When moderate Dems are Trolls. Nader Kool-Aid.

Hi there I am a moderate Democrate.  After the loss of Kerry I joined the Daily Kos website and later this one because I wanted to help fight against republicans.  What I found shocked me.  

DLC democrats are not welcome.  Any view other than Dean is great is rated troll if expressed with a similiar vitrol as the DLC sucks messages.  Basically the tent of online blogging for the democrate party doesn't want me.

If you care about winning in any shape or form this should be a matter of concern with you.  Why?  Because I am not in the 11% of democrats who voted for Bush.  I am not among the Dems who stayed home.  I voted for Kerry.  And you don't want me.

My individual vote is not a major factor but if the online bloggers don't want to hear what the rest of the Dem party has to say you are running the risk of repeating Nadars mistakes.

It starts with shouting down anyone who disagrees with you.  Then you troll rate them and remove anyone who has a different view from your blogs.  Then you have a community that is 95% "pure" and it becomes very hard for your community to realize how small it is.

The greens have this problem.  If you went to a Nadar rally in 2000 it was easy to think that Nadar was a major force and that voting for him was a good idea.  But in reality if 200-300 Nadar supporters in Florida had not taken the Nadar Kool-Aid that Gore and Bush were twins we would never have had the Bush years...

Nadars message then and now is that Dems are not liberal enough and that the liberal 5% should go home until they get to make the rules again.  Republicans spent a lot of money in 2000 to help Nader spread this message...

Deans message is that the democratic wing of the democratic party should be listened too.  Talking like that is fine if you are "Democratic" and accept that the MAJORITY of democrats voting in 2000...democratically rejected that messager.  

If democracy is valuable to you then you have to accept that the majority wins.  If you are not the majority you will not win.  When you lose because you are not the majority that isn't some vast secret conspiracy...its democracy.  IE the democratic wing of the democratic party speaking.

I am gradually being trolled of this site because I haven't drank the Dean Kool-Aid.  I love the democratic party, am not a liberal, love politics, have voted dem all my life.  If you don't want people like me in your revolution you will have a lot of recruiting to do because we are a large part of the voting democratic party.

BTW anyone know where the DLC has their blog?  I
I am trying to find the moderate online voice of the dems.  Swimming upstream in the Dean Kool-Aid is getting tiresome.

Tags: (all tags)



Don't know who troll-rated you...
... I disagreed with your lack of knowledge and repitition of trite and untrue smearing comments regarding him but haven't seen anything you've written that required a troll rating.

BTW... the DLC does suck.

Not because they are "moderate" or "centrist" but rather because the DLC leadership has only two apparent goals and they are to marginalize the left wing of the party into Nader land (talk about a disasterous and idiotic approach) and to co-opt the party for their corporate owners.

I've got no problems with moderates or centrists but...

The DLC sucks.  

by Andrew C White 2005-01-18 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't know who troll-rated you...
I agree with Andrew.  I think Carl and Budda are going a little overboard lately.  The FU comment deserves a troll rating if anything.  Let the guy express his opinions.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 08:55AM | 0 recs
I troll rate you
Not because of your opinions, because of the offensive way you express them. You may be a Zell Miller democrat, but I doubt it. If you want to find the DLC try googling New Democrats On Line. There's a former Cain supporter that has a principled conservative Dem site called The Bull Moose that is quite amusing as well as insightful.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-18 08:30AM | 0 recs
Not everyone here hates moderates
I'm a staunch liberal. I have never bashed any of the moderate Democrats on this site. I think people like you liven up the debate and I respect your opinion. Not everyone here thinks that moderate Democrats are the same as Zell Miller.
by sam89 2005-01-18 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Not everyone here hates moderates
What are "moderate" Democrats? See my discussion, http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/18/141141/017
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Not everyone here hates moderates
I second.  This is a good Diary that produces a lot of thought.  Add your nickel's worth.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 09:39AM | 0 recs
FU and the ideology you rode in on
You self-labeled "moderate Democrats" feel you have a right to trash the majority of the party and then you have the temerity to whine about people criticizing you.

Have some cheese with that whine.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
The title of this diary deserves a troll rating. I have no idea how many Nader supporters there are at MyDD and could care less. Everybody here thinks for themselves and none of them drink Nader kool-aid.

If you don't want to be troll rated try being less trollish. Maybe you have spent too much time at freeper sites where rudeness is considered a profound persuasive technique. You can go away mad or you can try to rehabilitate your methods. Its all the same to me.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-01-18 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
It was snotty, but I thought it had some cleverness too.

dk has been pretty obnoxious to others and then has the chutzpah to complain about being criticized. dk doesn't engage in much back and forth dialogue. Instead dk comes throws some bombs and then moves on to throw some more bombs.

I call bullshit. Either dk can treat others with respect and engage in meaningful dialogue or snarkiness will be met with snarkiness.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
Carl I will make a point to respond to your posts if you would like back and forth.

I am trying to not be too argumentative as I can take things personally and be a bit of a prick sometimes =)

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
What I love
is all the DCLers calling me a Nader Koolaid drinker and all the Naderites calling my a DLC sell out....

Perhaps everyone should just shut the fuck up and work towards goals instead of attacking each other...

Nah....that wouldn't work...

PS: Seems the DLCers are almost to the "I am a victim of the big bad liberals" point that the Repugs are....

by Nazgul35 2005-01-18 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
That is pretty uncalled for.  You are acting as bad as the freepers that most of us can't stand.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
click on donkeykong and then click on comments. read what donkeykong has written. note the questions and counter arguments donkeykong has declined to respond to. note how donkey kong has spoken of "teammates" in the Dem Party that are to the Left of dk.

then let me know if i've been to tough on dk.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
Tough is one thing.  I have no problem with you breaking down any of his arguments with well thought out sentiments.  I didn't like the FU and the Ideology comment.  Your comment of "Stop being trollish" was a lot less "freepish" for lack of a better word.  No need to start a flame war here.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
I noticed you called a post "lame" that seemed to be just the sort of "nice" criticism you advocate.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: FU and the ideology you rode in on
Rated it Lame?  Personally, I don't like the titles next to the ratings since the only choices are Super, Lame and Troll... A super should only go to a great post, but the Average posts deserve a 2, which MYDD calls lame.  I dislike it, but not my website.  Should be Super, Average and Bad or Troll IMHO.

DO I sometimes get carried away and criticize?  Sure, I will admit it.  However, if I go to far, I am willing to apologize and admit I was wrong to make it personal.  I don't have that sense from you, but maybe I am mistaken.

Also, if I see someone get ganged up on as I felt you and Buddah were doing to DK, I try to step in and help the little guy...Even if I don't believe in what he was saying.  I read his comments and don't think he was acting like an asshole (which you disagree with and that's cool) so I was just defending his right to post.  There is only one person on this site to ever piss me off so much that I wanted to see him kicked off (look back in my comments before the election and you will figure it out...I admit to getting nasty, but many of us were at that point...Damn Bush) ...maybe my tolerance on this is just higher than yours.  I liked some of your other posts in this diary and gave you a good rating; others I didn't care for and gave you a bad rating as I thought they were somewhat offensive.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-01-18 09:49AM | 0 recs
Perhaps you should re-examine what you are saying?
I wouldn't troll rate you for espousing moderate views.  However, I would troll rate you if you use RNC talking points to bash dems.  I don't have a problem with moderate or conservative democrats, but I do have a problem with non-partisan democrats.  Those that use the language and idiotic phrases of the rabid right to attack and argue with fellow democrats have no business here.  Period.
by manyoso 2005-01-18 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should re-examine what you are say
Some of the talking points of the RNC are talking points because they resonate with the middle voter.

On ALL of those points we need to have a defense.  Either we change our views or we need a real counter zinger talking point.

On many of them I think we need to examine our views and find a way of expressing them that is popular.

For example,  If you say you support the poor and defenseless that has some support.  If you say you support American's of any economic class who want to move up the economic ladder you have much broader support and the changes to your policies is only a few %.  The Democratic economic agenda has never been about treading water it has always been about the poor beign able to rise up.  

