Intra-Party Etiquette
Rick Heller has raised an important topic that needs to be broadened into a general discussion of the rules of the road for how Democrats should talk to each other without either sowing disunity or stifling debate. As someone who's taken a lot of personal abuse from fellow Democrats in recent years, and who works for an organization that's often thought of as of being abusive towards other Democrats, I've had to think about this a lot, and have some specific suggestions.
Here are six proposed guidelines:
1) Nobody but voters has the final right to define the party. Elected officials, grassroots organizers, members of pro-Democratic constituency or advocacy groups, bloggers, wonks and hacks--all sorts of people have a legitimate role to play in defining what it means to be a Democrat. But no one other than Democratic voters has a superior claim to the right to decide "what's a real Democrat," so we all have to play by the same rules in dealing with each other.
2) No purges or litmus tests. It follows that the only people with the right to "purge" someone from the party are primary voters. Sure, there will be rare cases like Zell Miller when an elected official purges himself by explicitly identifying himself with the other side, but if Vermont Democrats decide to nominate Bernie Sanders and Connecticut Democrats decide to nominate Joe Lieberman, that's enough for me. And even more obviously, we don't want to "purge" a single voter or any "faction" of the party. We can argue about the role played in the party by this or that group or this or that "faction" or this or that elected official, but only within the bounds of a basic mutual acceptance.
3) Acceptance of fellow Democrats' good motives and integrity. I may well listen to another Democrat and think, "Jesus, this dude's crazy," and you may well listen to me and think I'm wrong or even blind. But neither of us has the right to assume that other Democrats, however misguided, are malignant or on the payroll of Karl Rove. To be more pointed about it, I'm very worried at present that the campaign of some folks on the Left to protest Iraq or don't-ask-don't-tell by banning the military from college or high school campuses will be used by the GOP to reinforce perceptions that Democrats have disdain for the armed forces or don't care about national security. But that doesn't give me the right to think these folks, to the extent they are Democrats, are actually unpatriotic or disloyal to the party's interests. And some of you may have a hard time understanding how a Democrat could have supported the Iraq War Resolution or some random Bush domestic legislation for reasons other than cynicism, cowardice, or corruption. But you need to try to at least listen to dissenting views without assuming the worst about the character of dissenters.
4) Recognizing the time for debate and disagreement. There are times, which are hard to predict in advance, when there is no obvious policy or political course for Democrats, and we absolutely have to have a freewheeling debate on what to do. There are other times when there actually is no matter of fundamental principle at hand, and Democrats will simply disagree and then get over it. But one very predictable context in which debate and dissent, and even tempered mutual criticism, is in order is during primary elections, and especially the presidential nominating process. Particularly for an "out" party, the debate that accompanies the selection of a presidential candidate is hugely important to its message and policy profile. Within limits, it's a time when healthy competition and criticism are not only tolerable, but essential. That's why I didn't much mind, even if I disagreed with, Howard Dean's characterization of some of his rivals and many other Democrats, as, well, pretty much doormats for Bush, and why I didn't mind firing back. But that's also why I would have loyally supported Dean if he had won the nomination, and why I support him as party chair today.
5) Rejecting "self-evident truths" about political strategy and tactics. Political strategy is a complicated business. That's why "strategists" get paid so well, and also why they are so often wrong (see Shrum, Robert in the dictionary). Much of the intra-party friction we've seen in recent years has involved a Dialogue of the Deaf between Democrats who think it's obvious what we should do to win. A lot of New Dems think we lost in 2000 and 2004 because our presidential candidates abandoned the Clinton formula. And lot of other Democrats think we lost because Gore and Kerry followed the Clinton formula. Some Democrats look at the decline in our fortunes in Congress and at the state level as part of a long trend that began many years before Clinton and that Clinton was unable to reverse. Other Democrats look at the same facts and assume Clinton or "centrism" was responsible for the decline. The point is that no particular interpretation of the facts or their strategic implications is really self-evident. We need to talk about it without assuming we already know the answers. The same is true about tactics. Sure, once Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Howard Dean lay down a line, we should certainly be supportive. But they aren't going to make good tactical decisions in the long run if they are living in an echo chamber of uncritical praise.
6) Valuing unity and discipline, but understanding their limits. Although Democrats are more ideologically cohesive than they were twenty or thirty years ago, we are still, as compared to the GOP, more of a coalition party. That means we have to work harder at unity and discipline than the other guys, but it also means we have more things to work out amongst us before the unity and discipline kick in. And sometimes we forget that. I did a post not too long ago chiding Democrats about some political weakness or other, and immediately got several comments that basically said: "Watch out! The enemy is listening!" I responded to one rather sardonically by doubting some obscure blog post was going to become tomorrow's lead story on Fox News, but it's actually a serious topic. Sure, the GOP is disciplined and vicious (though the discipline, at least, is beginning to break down), and the Right-Wing Noise Machine is very real. But we can't let ourselves get so paranoid about the opposition that we sacrifice our free speech rights, or engage in an entirely artificial conversation composed of little more than cheerleading for Our Team. That's the Republican approach to politics, and while we should learn from their successes, I refuse to behave like a damn Republican myself, and so should you.
There are plenty of other observations I could make, but since my basic point is that we need to listen to each other, it's time for me to stop and do just that. Do these six rules make sense?
1) Nobody but voters has the final right to define the party. Elected officials, grassroots organizers, members of pro-Democratic constituency or advocacy groups, bloggers, wonks and hacks--all sorts of people have a legitimate role to play in defining what it means to be a Democrat. But no one other than Democratic voters has a superior claim to the right to decide "what's a real Democrat," so we all have to play by the same rules in dealing with each other.
2) No purges or litmus tests. It follows that the only people with the right to "purge" someone from the party are primary voters. Sure, there will be rare cases like Zell Miller when an elected official purges himself by explicitly identifying himself with the other side, but if Vermont Democrats decide to nominate Bernie Sanders and Connecticut Democrats decide to nominate Joe Lieberman, that's enough for me. And even more obviously, we don't want to "purge" a single voter or any "faction" of the party. We can argue about the role played in the party by this or that group or this or that "faction" or this or that elected official, but only within the bounds of a basic mutual acceptance.
3) Acceptance of fellow Democrats' good motives and integrity. I may well listen to another Democrat and think, "Jesus, this dude's crazy," and you may well listen to me and think I'm wrong or even blind. But neither of us has the right to assume that other Democrats, however misguided, are malignant or on the payroll of Karl Rove. To be more pointed about it, I'm very worried at present that the campaign of some folks on the Left to protest Iraq or don't-ask-don't-tell by banning the military from college or high school campuses will be used by the GOP to reinforce perceptions that Democrats have disdain for the armed forces or don't care about national security. But that doesn't give me the right to think these folks, to the extent they are Democrats, are actually unpatriotic or disloyal to the party's interests. And some of you may have a hard time understanding how a Democrat could have supported the Iraq War Resolution or some random Bush domestic legislation for reasons other than cynicism, cowardice, or corruption. But you need to try to at least listen to dissenting views without assuming the worst about the character of dissenters.
4) Recognizing the time for debate and disagreement. There are times, which are hard to predict in advance, when there is no obvious policy or political course for Democrats, and we absolutely have to have a freewheeling debate on what to do. There are other times when there actually is no matter of fundamental principle at hand, and Democrats will simply disagree and then get over it. But one very predictable context in which debate and dissent, and even tempered mutual criticism, is in order is during primary elections, and especially the presidential nominating process. Particularly for an "out" party, the debate that accompanies the selection of a presidential candidate is hugely important to its message and policy profile. Within limits, it's a time when healthy competition and criticism are not only tolerable, but essential. That's why I didn't much mind, even if I disagreed with, Howard Dean's characterization of some of his rivals and many other Democrats, as, well, pretty much doormats for Bush, and why I didn't mind firing back. But that's also why I would have loyally supported Dean if he had won the nomination, and why I support him as party chair today.
5) Rejecting "self-evident truths" about political strategy and tactics. Political strategy is a complicated business. That's why "strategists" get paid so well, and also why they are so often wrong (see Shrum, Robert in the dictionary). Much of the intra-party friction we've seen in recent years has involved a Dialogue of the Deaf between Democrats who think it's obvious what we should do to win. A lot of New Dems think we lost in 2000 and 2004 because our presidential candidates abandoned the Clinton formula. And lot of other Democrats think we lost because Gore and Kerry followed the Clinton formula. Some Democrats look at the decline in our fortunes in Congress and at the state level as part of a long trend that began many years before Clinton and that Clinton was unable to reverse. Other Democrats look at the same facts and assume Clinton or "centrism" was responsible for the decline. The point is that no particular interpretation of the facts or their strategic implications is really self-evident. We need to talk about it without assuming we already know the answers. The same is true about tactics. Sure, once Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Howard Dean lay down a line, we should certainly be supportive. But they aren't going to make good tactical decisions in the long run if they are living in an echo chamber of uncritical praise.
6) Valuing unity and discipline, but understanding their limits. Although Democrats are more ideologically cohesive than they were twenty or thirty years ago, we are still, as compared to the GOP, more of a coalition party. That means we have to work harder at unity and discipline than the other guys, but it also means we have more things to work out amongst us before the unity and discipline kick in. And sometimes we forget that. I did a post not too long ago chiding Democrats about some political weakness or other, and immediately got several comments that basically said: "Watch out! The enemy is listening!" I responded to one rather sardonically by doubting some obscure blog post was going to become tomorrow's lead story on Fox News, but it's actually a serious topic. Sure, the GOP is disciplined and vicious (though the discipline, at least, is beginning to break down), and the Right-Wing Noise Machine is very real. But we can't let ourselves get so paranoid about the opposition that we sacrifice our free speech rights, or engage in an entirely artificial conversation composed of little more than cheerleading for Our Team. That's the Republican approach to politics, and while we should learn from their successes, I refuse to behave like a damn Republican myself, and so should you.
There are plenty of other observations I could make, but since my basic point is that we need to listen to each other, it's time for me to stop and do just that. Do these six rules make sense?
Advertisement
I'm not trying to be snarky, but if, as you say, you've thought a lot about this, and these suggestions are the best you've got, it's no wonder the Democratic party is in the shape it's in.
June 16, 2005 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the Bankruptcy bill I defy someone to come up with an actual good governance reason for supporting it. I applaud those who offered amendments to mitigate its effect or to actuall achieve something good but I have yet to see a single positive effect of the bill other than enriching corporate coffers at the expense of the average person who is in debt (when it is no fault of their own).
I think I'm justified in a litmus test that consists of "don't screw me over for things beyond my control."
As for the rest of us, activists, officials and organizers, aren't we voters too? Don't we count as much? Voters can be wrong (cough*Iowa caucuses*cough) so I feel justified in pushing an agenda that I think defines the democratic party and work to get them to agree with me. Just as everyone else is.
June 16, 2005 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they make a lot of sense. They outline essentially how the Democratic Party has operated for as long as I can remember, and that goes back half a century.
June 16, 2005 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It reminds me of the comment the judge is supposed to have made to Packer, the fellow who was asccused of cannibalism somewhere around Boulder CO in the pioneer days--"There were only 6 Democrats in the County, and you et two of them!"
There aren't so many potential Democratic voters that we can afford to alienate large numbers of them. No need to pander to them, just try not to alienate them and, better, engage with them.
June 16, 2005 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think these are good rules.
I've been thinking about what gets my ire the most from people on the left, and it's not political. I am VERY centrist and moderate in many ways, especially security issues, which ought to freak out anyone who's read my postings on this blog. I've taken great issue with Dean supporters in the past, and for the same reason I take issue with the Friedman wing of the party now. What infuriates me more than anything is the unilateral disarming or insisting that liberals play by a different set of rules that we don't demand of the other party.
Nothing made me angrier than when Dean said his voters were "non-transferrable". As a Clark supporter, why should I transfer support to him if Dean beat Wes in the primaries? I fought like hell for Wes, and I gladly and willingly set my disappointment aside and rallied behind Kerry when the time came. And I throw my support behind Dean now that he's DNC chair because, in the end, he did call on his supporters to stay with the party. So your point about the appropriate time to air grievances is well taken. Know when to fight and when to move forward.
My problem with the centrists now is the same. Their support is "non-transferrable". They'd rather use our precious air time to pile on Dean than push a positive agenda. If you have a problem with the framing or the choice of attack, why not demonstrate the correct way to go on the offense by coming up with a line of attack of your own that will benefit us? Nothing makes me want to puke more than a week of Democrats and Republicans lining up on the talk shows to insist how hard Republicans work. The issue is not whether "gulag" is the correct term, but that we are torturing people. It's not whether calling Bush a "liar" is polite, but that the things he says are never true. Give me William Safire over Nick Kristof any day.
So let me be frank. I don't come to TPMCafe to hear criticism of liberals or Dean or "ultraliberals" or whatever you want to call them. Believe me, whatever you've got to say, I've heard a thousand times before with more volume and vitriol. When it comes to bashing liberals, there is nothing you can add to the national debate.
With the helm of the only remaining areas of the media where the left can still be heard, I think it would be far more productive to put forward those issues and points of debate you will never hear on Hardball. Don't trash the anti-war left. Let's talk about what we should do, what's the proper strategy, how we're going to win.
And NEVER take your eye of the ball: the Cult of W must fall.
June 16, 2005 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed:
As someone who is usually on the other side of the intra-party squabble fence, I'd like to first applaud your willingness to engage the whole party. And I basically agree with everything you say. But I have an additional issue, and its not so much an issue of "Etiquette", but it is about "how we as Democrats talk to each other."
Suggested Habit #7: Talk to Democratic Voters, not just Activists
I think the six suggestions you make are thought-provoking and an excellent starting point for this discussion. But I think that they will end up being largely academic if the entire discussion remains how we here at TPMCafe, or Kos, or Atrios, or readers of The Nation, etc., talk to each other. We know how we'll all vote in the end.
I was going to say that we need to copy Reagan's "don't attack each other, ever" mantra, but reflecting on your points 3 and 4, I thought better of it.
Instead, I think we need to be inspired by, and improve on, another GOP habit. Those annoying direct-mail campaigns? Those leaflets in church parking lots? The constant push of literature, talk radio, etc? From them, its lies and propaganda. But it works. Many ordinary GOP voters feel a close association, a deep involvement with their party, even when it's stabbing them in the back, praising God and looting the treasury.
We can, and must, do better. We have to connect with the people who vote for our candidates, often, by default, without excitement, without a sense of purpose, and instead make them feel involved, wanted, needed, valued. Not by paying lip service, but by honestly inviting and encouraging their participation in this community you're doing your part here to hold together, to soothe, to make into a cohesive whole stronger than the sum of its individual factions. In my opinion, at least one new habit of our party must be a renewed comitment to constant strategizing by activists on how to constantly communicate with Democratic voters who aren't activists, and bring them into the fold.
I know this has been said before, many times - "Involve the grassroots, etc., tell us something new!" Well, I don't think Ed's points are all that new, just common sense built on our long and often painful experience with what doesn't work. This is the same. But I think, for the same reason's Ed's common sense is valuable to repeat, we need to set out a separate, clear, direct objective to get our voters to love and value and want to be involved in these discussions, and not simply strategize on how to woo them for one day every four years.
June 16, 2005 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.K., prove it. Give us an idea, anon.
June 16, 2005 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this as a concept. Why don't all of you spend a little more time telling me what you stand for and why I should concur rather than assigning motivations to the other guys.
I'm one of those Democrat voters you referred to. In some cases you might consider me a centrist and in some cases you might consider me a liberal and in some cases you might consider me and ultra-lefty. My allegiance is up for grabs on an issue by issue basis and I'm not so simple minded to just include myself into some imaginary homogeneous group and then follow them blindly.
So, using Mr. Heller's formulations...
Here is my challenge to those of you who consider yourselves centrists...tell me what you stand for and affirm for my why I should share your point of view.
Here is my challenge to those of you who consider yourselves liberals...tell me what you stand for and affirm for my why I should share your point of view.
Here is my challenge to those of you who consider yourselves leftists...tell me what you stand for and affirm for my why I should share your point of view.
June 16, 2005 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we need is someone who can Unite a party which consists of far to many Chiefs and far to few Indians.
June 16, 2005 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
while we mostly are very close to each others views on general issues, we vary widely with specifics. The Democratic party is good at that as different regions/states/counties do have different ideas about what is important. Republicans are much more top down than we are, particularly since they have sold their souls to the christian right.
Agree on the basics & work through consensus on the specifics.
June 16, 2005 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well first of all, that is snarky, because you don't even specify your disagreements, and that's problem #1. That's precisely the first thing one should never do -- trash something without fully explaining yourself and your position.
I have more disagreements than agreements with the principles laid out. I'll start, though, with what I do agree with.
First, principle #5 is essential, and it is something that is overlooked, especially when dealing with progressives. Principles 4 & 6 are OK, that unity shouldn't be taken too far, but I disagree with 2 and even narrowly with 1 on the same grounds.
What is all this nonsense of not having a 'litmus test'? The party has to stand for something. And there are some things that are part of the consensus that are principles that we don't question, like opposition to racism and antiSemitism. In those instances, like the Republican Party organization refusing to endorse David Duke even if he gets a place on the ballot, such extreme measures are necessary. In the Democratic Party those principles are likely to apply in practice ONLY to the LEFT of the Party, not the right. Opposing antiSemitism (which is widely tolerated on the Left, to our eternal shame) is a core principle. Opposition to terrorism is a core principle. A "patriotism" or "acceptance of good faith" litmus test is ridiculous. We have to allow breathing room, although at some point, a person who makes a point of suggesting that the US is somehow an evil society in comparison to others, that the American people are to be regarded as the enemy, you run into problems.
Then there are things that are part of a provisional consensus. I wonder whether I want people like Al From exercising influence in the party if he is so eager to toss pro-choice politics overboard. I'd rather toss Al From overboard -- not only in principle but especially strategically. And don't expect me to impute pure motives to the likes of him -- you might as well expect me to think that W Bush is the second coming, and I'm an agnostic.
(Sometimes, underground, there are veiled things that really violate core principles, but you have to be careful of presumption through venues, a completely solipsistic enforced plaything arena of the Right). At any rate, I disagree that there was much to condemn in the statements I read in Todd Gitlin from the Taking Back America conference.
So people fight over what the platform consensus is and even what the core principle consensus items are that are already part of the platform. Abortion is a platform issue, and I wouldn't deny the nomination or a party endorsement to an antiChoice politician who won a primary. But I wouldn't change the party platform either. Yes, there's a tension here but hey! It's the Democratic Party, folks.
I am more concerned with being defined out of the party (must accept capitalist globalization) than defining others out of the party (must be pro-choice). I am not about to vote for a candidate in any Democratic Primary who isn't pro-choice. And don't count on my vote if you aren't and get the nomination; many perhaps most Democrats feel the way I do on this issue.
A Democrat who is antiChoice had better give me some damn good reasons for casting a vote for them in the general, and they'd better be good, IMO!
As for accepting others' good motives -- that's preposterous. These are politicians. Most of them DON'T have good motives. You might as well require that people embrace a flat-earth theory.
June 16, 2005 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it telling that in your list of 6 rules for guiding intra-party communication between Democrats there arer a coupl of the most fundamental things missing.
Nowhere do you seem to refer to the importance of being able to define and defend one's own position on any particular issue in a reasonable, courteous and fact-bassed manner. Considering that strategic rhetoric has long supplanted substance in typical political discourse, I find it all ther more curious that such a basic rule for communication is missing from your list.
Also, (and perhaps more specifically in reference to Mr. Heller's appallingly arrogant and insulting argument on another thread here), shouldn't we, as adults, have already learned the value of criticising the policy we disagree with on the merits, rather than criticising those who might support those policies with which we disagree. Rather than displaying the petulance that only the self-absorbed can manifest, can't we not stoop to the judgemental and derogatory labelling tactics the Repubs are so good at? And can't we particularly refrain from perpetrating this pathetic behavior against members of our own party?
I've long believed that ambition typically leaves very little room for principle, and that this is particularly true in political and religious circles. So I'm not just some naive idealist who assumes we will all learn to become honest and respectful. However, if we as Democrats are going to stop the rightwing juggernaut from destroying the country, and if we are going to regain the influence and guiding vision to advance our way of life we surely have to do better than we're doing.
And as long as these turf-wars between big money corporate Dems and the rest of us flourish, the repubs will continue to erode everything of value we've struggled so hard for for the last 200+ years. And as long as too many so-called centrist Democrats vote with repubs, the repubs will remain in power.
June 16, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding, Ed. As noted by MY, Atrios, and others, there is really only one great cleaving of the Democratic Party right now - those who supported the war and those who didn't. And those who didn't (that is, those who were right) don't trust those who did, because your analysis of the situation was so flawed that it suggested those who did were either incompetents or liars. As this is essentially the basis of much of the virulent opposition to Bush, it doesn't bode well for the near future.
You want to healt the rift? Admit you were wrong and move on. MY did - he engenders virtually no anger from the anti-Iraq war Dems, even though he supported the war. No one constantly calls him to task for his prior support. People make mistakes. People make bad mistakes. We get that.
But if you still can't see how flawed was the analysis that justified your support, then we still have to wonder whether you (the DLC/TNR crowd - you've been notable good about reaching out, Ed) are incompetent or have a hidden agenda. Which makes it hard to treat y'all as people whose comments deserve serious consideration.
At the moment, all of your power is based in your positions in the hierarchy; there's little content to justify it. Again, many, many of us are centrists. The only real point of contention is Iraq.
June 16, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, the point about snarky was about the first comment, and now it is further down on the scroll.
June 16, 2005 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a lot to add to your thoughtful suggestions at this point, but I just wanted to thank you for posting these suggestions. They are common sense, yet so often in these discourses do we forget to exercise common sense. Also, I want to thank you for being open to building left-middle bridges, and to having a thick skin.
June 16, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do take issue with #6. I think you misinterpreted the critique. I wouldn't say don't say what you believe. But I will say we fall into the trap of believing the charicatures we hear in the echo-chamber - myself included. And it's also an issue of response. Rather than saying, yeah, we hate Christians, isn't it smarter to say, "Many of us ARE Christian, but we don't interpret Christianity as being anti-gay, anti-abortion. We believe in blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacemakers." You are a Christian and a Democrat. Rather than tell us you aren't wanted in our party, tell us why Christians belong in the Democratic party.
As the Evangelicals are fond of pointing out, our founding fathers were Christian. Does that mean we should get rid of the first amendment? Or take pride in the fact that it was the Christians who saw the wisdom of the first amendment?
I just think we allow ourselves to accept GOP characterizations too quickly. Let's start defining ourselves.
June 16, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2005 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree with Ed's ground rules, and I would add to the proposed ground rule #7 not just to talk to Democratic voters in addition to activists, but also to Independent voters, i.e., consistent voters who self-identify as Independent. These are not centrists (although some of them may be), but rather, active participants in our political process who won't necessarily vote reflexively for one party or the other. We can argue as to whether they are actively engaged, or just single-issue voters, the ill-informed, the stubborn, the misled, but we need to know, and we can only know by engaging them.
And thank you, to Ed and to Josh for this site, so that all of us can have this dialog.
This from a centrist-leaning, Dean-supporting (doesn't everyone agree now that "The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer"!), Iraq-war-opposing, Afghanistan-war-supporting, tax-cut-opposing, Israel-supporting Democrat, who is pro-choice but thinks pro-life Harry Reid is doing a great job as Senate Minority Leader and thinks pro-life Robert Casey should be the next Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania.
Amen.
June 16, 2005 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I whole-heartedly endorse your rule number 7, and it's a better articulation of much of what I was trying to say. Personally, I don't ultimately care who's winning the war of words in the blogs or in the MSM. It matters, but only as a small means to a large end: influencing and respresenting voters. In the end, the energy and passion of the Left and the cool analytical detachment of the Center (to use two stereotypes) don't mean squat if they are not translatable into votes, and then into actual results in governing.
Ed Kilgore
June 16, 2005 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the rift is between those who supported the war and those who didn't. I could care less who supported the war, and I am one of the few who can honestly say I was opposed from the beginning. But I remember how uneasy I was about how any opposition would be cynically used against us by Bush, especially if he did turn up some kind of WMD program. I understand the thinking process behind supporting the war resolution to give the President leverage, etc. I sympathise with those who want to withdraw and those who want to stay. All I care about is that you recognize that it's a mess now and something needs to change, and that the only way that's going to happen is if the Cult of W. fails.
June 16, 2005 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using Ed's guidelines for Intra-Party Etiquette, I would like to see what a "hot topic" discussion would look like if the blog program blocked the use of the following words or phrases from the discussion (and note that I am not suggesting that any of these be banned from the party, just from a sample discussion on a debatable issue to see if it would produce better discussion).
Here's my short list ...
liberal
centrist
progressive
freeper
DLC
DNC
Howard Dean
Al From
I have a feeling that the discussion would be much more congenial and much more productive, at least from the standpoint of the overall health of the Democratic Party.
June 16, 2005 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that the guidelines seem self-evident. We're all supposed to be on the same side. And that seems to me the underlying premise of both Heller and Kilgore...they're sure the ultraliberals aren't on their side and they're not so sure about the liberals, so they better make nice with them until they figure it out. I'm no flaming liberal and on many policy issues, I'm probably closer to the center than most who read this blog. But let's face it, it's the DLC types who have allowed this party to come to stand for virtually nothing but a bunch of wonkish policy positions. What is their vision of America? Tell me in 25 words or less. I can do it for the Rs...lower taxes, macho foreign policy, no gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade. That formulation has put them in the White House for 17 of the last 25 years and has given them control of both Houses of Congress. The first time the Ds have had any balls in the last twenty years is the stand on Social Security and if it weren't for the liberals, the DLC would have given that one away too. So don't lecture me on how to talk to a centrist. Present some ideas and leadership that will win elections. Once they do that, we'll have plenty to talk about and we'll find constructive ways to do it.
June 16, 2005 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, wait, wait. There is plenty of mistrust in the other direction, too. Iraq War supporters distrust Iraq War opponents as being opposed to all use of US military power (except, perhaps, in response to direct attacks on the US mainland by a state enemy), rather than opposed to the Iraq war but willing to consider the use of US military power, even unilaterally, if circumstances merit it. The anti-war "wing" distrusts the pro-war "wing" as blindly obedient, and the pro-war (or formerly pro-war) "wing" distrusts the anti-war "wing" as reflexively opposed to the use of force. And each side has a point, and each side needs to get over it. We can debate the merits of supporting a war against Iraq, and military action elsewhere in the world, without blowing apart as a party.
June 16, 2005 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read throught this 3 or 4 times, written several posts, and deleted them. But I just can't get away from my immediate thought: the amount of arrogance and condescension in these two posts today. The DLC-types just haven't done very well against Rove, and it was those farther left on the spectrum who provided most of the money and foot workers for Kerry. How about the "centrists" (whom I call the "mushy middle-ists) listen for a while instead of lecturing and setting down rules?
I will go back to a suggestion I have made elsewhere: no one to work at Democratic Party HQ or for any major Demo leadership group until they have lived for at least 2 years in a red neighborhood in a red state. Preferably one at least 500 miles from DC.
And please, stop lecturing. You guys had the reins and you lost. Be humble for a while at least.
sPh
June 16, 2005 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
#5 strikes a chord with me. As a political scientist, I'm resigned to the unavoidable probabilism in explaining and predicting human behavior. American political psychology and the dynamics of the electoral system are too complex and fluid for any political strategy to be self-evidently true. Scholars generally sit back and laugh at the post-hoc "Carville must be a genious" explanations for victories and defeats that are more often attributable to underlying structural factors (the economy, trends in party ID, etc.) than who ran what commercial in what market on what day.
So we should definitely, as you say, "talk about it without assuming we already know the answers." Furthermore -- as a shameless plug for the scholarly niche in our ecosystem -- we should muster concrete evidence, piggy-backing on the efforts of those who devote their lives to studying these phenomena systematically, when making our cases. That should prevent an automatic reversion to our place in the centrist/leftist dichotomy, and it might even help us get to a more reasonable approximation of the truth.
June 16, 2005 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Dean meant what media was implying then he wont have any supporters. Why then would hundreds of thousands give money, work for free and until present time remain steadfastly loyal.
Open your mind and dont just believe in what the media says. Dig deeper.
June 16, 2005 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody but voters has the final right to define the party.
Does this mean I'm not gonna hear the so-called "centrists" and "moderates" drone on about how polling shows they speak for the majority on issues like the death penalty and imply the activists are out-of-touch?
Or are pro-death penalty Democrats going to continue to play this card?
June 16, 2005 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it wrong to purge the segregationists from the party?
Or was it worth keeping them for the sake of unity?
June 16, 2005 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I become convinced a Democrat is motivated by his hatred of Arabs and Muslims, should I pretend that his motives and intentions are pure?
June 16, 2005 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When's the DLC hosting a debate on Israel-Palestine policy?
If keep interest groups keep debates from happening at any time then this rule isn't really fair.
When are we going to have the intra-Dem debate on the "War on Drugs"?
When does the intra-Dem debate on IRV, Condorcet and approval voting happen?
When is the intra-Dem discussion of ethnicity and affirmative action happen?
June 16, 2005 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't there some actions or even political views which are so self evidently outrageous that the democratic party should disassociate itself from them. For instance I think that anyone who praises Bin Laden is not a Democrat. I think that anyone who is currently a member of a hate group such as the KKK is not a Democrat. And what do you mean by no Litmus tests. It seems to me that there are certain issues on which you must have the correct position to be a Democrat. The real debate it seems to me is which issues should those be. Personally I would have a very small list, but I do have a list.
June 16, 2005 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are the insiders gonna give the unwashed liberal elites from the hinterlands a seat at the table in this debate?
I see much of the friction within the party coming from insiders, like yourself, not wanting to share power and decision making with the rank-and-file of the party.
Is there a way the Dems could open up the decision making to more grassroots people. Ya'll seem to be eager to take our money--and your willing to create the illusion of giving a shit about what we say in bullshit surveys in fundraising letters--but when the big decisions are to be made you Beltway-types want us far away.
Or is it just that the consultant class doesn't want to lose their cushy gigs?
June 16, 2005 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for Dems thinking creatively on public policy and political strategy and tactics.
But Dems shouldn't deliver the Right's talking points.
The Beltway Dems should coach members of Congress on avoiding these questions in the media.
Saying something unorthodox is OK. Delivering the Right Wing/GOP critique of Dems or the Dem Party is unacceptable while the party is in the minority.
June 16, 2005 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And mostly cowards.
The division over the Iraq War is really a division over Israel.
June 16, 2005 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have another rule to add. Let's outlaw the cults of personality. From Ed's favorite website
The next generation of Clintonism is the best formula for transcending old divisions and building a new Democratic majority in America.
Clintonism? And the Deaniacs are no better. I much prefer proudly labeling myself LIBERAL and simply standing up for liberal issues. If you want me to vote like conservative, you will get no consensus from me. The tent is not that big.
June 16, 2005 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sphealy:
I'm truly sorry if you thought I was "lecturing," "arrogant" and la
cking humility. I'm a frustrated non-College Professor, so blame me, not a whole segment of the party, if I've erred in tone. At the risk of compounding my error, I do wonder if you noticed that on each point I made some effort to criticize "centrists," or more particularly, myself, for a habit of violating the rules.
I might also mention, not that it matters much, that I would pass your own non-DC litmus test.
As for the idea that us "centrists" have "had the reigns" and need to retire from the fray, well, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I worked at the DLC during the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and sorry, much as I fanantically supported both men, neither campaign followed anything like a DLC template. Gore and Kerry, in my opinion, suffered from all our sins as a party, but not just those of "centrists."
Ed Kilgore
June 16, 2005 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed,
I enjoy your commentary and wish people could be more civil but you gotta understand. There's a lot of anger out there at the Democratic Party. You and Marshall seem to be fielding the brunt of it here.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am angry too. For years I voted under the illusion that the Democratic Party was the party of ordinary people. Unfortunately, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I was busy doing other things like earning a living and taking care of family.
What happened in the 2000 election sort of shocked me to attention so I started trying to catch up and follow what was going on. Sometime last summer I realized I could not in fairness consider myself a Democrat and will never be a Republican. Like many others in November, I held my nose and voted for Kerry. I bought into the rationale that voting for Nader would help Bush. Well, Bush won anyway.
The Democrat Party has been balkanized. Its leadership is too timid or maybe too much of it is complicit in maintaining the status quo in Washington. It's hard to tell sometimes. Both parties have such a stranglehold on the electoral process and our choice is so limited, either A or B.
I think that may change in the next decade. Maybe not 2008 but hopefully by 2012. The Democrats can have its fringes, gay rights, militant pro-choice, militant feminists and a few African-Americans still stuck in a 1960's mindset. The Repubicans can have Dobson, the NRA, Rush, and its other assorted wing-nuts. The rest of us - true centrists - from both parties need and deserve a party that represents us.
.
June 16, 2005 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Treat each other with respect.
2. Be flexible when information refutes your point of view.
June 16, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know of anybody who calls himself a Democrat who praises bin Laden or belongs to the KKK?
Your examples don't exist in the real world. Ed said there were rare exceptions, and I guess that these would qualify.
June 16, 2005 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Particularly for an "out" party, the debate that accompanies the selection of a presidential candidate is hugely important to its message and policy profile.
Then stop front loading the primaries and give more of us a chance to weigh in on who that nominee should be. There really was no debate. Because of the way the primary schedule was structured, anybody who didn't win Iowa had virtually no chance to "come back" from that loss. I say this as a Clark supporter, but I suspect the supporters of any candidate other than Kerry felt the same way.
When the party "officialdom" stops trying to dictate who the nominee should be by finagling the primary schedule, then we can have a real "debate" in selecting our Presidential nominee.
June 16, 2005 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be more pointed about it, I'm very worried at present that the campaign of some folks on the Left to protest Iraq or don't-ask-don't-tell by banning the military from college or high school campuses will be used by the GOP to reinforce perceptions that Democrats have disdain for the armed forces or don't care about national security. But that doesn't give me the right to think these folks, to the extent they are Democrats, are actually unpatriotic or disloyal to the party's interests.
Where to start?
-Once again, the “Left” emerges as the favorite boogeyman of the lazy commentator in desperate need of a straw-man argument.
-Can Mr. Kilgore please clarify what is “national security”? Was the invasion of Iraq necessary for the preservation of our nation? Whose national security is being protected here?
-It demonstrates a disdain for the military to protest discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
-So, if I’m against creating even more public spaces for military recruiters to prey on underprivileged youth who are sent to fight an illegal war based on a pack of lies (accepted without question by so many of the leaders of our party) because they have no other opportunities in life, then I’m standing in the way of “national security,” but (thank god!) this doesn’t mean Mr. Kilgore thinks I’m unpatriotic. Whew!
June 16, 2005 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "As noted by MY, Atrios, and others, there is really only one great cleaving of the Democratic Party right now - those who supported the war and those who didn't."
This may be a valid conclusion for the memberships of MY, Atrios, and a few online blogs (I will assume each has taken a poll of their entire memberships on this question, and that your conclusion is not based on merely a sampling of random blog comments), but, even if so, it is only applicable to those entities. To project that conclusion onto the entire Democratic Party is without justification. The only definitive information about how the Democratic Party felt about the war that we can use and trust is the collective results of the recent Democratic primaries. Contrary to your assertion, the primary results cannot be explained solely as a contest between those who supported the war (whatever that means) and those who opposed (whatever that means). I can find nothing concrete to support your conclusion that the war is the great divide in the Democratic Party, and so I must reject it as one person's opinion, nothing more or less.
June 16, 2005 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one act of direct or indirect military intervention after World War II that was justified in terms of national security?
June 16, 2005 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan.
I'll give you another -- Kosovo.
Here's another -- Carter's attempt to rescue the Iran Hostages
Our national interests go well beyond our borders.
June 16, 2005 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "Name one act of direct or indirect military intervention after World War II that was justified in terms of national security?"
Okay, I could name others, but I will name the one that I took part in from start to finish and about which I know the most, namely, the participation under the auspices of the OAS of the American military in the Inter-American Peace Force that intervened in the Dominican Republic. The imminent takeover of the Dominican Republic in 1965 by Castroites with the backing of the Dominican Army threatened our national security, especially Puerto Rico. You asked for one. I've named one.
June 16, 2005 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But let's face it, it's the DLC types who have allowed this party to come to stand for virtually nothing but a bunch of wonkish policy positions. What is their vision of America? Tell me in 25 words or less.
Here's the most recent version, from Al From and Bruce Reed:
What We Stand For
Closing the national security gap.
Building an Opportunity Society.
Standing up for responsibility.
Reforming a broken system to bring democracy back.
Follow the link to read the whole article. It's a few more than 25 words, but I don't think you'd call it wonkish policy positions.
June 16, 2005 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repelling attacks on the Pueblo and the Liberty.
June 16, 2005 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that the guidelines seem self-evident.
Nothing is self-evident in this. The presumption that our perceptions are self-evident is what has gotten us into far too many messes. Even when certain things are close to self-evident, it is very often a good idea to periodically -- if not frequently -- repeat them. Things like, "Don't repeat GOP talking points," and "The enemy is thataway."
I found the guidelines to be well-thought out and constructive.
June 16, 2005 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The establishment deliberately truncates the presidential primary process and then complains that activists and the rank-and-file don't toe-the-line at the right time.
The national party would like to confine intraparty debates to February 29th.
The national party figures they know how to balance the interest groups and want the rank-and-file to shut up.
Shortening the presidential primaries is even more insulting now that online fundraising means the Dems can max out even with the nominee being decided relatively late.
Once again the Beltway Dem vision for unity skews the process in their favor and against the unwashed liberal elites of the hinterlands.
June 16, 2005 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I leave you with this: The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
June 16, 2005 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I read the article. Sorry, but that just doesn't resonate with me or with most Democrats. It's compassionate Republicanism. Here's a link to a speech that every Democrat needs to read, a big neon flashing arrow pointing "THIS WAY".
http://www.knox.edu/obamaaddress.xml
June 16, 2005 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you speak for "most Democrats"?
June 16, 2005 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shows the difference between the left wing and the center. If they can't talk together, they can't work together. Shouldn't the wing that was wrong re the war in Iraq admit its mistakes?
Here is what Gov. Warner said in the Salon.com interview - link
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/14 or
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog scroll down to June 14, 2004
June 16, 2005 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Due to the current state of the war, Pro-war Democrats will recognize that they have forfeited the right to ever characterize anti-war Democrats as naive hippies. They will also recognize Dean as DNC chair and agree to defend Dean no matter how ill-conceived or stupid his remarks appear to be. They will agree to withhold public criticism until the next election for DNC chair.
2) In exchange, anti-war Democrats will agree to recognize that it doesn't matter what position Democrats took before the war, so long as they admit it is a mess and that there is a need to change course. They will refrain from asking "how many elections have we won with you guys in charge?" and reserve any chest-beating "I told you sos" for Republicans, Thomas Friedman, and Democratic violators of addendum 1.
June 16, 2005 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked ... "How can [he] speak for 'most Democrats'? "
Possible answer: He works for Diebold!
June 16, 2005 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
HA!!!!!!
That's funny.
The LBJ admistration published a justification after the invasion trying to demonstrate that the country was about to be taken over by communists. The document was great comedy -- it included the names of alleged communists, including quite a few who were either dead or not living in the DR.
It's an indisputed historical fact that there was no communist threat in the DR.
I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan, but it sad to see how little we've actually done since then to improve the country. I also agreed with our actions in the former Yugoslavia. But neither case was our "nation" at risk of extinction.
In the end, the number of illegal and inhumane actions abroad on the part of the US government far outweighs the number of legitimate, legal actions. Review the history of US actions in Latin America and the fact is inescabale -- the US has been one of the greatest sponsors of international terrorism in the world.
June 16, 2005 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. forgot to insert the link..here it is
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/14
or http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog then scroll down to June 14, 2005
sorry about that. great topic. moreover, its very crucial.
June 16, 2005 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
sPhealey, I usually agree with you, but this time I'm afraid I can't. This isn't an arrogant post, or a lecturing post. It is an attempt to establish some ground rules for dialogue. And it's important. The entire TPMcafe enterprise depends on us all finding ways to interact effectively even when we have substantive disagreements.
Ed is really one of the best guys at the DLC. I'm no fan of the organization, but if there are a lot more like him waiting in the wings, my opinion of it could change substantially. He is making a good faith effort here to find a way we can interact without rancor. So when an offering like this is made in good faith, I would hope those of us on the left could accept it as such.
Rejectionism will get us all nowhere.
June 16, 2005 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like what I have to say and you're serious, why don't you engage me rather than just giving a bad rating and leaving?
June 16, 2005 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the guidelines are good. I'm sorry we seem to need guidelines though. You'd think a party full of folks dedicated to the proposition that everybody matters, would be just as considerate of their fellow partisans. Unfortunately, we all get too doctrinaire.
And then there is our much vaunted "diversity." While there are centrists in the GOP, they have been identified as conservatives because the GOP are clearly controlled by conservatives and is, arguably, majority conservative (as well as white and christian, as we all know). We've been tagged as "liberal," in spite of the fact that liberals do NOT control the party and sure FEEL like a minority. Sure there's always a few sops to the left in our platform and there are certain sacrosanct "liberal" issues but the elected Democratic Party is a pretty centrist, if not conservative, bunch of folks.
So what do we do? We've been tagged with a label that really doesn't fit the reality of the party and it is a label that is unfairly characterized as just about the worst thing you'd want to be. Seems to me that it would be easier to rehabilitate the label than to change it -- and then embrace it.
OMIGOD! Admit to being liberal!? Well, first we've got to redefine it for the public. Suppose we had a series of commercials intended to do nothing but redefine what "liberal" is. Do man-in-the-street interviews asking people what they think liberal is and then challenge them with unlabeled liberal ideas that they are likely to accept. Then, like a diet margarine ad, you unveil that, contrary to their expectations, they actually LIKE liberal ideas. After several months, poll on attitudes toward liberalism. If the numbers look good, democrats begin to embrace the label, build the brand, and offer the American people an alternative that they can identify.
I'm not suggesting every democrat has to be liberal. I'm suggesting that we would stop running from the label and start actively promoting good ideas as liberal. Liberal can mean whatever the fuck we want it to. It certainly isn't being defined fairly now. Companies change the demand for products like this all the time. Can't think of a specific example right now but I can picture the scene where some startled shopper says, "geez, I always thought it was just for X" about a product that company wanted to expand the market for by convincing people to use it for "Y" as well.
They call all of us liberals anyway. If we don't change what liberal means to people, I think we are doomed.
June 16, 2005 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a nice idea, but how many Congressional Dems have admitted they were wrong to support the Iraq War?
I think it's premature to be talking about taking them back when people like Rick Heller are still characterizing those of us that opposed the war as "not serious about national security".
June 16, 2005 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
do we have to support killing to close the national security gap?
June 16, 2005 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
markus, I'll bite
June 16, 2005 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these pro-war Democrats you folks keep referring to? I hope you don't mean those who voted for the Iraq resolution. Most, such as John Kerry, gave specific qualifications on their vote BEFORE they cast it, stating that military action should be a last resort after all other means of achieving our end goals had been tried and exhausted. Many, like Wes Clark, pointed out the pitfalls of going to war with no clear objectives and no after-victory plan, and they pointed out these things in detail BEFORE the war started. Some of you paint anyone who did not oppose ALL reasons for supporting our policy of pressure on Iraq as being pro-war. That is decidely not the case. On the other hand, many people in our party were simply anti-war/anti-military, anti-any action to neutralize Saddam, and offered no alternative if diplomacy failed. Are they not equally guilty for not coming up with an alternative? However, the fact that the war went badly does not prove the "anti-war" folks any more right than the folks who felt the threat of war might eventually produce productive diplomacy without actual war (and that's what most Democrats were working for). Looking back with hindsight, there were good opinions shared by all sides about our Iraq policy, with elements of wisdom in all of them. The people in our party who voted for the Iraq resolution did not take us to war. George Bush and his cronies did that. It's about time the "anti-war" folks stopped condemning people in our party as "pro-war" unless they can point out specifically that the individual was for military intervention before trying any other options and in spite of any other means of resolving the conflict. That's what being "pro-war" means.
June 16, 2005 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that we're having this conversation, but I feel the need to dissent. There are clearly some positions which the Democratic party should not tolerate. I'm not talking about the issues that divide Democrats today. We should tolerate different views on abortion, gay marriage, Iraq, middle class taxes, trade, gun control, and health care policy. Those issues all divided Democratic candidates for President, and, though I detest Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, I accept them all as Democrats. Other issues are more fundamental. I will not accept a communist or a racist in the Democratic party. Americans for Democratic Action fought and won a campaign 50+ years ago to prevent the Democratic party from associating with totalitarian elements, and this shouldn't be put before voters. I'm personally quite upset that we're supporting Bernie Sanders. Socialists should also start their own party. Association with such people hurts are party. But I'd support his candidacy if he won the nomination, since he's a democratic socialist and not a marxist-leninist.
June 16, 2005 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. Ed is a mensch; so much so that he can deal with hopelessly pompous Marshall Wittman and Rick Heller.
June 16, 2005 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
markus, is it me you don't like or do you have a problem with this question?
June 16, 2005 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry I did the link wrong:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&conten tid=253206June 16, 2005 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "It's an indisputed historical fact that there was no communist threat in the DR."
Then I guess the Cuban troops that surrounded us on Alto Bandera communications station (one of our main links in 1965-66 to South America) were ghosts! However, I can assure you they weren't. The Russian bullets were quite real as they whizzed by my head, and the possibility of a Castroite (Dominican Army) takeover was very real. A communist Carribean was not in the national security of the United States. You are reading re-written history. I was there.
June 16, 2005 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly right. This is the point I tried to make in a previous post. I don't fault Democrats for voting for the resolution. I don't fault them for believing there were WMD. There were many reasons people took these positions. But Democrats did the right thing: no matter how suspicious they were of Saddam's WMD programs, they believed in the American ideals of due process and innocence until proven guilty. They wanted proof, and felt we needed evidence before we went to war. Had we gone that route, support for an invasion would have seeped away as our inspectors turned up dry hole after dry hole. That was an honorable way to go. There were also those who thought Bush was simply acting tough as leverage to get Saddam to let the UN in. No one - not even someone as skeptical as I was about the war - foresaw how cynical and, dare I say it, evil Bush was. No one could have been prepared for the incompetence, irresponsibility and complete separation from reality. The point is, we all know that NOW.
I don't see the Clark wings and Dean wings, anti or pro, or however you want to designate these groups as incompatible. The remarkable thing is, you don't see much disagreement among Democrats at all as a matter of policy. We don't like the Patriot Act. We think the Republican party is corrupt. We want to end extremism and see no magic bullet to fix Iraq. Even Atrios and DailyKos repeatedly say they have no problem with centrist positions that will win. And the DLC agrees we need to fight. There is a lot of common ground. All we are arguing about is the best tactics to win, and we have different ideas of what those are.
June 16, 2005 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not markus but in the interest of accuracy, I don't think you can say that segregationists were "purged." They left of their own accord and, with them the South and, ultimately, our majority. We've bemoaned the loss of their votes ever since -- not that their philosophy holds any attraction in our party. Granted they left largely because the rest of the party refused to retreat from a commitment to civil rights. God bless us, but it was our undoing as a majority.
"Purges" per se are, IMHO, very unhealthy. Hold to your principles and the unprincipled will chafe in your company. Purges are unnecessary in a party with integrity.
June 16, 2005 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Levin offered an amendment:
<span class="contenttext">To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.</span>
Guess how Kerry voted on this amendment.
June 16, 2005 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what do you think that those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion have been suffering these last three years?
Indeed, we who saw through the lies early and in any case believed the Bush Administration too incompetent to carry out a personal war similar to Bush, Sr.'s ego-buffing Panama Invasion, even still endure personal attacks, not only by wingnuttia but by the so-called centrists who are still hiding under their desks rather than admitting that opposition to Bush's War doesn't make us too soft and doughy to want to defend ourselves or our country. And WE are the ones whose sons and daughters are in uniform.
But yeah, let's quit eating our own. We've been saying that as well. Where ya been?
June 16, 2005 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We knew for a fact Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and did not have nuclear weapons capability.
Chem and bio weapons just aren't that big a deal.
That mentally ill guy in Korea killed 196 with some petroleum on the subway. What's the most that have been killed by a non-wartime use of chem or bio weapons? A half dozen?
Spree killers with rifles regularly kill more.
June 16, 2005 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dems are going to be taken seriously on national security they have to be willing to alienate the Israel hawks.
If they aren't tough enough to do this, they aren't tough enough to set U.S. foreign policy.
Alienating the Israel hawks will lose votes and cost money, but it will gain the party respect.
June 16, 2005 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you care where I stand on a specific issue I'll tell you.
June 16, 2005 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Etiquette on the Left
It is true. It would be nice if everybody could get their priorities straight. And that's really why we need some intra-party and center-left comity. Not just so folks aren't riled up and all make nice. People need to realize that we have a TWO party system. No mas. I talk to 20 and 30-somethings about this on a fairly regular basis. Everybody dreams of a 3rd party. But, more of 'em were getting it in the last election. No thanks to our side -- it was all anti-bush.
This is not the time to press for advantage on the left. The greens, et al., should put it on hold for a time until the climate changes (no pun intended, but that might be what it takes to wake the country up -- the "tipping" point.) I am not optimistic and the lack of verifiable elections makes me doubly blue.
June 16, 2005 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your first point "nobody but the voters has the right to define what is a Democrat".
Frankly, I believe "electability" has been used widely as an argument in the last primaries, and I think it is a destructive argument, that often leads to avoidance of the actual issue. I also believe the common conception of electability=most agreement with opinion of the population is nonsense, but that's for another thread.
Further, I don't think reasoning back from the winner to the correct position is rigorous reasoning or useful in general. You did not say anything about that, but might consider it a natural corollary.
Next, I hestitate to extend the principle beyond presidential elections. People do work their ways to the top spot on the local Dem ballot for a wide range of reasons, some even unrelated to their position on issues. Similarly, voters vote Dem for a wide range of reasons, many (IMHO) of them unrelated to the candidates actual position on the issues. In short, sombody elected Zell Miller. ;) Even in presidential races, the primaries have their own biases, though admittedly, they are still the best guess we have.
Now given all that, what exactly did you mean, why is it #1 for you and what follows from that point?
Otherwise, I'd like to recommend the following two simple techniques for debate:
1.) Criticise/attack statements/positions not people. Focus on does/says, not what someone is. IOW, "your statement is idiotic" is much better than "you are an idiot" (if you have to sink to that level at all). Or, "I disagree with Dean's statement" instead of "Dean is wrong".
2.) Start your sentences with "I" or "IMO". There are cases were that is too much of a concession (e.g. racism), but it's best to err on the side of caution. "I think you're wrong." is less threatening than "You're wrong." simply because at least semantically it allows for a middle ground or a third way. But if the opponent does not feel threatened, that may never be necessary (Fear of loss of face leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side and all that).
June 16, 2005 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 9806
FOREIGNPARENTID: 9794
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 749
AUTHOR: markus
DATE: 06/16/2005 07:37:30 PM
June 16, 2005 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since confession is good for the soul, I will confess to having voted for Zell Miller -- once for gov long ago, who knew he had no integrity? -- if they invent time travel before I die, I'd like to go back and remedy that -- just for my own peace of mind.
June 16, 2005 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the majority of Democrats became convinced the Israel lobby--many of whom have been loyal, contributing Dems for decades--was demanding too much from the party on Middle East policy, should the Dems be willing to let them go?
Ed Kilgore works for Bruce Reed and Al From. Isreal is a priority issue for them. They support Israel annexing more Palestinian land.
The Israel-hawks have been very adept at getting their way behind the scenes.
In addition to the Israel-hawks explicitly calling Israel critics anti-semites they've made it pretty clear they will bolt from the Dems if they don't get what they want (like the segregationists did).
If it comes down to it, will the Dems stand for U.S. interests (peace) and antagonize this key constituency or will the Dems allow this interest group to set Dem Mid East policy?
June 16, 2005 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I know I'm going to regret this, but the Israel-bashing is getting to be a bit much. I accept Mr. Nygard's invitation to engage him on the facts. I do this not to turn this debate into one over Israel, but rather, to disabuse the notion that the Democratic party is somehow tainted by supporting Israel and its security.
Israel, like America, is an imperfect democracy. It is a hated island of mostly (originally) European Jews that was created after one major European power tried to exterminate the entire race and most other major powers (including America) couldn't be bothered to increase their immigration quotas to permit Jewish immigration. Jews historically occupied this land, as did numerous peoples now characterized as Palestinians, although Trans-Jordan prior to partition was (and, as Jordan, still is) ruled by Arabian royals transplanted by the British from Arabia after WWI with the support of the minority Bedouin population.
In the 1947-48 war, Jews forcibly ejected some Arabs from territory partitioned by the UN and given to the State of Israel; other Arabs left those areas based on promises by other Arab states that once all the Jews were killed, the Arabs could return and take back their land and that of their Jewish neighbor.
Palestinian refugees were gathered in refugee camps after the 1947-48 war. From 1948 until 1967, when Trans-Jordan ruled the West Bank and Egypt ruled the Gaza Strip, no Palestinian state was created. Palestinian refugees were kept in camps by the Jordanians and the Egyptians. After 1967, Israel took over the camps.
Israel arguably fought a war of aggression in 1956 in the Sinai (with the British and the French) and in 1982 in Lebanon. It fought wars of defense (real, we'll all be killed if we don't win, wars of defense) in 1947-48, in 1967, and in 1973. The threat persists. For example, in 1991, during the Gulf War, Iraq didn't attack the mainland US, but it did attack Israel.
In 1974, Israel offered all of its land acquisitions in the 1967 and 1973 wars to the Arab leaders then gathered in Khartoum, in the Sudan, in exchange for a peace treaty. The Arab leaders refused. They still refuse to grant such a treaty.
Palestinians suffer today as a result of this shared history. Israel today struggles with the idea that it can either be a liberal democracy that does not grant a right of return but generally lives within 1967 borders, or an occupying nation that lives within 1973 borders but oppresses part of its population. It cannot be both. Israel struggles with questions of walls versus permeable borders, settlements versus withdrawals, and territorial integrity versus right of return, all in the name of security (real, we'll all be killed if we get this wrong, security). These debates are supported and encouraged by democratic instititions, parliamentary democracy, and a free press.
Also, at its founding, Israel had a moderate, centrist militia (the Palmach), and a radical, terroristic militia (the Irgun). Israel could have used the Irgun to advance its goals while condemning the Irgun but doing nothing about it (see, e.g., the PA and Hamas/PIJ). It did not; the Palmach put down the Irgun, and killed a number of its members; the remainder of its members became productive members of the mainstream state.
There is only one country in the Middle East that can even hope to approximate this record of democracy and democratic nation-building - Turkey - but I would venture to say that Turkey cannot match Israel for its level of parliamentary democracy and freedom of expression.
Israel is not perfect, but it is also not evil. For this reason, Democrats can comfortably support Israeli policy, or criticize Israeli policy. However, the Democratic Party should support Israel and its security, and not vilify Israel or the people who support Israel, nor should it blindly advocate Palestinian positions or disregard Palestinian excesses.
I've probably shortchanged the pro-Israel argument quite a bit, but I suspect that most others who would make it better than I have become disgusted by Mr. Nygard's remarks and left for other threads.
My apologies for the digression from an otherwise-engaging discussion.
June 16, 2005 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
interesting questions. I hope we don't get to find out what the answers are. It's clearly a sticky wicket. If, however, dems don't regain some measure of power, the "israel hawks" won't have much reason to stay with us anyway since we won't have anything to offer.
I would hope, though, that our party always puts US interests first.
June 16, 2005 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I supported/support military deployments to Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Sudan. I believe in keeping a very strong, effective US military.
I don't support the disasterous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I have no problems using miltary force to stop aggression, prevent genocide, and respond to human calamities.
I do have a problem with flinging US militaty power around the globe to enforce US economic interests as well as the apparent efforts of the neo-cons to return the US to the Age of Imperialism.
Yeah, I'm on the left, but you DLCers look like you're wearing tie die and beads compared to me on military issues. I'm not alone either. There's plenty of people on the left just like me. Attitudes toward use of the military is not cast in stone, either. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus begged for military force to be sent to Rwanda, and is begging now for a military deployment to Sudan.
So please stop repeating these right wing "lib-ruls hate the military" talking points and burn them. Their only value is as kindling.
June 16, 2005 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine in U.S. interests?
Why hasn't it happened yet?
Because Israel is gradually annexing more land?
Which nation gains from a failure to make a just and lasting peace? The Palestinians? The United States? Or Israel?
June 16, 2005 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Ed.
I agree with just about all of it.
One nit - how we disagree is very important. I think personalizng criticism, instead of debating ideas is the biggest problem.
Frankly, I think your organization made the first and biggest mistakes on this but no doubt some of my types have been catching up fast.
June 16, 2005 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2005 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure a just and lasting peace is in our interests and the last time Dems were in charge of the foreign policy of the US, we (read Bill Clinton, no stranger to the DLC) made a valiant effort to move in that direction.
As to who gains from no peace, seems like we're all losers in that case, but it clearly was the Palestinians that turned down their last (by that I do not mean final, least I hope not) chance at some measure of peace and autonomy.
I'll confess that I'm not fixated on Israel's every move (frankly, I try to ignore the whole mess there when events will allow it as it makes me weary), but it is my understanding that Sharon is moving OUT of territory. Doesn't sound like continued annexation. Be that as it may, I don't trust Sharon and would love to see a more moderate gov't in Israel.
Now having drifted far afield from the subject at hand, I'm going to sign off. Hasta la vista.
June 16, 2005 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the most recent version, from Al From and Bruce Reed...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
June 16, 2005 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reflexively anti-war is a good human characteristic.
Those of us who are really get sick of being labled as somehow weird, or odd, or starry-eyed.
War is necessary at times. The Iraq situation, before, during, and after the initial invasion was a study in a large number of people, many Democrats included, WANTING to use force and show military muscle.
It was, and is, a sick mistake that has killed thousands. People like me knew it before it happened, and know it now. I don't want kudos, I want people to examine what exactly seemed justifiable about the decision to invade Iraq. For those who continue to offer excuses, or reasons, or history, I only want to ask, what kind of human thought or thinks that going to war with Iraq was necessary or a good idea.
In my opinion, it is a person who was not thining clearly, and I don't feel any need to listen to him or her until the failure to think is admitted (as done by Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias). Until then, self-justification and importance are governing the discourse, not actual analysis or an effort to make better decisions.
Peace.
June 16, 2005 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sure there's always a few sops to the left in our platform and there are certain sacrosanct "liberal" issues but the elected Democratic Party is a pretty centrist, if not conservative, bunch of folks."
It's not just the elected Democratic Party. Democratic voters are split between liberals, centrists, and conservatives.
On social and military matters, our voters are far less unified than Republican voters.
"I'm not suggesting every democrat has to be liberal. I'm suggesting that we would stop running from the label and start actively promoting good ideas as liberal."
My personal hobbyhorse is that we need to refocus the liberal label from social liberalism to lunchbox liberalism. That's the first step to gaining converts and rehabilitating the liberal label.
June 16, 2005 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Since confession is good for the soul, I will confess to having voted for Zell Miller -- once for gov long ago"
Zell used to be a good guy.
June 16, 2005 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because of the way the primary schedule was structured, anybody who didn't win Iowa had virtually no chance to "come back" from that loss. I say this as a Clark supporter, but I suspect the supporters of any candidate other than Kerry felt the same way."
I was most definitely not a Kerry supporter, and I'm not a huge fan of the compressed calendar, but I disagree.
We could've had three months between NH and the next primary, and the nominee still would've been the same.
June 16, 2005 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But no one other than Democratic voters has a superior claim to the right to decide "what's a real Democrat,"
Hear, hear!
-----
I'll add one additional point:
7) In dealing with fellow Democrats, we should strive for intellectual honesty. When someone from a different point of view makes a valid point, we should strive to acknowledge it, even if it undermines our own position.
June 16, 2005 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you don't like what I have to say and you're serious, why don't you engage me rather than just giving a bad rating and leaving?"
I left you a bad rating without engaging you in dialogue on the topic, and I'll tell you why:
Because you have a history on various Democratic boards of trying to hijack non Israeli-Palestinian threads with pretty intemperate commentary on the topic.
June 16, 2005 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but I'd be interested in why you think so - because Kerry was the better candidate, or because the PTB (read "Establishment Dems") wanted him to be the candidate?
June 16, 2005 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My problem with the centrists now is...They'd rather use our precious air time to pile on Dean than push a positive agenda..."
I agree 100%. I was was very disappointed to hear other leading Dems bashing and distancing themselves from Dean (regardless of what I thought about what he said); I was surprised that Edwards and Obama did, I like them both, but I was especially disappointed in Biden, whom I had previously thought highly of but was very, VERY unset to see Biden *repeatedly* dissing Dean and *repeatedly* arguing for a draft, both of which I strongly felt was inappropriate, unacceptable, unwise and really not a good thing to be doing for Democrats. I was terribly disappointed to see this kind of talk from a dem senator and thought it honestly hurts the party--I have lost much respect for that. No longer have a high regard for him, very sad the he continued to say irresponsible things rather than take on the ring wing. Really Terrible.
"And NEVER take your eye of the ball: the Cult of W must fall."
June 16, 2005 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You may be right, but I'd be interested in why you think so - because Kerry was the better candidate, or because the PTB (read "Establishment Dems") wanted him to be the candidate?"
Like I said, Kerry wasn't my favorite candidate, so it certainly wasn't because I think he was the better candidate.
Instead, it's because of the standard primary dynamics that has operated in both parties in the post-'68 era:
In the odd numbered year before the primaries, the party establishment tends to settle on a candidate. If that candidate wins IA and NH, the process is effectively over and that candidate becomes the nominee. If the voters in IA or NH reject that candidate, the process gets fought out in succeeding states.
Kerry was the '03 establishment candidate. He won IA and NH. End of game, no matter what the schedule looked like.
If Edwards had convinced two thousand more Iowans, we would've had a real contest. And, in fact, the compressed calendar might well have worked to Edwards' advantage in that scenario by letting him run off a string of wins before Kerry could rally his troops.
You can see the standard dynamics in the '00 GOP contest. Bush was the establishment candidate. McCain won NH. And so they then they had a real contest, which Bush managed to win by rallying party loyalist voters around him. If Bush had won IA and NH, the process would've been over then and there. (And if memory serves, there were 3 weeks that year between NH and SC.)
June 17, 2005 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking up and down this scroll I find it curious that more than one of the most insistent voices supporting "civility" are often the harshest judges and the quickest to dismiss those further to their left. Everyone likes to talk about civility, but it tips the hand of someone when they say you shouldn't question anyones motives -- in politics no less!
I describe in a posting that is way down on the scroll how there are different kinds of consensus -- fundamental litmus tests, like rejecting white supremacy, platform positions of the party that are not a sufficient litmus to deny someone who won the primary the party's endorsement, but might indeed lose many voters (like abortion), and issues that are not even provisionally resolved as to the Party's position (like Iraq). "No litmus tests" like "don't question motives" is nonsense. Sphealey is right that they reflect the perspective of the DLC Democrats more than of authentic progressives who are nauseated by, yes, Al From, such as myself. I recognize that the attitude need not be seen as patronizing; but it is wrong on some points.
The Democratic Party needs to stand for 'something'. The Republican Party sure does -- more guns and less butter, tax breaks for the rich, wrecking the environment to line their pockets, and suppressing authentic progressive dissent. The Democrats are divided on all these issues, though almost always for the most part less callous about environmental issues than the Republicans. But on the other hand, there are many WHOSE MOTIVES I AM QUESTIONING RIGHT HERE, who only pretend to support the environment, either pursuing strategies they know will lose and/or secretly supporting special interests in committee that they pretend to oppose in public, etc. It is silly to pretend otherwise.
It is right that arguments should never be dismissed out of hand, without making a detailed case (which I have done more extensively below), but those who want a harmonious party should first be sure to practice what they preach in this regard, as usually those who call for civility, in my experience, are concerned not with their own incivility, but primarily with the incivility they perceive in others; and they draw up 'rules' to address precisely those things they see the others doing that they don't. Sometimes, such an approach is apt -- but it should be upfront. It isn't the Al From Democrats who are questioning the motives of the peace movement, it's the other way around. But suggestions that the Left is responsible for the defeat of the Democrats (false), insisting that we not 'fingerpoint' at the failures of the DLC, suggesting that the Left is 'unrealistic', unthinking, 'conspiracy thinking', and/or effete snobs are the more usual attacks. The selection of issues points to the notion of whose ox is gored, and some of those issues I reject as insisting, as mentioned before, on my swallowing a flat-earth theory.
June 17, 2005 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is "the national security gap"?
June 17, 2005 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Closing the national security gap."
The "national security gap" is total bullshit. Republicans fix intelligence to stoke public fears to justify corporate welfare and imperialist interventions, and to control the domestic population, AND IT DOESN'T DO JACK SHIT TO MAKE US SAFER.
But rather than point this out to the public, the geniuses at the DLC would rather forfeit the issue by engaging in the sincerest form of flattery - imitation. Brilliant!
June 17, 2005 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've been getting screamed at for a week here on threads because of your abuse of the ratings system here.
You've been so bad, a bunch of people have even started refering to ratings abuse as "petey-ing" someone.
June 17, 2005 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nhere were 9-10 troll ratings handed out in that batch of 119 posts you rated in an hour.
Nobody can convince me you actually seriously read and weighed the content of 119 posts in an hour and gave out appropriate ratings. What you did is went around handing out a pile of troll ratings, then you gave out random ratings to a bunch of others to cover for it.
You promised you would stop abusing the rating system here. You lied to us. You're still abusing it badly.
June 17, 2005 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Americans for Democratic Action fought and won a campaign 50+ years ago to prevent the Democratic party from associating with totalitarian elements"
You are a victim of propaganda. The U.S. government has always associated with totalitarian elements. When they are unfriendly to U.S. corporations they are called totalitarian. When they are friendly to U.S. business interests, they are called "anti-communist" (or more currently "allies in the War on Terror.") Americans for Democratic Action were part of the scam.
No wonder you detest Dennis Kucinich. You have been programed to.
June 17, 2005 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
petey went aound down rating sphealey and Carl Nyberg's posts. Quite a few of the down ratings were the only low ratings given those posts among several high ratings.
petey seemed to have a couple of like minded people he went around and randomly piled a bunch of up ratings for as well.
June 17, 2005 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nobody can convince me you actually seriously read and weighed the content of 119 posts in an hour and gave out appropriate ratings."
You find it difficult to imagine that someone could seriously read and weigh the contents of two threads in an hour? Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need an upgrade, CDR Adama.
It's flattering to have my own personal troll, but I'd prefer a smarter version.
June 17, 2005 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 17, 2005 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The insults don't say anything about me. They communicate a whole lot about you though, petey."
Yup. They do. I can read and comprehend two whole threads in an hour.
Being unable to believe that says something about you.
-----
As an aside, do you really prefer stalking me to discussing the topics at hand? It doesn't particularly bother me - fending you off is like playing lazy ping-pong. But to tell you the truth, I'm really more interested in politics than this.
June 17, 2005 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone can disagree with the Israli Likud Party and AIPAC without being anti-semitic. I really detest Likud supporters that attempt to pretend anyone that disagrees with the Likud Party and AIPAC is a bigot.
Like I said... keep this display up. It doesn't say anything about us. It says a whole lot about you.
June 17, 2005 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do continue please.
June 17, 2005 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Do continue please."
I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll take you up on it anyway.
If you want to throw mud at me personally, I'm willing to get down in the mud with you. I prefer that to letting mud go unanswered. But it's a bit boring, and it's not why I come here.
Like I said, I'm flattered you choose to give me so much attention, but aren't there bigger dragons to slay?
If not, have your fun.
June 17, 2005 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen you have nothing but endless problems here, and reports on threads say you cause the same problems at every site you go to.
June 17, 2005 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why stop now?
June 17, 2005 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I've seen Carl Nyberg around online for quite a long time on another site. Never seen him have a problem with anyone that didn't later reveal themselves to be a full blown freeper"
Like I said, I'm glad to know you're in support of what he is saying.
June 17, 2005 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 17, 2005 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You have a bad habit of putting a lot of strange things that people never said in other people's mouths and then proceed to damn them for the words you put in their mouth."
For example?
June 17, 2005 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post you said was so offensive that was supposedly hidden does not exist. I checked.
Just 4 hidden comments by Anon Denizens.
June 17, 2005 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just 4 hidden Anon Denizen comments.
Claiming Carl wrote something bigoted that never existed I believe counts as putting words in someone's mouth they never said, don't you think?
June 17, 2005 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There a petey lie."
Oh. I'm just lying, am I? No misunderstanding. No asking me which post I'm talking about. I just must be lying.
Like I say, it's flattering to have my own personal troll.
June 17, 2005 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said Carl wrote a post so offensive it was hidden. I checked the hidden posts. No Carl Nyberg posts there.
Game. Set. Match. You lied, petey.
June 17, 2005 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Doesn't exist. I checked. Just 4 hidden Anon Denizen comments."
I said it was deleted, not that it was a hidden comment.
You choose to call me liar instead of asking what I'm talking about when you don't understand.
Par for the course.
June 17, 2005 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You screwed up. You didn't know I could check the hidden posts, did ya'?
June 17, 2005 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You said Carl wrote a post so offensive it was hidden. I checked the hidden posts. No Carl Nyberg posts there."
I didn't say it was a hidden post. For someone who 5 minutes ago accused me of falsely putting words in other peoples' mouths, that's exactly what you're doing.
"Game. Set. Match. You lied, petey."
You're a moron, CDR Adama.
And what's worse, you seem to enjoy this.
June 17, 2005 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You screwed up. You didn't know I could check the hidden posts, did ya'?"
Please locate for me where I say it's a "hidden" post.
And may I make another suggestion to you? Why don't you create a "I don't like Petey" diary. Then you can make your accusations there, and people who aren't interested can skip the whole thing.
June 17, 2005 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew if I just quietly fed you rope you'd hang yourself.
You did. You didn't know I have privledges to check the posts that get hidden for being offensive, spam, etc. and pulled from the boards.
You lied and you're busted, petey.
June 17, 2005 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have a nice day, petey.
June 17, 2005 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You lied and you're busted, petey."
In the past hour, you've falsely accused me of giving out random ratings because I couldn't possibly have read two whole threads in an hour, and of lying because you can't seem to comprehend the difference between deleted comments and hidden comments.
How many times have you called me a liar now?
Are you really unable to understand the distinction between hidden comments and deleted comments? Like I said, I'm flattered to have my own personal troll, but I wish I had a smarter one. The dumb ones are no fun.
------
Well, at least you're making me reconsider my decision to be willing to get down in the mud with you. You enjoy it too much.
Perhaps I should just leave your clockwork slanders unanswered, and trust regular readers around here to know exactly what your opinions are worth. Or perhaps it's important to answer slanders. It's one of the oldest internet dilemmas to sort through.
I do appreciate the irony of this going down in a post entitled "Intra-Party Etiquette". Some people want to fight, and that makes etiquette interesting.
June 17, 2005 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Like I said... keep this display up. It doesn't say anything about us. It says a whole lot about you."
You've repeatedly falsely accused me on this thread of abusing the rating system and lying.
You repeatedly invoked my name in posts before I responded.
June 17, 2005 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a line from the FAQ about ratings:
This rating system also allows us to quickly weed out inappropriate or offensive stuff that shouldn’t be here in the first place.
I think the plain meaning of the words is clear: 0s and 1s are for content that "shouldn't be here in the first place." But that is definitely not the way you've been commenting. You have given 1s to comments by me and by others that simply do not fall into the category of "shouldn't be here in the forst place." What you are in fact doing is attempting to censor opinions with which you disagree or that are not phrased as politely as you would like. And I've had enough of it.
June 17, 2005 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not too long ago, when Kilgore and his DLC were riding high, they were the primary source of trash-talking and demonization of liberal and progressive Democrats.
Now that real Democrats have taken over the party again, suddenly Kilgore and the DLC are concerned with "intra-party etiquette." Suddenly, its a priority for Kilgore to lecture us on why we shouldn't treat him and his buddies the same way we were treated for years by him and his buddies.
Kilgore isn't about "etiquette", he's about power and influence. Calls for "civil discourse" inevitably arise from those whose actions and words have provoked legitimate anger as a way of diffusing the issue at hand -- but when Kilgore was riding shotgun to those in the drivers seat, he was perfectly oblivious to his buddies riding roughshod over progressive Democrats.
Its all about the hypocrisy....
June 17, 2005 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Game. Set. Match. You lied, petey."
For the record:
In the Etiquette for Centrists Critiquing Those To Our Left thread as of this moment, there are 147 comments and 0 hidden comments recorded in the header. But the numbered posts on the page go up to #153.
In other words, there are 6 deleted, not hidden, comments.
The Carl Nyberg anti-Jewish (not anti-Israel or anti-AIPAC) comment was comment #110, I believe, which is no longer on the page. Since the comment is gone, I can't be fully sure it was #110, but I strongly believe that was the number.
-----
I expect no apology from you, CDR Adama. You've been falsely slandering me since this site opened for business.
You will falsely slander me in the future, I'm sure.
You've talked before of "hammering" the accounts of people you don't like. You've talked before of abusing the rating system to make sure certain people you don't like never get a rating above "3" by methodically downrating all of their comments regardless of merit.
In short, you are a bully. And bullies should be stood up to.
You seem to believe that because don't like someone, unacceptable behavior is fair game. I think you're wrong.
June 17, 2005 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What you are in fact doing is attempting to censor opinions with which you disagree or that are not phrased as politely as you would like"
Not phrased politely as I would like? You mean like calling Rick Heller an "asshat"?
But as far as "attempting to censor opinions", note that the rating I gave you does not attempt to make your opinion censored.
June 17, 2005 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was BradtheDad, not Rick Heller, whom I called an asshat after he had referred to my views as reflexive and knee-jerk for the third time, among other insulting and patronizing statements. As you would know if you actually took the time to read things carefully instead of just slapping a rating on.
June 17, 2005 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
expatjourno,
Seriously. If calling someone Josh has chosen to post here an "asshat" doesn't call for a bad but non-zero rating, what does?
June 17, 2005 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, the response was to BradtheDad after he insulted and belittled me for the third time.
June 17, 2005 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It was BradtheDad, not Rick Heller, whom I called an asshat"
Point taken. Mea Culpa.
I raised your rating on the comment from a "1" to a "2".
I wouldn't have rated it at all without the "asshat", but I think one of the points of the rating system is to encourage civility.
I'm known to get snippy myself from time to time, and I'm not surprised when that results in a bad rating. So it goes.
I hope you take my point that no censorship was ever involved.
June 17, 2005 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Petey wrote ...
"I expect no apology from you, CDR Adama. You've been falsely slandering me since this site opened for business. You've talked before of "hammering" the accounts of people you don't like. You've talked before of abusing the rating system to make sure certain people you don't like never get a rating above "3" by methodically downrating all of their comments regardless of merit. In short, you are a bully. And bullies should be stood up to."
Petey, I have had a similar experience with CDR Adama recently. I have made the situation known to the management of this blog, and I have been assurred that they are monitoring the situation. I have also been assurred that such behavior is not the way the management wants this blog to operate. I suggest that any instance of topic hammering or ratings abuse by CDR Adama or others be reported to reportabuse@tpmcafe.com as soon as it happens.
It only takes a handful of people to destroy the effectiveness of a blog as a discussion venue by using bullying tactics, such as those described above. If that handful can manage to make any discussion they don't like a meaningless he-said, she-said back and forth of exchange of accusations and personal insults against other posters, and if they get away with hammering and batch low-rating posts, the good people eventually tire of the bickering and leave. I'd hate to see that happen here, just as I'd hate to see that happen to the Democratic Party.
June 17, 2005 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do take your point about censorship. I'm slightly stretching the point, but 1s are supposed to be for things that shouldn't be there at all (should be censored) and I do think you hand them out too freely. I was pretty ticked at BradtheDad for the knee-jerk and reflexive comment and felt that asshat was pretty much in the same spirit. I didn't, I don't think, downrate BradtheDad's posts, though, because I figured they were within bounds and also because it would be a conflict of interest.
But I hope you will, especially since he flat out missed my point, which was a very simple one (which David Sirota later made a whole post about on his blog): We on the leftish side aren't "soft" on national security just because we think there are better ways of ensuring it than the centrists do. Nor, I might add, should we liberals accuse our more centrist friends of being in the pocket of the military industrial complex just because they favor big defense budgets and a more traditional approach. What I thought was wonderfully ironic was that Rick, well-meaning as he is, is so bound up with his own assumptions that in an article about how we should talk to each other constructively (a worthwhile topic) he just dropped in that "soft" insult without apparently even realizing what he had said.
Anyway, assuming that our little argument hasn't escalated while I was writing this, I'll go back and change the 1s I gave you to neutral 3s. But please, at least reconsider your use of 1s and save them for content that shouldn't be there at all. And 2s, I'm a little less sure about this, but I'd save them for comments that add absolutely nothing to a dialogue, that don't take it any further. I think that's what "not helpful" really means.
I know, I know, it means that, like the children of Lake Woebegone, all of the comments will be above average, but I think it makes for a more collegial atmosphere. I know you feel you are trying to promote civility, but people do feel insulted when you give them marks below three, that makes them irritable and that in turn tends to make their comments more strident -- the exact opposite effect than the one I think you are looking for.
Also, I'm sorry for my other critical comments. I was really ticked off, as you can proably tell.
June 17, 2005 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but I'd say it doesn't matter. If we can establish some ground rules going forward we have established more than if we miraculously managed to settle the old score once and for all.
Whatever his past sins, Mr. Kilgore's contributions here have been thoughtful, positive, and considerate, IOW constructive. Your contribution in this thread is IMHO not.
Establishing who wronged whom in the past is a worthwhile effort, but certainly better discussed in a seperate thread. I'd love that. If you can find the time, why not lay out in detail the major points along the way were you felt wronged by the DLC crowd and compare and contrast to their version of events? (Under the mutual understanding, that each side is trying to be as accurate and honest as possible and that some issues will have to remain unresolved).
June 17, 2005 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, the burden of proof should fall on those promoting historical fantasy and not on those stating a simple fact. There is no dispute that the LBJ adminstration lied to justify the invasion of the DR.
In any event, note the underlying assumption of the original post -- the US, in the interest of "national security" has the right to overthrow any government it dosen't like. Do you feel safer?
Serious folks who wish to learn a bit more about our misadventure in the DR can read the relevant sections of Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States.
Also, the National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/) might have some good data on this subject.
June 17, 2005 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "Alas, the burden of proof should fall on those promoting historical fantasy and not on those stating a simple fact. There is no dispute that the LBJ adminstration lied to justify the invasion of the DR."
Whether there were lies told beforehand or not, I do not know.
I do know what I saw and heard during the Dominican intervention. I was a communications specialist. Among other things, I had access to top-level communications, both military and diplomatic. I traveled extensively in the DR while I was there, so I saw the countryside as well as the power centers. I dodged bullets on several occasions and machetes on one occasion. I even had the pleasure of accompanying Vice-President Humphrey when he visited for the inauguration of the Domican president after we had neutralized the warring factions (I was his microphone stand while he gave speeches, holding a handheld field PA system microphone for his use).
I can assure you from my own personal experience that Cuban troops were in the Dominican Republic, trying to establish a foothold. Whether this ever became public knowledge or not, I do not know. They were dispatched rather quickly by American airborne units.
June 17, 2005 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those posts did exist, but apparently no longer do. You can check my posts upthread, I did engage Carl Nyberg (and later asked for a second opinion from management since being involved I no longer felt neutral enough to judge). My posts now appear to be directed at nothing, so they probably ought to be deleted too.
Whatever his other sins, in this he is absolutely right, the posts are gone. You can only deny this by chosing to believe that I'm both lying to you now and previously constructed around four posts replying to imaginary CN posts so that I could later claim they had been there.
It's an understandable error, management should have posted a note.
June 17, 2005 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
One problem though: from some of the posts it very clear that many just don't understand what Ed was saying.
There are too many posters attempting to justify their own personal litmus tests and too many others trying to justify why the DLC is bad bad bad.
This was Ed's very point - we need to stop doing this.
There are certain basic foundational things that all Democrats must adhere to: progressive taxation, equality, justice, respect, an opposition to torture, etc.
The entire point however is that beyond these very basic foundation issues - what we do not need is some divisive litmus test on abortion or Iraq, etc.. Personally I am pro-choice and was opposed to going into Iraq (though now that we are there we better get it right! it's the kindergarten principle: if you break it clean it up!).
We all have our different beliefs or views on different issues. This is not a bad thing nor does it render someone unworthy of being a Democrat. We do not need to agree with each other on every issue, we have an absolute right to argue about these issues too. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to purge those that do not agree with us. That what defines the Republican party.
There was a prior post that Josh put up last week that went to this issue as well. I will restate my basic thesis again: its about winning.
There are lots of things the Democrats need to do to win - and when I say win, I mean majority status again. First, be the party of ideas. By that I do not mean to imply the Democratic party does not have ideas. We do - as individuals and as a party. What it means is we need to stop worrying about offending everyone. We need to stand up and actually say something - stand for something - defend - advocate - etc. Sometimes this will get us in trouble or generate controversy. Overall though, voters appreciate someone who stands for something, even if they don't always agree with it.
Second, we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves. This does not mean we do not have a debate. Nor does it mean that we must all agree. What it means is exactly what Ed said above. We need to stop the idiotic comments about who is a real Democrat. The left of the party are true Democrats and, guess what, so are the DLC Democrats. I don't need to agree with Harry Reid on the issue of abortion. I'd still much rather have him as majority leader than Frist!! Any Democrat who disagrees with that statement is a Democrat - an idiot but a Democrat.
And not fighting is the second facet of winning: what this means is we need candidates who can win!! Ideological purity is wonderful but unless it wins, its a waste of time. I do not mean that we nominate just anyone. What this means is that Bob Casey may be pro-life but he is still a whole lot better than Rick Santorum and if I lived in PA, I would still support Casey.
Lastly: the Republican noise machine is an issue. Thus it is time for us to respond. In that regard the DLC is actually a very good thing. So are the other organizations to the left of it. No one view, organization, or movement is ever going to control the entire playing field. The DLC, Democracy for America, MoveOn, etc. all have a part to play. Whether there is a policy difference amongst them isn't the point. The point is that they all espouse an essnetially Democratic position, albeit to different degrees on different issues. That's ok - moreoever its critical.
First the divergent viewpoints bring different ideas to the debate and hopefully bring better results. Second, the more communication, the more writing, the more talking, the more people we reach. And that is the point!
Whether we agree with any particular position is not the point. What we do need to agree about is that winning is the point. And the more people working on this the better. We need to nominate candidates who can win where they are actually running, not win a hypothetical race in a fantasy district. And we need to generate our own issues, papers, books, writing, etc. to support these candidates, the party, and our collective beliefs.
June 17, 2005 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sharon is pulling out small settlements in undesirable territory in Gaza while expanding in the more desirable territory around Jerusalem and in the West Bank.
American Jews love to repeat the claim Arafat rejected a settlement, but it wasn't a good deal. The Israelis have constantly rejected the Palestinian settlement which amounts to Israel withdrawing to the '67 border and honoring int'l law on the right of return.
So by not paying much attention to the conflict you have gotten a version that's biased towards Israel.
You accept that the Right Wing is able to "work the refs" and get its side of the story in the media, right? Israel has been pretty good at the same game.
June 17, 2005 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
NEVER REPEAT REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS ABOUT ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.<div><br /></div><div>What burned me in the uproar about Howard Dean's recent comments was how quickly other Democrats started invoking the Republican demonization of Dean: He's angry, vindictive, unstable; he represents the angry far-left fringe of the party; and so on.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you want to disagree, fine. But don't further the Republican character assassination efforts.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
June 17, 2005 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I know, I know, it means that, like the children of Lake Woebegone, all of the comments will be above average, but I think it makes for a more collegial atmosphere. I know you feel you are trying to promote civility, but people do feel insulted when you give them marks below three, that makes them irritable and that in turn tends to make their comments more strident -- the exact opposite effect than the one I think you are looking for."
I pretty much agree with you.
I tend to give a pretty small percentage of my comments below a "3". And I try to reserve them for comments that seem abusive toward wide swaths of the party.
As far as low ratings reducing civility instead of increasing it, that's something I've thought about, and I don't know how I feel. If it really is true, then we shouldn't have any ratings below "3", or more realistically, we shouldn't have ratings period.
"Also, I'm sorry for my other critical comments. I was really ticked off, as you can proably tell."
Happens to the best of us. I'm certainly not immune.
June 17, 2005 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever his past sins, Mr. Kilgore's contributions here have been thoughtful, positive, and considerate, IOW constructive. Your contribution in this thread is IMHO not.
are Kilgore's suggestions constructive, or a they simply a strategy to keep some influence for his DLC cronies in the party--- and advance their GOP-lite agenda?
The grassroots Democrats have soundly rejected the DLC/Beltway accomodationist agenda, so now Kilgore is hitting us with "Nobody but voters has the final right to define the party." That, of course, is pure nonsense. "The voters" don't determine the Democratic platform, or how money raised by the Democratic Party's various committees is spent. (Indeed, the very idea that "the voters" define the party means that nobody defines the party, because "the voters" act based on what they perceive the party stands for, not to define the party.) While Kilgore and the DLC were in power, they were happy to have the "right to define the party" in the hands of Beltway lobbyists and fundraisers. Now that the grassroots is asserting itself, he is claiming that they don't have the right to define the party -- and the end result is that the grassroots is prevented from defining the party in a way that the DLC doesn't like.
Maybe Kilgore thinks he is trying to contribute something useful here, but his true attitude is revealed in this statement:
As someone who's taken a lot of personal abuse from fellow Democrats in recent years, and who works for an organization that's often thought of as of being abusive towards other Democrats...
When Kilgore acknowledges that progressive Democrats have taken abuse from the DLC, and that it isn't just our imagination or paranoia that we "thought" we were being abused, we can consider him an "honest broker." But just about every single one of his "rules" is designed to reduce the power and influence of the grassroots movement that has rejected the DLC approach, and force the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" to compromise and accomodate the GOP-lite wing of the Democratic Party represented by Kilgore's DLC paymasters.
IMHO, continuing to pursue the GOP-lite strategy is the least constructive suggestion anyone could make --- and simply because someone comes up with an "under the radar" approach disguised as a plea for "intra-party etiquette" now that the DLC's normal "slash and burn the progressives" approach is no longer in favor, doesn't make it any more constructive.
June 17, 2005 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you saw or did not is irrelevant. If you were part of the invasion force, then I take it as a given that you probably saw a few bullets whizzing buy. The question here is: was the DR about to be taken over by a communist force? Was anything in the DR happening that posed a threat to US national security? Did the US have a legal mandate to intervene and overthrow a foreign government? Did the government that was overthrow pose a threat to "national security" (someone please define that for me!)
Nothing you saw or didn't see can speak to the larger geopolitical issue at hand or the internal history of the DR, which you are obvioulsy quite ignorant of.
The CIA reported to the Johnson administration that there was no national security threat in the DR. And independent observers both before and after the fact attested that the political situation there was neither unusual, threatening, nor in danger of escalating. The invasion was carried out purely for political motives and based on a pack of lies. All this is well documented now because of the enourmous ammount of declasified materials.
June 17, 2005 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It only takes a handful of people to destroy the effectiveness of a blog as a discussion venue by using bullying tactics"
Ain't it the truth.
If you leave the field of play to them, the blog loses. If you fight them, meaningless bickering ensues and the blog loses.
June 17, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point erasmus. The right-wing attack machine has made Democratic leaders run and hide from the "hard to sell" issues. That is why the public does not believe we stand for anything. Why were Rove & co able to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper? Perhaps, because on most issues he tried to have it both ways. That is the problem I have with the "centrist' philosophy in general. It seems to simply be a philosophy of staking out the most nuanced ground on any issue that may be controversial, in an attempt to offend no voters. All of which succeeds in creating a wishy washy image. Love him, or as we do hate him, one can not make that accusation towards W.
We need to stop running from a proud Democratic heritage. We are the party of FDR, JFK, and Harry Truman. Men who knew where they stood and were not looking at poll numbers or focus groups to decide which way the wind blows. I still think if Kerry would have had the guts to answer the "Massachussetts liberal" accusation in the debates, he could have won a lot more respect. Instead of the mealy mouthed, I don't believe in labels BS, defend and define being a liberal. If being a "liberal" means representing a state with the lowest divorce rate, and highest education performance, defines liberal values than yes I am a Massachussetts liberal.
As Erasmus states, polls continue to show the public support for so called "liberal" programs is high. We just need to stop running from the label, and reclaim it' s proud position in American history.
June 17, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Those posts did exist, but apparently no longer do."
Thanks for the truth check.
"It's an understandable error"
It'd be more understandable if this was the first time CDR Adama had leveled wild charges at users he politically disagreed with.
June 17, 2005 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "The CIA reported to the Johnson administration that there was no national security threat in the DR. And independent observers both before and after the fact attested that the political situation there was neither unusual, threatening, nor in danger of escalating."
The CIA has been known to make erroneous assessments about national security threats. So, I'll leave it there and stick with what I saw firsthand, which I know to be the truth. You can stick with your reports and speculations after the fact. We will agree to disagree, okay?
June 17, 2005 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Delivering the Right Wing/GOP critique of Dems or the Dem Party is unacceptable while the party is in the minority."
I agree with this 100% -- thank you.
June 17, 2005 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my previous post I should have been more specific.
Those interested in learning more about US foreign policy in general, but in particular on the mendacious and illegal invasion of the DR on trumped up charges should read the latest issue of Foreign Relations of the United States published by the US State Department. I know Mr. Wingfoot thinks he was pretty far up the totem pole, but those much farther up than him were quite candid in admitting that the government of the DR posed no threat to "national security" and that there was no major threat of a communist takeover.
Also, it might be good to see if the National Security Archive has any documents posted on their website that deal with this issue.
Sorry for all the typos in the posts.June 17, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with everything that p lukasiak says in the above posts. But I do think that the people of Mr. Kilgore's bent do need to come out and fully, honestly, and openly repond to these challenges.
They are serious challenges, they are well-argued, and they do seem to many of us out here in "flyover country" to explain a lot of what happened in 1998, 2000, and 2004. And every time those who call themselves centrists are challenged on them, they elide the question or just use the head-pat + eyeroll that so infuriates children when adults try it on them. One gets the strong sense that the centrists view everyone who disagrees with them, and with their interpretation of events, as children - stupid ones at that.
Perhaps we are wrong. But those Mr. Kilgore supports are not being effective in explaining to us why we are wrong. We don't accept "this is hard" from W; I certainly won't accept it from leaders of of the Democratic Party.
sPh
June 17, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got it. If the CIA says, no national security threat, if every major expert in the field of Latin American studies says, no threat of communist takeover, if everything we know about the history of US foreign policy in Latin America should caution us against hasty judgements, if the now published correspondence of the US State Department says that US diplomats were aware that there was no crisis in the DR, if the tapes of the Johnson administration reveal that the invasion was carried out only because of internal US domestic politics . . .
People ploease ignore all that; Mr. Wingfoot is obviously the man to trust on this. I retract everything I previoulsy wrote. Please don't read any history books; I kindly refer you instead to Mr. Wingfoot's more informed analysis.
June 17, 2005 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harold Ford and Mark Warner have never raised money from AIPAC?
Find a real life Dem activist who isn't sucking up to AIPAC for money.
June 17, 2005 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guys,
Could you take this discussion to a diary please. It is not on-topic for this post, and even the ultimate ancestor which started it (question of DLC support for Israel) is not getting any responses other than from you 3. In other words, it is a thread-clogger.
sPh
June 17, 2005 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ed--Very good post. Deepens my already considerable respect for you a great deal.
Only, can you answer why too many centrist Dems insist on reflexively bashing a non-existent "left" or "ultraliberals" or straw-person "activists" etc. etc etc.? And how does that build the Democratic brand long-term?
June 17, 2005 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to downgrade people for using funny words like "asshat?" If the TPM people wanted profanity filters, they'd have them. Lighten up.
June 17, 2005 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make fun all you want, but fact is fact, and I saw with my own eyes the threat from Cuban troops, and dodged their bullets. I didn't see any reporters, pundits, or policy-paper writers hanging around the area while the bullets were flying, nor were there any diplomats around. Perhaps they were camouflaged. I also traveled around the country, as much as anyone except perhaps the Special Forces guys, and talked with literally thousands of everyday Dominicans, and they verified that communist agitators were on hand, usually in conjunction with the Dominican Army. When we got there, the Castro-leaning Dominican Army and the untra-rightist Dominican Air Force were going at each other, and both were going after the Dominican National Police (the gestapo of the former Dominican dictator, hated by all). Lots of folks were dying in the streets. US Forces separated the warring groups, stopped the killing, and eventually disarmed all Dominican forces. Later, we brought in teams to educate the population about the process of democratic elections. UN supervisors monitored the campaign (the leftist candidate requested protection from an Army MP unit while he campaigned since he didn't trust anyone else) and the election, which was about as fair as any in this country. Then we saw a new government established, made sure it had control, and then we left. I'm proud of what we did in the Dominican Republic in 1965-66. I saw nothing done by the military of this country during the Dominican intervention under the auspices of the OAS that did not fit with my understanding of our highest ideals, and I say that as an FDR, Truman, Kennedy Democrat at the time. I respect that you are coming from a different perspective, but I will rely on my own personal experience in this case.
June 17, 2005 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two quick points.
First, these points are not specific enough to provide any meaningful guidance.
Second, I am suspicious that Ed Kilgore now wants to stifle robust discussion because the DLC is the subject of more criticism. I find merit in some of what Ed says, here and elsewhere, but I think he is being self-serving here, where intentionally or not.
June 17, 2005 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's an entirely clearcut binary dichotomy that is quite that straightforward. IMHO I think many of us are liberals and strong solid Democrats of all persuasions who have differing positions and that variety should be embraced while at the same time I agree it is essential to be unified right now.
Here's what I see (for what it's worth) -- we can strongly agree on two things (among others),
1) standing up in strong opposition to the gop party and the extreme shift to the right in national politics lately thanks to neocons, ie seeing the benefit of getting this crew out and providing better democratic alternatives; good, we should be for that and push hard for that.
2) the war is really a terrible mess, especially now, and regardles of our pacifistic or interventionist views on the how, wherefore & why of how we got in there, the neocons have indeed incompetently mishandled it which we agree is maddening, egregious, unethical, and potentially even downright illegal for all we know; what we do know and agree on is it's a horrible bloody (perhaps even wasted) mess and we've got to start thinking of the essential necessity of how and when to eventually wrap things up over there and bring folks home.
The circumstances of this war rightly make people very angry, but I think most of that anger and sense of being fed up is, as with other messed-up issues in this country's policy, at the feet of dubya; so smart dems and bipartisan folks are already calling for the administration to define their strategy and explain what's been going on and what their plans are (for getting out eventually as well as while they're over there) in more concrete terms for a very fed up and frustrated American public.
As a strong unified Democratic minority party with solid ideals and good ideas I think we can push for proper responsible accountability and action and take steps to make sure things happen and unfold in a positive ethical way that our party and the American people are not ashamed of. We can really make things happen and we canreally make things better is we try. I think it is important to stand up as a unified coalition for our ideals and democratic values and be proactive and vigiliant in ensuring the gop majority in power of all three branches of government with no checks and balances is accountable and takes responsibility for their actions -- especially with an increasingly consolidated and deregulated vertically-integrated (& right-leaning neocon-dominated) media that biasedly touts rw gop publicity press points and often marginalizes democratic concerns rather than critiques or investigates what's really happening. If we focus our energy and efforts on boldy, tirelessly challenging the gop majority to assert our concerns -- and foolishly avoid attacking each other or calling for a draft -- I think we'll be fine. From this starting point we can move toward mobilizing and gaining valuable ground for our Democratic party on election day and hopefully work toward regaining a majority and eventually the oval office.
These are just my ideas...I really enjoy this site, I think it is very valuable and the exchange of ideas is very stimulating, and often as lively as a faculty meeting. I wish us good luck with this.
June 17, 2005 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I started a thread to discuss "anti-semitism".
June 17, 2005 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, folks have been imo oversimplifying views to pro-war vs. anti-war, however I think the views and positions of many dems are more complex, nuanced and multifaceted.
June 17, 2005 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is saying you can't criticize AIPAC or Sharon without being anti-semitic. I don't like AIPAC either. But in comments like this I detect a very strong whiff of equating "Jews" in general with AIPAC or Israeli policy. That's anti-semitic just as equating "Muslims" with 9/11 would be racist.
June 17, 2005 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, pericles, that's right, i agree...
June 17, 2005 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Project for a New American Century defined the neo-con movement and set it's goals. PNAC document make it clear Israel was one of the the driving forces for the whole US policy in the Middle East by neo-cons.
There's also a Bush Pentagon appointee on trial now for espionage for handing over secret documents to AIPAC and giving AIPAC reps unauthorized access to classified materials.
June 17, 2005 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also support rule #7. I think it will be a struggle to change the language and terms of debate here and elsewhere (now heavily intellectual and relatively academic) to accomodate people with a less "politics as hobby" and more "what am I gonna see from all this" approach to politics.
That's good, cause we're sorely deficient in that area, but it'll be pretty different.
June 17, 2005 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who know how many rating "errors" are being made when someone is spamming out 119 ratings per hour.
June 17, 2005 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, that's good.
June 17, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not being critical. I'm just pointing out a fact about the use of the word "Jews."
There's a lot of confusion and hard feelings stirred up simply because of the re-use of the word "Jews" in relation to so many different contexts. It's very hard not to occasionally step on toes no matter how good your intentions are when one word is used in reference to so many different things.
June 17, 2005 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is an imperialist. His chosen line is "Bush should do it better".
Biden also said, paraphrasing, that American public is ready for Faustian bargain on the topic of terrorism, implying that Dems would get trampled would they stand in the way.
Biden is also rather average as far as intelligence goes, but off the scale in his feeling of superiority.
That said, Biden is not stupid, reactionary only on selected issues, not such a bad Senator overall. But I would not have overly high expectations.
June 17, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the Dem Party should back off on it's unyielding support of the Israeli gov't in addition to other identity politics issues like gay rights, affirmative action and abortion?
Or do you just expect the rest of the Dem coalition to optimize around your issue?
