That's the problem - you spend endless time and amounts of money coming up with strategy and you NEVER DO ANYTHING.

"I won't call you crazy, and you won't call me spineless, just because we disagree"

This should ALWAYS be a rule in any debate, but especially places like here, where I see folks infighting over very petty and minute details who should be collaborating instead.  There's a huge difference between constructively discussing policy and the sort of tit-for-tat bickering that happens among lefties when we get together to talk about important issues.

In my opinion, there is no danger in discussing these strategies online where everyone, even the "enemy," can read them because this exchange of ideas is something to be proud of.  The more open the better, I say.  The more diverse opinions, expertise, and ideas, the more we can accomplish.  Without the open exchange, we risk becoming insulated and believing that everyone is like us.  I know that before I started talking with people online, I had an extremely warped perception of "what Americans think."  I truly thought more people believed as I believed simply because I had surrounded myself with like-minded folks. 

Disagreement among those on the left can be constructive for us and we shouldn't be afraid of letting it flourish.  We should remember to remain constructive, however, and not turn one another into the enemy, as I have seen around here plenty in the short two weeks I have been posting.

It would be bad to take the discussion off line because anyone whose only access to the debate is online would lose any influence over the decision making process. This is bad because 1) leadership would be making decisions in a more insular, less-informed environment, 2) the people cut out of the process wouldn't stop talking online, rendering the debate one-sided, and 3) disclosure strikes me as at least one sort of buffer among the fairminded against strawmen erected by republicans and conservatives.

I read a lot of blogs. I love the give and take.  I think all the debate makes us stronger, stronger than the top down Republicans.  I don't really care if Republicans read our discussions. 

I do care about one thing.  I would like all of us on the left to treat each other with respect.  We need each other. Name calling is just not a good thing to do.  If you think the other guy is full of it, and you want to say so, just ask yourself how you would respond if the guy was across the desk?  Would you call him an "asshole?" If you would, go wash out your mouth.  Most of the rest of us woudn't. We would try reason or to change the subject.  Those who don't treat others as though we are in the same office or eating dinner at the same table should be shunned, at least until they learn good manners.

Other than that, debate away.  Out of such debates consensus will emerge and the world will change. 

Ron Byers

Good points and an important issue to bring up.

I think the "civility" issue is the most important one. Why? You don't often see the winning party use name-calling about their own special interest factions. They don't call their radicals "wingnuts" or their moderates "spineless" in countless blog posts; they simply disagree on policy issues and push their leaders to minimalize the influence of certain factions or to horse trade on the issues.

To do so, to use verbal abuse intra-party, is to suggest you want to purge some members. Isn't that just saying the two- party system as it is doesn't work for you? Even if those in political office representing your party right now lose their seats, they are still going to be part of the party.  I think some of those angry enough to constantly name call might need to get a little more honest with themselves, that the two-party "big tent" system is not for them. Might want to look into more parliamentary type systems, those types that sometimes break into actual fistfights on the floor....

I think of something like the vitriol and hatred and name calling I have seen towards Senator Lieberman in the lefty blogosphere. Up until now, he's been the Democratic party voters of CT's choice to represent them. How about instead of calling him (and them, by proxy,) names, explaining to the Democratic voters of CT why you think they are making a poor choice?

Anger is basically the problem. The GOP somehow learned how to control the anger thing quite some time ago. "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" just doesn't seem to fit within the two-party system.

You don't often see the winning party use name-calling about their own special interest factions.

Yep.  A sorta related thing I keep noticing on the pundit shows: Republicans tend to distance themselves from intra-party stuff that doesn't work for them by saying something like 'well they do have a point about x, and that's why we need to do y', while Dems tend to say 'we have to stop talking about x.  I'm completely against x.'.  They're so strenuous in distancing themselves from x that they've lost sight of what they have in common with x.

Kinda goes along also with JMM's point about Feingold's move to censure:

It's really not that surprising that not every Democratic senator would want to jump on the bandwagon with this. But I also don't think there's any particular reason to run from it like it's Dem kryptonite or the plague...  the bigger problem for Dems is not the things they do but the very public hand-wringing and navel-gazing about how people might react to the things they do.

Anger is basically the problem. The GOP somehow learned how to control the anger thing quite some time ago. 

If we're gonna use the GOP as a model (plenty of reasons not to, of course...), I'd say the problem is more in harnessing and directing the anger.  The GOP coalition is all about anger.  They just don't direct it at each other.

Having been called a nimrod, a castrated neutria, and ignorant about my lifelong home in one post, I suppose I should encourage this particular conversation to go offline. But at the risk of getting called more names, and because I think I've been called out, I'll dive in.

The conversation is worth having online. The idea of open-source journalism, for example, can only happen out here. The ability to share experiences from campaigns--as opposed to rants from the keyboard--can only happen out here. This site, in particular, usually fosters the best in discussions of ideas, not merely ad hominem rants.

To that last point, I didn't write that Marin County liberals don't know squat about Tennessee. What I wrote was that Democratic candidates from Tennessee can't draw votes from Marin County. We're a different place. Maybe y'all missed it, but George Bush carried this state by 14 points. We do the best we can in our state as we find it (we have a Democratic governor, a majority of the legislature, the Secretary of State, Comptroller, and a majority of the Congressional delegation to show for it). We welcome anyone, with the hospitality for which we are justly famous, who wishes to come and work beside us.

Best regards,
N. Rod

"Castrated neutria," wow.  It's creative, anyway...

p.s. Would also like to add the very personal effect that use of name-calling by bloggers has on me now: I instantly lose respect for the blogger and find it hard to take anything he/she says seriously,making it hard to be objective about what they write from then on. It strikes me immediately as either as someone who is very sophomoric about politics, someone whose political advice is probably going to be very bad for "real world" concerns, or, simply another road rage type venter who might benefit from psychoactive medication.

I think that we could have civil and moderate discussion whether war crimes and trampling of the human and citizens' rights is a good thing, shruggable thing or censure worthy thing.

Reminds me when Dukakis was condemned because he was asked to imagine his daugher raped and he did exibit any signs of rage, like bulging veins, foam at the mouth etc.  Not every topic can be properly addressed with impassionate discussion. 

But how about our opponents listening and getting aid and comfort?

1) when a well-known Democrats parrots GOP talking point to condemn the majority of the party, that is rather bad and it has immediate poliical price

2) when commenters in blogs are cited as epitomes of "pathologically angry" Democrats, duh.  There is always something pathological or ultra about Dems, I recall George WIll mentioning "Dashle, and ultra-partisan politician".  (As I recall, Dashle was remarkably mellow).   A Democrat with more liveness than a doormat is by GOP definition angry, illogical, ultra, Commie, traitor, lesbo (if woman), etc.  Hillary has virtues and faults, but she is neither particularly left wing, nor particularly shrill, or whatever.  She seems to be heterosexual, and without homicidal tendencies.  None of that could be fathomed from GOP screeds about her. 

 3) Civility is advisable for the selfish reasons: it is actually remotedly possible to convince someone if you are civil, and rather impossible if you are not.  But aid and comfort to al-Qaeda or GOP -- this should not be a consideration.

Is  the word meme an acronym?  If so what does it stand for?

Roy Blount perhaps put it best from his travels on the Mississippi River: "I learned that a nutria will rear up and bare its orange teeth when it feels threatened." That's apparently me.

I think this is exhibit A in why we should be civil.  Left-wingers and centrists can get into to pointless name-calling just about anywhere on the web.  Why do it here?  A discussion about what the Dems need to do to win in TN could only be enriched by the comments of a native.  At the same time, living in the heart of Blue America does not preclude someone from having insight on the situation.  But we aren't going to accomplish anything without listening to each other. 

"centrists" worry that lefties or hyper-partisan netroots types are feeding Republican stereotypes about our party, and then the objects of this criticism respond that "centrists" are helping the opposition by making such arguments.

The words above are from your post on NewDonkey that you link to above.  On one side are the "centrists" and on the other are the lefties and hyper-partisan netroots.  That looks like a loaded statement to me, almost like name-calling.

Is the risk of "reinforcing Republican talking points," or to use everyone's favorite new phrase, "supporting conservatives memes" so high that critical conversation about strategy, tactics, message, and policy has to occur offline?

Could we kill the worry about what Republicans will say and give it a decent burial?  No matter what we do or say, they will say bad things about Democrats.  So can't we just do and say what we think is right?

Some of us are getting pretty desperate about the state of the Democratic Party.  We are crying out for strong leadership, but we don't often see it.  When we do see it, as in Russ Feingold's motion to censure Bush over the illegal NSA domestic spying, we see most other Dems in the Congress run away from him.  What are they afraid of?  The president polls in the 30's.  The citizens don't like the president's illegal spying on US citizens.  Why not embrace the motion?  Are they afraid the Republicans will call them names?  Is that it?

The senators can continue to pursue their fantasy of forcing the Republicans to have meaningful hearings on the NSA spying issue at the same time, but, by golly, stand with your own when they show courage. 

More Democrats than you think are pretty well disappointed/disgusted with most of the Democratic leadership, and if nothing changes, you will see many sit on their hands at campaign season and perhaps even stay home on election day.

As far as the net-roots and blogs, many Dems seem frightened by them too.  In fact, they seem afraid of ordinary people having any say at all.  The Beltway Dems know what's best for us all and don't seem to want or need input from the rabble.  If they were smart they'd realize that the "lefties" and the net-roots could be quite helpful.

Just after the Dem senators quickly put space between themselves and Russ Feingold, I received e-mails from Clinton, Kerry, and the DSCC asking for donations.  I'm not giving them money.  I'll give money directly to the campaigns of those who seem to me to have the courage to put up a fight.  Honestly, I think the race away from Feingold was shameful.

Ed, even if you don't agree with what I've said, could you pass it along to those in leadership positions?  I think I have some company out there.

I don't think there's any way to prevent us from airing our dirty laundry in public, so regardless of what we think might be best, we're going to have to learn to live with our underwear flapping in the breeze.

I think the major problem the Democrats have is they lack a set of core issues they can all agree upon. The Republicans have many differences, but they can all rally around a few key issues: low taxes, strong military, less regulation, and traditional values. When disputes break out, they can gloss over the controversy by agreeing to agree on these few core issues. The Democrats, meanwhile, haven't formulated anything like this since before Reagan (when they could rally around issues like better social programs and civil rights). This lack of core issues results in several negative consequences:

It gives the public the impression the Democrats don't know what they stand for.

It leads us to "wander" among issues, often ending up talking about things we disagree about, rather than about (the missing) core we all agree on.

It makes it hard for us to win elections or to make strong statements to the press. This leads to frustration among the Democratic rank and file, who increasingly are getting angry about their leadership's impotence.  

If I had to pick our core values, they'd be these:

Competent, honest, fiscally responsible government that puts the interest of the people first. 

An efficient social safety net that gives all hardworking Americans a chance to get back on their feet if they lose a job or become ill.

Strong education for all to ensure everyone has an equal chance to succeed.

A foreign policy that stresses cooperation over confrontation. 

I takes some people a long time and a lot of people dead for nothing to get it. That's what I get out of that.

Tom

Hurray for Fannie Lou! Boo for Colin and Condi.

Tom

The blogs may change the dynamics of the intraparty fights but the fights aren't new. In 1968 four years after Lyndon Johnson won by a near reccord landslide he was challenged by two Democrats. The fights between supporters of Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy and then Humbert Humphrey were fierce and personal.

After Bobby Kennedy was killed and Humphrey got the nomination at the Chicago Convention many Democrats stayed home. They could not see a differnece between Humphrey and Nixon. Our country is still paying the price for that judgment.

Daniel A. Greenbaum