By altering slightly what we say we are about and slightly more what we are actually about we can pick up Joe and Jane Average who want to get ahead and don't seem to realize that Republicans only TALK about helping hardworking Americans.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should re-examine what you are say
To be clear, I don't know you are have much knowledge about your posts, so I don't know if you are someone who uses right wing talking points.

BUT, if you do, then you and me can not be online buddies.  I don't come to left of center political activist blogs to have right wing blather thrown in my face.  If you went down my idealogical chart you'd see plenty of liberal positions, but some along the lines of a Tim Roemer.  But, Tim and I can not be friends...?  Why, because he likes to parrot right wing talking points.  Now, if he stops, then maybe we can be friends again...

So, donkeykong, I have no problem with you.  I'm just saying that one thing you'll find around here... we don't mind moderate, centrist, conservative opinions or arguments.  We DO mind right wing blather.  It just gets under the skin and we can find enough of that by turning on the television or opening any newspaper.  And if you use that blather to attack other dems?  Forget it.  Non starter extraordinaire.


by manyoso 2005-01-18 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should re-examine what you are
Hey Yitbos,

Why'd you rate a brother's comment as lame?

Oh and what year/school are you and what's your pin? :)

by manyoso 2005-01-18 10:10AM | 0 recs
treat others with respect
Further you post stuff that's inflamatory and then when questioned about it you're off posting on something else and can't be bothered.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:41AM | 0 recs
if you're gonna act like a troll
The question was asked about the meaning of the Florida delegation unanymously endorsing Dean and you responded that it showed Dean supporters were not team players.

What was the purpose of your comment other than to piss off Dean supporters?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: if you're gonna act like a troll
There is a serious issue in that Florida thing.

As you may know Dean has the highest floor and lowest ceiling of the major DNC candidates.

I suspect that the florida delegation is comming out  in support of Dean to try and head off dean losing as the voting is successive runoffs until someone gets a majority.  This successive runnoff favors candidates with broad support from the primary followers of other candidates.  I don't think Dean has that support.

My angle is they are trying to protest in advance the election that Dean is almost certaily going to lose.  If true this has a disruptive effect.  IE not team players willing to vote in private and then support the winner but rather my guy or the highway types.

This is a serious Issue shared by many moderate Democrates that I expressed in a flippant manner in the post you refer to.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: if you're gonna act like a troll
What's the basis for your claim Dean has a "low ceiling"? Compared to Roemer?

Your logic presumes to know the outcome of the election which seems a tad presumptive.

Define the "moderate Democrats" you speak for.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: if you're gonna act like a troll
There was a poll done I saw it either here or at Daily Kos of DNC voters.

Dean had most first choice and also most last choice votes.  Deans support is very strong amoung a small group and very weak amoung the larger group.

Thats part of why he did so well in the 2004 race before the votes started getting counted.  He had more supporters than anyone else but he also had more anti-supporters than anyone else.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 10:55AM | 0 recs
here's teh link and facts
Here's the post.

Dean didn't have the highest negatives. Roemer the Right Wing Democrat did.

But having 11% opposition isn't a big deal. If it was over 30% that said Dean was the last choice this would be more of a problem.

Now that you have the facts are you willing to reconsider your opinior of Dean?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 11:30AM | 0 recs
Don't you know....
Dean's not electable....[/sarcasim off]


by Nazgul35 2005-01-18 12:02PM | 0 recs
how are you helping?
How do "pricks like you" help defeat Bush when you spend most of your energy sniping at other Dems?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 08:50AM | 0 recs
We need a liberal blog
like daily Kos, but not subsidized by a candidate.
It would include a staff of regular writers who would
be required to be open about any financial relationship that
might influence their pov.

Kos is to be highly commended for his services toward fund raising for state elections, but his response to the recent turn of events is troubling.

by zinc7 2005-01-18 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: We need a liberal blog
Kos didn't do anything wrong.

This Dean $$ thing is BS.

Its the format of ratings where 1% can ban you that sucks.  There should be some way that you get Karma so that you become resistant to being troll banned.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: We need a liberal blog
Democracy for America wasn't subsidizing Daily Kos?
by zinc7 2005-01-18 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: We need a liberal blog
by manyoso 2005-01-18 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: We need a liberal blog
Well what was all the crap about?
by zinc7 2005-01-18 01:12PM | 0 recs
You got banned from dKos?
I've gotten alot of zeroes and never been banned.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You got banned from dKos?
I defended Xmas on Xmas eve against the assertion that all the Keep the Christ in Christmas stuff was anti-Jewish.

In retrospect Xmas eve is not the time to stick up for xmas as the only people who agree with you have already logged.  And those who remain are feeling all scroogie.

by donkeykong 2005-01-18 03:52PM | 0 recs
The DLC blogs I've been to
don't allow comments at all.

So which is worse?

by catastrophile 2005-01-18 10:29AM | 0 recs
the DLC has blogs at
New Donkey and The Bull Moose.

I think they are linked here.

I am DLC member, at least until my membership expires.  I don't like being troll-rated.  I'm no Zell Miller.  I will always vote for Democrats--especially if they are pro-Israel

by kydem 2005-01-18 11:05AM | 0 recs
how important is Israel?
Would you vote for a Democrat that said Israel needs to give all the land back and accept the 1967 borders if s/he was running against a pro-Israeli expansion Republican?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: how important is Israel?
no, I'd vote for the republican if that were the case--assuming they are a moderate republican.  i'm not a one-issue voter, i look at the big picture.
by kydem 2005-01-18 01:24PM | 0 recs
i'm not a one-issue voter
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 01:54PM | 0 recs
Moderates should not, must not, make the left seem like they are unwelcome. The Democratic Party is a party for all, and exclusion is the quickest way to insure a Republican victory in 2008. Fighting with ourselves within our own party should not happen. Instead, we ought to involve ourselves in a civil and meaningful discussion of what it means to be a Democrat, what we're going to need to win in 2008, and what we can do to achieve that while remaining true to our party roots.

The New Democrat

by demburns 2005-01-18 11:09AM | 0 recs
The reason for the rift...
IMHO, one of the problems the "lefter" wing of the party has had with moderates has been the moderate congressional performance over the past four years. I think it began when moderate congressfolks took Bush at his word after 2000 and embraced him as one of them. I certainly don't blame them for that; after the Clinton years, there was much more of a bipartisan spirit and approach to legislation.

But when it became clear that Bush was cleverly using moderate Dems to wedge and beat our party into submission, moderates continued to reach across the aisle (which many also saw as a shameless attempt to cash in on the "popular wartime president" meme).

The left got angrier and angrier at watching these Dems work against major democratic initiatives. They're doing it now on Social Security.

This was perhaps biggest reason Moderate Joe Lieberman did so poorly in the primaries. In fact, none of the "moderates" did well.  

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 11:45AM | 0 recs
Hear, Hear! (Mostly.)
Many of us expected, after watching the Dems buy into the transparent tissue of lies woven by the administration and having the whole stupid mess blow up in their face, that 2004 would see a backlash against this kind of cowardice.

Imagine our surprise and revulsion when "the Real Deal" jumped into the primary lead. He wouldn't even get behind the things he'd done right!

(This is the one place I disagree with you, 'cruncher: It seems to me that one of the "moderates" won the primaries. He may have just been posing, but that doesn't make it right.)

by catastrophile 2005-01-18 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hear, Hear! (Mostly.)
Agreed. We didn't get the candidate we nominated.

Kerry was more of a charismatic fighter in the pimaries. Afterward, he hired on a consultocracy that destroyed his message, his record (or its legacy), his image, his electability and his candidacy.

I was continually frustrated with his run toward the center, as it seemed to water down his beliefs for the "swing voters." It made him appear unprincipled and he clearly wasn't comfortable posing as a moderate.

Clinton is probably the only candidate in the history or future of this planet who could pull off being a "charismatic centrist."

