AL-03: Josh Segall's New Ad

I hate to be facetious, but... (0.00 / 0)

...what's the difference in a Republican voting for a free trade deal and a "blue dog conservative Democrat" voting for free trade deals? The results are the same.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 04:42:17 AM CDT

Bud Cramer voted NO on CAFTA (4.00 / 1)

He's a Blue Dog.  Artur Davis, Alabama's other Democratic Congressman, also voted NO on CAFTA.  Every Republican in the Alabama delegation voted YES on CAFTA.  With 2 more conservative/Blue Dog Democrats in the House, CAFTA could have been stopped.  Please stop acting like there is NO difference between a conservative/Blue Dog Democrat and a Republican.  There is a difference.  Remember the SCHIP votes last year?  Party line votes with every single Alabama Republican voting against health care for Alabama children. 

Blue Dogs aren't as progressive as you and I might like, but they are a darned sight better than the alternative.  Adding Josh Segall or Bobby Bright to the House of Representatives is a step in the right direction.  Step by step, we progress.  Let's get behind the most progressive candidate in the race, perfect or not. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:35:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Mooncat said! n/t (4.00 / 1)

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:42:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re-read my post (0.00 / 0)

I never said Cramer voted for CAFTA. I said "free trade deals". Cramer voted for free trade with China, free trade with Peru, free trade with Australia, free trade with Singapore and free trade with Chile. Cramer was rated at 33% by the CATO Institute for his trade stances.

 I just think it looks bad to make an issue out of what an opposing candidate has voted for when our representative has done the same.

To me, blue dogs aren't progressive at all. They call themselves conservatives for a reason. You're either progressive or you're not. When a candidate describes himself as conservative, I take him at his word.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just want to make this perfectly clear ... (0.00 / 0)

Mike Rogers' opponent is Josh Segall.  He hasn't been invited to be a member of the Blue Dog caucus and I'm pretty sure he won't be. 

Bud Cramer is just my illustration of a local Blue Dog who voted against CAFTA and who has voted right on several other trade related pieces of legislation.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Understand That... (0.00 / 0)

...but Parker Griffith, who is supported by most on this blog, DOES call himself a blue dog conservative Democrat. I just think it's wrong to complain about a vote by Mike Rogers, and suggest it's a reason not to vote for him, and then support a candidate, Parker Griffith, who professes to be a member of a group that votes the same way. JMHO

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction (4.00 / 1)

Parker Griffith is not a New Democrat.

Complaining about Mike Rogers' vote is perfectly fine considering the New Democrats are the free trade wing of the party.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:02:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong Group (4.00 / 2)

MadisonAubie,

I tried to explain this one other time I believe but apparently you ignored it.

The Blue Dogs generally tend to be populists, socially conservative, fiscally moderate.

New Democrats, the House version of the DLC is generally viewed as socially liberal, but friendly to big business.

I use the term "generally" because there is overlap between the two.

Blue Dogs are known for being budget hawks, but, the New Democrats are the pro-business wing.

Most New Democrats are staunch free-traders, while most Blue Dogs are fair-traders.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:08:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Know RD... (2.00 / 1)

...to quote another member of this site who told jonwil that he didn't have a dog in the hunt, you don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't think they've moved any of Alabama's congressional districts into Georgia as of yet.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um (4.00 / 1)

No, but four of Georgia's Democratic Congressmen are members of the Blue Dog Coalition and considering that's more the Alabama which has one person in the group, I'd say my opinion does have some weight in any discussion on the Blue Dogs.

You spew venom about the Blue Dogs, and THINK you know what you're talking about. However, when someone recommends you actually look into the different coalitions, you get all defensive. There is a socially liberal/pro-business group in the House,and some of the most prominent "progressives" are in the group.

It's alright, I was just trying to help. If you want to continue showing your ignorance, that is fine!

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spew Venom??? (0.00 / 0)

How is expressing your opinion spewing venon?   Just because someone has a different point of view, or disagrees with your point of view doesn't make their opinion venomous. 

normboyd made an excellent suggestion in the aftermath of my "Can I Rant" Diary.  He suggested that words like "you must not understand" or "you don't seem to" or" if you want to continue showing your ignorance" or "your THINK you know what you are talking about"  should not be a part of the debate or discussions.   He suggested that we keep the tone respectfu and civil  when we disagree. 

This is the same condescending manner and tone  in which John Mc$ame used during the debate friday.  It was offensive then and it's offensive now.

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 2)

I have nothing wrong with an opinion that is different from mine.

I'm simply pointing out that there are two types of Conservative Democrats.

Blue Dogs are the social conservatives, New Democrats are the fiscal conservatives.

I know you have great disdain for Blue Dogs, but even when speak against free-trade, you refuse to acknowledge the other group.

All I'd like to see is for you to do your research before blasting Blue Dogs.

If my asking for you to actually do some research is offensive, then, well, I'm not sure what to say.

 

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not about Asking (0.00 / 0)

It's HOW you asked that is offensive.  You can't demand someone do research that will support your point of view.  The way I handle situations like this is to find links that support my point of view and present them, I don't demand someone else to do the research for me.  

I don't have a great disdain for Blue Dogs, I stronly disagree with their policies.  I don't need to do any research to know that..  There is also a difference between criticism and bashing.  Just because someone criticizes policy doesn't mean they are bashing the person or group.

As far as my "refusal to ackonowldege the other group" let me say I don't have to acknowledge any group if I don't want to

Ruraldem, the header on the very page we are reading says "Connectinng Progressive Vocies in Alabama", that doesn't mean that non progressive voices aren't welcome, but the majority of the voices do not share your conservative point of view.  We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.  We can discuss/debate issues without resorting to personal attacks, insults and name calling.  It's the American way, or at least it used to be....

It's the condescending tone that is offensive to me. And you could day, "I apologize if the tone offended you and I will try and refrain from such behavior in the future". 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hrmm (2.00 / 2)

"You can't demand someone do research that will support your point of view."

I'm not demanding anything, though I do think it reflects on a lack of credibility to hear you and MadisonAubie talk about Blue Dogs, when your statements showcase how unfamiliar you are with the group AND you will not do a simple Google search to find the correct information.

I might be biased towards the Blue Dogs, but my request for you two to look at the New Democrats vs the Blue Dogs is not to make the Blue Dogs look any better, or to make myself appear correct.

It's simply to show that they are two vastly different wings within the party, and to lump them into one category is a mistake.

Again, New Democrats are the free-trade wing, Blue Dogs are the socially conservative wing.

If the facts upset you, then I apologize.

 "Ruraldem, the header on the very page we are reading says "Connectinng Progressive Vocies in Alabama", that doesn't mean that non progressive voices aren't welcome, but the majority of the voices do not share your conservative point of view."

Thanks, I know what the header says. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with my views, I am simply asking that if you are going to bash the Blue Dogs, at least have some sense of what they stand for before you bash them.

I have nothing to apologize for in regards to my posting in this thread, all I'm asking for is to please have some understanding of the Democratic structure before you bash a group.

Lumping the Blue Dogs and New Democrats together shows a lack of understanding in regards to the different sections of the big tent of the party.

It seems we disagree on many things. I prefer having an understanding of a group before I bash them. Also, if I was on here constantly derailing a certain group or view, I'd appreciate someone pointing out a mistake that I made. It seems you'd rather continue on making that same mistake instead of being corrected!

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:00:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RD (0.00 / 0)

I have nothing wrong with an opinion that is different from mine.

Then try respecting MY opinion. MY opinion is that, being a progressive, I do not support conservatives for office, even if they hide behind the Democratic label.

I voted for "the lesser of two evils" election after election, believing in the mantra of "incremental change". After realizing that these changes weren't going to come, I stopped voting for the "lesser of two evils".

I know you're now going to say that I'll never get the "perfect candidate" or one who agrees with me %100 of the time and that I should vote for one who votes with me 85% of the time, so I'll go ahead and answer that argument.

Bud Cramer never voted with me on the issues HALF the time and I look at every key vote. You see, I pay their salaries and I like to know what they're doing with my money. You can also watch how your congressman or Senator votes by signing up for votenote at the following address. They will send you regular E-mails telling you how your representative voted.

http://capwiz.com/votenote/vn/

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:07:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 1)

"Then try respecting MY opinion. MY opinion is that, being a progressive, I do not support conservatives for office, even if they hide behind the Democratic label."

I respect your opinion, but everytime you purposely call pro-business Democrats Blue Dogs, I'll mention that the New Democrats are the pro-business wing.

There is a major difference between a fact and an opinion.

I look at how my favorite members of Congress vote, hence the reason I can come on here and point out to you the two different coalitions.

There is some overlap (for instance, John Barrow and David Scott here in GA are members of both groups).

However, overall, Blue Dogs are the populist wing, New Democrats are more pro-business.

Asking you to please look up the two groups is not disrespecting your opinion, it is simply asking that you know what you're talking about before branding every Conservative Democrat with the same brush.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:13:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RD (0.00 / 0)

I respect your opinion, but everytime you purposely call pro-business Democrats Blue Dogs, I'll mention that the New Democrats are the pro-business wing.

 Have you even visited Parker Griffith's website? He has a cute little logo on there that has a picture of a blue dog, surrounded by the words "blue dog conservative Democrat".

There is a major difference between a fact and an opinion.

 

Here's your fact. The following symbol is linked directly off of Parker Griffith's official website!!

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:20:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

I know Parker Griffith is supported by the Blue Dogs.

You want to paint Griffith as being pro-business ONLY because he is supported by Blue Dogs.

 

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:27:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yellow Dog Democrats (4.00 / 1)

Blue Dogs Democrats.

Socially Conservative Democrats.

Fiscally Conservative Democrats.

Progressive Democrats.

Conservative Democrats.

Pro Life Democrats

Pro Choice Democrats 

Pro Free Trade Democrats

Anti Free Trade Democrats 

Old Democrats

New Democrats 

Did I leave any out?

United we Stand Divided We Fall~ 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:32:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Addition (0.00 / 0)

Pro Business Democrats

Pro Labor Democrats 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:33:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Likely (4.00 / 1)

However, New Democrats are an actual House Coalition, and under the umbrella of the DLC.

Blue Dogs are another House Coalition.

If you want to go that route, you might as well list the Congressional Progressive Caucus as well.

Now, do you see why researching would be beneficial?

Blue Dogs and New Democrats are ACTUAL caucuses in the US House.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:35:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With all due respect RD (0.00 / 0)

You are missing the point. 

When all the fingers on the hand join together they form a mighty fist.

United we stand divided we fall.

A house divided will never stand. 

 

Enough! 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:40:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Likewise (2.00 / 2)

If you have Firefox, there's a Google toolbar on there so you can search.

Here's an idea:

Type in:

New Democrats 

read a few articles

then 

Type in:

Blue Dogs

read a few articles

Then, come back here and post!

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:45:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There you go again RD (0.00 / 0)

Look I'm out of this discussion because I see it headed towards becoming a personality driven shouting match and not a respectful, civil discussion.  Have a nice day.

 Enough!

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:50:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry RD (0.00 / 0)

I don't think you're the one who needs to tell me what I need to do before I can "then, come back here and post." As of this post, I see no reason to continue this dead-end discussion OR to respond to any more of your responses.

If any of the owners or moderators ever think I'm out of line, all they have to do is tell me and I'll leave voluntarily. You see, as I've stated before, I honor and cherish my own views as much as you or anyone else does their's and I'm not going to continue debating this BS!!!

 

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:52:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Comment (0.00 / 0)

I thought your remark about the different caucuses was pretty reasonable.  And if we were limiting comments to people "with a dog in this hunt," I wouldn't be talking about Mike Rogers.

But I am, and I'm going to continue to do so and I hope you'll all continue to comment. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm interested in everyone's opinion. (4.00 / 1)

if they're expressing it reasonably and cogently.  That's not the case with some of our poster - a particular radio host comes to mind - but that's the case here.

RuralDem has a lot of experience with Conservative Democratic elected officials - as do we here in Alabama.  I'm interested in his/her opinion.

Many rural and small-town Southern workers got hit hard by some of these trade deals. The Democratic party was split on them between the corporate and populist wings.  I don't say corporate and progressive because not all populists are progressive.  There are as many different types of Democrats as there are Democrats for the most part.  The challenge is always bringing them together for a common purpose.

We all have a dog in this hunt!

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm interested in everyone's opinion also (0.00 / 0)

If they are expressed reasonably.   I find the tone of some of RuralDems comments to be condescending and offensive.  Telling someone they are "ignorant" or they don't THINK or   demanding they do research, are saying they are spewing venon  because they don't agree with their point of view is  offensive to me.    

IMHO it is impossible to bring different types of Democrats together for a common purpose if they don't agree on the common purpose.  For example pro choice Democrats aren't  going to agree with anti choice democrats and vice versa.  Pro labor/worker Democrats aren't going to agree with anti labor/worker Democrats and vice versa.   As MadisonAubie says, when Republicans say they are conservative we can take them at their word. We know exactly where they stand issues.   There is no in between, there are no shades of grey.  

To quote one of my favorite lines from the movie Soul Food, Mama Jo, matriach of the family says "When all the fingers on the hand join together we form a mighty fist".  I'm going to have to give Republicans/consevatives credit for all the fingers joining together to form a mighty fist.  All the fingers on the hand aren't joined together for Democrats.   Democrats don't have a mighty fist, they a pinky finger which they stick up to see which way the wind blows in order to be elected. Once they are elected they are beholden to the people who elected them not to the people who need them.

Regarding, the jonwill/ I don't have a Dog in this fight comment:  Jonwill said he didn't have a fight in the Parker Griffith/Wayne Parker race but he had questions.  I responded as someone who did have a dog in the fight.  In no way did I intend to infer that only people who had dogs in the fight were qualified or could discuss any political issue. We all have dogs in this fight.  

 

 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:23:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dale Jackson Derangement Syndrome... (0.00 / 0)

... rears it's ugly head again.

A whiny pissing contest about which Democrat is the best/worst or real democrat and somehowyou bring me up.

Awesome.

Dale, I have to say you were right - mooncat

You're an entertainer son! -Parker Griffith

---

by: DaleJackson @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:58:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't flatter yourself ;-) (4.00 / 1)

Maybe we're talking about another irritating radio host!   ;-)

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:01:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I doubt any other talk show hosts are wandering into this den of stupidity. (0.00 / 0)

Dale, I have to say you were right - mooncat

You're an entertainer son! -Parker Griffith

---

by: DaleJackson @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:28:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

25% (0.00 / 0)

The Blue Dogs generally tend to be populists, socially conservative, fiscally moderate. ~ RD

So, by your own estimation, that'd make them in agreement with me 25% of the time; 0% on social issues and 50% on fiscal ones. Would YOU vote for a 25%er?

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:14:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I'm not greedy, I'd rather have a candidate in office that I can agree with on some issues, than one that I can never agree with.

However, as I've mentioned before, other factors come into play when I vote. I am not just an issues-based voter.

Fortuantly, during my time being interested in politics, I've had the luxury of being represented by Sanford Bishop and Jim Marshall so except for President, I've never had to hold my nose and vote for a candidate on the Federal level.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:25:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the Rub RD (0.00 / 0)

I'm not voting for a conservative, of either party. You, and some others, seem to have a problem with that. It's not like I'm on here trying to convince anyone to vote for Wayne Parker. I'm not. However, I'd appreciate the same respect.

 I have what I perceive to be solid reasons for not voting for a conservative of either ilk and I would appreciate if you and the others would drop the push to make me change my personal views and beliefs. It's not happening and it only causes continued friction.  

 This is supposed to be a "progressive" blog but sometimes it seems that opinions are only respected when they're pro-Democrat, whether that Democrat is "progressive" or not. I have my opinion and I believe it is just as valid as yours. We may not agree but that's usually because we have different ideas and values.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:35:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

"We may not agree but that's usually because we have different ideas and values."

Sure we do, and that's fine. I think in a previous thread there were some issues (such as opposition to school vouchers, and support for social security) that we could mutually agree on.

If you disagree with a Conservative Democrat, that is fine. However, to make the assumption that Blue Dog = pro-business is simply wrong.

I was simply making the point that New Democrats are the group you'd want to attack fiscally, not the Blue Dogs.

Save the anger on social issues for the Blue Dogs :)

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:40:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Lessor of Two Evils (0.00 / 0)

Is still evil.

 

 

Enough! 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:47:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

MadisonAubie, we get it. (4.00 / 1)

You have standards.  You vote for Progressives. You aren't wasting your vote on someone who doesn't share your values. You dislike Blue Dogs.

Nobody is treating you disrespectfully, but, in my opinion, some of your posts are disrespectful towards others.  That happens to us all at times.  This is an important election and emotions are running high.

Many of us are also physically exhausted from working at headquarters, setting up debate parties, attending Democratic events, canvassing, and blogging.  And I personally admit to a tendency to get prickly at fairly constant criticism from the peanut gallery.

The progressive moral purity stance may be comforting, but it just isn't the reality of this election.  And I want to WIN because I fear the alternative is much worse than we could ever imagine.  Purity is like pride: it tastes really good - especially when the crust is flaky and there's meringue on top.  But it doesn't win elections.

You want better, progressive Democratic candidates to vote for?  So do I. 

You don't like some of our Democratic candidates and their positions on issues?  I'm right there with you.

But what are you doing to get better candidates to run and get them elected?  

Far be it from me to dis blogging, but that only goes so far.  It's feet on the ground and fingers on the phone buttons that turn elections. 

Instead of endlessly complaining about the Democratic candidates you don't like who are running in this state/district, tell us what candidates do support, why, and what your're doing to get them elected. 

If they're running in other states, tell us about them.  I often contribute to out-of-state progressive candidates, and I hearing about them even if I'm tapped out financially.

Talk is easy.  Winning is hard.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:55:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

REALLY??? (0.00 / 0)

And you gave my post a "2" for what you perceived as an attack on RD but gave his post a "4"... Allow me to quote from what you saw as a "4" post...

You spew venom about the Blue Dogs, and THINK you know what you're talking about. However, when someone recommends you actually look into the different coalitions, you get all defensive. There is a socially liberal/pro-business group in the House,and some of the most prominent "progressives" are in the group.

It's alright, I was just trying to help. If you want to continue showing your ignorance, that is fine!

That's OK. I thought this was a progressive blog. Obviously I was wrong. It's a support the Democrats regardless of their ideology blog. You can go ahead and rate this post as a "troll" post to hide it because it's my last post on this blog.

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:05:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Forgot (2.00 / 2)

You forgot to bold the "spew venom" part too.

My wording could have been a little less "combatative", but I think my point was clear and concise. Asking you to be honest and trolling are two different beasts.

Just because this is a progressive blog, does that mean you can leave reality? Personally, I think this blog is better than sites like redstate. This blog actually values opinions, and a majority of posters seem to want to learn.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:15:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look at the rating titles. (4.00 / 1)

A "2" means "disagree" and I disagreed somewhat with the substance of your comment, but more so with the tone.

There's been no troll-rating here.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:19:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't go away MadisonAubie (4.00 / 1)

Who wins if you stop blogging here?  

How to destroy an effective liberal/progressive group: 

Find a group.  

Start a fight.

Have the group pick sides.

Who wins in the end?

Not us progressives that's for sure.

 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:33:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (2.67 / 3)

While this leaving threat isn't new, and I'm not going to beg you to stay, I think simply leaving does nothing.

We have disagreements, and this is a liberal leaning blog for Alabama citizens, and I am a conservative leaning Democrat from Georgia we should be working together on what we do agree on.

My intentions are not to make people want to leave this blog. You guys have been here much longer than I have and are much more active. 

We tend to see things in a different light. Some on here think even the slightest hint of conservativism in a Democrat is awful, while others realize that not everyone will share the same stances on all issues.

My point is, we have to work together. However, to work together we must understand each other.

Being open to the idea that there are varying factions within the Democratic Party that can and do work together is the only way to ensure the issues we believe in will be put to the forefront.

Taking your ball and going home is nothing more than a selfish act that puts your own self glory above that of the issues you supposedly so adamantly care about.

All I tried to do is showcase the difference between two factions on the Conservative end of the Democratic Party, because some around here do not understand the difference.

I would hope that if I make comments in a future post regarding the liberal wing, that someone will correct me as well.

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:47:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HA (0.00 / 1)

And you gave my post a "2" for what you perceived as an attack on RD but gave his post a "4"... Allow me to quote from what you saw as a "4" post...

Hilarious... you whine about that but you sent two weeks rating every post I did here a 0 for no reason.

Which by the way mooncat, way to not acknowledge your BS on that one. Well done.

Dale, I have to say you were right - mooncat

You're an entertainer son! -Parker Griffith

---

by: DaleJackson @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:01:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of the maxims of living in the Reality Based Community... (4.00 / 2)

 is to be pragmatic.

For example, I'd rather be mad at Dr. Griffith (or Bobby Bright) 50% of the time, than disgusted at and embarrassed by nobs like W. Parker and Subway Jay 100% of the time.

In sum, I wish to maximize the net good effect for the causes, policies, positions, etc. in which I believe.  I have to admit to myself that I won't get everything I want or hope for by and through Blue Dogs (who, sadly, don't get that showing more spine against the Freak Rabid Right is a good thing).  But I'll get more through them than having the nuts and cretins like S'way Jay and Higher Insurance Premiums Parker in office.

This is all no-brainer stuff, people.

bg
_____________

 

---

by: BenGoshi @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:10:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WRONGGGGGGGGG (0.00 / 0)

 The Blue Dogs generally tend to be populists, socially conservative, fiscally moderate...

This is from the first sentence from the blue dog coalition's own website

 The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition...

http://www.house.gov/ross/Blue...

~I'm outta here!!!

---

by: MadisonAubie @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:44:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Happened? (0.00 / 0)

What happened to looking at every key vote?

This thread started with free trade. Most Blue Dogs are against free-trade, and I'd have to check but I believe many voted against the Bush tax cuts, hence the reason I call them fiscally moderate. Those stances are offset by constant calls for a balanced budget.

Now, just as easily as you pulled that one sentence from the Blue Dog website, go to the Ellen Tauscher's website and read about the New Democrats.

Now, tell me out of the two, which group is pro-business.

Hint, it's the group that Wasserman-Schultz, Baird, and others are affiliated with. 

---

by: RuralDem @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:52:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't quote me on this..... (4.00 / 2)

because this is just based on what I THINK I recall on the CAFTA vote in the HOR. I believe the house leadership counted heads and saw that it would be a very close vote and CAFTA would be defeated without Rogers' vote. He was holding out for some sort of deal that would protect some plants in his area that manufactured socks. He was assured that if he voted with the administration there would be provisions in the legislation to protect those jobs so he switched his position and voted yes, but the jobs went elsewhere anyway.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:35:13 AM CDT

Sounds reasonable. (4.00 / 1)

Leadership on both sides can make lots of promises and put incredible pressure on members to vote a certain way.

It may be the Mike Rogers gambled and lost - but what a gamble it was!

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's the deal Aderholt got (4.00 / 1)

That didn't hold up, of course.  Rogers may have been given similar assurances, but I sort of remember he actually said CAFTA would be good for his district, rather than just not harm it.  Wrong both ways, as usual.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 17:58:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 2)

Aderholt is my Unrepresentative. 

Although I am not comfortable with all of Nick Sparks positions I will vote for him.  It is my hope that he can be brought around to a more progressive agenda.  I realize that there is no hope of that with Aderholt.  

I really wish Sparks would advertise some.  I have tried to contact him but to no avail.

Nick, are you there?

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still better than voting for the most evil.

---

by: jonwil @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:44:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good question! (4.00 / 1)

I can't remember the last time I even heard his name mentioned.

there was NOTHING for him at the bean and cornbread dinner Saturday and I think (but and not sure) that his district was involved.

 but maybe I'm wrong?

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:50:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the story on Rogers and CAFTA (4.00 / 2)

Anniston Star article

Third Congressional District Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Saks, blames the decline in Alabama manufacturing jobs on free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, and on foreign competition. Rogers voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement last year. He said he did so only after rewriting the bill to protect textiles, and after Avondale Mills assured him that CAFTA would not hurt its business

Here are from the Avondale Mills CEO Stephen Felker who probably dropped out of the deal in a Golden Parachute.

Felker has donated $4,000 to Rogers. $1,000 of which came in 07 after Avondale Mills closed.

Felker was a high paid CEO who made over 1 million from Avondale Mills in 2004  

What did the workers get when Avondale Mills closed?

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:50:29 AM CDT

should read contributions (4.00 / 1)

before from - sorry

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:51:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mike Rogers is in Congress for Mike Rogers. (4.00 / 2)

Josh Segall would actually like to go to Washington to represent the good people of Alabama's 3rd Congressional District.

Any questions?

bg
______________

---

by: BenGoshi @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:15:36 AM CDT

Segall vs. Rogers (4.00 / 1)

a request for comments!! I believe that Segall should now make his own updated Bubba ad using a older woman and an older man talking about Rogers' being born in Indiana, his votes, anything. What do y'all think? His slick ads may not be enough since Bubba has become so popular. To defeat it , does one have to do one?

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:42:55 AM CDT

Circular firing squad (4.00 / 1)

Guys and gals, I love you all.  But we are less than 6 weeks from a very important election that will determine the direction of this country for the rest of our lives.  Will our time and efforts be better spent forming a circular firing squad and arguing among ourselves as to which Democrats we should embrace or forming a line and expending our ammunition against the Republicans on the ballot?

At this point we can't change which Democrats are running -- although I believe we should make a supreme effort in 2009 and 2010 to recruit and build better Democrats.  The immediate fight is against the Republicans who oppose virtually everything progressives care about and believe in.  I'm planning to use my precious time and resources to try and deal that party of corporate whores a crushing defeat on November 4.  After that I'll help y'all hold the Democrats feet to the fire on any damn issue you like. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 13:59:19 PM CDT

Rogers and Segall (4.00 / 1)

Will all of you quit killing each other and answer my question about the bubba commercial!!!!!!

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:41:59 PM CDT

hanging head in shame... (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I understood the question.  Seriously!

What bubba commercial?

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:51:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The one with the 2 geezers and the pickup truck (4.00 / 1)

Mike Rogers ad -- google "mike rogers lies about segall." It was posted here a couple of days ago.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 18:00:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok! Read the text but didn't watch. n/t (4.00 / 1)

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 18:12:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dang it, y'all. (4.00 / 2)

A really smart drug counselor, a co-worker of mine twenty years ago, told a couple of arguing inmates how to stop a pointless argument.  He said, "If you want to stop the ping pong game, catch the ball, lay it on the table, and walk away".

Now, the point is, both sides cannot get the last word!  It is logically impossible.  So, when it becomes obvious that no one's mind is going to be changed, why keep repeating your points of view?

To jump right into this thing.  Yes there is a difference between Blue Dog Democrats and New Democrats.  Fine. 

I don't like either one of them, but will vote for them both ahead of a Republican, unless it is one of those one-in-a-thousand Republicans who is an American first and will- ing to do what is right without following the party line lockstep.

Now, understand, this is just me, but since people have started quoting me in this thread, that gives me a Rottweiler in this hunt.  MadisonAubie, I agree with you at least 75% of the time, which makes you a person I respect and enjoy chatting with, but I am going to ask you and Rural Dem to stop just saying the same dang things back and forth at each other.  RuralDem, I don't know your postings well, but I find no fault in what you have posted here today, except that you have posted it so very often.  (You do not know me either, so please assume that everything I am saying, is said with a smile)  My point is that you both are repeating yourselves as though it's a case of whoever talks last wins.  It isn't.  What I see happening is that some normally quiet posters are even getting "all het up" about this.

CountryCat, You know I appreciate you and respect you totally (we'll always have Denver, won't we?).  I just think we need to drink some good ol' Southern sweet Iced Tea, and relax a bit.  MA and RD are both contributing a point of view worth considering and we are not lockstep Republicans so we don't have to agree on everything.

Here is my take, MA. (And you are not required to give a hoot about my take, but here it is anyway).  If there is a Progressive in the race, he/she has my vote.  If there is a Conservative Dem running against a Conservative Repub. the Dem gets my vote, all other things being equal.  Why?  Several reasons, but the main one is that a Democrat, even a conservative one can probably be persuaded to support the party almost all the time.  the Republican will follow the party line almost all the time too, and that will not be good for progressive values. 

Redeye, thanks for mentioning my prior comments about posting ettiquette. Mostly you and I are in agreement on stuff, especially creative spelling techniques.  I do not share your sense of outrage (or is that too strong a word?) toward RuralDem, because I think what he/she is saying is mostly stuff you would agree with, if he/she had said it a little differently. 

Let's all try to get past the style of the other poster and look at this key question:  is there something in this post that we can learn from and develop some better strategies from?  Is the person being sincere and trying to put forth some ideas, even if they are different from mine?  I am no saint, folks and you all know I can get damned angry and sarcastic as hell.  There are intruders on this blog, whose names I won't mention, posts I won't respond to, and in fact whose very existence is just an annoyance - although a petty one- to me.  But the one thing that I look for is sincerity.  If that's present, I will engage you and share ideas with you all day. NOW PLAY NICE DAMMIT!! :)

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:56:01 PM CDT

my dear friend normboyd (0.00 / 0)

I don't agree with anything Ruraldem is saying because RD is a conservative.  We don't share the same views or values about anything and I'm sure we never will.RD is against everything prinicple I stand for.  To that point I will no longer respond to any post or comments made by RD because it is pointless.

There is a faction embedded in the Democratic party whose sole interest is in maintaining the status quo.  We must remember that todays Republicans are yesterday's Democrats (Dixiecrats).  So called conservative Democrats are that arm of the party.  They are anti choice, anti women's right, anti African American, anti immigrant anti "social programs", anti public education, anti union.  Why is there a liberal wing and a conservative wing of the Democratic party?  How can a divided party be sucessful?  

Barack Obama talks about the "urgency of now".  He believes in one America.  He believes in  fulfilling the promise of the American dream for everybody.  He wants to bring us together not tear us apart.  Conservatives don't share these ideals and values.  They want to maintain things exactly as they are now which is with their foot on the neck of the American people.  Now is the time to take our country back from the conservative.  If not now when?

.   

My outrage was directed towards RD's "posting etiquette not RD's point of view.   I find the condecsending tone of RD's remarks offensive.  I tried to convey this is a polite, respectful manner but was rebuffed.

Thank you for your concern and your remarks.  Y'all carry on and play nice!   As for me and my house, we will continue to support proud liberal and progressie candidates.

Enough!

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:16:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dang it, y'all. (4.00 / 1)

A really smart drug counselor, a co-worker of mine twenty years ago, told a couple of arguing inmates how to stop a pointless argument.  He said, "If you want to stop the ping pong game, catch the ball, lay it on the table, and walk away".

Now, the point is, both sides cannot get the last word!  It is logically impossible.  So, when it becomes obvious that no one's mind is going to be changed, why keep repeating your points of view?

To jump right into this thing.  Yes there is a difference between Blue Dog Democrats and New Democrats.  Fine. 

I don't like either one of them, but will vote for them both ahead of a Republican, unless it is one of those one-in-a-thousand Republicans who is an American first and will- ing to do what is right without following the party line lockstep.

Now, understand, this is just me, but since people have started quoting me in this thread, that gives me a Rottweiler in this hunt.  MadisonAubie, I agree with you at least 75% of the time, which makes you a person I respect and enjoy chatting with, but I am going to ask you and Rural Dem to stop just saying the same dang things back and forth at each other.  RuralDem, I don't know your postings well, but I find no fault in what you have posted here today, except that you have posted it so very often.  (You do not know me either, so please assume that everything I am saying, is said with a smile)  My point is that you both are repeating yourselves as though it's a case of whoever talks last wins.  It isn't.  What I see happening is that some normally quiet posters are even getting "all het up" about this.

CountryCat, You know I appreciate you and respect you totally (we'll always have Denver, won't we?).  I just think we need to drink some good ol' Southern sweet Iced Tea, and relax a bit.  MA and RD are both contributing a point of view worth considering and we are not lockstep Republicans so we don't have to agree on everything.

Here is my take, MA. (And you are not required to give a hoot about my take, but here it is anyway).  If there is a Progressive in the race, he/she has my vote.  If there is a Conservative Dem running against a Conservative Repub. the Dem gets my vote, all other things being equal.  Why?  Several reasons, but the main one is that a Democrat, even a conservative one can probably be persuaded to support the party almost all the time.  the Republican will follow the party line almost all the time too, and that will not be good for progressive values. 

Redeye, thanks for mentioning my prior comments about posting ettiquette. Mostly you and I are in agreement on stuff, especially creative spelling techniques.  I do not share your sense of outrage (or is that too strong a word?) toward RuralDem, because I think what he/she is saying is mostly stuff you would agree with, if he/she had said it a little differently. 

Let's all try to get past the style of the other poster and look at this key question:  is there something in this post that we can learn from and develop some better strategies from?  Is the person being sincere and trying to put forth some ideas, even if they are different from mine?  I am no saint, folks and you all know I can get damned angry and sarcastic as hell.  There are intruders on this blog, whose names I won't mention, posts I won't respond to, and in fact whose very existence is just an annoyance - although a petty one- to me.  But the one thing that I look for is sincerity.  If that's present, I will engage you and share ideas with you all day. NOW PLAY NICE DAMMIT!! :)

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:56:03 PM CDT

And if you wonder why I posted it twice.... well so do I. (0.00 / 0)

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 14:57:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Awww... NormBoyd.... (4.00 / 1)

you just want me to give you not one, but TWO "Excellent" ratings!

Hey, I have the "good stuff" from your Big Tent goody bag.  I'd have sent it before now, but... well... STILL haven't unpacked that part of my suitcase yet.....

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:11:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

's awright! Whenever I get that stuff, it'll be like Denver all over! (4.00 / 2)

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:44:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My two cents worth (3.50 / 2)

Having finally resolved  my computer problems I was interested to read this thread because in many ways it is a repeat of another lengthy thread of not so long ago and the same underlying issue has led to it.

The issue is this - there are those who post on here who have the opinion (and everyone is entitled to their opinion) that there is a litmus test of issues and unless you take the "liberal" position on EVERY one of these issues you are a conservative. Interesting ,the ultra conservatives believe that unless you take the "conservative" position on every issue you are really a liberal.

These posters go so far as to say that unless you pass the litmus test with 100% liberal responses you can not or should not be in the Democrat Party and should not even post on a Progressive site (by the way, progressive and liberal are close but they are not the same thing)

The problem is that the issues in the litmus test are so unrelated that it is entirely reasonable that a person may be liberal upon one issue and conservative on another. The other HUGE problem is that these moderates out number both the liberals and the conservatives

It is perfectly understandable that if you consider yourself an 'ultra liberal' and an election presents a choice between a candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time or one who disagrees with you 100% of the time, you vote for the agreeable candidate. However the reality is that the choice will be between someone who agrees with you less than 100% of the time or none of the time.

Being a realistic I would urge you to vote for the candidate who agrees with you 70% of the time and save the other 30% for another election as opposed to allowing the candidate who disagrees with you 100% to win, in which case all your issues will wait for another election. However that is my opinion - if you choose not to vote that is your right and I respect your opinion even if I disagree it - however I expect you to give me the same courtsey and respect my opinion.

Finally as to the tone of the discussion. If you disagree with someone you may (1) ignore it or (2) respond to it. That is your choice. It seems that some of the people who are so offended by "lack of etiquette" are quick to engage in that same behavior themselves.  The tone is just as offensive coming from you as from anyone else.   

 

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:30:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OP - Have to disagree with one thing.. (4.00 / 1)

You used the phrase "Democrat Party."

And that's a red flag among Democrats - even though it's gained common usage.

It's a slur that first gained common currency when Bob Dole (whom I greatly respect in many ways) used it to refer to "Democrat wars" - saying that more soldiers had died during wars overseen by Democratic presidents than Republican. Given that this total included both WW1 and WW2, I'd say it was kind of nasty.

Then, it became the "term to use" - even though it's gramtically incorrect (like saying "CountryCat post" instead of "CountryCat's post" or "America values" instead of "American values." - with Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and the far right.  They thought it added legitimacy to the party to use "Democratic" instead of "Democrat."

If people snap back at you when you use the term, it's because using what we consider to be a slur obscures the larger point you're trying to make, which is quite valid in many cases.

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:39:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OP - Have to disagree with one thing.. (4.00 / 1)

You used the phrase "Democrat Party."

And that's a red flag among Democrats - even though it's gained common usage.

It's a slur that first gained common currency when Bob Dole (whom I greatly respect in many ways) used it to refer to "Democrat wars" - saying that more soldiers had died during wars overseen by Democratic presidents than Republican. Given that this total included both WW1 and WW2, I'd say it was kind of nasty.

Then, it became the "term to use" - even though it's gramtically incorrect (like saying "CountryCat post" instead of "CountryCat's post" or "America values" instead of "American values." - with Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and the far right.  They thought it added legitimacy to the party to use "Democratic" instead of "Democrat."

If people snap back at you when you use the term, it's because using what we consider to be a slur obscures the larger point you're trying to make, which is quite valid in many cases.

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:39:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Double post? Sorry! (4.00 / 1)

As I said in another thread, I'm using my hubby's "laptop of the damned" and it's being, well, damned.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:56:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected (4.00 / 2)

'Democratic Party" is correct. However I do not consider Democrat to be a slur. After all a member of the Democratic party is not a "Democratican" but a Democrat.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:00:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't think you meant anything ugly... (0.00 / 0)

but, as a friend explained to her young daughter, who asked why "pussy" was an ugly way to refer to girls, well all she could say is "it's ugly because people who say it mean it ugly."

So, whether you mean it as a slur or not, others will take it that way.

It's like using the phrase "Jew someone down" and meaning it as being a good trader.  But a Jewish person (and many others, as I'm sure you know) take it far differently.

But, with the term "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," well, someone who had had interactions with you before wouldn't immediately take it badly, but if you enter as a 'stranger" and use it, people will make judgments based on that alone.

This isn't meant as a rebuke at all.  More of a "how stuff works on Democratic blogs" discussion.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:11:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If that last was aimed at me, OP, (0.00 / 0)

I apologize if I have been offensive. Sometimes, what I intend as irony, crosses the line to sarcastic.  As I said to RuralDem, I almost always am typing with a s**t-eatin' grin on my face, because I truly enjoy all of you, and the "jousting".

An apology ceases to be an apology if followed by the word "but", so I again say to one and all," I'm sorry if I have been patronizing or otherwise offensive".

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 18:58:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Segall vs. Rogers (4.00 / 1)

If all of you can be civilized, please just answer my question about what ad Segall can run next that would be most effective against the 2 geezers Rogers is running everywhere. I was thinking a geezer ad with a man and a woman in discussing Rogers.  Others seem to think that an ad about that old Compound 1080 might do the trick.  There is no denying whether you hate it or love it, the geezer ad has people thinking Segall is not 4th generation Alabamian, that he is pro-abortion, and is just not one of us etc. So, stop arguing, and try to help.

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:17:20 PM CDT

Segall vs. Rogers (4.00 / 1)

Do you have to run a geezer ad to defeat one? Or do you run a geezer ad, put in compound 1080, say Rogers was born in Indiana, and takes 2.5 million dollars from lobbyists?

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:22:34 PM CDT

That's a good question. (4.00 / 2)

I would consider a map of Indiana and a narrator with a distinctively Non-Southern voice talking about how Rogers is adjusting pretty well to life in the South.  Have the camera pan in on whatever city in Indiana he is from, and talk about how his "solid Yankee values" are just what the people of Alabama need.

But if they want to have a geezer in their ad, I'll do it free.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 15:59:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

60 comments on a Segall Thread (4.00 / 2)

got my hopes up. but then i started reading and realized that it was philosophical waxing about types of Democrats.

We all know what kind of Congressman Mike Rogers has been. A poor one.

Let's bond together and see if we can't give Josh Segall a chance at being a good one.

---

by: gradyw @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 17:10:02 PM CDT

Please accept my apology gradyw! (4.00 / 3)

It is my fault your diary got hijacked.  I'm afraid I fell for the old Weapon of Mass Distraction ploy once again. 

The Josh Segall ad is great  and I hope and pray he will beat Mike Rogers like a drum in the upcoming election.

 

Redeye, tiptoeing away from the computer to stand in the corner.  Be back tomorrow..

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:31:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What she said! n/t (4.00 / 2)

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 20:40:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Segall vs. Rogers (4.00 / 2)

Norm, too expensive to go to Indiana at this point. You are too funny. The first geezer democrat to ever volunteer. I just love it. I do love and generally enjoy a good joust with my buddies but do not have time. I am on a mission to deal with the Rogers ad and how to counter it effectively. With all these good minds, and there are many, come up with something.

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 19:48:14 PM CDT

Old geezer ad (4.00 / 1)

The "old geezer ad (which is insulting to us old geezers) focuses on one wedge issue - abortion. If Segall is not pro abortion he should say so. If he is pro abortion he has to change the subject and talk about the economy, specifically all the closed textile mills in the district.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:06:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

AGAIN with the double post! (4.00 / 1)

Ok. I'm shutting down the LOD (Laptop Of the Damned) and going to bed.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:14:55 PM CDT

Segall vs. Rogers (4.00 / 2)

Segall is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is truly pro-abortion. Perhaps the old geezers should stay as they are, on Rogers' side of the fence. It truly is insulting to the people of Alabama to be characterized by Rogers' ad. I believe Segall will get tougher in ads to come. Let's hope rural Alabama really listens to what Rogers has not done for his district. 

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 21:50:28 PM CDT

I've always wished to be a fly on the wall (0.00 / 0)

and I think I may have finally achieved my wish reading this in-house squabble.

I’m pleased to read that normboyd40 is trying to make this blog more civil and create some semblance of order. I hope he doesn’t consider me to be one of the “intruders on this blog, whose names I won't mention, posts I won't respond to, and in fact whose very existence is just an annoyance”.

Regarding remarks about voting for any kind of Democrat just because they are a Democrat: The great thing about being a small “i” independent is that I don’t have to choose between voting for a party and voting for a candidate who best would represent me and my views regardless of which party (or no party) they claim to be a member of.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM CDT

Who to vote for (4.00 / 1)

Driq,

What has frustrated me about the discussion above is that the people who are complaining don't seem to be in the position you describe where they "have to choose between voting for a party and voting for a candidate who best would represent me and my views regardless of which party (or no party) they claim to be a member of."  Best I can tell, the Democrat is the person on the ballot who best represents their views, but the Democrat isn't perfect and that's where the angst comes in.  At this stage of the game, that discussion is pretty damned pointless, since the names on the ballot are fixed and have been since the primary process (in which everyone who wanted to participate had a chance to vote) concluded.  It's the general election now, where you vote for the 1 or vote for the zero.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not complaining (0.00 / 0)

I'm not complaing about the present Democratic Slate of candidates.  As I said earlier, I will go to the polls on election day and vote a straight Democratic ticket.

My frustration is with the Democratic Party.  The reason we have circular firing squads and are herding cats is because we have a so called conservative wing of the party standing in the school house door keeping progressive candidates and progressives views locked out. 

Enough! 

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 19:22:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

c'mon driq, I respond to you all the time, on and off this blog (0.00 / 0)

ant besides I am standing in the corner with Redeye because I was called offensive, and I think the accusation was valid - kinda.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 19:01:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh normboyd (0.00 / 0)

I don't think OP was refering to you.  I think he was refering to me so you can tiptoe out of the corner and I will pretend not to notice you had a mispelled word in your post.):

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 19:14:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Segall vs. Rogers (0.00 / 0)

Madison Aubie, we cannot have everything in a candidate we want if we live in Alabama. Some compromises have to be made to be elected. That is just the way it is. Blue Dogs take the money to be elected. Would you rather have a someone who is a Bush clone representing you? Unless you live somewhere like Massachusetts, you will not get Ted Kennedy. It is a simple but painful reality that we live in a state that is predominantly conservative. What do you expect? For example, I know Bobby Bright. I am not crazy about some of his positions, pro life being a big one. But I cannot bear the thought of Jay Love in Congress so I will vote for Bobby Bright. If you choose to leave the conversation, then you are being too idealistic to be in Alabama.

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 22:44:26 PM CDT