• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Marion On September - 22 - 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GFg_pnLmq4

It’s ironic that this song was out around the time the Democratic Party imploded the first time. That was before most of this generation of whiners was about, so they wouldn’t remember. What’s even more oxymoronic is that some of these kidults are even getting elected to fairly important positions in state Democratic party setups.

Great. Fine. Peachy keen and dandy. I’m all for boy wonders, but when you elect someone to a ranking position in the party structure, the last thing you expect them to do is whine and moan and bitch about the person who occupies the highest position in your party – namely, the President.

The last thing you’d expect someone in this position of authority to do is purse his lips, jut his chin in the air, cross his arms and stamp his feet, refusing to engage with anyone who tries to reason with him that the constant onslaught of incessant Obama criticism of every little thing is self-destructive. Not just to the President, but to the Party and supporters, themselves.

How the hell does anyone expect to encourage people to vote and to vote Democratic, if all they hear is a constant, pejorative whine about everything the President does or doesn’t do? I mean, who would want to vote for a person who’s so bad and shoddy?

The operative in question refuses to recognise that he’s the best secret weapon the Republican Party has. He’s actually doing their work for them. He openly admits that he doesn’t talk to ordinary people – “just activists and party operatives.” And even though he’s a Southerner, he wouldn’t touch the South with a barge pole, because it’s a well-known fact that “down there,” they “spit on anyone” resembling a Democrat.

And then, the piece de resistance of this child’s rejoinders comes when someone with some sound common sense reminds him that what we’re seeing now in the Republican Party didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of 40 years of hard and slow work, building a base bottom up.

It’s long-term.

Mr EmoProg replies with a whine that he’s been working for long-term change too. He started with Dean and Kerry.

Hang on … Dean and Kerry?

Like seven years ago?

Seven years is batshit.

Seven years on from when the Republicans first started their dirty work, there was a popular Democratic President in the White House and a Democratic Congress. Did they get disheartened? Four years on from that, they had a Republican in the White House, endorsed by the unions and the votes of a demographic which became known as the “Reagan Democrats.”

And 12 years of awful Republican rule ensued, which put us on the Road to Hell we’re navigating now. That was still long enough to yank the country firmly enough to the Right.

Did I mention that the Democrats complied with this? Of course, they did. The Republicans started demonising “Liberals,” so the Leftwing branch of the Democratic Party started referring to themselves as “Progressives” – ne’mind “progressivism” was originally a Republican concept.

The Republicans used Jimmy Carters abortive attempt to free the hostages in Iran as evidence that the Democrats were weak on defence, and they backed that up eight years later with a famous clip of the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis looking like Secret Squirrel crawling around in a tank. Dukakis provided their Chief Ratfucker, the late Lee Atwater with more cannon fodder about the Democrats’ perceived weakness on crime with this little gem:-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y[/youtube]

And then, there was the little matter of Democrats being morally weak, when the Crown Prince of Progressivism was captured on film being snuggled by his girlfriend who was young enough to be his daughter.

In case, young Mr EmoProg was too young to recognise or remember this incident, Gary Hart was the Democrats’ great Progressive hope for President, just like Johnnie Reid Edwards was 20 years later; and both were scuppered for the same reason.

Working long-term, too, Sonny Jim, doesn’t mean running around and handing out leaflets every four years for whatever Democrat you think might be the next Progressives’ wet dream. It means starting, BOTTOM UP. Starting small. The PTA or dog-catcher, then the town council. It means years and years of engaging with people you think spit on you, engaging on their level and not in a condescending way. Who the hell listens to anyone who condescends? People want to bop a fist on the nose of such supercilious bastards. Working long-term means learning to speak the language of your target audience and showing them that you’re no different from what they are.

It’s not so difficult. If they’re afraid that universal healthcare is “socialised medicine,” then ask them if they’d like to have a doctor’s appointment and not pay a fee on the day, or ask them if they had to go to hospital, how would they like NOT to see a bill? (Of course, your hard bit is going to be explaining how taxes would have to be raised to accommodate that, but if you get them to see that universal healthcare might actually improve their plight, you’ve scored an important point.)

Long-term, too, is voting for McGovern, when you really weren’t all that turned-on by the man, knowing that he was going to suffer a rout; voting for Carter twice; voting for Mondale and Dukakis and Clinton, and clinging onto hope for Gore when you know that election was fucked through the combined chicanery of the Bush Machine in Florida, Ralph Nader and the celebrity dumbasses who promoted him, and – ultimately – the Supreme Court. And long-term is listening to what candidates say and not projecting your political wants and desires on what you perceive to be their tabula rasa. That’s not smart. In fact, that’s downright immature.

And long-term is not worrrying about who the hell is going to be President and why he’s not as Leftwing as you’d like him to be. It’s this simple message: If you want a more liberal Democratic President, you need to elect a more liberal Congress.

That’s where the hard work comes in.

13 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. ADONAI says:

    So, if I point out that I’m disappointed in many of President Obama’s decisions, most of them regarding foreign policy

    Does that make me an emoprog? Are you asking for absolute support? That people who have legitimate disagreements with the President just shut up and go with it?

    How many of these people would actually vote for a continued Republican controlled House just to spite the leader of their Party?

    “And long-term is listening to what candidates say and not projecting your political wants and desires on what you perceive to be their tabula rasa. That’s not smart. In fact, that’s downright immature.”

    Now this I actually agree with very much. If many of the “emoprogs”, as you call them, had actually LISTENED to Obama

    They’d realize he hasn’t changed much at all from his campaign. They are complaining about the same things they went and voted for. It is very immature.

    But so is name calling and condescension. So, while you may make good points, the tone of the piece defeats the whole purpose of it. You come off no better than them. Just whining.

  2. escribacat says:

    Folks like Carville and Ed Schultz, and many others who jump on the O-bashing bandwagon, are celebrities before they are democrats. They want attention and they’ve figured out how to get it.

  3. cyrano1 says:

    Crediting the GOP with their success due to their “40 years of hard and slow work, building a base bottom up” ignores the actual conduit for their success: a self-interested corporate owned/controlled media which has over the past few decades become an unapologetic propaganda machine. Mislead, misdirect, create phony conflicts, little discussion of the merits of real issues nor the use of critical thinking skills while discussing them, cover all GOP/tea party events, and deny coverage of democratic events or causes unless they can be presented with a negative tone.

  4. audadvnc says:

    If you are attempting to generate support from skeptical independents and disaffected Dems for your argument, you could hardly have picked a worse tactic than to insult them from the get go. This article is yet one more example of the tunnel vision inherent in the ranks of Obama defenders, that choose to ignore the egregious failures and sell outs of this administration, all because they fell in love with the “Hope & Change” poster back when the candidate appeared to mean what he said.

    Now we know better -- President Obama’s proven to be in bed with the Bilderbergs and the MIC, and the rest of us have been shut out of the discussion.

    Talk to me about what you intend to accomplish with the next 4 years of Obama’s Presidency, and how it would be preferable to 4 years of that other Bilderberg pet Romney. Frankly I see no difference between them so far.

    • PatsyT says:

      Who ever wins in 2012 will most likely appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.
      President Obama will NOT appoint a teabaging RW Dominionist, any republican will.

    • escribacat says:

      How do you feel about a Rick Perry presidency? You okay with that too?

    • AdLib says:

      You left out Obama being involved in the Trilateral Commission, Area 51 and The Knights Templar.

      I do agree with your initial proposition though that being absolutist about groups of people one disagrees with is necessarily inaccurate and not constructive. The thing is, you made that valid point…then followed it up with absolutist comments about groups of people you disagree with.

      Is it only wrong to generalize about those who oppose Obama and not wrong to generalize about those who support him?

      How about this, it’s not fair to generalize about either grouping.

      Now, as for your proposition that there is no difference between Dem control of the WH under Obama and Repub control of the WH under Romney…well…I don’t see how anyone who has followed current events could come to such a conclusion.

      Have you not seen what has been going on in the House under the GOP and their Baggers in control? Bringing America to the brink of disaster three times and counting?

      And are you unaware of the policies they have been so aggressive about?

      Here’s the difference, vote for Romney and Repub control of the WH and Congress if you want the following or Obama and the Dems if you don’t:

      1. Destruction of Medicare.
      2. Destruction of Social Security
      3. More tax cuts for the wealthy and higher taxes on 99% of Americans.
      4. Less Policemen.
      5. Less Firemen.
      6. Less Teachers.
      7. Crumbling infrastructure.
      8. More poverty.
      9. More wars (Iran is on their list).
      10. More poisons and pollution in our food, air and water.
      11. More Wall Street and corporate control over our government.
      12. More state restrictions permitted on voting rights.
      13. The end of women having a choice over their own bodies.
      14. A plummeting economy and greater job loss.
      15. Greater economic inequity between the top 1% and the rest of Americans.

      I thought I’d stop at 15 but I could go on and on.

      What I have yet to hear from those who oppose Obama are solutions or what they are preferring to happen over the next 4 years under a Republican president.

      I ask you to break that silence and share, how do you think your life will be better under a Republican President if your wish came true and Obama was not re-elected?

      • Emerald1943 says:

        Adlib, may I continue your list?

        16. Repeal of the Health Care Act (Throwing millions back into the “uninsured” numbers)

        17. Repeal of Consumer Protections (Allowing banks to charge outrageous credit card and loan fees)

        18. Defunding of Pell Grants (Ending college affordability for millions of students)

        19. Destruction of Department of Education (Just when we are slipping lower in competition with the rest of the world)

        20. Destruction of FEMA (Jeb Bush already has a plan to privatize disaster recovery)

        21. Repeal of Equal Pay laws, Minimum wage Laws, and Child Labor Laws

        I don’t know all that President Obama hopes to accomplish during his second term, but I see our focus right now as fighting to preserve those gains we have made. We cannot afford to lose both Houses of Congress and have the laws repealed that have been fought for so hard by progressives.

        To say that there is no difference between President Obama and Romney is admitting blindness, even more so when Perry is included in the comparison. All it takes to see the difference is to list the accomplishments of this President and the agenda he is pushing to help get this economy up and moving, no small task with the Repub Obstructionist House and with the enormous hole left to him by George W. Bush! I hope that our comments have opened some eyes!

        • I want Obama to have a second term, not only to protect what has been accomplished during his first term, but because of what he may accomplish without the threat of losing an election. A second term will free him of the doubts and concerns that come along with getting re-elected.
          I believe, no, I have no doubt that Obama’s heart is in the right place. And I can painfully see the absolute obstructions in his way. This downright “unpatriotic,” Congress he has to work with.
          And we absolutely have to work towards electing members of Congress that actually care more about their country than their political party. The current stench coming from DC reaches all the way to Hawaii and beyond.

      • atdnext says:

        The above poster must be a Ron Paul fan. I’m used to seeing Paul fawning following mentions of everyone else being tainted by the Fed, Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission, and all the other evil forces opposing the sacred gold standard.

        Of course, they always leave out the fact that Ron Paul is virulently anti-choice, not all that fond of equality, adamantly opposed to every consumer protection, in favor of abolishing the EPA, and eager to end Social Security & Medicare. That doesn’t sound all that “progressive” to me.

        • bito says:

          atdnext, I think it was Angry Black Lady that had a post on the strange and wrong admiration of some so-called progressives and their admiration of R. Paul because of his somewhat anti-corporate rhetoric while actually being a polar opposite of progressive on 95% of all other issues.
          I’m almost missing the “keep us out of the UN” and the anti-Mason talk and what about that “eye” on the dollar bill?


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features