What is the Democratic Party's responsibility? [Thread Closed]

After reading A's post on KOS and after reading Justing's post regarding Dole/Hagan/Neal...and more importantly, the comments, I started to wonder what it takes to get people upset enough to do something about the Democratic Party, it's leadership, and the Democrats we've elected who don't represent our interests.

One comment particularly caught my eye This one and this particular statement .....

This is what ideologues don't understand. You run on principle when at all practical, but in some cases it's not and you have to take what you can get. Heath Shuler votes more in your favor than any Republican ever would. Either take what you can from him or get nothing

(emphasis mine) REALLY FROSTED ME...and here's why:

Most of the people who visit BlueNC are smarter than your average bear, and are aware when their own views do or do not represent the views of a majority of others. Hence, although they/we may get frothed over the way our congress-critters vote on an issue now and then, we understand we're not always going to be satisfied on every issue. Conversely, there are some things we think all Americans should hold sacred, or are otherwise so important and so abundantly and fundamentally important to our nation that no one...regardless of party... should be playing politics with these concepts.

In my mind, these include respecting and defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights, maintaining the appropriate balance of power between the three branches of our government, enforcing our laws and the rule of law and common decency, ensuring our food and medical supplies and ingredients are safe, making sure our borders, ports, and transportation systems are safe and secure, maintaining strong, nimble and well equipped armed forces recruited from, and representative of, all socio-economic classes of our citizenry, and properly caring for those, and their families, who have given of themselves in service to our nation. And, these things should be done in a fiscally responsible manner that strengthens rather than weakens our nation.

Yes, there are other things currently also very important...but to me, the above is the core from which we build solutions to our other problems.

Now, best I can tell, my Congressman hasn't done much to consistently support those concepts and has often torn down those core values with his votes. (The same is true of our Senators.) You can decide about your own critter.

Further, the Democratic Party hasn't stood on principle in longer than I can remember. My county party refused to vote on a resolution that would have criticized a certain elected state legislative representative who is obviously swimming in the sewer. Jim Black operated freely for years while the party knew about and essentially ignored his corruption. Neither the District or State Party has, to my knowledge, taken exception with the Democrats that voted to gut our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, nor has anyone in the Party confronted any of these folks about how our veterans are being treated. Rule of Law? Phfttt! Balance of power? Phftttt! Secure Borders? Safe Food and Medicine? Phfttt...phfttt...phfttt!

And, not trying to take it out of context, you tell me/us that we should "Either take what you can from him or get nothing" ??? Excuse Me?

Either the Democratic Party confronts and resolves these issues with their elected representatives, or it isn't a party worth supporting. It's more important to fill the seats we win with good people than to win every seat.

(Schumer and Feinstein will likely prove that point next week when they vote to confirm a man as AG whom, if you were to believe his testimony, you'd also have to believe he hasn't read a newspaper in over two years.)

That's my two cents...and I'm not happy.



Spend the evening with your family, away from the puter and the teevee, and then spend the afternoon with 10 (our group has grown by 2!) newly registered teen Democrats who want to take the day off from school on Tuesday so that they can be at the polling places in their precincts. I know of one whose mother is totally in favor of that. :-D

Those kids lift my spirits, and give me hope.

The focus of their work? Passing the school bonds and transfer tax.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi


if you're calling me a voice of reason, and you think Howard Dean is a nutcase - I'd rather be a nutcase.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

I Stand By My Comments

I am the author of:

This is what ideologues don't understand. You run on principle when at all practical, but in some cases it's not and you have to take what you can get. Heath Shuler votes more in your favor than any Republican ever would. Either take what you can from him or get nothing


I am independent. I don't like your Democrats and I don't like the Republicans. You talk about the Bill of Rights and defending the Constitution, but if you think that your party is any better at that than the Republicans are then I know a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. You want to buy it? The two party duopoly in this country set the Constitution on fire and threw it out the window decades ago and they are all guilty, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, and Ted Kennedy, the whole lot of them.

My point to you in saying that you take what you can get is simple common sense. If you want to advance an agenda then you have to see the forest through the trees. I don't know where on the political spectrum you are exactly, if you are more moderate or if you are further to the left, though since you have a beef with Shuler I would gather you are more to the far left wing of the party. The only way you get the things you want is to get as many people elected who give you as much as you can possibly get from them. Sometimes you are going to get 100% from that person because they are in a district or state where the majority of the constituency shares your views. Sometimes you will only get half, but in that instance half is the best you'll be able to get from that one representative because their constituency doesn't quite see it like you do. If you had run a Congressman with what the conservative pundits have dubbed "San Francisco values" in NC-11, the Democrats would have lost and Taylor would still be there. That's the reality of it lock, stock and barrel. Do you think you can run a candidate like Chuck Schumer for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina or maybe Alabama? If you're lucky he might 30% of the vote. But, you could run someone more along the lines of Jon Tester in Montana or Evan Bayh in Indiana and they would have viable chance of winning. They may only vote with you 50% of the time, but that's 50% more than Jim Demint and Jeff Sessions are voting with you.

It's called strategy. I don't care for Chuck Schumer much, not because of his positions on the issues, but more that I think he is a sleazy demagogue, but he's a smart man. He and Rahm Emmanuel new exactly how to handle the 2006 elections. They ran the right people in the right districts. In many cases that meant running people who were far more moderate than they would normally like, but it worked. You continue that kind of strategy and build on it election year after election year and you eventually build up the coalition you need. As someone else already noted to you, it doesn't happen over night.

Oh, and Drama Queen? That's right. Howard Dean is a nut case. The man is mentally unstable. He was a piss poor choice to represent the DNC and does not put the party in a good light. There are plenty of better choices out there.

Carolina Politics Online

I just scanned your blog

You give independent-thinking a bad name.

Your enthusiasm for Thomas Stith in Durham is truly mind-boggling. Bell may have his own set of problems, but replacing him with Stith would be like replacing Mike Easley with Art Pope.

Stith is a government-hating extremist who wants to run thing more efficiently without offering a single idea about what that exactly that means. Any business person knows you have to invest money to improve systems, efficiency, etc., and Stith's number one mission in life is to cut services to the bone. In other words, he can't deliver what he promises.

It doesn't matter

We'll never really know that because Stith is going to lose.

My preference for him is to bring about change. Durham needs change, any change is healthy. Bell is more of the status quo. A number of people with different ideas can bring about evolution faster than a room full of people who all think the same.

Carolina Politics Online

Any change is healthy?

Ya mean like the change George Bush has wrought on the world?

Apples and Oranges

You can't compare the City of Durham to the United State of America. Bill Clinton was a hell of a lot better President than Bill Bell is mayor. I voted for Bill Clinton. If I lived in Durham, I would not for Bill Bell.

Carolina Politics Online

Maybe you can't compare them

but I can.

I live three minutes from Durham. You've apparently read one article about the mayoral race.

I hope you don't mind if I trust my own judgment instead of yours.

You need to

take a deep breath. Did I say anything about the Democratic Party being at the forefront of defending our Constitution or Bill of Rights? NO!

I'm pragmatic and realistic. I don't expect to get my way all the time in anything...life, politics, or whatever. and ya know what, I realize I'm not always right, and....GASP....neither are you.

I'm not willing to accept mediocre or poor decisions from my elected representatives. I f you are, that's your privilege.

By the way...thanks for your lecture on strategy and such. Do you always assume no one else is equally, or perhaps more experienced, than you? Or are you just one of those conceited, self-important asses who appear here from time to time?

Stan Bozarth

Howard Dean has a pretty good success rate for a nut case.

You're the one that seems mentally unstable. There's no one who could have cut through the fossilized pander-to-rich-assholes mentality that was stifling any hope of the Democratic Party's future being one of democracy. Thank God for Howard Dean. You just don't like him because he has respect for Progressives, the wing of the party that represents the largest voting block in America.

As to the 11th's Congressman, I happen to think that Shuler is an excellent fit. No one can say I didn't do all I could to get him elected. I spent the last three weeks phone banking for him in McDowell County where no one believed in phone banking, where even the county chair didn't think it would have an effect. If you've ever phone banked where people thought you were wasting your time, you might begin to have a feel for what I faced. (And the results? Second most improved county out of the 15 in the district . . . and the most improved county had David Price staffers paid to work there.)

Also, I blogged and vlogged for Shuler and against Taylor for at least six months before the election. (I've been told my extensive research on Taylor was the 3rd most visited BlueNC post for the entire year last year.)

I think I've earned the right to do what I can to make Shuler keep his campaign promises and criticize him for his hurtful prejudices against women and gays. He has no viable opponent (so far) in the upcoming election. If we can't push him left under these circumstances, you're saying we should never even try. That's ridiculous.

BTW, last time he saw me (this summer) I got a big hug so if Shuler can handle my opinions, why can't you?
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,

Go get 'im DQ!

I agree! I too worked for Schuler even 'tho he's not in my district...and my wife and I spent considerable time and money supporting him.

SE NC Dems

Stan Bozarth

I think I follow you Carolina Politics...but,

First; as you said, you are not a Democrat.

You see , it would not matter that you are an Independent, or a Republican or any other school of thought, the point, which you specifically wanted us to know, was that you were NOT a Democrat. It is therefore not surprizing that Democratic ideology, or values mean so very little to you as opposed to political strategy.

From your perspective values, ideals, purpose, and how they are applied to politics in America are secondary to "winning". Your reasoning would suggest Governing is enough. Values and particular ideals are irrelevent to the equasion.

I do see your point that one cannot govern if one is not elected, but I very much disagree with your rationale.

Parties exist because political values and purpose differ greatly between two, or more very extreme schools of thought which all. to some degree, fit into the American political scenerio. Your view would suggest, if I understand your view, that the values of both are meaningless and those who hold those vaues are themselves irrelevent to the "Stragtegic politics" which is necessary to govern a country. You are wrong in this view from my perspective. Humans love power, influence, riches and fame, to the extent that many will go to length to obtain any one of them or any combination of them.

It is idealogy that helps a person establish certain parameters in behavior and conduct. The RULE OF LAW, as we know it today in America was born of very specific idealogy and through evolving idealogies since establishing RULE OF LAW.

RULE OF LAW is the basis for all order and civilized conduct in America.

Some would refer to me as an idealog. I guess I am. I hope we all are to one extent or another. How do we tell each other apart? Associations, Religion, Geographic living choices...and yes...Political Parties amoung many other indicators.

I, for example, am a Democrat. You should, by that indicator, know much about me now.

Now all you need are the details. To simply govern, is not enough.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Dang, Marshall

You've just given me the only reason that matters to be a Democrat - and it's a pretty damn good one.

I've started and deleted

at least five posts on this thread, because frankly, the question:

What is the Democratic Party's responsibility?

is a damned tough one to answer.

Aside from the fact that I'm a baby Democrat and not well-versed in electioneering, most of my (formal)studies were international in nature, so I've been playing catch-up on Constitutional issues and American politics here recently.

Also, I could easily make a list of issues I want the Democratic Party to be responsible for, but that's egocentric and still doesn't address the question. I think Marshall's "rule of law" comments are spot on, and show why we need him in Congress, but that still doesn't define which laws they should be focusing on passing or rejecting.

Federal legislation has become so convoluted and riddled with ambiguous and conflicting language either a "yes" or "no" vote could be considered wrong (or right). While this may make it easy for politicians to claim they voted for or against x or y issue, it makes it damned difficult to verify.

But...as they say, all politics is local. If a candidate is elected in his/her district on a specific platform, they should be held accountable for following such. If the district itself is poorly educated on the issues or prefers regression over progress, that will be reflected at the polls.

With that in mind, the Democratic Party should arrive at a consensus platform based on majority beliefs, and stick to it. If you have a regressive district, you educate the populace, you don't support an individual who will ignore/degrade the platform.

You're good, Steve

Thanks for redirecting the discussion.

Something else to consider,

and your comments about how much you and Jane have contributed over the years in time as well as money set my mind whirring a little bit:

There's an ungodly amount of money tied up in campaigning. I'm not going to preach about the need for drastic reforms in this area (yet), but I do want to make a few observations:

While there is a lot of grass roots-type fundraising for specific candidates and/or issues, many people only/also give to national and state parties based on general ideological perceptions—"I give to the Democratic Party because I believe in x, y and z, and so do they."

When the Party elite decide to support a conservative Democratic candidate, regardless of the demographics of the district, they are misappropriating donated dollars and violating the trust of the donors. Period.

As far as I'm concerned, DINOs and Blue Dogs should be vigorously primaried and then left to sink or swim on their own efforts. Supporting them on a national level to fill seats with "D"s may seem like a pragmatic solution, but it's not. It is changing the way the Party perceives itself, and changing the way Americans perceive the Party.

Expediency is often the behavior of foolish, short-sighted people, and rarely leads to success.

Well said.

"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute

I've only been contributing $ to individual candidates for the

last couple of national cycles just for the reasons you discussed, S. I used to give to the DSCC and DCCC, but now I truly feel my money (and time for that matter) should be used to promote candidates I would like to see elected, whether that be locally or in another State. In the end, I realize that my Congressman or Senator represents me personally, but without a collection of like minded brethern and sistern in the Congress, there may not be enough of these progressives to put forward the game plan I would like to see implemented. Therefore, sending money to a Senate candidate in Washington state or a Congressional candidate in Alabama makes more sense to me than sending it to a clearing house that might give it to someone I wouldn't vote for in a million years, even if they have a - D after their name.

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

That is a wise approach,

and if everybody did that, the political landscape would be much different.

Unfortunately, the average contributor is not well-versed in Party behavior, just as the average voter knows very little (of substance) about the specific candidates they vote for. That may come off as elitist and insulting, and I apologize for that. But it's true.

side note: Chuck Schumer and his Mukasey vote have been mentioned a few times here as evidence of the Party elite's apparent disonnect with the rest of us. But what bothers me even more than that, is the fact he (Schumer) apparently floated Mukasey's name to the administration last year as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court. ;o

I think this might be the crux of the matter...

From Stan:

I never said anything about Miller or Price or Watt

Actually I take it that you have. When you maligned the Democratic Party as a whole that includes all Democrats - party officers, elected officials and all registered dems. As I have tried to emphasized is previous posts, that is what I have taken exception to. If you have a concern with the DNC (Dean) or the NCDP (Meek or Allen) then please specify as such. When you lob verbal grenades at the whole Democratic Party that takes in a lot of territory. If you want to take a virtual sniper rifle to those who have less than progressive voting records go for it.

From Betsy:

however the original response to Stan was insulting

The OP was insulting to 99.5% of dems across this country, myself included. Consider that my opening comment was directed at his behavior vis a vis the OP, not directed at Stan personally.

I have only gone "ballistic" once on BlueNC, and this isn't it.

From Stan:

My post wasn't a rant or a vent.

That is exactly the way it came across to me, and it would seem that I am not the only reader who who feels that way.

Here's what I think happened with Stan and the OP. It is rank suppostion, I freely admit.

Stan has long been bothered, to put it mildly, by Mcintyre and the growing BS wrought on this country by Bush et al.

The comment concerning Shuler and 'taking what you can get' twanged that McIntyre nerve, and he responded in a stream of consciousness in his OP. The OP was rather emotional and so somewhat vague (to me at least) regarding just who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. The Mcintyre connection didn't click with me until Stan provided that link at the end of one of his later posts. If McIntyre were my congressman I'd be irritated also.

Unfortunately the voters of the 7th seem rather content with McIntyre, and they are the ones who are ultimately to blame for returning him to DC term after term. The 7th seems rather democratic, at least by voter reg. Anyone know how a primary challenger might do? Has it been tried in the past? Has the NCDP or DCCC interfered in past primaries to keep "their guy Mike" in DC?