June 17, 2005 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
<span class="Apple-style-span">"And some of you may have a hard time understanding how a Democrat could have supported the Iraq War Resolution or some random Bush domestic legislation for reasons other than cynicism, cowardice, or corruption."</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Well I would not use any of those "C" words. I might be tempted to use a couple of "ST" words. Like STupid, STubborn, and unwilling to listen to STeve Gilliard when he laid out in plain terms why Saddam could not possibly have a deployable WMD arsenal given two months of UN Inspectors on the ground. I could have handled the DIsagreement, but I am having a hard time choking down the DIsdain that Anti-War Dems received on a daily basis from a group of fellow Dems, who fairly or not, were labled DLCers.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">There was a group of pro-military bloggers and posters, many veterans, who were just crying out for people to simply listen and examine the facts as we knew them right at the time. But a lot of Democrats chose to look at Bush approval ratings and ran scared from any criticism. Why us anti-war folks were just setting the party up for a 49 state blowout!</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">I am not looking for an apology, but maybe some acknowledgement that running a balls out ABB campaign might not have gotten us a win but would have placed us in a much stronger strategic position than the Bush-Lite campaign we actually undertook.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">If Saddam had never let Inspectors in then pro-war Dems might have some cover. But he did and they found nothing. And so either the Bush Administration knew where the WMDs were and were unwilling to share that with the UN (a violation of our treaty responsibilities) or didn't (in which case they were lying). Those were the only two logical possibilities at the time, Occam's razor was slicing thin. But pro-war Dems simply dismissed every bit of this.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">And now Beinart et al are trying to lecture me. "Well we got the biggest foreign policy/military call in our generation wrong, but scoot over cause I'M DRIVING"</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">I understand where you are coming from, but some of us are feeling pretty damn justified in screaming BUSH LIED, GIS DIED back when those death numbers were in the tens and twenties, and are just a little tired of people like Joe Biden lecturing us for being right on the facts but wrong on the, wrong on the, what exactly were we wrong on?</span>
June 17, 2005 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean had more pledged superdelegates than any other candidate, so by that not unreasonable standard one could say that he was the establishment candidate.
Whatever the shortcomings of the primary system, as it is set up now the vast majority of the delegates are chosen by the voters in a process that is free and open.
Kerry had the Big Mo after his victories in IA and NH, and many voters in the later contests undoubtedly decided to go with the winner. But shortly before, he was doing lousy in the polls and many observers had pronounced him dead. It was by appealing to the voters (not some party establishment) that he attained his come-from-behind victory.
June 17, 2005 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden didn't argue for a draft, but simply said that the issue would come up and would have to be discussed. And to me, it appeared that he wasn't "bashing" Dean for his racially insensitive comments, but respectfully disagreeing.
June 17, 2005 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Howard Dean had more pledged superdelegates than any other candidate, so by that not unreasonable standard one could say that he was the establishment candidate."
One could make that case, but I don't think it would be true.
"I'm not sure on what you base your claim that Kerry was the "establishment" candidate. Endorsements from party bigwigs were spread among several "top-tier" contenders."
Facetiously, I'd tell you it was the 'Shrum Primary' in spring '03. More seriously, I'd say that Kerry assembled more Party support than any other candidate in '03, even thought things were looking grim for him a month before IA.
Kerry was the only candidate in the field who could have conceivably survived losing and IA and NH, and that's the mark of the out year chosen candidate.
"Whatever the shortcomings of the primary system, as it is set up now the vast majority of the delegates are chosen by the voters in a process that is free and open."
I agree. I don't have a problem with the current system. The party infrastructure will always have a say in combination with actual voters. And I think the current system handles that reasonably well. It could always use some minor tinkering, but I wouldn't do a major overhaul.
"It was by appealing to the voters (not some party establishment) that he attained his come-from-behind victory."
Most definitely. If you don't win elections, you're Ed Muskie. And if a thousand Iowans had shifted to Edwards, we would've been looking at a very different race.
Team Kerry did a kickass job in Iowa. But it's worth noting that assembling such a kickass team is greatly aided by being the out year chosen candidate. Tom Vilasck lifted the out year chosen candidate up on his shoulders.
It's very useful in the modern primary system to have the pole position. It's been almost 30 years since a candidate in either party has won without it.
June 17, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got no idea what he said that got deleted but this is all so pointless.
It's not like Israel and Iraq are on seperate planets and it's not a wild coincidence that domestic Israeli hawks (of which Jews are a vanishingly small subset) were in unanimous favor of the war.
Denying this is simply foolish.
As a matter of fact bin Ladin's entire narrative is a story of a relaunched crusade that started with the Zionist movement. He's got this going for him. Westerners did in fact move into the heart of the Crusades and they did in fact recieve support from other Western powers. I think it's a bit nuts to worry about God the real estate agent, but apparently it's a big deal here.
That's our number one foreign policy priority with a bullet once you factor in that our outlook on other countries in the area is entirely dependent on their compliance or incompliance regarding the Palestinian question.
That's a fact.
I don't know why, I personally blame dispensational christians and a sort of clumsy knee-jerk philosemitism that expresses itself in liberals as zionism or at least keeping real, real, quiet and getting pissy at anyone who gets negative on Israel and issuing dark warnings about the new antisemitim (which has been going on since at least the 60's and seems to totally revolve around how someone thinks about Israel).
Here's why this won't work. It was never moral in the first place. If the Israeli's weren't Jews no one even ostensibly on the left would care. They would be somewhere below the Algerian French in terms of sympathy. This sort of victim's dispensation may impress you but it does not impress the people who were made to pay the price.
One day it's going to be real, real, cheap and easy to make nukes or one day one will get stolen, or one day we will finally irritate someone in a military power with nukes and they are going to hand one off and that's the end of all this.
Where we are is totally, absolutely, nuts and none of this is going to be comprehensible to the generations that follow after we start exploding and all the capital flies out of this country so fast you won't have time to get a spot at the burning trash can.
June 17, 2005 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to help and support each other. I probably qualify as one of the lefties. I've probably made my share of angry posts about Lieberman. I think we should adopt the Reagan 11th commandment not to criticize fellow Democrats.
Dean's comments offered an opportunity. Yes, they were wince-inducing. What I wish Biden had said was something like, "even though I don't agree with the way he said it, Dr. Dean has a point that Republican policies aren't friendly to working people." Dean will get a lot of attention. We should use the attention to get our issues covered by the media instead of running away from them.
June 17, 2005 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the election season, I would ask around where I could help. I live in Buffalo, New York and was told that I could help by going to Ohio or Nevada or Florida. I agree those are important, but I wanted to do something in my area. I was told by numerous people that my vote "didn't count." Talk about discouraging. It was no surprise that voter turnout in Buffalo was actually lower than normal. I realize more votes in New York would not have changed the outcome of the election. However, Bush's margin of victory in the popular votes came from very large turnout in safe red states, like Kentucky. This is why I support Dean and his 50-state strategy. I want my vote to count!
June 17, 2005 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan's Eleventh Commandment was not to criticize, but rather: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Another Republican." Reagan was quite comfortable in expressing disagreements with his partisans without resorting to character assassination. And he was generally very civil when debating with representatives of the other side.
One might wish that Biden had offered a different response, but I found his tone was appropriate for expressing disagreement with one of one's own.
June 17, 2005 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this rule is that oftentimes an honest argument from within the party bears a resemblance to some GOP argument. Taking your example, suppose that I have the honest opinion that Democratic Politician X (I don't want to get into personalities) has those traits that you describe and that these issues come up, for example when discussing whether Mr. X would be a good choice for a particular job. We couldn't have a fair discussion without tripping over this rule.
Likewise, if Democrat Y proposes a policy that I think is flawed, and certain Republicans are making the same critique that I would, under this rule I wouldn't be able to state my views.
June 17, 2005 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry was the only candidate in the field who could have conceivably survived losing and IA and NH, and that's the mark of the out year chosen candidate.
I guess whether something is "conceivable" depends on who's doing the conceiving. At the time I found it conceivable that given Edwards' relatively strong showing in IA and NH, he would be looked on with more seriousness and have the opportunity to capture the imagination of the voters. Still a long shot, but not inconceivable.
Your concept of "establishment candidate" still seems somewhat elastic.
June 17, 2005 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not making fun of you. The fact is that your personal observations don't allow you to substantiate the (erroneous) claims you are making. You haven't proved anything, you've only asserted and based your assertions on things you "saw." This is almost as if I told a young soldier just returning from Iraq that Saddam a) possessed no weapons of mass destruction and b) had no connection to the terrorists who planned the attacks on 9/11, and he responded that I was wrong because he was in Iraq and saw things, and hey, while he was over there dodging bullets he didn't see any diplomats or weapons inspectors or middle east experts, so obviously I'm wrong.
No one is denying that there was communist agitation in the DR. Lord almight, there was communist agitation all over Latin America. Hell, I'm in NYC right now, and I'm sure there's communist agitation all over the lower east side!
Fact is, the DR was no where close to being taken over by communists; anything that happened in the DR posed no national security threat to the US; and every single excuse given both before and after the invasion was subsequently proven to be a lie. It is simply an undisputed fact that, your good motives nothwistanding, the invasion was planned and executed for purely domestic political concerns.
Look, I sympathize with you. You're a good guy. You went to the DR and thought of yourself as doing a good thing. Like a nice grown up protecting those little childish Latin Americans who needed to be put in their respective corners and told to play nice. And hey, look at how wonderful the end results, I mean the DR today is just such a fantastic. . . er, never mind . . .
Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we can get someone to invade our country and overthrow all the ultra-right wingers who are now running the place and doing everything in their power to ruin the economy. I take it, from your posts, that you obvioulsy believe that some countries have the right to overtrhow others if they think their internal politics are just too messy for their own good. Does that apply to everyone or just us?
The funny thing about all this is that the invasion of the DR was such a flagrant violation of standard norms of decency, and that it was justified by such obvious lies that it led to the creation of some of the most important organs of Latin American studies in the US. People couldn't just accept that our government would do something this egregious. Imagine if the current misadventure in Iraq could provoke such outrage.
June 17, 2005 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Korea.
Kuwait.
Both cases of blatant cross border aggression by a brutal dicatator against a peaceful neighbor.
June 17, 2005 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a problem with Kuwait. It was, imo, fruit of a poison tree in that I believe that it began because of a lie (sensing a pattern?). But more importantly than the lie, itself, is that it is entirely likely that the truth would have prevented the war. If April Glasby had told Saddam we would take action if he invaded Kuwait, he'd probably have stayed home.
Then, of course, there was the postwar debacle when Poppy stood by and let Saddam slaughter all the people Poppy had encouraged to revolt against Saddam. I was opposed Gulf War 1 as well as the current foolishness.
And who can forget the stories about Saddam's Republican Guard going through Kuwaiti nurseries spearing newborn babies with their bayonets. Turned out to be just one more provocative lie told to inflame the American people into invading Iraq. No doubt, Saddam was and is a bad guy, but sometimes you wonder just really how bad he is if we've had to make up so many lies in order to invade him twice.
There's a lot of blogging lately wondering what the real reasons were why Bush started this war. But I don't think we know why the first Pres. Bush invaded in Gulf I. Or more precisely, why we lured Saddam into Kuwait in order to have an excuse to attack him. What was our motivation? If it was to depose Saddam, we avoided any opportunity to actually support anti-Saddam Iraqis. If it was to disarm him, we actually (we know now) accomplished that, but nobody believed it at the time, or recently for that matter.
June 17, 2005 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I wish Biden had said was something like, "even though I don't agree with the way he said it, Dr. Dean has a point that Republican policies aren't friendly to working people."
The problem with this evasive, changing-the-subject kind of response that you suggest is that it will make the person being interviewed look like a shifty, evasive, oily party hack. If he didn't give a straight answer, the interviewer would ask again and maybe one more time after that.
As far as I know, none of the Democratic politicians gave such an answer, at least on television. They either politely expressed disagreement, or suggested that the chairman should watch his mouth, or suggest that too big of a deal has been made over this thing. I'm sure you've seen them try this sort of thing.
Sometimes it's best just to answer the quesiton.
June 18, 2005 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "One might wish that Biden had offered a different response, but I found his tone was appropriate for expressing disagreement with one of one's own. "
Agreed, but it must be remembered that the only reason some are wishing that Biden had phrased things differently is because Dean phrased his comments badly in the first place. Without the off-the-mark and racist Dean comments, there would have been no need for Biden or anyone else to say anything. Let's not criticize those in our party who step in to clean up the mess after our Chairman steps in the doggie poo, okay?
June 18, 2005 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I thought it was a funny word, too, when I wrote it. Not the same thing at all as, for example, "Asshole." Then I had second thoughts. But I will use it with pride in the future!
June 18, 2005 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cloudy says something that I think needs clarification, to wit:
""The Democratic Party needs to stand for 'something'. The Republican Party sure does -- more guns and less butter, tax breaks for the rich, wrecking the environment to line their pockets, and suppressing authentic progressive dissent.""
I know it _feels_ this way, but let's be clear. The Republican party doesn't "stand" for those things, it _accomplishes_ them. And it does so because it stands for "strong defense, defense of private property and fairness, balancing environmental protection against jobs, and speaking out for a strong America." For the Republican leadership, there's every reason to believe that their understanding of what the party "stands" for is nearly totally cynical: they know full well what they are really doing (though one should never underestimate the human capacity for interested self-deception!). But out in the country, at the grass-roots, the things they (claim to) stand for DO matter.
I'm not arguing that Democrats should be equally cynical, not at all. But we certainly need to do better at explaining what we stand for (since right now all too much of that explaining is done by the Right-Wing noise machine). We stand for individual liberty (not for gay marriage and for abortions, though rights of gays and women's liberty to choose certainly follow from individual liberty); we stand for a healthy environment for all (not for "screwing working folks to create playgrounds for yuppies"), etc., etc.
The Reagan principle about "speak no ill" needs to be applied especially to the things the party stands for (as principles and rallying cries): no litmus tests that make one's general "standing for" a slave of one's position on a specific issue, therefore.
About specific policies and strategies, we will as well as should continue to disagree, argue, even get hot around the collar...good thing! But if we refuse to speak ill on the basis of "you don't stand for..." because of the specific issues that the Republicans uses to frame what it means to be a Democrat, the party will be stronger. After all, there are certainly enough issues we can agree DO violate what we stand for -- as someone else mentioned, white supremacy for example, not to metnion tacit support for lynching, torture, government snooping in libraries and bookstores, locking people up without accusations, defense or trials, suppressing science as a favor to rich corporations, selling out government to Washington lobbyists, etc. etc. etc.
June 18, 2005 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Now the DLC wants to "make nice" after the unadmitted "garden path" they've taken us down in 2000, 2002, and 2004. We will buy into your "rules" only to the extent that you show a little humility. I voted twice for Clinton and would do so again but I've had to swallow my bile over the "imperial"DLC repeatedly and it doesn't taste good.
June 18, 2005 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this rule prevents a person from stating ideas. The point would just be to use your own words rather than Karl Rove's.
For example, on another thread we're having a discussion of the federal estate tax. Some people like it and some don't. But the ones who don't like the tax are not calling it "the death tax".
June 22, 2005 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink