For some reason or another, I just don’t believe it at all.
The full report is over at Politico, if you care to read such stuff. Patterico also has a good take on it as well.
Quotable Quotes:
“Parties become much more pragmatic when they’ve won,” says Joe Trippi, who heads the media firm Trippi Multimedia, and who managed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and advised John Edwards in 2008.
“At least in the initial stages, they’re going to try to work together [with Obama] to see what parts of their agenda they can get through,” he says. And they recognize, he adds, that they will get more of their agenda passed if they don’t start trouble when they don’t need to.
[….]
For his part, Pariser says he will do what his members want, no matter which way it takes the organization or what the implications are for its future. “I believe the fact that we hear something from all over the place at the same time means it probably is what we should do with the country,” he says. “I maybe drank the Kool Aid in civics class a little too much, but I think if you put your faith in that, you really don’t go wrong. People gravitate very quickly to the big things that are at the core of their problems.”
“It also makes our jobs easier,” he adds, “because we just do what we’re told.”
Okay, here’s why I don’t buy this line of bunk for one minute. Because I know how Liberals think. President-Elect Obama is not in office yet, nobody, not even me; knows how he is going to Govern. The so-called experts say he will run from the Middle; and based upon his cabinet picks, this might be true. To me, however, it looks more like a Clinton retread White House. So much for the “Hope & Change” mantra throughout the campaign.
Anyhow, however; you let Barack Obama let one of his big campaign promises slip, like Nationalized Health care. The very minute that Barack Obama begins to make noises like he is not going to be able to pass Nationalized Health Care, and MoveOn and DailyKos will turn on Obama on a fucking dime. I know how Liberals are, They lack something that is pretty much a norm in the Conservative circles; and that’s Loyalty. Loyalty to Party, Loyalty to principles; this past election being a perfect example of that, and loyalty to a leader. Oh, they’ll be loyal to him, as long as Obama performs for them, and carries out their agenda. But the very minute he strays; it’s over man. The far left will turn on a dime and it will be Bush Derangement on the other foot in full force. Sorry Trippi, I don’t buy the B.S. line of Liberals being Pragmatic. If 1968 was proof of anything, it was proof that the far left or the rank and file within the Democratic Party is nowhere near Pragmatic.
So, to sum it up; while this might sound nice and pretty and all. It is nothing more than some sort of a “Dog and Pony Show” to appease those within the Democratic Leadership that might worried that groups like this may try an turn popular opinion against Obama. While the mindless sheep might buy it, I do not; because I know the mindset, I know how they act. Loyal, until you slip up and then BAM! It’s over.
Nice try guys, but we’re just a bit more smarter than that.
Turning on someone when they break their promise is loyalty to principles. If the left turns on Obama for not being left, because we’ve had plenty of hard rightwingers in the white house and in office around the world, but we can’t seem to elect anyone truly liberal anywhere ever, it would be loyalty to principle. You can choose, be loyal to a person or loyal to a principle. The left is idealistic and commonly loyal to principle. The right is much more pragmatic and amoral and is usually more loyal to people like Bush. We’re (liberals, I’m on the far far left.) like Philly fans, if you fuck up a few times in a row we’ll spit on you, hell we’ll throw batteries at you and boo santa claus. The right are like LA fans, they’ll love you no matter what you’re doing as long as you’re there and have an excuse.
If you follow that logic, so electing a black man for his popularity, instead of his merit. Which is what the Democratic Party did.
Why I left.
How many things does someone have to degree with you on for you to call them a “liberal”? Just curious why you lumped Libertarians in with Democrats, liberal, moonbats, and other unrelated tags.
If you’re referring to the Tags and Categories. That’s just for filing purposes and to bring traffic here. It was not to be considered a political statement of any kind.
As for your statement and comment. I wasn’t calling anyone a “Liberal”, in fact, if you’ll reread the original comment, the man said he was a liberal.
Read:
Emphases mine.
So, I just answered his question. So, I seriously don’t know what your problem is. Maybe you need to find a new blog to read.
Loyalty to party and loyalty to principal are two very, very different things. In fact, they’re almost antithetical.
Hi Mark. I agree, and that is why I left the Democratic Party. Because when that party was founded, it’s core principle was the following:
See that part that I bolded and underlined? When Democratic Party decided to abandon that core principle and decided to elected an African-American Candidate, because he was a African-American and because he was, well, popular; that was when I decided that I no longer wanted to be a part of Liberalism any longer. I have zero use for Identity Politics, Of ANY SORT!!!
He preaches a message of tolerance, Yeah, we’ll see how many conservatives end up in Jail, after he’s sworn in. I’ll see if the United States tries to come after me and other Conservative Blogger for hate speech violations.
In other words, I don’t buy Obama’s bluster and Bullshit. Anyone who reads this Blog, knows this to be the case.
-Pat