Can you support Dean without supporting the party?

[LittleClarkie]

Can you say you won't donate to them, without effecting Dean and his plans for the party? Even if you're not upset with Dean, does what you do re: the party effect him and whatever he's working on regarding a 50 state policy?

I've been in a two day fight about this. I say yes. The fight is now. There is not "oh, maybe some day I'll feel like supporting the party again when they learn to fight."

Permanent minority. That's what I see in such words. I also see folks who should just go freakin' Green already if the Democratic Party isn't for them.

What do you guys think? Is there something I'm missing? Will non-support of the party make them grow tough? Or will it just make them go elsewhere for their money?

[paulk]

1. no

and that thread should have been locked.

and while I commend your efforts in arguing with those jackasses, I have to say that thread has put me over the edge regarding DU.

Day after day after day of broad brush attacks on Democrats and the Democratic Party.

I can't subsidize this sort of stupidity anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

2. I'm beating my head against a brick wall, and I should have stopped

a while ago.

They don't get it. They don't even come close to understanding what I mean when I say they don't get it.

It's like telling a mother you have nothing against her as you let her children starve. She may not be the direct recipient, but it's gonna affect her.

I'm going to try and stop now in that thread.

Now if I could keep from strangling members of the Patrick Henry Think Tank, I'd be fine.

[TayTay]

3. It has always been this way

We just are seeing the 'sausage being made' because we now have blogs like DU. The Democratic Party is a coalition Party formed from many different interest groups. It is not now, nor has it ever been a monolithic front. It is the very nature of the beast.

This goes back to the fight over Northern vs. Southern Democrats, Conservative vs. Liberal and so forth. There have always been knock-down, drag-out fights within the Dem Party as to what we stand for and what it all means. There have always been stress and fracture lines and it has always taken a great deal of skill to hold the Party together. Always. We just get to see the actual in-fighting on a daily basis.

Consider how hard it was for FDR to stitch together a coalition out of Dixiecrats, Northern Libs and Conservatives (Remember, places like New England were Republican until the 1920's & 30's) and midwestern progressives to form his New Deal Party. The cracks didn't go away during the Depression, or during WWII. They burst out into the open again in the 1950's (when Dems did NOT fight McCarthy until after he had had a reign of terror that went on for a couple of years) and so forth.

Trying to grab hold of the Dem Party is like trying to wrestle with a wriggling bag of snakes. It is always going to be difficult and kind of obnoxious. It's who we are. I, as a MA Lib have to swallow some of my issues and agenda in order to form common ground with Southern Dems who may think differently and be less Lib on some issues. This is good for the PArty, but can create seething resentments that I didn't get everything I wanted and can create problems down the road. (And vice versa.)

This is politics. This is the Dem Party. It was ever so. It will ever be so.

[paulk]

5. I don't think, especially regarding DU, that it's a problem with the

Democratic Party.

Many people here aren't Democrats, and their agenda isn't stitching together a coalition. Quite the opposite.

I used to think the blogosphere was the answer - it would be the tool to bring people together - I'm not so sure anymore that it isn't what will tear us apart.

[JI7]

6. i have to agree

it's not a matter of difference on some issues such as labor rights/social conservatives within the party having a problem with the abortion rights movement or some other similar type conflicts.

based on many of the posts from the type i'm speaking about they have a certain hatred for the Democratic Party. their entire agenda seems to be to tear down people and many times using right wing talking points to do it. even when you post something positive a democrat does they respond with something negative and bitter. of course they also start threads why dems aren't fighting.

[TayTay]

9. Yup. I've seen this all my life

There are people who are committed Dems, lifers who love the Party and want it to succeed. I'm one of them. (I've only cast one vote in my whole life that wasn't for a Dem. I've been voting since 1976.)

There have always been people who come to Democratic forums to complain about Democrats. They seem to use the words 'Betrayal,' 'Coward,' and 'Wimp,' more than anything else. (Or words to that effect.) I have seen this loads and loads of times in liberal Massachusetts. I have seen it used in liberal vs liberal fights when one side is arguing that the Dems don't stand for anything and they are going third party. I have seen it used when a lib understands that a particular candidate votes the way they wanted 92% of the time and that guy is berated as a 'Sellout.'

The only thing that is different now is that we have forums like DU where you can see this out in the open on a daily and even minute-by-minute basis. It is like an unusually toxic virus that demoralizes and depresses people who should stand together in common ground but instead break apart over minute differences that have no real long-term meaning. And I gotta tell ya, it has ever been so.

The Democratic Party is much more of a coalition Party than the Rethugs have ever been, until recently. The Rethugs have crafted a new coaltion that stitches together country cloub libertarians with religious conservatives. Their coaltion is breaking down and the fracture and stress lines are showing. (So are ours. But ours always show.) The Dems have always formed circular firing squads and attacked their leaders and members of the various coaltions. It's just the history of the Dem Party. (Until they periodically go all strongman and concentrate power into a central group again. This can unite the PArty, as a strong show of force usually can scare people into a false unity. But that will not last and the power will de-centralize and the stress and fractures will show again)

[ginnyinWI]

15. thanks for this post TayTay

It helps to have that perspective. It is true: without the internet the whiners would only have the guys down at the corner pub to complain to. I don't think any Dems in politics are really nervously checking DU to make sure they are doing ok! Ha. So let the whiners whine. Someone like Kerry has more political saavy in one little finger than some of these dunderheads on DU. If they know so much, maybe they should enter a few local races and get into the game themselves; then they'd see how easy it is, or not.

edit: oops, I meant this as a reply to post #9

[TayTay]

4. You kind of have to think of the Dems like a big Kindergarten class

Teacher: "Class, it's time to read our storybook. Can we all just sit down and, (sigh) yes, dear, what is it"

Kid 1: "Teacher, Harry isn't sitting in his seat. He's not following the rules. He gets up, walks over to the pro-life side and plays with their toys I never get to play with their toys. He shouldn't be here."

Teacher: "We've been through this before. Harry told you before he got here that he liked the pro-life toys and he sometimes plays with them. Get over it. Now sit down and listen to the story."

Kid 2: Teacher, Ben N. isn't following the story. He's out talking with that mean Ricky S. kid, who I think should be in Special Ed. I told him not to talk to that Ricky kid, cuz he ain't right in the head. Why is Ben allowed to talk to Ricky? Does this mean that I get to talk with Georgie A. Cuz he ain't right in the head either, but I think he promised to teach me how to play football."

Teacher: "You stay away from that Georgie A. You don't want to be playing with him. He's, well, he's just not someone you should be hanging around with. I think whatever he has might be catching. Now, do you want to hear the story or what?"

Kid 3: "Teacher, Babs is way out in front of the rest of us. She already read the first three pages of the story and that's not right. I don't think Babs should be so far ahead of the rest of us. My people back home are going to be asking why I can't be out in front of stories like Babs is and I'm not ready to commit to being out in front at this point. Can you tell Babs to wait for the rest of us."

Teacher: "Babs, try and stay only one page ahead of the rest of us. Oh now what is it?"

Kid 4: "Johnny didn't finish putting all his ballots away yet. I don't think he should get a story until he's counted all his ballots and put them away properly."

Teacher: "Sigh! Johnny did finish counting his ballots, it's just that that mean Karl kid came in here and stole some of them and then kicked the box over. You know, the rest of you could have helped put the ballots away as well, but you decided to yell at Johnny for what Karl did. That's just not right. Okay, no time for a story, take out your mats, it's nap time."

Kid 5: "I didn't bring my mat. I didn't know we needed a mat. I lent my mat to Georgie B and he never gave it back."

Teacher:" "Joey L., never, ever lend anything to Georgie B. He never gives you any credit, he rips the mat so you can't use it and then he blames you for giving him the mat in the first place. When are you going to learn?"

Kid 6: "I have an extra mat for Joey L. He helps me with my video games. He's my best friend, and I want to be just like him. And Johnny is my best friend. I want to be just like him. And Ben N is my best friend. We are exactly the same."

Teacher: "Hillary, sit down. You can't be exactly the same as Joey L, Johnny and Ben N. You can't be all things to all people. Just lay down and go to sleep."

And so it goes.

Whome, this one's for you. Cuz you wanted a silly Friday thread.

[MH1]

7. ROFLMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Kid 2 is so right: Ricky S. should be in Special Ed...he ain't right in the head.

This is great. I think you should post it in GD. :evilgrin:

[TayTay]

8. Ricky S. Is so not right in the head

Have you heard that there are fundraising parties where people read aloud passages from Santorum's book? This is hysterical. I will have to suggest it at my next Dem meeting.

The only problem is getting a copy of the book. It's not like I'm going to pay for it or anything. I'll have to get a chapter from the web site or something.

[MH1]

12. I didn't hear about that, but

you may have fun with the stuff in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=175&topic_id=6907&mesg_id=6907

(you MUST read the article linked in the second post - we couldn't make this stuff up, but the tongue-in-cheek editor at the Times gave it a good go.)

[TayTay]

13. That is hysterical. I love it.

It's nice to see that the folks at the paper have a good sense of humor and the temerity to stand up to the looney right in print. This was fantastic!

We had a good editorial in the BGlobe that completely slammed ex-Gov Bill Weld today. He wandered off after John Kerry beat him for the Senate in 1996 and disappeared. Then he turned up in New York and has decided to run for Gov of NY. The Globe took him apart today in a viscious editorial. I loved it. (And he deserved it. He was another Repub Gov who has lied about the great and noble Commonwealth of Massachusetts, after it was so good to him too! Weasel bastard.)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/08/20/the_weld_we_know/

[karynnj]

17. Wow - That is a really strong, negative editorial

It's funny that they were so in love with him at one point, then looking back over what he's done - realized how bad he was. With Kerry, it seems the opposite, they didn't (and don't)love him, they pick on anything - but when it's time to look back at what he's done, the editorials (you've posted) are quite positive.

[TayTay]

19. Is it like that with Santorum?

What are the opinions of the PA papers on him anyway? I know he gets concservative love from the Tribune in Pittsburgh, but that is a scaife paper, so, what can you expect.

Where does Santorum draw support from and can Casey take that?

(And yes, the Globe is deeply split on Kerry. They like the politics, they don't like or have had mixed reactions to the politician.)

[karynnj]

10. But in kindergarten, the teacher

would put Karl and Ricky in timeout and let Johnny be the best class President.

Your story is fantastic - and they are acting like whiny children.

[TayTay]

11. Yeah, my prejudice is showing

Johnny was not acting, but acted upon in my story. (Cuz it was about whiny Dems and he aint' one.) He he, he. I write it, I get to make up the good guys.

But I would put both Georgies and Ricky in time out and then have a conference with the other teachers and I mihgt put them in SpEd. They really need it.

And Joey L. Should never, ever, lend out any more Dem stuff to Rethug. Ever. It just never works out.

[ginnyinWI]

14. yeah and furthermore

Joey L. shouldn't go letting Georgie B. kiss him!

[kerrygoddess]

16. ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS!!!!

Oh Tay Tay, I needed that! Laughed my ass off, now I can have a good sleep. I was looking for some humor tonight.

[BlueIris]

18. I'll go you one better, LC--can you support the Party, but not Dean?

I really, really dislike Howard Dean. I think he was the wrong choice for chairman and I despise some of the things he's done since taking up that post. I actually hope we have the opportunity to replace him, even if it makes us look (more) unstable.

But with respect to your post--to all those crazy bastards so unhappy with the party that they want to bail (to where? I might ask): well, I think that's a ridiculous plan, it won't get progressive agendas accomplished at this time and it makes you the sort of whiny, defeatist asshole I can't even look in the eyes. In fact, go ahead. I won't miss you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. I agree

I just can't stomach the man, and I think he's a dishonest hypocrite. I used to just think that I was projecting the nastiness of his supporters onto him, but I think he encourages it - he fucking paid off Kos, who is one of the most petty and noxious "left-wing" bloggers out there, so I can't just let him off the hook.

He makes supporting the DNC really hard for me. I WANT to - I've been a Democrat as long as I can rememeber. But Jesus, if you go to democrats.org it seems like every other link is some spewing self-congratulatory press release about Dean's latest adventure. I certainly don't think McAuliffe, for all his faults, made the DNC all about HIM, and he shouldn't. Being DNC chairman isn't about YOU - it's about the party. Dean's just an egocentric glory hog and his taking credit for Hackett's performance ("this proves that my 50 state strategy works!") was the latest example. If we win gains in 2006, of course, the fact that people now realize what a dumbfuck Bush is won't be taken into account - ALL credit will be given to Dean, which is a load of bullshit, since 75% of the American people don't even know who Dean is, except perhaps peripherally.

*SIGH* - okay, :rant: over.

[Mass]

21. I find that Dean is doing a good job as chair, much better than as

candidate, but I can understand your feeling, because I have the same feeling for some other people.

Actually, I like Dean at least for one reason. While all these so called moderates were all focused on how bad a candidate Kerry was (last year), Dean (and Clark) were there supporting him and never went on TV to say something negative (and has been very silent on the same subject since the election as well). This means a lot for me.
This said, I think you may be getting irritated more by the Deaniacs than by Dean.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. It's certainly possible - the Deaniacs make Dean hard to tolerate

I don't know that I'll ever forgive Dean for the shit he made up in the primaries, or indeed, for planting the seeds for the lefty freeperism we see at DU and Kos now which places greater blame for Iraq on the IWR and senators like Kerry and Edwards than on Bush. I guess I just think he's all bark and no bite, a bunch of hype with no substance, and that bothers me. So maybe it is the blind and entirely unsubstantiated worship of him that burns my ass, rather than he himself, but even so, I'm not sure I'll ever get over his setting the stage for this recent spate of "DINO-DLC-Bushlite-warmonger scum!!1" crap that gets thrown at Kerry every day here.

[Mass]

24. I am not sure he is responsible for the DLC-DINO thing,

Many of the people yelling that are more far to the left and often not even part of the Party (more like green or nader). some have attached to Dean because they cannot think straight by themselves but Dean has come back to his fairly moderate positions (in fact, close to Hill in many aspects).

If I ever agreed with Kerry, it was friday when he said that we do not need to go to the right or to the left, we need to address the issues the country cares about, and unfortunately, we are getting that neither from the ultra-left, nor from the DLC program printed on their website. I'd wished Kerry started to take a more openly proeminent role.

For example, I was listening today to Feingold and I doubt I heard the same interview some people on GDP heard. It seems to me that Feingold's position was fairly close to Kerry and a few other people like Hagel, except for the idea to give a target date for the withdrawal. I'd sure like to see Kerry talk a little more strongly on this issue.

[karynnj]

25. I heard the same interview as you

I really don't understand why some can't see that Kerry is far closer to Kennedy and Feingold on this. Kerry has been more specific about what he would do than the others. Feingold's target date adds very little - as he said it depends on political things happening. If they don't, I guess the date slips.

Your posts on Kerry's position on this have been great. It's got to be hard having to explain the same things so often.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. I agree we don't need to move to the right or left

Just emphasize what we DO stand for strongly and without fail.

I said that about Dean because he was the first person to start attacking Kerry and other Democrats for voting for the IWR, and planted the meme that IWR was just as responsible for the war as Bush's lies. Yes, this did appeal to mostly Naderites and non-Dems, but Dean gave them an entrance into our party, and so as a result in 2004 and beyond we've had to listen to this IWR = Bush garbage from these newfound "Dems" that Dean drew into the party. These are also the people who threaten to leave the party every other day, and I wish they would, since it's obvious they only "joined" because Dean was the New Nader to them.

[TayTay]

27. I think this is a very difficult issue to talk about

This is Bush's War. He pushed for it, his Administration planned for it, executed it, pushed it onto the American people and are the ones responsible for screwing it up. They own it. The arguments that the Dems are 'morally' responsible for enabling Bush is a false argument. It is a not-supportable 'moral equivalency' argument that simply doesn't hold up.

The moral equivalency argument was a huge albatross last year. The press often pressured Kerry, not Bush, to come up with a means of ending the War. Kerry was pressed to say, going forward, what he would do to end a War he didn't start. Bush was given a pass and was never grilled by the press for the colossal foul-ups that resulted in this incredible disaster in Iraq. Again, Kerry didn't start the War. He didn't vote for the country to go to war in this way and he certainly wouldn't have gone to war the way That Friggin Idiot did. (There is absolutely nothing in Kerry's background or in his explained view of American foreign policy that indicates that he would have blown off the UN or America's allies. Absolutely nothing.) For what it's worth, I was upset with Kerry in 2002 about his vote in the Senate for the IWR. But it was not a deal-breaker for me. I still enthusiastically voted for him to be re-elected to the Senate. There was a protest candidate, I could have voted for her, but I didn't.

And, lest we forget, Sen. Kerry was behind by somewhere from 7-13% points in the polls on Sept. 30th 2004. After the first Pres Debate on foreign policy, when the American people got a chance to hear him explain himself and his views, the polls went to dead even. That is an amazing over-night comeback. A lot of the carpers forget this and forget how close the election was. This is idiotic and short-sighted, but they do it anyway.

[karynnj]

23. I agree

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Dean pre-election on AAR. He was speaking both about DFA and Kerry. He briefly explained DFA, but insisted that it was more important to talk about Kerry's campaign.

There were many people I lost respect for starting with Begala (who just wanted to sound snarky), Brazille, and to some extent Clinton.

[fedupinBushcountry]

28. I agree with that

I myself will never get over the way Dean tried to separate the party in the primaries. The flip-flop rhetoric was Dean and the Republicans grabbed on to it. I do think he really got to know Kerry and was really for him in all respects after Kerry got the nomination, at least he didn't back away, he stood up to the plate.

Now as far as Begala, Brazille, Carville, IMO they were never for Kerry. Oh yeah they begged us for money did they dole any out of their own pockets, nada. But if you look at Newsmeat, you will see Clinton in their donations more than once. They are Clinton shills.

As for Bill and Hillary, it really surprises me that they have given so little to the party and that we have given so much to them. I'm sorry maybe it is me, but when I go out asking for money for certain organizations, I just don't talk the talk but I walk the walk. They might of given time to the campaign but we also needed their wallets open. They gave nada to the campaign. My husband was out of work 2 different times during the Kerry campaign, I worked for the campaign and we gave as much as we could in monthly installments, because I knew we needed every dime we as Democrats could cough up. But I guess Hillary cared more about giving to this:

EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC)$50
primary07/23/04 Clinton, Hillary
Washington, DC 20002
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC)$500
primary06/04/04

then she did the Democratic party. Now tell me who really wanted Kerry to win. We the people.

[karynnj]

29. It was sad that Begala and Carville

were so useless as they were among the few Democrats who were on TV. I began to get the feeling that they were only interested in the GAME of politics rather than really changing things.

What is strange to me is that Begala wanted to essentially run the campaign, but he didn't seem to get Kerry. The problem is that he would have run Kerry as Clinton with the economy as the main issue even though Kerry's numbers went up when he ignored the Clinton advice and gave the Iraq and terrorism speeches. Clinton had a flexibility on the issues that lent itself to a poll driven campaign - Kerry, to his credit, has many core values that have been consistent for 20 to 30 years.

There is a cult around W his dad didn't have. A "Clinton" clone would have probably done worse than Kerry.