Cheap Shot

Matt Stoller pens a diary that I find troubling and a vicious cheap shot at the ACLU:

Why did this bill happen suddenly this week, with little warning? Why did it create a situation where activists had basically no time to act? Where was the communications breakdown? I've hinted before at the rank incompetence of Anthony Romero's ACLU. . . . We saw that their narrow legalistic strategy failed here (as it often does). The ACLU should have been coordinating with the liberal House leadership on bills like this, giving outsiders weeks of notice so organizing can actually happen. We may not have been able to stop the bill, but at least we as a movement could have fought the fight. That this did not happen suggests an immense and unforgivable incompetence at the ACLU.

Excuse me Matt. Anything and everything I learned about the bill, and I started writing in the short term about this two weekends ago, came from the ACLU. In particular, Rachel Perrone was very helpful and proactive. The failure of the blogs and the self-appointed leaders of the Netroots this year has been abject and complete. From Iraq to FISA. How about looking at our own pathetic performance this year before we start casting stones.

It takes some nerve for a failing Netroots to go potshotting like this. Let's look in our mirrors first.

< Video of Hillary's Breakout Session at Yearly Kos | Another Debate About Women in the Blogosphere >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    he can use his inflated ego to whip. . .never mind.

    He really pissed me off with this (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:51:21 PM EST
    Didn't write a word on the issue and it is the ACLU's fault?

    Let me tell you something, the ACLU chased me down on this.

    Where was Stoller?


    Nothing was written on FISA (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    at ANY of the big blogs in the 10 days prior to the passage of this legislation.


    How dare he write that piece?


    The big blogs have been (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    generally quiet about everything for about 10-15 days. Especially DK. Editors seem to have been preoccupied with YK.

    I do seem to recall that Kagro X wrote something FISA related before the vote, but there hasn't been much noise. At least, nothing that reminded me of Alito or the supplemental.


    But they don't make noise (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    about ANYTHING except 2008, how they can make money and inflated poll theories.

    Though Kagro makes noise (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    about impeachment.

    Woo hoo!


    He has this weird theory (none / 0) (#19)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    speaking of inflation.

    one of their first posts argued that Clinton could lose Iowa (even come in 4th place) and still win NH.

    for hillary's sake, I hope they don't take his advice.

    He also believes IA and NH will move up their dates up to December.


    Notable exception (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    Fire Dog Lake.

    I don't read it often (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    for some reason.

    well, that's not really true (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:47:02 PM EST
    Joan wrote about it here, here and here, and Kagro wrote about it here.

    Maybe Stoller didn't know anything about this, but it certainly was on the front page of Daily Kos multiple times in the 10 days before the vote.


    Wish I could have done more (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by mcjoan on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    We needed a really sustained effort that we were hard-pressed to give last week.

    But I heard about it first from Rachel at ACLU, and she went out of her way to give me as much information as she could and to make sure I got on the phone with their political director to get the full picture.


    mcjoan, while you are here, we are (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:46:13 PM EST
    curious as to why you did not moderate the Presidential candidates forum in Chicago. [IMO, you were the obvious choice to do the job well.] Why did Yearly Kos elect to go with a moderator not associated with DK's Front Page? Thanks.

    I wasn't in on that decision (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mcjoan on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    I think a three moderator format would have worked better if we'd had the original, longer forum we thought we were going to get. It just wasn't enough time for it to work well with the number of candidates we had.

    I was just the talent, not the decision maker. Though I did use my questions, some of them anyway.


    Thanks for the information. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:30:06 PM EST
    Hey, thanks for asking (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    the purse power question.

    Kind of disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by mcjoan on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:17:44 PM EST
    There just wasn't time. I wanted to be able to follow up with all of the Senators, but, well, you know.

    Well known is the power of (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:22:41 PM EST
    "just putting it out there." ;-)

    The "President Clinton" flub broke the flow, but I'm sorry the question didn't go to Obama.


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    I think it would have been better to say that, because dkos has been quieter in general, it just seemed like the focus wasn't there. I made a truthy point; so sue me!

    This is like blaming Russ Feingold for the (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    Patriot Act.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    But, but, but.... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    It's not Matt's fault he didn't pay attention or write against it, so... it must be somebody else's.

    Certainly feels like that (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    And after all... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    If the ACLU had woken Pelosi and Reid up and warned them that this was going to happen these bills never would have seen the floor of either chamber, of course. Except face down. Of course.

    Excuse me... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    been able to wake up Pelosi and Reid....

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Matt's way off base on this one. I got emails daily from the ACLU with updates and warnings. When the Hill reported that the McConnell hearing had been canceled, I got an email from the ACLU saying not to believe it, and to keep on warning people about it. I updated my post to reflect this.

    The ACLU has been the leader on this since Bush's program came to light in 2005 and they didn't drop the ball in the past two weeks. The Democrats did.

    And so did the Netroots (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    At least imo.

    one effort I had strongly supported (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Miss Devore on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    before I became persona au gratin at dk, was the Congressional Committees Project


    which seems to have gone absolutely nowhere at dk.

    and I think part of the impetus for this group, was acknowledging there wasn't a proper watchdogging of congressional bills; people would discover some horrendus bill had been passed a week or so ago later.

    it is too bad the present doesn't amount for much, among many bloggers and the Dem party. It is all about doing what is important for the next election. Which at this point, inspires me as much as the serial Iraqi elections that meant so much.

    That was a good project (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    Pick up a phone Matt (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    Communications is a two way street.

    tell us, matt, how often do you contact the ACLU and Conyers' staff.

    And why were you caught flat footed, Matt.  This isn't the first time Rove has pull a summer time ploy.

    What plans do you have on the shelve, matt?

    I got at least one email from the ACLU about this (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jerry on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    Maybe Matt needs to sign up for their emails.

    By the way, other interesting views of the ACLU, pro and con, come from ACLU member Wendy Kaminer at her various blogs:

    The Free For All

    Wendy Kaminer - Politics on The Huffington Post

    I greatly appreciate what Kaminer has to say because it often addresses not just failings of the ACLU itself, but wider failings in progressive liberalism in terms of our falling into various traps regarding allowing identity politics to force us into politically correct speech, thought, and laws.

    thanks but (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    please put url's in html format using the link button at the top of the comment box. Otherwise they skew the site and I have to delete the entire comment since Scoop doesn't allow comments to be edited, only deleted.

    Sorry about that. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jerry on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    I will definitely try to remember that in the future.  These days I get lazy since a) many blogs automagically linkify text links and b) I have the linkification firefox extension which also does that.

    Again, my apologies!


    and kudosto you, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Sumner on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    You were dialed-in on this topic throughout the weekend's live blogging, all the while furnishing lucid commentary on events in Chicago. Your insights proved quite cathartic for many of us sharing similar trepidations of a run-amok executive and an often execrable legislature.

    You have done seminal writing particularizing a chronicle of this devolution into the onset of a dark chapter of American travesty.

    netroots (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dorothy on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    Sorry, but I tried really hard to get info on this as it passed through Congress from all my usual netroots sources.  They were all to busy posting about what they were having for lunch in Chicago to care.

    Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:45:35 PM EST
    While I, too, am pissed at the Dems who caved, what amazes me is that nobody is criticizing the Republicans.  If the Dems are spineless, what about the Republicans?  Don't they have some responsibility to stand up to Bush?  None of the Democratic votes would've mattered if the Republicans hadn't almost unanimously held together.  

    It's great that there are the blogs and interest groups like the ACLU, but that is never going to fix the fact that we have a president and an entire political party who seem hell-bent on destroying the Constitution.  Yes, it's sad that a few Dems insist on helping, and I'm all for pushing them to stop, but the acceptance the media and the others have about the Republican Congress' aiding and abetting of the Bush administration is amazing to me.  

    The Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    are hopeless.

    Need it be said? Yes, but now is the time to get on the Dems.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    The Republicans are hopeless.  I just find it frustrating that this appears now to be simply accepted.  It wasn't always the case that so few Republicans would object to such governmental overreach and I get tired of reading about Democratic failures when, really, the overwhelming failure is by Republicans.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    No matter what they said about abuGonzales' incompetence, they all voted lockstep to give him more power.

    They are never to be trusted when they criticize their own. Their plan is permanent Republican control and they will cheat lie and steal, not to mention start wars, to get it.


    What about the Republicans? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    Don't they have some responsibility to stand up to Bush?

    Yes. Not all Republicans are crazy.

    And some very influential of them are doing just that, as well as calling for the House and Senate to censure both Bush and Cheney, Impeach Cheney, and roll back nearly all if not all of Bush's "unitary executive" power grab attempts.

    Scott Horton Interviews Bruce Fein

    Bruce Fein, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan administration and co-founder of the American Freedom Agenda, explains the broad powers over Americans' property claimed by George Bush in his new executive order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Fein says that Senator Hillary Clinton's property could be seized under this order for "undermining the Iraqi government" by asking the Pentagon if they have a plan for withdrawal, which she was denounced for doing just last week by Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman. Also, the American Freedom Agenda, the Unitary Executive theory, the "living Constitution," NSA spying, National Security Letters and administrative subpoenas.

    William Fisher: The Right Seeks To Rein In Presidential Power
    The AFA's ten-point action program calls on Congress to:

    • End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.
    • Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.
    • Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.
    • Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.
    • End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.
    • Challenge presidential signing statements.
    • Bar executive use of the state-secret privilege to deny justice.
    • Prohibit the president from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain or torture persons abroad.
    • Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.
    • Prohibit of the labeling of groups or individuals in the US as global terrorists based on secret evidence.

    While I Always (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:25:51 PM EST
    appreciate anyone willing to stand up to W, but I'm not sure how influential these Republicans actually are since they aren't in Congress or other elected office.  I wish they were still influential, but I think right now they have virtually no influence within the Republican party.  

    I do think it's unfortunate that the MSM seem to take party loyalty among Congressional Republicans for granted.  It's true that their loyalty has been blind and absolute, but I still think there would be some benefit to negative national exposure on these issues as opposed to focusing only on Bush and the Dems.  They do have a choice, they simply choose not to exercise it.  It's like the media has forgotten that such blind loyalty is the exception in U.S. history and not the rule.  Instead, they act like it's perfectly normal when, in fact, it's perfectly pathological.


    Good points, BDB (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    I don't know either how much leverage they can wield.

    It's good to see them making the statements and calls they are making though, even knowing that they are doing it out of self interest. Bush and Cheney and the neocon hijackers have probably done more to wreck the GOP for the foreseeable future than millions of liberals could ever do, imo, and I'm sure the moderates on the right are no happier than anyone else over what has been building  for many years and has happened the past 7 years.

    I think there are more SANE people in both party's than there are insane ones...


    Bruce Fein is also working with Dems (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by conchita on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:41:26 PM EST
    The day of the Judiciary Committee hearing with Meuller he and Nadler held a press conference about the NS letters.  He is ahead of the curve on this.  And while I know it is not a popular subject here, the impeachment agenda is a priority with him.  I have been on the phone with his office a fair amount lately and while he has a book coming out, I don't get the sense that this is all done in self-interest.

    I meant self interest in trying to restore some (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    sanity to the Republicans rather than see the party die like dinosaurs caught in a tar pit.

    I see your point and think it valid (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by conchita on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    It has been interesting to me though that Mr. Fein has been willing to engage with the likes of me - one of the great unwashed progressives - in the interest of furthering impeachment in defense of the Constitution.  I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the Constitution and civil rights trump party in this case.

    Constitution and civil rights trump party (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    is an example of what I meant by unselfishness is the height of selfishness. I think we are in agreement here, no?

    yes we are in agreement. nt (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by conchita on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    I think he'd rather (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:37:08 PM EST
    have an honest party with a conscience.

    In the sense that (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    unselfishness is the height of selfishness, if that makes any sense to you?

    I think it's in (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    all of our interest that the sane, moderate Republicans either save their party or form a new one.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans.  I don't think a one-party country is a healthy thing.   We need two parties that both believe in the core values of the Constitution even if they argue around the edges.  Right now we don't have that and I really do think it's bad for the country, if only to see what damage the rogue party inflicts upon us as it goes down.  

    Having said that, as I've said before, the current version of the Republican party needs to be punished and its positions, particularly with regard to the unitary executive theory and neocon foreign policy, need to be completely discredited.  There would be nothing better for the country than to have the Republicans spend the next couple of election cycles in the wilderness, forcing them to reconsider what they stand for.  

    While the Dems caving on FISA is disappointing, I think the Democratic party - from the netroots to its presidential candidates - is healthier than its been in years.  I don't think it's a coincidence it comes after years of struggling in elections.


    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    There seems to be a serious problem on both sides of conscienceless psychotics who have elbowed, blackmailed, cheated and killed their way up the ladders whose objectives are pure unadulterated power and the hijacking of the Democratic Party because people like them have destroyed the GOP and the Democratic Party is the only fertile ground left they see for now that they can plant their seeds of corruption in.

    Pure unadulterated power for profit is all they are interested in. Nothing else.

    It's not only a problem in the political system, but in the economy as well. Enron for example, is not an isolated or unusual case any more.

    The "I got mine - screw everyone else" mentality?

    In politics they are called neocons. Everywhere else they are called criminals and psychopaths.


    Booman cracks a joke (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:59:08 PM EST
    Frontrunning candidates, the DCCC, prominent journalists, the congressional leadership...none of them know how to control the netroots. The netroots' demands are simple: stop this administration from committing crimes and get our troops out of Iraq. After that, it's all detail. With each capitulation, with each gloss-over and passing of the buck, the Establishment further alienates themselves from the citizen activists that do not need and will not be told what to do or think. We've educated ourselves and passed our verdict. Those that will not convict and sentence are just cogs in an appeasement machine that is chug-chug-chugging over a collective cliff.


    This thread reminds me (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Jeff in Texas on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    To say thanks to BTD, as others have, for staying on this issue, however frustrating it has been.  On this issue and similar ones, I sometimes feel like a crazy person looking at the progressive and left-leaning blogs wondering why they are using post after post to bash Jonah Goldberg (a noble effort in itself, don't get me wrong) or whatever, and completely ignoring some Constitution-shredding bill coming down the pike with no opposition from Dems.  This blog and a few others at least let me know that someone is paying attention on the left, and isn't happy about it.  It doesn't change the result, but it helps the bitter pill go down.  

    FIISA (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Phila13 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    I have to agree that the ACLU really took its eye off the ball here in failning to notify / raise public attention to the disaster we must now try to fix!

    The onus is on officeholders, not the ACLU (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    Your excuse (or attempt at deflection) makes no sense.

    Every officeholder, regardless of party, is supposed to, by law, uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution.

    Although eternal vigilance on the part of the voter is a good idea, oaths of office don't include the option for the officeholder to do so only when begged continually by constituents whipped into a lather by constitution-defending groups like the ACLU.

    Of course, if your view of government and justice replacing constitutional democracy with a system of superficial cosmetic order, maintained because the vast majority of people are being spied upon -- for reasons unknown, by parties unknown and at unspecified times -- well then of course this FISA atrocity is right up your alley.


    I'm really pissed at the fact that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:10:13 AM EST
    neither the boy scouts or the girl scouts said a damn thing to me about FISA the past few weeks and there were NO ads on milk cartons about at all. Not even one.

    stop casting stongs are ourselves.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    sometimes, the forces at work are larger than both the ACLU and the Netroots.  I think I speak for many of us in that we were surprised at how quickly the Dems caved in on this.  I'm not sure Netroots or ACLU, in their current state of strength, could have done much about it.

    but it was expected (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by RedHead on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    remember the Invasion vote was held right before the October recess.  Just last year, he pushed the CIA immunity bill and habeas corpus right before the recess. this spring he jumped on the dems for taking an easter recess, demanding passage of surge spending bill, right as he was boarding AF1 for his easter break.

    I started having problems with Stoller (none / 0) (#25)
    by kovie on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    when he dishonestly wrote some diaries on MyDD some months back trying to smear Hillary as being supportive of leaving troops in Iraq (for training, protection and counterterrorism) while claiming to support withdrawal, when in fact EVERY SINGLE Dem senator INCLUDING Feingold supported and continues to support this position (which I backed up with links and quotes).

    My aim was not to support this particular position, but to show that Stoller was being dishonest in trying to single out Hillary for attack on it. I'm hardly what you'd call a Hillary supporter, but as much as I have a problem with her, I have a far bigger problem with people who mischaracterize the issues and facts and/or present dishonest arguments (which, actually, has a lot to do with why I don't support Hillary, but that's a whole other issue) in order to promote their own agenda. Not cool.

    I got slammed for doing this, but stand by it. (Although, to Stoller's credit, he did reprimand a troll who went off the deep end in attacking me.) We are Democrats, not Republicans, and unlike them, distorting reality and playing with the facts is not how we are going to or should take the country back.

    Stoller's a smart guy who's heart is in the right place, I believe. But he's got some growing and wising up to do before he can be more useful to our cause.

    OT: would you want to be in a union w/Matt? (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    see Yahoo news.

    Real Reason that FISA Passed (none / 0) (#52)
    by john horse on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:32:11 PM EST
    The real reason that FISA passed was that there was near unanimity among GOP, including the so-called GOP moderates.  Not a single GOP Senator and only 2 GOP Congressmen voted against.  Because there was almost unanimous support among the GOP, Bush only needed the marginal support he got from conservative Dems (the Bluedog Dems).  Lets not forget that the vast majority of Dems voted against the bill.  

    But why get upset with the bluedogs, given that the bluedogs philosophically see things eye to eye with most conservative GOP.  It was the so called moderate GOP who were supposed to be on our side on this issue that let us down.

    The more GOP Senators and Congressmen that get replaced by Dems the more likely we will achieve victory.  As far as the bluedogs are concerned we should be pragmatic.  In some districts and states, practically speaking the choice is between a bluedog Dem and a Republican and we need these bluedogs in order to maintain control of Congress.  However, in those districts and states where we can replace them with more progressive Dems without losing control to the GOP I say go for it.

    Limbo is actually cool, quiet and oddly pleasant (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    I was going to passionately defend my (wrongly IMO) deleted post as being accurate, topical, and using language appropriate to the FISA situation and linked diary. However, the fine points about the ACLU are covered upstram.

    Equally ridiculous is the absurd argument that the grassroots* needs to win elections bigger, louder and more landslidey for Dems to show up at all.

    I simply reject the mainstream, Rightward Ho! Dem "offer" to me as an activist and a voter to expect fewer protections, provided I work twice as hard as before, in a crappier environment made worse by an ever-expanding class of consultants and wannabees who insult my intelligence more and harder.

    Why a gal would be a fool to turn that down! (Suggested search terms: Schumer, SCOTUS seats, hoodwinked;  cross-referenced to Schumer courting "conservative" anti-Choice anti-contraception Dems who'll vote in a bloc when it "ma€tters".)

    The latest Dem no-show was indefensible, inexplicable and inexcusable [/Cochrane]. Here's my disclaimer: I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, of NARAL, of the neighborhood Public Library and the community center gym. I declared Independence from being non-represented by Dry Powder Dems at considerable cost to me and joined the resistance.

    *Non-use of "netroots" is purely intentional.

    FYI: mcjoan has a FP article up (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    on Daily Kos re the YK2 presidential forum.

    You said it (none / 0) (#64)
    by LarryE on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:49:31 AM EST
    It takes some nerve for a failing Netroots to go potshotting like this.

    Damn effing straight.

    On the other hand, what did we expect? After all, the Big Bloggers were much too busy celebrating how important and influential they are.