nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

You only need to have gone to High school to understand what many in this nation consider worth fighting for and why we are not so comfortable with certain "compromises".
EOM

The U.S. Senate adopted a cloture rule in 1917 that requires a two-thirds vote of that body to end a filibuster. It is the only method to force the end of debate, it assumes the participants will continue debating otherwise.

You do not appear to know the definition of the word filibuster, I can help you with this.

Filibuster
The term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. It works to prevent a vote because the Senate's rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only when debate ends naturally. The word comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. When a Senator filibusters, he/she holds the chamber hostage until it meets his/her conditions.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/glossary.htm

What you may infer from my comments regarding Reid has nothing to do with the reality of my comments. I "implied" nothing of the sort (incorrect or otherwise).

I simply stated the obvious - that Harry Reid has made a habit of folding to the threat only of a filibuster and then moving directly to a cloture vote without bothering to test the will of the minority in an environment where debate may end naturally via lack of will on the part of the obstructionists to debate for days or weeks the "virtues" of positions that would be unpalatable to the voting public if the bluff were called. (a habit as yet unbroken, so I consider it a rule of his leadership)
You see, due to your lack of understanding of the definition of a filibuster, you are under the mistaken impression the republicans are actually filibustering, they are not, they have not.
Reid has not required them to, he requires it would seem only that they threaten to.

What do I expect from Reid? To require them to filibuster rather than merely threaten to in order to get their way. If it is so easy that a mere threat produces the same results, why they may do something silly like merely threaten to filibuster over 90 times or something and just get their way, no one would expect him to be that ineffective of a leader would they? Of course not! err maybe you, and possibly Harry Reid.

spelling edit

No personally derogative posts aimed at Democratic nominees are helpful to the democratic party or the eventual candidate our process will produce to run in the general election. Such posts and attacks belong on a republican board as they weaken our candidates, reinforce republican talking points and help them to smear our candidates.

Republicans do not need our help painting our candidates as monkeys, witches, liars, radicals or any other such undesirable creatures to be displayed before a dumbed down pablum fed and skillfully misguided population that may not bother to research our candidates in order to learn a more objective truth about there positions and aspirations for correcting the objectively destructive course our nation has been on the last couple of decades.

Do all of you not see this? I know many that do, or did, and who in fact speak and have spoken eloquently and proudly of the merits of their candidates platforms, or alternately of the shortcomings of the Republican candidate that have endorsements from truly bigoted and quite frankly dangerously insane preaches (quite insane in fact as the Hagee character advocates the equivalent of "immanentizing the eschaton" - a theological term for "bringing about the end of the world". Or pointing out that our Republican opponent advocates perpetual war as well as a tax structure designed to shift wealth from most Americans to the wealthiest few. I do not understand quite frankly why any Dem hating posts are allowed to exist on a moderated board that is supposed to help the Democratic cause.

I am very concerned in fact because it appears as if this board is now actually hurting our chances to win an election when it could be used to make it a slam dunk for whoever wins the primary.

It is by no means only posters on Democratic Underground that are harming our chances, but the candidates themselves as well when they “bloody up” their primary opponents for Mcsane as Rush Seems to be plotting to encourage, or proposing that the Republican is a better choice in the GE than the other Democrat in the race. I have been told that both candidates are doing this sort of thing, I am largely only aware of the DLC participation in this misguided strategy, but have been told rather forcefully that it is both, I would concede that point, but only because I am far from all-knowing or all aware of everything both our candidates are up to and also because the point does not matter to me all that much, only the truth that such internal attack tactics are quite harmful to our chances of winning a GE. I consider this an axiom of primary politics – I realize some may disagree, but because it is self evident I am fairly certain most can see and understand this.

The question is, do we continue collectively helping the Republicans win the GE by helping them “bloody up” our candidates or to we post threads about the individual Democrats we support with well researched facts and reasonable arguments in support of their policies? Or alternately post well researched and eloquently argued criticisms of destructive Republican policies and candidates that we are against?.

It is very troubling to me to see how much groundwork we are doing for our opponents the R's in providing negative smears and links to them.
It may be that there is no solution to the Dem bashing epidemic that has infected one of my subjectively favorite boards and turned it into a smear resource for McCain.

Do you not see it is bad to help the other side? They are only “the other side” because they appear to be ruining our country. Because I believe this I feel I must oppose them, is that not something we should focus on? Defeating them rather than each other?

Just my two cents, I only post very rarely, more so a few years ago, but I felt compelled to point out the obvious because I am a progressive and would like to see my country embark on a path to sanity, growth, and healing and one of the few places I can go to read posts from intelligent people with similar goals has now become - in my opinion - a help to the opponents of my goals.

I may have to find a site that is more concerned with healing a very sick country than it is with focusing on which DEMOCRAT TO HATE. Anyone know of such a place? A place like DU once was? If so please post a link. I am obsessed with ending the destructive, liberty destroying Republican rule and not with which Dem I want to hate at the moment. Truth be told, the party has shifted so far to the right of late that I realise, I may have to wait several years for an FDR or other true progressive to win a nomination. You see I understand that I will have to settle for the most progressive of the choices available to me. This troubles me as well but you will not find me trashing either one of them even though I would prefer a more "democratic" Democrat. Why is it so hard for others to do something similar with their support or condemnation?