"I thought we were populists, asserting the primacy of the People over the institutional Party. (We'll see what the next poll says, but as of the last one out, Lieberman still had the People on his side of the rumble.)"
We are (for the most part) Democrats. Which "people" are you referring to, here? The "people" that Joe has on his side are now mostly Republicans.
"And if Lieberman is truly not a Democrat (as most here would agree), what possible claim can be laid against him for failing to abide by "party democracy"?"
How about being a duplicitous, self-serving asshole? He calls himself a "petitioning Democrat," or an "independent Democrat." How about adding hypocrite to the list? Why did he bother to run in the primary at all if he knew he was not a Democrat?
Finally, why do I have to explain this to you? It seems so self-evident.
She's Marcy Winograd, a smart, progressive, well spoken former teacher who has already garnered a host of endorsements, including Gore Vidal, Tom Hayden and Daniel Ellsberg, whom she worked for back in the day, as well as a bunch if unions.
I think Marcy has a chance, especially if she gets some backing, in this 70% Dem district. Worst case, a good run might wake Jean Harmon up.
If we want to get out the base we need to support Feingold.
Given that 47% of the country -- Dems and Repubs --supports censure and the overwhelming majority of Dems support either censure or impeachment (not that I think impeachmeent now is a good idea) Feingold IS the base.
Cravenly running from a popular position is not only not leadership, it is not even comprehensible. Even William Kristol understands that Feingold's move is a politically smart one and keeps the issue of illegal spying on the table. Why can't Pelosi?
Gary's quoates demonstrate that at least Beinart is thinking.
He's just not thinking very well. You can't defeat a bad idea by embracing it. You can't destroy a false image by accepting it. And you can't put forward a sane policy by running away from it.
What is wrong with the Democratic party is basically one thing. The DLC. And this includes Hillary, by the way. What the Dems need is NOT to be more stupid. It is to put forth good ideas with good rhetoric. Beinart doesn't even come close.
Republicans can't govern. Together, we can get back on the right track.
This brings uo the point that over two thirds of this country thinks we are on the wrong track, and that we are in this together while mixing in all the cronyism, incompetence and lying that are going on.
Anyone who thinks that Miers will be some sort of moderate who will "vote our way more often than any other pick Bush might put on our court," or is the "best we're gonna get" has not been paying attention over the least five years.
Miers is corporate hack, an accomplished hack in the world of medium to large corporate law firms, but a hack nonetheless. There is no solid reason to believe that she would ever vote our way. Look. She's W's lawyer, she's never studied constitutional law or argued a case of any importance even in the appellate division, let alone at the SC. This is what had the cons upset. But she's W's lawyer and good buddy. Bush may be terrible at judging competence, but he's a genius at judging, and getting, loyalty.
She is also, I am sure, on board with Bush's religious agenda, whether it is genuine or feigned. And she won't have the experiential, scholarly, or intellectual tools to truly understand the constitution she's messing with. The one thing everyone agrees on is that she is unqualified and the only reason she was nominated was because she was W's lawyer, That is the definition of cronyism.
She already has rather tepid approval and as the diary shows less than a majority of public opinion. I can see this nomination going down on flames for many reasons, perhaps not even getting out of committee. We need to acomplish that. Some have the idea that the result would be an even more unacceptable nominee from Bush, like an Owen or Brown. No way.
Presidents are not strengthened by having a nominee withdraw or get beaten down. Knowing Bush he might go the mat with her, like he did for Bolton, which would make her defeat even worse for the WH. Add to this what may now almost certainly be indictments from Fitzgerald, Iraq, Katrina, DeLay, etc. and W is in a word of hurt. What shape will he, and the repubs, be in for another contentious battle? We may end up with the least contentious (most moderate) and decently qualified women he can stomach and sell to the fundies.
Which is a whole hell of a lot better than Miers whom about the only thing we know for certain is that she is unqualified.
As I said, we don't know, but my guess is stopping her will be a very good thing, in the short term and in the long term. In politics you have to kick them when they're down.
this investigation may uncover a vastly more widespread culture of corruption than we can even imagine.
Not as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I let my imagination run wild but I could see this whole bunch indicted, from Cheney on down. Add up Ohio coingate, the Texas TRMPAC indictments, The Governor of Kentucky, this and whatever Fitzgerald is about to throw in to the pot and we have a deee-liscious stew. I can imagine the time when Bush looks fondly back on a 39% approval rating as the good old days.
Clinton has several big things going for her right now, name recognition, the devotion of democratic women and the residue of the glory (such as it was) that were the Clinton years when Dems actually controlled some part of the government are the big three in my mind. Of course, then there's lots of money, support of the DLC and the recent media love fest for Hillary.
She also has big negatives. Foremeost is her increasingly Lieberman lite positioning, by which she hopes to attract the elusive "centrist" voter, especially in a general election, by which she will claim the mantle of "electability." Second is her polarizing history. The fact that she is hated, and I mean hated, by the right may gain her some sympathy from other Dems, but will do nothing for her in an election. Republicans won't need Rove, who by then may well be in jail, to mount a smear campaign to end all smear campaigns and they will have plenty of ammunition. Remember Hillary Care? Plus, her hawkish positions on Iraq has done nothing to endear her to the left wing of the party base, who are the ones who will actually vote in a primary. Iraq will still be a mess in '08 and this, along with her vote for the war, will be an albatross around her neck. Also, she does not have the support of a significant mass of the netroots, and certainly nothing like a Gore or Clark has, and which will only grow by '08.
In her ambition Hillary will continue to piss of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and gain nothing from the right, which will always hate her anyway. She may become the darling of the media poundits but we'd be even bigger fools that anyone suspects to ever listen to them again.
Gore has said he's not running and I don't expect him to change, although I , for one, wouldn't mind voting for him again. Kerry is history. Period. A second run would only embarass him. Edwards is still a dark horse, but his less than stellar VP run performance will always be a cloud. His rating is purely from name recognition.
Whatever these early polls say, this is Clark's race to lose, and if he plays his cards right, which he seems to be doing, he won't lose it. Hillary makes a good Senator, although I'd like to hear a stronger voice against the disastrous policies and lies of Bushco. and that's where she should stay.
You bet. I think there will be indictments, and several of them. My guess, and it is a guess, is that at least three, and maybe as many as six people will be indicted. The charges will be violations if U.S. Code, Title 18, chapter 37 sections 793, 794 and 798, unlawful dissemination of classified information. This is also known as The Espionage Act, as the dissemination of classified material or information is technically espionage. Also, there will be charges of conspiracy to violate the same codes, and in a few cases perjury and obstruction of justice.
This is very serious stuff, carrying a fine up to $10,000 and ten years in federal penitentiary. In time of war, the penalties increase to a term of up to 30 years, or even death.
Rove's, and others, claims that they did not know Plame was covert, or that they did not actually disclose her name will not hold up. It will be argued that Rove, as a high government official, had a responsibility to determine the status of any CIA employee before disclosing their name, and that others in the conspiracy knew of her status. Negligence is not a defense. The idea that he never mentioned her name, but only talked about "Wilson's wife," would be laughed out of court.
Now I know you copied selectively from the Little Green Footballs posts. If you looked I'm sure you could find many that were much more thoughtful and kind hearted. Why, I bet some would have written that there was simply no need to kill all Muslims. If they would shave their beards, get down on their knees, beg forgiveness, give us all their worldly goods - and their oil - and become Christians they could find it in their hearts to let them live. As second class citizens, of course.
These six, and probably several more like them, certainly seem ripe targets. We should keep them that way. The worst thing for D's is that these corrupt rats face a primary challenge and lose, so that a "clean" Rethug can run in '06.
My suggestion: keep digging up the dirt, but play it a little closer to the vest. The time to really explode these crooks is about a year from now.