How Is Obamania Like AIDS?

[Axiom_Blade]

Not likely.

Well, you said "whoever wants to" could call themselves "progressive". Why use the word if it doesn't really mean anything? Is it just a marketing gimmick?

You quoted a definition and then gave me another that, I assume, is your own definition. So, it seems at least two people believe it does, but aren't necessarily in agreement.

It seems that Kucinich and Gravel have one definition, which is different from the mainstream Democrats' definition.
Is "progressive" synonymous with "Democrat" to you?

So, are you saying that since MoveOn supports Obama and Kerry, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans?

Yes, they're trying to defeat the Republicans in elections.
They aren't trying to challenge their programs, though, which is what really matters. I'm sure you've heard about Obama's plans to continue the War on Terror, and his pro-Israel stance which puts him to the right of a lot of Republicans?
I'm sure you heard Pelosi say that impeachment was "off the table"? If that isn't playing nice, what is?

 

[Pookster]

Well, you said "whoever wants to" could call themselves "progressive". Why use the word if it doesn't really mean anything? Is it just a marketing gimmick?

Sure anyone can. You did. Doesn't mean the definition is justified, as you said.

It seems that Kucinich and Gravel have one definition, which is different from the mainstream Democrats' definition.
Is "progressive" synonymous with "Democrat" to you?

I'm not sure how this relates to what you quoted. I made an observation about the definition you quoted and the one you came up with. That's all.

Yes, they're trying to defeat the Republicans in elections.
They aren't trying to challenge their programs, though, which is what really matters. I'm sure you've heard about Obama's plans to continue the War on Terror, and his pro-Israel stance which puts him to the right of a lot of Republicans?
I'm sure you heard Pelosi say that impeachment was "off the table"? If that isn't playing nice, what is?

So, they are playing nice based on your definition of progressive. They might not be playing as mean or nasty as you like, but they've never played nice with the Republicans.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Sure anyone can. You did. Doesn't mean the definition is justified, as you said.

Well, what would justify it, then?
What's your definition of "progressive"?
What do you call the Kucinich/Gravel wing of the Democrats?
Why is it always ignored by MoveOn.org?

I'm not sure how this relates to what you quoted. I made an observation about the definition you quoted and the one you came up with. That's all.

I suspect that "progressive" has become another Democratic Party buzzword. "Vote for her! She's progressive!"
I used to work with Democrats. Most of them are just as sheeplike as the Republicans they like to bash. Marketing is very effective on them, and that's just what MoveOn.org is...it's not a "grassroots organizer", it's a marketing tool.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily. Marketing is very important to a campaign. However, MoveOn.org's job is to co-opt dissent, just like so much else in the Democratic Party. You can give money to Obama's campaign, and feel like you're making a difference, when it doesn't really matter, because all the important funding comes from large corporations.

However, you could prove me wrong here, and it would be nice to be wrong. Show me where MoveOn (which is a PAC!) has influenced the Democratic Party; where they have succeeded, directly, in moving the party to the left. (I might even join again, because they do have some good campaigns which have nothing to do with the party.)

So, they are playing nice based on your definition of progressive. They might not be playing as mean or nasty as you like, but they've never played nice with the Republicans.

Yes, the John Kerry campaign was very effective, because it didn't "play nice" with Bush.
Depending on what your definition of "nice" is.
Maybe John Kerry is the real president?
You know, depending on what your definition of "real" and "president" is.
What's your definition of "definition"? We probably should get that out of the way, too.

 

[Pookster]

Well, what would justify it, then?
What's your definition of "progressive"?
What do you call the Kucinich/Gravel wing of the Democrats?
Why is it always ignored by MoveOn.org?

Why are you asking me these questions? I thought we were in agreement that not everybody's definition is justified. Are you just asking questions to be asking them now?

... However, you could prove me wrong here, and it would be nice to be wrong. Show me where MoveOn (which is a PAC!) has influenced the Democratic Party; where they have succeeded, directly, in moving the party to the left. (I might even join again, because they do have some good campaigns which have nothing to do with the party.)

I don't care if you support or join MoveOn or not. Again, I asked you to define "progressive" so that I could discern what the worst cognitive dissonance you'd ever seen was. You gave me two different definitions for it, one that is apparently your own. You claimed MoveOn was in the "Nancy Pelosi, play-nice-with-the-Republicans wing". I asked you since when has MoveOn played nice with the Republicans. You oddly replied with John Kerry and Barack Obama ... who are Democrats. I've reached the conclusion that you're really not thinking about what you're posting before hitting the submit button.

