One can predict that a Lamont win will support the anti-war movement. But the unknowable is whether the anti-war movement will support or undermine the dem party.
My vote is that it will hurt the dem party at least in the short term for two reasons, and they are:
1) The McGovern analogy is not certain to hold, but it is certainly the way to bet it till it quits holding, and
2) The anti-war movement has a "blame America first" component that the pubs should be able to exploit, at least once.
Therefore, good for pubs, at least for '04.
-----------------
Is the anti-war movement good for the nation?
Absolutely. This is a big issue and should be studied and discussed.
This is called a primary and is happening all over the US.
See Armando's post today--the heroes are Connecticut grassroots not leaders who decided to act instead of just whine. Who like Dean would say--You have the power!
long before Ned Lamont was a household name. But at first, and until quite recently, I thought it was a fool's errand to try and replace Lieberman because he had high approval ratings in CT. In the long run this probably has little lasting impact on the Democratic Party. Whether Lamont wins or loses, the grassroots movement that made this possible (and CT is a momentarily prominent subset of a national Democratic grassroots movement) has become a major player within the Democratic Party. And that grassroots movement is largely but not entirely fueled by dissatisfaction over Iraq.
To say that the Democratic Party is being dragged to the left by its grassroots (and netroots) activists is to simply repeat Beltway insider drivel that has an innate anti-grassroots/anti-political-outsider bias. The grassroots are simply reflecting the national mood, which is not only soured on the war in Iraq but also against a so-so economy that benefits the wealthiest but leaves the rest of us behind and on the other side of the ever-widening income gap in America.
Therefore, since the Democratic grassroots are largely reflective of the national mood, they are dragging the party to a place where a majority of the voters are right now. That place where a majority of the voters reside should be called "the center." Perhaps part of the problem for beltwayists and Republican cheerleaders is that the political ground has shifted beneath them and that what once seemed to be the political center is now an increasingly isolated right flank. And that right flank is where Joe Lieberman resides.
Not really. Most netroots (Kos type) sites don't even allow conservatives to post on thier sites. Some of their volume comes from the echo chamber effect. Don't you think?
speak for all America. The netroots are just part of a larger grassroots movement that involves real people doing real things in the real world. Let me explain by referring to a post by Armando over at dKos. When he became a front-page blogger he pushed to get rid of Lieberman. But he got little sympathy really. It took someone working in the real world (who is coincidentally a member at dKos but not really a prominent blogger), and others like him, to drum up support with genuine offline grassroots activism. (link )
All over America there are people running for political office at various levels and for party positions, many of whom don't participate in blogging much. I have seen this in two different contexts. Last summer I attended a National Clark (as in General Wesley Clark ) Community Meetup in Little Rock. There were a lot of people there from all over the US and even some foreign countries who were prominent participants in the Clark site. But I was surprised to find out how many others there were who did not participate in the site much at all. And I was also pleasantly surprised to find that a very large number of them were working in grassroots activism, much of it completely unrelated to supporting General Clark.
At the meetup I met former Republican Eric Massa , now a netroots endorsed candidate, for the first time. This year I have worked online to support Eric from about 1000 miles away. But the thing I want to mention is that Eric has local bloggers supporting him that are a small subset of a much larger Democratic grassroots movement in upstate New York, a movement that has helped elect Democratic mayors in traditionally Republican strongholds.
What you see at dKos and smaller sites is just the tip of the Democratic iceberg. Occasionally there does seem to be an echo chamber effect, but the participants who post at these blogs are not the full audience (tons of lurkers). The Democratic grassroots movement, for which Howard Dean is at least partially responsible, is undoubtedly fueled by the netroots but is much much larger than just the netroots and certainly far far larger than the subset of activists who actually post on Democratic sites.
With President Bush polling so low, there is obviously a lot of national dissatisfaction. (link ) That dissatisfaction has swelled the ranks of Democratic activists and drawn in a lot of former Republicans.
I agree. Considering 90% of netroots positions are the position of american majority then netroots are considered the center.
With the prerequisite that public are judging from right information.
Iraq war--public was for it previously because they were told that Saddam had nuclear weapons and responsible for 911. The netroots,informed knew it was not true was against it. Once public is aware of the truth, they had the same opinion as netroots.
So I would say netroots is the informed public and a great focus group if public has the same information as the netroots.
that is rippling through the traditional media, and traditional politicians, both Republican and Democrat, that the "blogofascists" could possibly have a finger on the pulse of the people is amusing.
Yes it is good for the Democratic party. Hopefully the "nutroots" and the DNC will start working together more cohesively. It is time to look at things in a new light. The relationship can be a synergy of old and new.
Many Republicans advocate term limits. Joe's term is done. Why Republicans and especially the conservative intelligensia are so distraught that Democrats would vote Joe out is odd to say the least. Why is the right so hysteronic about promoting Joe? Because symbolically, a vote against Joe is a vote against Bush.
It is Democracy in action. Why is it chaffing at the behinds of the "wisest" of pundints and the DLCer's and most especially why are their such shrill cries from conservatives. My advice. Get some ointment for your chapped behind.
(Disclaimer if Joe should win then I will purchase ointment from my own chapped you know what and just hope for the best)
Yes it is good for the nation. In the simplest of terms it is a vote that agrees with Bush politiks (seeking the muddy center right) or a vote to change the direction away from Bush politiks (democrats with integrity and a good business sense). Rarely do we get such a clear cut contrast.
What is more dangerous to the Bush Republican Regime than a wealthy business savvy and successful democrat that has a bent for civic responsibility? It flies in the face of everything they stand for. They think only Republicans can do business.
My choice would be the president, except when the president is a dem :-)
I agree w/all you said, however, I disagree that the dems' grassroots gains are an overwhelming political trend.
I would again try to obtain your response to the observation that the rules of the dKos type sites hide the weakness of their arguments by specifically forbiding pubs from posting there. It is my position that this rule on netroots sites supports the false impression that the voice of the netroots choir is the voice of the community. Not so, it is just the voice of the choir in an echo chamber.
I would add a couple of discussion points about the voice of the comunity:
1) The trend in registerd voters over the last few decades has been away from the dems, and
2) The red states are gaining electoral votes and the blue states are losing electorial votes.
This leaves us at a crossroads:
1) return to the anti-war movement good or bad?: or
sites allow Republicans to post unless they are very trollish, meaning that they only come to namecall or start a fight or somesuch and offer nothing of real substance. For example, Ender has posted at dailykos and could continue to do so. Just yesterday a Republican troll posted in Eric Massa's diary at MyDD, the same troll who has been on Eric's campaign blog pretending to be a Democrat.
So I think your complaint is wrongly framed, especially considering the fierceness with which rightwing sites often limit posting capabilities. From my perspective, your complaint is of the pot and kettle variety and it looks, IMO, like you are projecting Right-wing blog behavior onto lefty blogs.
To call the entirety of the Democratic grassroots an "anti-war movement" is just wrong and, I think, an intentional oversimplification. I don't buy your latter three choices as representative of the true list of options. But I do have to get back to work for now.
As for the longterm trends in favor of Republicans, those are largely irrelevant to what is happening in 2006. W is polling very low because the public wants a change. And he is dragging down the Republican party, which has supported his agenda almost without question. That's the 2006 reality that you need to be discussing, the same one that is causing the swell in Democratic grassroots activism.
Those issues really aren't terribly important to me, didn't really give them any thought.
( ) Is it good for Democracy?
It's good for democracy when voters reject an incumbent because they feel he isn't representing their interests.
It's bad for democracy when a guy gets re-elected over and over regardless of whether he represents his constituents' interests.
( ) Is it good for the nation?
My view is that a Lamont win would be good for the nation in that it proves it's possible to be against the war against Iraq and still win a major elective office against heavy odds.
Under the topic of trolling, the dKos refers you to the following comment
This is not a site to debate conservative talking points. There are other sites for that. This is not a site for conservatives and progressives to meet and discuss their differences. There are other sites for that, too. This is not a site for discussing how to create a third party. Knock yourself out bitching about the Democrats, but the stated goals of the site are trying to fix them, as a party, not dismantle them.
Any site w/the volume of posts that honor dKos would find it impossible to ban all conservatives who slip in or out. The fact remains that the policy stated above is all that is needed to keep the echo chamber ringing.
out today that has Lieberman down by 6, as opposed to 13 from last week. It will all come down to the ground game.
As for my position, I am kinda hoping for a Lieberman win, but in the Redstate diary on this topic many proposed another agreeable scenario that I liked as well (remember this is a partisan wish for what is best for GOP which is what we, partisan republicans, care about):
Lamont wins the primary by a couple of points. Lieberman stays in. Democrats are stuck having to focus on this race, with various elected officials having to take sides, until the general election where Lieberman pulls it out as an independent.
While I like that, I think I still prefer the Lieberman win in this primary.
Is my preference good for the Democratic party? In my view yes because I think people like Lieberman enhance any party.
For the Republican party? Yes because I think we'd rather deal with people like Lieberman.
For democracy? I do not see how regular elections affect democracy in any manner. As long as everyone follows the law, all avenues open to Lieberman can be pursued.
Good for the nation? Lamont candidacy is fueled by the nationwide anti-war coalition of the liberals/pacifist left. From my viewpoint his win would not be good for the nation because I do not want pacifists have any real influence in our country.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The over-analyzing of this entire episode is just plain weird.
People in Connecticut are not happy with the performance of one of their U.S. senators.
Among the people of Connecticut, an individual steps forward and says he thinks he can do a better job and decides to run against the incumbent.
Many democrats and unenrolled voters say, hey, I kinda like this guy who's running. Now we have a choice.
Tomorrow, the Democrats of Connecticut will go to the polls and choose their candidate for the general election.
The challenger may well win the primary, unseating the encumbent the voters aren't happy with.
----------------------
The voters of Connecticut don't owe anybody anything. The don't owe this nation a better senator, they don't owe this nation a senator who is more popular or likeable, and they don't need to apologize for whomever it is they choose to vote for.
They owe themselves the best representation they think they can get. Representation that reflects their values and advocates for their needs. Period. The end. That's democracy as it's configured in the good ol' U.S. of A.
This whole damn election is like having a divorce on national television with everyone getting to inject their two cents. They constantly second-guess your motives, give you unsolicited advice, and subject your marriage to endless scrutiny to determine whether or not a divorce is justified.
Jesus Christ, let the voters of Connecticut conduct their business. Everyone will live to fight again another day--no matter the outcome.
who's either running for or currently in a political position. Considering we're far outnumbering you in the number of war vets running for office, and many on an anti-Iraq war position at that, the term 'pacifists' couldn't be more inappropriate.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
note that I said "Lamont candidacy is fueled by the nationwide anti-war coalition of the liberals/pacifist left." which does not translate into anyone in any political position. I am talking about your "grassroots" and groups like MoveOn.
I clearly was not talking about any politicians or candidates.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That's up to the Democratic Party. Right now, the rift between the DLC and the DNC is becoming more and more difficult to manage, and you can bet that the loser in the Lamont/Lieberman race is going to be foisting some pretty sour grapes. There was a chunk of people at dkos who said they wouldn't vote for Lieberman if he won the primary, and whether we agree with that attitude or not, it's definitely not good for the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, using primaries to define our values better is a major plus, not to mention all the free press. How often do primary candidates gain household-name notoriety like Lamont has? Given the total silence that usually attends Democrats' public statements, it's good to have a forum in which the party's platforms are articulated - and people actually pay attention.
Is it good for the Republican party?
Depends on who wins. If Lieberman wins, he'll start making claims about the Democratic Party rejecting the so-called radical wing of the party, which will make Republicans' attempts to frame it thusly a bit more difficult. If Lamont wins, they'll press hard into the Right's love of Lieberman in order to convince people that the Dems really are out of the mainstream.
So, oddly enough, it seems in the Republican party's best interest to push for a Lamont win. Funny how that works.
Is it good for democracy?
Well, sure. I wish primaries always got this much attention. It's refreshing to hear so many people interested and invested in a process that normally pulls little more than bored yawns from the bulk of people who don't vote in them.
Is it good for the country?
Yes, for all the reasons above. Doubly so since this primary has been remarkably free of smear campaigns (an occasional swipe, but nothing like you see in the usual nasty wars - cf. California's Democratic primary). Democracy in action, issues making the evening news, and people talking about what's important to them. This is a great primary.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
They've been trying forever to get us involved in Darfur - asking specifically for peacekeeping forces (note: military forces, not flower children with daisies) to be sent to the region.
Same holds true for much of the netroots, very very few of whom are either pacifists or anti-war.
I, of course, am the eternal exception. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
different from the practices at Redstate. But if you want to discuss the shortcomings of Democratic policies/ideas with pertinent facts, you can do that at dKos. I agree that there is occasionally an echo chamber there, but you seem to want to just label and dismiss dKos by saying it isn't in the mainstream of US political thought. And that simply isn't true.
are not necessarily pacifist per say but they are a haven for them. Sam holds true for your netroots because when you look at what diaries are most popular on dkos, it is those that are full of "war is evil, all war is bad, stop the warmongers" type stuff.
Sorry, I just have to disagree with your own perception of your own side :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
supporters is scewed by sites like Daily Kos and other "progressives." The same is true of the media in general, imo.
The democrat party does not consist solely of so-called "progressives." For the most part it consists of regular people.
Those people aren't all that active in the blogosphere.
The high level of activity of the "progressives" gives the impression that they are a force to be reckoned with, when in fact they are relatively few in number.
Absolutely agree. dKos is powerful, and I didn't mean to suggest that dKos isn't powerful.
My point is that dKos does have an echo chamber effect and that dKos' echo chamber pushes the dems to the left...powerfuly...especially if Lamont wins.
Re: Redstate
I am not aware of any dems trying to crash that gate.
that they are the minority (especially the pacifists) of the Democratic party, but they are obviously much stronger on sites like Dkos.
But it is the activists that flock to blogosphere, the people most interested, and it tells you something that a large number of people most involved skew that way.
I think the level of pacifism on dkos is similar to the love doled out to Castro's Cuba. Both are fairly admired positions.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that 500? If there is a diary with the pacifist sentiment (all wars suck, blah blah) with 500 replies, everyone pretty much agreeing with each other, and no disagreement with the sentiment does that mean that 1. the people who disagree do not want to get involved and trollrated for disagreeing or 2. there is not that much disagreement to begin with?
It is probably a mixture of both but imo it is a bit scary that that kind of dangerous position is gaining support amongst the left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
to be judged solely by a hate-filled diary, full of racial and ethnic slurs, that the more level headed people at Redstate don't participate in? We both know those happen at Redstate. And it wouldn't be a true picture of the site if that were all that was considered. You are perhaps unintentionally mischaracterizing the makeup of dailykos participants. There are a lot of veterans at dKos too. Are all veterans who participate there "pacifists"? Markos is a veteran himself and not actually a "pacifist." Furthermore, just because someone is anti this particular war in Iraq does not mean they are anti all war. There is a lot that has gone wrong with the Iraq War. And it isn't just Republicans who have pointed out problems. See the second point in this diary by Eric Massa .
I don't know what Redstate diaries you are talking about that are "full of racial and ethnic slurs" because I don't remember seeing any as that is extremely frowned upon and any racial slurs would result in banning. So when you say "we both know those happen at Redstate" count me out of that "we".
I am not claiming that everyone on dkos is a pacifist nor am I claiming that anyone opposing the Iraq war is a pacifist. I said that a large number of people there is, and there is a lot of sympathy for that dangerous view.
Another strawman is that veterans cannot be pacifists. People change. And again, I did not say everyone, or even the majority.
I do remember a while back on dkos someone was pointing out the dangers of pacifism and people were agreeing, but I would be interested to see a dkos response to a diary titled "The Dangers of Pacifism" now. Would be an interesting experiment.
It's kinda like a plague - too many people are falling into the whole kumbaya mode of: we can solve all our problems through dialogue and understanding.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, there was the Kerry/Finegold amendment that got 13 votes. It is sure not my desire to prove to you that dems are seen as weak on national defense.
You have my permission to see Russ Finegold as Scoop Jackson incarnate, if you wish.
Those liberals can't even tow the line. All they ever do is have meta-discussions on how Ned Lamont ties his shoes, doncha know. Those blogofascists are so out of control, even Markos can't keep them in line.
Hardly an echo chamber, imho.
BTW did you get your daily dose of Limbaugh today, hop? Speaking of echo chambers.......!
Maybe you're using the term in a way I've never heard before. Here's part of the text of that proposed amendment:
(a) REDEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ.—
(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT. -- For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.
(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED. -- The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).
(3) MAINTENACE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE. -- The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
So redeploying (not undeploying) troops away from Iraq and towards the actual war on terror is pacifist now?
You may disagree with this amendment, but it's only pacifistic if you stretch that word to mean "anything I don't like vis-a-vis Iraq," which is pretty much what you're doing.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Again, "pacifist", and "racist, bigot homophobe" are terms that are used as tools in political context.
I would not use the term pacifist to describe Kerry. Yet, the term pacifist is one that carries weight against all anti-war dems. Sorry if that bothers you.
I thought you were saying the dKos crowd of pacifists might be leading Dems off a cliff, or something like that... Not that you would really be concerned about Dems being led off a cliff ;), but that was what I took you to be saying...
personally, I like a positive understand that does not preclude all war, all conflict, because the anti-war people I know can usually imagine a war that did have to be fought, and none of them fit the stereotype of people that would not lift a hand to defend themselves.
Comments :
Anti-war movement, good or bad?
One can predict that a Lamont win will support the anti-war movement. But the unknowable is whether the anti-war movement will support or undermine the dem party.
My vote is that it will hurt the dem party at least in the short term for two reasons, and they are:
1) The McGovern analogy is not certain to hold, but it is certainly the way to bet it till it quits holding, and
2) The anti-war movement has a "blame America first" component that the pubs should be able to exploit, at least once.
Therefore, good for pubs, at least for '04.
-----------------
Is the anti-war movement good for the nation?
Absolutely. This is a big issue and should be studied and discussed.
It is good for Democracy
This is called a primary and is happening all over the US.
See Armando's post today--the heroes are Connecticut grassroots not leaders who decided to act instead of just whine. Who like Dean would say--You have the power!
This is definitely good for Democracy.
I wanted rid of Lieberman
long before Ned Lamont was a household name. But at first, and until quite recently, I thought it was a fool's errand to try and replace Lieberman because he had high approval ratings in CT. In the long run this probably has little lasting impact on the Democratic Party. Whether Lamont wins or loses, the grassroots movement that made this possible (and CT is a momentarily prominent subset of a national Democratic grassroots movement) has become a major player within the Democratic Party. And that grassroots movement is largely but not entirely fueled by dissatisfaction over Iraq.
To say that the Democratic Party is being dragged to the left by its grassroots (and netroots) activists is to simply repeat Beltway insider drivel that has an innate anti-grassroots/anti-political-outsider bias. The grassroots are simply reflecting the national mood, which is not only soured on the war in Iraq but also against a so-so economy that benefits the wealthiest but leaves the rest of us behind and on the other side of the ever-widening income gap in America.
Therefore, since the Democratic grassroots are largely reflective of the national mood, they are dragging the party to a place where a majority of the voters are right now. That place where a majority of the voters reside should be called "the center." Perhaps part of the problem for beltwayists and Republican cheerleaders is that the political ground has shifted beneath them and that what once seemed to be the political center is now an increasingly isolated right flank. And that right flank is where Joe Lieberman resides.
Netroots speaks for all America
Not really. Most netroots (Kos type) sites don't even allow conservatives to post on thier sites. Some of their volume comes from the echo chamber effect. Don't you think?
I didn't specifically say the netroots
speak for all America. The netroots are just part of a larger grassroots movement that involves real people doing real things in the real world. Let me explain by referring to a post by Armando over at dKos. When he became a front-page blogger he pushed to get rid of Lieberman. But he got little sympathy really. It took someone working in the real world (who is coincidentally a member at dKos but not really a prominent blogger), and others like him, to drum up support with genuine offline grassroots activism. (link
)
All over America there are people running for political office at various levels and for party positions, many of whom don't participate in blogging much. I have seen this in two different contexts. Last summer I attended a National Clark (as in General Wesley Clark
) Community Meetup in Little Rock. There were a lot of people there from all over the US and even some foreign countries who were prominent participants in the Clark site. But I was surprised to find out how many others there were who did not participate in the site much at all. And I was also pleasantly surprised to find that a very large number of them were working in grassroots activism, much of it completely unrelated to supporting General Clark.
At the meetup I met former Republican Eric Massa
, now a netroots endorsed candidate, for the first time. This year I have worked online to support Eric from about 1000 miles away. But the thing I want to mention is that Eric has local bloggers supporting him that are a small subset of a much larger Democratic grassroots movement in upstate New York, a movement that has helped elect Democratic mayors in traditionally Republican strongholds.
What you see at dKos and smaller sites is just the tip of the Democratic iceberg. Occasionally there does seem to be an echo chamber effect, but the participants who post at these blogs are not the full audience (tons of lurkers). The Democratic grassroots movement, for which Howard Dean is at least partially responsible, is undoubtedly fueled by the netroots but is much much larger than just the netroots and certainly far far larger than the subset of activists who actually post on Democratic sites.
With President Bush polling so low, there is obviously a lot of national dissatisfaction. (link
) That dissatisfaction has swelled the ranks of Democratic activists and drawn in a lot of former Republicans.
Center is defined--American majority
I agree. Considering 90% of netroots positions are the position of american majority then netroots are considered the center.
With the prerequisite that public are judging from right information.
Iraq war--public was for it previously because they were told that Saddam had nuclear weapons and responsible for 911. The netroots,informed knew it was not true was against it. Once public is aware of the truth, they had the same opinion as netroots.
So I would say netroots is the informed public and a great focus group if public has the same information as the netroots.
The Shock and Awe
that is rippling through the traditional media, and traditional politicians, both Republican and Democrat, that the "blogofascists" could possibly have a finger on the pulse of the people is amusing.
Yes it is good for the Democratic party. Hopefully the "nutroots" and the DNC will start working together more cohesively. It is time to look at things in a new light. The relationship can be a synergy of old and new.
Many Republicans advocate term limits. Joe's term is done. Why Republicans and especially the conservative intelligensia are so distraught that Democrats would vote Joe out is odd to say the least. Why is the right so hysteronic about promoting Joe? Because symbolically, a vote against Joe is a vote against Bush.
It is Democracy in action. Why is it chaffing at the behinds of the "wisest" of pundints and the DLCer's and most especially why are their such shrill cries from conservatives. My advice. Get some ointment for your chapped behind.
(Disclaimer if Joe should win then I will purchase ointment from my own chapped you know what and just hope for the best)
Yes it is good for the nation. In the simplest of terms it is a vote that agrees with Bush politiks (seeking the muddy center right) or a vote to change the direction away from Bush politiks (democrats with integrity and a good business sense). Rarely do we get such a clear cut contrast.
What is more dangerous to the Bush Republican Regime than a wealthy business savvy and successful democrat that has a bent for civic responsibility? It flies in the face of everything they stand for. They think only Republicans can do business.
I'm only half stupid
Who speaks for America
My choice would be the president, except when the president is a dem :-)
I agree w/all you said, however, I disagree that the dems' grassroots gains are an overwhelming political trend.
I would again try to obtain your response to the observation that the rules of the dKos type sites hide the weakness of their arguments by specifically forbiding pubs from posting there. It is my position that this rule on netroots sites supports the false impression that the voice of the netroots choir is the voice of the community. Not so, it is just the voice of the choir in an echo chamber.
I would add a couple of discussion points about the voice of the comunity:
1) The trend in registerd voters over the last few decades has been away from the dems, and
2) The red states are gaining electoral votes and the blue states are losing electorial votes.
This leaves us at a crossroads:
1) return to the anti-war movement good or bad?: or
2) discuss the "crashing the gates" issues, or
3} go back to work.
By and large Democratic
sites allow Republicans to post unless they are very trollish, meaning that they only come to namecall or start a fight or somesuch and offer nothing of real substance. For example, Ender has posted at dailykos and could continue to do so. Just yesterday a Republican troll posted in Eric Massa's diary at MyDD, the same troll who has been on Eric's campaign blog pretending to be a Democrat.
So I think your complaint is wrongly framed, especially considering the fierceness with which rightwing sites often limit posting capabilities. From my perspective, your complaint is of the pot and kettle variety and it looks, IMO, like you are projecting Right-wing blog behavior onto lefty blogs.
To call the entirety of the Democratic grassroots an "anti-war movement" is just wrong and, I think, an intentional oversimplification. I don't buy your latter three choices as representative of the true list of options. But I do have to get back to work for now.
As for the longterm trends in favor of Republicans, those are largely irrelevant to what is happening in 2006. W is polling very low because the public wants a change. And he is dragging down the Republican party, which has supported his agenda almost without question. That's the 2006 reality that you need to be discussing, the same one that is causing the swell in Democratic grassroots activism.
I contributed to Ned's campaign twice
though I haven't been in CT since 1964.
( ) Is it good for the Democratic Party?
( ) Is it good for the Republican Party?
Those issues really aren't terribly important to me, didn't really give them any thought.
( ) Is it good for Democracy?
It's good for democracy when voters reject an incumbent because they feel he isn't representing their interests.
It's bad for democracy when a guy gets re-elected over and over regardless of whether he represents his constituents' interests.
( ) Is it good for the nation?
My view is that a Lamont win would be good for the nation in that it proves it's possible to be against the war against Iraq and still win a major elective office against heavy odds.
dKos rules
Under the topic of trolling, the dKos refers you to the following comment
link
Any site w/the volume of posts that honor dKos would find it impossible to ban all conservatives who slip in or out. The fact remains that the policy stated above is all that is needed to keep the echo chamber ringing.
There is a new Q-poll
out today that has Lieberman down by 6, as opposed to 13 from last week. It will all come down to the ground game.
As for my position, I am kinda hoping for a Lieberman win, but in the Redstate diary on this topic many proposed another agreeable scenario that I liked as well (remember this is a partisan wish for what is best for GOP which is what we, partisan republicans, care about):
Lamont wins the primary by a couple of points. Lieberman stays in. Democrats are stuck having to focus on this race, with various elected officials having to take sides, until the general election where Lieberman pulls it out as an independent.
While I like that, I think I still prefer the Lieberman win in this primary.
Is my preference good for the Democratic party? In my view yes because I think people like Lieberman enhance any party.
For the Republican party? Yes because I think we'd rather deal with people like Lieberman.
For democracy? I do not see how regular elections affect democracy in any manner. As long as everyone follows the law, all avenues open to Lieberman can be pursued.
Good for the nation? Lamont candidacy is fueled by the nationwide anti-war coalition of the liberals/pacifist left. From my viewpoint his win would not be good for the nation because I do not want pacifists have any real influence in our country.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bizarre that there's a need for "positions."
The over-analyzing of this entire episode is just plain weird.
People in Connecticut are not happy with the performance of one of their U.S. senators.
Among the people of Connecticut, an individual steps forward and says he thinks he can do a better job and decides to run against the incumbent.
Many democrats and unenrolled voters say, hey, I kinda like this guy who's running. Now we have a choice.
Tomorrow, the Democrats of Connecticut will go to the polls and choose their candidate for the general election.
The challenger may well win the primary, unseating the encumbent the voters aren't happy with.
----------------------
The voters of Connecticut don't owe anybody anything. The don't owe this nation a better senator, they don't owe this nation a senator who is more popular or likeable, and they don't need to apologize for whomever it is they choose to vote for.
They owe themselves the best representation they think they can get. Representation that reflects their values and advocates for their needs. Period. The end. That's democracy as it's configured in the good ol' U.S. of A.
This whole damn election is like having a divorce on national television with everyone getting to inject their two cents. They constantly second-guess your motives, give you unsolicited advice, and subject your marriage to endless scrutiny to determine whether or not a divorce is justified.
Jesus Christ, let the voters of Connecticut conduct their business. Everyone will live to fight again another day--no matter the outcome.
Name one pacifist on the left
who's either running for or currently in a political position. Considering we're far outnumbering you in the number of war vets running for office, and many on an anti-Iraq war position at that, the term 'pacifists' couldn't be more inappropriate.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
ummm
note that I said "Lamont candidacy is fueled by the nationwide anti-war coalition of the liberals/pacifist left." which does not translate into anyone in any political position. I am talking about your "grassroots" and groups like MoveOn.
I clearly was not talking about any politicians or candidates.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
My two cents:
That's up to the Democratic Party. Right now, the rift between the DLC and the DNC is becoming more and more difficult to manage, and you can bet that the loser in the Lamont/Lieberman race is going to be foisting some pretty sour grapes. There was a chunk of people at dkos who said they wouldn't vote for Lieberman if he won the primary, and whether we agree with that attitude or not, it's definitely not good for the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, using primaries to define our values better is a major plus, not to mention all the free press. How often do primary candidates gain household-name notoriety like Lamont has? Given the total silence
that usually attends Democrats' public statements, it's good to have a forum in which the party's platforms are articulated - and people actually pay attention.
Depends on who wins. If Lieberman wins, he'll start making claims about the Democratic Party rejecting the so-called radical wing of the party, which will make Republicans' attempts to frame it thusly a bit more difficult. If Lamont wins, they'll press hard into the Right's love of Lieberman in order to convince people that the Dems really are out of the mainstream.
So, oddly enough, it seems in the Republican party's best interest to push for a Lamont win. Funny how that works.
Well, sure. I wish primaries always got this much attention. It's refreshing to hear so many people interested and invested in a process that normally pulls little more than bored yawns from the bulk of people who don't vote in them.
Yes, for all the reasons above. Doubly so since this primary has been remarkably free of smear campaigns (an occasional swipe, but nothing like you see in the usual nasty wars - cf. California's Democratic primary). Democracy in action, issues making the evening news, and people talking about what's important to them. This is a great primary.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Is MoveOn pacifist?
They've been trying forever to get us involved in Darfur - asking specifically for peacekeeping forces (note: military forces, not flower children with daisies) to be sent to the region.
Same holds true for much of the netroots, very very few of whom are either pacifists or anti-war.
I, of course, am the eternal exception. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Precisely n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Those rules aren't that
different from the practices at Redstate. But if you want to discuss the shortcomings of Democratic policies/ideas with pertinent facts, you can do that at dKos. I agree that there is occasionally an echo chamber there, but you seem to want to just label and dismiss dKos by saying it isn't in the mainstream of US political thought. And that simply isn't true.
Imo "pacifist" is a loaded word that carries
a lot of baggage, might as well refer to people as "sissies" while you're at it.
The fact that a person considers Iraq the most incredibly stupid blunder in the history of the United States doesn't make you a "pacifist."
well MoveOn
are not necessarily pacifist per say but they are a haven for them. Sam holds true for your netroots because when you look at what diaries are most popular on dkos, it is those that are full of "war is evil, all war is bad, stop the warmongers" type stuff.
Sorry, I just have to disagree with your own perception of your own side :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't consider those people pacifist n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think your perception of Lamont's
supporters is scewed by sites like Daily Kos and other "progressives." The same is true of the media in general, imo.
The democrat party does not consist solely of so-called "progressives." For the most part it consists of regular people.
Those people aren't all that active in the blogosphere.
The high level of activity of the "progressives" gives the impression that they are a force to be reckoned with, when in fact they are relatively few in number.
a haven for pacifists
oh for heavens sake, the sky must be falling.
Liberal/pacifists what could possibly be more dangerous.
Too bad there aren't more pacifists in the muslem world, since it is such a worthless ideal.
I'm only half stupid
There are maybe 500 people out of the
universe of people who are active on Daily Kos.
dKos can't be dismissed
Absolutely agree. dKos is powerful, and I didn't mean to suggest that dKos isn't powerful.
My point is that dKos does have an echo chamber effect and that dKos' echo chamber pushes the dems to the left...powerfuly...especially if Lamont wins.
Re: Redstate
I am not aware of any dems trying to crash that gate.
The informed public
That would be Rush's audience :-)
dKos
OTOH, there were 45,000 hits today. As pacificists go, dKos is clearly dabomb.
I acknowledge
that they are the minority (especially the pacifists) of the Democratic party, but they are obviously much stronger on sites like Dkos.
But it is the activists that flock to blogosphere, the people most interested, and it tells you something that a large number of people most involved skew that way.
I think the level of pacifism on dkos is similar to the love doled out to Castro's Cuba. Both are fairly admired positions.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeah but mostly it is
the same 500 checking to see if anyone recommended/troll rated their post.
Personally, I haven't spent
much time there. But a lot of other Democratic posters from here have done so.
Vocabulary
It is the dems pacificst policies that gave the word "pacifist" a bad name. Now you want to keep the policies and dump the word.
Are you sure that is going to work?
Sorry for butting in
It isn't like you don't have this under control.
I just got carried away.
So would you say that the echo chamber at
Republican sites pushes them to the right? That seems a natural corollary to your statement about the echo chamber at dKos.
on what do you base
that 500? If there is a diary with the pacifist sentiment (all wars suck, blah blah) with 500 replies, everyone pretty much agreeing with each other, and no disagreement with the sentiment does that mean that 1. the people who disagree do not want to get involved and trollrated for disagreeing or 2. there is not that much disagreement to begin with?
It is probably a mixture of both but imo it is a bit scary that that kind of dangerous position is gaining support amongst the left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I welcome others
joining in the discussion, no need to apologize. It's an open discussion :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Dems are not pacifists.
I think Truman got us into Korea as I recall. JFK and LBJ got us into Vietnam. Clinton got us into Somalia and Kosovo.
All ridiculous wars in my opinion.
"Pacifist" and "appeasement" are terms that the right uses when it wants to accuse someone of having no spine.
The don't mind me, I'm just a little black raincloud defense
Didn't work for Pooh either.
People who are powerless
tend to be the most vocal, imo.
It costs nothing to complain.
Would you like for Redstate
to be judged solely by a hate-filled diary, full of racial and ethnic slurs, that the more level headed people at Redstate don't participate in? We both know those happen at Redstate. And it wouldn't be a true picture of the site if that were all that was considered. You are perhaps unintentionally mischaracterizing the makeup of dailykos participants. There are a lot of veterans at dKos too. Are all veterans who participate there "pacifists"? Markos is a veteran himself and not actually a "pacifist." Furthermore, just because someone is anti this particular war in Iraq does not mean they are anti all war. There is a lot that has gone wrong with the Iraq War. And it isn't just Republicans who have pointed out problems. See the second point in this diary by Eric Massa
.
Which policies
are those?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
first of all
I don't know what Redstate diaries you are talking about that are "full of racial and ethnic slurs" because I don't remember seeing any as that is extremely frowned upon and any racial slurs would result in banning. So when you say "we both know those happen at Redstate" count me out of that "we".
I am not claiming that everyone on dkos is a pacifist nor am I claiming that anyone opposing the Iraq war is a pacifist. I said that a large number of people there is, and there is a lot of sympathy for that dangerous view.
Another strawman is that veterans cannot be pacifists. People change. And again, I did not say everyone, or even the majority.
I do remember a while back on dkos someone was pointing out the dangers of pacifism and people were agreeing, but I would be interested to see a dkos response to a diary titled "The Dangers of Pacifism" now. Would be an interesting experiment.
It's kinda like a plague - too many people are falling into the whole kumbaya mode of: we can solve all our problems through dialogue and understanding.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
"Progressives" = Much Sound And Fury,
Signifying Nothing
Vocabulary
The words mean what they mean. If they don't apply to dems then there should be no problem. Seeing if they stick is fair play in politics.
If pacifist and appeaser stick to dems, so be it.
I could never understand why dems called us pubs racist, bigot homophobes. But complaining about it didn't seem to help :-)
What you don't know
Well, there was the Kerry/Finegold amendment that got 13 votes. It is sure not my desire to prove to you that dems are seen as weak on national defense.
You have my permission to see Russ Finegold as Scoop Jackson incarnate, if you wish.
That guy Blanton
skirts the line a little. His coded putdowns of street cred and hip-hop culture leave little to the imagination.
You do ban the obvious racists, but I'd wager there are many diaries you wouldn't want to represent the redstate mainstream.
probably
but in an open forum you get some of those (including some of mine) that should not be representative of the site :)
Don't remember reading much of Blanton.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How's that again?
Echo chamber? Not much.
Those liberals can't even tow the line. All they ever do is have meta-discussions on how Ned Lamont ties his shoes, doncha know. Those blogofascists are so out of control, even Markos can't keep them in line.
Hardly an echo chamber, imho.
BTW did you get your daily dose of Limbaugh today, hop? Speaking of echo chambers.......!
I'm only half stupid
can you say populist movement!
not too many folks are all that happy with the powers that be.
And I think I am safe to say, that includes conservatives.
I'm only half stupid
Kerry/Feingold was pacifist?
Maybe you're using the term in a way I've never heard before. Here's part of the text of that proposed amendment:
So redeploying (not undeploying) troops away from Iraq and towards the actual war on terror is pacifist now?
You may disagree with this amendment, but it's only pacifistic if you stretch that word to mean "anything I don't like vis-a-vis Iraq," which is pretty much what you're doing.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Let me introduce you to my little friend . . .
the truth
. Even Rush admits he is an entertainer, not a pundit.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Vocabulary
Again, "pacifist", and "racist, bigot homophobe" are terms that are used as tools in political context.
I would not use the term pacifist to describe Kerry. Yet, the term pacifist is one that carries weight against all anti-war dems. Sorry if that bothers you.
Wow.
me: You're using the word completely incorrectly.
you: Yes I am, but so what? *sticks out tongue
No wonder you love Rush Limbaugh. Like peas in a pod.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
And they said
You are slow to catch on :-)
I must have misunderstood....
I thought you were saying the dKos crowd of pacifists might be leading Dems off a cliff, or something like that... Not that you would really be concerned about Dems being led off a cliff ;), but that was what I took you to be saying...
my concern for the Dems
is overwhelming me to the point of tears. ;)
Pacifism is gaining due to the fierce opposition to the Iraq War. Mostly amongst the activist dkos types but still it is troubling.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not my mudfight.
You guys have fun with it, though.
I'll have a more substantive post up tomorrow.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Pacifism isn't gaining
Calling BS on you here. Calling those against the Iraqi war pacifists is as accurate as calling those who supported WWII 'war-mongers'.
for pubs
do you mean '06 or '08?
I assume '04 was a typo...
I have been known to post there
and brendan posts there.
I havn't been lately but it's just a cyclic thing, I'll be back.
position
lightiris' position: "none of our business really"
:)
words have many definitions
but you ought to commit to one and stick with it.
personally, I like a positive understand that does not preclude all war, all conflict, because the anti-war people I know can usually imagine a war that did have to be fought, and none of them fit the stereotype of people that would not lift a hand to defend themselves.