home

The New "Establishment"

Peter Beinart questions the Netroots' commitment to issues. He asks why so much loathing for Gravel?

What does Markos Moulitsas have against Mike Gravel? The über-blogger recently called for exiling the longshot presidential candidate from future Democratic debates. "Mike Gravel is a waste of our time," he wrote in an August 7 post. "[He's] a running joke." That's an odd assessment coming from the founder of Daily Kos. Every time Gravel gets behind a lectern, he flays the Democratic Party for knuckling under to militarists and corporations. In other words, he sounds just like Markos Moulitsas. . . .

Actually he doesn't. And in my drive to be the most loathed person on the blogs, in a new piece at the Guardian website, I again flay the Netroots for caring more about horseraces than issues:

What we do not see from MoveOn or any of the leading left blogs are any attempts to pressure Democrats into taking action immediately to end the Iraq war. Every plan, every project, seemingly every post, is focused on how to exploit Iraq as a political weapon against Republicans in the 2008 elections. Very little thought is brought to bear on how to pressure Democrats to use the power of congress to end the Iraq war now.

My question is diffferent than Beinart's. It is not why the Netroots loathes Gravel. Rather why does the Netroots not fight for the issues that they are supposed to care about?

< Rudy Hires New Image Firm | Hillary's Huge Gaffe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Some of the shallower netroots participants (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    think that, just because Markos isn't that interested in issues or ideology, they shouldn't be either. The problem is that the whole lefosphere becomes a seinfeldian discussion about nothing.

    I love that it took about 8 comments in your Guardian piece for someone to accuse you of waging a purity campaign.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    Actually I imagine that will be one of the nicer things said about me.

    Parent
    One of the best examples of what (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    you are talking about is the ongoing gushing love-fest by all of the major blogs over campaign television advertising that is primarily focused on Iraq.  Especially, but not solely, Biden's ads. The only questions that were asked were:  do you think the ad was effective?   Or ... which of these ads do you think  was most effective?

    So much money used to exploit Iraq for political purposes means equal interest in keeping Iraq around as a campaign issue.

    Perfect example (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    Some would accuse me of hypocrisy as I praise Dodd for his Iraq stance.

    To me the difference is Dodd is fighting to the end Iraq Debacle during Bsh;s term, not promising what he will do when he is PResident.

    I had a huge fight with Jerome Armstrong over this at MYDD yesterday.


    Parent

    I saw that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    I don't comment at MyDD but I sometimes read it.

    Parent
    The real problem comes after "we" win. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    As during the Clinton I era, there's no mechanism for putting the heat on a triangulating Democratic Administration.

    Great piece in the Guardian.

    The Netroots should be a part (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    of that mechanism.

    I also believe in constant primaries.

    For everyone.

    Parent

    So what seat are you running for? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    Perhaps I flatter myself, but I'd like to think my Primary race v Herb Kohl last year had something to do with his decision to vote against the FISA revisions a couple weeks ago. Contrast his vote for PATRIOT Act renewal, and just about piece every policestate legislation in the preceding 18 years.

    Declare, and I'll send you a buck.

    While I'm not going to run against Tammy Baldwin this year, my filing a Declaration of Candidacy for the 2012 Senate race puts hr on notice. She's indicated interest in succeding Old Herbie, if she keeps me happy until then, I'll withdraw.

    Parent

    Fair question (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    and yes I do think you make a difference with Kohl.

    Parent
    Too many in the netroots (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    think that their interests are always perfect aligned with Rahm Emanuel's.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    I think something somewhat different. They think they are supposed to battle Emanuel and Co. rather than argue for their issues.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    2008 Convention (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    Check this thread on the announcement of antiwar protests outside the Convention in Denver. I'll be expanding my comments to a diary by Monday.

    Chicago 68? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    Right idea, stupid name. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    I hope the "recreate '68" folks have the sophistication to trade playing it peaceful for a forum.

