Why the Democratic Establishment Doesn't Take the Lefty Blogosphere Seriously

After writing this a few days ago, I wasn't sure what to make of it upon further reflection. I'm not sure I'm right, but this post inspired me to float this out there for discussion: (the post originally was here).

There's been a lot of talk about how the progressive netroots is left twisting in the wind. Why do the establishment Democrats ignore our pearls of wisdom, and our genius solons? Here's why: they have no incentive whatsoever to do so-and it's not simply that the netroots aren't like the rest of America. Why would the Democratic establishment do this to the loyal netroots?

Because we have the attention span of gnats, and are unwilling to punish Democrats. First, the attention span. Remember when Kos boldly pronounced that the netroots were going to boldly take back the party? 'Everyone' was raring to go, and then... nothing. Instead, we got a love affair with Rahm Emanuel's conservative and anti-abortion Democrats, even though our base is disproportionately pro-choice women.

In other words, many of the 'A-list bloggers' punked themselves. Well done. That showed 'em: when the hammer came down, we did exactly what the Democratic establishment wanted.

And the attention span problem isn't limited to the whole 'Fighting Dems' lunacy. Why the hell are we discussing Iran? We have two very potent issues: Republican corruption, and the Alito nomination-the latter is a two-fisted body blow as we can put the Republicans on the defensive about abortion and accuse them of monarchism (or tyranny or whatever else you want to call it).

But Republicans start talking Iran, and we drop the ball and starting worrying about having to address the Iran issue with a policy position. Stop with the wonkery, you morons. Here's how you respond: the president is using his foreign policy failure to create a climate of fear and further destroy the freedoms that make America great (or whatever variant floats your boat). (If by the end of every sentence you haven't referred to Republican failure and corruption, then you're not doing your job). Then you repeat this a million times. Repetition works: who would have thought that the obscure (and moronic) theory of judical activism would be a rallying cry for millions of Republicans, some of whom couldn't spell it if their lives depended on it.

And there is one recent exception where the lefty blogosphere closed ranks and kept its collective shit together: evolution. Bloggers, big and small, all pretty much had the same talking points (in part because those points were so damn obvious). The phrases "IDiocy" and "IDiots" were used so often, they became hackneyed. We were relentless, and there were enough of us that if someone needed 'time off' or missed something, the rest could pick up the slack.

And we brutally attacked the media and backed down A-list bloggers who were too damn smart for their own good*, and many of us had the credentials and the skills to do it: a non-expert really can't hold his or her own against a pissed off expert with years or decades of training and experience-or for that matter, a horde of said pissed off experts. And the media bashing worked: eventually, the idea that the two sides in the debate were not intellectually equal broke through due to sheer tonnage.

Now, let's talk about punishing Democrats. It needs to happen because right now we're taken for granted. The difference between the righty and lefty blogospheres is that the righty blogosphere likes squoozing its Inner Facist and falling meekly into line. We're supposed to be better than that. Let's go out and nail someone who's screwing around-and no excuses, even for the red state Democrats.

Alito is a gift sent by the Intelligent Designer: he is so repugnant and antithetical to Democrats that he is a penultimate litmus test. To vote for a nominee who would pave the way to ending safe and legal abortion, who thinks women and minorities should not have an equal place, and who believes that there is a divine right of presidents, is beyond the pale; these 'Democrats' should be made an example of.

There are two things the netroots does well: signing petitions and raising money. When I write "make an example of", I don't mean run primary candidates, or bombard them with emails. Instead, we need to play to the one emotion that the gutless cowards who 'lead' the Democratic party understand: fear. Use the internet with its organizational and fundraising capabilities to start recall drives against pro-Alito Democrats.

That seems crazy, and that's the whole point. Right now, Democrats fear Republicans. We need to convince the Democratic establishment that the Democratic base is so bugshit crazy that we'll publicly impale our own if they piss us off. We need to convince them that once the blood fever comes up, we care not whence the blood flows. Granted, the "bring them to their knees, so they can see the belt of severed heads you're wearing" strategy is from the Attila the Hun school of politics, but...Alito? Alito is so loopy, you're not an 'extremist' by opposing him with everything you have. If Democrats don't fight to the last against Alito, then what will they fight for? Don't they understand that to create a favorable political environment, they are going to actually have to lead and to take risks?

Until Democratic politicians suffer from abandoning the base, they have no incentive to not do so. As long as we keep "coming home", we'll be taken for granted.

Note to 'pragmatists': what's the point of winning elections if those who win keep voting as if we have lost? If not Alito, when?

*: Sitemeter says that post was hit around 13,000 times, not too shabby for the wee lil' Mad Biologist, and a lot more satisifying than all the hits I received for this.



Display:


As a pragmatist (3.00 / 1)

I see that two of the issues you mention are evolution and abortion.

The Democratic Party is a coalition between liberals and moderates coalescing around progressive economic issues.  It should be more tolerant of divergence on social issues than on those core economic issues.

Corruption as an issue works best if you press the point of a Republican party in the back pocket of Big Business.  Otherwise, it's liable to come off as just politics as usual.

Iran isn't a Congressional election unless Democrats are stupid and allow it to be.  Forget national security and its vague and unseen threats.  Economic issues are tangible and prevalent.

I could compare more pragmatic vs. confrontational progressives to the differences between Martin Luther King, Jr. and SNCC in the civil rights movement.  MLK was right.  SNCC was wrong.  Running around acting as loony and deranged as Pat Robertson is not the answer.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:13:55 PM EST

Re: As a pragmatist (none / 0)

I agree. This idea that the base needs to arm itself and take on every Dem that doesn't pass "the test" is moronic. The problem isn't that the netroots doesn't punish "establishment" Dems enough, it's that the netroots makes up a very small fraction of the coalition the party needs to win elections. Like it or not, mydd and dailykos do not constitute the mainstream of the party. Thus, the impact of such activists is always going to be limited.

The focus should be on the corruption and failure of the Republican party. As far as Iran goes, if it becomes an issue, I doubt Democrats will be the only ones who raise serious questions about the feasibility of an invasion. Still, let's not kid ourselves: Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a serious threat, and the problem does need to be dealt with. If Bush approaches the problem the same way he approached Iraq, war is inevitable. If, however, cooler heads prevail, we could solve this the smart (read: Democratic) way.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a pragmatist (none / 0)

it's that the netroots makes up a very small fraction of the coalition the party needs to win elections. Like it or not, mydd and dailykos do not constitute the mainstream of the party. Thus, the impact of such activists is always going to be limited.

In that case, the Democratic Party has nothing to worry about. Everything is just fine. All is right with the world. It's all good. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You base this on what? (3.00 / 1)

 "Iran is a serious threat, and the problem does need to be dealt with."

I am dead serious here. We have 2100 dead American soldiers and marines because 90% of Americans accepted this same message on Iraq. You can grant all the ill-will you want to Iran, even if everything you claim is true, Iran is years and years from having actual nuclear weapons and would not be a threat to the United States if it did.

What is your solid evidence that Iran is a threat? Because I hope it is not based on intelligence filtering out of the Bush Administration.

Iran is not a current threat to the United States and the Bush Administration is exactly the wrong set of actors to be addressing any potential threat even if it existed.

We should not be going to war based on this sort of vaguely sourced belief-based intelligence. Give me a concrete, specific scenario in which Iran could seriously threaten the US without being turned into radioactive glass, and explain why the Ayatollahs would consider that a fair exchange. Because I saw this same level of analysis roll out back on Iraq in 2002 and it was bullshit then.

If I claimed Iran was not a threat to the US, how would you prove me wrong. Because the burden of proof is on the attacker.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 10:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You base this on what? (none / 0)

This isn't Iraq. This is a country that actually funds and arms terrorists, including the ones blowing up American troops in Iraq. They also have sworn to wipe Israel off the map, and have shown a willingness to give dangerous weapons to Palestinian extremists. Unlike Iraq, they have the weapons and the desire to attack Israel. This new wackjob has made thwarting the Americans his life's mission, and he wants nukes. Iran is being taken to the UNSC by Europe because they want to enrich uranium. I don't know any credible foreign policy analyst who doesn't consider Iran to be a major threat to the U.S. and its allies. The opposite was true with Iraq.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 09:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You let the cat out of the bag (none / 0)

"They also have sworn to wipe Israel off the map, and have shown a willingness to give dangerous weapons to Palestinian extremists. Unlike Iraq, they have the weapons and the desire to attack Israel."

And militarily this is exactly our problem how? We spend billions a year giving weapons to Israel, perhaps they can handle this one.

Hezbollah is a threat. It is just not a threat to us, or wouldn't be if we hadn't of invaded Iraq in the first place. Or intervened in Lebanon back in the day.

Israel taking out Iranian nuclear facilities can be explained as legitimate self-defence, our doing it for them years before they become an active threat to anyone makes us a hubristic imperialistic bully boy. But thanks for spelling out the agenda so clearly, the PNAC will be so proud.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You let the cat out of the bag (none / 0)

Iran is a threat to Israel. Thus, Iran is a threat to the United States. We do not allow anyone to bully our allies, going back to World War I. It is up to the United States to help disarm Iran, because we're the superpower and it's our friend they have the nukes pointed at. Also, Iran is a threat because they arm terrorists. These terrorists don't stay in the Middle East, mind you. They'd love to come over here and detonate a dirty bomb in a major American city. I'd rather not let these guys develop nuclear weapons. This is about American security. I'm not calling for an invasion, but sitting back and doing nothing isn't an option.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Learn some history (none / 0)

There was a hell of a lot of war between 1914 (when WWI started) and 1917 (when the US entered the War) and a whole bunch of war between 1939 (when WWII started) and the end of 1941 (when the US entered the war).

"These terrorists don't stay in the Middle East, mind you. They'd love to come over here and detonate a dirty bomb in a major American city"

My God don't wet your pants. And learn some facts about the likely effects of a radiological bomb and the relative ease of detecting one. People who worry about dirty bombs and advocate bombing nuclear sites are mixing oranges and oranges. You want to provide terrorists with the raw materials for a dirty bomb? Drop a couple of missiles on a nuclear reactor, boom radioactive materials for everybody.

"Iran is a threat to Israel. Thus, Iran is a threat to the United States"

Yes the PNAC and AIPAC would love everybody to make the same equation. Israel is fully capable of defending itself, in large part because the US has spent billions to make it so. Your suggestion that the US should take unilateral military action to make the world safe for Israel is just feeding into what most of the Muslim world believes about the US already: blowing up a wedding party in Afganistan is A OK if if makes a disco in Tel Aviv more secure.

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

uh (none / 0)

When did I advocate unilateral military action? Where in any post did I call for an Iraq-style invasion? Nowhere. I'm simply making the case that the problem has to be dealt with. There is a possibility that this can be resolved without any military action at all. Why do you assume that disarming a country requires a Bush-plan debacle?
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you assume Iran is arming? (none / 0)

The analysis on this is being led by the same people who insisted that armed invasion of Iraq was the only possible solution to the "problem". Establish the problem and I may give you a pass for lying down with warmongers.
PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls
by Bruce Webb on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are big differences between (3.00 / 2)

Dems and GOP - all this whining makes me sick. We lost in 2004, ok? Now we are paying the price for that, so just shut up and stop being so typically liberal (always eating our own). Focus on the bad guys, and let me give you a hint: it's the majority party. With the Dems in power Alito wouldn't ever be a nominee.  

The conservative movement had 20 years to grow influential - we are staring to whine like crybabies after 2 years.

Our influence within the party is growing but there are certain radical leftist ideas that simply cannot be had today. We have to build support from them. Yes "we"... noone else is going to do it.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:25:14 PM EST

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

there are certain radical leftist ideas that simply cannot be had today.

I'd love to hear what those are.

by eRobin on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

Personally, I cringe whenever someone wants to make drug legalization an issue, but then I take the Howard Dean line on that issue (and really, I was attracted to Dean in the first place for how he articulated his position on guns and drugs).
Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

also, while there is definitely a need for fair trade practices, the whole anti-globalization, anti-WTO, anti-free trade stuff is a non-starter.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

When your average mainstream voter including millions of Independents & Non-Partisans see on TV wild & sometimes violent Anti-WTO, Anti-Globalization demonstrations-it without a doubt hurts the radical left wing image.
by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:20:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (3.00 / 2)

I have been in many protests. In some 'peaceful' ones, the police have charged in, and beaten or gassed us, and the corporate media report nothing. In some 'violent' ones, the police have charged in, and beaten or gassed us, and the corporate media have claimed we attacked the police. In the course of my experience, I have gained a few scars, sustained some bruises, some chemical injuries, and some shattered illusions.

Hint: The police bring the batons. The police bring the whips. The police bring the gas. The protesters have the medics. And the corporate media bring the lies, at home as in Iraq.

by Left for the Left on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:37:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

OK, so why aren't the protesters bringing video cameras?  No one ever made a difference by gathering and singing "Kumbaya."  In the '60s, the effective civil rights demonstrations were all stage-managed down to intentionally sending out young kids when the leaders knew that dogs and firehoses would be used to create devastating pictures of violence.

You want to make an impression, tell all your friends to get haircuts and protest wearing nice shirts or even three-piece suits.  Create the image that this isn't just college kids and hippie wannabes taking to the streets.

I find anti-globalization protests abhorent because they seem to be organized by a bunch of idealistic twits who aren't grounded in reality.  And that's my problem with some of the left; they are as reality-based as the Bush administration.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
by Anthony de Jesus on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:48:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0)

Don't bother. This was hashed and re-hashed with the ANSWER crap. The fact is that regardless of the rhetoric, the biggest issue for that crowd is self-expression, not the underlying cause.
by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:38:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

Anthony de Jesus said:

I find anti-globalization protests abhorent because they seem to be organized by a bunch of idealistic twits who aren't grounded in reality.  And that's my problem with some of the left; they are as reality-based as the Bush administration.

So sorry to hear you have all these problems. I myself am a card-carrying idealistic twit. Another problem for you, I guess. I know, I know; it's all so unbearable.

by blues on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

blues,

you may find Anthony's statement amusing, but it may be news to you that many, if not most americans do abhor their behavior.

That's why they get NO SYMPATHY from the public whenever they do these Anti-WTO massive protests.
They actually hurt their cause with the wild behavior.

Not to mention, many of these young, " idealist" people have NEVER worked in a real job nor have had to support a family.

They repeat this garbage that ALL CORPORATIONS are Bad. Everything about Globalization is BAD. ALL CORPORATIONS are GREEDY & JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE of people.

That's the Number 1 Stupidity that is repeated here in the blogs. Repeat it enough times & it becomes the truth.

But no one ever sits with these young people & explain to them that without corporations, THERE WILL BE NO JOBS. Without a JOB, you cannot feed your future family nor Advance yourself financially. With NO JOB, you cannot send your kids to the best schools possible.

No on explains to these people that Corporations exists to make money. No one explains to these people that Entrepreneurs who build these corporations risk everything & work harder than most people in order to build their business, provide the best for their family & also, create jobs for people.

Many of these people like to turn America into the former Soviet Union or North Korea.

Its pure stupidity. Many don't stop & think before going with their emotions.

All of them would have NEVER had the education they had IF their parents had NO Jobs.

Are there Corrupt Corporations? Yes, MANY!
But are their good corporations out there who pay a fair share to their employees? A Resounding Yes! In fact, Many if not most do.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

And no one explains to you that you are WRONG. Now if you are going to throw ad hominems around, get them bloody well right first.

Jobs - I have two right now. - Family - I'm a bit young for that. Come to think of it, some might condemn us young idealistic people for having to raise families, instead of for not having to.

Corporations - Not really. - We criticize those corporations which emply death squads, kill people, etc. - Globalization - not at all - we seek equal globalization for labor as for capital.

"That's the Number 1 Stupidity that is repeated here in the blogs. Repeat it enough times & it becomes the truth." - Mirror imaging. Read Eden James' "The Consolidation of Elite Opinion: Framing Free Trade and Protest from Seattle to Quebec" [url]http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/2002journal/EdenJames.pdf[/url]

"But no one ever sits with these young people & explain to them that without corporations, THERE WILL BE NO JOBS." - You confuse the toll with the bridge, the rent with the land, the capitalist who controls access to infrastructure to the entenpreneur and workers who create the infrastructure.

"Many of these people like to turn America into the former Soviet Union or North Korea." - I'm not working with ANSWER.

I lean mutualist, not Stalinist.

In any case, we do bring cameras, we do have photos and videos of these events. I have found several photos of my last beating.

by Left for the Left on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

Left fortheLeft,

First of all, pls. do not blame police brutality on your Globalization cause.

Police Brutality is not condoned. File a case against the Police. You have videos to prove that.
I don't need any videos. I see police charge demonstrators with batons. But I also see demonstrators heckle police until hell breaks out.

We are NOT in the 1950's & 1960's were Police Dogs & Police beatings were allowed on Non-Violent Protesters.

Let's get one thing straight. The Anti-WTO Protesters in 2006 are NO EXACTLY the same type of "Non-Violent" marches led by Martin Luther King & Mahatma Gandhi.

PLEASE DO NOT portray the Anti-WTO protest as ONE SIDED. You're the helpless innocent victime while the Police is the unprovoked perpetrator.

It takes two to tango. Both 60 minutes & Dateline had done extensive features on radical leaders of these movement. They are No Saints when it comes to antagonizing & provocation. The New York Times has also had articles on some of the Extreme Radical leaders of some of these groups & the Planning of provocation by some of the leaders.

Lastly, Pls. save your links of anti-globalization writings. I can do just the same & share with you links on writers who favor responsible globalization. It doesn't prove anything.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 10:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

BTW LeftofLeft,

I have nothing against fighting for equality & the end of child labor.

I admire you & respect you for taking the time to participate in these events in order to make things better.

What I am critical of is some of the misguided leaders of these group who :

One, has no idea of how to win the public over by displaying the right image instead of being seen as as radical left wingers who advocate violence.
They don't take into account that they need the general public's support if they will succeed in fighting these powerful corporations.

( contrast this to the civil rights movement were the general public saw for themselves how INNOCENT BLACK, NON-VIOLENT PROTESTERS were being Brutalized Unprovoked by Racist Policemen)
Those images immediately sent chills & anger among millions of white viewers across the country)

With these Anti-WTO protest, people see a whole different image. They see thousands of Angry, badly dressed & Provocative young people ready to go toe to toe with police & break into the World Leader meetings by force.

Two, sweeping statements from these radical leaders that everything about globalization is evil.And that All corporations are the Devil & bad for america & its people.

These are the kind of careless statements that leave most americans with a bad taste. It then forces many people to completely shut out anything you have to say because there is NO CREDIBILITY from the get go.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 10:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

I'm afraid your first posts touched a raw nerve. We disagree on these issues and probably agree on some others. My general concern was a political climate which excludes opposition and alternatives. My specific concern was the the Democratic Party is enabling this exclusing, which from my experience is both wrong and counterproductive.

On many issues (war, trade, health care, drug policy, etc.) we have, as it were, three political spectra. We can call the first the 'general spectrum,' the second the 'activist spectrum,' and the third the 'elite spectrum.'

The 'general spectrum' describes the political views of the general population, regardless of whether they follow the issues or participate politically.

The 'activist spectrum' describes the political views of people who folow the issues and participate politically. These range more widely. These often include radical alternatives to existing solutions. These include the 'activist base' of each party as well as the 'activist fringe' to the right or the left, or both.

The 'elitist spectrum' describes the political views of those in power: incumbent politicians, media pundits, etc. These can vary about non-issues but rarely about important issues. My last post linked to a scholarly study of the media portrayal of trade issues. The media and politicians take the 'Washington consensus' for granted.

So we get this political situation where the general public shows one political spectrum, and the activist base extends much further to the left (though my own experience does not show whether it also extends further to the right) and the political/media elites cluster together slightly to the right of the general public.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, the general public was divided, the activist base (including think tanks which studied the issue) ranged from determined opposition to determined support, and the political/media elites generally supported the war. And believed the so-called 'evidence,' which still sticks in my craw. Similar dynamics exist with many other issues.

If you go to a typical anti-war protest-planning meeting, you will find many people formerly worked for the Democratic Party. I used to go door-to-door, or stand near the polling places, talking to people and handing out literature. I gave up on the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party gave up on my values. I am concerned that the Democratic Party is driving out its own activist base.

Nevertheless, the  Democratic Party finds itself the opposition to cronyism within the political structure just as the left activist communities find themselves the opposition to injustice within the society as a whole. So there is a strong parallel between the Democratic Party and the left activist communities. When people marginalize me (and activist communities), and my struggles, they use the same methods which marginalize you (and Democratic candidates), and your struggles. Not least, they misrepresent both my views and yours.

Basically, if the political climate excludes you, it certainly excludes me. If it includes me, it certainly includes you. We have to figure out how to widen it (to the left, as well as to other alternatives off the left/right spectrum).

I am at a loss as to how to do this.

by Left for the Left on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:51:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

labanman said:

That's why they get NO SYMPATHY from the public whenever they do these Anti-WTO massive protests.
They actually hurt their cause with the wild behavior.

Not to mention, many of these young, " idealist" people have NEVER worked in a real job nor have had to support a family.

They repeat this garbage that ALL CORPORATIONS are Bad. Everything about Globalization is BAD. ALL CORPORATIONS are GREEDY & JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE of people.

Well, this is just bullshit. 90% of the "public" knows perfectly well that these WTO boosting corporations have stabbed them in the back. And that the main reason that "these young, 'idealist' people have NEVER worked in a real job" is that these corporations have sent their would-have-been jobs over to China. Which will one day send those jobs right back here -- at $2 an hour!

Your disingenuous crap certainly does not fool me. You are in love with power and money. I am concerned about people and my country. It really is that simple. So why don't you come clean and admit it? (As if I don't know.)

by blues on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:26:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

Mr. blues,

First of all, BREATHE in, Breathe out. Relax.

Second, 90% of the Public ???? Blues, who is this 90% of the Public that you are talking about?

This statement is exactly where the problem is.

Did you mean 90% of the Public or you meant 90% of the Left Wing?

Your sweeping statement is no different than "everyone hates Joe Lieberman".
( while Joe is enjoying 68% approval ratings among democrats & 75% approval among independents)

"Everyone hates Hillary Clinton."
( while Hillary is enjoying 25%-40% leads in polls  across the country)

The problem with you is you Consider the PUBLIC as your own world of Liberals. Either you're ignorant or you intentionally black out the fact that your radical views are shared by a minority of the population.

90% ? LOL! PLEASE! 90% of your own world. Yes.

P.S. I am also AGAINST explotation of third world country wages at the expense of american workers.

However, all americans also TAKE ADVANTAGE & benefit every day from affordable & much cheaper goods.

You make it sound like this is some SIMPLE, ONE WAY PROBLEM that can be solved by shouting Protest against Corporations.  

by labanman on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are big differences between (none / 0)

I meant 90% of the public. Not the media system that ignored Al Gore's speech. Not the computer voting system that rigs the elections. I'm from Connecticut, and I know all about Joe Lieberman, the Democratic neocon. If people in Ohio knew what I know about him, they would not like him. But they have been disenfranchised.
by blues on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:02:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neolib is Neocon (none / 0)

Since you are determined to keep our choices off the ballot, we are determined to create our choices on the street; and though the police have attacked us, tortured us, burned our homes and raped our friends, we cannot give in.

What do you believe in?

What brings you to politics?

by Left for the Left on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Carrot and Stick (3.00 / 1)

Over at BOP News, Ian Welsh is also discussing Democrats and the Progressive Blogosphere:

Ever since I have been writing at BOP, I have given the same advice to the Democratic core. I'm going to repeat it today.

There is no influence without clout. There is no influence without clout. There is no influence without clout.

If you want to have Democratic politicians who stand up and fight for you, and who are competent then you must make them fear you and want what you offer.

Think of it as approaching them with a wad of cash in one hand, and a club in the other one.


Ok. Cash and Club instead of Carrot and Stick. So sue me.

The cash should be obvious. The blogosphere has shown its ability to raise money.

But the club is this - you work against people who betray you. There must be consequences for betrayal and for incompetence. What that means is vicious primary challenges. What that means is that you don't work for, you don't donate to and you advise other people not to work for or donate to candidates who have betrayed you. You put your money, your muscle, your time behind those who have been there for you, or new candidates who are both progressive and fighters.

For those who do fight for you offer your support - money, time and cover. When they are in trouble you gather round and you fight for them. For them you bleed, for them you stand in battle line.

But for the cowards, for the traitors, for the fools - nothing. Nothing, that is, except vicious primary challenges and derision.

The base are the people who donate. They are the people who volunteer. They have clout.

And the blogosphere is, increasingly, the way they communicate with each other. It is a vital part of the nerve network of the Democratic base. About a 1/3 of the base currently gets their news from the blogosphere and that number is growing.

That's clout. Because there are negative consequences to not listening. There are also positive consequences to listening.

Clout is about being able to reward and punish people for doing what you want.

This is just dog training people. You train your politicians the same way you train your golden retriever. When he or she does something good - reward them. When they do something bad - punish them. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Couldn't have said it better my own self. All I have to add is, we also have to be ready, willing and able to walk away from the table and take our time, energy, contributions and votes with us.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:46:51 PM EST

and help elect a larger Republican majority (3.00 / 1)

Congratulations, Senator Santorum. Here's your ticket to Iowa.

Yeah, that'll show them.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and help elect a larger Republican majority (3.00 / 1)

Sure thing bluenc. Blame it on progressives who aren't willing to sell out their principles by voting for Lieberman Democrats who are rigging primaries. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with conservative Dems who suck up to conservatives.

Nah. That couldn't possibly be it. It's those damned progressive Democrats who are screwing everything up. They're the reason Democrats have been on a losing streak for the last twenty years.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (3.00 / 1)

Excuse me Gary. The only two victories we've had in the last 25 years were from Moderate Mainstream Democrats.

Actually, three if you count Gore in 2000.

The worst defeats we've had as a party were from Proud Liberals Dukakis & Mondale.

Furthermore, 3 out of 4 incumbent Democratic Governors are All Moderate Mainstream Democrats. ( Many of whom are in Red States such as Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, TN, LA, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arizona,etc.)

That's reality Gary. Majority of Americans whether Democrat, Republican, & Independent are HERE, right here in the middle! Not Left, Not Right.

You keep on saying we've been losing for years, but you're solution is to flood the field with Liberals Democrats.

Its not how loud you scream. Its not how often you blog. You can do that all day & you still won't have the numbers.

I still can't forget your declaration that " Joe Lieberman is the Most Hated Democrat in America". You forgot to mention that you meant in the "Netroots community ONLY". You also forgot to mention that Joe Lieberman is currently receiving a 68% approval rating among registered Connecticut Democrats & over 75% among registered Independents in CT.

Your statement is a plain & perfect example of the DISCONNECT some people here have from reality.

P.S. In the " Real World", Hillary Clinton is leading All Democrats by 30%+ points. In " your world", she doesn't even exist.
Now that's scary.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

No everyone hates him i hated him long before got involved in blogs and all my releatives and Progressive friends wh aren't involved hate Joementum as well.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

there you have it. everyone hates him. throw away those poll numbers, folks. here we have good solid anecdotal evidence!
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

My question is how can you like the guy he is a useless scumbag that sides with the Republicans on Iraq is used as talking points for the right and doesn't care. and by the way the poll numbers indicate that among Democrats Liberman sucks.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

Another thing that bothers me about Democrats as a Democrat is that we give up and try to come half way with the Republicans I can't stand it. Everybody says Kerry was the worst candidate we could come up with or he was to Liberal or whatever. Did anyone ever look at Bush!!?? He is the worst candidate in the history of Presidents and Presidential Candidates. He can't say more than 3 words without saying uh or um or things or stuff or terror. The Reason Bush and the Republicans win is because they are so good at sticking to what they belive and fighting for it to no end for decades the Democrats held power in Congress but the Republicans didn't give up they kept talking about there conservative world what they belived in etc. In 1994 when everything went wrong for the Democrats and the Republicans took over since they have kept holding on to there extreme right wing agenda. Meanwhile we sit around here debateing wheather we should become Whisy washy and give up or wheather we should stick to what we belive in. Everything so far is going wrong for the Republicans. This is our chance for a 1994 We can't have any Wishy Washy losers run or we will never win. This will be our only chance for a long time for a big win in both houses we can't give it up to pressure to go to the middle. One last thing when the Republicans took over in 94 do you ever remember Santourm running to the middle or Ron Grams or any of them that where in a state that was red or Marginal?
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

While your post was pretty damn near incomprehensible (say what you want about Gary, at least he edits), I'll try to respond. There's a strange misconception out there that the 1994 GOP landslide was about the Republicans motivating their base. To be sure, that played a huge part, but it wasn't the deciding factor. The whole idea of the "Contract" was pulling in the center. They didn't water down their ideology, but they did change the way they talked about the issues. They were confrontational where they needed to be. Centrist Dems basically advocate the same idea. There are certain issues where it's a win for us to be confrontational. On some issues, however, it hurts us. Nobody wants to abandon the principles of this party. We may have different ideas about what those principles are, but the core values will not change. Why did Bush win? He was able to convince enough moderate voters that he was the better choice. That's how you win elections. Dog-whistle politics for the base, bland centrism for the masses.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

That's how you win elections. Dog-whistle politics for the base, bland centrism for the masses.

Let me see. Your statement seems to suggest that Democrats should be appealing to their base and feeding bland centrism to the uneducated, ignorant masses. Where is the part where the Democratic Party is appealing to their base?

This is the currrent political paradigm:

GOP appeals to GOP base.
Therefore, GOP base is motivated.

Dems appeal to GOP base.
Therefore, Dem base is disenfranchised and apathetic.

Do you see a problem with that strategy? Or does it make perfect sense to you?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

This is why the bad guys are smarter than we are: they understand that your base can only take you so far. It's the middle that takes you into the end zone (aah I can't stop Go Panthers!). What a Democrat has to do to win in the suburbs is convince folks that he/she's one of them. In other words: I like God, I want to kill the enemies of this country, and I'm not addicted to taxes. You might call this appealing to the GOP base. In reality, it's simply bringing in the middle. Republicans have found a way to assure their base that they're one of them, while simultaneously convincing moderates that they're not wackos. Democrats need to find a way to address the concerns of the left while still remaining in the center. It's the only way to win.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

You might call this appealing to the GOP base. In reality, it's simply bringing in the middle.

To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you give the people a choice between two Repugs, they'll choose the real one every time.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

Since when is the middle of the American electorate Republican territory?
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

Since you've decided to take a great many liberties in one sentence, I'll reply in kind by stating that Harry Truman would probably state, "Since Democrats started acting like Repugs."  
by Seldom Seen Smith on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0)

So, boot any of those weirdos who aren't bible thumping (preferentially Proty, though we can fake those Catholics out). Pretend that funny brown people from the middle east deserve a bullet (don't get all weakling by differentiating). Oh, and ignore the huge national debt and deficit and leave those Cap Gain and upper bracket tax cuts in place, baby!

Uh...so what's the point of having a different party, again?

by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

We don't do our side any good by caricaturing each other's arguments.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:23:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Not? (3.00 / 2)

You did.

"Addicted to taxes?" So exactly how do you plan on paying our bills, and debts in arrears? You either cut spending or raise taxes. And astoundingly enough, there isn't a huge amount of things available to cut. It's not rocket science.

"Kill enemies of our country?" Define who. Last I heard, we were basically ignoring enemies of our country to go shoot some people who looked like them. Kind of like bombing Lichtenstein because they "kind look German" back in WWII.

And amazingly, even agnostics like myself don't hate the concept of God. I'm sure Jewish people don't go walking around spitting on images of Christ, nor do Buddhists have a party burning Crosses (I leave that to the "real Protestant Christians" in the Klan).

Spare me.

by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Not? (none / 0)

I wasn't trying to poke fun at anything, I was merely trying to show the limited extent to which we have to move. We don't have to become tax-cut-hungry maniacs like the Bushies, we simply have to show people in the middle that we're in favor of sensible taxation. We don't have to become jingoistic nutcases, we simply have to assure the center that we do want to protect this country. We don't have to morph into bible-thumpers, we just have to convince folks that we respect and value faith and don't want to push it out of the national dialogue.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wasting your time (none / 0)

blue,

You are wasting your time. The likes of Gary B., Seldon Smith & their disciples will NEVER understand nor comprehend what you're trying to point out.

This is the BIGGEST difference between Conservative Architects of winning & Liberal Architects of Losing.

Conservatives understand the game. They know that in order to gain power, they will have to attract mainstream americans to vote GOP. They have realized that it is the ONLY WAY to win. And once they win, they GO BACK & GOVERN going Right as a Conservative.

But they understand that without being in power, the Conservative movement will get nowhere.
They have PERFECTED this game.

Liberals are the opposite. They want to push the progressive agenda BEFORE getting into power. That's why they NEVER get to power.

While Liberals have this notion that increasing the Liberal base is the way to go. They forgot to mention that even with a United Moderate & Liberal Democratic front- WE WOULD STILL NEED moderate Independent voters in order to win.

They always forget that Independent voters ALWAYS decide elections. Expecially in national & statwide races.

They also ALWAYS FORGET to mention that inspite of a UNITED LIBERAL campaign complete with unprecedented Funding, they could not even get Howard Dean to the Top 3 finishers in the Democratic Primary. That right there tells you where majority of Democrats stand on issues.

If a splintered field of 3 moderate Democrats can all still finish ahead of a United, One candidate liberal ticket, that should wake you up right there.

What's hilarious is when they make it sound that you just recruit & find Liberals everywhere. That America is filled with people who are just waiting to be enlightened as being a Liberal.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wasting your time (none / 0)

You're right! That's the way to do it allright. Now if only anyone actually changed from center-right when they governed your thesis might make the slightest bit of sense.
by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wasting your time (none / 0)

I'm not sure if I understand your point exactly, but his thesis is pretty well accepted among political scientists and those who study elections and governing. Winning a campaign involves staking out the middle, and then governing means moving back to your natural position.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wasting your time (none / 0)

Which in the case of those passing this arguemnt, never seems to happen. They run center right, and govern center right.

So while a valid argument, it rings on deaf ears. Most folks simply don't trust those making this case as arguing in good faith. Instead, it seems flipped...they run center-right because they want that, while saying "trust me" to get the ATM to pony up money and votes.

by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

Bush is the most Right Wing Republican we have ever had as a President. Jhon Kerry won Independents last year yet Bush still won it's because of his base.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

Actually Independents were split pretty evenly. Bush won 93 percent of the Republican vote, whereas Kerry won only 89 percent of the Democratic vote. Did those Dems go to Nader because they saw Kerry as too conservative? Nope, they went to Bush. These are the moderate on the fence Dems who were convinced that national security was the huge issue, and trusted Bush more.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0)

We must have some very different concepts of "moderate". Apparently, anyone slightly to the left of Mussolini, but to the right of the avreage Dem appears to qualify.
by ElitistJohn on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

Moderate is such a mushy term, I probably shouldn't have used it. The Dems I'm talking about are conservatives who frequently split their ticket, but identified with Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 90s. In 2000, some of them voted for Bush because of God, guns, and gays, and in 2004 they didn't see Kerry as "one of them". They're willing to vote for liberals, but they take defense very seriously and are usually pro-war.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely! The Same (none / 0)

The Same Moderates who supported Clinton/Gore are the same people who have split their ticket against Kerry in places like NC, VA, AR, LA.

They vote for the State democratic candidate but cross to Republican Bush at the head of the ticket.

Unless you can present this people with an acceptable Middle of the Road democratic candidate, these voters will continue to do just that.

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:35:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely! The Same (none / 0)

The candidate doesn't even have to be middle of the road, though. The voters just have to feel comfortable with him/her. This means targeting some key issues or ideas. Most folks won't really care how a candidate comes down on the estate tax or the Kyoto Protocol, as long as they are confident that person is looking out for them. In the post-9/11 electorate, this means that Democrats have to make a case for why they're able to protect the country.

I remember an old analysis that explained American politics like this: Democrats were like a nurturing mother, and Republicans were like a strict father. This doesn't mean we have to be wimps on security though. It might help to think of ourselves as the Mama Bear: we provide and care for the country, but when anyone tries to mess with our home, it's lights out.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely! The Same (none / 0)

Of course, that apparently mean blowing the crap out of people who didn't mess with our home.
by ElitistJohn on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:29:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

I read his or her post and it was perfectly clear what that said to anyone who wasn't busy trying to insult rather than respond to an argument.
by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 10:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (none / 0)

...The only two victories we've had in the last 25 years were from Moderate Mainstream Democrats.

Actually, three if you count Gore in 2000...


The opposition considers anyone to the left of [John McCain] Attila the Hun to be a liberal. What do you think their base thinks?
543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 09:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Wellstone Memorial Disaster (none / 0)

Michael, that's exactly the point.

People on the right believe in their cause just as strongly people in Left.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE is Conservatives know how to play the game while the Left is so caught up in symbolism, getting attention & making a lot of noise.

( The Paul Wellstone disaster)

Conservative political leaders know,understand & agree that the ONLY WAY to IMPLEMENT, PUSH & CHANGE AMERICA into CONSERVATISM is by being in Power. There is no other way.

So they masquerade as mainstream politicians during general elections & you do not hear shit from Conservative rank & file. Because the rank & file understand that once they win, the Conservative thrust to the right begins.

They have done this again & again in the last decade.

But with the Left, the Rank & file thinks that they are always in a "Street Protest". They are so concerned about getting attention, being heard by all, & feeling Good about themselves as a Proud Liberal.

Just like the rowdy, loud, & sometimes violent Anti-WTO protest. Just like the the Loud, proud Memorial Service for Senator Paul Wellstone.
Do you remember that Michael?

The Proud, National TV Display of Wellstone supporters?

Partisan Democrats particularly the Liberals & Champions of the Left were so GUNG HO, FELT SO GOOD about their OUTWARD, LOUD, DISPLAY of their Political Partisan Left views during the Memorial Services for Wellstone. Afterall, they were in a BLue state of Minnesota eulogizing a popular Liberal Senator.

Yes, during & after the event. There was so much PASSION, LOVE, ANGER & UNITY among the Liberal base of supporters for Wellstone. They felt very good about their PUBLIC DISPLAY on National TV.

While Hillary, Bill, Al Gore, the Bush family,Bob Dole, Democratic & Republican Senators all remained silent, looked somewhat stunned at the PROUD, LOUD & partisan DISPLAY on National TV of the Loyal Liberal followers of Wellstone.

30 days later, a Moderate Republican WINS the seat of Liberal Paul Wellstone, in one of the biggest upsets & surprises. What happened????
All polls showed that many non=partisan voters were so turned off by the Display of Wellstone supporters. They were turned-off enough to ignore the sympathy factor. A significant number who were planning to vote for Wellstone change their minds after that Left Wing Display of " I'm Proud & loud".

So while democrats united in supporting Mondale, while Republicans united in supporting Coleman, the Mainstream, Independent, Non-Partisan voters got so turned off & voted for the Republican.

That's a simple lesson that still does not seem to sink in with  many Loud & Proud Left wingers.

It's NOT HOW LOUD you scream, it's not how Proud you are.

Many here in the netroots keep hearing their own views repeated 24/7 by other fellow Progressives.
They start believing that this is the norm. Someone has to knock their heads & explain to them that YOU ARE PREACHING to the CHOIR in Mydd & Kos.
Majority of Americans do not share ALL of your views. You are Literally a Tiny Minority among All Registered voters. You are NOT EVEN 10% of All Democratic voters.

When you have a guy like Gary declaring that Joe Lieberman & Hillary Clinton are the MOST DISLIKED, even hated Democrat in America- while survey after survey, poll after poll from democrat Zogby to republican Rasmussen, to NYT to WSJ ALL show the complete opposite- YOU NEED A REALITY CHECK BIG TIME!

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You watch too much right wingnut cable (none / 0)

And you believe too much of it.

Your indignation is touching.

...20,000 people packed into the Williams Arena in St. Paul to honor the memory of their beloved Senator who had died just four days before in plane crash. Also killed were Wellstone's wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, aides Tom Lapic and Mary McEvoy, driver Will McLaughlin, and two pilots.

At the memorial, of course, were Democratic heavyweights: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Walter Mondale (who would be replacing Wellstone on the ballot just a week later), and many members of the Senate. Republicans were there, too: Norm Coleman, Wellstone's opponent; Trent Lott who, at the time, was majority leader; former Minnesota Senators Rod Grams and Rudy Boschwitz; not-Republican but certainly not-Democrat Jesse Ventura. A whole host of others, too.

There were eight speakers in all, besides George Latimer the former mayor of St. Paul who acted as MC. Iowa's Tom Harkin was the only elected official to speak; the rest were friends and family of the victims. One of them, whom Wellstone described as "there is no one person outside of my family that I admire and love so much" Rick Kahn, ended his eulogy with an impassioned plea to carry on the legacy of Paul Wellstone, and to "win the election for Paul." That was the only political moment. A couple of minutes, tops, out of four hours of remembrance where things got a little partisan.

But that didn't stop those with an agenda from lying. Immediately after the memorail, Coleman's campaign manager Vin Weber was in front of cameras to denounce the whole thing as "a political event [. . .] a complete, total, absolute sham." And of course Limbaugh was on the air the next day blubbering about it. And the TV pundits, too. Everyone seemed to take that one small slice at the end of Kahn's speech and extrapolate to believe that moment was representative of the whole event. And boy were they indignant.

Their claims ranged from Trent Lott getting booed by the whole audience (there was a smattering of boos, but he smiled and waved) to the whole event's being scripted, including telling the audience when to applaud and jeer (evidenced by the words on the Jumbotron-you know, the closed captioning that was there for the deaf). They claimed Republicans who wanted to speak were shouted down by the partisan crowd-but the only people on the schedule were the ones delivering the eulogies; there was no open mic. And more...


Don't let them lie

Learn to do some basic reasearch. And learn to stop recycling right wingnut talking points and memes.

543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (3.00 / 1)

seriously: Well here is my answer. Whenever the leadership deviates from a vote or an issue that the blogs want, everyone here goes off and issues threats. These posters scream about "not sending a dime", "never volunteering again", and "arranging primary challenges to DINOs". And so why would they take this medium seriously?

Maybe they would be more receptive if people were more cordial and civil in their disagreements. Maybe certain politicians would actually visit and post here if people were more rational in how they dealt with issues.

by jiacinto on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:54:48 PM EST

Re: Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (none / 0)

nah....let the heathens burn in hell! pass the kool-aid...
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (none / 0)

Maybe they would be more receptive if people were more cordial and civil in their disagreements. Maybe certain politicians would actually visit and post here if people were more rational in how they dealt with issues.

Now that's funny. Coming from someone who has not been particularly polite to progressive Democrats:

You are unelectable (1.00 / 2)

I wish you would drop out of the race since all you are doing is helping to re-elect Santorunm. You have no experience, haven't even been elected to the office of dogcatcher. Your positions are out of the mainstream of most PA voters. I really hope to God that you lose in the primary badly.

by jiacinto on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 11:29:47 AM PST


by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (none / 0)

Whatever, Gary. You know what I say about Chuck is true.
by jiacinto on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (none / 0)

Of course jiacinto. Everything you say is the absolute truth as revealed by God. Why was I ever so foolish to disagree with you about anything?
by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:18:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Dem Party doesn't take blogs (none / 0)

I don't care about the personal dynamics of this, but I have to agree that there is absolutely no way in hell Pennacchio beats Santorum. Numbers don't lie.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're kidding me, right? (none / 0)

Numbers don't lie.

I guess Bob Casey is really the Governor of Pennsylvania, since he was leading Rendell by 17% going in to the primary. If Rendell had any class he would have just given up gracefully instead of engaging in an unnecessary and divisive primary. Are those damned progressives ever going to learn?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:28:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're kidding me, right? (none / 0)

One problem: Pennachio isn't Mayor of Philadelphia. He doesn't have the same stature as Rendell does.
by jiacinto on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand both sides (3.00 / 1)

Maybe by showing there are consequences to every vote, there will be less defection on the votes that come down to the money versus the people (think bankrupcy bill, think CAFTA..) But eating our own will not help us win back a majority. I smile when I see Club for Growth primarying Chafee etc, because it brings us that much closer to majority again. Do we really want to do that to ourselves? So basically I come down somewhere in the wishy-washy middle. Primary where it won't cost us anything (like primarying Lieberman, CT is a safe blue state). But not where it will (see the Nelsons etc.).

But to the bigger question of how to get the establishment to take the blogosphere more seriously, I think the answer is to grow larger. Reach out to the grassroots operating in your city or town, and get them blogging too. Reach out to the media and get them to cover the scoops you unearth, which in turn gets more people to come to your site and start blogging. When politicians realize that words on a computer screen are coming from the very people that make their campaigns go, maybe then we'll see more interest.

by lpackard on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:12:21 PM EST

Re:As it gets larger (none / 0)

I agree that the best way to command attention is in numbers.

But if you expect the netroots community to grow large enough & fast enough to be recognized by the Democratic establishment, it will have to attract much more bloggers than just the Liberal view.

How can you expect to grow in great numbers when majority of Democrats are to the right of Liberals?

BTW, I am talking about percentages compared to Democrats as a whole. Of course, the netroots community grows every month, every year in numbers. But it will never get passed that 5%-15% mark of all Democratic voters if it confines itself with one point of view.

Today, when a Moderate view is expressed, you have 15 people ganging up on the moderate poster.

What you forget is many of the views here are not the views of majority of Democrats out there.
( ie. Pro-Gay marriage, Anti-Gun)

by labanman on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:18:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:As it gets larger (none / 0)

This is right on. I've always been the most liberal person among my friends, and here I find myself labeled a Liebermaniac. It's ridiculous how vituperative some folks can get when it comes to moderate Dems. Sure, there's enough blame to go around, but if the netroots really wants to grow, it has to start building bridges.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:As it gets larger (3.00 / 0)

if the netroots really wants to grow, it has to start building bridges.

I seem to have missed all the bridge building you, labanman and jiacinto are doing. Could you kindly refresh my memory?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:As it gets larger (none / 0)

For one, I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. I've also expressed my support when I felt like the netroots had it right. I've made it known that I think the Dems ought to filibuster Alito, and I try to engage in somewhat reasoned debate. It's a trust thing, and Democrats have a real problem trusting each other, I think.
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:As it gets larger (none / 0)

I think I understand. You sit back and let labanman and jiacinto take pot shots and make personal attacks on progressives, with a little encourgement and a few attaboys from you of course.

Then you break your arm patting yourself on the back about how reasonable and pragmatic you are.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just my .02 (3.00 / 1)

There's been a lot of talk about how the progressive netroots is left twisting in the wind. Why do the establishment Democrats ignore our pearls of wisdom, and our genius solons? Here's why: they have no incentive whatsoever to do so-and it's not simply that the netroots aren't like the rest of America.

I think it's important to be careful about defining "progressive netroots." Is any particular site with a stated mission of electing Democratic candidates truly progressive or simply partisan? Secondly, I'm more inclined to believe that the progressive netroots isn't currently as organized as a political force as some of its leaders would have others believe. Cutting down trees, painting them black to resemble cannons and positioning them on the battlefront is shrewd and has its usefulness but it's no substitute for the real thing when the actual shooting commences.

I would argue that no cohesive "progressive netroots" capable of wielding an iron fist within a velvet glove currently exists. Of course, this is a fluid situation subject to change. Progressives participating in the netroots caught a fleeting glimpse of this potential during Dr. Dean's presidential campaign but missed catching lightening in the bottle. The primary ingredient which is lacking is a catalyst capable of sustaining the energy required over a sufficient length of time to enable the progressive netroots to evolve into a more structured entity as opposed to the decentralized issue oriented amoeba it currently resembles.

Although I'm admittedly in the minority in my thinking, I do not believe a partisan approach along traditional lines will accomplish this end. I believe it will require a multi-pronged offensive which forges a coalition between progressive Democrats, Independents, Greens and perhaps even a sprinkling of Libertarians in order for the conditions to exist which will allow for a truly progressive netroots to materialize into a political force capable of wielding actual influence over both elections and our actual mechanism of government.  

 

by Seldom Seen Smith on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:02:01 AM EST

Why Doesn't The DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT??? (none / 0)

Why the democratic establishment doesn't take the lefty blogosphere seriously???

Why would they take the "lefty blogosphere" seriously, when they do not even take the liberal majority seriously?

(Hint: They know who owns the voting computers.)

by blues on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:34:59 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.