What are Dems thinking? re:Pete Stark

[monktonman]

I cant belive the Dem leadership made Pete Stark apologize.
After stating his own "insignifigance" and whiping away tears after he left the podium,
it is all too obvious he was FORCED into an apology.
Why did they have to HUMILIATE this good man?
If anything, the controvesy surrounding his statement could have been turned around on pukes and used to the democrats advantage.
Why arent Obama, Edwards, Clinton on television saying the following:

REPUBLICANS lost two wars.
REPUBLICANS looted the treasury.
REPUBLICANS crushed our economy.
REPUBLICANS defeated health care for kids.
REPUBLICANS politicized the DOJ.
REPUBLICANS etc, yadda-yadda.
And now, after the REPUBLICANS have run the most disasterous regime in US history,
all they want to talk about is PETE STARK! Dont be fooled America, all the REPUBLICANS
are trying to do is hide their MISRABLE FAILURES and hope you dont notice.
well I'm here to tell you.......etc.

Even a ten year old could turn this situation around and use it as a weapon
to crush the republics. So I ask again, what the fuck are they thinking?
your thoughts?

[Emillereid]

1. It's the DLC. They are closet repukes.

[leftchick]

16. HELL, They are not even in the closet any more!

They wear the repuke label via their votes daily and are fucking proud of it!

[Totally Committed]

32. Closet? Nuh-uh... they are "out" now.

And they are like cockroaches. The Democrats will never be rid of them.

TC

[mmonk]

2. I'm not sure chickens think. They react, don't they?

[rodeodance]

3. I think the last 4 words were a bit much. And it is over!

[monktonman]

10. What four words?

What four words are you speaking of? Mine or his?

It is over? yeah I guess your right.
Thing is, I've been a life long Democrat. I've voted straight Dem with a few progressives (Vermont)sprinkled in there for good measure. I'd like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy and I dont mind eating shit form time to time when its called for.
I can only bend over so far. After awhile, if you shove it in too far, I'll turn around and snap it off and beat you over the head with it.
That being said, I'd like to know, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? How many times can we back down?
How many missed opportunities will be turned into apologies? How long can we go on HUMILIATING ourselves until we've had enough?
I know the idea of participating in DU is to support Democratic principles and help Dem's win higher office. I will not abandon that idea.
What I'd like to know is, when is enough, enough?

[rodeodance]

4. AND I was glad to see the Dems stick by him in the House. That is what counts.

[NotGivingUp]

5. All of these things and more should make it evident who they are and what they stand for. n/t

[dave29]

6. Whatever Rahm tells them to?

n/t

[Vinca]

7. Seeing Stark grovel was the low point of the day.

He went from hero to amphibian in the matter of minutes.

[lpbk2713]

8. They're not Dems. They're DINOs.

They're just along for the ride. And they are jellyfish. If they ever reached behind them and felt a backbone they would piss their pants out of fright.

[Enrique]

9. he chose to apologize

he could have refused to do so.

[monktonman]

11. Just like I CHOOSE to pay the rent? n/t

[Enrique]

13. no, Stark wouldn't be evicted if he didn't apologize

he might be censured, but he'd still have his home, he'd still have his great job, he'd still have his chairmanship of an important committee in the United States Congress.

[monktonman]

17. would he still have his chairmanship????

I'm not so sure about that.
The Dems arent immune form the get along or else attitude either.
they should be but, obviously they're not.

[Enrique]

18. maybe he'd lose his chairmanship

he wouldn't lose his home.

[monktonman]

21. Dude, you know what I mean

why play coy.
Point is, Pete Stark DID NOT CHOOSE to apologize.
HE WAS THREATENED.

[Enrique]

22. people do stand up to threats, you know

[monktonman]

24. OK I guess we'll blame the victim?

I guess he took stock of the whole situation
and realized he could either "stand up to threats" and lose his
chairmanship or just forget about it and keep doing the best he can
to represent his constituents.