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 12:34PM | 0 recs
Messenger, not message
donkeykong wrote :
Deans message is that the democratic wing of the democratic party should be listened too.  Talking like that is fine if you are "Democratic" and accept that the MAJORITY of democrats voting in 2000...democratically rejected that messager.

You have it exactly correct and don't even know it:  Democratic voters rejected the messenger, not the message.  Dean was a flawed candidate carrying the correct message.  Had Dean been a stellar political horse, the party and the nation would have a very different outlook in 2005 and beyond.
by Steve in Sacto 2005-01-18 12:06PM | 0 recs
Dean flawed?
How was Dean more flawed than Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR and Wilson?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean flawed?
Dean had a propensity to engage his mouth before his brain, resulting in his continually stepping in shit piles of his own making.  He simply wasn't disciplined enough to survive the rigors of a presidential campaign.
by Steve in Sacto 2005-01-18 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean flawed?
Such as...?

What gaffes did Dean make that were worse than Bush, Clinton or Bush?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean flawed?
Just to think of one off the top of my head, I don't think any other candidate running to be Commander in Chief, ever, has suggested the US "won't always have the strongest military." I'm sure Karl Rove would've left that all alone...

The other that comes immediately to mind is the capture of Saddam quote, not because of the truth of it but because it was dropped into a major foreign/military policy address that had been weeks in the making and was to be the foundation, the establishment, of Dean's policy.  The Saddam quote completely drowned out the rest of the speech and absorbed all of the media oxygen for the next few days.  It was a major political blunder.

by Steve in Sacto 2005-01-18 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
That's true. I liked Dean's message and his experience very much, but I thought he'd be more susceptible to Rove attacks than the other major Dem candidates. How many times would we hear the scream in RNC/Bush/GOP527 ads? He seemed too vulnerable and thus unelectable.

I will qualify my opinion by stating that the mood of the primaries seemed to be to select an experienced, electable statesman over a firebrand. That may not have been the right choice, but it seemed to be the general zeitgeist of the majority of Dems.

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
Not to mention the military thing. I think we were all desperately seeking someone we could show as experienced to be CinC, someone who could take the pro-defense image back for the Dems. We knew '04 was going to have a heavy wartime theme. But Kerry's failure to respond to the SBVFT lies effectively and his unprincipled stand on Iraq (as communicated publicly) effectively killed that for us.

I blame the consultocracy for both of these failures.

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
Kerry's gotta shoulder some blame, right?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-01-18 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
Absolutely.  When Kerry failed to be outraged and defend against the Swifty lairs he effectively sent the message that he had no balls, effectively neutering his campaign.
by Steve in Sacto 2005-01-18 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
While harping on the consultants was my point, I shouldn't have implied that Kerry himself wasn't to blame. He hired the consultants and he chose to listen to them. Voters may not have been able to distinguish that relationship, but they sure sniffed out that he wasn't in control of his campaign. It helped destroy his image as a leader. I still don't understand why he so willingly gave himself over to them.

You remember the reports that Kerry was livid at his advisors for not letting him respond. WTF? Aren't you the leader of your campaign? Can't you respond however you wish, regardless of what the consultants think?

Sorry for straying too far from the diary's topic.

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Messenger, not message
Oops, this:

You remember the reports that Kerry was livid at his advisors for not letting him respond.

Should have read:

You remember the reports that Kerry was livid at his advisors for not letting him respond to the SBVFT smears.

This commentor regrets the error.

by wordcruncher 2005-01-18 04:41PM | 0 recs
I think everyone has the right to put forth
their opinion.  Moderate Dems like you, Moderate Greens like me, Dean fans (I like him), Kerry supporters (I'm one).  I don't care much for what I've seen from the DLC, but I wouldn't want to see anyone's voice supporessed.  democrats (small "d") must practice democracy among themselves or how can they hope to rule a nation???  No one can expect to act daily in petty small-minded bullying tactics and then think that when they win power they're suddenly going to be viruously democratic!!!!  democracy is as democracy does.
by JamBoi 2005-01-18 01:43PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads