Political Consequences For Dems On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:40:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” . . . -Frank Rich

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. . . . Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War. - ABC News

Call them "idiot liberals" if that is your fancy. I call them voters.

< The Choice Issue Goes To The Movies | Dishonest David Brooks Once Again >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Political Consequences For Dems On Iraq | 85 comments (85 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Pelosi had better get smart to this (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:49:55 PM EST

or her Speakership will be short-lived. I take no pleasure in saying so either.

I get the strange feeling (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:16:16 PM EST

there is something else driving this dynamic that we are missing. Whatever we might think of what Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership is doing, they are experienced politicians, and presumably not stupid.

Yet they don't seem to care about the seemingly obvious implications behind these poll numbers, even though they represent a rather drastic loss of support.

They can't believe that selling "we're not republicans" is enough to save them, can they?

Is it enough?

My Gut tells me it is genetic for (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by seabos84 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:36:41 PM EST

this generation of Dem "leaders".

Look, I'm not going to bother digging up the specific numbers of Dems Vs Thugs in the House and Senate over the last 27 years, but

RayGun and BushII did NOT have veto proof majorities ... and they governed like they owned the world.

Most of the current Dems have been around since Gingrich handed them their shirts in '94, and ...

( since Dukakis lost to willie horton and lee atewater ...)

and the Dem m.o., to me, keeps falling into the same pattern:

'if we scare the middle, then we'll lose, so, we'll make sure we aren't them but we aren't scary and radical'

these people - pelosi, reid ... - they do NOT know how to beat these b$$$rds.

rmm.

Parent

Re: they do NOT know how to beat these b$$$rds (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:42:23 PM EST

I think you're right. I think they would have done so by now if they knew how.

But I also wonder if we are missing something here. Their goals seem obviously to be not our goals. But what are they?

Unless they only think they think they know how to beat the republicans?

Parent

Or they are playing the electorate (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:45:12 PM EST

and their goals are the same as the republicans. i.e. they can't force a withdrawal from Iraq, and they are still in Congress. So they lose next year? Most of them will still be in Congress anyway? Is that all they care about?

Parent

Day 5 of a cold, so (none / 0) (#12)
by seabos84 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:47:15 PM EST

I am not into that kind of optimism ;)

right now. I'm kinda grouchy, HOWEVER

I really really really really do HOPE you are right. I'll gladly be wrong. I've voted for the winning side twice since 1980, and ...

The Great Clinton's budget surplus was undone in May 2001, before 9-11.

full disclosure, It is hard for me to be optimistic about this bunch without a heahache and my nose running! ;)

rmm.

Parent

: I thought (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:51:19 PM EST

I was being rather pessimistic about them, actually. ;-)

Parent

the party is not monolithic (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by yetimonk on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:11:12 PM EST

Groups within the party, such as the DLC, have more power with a slight majority in congress than with a large one. The war capitulation plays into their hands.

Parent

Leaders think they can't hold their own members (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by janinsanfran on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:34:23 AM EST

This is what I got out of a meeting with Pelosi's local office director. She doesn't have enough Democrats with antiwar principles to do anything drastic to end the war -- she wouldn't be able to hold the caucus. So they say they have to have Republicans to provide cover for the spine-free Democrats. Pelosi always has to be watching her back with her own caucus -- she won't try to push beyond what she can hold her own people to -- so the Dems who are not ready to end the war team up with Bush, effectively, to veto Congressional action.

Parent

: prisoner's dilemma (none / 0) (#86)
by chemoelectric on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:59:37 PM EST

The Democrats are caught in the prisoner's dilemma; the best thing for them would be complete unity (apart from Joe Lieberman), but with the slimness of majority it takes only a few 'distrusters' to screw it for everyone, and to make lots of others untrusting of their colleagues (with good reason).

Parent
: Is that the reason or the excuse? (none / 0) (#87)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:16:25 PM EST

Parent

Maybe they're considering sahel (none / 0) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:05:00 PM EST

I've got to say, this piece by Edward Wong in NYT yesterday has been the first thing that's given me serious pause about the moral issues involved in withdrawing US troops from Iraq, and the depths of what it will unleash.

The only implication I can draw from it - if it is an accurate assessment of the situation - is that if the US wants to get out it has a responsibility to replace the democratically elected but ineffective government with some sort of new Saddam before departing, a conclusion I find absurd and abhorrent.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a people can suddenly change their cultural traditions of 7000 years and embrace new ways, like negotiating an eventual peaceful resolution, but it doesn't seem likely when Iraqi "moderates" and "supporters of democracy" are themselves calling for a Hitler as the only way to stop the killing.

Parent

That's a good question. (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17:16 PM EST

It's been suggested by many that Saddam's brutality was the only thing that kept Iraqi society from fragmenting into sectarian chaos for years, and that a power as totalitarian is the only thing that can stop it now that it has started.

Th morality of installing another regime like Saddams is not, IMO, beyond Bush. I think he would do anything to be able to show some kind of success he could spin as peace in Iraq, yet he hasn't done so.

Why? Because he can't? Because the Iraqis won't stand for it?

More and more we see the sectarian energy being directed at US troops to drive them out as opposed to at each other.

We get very little news out that isn't spun.

How do we know that it isn't ALL of that energy, united, directed at driving out the US NOW?

Parent

Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:37:19 PM EST

I don't think Bush thinks it's in his interest for the war to end yet, at least on any terms short of his perfect dream of victory (undefined). Though he's no longer getting political mileage out of the war, he is holding off the consequences of what he's done for the rest of his administration by sticking to his guns on Iraq. And I don't believe anything much else - like hundreds of thousands of lives for instance - matters to him as much as that.

But if it comes to a point where it would be to his advantage to end the war instead of passing it off to his successor, I don't doubt this is how he'd do it.

Parent

Actually (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:42:58 PM EST

I think he's been trying to do exactly that, but it hasn't been working.

You just eminded me of another converstaion a few months back. It'll take me a bit to dig up the links I have in mind...

Parent

Here it is - last November (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:49:18 PM EST

BTD wrote a post titled Paths of Glory

I wrote this comment there (responding to Bill):

the maladministrations efforts now to suck up to the Sunni Bathists by promising them a return to power if they assist in stopping the Shia militias and death squads of our own making.
I think you're right on the money everything you said there Bill, execept that "maladministration." is much too nice a term and one that could relieve them of responsibility by allowing them a plea of extreme stupidity. "malicious administration" is perhaps a better term. "Premeditation" also comes to mind.
They've known since nearly the beginning that they screwed up utterly by invading and have been cynically trying anything they could think of to avoid the responsibility for the mess.
Their latest attempts to shift their support to the Sunnis are only that: their latest attempts.
The Iraqis have gained NOTHING and, indeed, under the current negotiations may wind up back in the hands of a Bathist Sunni strongman -Tariq Aziz is being or has been set free to aid in these negotiations.
It's a very short step from Tariq Aziz to his boss.
I think it's more than coincidence how this from May 2005 sounds like the same screenplay with different actors:
The situation in Iraq has reached complete extreme with insurgents attacking every hour everywhere. London-based Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, quoting sources, reported May 1 that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld secretly visited former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and allegedly offered him freedom in return for a televised request to militants to cease attacks against allied forces in Iraq. The report said Hussein rejected the offer.
"War criminals" is probably also too nice a term.
It should be obvious by now to all but the most pathological in denial apologists what kind of people(?) Bush et al are.

Parent

I suspect that (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:58:36 PM EST

it is much farther out of control than we think, maybe father than we can think.

I wonder now if there may be some unintended truth to the claim that 'they'll follow us home' if the US withdraws?

'They' being Iraqis, out of revenge. NOT Al-Qaeda?

