trolling. Is that an acceptable title? It needs to be an accurate thesis statement for the points I'm about to make. Of course, you would have to read the rest of the post to make such an assessment. Clearly this post is too long to read, but you've already gotten past the title. Besides, you wouldn't want to miss it if you were quoted would you?
I can't exactly STFU while under a barrage of STFU comments. That would be a like running from the issues. I am just being defensive and should let it go, right? But that's a loser strategy, like they have at the DNC. Why would I copy their failed blueprint? (Warning: substance and context follow)
There was a title at the top of the Rec list last Wednesday that offended me. IF the title were nothing more than a disagreement of opinion I would leave the author alone. Do unto others as they say. But this particular title was framed to take my statements out of context for the purpose of misleading others about my intent. I'd say that warrants a response.
"No, actually, Kossacks never were equivalent to the Tea Party, and never should be" http://www.dailykos.com/...
Notice that carefully placed phrase, "Kossacks never were equivalent to the Tea Party". I never said or implied any such thing. The actual title-
"There used to be a Leftist Tea Party. They were called Kossacks. Remember them?" http://www.dailykos.com/...
Context matters, if you can't find enough context in the title, then perhaps that is why the post was written. My point remains, we are an activist movement on the Left who try to move our party. The Tea Party does the same thing on the right. They are successful, we are has-beens of yesteryear. They get what they want from their party, we get ignored. They hold the GOPs feet to the fire and end up moving both parties positions. That may be just my opinion, but it is mine. And shaming me into changing it insults my intelligence and contradicts the standards of this blog site.
The author first appeared in my comment section and insisted I change my title. I explained my context. At this point the author decided to double down.
"i don't care about the diary (1+ / 0-) i care about how this title will appear to casual readers." http://www.dailykos.com/...
He got a few responses to that one, but not from me. I do care about the diary and I was ready to move on. It would have been easier to change the title than go through what followed. But I could have never predicted where the day would take me.
He published his well framed post shortly after. But nowhere in his diary did he tell the reader HE HAD NOT READ MY POST! He had said it to me and others in the comments but never to the "casual reader".
"exactly (31+ / 0-) people are telling me to read the diary- i don't care about the diary, i care how its title will be perceived by the site's casual readers." http://www.dailykos.com/...
For some reason it slipped his carefully framed mind to inform his "casual readers" that he had not read the blog in question. Sure he said it in the comments, but not in the piece itself. A rather obvious oversight in a post lecturing on the optics of titles and casual readers. What was that you were saying about having nothing in common with the Tea Party?
If you want to say the optics are bad, fine. But don't create new optics with the intention of taking me out of context. Those optics are not fine, and demand that I stand up for myself. His post launched a mass of commenters into my post, all with obviously mislead perspectives about what I was trying to say. The tone had changed. The talking points had been made available in the form of a substance-free criticism of my title in a post filled with irrelevant Tea Party factoids, as if I had never heard of them before.
It sat at the top of the Rec list all day. How's that for embarrassing optics?
Those factoids were more of the careful framing of the author. By listing their criticisms of the Tea Party he gave his casual readers a false impression of just what such an "equivalent" was. He structured it to look like he was debating me, while bragging in the comments that he hadn't even read my post. No honest interpretation could believe that I support the Tea Party, even if they disagreed with my points.
This may come as a shock to you, but I can love the Royals and hate the Giants, while admitting they both play baseball. There were over 100 Recs on my post and hundreds of comments. I was not the only person who could admit that the Royals and Giants both play baseball. If you succeed at shutting me up, it might tell other bloggers to be careful where their criticisms fall. The point, I humbly conclude, was to make me an example so others would know to stay on message. I won't be learning that lesson here.
The justification for this attack is the optics. Stop! You're killing me! Democrats campaign with optics, not substance and you are preaching the gospel. You are more worried about the headline than what I actually said! Your narrative trumped reality and that is what my post was about in the first place. Stop tickling me! I guess I believe you when you say you didn't read my post.
I write my posts in a red state, Kansas. Did it occur to you that the optics here may be different? You may be able to get away with demonizing voters in a blue state, but in Kansas we have to work for people's support.
Lets take a look at some of your fine-tuned framing. I assume you think I should use these gems on the campaign trail when I talk to my neighbors. (NOTE- You may notice that I use an obscure English symbol known as quotes"". Between these symbols you will notice your actual words. Followed by me making fun of them. It would have been nice to have been shown the same respect.)
"Tea Partiers are fringe loons"
"Tea Partiers are funded largely by shadowy people like the Koch Brothers"
"Tea Partiers are suckers for astroturf manipulations"
"A good number of Tea Partiers are motivated not by populism but by seething fury that a black man occupies the Oval Office."
"Tea Partiers are often ignorant, unhinged, and irrational"
Great optics you got there, slow down I'm taking notes.
Knock Knock, 'Hi I'm a Democrat and I know you're an "unhinged" "crazy" "fringe loon" "motivated by seething fury that a black man occupies the Oval Office". And I realize you are "suckers for astroturf" "funded by shadowy people like the Koch Brothers" but would you listen to my well rationed explanation of why you are so "ignorant"?'
I wonder if that works in the Blue states? Quick! Somebody ask Massachussettes Gov Martha Coakley! I'll make you a deal. From now on I will label all my diaries with a RED STATE WARNING. That way you can make like a Democrat and fly-over.
The fact the Tea Party voter is exploited by their leadership and the media does not change what voters want. If someone hears a Republican talk about economic freedom and justice while Democrats scream about how "unhinged" the Tea Partier is, how does that look to a casual voter?
Why does the GOP leadership say they are the champions of economic freedom and justice? Because they know what voters want. Sure the GOP is lying, but the voters gave Democrats the reigns of power and they didn't do a damn thing about Wall Street banksters. So you shouldn't be surprised when they stay home or elect the people who are at least talking the game. Call them "unhinged" at your peril.
When I write my blog posts I do it with the goal of converting votes to Democrats from Tea Party sympathizers in Kansas. Did that sentence make you scoff? Catch yourself right now. I write to convert Tea Party sympathizers in Kansas. Did you scoff? Then you are looking at optics in a mirror.
(BLASPHEMY ALERT) There are a lot of political points we have in common with voters who are sympathetic to the Tea Party. Not all Tea Partiers, but a lot more than you are admitting. But you want to use vindictive labels and sacrifice their votes to the other side. In my original post, which you may or may not have read, I point out that we ignore huge chunks of the voting public.
Republicans also understand that the default position of every voter is Libertarian/Populist. Think about it, the first time you became politically aware it was because someone's rights were violated; perhaps yours, or women, or POC, or workers, or some bank got away with murder and you got active. The GOP spends millions reaching out to this mindset, Democrats mock and belittle it, then hide from it. Sure the informed know better than to believe the GOP on those issues, but it is extreme arrogance to assume the average voter is informed. Remember how the GOP embraced the Tea Party? Remember how the Dems avoided Occupy like the plague...
I now realize that many at this site are not simply ignoring this chunk of voters, they are actively disparaging them. From the Tea Party to Occupy, a Populist movement is ripe. One party courts these voters, one side alienates them. Even voters who hate the Tea Party refuse to vote Democratic, because they see Democrats as no better. Harsh criticisms of Tea Party leaders is one thing, attacking voters the same way is a gross over-simplification and bad politics.
Voters who are sympathetic to the Tea Party are in 3 basic groups, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Populists. In that order. We should at least try to peel off the Populists, especially since the Populists view the Conservatives as the imposter hijackers of the Tea Party. The Populists represent the drop in Tea Party support over the years, but the Democrats have failed to reach them, as 2014 clearly indicates.
This is why I dream of an Elizabeth Warren run. Hillary scares these voters away and they will prove to be a large hurdle to the White House. And yes, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for the Populist mindset to distrust Hillary. Her record is long and no one is going to make a serious argument that she has a history of looking out for the little guy.
My desire for Elizabeth Warren to run does not out of some Progressive purity fantasy. I want her to run because she is the better candidate to win in November. But don't think I've gone off topic. From my poorly titled piece-
Those of you who think the GOP has no path to 270 in 2016 need to get your heads out of your asses. Hillary is not a shoe-in. She will triangulate as always and continue the strategy of being 'no things to any people'. She has the current lead and will 'play not to lose'. Like she did in the Dem primaries in 2008, and we all know how that turned out.....She needs to be the Populist candidate. But even her supporters know that isn't going to happen. She may be with us, but she wants us to keep it our little secret, doesn't she. Get lost.
Elizabeth Warren articulates her views in a way that can reach the previously unreachable. If EW went to the general election she could campaign to draw new Democrats to our party, in a broader geographical area. Her coattails will be made out of the strong fiber of meaning what she says. We could make real inroads for the House. I think it is pretty obvious she would outperform Hillary in Kansas, strengthening our party. Bringing in new blood that we can build on.
Hillary will march into the general election chasing already existing votes in what is left of a very unmotivated Democratic Party. A party that has a reputation of standing for and doing nothing to the financial criminals of the Great Recession. It may take the Democrats a long time to get over that failure in the age of the Tea Party and Occupy. I think EW would know how to make the GOP look like hypocrites when they talk about economic freedom. Hillary will look and sound like the GOP on these issues.
Here is a handy list of issues that Kossacks do in fact have in common with at least the Libertarian and/or Populist wings of the Tea Party. Issues that we could try to use for inroads with new voters, that is, if we aren't too busy pushing them away. Please keep in mind this is a list about voters, not billionaires or your favorite #TCOT trolls. I suddenly feel I need to clarify that for you.
Libertarians- Net Neutrality, Marriage Equality, reign in the military, keep religion out of Government, prevent gerrymandering.
Populists- End bank bailouts, punish banker criminals, paycheck protections, end Citizen's United, prevent outsourcing, campaign finance reform, return of Glass Steagall.
Are you scoffing again? Don't do that, the voters will see you, and I wouldn't want your terrible optics to chase them away. Before you educate me in the comments, I fully realize that most Tea Partiers, mainly Conservatives, don't agree with us on every one of those topics. But I refuse to believe that insulting a large pool of potential voters as a monolith of racist imbeciles is good politics.
The Democrats are allegedly better than the GOP on every one of those issues, yet voters don't know it. The Dems are too busy trying to be "no things to all people". And who's fault is that? We can blame the GOP and the Kochs all we want, but at some point the Democrats need to actually fight on these issues. From my original offending post-
"Republicans draw a hard line in the sand on every issue. It lets the voter know what they stand for. Until the Democrats do the same they can expect to lose over and over again. If they want Union votes they should do something for Unions. They want women and POC votes, here's an idea, do something for women and POC. Unhappy with the youth turnout, try speaking to them. Or just keep blaming the voter. Whatever."
The GOP, the Kochs, Tea Party leaders/Talk Radio hosts all work diligently for the hearts and minds of those voters. FIGHT BACK! You want to be offended by something? How about the fact that the Democrats have given Populism over to the billionaire crybabies. Does that offend you, because it sure pisses me off.
Now that I have explained the context of my perfectly fair and unpopular opinion, lets take a look at another post that appeared that afternoon. It made fun of the ridiculous reaction to my headline and accurately pointed out that I was taken out of context. It was from the Royals and Giants both play baseball crowd. I didn't see this diary until later at night, but I appreciated seeing that some Kossacks aren't buying the consultant KoolAid. http://www.dailykos.com/...
Most of the comments were hilarious, sharing their own experiences with being called names here at this always fair and inviting community. Then I came across this one.
"The original diarist (+5/0) was lurching and struggling to imply we should be focused and principled and unwavering like the Tea Party - like we were. (strike up nostalgic music -- The Way We Were.) So why not be even more focused and principled and unwavering -- like the Nazis." http://www.dailykos.com/...
I think you gotta pay a toll to drive on that high road. First I am chuckling at the stupidity of a Nazi reference, then I have the eureka moment that it's about me. Somehow I don't think that's a particularly fair comparison. But shucks, I'm just from little ole Kansas. I got me one of them-there Nazis right up yonder. What was that you were mad about? Oh yeah, Kossacks have nothing in common with Tea Partiers. Got it...
Here is another comment that warrants response. I would love to see this statement backed up with direct quotes.
"True blue(s)" is the latest permutation… (2+ / 0-)… I've seen our resident left-bashing troll tossing around." http://www.dailykos.com/...
Sheeeesh. It's not like I took over someone's comment thread with a manufactured point, then wrote a carefully framed counter post taking them out of context in order get him to STFU, launching a wave of angry mislead commenters at them....
I rarely comment on anything. It would be very easy to go through my comment history. Have at it. Apparently all it takes to be labeled a troll is to have an opinion that isn't popular, even if I politely explain my position, and they choose to not read it.
But I know, I'm being defensive, I should just take it on the nose and whimper in the corner like a good 2014 Democrat.
The reason this scolding was launched at me was to make me STFU and know my place. It has failed. What I have to say is important even if you don't think so. That is why they call it debate, and that is exactly what Democratic framing and optics needs. You shouldn't be so quick to toe the party line after the lowest voter turnout since WW2.