home

Pols are pols and do what they do: when O'Malley loved the DLC

FTR, a 2007 Martin O'Malley and Harold Ford (!) column in defense of "the vital center" (and the DLC):

Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters. The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

[. . .] Since neither side has a monopoly on truth, the hard part is knowing when to look beyond traditional orthodoxies to do what works. [. . .] Contrast the collapse of a conservative president with the success of the last centrist president. Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperity. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory.

[. . .] Democrats will need a broad, enduring majority -- and a centrist agenda that sustains it by making steady progress. [. . .] our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty. [My emphasis.]

Myself, I don't fault O'Malley for spouting these platitudes. This was CW at the time in the Beltway. Of course we've been fighting this CW since the web site was created. But pols are pols and do what they do. Even when it's the wrong thing.

To his credit, O'Malley abandoned these platitudes when governing Maryland. All I'm saying is remember that a pols' job is to get elected. An activist's (and voters') job is to convince pols that they should do what the activist (and voters) think is right, and make it electorally sound.

Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley are traditional pols. They do what pols do. Bernie Sanders is of course NOT a traditional pol. He's running now and succeeding now because what he believes has become fairly mainstream Dem views. That's what makes him "authentic." Actually being authentic.

But authenticity only gets you so far, and when we look at the run of the mill pols in this race, let's not pretend that what they are saying now results from some great conversion, it's because the political winds have shifted. And that's the nature of politics.

It's what pols do.

< 7 Years Later, O'Malley Discovers "evils" of "dynasty" | Tsarnaev Pal Dias Kadyrbayev Sentenced to 6 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If Harold Ford represents (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    "the vital center" of the Democratic Party, the party has become just another version of a conservative Republican Party.

    Regarding O'Malley, his past actions as Mayor and as Governor are what IMO should be weighed when viewing his candidacy.

    I don't think the Democratic Party has (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    Become just another version of a conservative Republican Party.

    But I do think O'Malley has a record that speaks volumes about how he would govern, and the same said for Clinton and Sanders.

    Valid criticism of the opponents policies is what I want.  O'Malley got off on the wrong foot with me conjuring up evil dynasties.  


    Parent

    I think there are a fair number of (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    people out there who are just not excited about another Clinton in the WH, even if this Clinton would be the first female president, and I think O'Malley may have been trying to tap into that as a way of getting people's attention so maybe he could be heard on actual issues.

    I agree, though, that it didn't strike the right note with a lot of other people.  The Clintons aren't a dynasty, at least by my definition - and perhaps it isn't fair to make Hillary pay because people don't want to spend the next 4 years with the country in gridlock because all the GOP wants to do is gin up scandals so they can go after her - and Bill, 'cause you know they will be going there - rather than, you know, actually do their jobs.  But I think that feeling lurks and not too far below the surface - and with the media doing its usual execrable job, it could hurt her.

    What I really want to see is Bernie Sanders calling both Clinton and O'Malley (and the GOP Cavalcade of Clowns) on their respective brands of BS and seeing how they respond.

    Parent

    I would much prefer for (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    Bernie to continue to speak about the agenda he would pursue if he become president.

    I'm a huge advocate about talking about actual issues and policies - IOW this is what I plan to do - the other candidates can tell you how they will handle the issue - rather than waste the air time calling out other candidates.

    Parent

    I think getting his agenda out there, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    along with his record, is a form of calling out others, and while he has a big presence in social media - seeing some really smart things coming into my Facebook news feed - I think the chances of getting media attention for that agenda increase exponentially in the face-to-face of debates.

    I didn't mean to suggest I want him to start running a negative campaign - not at all; he's making so much sense just saying things like this:

    The US spent billions of dollars fighting the Bush Cheney war in Iraq - a war we should never have gotten into.  If we spent one trillion on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, water plants, rail, airports, etc.) we could create some 13 million decent paying jobs and make our country more productive.  Let's do it.

    You can find Bernie on Facebook (if you haven't already!).

    Parent

    So.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    What IS Sanders' record?

    I give him props - he does get in there and introduce legislation for what he believes. Always good to have the conversation, even if you are just trying toove the Overton window.

    But according to GovTrack.com (sorry can't link), in all the years Sanders has been in both the House and Senate, he has sponsored or cosponsored 346 pieces of legislation.  

    He has 5 either agreed to or enacted by the president.  That's 5 TOTSL.  Only one of them was a bill of actual substance (S.893: Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustments). The others were about ming post offices and allowing toys and clothes to be collected at Christmas.

    All the things he talked about in his announcement to run - have been introduced this year, mostly since he officially announced.

    Can someone please explain how a candidate  plans to be successful in governing the country and working with Congress when he can't even get any of his own bills passed?

    (And yes, I realize Hillary Clinton and all the Republican Senate clowns have the same issue.  Which is why governors generally are preferred choices of the voters because they actually have to LEAD, manage, and make tough decisions, instead of giving pretty speeches peppered with words and phrases their constituents and fans want to hear, and giving the same talking points on the respective trash cable "news" channels).

    Bernie will be much better to remain in the Senate, and while O'Malley and Clinton may talk a little more about Bernie's issues, neither are going to go all the way left with him.


    Parent

    Jeez. Typos. Sorry. (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    Hoiw many bills (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    did Bill Clinton get through before he was elected President?

    0

    How many bills did GWB get through before he was elected President?

    0

    I trust my point has been made.

    Parent

    Yes, it has (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    But, I doubt you would get the irony

    Parent
    Yes, I understand that if you use that (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    metric, it would seem that Bernie has a snowball's chance in Hades.

    But, you have to remember that "Past performance doesn't imply future results."

    I see it as putting sand on the fire before it has a chance to take hold.

    Are you familiar with Clarke's Second Law?

    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    YMMV.

    Parent

    The thing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    is the GOP is going to do this no matter who the nominee is. It's what they do regardless of whether their name is Clinton or Smith. Obama is/was a dictator who leave office in 2007 etc. etc. etc. Frankly I don't want the press or the GOP picking the nominee.

    Parent
    As if the first Clinton in the WH was (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    So lackluster :)

    I have dropped being "excited" about candidates.  I was excited about John Edwards, lots of people were excited about Obama and the post partisan utopia :)

    The next decade we face incredible social and economic challenge.  I am looking for people who can actually govern and press the necessary policies.  I am beyond excitement.  Screw excitement.

    Parent

    I was excited (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    about John F. Kennedy in 1960 (I was 12 years old at the time).  Three years later, he was assassinated.
    Despite some initial misgivings about him that had to do with his work for Joseph McCarthy, I was excited about Bobby Kennedy in 1968.  Then he was assassinated.
    I don't get excited about candidates any more.

    Parent
    I don't get excited in primaries (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    but I was very happy Obama beat McCain, and equally excited when Obama beat Romney.

    Parent
    Not excited by ... (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    Dems beating Republicans by BECOMING Republicans.  

    Parent
    Dems beating Republicans by (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    becoming Republicans is, I feel, an outdated notion.  Republicans, as bad as they were, are no longer.  The former Republican party has been transmogrified into a grotesque caricature of an American political party.  

    Not just different manners of governing, but a different aspiration for government. The Republican candidates strain the confines of a clown car. But, out of that little auto will emerge a candidate who could become president of that new USA, or more accurately, an old CSA (Confederate States of America).

    Take your pick: Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, Hucakbee, Santorum Pataki, Lindsey, Bush, Walker, Christie, Perry, Jindal, Kasich or Trump.  

    I appreciate and respect the position of some TL colleagues that the parties are all the same, that it does not matter--it boils down to the lesser of two evils, leaving--evil.   But, I disagree. I understand the dilemma and the distaste. But, these are no ordinary times.  I believe the best Democratic candidate is Mrs. Clinton, in experience, intelligence and policy. And, in her ability to serve as a bulwark against the Republican siege in progress. A present danger that would be made more so with a Republican sweep of the WH and both houses of Congress.

    However, Senator Sanders or Martin O'Malley can serve a purpose if their campaign is constructive and not just subsequent fodder.  The differences among these three Democratic contenders seem to be more in degree than in kind, (with exceptions): immigration, civil/human rights, women's health, environment/climate science, economy,  Supreme Court nominees, health, social security, secondary and post-secondary education.  Foreign policy with regard to Cuba, Iran, and Russia seem close.

    An inclination toward muscular or military intervention is greatest with Mrs. Clinton (which for me is a worry), but then, issues such as gun control may be less to my liking with Sanders, being from Vermont.  In any event, it seems to me, that at some point, solidarity is going to be required.  The stakes are too great to do otherwise.

    Parent

    I can't speak for Robot Porter (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    Not excited by ... (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 08:56:42 AM MDT

    Dems beating Republicans by BECOMING Republicans.  

    But if I go with the way I interpreted his comment you miss the point here:
    Dems beating Republicans by (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:20:51 PM MDT

    becoming Republicans is, I feel, an outdated notion.  

    I viewed as Dems becoming Reagan and pre-Reagan era Republicans: wrong on just about everything but not bat$hit crazy.

    Parent
    My response to Robot Porter (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    is based on an interpretation of Dems beating Republicans by being more like Republicans, co-opting or moving toward their positions.  Rather, than being strong and proud of Democratic accomplishments and running on them.   Not a Reagan, who changed parties as he changed (or was changed).  If the later, then it is a response to my own interpretation.

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    I can respect that.

    Parent
    I Read it As... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    ...democrats sliding right.  Keep in mind we are talking about one person, the great negotiator, at least in the Whiter House.

    The states are all over the place, but a Massachusetts democrat is not the same as an Iowa democrat.

    Parent

    I agree with (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    all of these interpretations :)

    Parent
    I can be excited by Democrats (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    Taking the wins...yes!  God help us if the next President is a bat$hit gut decider loon that it could be entertaining or exciting to have a beer with :)

    Parent
    I like & respect Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#36)
    by Coral on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    I like &  respect Bernie Sanders. Don't know too much about O'Malley, but what I do know makes me neither like nor respect him.

    I hope very much to see Clinton elected the first female president. She's smart, hard-working, and has years of experience and deep knowledge of domestic and foreign policy.

    Will she enact the kind of progressive domestic agenda I'd love to see? No. On the other hand, if Bernie were by some miracle to be elected president could he enact the agenda he's espousing?

    You'd have to have a full-scale political upheaval in Congress to make that possible. We had a chance in 2008, if Obama had been more of the progressive that many imagined him to be.

    Now, not so much.

    Parent

    Sanders wouldn't be getting traction if (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    The country wasn't ready for more progressive solutions.  If Clinton is our next President, I think she will push harder for and get more progressive solutions than Obama has.

    Parent
    Sanders up in polls (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    The Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll released Monday found that 16 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-attendees say Sanders would be their first choice, up from 5 percent in January. By contrast, 57 percent of Iowa Democratic Iowa caucus-attendees said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) would be their first choice and just 2 percent picked former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).

    Authencity is getting him further than some predicted. Overflow crowds attending his events in Iowa.

    He may not win but he is definitely getting his message out there in Iowa.

    Go Bernie, go.

    Technically moving up (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    but only because Elizabeth Warren isn't being used in polling anymore. Bernie takes over a large chunk of Elizabeth's narrow I won't vote for Hillary vote.

    Even with Warren dropped from the polling, Bernie still has a lower number than Elizabeth when Elizabeth wasn't running.

    The lucky thing for Sanders is that the Vermont primary falls on Super Tuesday rather than afterwards, so it is possible he could hold on long enough to "maybe" win one state on the primary calendar.

    Parent

    I don't agree with your description (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    of the reason Warren was getting support.

    Rather dismissive and short sighted IMO to label her support as nothing more than "I won't vote for Hillary."

    Quite a lot of people support what Sen. Warren has to say about issues that impact their lives. Since Warren's support is primarily going to Sanders, it is more issue related than what you are implying.  Support could have alliegned behind Webb, O'Malley, Biden or numerous other politicians if it was just a matter of not wanting to vote for Hillary.

    Parent

    Warren was never running (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    and still polled bigger numbers than Sanders who is running. My point is that it says little for Sanders taking over the number 2 slot when they dropped the name of the person that was polling number 2. He has now garnered most but not all of the Warren vote.

    Sanders is the Howard Dean for 2016. He has a shot at winning Vermont, the one state Dean won.

    Parent

    You did not limit your comment (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    to saying that Sanders only took over the number 2 slot because Warren was dropped from the polls.

    For whatever reason, you chose to dismiss Warren's support as little more than people refusing to vote for Hillary. That was my objection to your comment. I disagree with that statement and believe that it added nothing of value to your comment.

    Parent

    That's a legitimate beef (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    I can't speak for anyone but myself, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    but I am less interested in the horse race than I am in the issues, and to the extent that Sanders' and O'Malley's entry into the race provides contrast with the front-runner and encourages discussion on each contender's positions and record, that is a good thing.  If it ends up pushing Clinton more to the left - which is seemed she had started to do when she saw the energy and interest in Warren's message - that is also a good thing.

    I frankly do not understand the zeal some people - and perhaps you are one of them - have for discounting these challengers and trivializing their presence in the race.  I can understand those who don't want Clinton to face any kind of challenge from her own party, but I don't understand those who have, over the last couple years, expressed a lukewarm, well-she's-still-better-than-the-GOP attitude but then find a dozen reasons why it's pointless for Sanders and O'Malley - or anyone - to challenge the status quo.

    What is it people are afraid of?  A platform that actually resembles what the Democratic party used to stand for?  That somehow, Democrats will lose because voters would rather have - to name a few - reduced SS benefits, more restrictive abortion laws, health savings accounts, more breaks for the wealthy, more war, less regulation and oversight of our food, air, water and medicines?

    If Hillary Clinton's going to be the next president, I want her to have to get there by being a Democrat, and to the extent her challengers can make that happen, I welcome their presence.

    Parent

    Well I Think... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    ...given the choice democrats took a right leaning Obama winning(2012) over the person they would want, but had zero chance of winning.

    It's like my F football league, me and the other finalist agreed to split the pot cause neither one wanted to go home with empty hands.  Obviously all the dough would be what we both wanted, but the compromise was less dough, but guaranteed dough.  A guarantee of the Presidency is a big deal, and let's face, right now that is HRC.

    I am not sticking up for anyone, just noting why people(on both sides) tend to pick the person who has a better chance to win over the one who they would want.  Romney, like any republican really wanted to vote for the guy.  Same with Kerry, about the only thing he had going for him was the 'D' behind his name.

    But if the Iowa polling numbers are any indication, we might be in a position where the person we want can win.  I will go with Bernie is he polls out well.  He doesn't have to beat Hillary or the R leaders, but I ain't laying my vote down if he in the 5-10% range.

    Pretty much everything you write about the candidates I am 100% of agreement including this one.  I didn't want to vote for Obama in the 2012 primaries, but John Wolf/Darcy Richardson, I mean seriously.  For the record I did not vote in the primaries in 2012.

    Parent

    Who down rated this comment? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    That bull needs to stop!

    This is a well thought out nuanced opinion.

    What the huck Chuck.......sj?

    Parent

    Can you not click???? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    I am sick of commenters being (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    Pouty babies :). Just disagree or say nothing.  All this down rating bullcr*p.  It's childish.

    Parent
    Irony lost on you (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    I am sick of commenters being (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:16:12 PM MDT

    Pouty babies :). Just disagree or say nothing.  All this down rating bullcr*p.  It's childish.

    Speaking of pouty babies.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:41:07 PM EST
    You seem to think this blog exists to meet your specific needs.  If you felt CG was lumping you, say so, down rating CG for having the audacity to lump anything anytime anywhere that doesn't fit your specific world view or self view is childish and outlandishly ego driven and is probably against this blog's rules.

    Parent
    oy (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:41:07 PM MDT
    You seem to think this blog exists to meet your specific needs.  
    That's a fine looking high horse.

    Parent
    I'm not down rating people simply (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    Because I disagree with them, parsing their every adjective with my Nerf bat in hand :) Voice.  I think Jeralyn is about voice and voicing.  You just want to run around bonking someone.  Use your voice.  Use your words :)

    Parent
    Sorry, did you say something? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    The decibels drowned it out.

    Parent
    I forgot to add (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    that I'm sure Jeralyn is very happy you are here to be hall monitor. She probably asked you to do that?

    Parent
    I don't know if she is or not (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    Many of us have blogged here for years.  We know the rules.

    Parent
    ::shrug:: (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    Whatever. We've both been here for years. We've both had comments deleted. Clearly you are not as good at following teh ruuu-uu-u-les as you imply. Ironic, don't you think?

    Wait? We're back to that again?

    Parent

    I downrated (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    A fact you could have easily confirmed for yourself. Now, if you wanted to ask me why -- instead of just raising your virtual hands in the air and asking hyperbolic, rhetorical questions -- I would have answered.


    Parent
    Why did you? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    Despite the clarity and specificity with which so many commenters have stated why they support (or not) a given candidacy, CG just decided to lump us/them all into some sort of "I won't vote for Hillary vote."

    It's insulting. And ignorant, too. He can talk about the horse race if that's what he wants -- although I personally am not in the least interested in that -- but he should at least know the horses. And why they might have backers.

    He's a smart guy. He shouldn't settle for being ignorant when it's correctable.

    Parent

    You Mean You Thought... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    ...the comment deserved a '1' and you gave it a '1'.

    The horror... using a rating system to rate a comment instead of just whining about how everyone else rates comments.

    Parent

    To be factual (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    The comment was rated a 2 which I think is used to designate strong disagreement.

    Other than that, I agree with your comment.

    Parent

    Jeralyn has stated that down rating is (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    NOT TO BE USED FOR BASIC DISAGREEMENT.  Not my rule, Jeralyn's.  She wants a blog where people share opinions, not an echo chamber.

    Parent
    You claim to know the rules (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    but evidently you do not. You are distorting what Jeralyn has said on the subject of ratings. Let's look at what Jeralyn has actually said on the subject of ratings:

    "1" ratings are not allowed (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 11:52:05 PM CDT
    based on point of view. They are only to warn of trolls or comments that violate this site's comment policy (profanity, etc.)  If I see someone rate a comment as a "1" based on their dislike of the commenter's point of view, I zap all that peron's ratings. I cannot delete individual ratings to a particular comment, I can only delete all ratings by a particular commenter.
    When someone consistently rates a regular commenter here as a "1", that's indicative of an improper use of the rating system.

    Other sites may have different rules.

    The comment you are ranting about was rated a "2" and not a "1". So yes, the rule you have stated as fact is your rule not Jeralyn's.

    Now let's address what is in fact part of TL's written site rules:

    Name-calling, personal attacks and insults, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated

    Calling commenters names like "pouty babies" is name calling and insulting. It is in fact against the site rules where rating a comment a "2" is not.

    Parent

    Let it go folks (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    It's not that big a deal.

    MO Blue disagreed with a part of what I said. I agreed with her assessment. sj and I (my opinion here) aren't all that far apart. We just like to pick at the minutia at times which ramps it up.

    But, I have enjoyed the side show from a throw in line which wasn't really relevant to my overall comment.

    And Mo, I only chose this slot to comment because it was at the bottom of the thread.

    It's time to channel our inner Elsa on this one.

    Parent

    I agree with your assessent (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    of what transpired between us. I also agree that the rating system had no relevance to the subject being discussed.

    I like facts. I prefer that people use actual facts when they discuss issues and when they lecture others on the rules. The fact that the rules were IMO continually misstated and needed clarification was the reason for me making my comment.

    As an aside, I would also prefer that those who lecture others on the rules abide by them themselves.

    Parent

    ummm... (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    ...inner Elsa?

    Parent
    Thanks, MO Blue (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    I was looking all over for that, but I didn't have the search string right. I wanted it not only to dispute a misinterpretation but because I wanted a refresher course myself.

    I think Peter's comment (to which J was responding) is also relevant.

    A "1" rating here is very rare (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 02, 2014 at 08:22:45 PM MDT

    and in no way justifies the inference that the commenter is "drawing blood." Mere disagreement does not trigger 1 ratings, nor does wounded pride. Disagreement triggers no ratings at all, in general. A "1" almost always means that the commenter is being judged a rank troll.  A "2," on the other hand, tends to mean that the comment has obvious logical flaws, patently lacks intellectual integrity or coherence, and/or willfully misses the point of the post to which it refers ... yet fails to sink to the full depths of "trollery." At least, that's been my take on ratings here.


    And good for a refresher course. And for new commenters. (I just can't get with the condescension implied by the terms noobs or newbies). This is going to be important as we go into the primaries.

    Thanks Peter, wherever you are :)

    Parent

    Obviously, peter g doesn't pay close attention (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    to the real life ratings awarded by some TL commenters.  (Snk.)

    Parent
    Would you like to provide a link (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    to a written comment by Jeralyn that states that "2" ratings are against the site rules?

    Parent
    Nope. I was referring to "1" ratings. (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:39:22 PM EST
    To mordigan: ha! (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    Oh... (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    ...think he does...

    (no snark)

    Parent

    I should clarify (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    I think, when one considers the sum total of the number of commenters and the number of lurkers (okay, so I guess that would be site visits?), the number of troll ratings is pretty low.

    Factor in the "no profanity" policy.

    Then factor in the fact that most commenters are pretty intelligent and think independently.

    When you think about it, the number of troll ratings is pretty d@mn low.

    IMO

    Parent

    Rather than have ratings, I'd rather (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    have the ability to put someone on an "Ignore" list so I didn't even have to read his or her comments...

    Parent
    So would I (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    Rather than have ratings, I'd rather (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:25:52 PM MDT

    have the ability to put someone on an "Ignore" list so I didn't even have to read his or her comments...

    But CG isn't one I would add to my ignore list. He's not always like that.

    That particular comment didn't make anyone look good -- and it has already gotten more attention than it deserves.

    Parent

    I can't root for Michigan tonight (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    I'm all in for the Gators

    Parent
    Women's softball. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:05:33 PM EST
    Go Gators!!!

    Parent
    He may not win... (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    but on the other hand, maybe he will.

    Authenticity cuts through bs like nothing else.

    Parent

    It is a great and wonderful thing (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:16:36 PM EST
    to have a candidate running for president whose agenda and voting record mirrors my position on the issues in most cases. Not perfection but Excellance.

    IMO the political motto needs to be changed to "strive for excellence" in who we promote to run our government.

    Teams do not draft players who are slightly better than the worse players around. They try to get the best players. Not "perfect." But the best.

    Parent

    There would be a place ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    for a vital center if we had parties that represented the full spectrum of views.

    But we have two right wing parties. And they're not just right wing.  Their shared right wing views are insane.  Like neo-con foreign policy.  Or giving trillions of dollars to criminal banksters.  Or murdering American citizens without trial or even finding of fact.

    These are the policies of extremist lunatics.

    So what would the center of that be?  Deeply disturbed?  Pathological? Functional schizophrenic?


    Way OT....Because I think BTD will appreciate this (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    (a far richer) Sepp Blatter has resigned.

    But Herr Blatter's resignation is still worthy of note. Thanks for doing so, because this was the first I've heard of it. (It's still early morning out here.)

    Hey, BTD -- any thoughts on the subject of FIFA and the DOJ investigation?

    Parent

    I remember those days, and I have to (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    say that I hated it, and was glad to see him actually govern the State from the left.  That is the luxury afforded by a majority Democratic legislature, and I do wonder how different things might have been had that not been the case.

    Yes, indeed, it can be much more (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    difficult for a Democrat to govern "from the left" in states that don't have a history of strong democratic vote on a statewide basis.  Examples of where "the middle/the center" calls are states like my state of Colorado, or Virginia, or North Carolina, or Ohio, or Nevada.

    It is more than a luxury to be able to have some built-in margin for re-election in a general sense.  You have to win to govern; and the dance between ideology and pragmatism has never been easy. On that note, my fond hope is that the current crop of Repubs will find that they lost their balance long ago, and will be repaid with big losses in 2016 for blind adherence to rightwing dogma.

    Parent

    How much effort did he have (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    to expend to get his majority Democratic legislature to adopt his more liberal agenda? Did they basically want the same policies or did he have to put on a full court press and twist arms to get that agenda passed?

    Parent
    I would say that he led a lot of (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    fights to get his agenda through, not just within the government itself, but in terms of winning over popular opinion.  He had a lot of people on his side in the legislature, but it was no slam-dunk, ever.

    Parent
    Well at least he didn't take (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    a road of least resistance.

    Parent
    The tree falling in the forest ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    While all or most all acknowledge that "pols ... do what they do," that may bode well in a democracy.  On balance, the matter of who should follow whom is a classic question, a debatable question not unlike the tree in the forest.  

    There are many books, courses, theories about what constitutes lLeadership in a democratic republic.  Going back to theory and John Stuart Mill, the dilemma of the majority rule is highlighted (at times) via the lowest common denominator.  Closer in time to us, John F. Kennedy' "Profiles in Courage" spoke to fairly specific styles and instances of leadership.  In Profiles, JFK writes both about what defines leadership when the public should be entrusted with having the same know-how to make a decision as the elected official as well as about the situation in a complex society where specialized knowledge may be appropriately called for in the decision-making process.  When is it opinion and when is it specialized knowledge/expertise that forms the basis of leadership?

    It isn't just management theory, but the reality of citizenry that recognizes different styles of leadership as being needed (or better) in different situation.  For example: The agricultural committee, space & aeronautics, appropriations (and the internals of accounting) may require a degree of specialized knowledge that the busy average citizen gladly "delegates up" to his/her representative to make decisions--for the most part.  OTOH, when matters arise on which there are expected high-levels of citizen interest/involvement, it makes sense in our government to seek substantial citizen input in concert with the decision-making.  The latter situation arises more & more as communication and education have increased ... the result, too, is that Leadership in those situations <where the majority's voice is important not only in re-election but in a democracy> seems to those who adhere to the old top-down, autocratic style to be "follow-ship" or wishy-washy.

    On Leadership: Not to be contrary, but....  If we truly believe in the will of the majority (as tempered, of course, by "minority rights), then it is often a GOOD THING when politicians practice following the lead of the polity in terms of Servant Leadership.  As political scientists sometimes point out:  It isn't leading if you get too far ahead of those whom you would lead OR "I tried to lead my people, but they went the other way."  It makes sense to be open to "pols do what they do" -- at times-- because they should be seeking the will of the people as a fundamental step in defining Leadership.

    Which "political scientists?" (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    Be specific.

    Parent
    General theory (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    The theory of Leadership encompasses many books as well as comprehensive theories.  If you are interested in the subject of Leadership, it is fairly easy to research.  The studies to which I allude pervade the systemic study of political science ... sorry that I can't recall the specificity that you request.  You will find it fairly quickly, if you wish ... since it is standard theory and teaching (and has been for years.)

    Parent
    Honestly, the referenced examples (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    were among a number of illustration used by my political science professors in college.  My husband recalls learning the same on his way to a PhD in Political Science.  In the study, it is almost as axiomatic as geometric theorems ... a whole body of literature differentiates leadership styles, evolving approaches, and the contrast between command & control approaches of the past with the persuasive/consensual approach today AND when different styles make sense (see, e.g., classifications of management/leadership style.)

    Parent
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 31, 2015 at 06:43:13 AM EST
    ma y threads