Skip to main content

View Diary: ACTION TIME: Closing the "Enthusiasm Gap" (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am offering that your expectations are (0+ / 0-)

    far too detailed and instructive, sounding almost impossible to meet.  A micro-manager who plays an armchair quarterback - even presuming enough to prescribe a basic business course for me.  How helpful.

    Perhaps something you've learned is that no negotiation is the same, despite patterns that can be recognized in some general plays, and that pre-existing conditions can limit the range of your problem to negotiate in many cases.  Further, that the personality and style of anyone within a negotiation is further complicated by factors when more players than two are involved - such as, a President, entire political parties, D.C., lobbyists, a corporate-friendly media and so on.

    That is, you seem to presume that you understand the factors, environments, pre-conditions, what is on table for various pieces of legislation, etc. when many PR announcements likely were floats and not hardened points to negotiate.  Nor were all players formally announced or even reported upon during various legislative attempts by our parties.  In some cases, the politics of the Senate itself took full power over rational negotiation.

    None of this seems to factor into your presentation of the issues that you have summarized.

    Therefore, I summarily reject your odd notion that I support a defeatist standpoint in the Democratic party by noting that in an election year, we happen to have some positives and easy contrasts to tout.  Now, already available to us.

    Yet, your dour and unflinching demands for our representatives to do more (or else?) in order to gin up the populace - because they have thus far "failed" is something NOT defeatist in comparison to my perspective as offered?

    Upside-down worlds are surely strange places.

    Further, I specifically noted in my posts that your general use of "the Left" is not only unhelpful, but misleading and inaccurate.  Yet, you continue in that vein - I am finding your reasoning is still far too polarized for reasonable consideration, here.

    Your characterization of my "bellyaching" also does not reflect any points mentioned, but instead washs your hand above a large swath of generalizations about somehow punishing Democrats in order to make them better.  During an election year.

    Again, your context seems incredibly tone-deaf: this is an election year and partisanship is valued at such a time.  Perhaps there is a course for that?

    Summary: Your premise at the beginning of this subthread begins with prescription, falls on its assumptions that you know the conditions in play related to policy and legislative negotiations at various points in parallel timelines, then reaches conclusions which were naturally proscribed by those conditions.  And yet, you characterize my position as supporting defeatism - despite my statements that we have made progress (far beyond what any Republican Administration+Congress would have done, of course) that can be propped up in a campaign, there is much more to do and this all requires that we win more elections over time.  While, you simultaneously talk of complete failure by Democrats and seem to offer that hurting them will help them in the end.  As if you are the Reverse Flash of Democratic politics.

    Frankly, I find you willfully ignoring the institutional issues in D.C. and how complex they happen to be, nor do you show much appreciation for how they got there - which includes how long it took for them to be built up.  What you see as excuses I see as challenges to understand and help overcome.  And yet, I am somehow supporting a defeatist notion compared to your black/white characterizations that fall squarely on the negative for our party in this election year.  That's astounding logic.

    Meta: your tone apparently seeks to represent a general "Left" and a larger population of "us", despite my obvious attempts to fix the replies to you and your opinions - regardless of your noted condescension in this discussion, I find your inability to take specific responsibility for a conversation in which I am addressing you and you alone to be show how this has been a rather silly waste of time for both of us.

    Maybe I'll find something more useful and worthwhile to recommend from you in another diary.  Just not in this conversation, I'm sorry.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:06:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Calling you out touched a nerve. You put words (0+ / 0-)

      in my mouth. When I called you on it and gave you my actual rationale for my argument. You proceed to reiterate the same tired old arguments. And yes you are bellyaching. Complaining that somehow by showing  a united front that will some how reverse or at least stem the Democratic losses in the fall.

      That is your opinion and as you probably already have surmised I think that is wishful thinking and anecdotal evidence supports my view. When I suggest an alternative you accuse me of micromanaging. That is just plain arrogant. You can advocate continuing the same course of action and I will continue to shake my head in disgust as our poll numbers go further down.

      My guess is you are some paid shill because you seem intent on defending  tactics that keep putting us deeper in the whole

      •  I have responded directly to your words (0+ / 0-)

        And can easily throw down quotes now, if you'd like.  My nature is to be tenacious and challenge seemingly unfair or unreasonable people - you're simply one alias getting my nod at this time.

        Certainly, you may run from your words and claim to have common sense politics on your side, but you can't hide your ultimate positions being advocated.  Further, I find your continued evasion from taking responsibility for this meaningless tack of avoiding any sort of constructive, organized attempt to support our party in an election year (in all manners of saying: funds, GOTV, etc.) rather laissez-faire and bordering on politically irresponsible, at best.

        As far as tactics which place us further into the hole, your obvious attempts to turn blacks into whites here shows that obfuscation and subterfuge are your favored tactics when called out as willingly undermining our electoral attempts.  And for what?  What is your purpose?  Ah, the crux.  I'll let you explain your personality foibles for the rest of us.

        You've offered no alternatives.  You've offered more of the same: nothing.  Do nothing but needlessly argue about how many angels our party has fit onto the end of a pin recently.  Truly, this is taking the long view.

        You've not only touched no nerves in me, you've merely lowered my estimate of your potential value in this conversation.  Dream and attempt to stem your oddness here all you like, but you have no rational basis for undermining our candidates during an election year and still participating on a site devoted to "more and better Democrats", IMHO.

        Trying Rovian tactics of projecting your positions upon me is a losing proposition - I was a College Republican in name and spirit, years ago.  I supported Reagan's first term, but not his second - I was living the horror of waking up on my own, over the course of years, seeing what I had previously contributed to within our country.  The awfulness that was spread as a virus and which hit as crescendo with BushCo.

        It seems best and right to be partisan and help - as all fair-minded people should consider, in their own ways.  Mine is to help us avoid voting in more Republicans in 2010, among other things.  At least at this site, that is of paramount purpose to discuss and share as a topic, in addition to all the ancillary issues related to what those Democrats should help represent over time as they are placed or held in office.

        I see no solutions from you.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:30:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's hard to take someone seriously when he (0+ / 0-)

          continuously advocates losing tactics. Then defends them with personal attacks. Your weak tactics were tried and failed. Plenty of folks not just me are advocating a tougher approach. I have read your responses in other diaries and the pattern is clear  anyone who disagrees with you is subjective to long condescending rants on how they do not understand only you do. Well that may work on someone who is adopting someone else position I have reasoned out my arguments (you should try it).  Markos has a name for you and your ilk Weeny Liberals. You spend more time fighting your side because you are afraid of the big bad Right

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site