One of the reasons why Republicans have been kicking our asses for years

[mtnsnake]

If David Schuster said the same words about the daughter of a past Republican president, there would be no gray area. NONE. They would join together like a pack of wolves and go for the jugular. There would be no middle ground to discuss.

On the Democratic side of things, we've got people working the gray area...trying to debate whether Schuster was totally wrong or partially wrong, or something in between.

Until we Democrats learn a little more about blind loyalty to our own, we'll just have to be content with winning maybe one out of every 3 or 4 presidential races if we're lucky, and those victories will mostly come as a result of being all about the failures of the other guy, and not because of us.

It's fucking shameful how so many people on a Democratic forum can't even get 100% behind the daughter of a past Democratic president after comments such as Schuster's. Some of you people, many of you, need to learn something about blind loyalty when it comes to looking out for one of your own who's been attacked by people on the outside.

It's one thing if a Democrat goes after another Democrat within the confines of a Democratic debate or within the confines of a Democratic forum. Afterall, it's Primary Season. But when someone from outside of Democratic confines goes after one of our own the way Schuster just did about the Clintons, there should be no hesitation by ANY Democrat to go after them with a vengeance...nothinig less and nothing in between...no matter what you think about the Clintons. Until we learn that, we'll never be able to compete with the enemy.

[Ravy]

1. Hear! Hear! nt

[bunnies]

2. Blind Loyalty?

That phrase frightens me. Sorry.

[mtnsnake]

4. When it comes to Party, family, and friends, & when they're getting attacked by outsiders? YES!

[bunnies]

12. He apologized and has been suspended.

What more should I want? :shrug: I don't believe that he had any evil intentions. He said something incredibly unfortunate. And he's paying the price. I accept that. I dont see the point in continuing to grab for his throat.

[mtnsnake]

14. What happened to Schuster isn't my point, bunnies

It's how Democrats don't band together as one with no in-between to discuss when one of our own has been manhandled by someone from outside of our own confines.

[bunnies]

23. Gotcha.

Well, I cant argue with you there mtnsnake.

[housewolf]

20. slef-deleted

n/a

[southernleftylady]

10. Isnt that what we always make fun of them for? Falling lockstep behind their leaders and not ..

thinking for themselves?
IMO that what I hate about their party.. I like that we dont fall lockstep behind our leaders! but maybe thats just me :)

[bunnies]

13. Thats exactly why it frightens me.

Ive never seen blind loyalty as a positive attribute.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. Cicada...unless it's to Obama That kind of blind loyaly doesn't seem to frighten you at all.

[southernleftylady]

19. Both are frightening me nt

[bunnies]

24. Im not blindly loyal to Obama.

In any sense of the phrase.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. self delete

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Except for Obama, right?

[bunnies]

25. Wrong. nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

28. "Criers for Obama!"

[mtnsnake]

30. I'd rather not make this about Obama but how we need to back ANY of our Dems when

someone from the outside attacks them in any manner.

[bunnies]

32. Sorry. Ive got my arm floaties on today.

You'll have to play at the bottom of the pond without me.

[Jade Fox]

3. Yes....

Too many Democrats are hung up on being "nicer" than the Republicans and can't recognize when it's time to unapologetically hit back--hard.

[mtnsnake]

7. "hung up" is right.

You can say that again. :thumbsup:

[Jade Fox]

16. I see it as largely a class thing.......

For many middle-class people the WORST thing you can do is get angry or show any sort of strong emotion. Blandness, and the conviction that nothing really bad ever will ever happen (or has happened), are what they consider a rational world view. This class attitude can be seen very clearly in Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders.

Interestingly, the middle-class GOPers have learned to look the other way while their leaders court the wack-job Christian right, the obviously corrupt, and the flat out ignorant. It's been an effective form of denial.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I agree. Hill set a very bad example when she gang banged Kerry with the Repo's meme.

It all starts at top.

If the so-called "leaders" are going to behave like that, it's no wonder that regular people will follow that bad example and engage in the same kind of bad behavior.

[Ian David]

6. I'll say you're about 80% right, and I'm 75% behind you. n/t

[mtnsnake]

9. LOL

Thanks for the laugh ;)

[Thrill]

8. No they have been very effective at scaring voters

thats why they win. NO other reason. And when the chips are down, Democrats tend to fall to the fear tactics and cross over when its time to vote.

[mtnsnake]

37. For sure that is a major reason

but I still find it odd how so many people can debate whether or not what Schuster said was wrong, partially wrong, or something in between. In my book, when the enemy from outside goes after one of your own, you have to let them know that they're wrong, even if it's just to make a statement.

[NC_Nurse]

11. So check your brain at the door? No, thanks. nt

[chefgirl]

17. Um, no.

You mean, act more like Republicans?

Instead of honestly calling a situation as we see it, no matter who is pushing the manufactured outrage button, you propose that we go to war, as it were, for no better reason than blind loyalty?

No thanks. 'Blind loyalty' is a sophomoric concept.

Maybe, just maybe, what separates us from the RWers, is the fact that some of us believe its better to lose with our principles intact than to stoop to the level of our opponents.

I'm just sayin'.

-chef-

[mtnsnake]

27. Blind loyalty to Party, family, & friends, when 1 of them is attacked by outsiders, is not stooping

to the level of our opponents. Not in my book it isn't.

[chefgirl]

34. It is in my book

"BLIND" being the operative word here.

Honestly assessing a situation should always be the goal, no matter the consequences.



"To be one's self, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity." Irving Wallace

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." ~William Penn

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


-chef-

[Auntie Bush]

22. It's not lock step for Dems to stick together with one voice when one of our own

has a disgusting attack thrown at them. We as a cohesive group should defend ourselves against that kind of disgraceful bias Journalism(?)

We don't defend our own because we are such a split party and no loyalty to our party as a whole. We're just a bunch if individuals lumped together and referred to as Democrats. I'm frankly disgusted that a single person on this board would condone such behavior. It's down right scary :scared: to
have a party with such lack of morals and unity.

[ecstatic]

26. True, but that venom needs to be focused on Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly...

well... you get the point. There are not many left leaning voices on the air, ya know.

[blm]

29. Clintons JOIN the RW faster than anyone when it comes to undermining other Dems.

They always have and always will.

They only fight back FOR THEMSELVES, but join them against other Dems.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Don't they?

[mtnsnake]

31. Thanks for joining in, blm. You are the perfect example of what is wrong with our game plan.

It doesn't matter one iota to you if someone from the outside attacks one of our own. In fact, you relish over anyone attacking a Clinton, even if it's a Republican doing the attacking.

[blm]

36. Clintons are the perfect example of not supporting Dems for years - But YOU DON'T CARE

as long as you have your FAITH in them you don't give a fock how many OTHERS in the party they screw over including the party itself.

THEY are your perfect example - you are just too blinded by devotion to them to see it.

Didn't see you gnashing your teeth that Clintons and their loyalists didn't rise up against the media smears against Kerry or Dean the last 5 years.

But, boy howdy are you quick to attack longtime activists on an internet forum because we finally had our fill of the Clintons' DECEIT against our party.

[robbedvoter]

38. But she thinks Obama will get GOPpers to love the democratic system of governance

he's THAT powerful. Go figure :shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

40. How can you say that? What a down right egous post.!

It's the Obamites that post all the right wing and FR slime verbatim about Hillary.

[ProSense]

55. Easy:

Hillary didn't hesistate to join the MSM and RW frenzy to distort an innocuous comment by Kerry.

Why hasn't she demanded that MSNBC fire/suspend Chris Matthews? She is being a huge hypocrite on this issue.

[mikekohr]

33. Why We Have Lost 7 of the Last 10 Presidential Elections

Shuster made a tasteless comment and is being held accountable. This is as it should be. But Shuster's comment or the ensuing dust-up has little to do with why we continually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In nearly every contested caucus and primary Senator Clinton out polls Senator Obama among Democratic party regulars. Senator Obama's strength is the proven ability to inspire and engage first-time voters, independents and cross-over Republicans. The Republican base will fall in line (as they are now behind Senator McCain). Our party regulars will get behind our nominee, regardless of whether that person is Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

But in the end it will be the swath of the demographic that Senator Obama is energizing and inspiring that will decide who wins the White House. This same demographic shows affinity for Senator McCain, as it has shown in the past for Ross Perot, and Ronald Reagan. It's support put RapMaster Ronnie over the top in 1980 and 1984 and it's support for Perot in 1992 and 1996 allowed Bill Clinton to slide past his Republican competition.

Like it or not, to win the White House, and to lift the entire ticket even higher will require the ability to attract support among independents, moderates, and to be able to peel away that thin sliver of reasonable Republicans. Senator Obama has demonstrated that ability. Senator Clinton, not so much. As Democrats we must acknowledge, face, and deal with this fact. The inability to face this similar reality in the past is THE reason we have lost 7 of 10 of the last presidential elections.

mike kohr

[Armstead]

35. You'd have a point if it were a two way street

The Clinton's newfound role as journalistic watchdogs would mean a lot more if they had encouraged a united front when Howard DEan was being attacked for being a "crazy leftist" or when the MSM regularly spews out false versions of reality or when anti-war critics were being called horrible names.....

[question everything]

39. Not only that. This has to be nipped at the bud

If the Clintons do not put their foot down, these weasels will feel that they have a clear road.

And if later, as they get even more obnoxious, the Clinton would react, the comment would be: well, why didn't you say something earlier?

And this is not an isolated case. Many of us stopped watching even Olbermann becasue the men on MSNBC and Newsweek are so hateful of Clinton and swoon over Obama, as Jonathan Alter finally admitted at a recent column.

They want sensationalism - what were the Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton and Britney Spear cover all the time all about?

So if they can sexualize both Hillary and Chelsea, that more points for them.

[Afje]

41. The reason the GOPhers have

been kicking our asses for years is organization. They co-opted the churches, who are really the last standing community institutions in this country. Unions are as good as dead - and that's what kicking our asses

[eridani]

42. And it's a shame how Dems wouldn't stand up against debate exclusion

Fox excluded Ron Paul (widely despised by the Repub leadership), and the Repubs promptly withdrew their official sponsorship. Sad when Repubs are modeling "an injury to one is an injury to all," and we aren't.

This incident in the OP is just one of many--the MoveOn censure, forcing that Rep. in CA to apologize, etc.

[Political Heretic]

43. Winning really doesn't matter if you're not right when you do.

Unfortunately, the world isn't black and white. Context matters. Grey area is a reality. I don't want to become like binary republicans in order to win, nor do I believe it is necessary.

Basically I see what you're saying like this:

Some commentator says a black candidate is "really smart for a black man." If that candidate is republican, the conservatives unite and demand that he be executed.

Alternatively, the candidate is a democrat, and democrats believe that something in the middle of the spectrum is appropriate to the offense - there's some debate internally, but democrats agree he shouldn't be executed. Something else should happen. They have an awareness that not all offenses are equal, and while all should have consequences and none should be ignored, you can't treat them all as if they are the same.

What you are suggesting is that we would win if we became like republicans. I'm suggesting that if we did that, it wouldn't matter if we "won" because the whole point of winning (to stand for something better) would be lost.

David Shuster fucked up. He needed to apologize. There's room to debate how much punishment is justly proportionate to the offense. I don't think he should be fired, because I disagree that "pimping out" as slang as the phrase has become, equates to literally calling Chelsea a whore. If anything, it is targeted at the Clinton campaign, and suggesting that it is being exploitative with its use of Chelsea as a campaign commodity. I don't agree with that perspective, but that's what the phrase implied. The reason I think Shuster needed to apologize is because its cheap and unprofessional slang that was inappropriately biased against the Clintons and not reflective of journalistic professionalism or integrity.

That said, it was also not the biggest deal of the century, and I'm uncomfortable with promoting a culture in which public figures are fired from their jobs at any mistake or offense regardless of severity.

[Meldread]

44. The only problem is this: "Until we Democrats learn a little more about blind loyalty to our own"

...is the fact that David Schuster is one of us. That, and of course, people took what he said out of context purposefully.

However, reading your post makes me realize how wrong that I am. I shall build the cross, you get the hammer and nails, and we'll hunt down David. I'm sure he deserves it. No one has the right to sass the Queen and the Royal Family. Not in America.

[mikekohr]

45. Snarky

And I love it

[mtnsnake]

51. The blind loyalty I'm talking about has eyes and a brain.

David Schuster isn't the daughter of a past Democratic President, btw, and the blind loyalty I'm talking about is the kind of loyalty it takes for teams to win.

I'm not surprised at your reply. Not a bit. Lots of other people don't understand what it takes to win either.

[Meldread]

56. Oh, I understand what it takes to win. It starts by not stabbing your own in the back.

Anyone who objectively watched the segment, as I did - I saw it when it aired - knew full well the context he used it in. He wasn't calling her a whore nor were there any sexual undertones. In fact, his comments were dead on mark, and I think that's what really upset the Clinton folks. If Chelsea is going to constantly be put out there, and is going to be injected into the middle of the campaign - she's calling Super delegates and is even calling all of the women on the View - then why can't she be interviewed or questioned? She isn't 12 years old any more. She's 27. She's an adult.

Do you think Chelsea gets a free pass just because she's the daughter of a former Democratic President? Is Rush going to give her a pass? Maybe he'll call her the White House dog again, and that will give you something to really be pissed about.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that David flat out called her a whore. Let's just say - since that is the outrage - that David said she was being whored out to the women of the View, and to Super Delegates in exchange for support. Let's just pretend that's exactly what he said. Now, certainly they'd have a right to complain. There is no problem in that. There is no problem with them complaining about his comment in context - all political campaigns constantly complain to the media.

However, it would still be inappropriate for the Clinton campaign to pressure or demand something be done with him. That is for the public to decide. If the public is outraged, then they have every right to write MSNBC and demand that he be fired. They have every right to turn off the TV every time he comes on.

The line is crossed, however, when a politician uses their influence to shut a person in the media down. I don't like it when the Bush's were doing it, and I don't like it now that the Clinton's are doing it. I don't like that shit - we have a (mostly) free media - sometimes it does shit we don't like. However, I'd rather they have the occasional fuck up than have politicians intervening and silencing them. We all know where that leads.

However, focusing back to the main point - David's comments were taken out of context. The real outrage among the Clinton's is not the fact that he used a slang term, but because they do not like the coverage they are getting on MSNBC. They want it to be more positive. So when David said something that could be twisted to their advantage, they jumped on it, and turned him into a sacrificial lamb. They are punishing him, one of our own - one of the few truly liberal voices in the media - in order to get more positive coverage.

That to me goes against everything I believe in - if (god forbid) she wins the nomination and loses the general she'll have no one to blame but herself. If she wants to pull a Bill Clinton and wag her finger at someone, all she'll have to do is look in the mirror.

[MagickMuffin]

46. The thing I like about the Democratic Party, We are individuals and NOT prone to Group Think

We seem to be very diversified and think about the situation at any given time. We tend to be more independents, more free thinkers, and critical thinkers. Some join the Democratic Party because they think the Dems will help them with their everyday problems. Some vote the Democrats into office to keep the repiglicons out of office. And a whole a lot of people choose not to participate at all in the Democratic process.

I am a Liberal first and foremost. I love being able to think for myself and analyze situations. I have been an observer all my life, and that's what makes me unique. That I have the ability to be a critical thinker and not submit to One Mind Set.


Since you brought up Schuster's off handed remark, it was unfortunate. When I saw him saying that, I thought he's going to pay dearly for that.

Did I get outraged? No, because I knew the situation would be dealt with by management.

Do I think he should have been fired? No, I think he is getting some time off to think about what an ass he was for what he said.

Should I have rallied behind the Clinton's? No. They know how to take control of the situation better than I could. Which they did, BTW.

Did they ask for Schuster to be dismissed? No. They asked the networks to consider the implications and actions of their words and deeds.

Did I vote for Clinton? ...............Yes, in '92.................No, in 96. Why? Because he didn't live up to his campaign promises the first time around. I wasn't impressed with him back in '92 but there was no way I could sit it out with Poppy Bush running for reelection.
I've never sat an election out. Sometimes I have had to vote for who I thought was the best candidate like in '96. And no I've never ever voted for a rethuglicon, not even in a primary.



The MAIN reason we lose elections is the republicons will do anything to WIN. They have been doing this for decades. Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillispie, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, all have been using extremely Dark and Dirty campaign tricks since Nixon back in 72. Breaking in to Democratic HQ's and stealing letterheads to invite people to a beer bash along with hookers. Breaking into Watergate to the DNC HQ's. They have continued to break into various Democratic HQ's ALL across America. I read about it all the time when we're in an election cycle.

So, the Dems need to have better security within the HQ's so they can catch these rethugs. They should install miniature cameras so they can identify them, or some other form of security. There is nothing these thugs won't stoop to doing.
Of course they now have control over our voting machines, and know how to manipulate them into flip flopping the votes.


I guess this has been my observation from reading your OP and my thoughts about it.

End Transmission:hi:

[Orsino]

47. When we learn blind loyalty, we too will become tools of the rich and powerful.

Blind loyalty can go take a flying leap into the Republican Party.

[mtnsnake]

48. Blind loyalty to my friends, family, & Party is where it's at. I never said anything about the rich

[Orsino]

49. And if you never say anything about the rich, they will own you, too.

Don't let your Democratic "leaders" get away with the Faustian bargains they are making. Kick up a fuss, make some noise, and show them how much you care about the real issues that affect your family, friends and party. Never let them take you for granted.

[mtnsnake]

52. The blind loyalty I'm talking is where you stick up for your best friend in public even if

he was wrong, and then you kick his ass in private. Just thought I'd mention that, since a few people here don't seem content to mischaracterize what I mean on purpose.

[Orsino]

54. Well, when your "friend" keeps working publicly to undermine your family, real friends and party...

...I think it's your "friend" who's guilty of mischaracterization.

It's a mistake, I believe, to confuse a political party with real friends. The party is quite happy to abandon your favorite candidate, and occasionally even to work actively against him/her. I've got no problem with that concept--I'm in that boat now--but I insist that loyalty should never be blind. As long as the party comes up with a nominee who represents some of your interests, or who simply is closer to them than is the other party's, give 'em all the loyalty you want. Just keep both eyes open, and one on your wallet.

[Carrieyazel]

50. Monica has a lot more to do with why we don't have the White House right now

That one event has cost us dearly. If she had just kept her mouth shut, or if Bill had been more careful.

Contemptible lamestream media comments about Chelsea or any other Democratic figure, are not the big difference makers that many believe.

[totodeinhere]

53. But Shuster's smear might not have been intentional.

As has been said ad infinitum in other threads at DU, the word "pimp" has taken on a different meaning for many people, especially young people. Shuster might have just been trying to be hip with that comment, not mean. He might not have been purposefully trying to smear the daughter of a past Democratic president.

That's why perhaps we should give Shuster the benefit of the doubt, especially since he has profusely apologized.

As far as Democrats not banding together goes, that may be beside the point in this case. If what Shuster said was unintentional, what's there to band together about?

[NoBorders]

57. Black and White vs. Grey: that IS the difference

There is a difference between the minds of conservatives and liberals. Liberals tend not to view things in simple black and white terms the way conservatives do. We're just never going to be the rabid group-think types the republicans can be, and I'm glad. True, it can hurt us politically sometimmes, but I wouldn't sacrifice our ability to think for their ability to turn into a pack of wild dogs.

SNIP
bb]Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
SNIP

Sorry, no link but google it and you'll find the study.