Jerome, I imagine the sequel to the book you somehow wrote with Markos will be called "Rebuilding the Gate With The Same Old Rotten Materials"? It's funny, in the old days, I used to come to Mydd as a more flexible version of Daily Kos (I suppose Browers and Stoller's departure took that with them), but when you use a Fox feed and link to Joe Klein, the days of being relevant as a progressive and/or game-changing politico are clearly over. Everything you say in this post doesn't matter once you cross that line, you turn your own post into concern trolling. This whole blog, in fact, could be renamed "My Concern Troll". I suppose this is the kind of comment you meant when you said you were going to be stricter about who gets to post here...my, how things have changed. I guess you'll just have to delete us argumentative folks. I'm sure old Joe Klein would love to have an account, though...have you called David Broder yet? I'm sure he has some flimsy predictions to post...
I get yer points, but are advertisments as clearly free speech as other forms? Ads are regulated in multiple ways--alcohol ads prohibited in certain venues, unsupported claims for healthiness restricted, tobacco ads regulated, the aforementioned restrictions on 527s--and seemingly for the public good. There seems to be an understood idea that the public airwaves interact with advertising in ways they don't with other forms of speech (except obsenity and all that nonsense).
As for the media being too cowed, we are the media! I mean, anyone who wants the media to be better should speak and publish instead of using unhealthy (to democracy) means to avoid that deficit. I mean, isn't that what we're doing here in Democratic politics? Instead of complaining about how Democrats are too wishy-washy and forming a third party, we've been working from within to make it something we can be proud of. Why can't we do the same thing with the media? After all, the Media is made up of people and institutions that can all be changed...
I got this Barack Obama written email today from the DCCC that included this line:
"We have just 15 days to give the American people the leadership they are looking for. Make a secure online contribution today and it will be matched 3-to-1 by Democratic House members for every dollar contributed online effectively giving you four times the impact."
Does this mean those house members who are in safe races, the folks Bowers has been talking about? Who are these House members who will match funds, anyone know?
It's been playing St. Louis for awhile, but is opening in L.A., Boston and other places...You shold all check it out and help spread the word! A great primer for just the kind of struggles ahead for all these candidates.
Well, I spoke about this in my diary too, and I'm frankly embarrassed by folks who assert that the protest march is dead. The protest march is only meaningless to people who's only concern is strategy and politicking. And even then, they are wrong. 1 Million people marched in Madrid against the Iraq war, and they pulled their troops. In the Phillipines, they once overthrew a government with protest marches. The Velvet Revolution...And here, whether or not we actually stopped the Iraq war, the shock of seeing San Francisco completely shut down and other cities clogged with millions of normal looking folks has shadowed this war from the start. Do you think public opinion would have turned so quickly without those images in people's heads? Not to mention the spectre the Vietnam war protests still cast over the way this war is conducted and publicized. If you want to talk only about results, point out what measurable gains all of this new progressive politic has actually produced that can compare with the tiniest sampling I've mentioned above?
All of this is to say that those 500,000 who marched in Los Angeles, and the 40,000 who walked off their jobs in Georgia and the 14,000 who comprised the largest march in Arizona history will send shockwaves through the political establishment in ways that most of us could not concieve of. You can collect all the online petition signatures in the universe and it will never have to power of a day like this. Not only for it's impression to the nation, but more importantly, for the people invovled. A movement is born. The problem isn't that the protest march is moribund, it's that too often the people we let run them are. The same is true of electoral politics. And if we keep thinking this way, there will be new generation who will feel the same way about the netroots you all feel about protest marches.
I'm sorry that it didn't come out clearly in what I wrote, but I agree with you compeletely. I was intending my piece to be a critique of exactly the kind of close-mindedness you're talking about. It was the statements by Kos and Bowers that seemed aimed at limiting the diversity of our action that upset me in the first place. And I think if you look at the other comments here, and at some other diaries (like Hudsons), this isn't an entirely "straw man" argument.
I think the third column, if you will, of the left will always have to be protest marches and the like. That's where you and I may differ a little. I don't think it's just about electoral activists on the ground working with the netroots, but also about civil disobedience, marches, rallies, whatever. Because the Republicans, though never quite putting them front and center, were never afraid of their kooks and radicals, they've managed to tap into an anger at the status quo, and "values" territory that should rightfully be ours.
That's why I also take issue with Chris's anger at those who criticize Hillary incorrectly. It's all part of the same fear/disdain of unfettered and uncalculated expression. Everything can't just be about getting someone elected, and about how we are perceived. Over time, those who are unafraid of their convictions and allow others in their party to express those thoughts in emotional ways will win the national conversation. There has to be multiple levels of action, as you say, but at the heart of a movement has to be the people who are willing to walk all day in the rain with a sign, or put themselves at risk for a cause. Every victory we've ever had has been this way.
I love watching early election returns in California, because they always count the conservative results first. It's like playing the 49ers in their prime, or the Phoenix Suns last year. You better have a huge lead, cause the Bay Area is comin' at ya!
I like to imagine the deflating Orange County faces as the cavalcade of freak votes beats them down...
My dad's wife was one of the professors...this is an excerpt from my diary entry about it:
Friday an incident at Santa Rosa Junior College invaded our life, in this way; Late that day after the buildings were empty, someone posted flyers on the faculty offices of ten professors, mostly in the social sciences...& including [my father's wife, a professor there]. The flyer had a big red star at the top and consisted solely of the text of an obscure anti-communist section of the State educational code.(scroll down for complete text...you'll be surprised) It was signed: "Anonymous Students of the SRJC"
There has been a flurry of meetings, and statements issued, and the Channel 50 news came out to interview people. The 'Anonymous' ones surfaced and are... the 'College Republican Club'. Even after revealing themselves, they have not offered a single substantive example of how the ten professors were observed "inculcating communism." Although some professors on that list have discussed critical theories about the system, or have said something anti-Bush...some were unable to think of anything they'd said in teaching English that could be considered "Left". The Republican Club will only say that they are "getting reports from other students". Now it seems that professors have to assume that there are people monitoring their thinking and trying to taint them with negative publicity that would harm their standing... for example in a tenure review.
A little research into the "College Republicans" reveals a wide-ranging effort to expose & intimidate "liberal" & "left"professors. David Horowitz and Lynne Cheney [and Lieberman, as it turns out] figure prominently in this national effort. Here's where they "report" on the incident: http://www.collegegop.org/PressReleases/index.cfm/ID/27.htm The first posting of this was more gloating & lurid: instead of "Operation" as the title, they called it "Operation Red Scare" Then here's the more radical junior G-men: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ Sample the heading: "How to research faculty bias"
The Faculty Senate is taking up the issue of intellectual freedom this week and demanding the College take a stand...they are also looking into the history of this education code section and seeing if it can be repealed in the legislature. The way this was done, with stealth at first and with the star so prominent, was very much in the brownshirt tradition of the last century. A lot of things come to mind when walking down a corridor of academic offices and seeing 'stigma' postings on individual doors identifying Heretics.
Does all this strike anyone as slightly comical? I mean, does communism still hold the same taint as it once did? It almost seems like old folks so out of touch they're still coming down on the Elvis pelvis.
Hmm, looks like we have raider from the right-wing-osphere in our midst...I guess "Whatever" as a moniker says it all...
"Anti-Bush" hardly qualifies as "Leftist"...How about Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill--big time commies. And did anyone say "anti-capitalist"? Being critical of "the system" could mean anything. I mean, Greenspan called for changing to a consumption-based tax yesterday...isn't that being "critical of the system"?