It’s in extraordinarily bad taste for Nancy Pelosi’s staffers to justify their capitulation on the FISA issue to Time on strictly political grounds.
“For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue,” says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it.
Pelosi’s decision is fateful. As Glenn Greenwald explains, this decision has created a new alliance.
Our campaign just exceeded $300,000 yesterday. We’re going to announce the details behind the Money Bomb part of the campaign, coordinated by those responsible for the Ron Paul money bombs, very shortly. I can’t think of a better explanation for the strategy we’ve adopted than this Time article and what it’s conveying about the mindset of Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democratic Congressional leaders. This model of an ideologically diverse coalition, devoted to battling the political establishment’s endless expansion of unchecked power, is creating real turmoil and disruption in Britain, and that model can work here, too.
For the first time, the blogosphere is teaming up with libertarians to defeat and harass incumbent Democrats. This is a direct result of Pelosi’s decision. This was what I was hinting at in my Tsunami Interruptus piece, where I talked about a generational misunderstanding.
To one degree or another, the blogosphere is made up of libertarian-minded people that are attracted to the Democratic party because they respect privacy and embrace multiculturalism and tolerance for cultural minorities. While the blogosphere has many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats it also has a lot of people that see the Democratic Party as more of a vehicle to correct the abuses and mistakes of the Bush administration. In a parliamentary system, the blogosphere would probably line up with a more left-leaning party than the Democrats. But in our system where third parties get no proportional representation, we are forced to use the only vehicle available.
Job One was to seize control of both Houses of Congress from the Republicans. Job Two was to nominate someone that opposed the invasion of Iraq and promised to change the mindset in Washington that got us into the war. Job Three was always going to be a purge of bad Democrats that embody that mindset. Support of the FISA bill is emblematic of the same bad attitude that got us into Iraq.
Pelosi’s decision has given Job Three a real impetus. Once an alliance is formed between the blogosphere and Ron Paul supporters, there is no going back. Pelosi could have postponed this alliance or avoided it altogether by leaving FISA reform to the next president to craft on their own terms. That she made a different decision, and that she is justifying it this way, indicates that she profoundly misunderstands the values of the younger generation of political activists. And, I submit that misunderstandings of this type indicate that the Democratic leadership is misjudging the explanation for and strength of the party’s popularity with young people in general.
For a digital generation, warrantless electronic surveillance is anathema. The Democrats are (or were) popular with young people precisely because they are presumed to not be in favor of a surveillance state. It’s only one component, of course. It’s also important that the Democrats support women’s privacy, gay rights, and Terri Schiavo’s rights. Privacy, as a general matter, is a big part of tolerance, and that is what attracts young people to the Democratic Party. Insofar as the Democratic Party betrays that faith or takes it for granted, activists will go after them just like they went after the Republicans for doing the exact same things.
Game on.
I honestly don’t expect then teeth-gnashing, clothes-rending, do-nothing liberal blogosphere to follow through on this. Just one more item of drama of “Next time, Gadget, next time!”. Yawn. Lot’s of money will be raised off the faux-outraged sheep, people too stupid to realize exactly why they should be pissed off, and all the BBB will write 1000-word blog pieces to rally the troops and then once they get access and time to talk to the “turncoats”, then it’ll become, “Well you don’t know the story…”. Tired of that song and dance, you know…
I note that the liberal blogosphere has no problem crying ‘betrayal’ over those slightly right of center “Democrats” that littered the ActBlue pages. Those of us who mentioned the the rightist views of these people oughJimWebbcough, were derided. Scorpion and Frogs, my friends…this drama is stupid…what did you expect?
See:
Job One
Job Two
and
Job Three
One job at a time.
And seeing as how the liberal blogosphere and Democrats, in general, have an innate talent of shooting themselves in the foot, it’s only laughable to see people get their panties in a twist over people they giving rimjobs to just a year or two ago.
This is a process.
Part of being a progressive is making progress.
When you look at what has been accomplished so far you can see that things are improving at a rate no one really predicted.
Do you want some of those defeated Republicans to have their jobs back? Which ones?
You know that I’d prefer not to have the Republicans in office, but you should also know that I’d prefer real Democrats in office versus a convenient meatpuppet. It’s the frustrations, the large amounts of money, the lack of reason and transparency that make this all one step forward, two steps back.
I agree entirely Fabooj.
Although I disagree that it’s only from people who are too stupid to realize exactly why they should be pissed off. When you get to complicated issues it’s hard for people with a lot of responsibilities in their lives to really plow through those issues and understand them. The media of course doesn’t help them. In the beginning, the blogosphere was reliable in having high profile people who took the time to really examine the issues. And to a fairly large extent, at the beginning, the blogosphere was transparent. They built trust.
Then came the secret groups and the secret strategies put together in those secret groups. And part of those secret strategies was not giving the readers all the information because that information was hard and it might confuse the troops. So they coast on the trust that they formerly built up.
So some of these people aren’t stupid. They are just misguided in their trust of the leading lights of the blogosphere.
On the other hand, the blogosphere is able to treat its readers like sheep in part because so many of its readers act like sheep.
Get Greewald. He announces that they just raised over $300,000. But:
In other words, we raised a lot of money from people who don’t even know what we’re going to do with it.
What do you want to bet Matt Stoller is involved in this money raising operation? It’s his favorite thing to do. Raise money from the sheep.
Do you want to have a serious discussion about this?
Here’s what you see when you go to donate to the campaign.
The entire thing was set up in March, the last time we went through this. It’s hard to see how it lacks transparency. The only thing that has changed is that now there has been a vote. And so the issue is no longer lobbying Reps, but responding to their votes. Of course, there is still the issue of lobbying senators.
Well, yes. I would like to have a serious discussion.
But I have found over the last few days at other blogs that serious discussion is not really possible because the people with whom I am discussing do not even know the basics about how this fund is going to operate.
So it would be really helpful if you are going to direcly or indirectly raise money for it, if you would put up a whole story on how it works.
I have lots of questions about financial disclosures so we can know exactly what the money people give is actually used for. I don’t mean legal disclosures that the average person can’t find and has a hard time plowing through. I mean transparency.
I also want to know how decisions are going to be made between the Ron Paul people and the other people involved as to how the money is to be spent.
So if you could find all that out, it would be helpful.
The other day I asksed someone pushing this and he linked me to an interview that Glenn Greenwald gave. With all due respect, an interview isn’t legally binding. It is really only Glenn’s opinion about how things are going to work.
Does this coalition have a formal organization? Does it have bylaws? How exactly is it going to work. Exactly how are decisions going to be made about how the money is used.
I think anybody who is even thinking of giving money should want to know the answers to these things.
Full disclosure – I have no intention of contributing a dime. If they want to write blog posts about candidates that should be supported, I’m willing to entertain the idea of giving directly to the campaign. But I no longer give money to or through anything run by bloggers.
i had to do some stuff, but you posted my concerns perfectly.
Blue America PAC functions under the ActBlue PAC umbrella. ActBlue explains how they function here. Decisions made by Blue America are through Howie Klein, Digby, Jane Hamsher (and possibly other members of firedoglake), and John Amato. To the extent they explain their decision making process, they are transparent. For candidates, Howie Klein interviews each prospective nominee and explains his reasons for and against formal endorsements. The criteria has some measure of evolution, but it’s clearly defined.
For this particular campaign it’s obvious that Glenn Greenwald is involved and that alliances have been made with Ron Paul’s moneybomb organizers. Greenwald says they will announce that aspect of the campaign soon, and I can’t tell you what they’re going to do. My expectation is that the Paul people will do a money bomb for the PAC. What will they get in return? Will the PAC promote Ron Paul endorsed candidates? Will it run ads against Ron Paul endorsed candidates’ primary opponents? I don’t know for sure what arrangement has been made. And I think that is a legitimate problem.
As a more general matter of how the PAC will go about selecting targets, I expect that they will do it the same way they always do. They will seek first to cause actual electoral damage and then move to the next tier of changing behavior.
