Not breaking news
on my facebook today I was sent word that Mat Marshal is now a Democrat.
whoooopdeefuckingdo.
I’m now a conservative. And I am now calling myself African American. Oh and I wear Nike and Polo underwear to bed. At. The. Same. Time.
Oh and Please call the local media I am about to name my next bowel movement
The teenager who changes parties every few months is actually a highly sought-after voter demographic.
No need to get your panties in a twist, DV. There’s a certain irony in taking the time to post about something you don’t care about.
BTW, “Marshall” has two “l”s in it.
I called it. The kid got a good look at the Klan rally he signed up for and bolted for the fire exit.
For the record, what pisses me off about this isn’t even what’s being said. It’s that you, of all people, are saying it. This is generally a well-written blog, but every post you write seems to diminish both the quality of content and writing here. You making such a big deal over this is kind of like Bill O’Reilly calling Sean Hannity a blowhard.
The scales have fallen from the eyes.
Matt, now that you’ve gazed at the Pits of Hell, its time to retrieve TPN from the 7th Circle. Bring him to our side. See the light.
Since you’re visiting, Mat, what was your reasoning? I don’t really understand joining the party of no ideas except Obama-hating in the first place, but was there a certain incident?
I am reminded of the parable of the prodical son. Welcome back Mat and glad to have you. You made a journey of discovery, as any thinking person does from time to time in life. You will be stronger for it and so will we. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You made a journey of discovery, as any thinking person does from time to time in life. You will be stronger for it and so will we.
*
huh?
Until young Marshall spills what he has ‘discovered’ on his ‘journey’, how is that making anyone ‘stronger’?
I am with UI here. Do tell.
I seem to recall that his reasoning for leaving the wretched DEMs revolved around what he was gleaning from his economics teacher at the time. It was all very public and ‘meaningful’ at the time.
What up?
Good morning Nancy,
I’m thinking it takes some intestinal fortitude to admit he was wrong and to wander in here.
The Chicago School of Economics has hoodwinked a lot of older and wiser folks and if that’s what happened to Mat then it is understandable. Given UD’s conservative bent it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what they are shoveling over there. I was lucky, I learned my Econ back in the day when Samuelson’s 5th Edition was the economic bible. This generation isn’t so fortunate.
But this is all speculation. Mat????
You making such a big deal over this
you tagged me in your facebook Mat, you made the big deal out of it. Go shout from another mountain when you change parties again.
Maybe there was some hot chick in the Republican meetings.
Go easy DV… at his age it’s OK to try different things before you make up your mind. No need to criticize him for doing the right thing.
stay off my lawn!
I, too, am curious to Mat’s reasoning, but only if he’s willing to share it. He certainly does not owe an explanation to anyone but himself. The only thing I’d be curious about is if those reasons would lead to him being happy in any party. Back when I went from R to I, a couple of people wondered if I’d go to D. No, I wouldn’t be satisfied. One of the reasons, among many, is that I don’t want to subscribe to a group-think platform. Both major parties have evolved into that. “RINOs” are the oil in the GOP water, as are “Blue Dogs” to Democrats. It’s quite interesting and self-defeating that partisan parties are themselves internally deeply partisan; although, I think the GOP is far more at fault in that regard.
I watched Maddow last night (Alison Stewart filling in) and she did a segment on the still deepening divide in the GOP, in particular Huckabee thrashing Boehner (sp?) and the thrashing Graham took at a town hall meeting. To my Democratic friends, don’t think you are all that far behind. The labelling of Blue Dogs as the anti-party and attempts to wall them away is the exact path the GOP started on a few years ago. It’s not that criticism shouldn’t be welcomed, but it’s the effective dividing into us-and-them that is eventually lethal.
Bringing this back to Mat, knowing how he has certainly expressed himself to not being fully compliant to any specific broad-platform, I wonder, will he be happy in any party?
Oh and Please call the local media I am about to name my next bowel movement
Why should that be news, either? I’ve been calling mine ‘donviti’ for at least a couple of years now.
“I’ll be back in a few, honey. I need to donviti real bad. Where’s my sports section?“
Oh and Please call the local media I am about to name my next bowel movement
Mine is called “The Conservative Movement.”
To my Democratic friends, don’t think you are all that far behind. The labeling of Blue Dogs as the anti-party and attempts to wall them away is the exact path the GOP started on a few years ago.
Democrats have the habits of a party that has multiple POVs, interests and constituencies. Working together for Dems is always an incredibly messy-looking process. Party discipline are two words you rarely hear in relationship to Dems. Narrower interests (or at least convincing other interests to subsume theirs to the greater good) and pretty firm party discipline kept Rs together for awhile and if you are reading closely, the critiques and even the schadenfraude aimed at Rs these days is pretty well rooted in the fact that Rs don’t have the habits of managing (or even wanting) a Big Tent. Dems are pretty routinely swamped by theirs.
now that is funny
Too true Cassandra. Big tents are big challenges.
Thing is, we’ve learned over the past 30 years that the consequences of failing are just too great. We are doing a much better job of pulling it all together at crunch time. We don’t all feel happy and sunny all the time, but we’ve learned that we D’s have a lot more in common than the things that separate us. And, as Smitty observes from the other side, the things that separate us from the R’s are insurmountable. We can use that glue to hold the team together. We get a lot of teasing about singing Kum-by-ah but it isn’t a bad rallying song when the tent is very, very big and diverse.
That’s absolutely right that the Democratic party is more ideologically diverse than is the GOP. That can be both a blessing and a curse. I also think it is very desirable, since it allows for more input, ideas and viewpoints when it comes to solving problems. I did a couple of posts last month, here and here sort of on the subject, and on one thing the Dems can learn from the Republicans — how Congressional procedural rules can help keep members in line with the party. I think it would be very helpful in keeping the party diverse yet functional.
Ideologically diverse?
WTF does that even mean when you read it?
It means that the Dems have Dino’s too. Or that the Dems have no idea what ideology they have and have gotten away with not having to define themselves like the GOP was forced / or forced themselves to do at their own peril.
christ almighty, the dems have just as many hangers on for re election purposes as the R’s do. They get away with it even when they fuck over their constituents time and time and time again.
wait, shorter DV…the dems are politicians just like the R’s are. Why do we make excuses for them. Look at our health care getting ready to roll out.
So who is making excuses for politicians?
Ideologically diverse is pretty plain English, if you ask me. It means that people as diverse as Ben Nelson through Dennis Kucinich can find a comfortable place representing the places that vote for them. Dems have way fewer litmus tests than Rs do.
They get away with it even when they fuck over their constituents time and time and time again.
Sometimes they do. And sometimes you haven’t correctly identified the real constituents of an action. But I’m also not waiting for the perfect at the expense of the good. Almost everything that comes out of Congress is a compromise and the system is sort of built for that. The real improvement needed to keep the system honest is figuring out a way to reduce the influence of corporations and their money on the system.
RSmitty wrote: Back when I went from R to I, a couple of people wondered if I’d go to D. No, I wouldn’t be satisfied. One of the reasons, among many, is that I don’t want to subscribe to a group-think platform. Both major parties have evolved into that.
Sorry, that’s bullshit. The Dems are infamous for the inability to get together on issues.
Sorry DV, I’ll use shorter words. What it means is that, at least right now, members of the Democratic Party are being allowed to have more different points of view and differing ideas, while still being allowed to stay within the party. On the GOP side, if you differ very much from the party line, you quickly get a big old, “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass” from the party bouncers (both elected and media).
It means that the Dems have Dino’s too
In some poeples’ view, that’s right. And look how many of them there are in Congress. How many Republicans not from Maine are there that you could even imagine fighting and voting against a core party principle? What ones there used to be have been flushed out. Look at what they’re starting to do to McCain’s BFF Lindsey Graham. And that’s just because he’s even hinted that he might not reflexively vote against a climate change bill.
I think Democrats could benefit for enforcing more party discipline in Congress. Why do we still have to kiss Olympia Snowe’s butt when we have a supposedly filibuster-proof majority? It’s because some Dems will join a Republican filibuster.
The Republicans could learn from the Democrats on how to be more diverse and accept more points of view.
Yes, politics sucks. Politicians suck. I see that as a reason to be more engaged, not less because they need someone to remind them who they are supposed to represent.
ok then Cass, Ui, Nemski, Scott P, et al what is the D’s ideology then?
Dems are better than R’s
spare me
Yes, politics sucks. Politicians suck. I see that as a reason to be more engaged
I see it as a reason to keep pointing out that both sides are fucking pathetic and there are apologists on both sides.
The dems aren’t as bad as the R’s. Woohooo, That’s like saying you’d be ok with the mustang spider b/c it isn’t a Pinto
If I could write something that could convince you otherwise I would, but your mind is made up already, so there is no point to waste my time.
what is the D’s ideology then
What part of diversity did you not understand?
And sitting back and pointing out everyone’s failings is the easy bit. At some point you need to talk about what you are trying to do about it. But like with every other part of life, at some point the complainers are way less interesting and way less effective than the people interested in an alternative.
So the Dem ideology is diversity?
Because from my Ivory Tower I see dems for and against abortion upto rape victims not being allowed to get one. I also see free market dems. I see dems against single payer health care. I see dems in favor of war. In favor of increasing troops in Afghanistan.
I see dems in favor of increasing taxes and dems not willing to. I see dems that vote for Bankruptcy bills. I see dems that vote against regulation.
I don’t see “diversity” I see politicians hiding in a party that I’m not sure has an ideology other than not being an R.
I see dems that say marching in Washington is a waste of time.
At some point you need to talk about what you are trying to do about it
Well, I am on a blog for one. which I like to think is doing something about it. I campaigned for Markell and volunteerd for him on Election Day. I also vote.
I think I also had something to do with the School board thing not too long ago.
Maybe not a lot, but more than most.
Will Rogers said it best when he said “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat”
DV, I think you are being obstinate. I guess that is endearing to some.
We are delaware liberal, not Delaware Democrat I thought. color me confused geek,not obsitinate.
why am I not allowed to question who the Dems are?
I don’t think that anyone is stopping you from questioning. You would be pretty darn clear if that was happening. But if you are comfy with that victim thing, then have at it, but I’m done.
Oh here we go again. For the love of God, Donviti, who the fuck pissed in your cornflakes this morning? What the fuck is with your fucking attitude? No one fucking said that you are not allowed to fucking question fucking Democrats.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
You have fucking pissed me off with this accusation that we do not want criticism of Democrats.
WE FUCKING CRITICIZE DEMOCRATS ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It is bordering on lying when you say we don’t.
Jesus. Wake up and read some of our posts.
Well, I am on a blog for one.
And so what? Go back to the topic of this post and I’m wondering that it is about this post that is about changing anything. Or being involved in a conversation that may move people to do something. Or highlights the hypocrisy or craven behavior in a way that people not only get but that they feel they have to do something about.
oh for crying out loud spare the anger and frustration all of you.
No one fucking said that you are not allowed to fucking question fucking Democrats.
I’m not saying you said that, I’m question the party as a whole. What is their ideology.
Well this is fun:
oh for crying out loud spare the anger and frustration all of you.
From somebody who posts from this position almost every day. cf the original topic of this post.
nemski, re your ‘bullshit’ comment. I guess you failed to read the rest of the comment for perspective? 🙄
All anyone has to do is watch how moderates or partial-platform supporters of either party are treated and it’s easy to see that it is quite foul. The ‘kumbaya’ moments, if they exist, are internal. Looking from the outside, the constituents’-opinion-wanted sign for people like that ceased to exist for either party a while ago.
“you tagged me in your facebook Mat, you made the big deal out of it.”
Sorry, is Facebook the new Reuters? I wrote a post about a personal decision that I thought my friends (and, thinking that you were a Dem) would appreciate. You didn’t have to respond, take the time to write about it, or give it a second thought. Instead, you honestly wasted time bitching at me for wasting your time in some borderline incoherent War on Literacy. You’re a real train wreck.
Yes you did say that.
We are delaware liberal, not Delaware Democrat I thought. color me confused geek,not obsitinate.
why am I not allowed to question who the Dems are?
No one said you were not allowed, so why fucking ask the question. The point Geek and others were making about diversity is that there is no UNIVERSALLY held ideology among all Democrats. I said on your other thread that the one unifying principle is a belief in an activist government that provides a social safety net for the people. That is a liberal ideology, but we have fiscal conservatives, moderates, and social libertarians in our party too who accept that principle as well.
But since we are a big tent party, and since you are going to get different answers to the question, you are treating that like we are not answering you and thus we must not like you questioning the Democratic Party nationally or locally.
We get that you hate both parties, Donviti. But some of us who are Democrats are not your enemies just because we happen to be Democrats. And your opinion of both parties is fine and as valid as any other opinion. But never again attack Delaware Liberal for suppressing criticism all the while posting as a contributor on Delaware Liberal, with the irony obvious for all to see.
Indeed, I think you said that because you were not getting the answers right away that you wanted. Answer your own question Donviti if you want an answer so much.
Their ideology is — “we’ll make any promise to get a vote.”
In response to everybody else:
I didn’t want to be part of the religious right if the GOP was still going to preach about small (or, for that matter, good) government. If they move back to a Nelson Rockefeller, Eisenhower, etc., paleoconservative model, I’ll reconsider, but for now they’re not doing it for me. Moreover, although Rebecca’s correct that my economic views have moderated, they’re somewhat right of center. Nevertheless, the GOP has been doing absolutely nothing to promote fiscal responsibility, to lower the national debt, etc. Both parties talk a big game. I’d rather side with the vaguely left-of-center than those who are subordinate to the right wing.
Smitty, regarding being an I, I don’t want to be part of a minor party. I think the two-party system, as flawed as the parties may be, is a good thing. It’s pretty easy (read: cool) to bitch about it, but at the end of the day, it’s a big part of what a) allows you to participate in any kind of public policy decisions, and b) keeps the government relatively moderate.
One thing I should clarify, I was using ‘I’ as a true independent, meaning “Unafilliated.” I am in no way IPoD, oh hell no. I won’t be unafilliated forever, much for what you said in your last paragraph (1:21PM comment), but right now being a somewhat-right-of-center fiscal personna, coupled with a left-of-center sociology personna, there isn’t much out there that’s organized.
If they move back to a Nelson Rockefeller, Eisenhower, etc., paleoconservative model, I’ll reconsider…
You aren’t kidding! Some in the bag-o-nuts© ranks are now trying to discredit any of Teddy Roosevelt’s connections to the Republican Party. One reference has him as the first true enemy to the Constitution. Ungh.
Bit ironic that I’ve been misspelling my last name. My B, guys, my B.
choo-choo
The point Geek and others were making about diversity is that there is no UNIVERSALLY held ideology among all Democrats.
awesome. and people wonder why they aren’t cohesive. It’s because they can’t be identified. So it is like trying to stick jello to the wall.
What do you stand for?
“What all dems stand for”
which is what?
“Which is what all Americans want”
Which is what?
what a crock of shit.
is Facebook the new Reuters
you sent it to a blogger mat, the screen name was don husseein whatever I was calling myself. So yes, “newsflash, Mat Marshal wants everyone to know he switched party’s”
Here you go DV, Democratic Party.
I guess I picked the wrong day to stop smoking crack.
cf the original topic of this post
I’m not sure what CF means in all honestly.
but this post was a jab at Mat Marshal sending out an APB that he was changing parties
again.
and my lack of giving a crap. Nothing to do with anger, just a jab directed at the waffler.
Mat–I hear you. My son returned to a different college campus this fall and attended enthusiastically the area Young Republicans event–and was devastated to see and hear what the “face” of the party was. All I can say is either you become the face of your party, and try to change it, or wear the face of your party as is. Right now it’s tough.
You are being deliberately difficult today. Not everything is black or white. There are shades of gray. The question and answer section you posted above is hardly representative of a real conversation. Take a breath, DV.
RSmitty, you are correct, I didn’t read you whole comment because I stopped at the conclusion of your argument. 😉
Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored “liberal” positions (the term “liberal” in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical liberalism). In recent exit polls, the Democratic Party has had broad appeal across all socio-ethno-economic demographics.[10][11][12] The Democratic Party is currently the nation’s largest party. In 2004, roughly 72 million (42.6%) Americans were registered Democrats, compared to 55 million (32.5%) Republicans and 42 million (24.8%) independents.[6]
Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, and a Southern conservative wing that shrank after President Lyndon B. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.
In recent decades, the party has adopted a centrist economic and more socially progressive and social democratic agenda, with the voter base having shifted considerably. Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy). The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the “Third Way”.[13] The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation.
The Democratic Party, once dominant in the Southeastern United States, is now strongest in the Northeast (Mid-Atlantic and New England), Great Lakes region, and the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii). The Democrats are also strongest in major cities.
Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy). The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the “Third Way”.[13] The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation.
lmao
DV, I assure you, if I wanted this to be posted, I would have contacted a much better writer than you.
Mat Marshall for the win!
cf. is an abbreviation for the latin confer and means to consult or even to compare. Perhaps e.g. is the abbreviation I should have used, but I’m up to my neck in contract docs and probably just posted what I am reading.
And this:
What do you stand for?
“What all dems stand for”
Wouldn’t happen. There is too broad of a vision, too many aspirations for someone to just say What All Dems Stand For. You are likely to get a much more personal discussion of what that person thinks they stand for and that may not have much relation to what anyone else says.
That is why Dems are a Big Tent Party.
That is why there is an occasional effort to try to come up with a Twitter length version of what Dems stand for. Dems are too interested in accommodating as many as possible to get that down to 140 characters.
No worries Mat Marshal. I just found it ridiculous you felt the need to pen a 400 word essay on why you switched parties then sent out word to your FB buddies.
You wanted folks to know. Admit it. It’s ok. I’m just making fun of it.
See you at the next Tea bag rally fraud.
co-sign What Nemski Said.
Thread over!
That is why there is an occasional effort to try to come up with a Twitter length version of what Dems stand for. Dems are too interested in accommodating as many as possible to get that down to 140 characters.
I hear what you are saying and am not challenging it at all. But the skeptic in me only reads that one way.
that they don’t want to disenfranchise voters. Perhaps its all the money being shelled out these days that clouds my judgement.
I’m not touching this conversation with a 10-foot pole. Mat, welcome back to the Democratic party. I hope you’ll work to make the party for the better.
u just did
I thought I said, Thread Over.
I thought I said, Thread Over.
… 😆 … “Blog Mom!”
I’m sorry, I saw my name on it. Perhaps you meant to post it on one of your posts?
“Nite Hef, ‘nite Smitty, ‘nite Matt, ‘nite cass…..
insert Al Pacino
“I’m just getting started!”