect, and we're losing ground in many places, but let's not lose sight of what progress has been made.


    What makes you think we aren't going back to the days, the kids had to go to work to keep a roof  and feed the folks and the other siblings?

    When the folks are discrimianted for their age, and no Social Security to speak of.

    I wonder if the Nation will turn a blind eye to child labor  laws, just as they have about immigration laws? Just as the Nation has turned a blind eye to torture, wiretapping and unfair labor treaties?  

    Keep exporting our jobs and allow illegals to take what ever jobs are left in this country and we'll see those days return.

    Collective bargaining will be the least of our worries.  


    What makes you think we aren't going back to the days, the kids had to go to work to keep a roof and feed the folks and the other siblings?

    If you sincerely think that's where we're heading, then I suppose we don't have much to debate…


    You got that right but I would fire the guy for cause.



    So if someone from Haiti posts here, do we all have to shut up?


    There seem to be two "kinds" of Democrats these days.  Those who are willing to settle for less or even nothing as the party has done for the past 35 plus years make up one faction.  The other faction is composed of those who can no longer stomach settling for less or nothing and who have lost all patience with the strategy of settling for less or nothing in order to elect politicians who never stand up and fight for anything but who always agree to "compromise" that advances the agenda of the Republican Party and the predator class to the great harm of the common people of the country.  With this losing strategy we are always told that we cannot accomplish any of the things that were promised in the most recent campaign but that if we just keep backing the same spineless politicians who sell us out ever time they will fight harder "next time".  Plenty of those in the faction that is fed up with these lies about "next time" show up at party meetings monthly all across the country and plenty of them are union members too.  To paint all the people in one faction or another with such a broad brush is willy nilly a highly distorted picture.

    Personally, I understand where the folks in the first camp are coming from.  I accepted and assumed that posture for a long time but I simply have grown tired of the decades of empty promises, the flip flops, and the outright lies from our alleged political leaders and think they should be no longer be given a pass for their failures and should be held to account for them.  The record shows pretty conclusively that the "next time" never comes and never will come unless and until the people force the politicians to actually represent the interests of the people as opposed to the interests of the predator class. 

    The clear lesson over and over and over again for decades now has been that you cannot force these spineless politicians to do anything by mindlessly lining up behind them no matter how bad of a job they've done.  Being less odious than the Republicans by a hair is not enough of a reason for those in the second faction to back these double dealing hacks.  That's not much to recommend them and it's all that many of our Democratic elected officials have in their favor on election day.  On that point all factions agree.  All of us hold our noses and vote for some Democrats simply because they're less odious than the Republican alternative but we don't have to do that in every case and we don't have to be quiet about how wrong it is to keep backing such poor candidates in the first place.  But while one faction is sick of it and is very vocal about it, the other faction, being afraid of the outcome should a "real" Republican be elected continue to choose the "better than a Republican" rationale up and down the line.

    Nobody who is sick and tired of this losing strategy ever says they are angry because the politicians haven't gotten "everything" they wanted.  They never say that because that's not at all the complaint.  Nobody expects to get everything they want.  But they do expect to get some of the things they want.  The only folks who ever make that bogus claim that the left is complaining because they didn't get "everything" are the ones coming up with excuses for the dishonest approach these office holders have adopted and who then want to blame the critics for the failure of those office holders who never planned on anything other than settling for less or nothing to begin with despite their election campaign promises which are as often as not completely dishonest.

    The faction that complains about the results we are getting with the settle for less or nothing strategy have every right to make their point as do the folks who are willing to settle for less or nothing.  In my view, the record is loud and clear about what Democrats get if they continue on this path they've been on for nearly 40 years: more losses, more rightward drift of government, more damage to the common people of the country and the standard of living we have in America.  Folks in the other faction then retort that it's better than if the Republicans were in.  That argument can always be made and is always made to excuse the shortcomings of Democratic politicians in achieving what they say are their goals. But you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result right?