Parent

I toss that idea out for discussion. (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:00:11 PM EST

I don't really have an opinion on it either way. I don't think I have enough info to form one.

Parent

: All of which (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:43:19 PM EST

just strengthens my feeling that defunding the occupation and withdrawal is the only way to go. The Iraqis want the US out. They will continue killing and dying until they achieve their goal. And they will win. Whether it takes a year, 10 years, or 50 years.
They'll get better at it the longer it goes on. At some point they will decide that only way is to go across the ocean and cut the head off the monster.
And they will find a way.

Parent

::sahel:: ? (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:05:22 PM EST

Parent

Sahel (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:52:06 PM EST

NYT

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq's history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.
The word is "sahel," and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.
It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq's history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see....
But in this war, the moment of sahel has been elusive....
Much seemed different in April 2003, when the Americans pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square and allowed Iraqis to drag it through the streets. It looked like an act of sahel at the time, but the Americans failed to establish total control, as Iraqi history says a conqueror must...
..."We need a strong dictator, and a fair one at the same time, to kill all extremists, Sunni and Shiite."

Parent

Yes - I read Wong's article. (none / 0) (#76)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:06:41 AM EST

With "::sahel:: ?" I was saying I think I described virtually the same thing last November, and that even Bush & Rumsfeld had recognized the potential in May 2005, leading to the offer to Saddam.

They know how badly they have fu*ked up, I think. I also think, btw, that they intended to, but thought so highly of themselves they believed they could keep a handle on it.

Parent

I think (none / 0) (#78)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:25:29 AM EST

I've been clinging to delusions of rationality re Iraq.

Pretty much all gone now.

Parent

I found these lines in Wongs article (none / 0) (#82)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:38:12 AM EST

rather telling:

Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
President Bush, on the other hand, has escalated the American military involvement here on the assumption that the Iraqi factions have tired of armed conflict and are ready to reach a grand accord. Certainly there are Iraqis who have grown weary. But they are not the ones at the country's helm; many are among some two million who have fled, helping leave the way open for extremists to take control of their homeland.

Telling me that the Iraqis will win back their country, however long it takes them. America will not likely like the Iraq they rebuild.

Parent

: It may be that (none / 0) (#83)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:50:05 AM EST

sahel is the reason the Bush Administration has allowed so few Iraqi war refugees into the U.S.....

Parent

erm... (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17:46 PM EST

"The immorality"

Parent

You should have seen the look on (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Compound F on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:20:08 PM EST

Kos's face when I suggested that true cooperative structure can only be achieved when there are real costs to defectors. We cooperated with Democrats in 2006, and they gave us NOTHING on Iraq. Doing NOTHING was a serious defection in my view. What are we supposed to do? Continue clapping?

No! don't clap (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:46:26 PM EST

Abandon them!

Then you get this just as you wanted:

The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

And then you get this:

2008. Republicans win the WH and take back control of congress.

And then you get this:

Troops return to Iraq. Massive troop movement in preparation to attack Iran.

Parent

For a guy who is all about (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:42:19 PM EST

'political reality' you are having a hard time facing reality. But here's the reality: Dems lost public support by giving in to Bush on the supplemental. They gained nothing. You have been wrong all along about the politics of this.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:26:01 PM EST

Parent

No (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:28:44 PM EST

Dems lost public support by giving in to Bush on the supplemental. They gained nothing. You have been wrong all along about the politics of this.

No. Dems lost Dem support just as the poll says. They lost you and everyone on this blog.

Read it:

with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

You got what you wanted. You are smarter that the Dems in congress. They didn't listen to your wisdom so you bailed on them. That'll show them.

Now the public can see they they don't have the support they used to.

End result: Dems look weaker. Repubs look stronger. Yep you got the politics right on this by golly.

Parent

We're not allowed opinions (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:49:18 PM EST

we are, after all, idiot liberals!

Parent

Dems (5.00 / 4) (#35)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:55:07 PM EST

aren't part of the public, apparently. Who knew?

