A Win-Win

Update (TL): Crooks and Liars has the video.


I just finished watching the Meet the Press debate between Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas and DLC Chairman Harold Ford, Jr. and they both acquitted themselves admirably.

The theme of the program was much more unites the DLC and the Netroots than separates them. I think that is true. So what are the differences? Kos laid them out eloquently - it is a question of not being afraid to tout Democratic values. Kos argues for contrast with Republicans. The DLC has in the past argued for blurring distinctions. Today, Ford appeared to be abandoning his objection to contrast with Republicans.

But, while both performed well, I thought Kos was outstanding. Obviously I think he has the better case to make. I was especially impressed by his explanation that he understands that not all Democrats in the country can, or even should, adopt liberal orthodoxy on all issues. I have known this about him of course (like him, I have railed against single issue groups that support GOP incumbents over better Democrats on their issues, see NARAL and Linc Chafee), but his explanation on MTP was an excellent one. It is a much misunderstood insight. I have written about it in the past:

Let's recall T&H's 5 postulates:
(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: "What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?"

(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.

(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right's social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one's position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]

(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.

As general themes and principles, these postulates can be applied in every region of the nation. But they will not lead to uniform specific issue positions for Democrats everywhere. The political gravity or, "political space time curvature" in Nebraska or Mississippi is different from that in say, Rhode Island. But the progressive or Democratic position in each of these locations can clearly be discerned and is the position for Democrats to follow in each of them.

So how do we determine what the political gravity is in the locales and how do we determine the "progressive position?" How do we determine how far progressives can push? What is the velocity of progressivism and where does it stand across the Nation?


. . . [T]he Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle named after Werner Heisenberg who first formulated it in 1927. The name was chosen for the simple reason that the more an observers knows about the location of a particle, the more uncertain they can be of the velocity and vice-versa.

. . . The Uncertainty Principle was at first disheartening to physicists. It knocked the idea of an elegant Newtonian Universe unfolding with clockwork precision for a loop. Upon first hearing of Uncertainty, physicists figured if they could never know for sure the position and speed of a particle, they could never predict what it will do or how it will react with other particles. In fact, if a particle has no location in time or the location is highly uncertain, cause and effect themselves can become meaningless.

Einstein himself criticized Uncertainty saying "God does not play dice with the universe!"

Well, politics is, I posit, not something God is averse to playing dice with. And I think we have to live with that uncertainty. However, we can, like Bill James, make observations and analysis based on the information at hand.

It is important that Democrats, Single Issue Groups, citizens, all make these judgments. And argue their points of view. How far can we push Dems in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Mississippi, etc? We have a wonderful POSITIVE mechanism for making these determinations - primaries.

Time, Effect and the Now

Single Issue Groups have a special problem - a belief in a static political universe. T&H and Moulitsas and Armstrong have laid the case out beautifully. The Single Issue Groups' event horizons are today and, at most tomorrow. They do not weigh the long or even medium term effects of their actions. Many have defended NARAL, Sierra Club and others for their endorsement of Chafee based on one or two actions by Chafee yesterday or today and have not considered what keeping Chafee means for tomorrow. They must broaden their view or become irrelevant.

I think Kos' discussion this morning reflected an understanding of these realities. It was a boffo performance.

< New Details on How the FISA Bill Got Passed | Stressed and Fatigued Troops in Iraq: The Draft is Not the Answer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Style (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    if you watch the reply, I was impressed that markos didn't have any notes on the table.

    Harold had notes, and that's okay, but he was chained to them.  his deliveries were so canned, not only did he drone on and on when ticking off clinton's laundry list of accomplishments (4 or 5 would have done, not 14), but he came of as inauthentic.  Harold, you gotta emote.  you need one of those republican media coaches.

    And Harold, ya not gonna beat karl rove by being bush-lite.  I met karl at the playboy mansion!!!  Karl, call me (wink*)

    Clinton is getting to be like Reagan... (none / 0) (#62)
    by dkmich on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:48:22 AM EST
    It is almost 20 years since Clinton was elected and going on 10 since he has been out of office.  If someone has to reach that far back to point out their "accomplishments", they need to look for a new job.

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    BTW Einstein was right, contrary to the received 'DLC' interpretation of physics right now. This 'DLCism' is why there have been no earthshaking advances in theoretical physics in several decades.

    I just watched it on the MSNBC site (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    Markos did a great job.  He especially did a good job ignoring David Gregory's questions and addressing the points that needed to be made.  

    On the whole it made a positive statement that we can all work together and it made the party look good. Something for all the D's out in TV land to feel good about.

    My favorite moment was when he said that if the issue was only George Bush then Ford would be Senator right now.  

    Ford's attack was unconscionable (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by magster on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:29:56 PM EST
    borne of desperation.

    It was probably personal,too, as I recall Kos stating last year that he really did not care too much if Ford won after Ford did or said something obnoxious.


    Just watched myself (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    To be honest, I was worried, but I think Markos carried the discussion. He was especially effectivewhen he pointed out that the DLC was a lone holdout at YK 07. Congratulations to him.  

    I did notice him saying, for the first time that I can remember, that he doesn't think it's possible to end the war with George Bush as President. So, jeers to that!  

    I noticed that too (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    It fits with LithiumCola's diary today on Exit Creep.   The little people that the Very Important NetRoots Leaders rely on to keep them thinking they are Very Important want to fight exit creep -- but it will be difficult when the Most Important of the Very Important NetRoots Leaders appears to buy into it.  

    I haven't actually gone back to that diary to see if anyone called Markos on it.


    Not the first time (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    I blogged about him saying this in March.

    I vaguely remember (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    you speculating that he might think so.

    No (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    I discussed his actually saying so.

    and the Netroots.

    Any one of your 100,000,000,000 diaries (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    on the subject. I'll take your word for it.

    Did I miss a few? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    I thought it was 100,000,000,007, no?

    Here it is (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:40:19 PM EST
    Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

    Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.
    But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

    The other interesting thing is Markos, to his credit, does not indulge in this "first step" nonsense. He knows better than that. Instead he talk about the 2008 elections:

    The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq. That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.
    See what Kos is saying, the war does not end until 2009. He thinks that is something to celebrate. Obviously I do not.

    But just as importantly, Kos assumes that the politics will play favorably for a craven Dem Congress that did next to nothing to end the war.

    Where will the GOP nominee be then on Iraq? This is a bad business policywise and politically. I think Kos is too clever by half on this

    I strongly dissent from his analysis.



    Also see this (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    The new Netroots CW on the Iraq supplemental funding bill has been set by Markos and I will give it this, it is a much more honest and realistic position than the previous argument that this bill actually was worth a darn. No more "first concrete step" nonsense. Now the point is the House Dems' proposal will never become law. I guess I should be happy, there seems to be a new consensus for my no funding proposal. But I am not. Because I disagree with the analysis. I will explain why on the flip.

    Chris Bowers articulates his version:

    The more I think about it, at least in the short term, both camps in the progressive side of this debate will actually get what they want. This bill will pass the House, but it will also never pass into law. Many anti-war activists don't want any more spending bills for Iraq to pass into law, and they want to start by defeating this one. When Republicans defeat this bill via Senate filibuster, or when Bush vetoes the bill, anti-war activists holding that position will get their wish, as this bill will be defeated. It will not be defeated in the way they want it to be defeated, but it will be defeated nonetheless. At the same time, those of us now favoring the bill will get what we wanted: headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans. Pelosi will look like a strong leader, and the Democratic caucus will look unified. In the short term, not only have Democrats won the politics of this fight, but there still won't be any more money to continue the Iraq war. We all won.
    Actually, in the short term, I have always accepted this point, IF it played out that way. But it won't. What Chris does not realize is that the GOP and Bush are playing politics too. Indeed, on Iraq, Bush has so outmaneuvered Dems since the 2006 election that it is not even funny.

    After the November elections, after the Iraq Study Group report, the idea of there NOT being some withdrawal plan was not even one that was seriously considered. Even Bush, everyone thought, including the GOP, would have to face political reality.

    We all learned something different. Bush did not provide a withdrawal plan. Bush proposed an Escalation Plan!

    Suddenly, we were not debating how fast to withdrawal. The debate became whether there should be an escalation. And after much fumbling and bumbling, the Senate and House made noises that meant nothing politically and policywise on the Surge.

    The other big issue being discussed was whether Bush can go to war with Iran. This was another frustrating debate for me because it acepted a false premise - that Bush can unilaterally declare a war. A provision against that view was originally part of the Iraq Supplemental but was stripped out at the behest of the Blue Dogs. Substantively, I do not care. That provision was unnecessary. But the fact that it was proposed was a bad move, and yes it was progressive Jim McDermott who did that. The fact it was taken out is worse. Talking about emboldening Bush.

    And so it goes with all of the Iraq initiatives. And it will be so with the Iraq supplemental. House Dems and the Netroots seem not to understand how this process has played out and will play out.

    The very same pressures that forced the capitulation to the Blue Dogs will force further capitulations along the way starting with the Senate, IF a bill is to be approved. If the goal is to have Bush veto a bill then it was critical to start with as strong a bill as possible so that when the inevitable compromises were made along the way at least at the end Bush would need to veto. The bill, if it emerges, that Bush will see will be utterly toothless. To wit, he will not veto it and the Dems will have funded the Debacle.

    Chris writes:

    I indicated yesterday that the next fight would probably be engaged over the Department of Defense appropriations bill in late April/early May. However, when this bill--the one we have so agonized over--is defeated either via filibuster or via veto, the fight over the Iraq supplemental will continue. And we will need to work together on that fight. If there is any attempt to cave to Republicans, and pass a bill with no restrictions whatsoever, people on both sides of the current debate will need to join together to help defeat that bill. You better believe I will help whip votes to defeat a straight-up funding of the war. Further, if Democrats decide to scrap this bill, and start over with new legislation, we will all need to work together to make the language stronger, rather than weaker. Yet further, even apart from this bill, we will need to make sure that provisions which were stripped out of it, such as language requiring congressional approval for any military action on Iran, are not only given a vote on the House floor, but passed by the House. In short, no matter what happens, once this bill is passed we will need to continue working together to help bring an end to this war.
    That's all very nice Chris, but the "218, best we can get mantra" is now the baseline. Does anyone think you can retrace those steps? Pelosi went down that road. The Netroots went down that road. The Out of Iraq Caucus went down that road. The funding with next to no restrictions is a fait accompli now.

    All that is left is messaging. The reality is Chris that the strategy you endorsed really leaves you only to try what Markos is talking about:

    The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq. That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.
    I do not believe that message can be sent effectively given what will transpire now. But at least there is a level of realism, political savvy and pragmatism in this approach. It won't work but at least we are back on Planet Earth.

    The idea that the progressives and the Netroots can now, turn on a dime and stop a weaker bill in the future is pretty much a pipe dream. Better to just concentrate on trying to execute the strategy Markos outlines. That accepts that the war will not end until after the 2008 election. And that is the consequence of the House Iraq supplemental. That's why I so vehemently opposed it.



    You win! (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    I do remember that post.

    I remember that now (none / 0) (#49)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    But by saying it on MTP today, he's contributed to the Common Wisdom in a much more substantial way than writing it on his blog.

    I doubt many were paying that close (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    an attention.

    Just us Out of Iraq freaks.


    Well, he isn't David Broder (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    so no one will pay attention to what he said anyway. :D

    See Sunday NYT front page article: (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    "Democratic field says leaving Iraq may take years; few see pullout in '08."

    Looks like Richardson is The Man now.  


    Trying: (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    It's diary making stuff (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    then (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    this this should please you.

    David Brooks lite (none / 0) (#3)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    I was just reminded of the infamous column by david brooks in early 2004, when he accused both wes clark and howard dean of being anti-Semitic and "neo-con" was "code" for "Jew."


    IMO, some DLC types think the opposition to Lieberman 2006 was motivated in some part to his ethnicity.

    of course, the netroots loved judy dean, clark, and Bernie Sanders, etc.

    Substance (none / 0) (#4)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    as for acquitting himself, Harold didn't respond at all to why he appeared on Fixed News and attacked Reid.

    I deleted another of your comments (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    for the name-calling.  Also, please put your links in html format (thanks and sorry to have to remind you of the site rules.)

    you're right (none / 0) (#9)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    I don't know why, I didn't think that was a vulgarity.

    thanks for the reminder.


    Here are (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    some ways to make links like this one.

    Is there a difference between (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    creating a link here and doing so on DK?  I've got the latter down but get nothing here.

    The easiest way to make a link here (and at dk) (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    is to put square brackets around the text you want to link plus the URL. Just make sure you leave a space between the text and the URL and none before the end bracket.

    I use the old (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    <a href= thingy.  I'm no computer geek and once I learn how to do something like that I'm likely to do it till it don't do anymore.  It works for me at DK and here.

    My successful method at DK is (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    (1) open the thing I want to link to;
    (2) copy the http: stuff at the top;
    (3) past the http: stuff into the "link" box; and
    (4) [not required] add a short title.

    When I do that here, there is no link.


    because the link button here (none / 0) (#48)
    by TexDem on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    will not let you paste to it. You have to type your link and hope it's a short one.

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    I paste urls's into it every day.

    my method (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sumner on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    I copy the link (it is then in the clipboard)

    I place my cusor where I want the linked text to begin.

    I select the link button and paste from the clipboard into the link textbox. I click "OK".

    I hold down the shift key and tap the left arrow 4 times.

    I do a "ctrl X", which cuts the selected closing tag to the clipboard.

    I determine the end of the text I wish to be shown for the link.

    I place the curser there.

    I insert the closing tag there from the clipboard and done.


    Try this - it's less work. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    To make "these words" a link to Talkleft... go to Talkleft in another window (or tab in Firefox) and highlight the url in the address bar, then press ctrl-c to copy it.

    Highlight "these words", click the link button, press ctrl-v to paste the url you copied into the link textbox.

    Press OK. You're done.

    "these words" will now look like this: "these words"


    Not really (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    it's very similar.

    To make a link to TalkLeft you want to put this in the comment box.

    (either type it manually or use the link button above the comment box)


    I need a ruling (none / 0) (#12)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    your honor, I need a ruling for future reference.

    calling someone "weak" or a "wimp" or a "joke" or a "loser" etc. would that fall into the name-calling category??

    while not profane or vulgar, that is "name calling" ?


    She usually just means (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    name calling of other commenters, RedHead.

    In this case it was (none / 0) (#14)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    harold ford.

    I said a four letter word, defined as "a film or layer of foul or extraneous matter that forms on the surface of a liquid."


    Ahhhh.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    Ok - now I understand. ;-)

    I think it's the four letter profanity form (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    of name calling.

    Markos' WaPo OpEd (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    Markos and Susan G. also had this oped in yesterday's WaPo.

    Shorter version: The DLC had 20 years and failed to get leaders elected or implement what Dems wanted. We are now the center.

    North vs South vs West (none / 0) (#8)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    there has been discussion in recent years on geographics.

    Harold like to brag that former DLC chairman Bill Clinton won the presidency twice, yet he doesn't address why, at the same time, the south went republican during that time period, even with Al Gore and DLC Lieberman heading the ticket.  

    Yet, the west, for the longest time a republican stronghold, broke free, with AZ, CO, MT, NM, NV going for Clinton and embracing proud Democrats like Brian Schweitzer and Tester.

    When Harold Ford Smears (none / 0) (#10)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    not exact quote, can't remember it now.

    Harold said, "Markos, your site has said terrible things about Jewish americans."

    What a SMEAR.

    I remember when some people who weren't thinking clearly, to say the least, said Mossad had a role in the London bombings, and Markos had them immediately banned.

    That was outrageous from Ford (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    Really unforgivable. Markos should have come back with something much stronger about how dkos is The People talking to the politicians and telling them what they want in their representation vs the DLC is a top-down group telling people to shut up and let their betters control the ideas.

    He tried to say something like this but it wasn't as clear and sharp a distinction as it needs to be for TV viewers who only know about blogs from the distorted picture they get from the old media. He needs a nice crisp sound-bite that sums up the grassroots/bottom up/people vs consultants/top down/insiders dynamic. He also touched on it with the different messages in different parts of the country point.

    He hasn't quite got a way to express it impressively yet, and I think it's a very important point to make when you've got 15 minutes on teevee - that this is the essence of the remaking of the Dem brand - the people are speaking, by the people for the people - not left, right, center. Those labels are so confused they're meaningless now.


    To be clearer (none / 0) (#25)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    Markos should have used Ford's smear as an opening to point out "the netroots" are not his to direct but are the authentic voice of a broad range of Americans. He doesn't control what's said among the millions of comments on the site. It's bottom-up versus top-down, authentic versus inauthentic voice of the people.

    Of course he understands all of what I mention above and he did sort of touch on it. He may understand it so well he doesn't see the need to explain it, but he really does need to. He needs a snappy sound-bite to get it all across vividly next time on TV if the occasion presents, because it's an important distinction that clarifies the reality and would make it harder to smear dkos and other communities like it in future.


    The I/P diaries and comments (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    on DK don't strike me as aiming to influence politicisn.  Definitely a war of extremely emotional words.

    Still (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    they're the authentic voice of the grassroots versus the inauthentic and polling-massaged message the consultants want to stick to. Horrific as those diaries are, they tell you there are strong opposing views on the topic, unlike the message that's approved from above, and that the Party would prefer to only hear one side of expressed because they're afraid of some very powerful lobbies.

    But how can anyone with limited (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    amounts of time and patience with shouting figure out what the diarists and commenters want the reader to hear.  Too frustrating, but then my roots are Midwestern Lutheran.  

    I stopped (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    participating in them or even reading them when I realized that people on each side were working from different sets of facts and refuse to even admit one another's facts. I'd have to try to sort the facts out for myself before jumping into that morass, and I don't really have either the time or interest to do that.

    The important point to me is that the voice of one side is being suppressed, both in its Party representation and at dkos for domestic political convenience and political cowardice reasons, with little concern for what's just or what will actually improve the situation. I suppose you can guess which side I lean to there, facts or no.


    yah, i stopped going there (none / 0) (#54)
    by skippybkroo on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:22:49 PM EST
    when he dumped my blog off his roll after 5 years of nothing but passionate support for his site and his mission statement.

    I was referring just to I/P diaries (none / 0) (#55)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    but it's true I find myself going to dk less and less. There's so many other great sites. The Great Purge of the Blogroll was just one of a series of bad moves since Nov 06 on Markos' part, imo. It was the Blogswarm incident - rules for the ins vs rules for the outs - that really finished it for me.

    I often have a very drama (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    provoking opinion of I/P matters right now.  Truth is that since the USA is doing nothing to promote any sort of peace between I/P we often find ourselves in a big swingfest as to who is right and who is wrong.  It's a like a bad marriage and no decent divorce lawyer around for miles.  I tried getting into one of those conversations once but I can only hold so many generations accountable and evil and wrong before I have to excuse myself.  I can't talk to the ancestors, I can't change what they did any time back in this universe, I can only move forward from where I am today.

    abels are so confused they're meaningless now. (none / 0) (#52)
    by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:46:10 PM EST

    another thing that stood out is how Harold said last year's crop was closer to the DLC because they were "pro-gun."

    harold has been in washington, too, too, long.  that was a theme being pushed by the Broders, which was cooked up by think tanks, that somehow losing 31 seats in congress and 7 state legislatures was a victory for the conservatives.  and why did they say that, because one democrat was against choice (casey) and the rest were pro gun(tester, Sherrod brown, etc.).

    how silly.

    Dean had a perfect 100 rating from the NRA, winning their endorsement 5 times. he was even against the assult weapons ban.  Yet Harold would call Dean a DLC, despite Dean's fiscal record and gun positions, simply because of his opposition to invading Iraq.  nevermind that Dean went against his party and supported the first gulf war in 1991.  

    Labels are meaningless, Bush has proven that.


    Ford didn't look good, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Aaron on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    Though I only saw part of the show, I wasn't impressed with Ford's responses.  I'll watch it again tonight.

    His political career as a Southern Democrat has been one of unending compromise, always caught in the middle between Black and White, wealthy and poor, conservative and progressive. I certainly don't envy him his right-leaning moderate position in our party, he was never accepted among the conservative Republicans, and he's been all but shunned by most Democrats, even the other moderate members of the House.

    I'm not surprised that he needs notes to keep track of exactly how to position himself on certain issues, but you would think that since he's no longer holding elected office, he would be able to speak more freely.  I suppose his chairmanship of the DLC compromises him in entirely new ways. I feel kind of sorry for the guy because I think his views on how moderate Democrats are taken for granted is well-founded, and should be heeded, especially by those who envision the Democratic Party as a Big Tent.

    Ford is warning us that the Democrats will meet the same fate as the Republicans, if we allow those who are furthest to the left to set the Democrats agenda and forget that the majority of the American people won't support extremes in either direction, hence the Democrats will wind up losing seats in the House and Senate in the not-too-distant future, and this ugly cycle of large shifts in the makeup of Congress will repeat itself.  This kind of thing is not healthy for America, and there is no doubt that the Democrats bear a large measure of responsibility for what's happened during these years of Republican control, and Democrats like Ford, when he was in the House, were certainly part of the problem. But it can be argued that he was playing his proper role as a conservative Democrat, and he tried to capitalize on the changing political landscape with his Senate run.

    When Ford ran for the Senate, he did not get the support from the Democratic Party that he should've gotten, which saw him as something of a traitor.  But they knew the position he was in coming from conservative Tennessee where no liberal Democrat could ever have a chance of winning a Senate seat, so they should have cut him some slack and been more helpful.  Regardless of the lack of support from the party Ford almost won that Senate seat. To my mind his plight is indicative of the kind of exclusionary policies practiced by the DNC and the party in general.

    If the Democratic Party really wants to be a Big Tent, that is all-inclusive, a party that wants to gain control of Congress and hold it not just for one or two terms, or one or two presidents, but consistently over a period of decades, then they better start making room for some conservative Democrat voices, otherwise the Republicans and the Democrats are going to keep chasing each other's tails, while the people and the needs of our nation continue to be neglected.

    It's time for the Democratic Party to grow up, and stop playing down to the level of the Republicans, otherwise we are no better than they are, and the people will continue to lose faith in a political system which is so divisive that it has become ineffectual in its capacity to govern.

    It isn't like we don't have such voices right now (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    I did everything I could to get that Salazar guy voted in......and now wish that I wouldn't have but that is a different personal type story.

    MT, you'll love the bumper sticker s (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:43:47 PM EST
    I saw on a car today in La Jolla:  Mitt Romney, '08 and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

    "Pick one" n/t (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:17:46 PM EST
    I think what they are trying to say (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:06:38 AM EST
    is that when Mitt gets into the White House we have to feed all those kids so mentally prepare ourselves ;)

    The whole thing was repulsive. (none / 0) (#59)
    by LibraryLady on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    All I saw was Markos kissing up to Hillary Clinton. What has changed since he made those statements that David Gregory read?

    BTD (none / 0) (#61)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    But, while both performed well...

    Glad you were entertained. But performances are for dancers and musicians. Both represent failed policies.