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
I voted Democrat every single election but I am having a hard time voting for Ross Feingold because he is on the Senate Judiciary Committee and I hold him responsible for our lousy federal judicial system. His computer called yesterday asking me to campaign for him.
Elaine The old style Rockefeller republican is nearly extinct.
Swarthmore mom,
“Tony C Why don’t we just agree to disagree.”
Surely you jest! Remember you and I and others who disagree with Tony are just poor benighted souls wandering around in a morass of our own intellectual incompetence. Tony is merely attempting to enlighten us with his superior logic and wisdom. It’s a tough job–but Tony knows he’s the right man for it.
I guess continuing to speak out and to call our Representatives and Senators with complaints–if we have any–and refusing to donate to the Democratic party–and telling the party the reasons why–aren’t good ideas. My bad for suggesting such things. There is one way–and only one way–to send Democrats a message–and that would be Tony’s way.
*****
P.S. My husband put a campaign sign on our lawn the other day–the first time we have ever done such a thing. He and I are supporting the Democratic candidate from our district. We’re hoping that the Republican/tea party/birther/racist candidate who’s running against him loses in a landslide. Maybe that will send a message to the Republican party in my state–a message that we don’t want anymore far-right nut jobs running for Congress from these parts.
In the past, both my husband and I voted from time to time for Republicans (for state and national office) when we believed they were better candidates than their Democratic opponents.
BTW, some wealthy old line blueblood Republicans from my area were so appalled by the Republican candidate running for Congress in our district that they contributed to our Democratic candidate’s campaign.
Tony C Why don’t we just agree to disagree. If you don’t care that Carl Rove and his swift boaters are taking control again, then there really is no discussion. We are way too far apart. Read Glenn Greenwald’s article I posted above about Rove.
@Elaine: Seriously? Here is your post:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/28/biden-tells-democratic-voter-to-stop-whining-and-buck-up/#comment-162273
Here it is in CAPS:
Elaine says: “I BELIEVE WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT, […]
(I called this “activism”)
Elaine says: “CALL OUR CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN WITH COMPLAINTS, […]”
(I called this “better messaging”)
If that isn’t “activism” and “we just need better messaging” then we aren’t both speaking English. You and Slarti have an unbelievable capacity to pretend your words don’t mean what they obviously mean. Anybody reading my post, and reading your post, may not *agree* with me but would certainly know to which of your sentences I was referring. They may not think I characterized them properly, but they would certainly know which part of your message I was talking about.
If you and Slart truly could not figure that out in such a short post (you only had *one* before I responded) then I suppose I should not be surprised you guys are adamant in thinking activism and better messaging will suddenly work when its been failing for a quarter century.
Slart says: “If the professor had made the same bad arguments in the same condescending way as you, then he would deserve the same type of response that you have gotten.”
Then Slart says: “Your arguments (and the professor’s arguments in this post) fail to be persuasive on their own.”
Ah, see, what you claim as a straw man is really just an argument you are too chicken to confront. By your own post, the professor DID make the “same bad argument” as me, so the only difference is what you call my “condescension,” therefore according to you it is **condescension** that deserves the type of response I got.
(Or more accurately, I made the same bad argument as the professor, since he posted it first and I echoed it in slightly different words with the same intent.)
@All: I notice Slartibartfast claims something is a “straw man” to avoid answering an actually logical statement that indicts his position. I am making a reasoned statement here: The professor and I made precisely the same argument, I added some sarcasm to it, and later condescension. However, sarcasm and condescension are purely matters of form, they have not changed my content or logic. If form is the only difference and he thinks that deserves vilification as a traitor, then his definition of a traitor must include somebody that just has bad manners, and his definition of a straw man is just any argument he cannot answer.
I believe he does this so he can just dismiss it and repeat his own flawed argument. Perhaps he is just ignorant of what a straw man is, perhaps he is intellectually lazy, perhaps he has a little too much of his self-worth invested in a fundamentally flawed argument, perhaps he thinks that ends justify means. All conditions to be pitied.
Now I fully expect him to come back and say that THIS argument is a “straw man,” but in the interest of science let me point out that claim would also be just an unproven assertion, and he is quite fond of making unsupported assertions and then treating them as inarguable fact. Even “straw man” is an assertion that requires justification, and he has provided none whatsoever.
That’s it for today, childrens, I have a lot of work to get done by Monday. (ht Chef, we miss you).
Elaine,
Beats me. I’m obviously not smart enough to follow such sophisticated reasoning, but since the magnificent Tony C said it I’ve got to believe that you’ve got some splainin’ to do… 😉
Slarti,
Do you know what “Elaine’s original ‘activism’ and ‘we just need better messaging’ approach” is? Can you splain it to me?
😉
Tony C,
If the professor had made the same bad arguments in the same condescending way as you, then he would deserve the same type of response that you have gotten. I never said anything about form being more important than content – that’s your straw man. I have said that I think you are lacking in BOTH form and content which doesn’t make for a very convincing argument, in my opinion. Being rude doesn’t invalidate your arguments – it just makes you an ass. Your arguments (and the professor’s arguments in this post) fail to be persuasive on their own. So you are entitled to be rude all you want, but it’s a poor way to get people to agree with you and I’m entitled to point out that you are an unconvincing ass (in my opinion) as much as I want to in return.
@Slartibartfast: I presented my argument in almost precisely the same way as Turley; read my first post. If you read that, I was obviously echoing what I had read Turley say moments before, with a refutation of why Elaine’s original “activism” and “we just need better messaging” approach won’t work, because it never works.
More importantly:
>> “If the professor had made the arguments you had in the way that you did, he would have earned the abuse that has been heaped on you.”
Oh I get what you’re saying. You don’t care about logic, or whether what is said makes any sense, because to you *form* is more important than content.
So you are saying the professor’s logic or insight are beside the point, had he been sarcastic or rude and actually responded to commentors, you would have vilified him in exactly the same way, called him a troll, or a naive, or simplistic, or illogical, or maybe a Tea Party member, because if people are rude their points don’t really matter, you are the manners police and they need to be punished.
I call B.S.
SWM says: This is a quote from Tony, ” the only punishment that will work is withholding money AND the vote and making them lose office”.
Turley says: “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.”
Turley says: ” by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they [sic] 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.”
Now, I am not invoking his authority; I am pointing out your own HYPOCRISY at labeling me a traitor while refusing to label Turley in the same way. Explain to me how my position, and recommendation, and logic, and advocacy, is in any substantial way different than what Turley wrote IN HIS BLOG ENTRY.
So you, in particular, Swarthmore Mom, if you think I am a closet tea party member or very naive, if you think my thinking is simplistic, if you doubt I voted for Obama, and you DON’T level precisely the same charges at Dr. Turley who wrote those things before I did — You are a hypocrite. You are employing a double standard. You are an elitist, an ideologue giving a pass to Dr. Turley because he is an “important” person that you feel uncomfortable labeling that way, and I am less deserving of an assumption of innocence.
It isn’t enough to just claim you disagree, denigrate his intelligence, his loyalties, and his statements. Of course you won’t, and that is why you are a hypocrite.
And no, I have NOT changed my story, I am not intimidated. My story from the beginning was do not vote or contribute to liars and thieves, and I stick with it. Don’t do it. It is a slippery slope, and has led us to the brink of political destruction.
Oh Kevin,
You’re so cute.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/19/brooks/index.html
Bob,
I’m sorry, I guess your comments and your participation in this debate have nothing to do with me. My bad. I guess I got the wrong idea from all of the comments you have addressed to me…
Tony C and Bob You guys are constantly bringing up Obama and Prof Turley. Obama is not on the ballot as we keep pointing out to you. We are talking about defending some decent democrats from the tea party. That is all at this point. This is a quote from Tony, ” the only punishment that will work is withholding money AND the vote and making them lose office”.
Kevin: “I guess you might as well go ahead and keep raving about Kant and your straw man version of my position since you clearly don’t want to engage in any discussion about the issue at hand. I hope you get some kind of cheap pornographic thrill from misrepresenting my statements in order to take pot shots at me, because I don’t think it’s doing much to convince anyone…”
Gee Kevin,
I simply set forth an argument as to why JT is a man of principle and thence made a quick observation about toeing the party line.
What position of yours did I misrepresent; where is this ‘straw man’ that I created in two posts without so much as mentioning you?
Why are you so upset Kevin?
“No doubt I now grew very pale; –but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased –and what could I do? It was a low, dull, quick sound –much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I gasped for breath –and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly –more vehemently; but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued about trifles, in a high key and with violent gesticulations; but the noise steadily increased. Why would they not be gone? I paced the floor to and fro with heavy strides, as if excited to fury by the observations of the men –but the noise steadily increased. Oh God! what could I do? I foamed –I raved –I swore! I swung the chair upon which I had been sitting, and grated it upon the boards, but the noise arose over all and continually increased. It grew louder –louder –louder! And still the men chatted pleasantly, and smiled. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! –no, no! They heard! –they suspected! –they knew! –they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now –again! –hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
“Villains!” I shrieked, “dissemble no more! I admit the deed! –tear up the planks! here, here! –It is the beating of his hideous heart!”
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/telltale.html
Bob,
I guess you might as well go ahead and keep raving about Kant and your straw man version of my position since you clearly don’t want to engage in any discussion about the issue at hand. I hope you get some kind of cheap pornographic thrill from misrepresenting my statements in order to take pot shots at me, because I don’t think it’s doing much to convince anyone…
Oh the cheap pornographic thrill of toeing the party line.
Seems to me that J. Turley has consistently engaged “a reason determining the will by means of apriori grounds” while holding firm on the following:
“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.”
Did Turley’s view of the foregoing depend on who was president at the time?
No.
And what do we call a man who ignores any “precept … founded on principles of mere experience … [or mere] practical rule?”
That would make Turley a man of principle; right?
Tony,
If the professor had made the arguments you had in the way that you did, he would have earned the abuse that has been heaped on you. People commented that your actions seemed consistent with someone with the worst interests of the progressive movement in mind. You don’t seem to have much defense to this other than to brand anyone who doesn’t agree with you as giving in to their fears in some way. You can keep trying that if you want to, but I doubt that it will persuade anyone…
Tony-
“@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.”
*****
It works both ways, Tony.
I didn’t, however, call you stupid or imply that you were when you disagreed with me. On this thread, who claimed *they* were superior to you because they disagreed with you? We were having a discussion/debate/argument. You’re the one who starting writing insults and comments that denigrated me in your arguments when I disagreed with your opinion. Seems to me that you have an attitude problem–or that you can’t take it when poeple like me disagree with your opinion.