I get the point. Really. But it has been overstated to absurdity here, and it is thoroughly disconcerting to see the First Amendment Watchdog Party and champion of diversity and tolerance abandon all those things like so much expendable habeas corpus.
Expressing concerns or voicing "suggestions" does not, ergo ipso fatso, mean one must not be working to register voters or help campaigns.
Concern does not equal defeatism; I would venture that most, virtually all, who are concerned about Global Warming have not "given up," are not "Chicken Littles" simply because they haven't prompted the desired responses yet, and that deeply worries them.
After 2000 and 2004, it's frankly a form of insanity (ballistic denial) NOT to exhibit concern from time to time that that damn Rovian shoe just may be dropping or about to drop soon. That would be honest human nature, Kossacks.
What's more, I believe those who decried the Iraq War as War on Terror before it stated were roundly castigated, in many cases by other Democrats, as dangerous dissenters and pessimistic, disloyal Chicken Littles who needed to get with the program or STFU.
Thus, personal attacks against those expressing concern are not only offensive and undemocratic but intellectually dishonest and dangerous.
(more)
Here on DKos, this has devolved into sad acts of territorial pissing and sophmoric, bullying peer pressure.
Now I, for one, actually spend most of time both working on and feeling pretty optimistic about the upcoming elections. Not just for the helluvit, but because of the data that suggests we are going to win big across the board at every level of government in every state. I expect good things, even in Utah.
But all that does not mean I don't see reasons for distress at times. And to suggest that I or anyone MUST NOT express these concerns, discuss the events that cause them or chew the ideas that may address them is against one of the central principles of this party.
NOBODY has a monopoly on knowing with certitude what is/isn't worthy of consideration or concern here.
Republicans MUST fall in line to win. The other party WANTS to fall in line. It NEEDS to fall in line. It MUST shun dissension. It WANTS to shun dissension. It NEEDS to shun dissension. By definition: it's authoritarian.
Democrats, on the other hand, wins AND loses on the strength of diversity and tolerance, despite its challenges, or we become them.
Remember, Bush is the one who surrounds himself with yes men, those who never second-guess or voice "concern" for the path he's chosen. Obama is the one who wants to hear all sides. He MUST, WANTS, NEEDS to hear it. He can deal with it.
We won't adopt authoritarianism, because, by definition, we oppose it.
We MUST, WANT, NEED and can handle all sides.
Had the other side done so, we wouldn't be in this mess as a nation.
Now I realize this is one of those dreaded un-investigative diaries, and I prefer the diaries threaded with good, innovative research, but there have been plenty of un-investigative rants on the opposite side of this debate. I am just trying to provide some perspective and balance to a topic that has been treated with an egregiously heavy hand of late. That should only be seen as the fair and Democratic thing to do.
I like Giordano's passion for, deep knowledge of and useful analyses of political organizing and the political landscape/map. Ditto for many of those who've supported his threats against Chicken Littles. It's the authoritarian chink in our Democratic armor demonstrated in Concern Troll Concern Trollism that "concerns" me.
Last, the part of this issue that has to do with preference for more substantive, investigative diaries should be addressed through solutions other than constant personalized and public contempt and disdain and downright fascistic calls for abusive ostracism and formal factionalism.
UPDATE I: I guess I should point out that I haven't, to my knowledge, been accused of being a concern troll. My diaries tend to focus on Utah politics. I just thought someone should speak up about what appears to be some pretty harsh, unwarranted attacks and a steady stream of snickering whenever anyone steps out of line regarding Obama-worship, campaign praise and election optimism. Again, after 2000 and 2004, these are perfectly normal responses and needn't be reactively classified as "panic" or "subversive."
UPDATE II: I worked for Obama in April and May in PA, IN and OR at my own expense. On top of that, I have contributed heavily with additional $. I'm a big supporter. My wife is good friends with Susan Axelrod, so I am also a David Axelrod fan. Sooo, I am hardly lukewarm. But I am also not immune to the occassional second-guessing (I was initially steamed by his about-face on FISA) nor indifferent or opposed to hearing others intermittent "concerns." I don't consider it dispiriting. If anything, it simply motivates me more.