Parent

Hey (none / 0) (#39)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:04:26 PM EST

I was just being more specific like the poll said. It really doesn't bother you that the support that the Dems lost comes from you does it?

Parent

: I'm proud of them personally (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:08:09 PM EST

Wake them up.
See, you can rant and rave all ytou want Talex, but that is how peo0ple feel and Dems, if not you, have to deal with THAT reality, whether you like it or not.
Calling us all "idiot liberals" ain't gonna help Dems in 2008.
Fighting to end the war will.

Parent
: You really have difficulty (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:10:22 PM EST

figuring out people who mean what they say, don't you, talex?

Parent

Sure (none / 0) (#43)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:07:08 PM EST

you can have an opinion. But I am surprised to see you adopt anti-war Obey's pet term for those of you who attack and defect from the Party.

Parent

: Funny that you don't (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:16:40 PM EST

understand sarcasm. Funny that you think we're the defectors.

Parent

If the Dems who now look weaker (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:01:05 PM EST

all think they think like you think you think, talex... they are republicans.

They just call themselves dems hoping to retain power.

Parent

Talex (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:10:48 PM EST

is one of these guys who thinks the art of Democratic Party politics is all about playing to the mythical center.

Only the opinions of the mythical center matter. They must be appeased and pandered to, but the base should be ignored, taken for granted, and even despised.

But the cave in on the supplemental didn't win over anyone in that mythical center. Meanwhile, it cost the Dems support from the base and among Greens who took a chance on the Dems in November. But this reality is of course our fault, never the fault of the pols who let it happen in their never ending pursuit of the mythical center.

Parent

IOW (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:16:25 PM EST

he'll chase the window hoping to win, but he'll never help to move the window, and he follows followers.

Parent

: If tomorrow (2.00 / 1) (#49)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:20:14 PM EST

the Democrats announce they are going to defund, and it turns out that all of a sudden they have enormous support, he'll be the first one here reminding everyone how he has always supported immediate defunding, and what took everyone else so long to get it?

Parent

What A Bunch (none / 0) (#53)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:38:38 PM EST

of babies. Does anyone know how long it took to end Vietnam? Thank God not many if any of you were around back then. The war never would have ended because you all would have thrown in the towel before the first year of protests were up.

Such it is with the Gotta Have It Now Generation. 5 months has passed and the war isn't ended even though a good bill was sent up and vetoed. Of course that is the Dems fault, not Bush's. And then two other bills were voted on and not passed because of the Repubs and a few Dem holdouts. But of course that was the fault of ALL the Dem's.

And then of course they have votes coming up in July and September but that will amount to nothing more than more skepticism because after all this is the gotta Have it Now generation and...

What have you done for me lately?

Parent

: That's the atitude to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:43:13 PM EST

coax them back.
Good work Talex. You show the way for Dems to win back that 10%.
Sheesh.

Parent
: WATB (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:51:54 PM EST

YOU'RE the one who has thrown in the towel on this. You've said repeatedly that the war will only end if the Republican Party decides to end it, and that there's nothing Dems can do about it. Waiting around for the GOP to end the war doesn't make you an anti-war hero, talex.
We all recognize that Bush is 99% responsible for the Iraq fiasco. We want Dems to do everything in their power to stop him. When they don't do that, they have failed. They do not get to keep blaming the disaster on Bush. That is the reality reflected by the 10% drop in the poll numbers.
Ultimately, I see you as someone who cares less about whether the war ends and more about whether a Dem takes the whitehouse in 2008. You're entitled to feel that way. But other people don't share your views. They want Dems in power in order to achieve specific results, not just for the sake of having them in power.

