I'm a pretty tolerant guy who's feeling a little gut punched these days.

[Stinky The Clown]

I've said in the past that the only thing of which I'm intolerant is intolerance.

I'll try to stay that way.

But man-o-man there are a few groups I *still* try to think of as kindred spirits who are making that tough to do. I wrote an OP recently reaching out to the Greens. And shortly after that (I promise you it was a) well intended post, there's a Green candidate working with REPUBLICANS to mount a flanking assault on the Casey campaign in Pennsylvania, in support, effectively, of Dog Sex Ricky.

What did my tolerance get me?

I try to see things from all sides. The DLC is the current whipping boy. I try to stay out of that. But when we have so many of our ELECTED DEMS in the Senate not only refusing to endorse the choice of Connecticut's primary voters, but actually endorsing the 3rd Party self-selecetd nominee, I am caused to rethink my tolerance. When DLC supporters continue to defend the self-selected 3rd Party nominee in the face of the prirmary voters' choice, I am caused to rethink my tolerance.

Yassee ..... here's the thing ...... Both of these actions by the non-Dems involved are **cleaerly** outside the mainstream in terms of honest and honorable politics. But not only do their 'supporters' not decry the actions, they continue to DEFEND them.

There is a limit to tolerance, I am learning.

And I am personally approaching that limit.

[Greyhound]

1. I understand your feeling too well. The thing is

it's all a game to them. Re:puke:, Democrat, Green, Communist or Constitutionalist, they view winning as the goal, rather than what needs to be done afterward.

I'd say your tolerance waning is a good thing, just remember what lies behind your support of Democrats. Fear mongering elitists are scum with only their own interests at heart, no matter what letter comes after the name.

Verb-tense problems this AM. :hi:

[sui generis]

2. and that's why we need party discipline

by it's very definition is implies that we stand FOR something. And the easiest rule would be, you can't be the incumbent in one party while running for office in another party.

Basically, the democratic party is learning a hard lesson. A tent can only be so big. If your tent covers most of the blue people and you think you need to move it to cover some pink or red people, then you're leaving true blue people out of shelter by doing so. If you think you can make your tent big enough to cover the world, then you will have your own "weather" inside the tent; what the heck is a tent for?

1. Support your base, support your team members.

2. Clearly distinguish and define your platform and defend it well.

3. Stand for something easily stated in four or five bullet points. Seriously.

4. Never ever take your supporters for granted. If you want loyal you have to be loyal.

5. You can't be better at being the opposition than the opposition itself is

6. When two opposing political party priorities are the same, a voter will always vote for the status quo.

That's why we have to distinguish ourselves. That's why we can't call ourselves "democrats" and play kissy-face with GWB. That's why we can't be dishonest and vote for cloture on Supreme Court nominees and Federal Amendments and then vote against so that we have an alibi either way.

I know these sound simple minded and lame brained, but it works, on everything from little teams to political parties. I have gone beyond the limit of tolerance. Just stamping a big "D" on your forehead does not automatically make you a democrat. Actions speak louder than words. If we have some basic criteria that a democrat meets, that's what counts.

[wiggs]

3. Poor organization or part of a 6 year long pattern?

I don't know...seems to me that dc dems have laid down so many times, folded with winning hands, that I wonder who is really on what team. It is very confusing.

I suspect at the heart of all the mysterious behavior is that most of these guys are patriots with respect to the new "nations"....the 52 corporations that are among the world's largest 100 economies.

[paulk]

4. there are DLC members who have endorsed Lamont

To paint the support of Lieberman by certain DLC members as some kind of overall DLC policy is faulty logic.

[Totally Committed]

5. While some who have endorsed Lamont may have been DLC...

ALL that endorsed Lieberman are DLC.

Just to set the record straight.

TC

[paulk]

6. it's still a false premise

the OP could just as easily turn the argument around - by saying that since some members of the DLC don't support Lieberman he will become more tolerent of the organization.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. But the OP didn't take that position

And the OP agrees with TC's comment.

You're free to parse that as you wish and to infer from it what you wish and to counter it if you wish.

But TC and the OP are in full agreement on her point.

[Totally Committed]

8. I wish there were a way to give you a hug to help make you feel better...

But, I agree with the mood, the tone, and the sentiment of the OP... if that helps at all. It's been a rough few years for those of us who feel no longer able to trust much that there will be good coming from any of this any time soon. Still, what's the alternative? I dunno.

But, :hug:.....

TC

[paulk]

9. how else can it be parsed?

"I try to see things from all sides. The DLC is the current whipping boy. I try to stay out of that. But when we have so many of our ELECTED DEMS in the Senate not only refusing to endorse the choice of Connecticut's primary voters, but actually endorsing the 3rd Party self-selecetd nominee, I am caused to rethink my tolerance. When DLC supporters continue to defend the self-selected 3rd Party nominee in the face of the prirmary voters' choice, I am caused to rethink my tolerance."


You have refrained from joining those who use the DLC as a "whipping boy" because your tolerance allows you to see things from all sides. However, now that some DLC members and their supporters have endorsed Lieberman, you will have to rethink that tolerance.

Don't you see the flaw in your argument? You are changing your opinion of an organization because of the actions of some of it's members. This approach is especially flawed when you consider that other members and supporters of that same organization support Lieberman's opponent.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. My argument is completely consistent

The DLC claims to be a subset of DEMOCRATS. As DEMOCRATS, they can advocate for anything they wish within the framework of the DEMOCRATIC party.

To have prominent members endorse a 3rd party self-selected candidate and not to oppose those endorsements speaks volumes of their loyalty to the DEMOCRATIC party, whose mantle they wish to wear.

Beyond that, you and I will have to respectfully agree to respectfully disagree.

[paulk]

11. the DLC has nothing to do with this, and you're wrong to include

them as a subject for your tolerance (over this issue, at least), IMHO.

You could make your same argument using any subset of Democratic voters. I'm sure you could find CT Democrats who are supporting Lieberman who've never even heard of the DLC.

The DLC is not some monolithic organization that requires it's members to all hold the same positions. You can't blame the DLC, as an organization, for the actions of some of it's prominent members - especially when other members, just as prominent, have taken the exact opposite actions.

---------


If you want to reduce your tolerence towards those elected Democrats who support Lieberman, that's justifiable, especially in regards to their loyalty to the party - but you can't logically carry that argument to the organization they belong to, for the reasons I've laid out above.