As of now, they are seeking to unseat John Barrow in a primary and cause Chris Carney to lose his seat outright. Carney got on the wrong side of Blue America PAC by going back on a promise to support civil unions. They’ve been quite out front in their displeasure with Carney. They have also purchased a Washington Post advertisement targeting Steny Hoyer.
If you don’t support unseating Democrats or you don’t trust their collective judgment, or if you want to wait to see how the alliance with Ron Paul is going to work in practice, then you should not donate to the PAC.
I’ve already said I’m not going to contribute to the PAC. I’m asking these questions for general information. Let me be brutally frank. I read the comments on this blog and others and see what other people disclose about themselves. I know that my disposable income is far, far higher than the average commenter. And I don’t spend it without asking questions. So maybe I’m being paternalistic in asking these questions for the people who have less disposable income than me but who are NOT asking questions before they contribute. But so be it.
I have no problem unseating John Barrow. But I’m only willing to give money to the opposition candidate directly. I might be willing to give to a PAC to do a specific action (such as run a specific ad) IF I knew that there was going to be financial transparency to show how much money was taken in for that purpose and how much was spent.
This rest of this response is somewhat rhetorical since I don’t really expect you to do a full research project on Blue America.
What do you mean it functions under the umbrella? Is it a separate PAC or not? I was under the impression it was a separate PAC but that it used the process of ActBlue to raise money. But it has no page that I can find explaining anything.
Where did you get the info about who makes decisions? I don’t see it on the page you linked to.
and … to the extent they don’t, they aren’t?
Is there a website for it? I can’t find one. Do they give any summary of how money is spent? Do they disclose the ways in which funds are used not directly for the purposes of supporting candidates or issues? For instance the $900 fine they had to pay for late filings in 2006? (I’m not cricicizing them – the best intentioned people miss filings. That was just what I found when I googled.)
Right. I can’t tell you either. And yet, they’ve asked for money and people have given it to them on the strength of the announcement that Glen is involved and the Ron Paul moneybomb organizers are involved. Your expectation is nice to know and probably quite reasonable. But it really means nothing.
But I think we agree that there is a legitimate problem that could occur.
There is no reason why these people shouldn’have set up a website to explain all of this. They are web based people for goodness sake. This PAC has been around for a while. How are they going to separate the money that people have given for other purposes and the money given for this purpose? Or does that matter legally? And if it doesn’t matter legally doesn’t it matter morally that they tell their donors what they are doing?
on your last point, the fund for Fisa is separate from the fund for candidates.
Under the guise of “asking questions,” you’re making one inaccurate statement after the next.
With regard to the money that has been raised thus far, several of us — including myself, Jane Hamsher, Digby, Howie Klein and John Amato, the bloggers involved in this fund — have probably written 20 posts at least in extreme detail specifying exactly what the money will be used for, which is how Booman was able to tell you.
The first post announcing the campaign, the plans we had, and the underlying rationale was here.
Another post detailing the first ad campaign against Chris Carney — who was chosen by a poll of our readers — was here.
The next post announcing the inclusion of Steny Hoyer and the reasons for it was here.
The next post announcing that expansion of the campaign to include John Barrow was here.
The minute our ads were ready against Carney, I posted them (see Carney link above). The minute the first ad against Hoyer was ready, I posted that here), along with detailed plans for what we intend to do with them.
Let me know if you find a PAC that more completely includes its donors in the details of its plans and/or is more transparent. I doubt you will.
The money bomb coordinated by the Ron Paul people is a completely different fund. The reason we haven’t disclosed any details about it is very simple: we haven’t worked the details out. They’re going to coordinate the campaign. It’s going to have exactly the same purposes as everything I wrote above. If those purposes are served by targeting a Republican for defeat or promoting one that is particularly good on these issues, then that is what we’ll do. If not, then we won’t. But that has nothing to do with the funds we’ve been raising thus far, the plans for which have been disclosed in painstaking, one might say excessive, detail.
so let me just say that I was not spouting misinformation. I have no information. I was giving my opinion and saying that these are questions that should be answered.
I am not a regular reader of Jane Hamsher or Digby and I don’t read Amato or Howie Klein at all. I don’t even know where they post. The idea that I would know by osmosis the answers to these questions that aren’t on a website and are scattered among your various blogs is absurd. Did you notice that none of you post HERE?
I don’t intend to click through all those links. I see no reason why I should do your work for you. Presumably at some point if you want people who aren’t your readers to donate you’ll get everything together in one place where all questions are answered. It won’t be me, because I don’t funnel my money through bloggers. But I’m sure there are many people who do not read your blogs who would give the idea of giving money serious consideration if they could easily get information about where their money was going.
Just so you really understand my suspicion and where I’m coming from, my first introduction to this whole coalition with the Ron Paul folks was at a blog that told me if I clicked this link it would tell me all about your coalition. Go ahead. Click it. See what kind of information you get.
John Amato runs Crooks & Liars and Howie Klein runs DownWithTyranny and also posts at firedoglake.
I thought Crooks and Liars only posted youtubes of news stories. I had no idea who ran it. To my knowledge I have never once seen DownwithTyranny. And the only person I read at Firedoglake is Christy. I do click over to Marcy’s site to read her stuff regularly but I don’t consider that Firedoglake.
To think that someone at another blog can understand what they are doing because they’ve done blog posts on their own blogs is absurd.
well, just for your information…
If I want to get money to a candidate I’m calling Howie to discuss it. That’s because Howie is the guy that does most of the upfront work and deals with candidates. And Blue America raised over a half a million for Dems last cycle and they’ve raised $350,000 this cycle.
So, if you want to know who the power brokers are, Howie is near the top of the list. And, in my experience, Howie is very, very upfront about his decision making process. He’s also very responsive to inquiries.
As for John Amato, he created one of the biggest political sites on the tubes, and it isn’t all video.
I have no interest in power brokers.
I have no interest in making anyone in the blogosphere powerful. If they can do it without me, bully for them.
I don’t know.
You are pretty reliable about periodically making a generalized complaint about power brokers and lack of transparency and so forth. It seems to me that you are actually interested (or concerned, or discomfited) in power brokers and their role in the blogosphere. After all, you’ve made a personal decision to not let power brokers act as intermediaries for your political decisions.
I thought you’d be interested to know some information about Howie Klein, as he is less well known that Duncan and Bowers and Hamsher and Armstrong, but he is actually a very important and influential part of the movement. And you said you’d never heard of him. Amato’s a legend, too. He was a pioneer of using video politically. Anyone writing a history of the blogosphere would treat both those guys as giants.
At the same time, they’re both lower profile (or less self-promoting) than many better known blogger-activists.
I’ll rephrase.
I have no interest in knowing anything about the powerbrokers in the blogosphere — except how best to avoid having them use me and/or my money to give themselves more power.
I feel the same way about powerbrokers in real life. It is unfortunately harder for me to avoid them in my real life. Which may explain, now that I think about it, why I so strictly avoid them online. Because I can.
I didn’t come here to convince you of anything, just to correct your multiple false statements for the benefit of others, which I was alerted to via email. Asking questions is fine, but that isn’t what you did. Your entire first comment was nothing but a parade of one patently false accusation after the next, which is what happens you opine on matters which, by your own admission, you know absolutely nothing about (and are too slothful to find out, even as continuing to opine).
Statements like this were totally false:
Those are all lies. We didn’t raise a lot of money from people “who don’t even know what we’re going to do with it.” They know exactly what we’re doing with it, because — as I demonstrated — we disclosed it all in lavish detail ahead of time The fact that you continue to insist you said nothing false even while admitting that you know nothing and are too lazy to find out if what you said is true speaks volumes about who you are.
The people you’re defaming are expending extreme amounts of their own time for free working on issues about which they care passionately, and deserve far better than to be smeared by reckless hecklers like you.
heh. I see what you are saying. As to the first comment, I can see how two different concepts got confused.
The secret group I was talking about wasn’t you. It was Townhouse and it related back to multiple conversations that BooMan and I have had about strategies in the blogosphere.
The “on the other hand” part was a different concept. That people will give money just because they are asked – nothing to do with a secret underhanded strategy. But I did understand from the quote that BooMan had in his piece that you had raised $300,000 and you were soon going to announce what it would be used for. I still think it reads that way.
The second comment was completely separate from the first. When BooMan asked if I wanted to discuss it seriously I answered seriously. That’s when I started asking questions. There was nothing false in that comment. Those were true questions. That’s just the way I am.
I don’t appreciate you attacking me as slothful. I spent a significant amount of time during that exchange googling to find out if there was any general information about Blue America. Try it sometime. Even BooMan couldn’t come back with answers. So clearly it wasn’t easy to find those answers.
Maybe you didn’t come here to convince me but you should have looked at this as an opportunity to convince the other people who read here. My questions are valid questions that people who are going to give money should ask.
uh…Townhouse doesn’t exist. It’s like Cosa Nostra.
I see the resemblance.
Cosa Nostra also monitors ‘attitudes’ and sends people over to strong arm those with the wrong ‘attitude’.
In real life I’d be dead.
I didn’t contact Glenn.
I do think he is within his rights to defend himself and this effort. I support his effort and he can explain it better than I can.
I didn’t say you did.
I also think he is within his rights to defend himself and his effort. I do NOT think he should be calling me names. But since he thought I was slandering him I’m cutting him some slack.
I am not a liar. Sometimes I’m slothful. But not today.
Thank you for posting here and providing us with more detailed information.Haven’t made up my mind yet about your effort. Donating, that is. The purpose I support.
I gave a tidy sum directly to Regina Thomas.
Doesn’t Obama’s support of the FISA legislation qualify as “capitulation”?
We’ll see. It might. As of now, he does not support the bill as is.
As of now he has made an extremely equivocal, non-statement about the FISA bill.
As for his “changing the mindset that led us into this war” (or however he put it), oh yeah! Enlarging the military and increasing its budget is sure the first step in THAT direction – NOT. Making bellicose statements toward Iran (which never has been and still is not a threat to anyone, and which HAS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM by all the evidence) is sure a great step in that direction – NOT.
This last week Obama put the last nails in his coffin as far as I am concerned. I am looking for a third party candidate – again.
your choices are Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney. You may find one or two other candidates on your ballot…depending on the state.
And what about a response to the substantive points I made, BooMan? Do you disagree that Obama’s remarks about the FISA bill were a non-statement? Do you disagree that enlarging the military and its budget, making a mad rush at record speed to grovel at AIPAC’s feet even promising them Jerusalem, and issuing a constant stream of bellicosity toward Iran are antithetical to his pledge to “change the mindset that got us into this war”?
On FISA, prior to the vote, I will remain in a lobbyist’s role. Analysis can be done later.
Obama pledges to expand the size of the armed forces, which is distinct from expanding the military. It is a recognition that we do not have enough soldiers to fulfill our current commitments. It does not mean that he intends to conquer new nations.
As for AIPAC, it’s part of the game. Bow down to AIPAC or don’t play. And bellicosity to Iran is all relative. Listen to what he and advisers are saying about Iran and then listen to what John McCain and his advisers are saying. They’re quite different.
I suspect that 90% of your problem with Obama is transferable to a problem with American politics in general. I can see how that can easily translate to doubt that Obama is changing any mindsets. But there is a significant change.
“Obama pledges to expand the size of the armed forces, which is distinct from expanding the military.“
A distinction without a difference. He intends to signifantly enlarge the military and increase the budget. What does the United States, which already spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, need with more troops and more money if Obama intends to withdraw from Iraq?
“It is a recognition that we do not have enough soldiers to fulfill our current commitments. It does not mean that he intends to conquer new nations.”
The single biggest “commitment” is Iraq. If Obama really intended to withdraw from Iraq, that would free up about 150,000 soldiers. Even if he leaves the 50,0000-70,000 troops analysts expect him to leave, that would free up 80-100,000 troops. What does the United States need more troops for if Obama will withdraw from Iraq, or even if he will reduce the size of the force there?
What the United States needs is not a larger military with more money. What the United States needs is fewer “commitments”.
Regarding FISA, if leadership is what one is hoping for from Obama, where is the leadership in that non-statement he made about the FISA bill?
As for his record-breaking (in speed, scope, AND magnitude) toadying to AIPAC, it went WAY beyond what is normally required to play the game. It was downright embarrassing.
And your apologia for his bellicosity toward Iran is not impressive. His statements regarding Iran are not exemplary of the kind of steady, sensible leadership I am looking for. Anyone who knows the facts knows that 1) Iran is not a threat to anyone, least of all Israel or the United States, 2) the evidence strongly tends to refute, not confirm the allegations that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Either Obama is utterly ignorant of the realities regarding Iran, or he is dissembling – lying by his actions if not his words. Either way he is not showing any kind of leadership or anything else that inspires confidence.
as is. Here are his words:
He’s presenting his prospective election as President as the only barricade against the potentially horrific consequences of this legislation.
It’s like saying: “I’m gonna vote to have your house set on fire, but if you elect me Fire Chief I’ll have the department put it out before too much damage is done.”
Yes. It is a lot like that. But, remember…you left out the part where he said that he opposed retroactive immunity and would ‘work’ to strip it from the bill. I don’t think he will be successful in that ‘work’ with his attitude so far, but I’ll wait and see.
Right on, Boo Man. Time we put our money and our brains behind our beliefs. Nice framing of the issues and why our 4th amendment rights are so important. I think we can have a big impact in these critical and changing times.
Granting amnesty to the telecons is a real deal breaker.
maybe this is our -blogshpere–slap-in-the-face: The Dems used us for our money and influence and now they don’t need-us or want us.
What other explanation is there to capitulate to a lame-duck president with a 27% approval rating.
How wonderful! Lefties in the blogosphere are teaming up with Libertarians to defeat Democrats! Hooray!!!
Didn’t the Republicans vote almost unanimously for FISA?
As long as you folks don’t admit the dynamics of our government you’ll just continue to shoot yourselves in the foot. If it were purely political, how come the Republicans voted for this power for the next President, Mr. Obama?
Of course, you know why. This power doesn’t go to Obama. It goes to the NSA. And they use this power against Americans. And how come Republicans and Democrats vote against the American people, against the Constitution, and for spy agencies. What does that say?
Come on, everyone, think hard. Think really hard. Imagine that you live in Russia. Or the former East Germany. Would you be all that surprised or shocked then? If not, then why now?
Understatement of the week:
I am so disappointed to see so many outraged and hurt Democrats ganging up on and constantly criticizing their candidates during an election year. Of course, despite their vivid imaginations, none of these people know anything about the strategies being employed in the campaigns. But since they aren’t doing everything the way we keyboard quarterbacks insist they must be done, we’ll just shoot them in the back whenever we feel betrayed by rhetoric. That’ll show ’em!
“It’s a process!”
Here’s a “process” alternative:
Have you looked at the FISA bill?
Yes. And I’m not impressed with it. But I respect that there are political calculations at play here and that this may be a nice setup for some political theater, so I am not going to beat up the best candidates in the field right now for betraying me before they even have.
Is it law yet? No.
If it becomes law, can it be changed once we have real control? Yes. It’s unconstitutional anyway, in multiple ways. And once we have control, which we can only get by supporting our candidates, the Repub’s aren’t gonna want their communications monitored any more than we do. So it won’t last.
But of course, maybe riling up the Liberal Netroots is part of their plan for this episode of political theater. Piss off the Netroots. Then pretend to care about their tantrums and then kill the legislation. Let them pound their chests in victory. Then maybe they’ll STFU for the rest of the campaign and not destroy our chances at actually winning anything.
I’m not sure what you mean by our ‘best candidates’.
If you mean Obama, we’re asking him to show leadership.
If you talking about the people that voted for FISA, the vast majority of them are not eligible for the title of ‘best Democrats’.
