you think there is no example of what MSOC is talking about, even as ideal after ideal is thrown under the bus? off the life raft? choose your metaphor?

afaik all movements/groups get to the point where some faction, formerly a part of the dialog, is shut out and excluded, it is very ironic when movements that have free speech as a central ideal do that.

this is not subtle, and it's not MSOC reading something into anything... the big community blogs are run by people that consider ideology baggage, and the problem.  Anti-choice democrats are not a problem for them... pro-choice groups are.  They are very overt in this idiocy.

The quote in context makes it clear it was a statement ONLY about admiration for the pragmatism and ability to work collaboratively of the conservative movement Norquist was instrumental in building, NOT its ideology:

It was in reference to how the Establishment Dems viewed the online progressive movement after Lieberman's primary defeat last summer and trying to understand what it meant and what it didn't:

here are two ways that insiders tend see the emergence of the recent progressive movement.  The 'they are too left wing' school sees us as the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s, who were idealistic, impatient, and failed as a political movement.  While tremendously accomplished in certain policy arenas, the New Left alienated working class America with insensitive demands and paved the way for the right-wing Reaganites that dominated the country from 1978-2006.

The other school is to see us as the staffer above does, as the new Christian Coalition, or what's known as the New Right.  The New Right was a series of conservative groups that organized a takeover of the GOP (and the corporate wing of the Democrats) from 1974-1978, spearheaded by Richard Viguerie's use of innovative direct mail channels known for incendiary content.  Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove built their power on the New Right political infrastructure.

I don't really see us as either the New Left or the New Right, though if I had to pick I'd say we're more New Right in terms of our structural orientation.  We're less policy focused and more tribal in our understanding of politics.  We're much more pragmatic and politically cautious, eschewing stupid and counterproductive attention-grabbing protests, somewhat similar to the way the New Right took Barry Goldwater's extremism and made it palatable.  To the extent that I have a political hero, it's probably Grover Norquist, not Ralph Nader, and a lot of the new progressive organizers I know model themselves and what they are doing after the right-wing's collaborative model rather than the left-wing single issue mindset.

At the same time, there's something very different about the progressive movement that's emerging today.  We're not an aggregation of single-issue voters, and we don't operate through fear.  Our rhetoric is hot, but it's not irresponsible or atomizing, and it's two-way.  Unlike proposition 13 in California, which passed with low turnout in the late 1970s, our key fight in Connecticut was a high-turnout fight based on substantive public and private debate.  

In other words, there's a pluralistic element to what the progressive movement is doing that is quite populist and democratic.  We are fundamentally arguing for a tolerant and pluralistic society, and we're doing it aggressively and somewhat viciously.

*    On Supporting the Troops

*    Democrats: End This War NOW

*    Now I Am Become Death

*    Bombs Away

*    Why Is This Acceptable?

*    Obscenity

*    For Whom the Bell Tolls: On "Blaming the Troops"

*    Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Little

*    We MUST Leave IRAQ. NOW

I posted that last one on the list at My Left Wing on July 24, 2005. I've written about Iraq and talked about Iraq (against the invasion, against the war, against the occupation, in favour of withdrawal) since before the Iraq War Resolution came to a vote. And I've never stopped; inasmuch as I write on blogs about any topic, I write on blogs about Iraq with equal fervour and constancy.

(There is only one topic that occupies my blog posts more frequently and with more intensity, and that is the business of blogging itself, for obvious reasons.)

And, of course, this list of essays and posts does not include my constant engagement in discussions about other people's posts about Iraq; the aggregate number of words I've written in comments about Iraq would surely make up at least a dozen stand-alone posts.

Well, like I said, not in the mood to argue your misinterpretation of my take on Goldberg's op-ed, nor of my view of Stoller's incredibly idiotic quote, nor to argue with anyone else commenting here, either, for that matter.

 Suffice to say I do NOT think Stoller admires Norquist for his nefarious machinations and ability to do evil deeds without blinking an eye; and anyone who thinks me such a dullard that I might take such a lesson from the references is himself probably lacking in basic cognitive functionality.

Are you so focused on kicking MSOC that you feel you MUST wade into the swamp of Meta?

It appears as though the Chait article offered many on the blogosphere a tasty opportunity to 1) talk about themselves and 2) attack other bloggers.