Democrats & Liberals Archives

Somebody Slept Through Their Own Revolution.

Really? Jason, you and your buddies might have short memories, but my generation grew up long enough after the decline in leaded gasoline not to forget what happened just seven years ago.

I remember red-faced people hounding Democrats about government takeovers, I remember folks blaring on about how we wanted to institute death panels, wanted to take away everybody's choices, how we were stealing money from Medicare.

Jason Chaffetz was part of that wave of new representatives that helped build the backbone of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. They built everything on this Network style "Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" sort of red-faced protest. The Astroturfed group that made its name with the Tea Party Revolution called itself "FreedomWorks," for crying out loud.

I wonder how many people who know that "Mad as Hell" speech actually remember the way the story goes after that, after Peter Finch's character has that famous breakdown.

Well, I'm going to speak of it, so if you at all plan on watching the movie, stop reading now.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Like many satires, many great satires, the movie Network actually breaks down precisely the tropes the folks with slight familiarity with the movie pick up on. Yes, there is that scene where he gets people to say, "I'm mad as hell," but then, after that, the bigwigs at the network pick up on the popularity of this protest, and give him a daily show to rant on, usually ending in his collapse.

The situation gradually evolves from the old model of network news to this kind of garish sideshow. Meanwhile, Howard Beale, Finch's character, runs afoul of the big business interests, and the shadowy boss of the network calls the poor guy into the boardroom and delivers a withering, intimidating lecture to him on the state of the world.

Well, Beale walks back his opinion, and then his ratings plummet. This eventually ends in his producers hiring a bunch of now co-opted radicals (they got their own show) to kill him on air.

The movie isn't about somebody inspiring a popular revolt, and changing things for the better. The new media figures in the story let Beale's populist rants create this glorious, interesting sideshow, and they glory in the controversy, right up until the point it becomes dangerous to them. Then they corrupt it and destroy it.

The Tea Party was the GOP did the same. They had people outraged, screaming, gathering as much attention as possible, sending those Democrats running from Obamacare. They mounted a big, three-ring circus and were content to cast the nuttiest, most obnoxious leaders to promote the movement.

But it wasn't ever meant to do good by the average person. The point of the movement was to push back against hope and change with fear and forceful defense of Bush's status quo. The point of the Tea Party was to recapitulate 1994, to bring the Republicans back into power.

Republicans want to believe that they are beloved, that they're popular, that all their policies work, all their beliefs work for the best. If you're protesting against them, you're rioters, you're paid, you're a Soros dupe, you're anything but a person motivated to push back by policies they don't like, by a leader they absolutely hate.

Chaffetz and his allies want to believe that they've won, and won for good. They look at Hillary Clinton's defeat, at the fact they have Congress entirely, and tell the rest of us to just sit down and shut up.

I'm afraid they're being quite naïve.

First, let's not kid ourselves. What worked for the Tea Party can work for ticked-off Democrats, too. Second, Democrats can actually name the policies they're losing. They can talk about pre-existing conditions, about drug benefit enhancements, about getting rid of lifetime caps and all that. Concrete policy consequences are much more compelling than ideological despair. Third?

Third, this country was designed around practical-minded, less party-oriented government. Though parties emerged organically, the government is still organized in such a way that the fortunes of political parties can swing back and forth. When I started writing for this blog roughly fourteen years ago, the Republicans had the same trifecta it has now. And lost it, just two years later. Democrats gained it for four years, lost the House, lost the Senate four years later. The system is designed to allow this to happen, even if it the reasons it happens involve more cynicism and political manipulation, and less bona fide good policy leadership.

But one thing that helped destroy the GOP the last time were a stream of bad policy results and offenses to the voters.

Which brings me to my point: Chaffetz is desperately trying to deny that destroying Obamacare could be a political problem, that pushing forward with Trump's agenda could be a political problem. I think you should ask Boehner and others before them how quickly an unpopular President and policy disasters can wreck a majority, turn conventional political logic upside-down.

If your government decisions actually cause people real problems, that can become a political problem. That can create political converts of folks who never otherwise would have thought to vote the way they did. Republicans did a good job of convincing people in strategic states to support Trump.

But these people are looking for results. They likely weren't looking for all the BS that's come with a Trump Presidency. If he does something that destroys jobs, disrupts the economy, sends Americans home in body bags, embarrasses us as a nation, or otherwise acts destructively to our national interests, he doesn't have enough fervent followers hooked into FOXNews and other friendly channels to get him re-elected.

Chaffetz and Trump don't quite grasp how quickly triumph can turn into a downfall, even though they helped slam the brakes on President Obama's ambitious agenda. They proceed, seemingly, naively confident that after years of inflicting pain on their political rivals when they held power, they're somehow proof against the pain being returned, the dark side of the precedent they set being revisited on them.

If there's one thing that I know, it's that people copy other people's ideas and strategies very quickly, especially when they prove successful.

How did Chaffetz and Trump ever think they were going to outrun the ugliness of the way they gained power? When you operate as divisively, as ideologically, as dogmatically blind as they have, you really end up doing your best to build up enemies. All this talk of defeating political correctness doesn't mean you destroy your detractor's sense of offense. They're still ticked off at you. Now your enemies are motivated.

There are ways to defeat this. Do good work, find ways to surprise people with policy they find it hard to object to. Compromise where necessary. Behave like an adult and discuss things with people. Break out of the politically dogmatic language and be more conversational.

Trouble is, this is exactly the corner that people like Trump and Chaffetz have spent years painting themselves out of, and the corner they've painted themselves into is one that requires them to treat rivals with bitter hatred and disrespect, to push partisan advantages as hard as they can, to ignore good advice and news if it doesn't come from the right people. Worse yet, one ends up likely to pay a political price if one works well and plays nicely with others.

If you live by the political sword, you die (politically) by the political sword. If you sow division, you naturally reap a harvest of enemies. If you sow partisanship, you get partisanship in return. If you use aggressive, emotionally-directed tactics on your rivals to get into power... Well, you'd better watch yourself, because the day will come when the angry voices and shouting are at your town halls, and the people are asking you what you're doing to their healthcare.

Or, more accurately, that day has already come. If you want something better than this... We're here. But we're not the accommodating, capitulating, compromising Democrats we once were. We've had the Republican's rage, their lies, their poisonous level of partisanship directed at us for years now. That's hardened our hearts, jaundiced our eyes. Fifteen years ago, there were more moderates and conservative Democrats to appeal to. The Republicans replaced them, often enough, with Tea Partiers.

Obama is still well-liked among many Americans, especially the Democrats, but the attitudes of cooperation and bipartisanship he once expressed have been replaced with a bitter understanding of just how hardheaded those pushing an agenda can be, how obstructive, how reckless in their political maneuvering.

You want better? We're here. But there's a lot to repent for before much can be forgiven.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2017 3:28 PM
Comments
Comment #413171

I don’t think beating up 12 year old kids with Trump hats on is going to get your party anywhere, Stephen Daugherty. The people who support the Democratics are known for busting windows and setting fires and assaulting those who disagree with them. You’ve said it yourself. You’re angry. But acting like spoiled children won’t put your party back in power.

Tell them you’re a Muslim.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 9:16 AM
Comment #413178

Stephen, I couldn’t force myself to read past your second paragraph about “red-faced” people hounding democrats.

My Pal has a memory of convenience. I remember the Democrats bribing and threatening their own members to force this bill through the House. Not a single Republican member voted for it. It is failing today because the Democrats in congress are power-hungry autocrats.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 12, 2017 4:18 PM
Comment #413179

“WASHINGTON ― A left-wing political group released a new video Monday of a counter-sting that has uncovered evidence of right-wing activists trying to sow chaos at Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremony, an effort to portray critics of Trump who march against him as violent fringe figures.

The counter-sting, carried out by The Undercurrent and Americans Take Action, a project of a previous target of provocateur James O’Keefe, managed to surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive activists if they would disrupt the ceremony and “put a stop to the inauguration…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7

Posted by: phx8 at February 12, 2017 4:49 PM
Comment #413182

Didn’t O’keefe do that for a sting operation? I thought I saw a video of them doing this to see if people would take the money. I’m not sure.

I watched the longer video and it sure sounds like two people trying to sting each other. The even said as much. They both talk about a fictitious person wanting to pay someone to disrupt the invigoration.

On a side note. After watching this video I don’t expect anyone on the left to complain about edited video any more. This video was chopped to pieces with sentences strung together to form what looks like a conversation.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 7:43 PM
Comment #413183

I thought about trying to explain how my spell checker changed inauguration to invigoration, but now that I think about it I think invigoration explains this event much more accurately.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 7:47 PM
Comment #413187
I don’t expect anyone on the left to complain about edited video any more

I will continue to refuse evidence preface upon edited videos like those of Project Veritas or by The Undercurrent.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 12, 2017 8:10 PM
Comment #413192

Hear that, phx8? You’re loosing your choir.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2017 12:17 AM
Comment #413203

Let’s see now.
In order to get Obama elected and for the last 9 years of his rule, democrats lived by the political sword, intentionally sowed massive division and partisanship through very aggressive, emotionally directed tactics, and have now paid the political price for their reprehensible actions.
And now you are warning the right to not do the same things.

