I think it's about time somebody told you to at least temper your criticism of your own party. I'm an independent and I think this constant carping about everything gets a little old. You people seem so implaccable at times it really gets to be so annoying that at times I think I've actually gone to Free Republic.

I totally agree. For example, though I am not a fan of Sen. Lieberman he is far from being the scourge of the Earth.  I rather aim my fusillade at Chafee. It is important to proclaim loudly that the Republicans brought a war to this country on false pretenses; in my view, sadly not shared by many Americans, there can be no higher violation of duty.  In other words, since there were no WMDs, where did the evidence that they existed come from, obviously, it was invented.    

Criticism is good... in the off year.  In the off year let's debate, let's bash DINOs, let's get rid of State Party officials that do nothing for activists or candidates.  But when election time comes, its time to play on the same team.

We can have both.  Debate and unity.  We just have to get smart about when he rock the boat and when we work together.

No.  Progressives need to hold Democrats accountable, otherwise it's a slippery slope to Republicanism.

I'd start scaling back around Labor Day.  It's only insiders listening now.  Insiders should hear criticism.  That does no mean all the criticism is right.

Now, then & always real things that affect real people are more important than most insider spats.  Perhaps insiders -- which inclused most folks reading this -- do take themselves too seriously.  That goes for people who take criticism on blogs too seriously too.

Yes, and no.  

I think we need to use better judgment when we decide what should become an issue and what shouldn't.  Every single thing that happens that we don't like or don't agree with isn't grounds for an anti-Democrat tirade.

I think we should engage in constructive criticism.  The DNC isn't perfect- no political party is- and when there are major or systematic institutional problems that need to be dealt with, we should criticize.  Also, we should make sure that criticism is meant to be constructive- we need to say that we support the party, and that's why we're urging for change; we need to let them know what the issue is, and possibly make suggestions as to how it can be fixed.  

What we don't need is complaining.  We're a national party, and we're very diverse- there will always be Democrats, including Democratic leaders, who do or say things we don't agree with.  But that isn't grounds for critism, for the most part- every politician must represent their people, and that means they can't always represent the party.  Attacking a politician, the party, or its leadership over minor ideological disputes or tactical disagreements is sheer stupidity.

So, we need to filter.  We need to pick our battles.  We must be positive and work hard to fix the major problems, and we must learn to hold our tongues over the minor squabbles.  This way, we will fix the major problems with the DNC without unduly hurting our fellow Democrats.  

(for example, the type of "let's-hang-the-party-out-to-dry-because -they-did-something-I-dislike"  complaining John Aravosis is engaging in isn't helpful, it isn't necessary, and it isn't fixing anything.)

criticize democrats.  This is not Europe with a parliamentary system in which criticism of a representative might cause the whole government to crash.  If their is no debate about the direction we need to take in policy formation and implementation, then we won't communicate any direction to the voters.  And we can only arrive at goals through through dialogue.

Also some Dems are total assholes.  we need to p[oint this out so they can be gotten rid of.

I'll stop attacking scum of the earth like Lieberman after the primaries.  Until then, fair game.

Most of the criticism is about how make Democrats more electable and who to appeal to in the electorate in order to do that. The same people who we are complaining about legislatively, are the same people who are running. The concern, and it should be everyone's concern, is whether the same lack of risk taking by the Democrats in the legislature will crossover to how they run campaigns? Will they act cautiously? This makes your question difficult to answer because it relates directly to the ability to win in Nov and how one achieves that.

Of course we shouldn't scale back the criticism -- until the primary season is over. That's what primaries are for, right? When the general approaches, we should hold off on any criticism of dems, but then start right back up when the general is over. The Liebermans, Hoyers and Cuellars are no less offensive than the Republicans.

By the way, we should be demanding unity from the folks who want us to be united, right? So it would seem that when Feingold introduces a censure resolution, the folks who want us to unite behind them should be leading by example and uniting behind Russ.

I think it is time and I think it can be done ... even in situations were you may be backing a primary challenger ("So and so is a great guy, blah blah blah, I have a lot of respect for ... but").

Listen, Democrats need a united, confident, positive front.  This could be a fantastic year.   The year when we shove the idea of a "lasting majority" down the Republican's conceded throats, and show the corporate media what a bunch of tools they really all (remember their predictions just a few months ago ... "there aren't enough competitive seats in play").

After primaries, all for one and one for all.

Until then, not so much.

Jesus fucking christ you can't be serious?

Are you going to tell me next to vote for HRC???

This is kind of a silly question to ask on a blog where so many people are non-Democrats.

Rather than bashing Democrats, we would do best to highlight progressive Democrats who share our value. After we elect Democrats, then send letters and visit and hold those officials accountable. If we don't elect a majority of Democrats, even those who we support won't have a voice. Our motto should be majority first, and focus our efforts on winning elections. Once back in the majority, we can hold their feet to the fire.

I think a distinction needs to be made between criticism and carping. I think John is reacting to the objections lodged by many regarding his reaction to the firing of his friend by Howard Dean. Regardless, it is a good question worth discussing.

In my estimation, it comes down to balance and how the dialogue and debate is conducted. My impression is that all too often we take the throw the baby out with the bath water approach. Ironically, we Democrats routinely criticize Republicans for being dogmatic, extreme, and intolerant...and yet we sometimes succumb to the same ideological absolutism when we disagree with our fellow Democrats.

In the end, I'm convinced the public appreciates thoughtful and constructive debate and criticism. Again, it seems more an issue of balance and reasonable restraint. That may not be the case with this particular incident but I'm convinced it is a good rule of thumb whether it is an election year or not.

read more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Now, of course, this is Matt and the boys' blog. If they want to make it a propaganda arm of the DNC, that's utterly their right. (Until Congress passes a law against it, of course...)

If so, I won't be coming back. But I've no doubt there are ten hyper-loyal Dems eager to fill my void. As it were.

I'm sure they have no such intention, for the very good reason that nothing posted here by regular folk - I would suggest - has the potential to have any discernible electoral effect. (I'd like some evidence to the contrary before I'd consider giving the notion house room.)

All that loose lips sink ships stuff is just self-boosting bloviation, surely?

And who are these Dem anonymice Aravosis quotes? Isn't this exactly the sort of story which, if it were in the Times, would have lefty bloggers frothing at the mouth?

Say, folks...yer wanna stop criticising Democrats? Me...I'd like Democrats to stop losing. Would that be OK with everyone. Or would you prefer to wait until Bush has destroyed the country utterly and irreparably. He's got a shot you know.

If he rains nuclear fire on Iran you will be walking to work.

You can find a link to the Democrats who want to support him in this listed here.

But folks here say: "Nooooooooooooooooooooo......Noooooooo.. ..don't criticise the Democrats they might lose.

Git yer head out. Democrats are not proven losers over the last twenty years because citizens have "criticised" them. They are losers because they do not stand for anything much less Democratic values.

I'll stop criticising when they stop speaking with a mouthful of marbles and start speaking in clear language for progressive agendas.

Which they are starting to do. And the reason they are is because we, the people, are demanding that they do.

That's a citizen's job.

If yer not up to it...go join the 50% that don't vote.

Oh, almost fergot...John's an asshole. Go google him with Katherine Harris..."a very nice woman..."

I think that we should just target a few of the worse. In that way, there is both accountability for values and issues while also allowing flexibility for being a different flavor of democrat.

I was a substitute teacher told to keep the hallway clear when the young people wanted to come in from lunch hour early, on a nice day. The young people had a plan, they would storm the hallway and I would not be able to stop them, since I was substitute. As the storming of the hallway happened, I stood there and declared that I would get the first two. The storming crowd froze and looked around. The first two backed up so they were no longer the first two. The next two backed up, too. This continued until the about 20 young people all reversed themselves out the door.

So lets just pick off the the top two (number negotiable), who are probably so bad that the rest of the democratic candidates would breathe a sigh of relief.

"Some friends on the Hill recently asked me if the liberal blogs could lay off their attacks on Democratic members of Congress until after the election."

First of all it seems to me that the "friends on the Hill" need to practice what they preach. There have been numerous times over the last year where Democratic politicians in media appearances and in interviews have taken their fellow Dems to task for one issue or another.  Lieberman does this on a regular basis but he is not alone.  Cheap shots at Howard Dean, John Murtha and anyone outside of the DLC view of the world have been pretty regular also.  Also, having some of them telling the world that the portion of their base that does not agree with their positions are crazed fanatics does not endear me to them or make me feel overly cooperative.

There are many people in the Democratic base that just don't like the right leaning direction the party has taken.  Between now and the end of the primaries, I think they need to hear whether their positions turn on or turn off segments of their base and what will make me donate time and money to their cause.  After the primaries, I might be willing to forgo my criticism until after November.
 

Seems to me, criticizing Democrats in these times of extreme Republican misbehavior is like a GI in Iraq complaining that he has sand in his shoe while they're throwing bombs at him.  Seems to me, the rule ought to be, first get rid of the Republicans, THEN we can talk about making our party more responsive.

On the other hand, watching the Democrats continue to carry the Republicans' water, failing to object to Diebold certification when their own jobs are at stake, failing to draw attention to Republican crimes, failing to be an opposition party at all...it's disheartening, to say the least.  I feel like we have to drag our own candidates, kicking and screaming, to victory.  It raises questions in my mind about whether, should they win, they'll actually do anything worthwhile, or will they be like the pigs in "Animal Farm" and give us the same old corrupt, people-mistreating government we're trying to get rid of?

Honestly, comparing the Republicans' all out assault on the White House throughout the Clinton years with the way the Democrats seem to go out of their way to PROP UP the most corrupt, unpopular administration since Warren Harding, I could cry.

Personally all my interest in politics comes from stuff like this and if it stopped I'd go back to apathetic.

It is interesting that John A.would ask this question after he published a mean-spirited attack on Dr.Dean. Now I happen to think that Dean is the best thing that happened to the Democratic Party in the last 20 years. To have a so-called liberal blogger make unsubstantiated attacks against him makes me sick. Mr.Aravosis should decide if he is with us or against us.

The Dem. party should not emulate the one-voice, rubber-stamp Republican party.

Criticism (and good policy ideas) is in the blood of the Dem. party, and we should not give it up, especially when so many party 'leaders' are weak-kneed voiceless drones.

I don't think we should stiffle either ideas or competition but I wonder how much good we are doing by griping about the Dems we don't like rather than identifying Dems we do like and getting them elected.  That was the point I was trying to make yesterday in Sirota thread.  

It is the difference between using our energies in a positive way rather than a negative way.  I prefer using our energies to elect Democrats who can start changing the way things are done rather than channeling them into constantly carping about the party problems.  

Well, should we lay off Lieberman then? I once argued that "as long as Lieberman got us 51 Dems in the Senate, I was okay with him. Talk to me when we have fifty-two." Now I don't think that is a good idea. Some democrats are so destructive to the party and our message for why we are better than the republicans that we can't sit back and keep quiet.  No A general criticism of "the Democrats" is unhelpful but specific criticism of specific Dems who advance policies that are hurtful to the country and to our constituency should be gone after hammer and tong. So long as the republicans are pushing from the right, these guys will think they only have to move to the right to win. We need to push from the left to remind them where their interests truly lie.

They aren't complaining because they are worried we'll tarnish the public face of the party.  They are complaining because they can't get away with caving to the GOP anymore.  They have to do things now that the media might criticize them for, to keep us happy.

Look, they've taken criticism that has made the Democratic Party look worse than anything we have said.  Mr. Lieberman, that's your cue.  They've taken criticism from the media for random, pointless shit (just ask Al Gore), then stroked their chins and said, "maybe they're right!"

If Democrats become as allergic to accountability as the Republicans are, they are going to hear about it.  They need to remember that they represent We The People, and rather than calling us crazy or telling us to leave politics to the professionals, they need to get down to the work of doing what their constituents want!

considering that 90% of the heat that team Leiberman gets is due to their criticism of the progressive wing of the party.  If they'd shut the fuck up and stop running against the left with their triangulation bullshit, then there would be very little sound coming from the progressive blogosphere about them.

If we stand down and stop criticising, then we're just enabling those we don't agree with that have D's on their name. Lieberman, Ceuller, etc. If they want less criticism, it's up to each candidate to grow a spine and stand up for what they believe in, even if we disagree with them. Then they can earn our respect.

John A.'s question deflects the criticism of his histrionic knee jerk attack on Dean.
But to answer it:

Dems should provide constructive criticism about policy and strategy with the purpose of improving our chances for victory, not for the purpose of carrying out vendettas about personalities or special interests. Dems need to be a party of the common interest and not special interest. With John A. there seems to be only one interest that matters,and only one point of view.

No.  The only way to ever achieve real change is to call these people on the bad things they do, even if they are Democrats, and purge them from the party.  The Republican far-right started doing this to their own moderates and liberals after Goldwater, and it took them 15 years until Reagan won to do it, but they took over the party for their awful cause.  It is now time that we LIBERALS do the same thing to the Democratic Party.  As Thom Hartmann rightly points out, our system really only allows for two parties, so if we hope to achieve any REAL change, we must take back the Democratic Party for the people.  And if that means purging the entrenched and cozy group running things, even if they are senior members of Congress, then SO BE IT!  I say out with those who stand in the way, starting with Hillary, Lieberman, Emanuel, Hoyer, and anybody else who did not vote against renewing the Patriot act for starters.  Otherwise you're just trading one group of corporate sell-outs for another.  

Feingold for President, '08.

they should move to address our concerns. that's how democracy works. if they think we're out of touch and irrelevant, than our criticism shouldn't be an issue.

bargains take movement on both sides. they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm wondering when the right-wing and moderate wings of the Democratic party will stop teeing off on the traditional left-wing, labor and progressive wings of the party.

I don't think we drew first blood in this battle, so I think the peace overtures need to come from the other side.

I'm not seeing it, though. Cease-fires have to be two-way streets. But the Dems in DC see it as a one-way street - you stop criticising us, but we can go on criticising folks who speak to your interests.

Hoyer on Colbert. Pelosi saying Murtha speaks for himself. Dayton talking trash on Feingold. Lieberman talking trash on basically anyone to the left of him (which is a lot of people and most Democrats)  

When these guys shut up, I'll shut up.

Some friends on the Hill recently asked me if the liberal blogs could lay off their attacks on Democratic members of Congress until after the election. The idea being that we need to keep promoting a public image of Dems good/Republicans bad, and that any criticism of Dems hurts our image and only helps detract attention from the Republicans' increasing number of failings.

So my question is, what "hurts our image" more: bloggers voicing their opinion about the action of some Democratic members up on the Hill, or the Democratic members of Congress up on the Hill who fail to oppose the President and helped get us into Iraq, then voted with the GOP on many key pieces of blatently pro-GOP legislation?

Which hurts Democrat's image more: citizens using their free speech to decry Democrats who don't vote to support traditional Democratic values like supporting the common good, or Democrats on the Hill who vote with the GOP bolstering the Republican claim that Democrats don't know what they stand for?

Which hurt us more?

I guess my main concern is that some of the criticisms we make here will find their way into Republican ads this fall.  As much as they like to criticize us as being fanatical leftists (yes, Joe Klein, I'm talking about you), the Republicans won't hesitate to use our words against us--"even his/her fellow Democrats called him/her 'a sellout.'"

That said, there are some Democrats we are better off without.  I thought we had purged enough of our DINOs in 1995/96, but there are several others who will vote against the party whether we are in the majority or the minority.  Perhaps we should concentrate our fire on them.  

Brief answer: No, not yet.

Longer answer: During the Primary season, its time to let 1000 flowers bloom. However, beginning during the summer-- August? -- then its time to pull together for the home stretch.

Anyway, telling the Liberal blogosphere to shut up is about as practical as King Canute telling the tide to stop.

There's some inbetween gray areas that need discussion, however.

*    At what point does "eating our own" become counter-productive?

*    Can we avoid sounding like 2 year olds throwing a temper tantrum?

*    Can we have a vigorous debate without ad hominem "swift-boat" style attacks against the Devil-of-the-moment Democrat (whether Joe Lieberman, Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton, or whoever)?

Bob Schacht
Honolulu

No.  I will continue to criticize both Democrats and Republicans until I am completely satisfied with my government.  

Hm, is it time to be a hypocrite?

No & no.

No criticism makes those in power think that the people approve of their performance. Speak truth (or one's perception of truth) to power - right or left, in power or in opposition.

Folks we are not going to win the House or Senate back by politely withholding critisim of Democrats.  Ain't gonna happen that way.

Do folks upthread really think we should play nice with the likes of Steny Hoyer?

All we have is our voice.  

To move our party toward progressivisim we need to speak up and remind them we are here.

Is this some weird trick to get us into an infinite loop?

Criticize Democrats who criticize Democrats who . . .

All I know is it is past time for many of the armchair politicians to get out and walk a precinct, make phone calls, volunteer for a campaign, just do something.

There is always room for constructive criticism.

I do think blogs should point out more often what Democrats are doing right.

Many years ago when I was in college, I was privileged to hear Saul Alinsky.  Mr. Alinsky -- long since gone -- was a forerunner of the pragmatic-mixed with purpose school.  He essentially taught that we should never lose sight of the purpose/goal/drive, but that we should know when to make incremental progress and to consolidate gains as we move forward.  (For those of you with an interest in the formal school of political philosophy, I commend him to you.  Among political scientists of all stripes, he is well-regarded for his successes.)  As for me today, I believe fervently in the goals of the liberal democrat.  I do think, tho, that we unnecessarily hurt ourselves if and when we characterize too many situations as morality plays.  Certainly, there are times when we must take a stand with each other... or else, what are we really.  These times, methinks, should be few and far between.  It is important to know the difference as to when the disagreement is tactical or strategic and when the disagreement is so central to the purpose that one cannot survive without it.  No sturm und drang.  Whatever the balance is, we do ourselves and others a disservice if -- in the political sphere -- we insist on purity and moral certitude.  Isn't that the Republican litmus test that we decry?

Well if your main identity is "Democrat," the answer should be yes. If, on the other hand, you are a patriotic American first and also happen to find that the Democrats are better than the Republicans, the answer is no.

Today, for example, Mike Enzi, an execrable pile of crap from Wyoming introduced a bill in the Senate that would lead to the Big Insurance companies no longer covering mammograms, diabetes screening and other crucial early detection tools. Disaster for the working poor! Enzi is a corporate whore and, of course, a Republican. As anyone who loves America should, I took pleasure in pointing out his shortcomings. He had 7 co-sponsors, all of whom I listed at Down With Tyranny. Perhaps I should have only listed the 6 Republican co-sponsors and left off the one Democrat who joined them? Who joins them so much that I often wonder why he calls himself a Democrat?

Screw that. I'm a progressive American. The Democratic Party Insiders are almost as apt to suck as are the Republican Party Insiders. I'll not shill for them and I hope all Democrats who act like Republicans lose their seats.

If we nominate people like Ford Bell, Mfume, Ned Lamont, Sherrod Brown , John Tester ,etc. then Ill gladly stop attacking the party members.

As a Marylander, I can tell you that I would rather vote for a right winger (so we can beat them in the next election, sort of a lay away plan)than Ben Cardin Hoyar.

although just a "minor" one needing a mre 40,000 votes or so in a county school board race . . .

I want criticism from Democrats. I want honest criticism.

If I cannot handle that, how can be expected to handle criticism from my opponents?

I think episodes like this should be addressed and handled in a way that demonstrates what the party stands for.  It may be that Dean fired the person in question in retaliation, and if that was the case he should be chastised and they should be given their job back.  Things like this show the whole country who we are, so why bury our principles "for the party" like Republicans do?

I see no reason at all to let up on Democrats who voted for CAFTA, for the bankruptcy bill or to support the absurd tax cuts we've been saddled with.  I will cut slack to Democrats in direct proportion to  how little slack they give to the GOP.  Do they seriously think they deserve slack by being mealy mouthed about how courageous Colbert was this week end?   Do they seriously think they deserve slack for dictating to individual Democratic candidates who they should hire to staff their campaigns in order to get money from Rahm Emmanuel? Should they be given slack by equivocating over Iraq?  They can have their slack when I start to here the leadership call W. the liar he is. They can have their slack when they quit being slack. They want slack, then introduce some legislation that shows they are really Democrats.  They might not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it passed, but let them force the Republicans to go on record opposing what the majority of people in this country want. Show me a good offense and I'll give them a good defense.

A few things:

Someone asked earlier: Am I a Democrat or patriotic American?  I ask myself: Am I a Democrat or a person with a series of beliefs that most would classify as progressive nowadays?

The answer is I vote Democratic to express my progressive beliefs, and am only a Democrat as far as it advances my beliefs.  That means in any election (primary or general) I vote and donate based on the person who is closer to my beliefs.  When the establishment portion of the party tells a candidate to cool it, it smacks of bosses and machine politics of the previous century.  That strikes me as somewhat un-democratic.  Since we are wedded to a partisan system for now, it is healthy to have debate at every stage, even if the challenge is quixotic.  It forces people to think, and gives people an option to vote how they believe.

More debate challenges, invigorates, and forces organization at an earlier stage.  From what I have read, the Lamont/Lieberman race has forced Conn. Dems to think and organize earlier and more effectively than in the past 2 Lieberman races.  This organization will translate into increased energy in the general, whoever wins.  It has also forced Liebermann to at least acknowledge that he is accountable to voters that disagree with him in a commercial.  There would have been virtually no voter engagement or outreach from Lieberman at this point in the election without a challenge.  Criticism, debate, and dissent are healthy for the body politic in several ways.At worst, most primaries are in Sept., and in Congressional elections that is more than enough time for the winner to lick his or her wounds, and rally the party to victory

We should not criticize every Blue Dog Dem every time they don't follow party line.  Do I always agree with Nelson of Nebraska?  Of course not, but I understand Nebraska is not California.  I am glad to have a D next to the name.  The electoral necessities of Nebraska force Nelson to the right.  There is no such electoral necessity in Conn. with Liebermann.  It is an opportunity for safe democratic expression.  

When it comes to the general, I ask myself who furthers progressive values more.  Almost invariably I say the Democrat, and vote for the Dem. I want to win very badly in November, because it will advance progressive causes. However, I want a Congress that is more than a lesser of two evils Congress.  I believe that you need liberals where the electorate will support it, and someone sympathetic where it might not be as hospitable to achieve this goal.

If a person is a Democrat first, what is it that you  believe?  Do you believe in the party?  Or the ideals that you think the party represents, or that you want it to represent?  If you were a moderate Dem in a moderate district, and a rabid liberal was the incumbant, who did not share your values, would you vote for a moderate Dem and criticize the liberal Dem?  Would you swallow the primary for "the good of the party"?  I don't mean to be confrontational.  I am actually interested in a moderate's answer, and why they would do that.  Why is loyalty to party more important than loyalty to your beliefs?  Again, I ask to learn, not confront.

Oh, no matter when it is, and if a Democrat pulls a Traficant and is completely corrupt and criminal,Criticize, criticize, criticize.  They need to be purged.  It would be better to survive one term with a Republican, and then run a clean Dem next time, than to have a criminal, corrupt Dem that will poison the ethical well and become an albatross hung around the Dem neck.

So, to recap, always criticize improper behavior.  Vote your beliefs and criticize during a primary that is what they are for.  Sometimes, it is our best chance to express our beliefs through our vote.  In the general, rally around the party in the general (even if it means Liebermann, if he wins)if it is the party that would advance your beliefs in Congress.

Democrats were busy losing elections, long before the blogs made their splash.

But with the scandal-breaking/busting power of the blogs making up for the pathetic decline of the fourth estate, the once-invincible president has been reduced to 32% approval, and the Democrats are consistently favored in congressional polls.

Get real, you morons. More talk, more discussion, more criticism has gotten us to where we are now. Censorship is exactly what the Bushies want.

Let's face it, entrenched Democratic interests: If your story/strategy/campaign can't hold up against a bunch of amateurs with laptops, how the fuck do you think it'll work up against Rove?

Absolutely not. This is akin to the 1960's Republicans complaining about the conservative Goldwater movement. The Beltway Democrats are out of touch with the progressive movement. They want to use the progressive base as a "means" for a Democratic majority "end". But we can not allow a victory of the progressive movement to be claimed by the DLC and Washington insiders. We can not claim victory simply by electing politicians with the letter D next to their name, we can only claim victory by electing politicians who champion progressive ideals.  

I don't think it needs to be an either/or choice.  For instance, if Joe Lieberman was running against Santorum, I would certainly show up and vote for Lieberman--   but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be criticizing Holy Joe long and loud for his GOP-lite political posture.  

Seems to me we ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.   Let's get as many Democrats as we can into office, but continue to be unsparing of those who are not sufficiently progressive in their values.

Oh, gosh fellows. Are you suggesting we should pipe down, forgive and forget and move on?

Remember the old saw, all politics are local? That may or may not be true in Bush's America. Here in California the democrats' state leadership left Sacramento and spent a very curious weekend on the glorious Monterey coast.

Like Golf or Rock or Corporate stars, California's top State Democratic leaders enjoyed considerable privacy once they glided by any one of the five Pebble Beach Gates to heaven on earth. The Gates ring the largest endangered old growth Monterey Pine forest left in California; a national treasure original developer Samuel Morris dubbed  Del Monte Forest...a noteworthy & early example of co-branding with the then fully developed Del Monte Hotel in nearby Monterey - home of the first state government.  

Before I "cut out criticism of Democrats" , my own state leadership has got a lot of explaining to do. I'd like to know exactly how much money AT&T spent on these Democratic party leaders? Tens of thousand dollars, hundreds of thousand dollars? Pebble Beach is awfully expensive. A morning round of golf alone costs more than the average gate guards earn in a week.

A few months earlier AT&T allowed FOX News Network to crash the gates to the AT&T-Pebble Beach 2006 National Pro-Am so Sean Hannity could set up a fancy outdoor studio, and conduct a half hour live network interview Rush Limbaugh on the lush green grass with the breath-taking towering forest backdrop.

Rush Oxy Limbaugh in the winter, Daft Dems in springtime. Ya gotta hand it to AT&T - they are certainly an equal opportunistic  corporation.

Lest we forget, AT&T likes to help  out all the President's men at the NSA too. Yep, honest to God, they think it is perfectly ok to use their privileged technology to spy on pesky netheads and phone customers, here, there and everywhere.

This is not a time to discourage criticism of  major or minor political parties. Time is short and we must take back the house and hopefully the senate.Otherwise we're all doomed.

You know,  

It gets worse. They were notthe All I know is I can only speak to thethe California State Democratic leadership cozy little celebration last weekend, hidden behind the gates of Pebble Beach?

Sorry guys but they've got a lotta explainin' to do.

Silly me.  for selling out to AT&T last weekend

I think we promote the Democratic Party loud and clear while denouncing those who act like Republicans by saying just that, "Joe Lieberman is a Republican in Democratic cloth.  He supports every terrible decision made by this President and he is no longer representative of the Democratic Party."

Politicians in both parties represent variety of interests.
The first Interest the Politician Represent is their own personal conscience.
Second is their Donor Interest. The Lobby Interest Groups and Industries that donate to Members of Congress from both Parties (ie Bankruptcy,Isreal Lobby,)have their interests represented.
Third is their Constituency- 9 Democratic US Senators represent strong Red States- States Bush carried with more than 55% of the popular Vote.
1)Evan Bayh-Indiana
2)Mary Landrieu-Louisiana
3)Max Baucus-Montana
4)Ben Nelson-Nebraska
5)Kent Conrad-North Dakota
6)Byron Dorgan-North Dakota
7)Tim Johnson-South Dakota
8)Robert Byrd-West Virginia
9)Jay Rockefeller-West Virginia

A Last- They Vote Their Party Interest.

Blue State Liberal Politicians like
1)Barbara Boxer-California
2)Chris Dodd-Connecticut
3)Daniel Inouye-Hawaii
4)Danie Akaka-Hawaii
5)Richard Durbin-Illinios
6)Barack Obama-Illinios
7)Paul Sarbanes-Maryland
8)Barbara Mikulski-Maryland
9)Edward Kennedy-Massachussetts
10)John Kerry-Massachusetts
11)Carl Levin-Michigan
12)Debbie Stabenow-Michigan
13)Mark Dayton-Minnesota
14)Frank Lautenberg-New Jersey
15)Robert Menendez-New Jersey
16)Chuck Schumer-New York
17)Ron Wyden-Oregon
18)Jack Reed-Rhode Island
19)Patrick Leahy-Vermont
20)Patty Murray-Washington
21)Russell Fiengold-Wisconsin
Plus
22)Tom Harkin-Iowa
will vote  our way at least 90% of the time.

Democratic Senators like
1)Diane Fienstien-California
2)Ken Salazar-Colorado
3)Joseph Biden-Delaware
4)Tom Carper- Delaware
5)Bill Nelson-Florida
6)Evan Bayh-Indiana
7)Harry Reid- Nevada
8)Jeff Bingaman-New Mexico
9)Hillary Clinton-New York
10)Maria Cantwell-Washington
11)Jay Rockefeller- West Virginia
12)Herb Kohl-Wisconsin
will vote our way at least 75% of time

Democratic Senators like
1)Mark Pryor-Arkansas
2)Blanche Lincoln-Arkanas
3)Joseph Lieberman -Connecticut
4)Mary Landreiu-Louisiana
5)Max Baucus-Montana
6)Ben Nelson-Nebraska
7)Kent Conrad-North Dakota
8)Byron Dorgan-North Dakota
9)Tim Johnson-South Dakota
10)Robert Byrd-West Virginia
11)Jim Jeffords-Vermont
will vote our way at least 50% of the time.

Pryor,Lincoln,Landrieu,Baucus,Conrad,Dor gan,
Johnson,Byrd,and Jeffords- can easily be convinced in voting our way.

Ben Nelson-Nebraska and Joe Lieberman-Connecticut are major problems for us.

Nelson's problem is understandable- He is from a Conservative Democrat from a Solid Red State-(Nebraska)-Only Moderate to Conservative Democrats can win statewide in Nebraska.

Lieberman is another story.

Lieberman should be defeated in the Democratic Primary but I don't believe Ned LaMont is the right candidate to defeat Lieberman in the Democratic Primary and compete in the November 2006 General Election.

I would have prefered a candidate with Political Experience.
1)Richard Blumenthal
2)John Larson
3)Rosa DeLauro

When Specter faced a tough primary challenge in 2004- His opponent was a sitting member of the US House of Representative from a Purple District. Pat Toomey.

If the Dems would actually listen to us, their constituents, and not corporate powers and lobbyists.  And if the Dems think they're going to win this election just because they seem "good" then they are seriously mistaken.  They will win if they appear strong and not the weak-minded Rep-puppets they've become.  I don't hear much criticism of Murtha from our side, obviously more Dems should take a cue from him and stop following the Re-thug agenda.

John A.'s attack on Howard Dean was out of line because it was both personal and poorly supported.

That's not criticism, that's kneecapping. There's never a season for that, though I'll admit there are occasionally necessities for it.

Criticism of the Democrats absolutely must happen-particularly during primary season.

As long as Chuck Schumer feels comfortable claiming that "when the left wing of the party is in charge we lose" in the NYT, for fuck's sake, what possible basis could the Dem leadership have for asking not to be criticized?  They tee off on their supposed base all the time to make points with their inside the Beltway buddies.

Silent complicity and apathy are what brought us to this sorry state of national affairs, not liberal Democrats.

I'm pretty much a lurker here and on dKos; I never post, but I use this as my news source, so I don't know how qualified I am to speak for others. But here goes...

I think whoever was trying to give Aravosis "the business" was totally off base.

They act as though we're having an honest difference of opinion over some miniscule issue. The fact of the matter is, the only reason we're so "angry" is because DC Democrats have constantly sold us out.

I guess, in another time, a compromise like this could be reached. But for my part, we've already seen WAY too much bad faith on the part of DC Dems. We shouldn't be an abusive housewife. We KNOW they will do what Aravosis fears when they gain the majority. Why wouldn't they? It's what they've been doing all along!

I think that what the liberal blogosphere wants DC to understand is:

1. WE tend to have our finger on the pulse of the public a bit better than you. Because we're not in DC. We talk to our friends and neighbors about issues, not other folks on the DC cocktail party circuit.
   
2. Sure, we have a good chance of taking over Congress because of voter disenchantment. If this happens, do you really want to risk losing it in 2008 because the voters saw no difference between you and the party they just kicked out of power?
   
3. If you'd like us to "shut up", perhaps you could let us know how you're changing your ways. Where's the support for real lobbying reform? For public financing of campaigns? For universal health care? For Iraq withdrawal?
   
4. Progressive activists are not "kooks". We are the heart and soul of your party. How about selling the world on our principles, on FDR's principles, instead of spitting on us and thinking that's what gets votes! Republicans don't spit on the Religious Right or Big Business - they sell religious right "values" as a good thing, and the "culture wars" distract us from the robbery they commit every day for Big Business!

We understand that you're not in power, and no one's saying you have to advance specific policy proposals. But talk about principles:
-That no US citizen should die or suffer for lack of health care.
-That elected officials represent the people, not elites who give them money.
-That Bush has fucked up our standing in the world, and we need to change course immediately.

By God, there's a veritable gold mine of stuff there that 60% of the American public supports. We're not crazy people just trying to cause headaches for you. We want you to win. And we believe you do that by giving people a reason to come out and vote for you. If you do that, we'll be your biggest cheerleaders. Just ask Harry Reid.