Parent
: Gotta have it now Generation? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Dadler on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:03:59 PM EST

Are you serious? This isn't about wanting money without working for it or status unearned or gadgets or the material jones, it's about a WAR murdering innocent people by the score every day. To associate our outrage and dissent and attempt to make the party do the right thing as some kind of tantrum over toys, what kind of intellectual honesty is that? Are you willing to accept the length of time it took to end Vietnam to end this war? Are you really? Wouldn't you like us to do BETTER than we did in the 60's and 70's? With all the tools at our disposal, it should certainly be possible, don't you think? Congress has the power of the purse, defunding remains the only viable and immediate option. That is fact.
So excuse me for being offended by my party's complete lack of passion, courage and imagination regarding how to end a 24/7 mass murder of a foreign land. And for being offended by your message and tone. You see, I have a brother in this fight, he's already served two tours, is looking at a third, and I have no time for people who would have me toe a company line that is a tightrope around my brother's neck.
The Democratic Party, in my free American opinion, needs to do better, faster, more creatively REGARDING THIS WAR. If you have a problem with faster, sorry, I don't. Not at all.

Parent
: What a crock (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:58:25 AM EST

No one here has 'thrown in the towel', or even come close to that. Are you so blind you are unable to recognize steady and unrelenting pressure? Too blind to even know what is going on all around you? In front of your eyes?
Time to quit admiring yourself in the mirror, talex. What have you done for anyone but you lately?

Parent

Don't Be Foolish (none / 0) (#61)
by talex on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:52:38 PM EST

As I have said before I am all for defunding but realize the public is not yet behind that idea. I have said that here and at dkos many times.

So given that the public will not support that I am smart enough to realize there are other avenues to end this thing. I just posted at dkos that people should donate to Moveon and the other organizations they are working with to try to turn enough repubs in our direction. And of course as they do that through ads they are also making the public more aware that it is the Repubs who are holding up getting us out of Iraq. And the ads also educate the public and keep them motivated and focused on their desire to get us out of Iraq. It also allows the public to see that Liberal groups in conjunction with Veterans groups are augmenting and working toward the same goal as the Democratic Party is. And what more does that mean?

It means an educated public is more likely to support defunding in the future. But do you think any of the wingnuts at dkos understand that and said yeah I'll donate. Does anyone here realize that supporting one tactic in ending this war can also support defunding? I doubt it.

Parent

Again (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:06:04 PM EST

you are all about appeasing this mythical center which you call the 'public'. You've made it clear you don't think the Dem base is part of the public. It's always people outside the party that you think the party should be trying to represent.

Well, here's how I think it should work, and what I think BTD has been saying all along:

Dems need to get out in front of the polls and start leading on this issue. Leadership does not involve looking at the polls and concluding that the public doesn't support you quite enough, so you give in to Bush. Polls are an indicator of how people feel, but they aren't election results, and they cover everyone, including the great mass of low information citizens. The only poll that matters is the one taken on election day. You can't govern based on whether 51% agree with you in some poll or only 48%. Public opinion isn't written in stone. It can change and, most importantly, be changed.

The Republican party has spent decades working to change public opinion so that ideas that were considered crazy 30 years ago are mainstream today. But the Dems just follow the polls, with the result that the GOP drags the public and the Democratic party to the right along with it.

It's time for Dems to drag the country back in the opposite direction. That's called leadership. Dems need to get before the media and sell the public on the Reid-Feingold framework to end the war. People answer polls based on the little knowledge they have of a situation AND based on the wording of the question. Opinion can be changed by informing the public of the possibilities and by LEADING on the issue. Safe, poll-tested politics from the Democratic Party has been a disaster for the US. That's how a guy like Bush managed to become president in the first place.

Parent

: Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#84)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:29:06 AM EST

you are all about appeasing this mythical center which you call the 'public'. You've made it clear you don't think the Dem base is part of the public.
Wrong and ridiculous. How people embellish things so they can vent their anger is amazing.
I am all about ending the war in a 'realistic' and responsible way and supporting the party in doing so.
If you think you or Armando, who you quote, are smarter that Pelosi and Reid then I suggest you run for office.

Parent
: Well put, WT. (none / 0) (#77)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:13:32 AM EST

They need to lead, not follow.

Parent

That's right!!! (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:54:06 PM EST

Hold your nose, abandon all pretext of principle, and sell your soul.

Principle is only prgamatic pretext after all, right talex?

Just for show, of course. Means nothing when it comes to to the crunch.

Parent

You mean nothing changes? (none / 0) (#80)
by dkmich on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:52:36 AM EST

Yeah, we get that even when we vote for Democrats. NOthing changes.

Parent

If they never have to pay any price for (none / 0) (#79)
by dkmich on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:50:26 AM EST

ignoring/opposing their base, then why should they ever do anything to support it. Do you think the Republicans listened to the Evangelicals because they believed in them? Hell no. They wanted their votes, and their money; and they had to earn them. We, on the other hand, just keep supporting Dems because it is better than a sharp stick in the eye. Something needs to change, immediately. Not 8-12 years from now IF we are lucky. By then, everywhere will be Escape from New York.

Parent

I don't wanna wait til 2008 n/t (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by dutchfox on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:45:49 PM EST

New Boss same as the Old Boss (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by El Pinche Tejano on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:04:52 PM EST

Seriously, Orwell had it right:

"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."

And as soon as they held the chalice, the very fount of power, the essence of the very masses for the masses by the masses that put them their, their hearts failed in favor of their pocketbooks and self-anointed glory.

Everyone, Blue or Red up on Capital Hill, is bought and paid for with the checks stamped The System Ad Infinitum, Inc.

When I am at dkos and mydd, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by dkmich on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:15:02 AM EST

I sometimes feel as if I'm at a sales seminar (Covey) being "motivated" so I can ____(fill in the blank). In other words, I feel like I am being manipulated and used. I I don't think it was that way during the Dean days. If it was, I missed it. My sense of Kos is that dkos is a business. My sense of MyDD is that it wanders about lost inside. Inside of what, I don't know. I seldom read Digby. Bottom line, I'm not so sure that we are infiltrating anything, let alone supporting or causing change. I followed you here because I missed your presence at dkos. IMO, your absence has left quite a hole.

mcjoan at the big orange is not waivering (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:04:49 PM EST

on defunding by March 31, 2008. Unfortunately, she is but one front pager there.

I think Blades is on board too. n/t (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:13:25 PM EST

Parent

: Good. Such a huge number of readers. (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 07:15:00 PM EST

Parent

Big Tent (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:07:31 PM EST

You said yesterday:

I think the Netroots is being either stupid or disingenuous.... Pols are pols. They do what they do.... It is Move On/MYDD/DKos et al who are the ones that are failing here imo.

Are the Democrats just not being pushed hard enough by the netroots, in your opinion? If so, do you think the netroots can be enough? i.e. do they have enough power?

I think this is what he's been saying (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:14:57 PM EST

since at least February.

Parent

Enoguh power? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:25:17 PM EST

No, but shouldn't they exercise the power they have?

The Netroots has been coopted.

BAsically they suck.

Parent

Yes, of course they should. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:30:22 PM EST

I am in complete agreement with you on that, no question. The Debacle has to be ended. Paying for it is immoral and will only extend it. I was just looking for clarification on that one point.

And maybe if they actually used the power they do have, it might result in the netroots having enough power.

Parent

I just realized (none / 0) (#36)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:57:24 PM EST

that I have no idea what you mean when you say "the netroots".

Do you mean "the netroots" in its original sense -- activist voters who organize online to bring about change? Or when you say "the netroots" do you mean a specific group of bloggers that gets the most attention from the MSM? Or do you just mean people who blog and/or get e-mails from moveon type organizations whether they are activist or not? Or (and I doubt this) do you mean "the netroots" as it seems to be often used by Bowers and Jerome and Markos - to mean fundraisers (as in "netroots candidates" - the candidates "we've" decided are worth of getting your money)?

Or do you mean something else?

I realized that sometimes I think you mean a specific group of bloggers, but other times you seem to be referring to the entire traditional netroots. What is it? Do you include yourself?

Parent

I'll name names (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:03:23 PM EST

Move On, Daily Kos, MYDD, Eschaton, Firedoglake, digby, Americablog, Townhouse Group, etc.

To varying degrees, they have all been coopted.

Parent

But you must admit this is natural order of things (none / 0) (#50)
by El Pinche Tejano on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:24:15 PM EST

Any haphazard study of history shows that groups who pose a threat to the status quo are given cake, I mean a voice so they feel validated in their quest for a seat at the control board dictating the meme of society. It is their very desire to build yet another less ivory tower, standing in the shadow of the house of lords of old, which is my main beef. It is those who take seats of power among the netroots I grow weary of, for they have missed the point entirely. The whole point of the internet was to decentralize power and place it into the hands of the common citizen.

As the great Situationist Raoul Vaneigem said:
"People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth"

Parent

When your influence is derived from NOT (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:36:28 PM EST

being coopted it seems NOT the natural order of things to me.

the funny thing is I am truly a hardcore partisan Democrat as any Republican who posts at this site will tell you.

You see the chance of my not voting for the Dem in 2008 is virtually zero no matter what. But that does not mean I do not recognize that say, 10% of Lefties in the United States do not think like me.

I support the proposals I espouse not only because I think they are the right thng to do but because I thnk them the political smart thing to do.

This fight is not only specifc to Iraq, it is specific to the problems of the Dem Party and its spineless ways generally. It was a hard fight to get them to run against the Iraq War in 2006.

Disaster was predicted byt the Talexes of the world. The Netroots was central to that fight.

I wrote many posts at the beginning of the ytear warning about the very cooptation they have allowed to occur. Their power diminishes steadily precisely because they do not fight for what is right OR what is good for the Dem Party.

Digby in particular has been a severe disappointment of late.

Parent

Well, Bush vetoed stem cell research (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by El Pinche Tejano on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:05:49 PM EST

so the Democrats couldn't grow backbones.

I have found the party gutless since the Big Dog left and Daschle filled the party power void.

I use to scream so loud at the tv overseas, I am surprised y'all didn't here me here back home.

But now I am back home, I find the mechanics of the party to be that of paper tigers who dance to tune fiddled out by Rove, never realizing what is that makes them groove.

Parent

I wish you'd make a post out of this (none / 0) (#55)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:41:21 PM EST

It's difficult for me to agree with you much more.

Parent

heh (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:44:33 PM EST

I've written that post a number of times.

Nobody listens to me.

I have a huge flaw - I have no politeness in me. No one likes to be called stupid and I call people stupid.

Parent

Nobody listens to you? (none / 0) (#58)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:48:52 PM EST

No, I think too many people secretly agree with Talex, which is why they're so quick to accept "compromises" like the vetoed supplemental.

I share your flaw. I find many people to be insufferably stupid.

Parent

i disagree (none / 0) (#72)
by conchita on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:30:00 AM EST

people do listen to you. between my extreme disappointment with the dems and having been inordinately busy the last week or so and have not been able to read regularly, nevermind comment. however, each time i am able to read i see more and more commenters - some with monikers i recognize from dkos, others not. i read other posts at tl and it is clear that some people come here specifically to read you. even talex continues to read you. this confounds me, but the reality is, people do pay attention to you.

also, while you haven't called me stupid, you have disagreed strongly and unfazed, i return. because you are right and you can write.

Parent

: Some come to Talk Left, but perhaps (none / 0) (#74)
by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:50:43 AM EST

not to "read."

Parent

That didn't really help (none / 0) (#51)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:31:10 PM EST

Because you've said this a number of times and I blythly assumed I knew what you meant. Until I actually thought about it. And realized that I didn't.

What I think of as netroots doesn't seem to be what you are talking about. I think of it in the same way I think of grassroots - as a mass of people to be motivated that populate those blogs and internet lists you named (and others).

