The Rude Pundit: Your Stupid Fight About Who's a Better Democrat Is Stupid

[babylonsister]

Last edited Mon Aug 7, 2017, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

The Rude Pundit

Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
8/07/2017
Your Stupid Fight About Who's a Better Democrat Is Stupid


If my house is ever on fire, I won't give a shit who comes to put it out. I won't ask them who they voted for, I won't ask them where they're from, I won't ask a goddamned thing except that they put the fire out. In fact, while my house is burning, I don't even care if lack of fire safety on the part of the fire department is what caused the fire. I just want the fire out. I wanna make sure everyone in the other apartments get out okay. I want the animals to be safe. I don't want the fire to jump to other buildings on this block. And I wanna try to save some of my shit. I won't stop each firefighter and say, "Whoa, whoa, did you fill up the fire truck with BP gas today? No, you don't get to break down the door and rescue that baby."

And when the fucking fire is out, hopefully there's enough there to rebuild. That's when I'm gonna wanna know: what the hell went wrong? Did the building inspectors fuck up? Can we come up with better ways to fight fires? And do we need to recruit a better group of fire fighters? That's when we should make it better.

The feeling I get when I see the Twitter wars and meme battles on Facebook and Instagram and comment threads of the damned in too many other places is that Democrats across the board just need to shut the fuck up already and fight the fire. For the world is burning before our eyes. One by one, the very things that made the nation a relatively stable liberal democracy (I said, "relatively" ) are being burned like fields of diseased corn. Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the Congress and in state legislatures around the country are successfully reconfiguring the way the nation functions, right down to the right to vote. If someone is going to put themselves out there to successfully challenge the arsonists, then I'm gonna support them, whether they're a corporate teat-sucker who wants to get back to the pre-Trump status quo or a socialist maniac ready to reconfigure the social contract to make it tilt to the poor and disempowered.

more...

http://rudepundit.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/your-stupid-fight-about-whos-better.html

[Zoonart]

1. OMG... THANK YOU!

[sandensea]

8. Sadly, the left/center left in many countries tends to be exactly like that.

And while they're having their asinine fights about who better "stands up for the people," some slick neofascist rides into office (typically using racial identity politics), and runs roughshod over all of them and the people.

Such is life.

[onit2day]

47. Don't be dAft. Just make sure they want

to put the fire out or recognize there is one.. Some would let it burn cause we need the land for something else etc.. But yeah I syupport anyone who is against this repub crap. I don't see dems fighting over that. Just mostly how to implement our agenda and being progressive often means the corporate interests or DLC loses power in the party of the people. After all the majority of the nation is center left according to the polls but if you represent Wall street over Main street then you don't represent me but I'll help you put out the fire lol.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Yup.

[BittyJenkins]

3. What MATTERS....

is if we keep our democracy alive!!! Why let the schmucks take it away because someone is not "pure" enough. That is frightening because it sounds like white supremacy.

[onit2day]

48. "Not pure enough" What does that even mean

When and where has anyone even said or done that? Who is it said about? Just a headline or what

[democrank]

4. Highly recommended

Again and again

[docgee]

5. Thank you!

[tiredtoo]

6. excellent! thank you

[mountain grammy]

7. K&R

Why do I get the feeling he wrote this just for DU?

[Leith]

16. It Sure Seems That Way

For those who can't stand if a candidate isn't shouting long enough or loud enough for your particular cause: fight for the rest of it! Nobody has forgotten you. Tomorrow we will all fight for you and yours.

Unless...

Your whining and moaning resulted in the Democrat losing the election. That makes you the enemy and tomorrow's fight is against you. Nobody gives a shit for your cause now because you helped the rethugs win and get into office. They just declared your pet cause illegal.

Thanks for nothing.

[lunasun]

17. No it's out there everywhere besides here. Same spiel as here .

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. Kick and Rec!

Its almost comical in here sometimes.
How "purity" accusations are used to defend a purist attitude themselves.

Like Bernie and his supporters are leftist purists. And he's wrong to ask for changes in the top down corporate structure in the Democratic party etc..

Then they hate Bernie because he endorsed Mello, because he was religious and said he was against abortion. Makes no difference that he is also pro-choice, and funding women's health, and voted against defunding Planned Parenthood. A candidate cannot even have personal opinions that are different. So the same people are also rabid purists against the establishment Dem big tent blue dog approach.

[longship]

20. Anybody who expects top-down change lives in dreamland.

Political change has always come from bottom-up.

D'ya wanna change your political party? Then run for fucking precinct delegate! And get like minded allies to do the same. Get this: it is fucking useless to hang a party's political future solely on who occupies the Oval Office. The extent Democrats think like this is the extent that the party will remain in the minority.

Bottom-up is how the Moral Majority (Jerry Falwell) and the Christian Coalition (Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed) did what they did beginning in the late 1970's. We are now living with our collective ignorance at that time.

