Dreaming of Elephants, Thinking of Jackasses

[glenn1]

I'm not going to post the entire story here since there's a link to it (in MS Word format) on the link I posted. The author absolutely brutalizes the book "Dreaming of Elephants" and gives IMHO some serious food for thought, both for those who consider themselves Democrats, and those who don't but still have enough sense to realize that the U.S. is not well served to be without a sane Democratic Party to play loyal opposition.

Here's a bite of it to get the juices flowing...

"Sampling the dinner parties, salons, book events, and fundraisers on the liberalish West Side of Los Angeles over the past few years has been its own sort of nightmare, thank you very much. It features liberal left as the new incarnation of the John Birch Society, the black-clad beneficiaries of studio residuals and university tenure?often banking family salaries deep into six figures (or much, much more), their offspring booked into $20,000-a-year prep schools?as the last-standing defenders of enlightenment and democracy."

Ouch....

correct link

 

[Steeplerot]

how about a exerpt since some of us are not interested in subscribing to find out how you think "teh evil libs" are doomed today.

 

[Rainsford]

"Serious food for thought?" Give me a break and try this on for size...how many "insights" are we going to have to endure about how the left is being taken over by elitists based off of a small sample specifically chosen to showcase elitism? Yes, movie stars and similar types have a pretty self-important attitude for the most part, and it's also true that many of them are liberals. Ok, good, but do they control or speak for the left? Maybe, but a simpler explanation would be that every group has negative influences, the important thing isn't that they are there, it's how much they affect what's going on.

I find it interesting that there seems to be this idea that the right is the salt of the earth types while the left is a bunch of rich elitists despite the total lack of evidence to suggest this is true. Personally I think it's a cheap marketing stunt to ensnare those who don't pay too much attention. Unfortunitly it is working perfectly for the Republicans, because most people don't pay too much attention. Look at the last election, Kerry was viewed as a rich elitist and Bush was seen as a regular guy despite the fact that anyone who spent two seconds reading through their biographies would see how wrong that view is.

I realize I might sound defensive here, but I think examining the facts suggest that the overly broad perceptions of both parties is way off.

 

[glenn1]

My bad. Here's the one with the free .doc link... link

If someone wants to cut and paste it from the word doc, be my guest...

 

[Rainsford]

Interesting, I read through the article and saw what the author was trying to say a little more clearly (certainly more clearly than either the OP or the poster on that linked website). His point wasn't that all Democrats are elitist, whiney liberals. His point was that there ARE elitist, whiney liberals out there who would rather complain than try to beat the Republicans within an inch of their life next time around. Glad we've cleared that up, because this is certainly the first time there are sore losers on the losing side :roll:

Like I said, the important thing is not the harp on a small minority of whiners, but to question whether or not those whiners are where the party is headed. And everything I've seen indicates many on the left are reacting like I am. Yes, Bush won fair and square. No, it doesn't matter, I still think I'm right, even if I was the only person that didn't vote for Bush. I expect the same reaction from anyone who believes strongly in anything. More than that, it looks to me like the Democrats in charge are looking at the election and thinking how they can do better next time, which is what any group that lost should do.

More than that though, the author suggests we shouldn't discount the 48% of American voters who voted for Kerry in November, but then does exactly that. The left isn't a bunch of fringe wackos like Michael Moore and it isn't a bunch of whiney elitists, it's a few percent short of half the voters. And the Democrats know it, and anyone on the right with half a brain knows it too...even if they won't admit it.

 

[UbiSunt]

"At one liberal party last year, in a sprawling Sunset Boulevard mansion bedecked with statues and gold leaf, where Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner clinked glasses with Laurie and Larry David, the Chanel-clad hostess (a very wealthy industrialist) mounted her staircase and, speaking to the all-Democratic crowd, vowed to dedicate her energies to fighting George W. Bush. To thunderous applause she announced, "We are tired of being disenfranchised!"

HAHAHA

Can't stand the thought of Dumbfvckastanis having a vote that counts for the same amount as yourself, I guess?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
"At one liberal party last year, in a sprawling Sunset Boulevard mansion bedecked with statues and gold leaf, where Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner clinked glasses with Laurie and Larry David, the Chanel-clad hostess (a very wealthy industrialist) mounted her staircase and, speaking to the all-Democratic crowd, vowed to dedicate her energies to fighting George W. Bush. To thunderous applause she announced, "We are tired of being disenfranchised!"

HAHAHA

Can't stand the thought of Dumbfvckastanis having a vote that counts for the same amount as yourself, I guess?

What part of what she said is "wrong"? Doesn't she have a right to fight for her beliefs...that doesn't mean she doesn't think Bush voters should count the same as non-Bush voters.

This is what I'm talking about, this idea that only the right has people who believe in something and are willing to fight for it, the left just hates America.

 

[Rainsford]

To address the topic point-blank...
"honorable progressive liberals no longer run the asylum, it's now an identity-based clique of counter-culturalists"

What is the proof of this? And profiling such a clique doesn't prove anything, no one is contesting that those groups do exist.

 

[UbiSunt]

Yes she has the right...

The right to be dishonest and completely and utterly hypocritical.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Yes she has the right...

The right to be dishonest and completely and utterly hypocritical.

Forget it, it's like arguing with a 5 year old.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Yes she has the right...

The right to be dishonest and completely and utterly hypocritical.

Forget it, it's like arguing with a 5 year old.

Why since I'm echoing the thesis of his argument?
-Or is the author a five-year-old as well? He was being critical of this victim mindset.
-Or did you even read the article?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
"At one liberal party last year, in a sprawling Sunset Boulevard mansion bedecked with statues and gold leaf, where Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner clinked glasses with Laurie and Larry David, the Chanel-clad hostess (a very wealthy industrialist) mounted her staircase and, speaking to the all-Democratic crowd, vowed to dedicate her energies to fighting George W. Bush. To thunderous applause she announced, "We are tired of being disenfranchised!"

HAHAHA

Can't stand the thought of Dumbfvckastanis having a vote that counts for the same amount as yourself, I guess?

Actually, in most of "Dumbfvckastan" as you call it, people's vote for president actually counts for more than my vote does.

Look, Rainsford clearly read the article and is actually addressing it with intelligent conversation. Whether you agree with his view or not, it is an adult level of arguement. But, so far you have done nothing more than excerpt one clip form the article and make a comment clearly designed to belittle the party in opposition to your beliefs. That is very similar to a 5 year old's level of arguement.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
"At one liberal party last year, in a sprawling Sunset Boulevard mansion bedecked with statues and gold leaf, where Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner clinked glasses with Laurie and Larry David, the Chanel-clad hostess (a very wealthy industrialist) mounted her staircase and, speaking to the all-Democratic crowd, vowed to dedicate her energies to fighting George W. Bush. To thunderous applause she announced, "We are tired of being disenfranchised!"

HAHAHA

Can't stand the thought of Dumbfvckastanis having a vote that counts for the same amount as yourself, I guess?

Actually, in most of "Dumbfvckastan" as you call it, people's vote for president actually counts for more than my vote does.

Look, Rainsford clearly read the article and is actually addressing it with intelligent conversation. Whether you agree with his view or not, it is an adult level of arguement. But, so far you have done nothing more than excerpt one clip form the article and make a comment clearly designed to belittle the party in opposition to your beliefs. That is very similar to a 5 year old's level of arguement.

How? Please give me an ADULT explanation. I don't think you can, because you are participating in the same adolescent whining that Rainsford is.

The irony here is amazing, the author criticizes the pathetic whining and detachment from reality that the majority of the Democratic party is currently involved in. You and Rainsford seem quite eager to prove his point by acting like five-year-olds who know little more than how to work Google. I'm sorry but I'm not going to take that serious.

However, I will take serious this thoughtful comment from Cooper:

"America, now more than ever, needs a vibrant, viable, progressive alternative. The challenge to liberals, then, isn't to reify their differences with a mythical red America and its strict daddies but, rather, to find common ground. Perhaps they ought to start by taking their own sermons about diversity a good deal more seriously. Diversity should be much, much more than a code word for racial affirmative action. It also entails, as Potter and Heath argue, "[making] peace with mass society" and learning to live with what the philosopher John Rawls called "the fact of pluralism." Modern America is large and, yes, diverse enough that it's absolute folly to think some sort of progressive or nurturant world view can?or should?become majoritarian. Who would want that sort of conformity in any case? "We need to learn to live with disagreement?not just superficial disagreement, but deep disagreement, about the things that matter most to us," Heath and Potter conclude."

 

[imported_tss4]

If you will listen instead of automatically accsuing me of being jouvenile, then I will explain it to you. Most red states get more electoral college votes per person, then most blue states. The reason is simply beacuse we have a minimum number of representatives each state has no matter how many people live in the state. And this benefits red states on average more, because there are more lightly populated red states.

You must allready know this. Its taught in every civics class.

As for the rest of your post. You really miss the point. I don't agree with Rainsford and I never even stated my position, yet because you assumed my position was counter to yours I have some how resorted to adolescent whining (about aposition that I have not even stated) and I have somehow resorted to googling (when I have in fact not googled anything). That what was I commenting on.. you're weird and and completely baseless comments that make no sense. You would better represent your position (which interestingly I partly agree with) by sticking to the facts and showing respect for your peers.

Feel free to get the last word in because I feel no need to comment further on this.

 

[ciba]

When most people talk about liberal elitists, I don't think they're referring to all democrats or all liberals. What they are referring to are the people driving or have driven the direction of the democratic party. Moore, Franken, Kerry, Soros, Kennedy, McAuliffe (sp?), et cetera.

I was ready to vote democrat this election, if they put up a moderate candidate. I think republicans have abandoned accountable-government conservatives like myself. I think the nomination of Kerry was just one example of how the far left drives the party. Clinton won a large portion of crossover voters because he was much more moderate than the party leaders of today. While I disliked Clinton, his success came from truly being a moderate instead of faking it.

 

[Infohawk]

I love it when repugs get scared of "liberal elitists." OMG they are educated and don't wear flag lapel pins: scawyyyy!!!!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ciba
When most people talk about liberal elitists, I don't think they're referring to all democrats or all liberals. What they are referring to are the people driving or have driven the direction of the democratic party. Moore, Franken, Kerry, Soros, Kennedy, McAuliffe (sp?), et cetera.

I was ready to vote democrat this election, if they put up a moderate candidate. I think republicans have abandoned accountable-government conservatives like myself. I think the nomination of Kerry was just one example of how the far left drives the party. Clinton won a large portion of crossover voters because he was much more moderate than the party leaders of today. While I disliked Clinton, his success came from truly being a moderate instead of faking it.

I'm not so sure how much people like Kennedy directed the Democratic party in the past, but I feel pretty confident in predicting how much they will in the future. While I don't agree with the idea that Kerry is a radical liberal, I think he WAS pretty far to the left, especially compared to Clinton. And that got him 48% of the popular vote. This suggests to me that many people aren't happy with the Republicans, but don't want to vote for a non-moderate Democrat. Many of them still voted for a real liberal anyways, and more probably would have if he had been more moderate on some issues. The obvious thing to do would be to field more Clinton-like candidates, and if I can figure that out, I suspect the Democrats can to.

One thing to keep in mind is that the radical factions of any group will always be the loudest, that doesn't always mean that those factions control or direct the group.

 

[1EZduzit]

I thought the "elite" were GWB's "base"?? You mean there are Elitists on both sides??? WOW, what a news story that is!!

 

[glenn1]

To address the topic point-blank...
"honorable progressive liberals no longer run the asylum, it's now an identity-based clique of counter-culturalists"

What is the proof of this? And profiling such a clique doesn't prove anything, no one is contesting that those groups do exist.

I'm not trying to insult those who consider themselves progressives or to be stakeholders in the Democratic Party. I took one of the points from the article and slightly exaggerated it to make it a more interesting title. I don't claim to be as smooth with words as the original author so mine is understandably a bit more crude way of attempting to convey one of his points, but I don't think I've twisted them beyond recognition.

You made an extremely articulate response in the thread which is what I hoped to encourage, and appreciate your taking the time to do so.

 

[SuperTool]

Who said this?:
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Who said this?:
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

God Almighty himself

 

[Steeplerot]

WHAT better way to distract people from elitest and cronyism then putting the label on the opposition.
Counterculture hahaha america ONCE had a thrving counter-culture that is until it became another hot selling point for corporations.