Why-O-Why Do We Eat Our Own? ...... Why?

[Stinky The Clown]

(Note: gender references are purely for verbal simplicity.)

Some days its just one thread ... other days it is many.

He's a DINO. Kill him.

He's Republican masquerading as a Dem. Kill him.

He's divorced. Kill him.

He's a former general. Kill him.

He's way too liberal. Kill him.

He's way too conservative. Kill Him.

He's boring. Kill him.

He's a braggart and a blowhard. Kill him.

He caved in. Kill him.

He's too shrill. Kill him.

He voted (yea or nay) today. Kill him.

His spouse is (a drunk, a gambler, a former elected official). Kill him.

He's a whore for media time. Kill him.

Okay ... so you don't like this guy or that guy. Fine. There are some I don't like either. But fer krissakes, why do you have to wage the same tired war, day after day.

Look around you. These are **our** people. No wonder Dems can't win shit. We eat our own. Regularly.

How about, just for a week, we don't piss on every thread we see about this or that Dem personage who we dislike? How about, just for a week, we leave the same tired old crap to just sit there, rather than dragging it out, again and again, just to eat this guy or that guy?

I'm not suggesting we dance the Repulican Lock Step. I **am** suggesting we not eat our own.

I'm just as capable as anyone of throwing shit on a few of our own. There are some of our own I don't care for, and there are some of our own I just plain don't like. But I try (sometimes without success, admittedly, but more of than not, with success) to just let what gets said about my unfavorites slide.

All Eating Our Own does is drive wedges. And that's precisely what the other side wants. A divided and fractuous Democratic Party.

Just for a week.

Okay?

[jpgray]

1. Because dividing and conquering is way easier when the job's half done?

[Terran1212]

2. Because they aren't ours

Democracy means standing up for what YOU believe, not what's available. If that happened, almost none of the government we have today would exist. It'd be a government of the people, not the elite.

[RC]

11. Yeah, what you said.

We have too much of 'what's available' today.

There are the greedy sociopaths on the right and what used to pass for middle of the road republicans are now running the Liberal side.

That is why there is no loyal opposition any more. This country has shifted so far to the right, anyone not sufficiently right of the original center is labeled a being far loony left.

[Terran1212]

12. Exactly

Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold

They are really more center or center left than "loony left"

50 years ago we had 70+ percent tax brackets. What would these right wing fanatics we have today think of that? JFK the Commie?

[seabeyond]

30. then in standing up for what you believe in how about fact

i am even more amazed at the attacks on dems without fact. just made up, agenda based, hyperbole

[Zhade]

36. Great answer.

If only I could recommend individual posts!

[Nutmegger]

62. I second this reply

and would :thumbsup: it if possible.

Look, we need a strong party. Every Dem must answer, and defend, their positions.


Heeeeelllllooooo - this is why we have primaries people. This is Democracy and I'm going to fight for my beliefs and not adhere to a "Party" because in the end there is no "Party" but us.

[EFerrari]

3. Ends vs. means. Where do you stand?

:eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I guess I stand dense.

That was just a bit too cryptic for me.

[EFerrari]

7. Long week.

I agree we look before we chew.

But, there is this argument going around that no matter how Hackett got lost, it's in the best interest and so on.

And, that may be right, in the short run.

The crap they pulled to get this good man to recoil deserves a mention, not a rationalization.

You know, they could have approached him and said, "Paul, we won't back you for shit. Not only that, we will work against you."

:shrug:

Whatever.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. My OP wasn't about Hackett, per se ..... but as fresh as it all is, it ...

.... makes for a good case in point.

Fact: I know a fair bit about Hackett.

Fact: (heretofor) I knew almost nothing about Brown.

Fact: I love Paul Hackett's style.

But then came Skinner's well written post with some **real** facts. And now I understand far more than I did before. I can see the rationale behind backing Brown (if, indeed, that's what happened).

My own conclusion, which eats neither of them nor the DNC/DCCC/Rham Emanual/Shumer/Whoever is that Hackett kinda shot himself in the foot. He ran in good faith for the Senate. It didn't fly for reasons better enumrated elsewhere. He gave his word to the probably opponent of the despicable Jean S(c)h(m)i(d)t that he wouldn't make a primary challenge. The powers that be intervened. Paul Hackett had nowhere to go.

I will say that I am supremely disappointed by the whole thing because Paul Hackett is the type of man who is our future and I will miss watching kick "Coward-caller" Schmidt's ass. But I can live with it.

That's what facts do. They allow you to see clearer.

(and to anyone but sfexpat2000 ... this is NOT a Hackett thread, so please don't hijack it .... k?)

[EFerrari]

21. Sorry! Didn't mean to take the thread to left field. n/t

[The Magistrate]

55. To Desire An End, Ma'am

Is to desire use of the means necessary to achieve it. Who is not willing to use the necessary means does not really desire the end....

[EFerrari]

57. I'm sorry, that doesn't follow and we must not

take this thread, lol, in a direction that will distress the original poster.

:)

[renie408]

59. ooops...I should have read

the post and not just the title. Sorry if my previous response heads this thread off to a strange place.

[renie408]

58. Sir, that is why millions of Americans are willing to give up

their civil liberties to insure their safety against terrorism. Cause they REALLY want to be safe, so they are willing to be wiretapped.

I submit, Sir, that your logic would better suit the Republican Party as it connotes a willingness to subvert the Constitution and law to achieve an end.

Sir.

[The Magistrate]

61. That Is Hardly The Case, Ma'am

The proposition serves any who are actually interested in effecting their desires, as opposed to posturing.

Nor is the example you press an apt one, for the means you mention is far from necessary to achieve that desire. The greatest gaurantee of safety from that danger is the simple press of numbers; compared to such everyday risks as auto accidents, no person in this country faces any particular danger. The regulation for warrants is not one that actually impedes the nation's security agencies, as they may commence a tap and apply for the warrant afterwards.

[Usrename]

51. Explain to me how this can happen..

42 Dems voted against Alito for a seat on the SCOTUS. Yet since they only needed 41 to stop him, they somehow didn't have enough votes. Have you thought about this?

The simplest answer is that many of our Democratic leaders actually SUPPORT the Bush agenda of empire and greed. If this were not so, they would recognize the danger that he poses on the court. He seems to be a dyed in the wool corporatist who would put the rights of making profits above the rights of individuals to be protected from the greed and corruption.

This isn't a joke or intended to be a sarcastic response. Just tell me why 42 opposed him and yet there he sits on the bench. Isn't it possible our leaders are traitors, working for the other side, and playing us like fools.

Some definitely do everything in their power to defend this cabal and whitewash their crimes. How may bi-partisan investigations has Lieberman been responsible for to help hide their crimes? Bi-partisan investigations with this Congress. Don't you get how ridiculous that sounds. Bi-partisan. A buzzword for bury it.

[dubya_dubya_III]

54. Myopic lack of definition in US politics cuts both ways

[Captain Hilts]

5. Conservatives have learned to depend on us doing this. nt

[The Magistrate]

56. That They Have, Sir

Factional splinterism on the left has long been the secret weapon of the reactionary right. Those rascals hang together whatever their intramural differences in pursueiongt he goal of defeating and marginalizing the left. we do not, and need to learn to do so....

[Lorien]

6. Bush and McCain "ate their own" in the primaries

as do most political parties everywhere who want to have the best candidate to run against the opposition. If we censor one another when facts are presented about each of the candidates and plug our ears and scream "BASHER"! when anyone is critical of a politician with a (D) behind their name, then we simply won't weed out the weak to go against the strongest that the opposition has got.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Facts are one thing ...... and a thing to be used freely. My concern is

the tired, worn out rhetoric about long ago debunked crap. Or crap we don't have all the facts about. Just rcently, the whole Hackett thing. I can say I don't have enough facts to know the whole story, but I do know that there were some pretty strong pro Hackett and (to a somewhat lesser degree) anti Brown threads and posts. Skinner's recent post about this told me a lot more than I got from the threads that were little more than an exercise in party cannibalization.

And **that's** the kind of thing that concerns me. The lock step choruses and the gratuious posturing based on obscure/questionable 'facts' or assumed 'positions'.

Indeed .... **real** facts woud be a breath of fresh air when it comes to our tendencies toward cannibalisitic behavior.

[xiamiam]

8. because the line has been drawn in the sand...period....nt

[jarab]

10. You could have easily substituted ...

"I hate him/her" - and made the same point.

Certainly we're not becoming a "hate" site, but the "I hate" threads/posts are numerous. I don't know if it's more prevalent of late, but I am noticing it lots.
There is no excuse for "hating" anyone - by anyone. There are healthier responses which would still register extreme dissatisfaction .. but not "hate".
mho
...O...

sp. edit

[snowbear]

14. Nice post H2Sparkly! ~ Just remember the light @ the end of the tunnel !

You're 100% right that the bellyaching between DU'ers just never seems to end sometimes..

I've only been here through one presidential election.. but I'll bet you remember how intense the in-house squabbling gets during the period when everyone here has their own favorite nominees!


It's completely different than the "he's a Dippy Dumb Divorced Dino Dem DLC'er posts though!

Everyone is so too busy pumping up their nominee that this place rocks all night long!!

Then --- eventually --- and you remember this I'll bet -- once ONE NOMINEE has been chosen and the debates, etc. begin.. WOW.. everyone pulls together here big time!



I don't like dissing Democrats either. ..You just never know which one of them will become our next nominee.

[TahitiNut]

15. They taste better.

:shrug:

[Catchawave]

16. Thanks for this post Husb2 !

:hug:

[ruggerson]

17. You mean like you guys do with Mark Warner?

sorry couldn't resist

:hi:

[depakid]

18. The reason we lose

is BECAUSE we don't do ENOUGH to "eat our own."

Rather, we let the far right into the party- and enable their policies- thereby making it well near impossible to create a contrast of ideas or nationalize the election in a way that the Dems might actually become relevant again.

Unless or until people clue in on that- and the so called "leadership" takes steps to discipline the DINO's and for God's sakes get them off the TV every weekend- the Dems will keep losing. Over and over.

The way it's playing out- 2006 won't be any different than the last 6 Congressional elections, where the DINO's have essentially set the "strategy."

As long as the Dems embrace the right- and leave traditional Democratic values to gather dust in the closet- we'll lose. Period.

If the last 12 years- and especially the last 5 haven't taught people that very simple lesson, I don't know what will.

[The Straight Story]

19. So would you stand up for bush if he had (D) after his name?

Some of these folks we roast are bush enablers, they aren't helping the cause much at all.

Even the freepers call out their own when they suck. We can't give people a pass based on what party they claim to represent.

Clinton got off easy from the left imho on some things we would have hung bush out to dry for. This isn't about party as much as it about ideals and getting things made right. I don't need some dem dumb ass pandering to me from time to time, throwing me a bone. As mom used to say 'shit or get off the pot'.

[MrBenchley]

20. Good post!

I get tired of this constant anti-Democrat bilge.

[CTLawGuy]

22. cause we are tastier!

YUM!

[Armstead]

23. Dang, you beat me to it

I was going to say "because we taste so good."

[TahitiNut]

26. I beat you both. (See #15.)

KSOTO :shrug:

[OzarkDem]

27. Mmmmm....Tahiti nuts do taste good...n/t

[Armstead]

24. Because this is a discussion and debate forum

We're all trying to figure out how best to defeat the Bush/GOP/CONservative cabal.

Life'd be a lot easier if we all agreed on how best to do it, or who is best to help us do it. But we're not a monolithic mob, for better or worse.

Plus, it would be really boring if there was no disagreement or debate.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Discussion and debate is fine .... encouraged ... the raison d'etre for DU

What I'm talking about is the endless rehashing of the same old shit everytime this guy or that gets a mention.

Debate and discuss ..... but at some point, it is all repetitive, all be discussed, and serves no purpose except to .... well ..... encourage the eating of our own.

If new facts surface ... fine ... they **should** be discussed. But all too often it is the same person with the same one-note agenda trying to encourage the eating of our own.

Or worse yet ..... this place starts to act like a mob ...... watch, next time there's a vote in the House or Senate. Or next time some guy makes some speech someplace. Or is on teevee. Out they come .... the molotov cocktails fly and the mob rallies ..... facts and truth be damned.

[TahitiNut]

28. Consider this ...

(Referring to the 'map' below...) Think of yourself as a soldier on the terrain mapped below. You're firing your political artillery at the forces surrounding 'George W. Bush' and receiving return fire. The forces surrounding 'Joe Lieberman' are receiving some of your fire because they're too close to your target - and they're firing their political artillery, not at 'George W. Bush' but at the forces surrounding 'Dennis Kucinich' and 'Al Sharpton' - i.e. you. (Over 95% of all DUers map in the lower left quadrant of the Political Compass.)

Now, despite nearly four years in the military (of various kinds), I just cannot find any reason to refer to forces as "Allies" when they occupy territory adjacent to my enemy and continue to fire at me and not my enemy. Can you?

So, I don't give a rat's posterior what those people call themselves. When they're side-by-side with my enemy, fire at me, and don't oppose my enemy, I regard them as enemies. Period. To their false flag protestations I reply "go fuck yourselves."

[AndreaCG]

33. Al Sharpton's last Presidential race

was largely bankrolled by Republicans. His rhetoric and his actions are at odds.

[IronLionZion]

41. If you believe our guys are like George W. Bush

then you are like George W. Bush. Come on, any of our dems including Lieberman would be better than Bush. You can't trust political compass. They have Edwards to the right of Lieberman? In all fairness, Lieberman's views on issues other than war tend to be reasonable.

You know what? You can't even trust some of the general election bullshit. Candidates always claim to be moderate no matter what. And Bush was saying Kerry was a far-left flip flopper!

Even if you believe the political compass map you cited, out of the guys who have a chance of winning Kerry is most liberal!

[TahitiNut]

46. Come up with something better ...

... than sneers, personal attacks, and empty assertions and I might hear something that persuades me. I regard the Political Compass far better empirically than the constant bickering of personality cults and label loyalties. If you find something better, present it. As I've said before, some people would eat dry dog turds if they came in Baby Ruth wrappers. I won't.

I presented an analogy. Deal with it. I'm not interested in shit-flinging. :shrug:

[jen4clark]

60. Really curious how you

got this analysis? Did you take the test for the names on the chart in your post?

I ask because I can't find a chart at the site with the names shown on your chart here. If you took the test "for" them, I'd like to see how you answered the questions to get so many in the upper right portion of the chart. I don't believe it's correct.

Here's the chart I saw for the 2004 elections. Many of the names on your chart don't appear on the site:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Totally Committed]

29. gawdknows I love ya, H2S....

but I refuse to go mutely into one more goodnight for this Party. I will not be silent while another balless, colluding, corporate tool of a turkey is shoved down my throat. I just won't. And even my high esteem and fondness for you will not guilt-trip me into it, either.

This is who I am. This is what I want for my Party and my country. Thisis what I believe is right.... What I do, I do in all good conscience. What I post, what I believe, what I want will not be censored, toned-down, polited-up, or anything. Not for a week, not for a day, not for an hour, not for a minute, not even for you.

We are going down one more time if things don't change drastically. I won't be quiet about that.

Love,

TC

[BigYawn]

31. Because some of our politicians act based on polls rather than

principles and conviction.

[Cha]

32. Cause they taste

good?}(

[dolstein]

34. Because the left-wing would rather be marginalized than govern

It's obvious that there just aren't enough left-wing votes out there to provide the basis for an electoral or Congressional majority. But the left-wing would rather be part of a persecuted, marginalized minority than make the kind of compromises necessary in order to assemble a winning coalition. The left-wing prefers "moral victories", like the McGovern debacle of 1972 which returned Richard Nixon to the White House, than the electoral victories of more centrist candidates like Bill Clinton. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the best way to retake the White House would be by nominating a governor with a red state political base. But the left-wing is much more likely to embrace someone like Russ Feingold than Mark Warner. They'd rather lose than compromise.

[sendero]

35. Your post is ..

... 10% fact and 90% straw man. I've never heard anyone suggest "killing" or even "voting him out" for most of the crap in your list.

Anyone who acts like a bastard deserves to be eaten. And there are a few bastards in our party whether you think so or not.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. I didn't think there was a need to note that the term 'kill' was purely ..

.... rhetorical ...... but I was wrong.

The term 'kill' is, now, and was intended to be when written, purely rhetorical.

[sendero]

52. I wasn't commenting..

.... on your choice of terms. I was commenting on your concept.

I disagree with it completely. The vast majority of the criticism levelled here against Dems is richly deserved. If someone claims to be a Dem but does more harm than good to Dem causes, then they deserve whatever they get.

This is a freaking message board. In the scheme of things, it hasn't a whole helluva lot of influence on what goes on in Washington. If we can't vent our frustrations here, where do you suggest we do it?

Dems cannot muster enough unity to even vote together on important issues. Why the hell should we all act like we are happy little Dems, and that our party is not infiltrated with assholes who might as well just call themselves Republicans and get it over with?

[many a good man]

38. You kill me!

:rofl:

Pissing on and throwing shit on threads is very unsanitary!

[lostnfound]

39. How about if he stole his primary against a real Democrat?

Even then should we just keep quiet?

[sellitman]

40. Are you shocked?

We are after all Democrats.

I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.
Will Rogers
US humorist & showman (1879 - 1935)

[InsultComicDog]

42. If you want to say "eyes on the prize", then I'm with you

...and I think it's reasonable that we keep our priorities straight.

But I'm not expending time, money, or effort to elect or re-elect "Republican Light".

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Eye on the prize ... exactly right.

Republican Light is not what this thread is about.

[QC]

44. Because some of us view politics as a combo of performance art & therapy.

That's why they are much more interested in declaring their wondrous moral superiority than in actually winning power and doing things to improve people's lives. For those who hold this mindset, winning is bad because it makes one's moral character suspect, and losing is good because it demonstrates that one is just too good for this world.

Such people are a minority, of course, but a very, very loud one.

[Arugula Latte]

45. Well, in the case of Henry Cuellar

we need to eat our own, but he's not our own. He deserves to be beaten down, politically speaking. His actions have been unforgivable.

[tomreedtoon]

47. How the Florida Democratic meeting was described on the news:

It was announced that the main concern of the Florida Democratic Party was to stop those "radicals" whose "unproven statements" would damage the Party's chances to win back the conservative rural voters. At least, that's what the announcement sounded like on the late news Saturday night.

I'm all for uniting the party. But I think it's only fair to ask "united under who?" If the party leadership is insisting on lockstep behind a candidate "to be decided later"...and that decision is left to the party leadership...that's a miserable basis for unity.

If the leadership wants a united party, the leadership had better open up the floor as to what basis we are uniting under. In other words, they need to hammer out some principles of their agenda that they are unwilling to waffle on, that are broad enough to cover the "big tent" they need for victory. Like, say, "resolving the Iraq War and beginning a peace process in the Middle East." Or "restoring honest jobs, salaries and working conditions for American workers."

[Hekate]

48. Amen!...........K&R

The recommend didn't go through because you posted over 24 hours ago, but I still mean it. Debate we need -- lots of it -- but unity, too.

:kick:

Hekate

[rman]

49. "I think the enemy comes to us with the face of innocence and says to us:"

“I am your friend.”
-- Thomas Wolfe
http://library.uncwil.edu/wolfe/wolfe.html

[iconocrastic]

50. Because we taste good. n/t

[leesa]

53. We don't. We demand honesty and integrity. If that is too much for

them then the hell with them.