On February 27, 2007, I responded to a Matt Stoller piece:
Is the Public Ahead of the Netroots on Iraq?
Matt Stoller asks that question. The answer is obviously yes. I am a Centrist. And yet on Iraq, the voices joining me on the call to end the Iraq Debacle through the only viable way to do it, defunding, have been relatively few to my knowledge.
On March 13, I wrote:
The "Netroots" on Iraq: Defunding Takes Republicans
By Big Tent Democrat
To hear some in the "Netroots" tell it, defunding the Iraq Debacle by the Dem Congress is pipe dream crazy talk. Here is Matt Stoller:
Respectfully, your pet solution is not THE ANSWER. There is no THE ANSWER. Strategy is actually putting out a set of parameters that actually map to reality, and the reality is that there is not the discipline in the party to do what you suggest . . .
For Stoller, defunding can not be done. At least not by Democrats. . . .
This was the activist Progressive Netroots - the LEFT WING of the Party!!! Today, Harry Reid stands with Russ Feingold. The "Netroots" never did. I think that is very worthy of criticism.
Chris Bowers wrote:
I freely admit that I am nowhere close to perfect, and that there are ways I can do my job better. However, I am always open to persuasion and suggestions on how I can improve.
Nah, no one really is. Everyone SAYS they are, but no one really is. I criticized Matt, Chris, Move On, David Sirota, etc., because they seem to forget they were the Left Wing, the "Netroots" - not the politicians. On March 19, 2007, I wrote:
Earth to Netroots, Move On, You Are Not Up For Reelection
One of the most maddening things about the reaction of Move On and much of the Netroots to the disastrous House bill on Iraq funding is the newfound belief that it is now their role to be the "pragmatic conciliators" who need to cut deals.
. . . A dkos commenter, Eugene, captures what is wrong with this mindset:
You say, at one point:
Just the numbers aren't on the side of those who wish to end the war.
That's your problem right there. You see that as a conclusion instead of as a starting point. You see it as an answer, not a question.
That the votes aren't there right now is not relevant to the conversation. What matters is how we get those votes. How do we twist arms to make these "Democrats" who have sabotaged even a proviso to stop an attack on Iran come around and change their minds?
Chris Bowers writes:
I see my supervisors as the progressive activists who read what I write. If you can explain to me how linking to you will help me do my job better, then I am all ears. If you can't, then don't expect anything in return. Maybe I am simply too naïve or idealistic, but I imagine any blogger, no matter his or her traffic levels, and no matter what his or her goals may be, will tell you pretty much the same thing, if they at least stop and think about it. There is a purpose behind all of our blogs, and whenever we talk about issues surrounding traffic and hyperlinks, it is important for us to keep own purposes in mind.
Well, if you say so Chris. I do not think complaining about blogrolls and hyperlinks and whatnot is productive. I do not expect the A-Listers to pay attention to me just because I write something, particularly if I write something critical of them. On March 17, I wrote:
As folks who have been reading me have seen, I have been quite critical of House Dems AND Left blogs regarding their attitudes and prescriptions for Iraq. My views have almost universally been ignored by all, except for the occasional patronizing riposte that does not engage at all my arguments.
Why is this so? Are discussions of how to end the Debacle in Iraq that are not exclusively critical of the GOP and Bush not worth notice?
It is ironic to me, as perhaps daily kos' most staunch defender on questions of ethics and conflicts of interest, to have to ask this question, but I have to ask it - what is behind this?
Are there professional relationships, existing or potential, that stand in the way of honest critiques of Democrats? I know for a fact that the two biggest Left bloggers have no such issues - Atrios and Markos have no political contracts or relationships - they make money from ads, which are based on traffic.
But what of the rest of us? This site is written by practicing lawyers with no political income. But this is not universally true. Some bloggers are political consultants. Is this affecting their blogging? I know it can not be affecting it CONSCIOUSLY. I know some of these folks and they just are not like that.
As for the rest of the Left blogs, is it the home team mentality? Perhaps. I know, as I said, come election time, I go completely into partisan mode. I think I can and do adjust in non-election times. Are blogs incapable of switching gears?
At this point, I must say the answer appears to be yes.
If I was worrried about blogrolls, links and persuading the principals like Chris Bowers, I would never have written that. I think we need LESS concern about blogrolls and linking and more concern about what people profess to care about. For me, the Iraq Debacle has been my annoying (to the readers of this blog) focus. I am not going to explain to Chris Bowers why I am blogging in order to have him deign to consider bestowing an almighty link on me.
Because once I do that, I am pulling my punches. I am CRITICIZING Chris here, as I have in the past. If he thinks my criticisms worthy of response, then he may respond to them. IF he does not, then he will not. And that is how it should be.
