More confrontation from Liberal Street Fighter
It is frustrating, this game of “Lifeboat” that the Democratic Party and Pravda/dailyKlark are playing.
What to do? Ridicule them. Shame them. Say NO every chance you get. Confront the lazy misogyny whenever you see it. They’ll call you “shrill”. I get called an “angry loner” a lot in threads by these people. Doesn’t matter. YOUR ridicule, YOUR comdemnation is more powerful than theirs. What can they take away from you? You know the stakes, even though they don’t. We all know that this is a question of life and death, that they are willing to retreat on a gain that, in the grand course of history, has only existed in the western world for a mere glimmer of time. Women, and men of decency, fought for this freedom, this vital leveling of the playing field. All of the new wonder, new creativity, that has entered our daily lives THANKS to women’s righteously won freedom will all be lost again. Control of one’s body is a necessary and primary requirement for a human being to be free. Any intellectually honest person, claiming to live in a free society, must be able to see this, I don’t care what the men spouting superstitious exceptions to that basic truth say.
So laugh and ridicule. Laugh with the biting angry laughs of Margaret Cho and Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks. Confront them with facts. Confront them.
I can’t believe we’re back here. I can’t believe that people are so blind, but I also know that NOTHING blinds people more than the herd morality so enthusiastically practiced in this country.
I’m sorry for the lack of focus in this rant, but I woke up SO ANGRY about what I’m seeing, about the enthusiastic reception this charicature of a human being has gotten, when it’s quite easy to see that he’s another person who’s fully in the grip of the idea that people must be CONTROLLED, that the wild beauty and creativity of unfettered humantity is something to be snuffed out under rules and shame and iron and condemnation.
Laugh at them. Sling your truth at them with a bitter smile. Ridicule their fear and their lazy reliance on authority.
Most of all, keep fighting, because there is nothing else to do.
Check out a wonderful disection of the problems with the Roberts nom at BOPnews:
But because he doesn’t have a lot of judicial opinions he ordered written for him by his clerks we’re supposed to think we don’t know where he stands? We know who loves him. We know who he’s chosen to work with all his life. We know who he sleeps with. We have seen not a single decision from the bench that indicates that any of the other things we know is wrong.
We know he’s a telegenic, smarter, version of Thomas or Scalia – at best, Rhenquist.
Bush and his allies aren’t subtle people. They tell you what they’re going to do, often years in advance, and then they do it. They do this time in, time out. And yet, for some reason, people still don’t believe them.
So let’s bring it back. Any failure to recognize that Roberts is Scalia prettied up is just gutless timidity and an unwillingness to look the facts full in the face. It isn’t some intellectually principled ‘we must wait till all the evidence is in’, it’s the exact opposite – an unwillingness to operate on the strong evidence which already exists.
And compromising on Roberts, being unwilling to filibuster him, is just another way of saying “I don’t really give enough of a fuck about civil liberties, about a woman’s right to control her own body, about the imperial presidency, about habeas corpus, or about torture to put up more than a token fight.”
Thanks to TrueBlueDem at Our Word for the link.
There are still some men of integrity left in this party…
I think we need more women of integrity in there. Then we wouldn’t be thrown overboard quite so much- I’m starting to get wrinkly.
What there should be is a law that states that the SC must have equal number of men/women with the one extra.
I agree except for the fact that people seem to think this guy is good looking..he looks to me like the rather blank hack that I believe him to be, a cipher.
As stated above he’s shown where his loyalties lie by the very partisan jobs he has chosen over the years. Something else I read about him going down to Florida during 2000 was that he went on his own and paid his own way and he somehow ended up getting to meet with Jebbie-out of all the people who were down there..Now how was he special enough to get through the frenzy of people that were down there?
I don’t get the ‘good looking’ bit either. Not to trivialize anything, including this diary and the comments, but the guy reminds me of “Gopher” (Gofer?) on the Love Boat.
Besides… one can, of course, smile and smile and smile, and be a villian.
ROTFLOL
Good looking? Not in my world. He has a mean mouth, hair that looks like a window mannequin’s rigid wig and what is up with the bloodshot eyes? Have you seen them?
And that’s Republican hair and Republican mouth you’re lookin’ at.’Nuff said.
I keep hoping that Roberts follows Orrin Hatch’s advise to not answer any committee questions. It seems that this could be the only way to get the Democrats dander flying.
I hardly ever post here, I mostly lurk because I’m not into the whole soapbox thing that blogging is about, but I do read most of the posts here.
One that I remember was by Booman and it had to do with “if you attack someone on another blog, do it there as well”. Here is the diary.
Courage. A true radical has courage! A true radical, nay, a true “madman” (in the best possible sense of the word, a “madman” like, say, one of the Weather Underground folks, or if you’re a pacifist, someone who did a sit-in every day at any campus around the nation, braving the bullets of the national guard or the tear gas, a real radical)…
… would cross-post. A real lefty. Not a dilute, skim milk online radical, pounding out the revolution on his keyboard.
