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
Elaine They might be the same poster with a split personality. They don’t remember because it is spin.
Tony,
So I have a double standard because I don’t treat you (and, by the way, I think you are conflating many people’s treatment of you, not just mine) and the professor the same even though you have similar positions? And apparently it doesn’t matter that throughout this debate you have been a condescending prick who tends to avoid defending his argument logically on its merits, while the professor has said nothing beyond his initial post? If you’d like to go into more detail about how you think my ‘double standard’ and my concern for ‘ideology’ over ‘truth’ has caused me to ‘purposely mislead’, I’d be happy to respond – or you could just do a better job at explaining the logic that I’m apparently ‘too dense’ to understand…
Bob,
I’m not denying anything that the professor said above, nor absolving President Obama of anything because he is a Democrat (or any other reason), All I’m saying is that progressive interests are best served by voting Democratic on Nov. 2nd. Your attempt to twist that into a ‘wholesale denial’ of what Professor Turley was discussing is merely the latest in your long line of intellectually dishonest and hypocritical attacks. My point is that IN SPITE OF WHAT THE PROFESSOR DETAILED ABOVE it is STILL in the best interests of progressives to vote Democratic.
Elaine M.: “What does that have to do with Obama?”
Exactly what J.T. brought up at the beginning of this thread.
Swarthmore mom: “Elaine They don’t listen to what we say because they want to promote their agenda”
Really? I have an agenda? Wow; talk about lack of self-knowledge. Speaking of which, er, um, what exactly is my agenda?
Swarthmore mom,
They don’t listen to what we say–and as far as a certain someone is concerned he doesn’t even remember some of the stuff he’s written. I might even describe one poster as passive agressive.
Elaine They don’t listen to what we say because they want to promote their agenda
Bob,Esq.,
“When Obama does it, it’s okay with the democrats because he’s their guy.”
You’re bringing Obama into the mix again. I’m not happy with Obama. I’m not happy with Blue Dog Democrats. I don’t trust Democrats like Chris Dodd. I will be voting for our Democratic candidate…because I want him representing me and my district. What does that have to do with Obama?
My argument has had nothing to do with Obama. I believe the same can be true for the arguments of others on this thead.
Elaine It is a mind game just like the polys played. Even bdaman can see it. He is straight up anti democrat. These other folks are using a back door approach.
Swarthmore mom: “It is compromising my principles to sit back and let the tea party take over this country. Remember Mike S said that he needs his Social Security.”
Absolutely not. As I said before, I have big problems with the GOP and what they did to this country; more eloquently explained by John W. Dean here:
http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Government-Republican-Destroyed-Legislative/dp/0670018201
What I despise is holding the current president to a different standard than the previous president for simply political reasons.
It’s morally repugnant and shameful.
Kevin: “I’m suggesting that progressives should vote for the candidate who best serves their interests (and asserting that this is likely to be the Democratic incumbent over most Republicans and all teabaggers).”
That’s the purpose of an election.
Kevin: “I don’t see this as compromising my principles either”
It’s not your electoral strategy, it’s the wholesale denial of what J.T. was discussing above.
Tony C.,
What complaint…where? Is expressing one’s opinion now to be viewed as a complaint?
BTW, I’m not going to contribute any longer to the discussion of insults and rhetorical shorthand and sarcasm. You can proceed without me.
It is compromising my principles to sit back and let the tea party take over this country. Remember Mike S said that he needs his Social Security.
Elaine M.: “I think there may be a misunderstanding about what some of us who disagree with Tony have been trying to say. I’ll only speak for myself here though. I haven’t suggested that Democrats should go to the polls and vote for any candidate just because he/she is running as a Democrat. I believe I did suggest that Democrats/liberals should get out and vote for progressive Democratic candidates that they want to have representing them in their states/districts. I don’t see that as a sacrifice of my principles for immediate goals.”
I’m not talking about Tony or electoral strategy. I’m talking about the wholesale denial of what J.T. was discussing above.
When Bush did it, it was okay with republicans because he was their guy.
When Obama does it, it’s okay with the democrats because he’s their guy.
Sounds morally bankrupt to me.
Elaine,
I’m suggesting that progressives should vote for the candidate who best serves their interests (and asserting that this is likely to be the Democratic incumbent over most Republicans and all teabaggers). I don’t see this as compromising my principles either (Bob’s literary allusions aside).
Elaine I will vote for any democrat in Texas. The republicans are way way far to the right. I think politics are local. In the south there really are not any liberals that run statewide. You get moderate democrats and far right republicans like the Texas school board people. Ann Richards was about as liberal as you could get.
@Slart: You are a false debater, purposely misleading because you care about ideology more than truth, or perhaps just too dense to follow a logical argument and respond thoughtfully. Maybe you are so emotionally fragile you just cannot get past the rude rhetoric you found insulting. You are wrong and refuse to admit it; I understand that you can’t admit it without losing face. I will not debate you further until you actually answer to the issue of your double standard, which I do not expect you to ever do, it would be too embarrassing for you to admit your error.
Tony c I was just thinking about Prof Turley and his vote that you keep talking about. He lives in Virigina and there are no senators that are up for election. A right wing republican won the governer’s race last year. I would have to check the house distict but I think a conservative republican already occupies it. As usual you don’t even have your facts together just spin and insults. Check the facts.
@Elaine: Okay, more simply: If your feelings are not hurt why are you complaining? If you were not harmed, what harm is there?
Bob,Esq.,
“Otherwise, you tend to sacrifice your principles for more immediate goals and then your conscience tends to gnaw at you;”
I think there may be a misunderstanding about what some of us who disagree with Tony have been trying to say. I’ll only speak for myself here though. I haven’t suggested that Democrats should go to the polls and vote for any candidate just because he/she is running as a Democrat. I believe I did suggest that Democrats/liberals should get out and vote for progressive Democratic candidates that they want to have representating them in their states/districts. I don’t see that as a sacrifice of my principles for immediate goals.
😉
Kevin: “Now, what exactly am I denying for ideological reasons?”
“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