Lenin Would Be Proud
The more I think about this the angrier I get.
We have commenters come here and tell us we're not Democrats because we don't support Senator Obama. How bigoted is that? Who are Jim Bob or Norb, et al to decide what a Democrat is or isn't? I thought Liberal meant "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties or favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." Yet when they come here (and other Clinton friendly blogs) they don't want freedom of action of personal belief. The Obama supporter who made the 1984 ad about Senator Clinton should look in the mirror.
As to our Liberal street cred, perhaps read back to some of our early work when we were delightfully bashing Bush (ah the halcyon days when we were all united) . Or when we had great hopes that a Democratic congress would do something. Nancy Pelosi told us that impeachment was off the table and we began to lose hope. We were promised "change" in 2006 and you can see how well that has gone.
Here's a comment by Jason from a previous post that sums it up:
Where does it say, anywhere, you can't be a true Democrat (or for that matter a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green, or a member of any other party) if you express a desire to vote for someone outside your party. Automatically voting straight party ticket is not the sign of a healthy democracy but more akin to those "free and fair" elections that were occurred in the former Soviet Union and now occur in those Utopian paradises where voters are "gently persuaded" whom to vote for.
A sign of a mature democracy is that you make an informed decision and cast your vote for the person you believe is the most qualified for the position, even if it is a vote against your own party. It is a maturity that allows you to realize your party couldn't find the best there is for the position or even has made a mistake in the choice of its candidate.
Party membership in our society does not mean we have to ascribe 100% to all positions and all of the party. After all, the members of a party have to debate and fight among themselves as to what the party platform will be. We identify with the party that on balance tends to support more of with what we agree than disagree.
This is what I now find lacking in the Democratic Party. The party elites have decided to cram Obama down our throats and tell us their little fringe group is now the whole of the Democratic Party and we are all traitors to the Party if we dare express our opinions to the contrary.
This new vision of the Democratic party is not the party of its former giants, FDR, John and Bobby Kennedy (sorry Ted), who fought for the betterment of American society, but one of powerful elites (that's you Ted, and Pelosi and Reid) who will do anything to perpetuate their grip on power to the expense of the greater good of American society.
The New Democratic party shouldn't even be called Democratic anymore, not with it's calls to stop the electoral process and anoint Obama; calls that started with his first few hundred delegates and "polls" taken by the elites to advance their own end. No, the New Democratic Party is not the party with the ideals of FDR, JFK and Bobby, but of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov.
We have commenters come here and tell us we're not Democrats because we don't support Senator Obama. How bigoted is that? Who are Jim Bob or Norb, et al to decide what a Democrat is or isn't? I thought Liberal meant "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties or favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." Yet when they come here (and other Clinton friendly blogs) they don't want freedom of action of personal belief. The Obama supporter who made the 1984 ad about Senator Clinton should look in the mirror.
As to our Liberal street cred, perhaps read back to some of our early work when we were delightfully bashing Bush (ah the halcyon days when we were all united) . Or when we had great hopes that a Democratic congress would do something. Nancy Pelosi told us that impeachment was off the table and we began to lose hope. We were promised "change" in 2006 and you can see how well that has gone.
Here's a comment by Jason from a previous post that sums it up:
Where does it say, anywhere, you can't be a true Democrat (or for that matter a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green, or a member of any other party) if you express a desire to vote for someone outside your party. Automatically voting straight party ticket is not the sign of a healthy democracy but more akin to those "free and fair" elections that were occurred in the former Soviet Union and now occur in those Utopian paradises where voters are "gently persuaded" whom to vote for.
A sign of a mature democracy is that you make an informed decision and cast your vote for the person you believe is the most qualified for the position, even if it is a vote against your own party. It is a maturity that allows you to realize your party couldn't find the best there is for the position or even has made a mistake in the choice of its candidate.
Party membership in our society does not mean we have to ascribe 100% to all positions and all of the party. After all, the members of a party have to debate and fight among themselves as to what the party platform will be. We identify with the party that on balance tends to support more of with what we agree than disagree.
This is what I now find lacking in the Democratic Party. The party elites have decided to cram Obama down our throats and tell us their little fringe group is now the whole of the Democratic Party and we are all traitors to the Party if we dare express our opinions to the contrary.
This new vision of the Democratic party is not the party of its former giants, FDR, John and Bobby Kennedy (sorry Ted), who fought for the betterment of American society, but one of powerful elites (that's you Ted, and Pelosi and Reid) who will do anything to perpetuate their grip on power to the expense of the greater good of American society.
The New Democratic party shouldn't even be called Democratic anymore, not with it's calls to stop the electoral process and anoint Obama; calls that started with his first few hundred delegates and "polls" taken by the elites to advance their own end. No, the New Democratic Party is not the party with the ideals of FDR, JFK and Bobby, but of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov.
Labels: change, Democratic party, Lenin, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Ted Kennedy
posted by Lynne in Lakeland at
Sunday, May 11, 2008
PERMALINK
