You would do better joining some sort of advocacy group than bashing Obama.

[LoZoccolo]

This is a general statement about all issues. In America there are practically two choices electorally: Democrats and Republicans. OK, that problem is solved. Now if you want a further left Democrat next time, and at least a Republican that would have to compromise to win, you have to make the rest of the electorate want what you want and not get distracted by wedge issues. NOTE: This will require work.

If you lived in the Dark Ages and you were a catapult operator, I bet the most common question people would ask is, "Can't you make it shoot farther?" "No, I'm sorry. That's as far as it shoots."
-Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

[Hanse]

1. Work?

To hell with that.

[lame54]

4. I'll second that...

[elocs]

2. "This will require work." Well, that's why bashing is easier.

Conservation of effort.

[sandnsea]

3. I've been suggesting it for 5 years

There's still time for the left to be the second party and help push the right to complete and total fringmania. It requires work and Arguing For Change Based On FACTS.

[Bluebear]

5. Translation: stop bothering my beautiful mind with complaints about Obama's policies

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

6. Give me another way of putting it so that I can change it and get this sub-argument out of the way.

[Deja Q]

18. Nice to see people asking for some depth from the glib whiners...

Unfortunately, you may not get any depth in return. As others postulated, it's easier (and more fun!) just to be wanking little complainers.

[Bluebear]

21. Wanking?? Have you been scouring gay british webpages now? lol

[theHandpuppet]

15. Bingo!!!!

;-)

[Deja Q]

20. Translation: stop blindly putting words into other peoples' mouths.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

22. That doesn't make sense.

[CTyankee]

33. How about, stop asking me to USE my mind to constructively deal with my complaints about Obama?

Wouldn't that be a better suggestion?

[Starry Messenger]

7. You}----------------------- ----------------------{Deep thoughts

[LoZoccolo]

9. Ad hominem.

Do doooooooo da doooo doooo...ad hominem...
Do doooooooo doooo doooo...ad hominem...
Do doooooooo da doooo doooo da doooo doooo da doooo doooo doooo da doooo...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. An advocacy group and "bashing" the status quo go together.

The Committees of Correspondence didn't say "We want to repeal the Stamp Act..but, we just love King George."

[LoZoccolo]

10. Nope. n/t

[emulatorloo]

11. One would accomplish more by calling the White House than posting on DU

At least that is my take on it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

There is an email form there plus these numbers:

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]

TTY/TDD

Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121

[Bluebear]

13. I don't think the White House particularly cares.

Not on GLBT issues at least.

[Mari333]

27. they get an email from me daily

for the last 5 months.
nonetheless, the original OP seems to discount the hard work so many people did, canvassing, working their asses off to help Obama get elected, sending their money in, walking the streets, working as advocates for him
and they have every goddamned right now to voice their criticisms about his behaviour in office..
they earned it.

[havocmom]

12. Yep. To make the changes reality, We The People have to make sure our voice is out there

Otherwise, the stages of change get mired down in sub-issues that boil down to partisan politics as usual and charges of partisan politics (as usual). Without RESOUNDING notices from the public, the status-quo puppets on the Hill just shuffle their feet, flap their jaws, and get nothing really done.

WE have to let them know WE are paying attention, making notes, and getting rid of reps that represent huge corporations and the very rich. WE have to leave no doubt what WE want done. Otherwise, we just get what the oligarchy wants.

Obama is a teacher. He is trying to be a good leader AND teach us how to re-take democracy and set the course WE need. He cannot do our work for us.

Everybody thinks: 'somebody should do SOMETHING!!!' In a democracy, SOMEBODY is us and we can't sit around whining if somebody doesn't make our dreams come true.

Somebody is us.

[mmonk]

14. For one thing it's not bashing. It's complaining about certain

policies remaining the same that most of us sought or hoped would end. Many of us do, in fact, belong to groups. Apparently we belong to groups both parties insist on doing a blackout on such as Constitution related groups or healthcare related groups.

[Sensible321]

16. I agree with your Advocacy Group theory - but how to fund the TV Ads

Where do we get the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy our 'free speech' on the public airwaves (per Buckley vs. Vallejo)?

People may be mad about what is happening to them, but when the options are a Democrat to the Right of Nixon and a Republican who isn't even a real Conservative, and both promise to keep sending their jobs overseas (because 'globalization is inevitable'), they just pick their lesser of two evils based on those stupid wedge issues.

The problem is not that the views of Kucinich, for example, are not popular, it is that the TV tells people that he is 'unelectable' when they cover him at all. If its not on Tee-Vee, it doesn't exist to most voters. That medium is the only way to persuade the minimum, critical number of people that an option even exists.

Example: 2007 - Dems control Congress. Dems parrot Republican line and say cutting off funding for the war wouldn't 'support the troops'. Immediately, we need $100 Million to put the Doonsbury cartoon, or similar, showing the utter stupidity of this stance on TV across the nation ("... so if Congress doesn't support the troops we go home to our families but if they do support the troops we come back to the meatgrinder" or similar). Primetime ads - during the really stupid reality shows and such.

How can such a group raise the massive capital needed?

[LoZoccolo]

17. I'm not sure that TV ads are the only strategy.

I haven't seen many ads for gay marraige, for instance, but the pro-gay marraige stance has grown considerably over the past twenty years. It may be slow, but the only way to get solid support is changing one person's mind at a time.

[Sensible321]

26. It doesn't have to be an 'ad'

The 'gay' issue has been consistently advocated by Hollywood scriptwriters for a long time now. How many shows on TV in the past 15 years or more have been 'anti gay' in their message? Many shows did not address gays at all, to be sure, but few if any attacked gays. The same strategy was used to erode racism - start with comedy, then slowly work into drama and build empathy.

Let me be clear that I am glad hate has been diminished - but I don't kid myself that these changing attitudes were not the result of concerted efforts by people with some notion of how psychology works. Look into 'product placement' in shows as an alternative to 'ads' to see what I am referring to.

News stations are something else - especially Faux News - they make their money from inflaming wedge issues; but the majority of Americans get their ideas from the mainstream shows - not cable news.

I agree with you that minds must be changed, but would add "from what they have currently been programmed to believe."

[NYC Democrat]

23. Im sorry to say the views of Kucinich are in fact unpopular with the the general public

So you have to work to change the views of the general public not just blame it on the media.

[Bluebear]

24. Truthfully, I wonder if the public doesn't know what Kucinich's views are.

Most people I talk to other than rabid FOX watchers share his views, but never got to know him because he is never taken seriously as a candidate. Welcome to DU!

[omega minimo]

19. Looks like folks are getting ready to get corporations out our government.

[girl gone mad]

25. We can do both. Plus walk and chew gum, too. n/t

[David Zephyr]

28. Precisely which "wedge issue" are you speaking about? Be specific.

Are you speaking about GLBT civil rights? Is that your un-named "wedge issue" in your lecture?

If so, just say so.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I am not speaking of any particular wedge issue.

It could be "swift-boating". Let's use that one.

[David Zephyr]

35. Let's not use "swift boating" because we both know it has nothing to do with your OP.

.

[LoZoccolo]

36. OK then...

YOU TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK MY OP IS ABOUT.

[David Zephyr]

38. Duh...that was my question to you in my first post. What "wedge issues" were you writing about?

The question you posed to me in all bold, enormous all caps was the question I posed to you. I can't tell you what you wrote about, but I'd hope that since it was your OP that you might give us a clue as to what those "wedge issues" were. Otherwise, I am left to believe that you were addressing the GLBT community.

Sweeping generalizations, which you have now admitted you OP was, can be accidental or intentional.

Because you still leave it vague and ambiguous -- even after this -- I can't help but draw the conclusion that you were lecturing the GLBT community to shut up and to compromise or wait for 4 more years. Re-read your OP.

[LoZoccolo]

39. It doesn't fucken matter, anything unimportant.

Could be "swift boating". That was a "significant" issue in the 2004 election, and a distraction from important issues. The whole point of my post is that we need a solid base of support from people on important issues so they don't get distracted from unimportant issues or weird smears during the election cycle. Teach people about health care. Teach people about civil liberties. Do that work. It could be gay civil rights too. Just make sure people know why they're voting for this or that when they come to the polls. I said not nay a thing about gay anything in my post and you have no right to infer that. But if you want to you can. Like I said, that's your own pain you're causing yourself.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Also, if you're going to accuse me of declaring GLBT civil rights as a "wedge issue"...

...that can serve as a "distraction", you might want to see if I've specifically mentioned it elsewhere in the thread in contrast to a "distraction", instead of ascribing motives to my actions that you seem to have drawn from nowhere.

[David Zephyr]

34. You introduced the term "wedge issue" in your O.P.

I think we both know what was the intent of your OP.

You correctly described your original commentary as a "general statement" which requires making generalizations which are always troublesome, aren't they?

My civil rights as a gay American are the responsibility of the Democratic Party since its platform has championed them for years. I voted on two of the national platforms, by the way.

So, it's not compromise rights or hit the highway and start a new party or wait for four years as you smugly tell people in your orignal post. It doesn't work that way.

Your message was to compromise and shut up or to leave the party. Not a healthy proposition and one that I hope that you truly don't subscribe to yourself.

[LoZoccolo]

37. You know what? If you want to think it's about that, then go ahead and do it.

I certainly can't stop you, and any pain you feel as a result is your own fault due to your own imagination making up this bullshit accusation. So go ahead.

[nichomachus]

31. Holding someone's feet in the fire is a form of advocacy

And criticizing a politician who reneges or otherwise doesn't deliver on his campaign promises is not bashing.

[LoZoccolo]

32. So is lying and blatent fearmongering, but let's not do that either. n/t