Tone Deaf
I’m really not certain if writing this post is worth it. I’m also not certain I want to go down this road again. Truth is… I’m weary. Even sadder, I’m tuning out.
First, this isn’t a post about policy – it’s about tone.
On that note, I have a few questions for certain Progressives/Liberals/Democrats:
What is your end goal? How does calling the President a liar, a corporate shill, a weakling, etc. advance your agenda?
For those calling to primary Obama… Realistically, how do you see this working? If your explanation concludes with a President Kucinich or Nader, try again.
What is most frustrating is that I see very little difference between the calls on the left to primary Obama and the calls on the right to impeach him. And that is where tone comes into play. I’d suggest toning down the personal attacks, but I’m certain that some would claim that makes me anti free-speech.
Tags: Democrats, Liberals, Obama, Progressives
they know that if only Ralph Nader runs again, THIS time the american people will see what a great president he will be and we will nominate him and he’ll wint 50 states in the general election, imprison all the conservatives in the country and it will be a progressive utopia for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are allowed to be anti-free speech pandora… it is your first amendment right….. also, you arent the federal government. (yet) 🙂
I agree Pandora
The Incomparable John Cole has something up along these lines too, as the Fainting Couch Brigade seems to have become an infestation there too.
I would have thought I’d be able to avoid being called an extremist for being deeply disappointed with the President on a site called “Delaware Liberal.” I think the people you are pillorying are venting very understandable frustrations about the failures of a President that all of us had very high hopes for. Pandora, would you prefer people just shrugged their shoulders as the President gives up on yet another of his campaign promises? Should we just support the President, no matter what, because he’s a Democrat?
I think most of the talk about giving the President a primary challenge is just a sort of wake up call to the President’s political advisors. If his supporters are talking about a challenge in the primary, will his base be there for a general election?
Oh, please. I didn’t call anyone an extremist. I’m calling for a more productive way to vent those frustrations. If you disagree, Jimmy, then lay out your case on how this tone advances our (yes, our!) agenda.
You asked “How does calling the President a liar, a corporate shill, a weakling, etc. advance your agenda?”
Simple. If we point out these things, maybe we’ll be able to elect somebody else or get a behavior change. Saying and doing nothing is not an option.
BTW, I don’t remember this question being asked when Bush was being called identical or similar names.
So here are some similar questions for you:
How does not speaking up – or trying to silence those who do – help advance a liberal/progressive agenda?
How does ridiculing and name calling like “professional left” and “sanctimonious” and “purist” help advance a liberal/progressive agenda?
Why do you only criticize this style of discourse when it comes to criticisms of Obama? A few days ago, without criticism, one contributor here suggested “a bullet” as a way for dealing with Fred Phleps. Apparently advocating violence is perfectly acceptable discourse on Delaware Liberal, but using the word “Obomba” is beyond the pale.
See what I mean?
Thank you for proving my last sentence of the post – FTR, I am not trying to silence anyone.
Anon (the good one) and I disagree, and yet, we are able to have a DISCUSSION. It’s your tone that’s the problem. And for someone who calls Obama all sorts of names you sure are sensitive when others call you names. Me? I’m not a big name caller, but you are. You probably need to own that.
Also, I didn’t read the “bullet” comment. I have consistently rejected such speech.
I’m calling for a more productive way to vent those frustrations.
How about literally calling (Carper and Coons?)
The link is from RedState – like a stopped clock they are right, and are way ahead of us on this issue (but adjust talking points as needed). I’ll take a progressive/teabag alliance if fellow Dems aren’t listening.
“…I’d suggest toning down the personal attacks, but I’m certain that some would claim that makes me anti free-speech.”
I perceive it more as a strategy, or advice, than as anti free-speech. Actually, when everyone’s grandmother advised “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, was more anti free-speech.
Pandora – A1 is ok. He is making some really good points in his own idiom. Some of them are completely undeniable. Just filter out the annoying stuff and take the good stuff.
I’m fine with calling Carper and Coons. At least that’s pro-active.
Well, thanks for your blessing, but did you call? or did you post the link and urge your readers to call? I already called Coons the day he flipped on taxes, and Carney the day I read about his position (during one of the debates). And several times after that. Apparently not enough Democrats joined me.
If everybody had all been calling their Senators two months ago, Obama would possibly not have been emboldened to undercut us by dealing with Republicans.
Now, even if you convince our delegation to vote against the Deal, Obama will just replace their votes with Republican votes.
“BTW, I don’t remember this question being asked when Bush was being called identical or similar names.”
That’s because you weren’t reading the comments on conservative blogs.
Once again, you confuse criticism of your tone with criticism of your message. I’m begin to think — forgive me — that you’re just developmentally retarded. This is the kind of conversation I had to have with my kids when they were 14 years old.
“What is your end goal? How does calling the President a liar, a corporate shill, a weakling, etc. advance your agenda?”
So …. if we stop calling the President a liar, corporate shill and a weakling…. the President will stop being a weak, lying corporate shill ?????
“So …. if we stop calling the President a liar, corporate shill and a weakling…. the President will stop being a weak, lying corporate shill?”
Turn it around now — if you keep calling the President a liar, a corporate shill and a weakling, he’ll stop being one?
Nothing you do here is going to make the slightest bit of difference in the outside world. This is about how you address the others who post here, those who are talking to and with you. Your anger at Obama is being taken out on the rest of us.
As my wife has been known to say when I vent frustration at other drivers, “He can’t hear you, but I can. Why am I the one who has to suffer?”
How is the calls for a progressive candidate to primary Obama a “tone” problem? That sounds like a strategic electoral proposal to me.
Many progressives seem to hold out the hope that 2012 will feature Obama against Palin. But what if it’s someone else, say, Romney? Under that scenario, unless the economy dramatically improves, I fear the Dems could lose the White House if Obama is the Dem candidate for president. Making proposals along the lines of that concern is not an issue of “tone.”
Dana, who will progressives run that unites the party for the general? This primary Obama talk makes my head hurt. I can’t see any way this leads to success.
The primary Obama supporters need to make their case on how this is a viable option… otherwise I’m hearing tone.
Obama is the father of the enthusiasm gap. He is already on a path to lose his re-election. I’d rather take a chance with someone who speaks Democrat. There is nothing to lose from a primary and everything to gain.
Mind you, a primary challenger doesn’t have to be from the fringe. A candidate who can clearly articulate Obama’s 2008 agenda would be all the Democrat I need. Remember Obama is still thought of as a liberal. Even if Obama survives the primary, it would force Obama to clearly articulate his center-right agenda.
If Obama is going to lose to a Republican I’d rather he get his butt kicked as the center-rightist he is, than as a “liberal.”
“I’d rather take a chance with someone who speaks Democrat.”
This sounds eerily like what a lot of uber-conservative Republicans said about choosing O’Donnell over Castle… and look how well that ended up for them. 17 points.
I’m not saying there isn’t reason to be frustrated, but unless there’s a constructive conversation that involves *winning* the White House, all this talk about putting a *real Democrat* on the ticket doesn’t advance anything except a Republican president come January 2013.
We can have a dialogue, but we have to be focused on the endgame and what scenarios could play out from each choice. Would you rather have four years of the guy who ushered in the healthcare reform or someone who will fight to repeal it?
This sounds eerily like what a lot of uber-conservative Republicans said about choosing O’Donnell over Castle… and look how well that ended up for them. 17 points.
Except that their guy Castle was on a path to win, and our guy Obama is on a path to lose. Totally different equation when considering a primary.
Replacing a winner is crazy; replacing a loser is good politics.
Primarying Obama isn’t my first choice – I’d rather he resign.
Geezer, please, then, just assume that I am “developmentally retarded” and we’ll leave it at that. Okay?
The guy who ushered in the “healthcare reform” that will fine you if you don’t purchase private health insurance, a known defective product?
Don’t worry Republicans are on their way to killing HCR and my bet is that Dems will help them in the end.
And this primary Obama talk is very damaging. Contrary to what some think, the Dem base includes more than progressives. A thought worth considering.
Here are some actual poll results/trends worth considering: Independents have stopped supporting Obama by a double digits. Democratic disapproval rates have almost doubled in the last month. A majority of Americans don’t want Obama re-elected.
Contrary to what you might think, not talking about replacing Obama with a better candidate is what is damaging, unless you like the current trajectory.
In regards to HCR, weren’t you one of the “pass it now, fix it later” advocates?
Republicans are on their way to killing HCR
I wouldn’t mind losing the individual mandate while keeping the rest of HCR. It would be the first evidence of eleven-dimensional chess.
the Dem base includes more than progressives.
Those non-progressives can get just about everything they want from Republicans, so they don’t have much at risk. They are basically independents. Plus, their ideas don’t work.
And this primary Obama talk is very damaging.
What was damaging was “pass it now, fix it later” for HCR. People who believed that were played for fools.
Now we hear Obama will “fight to end tax cuts for the rich… two years from now.”
Right.
For those calling to primary Obama… Realistically, how do you see this working?
By mounting a primary challenge, progressives will ensure their voice is heard by this administration, the Democratic party and the American people. Depending on how well they do, one possible outcome might be having someone like Anthony Weiner replace Joe Biden as number two on the ticket, and have Biden move into another cabinet position, or (god forbid) retire.
By mounting a primary challenge, we will give the GOP exactly the narrative they need to win in 2012. We will completely turn off all independents. This is exactly how Reagan got to be president and you “progressives” want to do the same thing so you can what….. purify the movement into extinction?
The optics for this primary challenge are a disaster, but… carry on.
By mounting a primary challenge, we will give the GOP exactly the narrative they need to win in 2012.
You missed the point – they are already on track to win in 2012. We are going to lose without even putting up a fight. We lost the House already because of “President Enthusiasm Gap,” next we are going to lose every legislative battle for the next two years, then we are going to lose the White House. All without a fight from the “pragmatists.” Progressives have nothing to do with it. In fact, progressive ideas are the only thing we haven’t tried yet.
Pandora, they think the country would be better off with a republican than Obama because THEN America would see how bad conservatives are….. just like when Bush was president and everyone embraced the following president’s agenda without question…… wait…..
Losing Congressional control during a midterm election is not new – actually, it’s sorta expected.
Know what else we haven’t tried? Enthusiasm for any legislation that did pass.
Voters rarely know the details, they do get the tone. (Hey, I’ve come full circle!) And our tone has stunk since the beginning,
Where is Del Dem and why isn’t he posting his opinion?
How does calling the President a liar, a corporate shill, a weakling, etc. advance your agenda?
Ok, so first off, isn’t he a liar?
Isn’t he a corporate shill?
He may not be a weakling, b/c all along he lied to us and made us believe he was something that he was not.
How is going to advance my agenda?
It’s not, and Obama isn’t going to advance my agenda either apparently, even if I get on my hands and knees and felate him.
I’m looking at an opened Gitmo still,
American citizens being spied and tracked with GPS
the FBI seeking out terrorists and practically entrapping them
2 ongoing wars
A healthcare handout to the health corporations that did nothing to reduce actual costs
DADT not repealed
and now extending tax cuts to the rich that apparently isn’t going to ruin the country anymore, only it was during election season.
I may have to retire at 70
Not get full SS benefits
I could go on, but that’s just off the top of my head.
So, the question could be asked, what is going to be accomplished by bending over and taking it, saying thank you and not calling out people for what they are?
It sure as hell felt good doing it while Bush was in office and you know what happened? calling that idiot names sure as hell energized me to go vote for Obama didn’t it?
I can’t even believe that after these past 2 years that people can’t see the CONGRESS and President for what they are. Follow the money for crying out loud.
Why is that the conservative? Why isn’t the “right” was able to get shit done and still can? Maybe it’s because, wait for it, they are all on the same fucking side of the aisle. And what I say, Mr. Middle class, isn’t worth 2 shits to them.
The rich create jobs and we have to cater to the rich.
We call people names in this country, it’s what we do.
ugh:
Why is that the conservative? Why isn’t the “right” was able to get shit done and still can? Maybe it’s because, wait for it, they are all on the same fucking side of the aisle. And what I say, Mr. Middle class, isn’t worth 2 shits to them.
should read:
Why is that the conservative and the “right” was able to get shit done and still can with or without a majority? Maybe it’s because, wait for it, they are ALL on the same fucking side of the aisle.
And what I say, Mr. Middle class, isn’t worth 2 shits to them no matter how polite I am.
DV: Yes, we all see that. But you’re not screeching about it several times a day.
“How is the calls for a progressive candidate to primary Obama a “tone” problem? That sounds like a strategic electoral proposal to me.”
It’s not the calls for a primary. That’s perfectly understandable and debatable. It’s the screeching. Say it in a rational tone and presto! No problem!
A1: OK, done and done. But couldn’t you just tone it down so we can have a conversation?
@Geezer–
Remember this exchange?
I agree with your opinion in the link above. Your tone, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Are you holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself, or have you mellowed as the year has progressed?
President Obama called it like he saw it in his WH briefing room press conference. He pointed directly at Liberals and called them (you) ‘sanctimonious.’
Your leader told you what you didn’t want to hear. He was right. Get over it.
Heck, the heretofore previous message machine emanating from the WH is now invoking the very ‘its the economy, stupid’ rhetoric that they heretofore previously rejected as their NEW talking point. Priceless!
In other words, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Goolsbee, Axelrod, et al, are using the Republican economic logic to ‘sell’ their tax-cuts-for-all-is-the-way-to-economic-growth’ argument.
It takes years and decades and generations for ideas to take hold in the general populace. Look at the way the GLBT community is viewed by young people versus old people. That is progress. But it didn’t happen because Zap you posted a brilliant argument. It has taken years and years of effort by the gay community to change attitudes. And the same can be said for women’s rights and civil rights, and all the other progress that has been made in this nation in the past half century.
Blogging is a wonderful and wonderous thing and I wouldn’t dream of starting my day without checking in to see what pearls of wisdom you guys are throwing out there. Blogging is almost instantaneous. Zap, new pearl of wisdom. And while we who gather here might benefit from it, it has absolutely no impact in the halls of power. But we think that because we’ve put up a heartfelt post things should change. Zap.
And therein lies the frustration. The post itself didn’t actually change anything. It might inspire someone to go out and do the work to change things, but putting your words on a screen makes no difference. And yet, we feel like we’ve accomplished something when we post. And then get mad when nothing changes. And then get angry and post more strongly worded stuff and get angrier and so it goes. DL is a tool to get people thinking about change, but it doesn’t generate change by itself. Its readers make the change through their actions.
It takes years and decades and generations for ideas to take hold in the general populace.
It would help speed things up if you stopped bashing people who show a little enthusiasm for the new and better ideas. When you do that, it makes you look like you disagree with the new ideas and are defending the old guard. What’s the word for that? – oh yeah: conservative.
I totally understand the value of conservatism. In most systems, change represents risk, and anything that slows down the rate of change can minimize the risk of making a bad change.
But right now, our economy is at greater risk if we don’t change, and change fast.
“It would help speed things up if you stopped bashing people who show a little enthusiasm for the new and better ideas. When you do that, it makes you look like you disagree with the new ideas and are defending the old guard.”
Most of the bashing I see comes from the Three Amigos. And I’m not talking about bashing Obama, I’m talking about bashing posters here who don’t sign on to bashing Obama. Why don’t you try dropping your insults toward Pandora and UI and see if people do the same to you?
“What’s the word for that? – oh yeah: conservative.”
What’s the word for that? – oh yeah: name-calling.
A campaign centered on single payer healthcare, busting the banks, and bringing home our troops is one I’d fully support. There is no reason I can think of why these ideas should be abandoned.
Right now progressives need a champion, someone who they believe in. If Obama has failed in this capacity, then someone else needs to fill this role. A challenge from the left might be exactly the stimulis the President needs to get these ideas put in motion.
“A challenge from the left might be exactly the stimulis the President needs to get these ideas put in motion.”
No, anon is right: This isn’t Obama, this is the number of Congressional Democrats who owe their positions to corporate donations and therefore represent corporate interests. Obama isn’t helping, but he’s not responsible for the voting record of Tom Carper, whose “centrism” (corporatism) long predates Obama’s entire political career.
As the Three Amigos like to point out, these positions are supported by the people. It’s just that progressives can’t find a majority in Congress to support the people’s preferences.
Right now progressives need a champion, someone who they believe in.
Don’t fall for the marginalization of Democratic values into the “progressive” box.
I would be happy with a candidate who simply ran on Obama’s 2008 platform. That’s not progressive; that’s just plain old Democrat.
After Obama, it is no longer enough to ask a candidate what their position is. Now you also have to ask them “Are you willing to fight for that position?”
Fair enough. But that means a bunch of Congresscritters with “D” behind their name aren’t voting that way.
But that means a bunch of Congresscritters with “D” behind their name aren’t voting that way.
A bunch? The House passed a Democratic tax bill, and only three D Senators joined the filibuster against it.
Because only three had to. I’d bet about a dozen of them up for re-election were in fear of being tagged as the “one” who scuttled tax cuts for all, which would have been the excuse for the state of unemployment in ’12.
So yes, it was three on this issue. Next time it will be a different three. It’s the same charade played out in county council, when the person whose district an unpopular development project is proposed in votes no, but there are always enough yes votes for the project to go through.
The issue isn’t how people vote. It’s political courage, or lack thereof.
Don’t fall for the marginalization of Democratic values into the “progressive” box.
You’ve got that exactly backwards. Its the Democrats who marginalize progressive values, not the other way around. That is precisely the reason Obama needs a primary challenge.