    Parent
    If it really turns into Chicago '68 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    I think it's a bad idea.  We have much more to lose in 2008 than we did in 1968.  Then we had a war.  Now we have a war AND an assault on our constitution.  

    On the other hand, in 2008 the TV won't show any footage of the protests so no one will see the cleancut lawyers and stockbrokers being dragged off by the Denver police.  

    Parent

    Not a given there won't be coverage. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    If the Convention itself is as boring as I expect, they'll have to find something to fill the timeslots. The acceptance speech gets aired in full, but there's room for the outside presence during the preceding days. Presuming a rhythm similar to past Conventions, the 2nd day should be the featured rally.

    Parent
    More (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    While the main network feed's hard to crack, there'll be hundreds of local reporters in Denver looking for something to write about that the big guys haven't already done.

    Just before the 2000 GOPCon in Philadelphia I ran intoi an old Madison Rad then writing for the Baltimore Sun. He'd dragged a dozen young stringers from the hospitality suites to the church where the anarchists were camped, but the kids told them they wouldn't lend their views to the "corporate media." Told me he'd decided to write nothing 'cause he didn't want to write a hit piece, and they'd given him nothing nice to say. Dumbasses.

    Parent

    And Pelosi? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    Why even allow a vote on the supplemental?

    Besides of course that not doing so would probably have meant her undoing as speaker, which is only another way of saying she put self interest first.

    Parent

    Man bites dog? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:24:57 PM EST
    Protests at the Democratic Convention will get coverage. Protests at the Republican Convention will get no coverage.

    Parent
    agreed. (none / 0) (#31)
    by selise on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    unless the situation changes, i am hoping to go to denver for the convention. and i will try to contribute to a spirit of nonviolence.

    in 2004 i refrained from protesting at the DNC, although i live nearby and was not happy with kerry's iraq positions...  did spend a week in NYC for the RNC for anti-war actions. i wasn't the only one who gave kerry a pass in 2004. if in 2008 another candidate is nominated who doesn't regret voting for the war, hasn't worked to end the occupation, won't commit to ending the occupation and wants to increase military spending and the size of the armed forces... well, i think there will be a more than a few of us.

    really like your suggestions on how the party could respond in a positive fashion to protests in denver. the DNC "protest" pen in boston, 2004 and general response does not make for a good omen.

    Parent

    insufficient level of disaster (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    Some people have a poor imagination and do not imagine a future level of disaster so severe that they feel impelled to make avoiding that disaster a top priority.

    So, for some, like Markos, the potential disaster of letting Bush continue and expand his Righteous Christian Crusade in the Oil Lands is not 'real' enough to make stopping Bush a higher priority than 'positioning' for 2008. In more cases still it is insufficient imagination about climate change, which is the greatest potential disaster of all, and which, as Al Gore is supposed to have noted, none of the presidential contenders is talking about. When climate change really sets in, we will wonder what we had been thinking, when we didn't make this the number one priority.

    Caring more about horseraces than issues: (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lespool on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:36:07 PM EST
    I agree. Far too often I read how bad republicans are good for the dems in spite of the carnage that ensues as a result. Congressional dems expect to win elections as the lessor of two evils --- not fighting against unconstitutional laws by denouncing illegal policies and taking the high moral ground. Allowing a dangerous VP to remain in power will only help them to achieve their goals, irregardless that people are suffering right now. The problem with this rational is that by the time the dems actually get around to winning it's too late because they've already sold their soul along with America's democratic principles so there's nobody left to vote.

    Yes. I agree 100%. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:22:19 PM EST
    If they won't do what they were elected last November to do, they're complicit in everything they won't use the power they have to put an end to.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    Every plan, every project, seemingly every post, is focused on how to exploit Iraq as a political weapon
    ...
    why does the Netroots not fight for the issues that they are supposed to care about?

    They'd feel powerless? They're afraid to lose having Iraq as a political weapon, because they can't think of any other weapons to use? They're insecure and afraid to go on the offense?

    They condemn themselves to being reactive and defensive.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    I really don't.

    Parent
    Me neither. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    I was just speculating.

    But I think that if people feel confident they find ways to dominate and take control, instead of handing all power to their opponents by letting their opponents decide for them what rhetorical tools, strategies or tactics they can or can't use, and if they don't feel confident... well... they are doomed to always reacting, no?

    Like an abused spouse?

    Parent

    Either that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    or they really do want to keep the occupation going.

    Parent
    That's not it. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    More a naive belief that a Dem President will show gratitude by getting out. Hasn't worked so well with the Dem Congress.

    Parent
    Some do I think (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    Not most. But some are imperialists right down to their DNA. There are 'Giulianis' and 'Cheneys' in both party's. And some are conscienceless psychopaths, I think. After all, it does take a rather ruthless personality to want and go after presidential level power, no?

    Most are sane, like most people are sane. But some, I think really do want the occupation to continue.

    I'm reminded here of Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality, of David Niewerts three part Cracks in the Wall: Parts I, II, and III.


    Parent

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    That would explain the netroots (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    reluctance to fight for ending the occupation. But how would it explain the Democratic Leadership or frontrunner presidential candidates not pushing to end it?

    Parent
    excellent diary... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by selise on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    here's an excellent diary that discusses this very thing.... and don't miss the comments (especially those at the end)

    Parent
    Thanks, selise - I'll go read it later today. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:07:02 PM EST
    Recognition of the realities of the situation that has been created in Iraq is all well and good and important, but... and it's a big but.

    This from Ackroyds post really bothers me:

    If you saw Taylor Marsh at YKos, you heard a clear delineation of this DC consensus. This isn't a matter of reflexive use of force as the only solution by crazy neocons. This is a recognition that Iraq is a failed state without a sovereign government and without the capacity to defend itself. The US Congress passes resolutions declaring what laws Iraq must pass, while the Pentagon makes all military decisions. Iraq's government plays no role other than certifying US policy. And, these days, we're hearing talk of changing the government. That talk is taking place in Washington. And there can be no freely elected, sovereign government in Iraq, because, in the Washington consensus, those bases are more important than a reprentative government--and no represesentative government would permit military bases defending Israel and threatening Iran.

    This leaves the Democratic candidates in a very difficult position. They are part of this Washington consensus.

    Iraq is a mess. That's undeniable reality. It's not going to be fixed easily. I think that's also undeniable reality.

    Taylor Marsh is describing another, separate reality, however. The Washington Consensus. Which appears to distill down to the attitude that Washington must make the decisions for Iraq, almost as if Iraqis are incompetent children who cannot manage their own affairs. And I see nearly no recognition, if any at all, even grudging recognition, that is is Iraqis who are going to make the decisions. As they are doing now, successfully or not from their point of view.

    The whole of the "recognition of reality" in that diary seems to me to be excuses and justifications for imperialism/colonialism/ control of Iraq and the countries resources, regardless of and without concern for what Iraqis want.

    One of the things we know Iraqis want is to NOT be occupied by American military.

    Every time Iraqis kill another American soldier, it is, in my view, a "request" to Washington to withdraw all the troops. Some of the puppet government of Iraq would deny that I think. But they are a puppet government, and a large percentage of the social groups in Iraq are rejecting that puppet government and doing their damnedest to force it to collapse.

    Iraqis don't want US troops in their country, and they don't want a US puppet government running their country for the benefit of America. I think that's also undeniable reality.

    The "Washington consensus" is focused only on what the "Washington consensus" wants.

    I don't think Iraqis, in the main, care in the least what the "Washington consensus" wants, and  I think that's also undeniable reality.

    I said on Wednesday in another thread and I'll repeat it here, that I think that if there are ::any:: "benchmarks" to be set or to be met, or "decisions" made by anyone about what is or is not "progress" for Iraq, rightfully those benchmarks and those decisions should be being set and made by Iraqis. Required benchmarks to be met by Washington for the "right" and the "privilege" of being allowed to stay and "help". And I believe now that in actual fact that is exactly what is now happening in Iraq:

    I know I'm repeating myself from other threads here, but I think that, for good or for ill for the people of Iraq, it is not up to anyone in the US to decide for Iraqis what is or is not "progress".

    To metaphorize a bit, since we destroyed the infrastructure of the house before we started the fire and made no effort to rebuild it, once we stop throwing fuel in and get out of the way before we are thrown out of the way, someone else will rebuild it.

    It probably won't look anything like what we'd like it to when they're done, but too bad.

    It's their business, in other words. Not America's. Regardless of how often the "national security interests" line is uttered.

    All that Washingtons "help" has ever done for Iraq is make the situation worse. Continually. Never better. Only worse.

    Iraq will get fixed. Eventually.

    But I think it will not be republicans or democrats, or even the U.S. that fixes it. If Iraq can be fixed it will be Iraqis that fix it. They will, and do, set the benchmarks. I think not recognizing that is delusion.

    The U.S. presence in Iraq, and the U.S. refusal to leave, is the problem.

    Parent

    washington consensus (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by selise on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    jayackroyd is describing what he thinks the DC dems are thinking - not what his own views... read his comments in the thread and you will see this is so. he is not justifying/rationalizing this view - he's trying to understand what is behind the actions of our dem leadership (in congress and our presidential candidates) so it can be better countered.

    Parent
    Yes, I know that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:42:46 AM EST
    I'm not blaming Jay. I'm blaming the Washington Consensus and the insulated detached from reality foolishness of "the attitude that Washington must make the decisions for Iraq, almost as if Iraqis are incompetent children".

    It's dangerous delusion, IMO.

    Parent

    It is in Americas interest (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    obviously, to NOT have a failed state of anarchy in Iraq, and to not have Iraq aligned with Iran.

    But that can't be forced on Iraq. Iraqis have the right to, and will decide for themselves. And they are.

    Parent

    The supplemental was the best chance. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    Dave Obey had the ball, and fumbled. Underestimated the degree to which his colleagues would sacrifie lives for pork, then was stuck in the role of pork broker when Bush offered to fund the Dem backed programs he'd previously stiffed.

    Reid locked it in when he appointed Senators to the Copnference Committee, stacking it with the likes of Landrieu, who'd have traded legalizing heroin for Katrina relief, and the Plains State Senators desperate for drought relief for their farmers. Only Harkin was honest enough to admit he'd sold his vote.

    Parent

    Ben my question about Pelosi (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    to you below in the thread was meant to be in reply to your comment here.

    Parent
    She'd handed off to Obey. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    And yes, she'd have likely lost her job if she'd screwed up the pork.

    Parent
    Armando (none / 0) (#24)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    have you ever considered the possibility that you are being a little dramatic about "the Netroots" here?

    I don't mean to be rude, but I sometimes get the feeling that you conclude folks "aren't fighting for" or "don't care" about certain issues simply because they don't write about them in exactly the same way you would.

    In exactly the same way? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    They do not write about it in ANY way.

    I think you have blinders on.

    Parent

    Here's a test (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    show me the best examples you can find of the Netroots "establishment" writing about pressuring Dems in Congress on getting out of Iraq.

    Parent
    If you want (none / 0) (#35)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    I can spend time finding links to what I believe are many front page posts just at DKos about Iraq since the Democratic Congress took over in January, including posts about all of the various and assorted votes and plans put forth by Congresspeople and presidential candidates alike. And that doesn't even count diaries there.

    But I know you've read them. It seems to that you just (1) disagree with much of the content or focus of those posts; and (2) believe the volume of posts about pressuring Dems in Congress to end the war should be higher.

    Parent

    You're talking about mcjoan (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    The exception that proves my rule.

    Find someone else.


    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#29)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    it's fair for you to suggest I have blinders on just because I disagree with you on this.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    if the only reason I suggested you have blinders on is because you disagree with me it would be unfair.

    I do not think it is the only reason.

    Show me the money - show me those Netroots establishment posts that you are referring to.

    Parent

    So now you've (none / 0) (#38)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    set it up so that, even though you are the person who made the claim that the Netroots Establishment "do not write about it in ANY way", I am required to round up every post they have made - otherwise I have "blinders" on?

    Parent
    I've set it up? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    Matt, I have been RIPPING Netroots bloggers for months now on this very issue.

    I even link to some of the posts in my Guardian piece.

    For crissakes, do not pretend that my posting here at TalkLeft has not documented the phenomena.

    I do not believe there are posts of the type you describe. You say they are. I think it is not unfair to ask you to point to some examples.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#44)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    I'm confused by what you actually are saying. Because sometimes it seems like you contend they never write about Iraq (e.g. "they do not write about it in ANY way") and other times it seems like you are simply challenging their focus (too much horserace and not enough Iraq withdrawal).

    Parent
    I think they rarely write (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    about what Congress should do, how to pressure Congress etc.

    MoveOn's big program is about defeating the GOP in 2008. I thought I was pretty clear in my post.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    OK then, I think that's a fair criticism. It would be nice to see more action type posts and / or organzing pressure campaigns related to the war. I guess where I disagree with you, however, is your conclusion that this means folks "don't care" about ending the war.

    Parent
    How do we know if they care? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    What do they tell us about what they "care" about?

    It could be that like Markos, they think there is nothing to be done.

    I wrote ablout all this in March and April.

    Then they should say so and stop pretending otherwise.

    Move On is especially despicable on this.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    here's what I'm saying: It's my opinion that they do care about Iraq, and I have a feeling all of the front pagers have written about Iraq (obviously among other topics) since the democrats took power in January.

    Now maybe they haven't written about it in a way you think is productive or effective, but I know for a fact that Iraq is on the front page of Daily Kos every single day, in one way or another. I'll go ahead and scroll through the recent story list.

    Here is DemFromCT today.

    Here is Meteor Blades talking about Petraeus and the report today.

    This is from SusanG and the diary rescue crew who highlighted three different Iraq diaries last night.

    This is from mcjoan yesterday on the NIE and the magical September deadlines.

    Here is Hunter yesterday talking about Bush and Iraq.

    Here is mcjoan yesterday breaking news about the Iraq NIE.

    Here is BarbinMD talking about Iraq on Wednesday.

    This is SusanG and the diary resuce folks again highlighting four Iraq related diaries on Wednesday.

    This is MissLaura writing about the Iraq surge and the presidential candidates on Wednesday.

    Here is BarbinMD writing about Maliki on Wednesday.

    Here is mcjoan on Wednesday busting Bush on a pre-election Iraq-Vietnam comparison.

    Here is mcjoan on Wednesday writing about Bush's recent crazy Vietnam-Iraq quip.

    This is KagroX on Wednesday writing about republican positions on Iraq.

    Here is SusanG and the diary rescue folks again highlighting three Iraq-related diaries on Tuesday.

    Here is a frontpaged diary on Tuesday by pontificator regarding Petraeus' testifying.

    Here is KagroX writing about Iraq on Tuesday.

    I need to do some work, so I going to stop here. But clearly, Iraq is not missing from the front page of Daily Kos.


    Parent

    Those examples make BTD's point (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    Click through and look at them. (exclude the diary rescue and pontificator because they don't represent the view of 'managing editors').  Yes Iraq is written about regularly.  It's kept front and center in everyone's mind.  But almost none of them advocate for any specific action much less any action that can stop the war now - or even in the next 6 months.  Much less spend any time creatively analying HOW the war could be stopped ASAP.

    So what is the effect of most of these or all of these in the aggregate?  It keeps Iraq as an issue on everyone's mind but has no effect on moving the public, electeds or even the roots part of netroots to any type of action right now.

    Parent

    If you (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:31:30 PM EST
    read the other parts of the threads, you will see that I am saying several things:

    (1) to the extent Armando is saying the Netroots and/or Daily Kos "ignores" Iraq or "never" writes about Iraq, he is wrong - in fact, Iraq is on the front page multiple times per day at Daily Kos;

    (2) to the extent Armando is arguing the Netroots and/or Daily Kos aren't using their megaphone in a way that would more effectively put pressure on Congressional Democrats to end the war, he may very well be correct; and

    (3) the fact that #2 may be correct does not mean that the Netroots and/or Daily Kos "does not care" about Iraq.

    Parent

    But I did read what else you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    Armando never said they never write about Iraq, he said they never write about pressuring Dems in Congress on getting out of Iraq.  And then he agreed that McJoan was an exception to "never".

    He actually never said that they don't care about Iraq.  He said "Rather why does the Netroots not fight for the issues that they are supposed to care about?"   You inferred that he meant that they don't care about Iraq.  He can speak for himself but I don't infer that he thinks they don't care at all about Iraq.  I infer that he thinks that, while they may care about Iraq, they don't care about getting out of Iraq before the next election, or at least they don't care enough to fight for it.

    And all of your links go to prove your second point.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#69)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    mary, this is a direct quote from a comment in this diary:
    they do not write about it in ANY way
    Also, I'm pretty sure he is saying they don't truly care about ending the Iraq war. Not only did he use the phrase you quote above "issues that they are supposed to care about", he also directly asked me a question that makes it fairly clear he thinks they don't care about it:
    How do we know if they care? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:51:53 PM EST

    What do they tell us about what they "care" about?
    It could be that like Markos, they think there is nothing to be done.

    I wrote ablout all this in March and April.

    Then they should say so and stop pretending otherwise.

    I just happen to think he is mistaken.

    Parent
    Yes, and his next comment (none / 0) (#71)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    after that first makes clear what "it" means.  

    In any event he's absolutely right that neither DailyKos nor any of the other highly trafficked blogs is out in front advocating for ways to get us out of Iraq now.  Whether they care about Iraq in a general way or not, whether they think Iraq is a travesty or not - they aren't out there in front on the issue trying to think of ways to stop the war now and trying to get action moving in that direction.  They aren't leading.  They are following - following the common wisdom that says we can't do anything about it until after the election.

    Parent

    Feingold, for one, thinks we could (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    potentially exerpt enough pressure to force the Congress to use what leverage they've got. Recall, this is his rationale for asking us to forget impeachment. Or perhaps he only thought we could then, as he's been relatively silent since.

    Parent
    Write aqbout (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:42:34 PM EST
    the now, what Congress should do now.

    Parent
    I think he thinks (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    that the only real megaphone is on the front page.

    Parent
    Your #2 plus, the Presidential (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    candidate pool. Unfortunately, since BTD's voice is absent at Daily Kos, the discussion on Iraq seems quite diffuse. When he was posting there, he constantly reminded us of the practicalities of how the federal government works, especially which branch has which powers, and particularly that Congress's power on Iraq war is limited to funding or not-funding the war. mcjoan tries to keep this information front and center but I don't really see it anywhere else at DK.

    Parent
    Fair is fair (none / 0) (#59)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    Then maybe you can tell who are the impeachniks who are working against defunding because they favor impeachment.  I'm willing to admit some might exist if you can simply name some.

    Parent
    Kagro (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:40:46 PM EST
    He insists that he isn't (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:52:55 PM EST
    and got very touchy when I suggested that.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:13:43 PM EST
    He's full of it.

    Parent
    Defunding, noncompliance, and impeachment (none / 0) (#90)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    Just looked up a couple of articles by this Kagro guy and it looks like his position on defunding is that it may not be sufficient to stop the war if Bush/Cheney persist.  Link.  

    To my mind, this suggests a potential link between defunding and impeachment along the lines suggested by General Odom but I don't want to assume this is Kagro's view.  

    Can you provide a better link where he is actually working against defunding because he favors impeachment?

    I agree completely that the immediate focus must be on defunding and that this is a more attainable and urgent political objective. And although I don't think we will succeed, I applaud you for your efforts to define the terms of the debate by focusing on defunding.

    Parent

    Here's a more recent post ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    ... that doesn't sound like someone who is working against defunding because they favor impeachment:

    Priorities in Congress
    by Kagro X
    Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:03:04 AM PDT

    Separation of powers. Heard of it? Congress has.

    And here you thought they hadn't!

    Why not?

    Was it because they haven't yet been willing to enforce their own subpoenas?

    Was it because they haven't yet been willing to exercise their "power of the purse" to remove our troops safely from Iraq? ... link

    Parent

    Seems to me that your "blinder" is Iraq (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    You were on the money for 2004 and 2006 that it would be the issue. You think it still is, and you think you have the only real solution to the problem--one that works strategically and politically. I think you're right about that.

    It pisses you off, I think, that they go on about other issues like impeachment, when the grand unifying answer is your Iraq strategy. I can't say I disagree, but you're Armando about it, and that ruffles feathers. (Much needed IMHO).

    Parent

    But even the issue (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    is ignored.

    Does anyone care about what the Congress can and should do now?

    If so, where are they?

    Parent

    siun (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by selise on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:02:11 PM EST
    You excluded mcjoan above, but (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    I know she cares. So, actually, does taylormattd. He even wrote a diary last week to that effect.

    Yours is not a majority position, but you already knew that. You seem to fight best when that's true.

    Parent

    I am glad to hear that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    but mcjoan might be a part of the Netroots "establishment," but Matt is not.

    You are not. I am not.

    I think he missed my point.

    Parent

    Well, let's quantify (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    Markos thinks the issue is dead until 2009, and when does he ever change his mind about anything?

    You know Blades agrees with your strategy in principle, but doesn't think it will work, and generally wants to talk impeachment.

    Chris and Matt are off fighting the Blue Dogs, but you don't like the way They're doing it. Why don't you write about that?

    There are others, of course, but I can't read everyone all of the time.

    Parent

    I do read them (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    and none of them are focused on the Congress NOW!

    On Iraq NOW!

    On the Petraeus event to come!

    It is a secondary issue at best for them.

    Parent

    Right, well (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:56:11 PM EST
    what do you want me to do, write a "Criticize my F!@#$%^ Congress, kos!" diary?  

    What's your grand strategy for getting the netroots on track?

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    I would argue that a former DKos frontpager, a current TalkLeft frontpager, an occassional MyDD guest poster, and someone who writes a piece for the guardian is most definitely part of the netroots establishment.

    Parent
    mcjoan may be (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    but the idea that I am is hilarious.

    I USED TO BE. But how often do you see me linked to at daily kos?

    That's no accident dude.


    Parent

    And that's a dang shame... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    I do see some links in diary comments to your posts. That site is not the same without you BTD.

    Parent
    The netroots is not "The Netroots" inc. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    Politics is a hobby for many people (none / 0) (#30)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:18:50 PM EST
    I think most people involved in politics (including many in the netroots) like the give and take of politics, sending angry missives, the 'give 'em hell' aspects. Results are secondary. I think once you are in the game of politics you can be seduced into wishing for changes in the game of politics instead of keeping results first in your mind.

    Results are secondary. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    To many, yes. Conclusions sort of end the game, don't they?

    Parent
    They've written off defunding (none / 0) (#67)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    as a way to stop the war and they've written off impeachment as a way to stop everything else because of the numbers and not having a real majority to work with. Where they are now is the logical result by default - winning the presidency and workable majorities in Congress is the only strategy left for ending the war and stopping the right-wing assault on the Constitution and the economic prospects of average people.

    From what I see, they're not convinced on the power of defunding because they think:

    • Bush will strand the troops in Iraq anyway and with the help of a compliant media sell that to the country as the fault of Democrats

    • Bush will simply allocate funding from elsewhere despite what the law says, and again with the help of a compliant media sell that to the country as necessary because of Democratic "abandonment" of the troops

    • that it's Dems' best campaign issue of 2008, no matter how incompetently they handle it in the meanwhile (no doubt the reason that the willingness of party leaders to pursue defunding - its only real requirement - is so tragically off the table)

    While you've written about the power of the purse as being the main power of Congress under the circumstances and built a convincing case for it, I think you've been for some reason less successful at addressing these objections. The third point is so tragically stupid because making actual attempts to end the war now, regardless of numbers and vetoes, is Dems' best route to winning in 08, not this constant pathetic mealy-mouthed knuckling under to Bush and his propaganda.


    My thoughts (none / 0) (#80)
    by PsiFighter37 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    Here's what I posted over at dKos in a diary about your piece, Armando:

    What I think he fails to account for, though, is that the netroots has had very limited success when it comes to fighting for or against legislation. It failed for SCOTUS, it failed on Iraq - heck, the only thing bloggers had much of an effect on was net neutrality, and that was different - it was about fighting for survival.

    The blogosphere has (and probably will continue to be) much more effective in the electoral space than in the legislative arena. Should the focus change? Absolutely; that being said, success is far from a guaranteed thing.

    That isn't to say that most of your points aren't valid - they are and should be considered. However, even when we were less 'mainstream', we still failed at effecting real change on pending legislation.

    If at first you don't succeed (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:40:51 PM EST
    you just give up?

    Parent
    Miss Laura at DailyKos (none / 0) (#81)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    I made a comment to similar effect over at DailyKos. It prompted a reply from Miss Laura of:
    Pfft.


    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:40:15 PM EST
    Hunter saying it don't make it so.

    Frankly, Hunter don't say much of anything anymore.

    Hardly the poster boy for that argument.

    As for Miss Laura, she is very nice person.

    Parent

    I hear your last line... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    with Russian accent.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    Why dont you cross post Iraq issues in DK (none / 0) (#86)
    by timber on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:37:33 PM EST
    I agree there needs to be more Iraq voices.  That is your forte and passion. So why not cross post your Iraq diaries in DK to have larger audience---especially media, and pundits, Dem leadership audience,  then liveblog in Talk Left.

    Your perspective might change/spark  CW and debate and rally the troops.

    Markos is your friend--if you ask him, I think he will allow you to cross post your Iraq diaries.

    It seems he was banned from DK and ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    ... perhaps to some extent it was a mutual, partial self-banning.

    Markos comments here.

    BTD discusses it here.

    Parent

    If you want to responsd in the Dkos thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:52:28 PM EST
    I'll be happy to transport it, and take my chances. Just don't overwork me.

    Seeing as how mcjoan is a front pager (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:52:55 AM EST
    and is in sync w/BTD on defunding, I keep looking for her to link to some of the BTD posts here.  If that has happened, I've missed it.  I've added a few though.

    Parent
    From a personality perspective (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    After reading the personality traits of the majority of the netrooters who have volunteered to take those personality tests, a majority of bloggers are introverts and not comfortable being influential but very comfy with and good at analysis.  Only one in ten people has a personality comfortable with and self rewarding enough to be a calculated extrovert risk taker......and that is you in spades BTD.  Other A-list bloggers are comfy with calculated risk in other political areas but WAR is a scary area to risk in.  To be able to take calculated risks in influencing war you have to be comfortable with fighting that begets blood and death to even begin to acknowledge a war to the degree needed to address the subject.  Lots of A-listers are not that comfy with fighting let alone a real war.  So for now it is you and McJoan and everyone else you guys can garner, and then will follow those who analyze and those who champion unity.  You've got revolutionary genes in an evolutionary environment.  You can't trade your genes in though, I already tried and no deal but without your personality type and perspective the organic system of humanity and civilization developes a vacuum pocket and starts to crumble on itself.  So rock on BTD, the nice thing about revolutionaries is that we get big fat egos to be our imaginary friend when nobody else will play with us during those brief intervals when we have been shocking and everyone is trying to recover from us, and we get big fat pillows for our big fat heads.  I prefer down filled thank you.