Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman nails it, again! w/Poll (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Generally speaking (14+ / 0-)

    saying that we should split the party in two, thereby ensuring Republican dominance of the political arena in perpetuity, will be harshly received on this blog.  Go split the Republicans if you wish to make an impact.  Then we can primary out the DINO's without fear of losing everything.

    We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:39:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Agree with your conclusion that splitting (9+ / 0-)

      the party would be, well, stupid.  And, yes, I expect such an idea would get harsh responses.

      Troll-rating this is, IMHO, over the top.

      "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

      by sxwarren on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:11:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't TR (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller, sxwarren

        Well, I've lost TU status. Something about being on vacation, I guess. But, this is a site about electing Democrats. Advocating schism doesn't seem to comport well with that goal.

        My humble $.02.

        There are 10 types of people in the world--those who know binary and those who don't.

        by DoLooper on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:23:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. But discussing the point seems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          more productive than merely troll-rating the suggestion into oblivion.  I mean, if someone thinks the idea is so stupid as to be unworthy of their time to discuss it, they do have the option to pass on by without replying or rating at all.  I choose that option frequently.

          "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

          by sxwarren on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:34:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sick of hearing that line.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam, sxwarren, mcartri

          When you google DailyKos it says this under it:

          "Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective."

          There is no mention of electing Democrats there and that is the first thing people always say. I might disagree with the above discription of the site, but that is the description that Kos has chosen for his site.

        •  According to the "About" section this is what (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mcartri, banger

          the site is "About".


          Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.

          Daily Kos has grown in those five years to the premier political community in the United States, with traffic of about 600,000 daily visits. (Click on the rainbow box at the bottom of the page for up-to-date stats.) Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. But, even more exciting than that, tens of thousands of regular Americans have used Daily Kos to lend their voice to a political world once the domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.

          No mention of the site being "about" electing Democrats.

          I realize that Kos himself has said that the site is about electing Democrats. But let me just say that it is NOT about electing ALL and ANY Democrats. If that was the case then Lamont would never have happened.

          •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            From the FAQ.

            What is the purpose of this site?

            (Condensed from this diary written by kos in late 2004)

               This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable

            The Lamont thing wasn't about Lieberman being conservative, it was about Lieberman being a conservative representing a blue state. The converse goes for Jim Webb, who's not liberal, but now represents a red state.

            We cannot as a policy throw conservative Democrats under the bus. It's about advocating for representation that, well, represents. If you want to chuck someone under the bus that will give us 50% of the votes in favor of letting a Republican represent that district with 0% of votes in our favor, that's fine. I, however, cannot abide by that plan. Nor can I think that the originator of this site abide.

            Realpolitik. Not pretty, but it's the best for the country and Democrats.

            There are 10 types of people in the world--those who know binary and those who don't.

            by DoLooper on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:24:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site