We previously discussed the disconnect between Democratic leaders and liberal voters in the increasing complaints of leaders like Vice President Biden over Democratic “lethargy.” Democrats in Washington once again seemed shocked that voters are not eager to fight for their retention. Now, Biden has added the helpful advice to Democratic voters to “stop whining” about things that they did not get in Washington and to “buck up.”
The “buck up” comment was meant as an improvement over the “whining” comment. It turned out that “whining” was not greeted by voters as an improvement over “lethargy.”
Here is the latest statement:
“And so those who don’t get — didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better, continue to move forward and — but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything that we stand for in terms of the initiatives we put forward.”
By “everything [we] wanted,” I assume Biden is including the fulfillment of our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute war crimes such as torture — which the Administration blocked.
I assume it includes removing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which the Administration is trying to preserve by asking a court not to impose a national injunction freezing the policy.
I assume it includes allowing dozens of privacy lawsuits to go forward against companies, which the Administration blocked despite evidence of unlawful surveillance by the Bush Administration.
I assume it includes allowing torture victims to seek review in federal court, which the Administration has successfully blocked.
I assume it includes protecting pristine areas along the East Coast from drilling, which the Administration has fought to open up for development even after the BP accident.
I assume it includes reducing the faith-based programs of the Bush Administration which raised concerns over the separation of church and state, which Obama expanded.
Well, it includes a lot of things that democratic and independent voters wanted. What they got was a Democratic majority saw power as the end to itself rather than the means to fight for principle. For civil libertarians, “those folks who are against everything that we stand” include the Obama Administration which has been a perfect nightmare in the adoption and expansion of Bush policies.
Yet, Biden wants civil libertarians, environmentalists, and liberals to stop whining and buck up. The Administration made a cynical calculation that liberals and civil libertarians and environmentalists have no where to go and that they have to support the Democrats regardless of these obnoxious policies. Now, they are simply shocked that voters are not enthusiastic about their continuing in power.
The Democratic leadership has conveyed that the only principle that they are committed to is their retention of power. All other principles — torture, the environment, privacy, free speech — are immaterial to that one overriding goal. They just do not understand why everyone does not see it that way.
Well, I am one of those whining, lethargic voters and I cannot get myself to buck up to support leaders who turned their back on such core values. Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than “we are not as bad as those guys.” The problem for voters is that, by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they cynical calculation by the White House was correct. There is no reason why Democrats should fulfill their commitments in these areas if voters do not hold them accountable. I know some on this blog may disagree, but I personally think I will stick with the whining for now.
Source: Real Clear Politics
>> To me, it makes a lot more sense to address my opposition to the position you are articulating to you rather than to Professor Turley.
Agreed. However, if I am called names for **holding to that position,** those names apply to others holding to that position. I infer from their posts that the authors of those posts are calling me names like “troll,” “tea partier,” “naive,” “illogical,” and more BECAUSE I hold to that position. And THAT is hypocrisy, because I do not believe the same people calling me names for defending my position would call Dr. Turley the same names had he defended the same position he articulated in his post.
I would not be complaining about being called a jerk or asshole; those are true. But anybody accusing me of being a traitor for advocating no vote and punishment, and is reluctant to accuse Dr. Turley of the same thing for the same reason, should examine their psyche and eliminate an unhealthy deference to authority.
Simple disagreement is fine, and I hear people saying “Oh, we disagree with Dr. Turley all the time.” I’m sure you do. How often do you call him a traitor to liberal progressivism? A Republican troll? A closet Tea Partier? Naive in politics?
Just curious. Speak up and give us a link if you’ve done that.
Swarthmore mom,
It’s nice to see that the teabaggers are embracing traditional Republican tactics like this…
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/dick_armey_so_many_dems_are_voting_early_because_t.php?ref=fpblg Look out bdaman and tony. They are voting democratic early in the inner cities, and the tea party is out in force to try to stop this.
Tony C,
Once again, Professor Turley raised a topic (and gave an opinion on it as well) and you made an argument for your own opinion which was similar to his. It is not hypocrisy to attack the arguments of the person you are debating with rather than the moderator and (in my opinion) you’ve pretty much earned all of the names you’ve been called here. We don’t address our arguments to Professor Turley, we address them to the person that we are debating – you. I wouldn’t expect Professor Turley to respond to any arguments here (unless they got out of hand in some way) or on any other thread. I, on the other hand, will respond. To me, it makes a lot more sense to address my opposition to the position you are articulating to you rather than to Professor Turley. Whether you see it or not, your appeal to Professor Turley seems (to me at least) to be an attempt to bolster your position by association. And I don’t have a problem with you making any argument you want to, but I think that your defense of the argument you’ve made is unpersuasive at best.
