We are democrats.  So are they.  We may feel stabbed in the back sometimes (can we declare a moratorium on that phrase for a couple of days?) but so do they.  In the long run, we have to convince them that we are correct.  This means carrots, this means sticks, this means argument.  We can't fall into the RINO trap.  We need to be a reward factor.  I know it is not the easy way, but we have to focus more on the positive and less on vengeance.  People like Tauscher should not be attacked so much.  This network has got to be about support.  We just don't support every candidate.  If we start attacking our own just because we can, this whole thing will devolve into a pile of crap.  Ellen is probably just trying to position herself for the post election party.  If we rise to the bait we may be helping her and her ilk.  I like to think about the far right wing during the 2000 elections.  Somehow, they knew not to make waves.  They knew that GWB was their boy and they let him move to the juicy center while we were fighting over the left.  Tauscher isn't running for president, but shouldn't we try to be smarter than the Democrats of the 70's and 80's?

Lieberloser-Tauscher-DLC Dems are the ones that are fucking up this country!  They are the enablers.   I am a Green because of the DLC but I will also support progressive Democrats.  I have donated to Kucinich and McNerney recently.  I applaud all you efforts and thank you from the bottom of my heart.  But, stop directing your anger at us!  You Blog Masters met with Clinton, and reported the orgy you felt when you met him.  You should have called him on this very issue.  Yet none of you reported on his DLC positions.  Also, Democrats have the power to change the laws to implement Instant Rank Voting (IRV), but they chose not too!  As a result, your justifications for trashing Nader and Greens are similar to the those used by Bush against the Dems. Get it straight!  

So I guess your number one priority is changing the manner in which electoral collage votes are distributed?  What PAC do you contribute to that has this as their goal?  That is really the beginning and end of this argument.  I like the parliamentary system.  I think it is in many ways superior to ours.  We do not live in that kind of country.  In order for 3rd parties to make any kind of sense the very bones of our democracy need to be restructured.  The fact that Greens and Libertarians cannot see that this is not the time for that kind of stuff proves their lack of political savvy.  You might as well be throwing Molotov cocktails at McDonald's, for all the good it will do you.  

who's this Tauscher lady and can she already claim members that arent even elected yet??..how can she already do such a thing...i would understand if the progressive caucus gets real mad and isnt this a powerplay to overpower pelosi and the liberals?

I think the problem here is considering Rep. Tauscher's remarks as being directed towards the "netroots" and progressives in general. She's clearly angling within the Democratic caucus itself.

During the race for Minority Leader, a large swath of the California delegation tried to strongarm her by threatening to have her district redrawn & her forced out if she didn't support Nancy Pelosi for leader. If that's playing by the rules, then clearly the Game is a little trickier than we'd like to realise. You can't take the politics out of politics and Rep. Tauscher is simply trying to secure her & her ideaological comrades' security & safety within the party through numbers.

I realise this isn't what Chris was objecting to. He was balking at the notion that Progressives would drive the party left off a cliff. First of all, considering what we've had to endure these last 6 years, to focus on fears of moving too far to the left really illustrates shameless & thoughtless lack of priorities on Tauscher's part, and considering all the things the Progressive movement has done for the party the last few years and, let's face it, considering some of things that have been done & supported by Democrats of the Tauscher mode in recent years, they should be on their knees with kisses and praises for "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" to speak of them as a nuisance is the height of disrespect.

I've always admired the pragmatic respect Chris Bowers, who by his own admission is very very progressive, has shown toward more conservative factions of the party, even when they don't deserve it. So for him to be offended probably means something is offensive & I apologize for characterizing is as melodramatic earlier. I'm just trying to point out that a lack of internalisation of the "We are the world" memo among Democrats isn't limited to the "New Democrats" alone.  

I could be wrong, but I think a balanced budget and strong defense are two good leading issues: Domestic and international security.

I talk to a lot of people who are sitting on the fence right now--former Republicans who have just had enough of Bush and the bible thumpers but haven't yet been able to commit to voting Dem--and those are frequently their top issues.

Should they be the only issues? No.

The list Pelosi has been touting--Medicare bulk purchasing, minimum wage increase, 9/11 commission recommendations and lobbyist reform--are also very good. Then, I think, many of the other progressive issues should be addressed.

However, if you want to make the Dems a majority party again, you have to adopt the issues that a majority of the country are concerned about. The deficit and national security are important ones.

That's especially true for the latter, given how many times we've had our clocked cleaned on defense issues.

Consider the source.  Haven't you guys spent a little ink on pointing out how much big money Hoyer gets. This isn't about rejecting the left, this is about Hoyer still continuing feeding at the trough.  

Back in the nineties I went to a meeting of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and some guy who lobbied on liberal causes was telling me, with great pride, how he managed to get his sound bite out.  For a long time, everybody has been talking in catchy meaningless phrases and raising money to invent and broadcast those catchy meaningless phrases.  

After Lamont won, one of the major diarists on dkos wrote a great diary where he said that our battle is the ant versus a shoe, and the ant won.    You are famous now, and influential, and I can say I read you when. We are not going to lose because we are now an avalanche of ants.  

It's always hard for people who have adapted to a corrupt system to change.  I bet, if no one was listening, and Hoyer were actually describing the world he wanted to live in, it would be more like yours than you think.  When I was teaching, endless numbers of teachers were doing things they  hated to manipulate their students into being quiet and filling out boring worksheets so that the teacher would look good; but they did, in their heart of hearts, still want to inspire curiousity and high-mindedness.  Somehow life can just grind you down.  

Don't let it grind you down.  You're my hero. You're a leader in a historic fight.  And I think you're going to win.

I think we need to get in the habit of not feeling hurt or angry when the establishment Dems try to slam the door in our faces.  Tauscher's remark was a gatekeeping statement--but it was also a sign of fear:  fear of us.

Last year at YK, Stoller made a passing comment on a panel discussion that most people missed--but which I thought was the most insightful observation of the entire event (not intending to give Matt a big head, here):  We won't get power by asking for it, but by standing up and taking it.

Everybody needs to write that short sentence on a piece of paper and read it at least once a day.  Then, when some establishment Dem over the next few weeks or months or years tries to slam the door on the Progressive movement, we don't respond with anger, we don't respond by feeling betrayed.  We just say, "You're goddam right we are taking over this party.  And if that makes you afraid, you're in big trouble."

When a Dem says that the party needs to be "protected" from going over the Left "cliff," that means that she feels her power being taken from her.  We need to see those kinds of remarks as affirmations of our success, not as acts of betrayal.  Only then will we truly begin to take hold of what we have worked so hard to build.

I believe we can win these elections.  But whether or not we win all of them--whether or not we take back the House or the Senate, or Lamont wins or Webb wins--we are here,  now.  The future of the Democratic Party is ours, and nothing can stop that but our own modesty--our own unerstandable desire to be welcomed.     It would be great to have the Tauschers of the party welcome us with open arms.  But even if the do, we need to stand up and take it.  

This is pretty rich: you guys bash centrists all day long like they're far-right Republicans; you extort money from incumbents as if it's your birthright; you treat most of the people in the Democratic Party like they're too stupid to know how to breathe, and yet one comment gets floated in an NYT article and you go into hysterical fits of righteous indignation.

Can I suggest an alternative?  Look past the taunts that you perceive to the deeper questions.  For example, do you or Matt Stoller actually have a position on the issues that Ms. Tauscher raised?  Because from where I sit nothing would cripple the Republican Party faster than having Democrats take responsibility for national security and fiscal responsibility.

Can you, as progressives, get behind those issues?  Can you put national security issues like war and fighting terrorism at the top of your own list, so that the Republican Party no longer gets to make those calls?  Or does that make you feel too uncomfortable?

There are times when I think you're so completely wrapped up in your emotional life that you're going to perpetually allow people to push your buttons and turn you into the kind of attack dog that ultimately only proves the charges that are being leveled against you.  Or are you actually looking to be that predictable and easily used?

[Hint: that was another one of those taunts that you need to get better at ignoring.  How did you do?]

Chris, as an independent who will loyally work with the Democrats for at least the next three years (through 2008) I would like to add my perspective.

First, I think its interesting how you continue to reiterate that there are , somehow "rules". The rules in play are of course, the rules that you would ascribe to to create a strong coalition.

But what is that coalition purposed for? This is the question. It is to promote legislation, and administration of the country.

It is clear to me, as an independent, that as long as the legislative process itself has its feet cut away from  it - in the current environment of rampant lobbyism, there will be no laws written or constructed so that any one coalition can take a meaningful stance. Case in point - was it not the Hurricane Katrina relief bill that made your coal fired power plants in Pennsylvania such that they could dump more mercury in the air.

What better to illustrate this problem, than to show that our legislative process creates bills that, to address environmental catastrophe - republicans like John Cornyn, of Texas, can add random, almost arbitrary pieces of legislation to them, that make them meaningless.

Perhaps a better illustration of the "rules"
would be John Kerrys "I voted for the war, before I Voted Against it" position that he so eloquently stated for the benefit of the republicans in 2004.

(I saw a bumpersticker that said "I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him")

Well, John Kerry, like Jack Murtha, is something of a Hawk. He likes to play it safe with invasions, etc. but will vote to increase military spending nearly every chance he gets.

So, the defense appropriations bill that he voted "Against" was a bill that had, by again, a republican, another rider on it that said that the war would be funded, and oh by the way - we'd also give a big whopping tax break to the top 1% of American society so in addition to having a war, we can also cut the funding out of the war so that we won't win it.  But we'll bring home the pork!

So John Kerry votes against this brazen, lobbyist type activity.  

Do you remember what happened? Well, the GOP talk machine said that Kerry was "pandering to the left". I guess you could say he was being "Driven over a leftist cliff" by the fact that Dean was winning on an anti-war platform.

Truth be told, All americans have always fell the same. We don't want to benefit from ill gotten gains. We want to think of ourselves as a beacon of democracy - and we want to explore the realm of  governance and create new forms of government that build tolerance, and effeciency. So people who want less waste, that call themselves conservative - are ok in my book. And people who want more transparency and honesty - people who, like myself, would say that if we were going to war - we would pay for it too - well those people fight wars, and win them. They can call themselves, as you do, liberals.

That doesn't mean you would support an obviously unjust group of men. It just means that, like the conservative british, if you were to play by their rules, you would walk in a straight line, wear red, and fall in when you got hit by the musketball of the georgia militia hiding in the trees, wearing green, and scattering when you walk by.

I will be in the Democrats camp because the vast majority of democrats these days have an agenda that goes for change.

I would honestly like to be part of a party - but here in Georgia, you've abandoned us completely. The bush republicans here drive their kids down to 46th out of 50 states, educationally,  - trying to teach them that invading countries is good for us. They spend their time trying to tear up science textbooks.  They are a serious problem to us.

And the democratic party has done practically zip.
So this is nothing new to us. You are up t here in Pennsylvania, where you have an organized party.

Down here, we only have whomever the GOP has planted within our party to keep it weak. There are plenty of people in the mold of Jimmy Carter, who are wary of the "ted kennedys" of the world, but would be here to give you the 21 electoral votes.

But there are also even  more people who are the Zell Millers of the party - who, by the way, now works for Fox news as a paid consultant.

The main thing I am saying is that , it would be great to have a party -

But shouldn't the rules say, also, that at least, the legislation we would have our party coalition for - could be legislation that could be readable by everyman?

I am Indian, new to your country. My husband's family (you remember turnerbroadcasting before you kicked him off the cliff?) came here 220 years ago, from Austria - for one thing. They wanted the bible to be read in the language of the people. While the Catholic church today , just a few weeks ago- brings back the undecipherable latin mass - all my husband's family really wanted was to hear the words of the bible in a way that they could understand and implement in their lives. So they were hounded out of Austria and into Germany and finally here, where the new system of government supported it.

Quietly, the Bush republicans have , through the use of the broken legislative process - created new rules, like signing statements - that let them break the constitutional roles that were the great insight of our founding fathers.

And now, given that there is a midterm election up, in which there might be a single chance to have a check on their power - we are playing dangerously close to providing the bush republicans with exactly what they need. A reason to pretend that they again are in the minority and that the reason why nothing gets done, is because of Democrats.

Well, Dean has seriously reshaped this party - and his work shows in every single victory I see.

So, Come elections next week, my husband and I are going to party. We're going to break out the sparkling apple cider (family tradition) - and then, if , as my main goal with this election, we can make Harry Reid the senate MAJORITY leader - then, we'll let "Give 'Em Hell Harry! " decide what to do about whipping.

And if they decide to really boot the lobbyists and advertisers and special interests and practically all of the things that DC has tricked itself into believing needs be there (thanks to television) we will win, again and again - and there will be a 20 year reign of prosperity and I will settle down, and pull the lever for the Democrats every time.

Right now, I am serious when I tell you that I am not happy being an independent, and I Am only an indie because I know that - no matter how the partisan battles are fought ( and generally they are fought with advertising money, thats why the DLC and their slick machine still exist - and why green senator Ned Lamont is battling for his life against mr. "Antiwar" lieberdem) --- it really doesn't matter. Doesn't Joe teach you that? In the end, its about the lobbyists. They are getting the politicians elected that will try to undo the democratic majoritys. Deadlock for the past 4 years, deadlock the next two - all at the expense of the taxpayer - and all because lobbyists can write the legislation now, instead of the people -

Remember this famous line .. "Son, are you aware that we don't even read the legislation on our desks anymore?"

Good luck Chris. I hope you win.

Several tracks must be pursued.

The first is that  progressives need to start collecting funds on Nov 8th publicly stated to be used to oust wing nut D's that have been in office and the ones recruited by Emmanuel.

The DLC has used D's money for years to torpedo progressive D's to promote sock puppets and rethuglican lites so until they get slapped around from the progressives they will continue to do so because it works. Something they learned from thier rethuglican mentors that no matter how slimy or dishonest a tactic if it works use it.

Think how useful such a fund would have been in the Texas primary where a reactionary D won or in Il 06 where a sock puppet was propped up with money meant to be spent against rethuglicans but was in fact used to sabatauge a true grassroots candinate. There are other examples to numorous to name ( maryland Congressional race is another notable example)

The second track is to work on the inside and change the rules so that emmanuel, or what ever puppet he supports, cannot use DCCC money and influence to torpedo progressives by supporting carpetbaggers etc. (i.e. IL 06) any money spent is spent against the right never against the left period.

Progressives must let Senators know on Nov. 8th that if lierman gets elected any D senator that supports his attempt to steal seniority will pay in '08 by having a challenger, loss of ground support and loss of grass roots fundraising.
Bad behavior must be punished.

A few noteworthy targets would offer an important object lesson to other potential Quislings.

Personally I wouldn't worry too much.  All you can really do is put pressure on politicans by threatening their chance at reelection.  And this election will allow bloggers to do that.  

To me that is ultimately what matters in this election.  What politicans say isn't important at all.  

The question is whether or not they fear you.

I have an early night - and WW3 breaks out! ;)

The facts of life are pretty much down to the arithmetic: neither the liberals nor the DNC/NDC/Blue Dogs will have a majority of the majority in the House - assuming the Dems have the majority, natch.

Each side will be constantly pitching for the support of the Mister In-Betweens. Since so many of the main committee chairmanships will be going to liberals (if seniority rules), it's only natural that the mods will be reaching out to the guys in the middle to balance things up in the party.

Which means Hoyer as Maj Leader, of course. And a fair amount of leeway from Pelosi on going off the reservation on non-procedural votes.

Part of the pitch which will come very early (like now) is on the promised ethics rules: Son of Tony (Coelho, that is) is, we know from the Washington Monthly piece (if we didn't before!) not a zealot on cleaning up Congress.

First choice for the in-betweenies (in the first hour of the famous 100: do they go full bore with Pelosi's crusade, or lean with the Hoyerite not so fast folks?

Fundamental problem for lefties: there aren't enough of them to take control of the Dem party in any foreseeable scenario. Hence the need to compromise.

Which is a dirty word, but a necessary bargain.

As an independent looking from the outside on this shift of power, let me throw out a word of caution before everyone here goes running off with this victory declaring a new progressive uprising.

The GOP is weakened in this cycle, particularly in the "red-state challenged" races because the neocon warmongerers and ultra-religious wingnuts that have siezed control of that party have left the center unguarded and the Democrats in those areas are pouncing on them.  The current administration and their rubber-stamp proxies in Congress are feeling the heat from alienating key "traditionally Republican" constituencies, in particular libertarians (with a small "l") and moderate Christians.

Libertarian Republicans believe in small government, economic free markets, and non-intervention, both domestically and globally.  The current administration with its war of conquest in the Middle East and it runaway pork and earmark budgets and record deficits have left libertarian conservatives behind from their parties.  This is a large constituency in upper plains areas, and it's not surprising to see the GOP base eroding in MT, WY, & ID this cycle as a result.

As far as Christians go, I know that most Evangelicals are not necessarily Catholic, but nevertheless, a good indicator of "mainstream" political beliefs among the devout is the Vatican.  The Vatican has been as strong of an opponent of the Iraq War as any country.  Simply put, war and killing are not Christian values, and most certainly fabricating evidence in order to justify an aggressive war of conquest for personal profit is about as un-Christian as you can get.  As the slaughter continues and the un-Christian war rises in importance for ture Christian voters relative to issues like abortion and gay marriage, devout Democrats are getting traction.  You are seeing this in people like Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth, who are taking conservative evalgelical seats as the current GOP is increasingly exposed as immoral.

What is the point of this?  If you win because the GOP has left themselves open to attack from the center instead of the left and then try to take the party to the left, the Democratic control of Congress is going to be very short.  In short, the Blue Dog or New Democrats are going to be the kingmakers in this Congress.  If Nancy Pelosi and the progressives try to shove a real leftist agenda through Congress, these people will either stop it, switch parties (if the GOP cleans up its act), or be defeated in 08 by more morally upstanding Republicans that will fill the moral void once the current Titanic sinks.

Tausher's "driving off a cliff" statement was uncalledfor at this point before the election, but you all should take heed of her sentiments.  Incidentally, I think that Nancy Pelosi herself is smart enough to recognize that the Democrats are winning by reclaiming the center and to remain in power, they must rule from the center.  She has already said that there will be no impeachment process and is talking about bipartisan issues like the 9/11 commission.  She needs to make sure she keeps the part on this track in order to keep it in power.

Finally, one more important point.  If progressives want a true majority in Congress, they need to reclaim all of the blue state and positive PVI districts that they can with progressive candidates.  Chris has noted the importance of winning back as many "blue seats" as possible for progressives this cycle.  This is dead on.  Brad Ellsworth and Heath Shuler and Jon Tester will help get the neocon war machine out of power, but they won't help the progressive agenda.  Lois Murphy and Ned Lamont and John Hall will.  These are the people who it is most critical to win this cycle for progressives (as opposed to the larger Democratic Party).

CALM DOWN.

We are close to being the dominant (or equally matched) party here.  How do we wrap this one up and progress further?

By calling out centrist democrats who are winning their elections by giving their voters what they want?

What is the Big Tent if we slap a litmus test on all comers as to whether they are progressive enough?  governing DEMANDS sensitivity to what people want.  We have proven in the past that we are all too happy to take the bait on issues like gun control and abortion, and they have hammered us with it.  If we plan to GOVERN, then this would be a good time to accept REALITY of where voters are at.  A middle stance will work against the belligerent right wing fundies, if we don't drop dead at the first hint of political diversity.  

You have to run on issues that run well where you are.  A good new candidate is going to listen to the voters, not the blogs.  It's five minutes to midnight and you want to declare war on your own damn party?

Again...

CALM DOWN.

We are a coalition party, we are not always going to agree. I think you are reading way too much into the NYT article. Let's wait and see what happens if and when we take the House. I don't imagine that a lot of Dems from western and southern states are going to back gay rights and gun control, but they will probably work with us on trade agreements, tax policies, etc.

Exactly mrgavel.  

And Chris, with all your claims of "ownership" and sabre-rattling over the DLC vs. the "movement, where is your focus on the real issue - that diverse, leadership-hungry, sometimes provincial group known as the VOTERS?

Take Tauscher's statement and flip it: if it were a statement about the Progressive Caucus or Netroots Endorsed Candidates, many people who are upset with Tauscher would be cheering, whistling, and stomping their feet.

It is not Tauscher's party.  But Tauscher and those who sail with her are one important constituency.   But neither is it the "Netroot's" party.  Though they are also one important constituency.  And if I thought about it a few minutes I could probably identify other, if overlapping, constituencies as well.

If Progressive candidates want to form the Democratic equivalent of the Republican Study Group,  a mirror image group comprising the more ideologically Progressive members, so be it, though I would encourage a close look at the RSG's failures as well as its successes while doing so.

But the "we don't need them, fuck them, we can get along without them" narrative is one of Karl Rove's fondest wet dreams.   As Ben Franklin said, if we don't hang together we will surely hang separately.

After the election, the netroots will be able to point to victories where it couldn't have happened without them.   There will also be Democratic victories where the netroots will rate an asterisk if they aren't an outright hindrance; the snarking against Harold Ford or Jim Webb by some who find their ideological purity insufficient is the kind of cut-off-your-nose behavior that have lead some to conclude that Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

...against Ellen Tauscher in 2008.

There will always be differences of opinion, outlook, preferred outcomes, etc between radicals, liberals, moderates, mainstreams, conservatives, libertarians, and what-have-yous. There will always be struggles to define objectives, priorities, resource allocation, etc. among the same groups. That's what the polictical realm does. That will always be what any not-utterly-corrupt party does. How could it be otherwise?

We have come along way toward changing the outcomes of those differences and struggles, but we were never moving toward a goal of harmony and eternal unity. That will never happen. Politics is a place of struggle. How could it be otherwise?

We don't struggle to level the playing field and let ideas win on the merits. We struggle to make our objectives reality. Part of that struggle has been to overcome the corporate money advantage--not for it's own sake, but to defang a powerful opponent in the struggle to realize our objectives. How could it be otherwise?

The struggle can be honest, but there will always be a struggle insofar as there are genuine differences of need and desire--and I posit that there always will be. How could it be otherwise?

As for the stabbed in the back meme: let's leave that bit of dishonesty to the conservative ideologues. There will always be stabbing and backs as well as fronts are as fair game. How could it be otherwise?

there are no rules.

you followed no rules.

people have tried to get their readership and usership to "follow rules", they have tried to impose rules, on behalf of the party.

you don't actually deserve a piece of the Party for that dirty job, quite the opposite.