I don't think that's how you think of it. I think you are thinking of the netroots as a more ... elite society. But I'm not sure and so I'm asking if that' true? And how elite? The owners only? The people with rights to blog FOR those entities - and if so, all of them? Do you include the most recommended diarists? Naming the names of entities didn't help me.

You don't have to name actual people if that's what you're thinking of. Just give me categories. Broad or narrow.

Parent

Everyone needs to be pointed in the right directio (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:41:21 PM EST

Organic and spontaneous direction on WHAT TO DO on Iraq is not possible.

IS it elite of me to think that I have thought this through and settled on the only viable approach? That people should listen to me?

Well call me an elitist then. Because that is what I think.

I harshly criticized Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers in pafrticular because they choose to arrogantly wear the Netroots Leader mantle while at the same time, being so effing horrible on Iraq this year.

I hold a special contempt for what they have done this year. Bowers especially who wasted so much time with stupid poll analysis that was not worth dick.

Frankly, the stupidity coupled with arrogance from the Netroots leaders on Iraq is only matched by their stubborn refusal to admit how wrong they were.

I can honestly say that I have contgempt for them right now.

But Tom mattzie is the top of the list for my contempt. A stupid man who is also dishonest. I loathe him.

Parent

All right (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:58:54 PM EST

so when you say the "netroots suck" you mean the netroots' self-anointed so called leaders.

I'm good with that.

I just don't think the entire netroots suck. Even when I occasionally agree with your criticisms of the dKos community of commenters.

And I refuse to let the self-anointed so-called leaders also become the self-appointed symbols of the entire netroots by allowing the word netroots to mean only them.

(Oh. And I didn't call you elite or elitist. Go back and read how I used the term. Of course you are free to label yourself however you choose.)

Parent

Netroots (none / 0) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:08:05 PM EST

Frankly, I use the term as a term of derision of the self appointed "leaders."

I will pat myself on the back for one thing about when I had the bullhorn - I would shout what I thought and if people thought it made sense, then they would think about it and maybe even agree with it. I never thought I could tell folks what mattered and how to achieve what they thought mattered.

To me, the use of the megaphone was to convince if I could, not assume by virtue of the bullhorn that my ideas were the right one. To wit, my arrogance was personal, not based on my bullhorn.

Parent

I wish the Dems would use a meagaphone (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Dadler on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:33:29 PM EST

And just say to the Iraqis "We are sorry, but we are a democracy, and our people will no longer accept this war. Therefore we must leave, and therefore you must rise up and do what others have always kept you from doing -- controlling your own destiny. Show the world how truly beautiful this freedom can be. We accept blame and express sorrow, and we offer reparations."

Simple, humble truth. Goes a very long way. But when was the last time you heard anything like it? Because bullies and unimaginatives run the show.

Parent

That's like (none / 0) (#68)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:27:12 PM EST

deriding all "Democrats" when you mean specific Democrats. You pull Feingold into the derision when you mean to be deriding Obama. Language matters. It changes perception and sometimes reality.

No new bullhorns or megaphones are being handed out. Only writers get bullhorns and megaphones. Editors are given red pencils. See how language and reality meet?

Parent

"Netroots" then (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:28:55 PM EST

How's that?

Parent

: whatever (none / 0) (#70)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:32:30 PM EST

You'll do what you want to do. I'm not trying to stop you. Just give you another point of view on the same problem.

Parent

I think he said it above inmy quote of him, Mary (none / 0) (#41)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:05:40 PM EST

It is Move On/MYDD/DKos et al who are the ones that are failing here imo.

Parent

: I should have waited...sorry (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:34 PM EST

Parent

That there is enough power? (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 08:20:05 PM EST

Or that it's not being used? Or both?

I agree it's not being used. But is there enough power there?

Political Consequences For Dems On Iraq | 85 comments (85 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment