Skip to main content

View Diary: Scorn (277 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not getting a pony (0+ / 0-)

    means Dems not doing what we want them to do, and your analogy is way off itself.

    Again, I'm talking about how politicians ACTUALLY operate vs. how we'd like them to. I.e. horse's asses vs. shiny ponies. We can expend our energies bashing them for not doing the right thing, or we can focus on getting them to do the right thing, by going after the far more vulnerable and liable to flip Repubs. Not a pony, but if it gets the job done, this is one horse's ass that I'm more than happy to kick.

    •  Bleh. (0+ / 0-)

      we can focus on getting them to do the right thing, by going after the far more vulnerable and liable to flip Repubs.

      And where is this happening?  What I see is Repubs getting Dems to weaken legislation so they'll sign on, legislation that does not stop Bush from doing anything at all.

      Keep dreaming.

      •  I'M dreaming?!? (0+ / 0-)

        While you continue to persue a clearly pointless and counterproductive strategy? How has criticizing and attacking Dems been going for you? Got any results yet?

        It's always easier to take shots at your own side. And almost never productive. '68, anyone? That did WONDERS for ending the Vietnam war and helping Dems politically.

        It's always the purists who end up making things worse for everyone, in their self-righteous zeal to make everything perfect. Ponies, as always. TROJAN ponies.

        You think Repubs won't break? Perhaps. But the election is still far enough away that they can pretend that it won't matter. It will. And many of them will realize this and start to break. In the meantime, I see NO Dems breaking as a result of our hounding them. So I find it quite odd that you're calling my approach pointless when yours has clearly not worked. But it sure must feel good on that mountaintop!

        •  Bleh again. (0+ / 0-)

          All my diary is saying is that if Pelosi and Reid cave in on Iraq, as they did on the supplemental, as they did on FISA, they will suffer the consequences of the scorn folks will feel towards them, and why that will be -- not for some idiotic reasons of purity, but because people will die.

          I'm not arguing strategy here, but you aren't showing at all that Repubs are going to "break," especially if Dems continue to cave -- if Dems compromise, why should Repubs break?  They'll have gotten what they want.

          Yep.  You are dreaming.  And you are also mischaracterizing -- once again -- my diary.

          •  So I am dreaming (0+ / 0-)

            because you say that I'm dreaming. Yeah, that's convincing.

            And tell me, what exactly are the "consequences of the scorn folks will feel towards them"? A few primary challenges here and there (which I support), which may or may not succeed? Slightly reduced donations and support? Some infighting? Neither Pelosi nor Reid nor most Dems will suffer much politically for their admitedly shameful stance, and they know it, which is why they are doing what they're doing. Seriously, tell me how attacking them is going to get them to change one bit, or show me where it has?

            As for showing how Repubs will break, are you serious? Do you actually believe that Repubs will all jump off a cliff in '08? They are going to be attacked unmercilessly for supporting the war, and some of them will be in serious trouble. The polls show this clearly. Now, perhaps they WILL jump off that cliff and refuse to break with Bush, but that will result in even more Dem pickups in '08. But the odds are overwhelming that at least some WILL break with Bush because they don't want to lose their seats.

            Nothing to prove here. It's basic political analysis. Above all else, most politicians want to get reelected, and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. And for more than a few, that will require that they break with Bush. The question is when and how much. And that will depend on how much pressure we apply on them, and how soon. I say start now, and forget about a clearly pointless campaign of attacking Dems--no matter how much many of them deserve it (and which you persist in mischaracterizing about my stance). Now I need to go do some serious dreaming...

            •  And yet a third time ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... bleh.

              I feel like looking behind me to see who you are arguing with.  Because everything you say has nothing to do with my diary.  I'm not advocating attacking Dems -- show me in my diary where I am doing that.  Seems you're hearing some little recorded message in your head that is obscuring your comprehension of what I wrote.

              Really, kovie.  Show me in the diary where I'm attacking Dems.

              Have a lovely weekend.

              •  Your entire diary attacks Dems (0+ / 0-)

                so there's nothing specific to "show". The entire gist of it is to imply that they are to blame for the ongoing suffering for not having done what was always AT BEST an outside chance, i.e. ending the war before Bush leaves office. That's not attacking them? But in case you didn't notice, the point I was making was not YOUR diary, but the vast number of comments--and some diaries--that relentlessly attack Dems instead of Repubs, in circular firing squad--and quite pointless--fashion.

                You seem to have made my criticisms all about you, when they were not. They just happened to appear in your diary, among quite a few others. Don't make this all about you. It's not. And I've made that quite clear in my comments.


                •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                  You can't show any attacks because they aren't there.  You just don't understand the diary.

                  Good luck with that, kovie.

                  •  Ok, "criticism", if you prefer (0+ / 0-)

                    And if you deny that you're criticizing them, then I don't know what to say.

                    •  I'm saying ... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... that IF they do not oppose this misAdministration, really oppose them, there will be consequences, bad consequences.  If they compromise on the funding for Iraq, if they give Republicans cover, folks will die.  It is not a criticism.  It is just saying what will happen if what the New York Times and other traditional media is saying is true.

                      Won't be me that's doing it.  Won't be the netroots at all, imo.  It will be the American people.  They want this war to end, for so many reasons.  Prove me wrong.

                      •  Here's the deal (0+ / 0-)

                        A week or two ago, when Bush announced that he'd be seeking an additional $50 $200 billion for the war, Chris Dodd immediately came out and said that he'd be against it, while Dick Durbin tentatively came out for it, along the line of "supporting the troops".

