Sunday, November 7, 2010

Who is WE fundmaker?

Confederate General Robert E. Lee sig line blogger fundmaker has the nerve to ask Does Nancy Pelosi deserve to be Dem leader on the front page at right leaning Left in Alabama.
Nancy Pelosi held a news conference on Friday to announce that she intends to remain leader of the Democrats in the House. While she recieved statements of support from a few veteran Dem's such as Jesse Jackson Jr. (Ill), she has drawn multiple comments of criticism from other Democrats, based on concerns that she may not represent the consensus anymore. Other worries are that she has played a direct role in the defeat Democrats suffered at the hands of the Republicans in the recent mid-term elections.

Does Pelosi deserve to remain leader? Do we need fresh blood? Do we need a more mainstream leader?
First of all it should be Does Nancy Pelosi deserve to the DEMOCRATIC leader and secondly who the heck is WE?

Because of the branding issues and stigmas associated with the words, "Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Right-Winger, Lefty, Yellow" it is very hard to find descriptives to use for ones political mindset. Even if there were no stigmas, the descriptives are so broadly interpreted now that you still have to wonder what they actually mean.

Let me explain. If I call myself a "Liberal", that does not mean I am pro-abortion and anti-gun in my opinion. But, it might mean that to someone else. The definitions of descriptives are far too broad today.

On a personal level, I feel like the most descriptive words to actually describe my ideaological platform would be "Socialist" and "Conservative". No, I am not a Soviet era sympathizer. In fact, I despise communistic principles. I do however support some socialistic aspects. I want to list some of my views on issues and you guys try to describe me using descriptives. Rename me....
Have you been defined yet? And what do you mean by do WE need someone "more mainstream"? Somebody like this?
If I like a candidate, I vote for them. If I don't like the candidate, I don't vote for them. If I like both candidates, I go with the one I like the best. If I don't like either, I either go with the lesser of two evils (if the other choice is truly horrible) or don't vote at all in that particular race.

The letter next to a person's name has little to do with who I vote for. Everyone has good folks and bad folks. I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate or hold back from voting for a good one just because of his party affiliation.
What's up with the race baiting? Never mind, WE know.
While she recieved statements of support from a few veteran Dem's such as Jesse Jackson Jr. (Ill),
Since you have privileges I don't have at LiA let a DEMOCRAT answer your question.
Does Nancy Pelosi DESERVE to the the DEMOCRATIC Leader?

HELL YES. Nancy Pelosi is effective and is reading willing and able to stand up to Boehner. She has proven she is not skeered to stand up to the right wing Bully's. Any other Minority leader will be nothing but a republican enabler. Which is why republicans are skeered to death of her.
Let's revisit the post from yesterday about the Blue Dogs and other conservatives who threw Pelosi-- and the Democratic brand-- under the bus to try to save their own asses. The question was, "did it help any of them?" Well, every single challenger who came out with idiotic statements like, "I'll support Allen Boyd for Speaker" (grotesquely corrupt Alabama lobbyist Steve Raby), was defeated. The three most aggressively anti-Pelosi Blue Dogs, Bobby Bright (AL), Jim Marshall (GA) and Gene Taylor (MS), were defeated. Blue Dogs Mike McIntyre (NC) and Jason Altmire (PA) managed to survive the slaughter. More than half the Blue Dogs were defeated or retired. Only 47% of them, a number which will go down when Jim Costa's (CA-20) likely loss is announced later today) were reelected. Contrast that to the 95% of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members who were reelected.
If WE democrats wanted a republican leader WE democrats would elect republican leader.

The reason the gop infused, media enabled Tea Party hijacked Hope and Change was because republicans were UNIFED in their opposition. Unlike democrats, they put party before country.
I think when you run against your own party in this age of polarization you are begging the electorate to vote for your opponent. We aren't in an age of ticket splitting and the parties are breaking pretty clearly along ideological lines (even if the Democrats haven't figured that out yet.)
When WE democrats stop enabling and appeasing republicats WE democrats will win. Because WE Democrats are for right and THEY are for wrong.

Amen and Amen
The one thing that is needed with the Democrats in the state of Alabama is strength. We have too many Democrats that are afraid to call out Republicans for lying to the people of Alabama. The number one reason that Republicans have dominated this state is: the message of the Republican Party.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to dominate the message in this state. They used the right leaning media in this state. However, when Democrats have the chance to get quality media coverage, the message is one of cow towing instead of calling out Republicans. Sure Ron Sparks called out Dr. Bentley for not wanting kids in this state to get a college education, however, did he truly explain why Republicans feel this way? Republicans feel this way because they want to keep the masses “down and dumb” so they promote the message of “I am pro life guy” and people who have nothing will fall for it every time. From 2001 – 2007 Republicans controlled the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, however, Roe v. Wade was not overturned. Why did not any Democrat (Sparks, Anderson, Folsom) call out Republicans? Do Republicans really have your best interest?
It's kind of hard for democrats to get their message out and counter the right wing spin out when progressive voices are suppressed and cenosored.

No comments: