Skip to main content

View Diary: It's "f-king stupid"? (243 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WTF??? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, JC from IA, Escamillo

    That is, to coin a phrase, incredibly "f-king stupid."

    For starters, Emanuel wasn't criticizing other Democrats "in power." And he wasn't criticizing "regular citizens and voters." He was criticizing representatives of Democratic lobbying groups, to their faces, in private.

    And regular citizens and voters like you and me can criticize whoever we want in private conversations.

    So your point would be...?

    •  Oh, how nice. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, expatjourno, jct

      I can criticize elected Dems in private conversations with family and friends at work.

      And have no f-cking impact whatsoever on what happens.

      While Rahm has private meetings with Senators and lobbyists, and calls me f-cking stupid if I speak out publicly.

      Yeah, SOMEONE's being stoopid here.

    •  The point is that private conversations don't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, expatjourno, jct

      mean shit.

      The pressure is public pressure to step up and pass a bill that makes some sense and that delivers meaningful reform.

      If we are circle jerking among ourselves, they can do what they want with few worries.

      On the other hand, having to face some ugly ads while they are home puts their seats in jeopardy.  

      If they step up and do the right thing, we can use some party support to smooth things over, they suck it up and make it through just fine.

      EVERY US CITIZEN SHALL BE COVERED BY MEDICARE FROM BIRTH UNTIL DEATH.

      by potatohead on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:23:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Escamillo

        is everyone so upset about what Emanuel said in a private conversation?

        •  Because the Blue Dogs are fucking stupid. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          potatohead

          For blocking what could be the most popular government program since Social Security and replacing it with something that's expensive, won't get the job done and will discredit the Democratic Party.

          And siding with the Blue Dogs for doing that is fucking stupid. It's Blue Dogs who need to be called fucking stupid, not the people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected.

          Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

          by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

            And nothing in Washington is ever really private.  It's our government, and we pay for it, so those conversations matter.

            With us talking privately, nobody cares, unless we are two CEO's conspiring to fuck people over, for example.

            EVERY US CITIZEN SHALL BE COVERED BY MEDICARE FROM BIRTH UNTIL DEATH.

            by potatohead on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:11:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Another post (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Escamillo

            that fails to respond to the one it replies to.

            To recap: potatohead said private conversations don't mean sh*t. I pointed out that a lot of people are upset about this particular private conversation, which suggests they do "mean sh*t."

            Your post doesn't seem to be about whether private conversations matter, or if it is, seems to agree with me that this one does. So I'm not sure why you posted it as a reply to mine.

            But since you did:

            And siding with the Blue Dogs for doing that is fucking stupid. It's Blue Dogs who need to be called fucking stupid, not the people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected.

            Well...Emanuel didn't call "people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected" anything. He's one of those people. He deserves a whole lot of credit for the Democrats regaining control of Congress. What he called "f-king stupid" is groups that put Democratic seats at risk.

            Again, I'm not taking his side here, though I see his point. But I've also donated to at least one of the groups he was criticizing. But I'm finding it really frustrating that so many people here are convinced that Rahm attacked us, when he clearly did not. It's sort of like townhallers convinced that Obama is proposing things he's just not.

        •  Becasue purists can't pass up any opportunity (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mll, littlebird33

          to take offense to something, even if that something is comments made in a private conversation that they weren't even a part of; comments about particular ads made directly to the makers of those ads, not aimed at progressive activism in general.  But people decided that they themselves are the target just so they could claim an offense themselves.

          Also, most here despise Rahm simply because he had some disagreements with Howard Dean in the past, so they can't pass up any chance to blast Rahm, no matter how flimsy their excuse to do so may be.

          •  You two seem to think that (0+ / 0-)

            a meeting between a top White House official and activist groups in Washington is "private" in the same sense that a family chat is. And then you sneer at other people as being naive.

            •  Well it ain't public (0+ / 0-)

              in the sense that running TV ads is. Which was my point.

              And where did I "sneer at other people for being naive?" I never said anyone was naive. I said people were saying things that don't make sense, but never said anything about naivete. (And I don't see where Escamillo's post does either.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site