July 26, 2007

PLEASE! Stop The Bickering!

I see so much bickering and working at odds to one another among the Democrats, I feel the following warning must be put here. Please read and heed. Or, if you can think of a better solution, please let the rest of us hear from you here.
^^^
I hate to say this but feel the time has come to face the facts:
How have the neo-cons been able to do their dirty work? They banded together. They put aside their differences and worked toward a single goal: that of stealing the country from the rest of us.

If we want it back, we must take a page from their book. We must stop bickering among ourselves, agree on one goal [returning the country to the rule of "one law for everyone" would get my vote] then do WHATEVER IT TAKES [short of committing felonies] to achieve that goal.

So--Dems and all fellow travelers-- please, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our troops, for the sake of our own safety, we MUST stop the bickering. We must stop threatening to jump ship or to refuse to vote if we're not thrilled with the Democratic presidential nominee. And we must vow not to vote for a 3rd party candidate. That way lies a red carpet for the GOP nominee straight into the White House.

In short, we must unite to achieve our ultimate goal. Otherwise, to quote the [to my mind] wisest among our founding fathers, 'We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

20 comments:

Mary Ellen said...

I don't think discussing differences is bickering, TC. The last thing I want is to turn to is the Republican model of voter. I've always taken pride in the Democrat party and how we are able to differ with each other. Isn't that what freedom of speech is about? Why should I or anyone else change their views and who's views are the ones that get discarded? Who decides this?

an average patriot said...

two crows
You are right! We may not like it but we have to beat them at there own game. I was just on pissed off patty's site. I think I have seen you there but she asks a question you have mentioned and you might want to comment. http://morning-martini.blogspot.com/ Have a nice day!

LET'S TALK said...

There is truth to what you say about learning to stop the bickering and working at odds to one another. I guess that is what makes us Democrats because we do not settle for just anything another Democrat says or do.

That is how we lost important elections in the past and that will be our downfall in the future.

I do agree, just as the neocons put aside their differences and band together , we must and should learn how to do this for the sake of the party and the country.

I look back and think of how Reagan was put into office...a lot of Democrats jumping ship and never coming back.

That happen during the Gore lost as well, when our folks gave their vote to Nadar and you know the rest.

I concur, we must learn the ways of the neocons on sticking together no matter what to take back this country.

Mary Ellen said...

So, who is it that is going to decide which opinion I have to have in order to suit the neo-liberal party you suggest? Do I have to follow lock step with those who want to dump Pelosi and replace her with that nut case Sheehan? This is not what this country is about...you don't band together like a bunch of thugs and try to take over. What needs to be done is to keep the communication open. Look at all that is being done with the oversight committees, would that be done if they didn't have SOME Republicans who are helping behind the scenes? Would Arlen Specter be so quick to jump on Gonzo if he thought he was doing it for the good of a party that are acting like the neo con thugs?

Like I said, disagreeing with someone isn't bickering...it's communicating and exchanging ideas. That's the party I want to be in. If I saw the Democrat party turning into the Republican party...I'd become an Independent who would possibly vote against the Democratic party...and I wouldn't be the only one to do that.

two crows said...

hey, ME--
from your 2 comments, I take it you misunderstand my meaning, here.
I'm not saying dems must all march lock-step. we would be taking on the worst qualities of the party we want to see ride off into the sunset. the old GOP didn't act the way the current one does and it survived just fine thankyouverymuch. they used compromise-- and it worked. so did the dems.

I'm talking about the talk I see all over blogsville saying things like, 'if so-and-so gets the nomination, I'm not going to vote.' 'I wouldn't vote for so-and-so, period.' 'We have to get rid of Pelosi and Reid.' etc.
my questions to those folks are, 'who will you vote for, then? Nader? and, 'who will you vote for in Pelosi and Reid's states? Do you want to hand Congress back to the folks who repartitioned Texas?' and 'do you WANT another Republican in the White House who spouts 'family values', keeps all the Bush policies in place and keeps this country moving toward the dark ages and totalitarianism?'

I will continue to stand by Ben Franklin who saw much the same thing during the first Continental Congress and made his well-known quote. if we DON'T band together and agree to vote for a democrat come hell or high water, we will hand the vote over to another neo-conservative.

I'm sorry if you believe this view makes me a lock-stepist. I don't think it does.

two crows said...

hi, AAP--
I think you got my gist. as I said to M E--
I'm not saying let's become Republicans. down that road lies the destruction of our country.

my concern is the blind pick-pick-pick refusal to compromise among ourselves that we ridicule Bush for practicing. I see plenty of that on our side of the aisle in Congress AND in blogsville-- and it scares me.

yes, L T--
we HAVE lost elections because we failed to compromise in the past. witness Nader's siphoning of votes away from Gore. look where that has gotten us.

and, yes, it frightens me when I see statements like, 'I won't vote for Hillary no matter what!' the outcome of such an attitude is a virtual vote-- even if the person doesn't put a check next to his name-- for whoever runs on the Republican side.

when I posted this I knew it would be controversial. I didn't realize I'd open SUCH a huge can of worms.

two crows said...

btw everyone -- my original request still stands:

if you _can_ think of a better solution that will help us insure a return to sanity in this country, please let the rest of us hear from you here.

Mary Ellen said...

TC

Ok...I see where you are going with this. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not sure what to say to those who "won't vote for Hillary no matter what". Although, I can sympathize with those who just cannot see eye to eye with a candidate even when they are of your own party.

I don't feel any animosity for those who voted for Nader, even though I think the guy is a snake in the grass. He wouldn't have won that election had Al Gore did a better job running his campaign. There were a lot of factors in that race that could have brought the same result with or without Nader. Maybe if Gore had not turned his back on Bill Clinton and used his support or maybe if Al hadn't picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate, or maybe if those butterfly ballots didn't muck things up in Florida...

One thing I think should be done and isn't even being talked about is the voting machines. What are the Democrats waiting for? That may make the difference between a Democrat getting in or a Republican stealing the presidency again.

ThanKwee-Anajo said...

Well, it seems that everyone agrees here. Just a matter of miscommuncation.

I just hope that a republican is not elected in 2008, otherwise I don't know what I'd do!

There's no way in hell that I wouldn't vote at all!

And may we Democrats continue to disagree! :))

two crows said...

**whew!** :)
we're not the inclusive party for nothing! and that's how I want it.

it's the refusing to listen to each other and shouting each other down that has me scared.

agreed, ME -- there were lots of factors in both Gore's and Kerry's campaigns that led us to where we are today. and, if Nader hadn't given people an 'alternative' the vote might have gone otherwise, even so.

I learned my lesson -- back when Carter said, 'A vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan,' and I didn't believe him. I was SO sorry later-- for all the good it did me, then.
since then, tho, I've come to the realization that RIGHT NOW, while we're in this crisis, is not the time to experiment with 3rd parties.

I've voted for plenty of people I didn't agree with 100%. in fact, I've never found a candidate I did agree with 100%.
but, since Anderson, I've never voted for a 3rd party presidential candidate. it's too risky. and that's especially true now.

Mary Ellen said...

TC

I wonder if we have Nader and Bloomburg run if they will cancel each other out?

Nader is such a scum bag...one day when I can stomach it, I'll do a post on him. I found some interesting stuff about him.

Mary Ellen said...

Jo

Do you think Richardson will get a shot at this? It doesn't seem like he's getting much play in the media. Personally, I like him, it's just not easy finding out much when he never gets a chance to answer questions in the debate!

two crows said...

hi, m e--
mebbe. mebbe.
at this point, Bloomburg might glean more votes than Nader would. I think people are so disgusted with Nader's spoiler of the last 2 elections -- even after so many of us BEGGED him not to run against Kerry the last time warning that that would deliver the country to BushCo for a 2nd term-- he may register in the negative digits next time.

one can only hope.

two crows said...

oh, and m e--
as to the voting machines -- I wish the Dems WOULD address that issue. just because they are the latest technology doesn't make them the best.
in fact, partly because they ARE the latest tech, they're more easily manipulated.

I just moved to FL and haven't voted here, yet. so I don't know what kind of tech is used here, these days.
hopefully, after the spotlight this state was under in 2000, it has cleaned up its act.

but, those hackable machines need to be outlawed by federal mandate. if people can't be confident that their votes count, even more will simply stop voting. and THEN where are we?

Josie said...

Very interesting. As a Canadian, I watched this happening with your last two Presidential elections. The bickering amongst the Democrats was very obvious, and I kept wondering what they felt they had to gain from it? They remind me of our NDP party in Canada. They're so busy squabbling with each other, I wonder if they even pay any attention to the issues. It's like watching a school yard brawl.

And yes, someone should take Ralph Nader hold him hostage somewhere until the election is over. Give him all the luxuries, good food, good books, etc., just don't let him out until it's all over. :-)

Mary Ellen said...

Josie

I think the reason Democrats bicker is because we DO pay attention to the issues, unlike the Republicans who do little digging and get their news and talking points from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Repugs are more likely to be more naive, because they are either too lazy to look for the truth, or because they are too proud to admit when they are wrong. Democrats, IMO, are free thinkers-we don't let other people do the talking for us. This may be the downfall of some of our politicians, but I take pride in the fact that we don't let our party affiliation get in the way of our thinking process.

two crows said...

g'morning josie--
yes, Dem's take a rightful pride in being the 'party of inclusion'. and it does make for differences of opinions. BUT-- I feel we've forgotten how to compromise. so, pretty often these days, we see our own leaders glaring across tables at each other instead of looking at what the GOPers are doing and banding together to stop them.

and, you're absolutely right. we've lost a lot by doing that. what is happening in our country now, f'rinstance, is at least as much of a result of our own refusal to compromise as it is the GOPers decision to move to the right and toe a rigid line.

I don't advocate a rigid line -- I LIKE our inclusiveness. but I feel we do have to put our differences aside sometimes. our country is under attack right now -- and not by terrorists. it can be destroyed from within much more effectively than from without. and our leaders have been allowing that to happen rather than agreeing on what we need to do to stop it.

and yes-- we've got to put a muzzle and leash on Nader OR be willing to serve the GOPers the white house with an apple in its mouth-- again.

two crows said...

hi, m e--
I wish I could have as benevolent a view of the dems as you do.
I've always been a leftie but I was pretty ignorant until the current crisis forced me to wake up.

even when I began my first blog, I didn't expect it to take the political turn it has. again, events forced that to happen.

I think there's plenty of willful ignorance on both sides. I know I practiced it for years-- content to go along for the ride because _I_ wasn't unduly negatively affected.

I'm not proud of that but-- it's the truth.

TomCat said...

I support TC's position.

I was just on another blog responding to a post that said that the Conyers and the Democratic party have betrayed us. I'll go copy my reply and paste it here:

As an old 1960s activist, I’m very familiar with civil disobedience, having organized, participated in, and been arrested for several such incidents. When one plans an act of civil disobedience, such as Cindy’s sit-in at Conyers’ office, being arrested to bring publicity to the protest is part of the intent of and plan for the act. I support her civil disobedience, but I do not feel that outrage is appropriate, because she intended to be arrested. I agree with her that the House ought to charge Cheney and Bush with articles of impeachment.

Unfortunately many in the House disagree. They believe that it is better to concentrate on a big win in 2008, because there is no way Bush will be convicted in the Senate. I agree that the best strategy is to concentrate on a big win in 2008, but in my opinion, to file articles of impeachment and have the American people watch the GOP defending Bush in all his criminal depravity, is the best way to achieve that big win.

What we have here is a difference of opinion, more than a betrayal. If we split progressives into feuding pro and anti Democrat camps, the result will be a GOP victory in 2008.

TomCat said...

PS. That does not mean that we will and should not disagree in the issues. But we need to remember at all times that we are all on the same time and disagree with respect and caring for each other.