Alright. I'm a Democrat. A liberal Democrat, even. But the liberal bloggers disgust me every now and again. They sacrifice rational thought for radical agendas. And now they are campaigning against "fellow" Democrats just for being anything other than "über-progressive." As mentioned in the article, they're going after anyone that they classify as "Bush dogs" (Blue Dog or New Democrats). This sickens me. Not only am I represented by a Blue Dog in Congress, but is a toxic parallel with what happened/is happening in the GOP.
The Republicans are increasingly becoming captives of the so-called "religious right." They're running the moderates of out their party and they're sending conservative and moderate independents to the arms of the Democratic party. Which is a good thing. But what I'm seeing lately is that the liberal blogs (DailyKos, MyDD) want the Democratic Party to become captives of theirs. They are potentially endangering the Democratic majority and attempting to abolish any nuance within the party.
Re: Netroots go after Democrats for not being "progessive enough"
Both parties are completely ****ed now, they're both in the grips of the extremes, which is a bad thing. A nutjob radical liberal, is just as bad as a fanatical religion-mongering conservative.
It seems to me, that both parties are arming themselves for the sole purpose of being polar opposites of each other, no matter the issue at hand. If one party says "yes" on an issue, the other party will say "no", regardless of the issue, regardless what is better for the country as a whole.
Oh no, I'm thinking of the parties imploding in a decade or so.
If the next President is smart (read: Democrat), then he/she will move us past this bitter partisanship. Let's just hope that we don't elect a Rudy Giuliani, who seems to embrace the Bush doctrine of politics. None of the Democrats in the current field have a history of employing those tactics.
I'm willing to bet that a Democrat will win come 2008, problem is, the Republi-cons sole reason for existing will be to "trash" anything and everything that president tries to accomplish in the next 4 (maybe 8) years.
That's one of my beefs with the Democrats these last few years, they nitpicked everything Bush did and does, which in my opinion takes away from the larger more serious issues, i.e. the war, social security, health care.
Although I see both parties trying to simply appease the morality set forth by the media.
Sigh, this is just going to continue until at least a third of the population starts taking accountability as individuals rather than waiting on someone to come save them.
One example would be black people loving emotional, "powerful" discussions about "the man holding us back!" A lot of talking and no action. A lot of black people who simply peruse through politics to sound smart think Obama is going to save the ghetto or something.
The issue is more complex than politicians being idiots or cowards because without "informed" people behind you, it means nothing. No one can do anything in a democracy without the support of the people, at least initially (people were blinded by "patriotism" during the beginning of the war with Iraq, for example). You can put one man in a box and be certain he is never to be heard, but you can not shelf the ideas of many men and women who, at the very least, have a common cause.
That is the issue more than cowardice.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
KMC Community Forums
Aug 28th, 2007 06:02 AM