    Miguelitoh brought to my attention the following blog post that expresses very well why so many good, loyal Democrats are so vocal in their criticism of the corporate centrist Democrats leading the party now and who have been in control of the party nationally since the aftermath of the election of 1972 with the exception of the brief time when Howard Dean was Chairman of the DNC and engineered the massive victories of 2006 and 2008 that were then promptly squandered by the corporate centrists and their capitulation to the Republican agenda and preservation of the status quo.

    http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/687/what-if-the-egyptian-protesters-were-democrats

     


    Are you referring to Dean's "massive victories" that resulted in dozens of Republican-lite, Blue Dog Democrats being elected to Congress, and then working against all of the most progressive aspects of Obama's agenda? 


    As A-man's writings have pointed out, a fair number of the Blue Dog Dems took what for them were tough votes in support of cap and trade and HC, as examples.  The reason we didn't get some version of cap and trade and a decent infrastructure jobs bill wasn't on account of the Blue Dogs in the House, enough of whom voted with Pelosi on those bills for them to pass the House.  Rather, they died in the Senate.   

    I'm struggling to follow the logic of your comment.  You seem to be arguing in favor of building a majority party.  And you seem to believe that Dean's actions helped accomplish that.  But then you seem to be bashing Dean and his strategy, the one that in your view helped create a (temporary) majority.  What course of action would you have preferred, given the goal you state of building a majority party?


    I'm saying that, in order to build that majority party, we're going to have to accept, even welcome, people more conservative than we are.  Liberals who are as far left on the spectrum as most of those who comment here (and I include myself in that description) are a sliver of the electorate.  And sadly, one result of that Big Tent philosophy, is also a party and a program much more conservative than we might like.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear.  But I think it does contain as much logic as the one to which it responded.  We can have a pure party, or we can have a big one.  Hell, even the now-sainted Dean wanted "guys in pickup trucks with gun racks and Confederate flags in the window" to vote Democratic. 


    I think the logic of your comment reflects a lazy acceptance of conventional wisdom.  And I also have no idea how to assess it because I have no idea what you mean when you say the party needs to be more conservative to have a majority.  On all issues, or buckets of issues?  Some? 

    Many communities in "Blue Dog" territory are economically devastated right now?  Do you believe people in those communities who are desperate for jobs would be opposed to the supposedly far-left idea of a large public infrastructure jobs bill, say what the House actually passed last year notwithstanding all those Blue Dog Dems?  Do you believe people in those communities think the big banks and the scumbags who ripped off the taxpayers and whose recklessness and incompetence plunged the economy into the current mess we're in, have been held properly accountable, and that the problems have been adequately addressed?  Do you think that, because they meet some unarticulated definition of "conservatism", they are unreceptive to stronger financial regulations that would make it possible for small-town banks to compete with the big boys on something closer to a level playing field when it comes to their ability to offer financing for local small businesses?

    Are these arguments being made out in Blue Dog territory, and rejected?  Care to place any bets on what people in many of those communities think of when they think of the Democratic party, and whether they think the Democratic party offers anything potentially more advantageous than the Republicans to their aspirations to find employment building a greener infrastructure and a more promising future, or be able to obtain credit from the hometown local bank to start a small business?  Are candidates and elected officials in these areas even talking about these issues as they seek to distinguish themselves from their competition? 

    On social policy issues such as abortion rights, gay/lesbian marriage and partnerships, guns, for example, I don't disagree that some parts of the country are just more conservative on these issues than others and anyone who wants to get elected is probably going to be no farther
    "left" than moderate on most or all of them to stand a chance of winning.

    It's the failure even to recognize distinctions such as these that leaves me with a sense that internet arguments that just sling around labels and terms as though everyone knows what they mean and everyone has the same idea what they mean and everyone knows, just knows, what the people in the "camp" they don't identify with think about things (because all people in that "camp" believe the same things, right?), are mostly people talking past one another.


    "Do you believe people in those communities who are desperate for jobs would be opposed to the supposedly far-left idea of a large public infrastructure jobs bill, say what the House actually passed last year notwithstanding all those Blue Dog Dems?  Do you believe people in those communities think the big banks and the scumbags who ripped off the taxpayers and whose recklessness and incompetence plunged the economy into the current mess we're in, have been held properly accountable, and that the problems have been adequately addressed?  Do you think that, because they meet some unarticulated definition of "conservatism", they are unreceptive to stronger financial regulations that would make it possible for small-town banks to compete with the big boys on something closer to a level playing field when it comes to their ability to offer financing for local small businesses?"

    If they do believe in those things, then why have they been voting against government doing any of them for an entire generation?  I think most of the people in those communities are, frankly, the problem.  And maybe they need their noses rubbed in the deprivation that their electoral choices have contributed to in order to make better choices in the future.  


    "And maybe they need their noses rubbed in the deprivation that their electoral choices have contributed to in order to make better choices in the future."

    I like the way you're positioned here, Brew. On the one hand, you're clearly opposed to those arrogant, do-nothing, hoity-toity, academic, unrealistic, idealistic, progressive "lefties," who would doom the Democratic Party to life on the margins.... And yet, you're still able to look down on the majority of the population as though they were puppies being toilet-trained, needing their noses rubbed in the poo of life. 

    I've said it before: You're a note-perfect spokesman for this Administration.


    Does this administration look down on the majority of the population?  I thought they only punched hippies, and loved them some Republicans.

    And trust me, this administration does not want me as their spokesman. 


    AMEN!


    This is an excellent essay, Ms. McCarthy.  It’s cogent and well-written, and addresses a lot of good points.  And even issues a demand that we tell you why we haven’t been attending precinct meetings (that’s what they’re called in our neck of the woods.)  You hit just the right note of humility in your many paragraphs of service and commitment to your community and the Democratic Party, and let us know that you strive to become expert in any subject area before you discuss it.  That’s a good thing.

    You do seem to take it for granted that the rest of your audience doesn’t have much history in similar activism, but then it’s your essay, so that’s okay.  And you did make it clear that that miniscule minority of Lefties like Kucinich (Bernie’s a Socialist Dem, remember, so he doesn’t actually count) will not take over Your Party.  You’ve drawn a line in the sand: more power to you!  That ‘Big Tent’ might not have been serving us that well anyway. 

    One thing I’d offer that you may not care for though, as since you’ve addressed some here (or maybe at Salon where you say you also blog?) as ‘kiddies’ (everyone always appreciates being infantilized) is that reading here over the past few months, I kinda got the idea that some of the smartest writers and commenters here were sorta making their cases better than other of you, (but as Brew will remind you, I'm arrogant and biased on that score, so it may not count), and maybe that’s why you’re smarting and feeling a bit defensive about ‘the real Democratic Party’ you mention often.

    Funny, too, on the timing of this; I’d been considering writing a similar essay, though admittedly from a bit different perspective.  More in answer to that question that’s asked so often in online forums if one criticizes Obama:  “How would you like it if MCCain/Palin were in power?”

    The answer to that has been creeping up on me bit by bit: At least Dems would be fighting back instead of lying back and withholding criticism because it might harm the Party in the future.  Now we can have an honest disagreement about the good of the people v. the good of the Party, but some of have made the choice, and until recently thought that a Leftist Movement might pull the Party back a little more left.  Probably not by now, but one can dream…

    I do hope some smart folks take a resolution to their precinct caucuses to suggest no Dems ever say ‘you didn’t get your Sparkle Pony’ ever again or risk censure.  And why would we use the term ‘Massah’? 

    Hope this makes all of you laugh at least a little; we're all in here at least a little bit.  ;o)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsd0WNl8u0  

     


    The answer to that has been creeping up on me bit by bit: At least Dems would be fighting back instead of lying back and withholding criticism because it might harm the Party in the future.

    Uh oh .... now you're strategizing like an independent.

     


    How very Bachmann-esque of you, tmc.  Why is it I can picture both you and Michele showing up at all the meetings, dominating the conversation and the meeker souls who are willing to do what you tell them?

    Have you ever - ever - considered how many people you (and Michele) discourage from participating because the truth is you think participation means people should do what you want.

    Oh, and Dateline: Narita International Airport?  Puh-leeze. < /snort>

     


    LOL!  I think she meant: Dateline: 成田国際空港


    .


    You deleted your reply so I deleted mine.

     


    &TLDR - take net lessons from your kids and lighten up.


    I dunno, I am with you Mac.

    For heavens sake, there are people who take their civic duty seriously.

    And the 10-15 regulars you are speaking of even get labeled as party bosses!

    Politics involves money and coalitions.

    It is easy to push two faced Liebermans away but to scream bloody murder at people like Baucus does our party no good at all.

    There is a real enemy out there. There is a group of people who would destroy all unions, destroy all safety nets available except for the elite corporate oligarchist's safety nets, destroy the minimum wage, put guns in the hands of school children, remove any defenses we have against industries that poison our air and our water, remove any defenses we have against wanton theft by government contractors, put more and more of the lower classes into prisons owned and operated by corporations to be used as slave labor, replace science texts in our schools with the Book of Genesis, cease all taxation of corporations, allow corporations the use of foreign sweat shops without any repercussions, continually lower effective tax rates for the top one or two percent of our population that owns everything, sell off our national resources for peanuts to the corporate oligarchy, destroy all individual rights under the 14 Amendment excepting only those with high priced attorneys and the NRA, ensure all contractual clauses punish whistleblowers, take the current freedoms of the internet away from the masses, eventually round up the 'illegals'......

    There is too much work to be done to spend all of one's time attacking civic minded dems who are attempting to fight the good fights and somehow appease the constituencies they have worked so hard to pull into the Democratic tent.

    the end


    See. But when you say it ... you aren't a total butt-hole.

    I'm thinking Schweitzer is going to be in a STRONG position to challenge Baucus 2014. He's term limited out in 2012 which leaves two years to do nothing but campaign from the private sector and have a total outsider edge. Montana really is quite fond of him. To me he's SO much better than Baucus ... and frankly, more likely to carry the state.

    So ... if there is on person we should be threatening the living crap out of with a primary challenge, it's Baucus. We have a far stronger alternative. So, really, you are wrong in your specific example. (BTW: Montana has two Dem senators, A Dem gov., and until the national Dems turned toxic - they were pretty well represented in legislature ... Schweitzer said that in all the 2010 GOP advertising, only ONE state race even mentioned the name of the Democratic candidate - the GOP made it a referendum on Obama and the national Democrats and it decimated the state party).

    And that's the point. Knee jerk protecting someone just because they are wearing a "D" on their jersey today is stupid. And when you presume from way across the country that one thing is the best - well, you sometimes end up doing the equivalent of leaving those kids in Egypt with zero support under the thumb of a shitty dictator. If you know whats right - and someone isn't doing it, call em on it. If you criticize someone and their constituents disagree, they'll let you know - like A-Man did when he defended Giffords as a good blue dog rep. I have heard several Montana folks make a good case for Tester - not many folks standing up for Baucus.


    "Knee jerk protecting someone just because they are wearing a "D" on their jersey today is stupid."

    Dude, please stop with this.  Nobody protects someone just because they wear a "D" on their jersey.  We defend people because they are better than the alternative, and the most likely result of tearing them down is to only make things worse.

    There are very few loyalists, apologists, whatever the term of opprobrium de jure is, that argue against primary challenges to the worst of the Democrats.  But you can see the limits to a strategy of ideological purification in last year's midterms.  The Republicans might have come perilously close to a majority in the Senate as well as the House if they hadn't nominated the likes of Angle or O'Donnell.  We should push for better Democrats, but should still try to nominate candidates that have a good shot at winning a general election.  


    "scream bloody murder at people like Baucus does our party no good at all".

    OUR PARTY?

    Depends on whose party, the Democratic leadership serves?

    If “We” the working class are only servants at the party of the well healed, does it really matter?

    The Democratic Capitalist Catering Company (party) allows they’re people servants  to pick up the crumbs that fall from the masters table, maybe in the kitchen we can sip from the same wine glass, we can lick the plates of the leftovers.

    The other; the Republican Catering Company frowns on this type of conduct, it shames their clients.  

    Like two competing catering companies, bidding to serve the corporate masters.

    The servants have 2 choices, Republican or republican – lite.

    The Democratic Catering Company vying for the contract, saying “Look over there; Bachman or other so and so's are wrong” …..That’s only a diversion, so the workers won’t focus their anger at the management of the Democratic Catering Company.   

    Aren’t you slaves glad, you aren’t working for that "other" catering company?


    Damn straight.


    The part I like best is where you argue for Unity, then attack the Unions for putting Walker in. 

    Otherwise, the piece speaks for itself.


    Those unions are restratergizing right now I bet!!


    It's simple a case of those who lead a relatively charmed life have no business lecturing those who are just making it - there are a lot who are just making it - on who they should or should not support and what policies are best. It's like a Seventh Day Adventist lecturing an alcoholic on the evils of booze. It comes off as arrogant and self righteous.


    This is a really ugly, ad hominem line of argument against the points made in the original post.  First, you don't seem to find all of the lecturing coming from your side of this divide objectionable in the least.  The inability of the self-defined progressives to see that they are at least as, and often more so, guilty of the sins for which they condemn others is at the top of the list of their many annoying rhetorical tics.

    Second, while the Democrat/Republican divide does have a class aspect, it is by no means a dispositive one.  There are plenty of people who are just making it, to use your phrase, that vote Republican.  So the idea that wealthy individuals can't support progressive policies is disproven on a daily basis.

    Finally, your characterization of the OP as telling people "who they should or should not support and what policies are best" is a grossly unfair misreading of the post.  The point of the post is that to effect progressive change takes a lot of sustained effort, and not just during presidential election years.  This point seems self-evident to me, yet it is met with howls of outrage, and, in your case, a despicable, weak,  ad hominem attack to try to discredit an argument that all liberals, progressives, or what have you should take to heart.  I really wonder why that is.        


    There are plenty of people who are just making it, to use your phrase, that vote Republican.

    And there is a reason for this. They cannot stand the current crop of Democrats who have hung them out to dry for the last 20 years or so. And there are a lot more Joe Six Packs than there are hotsy-snottsy college educated liberals and progressives.

    So instead of support the current  fools in the Democratic party and making excuses for them, they need to be challenged on a daily basis. Not be condescending toward Joe Blue Collar worker.


    Well done people you certainly didn't disappoint.

    Thank you to my defenders. That was really nice.

    To my detractors: I've given this a good deal of thought today after reading through the hate fest going on here. It's awful isn't it that I work hard for what I believe in, awful x 1000. Yeah, I mean I should just hate everything like you all do, and give up. But vent away, because I am definitely the most powerful person in all of Oz and yelling at me changes everything.

    Hey, guess what your character is showing.


    Really? You've read through all the comments over the past couple of days, and it still comes down to your defenders and your detractors? How nice.


    One day, yesterday, I was on a plane and traveling home, the day prior, and there is no air connection in Asia. So it's called Jet Lag and I levied no personal attacks at anyone. None, you know what happened here right, the personal attacks ran wild. which is what a group of bullies do, they personally attack when they have no substantive argument. In fact there is a group of you who seemed to feel obliged to really hit below the belt. Nice reflection on the character of said folks. 

    So, I am supposed to take the personal attacks lightly. Am I? Theres is one poster who knows a few things about me, because of a chat room we used to chat in acanuck. And do you believe using that type of information is correct, do you believe that to be ethical? I find it quite unethical and a violation of the boundaries actually set forth in said chat room. But I imagine you do find all personal attacks complete acceptable, because I don't believe the same things you do. Making you no different than he. Good to know.  I gave my personal experience and you all jumped in to attack because it is just 3x awful that I work for what I believe. I realize for a certain set of folks here, that is completely unacceptable.

    Is it that awful that I've given my time to the party of my choice? Do you really believe the personal attacks actually get you somewhere, do you think I will say, oh well, yes now I realize how wrong I've been.  And as I read through the comments, I thought Wow, just wow. Of course you all would rather be in a pointless flame war, no thanks, you do that, I don't need to I wrote what I wrote there is nothing more to say is there.   I intend to continue to do my work and you all will continue to use personal attacks to shut down any opinion you disagree with, guess what, I don't shut down that easily.


    tmac, some of the comments that you are taking as attacks against you, rather than disagreements, have some edge to them, yes.  You don't see how your post was taken by some reading it as a hard-edged, uncareful, broadbrush slam?  That some interpreted it as you saying there is only one way to do "real work" and "serve the cause", and that is on the inside, doing the kind of work you have been doing?  That protest and outdoor politics, no matter of what nature and how done, inherently involve no real work or sacrifice or risk?  And in any case play no real role in bringing about change in our country? 

    It seems ridiculous to me that there can't be a recognition of the importance of different types of work, most certainly including the kind of work you have been doing.  I didn't interpret commenters here as dissing the kind of insider work you have been doing, more taking umbrage at what they took to be your view that that's the only type of legitimate contribution to be made. 


    Yes there is a certain poster here who decided to use our chattin in his attacks against me, you don't see it as highly unethical. The rest of you, argue on and on, it is not my intention to get into the usual flame wars many here seem attracted to, and the honest truth is I was on a plane for 14.5 hours and you know jet lag really does get to you, so I figured the blog was simply dead, why beat a dead horse. As you can see from the poster below yourself the echo chamber survives.  So you shouldn't worry what one little woman says or writes, you know your echo chamber is all around you, you can all get what you want from the many other bloggers here.


    I'm not interested in an echo chamber and in fact if you check the videotape wrote in support of some of the things you were saying, as well as disagreeing with some.  I don't see you as "one little woman", tmac.  I respect you, and said so.  On the ethical concern you cite, you may have a point--I'll have to go back and find the comments that you are referring to.   


    "For God's sake, St. Joan. Get down off from there before you get hurt. Besides, the barbecue" (How do you say "barbecue in French?)  "is over and we need the space for the next horse auction."


    For Gods sake Jessbus, why the fuck to you even care?

    Signed,

    The great and powerful Oz.


    (How do you say "barbecue in French?

     
    I think its "le barbecue"

     

     

     


    Over 40 years as an activist Democrat here, working within the party, including:

    - fundraising

    - canvassing

    - Officer of county Dem Party

    - Participation in platform writing, discussions and voting, and in elections for Delegates to Conventions

    - attending State and National Conventions, sometimes as a delegate

    - Voting Democrat in every election since 1972 (the year I turned 18)

    - Campaign(s) volunteer (Everything from making the coffee to preparing campaign lit layout and copy, etc.)

    - almost ten years on County Board of Supervisors

    - campaign manager for successful state legislature campaigns

    - candidate in an unsuccessful campaign for State Assembly

    - etc.

    You are the real Democrat? In all that time, I met a lot of real Democrats. I never met you. Obviously, dear, you are an imposter.

    But that's ok. Stick around and enjoy the hors douevres. I was just leaving, anyway.


    For the record. I don't really care Jeebus... you want an echo chamber, you don't want anyone to write anything you don't want to read, so the question to you is, why would you read anything I write? huh? Why? You already don't like me because I don't agree with you 100% of the time, oh and I don't kiss your ass, and heap praise upon you, oh noes... so awful. Yeah, and i don't flame your blogs, why do you think that is? I don't give a shit what you write, you are all flame all the time, and you don't like it that I have a different opinion than you do, do I look like I care, nope not one bit. I think you are full of shit the majority of the time. But the question to you is, why the fuck do you even care what I write? So very weird. 

    Oh, right only your little group of those who agree 100% get a pass with you, because you all picked each other for your flame war team. Yeah, it is so awful reading things you disagree with, it is so awful that I have an opinion that differs, and experience that is different, wow, bummer, oh and that I have money, I see that is a big issue here. Hah. Well, how very democratic of you lunatics, I think you are just like TBags requiring 100% compliance with your thoughts,

    Oh Noes..I used my personal experience to describe what we've been doing,  yes so awful..
    And that you were forced to read it... you know in communist DagChina..

    You flame everyone you disagree with, flame on Jeebus... flame on, it's what you do best.

     


    Guess it's a bad time to ask if we can have some of your money...  Cool


    "Flame on, St. Joan! The light, it flatters you!"


    Please.

    You are all good people, and I love all of you. Never forget you're friends. if for nothing else, believe this for the luckless chicken, but mostly for yourselves. Having someone use personal info against one, is the most shocking and hurtful of offences. All the nastness in this thread came from the realization and knee-jerk, sophomoric poor form that some of us are better off than others.

    Friends tend to be glad of others good fortune, and aside from that issue, there was some good discussion here. I'm glad T is OK. I wish we all were.

    xoxoxoxo


    Latest Comments