The article is far from the worst hit piece that has appeared recently, and Markos has gotten generally favorable press in the Economist (the review of Crashing the Gate was guardedly positive), but there were a few particular shots at DKos...But my main point was the unfair accusation that all we're angry at lieberman for is his Iraq stance. If that was the only thing, then we'd be trying to throw out pretty much every dem this cycle.
There was only one particular shot, but it was unimportant to the article, and felt like an attempt to smear, to me.
This was the last paragraph, where the writer brought up the killing of the security contractors in Fallujah. He quoted Markos: "I feel nothing over the death of Mercenaries...screw them." Now, Markos has had to deal, on and off, with this statement. He said it, but to drag it up again and again, seems pointless to me. The implication here is that Markos is some kind of radical anti-war protester. The kind of guy who spat on Vietnam Vets back in the '60's and '70's.
Nowhere is it mentioned that Markos is a Veteran. And the dead men are referred to simply as contractors (outside of the quote). They were mercenaries, and, as a Veteran, Markos understandly dislikes them. He fought for Country, they fought for payday.
But the primary motivation for my letter was the mischaracterization of the anti-Lieberman forces being exclusively focused on Iraq, when he has, in fact, built up quite an array of offenses.
The people who are trying to exploit MyDD are pretty damn pathetic. You want your issue noticed, register for a damn account. Then post diaries about it. If the issue is important to MyDD readers, on one day or another, one of your diaries will get noticed. It'll get recommended lots, and it'll spend time as a recommended diary. Ditto over at Kos, only with more readers (and more diaries for it to get lost in...)
thats the thing about communities like MYDD and Kos, you can get your own issue noticed if you take the time to write about it.
You can get noticed, just write stuff that people find provoking, and people will read it. Stick around and reply to peoples questions. You don't need Chris or Matt or Markos or Georgia to write about your issue for you.
And, if you're too lazy to write diaries, and you're well enough funded, buy some damn ads that people can click on. People do occasionally click on them, especially if it relates to something of interest to them!
Or, start up your own blog on your own interest group site. sheez. it ain't hard people.
Chris, by the way - Did the ad network jack rates for the election season? with all the campaigns buying up ads on lib blogs, seems like it would be a good time to raise prices ;-)
Did you hear about this? I'm listening to Thursday's Democracy Now podcast, and Amy Goodman reported the following:
(rough transcript by me)
in privacy news, AT&T has a introduced a new policy that says AT&T owns customers account information and can share it with government agencies. Under the new policy, AT&T will collect customer usernames, passwords, charges, payments, and online purchases. It'll also track their activity while on sites thatAT&T operates in partnership with Yahoo!, Inc. The changes come as AT7T is embroiled in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over the Company's involvement in the NSA spy program.
I seem to remember that Joe helped Obama out on something when Barack was first elected. Can't remember what.
You've got to expect incumbents to endorse incumbents. What if Barack decided to endorse a primary challenger to Harry Reid? Wouldn't you howl bullsh*t? I sure would.
Now, if Barack endorse Joe the Independent, then I'll throw a fit. And if Barack heads off to Connecticut to campaign for Joe, I'll throw a fit. But, so long as he limits it to supporting the incumbent, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. If the DSCC starts throwing campaign cash at Lieberman before the primary, then I'll kick up a sh*tstorm of righteous indignation, too. :-)
Obama is still anti-war, but chose to co-sponsor Levin's amendment rather than Kerry's. Its not perfect, but its better than voting both down.
Obama is one of the few people in our Government who shows geniune concern for the Darfur situation and takes action in regards to it.
He fights for Veterans in a big way.
He was against the Flag Burning amendment.
He calls the administration's bullshit:
The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..
And it's troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.
At the same time, he needs to follow his own advice: "It's the timidity - the smallness - of our politics that's holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they'll go away. "
My only problem with Obama is he doesn't seem to figure out to capitalize on the media attention around him. He was given a big stick and he didn't use it.
He sometimes waffles on an issue, but comes around in the end.
He could be a very vocal leader, and the media was willing to let him be such. But then he didn't take advantage, in my view.
Even without a powerful policy making role, he could speak out on big issues and take big stands. Such as the censure resolution. If he had stood by Feingold, it would have been just as big as Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, or Durbin standing by Feingold.
Obama's letter said that he was frustrated and angry, but didn't think censure was justified...
That pissed me off. But overall, Obama is good for the party. Future President? No, I don't see that. I think you need to take strong stands on big issues to earn my respect for a presidential bid. And Obama has failed there, where a guy like Feingold has succeeded.
And Hynes was totally a Chicago Democratic Machine Candidate. He was Daley's boy. Daley thought he was calling the shots when he got Rod elected. Daley over-reached. Now, he's got guys like Guitierrez and, possibly, Jackson Jr. gunning for his job.
Thats the crux of republicanism in general. The, if you will, 'game theory.' It goes beyond that though. In their minds, anything that liberals are for, they must be against. Because of that mentality, they inherently believe the same is true of liberals. In their mind, anything a conservative is for, liberals must be against.
They believe everything is partisan conflict. Everything is a political battle. Doesn't matter what it is. If the entire democratic power structure disavowed environmentalism, if their brains didn't explode, they would become staunch environmentalists. They feed on conflict.
Their is no issue where they believe that they can side with a 'moonbat'. No common ground. If they are against terrorists, liberals must be for terrorists. If they are religious, liberals must be secular atheists. They can't handle nuance. They can't agree with us. Ever. And when they can't defend their point rationally, it descends into name calling
Thats the reality. There is no reason that the protection of net neutrality (for example) shouldn't have been a bipartisan slam dunk. But their mentality precludes them from agreeing with a concept they see as backed by liberals.
This isn't to say that all Republicans are like that, but the ones who dominate the discussion on their side are Coulter Republicans. With or without the venom.
Alright. One more tangent...
This is also why Bill Bennett was sputtering incoherently the other night. He realized that Stewart was right, but he couldn't handle it. He kept spitting out more ridiculous points, just when you thought he would capitulate and agree. Sure, he isn't venomous the way Coulter is, but he has that same mentality. The liberal can't be right.
No, no, no, no. We are ostensibly allied with what should be the new puppet government of Iraq, although the new Iraqi Prime Minister doesn't seem too fond of that alliance, its just something he's forced to accept.
We are at war with no one. There is no War. There is no enemy army. The Iraqi army was defeated several years ago. Saddam Hussein and almost every other high level Baathist official has been captured. The War has been over for some time.
We ARE an occupying force in a foreign land. There is a resistance to that occupying force. In addition, there is a resistance to the puppet government.
To say we're at war is incorrect. The war's over folks. We're the invaders. The unwanted occupiers. It didn't have to be this way. But thats the way it is. We could have never invaded. We could have invaded with a worst case scenario plan in mind. We invaded with a best case scenario in mind. Our leaders need to come to grips with the fact that we blew it, and get our troops outta there. Our troops are demoralized, tired, frightened, and angry. They've gotten to the point where the people look at them as hostiles and they see Iraqis as hostiles. Expect more tragedies like Haditha. Its sad that this is the way it had to be.