Ed Norton: “Hey Ralph, mind if I smoke?”
Ralph Cramden: “I don’t care if ya burn.”
I Kant decide who to vote for?
“Even if there never have been actions arising from such pure sources, what is at issue here is not whether this or that happened; that, instead, reason by itself and independently of all appearances commands what ought to happen; that, accordingly, actions of which the world has perhaps so far given no example, and whose very practicability might be very much doubted by one who bases everything on experience, are still inflexibly commanded by reason … because … duty … lies, prior to all experience, in the idea of a reason determining the will by means of apriori grounds.”
Correction: I meant to type “I do not consider Dr. Turley to have any ‘authority’ in matters of how I feel about Democrats.” I was typing too fast.
>> As for your renewed attempt to somehow appeal to or align yourself with Professor Turley’s authority, as I said before, this is a conversation amongst the people posting here that Professor Turley is hosting, not participating in.
First, I do not accept your invented constraints on who I am permitted to invoke.
Second, I was not appealing to Dr. T’s authority, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of posters calling me names but never posting a peep of calling Dr. Turley names when we hold virtually identical positions; including not voting and a belief in the efficacy of punishment, with the only difference being that I am not him.
I defer to Dr. Turley’s knowledge of the law in general and Constitutional law in particular; I like Dr. Turley’s thinking, but I do consider Dr. Turley to have any “authority” in matters of how he or I feel about Democrats. I do not require his approval for my feelings and thinking, I do not point at it, I was pointing out the hypocrisy. Read his text.
I have no problem with my argument being picked apart or questioned; it is you that seems to have a problem with me making it and defending it.
@Elaine: It isn’t superiority, and I am the arbiter of what is right or wrong logic for ME, aren’t I? Why should I defer to somebody else’s argument if I see a flaw in it? What makes them any more expert at this than I am?
Nothing. I don’t have to think of myself as superior to reject somebody else claiming *they* are superior. It is possible to be equals with different thinking. (And calling someone stupid does not mean I think the PERSON is literally stupid, it means I think their idea is ill thought out or based on false premises.)
Slarti I don’t even think a handful of democrats are okay with Tony although he seems to be changing his story a bit
@SM: That is absolutely false; I have said repeatedly I would NOT vote for a Republican, I can’t stomach it. I have said repeatedly to NOT vote for a liar or a corrupt politician. There is not a Tea Party candidate running that is not a liar or corrupt politician.
There is no place anywhere you will find me advocating voting for their OPPONENTS, unless you count Democratic party primary challengers. I will not vote for anybody that is openly opposed to progressive causes, and I will not vote for people that claim they are and then repeatedly and shamelessly vote against them. I recommend the same course of action for everybody.
I do not consider withholding my vote as a vote for the opposition, in fact I have said I will probably vote for the Green party so my vote will register as a protest against the liars I voted for BEFORE that acquiesced to the marginalization of the Constitution and rule of law in this country.
Tony C said:
You have explicitly advocated the strategy of withholding your vote from Democratic incumbents who don’t meet your standards (and we’ve established that, at most, a handful of Democrats are okay with you) – a strategy which, if followed en masse, would result in the suppression of votes for Democrats (note: neither I, nor anyone else is accusing you of arguing for any sort of illegal voter suppression – just suggesting a strategy that would clearly have the effect of lower vote totals for Democratic candidates). You have shrugged aside the negative consequences of electing more Republicans saying that the Democrats could be obstructionists like the Republicans are now or that President Obama could veto any legislation while ignoring several other negative consequences of Republicans taking more seats in Congress that I (and others) have pointed out. (By the way, it seems strange for someone who claims to be standing on the principle of not voting for candidates who have been dishonest to advocate the use of ‘by any means necessary’ obstructionist tactics, especially when they are a contributing cause to the current dysfunction of the Senate – and thus also a cause of some of the lying that you so disdain.) So while you make statements about how you didn’t ‘tell anybody to stay home’ that are technically correct, they are also contradicted by the spirt of your entire argument.
As for your renewed attempt to somehow appeal to or align yourself with Professor Turley’s authority, as I said before, this is a conversation amongst the people posting here that Professor Turley is hosting, not participating in. I think the professor is wrong in this case, but he hasn’t been advocating a strategy that will elect more Republicans and teabaggers in this cycle, he just raised the topic for debate – you were the one that chose to advance that line of argument. If you didn’t want your argument to be picked apart and questioned, maybe this was the wrong venue in which to make it…
Tony C
My comment was meant as a constructive criticism and certainly wasn’t based on the single post that preceded it … I spent all day yesterday going through the entire thread and the other thread wherein this topic was discussed. My observation was based on the totality of the posted material.
Enough … I’m going to follow Buckeye’s lead and opt out now. It has been an interesting discussion.
Oh, Tony, do go on…and on…and on…and on.
Blouise is right. Swarthmore mom and I aren’t thin skinned. I must admit to being rather amused by your “I am the superior thinker and the arbiter of what is good and what is bad logic” attitude. Could it be, perhaps, that thou hast a superiority complex?
😉
Byron I think you could be right. Tom Iriedamn has called for a centrist party. it could attract some money. They could get republicans that are tired of the religious nuts and democrats that want to get away from the unions.
I meant tony C
C The reason I called you a closet tea partier is because you started out by saying “punish” the democrats. Vote for their opponents. Don’t vote for Russ Feingold. Guess who is running against Russ Feingold – a tea party candidate.
Swarthmore Mom:
I think the party that isnt going to be around in 5 years is the republican party, at least not in it’s current configuration.
@Elaine: It is true I denigrate people’s intelligence when I think they are being stupid, I denigrate people’s logic when I think their logic is bad, I denigrate people when I think they are weaseling. What I am denigrating is their thinking and biases and willingness to accept lies at face value. I am not impugning their motives (until they start lying about me). Others can think what they will about bad thinking or bad logic or biased opinion or gullibility or whatever; if they are reading me they probably have enough context to know what I am talking about and decide for themselves.
Rudely pointing out bad logic is one thing. I treat it with disrespect because it deserves disrespect, and polite disagreement or letting it slide just encourages more of it. Disrespecting flawed logic (like rejecting an academic paper that contains it) gives somebody the chance to come up with better logic and resubmit. I admit in that formal venue I am not rude, out of respect for the work and effort put into such papers, and knowing my words, although anonymous, will be very carefully parsed for meaning, repeatedly, by the authors. I have been in their situation.
In this venue nobody is doing that, I do not think anybody else has put more than a few minutes into any post they make, and nobody is obligated to listen to me in any way. I like that, and I feel it gives me the freedom to post the first thing I think of; which is usually not heavily analyzed or stripped of all emotion in the course of eight drafts.
@Blouise: >> Elaine and SwM are not the least thin-skinned but you would be wise to take their postings seriously and argue with them on the subject matter at hand without off-hand comments
I say, ???. Please read the last exchange with SM, I did not make any offhand comments to warrant being called a closet Tea Partier.
@Former: >> […] your oft-inept display of supposed self-important posturing.
OMG, dude, you got me totally wrong. I am not important at all, really. I do not want to be seen as important. I am not touting my credentials or accomplishments. I am and shall remain anonymous, because I do not even believe in arguing from a position of credentialed authority. I am not posturing in the least; I am just having some fun while presenting my logic and answering counter-arguments, such as they are, with anybody that cares to post. Yes, I am rude, that is part of the fun, not having to filter every thought three times before I speak.
I believe you mistake a vigorous defense for self-importance. I do not think anything I say here (or anything anybody else says, save Dr. T) is “important,” I have no delusions of having any “standing” in this community, this is just Moe’s Bar in the Simpsons. Idle time chit chat.
I think I am right and (like in my work) I will defend that until the moment somebody shows me convincing (to me) evidence I am wrong. At that moment I will change my mind. But just saying I am wrong won’t work, the whole point is that I believe I am right, and somebody else’s doubt about that is not evidence I am wrong.
@SM: Telling us that he will not vote and giving us a detailed justification for WHY he will not vote, which is what this post is all about, is just next door to it. Turley’s line, “Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced” is an indication to me he hopes others follow his path and “enough Democrats are replaced.”
I think you are quibbling over an insignificant difference in phrasing; I believe Turley’s sentiment in this post and mine are precisely the same, I was just more explicit than he was.
I didn’t tell anybody to stay home; I explicitly said I would go to the polls as I always do, because there is plenty of stuff to vote on besides the Congressional election.