There's another of those 300+ post threads...

[TreasonousBastard]

around about how we Democrats (or whatever it is we are) should act.

It seems that someone has made the amazing discovery that we don't have to agree with everything Obama says. I believe the word used was "support" but as a discussion board I don't think we can "support" anything. As individuals, we can support whatever we damn well please, for whatever good it will do.

Here's the problem, though...

Having actually been involved in running for office, helping other people run for office, and trying to influence those who have run for office and won, I can't help but notice that a distinction has to be made in these blanket statements.

First, it's true that we never agree 100% with anyone else. Our support of other people involves the degree to which we agree and the weight we put on various issues where we may or may not agree. And even if we agree on the basics, there are those nasty details that we may disagree with.

All that gets hashed out in the process, though, and we go through a series of compromises to get a candidate and a platform. I'm in a series of meetings now where our local Democrats may not take a position or have platform planks on certain issues we haven't properly hashed out yet.

OTOH, when we have a candidate, or when our people are "at war" with the other side, all internal disagreements are thrown aside and we back our guys to the hilt. When we are under siege, it is not the time to deal with our dirty linen.

It's really that simple.

[pacalo]

1. I like your perspective & I've been feeling basically the same.

It's why I avoid all the contentious threads. There's no value in participating in a thread that is causing unnecessary division. It's counterproductive & petty.

Thank you for bringing this up.

[Number23]

2. Perfectly said. Great post

[Warren DeMontague]

5. "The beatings will continue until morale improves"

some people just don't understand why more folks don't appreciate taking time out of their busy day to be lectured by strangers over the intertubes.

[pacalo]

9. It gets so tiresome.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Psssst.

"Weird News."

[grasswire]

3. but Obama is not running for office....

....and so an unending "campaign" or a "war" mentality seems fruitless at the best, and damaging to the party at the worst.

Obama's presidency has stripped the Democratic Party of some of its leading issues. Issues that have been paramount to Democrats for decades if not generations.

And I simply do not understand the "war" to shield him from his due legacy.

Obama could have had a legacy that would rival that of Bobby Kennedy, of MLK Jr,, even of Lincoln himself. He still could do so. He would have to eschew corporatism, eschew crony capitalism, eschew corrupt politics, eschew imperialism, and embrace populism and egalitarianism. He would have to be the PEOPLE's president. Just as Pope Francis is fast becoming the PEOPLE's pope.

And if he did so, he would not be more reviled by RWNJ than he already is. He would not be neutralized more than he already is, by special interests.

The RWNJ already hate him. If he came "home" to all Democratic values and principles, his legacy would be golden, for all of history.

It would be freeing. He would be free to be the greatest president ever.

[Coyotl]

4. And, President Romney would be loving every minute of it!

Don't underestimate the man like everyone else!

[Hekate]

13. RFK and MLK were never president. They HAVE NO presidential legacy.

They, along with Lincoln, were assassinated. And the Pope is a religious leader.

[Scuba]

18. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Enthusiast]

21. +1 a shit load...........nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Meh. The GOP NEVER bends. But the DEMS always bend to the GOP. I'm sick of the Party's phony excuses

Obama, Clinton, Carter, always the same: "We CAN'T do it! It's too hard! Somebody won't like us. Have to RISE ABOVE IT ALL! WAAAAH!" Done with the BS excuses. The real reason for the BS is that the DEMS don't support the Party Plank. But they need the cover of their phony excuses. BS!

[Union Scribe]

7. Except we're always "at war"

Our politicians, and more importantly our people, are always under siege. An election is always coming up. Bills are always being contended. There is no downtime we can set aside for intra-party reflection. It should, and must, be done in motion as it comes.

[Capt. Obvious]

22. But we will finally beat Eurasia

unless the far left fails us.

[cui bono]

8. Meh. Then we need to pick different people.

I don't feel like backing Dems who double down on failed and unconstitutional Republican policies.

[merrily]

11. I like the last five paragraphs of your OP, but I am not sure

about the first three. Those seem to be saying that there is something wrong with others starting a thread on whatever topic they care to (within TOS, of course).

I don't mean this for you since I thought most of your OP was excellent, but I will use this thread as an excuse to say that it seems to me that people on this board seem to have trouble allowing others to post on whatever they wish to post on.

Each of us can disagree with posters or put them on ignore or hide threads or whatever, so what is the big deal about people starting a thread we don't like?

(I have no particular self interest in this post as I have never started a thead here and don't know if I ever will. I am more of a replier or even just a reader.)

[countmyvote4real]

12. I basically agree, but sometimes it depends on the taint of the dirty linen. n/t

[Hekate]

14. There's a lot of "I only vote for principles; I don't vote for people" around. Let me know...

...when a "principle" runs for office! Sheesh.

Thanks for your experienced words of wisdom, TB. Keep up the good work.

[Scuba]

19. Politicians represent principles. They run on principles. Perhaps some vote for the pretty face...

... but most of us care about the principles.

[quakerboy]

15. Has there been a time in the past 30 years

when we were not "under siege"?

Is there any likelyhood of a time in the next 30 years when we are not "under siege"?

Given that the answer to both of these questions is no, then no matter what internal disagreements there are, we must never speak our minds or criticize. For instance, if we hit 2023, and the Presidential race is Wendy Davis vs John Elway, and Wendy for some unknown reason picks Sarah Palin as her shooting buddy and running mate, we should keep our thoughts on that quiet and cheer her on. Or in 2027 when the democrats decide to campaign on ending the ACA as outdated, because its still better than the republican alternative proposal of having all Drs burned as witches, again we should keep our mouths shut and tow the line.

Its a fools argument. Basically what you are advocating is a permanent gag order on any substantial disagreement with policy that we find distasteful, foolish, or even evil.

[DeSwiss]

16. K&R

- I suppose if one is going to give CPR to a corpse, I'd rather I press my lips to a liberal corpse.

“Also, please don’t think I’ve forgotten about your outstanding service record, or about all the invaluable contributions that you’ve made to the company. Fire, the wheel, agriculture..It’s an impressive list, old timer. A jolly impressive list. Don’t get me wrong.

But well...to be frank, we’ve had our problems, too. There’s no getting away from it. Do you know what I think? A lot of it stems from? I’ll tell you…

It’s your basic unwillingness to get on with the company. You don’t seem to want to face up to any real responsibility, or to be your own boss. Lord knows you’ve been given plenty of opportunities. We’ve offered you promotion time and time again, and each time you’ve turned us down…

To be frank, you’re not really trying are you?”

~V for Vendetta

[center][/center]

[Fearless]

17. I'd tend to agree with you on your main point

Although I would say that there are people in the world that I do trust completely. Some of which are public figures. For instance, in journalism... Rachael Maddow. In politics, Senator Kennedy in years past. Bernie Sanders now. I'd even say Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. I trust their judgement. Philosophically, George Carlin. For a majority of those people I agree 100% on any issue I can think of currently. And if not 100% like 99.999%.

[TheKentuckian]

20. No, it isn't simple as we are on a permanent war footing and some of that dirty linen

is very helpful to advancing the agenda of the opposition and kneecaps our own and some of it is damaging to the broad prosperity, self determination, and future of the American people.

No, folks won't be standing by for the age of Aquarius to start and get into swing before demanding what they need and calling for what they want, the new secular - political version of being rewarded for patient meekness in soldiering through is probably not going to have much purchase and as for my house, we shall mock it and punch holes in such a opportunistic fantasy as possible.

What politicians wouldn't like such rules? Representing constituencies and governing become optional and those things are hard work. The contesting and fundraising can be a grind but nowhere near the risk and effort of doing what one is elected to actually do, better to move the focus to the game. More hat, less cattle.

Let government be Hollywood for the less beautiful but better connected, let the boardrooms actually run the country is all I see.

The "process" seems to be flushing us down the fucking toilet, I'm not inclined to want to hear it we are talking about our real lives, what kind of future we will have, and maybe about all life on this world.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. ^^^^^^ this here ^^^^^^

You have said it, TK

[MineralMan]

23. All politics are local. If you're not participating

in politics at the local level, you're missing an opportunity to make a difference.

Thanks for the post.

Here's another post about local participation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024442477