Democrats: Stab netroots in the back

www.myDD.com Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In The Front

by Matt Stoller, Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:06 PM EST

In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of handwringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont.

Here's the latest on Lieberman bragging about the seniority he'll have if he wins reelection. Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies. They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary. It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party. They may be leaders for the next few decades simply due to inertia, but it's very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules.

The American people know this. They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary. That's why they cheered Joe.

It's sad. Lamont can win this, and we're all doing our best to make that happen. But the important story here is not that the country supports the war, it doesn't. Lieberman is running on an antiwar platform, promising to bring the troops home in a transparently dishonest pander to the left. The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side. They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest.

We can win this fight, as the polls are tightening. But it would be a whole lot easier without that knife in our back.

...it's very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules.

Way to go!

Both parties are seriously broken and corrupt. We really do need new blood in DC but I fear it's going to take a long, long time to root out the rotten apples...

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia

and trying to sway the Indies in CT is what Joe's doing. They don't want to lose a "senior" person in the senate who can bring home the goody's for CT. Joe will cozy up to whoever gets the majority if he wins in Nov. Scaife donated money to him. He'll no doubt expect his pound of flesh. Joe may find he's sold his soul to the devil, because he can't face not being in the senate anymore. He's relying on Republicans to win. Bloomberg is a Republican.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/30/15733/063#readmore

by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:57:33 AM EST

Ellen Tauscher lost an election tonight. Whether it was the 2006 elecitons for Democrats, or the 2008 Democratic primary California's 10th congressional district. It could end up being both. I sincerely hope it was her own, and two years from now.

Stabbed in the back, indeed. Rant in the extended entry.

For the past several years, the progressive movement had, supposedly, risen to power and influence in the Democratic ecosystem by fervently playing by the rules.

We didn't support third parties against Democrats we didn't like. We kept it in the party, and used the primary system the party had in place.
We didn't sit on our hands when the candidate we backed in primaries lost. We always supported the winner just as fervently as we supported our candidate.
We found thousands of new activists to serve as precinct captains at a time when the party infrastructure was dying.
We channeled hundreds of millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns, significantly closing the fundraising gap with Republicans.
We opposed Republicans at every turn, fought them tooth and nail on every issue, even when some sections of the Democratic Party did not want to fight. We were more partisan than most Democrats.
We built huge media operations on a shoestring budget, without any official support whatsoever.

We played by the rules. We followed their rules more than Democrats in Congress followed them. And now, here is our payment: Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.

"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something "we've got to fight."We are not wanted by large sections of the Democratic leadership. There are many out there who want our money, but they don't want us. There are many out there who want our precinct-by-precinct activism to help GOTV, but they don't want us. There are many out there who want us to fire up the base, but they don't want us. There are many out there who want to use our media to help spread their message, but they don't want us. There are many out there who want us to support primary winners, but they don't want to do the same. There are many out there who want us to fight Republicans, while they say they want to work with both sides. There are many out there who wanted us to play by Democratic Party rules, but they they have no intention of playing by those rules themselves. To them, we are akin to going over the cliff.

They languished in the minority for a decade, and when the chance to take power finally came back--a chance that we gave them--There are many out there who decided they didn't need us anymore. We are why they have never been closer to Republicans in fundraising. We are why the base is fired up. We are why they finally decided to run on Iraq. We are why they have so many more volunteers than they have ever had before. We are why there are more Democrats running for more seats than at any time in the past. We are why there is progressive media now. We are why countless Republican scandals have had a shelf life of more than two days in the established media. Every major improvement in Democratic infrastructure that took place over the past two years found its birth, incubation, and primary means of support in the netroots.

What position would Democrats be in right now if our campaigns were $300,000,000 in debt and couldn't run a single ad the rest of the election? That's where they would be without our money. Where would they be if suddenly 75% of their volunteers disappeared, and most GOTV operations were utterly devoid of warm bodies? That's where they would be without us. Where would they be if 10,000 precinct captains disappeared a week before the election? That's where they would be without the silent revolution. Where would they be if the base wasn't fired up and ready to vote? That's where they would be without progressive media. Where would they be if they weren't running on Iraq, finally? They certainly wouldn't be this far ahead in the polls, and they wouldn't have done it without pressure from the base. Where would they be without a means to distribute their message directly to millions of progressives every day on every issue? That's where they would be without the progressive blogosphere. Where would they be if they didn't have more Democrats running for office this year than in any election in decades? That's where they would be without the fifty state strategy. We re-introduced all of these things to the Democratic Party in the last four years, and basically all we asked in return was for them to play by their own rules and be partisan on behalf of the entire party for a change. They couldn't even do that.

And I can't emphasize this enough--we did it all by playing by the rules. I know this, because I was there every step of the way. When Howard Dean lost, I worked even harder for John Kerry. Like everyone else in this movement, I ran for party office rather than just complaining on the sidelines. I consistently highlighted second and third tier races. I spent months pushing for as many candidates to run as possible, highlighting where we had caniddates, and wehre we needed more. I helped encourage millions of dollars in small donor donations, all to Democratic candidates. I have hit the streets and knocked on doors for well over a dozen Democratic candidates in the last two years. I helped build a website with tens of thousands of readers a day on absolutely no budget, no official support, and I did this sometimes when I couldn't even pay my rent. When I didn't like Democrats, I ran primary challenges against them, but I always, always supported whoever won. And hundreds of thousands of people just like me did the same thing. Last week alone we did everything we could to channel voters to negative info on Republican candidates, and send millions of dollars to competitive House campaigns. And, in return, we get a Democratic establishment that refuses to play by its own rules, and considers what we believe in akin to going off a cliff.

I am so unbelievably angry right now, and it takes a lot for me to fly off the handle like this. If we lose this election, it will be the fault of the Ellen Taushcers of the Democratic Party. Why should people keep giving, keep volunteering, keep infusing the party with new blood, keep building new media, keep supporting primary winners they don't like, if we are told point blank that we are not wanted? A lot of people will draw just that conclusion form what she said, and it will damage all of our other efforts. Thus, we will be that much closer to the nightmere scenario I laid out above.

Here is why I will continue to fgiht: because as long as Ellen Tauscher and her ilk are running the Democratic Party, the conservative movement will continue to rise. Ellen Tauscher can't beat the conservative movement. She and her friends showed us this time and time again from 1978-2004 just how utterly ineffective they are at doing anything except ushering in a new era of Republican dominance. As long as they are in leadership positions of the Democratic Party, the only avenue available to stop the conservative movement on the electoral front, this country that I love so dearly will continue on a long, downward spiral. Both defeating Republicans and wiping their Democratic enablers out of power is the only way to save my country.

Ellen Tauscher, just so you know, when you have a surprisingly strong and well funded primary challenger with tons of volunteers and lots of support in the progressive media come out of seemingly nowhere in 2008, just look over the cliff to see where that challenger is coming from. At the bottom, you will see me standing there, with hundreds and thousand of my friends and colleagues. We will be in the process of forming a human ladder for your challenger to use to climb up the cliff. When s/he reaches the top, don't be surprised if more than a few of us come along, and suddenly you find yourself outnumbered, even as you stand next to your twenty-seven new friends. And then we will see who gets run over the cliff next.

If the person thrown off the cliff ends up being you, Ellen Tauscher, believe me when I say once again that it will be done according to the rules. Stabbed in the back, indeed. For some Democrats, it is more like they want to stab us in the face, at high noon in the town square. For many, our biggest crime was joining their cause and following ttheir rules. See that you keep committing that crime. If nothing else, it certainly seems to piss them off. I like that part about it.

You lost at least one election tonight, Ellen Tauscher. I sure as hell hope that election wasn't in 2006.

[notes E-B they haven't counted the votes yet but the D.C. media establishment is itching for a dog fight - granted the Dem coalition is run by GOP-lite but the corp. media is first foremost writing this fight narrative to their advantage .... you can see the the boundary lines between the DLC-ers and the New Dem Coalition who don't want the netroots but now can't live without them - the Congressional Progressive Caucus might be a good fit for the netroots...it is Oct 30 and the re-counts haven't begun yet but the media is starting to exploit the Dem party -lessons in power Oct 31 Nov 1, Nov 2, Nov 3, Nov4, Nov5, Nov6 Nov7 Nov8 they are not stealing without challenge this time so hope you remember there is a great patriotic faction of election protection experts who got that way from their collective work since 2000 and they are not politicans who will concede so we have nine days and then some of work to do ]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNGUJM26MQ1.DTL

Sunday, October 29, 2006 (10-29) 04:00 PST Washington

-- It is an article of faith among many liberals that Democrats must advance a bold agenda if they win a majority in the House of Representatives next month.

From expanded health care and scaling back President Bush's tax cuts to withholding money from the Pentagon's war budget and investigating high crimes and misdemeanors, there is enormous pent-up energy to accomplish what could not be done during 12 years in the minority.

Yet as Democratic leaders, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, gear up for an increasingly plausible scenario, they face competing demands likely to temper their liberal ambitions.

The new Democratic majority, should it occur, will consist of a fresh crop of moderate and conservative members whose elections will have been won in part by distancing themselves from the party's progressive wing.

Faced with possible Republican control of the Senate, the president's veto pen and most likely a narrow edge in the House, many Democrats insist they must moderate their agenda and reach out to Republicans to expand their majority and improve their chances of winning the White House in 2008.

"The only thing worse than not taking back the House would be taking it back for one term,'' warned Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, an officer in the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 37 conservative and moderate House Democrats. "I think even the most 'liberal' person in our caucus understands that. There's folks who may not believe that things are going as fast as they want them to go, but they understand we have to be pragmatists."

'An open opportunity'

That view is certainly not reflected on conservative talk radio, where there are warnings about a virtual revolution if liberals such as New York's Charles Rangel (Ways and Means) and Michigan's John Conyers (Judiciary) take over committee leadership posts and Pelosi exports "San Francisco values" to every district in the country.

Thompson's view may not be fully embraced by the Democratic base, which believes its loud and persistent protest of Republican leadership is responsible for the party's rising stock.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, whose North Bay district adjoins Thompson's, said a Democratic majority would allow the party to thrust into the national spotlight big issues such as getting troops out of Iraq and offering universal health.

"It's an open opportunity for Democrats to stand up," said Woolsey, who is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 62 liberal members.

Woolsey said she would support a measure to cut portions of the Pentagon's budget and censure Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld if it would speed up U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"We can't run an election against what (Bush) is doing in Iraq and not do something about it once we get the majority back," Woolsey said.

Pelosi's challenge is to navigate a course that will satisfy the liberals who form the party's base and conservatives whose success is critical to the party retaining its power. It is a juggling act that has already tested Pelosi's skills as House minority leader since her election to that post by the caucus after the November 2002 campaign, but one that will grow much more difficult and consequential if Democrats are in the majority.

The 66-year-old Pelosi's personal ideology and most of her San Francisco constituents are more closely aligned with the liberals, yet the pragmatism that has thus far marked her role as a party leader has steered her to promote a more centrist course.

"If we win ... we will have to govern from the middle," Pelosi said. "Our guiding principles will be to foster integrity, civility and fiscal responsibility."

For now, Pelosi is promoting a legislative strategy with broad appeal should Democrats capture the 15 seats they need to regain a majority they lost in 1994.

If chosen by the Democrats as their leader, Pelosi has pledged that on her first day as speaker she will enact rules to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation," and on the second day she has called on the House to adopt all 41 recommendations made by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. Within the first 100 legislative hours, Pelosi has pledged to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut interest rates on student loans in half, allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients, expand federal backing of stem cell research, and end subsidies to big oil.

The legislation probably would draw support from the entire Democratic caucus and put an interesting test to Republicans and Bush, who has vetoed just one bill during his presidency.

More of the Democratic agenda is contained in a glossy 25-page book put out by Pelosi (www.housedemocrats.gov) and includes specific proposals such as doubling the size of the military's special forces, requiring automakers to build more cars that can use ethanol, expanding the research and development tax credit, and matching up to $1,000 in contributions made by middle-income workers into retirement plans, to vague policy objectives such as a pledge to "eliminate Osama bin Laden."

Broader goals not in plan

The plan does not include broader liberal goals such as universal health care or withdrawal from Iraq, or explain how to boost spending without raising taxes or adding to the budget. Nor does it address what sort of inquiries might be ordered by legislators such as Reps. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles or John Dingell of Michigan, who would be given subpoena power and vastly expanded resources as committee chairmen.

With Bush as president, some Democrats caution against high expectations.

"It is important to keep in mind that if Democrats win the House, and even the Senate, we're still the opposition party. We're not in a position to run the country," said Bruce Reed, a former top adviser to President Bill Clinton and now president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

"The most we can hope for is to force a negotiation over how the country is run, and that is a significant improvement over our current lot in life, but it's not the same as setting the agenda," Reed said.

Democrats and Bush have a poor record of cooperation, though some of the biggest accomplishments of recent presidencies -- tax overhaul under President Ronald Reagan, welfare overhaul under Clinton -- occurred when the Congress and White House were controlled by different parties.

After losing consecutive presidential elections and control of the House for 12 years, as well as being the minority party in the Senate for 10 1/2 of the past dozen years, liberal and conservative Democrats are displaying a patience with one another that was not as evident in past years.

Bob Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group, said he expects there will be a "grace period" if Democrats win control of the House, during which liberals and moderates will easily unite around the sort of agenda that Pelosi has advanced.

But he said many liberals will grow restless if Democrats do not force a change of course in Iraq, and there will be a big push from progressives to spend more on social programs for housing, education and health care, which Democrats believe have been neglected by Republicans.

Trade could cause division

Borosage said the first big split could be over trade, where Democrats will be torn over whether to extend the president's fast track authority, which allows him to negotiate trade deals without advance congressional approval and is up for renewal in June. Some issues such as gun control are not expected even to make it to the table. Others, such as restrictions on automobile emissions, may pit environmentalists against Democrats close with the auto unions, which are fearful of losing jobs.

In the weeks leading up to the election, however, even liberal Democrats have been talking like moderates.

Rangel said: "God knows, the Democratic leadership will be reaching across the aisle.

"We have to for two reasons. One, we can't get Democrats to walk lockstep no matter how hard we try. Two, we will never have the margins -- even if we did do it -- to get anything done," he said.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, who would chair the Ways and Means Committee's health subcommittee, said he would like to pursue a plan for universal health care but added: "What I want to do and what I think we are able to do are not the same."

Though his own East Bay constituents want Bush's "hide nailed to the door," he thinks it unlikely the House will pursue articles of impeachment, as some in the base have demanded.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, who is chairwoman of the New Democratic Coalition, a group of several dozen moderate Democrats, credits Pelosi with tempering the party's most ideological extremes and unifying members behind a common agenda.

"We are united and joined together by values and by virtue of the fact that we want to not only earn the majority, we want to remain in the majority,'' Tauscher said of the party's pragmatism. "It's important to remember that we're going to have a number of Democrats in seats that had been held by Republicans, and the GOP is going to come roaring back in 2008 and try to knock them off.

"We are forced by economic circumstances, the war, and many different reasons, to attack some of these big ticket items with incrementalism," Tauscher said.

Democratic heavyweights

A House Democratic majority -- should it happen in the Nov. 7 midterm elections -- would install a new lineup of veteran lawmakers to influential posts. The final say on committee chairs would be decided when the House convenes in January, but a few of the more prominent chairs probably will go to:

Ways and Means: Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who has represented Harlem for 36 years, would head the committee where all tax bills originate. Rangel has been a consistent opponent of President Bush's tax cuts and can be expected to push Democratic proposals for tax cuts narrowly aimed at the poor and middle class. Rangel has worked with Republicans on trade issues but is expected to push for stronger protections for American workers.

Judiciary: John Conyers, D-Mich., has represented the Detroit area for 42 years. He is the second-longest serving member of the House and one if its most liberal. Conyers was a member of the Judiciary Committee when it voted articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon in 1974. Last December, Conyers introduced a resolution calling on the House to form a committee to investigate the Bush administration's war policies "and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.'' He has been a consistent critic of the Patriot Act, and the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance and military tribunal policies.

Government Reform: Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, has represented portions of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood for 32 years, and is expected to become the Democrats' chief congressional investigator. As chair of the panel's Health and Environment subcommittee prior to the Republican takeover in 1994, Waxman held high-profile hearings on AIDS, Medicaid benefits and drinking water. It was during a 1994 Waxman investigation into tobacco companies during which executives famously testified that nicotine was not addictive and they did not market to children. Waxman has expressed interest in investigating Iraq reconstruction, including Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the response to Hurricane Katrina and homeland security spending should he become chair.

Energy and Commerce: John Dingell, D-Mich., is the longest-serving member of the House, arriving in 1955, when Nancy Pelosi was still a teenager. Dingell has led tenacious inquiries into energy and communications monopolies as well as the Department of Energy labs run by the University of California, and is expected to launch oversight hearings into the Federal Communications Commission if he becomes chair. Representing the Detroit area, Dingell has opposed raising fuel efficiency standards and helped Republicans thwart gun control legislation, which puts him at odds with a number of Democratic colleagues.

Financial Services: Barney Frank, D-Mass., has represented the Boston suburbs for 26 years and is widely regarded as possessing one of the sharpest minds, and tongues, in Congress. That he is often featured in Republican campaign attacks probably has more to do with his homosexuality and his liberal voting record than any particular financial service issues. As chair of the committee that oversees banking, Frank is expected to work to expand the availability of loans to the middle class and the pool of available housing.

Chronicle Washington Bureau writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. E-mail Marc Sandalow at msandalow@sfchronicle.com.

Matt has never been shy about saying what he thinks, and sometimes he does go off half cocked.....but...he has been on the ground in CT and has seen the machinations of the Dem leadership.

Fight for net neutrality. A free internet is crucial to the revolution.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins

Matt will be in a position to make important connections - and get closer with the working progressive body in DC very soon...

Well if they don’t start waking up from the corruption world, than I feel sorry for them...

mid terms have proven Dem party needs netroots for 2008 so can project out that far that there is room to grow some type of working relationship

I think that even though many Democrats on the left will not like some of the votes of the newly elected Democrats, those candidates still have the "Democratic attitude." That attitude consists of favoring the common good over the private good, a bias toward more universal health care, tweaking but not overhauling Social Security, fixing No Child Left Behind, restoring sanity to the budget, preferring multi-national cooperation over swashbuckling, addressing global warming aggressively, and a host of other issues.

Since the Dennis Kuciniches of the world simply can't win except in the bluest areas, I'll be very happy with what we get, Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford, Jr. notwithstanding.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

Hi Stan,

That [Democratic] attitude consists of ... preferring multi-national cooperation over swashbuckling, addressing global warming aggressively....

These two are the keys to all the rest. America needs to begin to see herself as a citizen of the world, rather than the master of it. That attitudinal change is what Clinton stood for, what Bush and the neocons abhor, and the difference between a beacon of light and an ominous shadow of darkness.

Cris Brown

"Compassion over greed, effort over pedigree, service over wealth, and the common good for all." [Mike Miles, former U.S. Senate candidate in Colorado]

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

Hi Stan,

Outstanding quote!

Cris Brown

See the whole list at the home page at www.securingamerica.com. Click on "all endorsed candidates."

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

in the house : that would be great Kagen pollster has D 48 R 46 for WI 08

Did you read Dr. Dean's letter to Mehlman? That Dr. Dean former governor chairman of the DNC has really got his groove on at the DNC...... :-)

Stan's approach is right on the mark. We only have 2 major Parties (unlike many countries), which means there is a fairly broad spectrum from Left to Right in both (granted, more so in our Party). I can understand how the more liberal votres feel - they put alot of the effort in and don't always get what they want. But the simple truth their views and values are not always shared by the majority of people in the country. I live in the Northeast, and my views on religion as an example are like something alien to folks in the Bible Belt. And I'm moderate for a NJ Democrat. It kind of suprises me that some who hold this "betrayal of the Liberals" attitude are so active here. They have every right, and I'm happy to have as many Clark supporters as possible - but General Clark is not going to be the standard bearer of the Far Left in 2008. He has some fairly Liberal views on some things, he has some very moderate views on many others. And look at the Democrats he is campaigning for - in some cases they sound like "New Democrat Coalition" types to me on some things (which I'm glad about it). I know our very Liberal friends hate the "where else are you going to go?" arguement, but what else is there to say? You can keep voting Democrat, you can vote Green I suppose, or you can stay home. I certainly have voted for MANY Democrats I have not been thrilled with, it's the nature of Politics.

not even in name only, but big-party-players (Biden, Clinton, Obama among many) are supporting him rather than supporting Lamont, who IS.

It cuts both ways doesn't it? or else you can vote across the board for Democrats you aren't thrilled with until the cows come home and it still won't get you/us anywhere.

Do big-party-players and the DSCC want to take back congress or do they only want our ca$h?

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

I hear you - I think Democrats should support Lamont. Part of what I was saying is that sometimes more Liberal candidates don't cut it with enough of the electorate at large. If Lieberman wins it's going to be because independants are more comfortable with him. Aside from the war (and I know that's a huge "aside") I can see why they might be - I think Lieberman is very logical on many issues.

If Lieberman wins, it will be in large part because the big-party-players did not back the Democratic candidate, Lamont, but rather sat silently on their hands and allowed the Republican machine to push Lieberman.

This is no time to follow one's bliss.

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

Maybe. If you're saying Lamont needed the money to explain who he is you may have a point. But if you think running anti-Lieberman ads is the key to victory I have to disagree. People in CT are well aware of who and what the Senator is after all these yrs. They may be more comfortable with him, no matter how wrong you believe they are.

My criticism is of the Democratic Party for their lack of support, (financial presence as well as physical presence), for the fair and square winner of the Democratic CT-primary...party-players want to solicit OUR funds "to take back congress"...while they allow Republicans to fund cut-and-run-Joe (rather than their own Republican candidate) because in the end NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, it would be very hard not to get the impression that it's not REALLY about the Dem Party taking back congress, (who is a Democrat and who is not?...exactly), it's about their good old boys' club... long live the status quo.

In the end of course, it is entirely up to the voters in CT, with little to no help from the Democratic Party.

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins

I only gave because Wes asked me to. Otherwise, nada. Zero. Zip.

me too, and I was thinking some pretty impure thoughts while 'arriving' at that 'decide' > resulting in tossing and turning > with visions of Hackett > night terrors

only only only for Wes

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

from the party. Their agenda is not necessarily my agenda. I give directly to candidates that I support. Just this minute got another request for cash in my inbox, from Bill Clinton on behalf of the DCCC. Don't let any candidate lose for lack of funds! Well, sure. But you may not be funding the candidates I want to see funded, Bill. So there.

I've been coordinating phone bankers, canvassing, and I just had a brainstorm here for sending out some personal postcards to independent voters whom might be swayed by an appeal from a military mom for a new course. I do what needs to be done and I resent the party elite who can't see past my checkbook.

"COUNTRY before Party!" -- Wes Clark

to this one because it was a triple or quadruple match- from House Democrats

all hands on deck, right? I like your personal approach, I bet it bears fruit- good luck with it- but no need to encourage others not to give, is there? what I mean is Wes has been busting his hump for the DCCC among others- I would have been happier to send it in his name rather than Bill's- but I'm also quite glad to see Big Dog out there wrangling votes & hustling up money- at least Elvis is in the building! heh

My position is my own personal position.

(until Wes's quite recent request)

I could throw in $25 to the DCCC's $75 and they would spend that $100 bucks any which way they see fit.

We have some wonderful Wes-endorsed candidates here in CA in tough races who need funding. I've just sent directly to them thru WesPAC.

It's not like I have money to flush. A bargain is not always what it seems. On fixed-income I'll do my own "fixin" thank ya everso much bigdawg. Now get on up there to CT and stump for Lamont, willya?

It's time for a little redemption, bud.

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

Aren't Dems supposed to support other Dems? Especially when they are the duly nominated candidates of the party?

I'm so sick of this "every man for himself" mindset. And make no mistake, asking people to chip into the "pool" is not the "team" effort it appears on the surface.

Locally, I'm tearing my hair out because candidates who are safely ahead tend to hoarde their volunteers instead of sharing them with other members of the team who need help.

I SO need a vacation at this point.

Susan! The only time I gave to the Party was at the General's request!

Win with Wes in '08

Hi Stan:

Excellent comments, I completely agree with you!

Being able to win elections all over the country is the only way that we can stop this reckless one party rule by the extreme wing of the GOP and be able to "change the course!"

Many GOP activists hate Lincoln Chafee in RI but they are still supporting him in order to help the GOP leadership keep their power in Congress.

They also do not like Tom Kean, Jr. in NJ for his calling on Rumsfeld to resign but they are still strongly supporting him because that race may decide control of the Senate.

The GOP is very disciplined in their backing of some GOP candidates who they think can win even if they do not like their positions on some issues in order to keep their power!

Democrats have to understand that concept in my opinion if we want to win more elections!

small snippet:

....In other words, I have taken it as a given that the party is going to be waging an intramural struggle after these elections. I have been mostly concerned with demonstrating confidence and optimism in the face of determined attacks from my left about the futility of progress within the two-party system. But, I have never denied that there are many reasons to be pessimistic and despairing. So, it almost seems like I'm watching Casablanca and Bowers and Stoller are "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" Of course there is rot in the heart of our party. What do you think the whole Lieberman fight is about? One man? Or is it about Democrats like Jane Harman, James Woolsey, Tom Carper, Marty Peretz, and the rest of the crew that labors for ever bigger military budgets and ever more interventions in the Middle East?

This is a two-party system, and the powers-that-be own considerable parts of both parties. Together they have failed us in the post-9/11 world. Both sides need to be purged. But that is not what this week is about. This week is about the first major step in the process. It is not the time for purity tests.

snip

.......But first things first. We need to put out the fire, and it doesn't matter if we have some moral qualms about the rectitude of the people being consumed by the fire. When the problem is a nail, you use a hammer. After November 7th, the problem will no longer be a nail. And we will need to find a different tool to do the job.

The young monk wonders what we are doing sullying our principles by carrying people like Ford, Casey Jr., and Heath Schuler across the stream. The old monk says, I have already put them down, but you are still carrying them.

After November 7th, the netroots, at least people like Stoller, Bowers, and me, will not be carrying these people over the water. We will have moved on...to defeating them in their next primaries.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins

I agree with BooMan.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia

Not less. She has not been an apologist for Bush's Iraq war. I might not agree with her on everything but she is smart, principled while also being realistic. So you can wage your holy war on all Democrats who don't meet every one of your litmus tests, but you may end up regretting it.

I don't think they mean to set out to defeat them unless they put up a Dem who they believe is a viable candidate.

...but that's way out there in the future, isn't it?

I do agree wholeheartedly that Democrats cannot afford to be one-issue voters, however. Not now, and certainly not in the future...this is partially what led to our demise in the first place I think.

What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

are also affected by the old, "power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely" train of thought. What we've seen in the past few weeks from Kos, Stoller, and Bowers is a rash of egos turn into GIANT EGOS.

Beware the Giant Ego.