I adore you, Molly.  What you said has been whirling in my head for months, maybe even years.  Remember when the blood-bath in Iraq was an insurgency?  It seemed to me that if the objects, us, of the insurgents left there would be no insurgency.  Is that muddled thinking?  Well now the insurgency has become wall-paper, replaced by sectarian violence.  Wonder what's next?  Every day I wonder what's next.  Apparently Dems in Washington don't wonder.

I love Molly; I just wish she wouldn't hold back about how she really feels about things.  A great read.  Thanks for pointing it out.

 We need to rebuild the Democratic Party.  We already have a Republican party so building a clone and calling it the Democratic Party never was a good idea, even if the "leaders" of our party thought so.  But, if I have learned anything over the past 4 years it is that the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is a minority, and a pretty small one.  Sad.

Hoppy in Sacramento

We need to rebuild the Democratic Party.  We already have a Republican party so building a clone and calling it the Democratic Party never was a good idea ...

Oi vey. there goes the sloganeering again...

So, where exactly are the constituents for this brave new party being envisioned? Let's see, there are several TPMC posters, some other net-roots types... ok, maybe that’s about the percentage that voted for Nader. Ooooh. The halls of government are quaking. They’re really going to listen to a miniscule percentage of the population, of web surfing political junkies who are chronically idealistic, notoriously difficult and negative, and don’t agree much with anyone else in the coalition or themselves half the time.

Right. That’s how democracy works. Rule of the tiniest, most difficult, fractious, and uncompromising minority. Basic US Gov 101. Sure…

Reality check… any day now…

Waiting for somebody here to notice that Feingold pandered to a few net-roots types, didn't have the basic sense to inform anyone else in the party, and suprise suprise, nobody followed his lead. Gee, maybe pissing on the coalition and refusing advice isn't working for Feingold any better than it's working for Bush? Huh, maybe there's a moral there that transcends partisan politics? Something about leaders needing to compromise to bring people along with them maybe… that whole democracy thing…

Nick; "attitude" is fine -- down in the schoolyard.  But are you ever going to say anything substantive?

I've heard John Edwards / Bobby comparisons before.

It simply isn't possible to reply to NickDoe.

Notice his phrasing:  "pissing on the coalition" and "refusing advice."  What "coalition"?  He doesn't say.  Whose "advice" was refused.  Again, he doesn't say.

A "conversation" with Nick is an oxymoron. 

that the cesspool of corruption in Washington needs to be cleaned up, that a solution for health care is a critical issue.  So why are our "leaders" in DC so afraid of leading on these issues? 

You know,cwr, I have been pondering this question and is it possible, that no one wants to take a stand, because if they get elected they already know that the answers are far more complex than the issues make them appear to be?

Corvid

I'm not sure what "pet issues" NickDoe is driving at here. The Ivins piece mentions 3 issues: Iraq, public financing of campaigns and universal health care. I don't think these fall into the "pet" category.  Also don't see any "triangulation" here, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Nick can explain.

I agree with what Ivins is saying (at least to the extent that it's a good idea to prioritize one's issues and stay focused). But I'll inject something into the discussion that she probably hoped to avoid. By focusing on these three items, we obviously steer around some hot-button stuff--all the usual suspects, such as abortion, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, eminent domain, etc.

Now, permit me to address my pet issue (such as it is), which is the notion that progressives are poisoning their own well by remaining on the eternally unacceptable side of most these hot buttons in the eyes of the general public. If progressives REALLY wanted to effectively prioritize, they'd not only follow Ivins' advice but they'd also 1) uncompromisingly oppose illegal immigration and any amnesty for lawbreakers (this could also serve as part of a security package in combination with a big drive toward energy independence), 2) "mend" affirmative action by making it open and voluntary rather than imposing it on individuals who can ill afford to lose their chances in life because of some institutional drive for racial balance, 3) forever drop any effort at further gun control, 4) aggressively back efforts to either do away with eminent domain or greatly restrict it. As for abortion, they're on the right side on this one.

Once they've openly taken these positions on these issues, they decontaminate themselves, clearing the way to proceed to the bigger, more important stuff.  Now that's triangulation--of a sort. But it's also good sense. Most of these things progressives stick with more out of habit than as a result of any evidence that they accomplish much. But even if these were all wonderful ideas, there's no way to have a decent discussion and convince the larger public as long as they're constantly subject to mega-bamboozlement (under our money-driven politics) and mega-threats (unending war). Hence Ivins' priorities.

(One aside: On immigration, for instance, doesn't anyone understand how utterly silly--not to mention two-faced--it looks for Dems to--justifiably--whack Bush for stirring up a hornet's nest of terror in the Middle East and for his fecklessness on the ports deal while at the same time Dems rush to offer amnesty to millions of  immigrants who entered the country without anyone having the slightest notion of who they are individually or why they're here?)

The public is not hostile to most progressive notions. But they strongly suspect that, by gum, if progressives are ever voted in, they'll sneak a bunch of pesky damned social engineering flim-flams into the system while in the process  abandoning the big ideas that the public voted for in the first place (as the Clintons abandoned universal health care, an excellent case in point).  Progressives need to clearly and forcefully cleanse themselves of most of these shopworn, sticky and unpalatable issues BEFORE they can effectively push the much more important agenda Ivins lays out. And at top of that agenda, though, I would add energy independence. It's the strongest and most hopeful issue, it's our future, it holds out enormous promise for spreading prosperity and it's one of the keys to getting out of Iraq and THE key to avoiding future Iraqs.

Unfortunately, it appears to be true.  They need to stop worrying about what the repubs will do to them, and start thinking about what they can do to the repubs.

One example of this is their rollover attitude when it comes to national defense.  The popular meme is that dems are weak on defense, and that is simply not true.  Instead of standing up and saying LOUDLY that the dems are not weak on defense they simply avoid the subject or think they need to agree with the repubs to look "strong" on the issue.

'Sigh'  The Republicans have screwed everything up royally so......must be time to attack the Democrats.  Hey all of the present media do it, why not Molly?  Seriously why do we engage in this vitriolic self flaggellation and cannibalism?  I recall Bill Clinton as a pretty damn good president, triangulation, DLC and all.  He showed us how to win remember?  If you dont win you are useless.  If you all think Feingold has a chance of carrying any states beyond the NE, Wisconsin and California, go ahead and support him.  We lost a damn good president in Al Gore when many Dems voted for Nader nd we got Dubya.  We lost Hubert Humphrey when Dems bolted to McCarthy and we got Nixon.  The Dems have blown it time and time again with pacifism and I see them all lined up to do it all over again.  I live in the midwest and it just doesnt fly out here.  I dont see him having a chance at all but his voice is needed in the debate thats for sure.  But the road to victory is not lined with pure Bush hating and pacifism and you all better figure that out before its too late.  Question: what will you propose to do about Iran?  They seek nuclear weapons and they want Israel destroyed.  Last I checked, oh, around 1939, it would behoove us to take with deadly seriousness someone's declaration that they wish to exterminate the Jews.  Dont tell me they dont mean it.  What do you propose to do about the raging radical Islamists whose entire culture seems to be inconsistent with democracy and free speech and who are chanting death to America (and have been for decades: this is not because of Iraq) as they seek nuclear weapons?  How will you convince the country that you can defend it?  The fact that people no longer trust the Repubs to defend us gives the Dems a great opening, if they can fill it.  If not, well, you would be surprised at how many people will end up voting for a Repub president again particularly if the congress is held by the dems after 2006.

So bring it on Molly, you are great and I love your work and always have.  But frankly, if I hear another Dem react to the failure of the Repubs by attacking the Dems,  I will scream.  And if I hear more dems saying that ANYONE who supported the Iraq war at the start is automatically not qualified to be President?  Well lets just say I wont place any bets on a dem president in 2008.

We gotcha this time, Nick.

I think Notrol's figured it out.  Nick's running two computers with two different handles and email addresses.  NickDoe and Mary from RI are one and the same.

Mary from RI -- this comment is not a 0.

You've been here 41 weeks. It's time you learned how to rate comments.

Dissent Protects Democracy

I'm not so sure about that. I think the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" has the edge in the number of people. Unfotunately, DLC types have the big money.

Tom

Seriously why do we engage in this vitriolic self flaggellation and cannibalism?  I recall Bill Clinton as a pretty damn good president, triangulation, DLC and all.  He showed us how to win remember?

We engage because the Dems deserve it.

And it's not 1992 anymore. It's time for something other than triangulation. In fact, we don't even need it. Bush is at 33%. The country is behind us.

I think you're drawing on strawmen with your comments about "pacifism" and "bush-hating."

Finally, I suggest we let people know that we're tough enough to defend the country by starting with being tough enough to fight the Republicans.

Censure comes to mind.

How do you suggest we let people know we're tough?

Bomb Iran, perhaps? (Sorry, my "pacifism" coming out, I guess.) 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Now, now -- keep those claws tucked in.

Yes I was thinking of Humphrey too.  Someone who is trapped by fealty to LBJ to a disastrous pro-war position.

I nominate John Warner, who will defer to the Biden-Clinton-Holbrook orthodoxy, genuflecting to the DC establishment whom he believes knows better than himself.

Part of my reason for comparing Feingold to McCarthy: The latter convinced LBJ not to run, but then didn't have the sense to get out of the way of history when Bobby entered the race.  Similarly I just don't see Feingold getting the nomination, the Dem establishment will never allow it.  But could he be a Hillary killer in the primaries?  And for whom would he then be opening up the nomination? 

Clark?

Is this premature?  :-) 

Right now I would be ecstatic if the majority of Democrats in Congress were to take up the challenge of Bush's just released reiteration of his right to invade any country he pleases, whether they are really a viable threat to us or not.  And, I would be equally pleased if the majority of Democrats were to take up the challenge of stopping the obviously planned invasion of Iran, which would be a total disaster for us and the world.  I would see those Democrats as being tough, as being committed to our country's security, and as being well equipped to keep us safe in this complex world.

But, I don't expect this to happen.  Instead I expect about 95% of the Democrats in Congress to declare solidarity with Bush, laud his leadership, and vote in favor of allowing him to invade any country he wants to, after, of course, bombing Iran.  

I'm not a pacifist.  I am focused on protecting our country.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"what will you propose to do about Iran?  They seek nuclear weapons and they want Israel destroyed.  Last I checked, oh, around 1939, it would behoove us to take with deadly seriousness someone's declaration that they wish to exterminate the Jews.  Dont tell me they dont mean it.  What do you propose to do about the raging radical Islamists whose entire culture seems to be inconsistent with democracy and free speech and who are chanting death to America (and have been for decades: this is not because of Iraq) as they seek nuclear weapons? "

First of all, according to translators who know, Iran's President said nothing about exterminating Jews. That was mainstream media bullshit.

Secondly, there is NO credible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or even wants one (although I assume they do, since they'd be fools not to.)

Third, the Islamic fanatics don't hate the US because of Iraq - they hate the US because of a century of interference in their politics and culture of the sort you are explicitly advocating here. In other words, it's assholes like you that make the rest of the world hate the US - and justifiably so. I suggest you reread the Founding Fathers of this country who advocated neutrality, no foreign entanglements and fair economic dealings with all comers.

And you are the perfect reason why Democrats should not be allowed in office any more than Republicans - they're war mongers and war profiteers JUST LIKE the Republicans.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com