                        Well, I just came across this article, which, if it's true, and he's sincere, means that he's "flipped" back to the right side, most likely due in part to the sharp criticism that he received from Dems about his earlier remarks (I didn't read the whole article so I'm not sure why he flipped)--one of whom was me. Like a lot of people, I bashed him for doing this. And rightfully so, I believe. So maybe I'm wrong, and criticizing weak-kneed and complicit Dems isn't that counterproductive, since it sometimes appears to work.

                        So I'm not so much AGAINST criticizing Dems--and if need be attacking some of them, when deserved--as I am FOR attacking Repubs, without mercy, because I believe that it is ultimately a more promising way out of this mess. People can and will go ahead and criticize and attack Dems, since it's warranted, and to some extent even helpful. But I still believe that the bulk of our criticism should be directed at the other side.

                        I understand what your diary was about. If you chose to not call it criticism then fine, it's not criticism. I disagree. But you were clearly telling Dems that what they were doing was bad, whatever their motivation, and would lead to bad outcomes. I view that as criticism. You don't. Fine, whatever. And if it helps turn some of them around and makes them do the right thing, all the better. But I believe that whatever we say about the Dems that's not flattering, could and should be said x1000 about the Repubs, who have been, are and will likely be far more responsible for this mess than most Dems.

                        Surely we can both criticize Dems (ok, point out that what they're doing is wrong) AND attack Repubs? I'm not saying that we shouldn't do the former, just that the latter is far more warranted, and in my opinion likely to lead to positive results in terms of actually ending the war. I'm tired of going after our side, warranted though it may be. I just want to end this war, and this is what I view as the best way to do it.

                        •  Ok. (0+ / 0-)

                          Thanks for meeting me half way here.

                          I will vote for Dems in 2008.  But it's now 2007.  And we need our Dems to be unified, NOW.  You know this or you wouldn't have "bashed" Durbin.

                          We can't make policy, we can't vote in the Senate, in the Congress, we can't negotiate, none of that.  Doesn't matter what we think the political strategy should be, the Dems in Congress are going to be the ones making the decisions, that's what they're there for.  The ONLY thing we can do is be united in pressuring our Dem reps that they must oppose this misAdministration.  Even kos is beginning to realize that.

                          Read my diaries, kovie.  I bash Republicans all the time, especially in my NOLA diaries.  The two need not be mutually exclusive.

                          But I am a Democrat.  And when my representatives look as though they are about to cave on something that will kill folks, and they are the ONLY ones who are in a position to oppose these crooks, then yes, let them know, pressure them, bash them, whatever and we must be unified and we must not back down because someone accuses us of being "pure."  It's not purity.  We've got more than a year before this pack of crooks leave office.  We need action now.  This is our part to play.

    •  Yes my analogy was not... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...constructed properly -- I wrote it too fast --  but you get my point.

      Your choice is invalid.  It's how they operate v. how they objectively SHOULD operate. Morally and Constitutionally.

      Also what you call bashing I call information and education for them.  If the "bashing" is relatively civil.

      •  "Should" has NOTHING to do with it (0+ / 0-)

        To call this a choice between what they are doing and what they should be doing is, I think, incredibly naive, however well-intended. With rare exceptions, politicians almost never do what they "should" be doing because it's what they "should" be doing. They do what they do because it's what they think will work for them.

        And right now, enabling (or not meaningfully going against) Bush's policies is what they believe will work for them. Right or wrong, that's clearly what they believe, or else they'd do things differently. And all the " information and education" that we throw at them has not changed this one bit. Nor the bashing. Not one bit.

        Again, I'm just not into this whole purity "should" thing, because it has very little to do with real-world politics, which is based on perceived self-interest, not doing the right thing. And I see going after Repubs on their perceived self-interests vis a vis the war and other Bush policies as far more likely to change them than it is to change Dems, because the public is overwhelmingly against the war and these other policies, and it overwhelmingly associates Repubs with them over Dems.

        I'd love to live in a world where "should" matters. But I don't. Nor do you.

        •  "Should" does matter, or we'd all be dead. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          We operate on "should"s all day long.  If we're dehydrated we "should" drink.  Etc.

          And Nancy "should" get impeachment started because our Constitution mandates it.   Our Constitution "should" be obeyed because it protects the people.  Nancy's oath of office says she'll uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  And if Bush isn't a domestic enemy I don't know who would be.  So Nancy "should" abide by her oath.

          And Congress "should" end the war because our (and Iraqi) people are dying for nothing.

          And so forth.

          •  But "should" never DOES (0+ / 0-)

            have anything to do with it, so I don't see the point in bothering with it, at least not in the sense that we should get them to do these things because it's what they "should" do. Your idealism is commendable, but simply not applicable to most politicians or political reality. Pressure and inticements are what get them to do things, not talk about "should", which is more properly something that we "should" all apply to our own lives, where we do have some control over it. But not when it comes to politicians.

            •  However... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...we DO have some measure of control over what they do.   But it's 2007 -- not an election year, so it's not apparent yet.  We'll have more control as we get closer to the elections and they want their jobs back.

              The pressure and incitements have "should"s as their basis and impetus in the form of acting on principles we have.  My principle might be "I value pro-choice; this candidate is sitting on the fence, so I'll do something about it."  So if I want to pressure a candidate on this, I "should" act on my principle and e-mail him.

              So all these things go together.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site