Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats and Republicans Are The Same, Huh?: Voting Rights Act Decision SLAPS That in the Face (718 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The diary makes a valid point (42+ / 0-)

    ... but as usual overstates the argument it challenges.  People actually making the argument generally do so out of a sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement, feeling unrepresented by the Democratic party.  What to do about that is the question, since participating in the party hasn't seemed to make much difference for many of us who've tried it.  

    Nobody would argue, I'd guess, that there's no difference in judicial appointments.  And nobody's happy about the Roberts court, which -- let's remember -- came about because of a previous SCOTUS decision at the end of the Clinton years.   But on vast areas there is too little difference between the parties.  What a citizen can do about that is where the complaints come from.

    The diarist is ignoring the background of the criticisms as well as using an overbroad generalization of them in arguing against them.  A distressing recent tendency of his.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm trying to broaden the focus (23+ / 0-)

      I think the background of the criticisms is fairly obvious. And again, I have no problem with the criticisms in general, and have shared at least some of them ("them" being quite broad category).

      Citizens should complain. They should also remember the things this decision makes clear. That's my point.

      •  It doesn't seem to me that (23+ / 0-)

        you're broadening, but rather erasing.  You're suggesting that when people say this they're making the absurd claim that democrats and republicans are the same on cultural issues.  OWS wasn't protesting cultural issues.

      •  The background is missing from your diary (18+ / 0-)

        And your overbroad and ungenerous interpretation leaves no impression that you've considered the background of the criticisms at all.  Quite the contrary in fact.

        Most critics participating here continue to vote Democratic, with varying degrees of reluctance.  Pointing fingers in this way at a time we're all upset does not encourage continued fealty among reluctant Democrats.  We're tired of being falsely used as scapegoats.  Stop doing it, or you'll lose more Democrats.

        We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

        by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:30:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When people say there's no difference (30+ / 0-)

          between Democrats and Republicans, that's what they are saying.

          You know you've seen that comment here dozens of times in recent days. Have you called those people out and said: "hey, what about social issues?" or, "hey, what about the minimum wage" or the estate tax, or labor laws, or income tax rates. Now, it's not your responsibility to do so, but that's what I'm trying to do here.

          •  Yes, it happens but it is usually (7+ / 0-)

            and expression of frustration and then those same people, when it comes time to go to the polls, walk in and pull the D levers anyway, or at the very least do not pull the R lever.

            But congratulations. I'm sure you're proud that you've pwned everyone.  Eyeroll.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:46:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please, let's keep this away from personal stuff. (6+ / 0-)

              You know I respect you.

              •  Your diary made it personal (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                Perhaps that wasn't your intent.  

                Maybe you could edit the diary and clarify your allegations.  Thanks.

                "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:09:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't agree with this. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri

                  Sometimes folk use these diaries as an oppotunity to act out.  Why?  I don't know because it's certainly just as easy not to bother with posting.  If I took to posting in every diary that I had a strong disagreement with, I wouldn't have time to do anything else in life.

                  Keep doing the same things expecting a different outcome.

                  Doesn't quite work out.

                  •  So calling out fellow Dems and falsely accusing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc

                    them of voting against Dem candidates thereby causing the SCOTUS decision is just "acting out"?  Would that the shoe were on the other foot.

                    You don't even believe that.  But you want the wars between Dems to continue by supporting this kind of activity - fine.  I'll be happy to accomodate you and the GOP.  

                    But you've lost already, because progressive Dems discuss and criticize policies and Dem leaders.  All you can do is attack the people who offer valid criticism and alternate ideas and play like politics is a horse race.  You have nothing to offer this country, no ideas, no solutions, no alternatives except to blindly follow whoever raises the most corporate cash.

                    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                    by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:05:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Well maybe your defensiveness (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alain2112

                  shows that it needs to be personal.  I see the author trying to mend wounds, bring us together.  I see in you and Joanneleon the desire to divide.  

                  •  I'm not on defense (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc

                    I'm on offense.  I enjoy a good fight.

                    Some of us actually live in the real world, one far removed from Washington DC and its Bubble, politics and punditry.
                    We're tired of the divisiveness that been hammering our party since 2008.  

                    We don't shut up and get on the bus when the economy sucks, unemployment is high, SS is being cut, new wars are waged every day, people grow sicker and poorer and more desperate while the only thing our leaders can do is raise money from billionaires and find new ways to blow billions of our tax dollars on spying on us.

                    Your time is nearly up, its time for the rest of us to plan for the future of the party and the country.  You can join us or just pick fights.  

                    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                    by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:12:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Meanwhile. (6+ / 0-)

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            One could write a diary like yours based on Joan's diary.  But as Dallasdoc said it would be an overbroad generalization and just plain not useful.

          •  When they say that (12+ / 0-)

            There is invariably a context in which the comment is made illustrating the lack of difference.  Sometimes the comment is made in general terms, which reflects boiling-over frustration.  In saying, "Hey, what about..." the argument is frequently -- and often accurately -- perceived as a lame attempt to change the subject from what is being complained about at the time.  A more effective response might be, "Yeah, that sucks.  Let's all try to change it."

            By removing most such comments from their relevant context, you present a disingenuous version of the opposing argument.  It's much easier to dismiss that way.  There is a name for this tactic.

            If you want more Democratic voters to get better judges, it is counterproductive to scapegoat your most disaffected allies.  

            We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

            by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:49:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can you imagine for a moment if Obama (5+ / 0-)

              had appointed someone from the far left, that the republicans wouldn't filibuster?

            •  too simple (0+ / 0-)

              For one thing, do you know what it's like to try to carry on a discussion with someone who sticks words in your mouth while complaining that you're taking his or her words seriously? It's no longer a discussion. People have to be at least somewhat accountable for what they choose to say.

              I agree that none of us fully means everything we say, and that moments of hyperbole shouldn't be held against folks.

              But I don't think fora moment that all the rhetoric minimizing the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties should be dismissed as "boiling-over frustration."

              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 01:24:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The background as you say (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ian Reifowitz, artmartin

          is more relevant for a topic about what needs to be better from the Democratic Party as a whole.

        •  Wait a minute. (7+ / 0-)

          This diarist's blogs determines whether or not you will remain a Democrat?  That's a low bar (no offensive Ian).

          •  None taken. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diogenes2008

            I was thinking something similar, btw.

          •  Nice try (7+ / 0-)

            The point I'm making is that if disaffected Democrats are met with scorn and scapegoating by the party faithful, they are more likely to drop away.  That's elementary human nature.

            Less vinegar, more honey.  Anybody bemoaning lack of Democratic voter participation ought to know that as a first principle.

            We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

            by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:50:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've always (5+ / 0-)

              been a fan of that "less vinegar, more honey" thing too. Surprised to hear it from you, because I have not experienced you using that tact w/people here who you disagree with.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:02:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's because (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                burlydee, triv33, Rick Aucoin, k9disc

                I don't consider it my job to bring partisan Democrats into the voting booth.  I express my opinion here to try to add whatever weight I can to narratives this community find acceptable or not.  That entails a different set of tactics.

                Having some limited time to participate here, I am usually most moved to comment by outrage these days.  Sadly, there are many opportunities to do so.

                We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

                by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:11:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Honestly, there should not be a 'because' (5+ / 0-)

                  Golden rule Dallas.  You want honey, you got to give honey.  For whatever time you participate on this forum.

                  •  At some point you have to tell the truth (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rick Aucoin, Dallasdoc

                    this diary, in my mind, is about silencing the truth.  Specifically, the ugly truth of the NSA revelations.  I actually don't believe people concerned with the NSA revelations have flung mud at fellow Dems; they flung mud at Obama. And that has people like Ian very upset.  So they conflate criticism of Obama's national security record or his financial record with criticism of the party as a whole.  He can couch it in some pseudo-intellectual detachment if he wants.  But really the people who were pointing out there is no difference between the parties were talking about the NSA.  I see this as yet another shameless attempt to avoid the substance of those revelations.  

                    •  Then I have to say (8+ / 0-)

                      that either your mind is off or you just don't care about the point of this diary at all.  In any case, telling 'the truth' doesn't have to be done with vinegar.  I'm sorry.

                      One thing is for sure.  You will have a whole lot more to worry about with the NSA, drone strikes, big banks, SS and Medicare, the ACA, Gitmo and others if large blocks of voters cannot vote.  

                      You think you are powerless now?  Just wait for a minute and watch what's on the horizon.

                      •  What does "done with vinegar" mean? (0+ / 0-)

                        What does that encompass?  Why is your vague sense of being wronged more important than the issue being addressed?  In my opinion, there hasn't been much vinegar.

                        •  Then you have not been on the same site (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ian Reifowitz

                          I've been on recently, on EITHER side.

                          How freaking dare you tell smoothnmellow that his/her POV is "a vague sense of being wronged?" And what the hell do you exactly think the "issue being addressed is?"

                          You may disagree w/me and smoothnmellow as to what the "issue" is, but one thing's for sure. You are not the "Director of Important issues."

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:07:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Continuation of a line of discussion (0+ / 0-)

                          made by another up thread.

                        •  Oh how cute. (0+ / 0-)

                          Vague sense of being wronged?  That's not it.  No one gets a pass from me for being a dick in expressing their POV.  

                          If I can follow the rules, then I expect for others to abide by them as well.  If you want your POV to be given more consideration, then you might think about your tone and approach.  That is what I meant by it and it was a continuation from another poster who called for the same, but doesn't want to abide by the same.

                •  Don't expect them to get that, Doc. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dallasdoc

                  That the disaffected and angry on the left aren't out here trying to convince people to get to the polls seems to be lost on them.

                  If they want us to turn out and join them, then they can damn well convince us with something other than strawmen, lies, vitriol, and mockery.

                  But don't expect to hear much more than "Oh yeah, well, if I am then what are you?" responses.

                  "If you want honey you got to give honey."  

                  What a f'ing joke. The cognitive dissonance around here is amazing.

                  "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

                  by Rick Aucoin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:13:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Clearly not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rick Aucoin

                    They don't even seem to get that the interests of issues based critics and the interests of partisans are not precisely aligned.  I could care less if we elect a few more corrupt Dems who can't stand up to vote no on a Sam Alito.  The way the Congress is rigged Republicans are running it anyway, what with ever-growing supermajorities in the Senate required to persuade House Republicans not to reinvoke a Hastert rule.  It's a farce.

                    Yes, Supreme Court justices and other judges are vitally important.  But so are constitutional rights, and not letting granny starve, and a lot of other things the Democratic party is frankly either failing on or actively working against.

                    If partisans are so damned concerned with getting more voters, they are the ones who have to figure out how to put together the bigger tent.  Because frankly I'm feeling more and more pushed out of it.

                    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

                    by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:51:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  there may be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                a reason for that.

                When we critics try to engage people in argument on this very site, we find ourselves being blamed for 2010 or sent to Redstate.

                How are we supposed to reach people whose first reaction seems to be anger whenever criticism of the current administration occurs?

                In battle, for instance, they are often able to win by distracting their opponents

                by GideonAB on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:35:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Tempered criticism is always welcome (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  freakofsociety, Ian Reifowitz

                  How about trying first acknowledging the successes before beginning the criticism and not name calling the people that don't agree.  The current tactic of just blasting away is exactly what we'd expect on Redstate.

                  •  A few points (0+ / 0-)

                    First in many diaries, I have made or tried to make substantive points only to finally be greeted with "go to redstate" or silence.

                    It would be more helpful if I knew who was open to discussion and who will just say I am as bad as the tea party.

                    I would then just concentrate on those who are in the first category which would really be my preference.

                    Perhaps we need a new voluntary group "Calm Debaters" which people could join to indicate that they are interested in calmness and will not label me a redstater if ultimately they cannot convince me. A few groundrules along those lines would be good.

                    It would be better than just wondering who happens to be in a good mood today or whatever. There seems little point to DallasDoc putting in the time to try to reach across the aisle if he is just going to encounter what seems to me (rightly or wrongly) just anger.

                    Second, I tend to comment according to the diary I am in, rather than acknowledge successes which are not relevant to the diary.

                    So in a Snowden diary, I am more likely to be critical.

                    In any event, thanks for the response

                    In battle, for instance, they are often able to win by distracting their opponents

                    by GideonAB on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:50:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I can't tell you the last time (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      freakofsociety, Ian Reifowitz

                      I saw someone begin their criticism with ANY acknowledgment of good things that are happening.  Maybe that occurred at the beginning of Obama's term but even then we had the Hillary supporters that were fervent in their condemnation out of spite of losing.  At that time they were drowned out by the joy of winning.  They didn't get 500 recs on the rec list within an hour of an angry diary.  The piling on by really vicious people has grown in intensity with the GOP's trumped up scandals.  

                      Today that has changed despite huge victories and advances.  Yeah there are valid criticisms but honest debate, which you'd expect on a Democratic site, should begin with at least a basic respect for the guy we elected and trust to some damned tough daily decisions, one that has had more death threats against him and his family than any other President in history.  

                      •  works both ways (0+ / 0-)

                        You head right on in and take on the Obama critics.

                        Not one acknowledgement in this comment of the good Dallasdoc and OPOL are doing.

                        If that is the standard, then you are not living up to it.

                        What about my idea for people who will commit to calm debates? Is that something you would like to do?

                        Or it it easier just to damn us all to redstate?  Where is the basic respect in that?

                        In battle, for instance, they are often able to win by distracting their opponents

                        by GideonAB on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:57:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I truly tried that Gideon (0+ / 0-)

                          When the Obama criticism started to really heat up on here I acknowledged the concerns, tried hard to sympathize with the frustration and soothe people with the big picture but they'd have none of that.  I was set upon, called an apologist, a sellout, and Obamabot.  My integrity was questioned along with my motivations.  Anyone with any degree of participation on here at those times could see the vitriol and it amazed me that some of the long term diarists and participants were not only not upset by the rhetoric but actively supporting it.  

                          This was happening at critical times in the election cycle as well.  At times when we needed everyone focused on building our voting base and getting everyone to the polls we possibly could, here's folks on here bashing the President, Democratic Congressional leaders and any of us standing up for them, telling people they should vote 3rd Party or just stay home.  

                          Well the 2014 elections are so critical right now and it's such an uphill battle to get participation in non-Presidential years that we have to be united now, not in October of 2014.  

                          So to tell you the truth, I could care what DallasDoc did in the past or you for that matter or how your feelings are hurt.  I'm not damning you to Redstate.  For one thing I don't have that power and secondly, if you or any of us here could ever imagine being a fit on such a despicable site, then you would indeed fit the definition of a troll.  (note the if)

                          I want voices of dissent.  I'm a scientist at heart not a politician.  Part of the scientific method is taking a theory, finding an alternative to it, seeking evidence to support the new notions, peer reviewing the findings, etc, etc.  But nowhere in that process is there any room for throwing out all the work that came before, pissing away the good and proven parts.  You begin where others have successfully left off.   Applying that to politics and the Democratic Party and its leadership today you begin with the fact that they have recently worked their asses off for progressive gains in some areas, had some amazing successes against incredible odds, and only then can you narrow your focus to your new theory (ie: drones are bad policy, Chained CPI will eventually hurt people, whatever) but to immediately revert to "all politicians are corrupt", "Obama = Bush2", etc is like beginning a new theory on global climate change with the notion of a flat earth.  

                          You cannot separate the actions of continuing the NSA programs from the passage of Obamacare or the tremendous strides forward of LGBT issues or the success of keeping us out of depression with the Republican brinkmanship tactics, not starting new wars.  Obama and Congressional Dems cannot be both the yin and yang, the good and the evil at the same time.  

                          Many of us on here see grey, glorious grey actually.  The black and white Bible thumping days of Bush and Cheney are over and you can travel once again in the world as an American citizen and not be spit upon.  Sure there are still pockets of that decades long war on the middle class alive and holding on but to blame Obama for that with the forces aligned against him?  I'm happy he's still alive to tell you the truth.  

                          Keep challenging those remaining pockets but for gosh sakes have a little class about it all.  

                        •  Oh and yes (0+ / 0-)

                          I would love the notion of calm debates but the rule would have to begin with any side making a statement of acknowledgment of the points of the other side before any debate began.  

                  •  How about not telling us how to criticize? (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't have to meet a damn partisan etiquette test in order to voice my disapproval with the party.  

                    How about realizing that partisans have to give as well as get too?  Every even-numbered year, it's all hands on deck to get Dems elected, and most critics go along to one degree or another.  But in the odd-numbered years when issues take the fore, where is the reciprocation from partisans in helping party critics move it more to the left?  We get nothing but opposition and name calling.  

                    How about the partisan party defenders realizing that if they ever want to win elections, they have to help move the party from the corrupt, corporatist, dishonest mess it's become into something better?  That's what we critics want to do, but we get nothing but pushback from you guys.

                    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

                    by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:54:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How about (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      freakofsociety

                      not telling me how to criticize your criticism.  Who the hell do you think you are?  Cause you have a Doc at the end of your name?  

                      I'm sorry but it is all hands on deck because we're up against a ruthless enemy in the right.  We can't survive another bout of power by them in the near future.  They are in the cash out phase and nearly succeeded until Obama put the brakes on them....a bit.  

                      •  You're the one trying to set rules (0+ / 0-)

                        ... about what kind of criticism is acceptable.  You have no logical arguments in this entire thread that I've read.  I think I'm somebody with better arguments than you.  What is it with this epidemic of "I know you are but what am I?" bullshit from the defenders of the indefensible lately?

                        So why can't partisans help critics with important issues like the Fourth Amendment or fighting chained-CPI in off years?  Do you expect just to demand support in elections and tell critics to fuck off in between?  If you think that's going to work, then you're the enemy of the Democratic party.  You're doing it wrong.

                        We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

                        by Dallasdoc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:14:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  And you honestly think that this diary (7+ / 0-)

              Is scorning you somehow?  I mean, you directed your comments at the diarist, not some random group.

              And I agree that less vinegar and more honey is preferable, but you got to be willing to weld that honey wand as well.

              It works both ways.

            •  And, likewise, it's counterproductive when (10+ / 0-)

              a front page post last week called those who defended Obama's economic record as "nearly irredeemable idiot," an "imbecile" and a "simpleton" on matters of economics.

              I'm dealing here with a sentiment, whether expressed, implied or even felt by people on this site or elsewhere (as I said in the post). I thought it useful to perhaps bring folks who are having such thoughts to recognize that they are incorrect.

              I have not sought to scorn or scapegoat anyone.

            •  Oh great (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety

              So if someone wrongly inferred you to be a murderer you'd be more likely to murder because your feelings had been hurt?  Sorry but that excuse that spirited even mean or over the top debate could cause you to vote against your best interests, stay home, not contribute is a questionable assumption unless your commitment to Democratic leadership was never there in the first place or you're completely clueless about the consequences of giving power back to the right.

              Time for the dissenters to have a bit thicker skin in my opinion.  It's like throwing a match on a puddle of gasoline and then resenting the heat.

      •  Let's further broaden the focus (22+ / 0-)

        Justices (like all federal judges) require Senate confirmation.  Scalia was unanimously confirmed, as was Kennedy (the latter in a Dem Senate).  Thomas was narrowly confirmed w/ ~10 Dem votes pushing him over top.  Dems controlled Senate then, and Judiciary Chair Biden did not distinguish himself in those hearings.  

        Half of Senate Dems voted to confirm Roberts.   Kerry attempted a last-ditch filibuster on Alito.  On the cloture vote (the one that mattered), however, 19 Dems voted aye.   People here were esp. outraged at the time about that abject failure.

        Yes, the GOP is horrific on judicial nominations.  The Dems, however, aren't half as effective at judicial nomination fights as the GOP is.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:51:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a neogitating tactic (19+ / 0-)

      to retain loyalty to the Democratic Party, and keep people rubber stamping the mostly wealthy candidates served up to us who demand our vote, citing the importance of Supreme Court appointments is a powerful card to play.

      The problem is it binds voters to an unsavory trade-off.

      Vote for us, despite our trampling over the Constitution, or the right wing will win and trample over the Constitution and trample over our rights with bad Supreme Court picks.
      Am I the only one who thinks this is a rather weak argument? If we were sitting at the negotiating table, representing voters as a block, would this be enough to buy our votes? Enough to place all of our votes automatically in their pockets?

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:11:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "negotiating tactic" n/t (6+ / 0-)

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:12:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not the only one. (7+ / 0-)

        I have felt the powerlessness and the need for angry retaliation, even against Obama. If only I could bang his head into the wall and knock sense into him.

        But I also know he is moving the country leftwards on every issue, even if we cannot see it all now. I want him to succeed, badly, because I know if he does, immigration reform will have passed, health care exchanges will be a success, emission standards on existing plants will have been upheld, and women's and LGBT right will be stronger than ever. Oh, and GITMO will be closed and we will be home from Afghanistan.

        I will swallow NSA and drones, and wait for the next guy. That is heartless and transactional me.

        •  He is moving the country leftward (14+ / 0-)

          on every issue, but we just can't tell yet?

          I can think of a dozen ways in which that makes no sense, but let's just use one:  his proposal to cut Social Security.

          Well another too: His proposal to flatten the tax code (making it less progressive) and cut corporate tax rates (a lot of them hardly pay any already) and his permanent Bush tax cuts except for a tiny bit at the top.

          These are things that move the country to the left?

          Perpetual war?


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:51:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  New secret trade agreements (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc, joanneleon

            that ships US jobs overseas and depress wages of the workers left here?

            I could  be here all day listing the important actions Obama has taken that drive the country further to the right, but I haven't got all day.

            "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:17:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I read this and I despair (20+ / 0-)

          Because I know that millions of people believe this delusional narrative:

          But I also know he is moving the country leftwards on every issue, even if we cannot see it all now. I want him to succeed, badly, because I know if he does, immigration reform will have passed, health care exchanges will be a success, emission standards on existing plants will have been upheld, and women's and LGBT right will be stronger than ever. Oh, and GITMO will be closed and we will be home from Afghanistan.
          Does it matter if the person writing this is a true believer or a tool of the propaganda apparatus?  I don't think it does, because it still represents the thinking of so many who either haven't been paying attention or who do not know how to apply evidence in order to form conclusions.  To take one example from a generally delusional view, there is zero evidence that Guantanamo will be closed and substantial indications that it will not be, indications such as the recent law declaring that military funds must not be used to repatriate even the detainees who have been cleared for release.  The self-fulfilling logic of the war on terror has never been more fully exposed than in this recent report from Amy Goodman:
          [Yemeni] Human Rights Minister Hooria Mashoohouras heard US [which is to say Obama administration] officials say that Yemeni government is not stable enough or strong enough to make sure the released prisoners don’t take up arms against America. They have told her that even if some of the prisoners were totally innocent and unjustly imprisoned, now—after 11 years behind bars—they probably hate the US so much that they’ll want revenge.
          But the level of delusion involved in believing Obama is "moving the country to the left" cannot be adequately addressed by responding to individual details.  Likewise, it is difficult to know how to adequately clarify how essentially undemocratic is the attitude that Obama is now in charge and that it is our place to take him or leave him, swallowing the horrible policies in exchange for what some imagine are good policies.  Criticisms of details are nothing more than lip service when embedded in an attitude that Obama is now President and must not be challenged.

          I really do not wish to pick on this one commentator--this comment could have been made by any of millions of citizens.  Quite frankly, it fills me with despair.

          The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress. - Bacevich

          by geomoo on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:56:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The evidence (8+ / 0-)
          But I also know he is moving the country leftwards on every issue, even if we cannot see it all now.
          ...against this statement is rather glaring. In the area of civil rights, human rights, and constitutional protections, he has undermined the Democratic cause for years to come.

          And he hasn't defended the environment from the enormous danger facing us, which could well lead to our eventual demise.

          He has advanced the interests of the wealthy class at every step, helped to transfer more wealth to the oligarchy, and expanded the Security State, and supported the Industrial Military complex.

          He committed a war crime in breaking our agreement as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and the Conventions Against Torture to prosecute war crimes (yes, failing to enforce these international agreements is in itself a war crime). And he has committed war crimes in allowing deliberate targeting of innocents, with the drone bombing of first responders and attendees of funerals.

          And the list goes on and on. If this is taking us to the left in your mind, I question your understanding of the lefts' policy preferences.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:40:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Deliberate targeting of innocents? (0+ / 0-)

            You ought to be HR'd for fucking lying.

            •  He did authorize (0+ / 0-)

              deliberate targeting of innocents. I know it's horrible. I realize why you're reacting. But it is factual that the U.N. Special Rapporteur is investigating the crimes. Maybe hide rate the United Nations or the reporters who wrote about the targeting of first responders to drone bombings or the targeting of attendees of funerals of the victims of drone bombings. I'm just a messenger.

              These incidents are crimes. They are against the Geneva Conventions. And also the refusal to prosecute torture is in itself factually a war crime. Look it up. Our country is a signatory to the treaties. The Convention Against Torture, an international treaty, is an agreement that constitutes international law. The United States signed it. We agreed to its terms. One of the terms is to prosecute torturers who act on behalf of our country. Without enforcement, the treaties mean nothing. Enforcement is the most important part of the treaty. Obama defied the treaty, and dishonored the United States by refusing to abide by the terms which require enforcement. That is a war crime, as well.

              So please hide rate me, because the irony is if this is hide rated, more eyes will see it. What I've written is truthful. So go ahead. Hide rate it. Get your friends to hide rate it. More people will see it if it's on the hidden list.

              Which is exactly what I want.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:45:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It may be a bit unsavory, I get that. (7+ / 0-)

        But we saw what happened in 2000. There is no choice.

      •  Well the (10+ / 0-)

        fact -- seldom denied, except in hyperbolic blog comments -- that there are differences between the parties doesn't suggest any one political strategy. To spell it out, the difference between the party doesn't necessarily mean that leftists and liberals should vote Democrat; it sure as fuck doesn't mean that liberals and leftist shouldn't look for alternatives to the Democratic party or search for political alternatives to voting.

        In other words, my reaction to this post is, okay. So what?

        •  and my reaction to your (4+ / 0-)

          comment is so what?

          I just got back from NN. The emaphasis there was on activism, not just commenting on a blog.

          With all the criticism that I've read, where is the plan? What can we do, except complain?

          I am being serious not snarky. There are so many issues that are important: education, climate change etc... but people need to be able to vote to even begin to change things at all.

          To be heard by the congress in votes is the only things that those bastard care about. And they are re-elected time after time once they get in, by a minority of voters. Otherwise, how do you explain Boehner the most incompetent boob to be Speaker of the House in my memory?

          Rant over... sorry it's not you particularly David just my thoughts.

          In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

          by vcmvo2 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:20:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is this logical? (5+ / 0-)
            To be heard by the congress in votes is the only things that those bastard care about.
            If we rubber stamp the candidates the Democratic Party  presents to us, regardless of complete disrespect for the mandates of the voters, how is that making our voices heard?

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was referring to both parties (3+ / 0-)

              and to voting in general.

              I was pointing out that people in general need to vote more, not less, as the Justices have done today. The decision today will make voting more difficult.

              In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

              by vcmvo2 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:04:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Only a weak argument if you don't mind (3+ / 0-)

        potentially losing a heavy segment of a block of votes to State's rights...

      •  See my sig, ZhenRen. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen, gulfgal98, joanneleon

        The person around here who first came up with it nailed the issue completely.

        All the D's have to do to get support from their partisans is to be one micrometer to the left of the R's.

        And that's just not good enough to turn out a lot of non-partisan voters, it just isn't.

        "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

        by Rick Aucoin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:16:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's amazing that such flawed logic (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, k9disc, gulfgal98

          embodied in the ant-democratic concept of "certify that your vote is owned by the party" is marketed by the Dems.

          It really is completely flawed logic, and yet it persists as the conventional wisdom around here.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:28:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because it's about "team"... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen, gulfgal98, joanneleon

            ... or tribalism, or partisanship, or whatever you want to call it.

            It's not about principles and platforms and ideals.

            If the D's are one micrometer to the left of the R's, that's good enough to not only vote for them, but to beat the tar out of anyone on the left who protests how rightward the D's are.

            Yeah.  

            "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party

            by Rick Aucoin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:34:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I mentioned this in Empty Vessel's diary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen, gulfgal98, Rick Aucoin

            and it really fits here.

            The people who demand that we vote D or Republicans win tend to believe that voters work for the politicians.

            People like me who threaten to vote for someone who represents my values instead of the lesser of two evils believe that politicians work for the voters.

            It's a very clean break, IMO.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:28:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  There is no utopian transformation coming, (13+ / 0-)

      so let's turn the powerlessness into purpose as opposed to a defeatist process of eating our own.

      Until Obama's re-election, we were still in the Reagan era in some ways, just like until Raegan's election we were in the FDR era and even Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon were somewhat progressive.

      LGBT issues, climate, women's issues, healthcare, we are moving forward. The bottom line is a lot has changed, and a lot will change, but it will not be nearly enough, not for me and not for you.

      What to do? strengthen the forces on your side. Make sure you vote for the lesser of two evils at times, against that utopian promise.

      REMEMBER:

      One Supreme Court nomination (Kennedy replacement in 2017), could turn the country upside down. Hope lives.

      •  There is a utopian transformation coming (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety

        And the more the people are stripped of their rights, the more loud will become the voice of the people for that change.

        "My Masters are working to trace for you the outlines of the future. Bear these well in mind. The rock upon which that glorious future will be built is Love, Justice and Sharing. Make it your aim, My friends, to link yourselves with those for whom these aspects are divine. Create between you a wall of Light against which the world will knock in vain." - World Teacher Maitreya

    •  This Chomsky interview covers it pretty well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat, Ian Reifowitz, ZhenRen

    •  No.it.doesn't. (6+ / 0-)

      Jeeus people, really.  This part is really simple.  It really is.  I don't know why in the world some progressives here think that by stating the obvious that it overstates THEIR ISSUE.

      It doesn't, because we are speaking in different tones.

      The whole BETTER argument that many make here?  I get it already.  I do.

      Better than we got.  Better than status quo.  Better than business as usual.  Check, check.  Got it.

      Now if we can all agree that more is necessary to retain what power we have, if not for just the balancing of the Supreme Court, vs. the Republican activist court that we have today, then on these boards anyway, I think it will be one small step for mankind here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site