• Polling's not in my bailiwick.

    But I read that piece, and got a queasy sense of smoke and mirrors.

    If all bar 2 GOP senators will defy their constituents by opposing a timetable for withdrawal, shouldn't a few more of them seem nervous?

    Clearly, there are lots of MCs (and not just GOP) who either don't believe they will suffer electorally from opposing a timetable; or who believe that they would suffer if they didn't oppose one.

    It's MCs' perceptions, rather than the underlying reality, that matter when it comes to forecasting how they'll vote, surely?

  • comment on a post Iraq Supplemental Update: The Short Leash? over 7 years ago

    right now it seems virtually impossible for Democrats to lose this battle politically and electorally

    Now that's what I call a hostage to fortune!

    Let's suppose the Obey formula passes the House (I need to walk myself through exactly how that threads itself between the Scylla of the Dogs and the Charybdis of the Progs) and fails in the Senate.

    What happens then? Presumably there has to be a third FY07 supplemental bill in a form Bush will sign, because we know that there aren't the votes in either house for defunding the war. (Though Feingold could always filibuster a clean bill...)

    A third bill would be a tad messy, and undoubtedly the GOP would be gleeful.

    Couple of other things:

    In the AP piece, Ike Skelton (HASC chairman) apparently had a gofer say there's no Iraq withdrawal language in the current version of the defense authorization bill - and (my interpretation) Skelton doesn't want there to be any.

    No one will be screaming to offer their must-pass bill as a Christmas tree for veto-guaranteeing Iraq withdrawal language.

    Secondly, we're running out of time in several respects: FY07 expires in 145 days; and at some stage, the Enron accounting at the DOD will come up empty, and they're going to need that supplemental bill.

    Also, there are huge bills to hit the floor, and precious few sitting days to deal with them.

    (Think how long S 1082 (FDA) is taking. Or how long S 3 took on the Senate floor.)

    Iraq withdrawal has just eaten away at floor time, and the prospect of more of it is not cheering.

    So - with Chris's quote, I cannot agree.

  • Not having heard the song, I was making a general point upthread.

    In particular, I didn't realize that the victim of the satire was Brer Sharpton.

    But - I then got it from Crooks and Liars, and ran it three-four times. And - I though (horror!) it was just a bit funny.

    Especially the passage at the end, which seems not unfairly to satirize the ward-heeling aspect of black politics that used to exist even if it doesn't now. (About which I have no information.)

    Which kind of voice do you think a Sharpton impersonator ought to choose for a satirical song? Isn't any white impersonator liable to sound a tad Amos 'n' Andy?

    Plus - the fact that it's Sharpton getting skewered and not Obama makes a difference: for those who remember the Brawley business, at least. (Though Obama's time will come.)

    I'd be pretty certain that Rush's main motive in running the song was to draw lefty outrage. It's been out there a long time (the C&L piece was April 27 - on the clip, Rush says he's been playing it since March), and the outrage has been less than deafening.

    I'd be tempted to leave it that way.

  • comment on a post Why We Need to Care about Stupid Racist Crap over 7 years ago

    If Black leaders can be ridiculed, and when their fight for justice can be characterized as a ploy for money without consequence, our cause is in serious trouble.

    Then that cause must be a pretty feeble affair.

    Bush has been ridiculed unmercifully; as was Kerry; as was Gore; as was Clinton... But Obama gets a Ridicule Service detail to add to his Secret Service one?

    Ridicule and politics go together like - money and politics.

    Not to say folks shouldn't have a go at Rush; but a general appreciation of this fact of life might explain why some lefties aren't fired up to do so by the Magic Negro song.

  • ...we were so close to not having the MyDD we know and love today!

    And, given that the site is (so far as I know) unique in the combination of focus, quantity and quality of material on political process, another reason to be grateful...

  • What I'm struggling to understand is what, exactly, Chris and Matt are supposed to do to remedy MyDD's supposed lack of diversity.

    It would be nice to have an example of another specialist blog like this one that managed to achieve such a transformation.

    Would it require a non-white/male FPer to be appointed, for instance? Or would it be sufficient if Chris interviewed one or two non-white/male candidates?

    The onus is surely on those making a proposal like KO's to explain such practicalities.

    (The question of who judges the success of the diversification, and on what authority, by all means let's leave aside for the moment...)

  • it was a little reductio ad absurdum.

    You're laying down the law, and I'm just exploring how far your law might go.

    The diversity standards by which you proposed to judge the blog - and pronounce censure or not - just seemed to me a little vague, that's all.

    And the difference between the and a is rather important, given what I understand to be Chris's argument, ie, that MyDD is only a small part of the lefty sphere, and an even smaller part of the progressive movement, however you might define it.

    If it were indeed the place for...whatever it was, naturally, such a monopoly of a scarce resource would entail wider responsibilities.

    It's not, so it doesn't.

  • given how MyDD has sought to define itself as the meeting place for professional Democrats and activists

    [T]he meeting place - when was the claim to uniqueness made, exactly?

    Straw man alert, surely?!

    On the other hand,

    Democratic poll-oriented discussions of elections in a mostly white and wealthy environment, and that's okay.

    is more or less right - and so what?

    The environment is mostly white not through any effort of Chris's; that's just the demo who choose to come along.

    Discussing polls and elections is not a "white thing."

    Absolutely right - I have not the slightest idea of the skin shades of almost all of those whose stuff I read here. Makes no difference.

    I'm also puzzled as to what standard of diversity you would wish to see imposed on MyDD: should it represent the demo of Dem voters, or Dem activists, or what?

    How long should we be allowed to reach the required level? Should that include only front pagers, or must the ordinary membership be adjusted to fit? Who will administers the racial, etc test? Who will decides which members should be - eliminated?


    Perhaps it really could happen here after all...

  • Absolutely: let's be as open as we reasonably can be to all those - whoever they are - who are interested in what we do, and want to share their expertise and experience in those areas.

  • I'd certainly be interested to see any research on this.

  • The cases you mention are all ones where what is at issue is people's identity and physical presence, located in the real world.

    In a blog, everything is by default anonymous, exists in cyberspace, with no physical contact involved.

    Now, I can certainly see there being a million ways a blog could very easily repel 'unwanted' visitors.

    What I can't see is that what MyDD is actually doing right now is repelling anyone, except by dealing with complex subjects that the vast majority of people of all races, genders and education levels are simply not sufficiently interested in for them to expend the effort needed to get up to speed on them.

  • That implies that white men are better at election analysis for some reason. I'm a white male college student, but I've got to be offended by that comparison.

    You hit the nail here:

    There is no a priori reason why any race or gender should be better at election analysis.

    Thus, you couldn't tell just from reading a piece the race or gender of the person who wrote it.

    Like we wouldn't have known you were a white guy unless you'd told us.

    That's the glory of the medium, surely? (Or one of them.)

    So what in Sam Hill is the method by which any group is being segregated from MyDD?

  • If MyDD a case of de facto segregation, so is Yankee Stadium on game day.

    It's a bunch of folks with a highly specific interest who come together to engage in that interest.

    And - be it said - unlike Yankee Stadium, getting into MyDD is cheap...

    Who, exactly, within the interest group (political process geekdom) served by MyDD is being segregated out? And how is this being done?

  • comment on a post More On Diversity: Blogging Is A Niche over 7 years ago

    On his main thrust, Chris is absolutely right.

    When we get down to here -

    Does MyDD need to be diverse in that we reach out to all people who are writing on the same topics on which we focus? Absolutely--we need to include a much more diverse set of progressive voices who also focus on our topic areas.

    - I'm not so sure.

    What, practically, does this reaching out entail? All community blogs are pickup games (except for the owners): you show up, you play.

    Apart from being general publicity hounds and getting namechecks for their blogs all over, what else are blog owners supposed to do to reach out?

    I'd bet there are thousands of political process geeks who'd fit right in here and bring loads to the table but haven't heard of MyDD. (Or perhaps they came once, and Stoller snarked at them...)

    That's something of a problem, I'd say.

    The fact that those geeks are probably mostly white boys - not so much.

  • The last declaration of war by the US (as generally understood) was in 1941.

    According to Voteview, the form of the declarations were joint resolutions declaring a state of war to exist with each Axis power.

    There's no language like that in the IWR (H J Res 114 (107th). There's reference to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 - but that is specifically directed to situations not covered by a declaration of war.

    According to this, there are no constitutional formalities for a declaration of war.

    But the IWR certainly wasn't one.


Advertise Blogads