With less than a dozen exceptions, that list is made up of Democrats that have confounded us again and again on matters of oversight, no-strings war financing, and civil liberties.
…we’re asking him to show leadership…
and what if he shows his true colors?. what then? not just a rhetorical question, btw.
l agree with brendan’s basic premise; our 4th amendment rights are not negotiable. on the other hand, l’m going to wait and see how it plays out. as randy said, it isn’t through the senate, yet.
maybe just another kabuki for the progblogosphere’s amusement…tho l am not amused.
I will support Barack Obama for president regardless of what he does on FISA. But if FISA passes as is, and especially if Obama votes for it, I will kneecapped in my ability to make a full-throated case for him. And, it will necessitate conflict within the caucus to limit the power of the executive branch.
Boo…Thanks for keeping the discussion going on this.
I don’t want our civil rights screwed over by a Democrat any more than I do by a Republican. If I can’t trust either major party to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, then where do I turn? For whom do I vote?
I want to see that Senate vote, and find out who actually still supports the rule of law.
If this is political theater, as it should be at this point in an election cycle, I don’t think they’re doing it to impress us. I really think that they are intentionally doing it to piss us off – BIG TIME. They have succeeded. They need to show that they’re not in bed with the “radical liberals” from the blogosphere.
This is now general election campaigning time. The goal is to impress undecided/confused/stupid/timid voters that you’re not an extremist in either direction. From now until November, the candidates (at all levels) should be trying to convince these “independent” voters that they’re not Evil Liberals OR Evil Conservatives, but they’re gonna fix and Change everything in a way that will make everyone happy. A tough job.
I personally think that it is our duty, as loyal Dem’s to just bite our tongues and trust that they know what they are doing to get the wishy-washy voters to go their way and not expect liberal-purity from them until they get elected. Our time to debate these things was during the primaries and we made our choices. So now it’s time to just STFU and let them do their thing. Just defend the Democrat – no matter what and discredit the Republican – no matter what… until November. Once they’re elected we can make all the demands we want. But if we cause trouble for them between now and then, why in the world should they care what we think about anything?
You want me to STFU?
That’s a challenge for a blogger.
On a serious note, I’m not a political activist because I like to see names with ‘D’s’ on the end of them on CSPAN.
I want a judge to approve it if the government is going to read email and listen to phone conversations. It’s in the Constitution for a reason.
I agree with you. It drives me nuts as well. But I’m sick to death of losing elections to Republicans because they understand this concept of “self-discipline” during the general election. That’s all.
I want Obama to win SO BAD and I want massive majorities in both houses of congress SO BAD that I am willing to just play the game until November. If we lose this time, we as a country really are DOOMED.
What I am seeing around the blogosphere right now over the FISA bill could really kill us.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Here’s the Kabuki theater
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aRF8NHQ_eSeY
that pretty much covers all the bases doesn’t it? everything from immunity, to ethics, to lieberman’s future as part of the caucus.
no mention of the 4th amendment though, nor of dodd and feingold’s threatened filibuster.
l’ve little confidence or trust in mr. reid and hope that dodd will replace him next year.
I mean “Best Candidates” available at this point in the game – the general election. Sure, they may not be the Dems we would have liked, but they are the only ones who are in the party in a given race right now. We’re stuck with ’em. Better them than their Republican opponent. And they have to say rhetoric that will comfort their more independent constituents, too. But oh, no. That makes them impure now. With each not-liberal-approved statement they ever make, we freak out and put another nail in their coffin.
Look who’s overreacting now, Randy.
Let’s look at some facts.
The Dems have 235 seats (or so) in Congress right now. That number is expected to grow to anywhere from 250 to 270 in November. It’s probably a safe bet to stick with something like 255.
We already have a bigger majority than Newt Gingrich or Denny Hastert ever enjoyed. Why do we particularly care whether he add or lose a couple more candidates? You might care if they are your representative but in the larger scheme of things, it won’t change a thing. We just swore in Bill Foster, Andre Carson, Dan Cazayoux, Travis Childers, and Donna Edwards. Did you notice any change? No? That’s because they only added to a solid majority. And, btw, three of them voted for FISA.