Go. Be radical. Make waves. It’s what the Real Left is all about. Don’t tell me you’re afraid. That will not do when you write your manifesto!
should stick to lurking. This was uncalled for.
are here. I’ve been commenting and posting there for years (user id #1300, not that it matters).
Did I bother to crosspost this one? Nope. I’ve barely been over there, since I can barely stand to read the low level of discourse any more.
They know damned well who I am, and what I’ve written, and am writing. I’ve sparred/wasted my time in flame wars w/ Armando and the rest of the jackels more time than I want to think about.
This was a quick post written in anger first thing this morning. I didn’t feel like fighting w/ that RedstateWest site …
Fuck you if you don’t like it, or come back at me and tell me why I’m wrong. Since I’ve never seen you here or there before, and since seem to have no posting history that I can find, I have to wonder why you bothered. This wasn’t anything new from me, and much of it posted over there, going back several months.
LOL… and you post at Dkos as…?
I am sorry, but the comparitive games you play (Weathermen, campus radicals) are running in deep rut marks…
You can check MitM roster of diaries at Dkos…
a bit of a twist on the usual “lonly loser” trope …
“skim milk online radical” is at least creative, so a thumbs up for at least putting some effort into it.
Of course, some people write, some people march, some people put up money … we all contribute what we can, or what suit our talents.
the same mindset as the old-line Dems. He feels Dems are owed support instead of earning support. I find it reasonable, not treasonable, that a single-issue group endorses on the basis of a, um, single issue.
How hard would it have been to nominate a pro-choice Dem in blue Rhode Island?
As for Casey in PA: All the arguments against his primary opponent, Chuck Pennachio, are regurgitated Kerryisms.
about how Pennachio has been treated by the PA Dem Party. He has my vote in the primary. But it is going a little too far to say that the arguments for Casey are merely regurgitated Kerryisms.
Casey has something Kerry didn’t. Real name recognition. His father was a very popular governor. This is a big asset in a governors race in this state.
Just like George W. Bush would never have been elected if his name was Marvin, or perhaps his last name was Jones… Bob Casey Jr. has a headstart over any other Democratic candidate just by virtue of his name.
That doesn’t mean that Pennachio can’t whup Santorum’s ass. It doesn’t mean Chuck isn’t better on the issues, a better debater, or a better campaigner.
In any case, I’d be happy to go to war with Chuck and let the chips fall where they may. But there is merit in the case the Casey Jr. is our best BET to beat Santorum.
From what I’ve seen, Casey’s strength is his name, and a pre-existing machine. His weakness seems to be as a comfortable public speaker.
Casey’s pro-life stance is probably a net plus in an off-year election, although it is hard to be sure. The gay community is in Casey’s pocket, and energized. His machine needs no help. The black community is fairly pro-life. And Casey will pick up a good chunk of the pro-life vote. All told, he is a very formidable opponent for Santorum.
I’d be pretty surprised if Casey loses, actually.
Pennachio would have a tougher time on almost all fronts. His advantages would be better stage presence, better in the debates, and solid (no-ick factor) support from the progressive community.
His disadvantages would be having to spend a lot of dough to raise his name recognition, no established statewide machine, lukewarm support from the Governor, the fact that is from Philly (not a plus in this state).
Bottom line?
Progressives here hate Santorum so much that hardly any of them are going to sit the vote out because Casey is pro-life. Some will, but they will be matched by Casey picking up pro-lifers that would not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I understand why Casey was annointed, but it was still the wrong thing to do. Let the party members decide who their candidate is.
do you mean this?
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.
This we have no choice, vote for the lesser of two lessers is beyond old.
How do we KNOW for sure that Pennachio wouldn’t win? Would you support voting for a racist against a Republican racist?
what I posted, you’d see that I said, “this is doesn’t mean Pinnachio couldn’t whup his ass.”
I also said I’d vote for him in the primaries.
I also said I’d be happy to go to war with him and let the chips fall where they may.
I also said it was wrong and I am pissed off about he has been treated by the Dem Party.
So, do I have to answer your question about racists?
my problem is with the assumption that people hate Santorum so much they’ll turn out. I don’t think that’s true. I think they’ll sit it out and concentrate on smaller races.
Is it worth that risk.
be argumentative, but I live here. I have a pretty good handle on the activist community here. I understand the state.
So, just for a second, let’s put abortion aside a moral issue and treat purely as a political issue.
Where are the single-issue voters on this issue, on both sides?
Pennsylvania is a deep red state and abortion is a big reason why. It’s probably the biggest reason why. No, it IS the biggest reason why. Pennsylvania is deep red, but it keeps voting for Democrats in Presidential elections. Why?
The main reason is that Philadelphia is huge, and it is the most Democratic city in the country. The suburbs are swing areas. I organized Montgomery and Delaware counties in 2004. The went for Kerry, and they went stronger than they did for Gore. A lot of conservative women in the suburbs are pro-choice. Being pro-life is a turn-off for them. They hate Santorum. If you wanted to push Kerry’s numbers up, all you had to do is put a picture of Bush and Santorum together on their TV. They will not be thrilled that Casey is pro-life, but hating Santorum and mocking him is a pastime for them. There will probably be some lower turnout among Philly suburban women because of Casey’s stance, but not too much.
Scranton is another big swing area. It blue collar, Catholic, pugnacious… think Joey Biden and you’ll understand Scranton. Being a pro-life Dem is a plus in Scranton because they want to vote Democratic but all this gay stuff and affirmative action, and abortion, and Hollywood actors stuff… it turns them off. Gun control turns them off too. They like tough, socially conservative pols that stick up for the little guy. If a Dem wins Scranton, and breaks even in the Philly suburbs, he usually wins.
When you go out west gun control is a huge issue. Any hint of gun control and Democrats start cratering votes. But it is steel and coal mining territory, and the population is full of New Deal democrats. Santorum needs to do very very well in the West or he’s toast. The abortion issue is what Santorum would normally use. That and anti-gay rhetoric. He will have to go very anti-gay to get these steel mill workers, and sons and daughters of steel mill workers to choose him over a pro-life Dem.
There are other areas of the state, but not too many votes.
If I had to build the ideal scenario to beat an high-ranking incumbent Republican senator in Pennsylvania, I’d have the Dem be anti-gun control, anti-choice, and very pro-labor son of a popular former Governor. And I’d have the GOP guy be so over-the-top pro-life anti-gay that it embarrassed a good amount of moderate Republicans and made him a poster boy for wingnut hating Democrats.
Casey is ideally positioned to win, on the issues, but that doesn’t mean a pro-choice Democrat can’t win.
And in any case, Casey should have to win a primary, not have the field cleared for him. Finally, if we keep making compromises like this nationwide, it will hurt the party and hurt turnout.
as a cold calculation, but IS CASEY REALLY A DEMOCRAT if he’s willing to restrict the freedom of ANY segment of our society? I’m convinced that Dean’s framing of abortion would win over a lot of “pro-life” voters, if we could get more candidates willing to present it.
I would want no part of a party that is willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of one group to benefit another or to take office.
If Casey is so strong, then why the spineless unwillingness to put it before a vote in a contested primary? Why this insistance that the party put its sizable thumb on the scale?
Your scenario sounds very plausible, but I’m not buying it, and I’m not willing to be part of a party that would pursue it. I’m sure a lot of those blue collar voters you mentioned don’t like hispanics or blacks either. Should we pander to that tendency too?
I agree with everything you said. My tolerance for this bullshit is very limited. In Pennsylvania it is not necessary, if it is anywhere.
You’re being a bit disingenuous here. The racism would fly in the blue-collar areas you just described. So you’re saying pander but not too much? Drop women’s rights and good ideas for improving social safety but not racial minority rights?
I’m not attacking you here, but pointing out where you draw your lines.
I do the same; I’ve always been willing to jettison gun control to get elected in PA. (It’s part of the reason I thing Howard Dean would have done very well here). I think I have logical reasons for doing so, plus a morally consistent frame in which to place it, but realize that, bottom line, I’m willing to give up something in order to win an election.
Another interesting issue is the war in Iraq. Lotta small towns with yellow ribbons. How should the D candidate play it?
Hey, I’m all for dumping gun control, mainly because it doesn’t work.
I have no patience for prohibition … it’s too simple-minded. Aggressive licensing and regulation can accomplish most of what we want to do regarding guns (in many places we regulate hairdressers and automobiles more carefully than guns).
As for the yellow ribbons, the way I’d play it is to emphasize the VA cuts, the stop-loss endentured servitude system, that nearly half of our National Guard and Reserves are serving as full-time soldiers, w/o the benefits, pay or support for their families that enlisted soldiers get (which is inadequate as it is), and that that deployment leaves the US vulnerable in case of attack or natural disaster.
Aggressive licensing and regulation can accomplish most of what we want to do regarding guns (in many places we regulate hairdressers and automobiles more carefully than guns).
That’s gun control! They don’t like that here.
As for the yellow ribbons
You wouldn’t attack the war itself? I think that’s smart. Santorum has egg on his face about VA funding. I’d also include the inadequate equipment.
well, I’m thinking more like a citizen has to demonstrate proficiency, like you do when you get your drivers license. I guess you’re saying the PA, esp. in the rural areas, won’t accept ANY controls?
We have a similar thing here in WI. The bigger cities try to control guns more closely, but not far outside the cities guns are considered necessary and normal.
In any case, I certainly wouldn’t make an issue of it. Guns get misused by people in extremis, like losing their jobs, poor health, powerty, lack of opportunities. I think a large percentage of gun deaths are used WITHIN the household that owns them (suicides, murder-suicides, accidents) often under stress. Anyway, any regulation is something that has to be pursued in individual communities, so I’m perfectly willing to toss gun control overboard. I think it’s a dead issue anyway.
Nope, I wouldn’t attack the war. There IS a war, and soldiers and their families are being shredded by the way it’s being fought, funded and poorly executed. By now, it’s sunk into a majority of Americans that the war was fought for lies, and for no good reason. Bring that up in areas where it would do some good … in places that center on “the troops” (which a sea of ribbons indicates) then concentrate on the troops.
There’s also the problem of not wanting to reward the Dems for their anointing behavior with votes. It’s the surest way to guarantee that they will continue the practice of clearing the field for anti-choice Dems.
And anyone who thinks Casey won’t go after pro-choice groups should look at his track record as auditor general in PA…he found a way to go after PP in that position.
Real name recognition. His father was a very popular governor.
You’re hoping voters mix him up with his dad? LOL. Point taken, though, it is a factor in PA.
Casey’s pro-life stance is probably a net plus in an off-year election, although it is hard to be sure. The gay community is in Casey’s pocket, and energized. His machine needs no help. The black community is fairly pro-life. And Casey will pick up a good chunk of the pro-life vote. All told, he is a very formidable opponent for Santorum.
Don’t agree about anti-choice as a plus. Gays and blacks are not going to vote for Santorum; they didn’t before, did they? Why would they do so now? No, they stayed home because of a lackluster Dem machine candidate and an energized RR carried the day. Those people will still mobilize and IMO have gotten better; remember Arlen’s little primary scare?
Progressives here hate Santorum so much that hardly any of them are going to sit the vote out because Casey is pro-life. Some will, but they will be matched by Casey picking up pro-lifers that would not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
THIS is the ultimate Kerryism. People hate Bush/Santorum so much they won’t sit out no matter who the Dems put up!
IMO, anti-choicers don’t vote D. Why chase after them? Go for the low-hanging fruit first, which IMO is Indies and Rs who are uneasy with Dubya. Tie Ricky to Dubya (and SCHIAVO) in the campaign and watch the fruit roll into your hands.
It’s time to drop the DLC playbook, Clintonism without Clinton. I really wish the Dems would. This election is a perfect opportunity.
except for one little nitpick.
Kerry didn’t lose because of bad turnout or a big defection to the greens. In other words, whatever his faults, he did not depress the core democratic voter. They came out for him in a big way.
Unfortunately, Bush’s turnout among religious conservatives was unprecedented.
Some of the dynamic of the Presidential race is going to be reflected in the Santorum race. Santorum is not just any Republican. He is the Democrats number one target nationwide. Everyone wants him to lose. Money will come in from everywhere to defeat him. Volunteers from out of state will come on election day. I honestly don’t think there will be much turnout suppression.
OTOH, Santorum will have the same thing happening on his side.
When you say anti-choicers don’t vote Dem, remember that Casey’s father was an anti-choice governor and Tom Ridge was a pro-choice governor.
In PA, there is a track record of is this mirror image strategy working as an electoral strategy.
Kerry didn’t lose because of bad turnout or a big defection to the greens. In other words, whatever his faults, he did not depress the core democratic voter. They came out for him in a big way.
Kerry won in PA, so I think we’re looking at what will happen if we can’t maximize turnout for the Santorum race. How do we do that?
Some of the dynamic of the Presidential race is going to be reflected in the Santorum race. Santorum is not just any Republican. He is the Democrats number one target nationwide. Everyone wants him to lose. Money will come in from everywhere to defeat him. Volunteers from out of state will come on election day. I honestly don’t think there will be much turnout suppression.
Arguments that favor Pennachio. 🙂 I don’t think, though, that the out of state volunteers are gonna fly.
OTOH, Santorum will have the same thing happening on his side.
AFAIK, he won’t need out-of-state boots on the ground.
When you say anti-choicers don’t vote Dem, remember that Casey’s father was an anti-choice governor and Tom Ridge was a pro-choice governor.
Another way to look at this is that abortion is not the election-swinging issue in PA it’s made out to be. What do you think? My personal experience is that the union voters defected more over guns than abortion.
My point about anti-choicers is that they’re the toughest votes to get and they involve playing with what should be a defining element of the Dem party. Again, to me it seems that it makes more sense to go after easier votes, which, IMO, are out there in huge numbers.
are a huge factor. PA is a hunting state. Especially the Northeast and the West where elections are largely won and lost (along with the Philly suburbs).
Casey is anti-gun control.
Basically, the idea is to neutralize Santorum by having the same position on guns and abortion.
Without the ability to demonize his opponent on those issues, he has to go after gays, and call Casey soft on the war on terror, inexperienced etc.
Santorum can also point out his high rank in the GOP, and say correctly that he is better positioned to bring home the bacon.
But he is not personally likeable, he is easily demonized and ridiculed. Take away his two big issues and he’s toast.
That’s the theory, anyway.
But it is lacking in principle. And it doesn’t take into account the wishes of the party members, or Casey’s weak skills as a politician.
But it is lacking in principle. And it doesn’t take into account the wishes of the party members, or Casey’s weak skills as a politician.
those are some pretty big problems, aren’t they? The DSCC and local party poohbahs should take their damned thumbs off the scale and let him fight to prove that he can handle a tough campaign, because the Republicans are going to be as focused there as we are. If he’s so weak that he needs daddy’s friends and allies to lift him up and coddle him, Santorum is going to eat him alive.
a Kerryism. Nominate a veteran and the Rs won’t dare go after him on national security! (Completely forgetting George McGovern). A fool’s game, IMO, and always was.
I understand the reasoning, but it’s not a sure-fire formula for success and is certainly not the only extant strategy.
Santorum can also point out his high rank in the GOP
I think that is potentially a huge club; I think Pennsylvanians have an affinity for balance, and in these times want more than balance, they want counteraction. Try to appeal to those voters — we need a D to counteract the Bushies, because the Rs have shown they won’t. Medicare and Social Security, baybee, in the second most elderly state in the union!
Present the voters with someone who believes what they believe — then the R attacks feel personal. Drive the wedge! That’s my theory, anyway. 🙂
Think about it. Who’s been winning elections? Do you see the successful party putting up pro-choice candidates in big races? I’m advocating taking a page from the Rs playbook.
Casey’s weak political skills are no small problem, from what I understand. Apparently Santorum can be quite charming, despite the ugly reality of his positions on the issues.
Oh, and to give people from outside PA an idea how big hunting is here, many of our public schools are closed on the first day of hunting season, becuase no one would be at school that day anyway.
Kerry didn’t INSPIRE new Democrat voters either. He turned out the ones that were already there. Actually, hatred of BUSH turned out ones that were already there. Kerry did little or nothing to inspire his base. If he hadn’t been such a coward, and so damned careful, I think the turnout willing to vote for the Democrats would’ve been higher.
His quick concession, and then running to Europe like a whipped cur when Boxer and Tubbs-Jones challenged the vote count, only reaffirmed people’s worse fears of him.
I know you all are off on different subject now, and I already wore out MITM over his yesterday’s rant (he is an excellent ranter of the first order by the way), and of course he is correct about Roberts, the fear of losing R v W, etc.
My issue is why get so worked up in such a lather for a fight that is not winnable? Its the winners right to stack the Supreme Court, basically. I remember the Bork battle, which we WON, only to see Scalia confirmed 98-0 less than a year later, PLUS the Republicans galvanized their base and reinvented talk radio in the process, which led to more galvanization of the Right up to today.
Looking back over the long term, did we really “win” by opposing Bork so vehemently and successfully? Uh, no, would be the obvious answer. The Right still gets mileage out of the Bork for SCOTUS carcass.
Oh, and here is a really subversive thought that might send MITM right over the edge. WHAT IF, Roberts is confirmed and Roe V Wade IS overturned?
Might not that be enough to lead to another turning point back towards the Democrats by a large amount of Republican voting moderates, especially women?
I believe the Republicans in charge dont really give a shit about abortion except as one of those cultural issues which keep a voting bloc on their side.
They wont risk overturning Roe simply because they might lose a different and equally sizeable voting bloc, called “women.” In my humble opinion. They won’t lose the “ProLifers” anyway, so its nothing to lose for them. Smart politics, if bad morals.
We need electoral victories not “moral” victories if we ever want to get back to confirming OUR Supreme Court nominations…in my humble opinion.
And I agree with you. (Except about Bork being a losing issue. He’s not on the court, is he? Can you imagine a Scalia/Bork court.)
I’m leaning toward making the point about Roe v. Wade and moving on. Because I think there are more nominations coming down the pike where it would make more sense to pull out all the stops. You should stop in the main page thread about Roberts.
How about Bork/Scalia/Thomas? Whew, it could be worse couldnt it?
Like Rehnquist, Scalia, Robots. There I am agreeing with everybody AND namecalling the enemy to boot.
Please accept me. Please….. 🙂
right over the edge …
;O
The right makes hay over the Borking b/c they keep MENTIONING it, while the Democrats look ASHAMED of it. Bork got everything he oh-so-richly deserved. The man is a dangerous loon, and the Democrats should be PROUD of that fight. But know, they swallow Republican talking points and act like abused puppies whenever it’s brought up. If someone brings up Bork on some bs chatshow, any Dem should be ready to quote one of his extreme winger beliefs. Too big a bunch of bought-and-sold cowards to do it though.
It’s not just a question of morals, but women’s lives. The lives of the families they’ll leave behind if they die from illegal abortions, or the children they’ll have a harder time feeding b/c they were FORCED to give birth.
You’re wrong … they are perfectly willing to let women die, let half the states make abortion impossible legally. They are perfectly willing to let companies pollute the environment so that those forced-birth babies are born with birth defects, and will grow up with severe asthma due to increasingly dirty air. They aren’t as calculating as you assume, yet they are FAR more cold.
The wingers running the Republican party will be perfectly happy to utterly destroy any and all faith in the very idea of government as a force for good, then tie what’s left in knots before they are forced out. They are perfectly willing to leave us at the mercy of Big Corps and Oppressive Religion, working hand-in-hand to create a new feudal state.
You seriously underestimate the danger they pose.
I’m glad you like my ranting, b/c the way things are going I’m only getting more pissed and scared for my country.
we’ll see if I am wrong in time. In a way, I hope I am.
The Left needs galvanization and if this insane slaughter in Iraq isnt enough to do it, then maybe an overturned Roe V Wade is….altho I will bet you a million “I told you so’s” that it will not be overturned in the next three 1/2 years of Bush.
Now, if they keep stacking the WH and Cap Hill with more right wing winners, they eventually will. Future elections are the things to get worked up over, not the parliamentarian process over which we can do little about….
Your 4th paragraph about what THEY will do sounds like a load of crap, frankly. Chill out Madman, you are really losing it. The Republican Party above all else wants to remain in power. Overturning R v W directly threatens that power, much like LBJ passing civil rights and medicare threatened liberal democratic power, as he himself foresaw. (I admit this analogy is not exact). Balance of power turns on these type actions by one party which in turn energizes the opposition while the “winners” relax in victory.
The wingers arent in control of either party and never have been. The capitalists’ money is in control,
of our party,too, alas….feudalism simply isnt good for business…neither is racism, sexism or too much controversy….its not as bleak as you like to portray, although you cant get to the top of the recommended list by sounding reasonable, I guess…
wow, I love the implication that I write the way I do to “get to the top of the recommended list.” Please.
I remember being in college in the early ’80s, and the right was starting to really push to get on school boards, city counsels and other offices. The Dems said, “don’t worry, they won’t REALLY cause any damage.”
Look where we are.
They have lived up to my worst fears over the last 20 years, while we hear over and over that they won’t do this or they won’t do that.
They don’t HAVE to overtly overturn RvW right away, they only have to wall it off w/ a bunch of exceptios so that it allows the Drs of the rich to operate legally while the poor face so many legal impediments that it may as well not be the law of the land.
We’ll see who’s right, I guess, because it’s painfully clear the Dems won’t fight to slow them down, and inconvenient voices that call for real resistance will continue to be ignored.
You can’t galvanize the left if no one will LISTEN to it … the system is broken, and a sizable portion of the political spectrum has almost NO voice in the political dialogue. Even here in the blogosphere, we’re written off as “shrill” or over-the-top. The same blindness of the ’80s continues.
Im afraid you must “make” your voice be heard on the left. Its always been that way. The media didnt welcome the Freedom Riders until they started getting roughed up and abused not once but regularly. The Kennedy’s did nothing for a long long time and then offered only token help. And they were Liberal Democrats. Buck up man. You can be shrill, hysterical, reasonable or whatever in the “blogosphere” its okay.
During Vietnam, The media didnt start listening to the left until many protestors beaten, jailed and even killed in a few instances. And then the war raged on for another 4-5 years. It takes time. But it requires real action and real sacrifice in real time.
Just dont see that willingness to take it to the next level anymore, especially on the part of the kids,do you?
This has always been a very conservative country, madman. The Liberal ascendancy occured only because of two great calamities, the depression and WWII, which required a strong national government controlling the economy in basically a socialist fashion. We had to make guns. No choice. No free market frivolity allowed.
FDR through LBJ.
Otherwise the history of the Left is the history of ALWAYS struggling to be heard.
Just dont get too deflated (you arent too bipolar I hope)after Robot man or whomever ends up on the bench. The next two rounds of elections are very important and something from which our passion can bear very good fruit in time. ANd you got that in spades brother. Dont go up in flames. We need you.
You a good man, madman.
oh, something new will piss me off and inspire me to write more letters. There’s ALWAYS something new these days.
well if you are getting to mellow, just look me up. Im good at pissing people off….as you probably now know….by the way, how about “John Robots?”
Whattya think??
John Robbers
I must be more radical than I think I am. There was not a thing in that 4th paragraph looked outlandish to me.
the loony left!
Things must be pretty grim in Kansas. Are the big corporations there threatening to make you a serf? Heaven forbid they are forcing you to read the “purpose Driven Life” or Prayer for Jezebel or whatever that book was out a few years back or make you watch the 700 Club or something really sinister like that.
You guys crack me up.
Last laugh, and all that.
“Kos has fallen into the same mindset as the old-line Dems”
Damn, that’s good.
And let’s face the facts here: most old-line Dems are guys and Kos is a guy. Abortion doesn’t affect them the way it affects women. Sure, they will get all steamy over their own perceived rights, but not ours.
And no, I’m not stereotyping all Dem men here. Just those who want to minimize the right to control ones body as a “special interest, single issue” idea.
I also think it’s a little silly to condemn Madman for not posting on Kos. Bloggers consistently and regularly criticize other bloggers without an obligatory post on the subject’s blog.
in Rhode Island if Dr. Pablo Rodríguez–holder of a seat on the executive committee of the Democratic Party of RI, co-founder and first president of the Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee, professor at the Brown University School of Medicine, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, and abortion provider–hadn’t been fighting for his life in the Parkland Hospital ICU down here in Dallas last spring.
Had he been at home in Providence instead, I have a feeling things might not have turned out as they did. One more reason to hate drunk drivers.
I know a lot of arguments were hashed out over the “pie wars” but I truly think NARAL would cease to be a credible organization if it abandoned its mission and became a partisan organization.
Let’s face it,folks, Blogostan is full of outspoken,opinionated people.That is what it is about. Think of it– did you jump right in the first time you logged on to dKos?Well,ok MitM maybe you did:).
To do this at all, to send your hopes and fears, your wishes and dreams ,out into the ether,to total strangers, takes a bit of courage.
As uncomfortable as I am, (and I am) with lockstep party unity, there is something to be said for the power that has been mustered by the mainline blogs. But they are a tool, not an end.Read,listen,relate,communicate.
I cannot say how liberating it has been for me to do that!
Madman, which you know very well. “Don’t be a prick.”
I think comparing Kos with Pravda crossed that line by a million miles.
Let me tell you what I see going on in blogs today. On the one hand, we have Kos, where Kos, of course, is in charge. On the other hand, we have LSF, where the Kos-haters are in charge. And then there are other blogs — like OurWord, which seems to be trending toward Kos-hating, though not exclusively; MLW, which seems to be generally siding with Kos; and this site, which you and your ilk are desperately trying to invade and turn into an anti-Kos instrument.
Look, I have no problem with you saying whatever you want at LSF, though I won’t go there to read it. Same at OurWord, where (despite my general approval of the site) there hasn’t been any concerted effort to make nice with Kos. But here, Booman has asked us NOT to criticize his blogfather. What part of “Respect the wishes of your host” don’t you understand?
And I say this being a general fan of your writing, and an even huger fan of many of your LSF co-contributors. But keep the Kos-bashing at sites that have okayed it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
well, sorry I hurt your sensibilities.
What did Pravda do? It helped disseminate and enforce the party line.
dKos used to be such a vital and open forum, until Kerry went down. Then the attacks began — on gays, on women’s health advocates, on NARAL, on voting activists — and within months the actions of some very influential people in some threads crossed the line into bullying, especially in the voter fraud and pie fights. Main pagers post diaries proclaiming certain websites verbotten. Disagreements at dKos were carried onto other blogs, all in some kind of effort to quiet dissenting voices.
Some of us are sick of it. Kos is pushing the DLC/NDN orthodoxy, and that is the picture of the leftist blogs that is being presented in the MSM. However, this post wasn’t just focused on dk, but merely pointing out that it is just one part of an apparently coordinated assault on part of the Democratic Party’s constituency. The problem is bigger than just one very big blog.
Ignore LSF if you want, or confront us when you think we’re wrong. That’s fine. I can handle it. But I don’t like bullies, and I call them as I see them. Thank you for your compliments on my writing. Come by LSF and engage with us, or do so here.
If Booman wants me to leave, all he has to do is ask. I’m not trying to be a prick, but only trying to protect issues I feel vital, and fight for my country and my party. I don’t know what else to do.
the rule is not to attack Kos front-pagers in a personal way (in a diary) unless you are willing to cross-post the diary at dKos.
It is not a ban on criticism, critiques, comments, or thoughts of a general matter about the site.
It is not a ban on disagreeing vehemently with certain positions they may take.
It only applies to personal attacks about them that are the theme of a diary. So if you want to post a diary that says: ‘Plutonium Page is wrong about the Highway Bill’ that’s fine. But if you post a diary called: ‘Armando is a big dickhead, and Markos is a misogynist’ I’m going you to either cross-post it there or delete it.
and I felt that I fell within those rules. I linked to a particular post, yet another “NARAL sucks” screed, which seemed to fit in with another round of attacks on people who want women’s health to be protected.
Other people feel otherwise. I didn’t crosspost it there b/c I didn’t feel like wasting my time fighting with the usual crowd of bullies, yet I would feel compelled to defend what I write if I did put it up there.
I had a much more productive and interesting conversation here.
well of course you did. this site is
respectful
“kos haters” is that like “Bush-haters”
an anomaly that stikes some people with a strange uncontrollable desire to lash out at an unsuspecting innocent without cany cause or reason.
Admit it, you hate Kos just beause it is trendy.
I wouldn’t exactly say you hurt my sensibilities. Let me explain where I’m coming from.
It is my opinion that the United States Government has been invaded by the cancer that is the Radical Right. This group of people is not worthy of our respect or engagement — it is worthy only of cleaning our sewers after being run out of Washington on a rail. I truly believe that the Radical Right is the most significant threat to America since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Judging from your comments, I gather you feel the same way, if not more so.
But here’s where we part company. I think the Radical Right is enough of a threat to merit not simply a traditional political campaign against them but an all-out war, necessitating coordinated grassroots and netroots support that pushes the Party to mount an agressive and WINNING stance. Right now, I am not ashamed to admit that I think WINNING is everything. But let me be clear: this is just RIGHT NOW. Knock Rove and company out of power, and I’ll go back to my ideologue views. I have a few “radical” ones of my own, including a sort of pseudo-socialism and a hatred of the political party as an institution. However, for me right now this is all beside the point, because first we must protect America against the Radical Right.
