My Groups arrow Progressive Nudists arrow Electoral Postmortem - How did you deal with progressive losses on Tuesday?

Electoral Postmortem - How did you deal with progressive losses on Tuesday?
To post a message, please join this group!

nakedtao

Posted: Nov 4, 2010

View my other posts

As you all know, Tuesday was a very bad day for anyone who bleeds blue.

America was swept by a Teabag-induced storm of red, kicking out of office progressive champions like Grayson and Feingold and bringing in unapologetic anti-human pro-corporation types like Rand Paul.

I am especially disgusted by what happened as my (soon to be former) home state of Kansas elected a Christ Nazi as Governor, denied my retiring Congressman's wife a chance to succeed him, and kicked out all but one Democratic incumbent from our county's State House contingency (we had 6). And on the county level, a former mayor who is clearly pro-sprawl (thus anti-environment and anti-community building) was elected county exec. So, Tuesday was a night of heavy drinking for me.

Please share with us your stories. How did you feel when the anti-human, pro-corporation, racist and unfortunately named Teabaggers spread their message of inhumanity throughout America like a cancer? How did it affect politics on the local level?

Premium Member

FireProf

Posted: Nov 4, 2010

View my other posts

Like all things bad and/or wrong...this too will come back to bite them in the butt! One person wrote that they were "happy, the suns out, the birds singing..." in regards to the Repubs now controlling the House.

In response..."be very careful what you wish and are happy about. That bird singing is most likely the Blue Bird of Happiness that's about to crap on your head!"

We did okay here in California. We didn't elect another do nothing , know nothing person with lots of money to blow on trying to buy an elected position. $142 million dollars of her own money...that's not only disgusting but should be criminal. Does she have any idea what she could have done with that money instead of boring us to death with her constant...say nothing...ads, flyers and TV commercials!?

Yes...Jerry is a life time politician but...in politics...you need politicians to be able to work together and know the ins and outs of the political game. Sure there will be detractors that we don't need anymore politicians but we've tried that and it's not gotten better....only worse and Meg Whitman didn't have a sense of what she was getting into. California is NOT Ebay!

Our only hope is that Jerry can see the light and do what he's done best in the past...negotiate with the many that backed him and find compromise so we can get California back on track and outta the RED!

;)

nakedtao

Posted: Nov 5, 2010

View my other posts

Thanks for the perspective from California. I remember Jerry Brown ran for President in 1992 (I couldn't vote then since I was 14), and I thought he'd do a good job. Of course, the man who beat him in the primary - William Jefferson Clinton - did an outstanding job in two terms, so no complaints from me.

Premium Member

FireProf

Posted: Nov 5, 2010

View my other posts

You're welcome! Hope to continue to post here on the progress California makes with Jerry in office. We are not so starry eyed here that we think he's gonna make everything better in a month, year...two years. Given the time and the willingness for ALL politicians to compromise and keep ALL Californian's and American's at the forefront of their decisions...things will get better.

It's what we ALL want from Washington as well but it takes time and too many right wing fanatics don't understand that concept. When they are in control...they want time. When Dems are in control...they want INSTANT gratification and they are only gratified if things are "their" way. Pretty childish actually.

;)

onza

Posted: Nov 5, 2010

View my other posts

I guess my feeling is that it is hardly the case that progressives have been swept out by conservatives. Its that conservatives have been swept out by nutcases. Quite frankly, the Dems hardly deserved to stay in office. They have accomplished nothing, and the Obama Administration has completely turned its back on progressives who supported him. How can he stand up there and claim he's against dont ask and dont tell when he has dragged his feet for 2 years and and has now actually taken action to protect it. How can I feel upset over his party losing?

That being said, I have a hard time understanding the outpouring of hatred against Obama. In reality, other than more reckless tax cuts, there is nothing that Obama has done that an official conservative would not have done.

The problem that progressives face is that our biggest opponents are the people we are trying to protect. Reflecting on his experiences at the 68 Democratic convention, Wayne Kramer of the MC5 said that they had gone to Chicago to support the downtrodden. But ironically, the class of downtrodden they were trying to protect included the Chicago police-who where busy busting the protester's heads. In 2008 Obama inspired lots of minorities to go out and vote. The influx of minorities--by and large conservative--probably swung the vote on proposition 8 in CA, overturning the legality of gay marriage. So there's a fine how do you do for ya.

If the people want to choose crazies as leaders, the people must be crazy. They are going to get exactly what they want and deserve.

Premium Member

Bigbare

Posted: Nov 6, 2010

View my other posts

I joined this group to respectfully offer a little perspective from the other side of the aisle. I am a conservative but in the last ten or so years I have become very disappointed (disgusted) in both parties' refusal to cooperate with each other. This nation was made great because in the past the two parties worked together, each giving a little here, a little there, until the needs of the nation were met. Now they are totally polarized to the detriment of all. Both parties want everything their own way. I, too, do not understand or like the outpouring of hatred for President Obama. I don't like some of what he has done, but nobody, especially those who speak the harshest of him, offers any other ideas. It's all just negaspeak.
I used to be a Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey democrat, but crossed the aisle sometime in the seventies. The reason in a nutshell; this country cannot support large scale socialism, and that is what the democratic party is pushing. I would love to see some kind of national health care program that would insure that everybody got the care they needed, who wouldn't? What I don't want to see is another huge federal bureaucracy that spends more money on administrative costs than it does on patient care, and I don't want to be forced to purchase insurance out of my meager social security payments. For me, the money just isn't there. Thank you all for allowing me to post this, and for reading it with open minds.

onza

Posted: Nov 6, 2010

View my other posts

Sorry, Republicans definitely have the edge on venom and non-cooperation. During the Bush years--at least the first 6 years--Dems basically went along with everything Bush wanted: tax cuts, Patriot Act nonsense, invasion of Iraq. The only thing Dem mildly resisted was Bush's prescription drug program, which he got anyway.

Meanwhile, Repubs have not cooperated with anything. Zero. Obama got 'a' health care bill but it is so watered down as to make it unrecognizable. Repubs act like its the first sign of the Apocalypse, but it comes in somewhat higher but comparable (less than twice) the Bush drug plan, yet we didn't have conservatives screaming bloody murder and heralding the end of the republic over that fiasco. Obama has tried ? too hard in my opinion ? to get Repubs on board to meet somewhere, anywhere, in the middle. Obama basically picked up and went forward with everything Bush had going. The war Bush started is still on and he's even still flirting with extending the Bush tax cuts. But once Repubs come in, they are committed to undoing anything Obama touched. By definition, everything Obama is for is evil. He can't address the nation's schoolchildren without Repubs screaming about subversive indoctrination programs. He can't even win the Nobel Peace Prize without Repubs expressing outrage. The very notion that anyone would show Obama any respect fills them with rage, exactly the same rage conservatives expressed when TR Roosevelt invited Booker T Washington to dinner at the White House.

Then there is the vehement hatred of gays and lesbians. The people who supposedly want to get government off our back want to tell consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If conservatives are not themselves physically gay bashing, their busy justifying and encouraging others, including children, to do it for them. They rejoice in gay deaths and hope and publically pray more gays will commit suicide.

Lastly, consider the stereotypical thing conservatives hate most: ?political correctness?. PC is nothing more than the notion that we should treat each other with respect, not call other people names, not intimidate people, not assume everyone important is a boy or white, to play fair. The kinds of things you would think people aught to learn in kindergarten. But, it is a free country. Anyone can choose to reject and scorn political correctness. But that scorn and rejection is in itself a statement of hatred. How can you call yourself a kind compassionate person when you scorn the expectation that we treat each other with respect and compassion.

Both Democrats and Republicans are a bunch of self-serving, greedy, small-minded opportunists. But the notion that Democrats express more than a fraction of the malevolent, obstinate uncompromising hatred that Republicans do is simply absurd.

Premium Member

Bigbare

Posted: Nov 6, 2010

View my other posts

I truly wish you wouldn't paint all republicans with the same brush. Many of us have the same respect for others that you do. As for a hate Obama campaign, well that's just politics as usual. I don't personally know anybody who hates Obama. But I do remember right after 9/11 when Bush made his speech about a war on terrorism, "any country that practices terrorism is our enemy, and any country that harbors terrorists is our enemy". The whole world cheered that speech, but when he put those words into action he was reviled and the liberal press waged a hate Bush campaign for the rest of his administration. Yes, Sadam Hussein was harboring terrorists, several Al Quaida training camps were found in the desert there, and WMDs WERE found. Not as many as expected, and they were older models, but still capable of killing tens of thousands of people. You want to talk hatred, read the newspapers of the G.W. Bush years.

nakedtao

Posted: Nov 6, 2010

View my other posts

I'm sorry, but you've been grossly misinformed.

FACT: Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with each other. If anything, Osama bin Laden HATED Saddam because Saddam was a relative secularist. The Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq didn't even appear until after we illegally entered Iraq and removed Saddam from power.

FACT: There were no WMD's in Iraq. All of the WMD were removed from Iraq after the first Gulf War in the early nineties. GW Bush and company made it up and were frankly too stupid to plant "evidence" of WMD.

FACT: We would have never wasted time in Iraq had the media done their job and not allow the radical right (through their Fox "News" and talk radio) con the country into supporting Bush's plans for Iraq.

FACT: Bill Maher put the current political climate accurately when he said that the US doesn't have a left and a right. Rather, we have a centrist party and a "crazy" party. As a result, the political "center" in the US is already skewed way too far to the right, and that's a problem.

Premium Member

Bigbare

Posted: Nov 7, 2010

View my other posts

Just because Osama hated Sadam it wouldn't stop him from using Sadam.
Having said that, I'm going to bow out of this debate that I unintentionally started and let you have the last word. My intentions were to simply point out that all republicans do not hate Obama, in fact, most republicans do not hate him. Those who seem to hate him are the politicians in D.C. who are grandstanding, a political ploy which I believe will come back to bite them you know where because rank and file republicans hate it as much as democrats do. We want to see cooperation on both sides of the aisle.
One republican of note who does not hate the president is Senator John McCain. If you recall, at one of his campaign appearances a lady in the crowd started ranting, calling Obama an Arab, etc. McCain's response was "No maam, he's an honest, hard working American who I happen to disagree with.
I firmly believe that every senator, every congressman in office today, and for several decades now, is more concerned with making a good showing so he/she can be re-elected, not with what is best for America.
The B.S. runs extremely deep on both sides of the aisle.
Yes disagreement and grand standing should not be confused with hatred. Indeed cleaning up the Congressional stables would require a Hercules.

onza

Posted: Nov 7, 2010

View my other posts

Let me tell you something about respect: there is a church a few blocks from my house that has a sign that reads "morallity can only be found though Gods word". So just because I don't have an imaginary friend in the sky I am immoral. These are the messages conservatives have pushed since the beginning of time. Conservatives today argue that because some semi-nomadic sheep hearder wrote something down 3000 years ago it must be right. I happen to think quite a few things about life and the world have come to light in the last few thousand years and for that I am immoral. Ok, you don't believe in gay marrage: so don't marry someone of the same gender. But why expect everyone to adhere to your rule? Why is gay marrage so offensive to conservartives? We live in a world in which a Boston police officer can call Henry Louis Gates, a highly distinguished intellectual, a 'bannana eating jungle bunny' and claim with a straight face he is not a racist. I don't know what planet you live on, but the constant drum of hatred and disrespect against Obama is defining. Everytime some one refers to him by his is middle name they are deliberatly trying to pin a negative image on him merely because he was given a name now no longer popular. Didn't making fun of someones name go out of style in about the third grade? If you don't see this as disrespect, or don't see the disrepect in 'morality can only be found in the word of god', then I suspect you simply have no understanding of the word respect. The incident you refer to about McCain came way way way too late to have any sincerity. Nobody gets a gold metal for responding the way he did to such an outrageous comment that lady made: that's the way any decent person should have responded to such an ignorant comment (and I doubt she came from Washington). Nor did the crowd show any support. If anything, they looked stunned that he crossed her. No matter what someone says, it can't be racist or disrespectful because that would mean they were bad. I have no pretense of claiming I have respect for conservatives. God is just Santa Clause for grown ups and doing something tomorrow the way we do it today just because that's the way we did it yesterday is just a stupid and anti-intellectual philosophy. Its just too bad conservatives can only see themselves as fair and respectful and can't admit their own hatereds and biases.

onza

Posted: Nov 13, 2010

View my other posts

When responding to conservative drivel, progressives must keep in mind that conservative arguments are not meant to be convincing to rational, educated people who are capable of critical thought, but rather are aimed at simple-minded ditto heads who place faith above reason, people will believe anything so long as if it fits into their preconceived notions of history, race, gender, sexuality and cosmology.

While completely ignoring unfounded conservative claims is probably unwise, a progressive should limit a response to pointing out the weakness of a conservative argument and the untenability of their position. There is no need to go into a detailed, well documented rebuttal because people who believe the truth has already been revealed to them complete and in perfection are incapable of entertaining the possibility that their convictions might be wrong no matter how much they contradict objective reality. For example, one hallucinatory conservative apparently thinks Bush's pre-Iraq invasion claims of WMD are still truthful because Hussein did in fact possess intangible resources for constructing WMD; he simply ignores the fact that Bush claimed Hussein had a very tangible arsenal that he was ready to use. If Bush had gone to Congress and argued that Hussein was potentially a threat because Iraq had dabbled in WDM in the past and although he had none now, he could theoretically rebuild them in the future, then that would have been the truth. As the rational among us remember, however, Bush clearly claimed the weapons actually existed, which was not the truth. Whether or not it was a lie is another matter. The possibility that Bush was an simply an idiot and incapable of making sound decisions is also plausible.

On a somewhat higher level than the issue of WMD, the few holdouts that seem to think the war was justified based on its proponent's claims illustrate their curious inability or reluctance to use new data to reevaluate a situation or opinion. For example, I readily admit that I had high hopes and trusted Obama to reform Wall Street, do something constructive about health care and end don't ask don't tell. It is now clear Obama is far more conservative than he had let on and therefore I publicly admit my error and did not support his party in the last election. Reformulating an opinion based on new or additional information is the hallmark of rationality. But conservatives by their nature are unable admit that a past stance on an issue has been rendered obsolete by new information. If a conservative said 'wow, Bush really blundered by listening to the wrong advisors and inadvertently started a war on false pretenses', that would be an opinion that I didn't necessarily agree with, but at least it would be rational. Conservatives who still beat the drum of Iraqi WMD do so because they believe they speak infallibly as if they were holy. In the days leading up to the war, conservatives stomped and beat their fists about the unpatriotic liberals who didn't support Bush's demand for a preemptive strike on Iraq. Then it was the UN who supported the terrorists. Then it was France. Then it was all Europe. Then it the was ultra liberal wing of the Democratic party. Then it was all Democrats. Now its the 'Washington Generals' pressing their agenda. Conservatives would rather make excuses, point fingers and change stories over simply confronting the evidence and admitting that they were wrong and the war was a farce.

aznative

Posted: Jan 5, 2013

View my other posts

Bigbare I joined the conservative naturists to have some fun with them. I got more than I expected in some cases. I got bullied by some and of course got the typical spin etc. Just too bad there isn't that back and forth talk we need. Compromise isn't in some vocabularies. It equates to surrender. Behavior of the republican side has been less than adult. Almost like 3 yr olds. "Hold my breath until"...The party is fractured and is becoming the Democratic party. "I don't belong to an organized party..I am a Democrat" goes the joke. The congress on both sides can't seem to get the job done in a timely matter. We all had some kind of deadline to adhere to. Why can't they? Last minute drama that puts all of us in jeopardy. That can sure has lots of dents in it. Hate to say this but the voters have a lot to do with this. I don't know if this would be going on if the next congress (house) was won by the Democrats. Very low numbers in popularity and yet we returned them to office. Now we are upset. We should have voted them out.
To post a message, please join this group!