I don't see it as the Party's job to twist the arms of elected officials to get them to vote a certain way. I also don't think DC-ers should insert themselves into primaries. Ultimately its the constituents who should have the greatest (only?) influence on how their elected officials vote.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

No, the crux of the matter is that you didn't like Stan's

opinion...which was expressed in a pretty level-headed way. You then proceeded to insult him by saying his rant sounded like a petulant four year old throwing a tantrum. You didn't give specifics like Stan did....you just got your knickers in a twist and struck out instead of responding in a reasonable manner.

It happens.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I admit

I didnt read all of the stuff prior to this. But I think this is a very reasoned post.

I would say to Stan, why dont you run? Even if you lose, even if you spend no more money than gas and printer paper, give it a shot, so that you can ask these questions. McIntyre will almost certainly win, but maybe if you ask the right questions enough times and yell loud enough in the right places you can move the people of the 7th and move McIntyre.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Where do I sign?

Go for it, Stan.

Remember, Stan....he signs checks. :)

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

For progressive Democrats, that is.

"If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral." Max Borders, Civitas Institute

The crux, persondem, is this....

Everyone has an opinion. You seem to think everyone but yours stinks. You're quite free with hyperbole and inflammatory insults in defense of what some might perceive as self-righteous and self-serving indignation. You seem wholly intolerant of other's views. You even have the audacity to make assumptions about others and then write a critique using your own rank assumptions as basis. You do get an A+ for impudence and chutzpah.

See ya....

SE NC Dems

Stan Bozarth

No just your opinions concerning this OP stinks.

I am free with hyperbole.... please, do some reading. I haven't aimed a single inflammatory remark at you personally, at your behavior regarding the OP yes, and just the one line.

It is you who can't stand it when someone else dares to call you on your exaggerated rhetoric.

You have something insightful to say, I'll back you. You lob more verbal granades at my Party as a whole, and I'll be there as well.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

When "your party" messes up...and it does so fairly often

I expect you are planning on being here to take the heat, right? I mean...I can point out things the Meck Dems have done that are horrible and a pretty big fuckup on the state party's dime.....If I list them, are you going to accept responsibility or are you going to deflect, defend and excuse away their mistakes?

People like Stan and I don't expect our party to settle for simply being better than the Republican party. We expect our party to stand up for what is right all the time....not just when it is convenient or popular. Sometimes just isn't good enough.

Now, I believe that people are elected to represent their constituency which means that not all Dems will be able to lean hard left and still represent the people in their district or state. That doesn't mean I'm going to give them a pass if their vote harms this country or the people who live here.

I don't know that the state or national party can do much about someone's votes when they don't align with Democratic ideology, but the party leadership in DC can hold back leadership positions on committees if push comes to shove. I'm sure that would open an entirely new can of worms, but it is at least a possibility. The party can also hold back on GOTV money or other assistance given during election cycles, but I don't know how much they really do for incumbents anyway. Is it the Party's job? Sure it is. If it is their job to develop and recruit candidates, it certainly is their job to encourage Democrats who hold office to vote along party lines....however...it is also their job to understand that we're lucky to have some Dems elected in certain districts because the alternative isn't a more liberal Dem....it's a Republican. Nice tightrope they have to walk, but it is the nature of the beast.

I don't always agree with Stan, but I appreciate his perspective. I know that it comes from years of experiences that are different from mine and I can learn from him.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

i'm ill so this will be short

My problem with the post was how Stan "lobbed bombs" as person phrased it, at the party as a whole. I'm part of that party, so I take that personally. He also used specific allegations directed at specific people. And he made his case well.

My issue is with the overly general fashion he attacked the party. I had the same problem when all of you, especially you Betsy, said that "the party" didn't want Jim to run becuase he is gay. That offends a lot of us becuase you are insinuating that we are homophobic and/or bigoted.

I did not say that. Now you're just lying isabelabadone.