Interpersonally, I like Kos, though I see him as very flawed in a number of important ways. I like Armando more, because he fights and never gives up. I like you (when you’re not attacking Kos — I’ll get to that in a minute) and Marisacat. I’m not too fond of DH or Theoria. So as you can see, my loyalties are extremely divided.
But to me that’s all immaterial as well. Because Kos, for all his flaws, is on the vanguard of the war for the hearts and minds of the American people. He is one of maybe three bloggers (the others being Atrios and Josh Marshall) capable of influencing the Democratic Party’s strategy and platform. And right now, he’s using that power to toughen up the party, to help us WIN.
In short, Kos is one of the leading generals in the war against the Radical Right. And I don’t care what his tactics are, as long as he’s winning. And I deplore any attempts to attack or take him down UNTIL WE HAVE WON. After that — have at the guy.
Now, I’m not attempting to censor you here — just stating my opinion. As for the interpersonal stuff — I’m not quite sure what to think. I myself was very critical of Kos at first for many of the reasons you are; I was the author of the Where is Theoria? diary and took Kos to task for that via e-mail. But while I’ve seen fault on both sides since then, I’ve seen some decidedly juvenile stuff from the LSF crowd. I’ve seen Theoria delete like a tenth of Kos along with his UID, including a number of my posts. I’ve heard stories about him not paying his financial debts to other important members of the liberal blogosphere, to which he replied only with a crude joke. I’ve seen what seems like a lot of jealous whining about Kos without a postulation of how this is going to help us WIN. All of this makes me wonder, is all I’m saying. On the other side, I’ve heard stories about Armando and the Unbossed crowd “gangbanging” you on some now-deleted Unbossed thread. Sounds bad to me, but if you called my friend Pravda I’d probably be pretty mad too. Still, it seems too murky for me to say which side I’m on. I want to know more, and no one’s sharing.
Make of this what you will.
I think the Radical Right is enough of a threat
How do you think they got to be such a threat? By Dems accomodating them, and grooming big business instead of their grassroots, that’s how. The Kos argument, and yours, seems to be let’s do more of the same.
Let’s wrap up a sack of poop, stamp it with a D, and ask people to people vote for it ‘cos that D is soooo shiny. Then tell everyone who says voters don’t like poop that much to shut up, and proceed to fill up more sacks, bigger sacks with shinier Ds, for market next year.
Because Kos, for all his flaws, is on the vanguard of the war for the hearts and minds of the American people. He is one of maybe three bloggers (the others being Atrios and Josh Marshall) capable of influencing the Democratic Party’s strategy and platform.
I’m sorry, but this is delusional. There is no blogger with influence on the party’s strategy and platform. None. They are useful tools.
Kos is a bit player right now, trying to parlay the hits on his blog and bundling funds into a bigger part.
our word is not a political blog.
I have seen some Kos criticism there during the short time I was a poster there. But maybe that wasn’t meant in the way I took it.
To be clear, the reason I left that site was precisely BECAUSE it’s not a political blog. After being there for a little while, I realized that it was a wonderful site that simply didn’t fulfil the reasons I personally choose to blog — to discuss political issues and influence politics. So I bear you guys no ill will at all — and I continue to link to you from my blog — I just don’t feel the need to post there any more.
You can see criticism of kos in a lot of places. Our Word is not a superblog. There is no party line to toe. People can speak their own minds. Disagreements happen and are challenged right there. And no grand puba comes down and says this or is not the accepted herdthink.
So to characterize Our Word as being anti-kos is simply misplaced.
Yet as dKos is the biggest blog on the left with enough daily traffic to match literally thousands of individual blogs, you’re going to see comments about what happens there. And because on that hugely successful superblog there does seem to be an accepted orthodoxy to which people are expected and pressured to adhere, you will see criticism of the collective voice coming from there.
It’s one thing to declare a policy on a site like Booman Tribune (which I think is a fair standard). But it’s quite another to criticize other sites for criticizing dKos. (Many people have done this.) Nobody is infallible, and everybody’s shyte stinks. Pressures to toe the line I feel go against the very nature of what progressives are all about, and are not very realistic as attitude or policy, if you ask me.
FWIW, you are welcome at Our Word (speaking for myself, but fairly secure speculating on the response of others as well).
Thanks for your response. To say one more time, unequivocally, I CONCEDE THAT OURWORD IS NOT AN ANTI-KOS SITE. I APOLOGIZE FOR GIVING THE OPPOSITE IMPRESSION.
As for me being welcome there — I do feel welcome there, and I appreciate that you and others have created an environment where men DO feel welcome. It’s simply that my goal in the blogosphere is primarily to run the Radical Right out of politics, whereas OurWord strikes me as a more reflective site. So it’s simply not a good fit for me. I remain totally supportive of the site and I will come back if there’s anything in particular I want or need to discuss — but as of now I view it somewhat like a favorite aunt whom I’m content to communicate with from a distance rather than going to visit.
And BTW, I think the OurWord design is the BEST community blog design I’ve ever seen. What software did you use? Obviously not Scoop…