Yes, the John Kerry campaign was very effective, because it didn't "play nice" with Bush.
Depending on what your definition of "nice" is.
Maybe John Kerry is the real president?
You know, depending on what your definition of "real" and "president" is.
What's your definition of "definition"? We probably should get that out of the way, too.

You raise a good point. The definition of "nice" being utilized could avoid some confusion. So, lets start with you since you posted two definitions of "progressive". I'm still unsure which you want to use of those. But lets forget that for now. Lets instead cut to the chase with the word "nice". And, since you're the one that indicated MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans, let see your definition of "nice". Try to stick with just one definition this time. It can be a broad definition, if you desire. Thanks.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Why are you asking me these questions? I thought we were in agreement that not everybody's definition is justified. Are you just asking questions to be asking them now?

Well, you asked me for my definition, and apparently weren't satisfied with it.
What's wrong with asking for yours?
Why should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine?

I asked you since when has MoveOn played nice with the Republicans. You oddly replied with John Kerry and Barack Obama ... who are Democrats. I've reached the conclusion that you're really not thinking about what you're posting before hitting the submit button.

Kerry and Obama both voted for Bush's wars (Obama voted for funding), for the PATRIOT Act (Obama helped renew it), etc. Furthermore, Obama has recently supported the Bush administration's wiretapping that many progressives have condemned.
Yes, they are Democrats. My question is: who's driving this ship?

 

[Pookster]

Well, you asked me for my definition, and apparently weren't satisfied with it.

Only because you gave me two defintions.

What's wrong with asking for yours?

Because its irrelevant to my discerning what the worst cognitive dissonance you'd ever seen was.

Why should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine?

You don't have to answer them.

Kerry and Obama both voted for Bush's wars (Obama voted for funding), for the PATRIOT Act (Obama helped renew it), etc. Furthermore, Obama has recently supported the Bush administration's wiretapping that many progressives have condemned.
Yes, they are Democrats. My question is: who's driving this ship?

So, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans because they support Obama and Kerry? Is this correct?

 

[ProbeX]

I'm not very fond of semantic arguments.
Who do you think gets to define what a "progressive" is?
MoveOn.org?

Is this a joke? You first introduced the concept of "progressive" into the argument. Are you seriously refusing to define it, instead asking someone else to? Come on now. Step up to the plate.

Or if you're reluctant to step up, because you aren't "very fond or semantic arguments", then don't throw around labels you don't understand.

Gosh that's an irritant.

 

[The Painter]

Is this a joke? You first introduced the concept of "progressive" into the argument. Are you seriously refusing to define it, instead asking someone else to? Come on now. Step up to the plate.

Or if you're reluctant to step up, because you aren't "very fond or semantic arguments", then don't throw around labels you don't understand.

Gosh that's an irritant.

Pssst, go back and look at post #34. Then you can apologize.

 

[ProbeX]

AB offered something that failed as a definition, in that post. S/he provided a link (Wiki) which gave a definition that completely clashed with AB's own personal examples of "progressives". Hold on ...

 

[ProbeX]

Here's a good definition.

You know, those people who want universal health care, bringing the troops home (instead of redeployment), pro-impeachment, etc. etc. (e.g. Cindy Sheehan, Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Norman Soloman, et al)

... As I was saying, in no way does the def. from the link above resemble the "definition" AB is using in trying to assert that the above people are somehow progressives.

There are Dems, Pubs and Indies who are pro-impeachment, for example. There are progressives who aren't aligned with Chomsky or homemaker Cindy Sheehan. There are "progressives" that believe in the continuation of the war, or at least in the FISA act (Obama you are guilty).

Flagrant abuse of political labels is tacky.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

So, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans because they support Obama and Kerry? Is this correct?

MoveOn.org is a PAC. They're supposed to be influencing policy on behalf of their membership, right?
Do they attempt to push their candidate to the left? No. Instead they start in with the cheerleading. This makes it easier for the Republican.

Don't you think that Kerry would've gotten more votes if he'd had a clearly defined, leftist position?

Progressives view victory on ideological grounds: change the policy, and you've won. The Democratic Party views it like a corporation: as long as Democrats get elected, you've won. I think this is the confusion here.

We can see this phenomenon with Obama. He started out on the left, and went further and further to the right as the campaign wore on. I expect that by November his positions will be virtually indistinguishable from McCain's, and everyone will be grumbling about the "lesser of the two evils" again. This is a benefit to McCain, and a detriment to the Democrats.

Why didn't MoveOn make any demands on John Kerry?
Why don't they make any for Obama?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Flagrant abuse of political labels is tacky.

Then, you must find this supremely tacky!

MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates. It conducts major campaigns, from its work to protect the Supreme Court from a hard-right justice to its campaign to defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives in 2008.

Actually, go to any page on the MoveOn.org site, and you'll see the word "progressive" sprinkled...er, liberally everywhere. What I don't see anywhere is what their definition of "progressive" is. I think it means whatever they want it to mean...making it a buzzword.

 

[Pookster]

MoveOn.org is a PAC. They're supposed to be influencing policy on behalf of their membership, right?
Do they attempt to push their candidate to the left? No. Instead they start in with the cheerleading. This makes it easier for the Republican.

Don't you think that Kerry would've gotten more votes if he'd had a clearly defined, leftist position?

Progressives view victory on ideological grounds: change the policy, and you've won. The Democratic Party views it like a corporation: as long as Democrats get elected, you've won. I think this is the confusion here.

We can see this phenomenon with Obama. He started out on the left, and went further and further to the right as the campaign wore on. I expect that by November his positions will be virtually indistinguishable from McCain's, and everyone will be grumbling about the "lesser of the two evils" again. This is a benefit to McCain, and a detriment to the Democrats.

Why didn't MoveOn make any demands on John Kerry?
Why don't they make any for Obama?

So, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans because they support Obama and Kerry. Am I correct with this assessment?

 

[Pookster]

Then, you must find this supremely tacky!



Actually, go to any page on the MoveOn.org site, and you'll see the word "progressive" sprinkled...er, liberally everywhere. What I don't see anywhere is what their definition of "progressive" is. I think it means whatever they want it to mean...making it a buzzword.

You came up with your own definition, while posting two definitions. Why can't they come up with one of their own? What makes yours right and theirs wrong?

 

[ProbeX]

Once again AB: You referenced Chomsky and Sheehan as examples of what you think of as progressives. But that's an extreme of the objective definition, which you were so gracious to create a link to.

Again, there are Dems, Pubs and Indies who are pro-impeachment, for example. There are progressives who aren't aligned with Chomsky or homemaker Cindy Sheehan. There are "progressives" that believe in the continuation of the war, or at least in the FISA act (Obama you are guilty).

Flagrant abuse of political labels is tacky. Feel free to offer up other examples of this tactless practice (w or w/out links), but in this case I'm pointing out your tactless mislabeling.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

So, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans because they support Obama and Kerry. Am I correct with this assessment?

No, it's for the reasons I gave. It's in my post, if you want to read it again.
There's also some questions in there that you don't want to answer?

You came up with your own definition, while posting two definitions. Why can't they come up with one of their own? What makes yours right and theirs wrong?

The fact that words have meanings? MoveOn didn't invent the word; it's been around for awhile.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Flagrant abuse of political labels is tacky. Feel free to offer up other examples of this tactless practice (w or w/out links), but in this case I'm pointing out your tactless mislabeling.

What's the correct label?

 

[ProbeX]

That infantile deflecting an irrefutable point with a question schtick is stale. Gosh.

Once again AB: You referenced Chomsky and Sheehan as examples of what you think of as progressives. But that's an extreme of the objective definition, which you were so gracious to create a link to.

Again, there are Dems, Pubs and Indies who are pro-impeachment, for example. There are progressives who aren't aligned with Chomsky or homemaker Cindy Sheehan. There are "progressives" that believe in the continuation of the war, or at least in the FISA act (Obama you are guilty).

Flagrant abuse of political labels is tacky. Feel free to offer up other examples of this tactless practice (w or w/out links), but in this case I'm pointing out your tactless mislabeling.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

That infantile deflecting an irrefutable point with a question schtick is stale. Gosh.

Why haven't you or Pookster answered any of my questions?
You both are talking like you already have the answers.
I wonder why that is?

Gosh.

 

[Pookster]

No, it's for the reasons I gave. It's in my post, if you want to read it again.

This answer is nonsensical given that you keep referring to their support of Kerry and Obama for your reason.

There's also some questions in there that you don't want to answer?

Because they were irrelevant to my discerning what the worst cognitive dissonance you'd ever seen was.

The fact that words have meanings? MoveOn didn't invent the word; it's been around for awhile.

Sure. But you, yourself, have given me at least two different definitions. Why can't MoveOn have one of its own too? Do they need a permission slip from someone?