We need to become the party of "perfect".

[madfloridian]

I felt sick inside when I came here today. I was reading some posts in LBN about things Howard Dean has said on pulling out of Iraq, and on changing the words we use to talk about women's issues.

There is a lot of "gotcha" stuff there from folks who do not realize he is just talking the way he always has. I have seen posts here recently about how happy some are to see his "true colors" start showing.

It is alarming to me that so many here are not willing to see that these are issues with consequence. I may not agree on the Iraq thing, I don't really know. But think about it! What would happen to the world economy and the world oil prices if we left there as it is right now? It would carry over into the Saudi area as well. It could leave the whole region in a precarious position.

There are other issues to it than just "get out now." As I say, I am not sure how I feel.

On the abortion issue, I see what he is doing. He is taking the language back on it, and actually that is about all the hell we can do right now....being we are out of power there.

Now to my point. There is nothing productive about this. Nothing. We have a party to grow. He is on the same page on exiting Iraq as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Clark. He always has said the very same words. He has always said "now that we are there." They are all on the same page but Kucinich. Yet now for some reason many are taking great joy in this.

The GOP has their work made easy by us. I came here as a reasonable moderate in 2002. I was sort of out of place. Then when I became a supporter of Dean's campaign, I became a rabid fringe liberal. I was the same. We are so critical of each other that I am afraid for the future of the party.

If people did not pay attention to Dean's words during the primaries, they should not be critical. He is using the very same words, he is not selling out anyone. He has always said these things.

There is a lot of hurting here of various groups. I have been the brunt of much of the anger, but some are trying to work through it with me. I appreciate it. I care about one thing....getting ourselves back together again and moving forward. I don't see it happening much here yet. And unfortunately, I see it getting divisive on the ground here locally.

I don't agree with any one of our politicians on everything. I don't expect to. I just see so much pettiness today it is unreal.

The GOP can just sit back and wait for all those who want a pure voice to leave for the Greens, as they have threatened. Then they really have the power.

[sui generis]

1. the fact of the matter is that we need many heads

to fight the many headed hydra of this administration. We are all going to have to work together, regardless of who you favor, to make change happen. Even if we had someone who could walk on water and raise the dead twice a day before breakfast, it is unlikely that the media would give him the coverage required to deliver that message any wider than the choir.

We have to be media whores just like they are. Every time they disagree with something the cameras are rolling showing their outrage and anger and passion. We just need to get ourselves a bigger slice of time in front of those cameras and the republicans have shown us the way.

You have to attack, attack, attack, relentlessly, and fortunately there is a never ending cornucopia of corruption they provide us with every day to help.

So Boxer and Dean and Kucinich and Kerry and every one of us here in the trenches have to dig in and rip those assholes a new crack every time they turn around before they really succeed in changing America into the Christian and Corporate Taliban.

[Frances]

2. Excellent post

When I was young there was an expression, "He/she lives in an ivory tower." This expression meant that the person did not understand real life.

In a democracy, all people do not agree on every issue all of the time. To say that you are going "to take your ball and go home" if every Dem doesn't vote the way you want on every issue is not recognizing that we live in a real world.

I am a Dem because most of the Dems vote the way I want most of the time on most of the issues.

I am very anti-Repub because most of the Repubs vote against everything I believe in most of the time.

[wuushew]

3. I don't care if the oil market collapses

There is more than enough wealth to feed and provide for everyone in this country, provided that it is forcibly redistributed. We are simply taking the easy way out currently in order to preserve capitalism and our unsustainable model of growth. In the process we are raping the land and killing brown people.

Bring on hemp ethanol/bio-diesel + photovoltaics

[madfloridian]

4. I am talking about more than just oil markets. Think.

You have a right to your opinions. I agree we need alternatives, but my goodness we are not going to wave a wand and get it.

[AndyTiedye]

106. The Truely Wealthy Won't Allow Their Assets to be 'Redistributed'

They would move them offshore at the first sign of any such thing.
Just recind the tax cuts and end the war. That will free up plenty
of money. Fix healthcare. Invest in sustainable infrastructure.
(Funny, that's what Clinton and Gore wanted to do).

[AndyTiedye]

107. It Isn't Capitalism When Somebody Buys The Government

Bring on hemp ethanol/bio-diesel + photovoltaics

I'm with ya there.

It isn't really a question of preserving capitalism,
more of restoring it.

It isn't capitalism when somebody buys the government.

The free market for hemp has not been allowed to compete
because hemp is ILLEGAL. THIS IS WHY IT IS ILLEGAL --
because the pulp paper companies feared the competition
from superior hemp paper products! W.R.Hearst had interests
in those companies, so his papers stirred up Reefer Madness.

It is not a free market when the oil companies have such massive
subsidies, including the free services of the U.S. military to secure
their product.

[wuushew]

110. Our form of capitalism is a ponzi scheme based on growth

Most owners of property and of stock are only guaranteed a reasonable return because future markets look to expand. A stock that does not appreciate earns no return(save dividends). The same philosophy allows the fools in Washington to pay for todays expenses with tomorrow's debt.

Sooner or later our society which is extremely energy and resource dependent will no longer have ability to sustain itself. While it could be said that capitalism creates wealth it primary characteristic is that of wealth concentration. When our current period of expansion is necessarily ended the rich will continue to hoard what little remains leaving the rest to starve. This is why population levels and energy production must be made sustainable.

Such a steady state economy must employ forced wealth redistribution via taxation or other mean to ensure societal equality. We must face this point sooner or later, I would like to address it sooner.

[AndyTiedye]

121. Some Stuff Grows, Some Just Goes

Most owners of property and of stock are only guaranteed a reasonable return because future markets look to expand.

Or because they produce income.
Rental property produces rental income, even if it does not appreciate.

A stock that does not appreciate earns no return(save dividends).

Companies that are not growing, such as those in long-established industries,
usually do pay dividends if they are able to do so.

The same philosophy allows the fools in Washington to pay for todays expenses with tomorrow's debt.

What permits them to do that is the willingness of foreigners to buy US treasury bills. Certainly their appetite for these is not limitless.

Sooner or later our society which is extremely energy and resource dependent will no longer have ability to sustain itself.

We will consume less energy, one way or another.

While it could be said that capitalism creates wealth it primary characteristic is that of wealth concentration.

I'm not sure if that is inherent to capitalism itself, or to the
tendency for wealthy capitalists to corrupt (buy) the government.

Either way, if wealth is getting too concentrated, then the tax
system needs some adjustment.

When our current period of expansion is necessarily ended the rich will continue to hoard what little remains

Hoard what? food? Lots of people are doing that, and most of them
aren't rich.

leaving the rest to starve.

We obviously must not permit Boosh** and his cronies to dismantle
what is left of the "safety net" programs as they have been trying to do.

This is why population levels and energy production must be made sustainable.

How do you propose to do that? Eating the rich is not an option
(and even if it were, there are not enough of them, and most of
them would be very high in chlorestorol).

Such a steady state economy must employ forced wealth redistribution via taxation or other mean to ensure societal equality. We must face this point sooner or later, I would like to address it sooner.

I would suggest that the optimal tax policy is somewhere in between.
I would not want to remove ALL incentive from the economy, then it
stagnates, but everyone should have adequate food, shelter, health
care, and education. This would certainly require a more progressive
tax structure than we have today in the US. Most other first-world
countries seem to have managed it.

We need not forgo growth either. During the last economic boom, what
was growing most rapidly was information in various forms. Much of
it was transmitted over the Internet. More of it can be. That does
not require much energy, and it keeps getting more efficient all the
time.

[Cleita]

5. Everytime one of us or ours gets criticized for our

stands on various hot issues, I get very suspicious as to whose agenda this fulfills. Time for them to clean their own houses first before they come over to clean ours.

[applegrove]

6. I think there is the odd rovbot or freeper-troll on line stirring the pot

and trying to get DUers to start attacking their own leaders. Be it Lieberman, Maher, Jackson, Clinton, Dean... it serves only the GOP cause to undo our big Democratic tent.

What we hate about the GOP is how they seem to relish getting their own voters..to vote against their own best interests.

We should applaud that at the DU. We should applaud diversity. We should applaud someone like Clinton who is reaching out to Christians who may have felt marginalized by Liberals.. after working so closely with liberals to form the New Deal.

We have much more in common with the empathetic moderates who voted for Bush for some reason..than any of us have in common with the current GOP leadership.


You have to expect people to vote or set policy that is realistic if they are leaders. Facts are that most of the middle class growth is going to be outside the USA in the next 100 years.. USA has had its burst. So we need corporations to get us participating in the markets of other countries. So we can be for corporations.. as a tool for people, and not be bad Democrats. Corporations just need to be regulated.

USA will be poorer than in the 20th century. There will be competition with the whole world and you do not want to cut your business off (or the businesses in your town off) from those markets. It is just the way it is.

But that does not mean that you morph the country into a elite & tribal place. That is what Bush, the neocons and the GOP are up to. We are not like them. We are for not bankrupting government and putting off recession with phony shell games. We are the adults.

We need to stop 'patterning' after the adolescent brown-shirts Karl Rove has created out of the right. They are always on attack at anyone who does not bend to their rigid laws (sociopaths do that).

We have nothing to learn from them.

We need to drop the habit of attacking our own democratic leaders for leading. For making the tough decisions that come with an economy that will never see the wealth of the 20th Century Bubble again (where we did not compete with Soviet Block, Europe after the Wars, the less developed nations..because they were messed up). Now we do have to face competition. And we have to be realistic.

And we have to empathize with others. That is what the GOP would have us stop: understanding that you can't always get what you want.. but if you try - you get what you need (Rolling Stones). We are the adults. We have to stop it with the attacks on our guys & gals. Otherwise we have learnt tribalism from the GOP and the elites will be able to rule from the top and make all the regulations favor their narrow set of needs.. because we will be too busy bickering with 'others' to get together, form a plurality and be a democracy. Which is what we are.

Most americans do not want to see abortion illegal. They just don't want them to be common. There is so much room to get back support if we just listen to people. If we just understand that any good democratic government will have the needs of many people to choose from.

If we insist on everything going exactly as we want.. we are no better than the elites who have coerced and coopted the current GOP.

[madfloridian]

7. I agree there is outside influence.

It is causing problems when we should be united, even if not agreeing on everything.

[Cleita]

9. Lieberman is attackable. Just because he says he's

a Democrat doesn't mean he is when his words and actions speak otherwise. Dean on the other hand has proved in every way that he is True Blue.

[applegrove]

12. Lieberman is a hawk on Israel. Like many. He votes his heart. That

is what a democrat is. His heart is not an exact copy of yours or mine. I think 25 anti-Lieberman posts is excessive when say Biden did some of the same votes and not a one post about him.

We know that Karl Rove has set his sights on NY state as the next one to flip. We know that. In Texas he flipped a few key Democratic leaders and their followers flipped too.

That is what sociopaths do. They flip people. It often involves taking something deep inside they cannot bend on, getting others to attack them on that spot, creating huge anxiety, and boom - your guy flip his world view (or small view) because it is too much.

I just do not think that DUers should be letting themselves get used as the 'attackers'. Lieberman is voting his particular heart and he speaks for a certain portion of the population on Israel. A certain portion of the Democratic party too.

We either want our people to be voting their hearts or not.

If you attack him for who he is deep down inside (or if it is made to look that way with multiple posts on this board) then you may manage to isolate the guy. Then it will be onto the next Democratic leader of the NY area.

We know Karl Rove's patterns. Why would we fall into the trap.

Let's not with the personal attacks on our leaders.

Lieberman has not changed his voting patterns, we have just changed our patterns of being Democratic supporters into attacking anyone who differs. Because we are wounded. Because we want to protect ourselves.

We have to act out of empathy even more so than we ever did before.

That is how the Rovbots and the GOP cabal will be taken down.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

22. If Lieberman's position on Israel is unacceptable for a Democrat

get ready to kiss New York and Florida good bye forever.

[applegrove]

24. It is about not loosing our empathy. The empathy that brings disparate

people together to vote a plurality or majority. That is what democracy is. And at times some issues may make you look like you are further apart than together, but you realize that both of you have the right to follow your hearts.

That is what the Democratic party is.

[applegrove]

25. Self delete - double

[Cleita]

27. I'm not attacking Lieberman on his views on Israel.

Many progressive and liberal Jews views are the same. It's his domestic postions on many things like school vouchers, social security reform and many others that make him indistinguishable from the conservatives.

[applegrove]

33. And you don't think that someone worried about Israel may not

have a pound of flesh extracted from them by the sociopaths in the WH?

It is called coercion! And it is everywhere. Tis how fascism works.

Just like all the 'favors' the GOP got from the Democratic Leadership after 9/11. When people have great fear.. they vote different. Those with no feelings will exploit that.

Why we didn't hear the Dems sound a peep during 2001, 2002.

[Cleita]

36. Well, if he's your guy, I'm not trying to dissuade you, nor

will you convince me he's been that put upon. I read too and his words and actions speak for themselves. I wish I knew why the Dems have been purring to the other side of the aisle, too, all the while getting kicked in the ass when they get too close.

[Walt Starr]

8. It's what Hillary Clinton is doing, too.

I think the Clintons and Dean have come to an understanding that we cannot win if we do not take back the language of the debate, and both are demonstrating that aptly.

I've got a lot that I disagree with Hillary on (just as I did with Dean), but I'll tell you what. she's politically savvy and has the best potential built-in campaign advisor ever, and she will win. I already number myself a supporter of Hillary for President in 2008.

And you want to know what else? It's GREAT that the more liberal among us are castigating both Dean and Hillary because that will show the middle that they ain't what the radical reightists make them out to be, which means the rightists won't be able to scare the middle out of voting for Hillary.

It's win-win for us.

[applegrove]

13. If you think that cutting up the Democratic Party is win, win, you are

wrong. For sure the fringe will be lost. But why should we let anyone start acting like a hate-filled baiter & hater?

Hillary is appealing to the majority of Democrats who do not feel governments should not pay their bills. She is appealing to the majority of Americans who do not want to see abortion illegal - just rare.

She is taking the debate right up to the face of Rove's base. Getting them to think again. That is what a great leader will do. Speak to the heart of the party.

Only 1% voted for Nader. Because most Democrats know that the days of 20th century wealth is over for the West. And we have choices to make.

[Ripley]

10. I just wish he hadn't used those particular words.

"I don't know anybody who's for abortion." I know what he meant - I've heard him speak quite specifically as a doctor and as a candidate about abortion. He is firmly pro-choice.

You are quite correct that the nit-picking and expectations of perfection have become full-body sports here at DU. Lots of shiny coin distractions over the last couple of months. Frankly I think the DU Groups were a really bad idea. It has out-cliqued the Lounge and we now have base camps for about every tribe imaginable. How is that supposed to be a good thing?

[wuushew]

11. The very words "rare" or "uncommon" is condescending

I do not presume what the motivations of other people are. In many ways the best tenets of liberalism mixes with that of libertarianism.

Adopting language to the contrary is just a necessary marketing technique that realizes that people project their own values and authoritarianism on others. The first politician having the balls to say this would earn my respect for being truthful and honest.

[madfloridian]

17. Someone has been saying it loudly. Saying they took over our language.

.

[KittyWampus]

14. Why Didn't You Post This When Same Was Done To Kerry Or Other

fine Democrats?

At any rate, I agree and am glad that some Dean supporters may now come to realise that the circular firing squad isn't helpful in anyway.

[madfloridian]

15. There you go again.

I never did those things. This is heartbreaking. There are no winners here.

[madfloridian]

16. Are you not aware my hubby and I supported Kerry?

We worked for him and donated substantially. Maybe somewhere along the line you got confused on this. Thanks for the great contribution to my thread of trying to be reasonable.

There is one candidate I do not care for, and I pay dearly for it.

Be fair.

[madfloridian]

18. I will check back for an answer to this.

I thought you knew we supported Kerry. You prove we did not. I am tired of this, cryingshame.

[Ripley]

19. Oh give it a freaking rest would you?

I can't believe you guys have to drag your same lame-ass primaries in-fighting shit out of GD Politics into GD. In a thread pleading for all sides to quit the damn witch burning of our own at every possible turn, no less.

[madfloridian]

20. Thank you.

Trying for peace does no good at all. We are going to crash and burn as a party because of the damn primary wars here. It is spreading around the internet like wildfire.

I despise this.

[Ripley]

21. I have seen your very reasonable posts attacked for zero reason.

And it's always the usual suspects.

Is it a grudge?

Is it a troll?

Is it mental illness in the form of internet stalking?

Who knows. But I appreciate your attempts at unity.

[KittyWampus]

47. This Isn't About "Primary Shit". THAT'S MY POINT.

[madfloridian]

48. Only in this way...I pointed out he was saying the same things then.

I wish you would read my OP again. I am so tired of being attacked here that I asked it be locked. It hasn't though.

I did not do anything except try to point out that is where all our Democrats are on it except one. I said Dean is saying the same things he has said for more than two years. Yet today he is the bad guy for it.

Why not all the ones who voted for the damn war, and who say the same things?

[ElectroPrincess]

70. Yes, I'm glad you were able to air your concerns :-)

There should be a safe place where folks supporting the DNC (not the DLC as you have censored me in the past) can air their thoughts and feelings.

Me? Many of us (you know - Americans) don't give a damn about EVER living in the Middle East. We don't even have family ties to that area of the world.

It may sound cold, but I wish we could build a big wall around the entire M.E. and let *the locals* fight it out (killing and getting killed) until the end of time.

Just curious: when did we transform Israel into our 51st state?

Finally, when did Dean become anointed as our Country's political savior ... not to be examined or questioned in any way?

"I can't believe you guys have to drag your same lame-ass primaries in-fighting shit out of GD Politics into GD. In a thread pleading for all sides to quit the damn witch burning of our own at every possible turn, no less."

I must admit Ripley, et. al. (DNC and DFA folks) you have more on the "corner of hostility" than even myself. <friendly rival tease>

Yeah, the primaries! Let the games begin anew :P.

[madfloridian]

89. Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Clark say the same thing about staying in Iraq

So why is Dean being so vehemently attacked for it, and not them?

See, that is my point. Even Kucinich delegates made a deal with Kerry about that issue. So no one is perfect on this.

How I feel about staying there is not the issue. I think all should be criticized for the stance, if one is.

[madfloridian]

45. Have you found where I ever attacked Kerry, cryingshame?

I never did. Thought I would ask. I requested this be locked since it was drawing so much fire. Just wondered if you found where I ever attacked Kerry?

[KittyWampus]

49. It's Not About "Attacking Kerry". And The Fact You Focus On Kerry's Name

when I said Kerry and other good Democrats just helps illustrate my point.

No, it's not just about 'attacking' Kerry and OTHER DEMOCRATS.

It's about not bothering to speak up to defend him and other Democrats who get attacked here on DU.

Where were you in defending Hillary when she made comments similiar to Dean's?

[madfloridian]

50. I never attacked Hillary either. I never did.

I defended Kerry when others here went after him. I have not attacked other Democrats. There is one I don't care for, and that is probably what is going on.

I posted a decent post. What the hell is going on?

[Q]

23. Very few have suggested that we simply 'pull out of Iraq'...

...without a plan in place for a gradual withdrawal. Although I have no problem with Dean in general...it's a false choice to suggest an either/or argument of leaving or staying.

No offense intended...but it's insane to suggest that we need to 'stay the course' in an illegal and unecessary war that's killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis. It's easy for American politicians to send others to be cannon fodder in a war that didn't need to happen...and ONLY happened because Republicans and Democrats alike were too chickenshit to call Bush on his lies.

[K-W]

26. Thinking Iraqi's need our supervision is racist and tyranical.

Iraqis arent children who need us americans teaching them how to live thier lives at gunpoint. We have no more right to be on thier streets to prevent political breakdown than they have a right to be on our streets to do so.

If we left, I dont know what will happen, but THAT IS THE POINT

The only way to know what will happen is to try and control what will happen, there is no other choice. None of us are psychics.

We do not have the right to subjegate Iraqi's because wed rather not have to worry about what will happen.

It is actually quite simple. We pull out and immmediately pledge support to the UN for any peacekeeping needed in Iraq, at the same time we join the world court and we strengthen international law rather than defying it.

Howard Dean's statements reveal that on issues of foriegn policy he has no real opinions and is simply triangulating. He has no understanding of the nature of this war, or the nature of the occupation. We are not helping Iraq. Occupying a country is not helping it, never has been, never will be.

[Ripley]

28. A tad harsh.

Saying Dean has no real opinions. Cripes. Who did you vote for and what is his opinion on foreign policy? Probably the same as Dean's.

I think we should be pulling out right now, but as you can see, not one Democrat is advocating that.

[K-W]

29. Im sorry that the truth is harsh.

And what does it matter who I voted for? Are you suggesting that by voting someone I must be endorsing all of thier opinions, thats the kind of silly logic that makes makes wedge issues and non-voters.

Anyone who thinks our army is helping a country by occupying it shouldnt be speaking publically about foriegn policy without being laughed at.

I dont blame dean for being nationalistic, his beliefs are shared by a vast majority of Americans, but it would be nice if people in positions of power who have access to alot of information did a little critical thinking once in a while.

[Ripley]

30. I asked that because...

I honestly didn't hear Kerry, Clark, etc. explain a "pull-out" plan. Just the same old "we're there now." I said I didn't agree with Dean, so I don't need your lecture about my silly logic.

My harsh comment was your comment that Dean had no real opinions but was triangulating. Gee, name one Democrat that ran for President that didn't do that.

[K-W]

31. So you think that because other people are wrong, being wrong is OK

That is an interesting argument. And if you are going to suggest that I am being too harsh I am going to explain to you why I am not in fact being harsh because Howard Deans opinion on Iraq is ignorant

As I already said in my post, most of America buys into that rediculous argument, so I dont blame Howard Dean, most of America does include all of the democratic primary candidates except Kucinich.

But just because americans are generally ignorant of what acutally goes on around the world, doesnt make Howard Dean's opinion less atrocious.

[madfloridian]

32. Hilary, Kerry, Edwards, Clark then must be criticized as well.

This is so out of control. I am not racist or tyrannical.

[K-W]

34. Certainly they do.

What on earth would give anyone the idea that they and thier nation are some class of special people, so that when they occupy a country they are actually civilizing it?

Is this the british empire? Maybe its not precisely racism, but racism is a part of it.

Out of control is the fact that people cant see obvious bullshit.

[madfloridian]

35. You are judging me.

I posted trying to get some rationality about the divisiveness. I should have known better. I am as much against Iraq as anyone anywhere. Did you even read my post? Do you have a clue what I said?

[K-W]

37. Edit: Look, Im not trying to judge anyone.

Nor have I judged anyone.

But if you are going to say that our continued occupation is a good thing for the Iraqi people, I am going to have to call bullshit. That isnt judging you.

[madfloridian]

38. I never said that! Where are you getting that?

Read before you attack. This is horrible.

[K-W]

39. I never said you did, so dont lecture me about reading when you misread.

I said IF

I wasnt sure what you were saying, I never judged you or said anything bad about you. I called howard dean's opinion bullshit, thats all ive been arguing. I was trying to figure out why you felt judged.

[quaker bill]

42. And your productive and available alternative would be?

Since no one else is going in to stabilize the situation:

Perhaps we just abandon them to their own devices. That approach worked so very well in post-Soviet Afghanistan. Why would we not want to try it again?

It is one thing to be against war. I can relate to that, but I also know that it is not the same as being for peace.

Got any brighter ideas you wish to share?

[K-W]

46. I actually explained my alternative if you would have cared to read it.

So you think a bright idea is after illegally invading a country, having the aggressor run the country for as long as it wants until it feels that its victim fits its idea of what a country should look like.

Yah, thats real bright. Im sure the pentagon is gonna build a bang up democracy.

The alternative is simple and the obvious right thing to do.

We give up our claim of ownership to Iraq and materially support a truely international effort using UN peecekeepers if neccessary, but focusing on brokering deals within Iraq so that the various factions and organizations will cooperate.

The US military is utterly and completely incapable of producing peace in Iraq. Are you honestly arguing that the illegal occupation forces of a rogue regime are having a stabilizing effect on Iraq?

[quaker bill]

76. No actually, I think the entire thing is obscene

This is why I urged democrats not to support IWR and helped organize anti-war protests

I read your alternative and stand by my point. Stepping out and "backing the UN for peacekeeping" is not an available alternative.

Sure, it seems like an alternative on paper. But have you noticed that all the international partners except the British are pulling their troops out?

Joining the ICC should be done but will not happen, not while Bush is in office anyway. I am afraid that too many administration officials would be subject to prosecution. It is not relevant to the resolving the quagmire anyway.

Your proposal reeks of utopian thinking and is clearly not well connected to reality. Care to think a little deeper and try again?

[eridani]

55. You mean you didn't notice that we are now more or less--

--ignoring Afghanistan? There's less hostility there toward the US simply because there are way fewer troops. Of course women outside of Kabul are still living in the 9th century and the place is the opium capital of the world.

[quaker bill]

78. So you would propose the same for Iraq?

Or would you propose we increase our presence in Afghanistan?

It is hard to tell from your post.

Is there actually "less hostility" or are our troops there simply less available as easy targets? Do you actually think you know?

Ever considered that perhaps Afghanistan is simply a different culture? You know, a place where if you leave the warlords alone to repress women and grow their poppies, they don't shoot at you.

How does any of this relate to our abandonment of the mujadeen in the 1980's and the subsequent rule of the Taliban and formation of Al-Queda?

What about the recent escalation of interfaction violence in Iraq does not speak directly to a civil war on the horizon? How would stepping back to allow this war free reign serve the cause of peace or security?

I understand the temptation to spout "liberal" talking points. May I suggest you go a bit deeper?

[eridani]

82. "Abandoning" the Mujahedin?

Christ! We created them, which we should not have done in the first place. They were vicious fundies from the start, and the CIA and ISI knew it. In retrospect, the Soviets were the good guys, the anti-fundamentalists. Just goes to show that trying to wipe out fundies by military force just makes the situation worse.

No, I don't support the US presence there. We should have listened to the 1000 anti-Taliban leaders that met in Peshawar in October 2001. They advised us not to bomb and not to back the Northern Alliance, but to let them do the typical negotiate and bribe routine to get the Taliban out, after which they'd have been fine with letting us chase Osama bin Forgotten. We blew a second chance to let them choose their own leader (the former King was the in the lead by far) instead of imposing Karzai on them.

Bottom line--everywhere we have fucked around with other countries we have made things much worse. Why do you assume that US forces are in any way stopping rather than exacerbating the trend toward civil war? Do you think the people in the big Shia demo in Bagdhad )joined by some Sunnins) demanding a withdrawal timetable were only kidding?

[quaker bill]

117. And when the war with the russians was over, we abandoned them

I disagreed with the policy of arming them as well as the policy of arming Saddam. I protested both.

However, we did it anyway.

After helping them to toss out the Russians, we just dropped them in a completely devastated country with no support to establish a reasonable government or recover their economy.

We made the mess and then we compounded it further by bailing once our use for them had ended.

Sorry, the parallels to the current situation in Iraq are too strong. You don't get to skate on this one.

Our troops are not remotely capable of putting down a civil war. Only the Iraqi government could possibly have the legitimacy to do that. On the other hand, they can keep somewhat of a lid on the situation while the government is stood up and their militia trained.

I don't want us to stay there anymore than I wanted us to go there in the first place. That is not the point. They want us to leave and we should, once a stable government is in place.

Your rhetoric is more than a bit overblown, Europe seems a bit better off because of our involvement in WWII, but perhaps not, Right?

[eridani]

122. I'd like to see some evidence that they are keeping a lid on

All I see is that they are making it worse. Who decides what 'stable' means, anyway? And had we stayed in Afghanistan after the Russian exit, what could we have done? I know what I'd like to have done, namely supported various left and progressive factions like RAWA, and encouraged them to dialogue with community leaders who had the respect of their communities. However, given the nature of US imperialism, that could not have possibly happened--the CIA and ISI deliberately chose the most reactionary and misogynist thugs they could find to support, and to do any good they would have had to abandon them and start over.

[ElectroPrincess]

72. But don't you see ... it's NOT about loyalty, DEM or REP

It's about supporting the interests of the WORKING and MIDDLE Classes in America.

Those Democrats who wish to stay in Iraq with the stadium size embassy and 14 entrenched bases are, IMO, Repubocrats to be ousted.

These PNAC cronies (Biden, Lieberman etc.) are no better than the IMO pseudo-Democrats who voted to allow the Credit Card companies and other lenders economically RAPE the working American who must declare Bankruptcy. Especially those who were forced into it due to catastrophic loss or medical illness.

To hell with Democratic representatives who want to "stay the quagmire in Iraq" OR all those who support the multinational corporations. These monsters shamelessly quash unions, outsource labor, and in general, drive down Americans' wages for the few jobs remaining in this Country, i.e., force more and more Working Class Americans into abject poverty.

Bottom Line: My loyalty is NOT BLINDLY to the Democratic Party when many of our representatives are DINOs for the investor class (wealthy Americans).

[MollyStark]

84. Only Kucinich is worthy of support

Forget that in a national race he would lose 50 states.
I don't agree with Dean on this either. But I agree with him more often than I do Kucinich on other issues.

[madfloridian]

40. I have requested this thread be locked.

I must have not worded very carefully. Sorry.

[ElectroPrincess]

73. I understand your frustration ...

About a month back I did the exact same thing (request to the Admin. to lock a thread). That was when you and another DFA cohort, with JUST CAUSE I (painfully) admit, were figuratively mopping the floor with us dissenting Dean type-folk.

I don't know the management's rationale but they did not act then either. It's my understanding that I put my foot in my mouth back then by misstating something and had to ride-it-out.

Perhaps as long as we try to be respectful to each other's person, the present DU powers-that-be hold out hope that we can hash it out?

[madfloridian]

90. Could you find where I "wiped the floor" with you? I forgot.

Could you please do that? I don't remember attacking you, but I do remember questioning some things you said. Could you find it?

[quaker bill]

41. Nice try MadFl.

The criticism of Dean for supporting the democratic party platform, the same issues Kerry/Edwards ran on, which democratic voters appeared to favor, is silly and self-destructive.

Many of the same folks were stating only months ago that anything even vaguely anti-war was the path to defeat.

I too was a Dean supporter from the beginning, who went to work for John Kerry when he became the nominee. It doesn't seem to have bought us much respect from certain quarters.

[madfloridian]

52. I tried to make it fair. I thought I did.

It is crazy for him to be attacked on this. That Nader supporter, Kevin Zeese, I think, now has an article up calling Dean the leader of the "other" war party.

Hmm...he was the one who was opposed to it because Bush had not proved the need to go there. Why single him out?

But then as the poster below says I demand everyone kiss his ring, so what do I know? Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Hillary wanted the war and don't want to leave there. I was trying to point out the irony of that.

I did nothing but set myself up for more attacks.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. Just to correct something there,

Clark most decidedly did not want the war. In fact, he testified to Congress in Sept. of 2002 against rushing to war and very accurately predicted what the likely consequences would be.

Apart from that little inaccuracy, I agree with everything you're saying on this thread.

[madfloridian]

91. Clark says "stay", just like all the others.

My point is NOT about the invasion. I do have different opinions than you on what he believed on that. Did you read my OP at all? Not about the invasion, about staying. Clark definitely says stay there now.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. I agree that he's saying the same thing as Dean about needing to stay.

But he absolutely was not in favor of going in in the first place. I will insist on putting my foot down in refuting that claim.

As I said before, I like your thread and agree with most of what you are saying, but I will insist on correcting any misinformation that is posted about Clark. I know that you would do no less for Dean, and you would be absolutely right to.

Let's please not let this turn into an argument that's peripheral to the very important and good points that you are making in this thread.

Peace.

[madfloridian]

94. I would not post misinfo about anyone.

.

[Crunchy Frog]

95. I don't believe that you would intentionally

but your post left the impression that Clark supported the Iraq invasion. I simply wanted to make it absolutely clear that he didn't, just so people reading this thread don't accidently get the wrong idea.

I don't want us to make a big issue out of this as it is not what this thread is about. I just wanted to make sure that any misconceptions were cleared up. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

Peace.

[madfloridian]

96. In the OP I used the words "exiting Iraq,"

I thought that was clear.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. I wasn't referring to the OP, I was referring to the specific post

that I replied to. Even if it wasn't intentional, It gave an impression that Clark had supported the invasion and I just didn't want to leave that impression hanging in the air.

I have no desire to fight with you. I agree with the main points you are making in this thread. Since I've made my point and I have no desire for this to escalate, I will not say any more and you can have the last word if you want it.

Peace.

[madfloridian]

53. Again, thanks for understanding what I was saying.

Means a lot.

[quaker bill]

81. it helps when you are only stating the obvious.

Well put and worthy attempt to inspire thought on a slightly deeper level.

[lwin]

43. Must we all take a loyalty oath and kiss the ring on Dean's finger?

Dissent is patriotic, is it not? I'm sure Dean can take it. We all know he can dish it out.

MadFl, no one is ever going to take your comments regarding Dean seriously until you start showing some sort of balance and perspective on the subject.

Anyone who has read more than one of your posts knows that you would defend Dean even if he was caught on video barbequing babies and holding ritual sacrifices.

[madfloridian]

44. I saw a post of yours you were elected a delegate in CA somewhere.

I don't recall ever hurting you in any way at all. I think my post was well-written, and it did not attack anyone all. It was not so much a defense of Dean as a wish for some reason and sanity here.

How did I offend you? People do take me seriously, actually. A lot of them. They know I am a reasonable person, and about a whole lot more than just advocating for Howard Dean.

Sorry you as an elected delegate think so poorly of me. I never posted in a thread of yours before that I am aware of.

[madfloridian]

51. "barbequing babies"?

I thought my post was balanced and in perspective. Could you please tell me what parts of my OP were not that way? I would appreciate it.

[quaker bill]

79. Nothing like substituting ad-hominem for a lack of good ideas

I do understand the frustration with the concept that Bush has painted us into a corner in Iraq. Nothing I have read in this thread comes close to a realistic alternative to sticking it out and standing up a pluralistic government there.

It sucks, I know. This is just one of the reasons I organized protests in the first place.

[eridani]

54. If Dean says things that people think are wrong--

--expect them to point that out. Kucinich is right, IMO, and all the others are wrong on Iraq.

That, of course, does not alter the fact that Dean is right about one very big thing--how to revitalize local Dem parties in all 50 states. He's the right man in the right place for that project.

[madfloridian]

56. They should not just point to his saying it. Others set the policy.

They tell him what the policy is. I think I put up a fair post. I am proud of it.

I am so embarrassed for all of us here tonight about some of the posts in various forums. This is not healthy.

[MollyStark]

85. But Kucinich is wrong

we can't just pull out.

[norml]

57. Best way to insure oil flows from the Middle East, is to stay out of it.

Whoever is there will be highly motivated to sell their oil. They can't drink salt water, and they can't eat sand.

[madfloridian]

58. My point:

Blame the ones who got us there. Not the one who gave his opinion about leaving. Your post does not address the issues I raised.

[norml]

59. Sorry for not addressing the main issues you raised.

I often feel the need to talk about how the oil market works. The best way to get the oil flowing would be to get out. Whoever is there will sell whatever oil they control, if left on their own.

[madfloridian]

61. Thanks. I don't know about that. I am concerned at the attacks here.

Constant ones. Today they seemed overwhelming because they were things Dean has said all along for two years. People attack or push candidates constantly...yet it is not even election time.

The only one they can damage right now is the party chair, and I believe DU is doing a very good job of it. I was doing searches at other Democratic forums....did not see much.

I guess I was trying to point out that all the candidates but Kucinich and Dean approved of the war and even Dean wants to stay for now....but no one was addressing that.

As I said in the OP, I have mixed feelings. I happen to think it is not productive to try to tear the party down at a crucial time. It is ok to criticize always, but the kind of stuff going on here was concentrated blathering meant to damage.

Thanks for the response. I have very mixed feelings. I was dead set against this invasion, and we have done horrible things.

[norml]

60. As for Dean...

Hip Hip Hooray!

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. "Those who want a pure voice"

I agree with what you are saying, in theory - eating our own is stupid. I also agree that Dean's rhetoric hasn't changed. But the fact that people are surprised that he basically is "on the same page as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Clark" is because for months, he did his damndest to convince people that he WASN'T on the same page as they. In fact, he went out of his way to smear all the other Dems for "supporting the war" -despite the fact that he himself was for Biden-Lugar, and not the hippie pacifist he made himself out to be. In February 2003, he stated: "If the UN in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the US should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." So, you're right in that Dean was never all that different from the other candidates in his views on Iraq. The difference is, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton - they had to vote on it. Dean didn't. And he built up early popularity among the anti-war crowd by skewing the perception of himself far to the left of what he really stood for.

Many of "those who want a pure voice and threaten to go Green" have been disgruntled Deaniacs - and don't tell me that's not true, because I've seen it myself for the past seven months. Maybe some of them are now waking up to the fact that Dean isn't the flaming hippie liberal he ran in the primaries as, and that's their fault for getting hoodwinked. So, I suppose I agree with what you're saying, because you know, I DO agree that we can't pull out of Iraq now, and I DO wish Dean the best of luck as DNC chair. But I am not surprised by the reaction you are describing, as it was the natural consequence of Dean's decision to campaign as something he really was not.

[madfloridian]

63. You are wrong about the support for Iraq.

The other candidates paint it that way, but it is not true. This is just something that lingers. He has, however, always said that if we went in we could not just leave.

I have all the statements in context, back to 2002. He once hypothetically discussed going in, but he said Bush had not made a convincing case.

Actually the others should not excuse their vote by saying Dean was for the invasion.

I did not make the post about the primaries, just to say that Dean had always said that about not leaving without their being security.
I try not to replay the primaries, but I am very good at it if you want to go there.

I made a very sensible post. They were blaming Dean in a couple of threads today for the same things that Kerry, Edwards,Hilary and Clark say. I just thought that was not fair.

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. This has nothing to do with the other candidates portraying anything

This is my own anaylsis of what happened. You're free to disagree or interpret things differently, of course. I also acknowledged that the point of your post was, basically, true. Eating Dems is not a good thing - for ANYONE to engage in. I guess my big beef in general is that I have encountered plenty of Dean supporters who refused to get behind other Democrats, who insisted that Dean was the only one in the party who was truly liberal, and then whoops - they realized all along that he was a moderate.

I'm not even addressing you specifically. You say you're a moderate; I have no reason to disbelieve you. Maybe you really do know what Dean stands for and support him because of that. If so, I applaud you. Lots of Dean supporters don't - they think he's the more electable form of Kucinich, which is so far from the truth I could laugh. Those are the people that bug me. You support Dean for who he is, that's certainly cool with me.

I've no desire to refight the primary. You have said you supported Kerry in the general election and I've no reason to disbelieve you. I support Dean in his effort now as DNC chair. I am just tired of many of his self-righteous followers who shout down anyone who doesn't lockstep want to worship at his feet (again, not addressing you specifically), and I guess I was not surprised to hear that many were turning on him now that they realize he was a moderate.

[madfloridian]

86. Actually I don't call other people names.

I don't ever remember calling anyone self-righteous. I don't care if you think I am cool or whatever. This is sad that you took my post and twisted it like this.

Dean is saying the same thing Kerry, Edwards, Hilary, and Clark say all the time. Whether I agree is not the issue. Why is he the only one being attacked on it now?

The others still feel the same. Why are they ok now? Kerry struck a deal with Kucinich supporters last year to agree on not pulling out of Iraq. So don't blame just one person.

This party is in trouble, and a Democratic forum is being used to try to bring down the one who is chair. Not just from one candidate's supporters...from several. That is what I am defending against. Nothing against honest criticism, a lot against criticizing one man when all the others say the same. Kerry even said he would vote for it all over again, so did Edwards.

Just be fair.

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. If you were interested in being fair

You would see that I have not once criticized you. Apparently, you take my words "some Dean supporters (excluding you)" and apply them to yourself, even though you are specifically excluded. So please don't tell me how I am twisting your post. I said a hundred times that I agree with the basic message of your post, which you would have acknowledged, if you were interested in being fair. You didn't, you just leapt on my criticism of SOME Dean supporters (which I will stand by, because it's true) and twisted it to act like I'm persecuting you.

How can you ever have a reasonable debate with anyone if you accuse them of being unfair and namecalling when they point out something that you don't like, or makes you uncomfortable? Or can no one question anything about Dr. Dean without having nefarious, ulterior motives, in your mind?

Have it your way. If you were honest with yourself, you'd see I tried to be fair. But no, you have to go on acting as though I'm out to get you, which couldn't be further from the truth.

[madfloridian]

102. Why must you go after "any" supporters of anyone?

That is what I am trying to say. It is condescending to do that.

[The Traveler]

64. This is more subtle than you acknowledge

These are difficult issues. Dean was ALWAYS against entry in the war, but having entered thought we had to see it through. Wes Clark said had he been in Congress and fed the same bullshit intelligence they received he probably would have voted for the resolution. The positions of both men have been greatly distorted. The operative question is this:

Had Howard Dean had been President, would he have decided to engineer the invasion of Iraq? Would Wes Clark? John Kerry? Bill Clinton? None of these guys would have come to that decision, and certainly not through a process that involved crushing the intelligence community and/or deceiving the American people.

Another operative question (and here I have to disclose I am a Clark supporter) ... who has the best bullshit detector? I would have to say Dean ... Clark tried to give these assholes the benefit of the doubt. I think he learned his lesson.

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Fair point

I was unequivocally against the invasion of Iraq. However, I don't believe for a second that any of our Democratic leaders truly *wanted* war. Some of them, as you put it, bought the bullshit intelligence. A mix of naivete and genuine concern for national security, in my opinion. Kerry, for example, since his book about national security and terrorism written in 1997, was always concerned about nuclear proliferation and the threat of Hussein. He reluctantly believed the intelligence and gave * the benefit of the doubt, as Clark apparently did. Both realized that mistake.

Maybe you're right about Dean's BS detector re: Bush and Iraq. I still think he ran a bit of a dishonest campaign, for other reasons, but that doesn't matter now. I do think lots of his supporters are disappointed that he isn't as liberal as they thought he was initially. It always seemed ironic to me that a bunch of ex-Naderites would support a very centrist, moderate Democrat.

[madfloridian]

65. Some of the Greens who supported Dean may do that....

Most of us would never consider it. Most of us have followed the campaign from the beginning, and we know what he is about. Some may have mistakenly thought he was just plain anti-war, but he never claimed that at all.

Dean never claimed to be what he was not. Let's just be honest.

[WildEyedLiberal]

69. That's good, then

If you support Dean for what he's truly about, that's completely fine by me.

However, I happen to know a couple of Deaniacs personally (my ex-boyfriend and his brother) who seemed to have no concept of Dean other than "he was against the war". They argued up and down with me that Dean was more liberal overall than Kerry, and when I proved them wrong, issue by issue, the could only reply with, "yeah, but Dean was against the war." Sigh. First of all, I will argue that Kerry was not FOR the war, but that's an entirely different discussion that I have had way too many times with him.

Perhaps he's tainted my experience of Deaniacs, but his political views in general are largely unclear and inconsistent, as he generally spouts very liberal rhetoric but supports very moderate candidates, which is hard for me to reconcile. Obviously, if you consider yourself a moderate liberal, you probably have a better grasp of Dean that my ex did.

[madfloridian]

92. Your ex-boyfriend tainted your view of Dean? Good grief.

Then this is not about me. I am glad of that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

99. I thought I made it painfully obvious that it wasn't about you

Since I said about a dozen times: "I am not addressing you specifically" and "If you support Dean out of honest principles, that's good enough for me"?

No, this is most emphatically not about you. The only point I was trying to make is that some of us have our reasons for not loving Dean, and have seen with our own eyes that many of his supporters are not willing to be "fair" as you have so constantly exhorted me. You shouldn't take every criticism of Dean or his supporters in general so personally, especially when I explicitly qualified numerous times that I *was not addressing you*. Eesh.

[madfloridian]

103. Did you ever read my OP, appeal for honesty?

Kerry voted for the war, said we should not leave. Why is Dean being criticized and condemned here for things he has said for two years.

There should be no vendetta against any supporters of any candidates.

We have a party to grow.

[WildEyedLiberal]

104. Why do you keep bringing up Kerry then, if this is about party unity?

I don't have a "vendetta" against Dean. If you'll look, I was not one of the ones criticizing him for saying that we should not pull out of Iraq, since I agree. All I'm trying to say is that you reap what you sow. If supporters of one candidate tend to be exceedingly negative for a long period of time, then I'm going to remember that, and if the negativity starts coming back to them, well, don't expect me to start crying. Search my posts if you'd like. I don't believe Democrats should attack other Democrats, so I don't. That goes for people who attack Dean *unfairly* as well as those who attack Kerry, Edwards, etc.

[madfloridian]

109. I was never negative toward Kerry.

If that is the basis of this, then it is a false premise.

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. Sigh. I never said you were.

I think you made a good point in your OP, for what that's worth. Let's just leave it at that, because it seems we agree that bashing Dems is counterproductive.

[quaker bill]

80. Wrong. Dean never ran as a liberal,

Many here criticised him as not being liberal enough and voted for Kerry as the "true liberal".

The bad choice was voting for IWR. It is interesting to the aware mind that reality is not continuous it is contextual. Events precipitate change. You know, events like "shock and awe". They change reality.

The answer to the equation changes with the context. Proposing the answer that was correct 3 years ago (no war, no US troops in Iraq), feels good, but no longer makes sense in context.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

66. I like all our guys.

I like Dean, Kerry, Boxer, Clark, hell I even like Biden most of the time. I think Dean is doing great right now. He's framing the issues correctly to appeal tp mmore voters without actually wavering on our principals.

Thank you for your wise and well thought out words, Madfloridian.

[ElectroPrincess]

71. I doubt you'd like much about Biden (other than opposing Bolton)

if you take the time to read several PNAC proposals with his signature.

Talk about being on *every* side of the issues. Biden is a pompous blowhard that spins like a top. But hey, even the broken hands on a clock are right (make that) TWICE a day. :P <blush>

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. I can't stand Biden

"Pompous blowhard" about sums him up. As good as he was in the Bolton hearing, part of me wonders how much of that was theatrics, designed to impress the CSPAN crowd.

[Pepperbelly]

75. I say the same thing when any of our party is being trashed.

Can we count on you to post something like this when other Democrats are being eviscerated by those so will to sacrifice good on the alter of perfect?

[madfloridian]

87. Cryingshame already said that. Read above.

Almost the same wording,too. I do defend others, I don't attack. I am the bad guy because I don't care for one former candidate. I refuse to be two-faced on this. I don't jump in on threads attacking anyone, but there is one I will not praise.

See, I tried to plead for fairness, and I get lectures. Maybe I should get the message, you think?

I have tried to make peace, it did not work.

[bklyncowgirl]

77. As Ben Franklin said: "We must all hang together or ...

we will all hang seperately".

I wasn't a Deaniac during the primaries, though I liked him quite a bit, donated to both him and Kerry, and probably would have voted for him had he been on the ballot in my state.

What I've been noticing alot lately are people getting all worked up about Dean saying that he believes that some subtle shifts in language on abortion would help make it easier for moderate pro-life (oh, pardon me "anti-choice"--is that the PC term? )people to vote for Democrats. Or most recently, him reiterating the position that he's held since the war began that once in the U.S. couldn't easily get out.

I don't agree with the guy on every issue and frankly I'm a Democrat because it's the only viable alternative not because I love the party. What Dean's trying to do, however is very important and I'm supporting him because I think he sees the way the party has to go to regain power and because his emphasis on the grass roots brings ordinary voters at least a seat at the table and may put a dent in the stranglehold that corporate money has on politics.

Do you really like life under that war criminal in the White House so much that it's preferable to even the prospect of thinking about how you speak about an issue like abortion?

[bread_and_roses]

83. Perfection isn't necessary. Principle is.

The Democratic Party demonstrates no committment to core values or principled stances. They cannot be counted on to stand up consistently for anyone. The most recent glaring examples of this are the passage of the Bankruptcy Bill with Dem votes and Howard Dean's and Hillary Clinton's courting of the "Pro-Life" crowd.

How did, in a little over thirty years, the Neocons move us as a society from talking about a guaranteed National income to one passing a law that will beggar ordinary people unjustly while enriching companies already bloated from usury? They did it by pursuing unrelentingly a coherent vision, and acting on and speaking to that vision at every opportunity. Their core constituents always know how they will vote on reproductive rights, on cutting taxes, on "pro-business" legislation - their constituents don't have to re-fight those battles every time they rear their heads. Unlike Progressives, who have to fight EVERY battle with Dems. We have to fight for reproductive rights over and over, for good environmental legislation over and over, for fair taxes, an adequate safety net, racial justice over and over - because we can never count on Democrats to vote for their core constituents. We can't count on them to fight for our civil liberties, for the environment, for fair wages and taxes. So our mailboxes are full of pleas and exhortations on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, none of us can write all the letters, make all the phone calls, visit all the Representatives that we are called on to do every day just to tread water.

That's why "they" are winning, and we are losing. Because Democrats excuse those voting for something like the Bankruptcy Bill because "a Republican would be worse." Well, a Republican isn't going to be any worse for the people who lose everything because they got sick or were stupid when they were twenty. A Republican isn't going to be any worse for the women who will die if we lose on Reproductive rights. And a Republican isn't going to be any worse for those children dead and dying in Iraq. It doesn't get any worse than death.

So some Democrats here and there get the Party's support even though they are anti-choice, and pretty soon we lose choice. Some Democrats vote for this and for that and we lose civil liberties, Labor rights, etc. etc. We plod on, toward Oligarchy, Fascism, Theocracy, making excuses for those who vote to dismantle the very freedoms and rights they are sworn to protect, because they are Democrats, "better than Republicans." Those making that excuse don't seem to notice that despite a majority of our fellow-citizens being with us on health care, on choice, on fair wages, on help for the poor we continue to lose ground in all those areas. Because people would rather vote for someone they see as principled and consistent and predictable - because they "know what they stand for."

The Democrats are blowing a great opportunity to be the principled and fighting underdogs - a core American story that people love and to which they relate and respond. That's why the Republicans are still pretending that it is THEY who are the underdogs. Instead, people see the Democrats as contemptably poll-driven, doing "anything for votes" and - rightly - don't trust them.

And for anyone who pulls the old tired "stop whining and get to work" standard reply, don't bother. I work on local and State elections about six months of the year.

[madfloridian]

88. "stop whining and get to work."? No, I won't say that.

I did not say that. If you don't want to work for the party, then don't. What can I say?

You present things you passionately believe in. However, I am not sure any one party will ever be that way.

[bread_and_roses]

98. "We know what he stands for:" said repeatedly of the Puppet-in-chief

Basically, the Rs ARE "like that." Or more accurately, they have managed to portray themselves as "like that" by staying unrelentingly on message.

The Dems lack of committment to a core set of values has lead inevitably to the average person having a good measure of contempt for the Party. I hear it all the time while doing campaign work - which, btw, is for Dem candidates 99.9% of the time. "They are no different than the Republicans." "They'll do anything for votes." "All they do is follow the polls." "All politicians are alike." "What will it matter to me."

[bvar22]

120. Well Said.

I especially like this:

"Their core constituents always know how they will vote on reproductive rights, on cutting taxes, on "pro-business" legislation - their constituents don't have to re-fight those battles every time they rear their heads. Unlike Progressives, who have to fight EVERY battle with Dems. We have to fight for reproductive rights over and over, for good environmental legislation over and over, for fair taxes, an adequate safety net, racial justice over and over - because we can never count on Democrats to vote for their core constituents."

That explains alot.

[Hidden Stillness]

105. Whole Thread Should Have Been Worded Differently; Was Itself An Attack

I think the original message on this thread might have been a lot more helpful as a thing to discuss, if it had been more generally addressed, and not just tied to Howard Dean. Making it specific, and then pretending you were making a general plea for "peace" or "respect" or whatever it was, makes it seem as if you were trying to get everybody to close ranks and unify, so your candidate can win--period. Other posters have pointed out that the thread did not call for an end to attacks on John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., but only yours. I also believe we should not attack other Democrats whenever possible, but save all our sarcasm, anger, and action for THEM--Republicans. I do not, however, equate that with not critcizing anything they do, because we will "never win again" if we show any divided thought.

It also doesn't help your case to use the kind of taunting language you did--"perfect," "pure," "taking great joy in this," "pettiness," etc., or to claim that anyone who disagrees is a troublemaker who threatens to destroy everything, whereas you "see what he is doing," that is, unlike us, you can perceive reality. The language Dean used recently on abortion was highly offensive and signaled a change of emphasis, and using the magic incantation "framing" whenever your side implies something threatening that others have picked up on, will not do it. Your opinion doesn't even make any sense. "We" use phrasing that others take the wrong way, and it is "proof" that it was flawed and we need to drop it; Dean uses phrasing that was recently responded to with alarm and supposedly taken the wrong way, and it is suddenly not a signal that Dean needs to change the wording so people will not react this way. We use phrases you don't like--we have to change it; Dean uses phrases that people were offended by and Dean does not need to change the phrasing--we do. Okay. Refusing to admit that anyone else has a right to an opinion and that we all need to discuss things on a much deeper level, and that this was more complicated than "framing" shit, will never help the problem. It is a real problem in the real world, the fact that people sometimes cannot agree and find common ground; then what do you do?

Also, I don't really even think of this as a Democratic problem, as I have found, talking to people face to face in the real world, that we have not been more united and clear-thinking for many years, and yes, more authentically mainstream liberal. I think all this "flaming" and attack, etc., has more to do with people being on computer and hiding behind anonymity, and rudeness that has no consequences, and that where there is real anger about candidates, etc., you sometimes have to really address the difference of opinion, or admit that you can't agree. Calling people "politically correct" or any of this other archcon shit, is just another attack, and should not be pretended as a "constructive" remark.

What really worries me, if anything, are these corporate Republican plants who pretend to be continuing a debate, but who only post lies to trick people with. Luckily, this website has many intelligent people, who generally catch this and jump on it, but that worries me more--the Republican operative liars. It worries me when they claim that Bush is not responsible for the horrible economy, that it is "nature," all these lies, posting again and again until finally their target cannot come up with a response anymore, and is now duped. There was a recent thread on Bush and gas prices, where (I suspect) a plant claimed that Bush was not responsible for the high price, yet of course if Bush had released gas and oil from the Strategic Gas and Oil Reserves and by increasing the amount had lowered the price for Americans, that would have been relief, and an immediate price drop. Of course, that corporate oil pimp will never do that, and so continues the suffering deliberately, when that is the purpose of that incalculably huge reserve, and it has been done before, etc. Anyway, a long diversion there--the lies of Republican operatives pretending to be us, worries me more.

I think there is a real subject here, and a need to unite and try to discuss things intelligently and respectfully as united Democrats, knowing that the corporate/neocon Republican is the worst threat our country and the world has faced for a generation at least. Making specific attacks on individuals for taking issue with offensive language used by one of your favorites, then pretending that you know the great plan and all of us asshole peons are destroying your Party, and then pretending that you are really, secretly, issuing an anguished plea for peace, is not going to get it. This thread fell apart because it was never worded honestly. I think we should support all of our Democrats whenever possible, too--but you did not really say that, and you know it.

[madfloridian]

108. Can't be done until ALL are blamed equally for this Iraq fiasco.

The thread was worded quite honestly. If you bash Dean for his remarks in the LBN threads, then bash all the ones who voted for it and say to stay. Don't just single him out.

Quite fair, quite honest.

Nothing at all wrong with defending the chair of the party when he is being unmercifully bashed at the Democratic board.

Do not say I was dishonest. I said exactly what I mean. People know what I mean, too. The language I used was true....many here are not willing to compromise on anything. I don't like to, but I may not have a choice. I am not fond of the Republicans.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tactical Progressive]

114. I can't really tell what you're saying

Kerry wasn't for the war, but was for giving the president the authority to wage it if necessary. Most Dems took this stance. Whether it was cowardly or moderate or political, or some combination thereof, is up to each individual to discern. Then BushCo shit on everybody. I don't know that there was any other option at the time given the mood of the country and the by then total collapse of American journalistic integrity.

Dean came out against the war, either as political opportunism or as strongly principled, or some combination thereof. Opinions vary on that as well.

In any case, we're there now and the only thing that counts is what we do from this point forward. Both the Dems and Dean seem by and large to realize that this is an entirely new circumstance which can't be judged based on whether we should have gotten into it in the first place. And they all seem to agree that we have to make it work as best we can.

To me they all maintained some level of principle, played some politics as best they could, and compromised some of their principles weakly. No one is pure - good or bad - in getting us to where we are.

If people are taking shots at any of them they are probably somewhat deserved and somewhat not. If you're saying Dean was purer than Kerry, maybe so maybe not. I say they all deserve some reprimand and some understanding. If you think Dean deserves none then I disagree. If you're saying Dean deserves less, I would probably agree. I can't really tell what you're saying.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tactical Progressive]

116. I went looking for anything intelligent you had to add

to the conversation.

[AuntiBush]

119. How are we suppose to Work Together when the other Half

are un-workable?

They lied and shoved a war down our throats!
They've taken away my freedoms!
They let Bin Laden go but found Hussein in a hole!
Repuks spit at us and I'm sick of feeling that being a Liberal Democrat is a dirty word. I'm proud of it.
Kerry/Edwards/DNC/DCC/DEAN whatever, the Democrats did not lose the elections. It was stolen.

What is our party suppose to do? Take up "brainwashing?"
Ban Abortion?
Stifle our Freedoms?
Tramp all over Americans that 1/2 seem to enjoy?


As a so-called "Super Power Nation," we "should be" setting a Super Power example. Pull out of a faux war. Work on regaining our true United State-ness. Re-build our debt and stolen IOU's out of the Social Security surplus and with all the wonderful resources we have right here, rather then overseas oil, rebuild our nation with hope, pride and esteem, bring out guys and gals home to protect our borders and get our country back on the respectable right track again.

Sorry. Respect your rant but I disagree. Next to divvying-up, lying, and acting like the other side we DO lose who we really are as Democrats.

I'm sorry you're unsure how you feel on certain issues, but I know how I feel and if I felt any different, I'd might as well be a Repuk/Rethug. Never.