Either way, the point your missing is that it is completely disgusting
that the leadership would resort to threats on one of their own.
Disgusting.
Blaming the victim is a repuke tactic used to deflect blame from themselves.
while I'm not saying you are a puke, you should know better than to use the
same tactics.
-peace.

[Enrique]

25. exactly, Stark has priorities

his work in Congress was more important to him than the need to hold his ground in this matter.

[monktonman]

30. Choosing is not the same as being co-erced.

Big difference. He didnt choose, he was forced to choose.
Kinda like "your money or your life" what would you say? "but I need my money"?
Might I suggest you read arendt's journal about sophistry?
I might help you present a better argument based on ideas rather than
just argument.
No offense.
-peace.

[Enrique]

34. Pelosi and Hoyer did not threaten to kill Stark

nor did they threaten to evict him.

At most, they threatened to let him get censured.

[monktonman]

35. Threatened none the less

please go read the journal I suggested above.
Nice chatting with you.
I'm done.
-PEACE.

[truebrit71]

12. He was FORCED to apologize by Dem leadership...

...or risk having the Dems vote FOR his censure...

They're all a bunch of goddamned cowards....

[Enrique]

15. so what if he got censured?

he could have chosen any number of other actions.

He could have taken the censure. He could have struck back at Pelosi and Hoyer. He could even have resigned his seat.

[truebrit71]

20. Did you miss that part where he was THREATENED by his OWN PARTY?

...Did you not see that part?

[Virginia Dare]

27. I missed it...

what did they threaten him with?

[truebrit71]

28. ...he was told if he didn't apologize the GOP censure motion would pass...

...He was told, in plain English, apologize to Dear Leader or YOUR party will throw you to the wolves...

Spineless, gutless bastards.

[Virginia Dare]

31. Is there a link to that information?...n/t

[truebrit71]

36. Here....I was told the same thing by the staffer that answered the phone...

.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2117186&mesg_id=2117186

[Virginia Dare]

26. That's what I'm wondering too..

why didn't he just take the censure.

[Double T]

14. Time to find a NEW Democratic Party; I can not stomach the current one...........

any longer.

[zalinda]

19. He apologized because it was a PERSONAL attack

on the President. Whether or not it was a true statement, doesn't matter. You can attack policies, but you are not allowed to make it personal, and he did. The fact that he "apologized" makes us look better than the repubs. But, if you listen to the "apology", he was highlighting the fact that his words were in the spot light rather than the important issues. There was a dig at the repubs in it.

zalinda

[BlueStater]

37. His apology made us look weak

The "president" is an evil, uncaring, juvenile fuckhead of a loser who doesn't have one iota of respect for this country or the troops and I'm not going to fucking apologize for saying that.

[zalinda]

40. You don't have to, you aren't a statesman

The fact that it was said, is all that needed to be done. The message went out there and repubs made sure that the public knew about it. If it wasn't planned, it was a stroke of luck.

His apology was more about the repubs "much ado about nothing" than the important things like child health care and Iraq. Score one for the dems.

zalinda

[halobeam]

23. Please read this re: censuring free speech article (link to Huff Post)

It all goes together, imo.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/the-attack-on-moveonorg-_b_65629.html


--snip

Students of history know that the National Socialists in Germany, before they came to power, made multiple assaults on democracy by pushing for laws and that expanded penalties for opponents' speaking out against certain subjects. What they -- and then Stalin, who studied Hitler -- perfected was the identification of a `third rail' of untouchable subjects that one could never approach critically without facing escalating penalties -- job loss, personal attacks, or, just a little later, criminal charges. These subjects were the war, the party itself, and the military. Making these subjects sacred and untouchable allowed National Socialists to commit any number of crimes by explaining that the abusive actions were taken in the name of the off-limits-to-criticism ideals.

[stranger81]

29. they're thinking "thank you sir, may I please have another?" eom

[Nutmegger]

33. Is this for real?

Did they make him apologize???

Fuck, I hope its just my eyes playing tricks on me.

[MadHound]

38. It is the public unveiling of the two party/same corporate master system of government

No leftists/liberals need apply.

[Norrin Radd]

39. kick