What is the Democratic Party's responsibility? [Thread Closed]
After reading A's post on KOS and after reading Justing's post regarding Dole/Hagan/Neal...and more importantly, the comments, I started to wonder what it takes to get people upset enough to do something about the Democratic Party, it's leadership, and the Democrats we've elected who don't represent our interests.
One comment particularly caught my eye This one and this particular statement .....
This is what ideologues don't understand. You run on principle when at all practical, but in some cases it's not and you have to take what you can get. Heath Shuler votes more in your favor than any Republican ever would. Either take what you can from him or get nothing
(emphasis mine) REALLY FROSTED ME...and here's why:
Most of the people who visit BlueNC are smarter than your average bear, and are aware when their own views do or do not represent the views of a majority of others. Hence, although they/we may get frothed over the way our congress-critters vote on an issue now and then, we understand we're not always going to be satisfied on every issue. Conversely, there are some things we think all Americans should hold sacred, or are otherwise so important and so abundantly and fundamentally important to our nation that no one...regardless of party... should be playing politics with these concepts.
In my mind, these include respecting and defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights, maintaining the appropriate balance of power between the three branches of our government, enforcing our laws and the rule of law and common decency, ensuring our food and medical supplies and ingredients are safe, making sure our borders, ports, and transportation systems are safe and secure, maintaining strong, nimble and well equipped armed forces recruited from, and representative of, all socio-economic classes of our citizenry, and properly caring for those, and their families, who have given of themselves in service to our nation. And, these things should be done in a fiscally responsible manner that strengthens rather than weakens our nation.
Yes, there are other things currently also very important...but to me, the above is the core from which we build solutions to our other problems.
Now, best I can tell, my Congressman hasn't done much to consistently support those concepts and has often torn down those core values with his votes. (The same is true of our Senators.) You can decide about your own critter.
Further, the Democratic Party hasn't stood on principle in longer than I can remember. My county party refused to vote on a resolution that would have criticized a certain elected state legislative representative who is obviously swimming in the sewer. Jim Black operated freely for years while the party knew about and essentially ignored his corruption. Neither the District or State Party has, to my knowledge, taken exception with the Democrats that voted to gut our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, nor has anyone in the Party confronted any of these folks about how our veterans are being treated. Rule of Law? Phfttt! Balance of power? Phftttt! Secure Borders? Safe Food and Medicine? Phfttt...phfttt...phfttt!
And, not trying to take it out of context, you tell me/us that we should "Either take what you can from him or get nothing" ??? Excuse Me?
Either the Democratic Party confronts and resolves these issues with their elected representatives, or it isn't a party worth supporting. It's more important to fill the seats we win with good people than to win every seat.
(Schumer and Feinstein will likely prove that point next week when they vote to confirm a man as AG whom, if you were to believe his testimony, you'd also have to believe he hasn't read a newspaper in over two years.)
That's my two cents...and I'm not happy.
I'm having the same angst, Stan.
A friend accused me of being "disloyal" today. Talk about getting frothed. It's a good thing I'm basically a pacifist or I would have punched him in the face with a roll of nickels in my hand. People think this is all about the US Senate race for me, which couldn't be farther from the truth. That's just the last straw in a continuing series of bullshit moves which you have so nicely summarized.
I don't know what it all means. I'm not happy either.
Frontpaged.
An Army of Stan
Stan, you're much more eloquent expressing the reasons I'm outside of the Party than I've been capable of. Thanks Anglico for front paging.
I'm to the point that I would accept a %95 concurrence of Dem votes to the Republicans (maybe it already is), if the other %5 protected our Constitutional rights, got us the hell out of our current foreign entanglements and enforced the rule of law - specifically by impeaching the top half of the current madministration and arresting the bottom half for being enablers.
Pretty sad it has come to that....
CitizenWill
there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK,Jr. to SCLC Leadership Class
I don't know which is best
I rejoined the Democratic Party in 2005 after being gone for 19 years and I am starting to wonder if anything changed in the years I was gone. I left the party because, as a college student I ran for county commission and instead of backing a student, the local Democratic Party endorsed my Republican opponant.
I now see more and more of our Democratic "leadership" rolling over and letting the Republicans do as they please so basically nothing has changed in 19 years.
BUT on the other hand, I have seen first hand how independents and third party members are emasculated under our present system, not only in NC but nationwide. I was a national co-chair of the Green Party in 2004-05 and you would not believe the road blocks we encountered while trying to get our presidential candidate on the ballot. North Carolina is ranked as one of the toughest states for third parties to get on the ballot. Hell, we even had to petition to get our write in votes counted.
So, I don't know the answer as to whether it is easier to change the party from outside or inside but I do know it was easier to run for re-election in 2006 as a Dem than it was to run for election as an Independent/Green in 2002.
"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy
That they backed a repug over you
doesn't surprise me.
Out west in 04 the main Democratic Party peeps wouldn't back liberal Patsy Keever. Initially, she'd get a great response in a county and then call back to set up more visits and they wouldn't speak to her.
The district chair, now Heath Shuler's district director put the yard sign of every other democratic candidate in his yard but not Patsy's. We'll never be sure if it was her vagina or her progressive politics. Maybe a combo? His wife is county commish who is in bed politically with the minority Republicans. It's all pretty disgusting.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Hey, now, don't hold back, DQ -
Tell us how you really feel!
Well, they've made it clear to me how they feel
and they didn't bother with the truth. So, I just want to return the favor with my weak facts.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
"Disloyal" are people who sit by and say nothing
while our party continues to backroom all their decisions.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
By the way, that comment, Stan, was posted by
someone who refers to Jim Dean as the "Brother of Screaming Dean Machine" So, maybe we shouldn't pay too much attention to the sentiment.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Thanks DQ...
I visited the blog he/she pointed to and saw it was considerably right of center.
SE NC Dems
Pay attention
I think that's their first responsibility and they are not living up to that at all. As I posted on another thread earlier, the Feinstein/Schumer tragedy has hurt me badly. I go through these cycles of hope dashed by despair and it is really starting to annoy me.
The Feinstein/Schumer support for the new 'Torture Boy' is the perfect example of why most folks don't see a shred of difference between the parties. It is the perfect example of why people don't vote. It is the perfect example of why people turn the page on politics without reading further the into the differences between the parties. It makes me sick.
Schumer is wearing out his welcome in my home.
The whole fiasco that has been the NC Senate campaign, now this. What does it require for the Democrats in the Senate to stand up for our principles? The truth is that Schumer thinks if they just sit back and don't make waves we'll win the White House and Senate seats because the country is going to hell in a handbasket (in my opinion).
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Nicknames
I'm caught between FeinTortureMer and SchuTortureStein.
Where does the trail of tears begin?
The other day I was speaking to the head of the local Dems. I told him I was a child of the Vietnam era and my politics have been shaped by that tragedy. I also asked him if he thought we'd ever be debating if torture was acceptable U.S. policy in his lifetime - because I never thought it would come to this.
He said no, "but why hold the local party responsible?" - it was the national Dems that have stood by while the madministration discusses the difference between simulated drowning, shocking genitalia and pulling out fingernails.
Where does the trail of tears begin?
CitizenWill
there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK,Jr. to SCLC Leadership Class
All politics is local.
We don't have to hold our local dems accountable for those tragedies, but there is plenty to talk to them about. The state dems? Definitely accountable.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
The simple fact that Robert mentioned above is the thing that is
most upsetting to me at this time. SO much has been done by the current administration to undermine the credibility and the Constitution of this once great nation and they Democratic leadership just wants to hang back, do nothing that might get them in trouble and wait out the storm until the elections next November.
ONE MORE YEAR? Another year of this black-hearted politics affecting our nation and the world by extension and the Dem's are going to sit back and do as little as possible, hoping beyond hope that American's will see them as being the lesser of two evils? What the hell kind of plan is that? I'll tell you what kind of plan it is. It's a losers plan. These guys and gals need to wake up. The Democrat's could steamroll the Repbulic's if they would just get off their asses, take a few chances (you know, like defund the war, stop George Bush and his 24% popularity in his tracks) etc. BUT NO. We'll just ride it out and slink in through the back door. I'm ashamed.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
Thanks to all of you for your comments..
I was tired and had to bag it last night after posting this.
Robert...I agree all politics are local, but I DO think we need to hold our local party folks responsible for speaking out on all the issues...state, local, national...to all our elected representatives. The Party has to be something more than a PR mechanism and source of funding/labor to elect folks. The Party also has to stand for and fight for the principles that made this nation great. That means telling elected officials they won't be supported if they can't/won't represent their constituents and the ideals we work towards. In fact, I feel we should tell them they're not even going to be on the Democratic Party ballot.
I know McIntyre and Etheridge have some "constituents" in their districts that are making a bundle off the farm subsidy programs. These folks are already rich beyond most folks wildest dreams. Yet, many family farmers struggle,,,and there are few funds available to pay for wildlife habitat conservation and so on.
Yet, these two "Democrats" continue to fight efforts to really do something meaningful about capping subsidy payments.... paid for by YOU and ME.
This may not be a great example...but I think it fits. No one can tell me these corporate farmers welfare is in the best interests of a majority of these critter's constituents. Yet. best I can tell, our individual efforts to change this are ignored.
The PARTY could make it happen.
I know this isn't a "core" issue...but it's an example of the unbridled excesses and unresponsiveness of two of our elected Dems. Meanwhile...no COOL...No restoration of Habeas, no stop to torture...and another AG who will further corrupt our justice.
SE NC Dems
What is the Democratic Party's Responsibility?
Relative to the U.S. Congress the Democrats need to remember who they are and what they represent as Democrats. The devisive "clubs" they form in Congress do not serve the best interest of the People, or the Party. "Blue Dogs", Hispanic Caucus", "Black Caucas", all Democrats and none focusing on the real, and desperate need of the Party; Unity.
Unity of purpose, Unity of vision, Unity of direction, leadership and values.
We should not disparage the Caucus groups in Congress, so don't get me wrong. The motivation in the forming of most caucus groups is honorable and of good intent, but often later derailed by narrow and exclusive pursuits and focus.
ALL Democrats believe in Human rights, Individual liberty, wise financial stewardship, helping the disadvantaged and poor, being the example to the world of the power of freedom and service to others, ensuring a viable, well equipped and advanced Military, universal health care, control of government intrusion into the privacy of U.S. Citizens, abolution of torture and many other issues.
Democrats need to act like Democrats.
In supporting President Bush and the Republican "anti-Democratic" agenda, many Democrats in Washington feel that they are bridging the gap between the very polarized Parties in our Congress and Senate, but they are mistaken. These Democrats, acting in real sincerity, but being sincerely wrong.
Bridging the gap between DEMOCRATS who disagree is the wining strategy. Uniting the Party is our path to a greater and more free America.
I know this is not where you were going Stan, but I saw it as a good opportunity to vent.
http://MarshallAdame4Congress2008.com
Well said, Marshall
n/t
Yes, well said.
Particularly about unity and acting like Democrats. Hopefully you and Larry Kissell will join Brad Miller, Watt, and Price in Congress. Unfortunately, that still leaves us with at least two or three NC Dem's in Congress who are likely to be real fly's in the ointment.
The PARTY has to take a stand on core issues. I could really get energized if the PARTY put some folks like this on notice and said either get with the program or you're on your own....no money, no support, no help, no nothing...and encouraged good people to run and put them out of office.
I'm not suggesting the Party tell anyone how to vote on every issue...nor am I suggesting that there might not be good reasons to vote against something that many Dems would support. S-CHIP, for example, is something we all could support. At the same time, the method of funding this $35B rxpenditure is counter to every concept of fairness. 20% of the population shouldn't be forced to pay for this.
Anyway, I get your drift.
SE NC Dems
You sound like a petulant four year old
throwing a tantrum. Your post ids so full of exaggerations and unsupprted accusations as to be mostly unworthy of comment. So the Democratic party in control of one half one one third of the govnerment (the senate is basicalyy a push w/o 60 votes)
is supposed to sprinkle its magic fairy dust and solve all the probblems wrought by 6 years of republican control.
The post about Shuler was 100% correct. Shuler represents the 11th and guess what? Shuler's constituents ain't like you. I would much rather have Shuler's vote 70-80% of the time than Taylor's vote 0% of the time.
I suggest you read the NCDP Plan of Organization and Robert's rules of Order. It sounds like a knowledge of both could have saved you some of the troubles you related.
Face it - the political landscape is different now post 9-11. Young people who should be in the streets over the war are too busy messing their ipods. Without a visible anti war movement and nothing but a few bloggers and editoials writing about the assault on the Constitution it's a bit difficult for Dem leadership to know when to play what few cards it does hold.
The Democratic Party is the only group that has a chance to undo all the damage done by the Bushies. But remember those damn elephants have been parading all over the country for 6 years; and they will leave quite a mess. The stronger the Dem are, the better and quicker they will be able to clean up the messes you mentioned.
It would be nice if you and others would save your ire for the NeoCons that have caused our troubles, not the folks doing what they can to fix them.
Person County Democrats
The political landscape is different post 9-11
because mindless Americans bought George Bush's fearful view of the world - and Democrats across the board are still enabling it.
Your view of "leadership" is bizarre. If I take your comments seriously, I'd have to conclude that Congress is the petulant four year old, needing to be poked and prodded by We the People to do its job and defend the Constitution.
I beg to differ. And just to be clear, it doesn't take a filibuster proof majority in the Senate to do what needs doing. It takes one committed Speaker of the House who would put her ass on the line for the soul of our country instead of playing political games. Joe Hackney did it in the Raleigh to shut down the so-called Defense of Marriage amendment. Speaker Pelosi is NOT doing it in Washington. She and the rest of the Dems have capitulated again and again and again to Mr. 23%.
Are you kidding? What more "direction" do they need? None. They need political courage, which is in mighty short supply.
If I thought for a minute that people like McIntyre and Etheridge were doing what they can to "fix" things, I might buy some of your rhetoric. But they are not.
Finally, you are off base in your criticism of Stan. You're talking to a guy who has been one of the stalwarts of Democratic party organization in his community longer than most people around this site have been alive.
I am replying to his post.
I agree that Pelosi and Reid leave something to be desired, but the OP was condemmning the entire Democratic party. He held it responsible for the messes of the bushies, most of which was wrought immediately after 9-11.
So then he is condemning Miller, Meek, Price, Murtha, Kinnaird and a host of other good people who bust their butts to try to bring about progressive changes as Democrats.
So he is going phhtpht to S-CHIIP and the Phhttptp to the minimum wage increase and pphhttp to Jack Murtha would took serious heat for his opposition to the war; he is going pphhpptth to Miler and Price who both spoke out against the war when in the monority. He si going ppphhtptp to Miller and Waxman who are digging through layers of elephant feces to bring the ignoble deeds of the bushies to light. He is going pphhhhtptp to the lobbying reform legislation.
If he has been around party politics then he should know how to get a resolution presented to a county convention and should know parliamentary procedures concerning same. He should know that any malfeasance regarding the blocking of such a resolution or any back rooms dealings such as D mentioned can be dealt with via the NCDP Plan of Organization.
I take offense at the general assault on my party. If he has specific gripes, fine let's hear them, but it is most unfair to lump all dems into the same pot.
Person County Democrats
I didn't read it that way, but I understand your point
and mostly agree with your underlying points. That said, I've supported more resolutions over the past 40 years than you can shake a stick at and I can't honestly tell what difference most of them have made.
Maybe I'm just a bit bummed out right now by the likelihood that our next attorney general will be another advocate for torture.
I think one of the worst things we can do
is expect a Democratic Congress to undo in less than a year the tragedies that BushCo has wrought. We have had significant accomplishments, and will have more. I think that Bush's public temper tantrums are evidence of that.
Waxman and Leahy are heroes, finally able to go in and look at the actual malfeasance of the administration. They can't work miracles. Miller is taking on the sub-prime lenders who have caused more problems in my area than any one realizes.
It pays to have (D)'s in the seat. Reid and Pelosi may leave something to be desired, but they're both damn sure better than Hastert, Delay, and Lott.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
The political landscape is different
and I think that many of us often forget the value of being the majority party. We need more seats; we need a veto-proof majority so that S-CHIP fiascoes don't happen again.
And that's ultimately why I will remain a Dem, and continue to work for Dem candidates, because until Anglico gets his Blue party up, running, successful, and on the ballot in all 50 states, there is no other way I see to accomplish what needs to happen.
That said, I don't make contributions to candidates with whom I have foundational disagreements. I would never have donated to Heath Schuler, though if I lived in the 11th district, I would have voted for him. I do make donations to candidates who show me, through words or actions, that at the core, their priorities and values are the same as mine would be if I were the one in the seat, making the vote. When I do make donations, I don't expect that candidate to be beholden to me or my ideals in any way. That's why I think very carefully before I donate. (Especially because my couple hundred a year will make the difference in any election! HA!)
I don't expect Larry Kissell to be as liberal as David Price. The district he will represent is way different, and I expect him to represent the people who vote for him.
That also said - there is nothing in the NCDP plan of organization (fondly known in my house as the POO) that prevents anyone from speaking out against the Party. We don't operate on Robert's Rules on the board, and they are, in general, a pain in the ass when you're trying to have valuable discussion that will push the party forward.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Your comments make you the poster child for folks
who fail to read or understand and then attack.
No one said anything about fairy dust. I mentioned specifics that are easily proven...where those named had the opportunity to support our Constitution and the rule of law and human decency...and chose not to. or, where they had a chance to support their constituency and chose not to. It's a fact. DO i NEED TO QUOTE THE ROLE CALL VOTES FOR YOU? And, I carefully mentioned that I and others clearly understand our Congress-critters aren't always going to vote the way some of us thinks they should...and understood why that might be so.
Point out one exaggeration I made...or where I said PHFTTT to S-Chip.
You're behaving like a pompous ass. You don't want to confront and resolve the issues...you want to cram your beliefs/opinions down my throat.while defending the spineless behaviors of both the Party and many of it's elected representatives.
SE NC Dems
You named three people in your OP
Schumer, Fienstien and Black and you use their actions to dismiss the whole Democratic Party and I'm the pompous @$$????
Exaggeation #1
.
Murtha on Iraq, S-CHIP resubmission, MIller and Price on the floor of the House, Feingold most all the time, Kucinich et al etc. This is where you went ppphhttppt to dem action concerning SCHIP, by ignoring that principled stand. Not to mean that you went pphhtptp to the legislation itself.
Exaggeration #2
Proof? So you are saying that NCDP officers gave it a wink, wink and knowingly gave Black a pass? Does this include Jerry Meek?
Exaggeration #3
I would say that the jury is still out on this, depending on 2008 elections and whether the Bushies hand over power. So far the Constituion has been mangled a bit, gutted seems an exaggeration. Now in Pakistan, that's a gutting. I guess that's a matter of degree and opinion.
Exaggeration #4
The dems in Congress have passed legislation making improvements in the way vets are treated. Resolutions were passed by the SEC supporting vets and condemning the lack of care as demonstrated by the Bushies. Still not what it could be but to say the Party has done nothing ....
For every Schumer you can name I can name 10 Dems who are making a positive difference. The wholesale condemnation of the party is my principle objection. You admit that elected officials aren't going to vote the way you would want sometimes and that the Party is to blame? But then you get upset when they actually do vote in a way you don't approve of??? How about they vote with consideration for their constituents rather than being strong armed by party idealogues, whi by the way sounds a lot like how the other guys operate.
Person County Democrats
What's the point of this?
You're writing to a long-time party supporter who is really pissed off . . . for lots of good reasons . . . about the way things are going with the country and the Democratic party.
You may think he's exaggerating, but so are you. None of this is black or white, nothing ever is.
But Stan is saying that it looks like a dark shade of gray (I happen to agree with him) and you're trying to smack him around for not buying your goodness-and-light view of things?
Well guess what, you're having the exact opposite effect you're intending on both of us.
PS If you think the Democratic Party wasn't knee-deep in the Jim Black problem to the bitter end, you're delusional.
i think persondem makes some good points
I don't think it is fair to allow one person to vent frustrations and then call someone's response to those allegations pointless. You've done this a few times to a few members recently, including me. The OP made some unfounded allegations and unfairly, I think, extended the actions of a few Democrats to the whole party. PersonDem just asked for clarification on the OP's points. I think that's acceptable in an argument. Is this a place just to vent rage and frustration or is it a place for debate and dialogue?
But back to the topic. Democrats have done some amazing things in the last 11 months. I'm proud of my party. I'm also deeply frustrated my Schumer & Co's support of the AG nominee.
The thing is -
Everyone has made good points. It's frustrating as hell when you feel like you're running in sand trying to accomplish things, and some of the people who are supposed to be leading that race pour more sand down for you to run in.
OTOH, it's impossible to expect sand that has built up for 8 years to disappear in 11 months.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party is not homogeneous. We're not all liberal progressives; we're not all centrists. But we are the Party of the People, and it takes all of us - with our anger, our frustrations, our energy, and our enthusiasm, to put (D) fannies in seats so that we have that veto-proof majority. If the more conservative members of our party tend to vote with the (R) agenda from time to time, then we just have to put more (D)'s in seats so that even if a McIntyre or an Etheridge doesn't care as much about Children's Health Care as we would like, the bill will be safe.
Just my opinion.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
well said
.
Persondem does make good points
however the original response to Stan was insulting....not a great way to start a dialogue.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Isabela
I'm not in charge of anything other than paying the bills here at BlueNC. I don't "allow" or disallow anything. I have my opinions, you have yours. We disagree on some, we agree on others. I'm not trying to stifle debate. I asked a serious question: What is the point of Persondem going ballistic on Stan? I didn't get it when it first happened, and I still don't.
This place is what you make it.
C'mon A
We all go ballistic from time to time.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I know.
And I'm one of the worst offenders. But hey, I'm working on it.
I never used the word allow
I'm all for disagreement and argument. I just don't like your habit of asking what the point is in questioning members when they accuse the party, its members, or elected officials. If you're going to put out an allegation, you better be willing to back it up.
The OP basically said that the NCDP was spinless. As an NCDP member, I take offense to that, personally. I think persondem does as well, judging by his tone.
I'll let persondem defend him(her)self, but I thought persondem made good points and Stan defended himself well.
You gotta start reading your own complaints
Or maybe in your world a-l-l-o-w doesn't spell allow?
Just askin'.
Bah!
Got me on that one. I think I was referring to the front paging of the rant when I said allow, but maybe I don't understand how things work here yet.
Still don't like the habit.
Um...you got a problem with what we promote
to the front page......you and me will have a good old fashioned come to Jesus real soon. I suggest you go on the attack less often, stop accusing members of the community and/or front page writers of libel/slander and get to know the site and its writers a little better before you even pretend you have enough credibility here to speak to what goes on the front page of this site.
I wish I had your way with words
"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute
i'm sorry i offended you
but you must have misunderstood me, I said that I didn't understand how things wound up on the front page.
In reply, Isabelabadone...
My post wasn't a rant or a vent. It was a statement of facts about the votes of my congressman (and on some issues, other NC Congressmen) and my feeling that he/they is not/are not representing either their constituents or the best interests of this nation. And I said I feel the Party has a responsibility to address these issues with those elected representatives and withdraw support if this type of behavior continues. I was also careful to point out that I didn't expect those representatives, or any representative, to always vote the way some of their constituents might think appropriate. I was speaking earlier to what I called "core issues."
I challenge you or "persondem" to show where any statement about the votes that I've mentioned are untrue, to point out any totally unfounded allegations, or for you to legitimately defend why any of these votes...or failures to take action, are in the best interests of our party, citizenry and nation. I have the records of the roll call votes.
Whether The Party is/was aware of Black and/or others is a matter of conjecture. Ultimately, since the Party is not a litigant in these affairs it isn't a matter of legal substance. Who knew what when is, however, reflective on the integrity of the party....and I'm one of those crazy folks who believes where there's enough smoke there's a fire...and the truth is these fires have been burning a long time and a lot of people HAD to look the other way if they say they didn't know. I can assure you that is the case in a specific instance here. I don't think the people in our state party are so stupid that they didn't know about Black.
I'm not sure what amazing things you think the Party has done in the past eleven months. Perhaps you could share that with us.
Finally, to both you and Pdem, I made my case factually. You may not agree with my conclusions or how I feel about those votes and situations. If you want to indulge yourselves in ad hominem attacks and name calling, help yourself. You've already created quite a negative first impression.
SE NC Dems
Stan...my man
You've been more gracious than I. I just went and called her ignorant. :)
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Hi Betsy...I hope you're feeling better!
Sounds as if you've had some days of misery. :-( sorry!
SE NC Dems
Thanks, Stan
I'm working on it. I will miss working the entire day at a poll for Mom tomorrow, but they have the polls covered for the most part. I hope all in Nanistan are doing well.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Nanistan
From the image vaults:
Thanks Greg...
I'll use it soon...right after I get these piss-ants off my leg. :-)
SE NC Dems
right on
I didn't have a big problem with your post. I had a problem with how a number of people attacked personDem for challenging your post.
I too am disappointed with a lot what's gone on in Washington. But I've also been proud of a number of things they've done. I'm no apologist, nor am I a bomb-thrower.
I'm furious over the AG hearings, I'm thankful over the min wage. I'm pissed about spying and I'm ecstatic over lowering college tuition.
I must disagree about the way the Dems have treated veterans. That's a specific problem I have with your post.
But overall, I'm with you buddy. I just didn't like how everyone ganged up on personDem. I also believe that he gave a number of specific examples where you exaggerated in your post.
I'd be appreciative if you'd point those out to me.
the exaggerations....
SE NC Dems
You can take all you want out of context and twist it
however you see fit. Murtha is an unprincipled pork broker. I mentioned Schumer and Feinstein in passing and as examples of folks whose votes don't represent the people of their party. I never said anything about Miller or Price or Watt...all of whom I generally admire. Yes, I'm saying it's my opinion the NC Dem Party knew about Black and did nothing...just like they know about Wright and do nothing. .
You obviously have never served in the military in combat or you would have greater respect for the Geneva Conventions. You also apparently don't care that other human beings can be locked up by our government and never allowed to plea their case. You obviously think the jury is out on waterboarding or starving people while freezing them as being torture. What does it take?
You apparently think legislation without funding and/or enforcement means something. (Be it veterans treatment or a multitude of other examples...like COOL which was passed in 2002.)
I didn't say some Dem's weren't making a difference or didn't want to make a difference. I think I focused on those who are making it difficult for those who do want to do something and on the party apparatus that seems not to care what folks do after they're elected. .
I think you're so rabid you've lost your perspective.
Addenda: I get angry when my representative LIES to me.
Read this: LINK .
SE NC Dems
Next AG
Maybe so he will be; maybe he won't. The thing is, he didn't answer. But that AG now has to answer to the Democrats on the Hill. I suspect there will be a bit more transparency than there was when we didn't have a Democratic majority. If the Republicans had won in 2006, we'd still have Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove would still be in his position, and who knows - perhaps Scooter Libby would still be working at the White House.
Look at our strength, work with our strength, and never forget that we can throw the assholes out.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Dang. Sounds like you took some optimist pills.
Got any to spare?
Yup.
Spend the evening with your family, away from the puter and the teevee, and then spend the afternoon with 10 (our group has grown by 2!) newly registered teen Democrats who want to take the day off from school on Tuesday so that they can be at the polling places in their precincts. I know of one whose mother is totally in favor of that. :-D
Those kids lift my spirits, and give me hope.
The focus of their work? Passing the school bonds and transfer tax.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Behold! A voice of
Behold! A voice of reason.
Carolina Politics Online
Dude
if you're calling me a voice of reason, and you think Howard Dean is a nutcase - I'd rather be a nutcase.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I Stand By My Comments
I am the author of:
Stan,
I am independent. I don't like your Democrats and I don't like the Republicans. You talk about the Bill of Rights and defending the Constitution, but if you think that your party is any better at that than the Republicans are then I know a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. You want to buy it? The two party duopoly in this country set the Constitution on fire and threw it out the window decades ago and they are all guilty, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, and Ted Kennedy, the whole lot of them.
My point to you in saying that you take what you can get is simple common sense. If you want to advance an agenda then you have to see the forest through the trees. I don't know where on the political spectrum you are exactly, if you are more moderate or if you are further to the left, though since you have a beef with Shuler I would gather you are more to the far left wing of the party. The only way you get the things you want is to get as many people elected who give you as much as you can possibly get from them. Sometimes you are going to get 100% from that person because they are in a district or state where the majority of the constituency shares your views. Sometimes you will only get half, but in that instance half is the best you'll be able to get from that one representative because their constituency doesn't quite see it like you do. If you had run a Congressman with what the conservative pundits have dubbed "San Francisco values" in NC-11, the Democrats would have lost and Taylor would still be there. That's the reality of it lock, stock and barrel. Do you think you can run a candidate like Chuck Schumer for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina or maybe Alabama? If you're lucky he might 30% of the vote. But, you could run someone more along the lines of Jon Tester in Montana or Evan Bayh in Indiana and they would have viable chance of winning. They may only vote with you 50% of the time, but that's 50% more than Jim Demint and Jeff Sessions are voting with you.
It's called strategy. I don't care for Chuck Schumer much, not because of his positions on the issues, but more that I think he is a sleazy demagogue, but he's a smart man. He and Rahm Emmanuel new exactly how to handle the 2006 elections. They ran the right people in the right districts. In many cases that meant running people who were far more moderate than they would normally like, but it worked. You continue that kind of strategy and build on it election year after election year and you eventually build up the coalition you need. As someone else already noted to you, it doesn't happen over night.
Oh, and Drama Queen? That's right. Howard Dean is a nut case. The man is mentally unstable. He was a piss poor choice to represent the DNC and does not put the party in a good light. There are plenty of better choices out there.
Carolina Politics Online
I just scanned your blog
You give independent-thinking a bad name.
Your enthusiasm for Thomas Stith in Durham is truly mind-boggling. Bell may have his own set of problems, but replacing him with Stith would be like replacing Mike Easley with Art Pope.
Stith is a government-hating extremist who wants to run thing more efficiently without offering a single idea about what that exactly that means. Any business person knows you have to invest money to improve systems, efficiency, etc., and Stith's number one mission in life is to cut services to the bone. In other words, he can't deliver what he promises.
It doesn't matter
We'll never really know that because Stith is going to lose.
My preference for him is to bring about change. Durham needs change, any change is healthy. Bell is more of the status quo. A number of people with different ideas can bring about evolution faster than a room full of people who all think the same.
Carolina Politics Online
Any change is healthy?
Ya mean like the change George Bush has wrought on the world?
Apples and Oranges
You can't compare the City of Durham to the United State of America. Bill Clinton was a hell of a lot better President than Bill Bell is mayor. I voted for Bill Clinton. If I lived in Durham, I would not for Bill Bell.
Carolina Politics Online
Maybe you can't compare them
but I can.
I live three minutes from Durham. You've apparently read one article about the mayoral race.
I hope you don't mind if I trust my own judgment instead of yours.
You need to
take a deep breath. Did I say anything about the Democratic Party being at the forefront of defending our Constitution or Bill of Rights? NO!
I'm pragmatic and realistic. I don't expect to get my way all the time in anything...life, politics, or whatever. and ya know what, I realize I'm not always right, and....GASP....neither are you.
I'm not willing to accept mediocre or poor decisions from my elected representatives. I f you are, that's your privilege.
By the way...thanks for your lecture on strategy and such. Do you always assume no one else is equally, or perhaps more experienced, than you? Or are you just one of those conceited, self-important asses who appear here from time to time?
Howard Dean has a pretty good success rate for a nut case.
You're the one that seems mentally unstable. There's no one who could have cut through the fossilized pander-to-rich-assholes mentality that was stifling any hope of the Democratic Party's future being one of democracy. Thank God for Howard Dean. You just don't like him because he has respect for Progressives, the wing of the party that represents the largest voting block in America.
As to the 11th's Congressman, I happen to think that Shuler is an excellent fit. No one can say I didn't do all I could to get him elected. I spent the last three weeks phone banking for him in McDowell County where no one believed in phone banking, where even the county chair didn't think it would have an effect. If you've ever phone banked where people thought you were wasting your time, you might begin to have a feel for what I faced. (And the results? Second most improved county out of the 15 in the district . . . and the most improved county had David Price staffers paid to work there.)
Also, I blogged and vlogged for Shuler and against Taylor for at least six months before the election. (I've been told my extensive research on Taylor was the 3rd most visited BlueNC post for the entire year last year.)
I think I've earned the right to do what I can to make Shuler keep his campaign promises and criticize him for his hurtful prejudices against women and gays. He has no viable opponent (so far) in the upcoming election. If we can't push him left under these circumstances, you're saying we should never even try. That's ridiculous.
BTW, last time he saw me (this summer) I got a big hug so if Shuler can handle my opinions, why can't you?
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Go get 'im DQ!
I agree! I too worked for Schuler even 'tho he's not in my district...and my wife and I spent considerable time and money supporting him.
SE NC Dems
I think I follow you Carolina Politics...but,
First; as you said, you are not a Democrat.
You see , it would not matter that you are an Independent, or a Republican or any other school of thought, the point, which you specifically wanted us to know, was that you were NOT a Democrat. It is therefore not surprizing that Democratic ideology, or values mean so very little to you as opposed to political strategy.
From your perspective values, ideals, purpose, and how they are applied to politics in America are secondary to "winning". Your reasoning would suggest Governing is enough. Values and particular ideals are irrelevent to the equasion.
I do see your point that one cannot govern if one is not elected, but I very much disagree with your rationale.
Parties exist because political values and purpose differ greatly between two, or more very extreme schools of thought which all. to some degree, fit into the American political scenerio. Your view would suggest, if I understand your view, that the values of both are meaningless and those who hold those vaues are themselves irrelevent to the "Stragtegic politics" which is necessary to govern a country. You are wrong in this view from my perspective. Humans love power, influence, riches and fame, to the extent that many will go to length to obtain any one of them or any combination of them.
It is idealogy that helps a person establish certain parameters in behavior and conduct. The RULE OF LAW, as we know it today in America was born of very specific idealogy and through evolving idealogies since establishing RULE OF LAW.
RULE OF LAW is the basis for all order and civilized conduct in America.
Some would refer to me as an idealog. I guess I am. I hope we all are to one extent or another. How do we tell each other apart? Associations, Religion, Geographic living choices...and yes...Political Parties amoung many other indicators.
I, for example, am a Democrat. You should, by that indicator, know much about me now.
Now all you need are the details. To simply govern, is not enough.
Dang, Marshall
You've just given me the only reason that matters to be a Democrat - and it's a pretty damn good one.
Marshall is a smart man.
and needs to be the next US Congressman from NC-03.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I've started and deleted
at least five posts on this thread, because frankly, the question:
is a damned tough one to answer.
Aside from the fact that I'm a baby Democrat and not well-versed in electioneering, most of my (formal)studies were international in nature, so I've been playing catch-up on Constitutional issues and American politics here recently.
Also, I could easily make a list of issues I want the Democratic Party to be responsible for, but that's egocentric and still doesn't address the question. I think Marshall's "rule of law" comments are spot on, and show why we need him in Congress, but that still doesn't define which laws they should be focusing on passing or rejecting.
Federal legislation has become so convoluted and riddled with ambiguous and conflicting language either a "yes" or "no" vote could be considered wrong (or right). While this may make it easy for politicians to claim they voted for or against x or y issue, it makes it damned difficult to verify.
But...as they say, all politics is local. If a candidate is elected in his/her district on a specific platform, they should be held accountable for following such. If the district itself is poorly educated on the issues or prefers regression over progress, that will be reflected at the polls.
With that in mind, the Democratic Party should arrive at a consensus platform based on majority beliefs, and stick to it. If you have a regressive district, you educate the populace, you don't support an individual who will ignore/degrade the platform.
You're good, Steve
Thanks for redirecting the discussion.
Something else to consider,
and your comments about how much you and Jane have contributed over the years in time as well as money set my mind whirring a little bit:
There's an ungodly amount of money tied up in campaigning. I'm not going to preach about the need for drastic reforms in this area (yet), but I do want to make a few observations:
While there is a lot of grass roots-type fundraising for specific candidates and/or issues, many people only/also give to national and state parties based on general ideological perceptions—"I give to the Democratic Party because I believe in x, y and z, and so do they."
When the Party elite decide to support a conservative Democratic candidate, regardless of the demographics of the district, they are misappropriating donated dollars and violating the trust of the donors. Period.
As far as I'm concerned, DINOs and Blue Dogs should be vigorously primaried and then left to sink or swim on their own efforts. Supporting them on a national level to fill seats with "D"s may seem like a pragmatic solution, but it's not. It is changing the way the Party perceives itself, and changing the way Americans perceive the Party.
Expediency is often the behavior of foolish, short-sighted people, and rarely leads to success.
Well said.
"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute
I've only been contributing $ to individual candidates for the
last couple of national cycles just for the reasons you discussed, S. I used to give to the DSCC and DCCC, but now I truly feel my money (and time for that matter) should be used to promote candidates I would like to see elected, whether that be locally or in another State. In the end, I realize that my Congressman or Senator represents me personally, but without a collection of like minded brethern and sistern in the Congress, there may not be enough of these progressives to put forward the game plan I would like to see implemented. Therefore, sending money to a Senate candidate in Washington state or a Congressional candidate in Alabama makes more sense to me than sending it to a clearing house that might give it to someone I wouldn't vote for in a million years, even if they have a - D after their name.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
That is a wise approach,
and if everybody did that, the political landscape would be much different.
Unfortunately, the average contributor is not well-versed in Party behavior, just as the average voter knows very little (of substance) about the specific candidates they vote for. That may come off as elitist and insulting, and I apologize for that. But it's true.
side note: Chuck Schumer and his Mukasey vote have been mentioned a few times here as evidence of the Party elite's apparent disonnect with the rest of us. But what bothers me even more than that, is the fact he (Schumer) apparently floated Mukasey's name to the administration last year as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court. ;o
There's an excellent analysis of this issue at Kos
If you're really interested in understanding where the soft-underbelly resides, it is here.
I think this might be the crux of the matter...
From Stan:
Actually I take it that you have. When you maligned the Democratic Party as a whole that includes all Democrats - party officers, elected officials and all registered dems. As I have tried to emphasized is previous posts, that is what I have taken exception to. If you have a concern with the DNC (Dean) or the NCDP (Meek or Allen) then please specify as such. When you lob verbal grenades at the whole Democratic Party that takes in a lot of territory. If you want to take a virtual sniper rifle to those who have less than progressive voting records go for it.
From Betsy:
The OP was insulting to 99.5% of dems across this country, myself included. Consider that my opening comment was directed at his behavior vis a vis the OP, not directed at Stan personally.
I have only gone "ballistic" once on BlueNC, and this isn't it.
From Stan:
That is exactly the way it came across to me, and it would seem that I am not the only reader who who feels that way.
Here's what I think happened with Stan and the OP. It is rank suppostion, I freely admit.
Stan has long been bothered, to put it mildly, by Mcintyre and the growing BS wrought on this country by Bush et al.
The comment concerning Shuler and 'taking what you can get' twanged that McIntyre nerve, and he responded in a stream of consciousness in his OP. The OP was rather emotional and so somewhat vague (to me at least) regarding just who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. The Mcintyre connection didn't click with me until Stan provided that link at the end of one of his later posts. If McIntyre were my congressman I'd be irritated also.
Unfortunately the voters of the 7th seem rather content with McIntyre, and they are the ones who are ultimately to blame for returning him to DC term after term. The 7th seems rather democratic, at least by voter reg. Anyone know how a primary challenger might do? Has it been tried in the past? Has the NCDP or DCCC interfered in past primaries to keep "their guy Mike" in DC?
I don't see it as the Party's job to twist the arms of elected officials to get them to vote a certain way. I also don't think DC-ers should insert themselves into primaries. Ultimately its the constituents who should have the greatest (only?) influence on how their elected officials vote.
Person County Democrats
No, the crux of the matter is that you didn't like Stan's
opinion...which was expressed in a pretty level-headed way. You then proceeded to insult him by saying his rant sounded like a petulant four year old throwing a tantrum. You didn't give specifics like Stan did....you just got your knickers in a twist and struck out instead of responding in a reasonable manner.
It happens.
I admit
I didnt read all of the stuff prior to this. But I think this is a very reasoned post.
I would say to Stan, why dont you run? Even if you lose, even if you spend no more money than gas and printer paper, give it a shot, so that you can ask these questions. McIntyre will almost certainly win, but maybe if you ask the right questions enough times and yell loud enough in the right places you can move the people of the 7th and move McIntyre.
"Keep the Faith"
I've thought about it.
He's already squirming.
SE NC Dems
Where do I sign?
Go for it, Stan.
Remember, Stan....he signs checks. :)
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
For progressive Democrats, that is.
"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute
The crux, persondem, is this....
Everyone has an opinion. You seem to think everyone but yours stinks. You're quite free with hyperbole and inflammatory insults in defense of what some might perceive as self-righteous and self-serving indignation. You seem wholly intolerant of other's views. You even have the audacity to make assumptions about others and then write a critique using your own rank assumptions as basis. You do get an A+ for impudence and chutzpah.
See ya....
SE NC Dems
No just your opinions concerning this OP stinks.
I am free with hyperbole.... please, do some reading. I haven't aimed a single inflammatory remark at you personally, at your behavior regarding the OP yes, and just the one line.
It is you who can't stand it when someone else dares to call you on your exaggerated rhetoric.
You have something insightful to say, I'll back you. You lob more verbal granades at my Party as a whole, and I'll be there as well.
Person County Democrats
When "your party" messes up...and it does so fairly often
I expect you are planning on being here to take the heat, right? I mean...I can point out things the Meck Dems have done that are horrible and a pretty big fuckup on the state party's dime.....If I list them, are you going to accept responsibility or are you going to deflect, defend and excuse away their mistakes?
People like Stan and I don't expect our party to settle for simply being better than the Republican party. We expect our party to stand up for what is right all the time....not just when it is convenient or popular. Sometimes just isn't good enough.
Now, I believe that people are elected to represent their constituency which means that not all Dems will be able to lean hard left and still represent the people in their district or state. That doesn't mean I'm going to give them a pass if their vote harms this country or the people who live here.
I don't know that the state or national party can do much about someone's votes when they don't align with Democratic ideology, but the party leadership in DC can hold back leadership positions on committees if push comes to shove. I'm sure that would open an entirely new can of worms, but it is at least a possibility. The party can also hold back on GOTV money or other assistance given during election cycles, but I don't know how much they really do for incumbents anyway. Is it the Party's job? Sure it is. If it is their job to develop and recruit candidates, it certainly is their job to encourage Democrats who hold office to vote along party lines....however...it is also their job to understand that we're lucky to have some Dems elected in certain districts because the alternative isn't a more liberal Dem....it's a Republican. Nice tightrope they have to walk, but it is the nature of the beast.
I don't always agree with Stan, but I appreciate his perspective. I know that it comes from years of experiences that are different from mine and I can learn from him.
i'm ill so this will be short
My problem with the post was how Stan "lobbed bombs" as person phrased it, at the party as a whole. I'm part of that party, so I take that personally. He also used specific allegations directed at specific people. And he made his case well.
My issue is with the overly general fashion he attacked the party. I had the same problem when all of you, especially you Betsy, said that "the party" didn't want Jim to run becuase he is gay. That offends a lot of us becuase you are insinuating that we are homophobic and/or bigoted.
I did not say that. Now you're just lying isabelabadone.
Do not attribute another lie to me. Do not attribute lies to any community members here at BlueNC. When you knowlingly attribute words to someone they did not say - especially damaging words - you are playing in the land of libel. Consider this your first cease and desist notice.
Now Betsy
You actually said to me something along the lines of, sometimes we don't need evidence to know someone's guilty when I asked you and Robert to come up with one shred of evidence to back up Robert's claim that the elders of the state party were backing kay hagan just because he's gay. Do you need me to go back and dig up the actual quote?
Lying once again isabelabadone
Sine you don't have the brain power to actually remember what people said I dug the quote up for you.
You kept screaming for proof. I simply said that sometimes you don't need it. Sometimes you can look at the timing of events and use good old fashioned common sense - or prior experience - to make a safe assumption. That is NOT calling someone....ANYONE a homophobe. You took what I said and twisted it into something it is not.
Here's the deal. I've now had to ask you to stop libeling people...because that is in fact what you are doing when you attribute words to them that they did not say....oh..say three or four times now.
You do know that you make yourself look more ignorant with each comment, right?
Where did you go to law school?
University of Phoenix? Paraphrasing is not a form of libel, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think my interpretation of your remarks was far off at all. You were defending Robert against my "screaming" for proof of his allegation that party insiders were conspiring against Jim just because he is gay.
Accusing faceless members of 'the party' of discriminating against Jim because he is gay, which Robert did and you agreed with, is discriminatory and homophobic. Do you think that it's not?
After almost two years at BlueNC
I have never met anyone who has made him/herself such a total pain in the butt so quickly as you have. In some other universe, your insistence that you are right in this matter might be a welcome and moral stand, but in this small fishbowl it is tedious.
Whether you want to accept it or not, "gay" was factored into the equation when the DSCC redoubled its efforts to recruit another Democrat into the race. I know this from personal conversations with people in Raleigh and in Washington. I also know that the playing field is not level. And I could care less whether you believe me or not.
Was "gay" the only factor in this debacle? Of course it wasn't. No one has said it was. But pretending that it was not a consideration is an absurd position to take.
If you want to write about other issues, I'll be happy to join the conversation. But this is the last time I'm going to respond to your delusions on this topic.
Feel free to criticize me for stifling debate. That is exactly what I am trying to do.
Ugh, I'm so tired of this discussion
I've already said that I'm sure Jim being gay factored into a lot of people's opinion of the man and his candidacy, pro and con.
My problem was that Robert said that it was the ONLY reason.
"just because Jim Neal was gay." This whole time, I'm taking issue with that phrase. Why do you continue to act like it wasn't said? I'm still pissed at that and how he made her out to be a tool of homophobes.
With that said, I think I'm going to try to be a little nicer and less confrontational around here. I usually am a pretty decent woman. I just found those statements to be inaccurate and border-line libel... yes Betsy, libel.
But they aren't libel
You can make up your own meaning of the word to suit yourself, but they aren't libel. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Also, look up the meaning of the term, "public figure" as it pertains to libel and slander.
You think you're tired of this conversation. You're the person who keeps bringing it up. Think about it. You are responsible for the continued discussion along this theme.
Check the link, I'm not making up anything.
It is to one of those new-fangled online dictionaries you told me about. And I am tired of the topic, but I never get tired of arguing with you. You're the fun one here.
You're right about the additional burden when public figures claim libel against an accuser, but who cares? No one is filing suit. I know about case law, New York Times v Sullivan. That's why I said the charges were borderline libel.
Again...
Robert and a number of others made the claim that Democratic candidates, the DSCC, and 'insiders' at the NCDP discriminated against Jim just becuause he's gay. His words. No proof and none needed according to you.
You CAN'T libel UNNAMED PERSONS
Robert did NOT claim that anyone discriminated against Neal because he's gay. There you go inserting words nobody ever used. He never said that a candidate discriminated against Neal. He never said that anybody discriminated against Neal.
Good Lord.
Oh...and I'm not arguing with you. I'm educating you. Guess what. Class is over. Do me a favor though...please register Republican. They deserve you.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
I know, and that's why I asked
whom he was talking about, names. And also, I said borderline libel. Understand?
Betsy: "There you go inserting words nobody ever used."
Look above, or at the OP. There are the words that allege what I said.
Again, from the OP:
Right there saying exactly that the DSCC and the Democratic candidates discriminate against Neal's campaign "just because he is gay." That's homophobic and discriminatory, don't you think?
Am I still ignorant or a liar?
You put words into my mouth that I didn't say
does that make you a liar?
I'll let you figure that one out.
You insist that Robert accused people of being homophobes. He didn't use that word in the original post. That's your addition.
Robert is putting two and two together. You might not like the conclusion he comes to, but he's entitled to his opinion. What he said wasn't even borderline libel. I guess that's like being sorta pregnant.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
I think it may be homophobic
and I've been around the earth long enough to know that it's probably true. I've met enough of these people to make an educated guess as to the consternation Jim's outing caused. Discriminatory? No. Neal was not prevented from registering, filing, running, etc. Nor was Hagan, or anyone else.
Robert was stating his opinion based on the facts that we have seen so far. It's still America, and despite efforts of BushCo, we still have nominal freedom of speech.
And if anyone wants my opinion (I doubt it, at this point) - there are a lot you acting like spoiled children on this thread. Just cut it the fuck out.
There are more important things to talk about than whether Robert libeled anyone, or whether or not the DSCC is homophobic - 2008 is officially here. we've got work to do.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Why does it look like my message
to isa is a reply to you? It isn't. I left it before you posted.
I am not acting like a spoiled child, so there. Phlllllaaaaatttttt.
Hmmmph
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
It doesn't look like that here.
And I'm cutting you slack because you haven't been feeling well.
But yeah - the he said, no I said, no she said nature this thread is taking on is tiresome.
You know what happens when you feed a fire? It burns. Let's get on to the real work now - putting progressives in office in less than one year.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
My...aren't we the witty one?
You aren't paraphrasing. You don't get to change the meaning of someone's words when you paraphrase. There are really good online dictionaries. I suggest you use one.
I didn't accuse faceless members of the party of being homophobic. I said that IF (shall I define this word for you?) Chuck Shumer was recruiting Kay Hagan and Neal's background gave no other reason why he would not make a good candidate, then I could only assume that Shumer was homophobic.
I defended Robert against your constant demands for proof after they became tedious and unreasonable and I gave a general explanation of why someone might not need "proof"...... An explanation that most people would think is reasonable. If your reading comprehension skills were as strong as your ability to just make shit up, you might be a formidable opponent.
Are you and persondem on one of those vinegar diets?
If not, consider going to the vet and getting dipped to get rid of whatever is making you so quarrelsome and snide.
SE NC Dems
Isa . . . If you take what we say about the party personally
we're never going to get along.
II think taking what people say about the party personally makes about as much sense as taking what people say about America personally.
I lived in NC during the Hunt administration but I don't feel personally connected to the Hunt machine. There are still county chairs out west that say openly "No one wants to be a precinct chair when there's no jobs to hand out." I'm repulsed that they think they have a legitimate complaint.
And Jerry Meek ran against this kind of insider behind-the-scenes manipulation and strong-arming but he can't change everything. Or maybe he's given up trying because one guy can't change a state-wide inbred culture of entitlement, patronage, and favor-trafficking.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
that's a good point
I just wanted to point out that some of us take such things personally, as members of the NCDP. We're not all faceless cigar-chomping back-room dealers you know... So lobbing bombs at the party in general includes a lot of well-meaning progressives, such as myself.
I see it this way.
Since I am a member of the Party - I have the right to throw rocks at it if I think it's necessary. I work hard for Democratic causes and candidates. That gives me the right to call bullshit - on the party or on individual members - if I see fit. And since I live in a place where there are fewer of us than there are of them - I've developed a thick skin when it comes to bombs lobbed by others, either from within or without.
If you're part of a Party - you've got to accept that sometimes rocks are going to be thrown. You gotta learn to separate yourself from the things that draw the rocks, and work like hell to eliminate them.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I've been considering this remark, persondem, and several of
your other comments. Here's my final take on what you've had to say.
You're full of shit.
My original question was what the Party's responsibility was...as it related to having a role in influencing elected representatives to support issues/legislation (which I defined as core issues) that were important to sustaining our republic and clearly in the best interests of the citizenry. I gave numerous examples of how my own congress-wimp had failed and how others have also failed.
I said I was "frosted" that someone would advise that I should be happy with whatever I can get from elected Democrats because I would get even less from elected Republicans.
I suggested (for discussion) the Party had a role and a responsibility to not bury its head in the sand after folks were elected...and to use the power of the party to cause elected representatives to pay attention to their constituents...or to take a stand when elected officials were clearly involved in questionable activities.
And I suggested that, to my knowledge, the Party had not done much in those regards. I said:
You've responded, not with reasoned arguments as to why you think I'm wrong, but with claims of "exaggerated rhetoric" and
The only exaggerated rhetoric has been your own...and what you deemed "mostly unworthy of comment" has in fact been worthy of considerable discussion...unfortunately diluted and hijacked by your own need to verbally jerk off as you defended the Party against "virtual grenades" and "sniper rifles." and attacked me for allegations & criticisms I never made...but which you chose to infer (Waxman, Miller, etc.).with your broad brush of defensive hyperbole.
Like Anglico, I've been a long time supporter of progressive causes and the defense of our nation against collaspe from within...by the excesses and stupidity of those we've elected. Never, since World War II, have we been in such danger of losing America as we are today. Our Constitution has indeed been gutted, our food supplies and medical supplies are tainted, we are in debt way over our heads, and our poor and middle classes are under assault by the very people we chose to represent us. That is not exaggeration...it's a fact.
If the Democratic Party, as an institution, cannot or will not take an active and palpable role in supporting the causes deemed important by a majority of Democrats...or take an active role in pressing our elected representatives to take immediate and principled action to repair the damage, then the Party is, or soon will become, irrelevant.
Rather than viewing criticisms and unsettling questions as a attack, both poitical and personal, Democratic Party leadership should view them as alarms and warnings that things are not going well....and make a course correction.
If. like you, other Party leaders not only ignore those who are critical but also attack them as disloyal, this Party is doomed. I wrote Jerry several times recently disagreeing with what I viewed as efforts to de-secularize the Party and go down the Republican path of associating politics with religion. He disageed. He's the Chair...that's his privilege.
Here's my privilege...to say I'm not going to participate in this charade. Ah....no big deal. I'm not even a ripple on the sea. Except...over the past 18 months or so we've donated into five figures to Democratic Candidates and the Party...we've organized monthly luncheons for local actiivists and promoted the party thru good deeds for the community...and actually travelled to far away places to support our Democratic candidates. We've held fundraisers and GOTV session