We’re past the phase of retaking the House. Bigger gains are already built into the November elections through superior recruitment, retention, fundraising, and message. So, what does it matter if a couple of Dems get knocked off?
The point is to change the behavior of the Dems that remain.
Boo-
You’re entitled to your opinion obviously but I don’t think I’m over-reacting.
Now that we are in general election season, it does not matter how many seats each party holds, we always want more. Our time for debate over which candidates were best was during the primaries. Now we need to behave and cheer for every Dem whether we like them or not. We don’t want the undecideds looking to us and wondering why we aren’t confident in our own candidates that we chose in the primaries.
Once we see how the November elections turn out, we can take an inventory and apply pressure to the less desirable officeholders.
The only time we have leverage and the chance for accountability is during the run up to the election. Once they’re in, our influence plummets. Now or never.
I’m surprised to see so much pissing and whining here in the comments. I’m with Booman and Glenn Greenwald. Changing a political culture is a long and difficult process, and the only way to get it done is to keep chipping away at the job. I don’t understand the cynical attitude from some folks here.
Tired of being told, “Hey give money to this guy, I’m going to be covering him and I need money for my expenses, can someone put me up?”. Nevermind that people, like myself, will say, “Uh, this guy is only slightly left of Trent Lott.” Then months after said guy gets elected it’s, “I can’t believe he betrayed us (me and my random purist ideals)!,
IWe need more money to primary him! He’s gonna learn he can’t cross the (self-important) liberal blogsphere! Money! Money! Money! GRRRR”.… Did you miss the part in the diary above where Booman makes a distinction between those that are Democratic partisans and those that are progressive idealists? Chances are that this perceived double perspective could be resolved quite sensibly by concluding that there are, in fact, at least two groups of people at work here, with very different objectives and perspectives, but posting on the same sites.
.
not evolution. Bush ruined the civil rights of the American people in a single term and managed to consolidate his policy on Iraq, FISA, SC judges, foreign policy, et al during the following four years. Change needs to happen, or the Democrats will lose the younger generation forthwith. The politicians in Washington are clueless as to ME policy and Israel, even more to the right than the Israeli people.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The reason there is so much pissing and whinning is because that is what some do best. Glenn very eloquently stated the obvious when he said, “telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.”
Obama has a reported 1.4 million online donors. Imagine if during the month of July, a large portion of those donors kicked in a small contribution (we’ll make it a small contribution since most of them will not have a balance sheet as substantial as some contributors here) instead of sending a few bucks to Obama. Let’s see, $25 times 1 million. My guess is Obama and Pelosi would want to talk.
Do you have a nice summary of the bill? I’ve been trying to find one but haven’t had much success. I think I understand the immunity part, but what about the rest? I hear a lot of screaming about the fourth amendment, but I don’t quite see how this new bill is worse than the original FISA in that regard. Thanks to anyone who can clue me in.
Check out Mandy Simon.
That helps a little. About the court review: As I understand it, currently they don’t need a warrant for 72 hours, although I’m not sure the appeals process in the case it’s denied. Except… it’s virtually never denied: from 1979-2007, 25360 FISA applications were approved while only 9 were denied.
the ACLU usually takes them apart pretty well. l’d start there.
There is some good analysis here, although things still aren’t clear to me. It’s a complicated bill.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
Headline:
Where is the “Leadership” Leading Us?
I suggest that we openly and strongly criticize the Democratic “leadership” on the harm they are doing to the country by failing to uphold and defend the Constitution, and supporting an openly totalitarian tool, creating the surveillance state.
And that we direct this criticism to the rest of the Democratic Party. And lobby the rest of the Democratic Party to get rid of these leaders and to appoint some who are more in touch with the electorate.
That we keep pointing to scholarship and commentary that defends the Constitution, and that we continually point out how out of touch our supposed “leaders” actions are with the electorate.
I mean we should lobby the Democratic Congress, and Democratic Party officials and functionaries — the “super” delegate crowd, to get rid of Pelosi and Hoyer.