I call for a moratorium on Democrats sniping at Democrats.

[MineralMan]

In the wee hours of this morning, a controversial health care reform measure got 60 Democratic Yes votes and 40 Republican no votes. The measure is far from ideal, and way too many compromises were made in it. However, it is the vote in the Senate that is the real issue, in my opinion. The health care reform bill now goes to conference committee, where it will be altered, more or less.

The fact that 40 Republican Senators obstructed this bill, and would have obstructed any health care reform bill, shows their true colors. They are not, in any way, interested in governing. They are not, in any way, interested in the welfare of the citizens of the USA.

Next year, which is only days away, we will have midterm elections. We will get to elect every member of the House of Representatives and one-third of our Senators. This is a huge election, since off-year elections generally have low turnouts and often go against incumbents. We risk losing parts of our majority in both houses.

On the other hand, if we make the best possible use of the obstructionism of the Republican Party and the unwillingness of its elected members of Congress to even discuss important measures, we have a chance to actually increase our majorities in both houses of Congress.

If we continue to snipe bitterly at each other in places like DU, we Democrats lose sight of the prize. We lose an opportunity to work together to increase the power of the Democratic party. We have a chance to replace some Republicans and increase our majorities so that a few unreconstructed Democrats can't force measures to be watered down, as has happened with health care reform.

Now is the time to decide whether we want to work in concert with each other to reduce the influence of the Republican party or to continue to fracture the Democratic Party and lose ground, once again.

What will we do? I will be working in whatever way I can to elect Democrats to the House and Senate. Democrats. Not just those who agree with me on everything. There are already none of those. But those who will continue some progressive movement in this nation. That's what I will do.

What will you do?

[Tansy_Gold]

1. What will I do? I will continue to speak my mind, on DU or wherever

I please.



TG2012

[MineralMan]

3. Of course. So will I.

I will, however, make every effort to discuss ideas and not people. I will also make every effort to find ways to increase the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

[Tansy_Gold]

41. People vote, ideas don't.

How you think you're goibng to get around discussing people who do things, I don't know. But I will discuss people when they do things, and I will not apologize for it nor accept any "moratorium" on discussing them.

"Someone" held the people hostage. "Someone" demanded more for his state than others got. "Someone" proposed an amendment that would set women's rights back 50 years. Sorry, but that kind of obfuscation doesn't get it. Joe Lieberman held the American people hostage. Ben Nelson got benefits to his state that other citizens in other states will pay for. Bart Stupak (and yes, I know he's a congressman, not a senator) would require women to carry any and all fetuses conceived in their bodies regardless of their own wishes, their own health, or their own lives.

"Ideas" didn't propose these amendments or make these demands or execute these votes. People did. And if you can't stand the heat of criticism and discussion, then you're in the wrong kitchen.


Tansy Gold

[derby378]

2. It's not headed to conference yet

All they did was vote on cloture to kill a planned filibuster. There's no vote on the bill itself as of yet.

[MineralMan]

4. It will pass. It is a foregone conclusion at this point.

I believe that, once cloture is invoked, only a majority vote is needed to pass the measure.

[pinto]

8. Yeah. a simple majority will pass and send to Conference. Once it comes out of Conference

the final bill and its amendments go back to each house for another vote. The first house to pass the complete bill (which I assume will be the House of Representatives) locks in the wording and that is the bill that has to be voted on in the other house. At that point no other amendments may be offered, though the Senate still has the filibuster rules / option in play.

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks. That's how I understand it, too. n/t

[jennyjuniper]

5. It's not time yet

The bill still has a long way to go and if we shut up now we will lose even more. You can count on it. There are still some things that can be tweeked and improved. Progressives must keep the pressure on to get whatever little else we can now. You can be sure that conservative dems and Lieberman will continue to try to make the bill even more of a giveaway to big insurance. So it's not time yet to sit back and crow about it as a big achievement. When Obama signs the bill THEN it will be time to close ranks and act ( it will be an act ) as though we are happy with this bill and show up republicans as the obstructionists they are who don't give a damn about their constituents. I certainly agree that this will be SOMETHING of a victory for reform and that we must use it in the coming elections... but not yet.

[MineralMan]

7. I'm not talking about trying to get changes made in the bill.

Not at all. I'll be doing that, too. I'm only talking about the nasty general comments here and elsewhere about other Democrats. Name-calling, slurs about their personal views in general. That sort of thing.

This is one bill. It's an important one, but it's just one bill. There are many other things that concern all of us. We must not let our disagreements with this bill, or any single measure, cause us to lose solidarity in the general goal of moving the nation in progressive directions.

[freddie mertz]

6. Is Ben Nelson a Democrat? nt.

[MineralMan]

9. He is. He has voted in ways we all like on many measures.

He is a Democrat. I do not agree with him at all regarding this bill, but I like him a lot better than the Nebraska Republican who would replace him. It's never about absolutes in politics. It's about directions. You want a Republican from Nebraska? I sure don't.

[freddie mertz]

12. So we should not criticize his intervention against abortion rights?

Because of his party affiliation or some other votes?

I don't get that.

[MineralMan]

20. Of course not. We should criticize positions on things.

We should not, however, call him an asshole for that position. We should criticize the position and contact him regarding his position. Nebraska's a tough state, and very conservative on the statewide level. It's an easy one to lose to a conservative Republican. All politics are local. Nelson would not vote to ban abortion, but it's not surprising at all that he would vote to not have government funds pay for abortion. That's about as far as he could go and hold his seat.

Is that a compromising of principles? Sure. Of course. There is no politics without compromise. There will never be. I'm a full-on socialist as far as principles go. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to what I expect from a national government. I have to be or I have to withdraw completely, since there is not a single candidate who can win a single seat in the House or Senate who agrees with my principles overall.

So, I vote for candidates who can win who hold some of my positions over candidates who hold none of them. I support only candidates I can actually live with. Nelson won't get any support from me, but I won't call him names, either. He's going to vote with us on many issues. The Republican who would take his place will vote with us on zero issues. Some, rather than nothing. There is not a prayer that a genuine liberal Democrat can win in Nebraska. Not a prayer. So, what do you do?

[freddie mertz]

34. Sorry, but Nelson clearly IS an asshole.

I am not interested in keeping this piece of mummified snake poop in office another minute.

On this point, we part intellectual company.

[ixion]

10. It's not about sniping... it's about speaking my mind

and I will continue to do that.

[MineralMan]

11. As will I.

[AllentownJake]

14. "Sniping"

So do you encourage GLBT democrats from not sniping at anti-marriage equality democrats.

Do you encourage Labor democrats from not sniping at southern anti-labor democrats.

Do you encourage pro-choice democrats from not sniping at anti-choice democrats.

Do you encourage pro-regulated capitalism democrats from not sniping at the DLC

Do you encourage pro-finance reform from sniping at banking democrats.

Honestly, if you understood the big tent that is the democratic party, you'd understand that what you are suggesting is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

[hayu_lol]

16. Should have thought about sniping v non-sniping back...

in the primary. Too late now to put the genie back into the lamp.

[AllentownJake]

19. Yes because any of the candidates with a chance

actually disagreed with each other on any major issue.

Oh look, the one substantial argument between Hillary and Barack has been resolved, mandates, with the President endorsing it having won the primary.

[MineralMan]

21. There is a difference between disagreeing with positions

and sniping. Calling a Democrat names because he/she does not vote the way you wish on some issues is sniping. Calling a Democrat and pressing your position on him/her and asking for support for that position is participation in the process.

There is not a single member of Congress or Senator with whom I agree on all issues. Not one. And yet, I support them in general because they generally support things I want.

Single issues are just that, whatever they are. There is a larger issue here, and that is whether we want general progressive progress or total obstruction. I choose the progress. You choose what you choose. I won't call you names for it, but I will argue the positions.

[AllentownJake]

36. When they agree with you on nothing

but are better than the alternative, what do you do.

Other than my stance on LGBT issues, I'd be considered a moderate GOPer conservative Democrat 60 years ago, right now, I'm a radical.

[MineralMan]

25. As for your details...

I want absolute equality for everyone, and in all aspects of their rights. Everyone.

I want workers in every field to be able to freely organize and engage in collective bargaining. No exceptions.

I want every woman to be in complete control of her reproductive rights. No exceptions.

I have no connection with the DLC and almost no knowledge of it. I need to correct that. Criticism of Democratic organizations is not sniping. Assuming connections with any organization about any individual is sniping. Telling people who disagree with you that they are shills for an organization is sniping.

I don't encourage any Democrats sniping at other Democrats. I encourage Democrats discussing positions on evidence-base and fact-based issues. That is not sniping.

Honestly, I have been active in Democratic politics for over 40 years. Your implication that I don't understand them is sniping. No, thanks, very much.

[HopeHoops]

15. I Faaahrt in your general direcccction.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Sorry, I just watched that Monty Python clip on Saturday and couldn't resist. ;}

[racaulk]

18. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-uh!

:rofl:

[HopeHoops]

23. "SPROING!" - RUN AWAY!

Yeah, I watched that one and the "Holy Hand Grenade" clip. I was near the end of "The Knights Who Say Ni" clip when the laptop battery crapped out and the thing shut itself down. I hate when that happens.

[MineralMan]

29. I say Ni!

[HopeHoops]

35. LOL! How about a Ni protest (about whatever) - we show up dressed as the Knights who say Ni.

We could make it a flash mob thing. We come out of nowhere dressed as the knights and start shouting "Ni" at someone - pick one, Boehner, Palin, Lieberman, O'Reilly, Beckkk, whatever.

[bridgit]

17. Why stop now?

[MineralMan]

22. Why continue now?

Do you find value in sniping? I find value in working toward overall goals, even when we disagree on details.

[bridgit]

28. Here? At DU? I find clear value in self defense...

And for a person purported to be *against* sniping, you do realize that even as pointed as your words here are to me could be construed by the tender and brittle empathetic' amongst us as: sniping, right? You do understand that, right? That asking for people to stop sniping then snipe them when they have an opinion or comment? You find no value in positioning your views in such a way as to avoid such an interpretation however in-passing?

As for "even when we disagree on details" - when you have a moment, refer to the comment in my profile ;)

I am often able to think however baseless: that I am the most free thinking person here at DU, it is other people that have a snarky, routine problem with that

[Tailormyst]

24. You call it sniping, others call it standing firm on their principles.

I assume when you call for a stop to the fighting you are referring to the supporters of these bad policies stopping their support of said bad policies and standing with those who are willing to fight for what is right. Or did you mean you want people to stop disagreeing with the Dem leadership?

[MineralMan]

27. Wow! Where did I say we should stop discussing or

even arguing positions and policies? That's not at all what I'm talking about. Here's what I'm talking about:

Implying that someone's a paid DLC troll without any evidence of that, simply because there is disagreement with your position.

Calling a Democratic office-holder a Republican equivalent because he/she voted in a way you disapprove on one issue.

Calling the President of the United States "Bush-lite" because he is not doing everything you wish he would do, whether or not he ever said he would.

Saying that you're going to leave the Democratic party over some issue, while continuing to expect that Democrats will still support you.

That's all sniping.

I don't want to stop the discussion. I don't want to stop telling elected officials what we want. I want to argue with you about positions on issues, explain why a particular elected legislator is voting in the way he/she is voting and why he/she can do nothing else without losing to a conservative Republican. If you suppose I won't be here making my point, you're way off base. And I expect you to do the same.

There is not a single elected national officeholder who agrees with me, on principle, on every position. Not one. There never will be. There sure are some, though who disagree with me on every position. They're called Republicans.

[Tailormyst]

32. If that's what you mean then I agree with you, mostly

However I do disagree on your example #4. The Dems can no longer automatically assume they get my vote as they have for years. Now they have to earn it. My time, money and votes will go to local progressives unless I happen to see a progresive running that can convince me that they truly are progressives. I am not the only one who feels they were played for a fool for the very last time.

I do agree that name calling, etc is rude and uncalled for. You can disagree without being an ass to the other person. Unless of course, that person truly deserves to be thrashed ( racists, bigots, anti-choice, etc).

[MineralMan]

37. In local races, what you say makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is for people who are nowhere near a particular politician calling that politician names because he/she doesn't support a particular position.

For candidates you can vote for, any pressure you can put on them is good. If you can't vote for them, calling them names is irrelevant to their positions.

I encourage working hard in your own Democratic party organization to get better candidates nominated. That's the very best answer to local idiots. It works. It sure worked in 2008 in Minnesota, where the hard work of a lot of people got Al Franken into the Senate.

[Tailormyst]

40. I do work locally.

I just put aside alot of my values when I "hoped for a change". Honestly, I should have known better. They say what they need to to get elected. But I mean it when I say the Dems can no longer count on my vote as they have been able to since I turned 18. Now they need to SHOW ME. They need to EARN my vote. Just putting a D next to their name is not enough. People can ooga booga me with threats of Palin all they want. I no longer listen to any of that. I'm tired of selling out year after year and happily settling for the lesser of two evils. Something has to change and it has to start somewhere. Just allowing them to go on year after year, unafraid of losing their jobs is frankly, just bullshit and is EXACTLY why we have the current situation.

[Ineeda]

26. Thanks MM for expressing so well what I, too, believe. n/t

[MineralMan]

30. My pleasure. Thanks for the support.

[FormerDittoHead]

31. Stop sniping at the Democratic snipers!

Sniping, not "SWIPING"!

Merry Christmas :)

[UTUSN]

33. K&R #2 n/t

[Wardoc]

38. NOT A FUCKING CHANCE!!! I will not be whored and then asked for support afterwards. NO! They...

work for US! They betrayed US! Fuck them. No money, no vote. We didn't get one damn thing, and they ask for MORE??!?! AYFKM?!?!?!

I busted my nuts doing my part. They have 60 Senators and a healthy majority and the Presidency. And now we have to give them EVEN MORE in order for them to START, MOTHERFUCKING START to work for us???

FUCK NO!!

Not giving a penny, a vote or a damn until 2011.

[MineralMan]

39. Well, OK, then...

Can you be a little more specific. What measures are you talking about? What politicians? It was a general rant, but we have no idea what and whom, specifically, you are talking about.