<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td class="j">7. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

just had to, sorry.
</td&gt</tr&gt</table&gt

Ed, I am going to speak out about issues that I feel strongly about no matter.  Some of your rules I could go along with and others not. When I take a position on an issue, my major concern is not going to be how the Republicans may use this against Democrats.  They will use everything against Democrats; assume that from the start.

It seems to me that what defines the centrist leadership is fear of Republicans and fear of the left-leaning members of their own party, and that is not a winning strategy, IMHO.

This is from your original post:

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.

Go ahead and worry, Ed, but if you think I am going to stop protesting the immoral and misbegotten war in Iraq because the Republicans might call me anti-military, well, think again.

Don't-ask-don't-tell is a stupid policy; it should be about behavior, not whether you're straight or gay.  Banning military recruiters from university campuses is not smart either, but I take those positions on the merits of the policies, not because I am worried about what Republicans will make of it.

BTW, the military doesn't seem to be turning out those who do tell in the same numbers as before the war.

Well, as a long time Kossak, I can tell you I was a big fan of Kilgore's Rules when he first posted them, and I'm still a big fan now.  Of course, I can't speak for any of Kos' readers or diarists other than myself.  But I suspect that many of them--like me--would be very, very happy, if we weren't derided as "softs", to be purged from the Democratic party, because we objected to the Iraq war from the beginning or attacked as "cultural elites" because we are loathe to compromise our fundemental moral commitment to the equality of all Americans, even the gays ones.  (That last one really rankles when it comes from someone in a swanky DC think-tank sinecure, and I read it in my crappy Philadelphia studio apartment.)

That said, I know I'm not the only Kossak to genuinely appreciate the good-faith efforts on the part of a lot of centerist Dems, like Ed, to try to hammer out points of consensus with those of us to their left.  So I suspect I'm not the only one who's a fan of Ed's rules.

The actions of most congressional democrats in the fall of 2002 was as disgraceful an act of group cowardice as I have seen in my lifetime. I doubt sincerely that one in ten of the democrats who voted to give george bush the authority to wage war did it for philosophical or patriotic reasons.

It's George Bush's war, George Bush's decision, probably 100% of Republicans voted for the IWR, but who are you raging at?  The Democrats!  The Democrats who voted for the IWR were, with a few exceptions, from red states, and voting the way their constituants wanted them to vote.  Some others, like Joe Lieberman, were clearly voting according to their own value system.  But no, the whole lot of them are "spineless," and the war is their fault.  Bush?  Republicans?  to hell with them -- it's the Democrats' fault!  What can anyone do but laugh at the sheer idiocy of it?          

I have a problem with number 3:

1. <span class="Apple-style-span">Acceptance of fellow Democrats' good motives and integrity.</span&gt

Can you put up links to some of those "Destroy DLC" posts?

One of the things that I've found most confusing in this debate (before Obama ripped off any bandaging) has been this claim. It's been made here by some people.  Kevin Drum has twice disparaged the netroots folks recently, pointing in particular to debate over Roberts.

When I look for this content, I don't find it. When I've asked for examples in other discussions, I've been told I don't know how to read or some such.  

So can we see a couple of these "destroy DLC" posts? 

Search function in DKos sometimes is pretty ineffective. Wish I could prove it to you, but I can't. Maybe if you make a request there someone can direct you to one or two they know of specifically. I remember a discussion that Markos was having in specific regard to the DLC regarding some plan to make it ineffectual or something of the sort, but it was more than a month ago, and I didn't read it thoroughly, and I can't find it now.

Ed, I do appreciate that you continue to engage in dialogue with those of us who criticize the DLC.  I do not want the DLC silenced or out of the debate.  What I do want to see is a grand strategy that I think could win elections.  On the two issues which are huge, the Iraq War and the corruption in the administration, I am not finding that.  I read the DLC statement on the war and it's far too late to try any of the ideas except pressing the administration to declare that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq.

On the corruption issue, you have already cautioned us not to focus too much on DeLay and Frist, but to look at the whole picture of systemic corruption.  To look at the whole picture is fine, but anyone in the administration who shows evidence of corruption is fair game, especially the leaders in Congress.

Just think if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were involved in activities such as those of Frist and DeLay.  Would the Republicans be cautioning each other about how to criticize?  They'd come out blasting with both barrels.  

Again, thank you for your patience with your critics, but if you have a strategy for winning, then lay it out for us.  

Why did so many Dem senators vote for Roberts after he refused to answer so many questions?  Was there a hidden strategy there that we lowly citizens can't know about?  There's just so much that I think an opposition party should do that the Dem leadership is not doing.  Please show me something better than I'm seeing.

I've read on Kos more than once the statement that the DLC should be eliminated entirely -- that they have no place in the Democratic party.  Those were statements from Kos himself.

I can go back and look for those, if you like.  But I do think it's clear that he said it.

Maybe if the beltway boys tried listening to the people who vote for them and fund them, we wouldn't have to scream.

For me, this is the fundamental problem with posts by / discussions with Mr. Kilgore and similar establishment Democrats.   They continue to assume that they are the grown-ups and everyone outside their orbit is a child.  Or at best an adolesecent.  This despite the electoral record of the last 6 years.

I think one problem is this:  there are a fair number of long-serving Democrats who think that their seats are "safe".  For them, and the party insiders who support them, all that is necessary is that the 35 Senators and some not-too-large number of Representatives be Democrats.  That should be enough to maintain the threat of a fillibuster and/or kill a veto override.  If they have that many seats, they personally are safe.

35 Senators and 150 Reps (say) is enough to support about 1500 staffers, a few hundred paid Democratic Party staff, and 4 or 5 think tanks (another 3 or 4 hundred jobs).  And to assure university president or distinguished professor appointments after retirement.  That is a total of about 3000 people with cushy, well-paid, inside-the-Beltway jobs for life.  Keep all those positions churning within a closed ecology and there you have it.

What I think they are underestimating is the K Street Project.  It it Norquist's goal to suck all the corporate funding out of the Democrats.   By the time he is done, there isn't going to be any money for any person or organization with so much as a hint of Dem in it anywhere.  And once he has the campaigns defunded, he will put in stiff challlenges to what the Dem insiders consider "safe" seats (probably including ringers and Repub lites).

So, not only do I think the establishment Dems' "we are the aduluts" attitude is justified, I also think they are in a lot more trouble than they suspect.

sPh
 

Did you actually read the initial post of this thread and its meaning?  If not, let me recollect it for you. This topic was about Democrats internal debates and how to act in them in an appropriate manner. It was not about George Bush. You must think I live under a rock not to know that the Busheviks took us to war.

The thread is actually about the efficacy of intra-party debates.  Whether you live under a rock or not is something only you know, but blaming Democrats for a war

Republicans started is absurd, and exactly the sort of thing that leads to the "incivility" people have been in a stir about over the past few days.  It doesn't help at the ballot box much, either.      

Big difference.  I'm glad you corrected that.

I got into this with Luigi on a similar thread. He also couldn't offer any evidence.

Here's Markos on NARAL. Here he is on Roberts. He does mention the DLC disparagingly in the second post. But the theme that I've consistently seen are the same as Ed's at the top of this thread. No litmus tests. Honest disagreement on policy issues. Support elected officials. Come together behind candidates. Win, dammit.

Thanks very much.  I'll let you know what I think.

Whether you live under a rock or not is something only you know, but blaming Democrats for a war Republicans started is absurd, and exactly the sort of thing that leads to the "incivility" people have been in a stir about over the past few days.

American culture is not Japanese culture. There are no well-established means to save face here.

Who in the world cares about "saving face?"  It's a pointless straw man.

It's well past time for Democrats who made that vote to admit that they misjudged the circumstances in Iraq and the motives and/or competence of the Bush Administration.

And the Democrats did admit they misjudged Bush's competence.  Kerry did it during the election, and he was derided for it -- by the fiery leftists:

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake." -- John Kerry, December 09, 2003

And dKos and other places erupted with rage.  "How could he be so stupid as to trust Bush?  I knew better!  Howard Dean knew better!  The voters will call him stupid for being wrong, and weak for admitting it!  He can't be the nominee!  We neeeeed DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAN!!!!!"   And so on and so on and so on.  

This whole thing is exhibit 1,000,000 in the case of just how out of it the fiery left is -- demanding that people do what they've already done after deriding them for doing it.  Maybe Kerry's statement wasn't enough?  Maybe he should publicly flagellate himself?  Would that satisfy your righteous anger?  Would you then stop blaming Democrats for a Republican war?  

It's the one solitary angle that was missing, and is still absent to this day, from Kerry's admission.

I see.  So you started out by demanding "Democrats who made that vote to admit that they misjudged the circumstances in Iraq and the motives and/or competence of the Bush Administration."  When it's pointed out that they did that (If it was so effing important to you, why didn't you know?), it's not enough they need "humility," too!  Of course were Kerry to fall to his knees, tears streaming down his face like Jimmy Swaggart begging forgiveness, that suddenly wouldn't be enough either. The word "hypocrite" is coming to mind, although why I don't know.  

I worked for Kerry's campaign. Worked damned hard, too. So did most of the others you've chosen to so quickly dismiss as "fiery left". Your caricature borders on shameful in a thread whose subject is civility.)

Caricature?  How on earth can anyone caricature the fiery left?  It's impossible -- I know, I've been trying for years now, and no matter how over the top I go, they do or say something even crazier, even more intellectually dishonest or, in your case, something even more bald-faced hypocritical than my poor imagination would allow me to conceive.  Just in the past day, I was told that Howard Dean and Gary Hart were liberals, and Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis weren't.  I was told that Democrats needed to "admit a mistake," showed where they did that, and suddenly, it's not enough!  They need humility!  Caricature?  Impossible.  Dickens couldn't do it, let alone me.  You flatter me, sir.