Let's learn by our mistakes instead of attempting to repeat them.

It's a bottom-up deal here folks. That's how one changes a party's direction.

[LiberalLovinLug]

31. I agree

I was pointing out that besides the purity test folks on here, from the left and the right, there are also the confounding species known as the double standard purist. Who is caught demanding their version of purity when it suits their needs, but lambasts the 'other' purity if it goes against their opinions.

[Phoenix61]

33. So agree about the Oval Office

IMO that's how we lost so many seats in state legislatures.

[Pachamama]

51. +1000

I agree with what the Rude Pundit said using the analogy of focusing on putting out the fire right now and worrying later about rebuilding the fire department, inspectors etc.

And I agree with your comment about the focus needs to not be on just having the Oval Office and change coming from the bottom up - although we do need to make sure the leadership from the top reflects the values that we want represented.

I believe that the Jerry Falwell and Christian Coalition etc. understood this well and have been working hard for almost 40 years and look what they have been able to do. Of course, this doesn't take into account gerrymandering etc., but if we don't have people running for office or the realization that in some areas of this country, a more moderate candidate may need to be accepted in order to win the majority (and thus the control of Congress) then I do not believe we have a chance to stop the fire from spreading and put it out.

[onit2day]

50. It's the last gasp of the DLC. This purity thing

"So because we stand for Wall street and lobbyists and banksters instead of the people, the working man the middle class and the working poor we're not pure enough?" Well yeah, kind of. That's not my democratic party, the party of FDR, Johnson but I'm sure there's a place for you...not a dominate one...but a place. Down on Main street.

[Squinch]

59. You might want to read that OP again.

[longship]

10. I have to post Rude's two end notes here.

(Note 1: If your response of "We'll never save the country if we don't totally agree with my side," hey, good luck. And you might wanna respond "Aren't you just telling everyone to agree with you?" Well, I don't think anyone disagrees with "Put out the raging fire in any way you can.&quot

(Note 2: Your variations on the burning house metaphor are adorable. Pat yourself on the back if you're thinking, "Well, the fire was started by Bernie voters" or "The DNC is the arsonist, man." And keep it the fuck to yourself.)

The Rude one gets it.


Some folks here do not. Shame on them.

[Dustlawyer]

30. I made the same point as The Rude One today

in an anti-Bernie post, though a lot less elequintly.

I have decided to go one further and start calling out those who are divisive and I urge the rest of us to do the same. Maybe if they know they will be shouted down they will be less likely to post this crap.

Like you said, some folks here just don't get it!

[dsc]

37. I take him to mean in an anti Bernie thread he was posting within

not a post he himself made.

[Dustlawyer]

40. I apologize for not being clear in a couple of respects.

First, i am a Bernie supporter. Wish he would have gone all of the way. He is practically the only incumbent decrying the money in politics on a regular basis.

Second, I should have pointed out I will call it both ways, my point is that we must pull together and win control first before we debate on the best path forward. We have to stop the bleeding first. We cannot have Bernie supporters attacking the more Establishment or conservative Democrats.

Third, I am sure many of the people I will be calling out will not be people, but Bots, but the message will be there anyway.


Fourth and lastly, I will try to stay within the rules here at DU.

Sorry I gave the wrong impression.

[calimary]

68. Well, seems to me it IS up to THEM to come back and unite with the rest of us.

It's not some sin to be practical. It's not a bad thing to be pragmatic. It's not apostasy against one's principles to be realistic about one's actual chances of success.

Seems to me WE aren't the ones who can throw a lasso or something over them and drag them back against their will. THEY have to step up. I confess I'm having to fight DAMN HARD to stop holding a grudge about it, but then again, that's my problem. Seems to me there were many who reveled in the idea of being rebellious merely for the joy of being rebellious. Or something. Whatever the case, it allowed them to find plenty of justification NOT to unite behind the nominee. Now, considering the results we're all stuck with, I just wonder if some still believe the best thing to do is splinter off from the main group - which then disables that larger group, while marginalizing the rebels and offering them no hope of "winning" anything.

I'm also having a DAMN HARD time trying to force myself to feel the same affection for friends of mine who now admit they voted for trump. SHAME ON THEM ALL!!! NO excuse whatsoever - they knew better! Or they should have known better. And in my case, I did everything I could to make sure that those truths that should have allowed them to know better were hand-delivered directly to them by me, personally. Now, I have to hold my tongue, HARD, not to come down on some of them with verbal fists flying, or even just end our friendship outright.

I still mean it to this very hour when I say if Bernie had been the nominee, I absolutely would have voted for him. Might have held my nose while I did so, but he would indeed have had my vote. Without question. I think party unity is not just important, I think it's utterly CRITICAL! It's not just a good thing, it's THE ONLY thing.

[dogandturtlemom]

11. Don't shoot each other

My feeling exactly. I was for Bernie, but backed Hillary after primaries. I think that there are plenty who wish a Democratic Party in disarray, creating plenty of negative comments about Democratic candidates with promise for our future. We cannot commit suicide for our party. Plan for a strong message for the protections long supported by our party. Emphasis on protections! Republicans want to dismantle our protections ( they call them stifling regulations). Keep emphasizing protection.

[ismnotwasm]

12. I love Democrats!

[msdogi]

13. Nailed it

Thanks rudeness, as usual you are brilliant, and right.

[Cryptoad]

14. Kinds reminds me of all

the Fundy's fighting over who really has the "only" way to Heaven!

[longship]

24. Apparently they all agree that it's President Drumpf.

Visit Right Wing Watch some day. You will learn just how fucking barking mad today's GOP is. It's a daily visit for me.

Scary!

[FuzzyRabbit]

15. Sabotage?

It would not surprise me to learn that many of these postings are done by either Republicans or their Russian masters in an effort to divide and weaken progressives and the Democratic party.

[dogandturtlemom]

18. Agree

I think there are plenty of fake comments just to put us in disarray!

[lunasun]

19. Success to disruptors is for Dems to actually lose more seats than we have now

by division

[Greywing]

26. And I agree ...

Some days I am surprised by some of the in-fighting on DU. There is a "monster" out there personified by 45 and many (most?) Republicans currently serving in Congress. It seems logical to me that we should be uniting in an effort to defeat the monster and cut off its head rather than splintering into so many factions. United we stand.

[Iggo]

21. Not voting for anti-choice candidates, and I'm not going to argue about it.

Y'all can do what you want.

[Greywing]

27. And the power of the vote is what counts ... not the argument. I applaud you. n/t

[XRubicon]

43. Thanks for bringing the gasoline!

[Jakes Progress]

56. Did you vote for Obama/Biden?

[Squinch]

60. This. Right now (and right now only) it's the "argue" that's the

problem.

I'm with you on the vote, but I'm not going to give the Republicans and the media the fodder to construct a narrative of Democratic division - or let them sow the discord that lets them construct that narrative.

Every Democrat needs simply to vote D wherever his or her conscience allows. For me, abortion is the one issue where my conscience would prevent me from voting for an anti-choice Dem. But until the Republic is safeguarded, I'm not going to argue with other Democrats online about it. Republicans, yes. But not Democrats.

[Podkayne K]

22. It's simple...

only two could win
if you didn't vote for her
you voted for him!

[iluvtennis]

23. The pundit is on point.

[Paladin]

25. "Let's save the country first." THANK YOU, RUDE PUNDIT!!!! (nt)

[XRubicon]

28. Exactly This.

[ecstatic]

29. Perfect. The infighting at a time like this is so ridiculous

Many people are really scared and questioning whether this will even be a democracy in 5 years. The shit-stirrers are either trolls or the super duper privileged.

[CaptainTruth]

34. YES! YES! YES! PLEASE Democrats ... let's get our act together & focus on the big picture.

If we don't WIN seats/offices throughout government then NONE of our goals/priorities/values will be realized, & our country may slide backwards in dangerous ways (overturning Roe v Wade? Pence & the GOP would do it if they could).

That said, what I see on social media (mainly Twitter) is that the vast majority of this "purity test" & "he/she isn't a real Democrat" BS is not coming from Democrats, it's coming from people who want to divide Democrats & sow discord & disagreement within our party. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

According to the most recent Gallup data I found (July 5-9, 2017) party affiliation breaks down as follows:
Republicans 25%
Democrats 28%
Independents 45%

Link to data:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

So, every time you see someone dismissing a politician/candidate because "they're not a Democrat," realize that they're dismissing the 45% of Independent voters & dooming Democrats to being a minority party.

I know we're better than this, we're the only hope America has right now. #UniteBlue

[smirkymonkey]

35. K&R

[Whiskeytide]

36. This has to be a sliding...

... scale based upon reason and common sense. At some point, a candidate's actual positions and record becomes unacceptable, regardless of the fact that they might have a "D" beside their name. Staying with the burning apartment theme, if a fireman comes through the door with a can of gasoline, I'm stopping them.

I suppose that "purity line" can fall in different places for different people. But for it to fall at only one or two issues is asinine, short sighted and unfairly prejudicial to fellow Dems. By that latter point, I mean that if there are 12 planks in the platform, and you withhold your vote because a candidate doesn't follow 2 of them, you've just shat upon your fellow Dems who might be directly affected by policy on the other 10. That's pretty simple.

I suggest that if you declare yourself a single issue voter, you are thereafter relegated to complaining ONLY about that issue. It controlled your vote. Thus, it should control you post election quarterbacking.

[world wide wally]

38. As somebody once said,

"United we stand. Divided we fall"

[zentrum]

39. So Rude!

[Arazi]

41. Yup, this fucking this

[Blaukraut]

42. There will always be the purity contingent

They feel superior in their roles as purity patrol and doomsayers. They thrive during opposition government because their primary concern is to complain about how terrible things are, and how they ought to be. That's a lot easier than actually having to govern and heavens forbid! compromise.

[concreteblue]

44. So many threads lately that this addresses.....

I agree with him. Stop refighting the primaries. Stop trying to assign your narrow analysis/viewpoint about the last election to the next one (or two). Just jump in and help stop the Criminal GOP.

[riderinthestorm]

45. Yes!! 2018 is nigh... time to unite our allies and get busy winning nt

[Aristus]

46. That's exactly what I was thinking since long before the election.

Shit, all the way back to Election 2000, when ideological purity on the part of Democrats became more important than beating awful Republicans at the polls.

K&R...

[Hekate]

49. Spot. On.

[Pachamama]

52. Great editorial by the Rude One and spot on...

[Heartstrings]

53. OMG! Spot on!

Thank you!

[Beartracks]

54. Hell, yeah!

============

[SHRED]

55. Russia added fuel to this and many bit

And it looks to me like they got their targeting details from the Mercers and Kushner.

[Jakes Progress]

57. Hate to admit it

but it seems many on the "left" are just as susceptible to "red meat" as those on the far right.

It is a different message, but the goal is the same - russia bots dangle the rancid meat and the easily duped rise to the bait creating the sought after chaos. Too easy.

[DinahMoeHum]

58. Thank You, RP !!!! Nailed it!!

This "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" attitude among the purity princesses in the progressive ranks is fuckingly IRKSOME.

As a progressive, you wanna "take over the Democratic Party"???
Great, but first, you gotta become a member of the Democratic Party.

Be a member and get involved on the local level.

As the candidate for County Executive in my area says: "to get to Berlin, first you have to get to Normandy"

[Muneraven]

61. It Isn't a Simple Problem

1. There is a difference between being a one-issue voter and having a broad, basic support for all human rights that you don't feel should ever be compromised.
2. While the Democratic Party is light years better than Republicans, there is still a lot of misogyny floating around in liberal circles and women should not be pressured to tolerate restrictions on their own bodies just to be anti-Trump.
3. I didn't much like Hilary but I voted for her despite being unfriended, mocked, and attacked for supporting Sanders. But I came as close to leaving the Dems as I ever have in over thirty years of voting because of the vitriol. We can argue the issues without hating one-another. We can disagree without name-calling. If you want to curb division, curb the personal attacks and nastiness. People who don't have the exact same beliefs can live in the same tent, but not if they are hurling insults at one-another.

[betsuni]

62. I can't agree with "both sides do it" to the same extent.

In my opinion this isn't true.

[bullsnarfle]

63. The Rude.

Sweet voice of reason in the middle of a miserable, finger-pointing, back-biting hot mess.

"Only a fool fights in a burning house".
(Klingon proverb)

[Orsino]

64. The analogy to the fire department is incomplete.

Sure, we don't tend to quibble when there's an actual fire in our faces...but fire departments don't cause fires. We quibble more about, say, who's running the city, about what caused the fire, and why a particular set of problems were allowed to get bad enough that a fire started. We quibble over the best ways to allocate resources, and about what the fire and rescue crews are going to be working on once this fire is out.

But we sure as hell do also quibble about the purity of our fire fighters--largely because we are Democrats, whom Big Money is not forcing to a particular party line. I think this debate is mostly healthy, but there is a certain inevitable amount of foot-shooting.

[relayerbob]

65. YES YES YES!!!!!

Exactly!!!! FIGHT THE GODDAMN FIRE!!!!!!

[DownriverDem]

66. Totally agree

It makes me wonder who those folks really are. Are they just naïve? Are they paid bots to cause trouble? Are they just stupid? Did we learn anything after the 2016 election? The fight is with the repubs not each other!

[Podkayne K]

70. Problem is...

they didn't learn a damn thing from the 2000 election. Seriously doubt they now would suddenly look at the world and say, oh yeah, now we get it!

(Of course "Fire and Fury"--done by the facinorous--may make this this and all discussion pointless.)

[Scurrilous]

67. K&R

[HenryWallace]

69. Not a perfect analogy.

Yes, there is a wild fire raging! Nice of you to notice.

Your neighbors’ houses have progressively burned to the ground; one election after another in perfect regularity.

I suggest you check out the effectiveness of that fire department before the next time the winds are supposed to change!

[ffr]

71. K&R

I heard it on the radio yesterday where democrats are targeting democrats who support big-Pharma.

Yes, it's an issue, but right now our wagons should be circled. All hands on deck! We can fight about the other stuff once we're in the majority, for crying out loud!