Excellent advice, Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2017 10:37 AM
Comment #413205

Weary Willie-
Angry questioning of public officials equals beating up twelve-year-olds. Right. Do you really want to play propaganda tennis here, because I could hit quite a few balls into your court, including the ones where somebody crows about Trump or writes Trump graffiti after beating up some old lady or trashing a synagogue or mosque.

Let me go further, having researched it further, both on google, and with personal experience: You get into a fight, you will be punished. Hell, I’ve been in a situation where I got suspended for getting punched, unprovoked in the face. The Principal reasoned that I had agitated my attacker. How did I do so? I asked him to stop hitting me on the top of my head during a pep rally.

Twelve year old kids can be real psychopaths, and what they’re looking for, if they’re bullies, is not reasons, but excuses to be that way.

I see Republicans looking for any damn excuse to push others around all the time. For every kid that gets bullied for being pro-Trump, I think I could hand you one that is bullied for being anti-Trump, or even just one of Trump’s target groups. But your side has a particularly vicious social media presence, so when I google the article, I see it on every god-forsaken site you have, multiplied over and over again.

You guys are good at making sure that whenever one kid legitimately gets bullied, that the whole rest of you feel persecuted. But then you turn around and pretty much do the same thing to others. Kids bully other kids in Trump’s name, you curse and belittle and propagandize against all liberals as if they’re directly responsible for what these middle school students do. No responsibility taken for the little monsters who harrass minority kids by saying that Trump is going to deport them, or for your own insistence that anybody who’s offended about your divisive rhetoric is merely being too politically correct.

As for videos?

It’s not that terribly clear cut, but it is obvious that she’s misrepresenting who she is, presenting herself as a part of the progressive movement when she’s not, and trying to get him to say incriminating things. If you asked me, it might have been less “paying for disruption,” and more “fishing for material for our new deceptively edited video.”

Here’s the video, by the way.

Royal Flush-
Oh, right. And I remember how the Medicare Drug benefit got through the GOP Congress in 2003. Let’s not be naive about the horse-trading and sausage making that goes on in Congress.

Let’s not be so naive as to think Republicans today are all that much interested in doing a professional job, either. I look at Trump’s cabinet, and I see plenty of cronyism, including in the case of Betsy DeVos. You can’t tell me that Ben Carson got HUD because he was qualified for that job, either.

Let me tell you something else: whether I can stomach it or not (what kind of special snowflake melts at the prospect of reading somebody else’s point of view?) I often read on anyways, because that’s the only way you graduate from the usual propaganda tennis to having real control over what you say. You can’t have a real opinion of your own, in any functional sense, if you just consume information at face value.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2017 12:24 PM
Comment #413207

kctim-
When unarmed black kids were getting killed, who called them thugs and did their best to discredit their concerns, backed by the data as it was?

When Latino’s brought up their concerns for children of undocumented workers who lived here all their lives, who was it who screamed amnesty, who raged about an invasion on our southern border, and ran to the banner of building a wall, a literally divisive structure, when a certain somebody campaigned on it?

Who uses every terrorist attack as a justification for discriminating against and shutting out Muslims in a broad-brush manner?

Who decided, rather than negotiating with us, to completely shut out our Supreme court choice? Who obstructed our every move for the entire Obama Administration

Who is it who keeps on insisting that they be able to say whatever offensive thing they want, no matter how people might react against it?

Who is it who spent years opposing the sharing of marriage rights with LGBT people? Who was it who still wants to criminalize it, citing slanderous accusations about agendas?

You folks stew in divisive rhetoric on a regular basis. We, meanwhile, have insisted on being very inclusive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2017 12:33 PM
Comment #413208

Stephen,
When “unarmed black kids” we killed during a violent confrontation they had started, who automatically screamed racism before any facts were known? Who still wrongly claims ‘shot just for wearing a hoodie” and “hands up don’t shoot,” knowing the facts prove otherwise?
Who screams ‘racist’ at all who point these things out?

Who constantly tries to cloud the issue by equating illegal aliens to legal immigrants?
Who screams ‘racist’ at all who simply want current immigration laws to be enforced once again?

Who uses every terrorist attack as justification to attack America and to equate Christians to such barbaric acts?
Who screams ‘xenophobia’ to all who put the safety of all Americans first?

Who decided, rather than negotiating with the right, to demand a government solution as the only option for health care reform?
Who labels all who oppose such a government mandate, racists?

Who is it who keeps insisting that what you say is more important than your right to say it? Who targets, attacks and attempts to destroy jobs, businesses and people who don’t abide by the latest PC rhetoric?

Who is it that attacks average Americans who support traditional marriage? Who attacks normal Americans who don’t want to shower with the opposite sex?

Truth is, you folks spew the divisive rhetoric that you accuse others of stewing in, Stephen. In fact, all of your examples are nothing but the same identity politics and PC nonsense that have cost you guys so dearly in recent elections.
But yet you feel justified to lecture the right on how to behave? Laughable.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2017 1:53 PM
Comment #413209

Stephen,
When “unarmed black kids” we killed during a violent confrontation they had started, who automatically screamed racism before any facts were known? Who still wrongly claims ‘shot just for wearing a hoodie” and “hands up don’t shoot,” knowing the facts prove otherwise?
Who screams ‘racist’ at all who point these things out?

Who constantly tries to cloud the issue by equating illegal aliens to legal immigrants?
Who screams ‘racist’ at all who simply want current immigration laws to be enforced once again?

Who uses every terrorist attack as justification to attack America and to equate Christians to such barbaric acts?
Who screams ‘xenophobia’ to all who put the safety of all Americans first?

Who decided, rather than negotiating with the right, to demand a government solution as the only option for health care reform?
Who labels all who oppose such a government mandate, racists?

Who is it who keeps insisting that what you say is more important than your right to say it? Who targets, attacks and attempts to destroy jobs, businesses and people who don’t abide by the latest PC rhetoric?

Who is it that attacks average Americans who support traditional marriage? Who attacks normal Americans who don’t want to shower with the opposite s*x?

Truth is, you folks spew the divisive rhetoric that you accuse others of stewing in, Stephen. In fact, all of your examples are nothing but the same identity politics and PC nonsense that have cost you guys so dearly in recent elections.
But yet you feel justified to lecture the right on how to behave? Laughable.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2017 1:53 PM
Comment #413215

1)Did he actually start the confrontation, or did the guy who followed him for blocks and get out of his car armed, despite guidelines advising against both, and advice of police start it? He was the victor, so for many credulous people, he wrote the story. Y’all seem to instantly accept the escalation of force that whipping out a gun represents without really thinking about the disadvantage that puts the person on the other side at.

And really? You guys have become absolute snowflakes about racist accusations. It’s become your political correctness. Don’t accuse people of racism, even when they pull over one set of people more, or are documented using greater force more, etc. Just ignore any inequalities of treatment, and they’ll go away.

The way you defend on racism, if a defense really can work, is you stick to the baseline facts. Calling anybody who gets shot by a cop a thug who had it coming isn’t my idea of inclusive, uniting rhetoric. Nor is this automatic, raging skepticism of all accusations of prejudice.

In all honesty, I think our immigration laws are being enforced with greater strictness than they ever have. The previous president enforced those laws rather emphatically. He just focused his efforts on those doing harm here, rather than deporting people who actually led productive lives despite their status.

As for Terrorist attacks? You must be commenting on parallel universe liberals. We cheered the killing of Bin Laden. We grumbled some about the collateral casualties of drone attacks, but not destroying terrorists. Meanwhile, your people cheer an attack on our system because the target was your political rival. If that’s not divisive, I don’t know what is.

As for government solutions to healthcare? We took your route, a system that largely privatizes the solution. If we were that emphatic about a government solution, the Senators had the numbers to quickly pass something that would have remade the whole thing. It’s also how we got shellacked on the issue in the Town Halls I referred to. We started negotiation in March, and for some reason we just couldn’t get the Republicans to budge on anything.

It turns out, they were deliberately told not to budge by Mitch McConnell. That’s sort of like weeping for your plight as an orphan after killing your parents. You deliberately decided not to negotiate with us, not to trade your votes for changes and revisions to the policy. You lost your opportunity to negotiate of your own accord. And don’t give me that excuse that Obama told you he won. That was just him responding to Republicans who thought he should have to capitulate on every issue to avoid obstruction. You guys want to win policy fights even when you don’t win elections.

As for political correctness?

Look, the day when white males could just casually disrespect non-whites, women, and other folks are over. People will stand up for themselves. It is inherently divisive to insist that you can say whatever you want to people without consequence, and Republicans often add to the hypocrisy by being hypersensitive about all the flak that comes back the other way.

As for defense of traditional marriage? Why do you need the government’s help with that? Male/Female marriage still occurs. You can have your church wedding just fine today, just the same as you could have it thirty years ago. You just have to live with LGBT individuals, consenting adults being able to do the same. I think its rather divisive to insist that others have to give up their rights for you to feel comfortable with your rights, which you still have every freedom to exercise.

You talk about us being divisive, but that tends to be a code word for “insists on their rights despite my wanting things to work like they used to.”

It’s the right these days that shows remarkably little ability to endure others enjoying their rights and freedoms. It’s the right these days that keeps on escalating conflicts, escalating rhetoric, but then turn around and want to pretend like they’re friends with everybody. If you won’t work with people, you can’t blame them when they grow contemptuous of you. You want friends, behave in a more friendly manner. Quite dismissing people’s complaints.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2017 4:42 PM
Comment #413217

Stephen,
The problem isn’t the stories, it’s the automatic knee-jerk reaction that racism is behind all such incidents BEFORE any facts are known. It’s the dishonest claims of racism AFTER the facts prove otherwise. It’s the constant screams of racist to all who don’t support the narrative. It’s taking all justified actions and calling them ‘inequalities of treatment.’
You guys have wrongly screamed racism at so many people so many times now, the word has lost its meaning. The ONLY way you claim or defend on racism is with facts.

Just because you believe our immigration laws are being enforced correctly does not mean those who disagree with you are xenophobic or full of hatred, which we were called over the past 8 years. That tactic is divisive and alienated many votes.

Regarding terrorist attacks, I am commenting on our very own liberals. Every attack is meant with ‘But right-wing Christians’ this and ‘just a result of American policy’ that. That cost you guys votes.

You couldn’t get Republicans to budge on health care because you demanded a government solution. You then rushed it through before you lost the power to pass it. You blamed racism and that divided people. It alienated those who did not want a government solution, who voted to prevent a mandate, and when it was all said and done, it failed.

“Look, the day when white males could just casually disrespect non-whites, women, and other folks are over.”

That’s not the problem you guys are facing. Your problem is that you are disrespecting ‘white males’ in order to create a false sense of victimization and get votes, and redefining things to get what you want. And to top it off, you label everyone who disagrees with you as racist, sexist, homophobic etc…
That is intentionally divisive.

I support gay-marriage. What I was referring to was the left’s screams of hatred, bigotry and homophobia at those who support traditional marriage. That is also intentionally divisive and also meant to shame for votes.

“Quite dismissing people’s complaints.”

Why? The right aren’t the one’s who were rejected.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2017 5:56 PM
Comment #413219

Stephen writes; “Let’s not be naive about the horse-trading and sausage making that goes on in Congress.”

I agree, please stop it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2017 6:05 PM
Comment #413225

I guess you missed the video of the homeless person protecting the Star commemorating Trump’s success in entertainment. The woman was physically attacked, her personal belongings destroyed, her safety taken from her, because she showed support for Donald Trump.
These are the people you are defending, Stephen Daugherty.

I’m glad your party has been exposed as the violent, racist, and criminal elements in our political process. If I were you I would hang my head in shame and ask what you could do to help correct the damage your party has done instead of continuing to agitate, deny, and lay blame.

As far as your party goes I couldn’t care less if it fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. Your party needs a good dose of humility. The only reason I would reach across the aisle is to give your party a push off a cliff.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2017 8:51 PM
Comment #413236

The people gave the leftists an inch and they used slander and intimidation to take a mile.

Posted by: kctim at February 14, 2017 8:54 AM
Comment #413237

Weary Willie-
I guess we see your true colors. Pushing us off a cliff? Violent, racist, and criminal? You insist we are all like the worst of humanity, and you know why you do that? So you can justify shoving us off the cliff.

You really want to, don’t you? You really hate us that intensely. Well, for that, I pity you. You either get what you want and become the monster you see us as, or you will live to see us win anyways.

I don’t need you off the cliff. I don’t even need to win every fight. All I need is to fight for what I believe in, and express the truth when the gestapo-minded spew propaganda in that truth’s place.

And yes, I did miss that video, because I don’t binge watch even left-wing material designed to turn me into a partisan bigot everyday. I much prefer to figure out my own way with things, think for myself. The truth isn’t easy, it’s a struggle for even the smartest of us to figure out it’s best approximation. You’ve given up that fight to be spoonfed by those who just want things out of you. You have been domesticated by the unscrupulous, and you don’t even realize it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2017 9:01 AM
Comment #413249

kctim-
1) It’s funny how concerned you are that you don’t appear racist, despite the fact that you’re supposedly free from political correctness.

Look, you owe a lot of people a long list of apologies. You constantly dismiss evidence-based accusations of bias in the Justice System, in hiring, in so many corners of American life, then ask for pity because people then assume you’re racist.

Well, are they wrong? If you, even just to salve your ego, allow disparities and biases in the system to continue, if you, like Weary Willie up there, believe the worst about their motives, if you constantly dismiss people as lazy, as immoral, as looking for a handout, are they wrong?

A truly racist racist doesn’t think they’re racist. They think they have an appropriate, reasonable, logical, honest view of the inferiority of the black (or other minority) race. But that doesn’t mean everybody who doesn’t think they’re racist is racist. However, it makes this point: you don’t have to think you’re a bigot to act like one, to unthinkingly take up bigoted attitudes.

How do we avoid racism? If we’re considering their interests as a group, we recognize that their interests have been harmed, and we remedy that harm, prevent policies and behaviors (like redlining and other unfair loan policies) that exact an unfair cost on them.

If we’re dealing with crime and criminals, we enact a common standard of treatment, we act to ensure that what would risk a black man getting shot would pose the same hazard for a white man. We back off from standards, both civilian and law enforcement, that encourage quick emotion and instinct driven uses of force at the expense of calm, reasoned, de-escalation driven approaches. The police shouldn’t be out to fight a war. Their job is to keep the peace and enforce the law, and a warlike attitude is corrosive to both.

One important aspect is to treat blacks and other minorities as if their individual actions matter, and as if their rights as citizens aren’t subject to some kind of probation, dependent on the good behavior of their fellow minorities. If you want people taking personal responsibility for their actions, don’t turn around and complain about black on black crime, as if the concerns of the black community must wait until they’re perfectly docile and peaceful angels, one and all.

They are citizens, and as our constitution says, they are to be afforded equal protection of the law, and their life, liberty, and property should be no less sacrosanct than that of a white man’s. They should be treated like adults, held responsible as individuals, like adults, not held separate from the rest of us.

2) It’s not your disagreement that got you labeled as such. It’s people saying things like “Mexico isn’t sending us their best people, they’re sending their thieves and rapists.” It’s people supporting inhumane policies in the name of stopping the influx. It’s Minutemen sitting on the border with guns. It’s calling it an invasion. You’re acting like all the things people are saying, all the things they are doing don’t matter because their intentions are good. It doesn’t work that way.

3) On the subject of Terrorist attacks? We might say that intervening in the middle east with the Gulf War, and supporting Mubarak, with his tyrannical behavior may have increased the likelihood of terrorists wanting to target us, but we still think terrorist attacks are horrible, terrible things, that we should secure our borders and our cities against it, and when it comes to things like killing Bin Laden, many of us are proud our guy managed to do that, happy the SOB went to get his 72 yogurt raisins

At the same time, how you do that, what you sacrifice for it’s sake, is important. Sacrificing our moral high ground by engaging in torture wasn’t worth it. It rebounded on us to the detriment of our interests. Going to war where it wasn’t called for was a mistake. Making the whole thing into a clash of Civilizatons, a war between Christians and Muslims, is EXACTLY what our enemies want, and what we should deny them.

4) On healthcare, we used your own plan, Romney’s own plan. The Healthcare industry wasn’t providing a solution, and people were dying as a result, needlessly dying. I don’t believe in duplicating the work the market does better, but I hardly think you can tell me that the market by itself was doing that splendid of a job.

It’s disingenuous, too, to say that Republicans just didn’t get the health reform they wanted. No, they had already agreed behind closed doors, according to multiple sources, that they weren’t going to cooperate with anything. They put our nation’s interests behind their party’s. They could have easily gotten greater concessions if the were negotiating in good faith.

They were not.

5) We deserve the respect we give. We’ll get the respect we give. If you tell me that traditional marriage is endangered by gays getting married, that it’s justified to deny them service in business open to the public, in jurisdictions where they are a protected class… well, it is homophobic. If you want to take that designation personally, fine. But if you want people to back off about confronting illegal, discriminatory behavior… I think we’re out of luck, and should be. We are not a nation built with religion as a foundation of the state. It is explicitly rendered a private matter in our constitution, something the government neither supports nor regulates. Your problem is that too many Christians think that their interpretation of religious law should dictate the way that civil law is formulated and enforced. What we want is fairness not simply in name only, but in form and content. Real freedom to worship as we please, speak and assemble as we please, not a joke of that with the punchline being conservative christian government intruding into our private lives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2017 1:30 PM
Comment #413268

Stephen,
First, I am only trying to give you some honest insight into why you guys have been losing election after election. The fact that you would still rather condemn those who disagree with you than admit and discuss where you went wrong, is priceless.

I personally don’t care if political correctness BS makes me appear racist, sexist or whatever. If seeing a person as an American rather than some hyphenated American makes me racist, so be it. If not wanting to pay for a chicks abortion makes me a sexist, so be it. If not wanting my daughter to shower with a grown man pretending to be a girl makes me insensitive, so be it. I owe nobody any kind of an apology for being white, male, straight, American, any of it.

My refusal to blindly accept what you see as a bias, does not mean I dismiss actual bias. What I do dismiss however, is trying to mask personal failure with special treatment, as some kind of solution.

Democratic candidates need my vote, but why would I want to vote for somebody who openly attacks me for my differing opinions?

2 - It’s ALL about daring to disagree with the lefts redefining of illegal aliens and what they alone consider humane treatment. IF it wasn’t, you wouldn’t use hyperbole and such a broad brush to slander and condemn people who are only supporting what democrats just recently stopped supporting.

Why would I vote for those who refuse to uphold our immigration laws and who slander and condemn me for my opinions?

3 - You don’t win the votes of Christians by equating them to IS, or by putting them second to muslims. You don’t win their votes by dismissing and mocking their concerns.

4 - The Massachusetts health reform law was never presented to, or embraced by, the right. Romney worked with democrats on the state level and compromised conservative principles.
Those on the right did not want a government solution to health care and when Obama and the democrats declared government would be part of any reform, the right had no reason to proceed with negotiations.

If democrats support doubling my costs and degrading my service so that others can have little to no costs, why would I give them my vote?

5 - You don’t have to have a ‘dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people’ to believe traditional marriage is endangered by gays getting married, or to not want to promote their lifestyle. In fact, I would wager that fear or hate have absolutely nothing to do with such a belief. So why do leftists target them for destruction? Why vote for someone who supports that?

I am not religious, but on an individual and business level there is no denying that our government now regulates religion. From restricting how and where an individual may exercise their religion, to mandates forcing them to compromise their beliefs, our government is very involved. The fact that you believe some civil law trumps a Constitutional right, does not change that.

As an atheist, I believe the left’s fears of some Christian government taking over and enslaving them are quite foolish.

If this election proves anything, Stephen, it’s that bludgeoning people with your agenda sometimes comes back to bite you in the a$$.

Posted by: kctim at February 14, 2017 5:00 PM
Comment #413271

Thanks kctim. I agree with you and will just add one more reason I don’t vote for Liberals.

Why would I vote for someone who defends those here illegally, those who have broken our laws, and politicians who advocate “sanctuary” anything to protect lawbreakers from our justice and law enforcement system?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2017 5:13 PM
Comment #413295

kctim-
1)Here’s some insight in return. 2006 and 2008 were disasters. 2010 got you the house, but a great deal of gerrymandering and a concentrated media presence in the wake of Citizens United was also involved. You also failed to repeat 1994’s gain of the Senate 2012 saw us keep both the White House and Senate. Only in 2014 did you finally win. 2016 worked out in your favor, but just barely.

What do I mean? Trump barely won the critical states he won, and lost the Electoral vote. If he hadn’t had the right turn out in the right places, an maybe some of that voter suppression Republicans went wild with, if Republicans hadn’t been stirred into a frenzy by the idea of defeating Clinton, especially given the interventions that the FBI director and the hackers took… you might not have won.

Every graph has its ups and downs. Your best performance in the last twenty years was Bush in 2004, who won the popular vote by about Hillary’s margin: three million votes.

Look at the GOP’s national record. 1992 had Bush unquestionably lose to Clinton, both EV and PV, and Dole lost the same way, PV and EV, in 1996. Bush’s first win was EV only, just like Trump’s but it was better than Trump’s by about 2 million and change. Meanwhile, Obama runs and gets PV and EV victories with unquestionable majorities. Except those who allege voting fraud. If Republicans weren’t relying on that Canard, then they might ask why they’ve only gotten a plurality or majority twice since 1990.

They should also ask what happens if all the conveniently drawn districts change to more fairly, less partisan (or more democratically drawn) districts. What happens when the props get knocked out from under the current Trump win?

Trump not only might lose, he might drag down political fortunes everywhere for the Republicans. You are one month into the Trump administration, and despite a flurry of Executive orders, it’s barely gotten a thing done, and what it is set to do looks like a minefield of political liabilities.

2) Your problem isn’t political correctness per se. Your problem is that you’re ignoring what the currently evolving voter population is wanting. Your problem is that you’re thinking you can dictate terms to a land full of free people. This “grown man showering with your daughter” thing indicates something else: first, it’s not the reality of most of what the LGBT community wants, just what many on the right fear.

You have a bias. You should realize that. You should realize that for you, like with everybody else, there’s a struggle against self involved.

You should also realize something: you’re openly attacking other people for their opinions, too, and have been using pretty harsh language to do so for as long as I can remember. You might do well to realize that others might be reflecting your harsh tone back at you. You think being politically incorrect grants you protection from having to care what you say, but in truth, it only protect you from having a sense of shame about what you say, which is not always helpful when you want others to unite their perspectives with yours, or sympathize with your fears and anxieties. You can’t both piss people off and convince them you’re right at the same time. People don’t like the way many Republicans argue, and that has, in part, contributed to not liking Republican ideas among some who might be more sympathetic otherwise.

3) The Democrats would rather not break up families and tear up communities to solve a long term problem that’s festered for a long time. Or, put more cynically, they don’t want the political backlash from such disruptive behavior. The Republicans are welcome to it, if they want it so much, just don’t come complaining to me about the Hispanic vote when the ugly memories of that disruption come back.

Less cynically, if you want to deal with the wreckage of decade of bad policy, you have to prioritize your use of resources. Send DREAMers who have done nothing wrong, who consider themselves Americans culturally and linguistically back to Mexico and Central America? Send hard workers who have been here for decades, just kept their head down and worked?

Honestly, the better approach is to clear the decks with reform of those willing to turn themselves in and put themselves at the back of the line, and then use your resources to deal with and monitor the worst of what remain, and the rest of those who come in.

But you use hyperbole here to allege that what we want are borders thrown wide open and an amnesty that unconditionally rewards illegal immigration. That’s never been the plan, though. We aren’t that stupid.

4) Look, if you trash ISIS, then say, don’t let people flee from them, then you deserve to be trashed yourself. Vet them heavily, of course, but for God’s sake, let them seek refuge from that violence! As for Christians?

The concerns of those who claim to speak for all Christians, who actually speak for a religious minority of all Christians, who seek to impose their religion on everybody despite what the Constitution says about that, are not my concerns, not for the most part. Their concerns seem to always involve depriving somebody else of their rights to make them feel better about themselves, make them feel like their nation was run according to their religion.

If the separation of Church and State is a problem for you, then I have no problem ignoring your concerns. I want to leave that separation there.

4) That’s flat wrong. When Hillary crafted her proposal, the Heritage foundation and others pushed this as theirs. That should have been reason aplenty. But you keep on offering these excuses for what your leaders have already admitted was deliberate political strategy. You’ve bought into their marketing, rather than examining their policy’s history. You’ve bought into a lie.

As for your question: if Republicans destroy coverage for millions, if they allow limits, caps, and pre-existing conditions to come back, if they destroy the market places and everything else… why should the victims of all that vote Republican?

5) Just how the **** does gay marriage endanger straight? If your own belief doesn’t create sanctity in your marriage, forcing that belief on anybody else won’t make it sacred either. You have an easy out here, just as Catholics have with divorce: just say your church doesn’t recognize it. Nobody said you had to like gay marriage, you just can’t deprive an LGBT couple of their right to it. Nobody said you had to devalue marriage, straight marriage, in your hearts. That’s you tying your own hands, cuffing yourself to that rail.

As for our fears? Go take a look at your buddy Pence’s record. Go look at what they say about the Separation of Church and State. Go look at the laws they pass. Go look at their talk of Muslim Bans. I’d say you’re being naive, or perhaps a bit scared to confront the powermongering at the heart of that part of your movement. I’d rather not wait until it’s actually broken things to oppose it. I’d want to put it in its place now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2017 7:31 PM
Post a comment