Do not attribute another lie to me. Do not attribute lies to any community members here at BlueNC. When you knowlingly attribute words to someone they did not say - especially damaging words - you are playing in the land of libel. Consider this your first cease and desist notice.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Now Betsy

You actually said to me something along the lines of, sometimes we don't need evidence to know someone's guilty when I asked you and Robert to come up with one shred of evidence to back up Robert's claim that the elders of the state party were backing kay hagan just because he's gay. Do you need me to go back and dig up the actual quote?

Lying once again isabelabadone

Sine you don't have the brain power to actually remember what people said I dug the quote up for you.

You know...sometimes you dont' need proof
Submitted by Betsy Muse on Mon, 10/29/2007 - 2:29pm.

Sometimes, a person can look at the timing of events and make assumptions based on pure common sense.

You have this major problem of putting words into people's mouths. That is a form of libel. You really are the one who needs to watch what you accuse people of doing and/or saying. Thank you.

You kept screaming for proof. I simply said that sometimes you don't need it. Sometimes you can look at the timing of events and use good old fashioned common sense - or prior experience - to make a safe assumption. That is NOT calling someone....ANYONE a homophobe. You took what I said and twisted it into something it is not.

Here's the deal. I've now had to ask you to stop libeling people...because that is in fact what you are doing when you attribute words to them that they did not say....oh..say three or four times now.

You do know that you make yourself look more ignorant with each comment, right?

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Where did you go to law school?

University of Phoenix? Paraphrasing is not a form of libel, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think my interpretation of your remarks was far off at all. You were defending Robert against my "screaming" for proof of his allegation that party insiders were conspiring against Jim just because he is gay.

Accusing faceless members of 'the party' of discriminating against Jim because he is gay, which Robert did and you agreed with, is discriminatory and homophobic. Do you think that it's not?

After almost two years at BlueNC

I have never met anyone who has made him/herself such a total pain in the butt so quickly as you have. In some other universe, your insistence that you are right in this matter might be a welcome and moral stand, but in this small fishbowl it is tedious.

Whether you want to accept it or not, "gay" was factored into the equation when the DSCC redoubled its efforts to recruit another Democrat into the race. I know this from personal conversations with people in Raleigh and in Washington. I also know that the playing field is not level. And I could care less whether you believe me or not.

Was "gay" the only factor in this debacle? Of course it wasn't. No one has said it was. But pretending that it was not a consideration is an absurd position to take.

If you want to write about other issues, I'll be happy to join the conversation. But this is the last time I'm going to respond to your delusions on this topic.

Feel free to criticize me for stifling debate. That is exactly what I am trying to do.

Ugh, I'm so tired of this discussion

I've already said that I'm sure Jim being gay factored into a lot of people's opinion of the man and his candidacy, pro and con.
My problem was that Robert said that it was the ONLY reason.

I, as much as anyone, have come out blasting the DSCC, the Democratic candidates, and anyone else who went looking for a new candidate just because Jim Neal was gay.

"just because Jim Neal was gay." This whole time, I'm taking issue with that phrase. Why do you continue to act like it wasn't said? I'm still pissed at that and how he made her out to be a tool of homophobes.

Hagan is suddenly back in the race following many harried phone calls from current Democratic candidates worried that Jim's being the nominee will hurt their changes at being elected, after all, he's gay{shhhhh}.

With that said, I think I'm going to try to be a little nicer and less confrontational around here. I usually am a pretty decent woman. I just found those statements to be inaccurate and border-line libel... yes Betsy, libel.

But they aren't libel

You can make up your own meaning of the word to suit yourself, but they aren't libel. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Also, look up the meaning of the term, "public figure" as it pertains to libel and slander.

You think you're tired of this conversation. You're the person who keeps bringing it up. Think about it. You are responsible for the continued discussion along this theme.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Check the link, I'm not making up anything.

It is to one of those new-fangled online dictionaries you told me about. And I am tired of the topic, but I never get tired of arguing with you. You're the fun one here.

You're right about the additional burden when public figures claim libel against an accuser, but who cares? No one is filing suit. I know about case law, New York Times v Sullivan. That's why I said the charges were borderline libel.
Robert and a number of others made the claim that Democratic candidates, the DSCC, and 'insiders' at the NCDP discriminated against Jim just becuause he's gay. His words. No proof and none needed according to you.


Robert did NOT claim that anyone discriminated against Neal because he's gay. There you go inserting words nobody ever used. He never said that a candidate discriminated against Neal. He never said that anybody discriminated against Neal.

Good Lord.

Oh...and I'm not arguing with you. I'm educating you. Guess what. Class is over. Do me a favor though...please register Republican. They deserve you.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I know, and that's why I asked

whom he was talking about, names. And also, I said borderline libel. Understand?
Betsy: "There you go inserting words nobody ever used."
Look above, or at the OP. There are the words that allege what I said.
Again, from the OP:

I, as much as anyone, have come out blasting the DSCC, the Democratic candidates, and anyone else who went looking for a new candidate just because Jim Neal was gay.

Hagan is suddenly back in the race following many harried phone calls from current Democratic candidates worried that Jim's being the nominee will hurt their changes at being elected, after all, he's gay{shhhhh}.

Right there saying exactly that the DSCC and the Democratic candidates discriminate against Neal's campaign "just because he is gay." That's homophobic and discriminatory, don't you think?

Am I still ignorant or a liar?

You put words into my mouth that I didn't say

does that make you a liar?

I'll let you figure that one out.

You insist that Robert accused people of being homophobes. He didn't use that word in the original post. That's your addition.

Robert is putting two and two together. You might not like the conclusion he comes to, but he's entitled to his opinion. What he said wasn't even borderline libel. I guess that's like being sorta pregnant.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I think it may be homophobic

and I've been around the earth long enough to know that it's probably true. I've met enough of these people to make an educated guess as to the consternation Jim's outing caused. Discriminatory? No. Neal was not prevented from registering, filing, running, etc. Nor was Hagan, or anyone else.

Robert was stating his opinion based on the facts that we have seen so far. It's still America, and despite efforts of BushCo, we still have nominal freedom of speech.

And if anyone wants my opinion (I doubt it, at this point) - there are a lot you acting like spoiled children on this thread. Just cut it the fuck out.

There are more important things to talk about than whether Robert libeled anyone, or whether or not the DSCC is homophobic - 2008 is officially here. we've got work to do.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Why does it look like my message

to isa is a reply to you? It isn't. I left it before you posted.

I am not acting like a spoiled child, so there. Phlllllaaaaatttttt.


Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

It doesn't look like that here.

And I'm cutting you slack because you haven't been feeling well.

But yeah - the he said, no I said, no she said nature this thread is taking on is tiresome.

You know what happens when you feed a fire? It burns. Let's get on to the real work now - putting progressives in office in less than one year.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

My...aren't we the witty one?

You aren't paraphrasing. You don't get to change the meaning of someone's words when you paraphrase. There are really good online dictionaries. I suggest you use one.

I didn't accuse faceless members of the party of being homophobic. I said that IF (shall I define this word for you?) Chuck Shumer was recruiting Kay Hagan and Neal's background gave no other reason why he would not make a good candidate, then I could only assume that Shumer was homophobic.

I defended Robert against your constant demands for proof after they became tedious and unreasonable and I gave a general explanation of why someone might not need "proof"...... An explanation that most people would think is reasonable. If your reading comprehension skills were as strong as your ability to just make shit up, you might be a formidable opponent.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Isa . . . If you take what we say about the party personally

we're never going to get along.

. . . Stan "lobbed bombs" as person phrased it, at the party as a whole. I'm part of that party, so I take that personally.

II think taking what people say about the party personally makes about as much sense as taking what people say about America personally.

I lived in NC during the Hunt administration but I don't feel personally connected to the Hunt machine. There are still county chairs out west that say openly "No one wants to be a precinct chair when there's no jobs to hand out." I'm repulsed that they think they have a legitimate complaint.

And Jerry Meek ran against this kind of insider behind-the-scenes manipulation and strong-arming but he can't change everything. Or maybe he's given up trying because one guy can't change a state-wide inbred culture of entitlement, patronage, and favor-trafficking.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,