Skip to main content

I see it too much in media reports and even in the diaries and comments here:
Daily Kos is a liberal blog.

No it's not. I'm a liberal, sure, (though pro-free trade, pro-balanced budgets, if that means anything). But I'm also a vegan. And no one claims this is a vegan blog. I am Latino, but no one claims this is a Latino blog. I am staunchly in favor of gay rights, but no one claims this is a gay blog.

Would an ideologue liberal blog endorse SD's Stephanie Herseth, who voted for the Hate Amendment? Or Kentucky's Ben Chandler, or Richard Morrison in Texas, or Brad Carson in Oklahoma, or Tony Knowles in Alaska, or Daniel Mongiardo in Kentucky, etc, etc? Would the site's community embrace these candidates and send money their way?

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.

But it has nothing to do with ideology, and those who continue painting the battle in those colors is nothing more than a dishonest shill in the best tradition of Karl Rove and gang.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:24 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You're a Vegan? (none)
    Ewwww. I'm off to join Little Green Footballs instead.

    (Just kidding. I'm a vegetarian, myself.)

    •  Speaking of little green footballs (3.50)
      ACORN SQUASH!

      try Alton Browns recipe for baked stuffed acorn squash but replace the crumbled pork with a veggie substitute. www.foodtv.com

      In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

      by ablington on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:23:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  salt, pepper, nutmeg, olive oil (none)
        Slice any squash in half, give it a dose of the above and bake for as long as it takes.  Deeeee-licious.
        •  Squash (none)
          Acorn squash or any "little green football" sized squash is nice cut in half and baked then filled with:

          -1 cup cooked basmati rice
          -2 tbsp raisins
          -1 tbsp dried bluberries
          -1 tbsp dried cherries or cranberries
          -1 tbsp pine nuts
          -1/2 tsp cardamom (or cinnamon, or nutmeg)

          •  Liberal Blog, too (none)
            And since this is a liberal blog, let's remember to make it a locally, sustainably grown acorn squash.  

            I think I've just defined most of my rural Utah neighbors as liberal...

            •  veg (none)
              Hi, Newt-
              Organic vegetarian LDS
              here :o)
              Solid Dem, but anti-abortion except in "extreme" cases

              Estranged husband co-authored LDS 1st edition Animals and the Gospel; the one out now is Jones' alone- somewhat less radical. Scott had a lot of the GA's comments re animals but this one leaves this out.

              Many years ago my husband was invited by the bishop in Hooper to speak in Priesthood on the book re treatment of animals and vegetarianism as would relate to the Church; everyone in there was a hunter except the bishop; he locked the door and told them no one was leaving until Scott was finished speaking! Believe it or not, the talk went well LOL

              •  Another Mormon veg (none)
                Hey, Saronne.

                I'm an LDS veg as well. How come there aren't more of us? :)
                I keep thinking I'll write the definitive Sunstone vegetarian piece one day, but I bet someone already has. I'm a bit out of touch since moving out of Utah.

          •  LOL on recipe (none)
            I thought you were recipe-ing Kos as a troll for a minute, I've gotten so used to seeing that done in the diaries.
      •  NUKE the squash (none)
        From Cook's Illustrated:

        Nuke the cut & cleaned acorn squash face down in a dish of water until soft (15 min or so depending on strength).  Don't forget to prick it with a fork.

        Then finish it cut side up in the broiler with a mixture of melted butter & brown sugar until it gets all caramelized and bubbly.

        Acorn squash is something I love...I was very doubtful of this, but it turns out great.

        So is this a cooking blog now Kos?

        •  sounds like the same as (none)
          cooking butternut squash. i'll have to pick up an acorn squash the next time i hit the farmers market to try one out!
        •  brown sugar (none)
          Dr Dive-
          Might I suggest organic whole sugar rather than brown? Tastes about the same- but more wholesome; brown sugar is really only white sugar with some molasses thrown back in.
        •  Skip the microwave (none)
          And just do the butter and sugar and bake for an hour or so.  

          Don't like microwaves and the house can always use the extra oven heat in the winter here in South Dakota.  

          Other than that, that is the absolute best way to do Acorn Squash.  

          "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

          by SarahLee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:35:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  ALTON BROWN~! (none)
        Good Eats fan here myself.  TESTIFY!

        "We will fight them, sir, until hell freezes over. And then, sir, we will fight them on the ice."

        by Raybin on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:11:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Blog recipe (none)
      I've been pondering the vegan issue lately. While I still eat meat, I do have issue with exploiting animals. But one philosophical question I have is this:

      Could one use bones from naturally-deceased chickens or cows for soup stock in a clean conscience? It's a silly question, but something that struck my mind.

      And now, the recipe!

      Blog, a drink

         1 Large can (12 oz) each of frozen

      • Orange Juice
      • Lemonade
      • Limeade (note: often available only in 6-ounce cans; if  so, use 2 cans to reach the required 12 ounces)

         12 oz Vodka
         6 oz Grenadine
         4 quarts Ginger Ale
         Ice, lots

      This is a perverse punch that you can drink quite a bit of before the alcohol hits. It was a staple of Minicon, the Minnesota science fiction convention. Source and background of this via my blog.

      GOP: Party before Country

      by puppethead on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:43:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so, you call it (none)
        "Blog Grog"?  :)
      •  Personal decision. (4.00)
        Could one use bones from naturally-deceased chickens or cows for soup stock in a clean conscience? It's a silly question, but something that struck my mind.

        Some would say yes, some would say no.  I would tend towards the yes, you could, but it's all about your own conscience not what someone else tells you is right or wrong.  My opinion is, if the issue is the exploitation of animals, then I don't see where the problem lies in using the bones of a non-exploited animal.  

        I'm a vegan because of the treatment of animals in factory farms.  I don't think I would ever eat meat again, even from a humanely raised animal, partly because I have no desire to eat meat, partly because I don't think something else needs to die for me to eat, but that's something that has developed over time (over the 5 years or so that I haven't eaten meat).  However, if I knew that the animal was humnanely treated, I would probably eat cheese or milk or eggs.  

        •  Well said (none)
          As a total coincidence, I spent much of yesterday blogging about this very idea, from a Buddhist perspective, on my blog:

          http://owmyblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/buddhism-and-vegetarianism.html

          I see there being three separate issues, really -- the suffering of the living being, the killing of that being, and then the eating of that being, and while there's definitely some causal interdependency between the three, they're separate things.

          For me, it's not important how they died (although "naturally deceased" tends to make them inedible), it's how they lived. And I'm not a vegan like you but I've got the same exact concerns. I'm also fortunate enough to live in a small enough town where I can meet the farmers that care for the animals that create my eggs, milk, honey etc.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
          Ow, my blog.

          by Corax on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:01:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Go Vegan!!! (none)
        Your conscience is yours, so I can't tell you what will keep it clean.

        I think your question is definitional, however, and by definition vegans and vegetarians do not intentionally eat bones, regardless of how they lived or died before the eating.

        :)

         

      •  good question (none)
        Could one use bones from naturally-deceased chickens or cows for soup stock in a clean conscience? It's a silly question, but something that struck my mind.

        Naturally deceased?  Now I know what happened to the chicken and cow that failed to make it all the way across the road.  

        What I want to know is what your called if you only eat introduced "pest" species of animalss (feral pigs in California, nutria in Louisiana, opossums in New Zealand, zebra mussels in Michigan, Snakehead fish in Virginia, choclate covered Ash borers in Ohio etc.).  Socially responsible meat eaters?  Homo sapien based biological control?

      •  cause of death (none)
        I don't know that there's a whole lot of dying of old age in the animal kingdom. If something has died it's because it's diseased or something else has just ripped its throat out. Unless you're talking roadkill, of course. Soup's on!
      •  naturally-deceased (none)
        Puppethead-

        There would be a great health risk with this.

        Many wouldn't have a problem wearing leather taken from a cow that had died from old age after living in a lovely green pasture, but have a feeling that fellow- veggie's would look at what  was being worn  and concluding that the shoes or whatever came from slaughter.

    •  I love BBQ and (none)
      yet, I'm accepted.  At least I have been since the primaries ended. ; )
    •  oh my god (none)
       I thought this was "the Home Improvement  Network".
      I hear my mommy calling gotta go.

      May there be peace on earth and may it begun with me

      by lazbumm on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:25:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  damn hippies (none)
      Webster has something to say about this!  Here is my recipe you commie bastards!

      1 lib.er.al 'lib(e)-rel\ adj [ME, fr. MF L liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, fr. liber free; akin to OE leodan to grow, Gk eleutheros free] (14c) 1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts (~education) b archaic : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way (a ~ meal) c : AMPLE, FULL 3 obs : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS 4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE (a ~ translation) 5 : BROAD-MINDED; esp : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or traditional forms 6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b cap : of or constituting  a political party advocating or associated with the principles of a political party advocating or associated with the principles of liberalism; esp : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual esp. economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives --- lib-er-al-ly -re-le\ adv --- lib-er-al-ness n
      syn LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving freely and unstilting. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given; GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift; BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing; MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes.

      2 Liberal n (1816): one who is liberal: as a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways  b cap : a member or supporter of a liberal political party  c : an advocate or adherent to liberalism esp. in individual rights

      Damn!  I could have sworn there was a Hollywood lovin latte drinker or a Volvo driver in there somewhere.  

      •  vegans don't drink latté n/t (none)

        It's the theocracy, stupid

        by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:12:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not only that, but the site is metrosexual (none)
          We know what the Right's propaganda machine has done to the word "liberal".

          Expect to be accused of advocating the consumption of babies, despite the claimed vegetarianism of the site's founder and owner.

          Those people will do anything to tear down an opponent, so...expect to see some over-the-top messages posted here by agents provocateurs, and expect their propaganda machine to try to stick other labels to DailyKos.

          What have you done today to take Bush and the Bushies down?

          by JTML on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:00:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Definition from Disinfopedia (none)
            For those of you who may not have used the term before, here's the definition of "agent provocateur" from the Disinfopedia site:

            AGENT PROVOCATEUR

            An agent provocateur is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provacateur seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group.

            Agents provocateurs are employed to disrupt or discredit a group by performing acts for which the group will be falsely accused, by leading the group into activities that they would not otherwise pursue or by creating discord between group members. Provacateurs may encourage illegal acts, recomend belligerant tactics a group might otherwise reject, spread false rumors intended to provoke hasty action by a group, spread malicious rumors within a group about a group member or employ other tactics intended to provoke improper action by a group or to divert a group from its chosen purpose. An agent provocateur might attempt to implicate as an accomplice an innocent target who the agent unwittingly involves in a crime or criminal conspiracy.

            Agents provocateur sometimes try to disrupt a group by creating discord between group members. They may argue for unity, while themselves playing consensus thug. They may argue against factionalism, while consistently advancing the positions or actions of one faction in the group. Disruptive group members might not be agents provocateur if they do not represent an outside interest; the term "agent" usually implies representation of or employment by another interest.

            See also: create tension between two or more target groups, demagogue, intelligence agent, outing, operative, propaganda techniques, secret agent

            [END OF DEFINITION]

            What have you done today to take Bush and the Bushies down?

            by JTML on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:16:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a militant meat-eater (none)
      ..as well as a miliant liberal :-)

      "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child."--Barack Obama

      by ChurchofBruce on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:42:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Daily Kos is a liberal blog no question about it!! (none)
      I have had other posters that work at my company get kicked off for posting non-liberal remarks. After  recommended the site I took a lot of crap from them.  I am a centrist nether left nor right. I see people get troll-stomped all the time here. unlike some other Blog site I visit, here there is no RIGHT wing present what so ever.  That makes it a liberal blog.  Can anyone name a right wing poster that is allowed to post pure right wing propaganda? Not that I would agree with it, but everyone should be allowed a voice if this site is going to be Considered non-bias.
      •  not liberal --democratic, like the man said (none)
        •  If true than answer the question! (none)
          Name a Pro-Rightwinger here. I will take the time to read there postings and see I was wrong. But I don't think you can find one. This is as liberal a site as you can get. Here us non-liberals are careful what we say. That a said truth, that no one has be able to dispute. Just find ONE its not like i am asking for alot. One voice that speaks from the other side shouldn't be all that hard to find. Even the Pro rightwing FOX network can pull that one off.
          •  pro-Right winger? You mean, pro-Republican? (none)
            Huh?  

            The Democratic party is not the Republican party.  

            Centrist views are more than accepted.  Discussions flourish from most of the p.o.v.s on the Democratic spectrum.  Republican views, call them conservative or right wing, as you prefer, are not at home here.  Why should they be?

            Your comments are pointless.

    •  More Than One Red Meat Democrat (none)
      Is lurking around here at dKos. Grrrrrrowl. Rip. Chomp.

      We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

      by easong on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:55:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All this time... (4.00)
    I thought it WAS a vegan blog. No wonder there are no recipes.

    In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

    by ablington on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:22:30 PM PST

    •  No, you've got it wrong. (4.00)
      This is a bad fucking ass blog. Dkos don't take shit from anyone, got it?
    •  Brak said it best: (4.00)
      "It's merely symptomatic of our post-modern ennui. ... (Pause) I like pork!"
    •  If it's recipes you want (none)
      just jump into any trollish diary.

      --- My opinions are my own and not my employer's.

      by Aexia on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:12:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos, (none)
      ...you should NEVER, EVER claim "yourself" to "be" "anything" - EVER. "You" are much more than a "Democrat". That descriptor (democrat, that is) is MUCH less than the sum total of your parts and values. If the "Democrats" don't stand for the best and the brightest, apart from what is "Democratic" then the "Democrats" are dead. Labels of divisions and separation are of the highest violence a person can commit. As well intentioned as your descriptor and claim may be, it is still one that divides, not unites the whole of humanity.

      You are perfectly within the right of righteousness to asssociate with anyone you want to within the Democratic Party, but please do not limit this community to such rigid, dogmatic terms as "being" "Democratic".

      All that is guaranteed is change.
    •  I think it's the best (none)
      gay vegan Latino blog on any of the internets!  If only it were liberal, too, it'd be just about perfect.

      "When fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression" -- H.L. Mencken

      by cinnamondog on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:16:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (none)
      Some gay-rights Latino vegan blog this turned out to be. Where's the (soy-based Glueten-free) Beef (substitute)?

      www.news-junky.blogspot.com

      by Antioch on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:20:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Daily Kos (4.00)
    is a secret web page that gives aid and comfort to the enemy because liberals hate God and America.

    Duh.  Don't you ever watch TV?

    ~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

    by Lucky Ducky on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:22:37 PM PST

  •  A reform blog (none)
    I love it :)
    •  Why we are here (none)
      New minds and new media fomenting the progressive revolution.

      ~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

      by Lucky Ducky on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:24:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But not Reformed (none)
      like the Jewish kind of reformed, right?  Because I could never get comfortable with the choir and the organ...it always felt too much like church.  

      Just kiddin' -- thanks for the memo, kos, with which I agree.  As soon as we choose leaders for the party who start behaving like we stand for something -- which we do -- I think we'll all be in a lot better shape.

  •  Don't deny it (3.80)
    Sorry, Kos, it's a liberal blog.  Actually, it's a left-liberal blog.  The amount of people on this blog from the more centrist wing of the democratic party is very few, and they are often ridiculed.  (Think, for example, of the general attitude on this blog toward Joe Lieberman--or toward anyone of similar politics.)

    You may wish this to be a blog that is welcoming of the entire spectrum of the Democratic Party, but it's not that way now.

    Of course that doesn't mean it's not a darn good blog, but it's still left-liberal.

    •  And exactly why... (3.90)
      can I not be a centrist and still think Joe Lieberman is a spineless, whiny toad?

      I am a centrist Dem.  Right here.  I think Welfare Reform was a good thing.  I think unions have both positives and negatives.  Free-trade is good, NAFTA is mostly good.

      And I read and post at DKos religiously.

      So there.  

      •  We may disagree on many issues, (3.00)
        but we can join together in our hatred of Joe Lieberman.

        :-)

        "When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values, so you keep losing." -- Howard Dean, "You Have The Power"

        by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:05:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  what Rashomon said!! (none)
        I'm not sure I'd take the centrist label so quickly, but I like the items above.  

        W/r/t to Kos' top post, I think he gets it exactly right -- IMO this is a place for everyone to wear the "Democratic" sash/pin/hat proudly, but there's no need to pigeonhole each other beyond that!

        Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

        by Pondite on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:09:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Conservatives, too (3.75)
        I think the right to keep and bear arms is one of our most fundamental freedoms and must remain inviolate.  I believe abortion is the taking of a human life.  I support welfare reform and oppose race-based preferences.  I support supply-side fiscal management (not Bush-style drunken sailor spending, though).  I support Israel and would consider supporting military action against terrorist regimes in the middle east (principally Syria and Saudi Arabia).  And I am a Democrat.

        I read and comment on Daily Kos;  I even had a diary promoted to the front page once.

        And I also think Joe Lieberman is a spineless, whiny toad.

      •  I'm seen as a centrist here (none)
        and  wild-eyed liberal amongst conservatives.  Whatever that means...
      •  You said it bruddah (none)
        n/t

        Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative, 100% Democrat. Cheney unity!

        by No One No Where on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:25:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  My own take. (none)
        I don't want liberal government or conservative government.  I want pragmatic, smart, honest government in the interest of ordinary people.  I want to know what works -- on gun control, on health, on the economy, the environment, on anything -- look at the evidence and see what works, and make that our policy.  I don't like ideology.

        You cannot get these things from Republicans.  Not now, with this generation of Republicans in control.  But you can get it with Democrats.  The Democratic party is the party of ideas, flexibility, learning from mistakes, pragmatism, grown-up thinking.  That's what I loved about John Kerry.

        This is my take on things, for what it's worth -- and I feel very much at home at Daily Kos.

        We're just getting started.

        by jem6x on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:48:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You mean it's bad form to mock Joe Lieberman? (4.00)
      The Joe Lieberman who was on Fox this past Sunday lauding George Bush's "outstanding leadership?"

      That Joe Lieberman?

    •  The attitude toward Lieberman (3.92)
      is not because he's a "centrist."  It's because he's an idiot and his rhetorical habits make us lose.

      I'm a centrist Democrat (at least I think so... it's hard to identify the center any more) and a recovering Republican, and the poor treatment of centrist or conservative Democrats that you allege is invisible to me.  If you want a liberal blog, try Ampersand or MaxSpeak.  Now THOSE are liberal blogs.

      Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

      by cerebrocrat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:30:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen (4.00)
        I have no problem with someone of Lieberman's political platform being under the Democratic tent. I do have a problem with the fact that he's bland and uninspiring, that his rhetoric sounds like it was focus-grouped in 1988 and hasn't changed since, and that he's representative of a segment of the party that, despite the Democrats' losses under its leadership and heavy influence for some time now, insists that only IT knows the route to salvation for the Democrats.

        "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

        by soultaco on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:29:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Center-left (4.00)
      I think the so-called conservative educational reformers make some compelling arguments.

      I think most abortions are ethically dubious at best.

      I am a believing Christian.

      I have always felt perfectly welcome here.

      ~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

      by Lucky Ducky on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:32:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why is abortion an issue among dems? (4.00)
        NO ONE, anywhere thinks ANY abortion ever has been a GOOD thing, only that when faced with some really ugly issues, abortion might be the LEAST evil choice, or even the most EXPEDIENT choice for some people.

        This should be a NON ISSUE on our side. We all agree that abortions are ugly, and we all WISH THAT no one ever had to make that choice, let alone that it was the least unattractive option. But, it IS often the least ugly among ugly options, and will continue to be, and since it is whether it is legal or not, the only way to deal with it is to make it as safe as possible and actually work to make it less needed.

        WHY IN THE ++hell++ IF WE WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS ARE WE ++opposed++,  as a nation, to ANY EFFORT, (education, birth control, real social reform to end poverty,) that might actually DECREASE the need for them.

        This is NOT an issue that should matter between us. Pro life or pro choice, we ALL think abortion is a bad thing, and it should not divide us. One more issue that the thugs use to make us turn against each other instead of keeping our eyes on the ball.

        Matter of fact that is one more place we need to FIGHT the thugs. BEING PRO-CHOICE does NOT mean we think abortion is a GOOD thing, only that is the least evil choice in some situations.

        One more issue that we need to reframe.

        Wrong time, wrong war, WRONG PRESIDENT!

        by Mr Tek on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:16:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  great big leap... (3.00)
          It's not true that we all agree abortion is ugly.  If a woman decides to abort a week after conception, big deal.  It's a choice, not ugly at all, in my opinion.  If it happens 8 months in, yeah, I think that's pretty ugly.  Where's the line?  I don't know, but they're both called "abortion".
          •  8 months in (none)
            is very rare I believe and usually only for medical reasons.  Feel free to correct me.

            Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative, 100% Democrat. Cheney unity!

            by No One No Where on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:31:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's UGLY as UGLY as one can get! (none)
            What would you say the same if the man was able to use the same rights as a woman? Where a woman got pageant and the father could have it removed from her body. by simpling saying I do not want to have a child... I am exercising my right to a man's abortion? One week or not, would that be something you would want to take a part in? If not, then you too deep down in side feel it is UGLY.
            •  asdf (none)
              No, of course, I wouldn't say the same thing because the analogy is ludicrous.  On one hand we're talking about a woman deciding not to have a child, and on the other we're talking about the father forcing the woman not to have the child.  The former is regular ol' abortion.  The latter is forced abortion which, in a sense, is akin to making abortion illegal because in both cases the woman's right to choose is infringed.

              I honestly don't understand your reasoning.

        •  I have no problem with abortions (none)
          In fact I think they're great.  When it's a choice between an abortion and a child growing up with one parent, or two abusive parents, bereft of both emotional and financial resources to raise a child properly, then that's no choice at all.  

          If I thought that an embryo or a fetus were a sentient human being then I'd oppose abortion.  I don't.  So to me, the salient issues with abortion are the medical risk to the pregnant woman, and the potential emotional damage to the women.  This is why I believe abortion should be a woman's choice, because it affects the woman alone.

          "You go to your TV to turn your brain off. You go to your computer to turn your brain on." - Steve Jobs

          by Subterranean on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:27:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with Kos on this one...but you're both right (3.81)
      When I first became politically active, I considered myself a moderate to conservative Democrat: strongly pro-choice, strongly equal rights, but financially conservative, pro-firearm, at least an occasional military hawk, and strongly pro-Israel. I haven't really changed my position politically (though it's grown much more nuanced and historically grounded after years as a politically active writer and professor), but the Democratic Party has drifted so far to the right that now I'm pretty firmly in the more liberal end of the party.

      Rockefeller Republicans 30 years ago would be considered liberal Democrats today, and most of what pass for moderate Republicans now are extremely conservative--we just apply the title moderate to any Republican figure who isn't actively hateful all the time. Arlen Specter is pro-choice, but that doesn't make him a moderate. John McCain is against some pork-barrel spending, but that doesn't make him a moderate.

      As I mentioned elsewhere, both presidential candidates ran to the right of Richard Nixon on social issues. There's an awful lot of room to the left of that before you get to liberal, at least as we used ot think of liberalism.

      •  Come (none)
        sit by me. We might argue some about guns and Israel, but we belong together.

        Good post.

      •  yep (none)
        where you stand definitely depends on where you sit.  Growing up in Bama, I was a bleeding heart librul; at school in CA I seemed to hover on the edge of conservativism; here in NYC, I'm definitely a centrist.

        Regardless, as a source of ideas, insight, inspiration and important information, dKos IS the place to be.....

      •  I agree with you! I'm not ashamed to say I'm (3.85)
        a liberal but the main reason I like Kos is that I can admit I'm a Democrat and a democrat and not be ashamed or taken to task for it.

        The kind of moderate Republicans we knew in the 50s and 60s have all died. The GOP is all John Birch Society, now. Goldwater lives! ;)

        I thought Bill Clinton was more like the old time moderate Republicans. I'd like some one a bit more Progessive although I've supported some things that aren't all that left of center, too.

        In fact, I think that's exactly what Kos is talking about. Democrats can be liberal, moderate, or conservative as a matter of speaking but my endorse certain ideas from any of the three. I, too, backed Welfare Reform but I also want to see Universal Health Care (and I don't care if it's called Socialized Medicine).

        I want to see a strong public education system and I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe church schools have a perfect right to exist but that the public tax dollars don't need to rund them.

        That and the fact I think anyone should be able to marry whoever they please, probably makes me seem very far left to most of the country.

         I regret that abortion is necessary and wonder in this day and age,, when there is no sigma on out of wedlock birth, that it is necessay.

        The wonderful thing about DailyKos is the fact I can be a Democrat and admit it and, yes, as Kos says, work for the kind of reform, discuss ideas, and find like minds to share, gripe, and debate with.

        It's fine with me if "unlike" minds join in. I'm not fond of certain kinds of far right Christians, but I have Christians in my family, too and I certainly don't believe you  can't be a Democrat and be a Christian.

      •  So True (4.00)
        Back in '92 when I worked for Tsongas, the establishment types working for the DC candidates and Clinton considered us the conservative Dems because Tsongas ran as a "pro-business" Dem.  Of course Tsongas also was very pro-gay rights back at a time when that wasn't necessarily a major Democratic issue -- he sponsored what I believe was the first federal civil rights bill that protected gays and lesbians when he was in the Senate in the early '80s -- and he also for a long time during that campaign was the only candidate that had an AIDS policy (he used to say "I know what it's like to be told 'you have an incurable disease'").  This time around, when I supported Howard Dean, whose positions were very similar to Tsongas's positions, I was told I was a 'wild-eyed liberal'.  The spectrum just keeps shifting to the right and people like Lieberman and From are just tripping over each other running to the right.  It's time to start pulling the party back.
        •  Gave you a Tsongas Memorial 4 (none)
          That man convinced me to be a Democrat again.  I knew I wasn't a Republican after a "young and stupid" flirtation, and I liked what he said.  Damn cancer!

          Oy yeah, paint me as a moderate as well. Lieberman? FEH!

          Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative, 100% Democrat. Cheney unity!

          by No One No Where on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:38:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nice (none)
        What a well-reasoned post. Good balance. Nice tone. Rather like an oaky chardonnay, except a bit more respectably dry.
      •  asdf (none)
        but the Democratic Party has drifted so far to the right that now I'm pretty firmly in the more liberal end of the party.

        Yep, but imagine how I feel.

        Pro-regulation. Pro-welfare state. Thinks taxation should be far more progressive than it is. Pro-'socialized medicine'. Fanatic on first amendment, especially separation of church and state. Pro-union, and thinks that the decrease in the percentage of American workers in unions is Problem Numero Uno in this country. In addition to being pro-gay marriage and having no problems with first-trimester abortions in any circumstance. (If, when my daughters get older, they should have an 'oops' when they're sixteen, I'd strongly advise an abortion, though it would be their choice in the end and I would support whatever choice they made.)

        Imagine how I feel. I'm so far out of the mainstream even of the Democratic party that I'm hanging off the farthest-left limb :-). And, though I occasionally vote for Greens, I don't want to be a green because I also think winning's important.

        sigh

        "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child."--Barack Obama

        by ChurchofBruce on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, now! (none)
      I'm definitely more of a centrist, sometimes bordering on conservative (as Dems go, of course). Nevertheless, I think Joe Lieberman is a massive tool. Tools come in all flavors, my friend.

      Thanks for this diary, kos! I can't say enough that we need to avoid the power struggles over ideology and who's the mostest, superest, coolest Democrat out there. Save that energy for getting some reform, people.

    •  You are absolutely right! (1.16)
      And as long as Democrats stay left-liberal, too many conservatives won't touch us with a barge-pole.

      We seem destined to lose more and more elections until we lose the liberal faction from among us.

      God bless people like Lieberman and Bayh.

      •  WHAT?? (none)
        Who the hell do you think will vote for Dems if the liberals leave?  This is exactly the ideological shit Kos was posting about; you seem to have entirely missed the point.

        I put things where they don't belong at Switzerblog.

        by switzerblog on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:03:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People in the center (none)
          People from both parties who are closer to the political center. Face it, if we lose all conservatives there is no way we can win another election.
          •  the worst form of stupidity (none)
            First you want to kick out the group of people that votes over 90% Democrat in each election and comprises at least 20% of the electorate (but probably much more).

            Then you claim we can win by appealing to the center.  Well if you stop to think for two seconds, you'd realize then that Lieberman and Bayh would be the most liberal politicians in America, in fact "too liberal" for Americans.  The right-wing hate mongers don't care what your views are - they will paint you as an extremist regardless.

            Just consider this:  Nixon used to be considered a conservative.  He passed the earning income tax credit, clean air and water acts, created the EPA, and proposed universal health care.  Now those views would earn you the uber-liberal tag, mostly because this party has purged itself of true liberals.

            •  Do your math (none)
              90% of 20% is still only 18%. You can't win with 18%. Because of the extreme liberal views of the party, the centrists will find that the right wing radicals and the far left liberals are equally far off from them.

              Democrats will lose every election in that scenario.

            •  Wrong about a lot of things (none)
              The right wing hate mongers aren't stupid. They don't always use the same attack -- only attacks that stick. They wouldn't use that with Lieberman. They'd use the attack "great idea... too bad it's what we're already doing". Or focus on individual policies or world views that make him spineless -- not that make him too liberal.

              Also, Nixon in the 1960s distanced himself from conservatism. In the midst of the civil rights movement, to say you were "conservative" was to open yourself to ridicule. So it wasn't surprising to hear Nixon use liberal language from time to time.

              The reality is the democratic party needs to remain a "big tent" party. We ought to stay on the left, but we can't move any more far-left than swing voters will tolerate. We will lose. (Not to say that optimal point isn't open to debate. I think we have the policies solid as of this election, better than Gore, better than Clinton. But since we didn't win, some people think we need to be closer to Clinton.)

          •  Really? (none)
            I am a liberal democrat and very proud of it. That said, we need both wings, liberal and conservative, in order to maintain equilibrium and not become communist or fascist. We always balance things out over time. We drift too far to the right and there develops a surge of political opinion and action that brings us back to the center. Too far to the left and the same thing happens.
            To think that we have to move to the right and cut off the liberal faction makes absolutely no sense. If both parties are relying on conservative values there will have to spring up a third party to fill the void. Then we'd be back to the two party system anyway. Conservatives (generally) in one and liberals (generally) in the other.
            I don't see that we can ever win an election by moving to the right. We just have to make our message more clear and get it heard. Oh, and bring back the equal time clause in the media which will get rid of FOX's brainwashing agenda, and other outlets that spew spin and lies.
        •  Riddle me this. . . . (none)
          What's so magical about Democrats winning?  Don't get me wrong--I've supported many more Democrats than Republicans, but I have indeed done both.  But isn't it more important that the right ideas win (no matter who proposes them) than that the Democrats as such win?

          It seems impossible to suss out what the Democrats stand for these days, which makes it hard to just flatly say "Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong."

        •  Pure hypocrisy (none)
          I am hearing a lot of shit in this place.  Just today Kos posted an article about Dems winning in Montana.  If you all forgot, here it is  We would not have won that race unless we had a rancher who cut the balls off of calves and liked to kill wild animals and eat them.  He is a cave man, a Democrat and a god damn American.  I love it!  Only in America could a guy do that!

          I am a liberal, but think it is stupid to piss all over the conservative wing of the party.  We are united by a common cause, we are the 'little guy'.  Unless we want to get our ass kicked by the 'big guy', we need to band together and fight.  They are the predators, we are the prey.  We are a coalition of convenience and necessity at this point.  There is no 'one true' version of what a Democrat is.

          People are looking to assign blame, and crack skulls just because someone is a bit different, they are the the ones that need to be beaten.  I will never ask for absolute loyalty to party dogma.  I only ask for competance and a fair ally who swears allegiance to the USA.  

          We shouldn't attack our own.  That is pure bullshit.  That is exactly what many people here are demanding.  This is no better than the Repugs going after Specter.  No conscience, no shame, same bullshit, different source.  This is hypocrisy, as clear as gangrene.

          As far as progressives, that is just a code word.  'Progressive' actually means 'true liberal ideologue'; as in the one and only 'true liberal ideologue' and all others are apostate and anathema before him. I don't object to the underlying politics progressives put forward, I object to the piss poor, holier than thou zealotry progressives put forward.  It makes me sick!  How can we open up or change if we are rigid like that?

          As a liberal, I believe we need to keep an open mind and treat people fairly.  I believe that is more important than anything else. I believe in fighting for the heart and soul of America.  I won't help purge the party, and will fight for the right of the people of my party to hold their earned, repected and rightful place.  I'm a Democrat, get in my way and I will kick your ass.

          ps

          Why are we doing this!  We should all be in mourning for Ol'Dirty Bastard!

          •  Read the thread again (none)
            I haven't pissed on the conservative wing of the party - as I said, that's the point of Kos's post!  I've responded to someone who said we need to get the liberals OUT of the party.  My question remains...how does it make the party stronger to eliminate liberals?  Who's going to vote for the dems?  

            Your comment makes so little sense in response to mine that I assume it's a general response to something else, because I'm totally on board with you.

            I put things where they don't belong at Switzerblog.

            by switzerblog on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:20:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I believe Kos said [ahem] inclusive (none)
        . . . and in fact called himself a liberal.

        B'anyway, which staples of liberality would you like to see the party lose first? Sincere question.

        god bless our tinfoil hearts

        by aitchdee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:07:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Time time time (4.00)
        Well we'd be happy to leave you behind and join the Greens if they had a chance. Without the left, the Democratic party truly means nothing. The whole problem with elections is that they're no longer about the contest of ideas, about picking a path to steer society down, they're about winning elections. You want to stay center in order to win, and that makes you the Election Party. That's a party with no platform, though, and we saw how well it worked this time. What would you do if you got in? Hey everybody, the status quo is on the march!
      •  Don't know much about Bayh (none)
        but Lieberman is not an effective "moderate" Democratic candidate.  He's untrustworthy in every sense.  Having a bad day?  Turn on Faux and there's Joe making it worse.  He's third on my shoe list (quickest to get a shoe thrown at the tv) behind Georgie Boy and Unka Dick.

        Socially libertarian, Fiscally conservative, 100% Democrat. Cheney unity!

        by No One No Where on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:45:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a centrist dem and I dislike Joe L. (none)
      Not because of his politics, but because he is often disloyal to the party on national television.  So for me, I understand your point, but that may not have been the best example.

      I'm a centrist -partisan- democrat, I guess is what I mean to say.

    •  Me too (none)
      I am also a centrist democrat.
    •  It's an international blog (none)
      Eh, mes amis Canadiens?
  •  Mystery Science Theater 3000 (3.80)
    I thought this blog was for the discussion of MST3K. No wonder no one read my diary on the meaning of Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo's relationship. Link here.

    Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

    by Carnacki on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:25:07 PM PST

    •  down in front (3.80)
      i can't see the damn screen...

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:26:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I miss those guys. (none)

      In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

      by ablington on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:27:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is a Mystery Science Blog... (3.66)
      MST3K quotes:

      regarding the movie titled: Hired!
      "There's something you didn't hear much during the Bush Administration!"

      from the movie "The Deadly Wasp"
      regarding the Cold War:
      "After all this trouble, how could we ever disarm, really?"

      Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S. Truman

      by jgoodfri on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:30:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  MSTprophets (4.00)
        "The classic battle between Evil and -- the narrator." -Crow.

        "Ah, the clean smell of kids who know they rule the world..." -Crow.

        "Cheating is bad. Richard Basehart is good." -Gypsy.

        "Do you want to make people's heads explode? Sure -- we all do!..." -Dr. Forrester.

        "Due to an error, there are still a few of you left alive. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you." -Joel

        Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

        by Carnacki on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:42:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So many lines, so little time... (none)
          Only one example, hoping to not start the beginning of something that should have its own blog...
          "The only one concerned is the music!"
        •  Master Ninja Theme Song! (none)
          One of my favorites.  That, and the Hike Your Pants Up song, the Sidehackers song, the Gamera theme song.. and of course, Patrick Swayze Christmas.

          A friend of mine used to have this utterly mortifying Torgo screensaver in which he walked across your screen as it played the tune from Manos, the Hands of Fate.  eeep.

          We must cultivate our garden.

          by daria g on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:52:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The horror, the horror (none)
            Manos was almost too painful to watch even with Joel and the 'bots.
            I could not imagine a screen saver with that. <shudder>.

            This thought just struck me (and I haven't seen Manos in a while), but could Torgo and Wolfowitz be long-lost brothers?

            Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

            by Carnacki on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:59:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, that was rough going. (none)
              I seem to recall that Joel named that one the worst film they'd ever seen.  Worse than Attack of The The Eye Creatures and whichever Hercules movie had the sandstorm.  

              Hmm.. actually, in retrospect I think Monster-A-Go-Go might have been worse, I don't think the actual monster was even in the movie!

              We must cultivate our garden.

              by daria g on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:31:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Attack of The The Eye Creatures (none)
                Daria, remember the creepy guy with those <shudder> strange bedclothes <cringe>? He changed his name to Grover Norquist and runs some sort of tax reform organization in Washington, D.C.

                Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

                by Carnacki on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:38:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Democratic reform blog... LOVE it! (none)
    Now I have an even MORE succinct way to lure every last one of my friends here.  Thanks, Markos!

    Give Dean some mojo here.

    by Shelley on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:25:54 PM PST

  •  A democratic blog, (3.66)
    a humanist blog
    a progressive blog
    a war as last resort blog
    an economic justice blog

    a great blog!

    Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S. Truman

    by jgoodfri on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:26:04 PM PST

  •  DailyKos, the identity crisis (4.00)
    (Is this a sign of success, or a byproduct of being mentioned in the NY Times and elsewhere?)

    DailyKos is a Democratic blog? Personally I'm prouder of being a liberal than a democrat. (In fact I'm not a democrat at the moment; I registered decline to state so the GOP wouldn't know whether to shred my ballot or not).

    I'd like to think that anyone liberal, regardless of party, would be welcome here. We've got recounts happening in NH and Ohio because of everyone but the Democrats.

    I'd like DailyKos to be a successful political voice too.

    •  I agree... (4.00)
      I'm prouder of the fact that I am a liberal than a Democrat, and prouder more so that I am a pragmatic liberal. I realize that gay marriage isn't going to be accepted in this country for a while, but that we should work towards it by framing it within the context of equality for all - what our Constitution states. The Democratic Party is the most representative of my beliefs, but I do not feel as strong an affiliation to the party as I do to my beliefs. Yes, I am a registered Democrat; yes, I am a highly active member of the College Democrats at UPenn; yes, I will almost certainly vote for a Democrat over a Republican.

      This is a liberal blog - yes, there are centrists on here, but the centrists here are usually pragmatic - they realize that Joe Lieberman is no longer a moderate, but a neocon hawk who's making his way towards Zell Miller territory, politically speaking. I don't think hardly any of us here really think the DLC was/is that great. Look, there's nothing wrong about being 'liberal'. Being a liberal means working towards change for better things. If we call ourselves Democrats first and liberals second, we're already admitting that the word 'liberal' is a negative word. We cannot let them win the battle of defining who we are. Be damn proud you run a liberal blog, Kos. Being a liberal isn't a bad thing. It's a GOOD thing, and everything it stands for - justice, equality, fairness, freedom - are good things, too.

      •  I call (4.00)
        myself a progressive.
        Then a liberal
        Then an independant.

        and a democrat only because I tend to vote that way more often than not.

        I tend to feel ignored and forgotten by the democrats.  By most politicos.  And, in our most recent revision of America, my voice isn't all that welcome because I'm a pagan and not a Christian at all.  Lately that seems to be synonymous with amoral.

        Just another sheeple wondering what the flock everyone else is doing.

        by coffeegrrl on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:42:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Progressive and liberals are the same thing (none)
          Progressive is the nice, fluffy term for liberal. At the core, the two philosophies are highly similar, IMO.
          •  Progressives and Liberals (4.00)
            I once read a quote from the South African writer Nadine Gordimer where she defines liberals as "people whose minds are open just wide enough for ideas to walk in and out."

            (Still, especially in these times, I guess I'd say I am a liberal. I'm kind of partial to [much of] the Enlightenment.)

            Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!

            by eoglesby on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:10:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  True. (none)
            Still, it is useful due to the fact, noted here above that the far right has turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

            Just ask nearly anyone in the entire country and you'll see.

          •  PnL (none)
            I think of progressive as more liberal than liberal.

            Just another sheeple wondering what the flock everyone else is doing.

            by coffeegrrl on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:16:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  no they're not (3.66)
            Your take is what liberals are trying to do because the L word has been so maligned. Kerry is a liberal. I'm a progressive, which is further left. I'm anti-war, anti-corporate, pro-environment, and pro-gay all the way. Just for starters. The Democrats infuriate me and that's not a recent feeling, as it seems to be for many here.
            •  Kerry's the 24th most liberal Senator (none)
              which isn't very liberal.  You can't use him to measure what "liberal" means.

              When progressives answer a multiple choice question about whether they are
              very liberal ... very conservative, they usually answer "very liberal".
              So there's a clear sense in which "liberal" includes "progressive".
              And "The Democrats" is a misleading term, because people fail to
              distinguish among elected politicians, party leadership, party hacks,
              and ordinary people who are registered as and/or self-identify asDemocrats.

          •  Not the same thing (4.00)
            The two terms get used to mean the same thing by people who don't know what they mean (as do "liberal," "Democratic," "communist," and "socialist"), but there is a difference, historically.

            The early 20th century, there was a progressive wing of the Republican Party. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. He was still a Republican. He wasn't exactly a liberal, but he believed in one vision of making the world a better place for the common man, not simply in maintaining the status quo.

            Of course, given the current state of either party, he probably looks like a liberal to most people. National parks? Anti-trust legislation? Ship that man back to Russia!

            Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

            by darrelplant on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:42:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Teddy also left the GOP (none)
              Let's hope that other moderate Repubs follow his lead in the next two years.
            •  the Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery (none)
              in the territories.  That Roosevelt was a Republican is neither here nor there.
              And "progressive" then and "progressive" now don't have identical semantics.
              Meaning is use, not history or etymology, so please don't accuse people of not knowing
              what the words they use mean.
          •  Bzzzzt!!!! Co-opting "Progressive" (3.66)
            : Progressive is the nice, fluffy term for liberal.

            Pleeeze don't do that. (Sound of nerve being hit.) "Progressive" is a useful designation precisely because it distinguishes from "Liberal."

            Yes, there's a lot of leeway in the definitions. But I think it's safe to say that "Liberal" is definitely Establishment, whereas "Progressive" is to the left of that, focusing on making life better for the little guy.

            Historically, "Liberal" was meant in the same sense that we refer to "The Liberal Western Democracies," so that would include Republicans, Whigs, Tories, and anyone else located between monarchists and socialists on the political spectrum.

            ("fluffy"... "nice"... grumble, mutter, grumble)

            •  "liberal" versus "progressive" (none)
              I think this deserves its own thread. Seems to have struck a nerve.

              I thought progressives included a broader spectrum. But then again, the people I know who call themselves progressives I used to call socialists, except that's far too dirty a word for most Americans. That might mean something terrible, like health coverage. (Howard Dean is looking better and better since December 3).

              Does this make us the left? is there anyone left of us aside from Dennis Kucinich?

              Aside from being a meat eater and supporting employers as well as employees, I'm pretty much a liberal stereotype: pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-privacy, multilateralist, in favor of taxes and spending them on education, pro-sex (and birth control), and keep your church out of our govt.

              •  socialists are anti-capitalism (none)
                Liberals and progressives (I think these categories overlap, if they aren't in fact coincident) may or may not be, but generally are more pragmatically focused on incremental improvements of the existing system.
              •  Hey , , (4.00)
                I re-registered as a Dem to support Kucinich - but then I am an Independent Progressive Socialist Democrat.  

                I see Kucinich as incrediably reasonable on the issues and it is beyond me, why anyone thinks he is too far to the left.  

                Lets see, he was right about Iraq
                He was right about the Patriot Act
                Looks like he was right about the need for Universal Health care
                With clean water about to become the new gold standard, looks like he was right about that.

                He supports equal rights regardless of gender.  Someone here opposed to that?

                Maybe you have a problem with letting folks with severe medical conditions have access to medical marijuana?  

                His position on abortion was not different than Kerry's.  A Catholic who did not like it but was the first to say he would not appoint a SCOTUS judge who would not support Roe v Wade.

                He thinks we should support alternative energy.

                And yeah, he is a vegan.  Which, I am not.  but Kos and a lot of you are.  

                So I don't get where you all think he was so liberal.  Maybe not the best presidential candidae, but how do you knock him for standing up for issues most of you agree with?  

                "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

                by SarahLee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:11:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  no, it's not safe to say that (none)
              >  But I think it's safe to say that "Liberal" is definitely Establishment,

              I think it's safe to say that you have been taken in by Republican propaganda.
              There are millions of people in this country who self-identify as "liberal" or
              agree with policies described as "liberal" but who have nothing to do with
              "Establishment".

              •  Well, unsafe then... (none)
                Unsafe on both counts, actually (I am so immune to Republican chatter, you would laugh if you knew).

                The important point in my post was that we shouldn't equate "Liberal" and "Progressive." It's a useful distinction in the very muddled-together pile of political terminology we seem to be stuck with.

                Still, the points you make are good, too, and I think reflect the struggle many of us are having as we grope for appropriate self-descriptions.

                My take on it draws on world history of politics, which can be very helpful in providing some backgound and context for the terminology.

                Historically,  Liberalism came about in the aftermath of the French Revolution as a way to keep "the dangerous classes" in line by granting them the vote, a bit of welfare state, nationalism, and a few other bennies, while essentially preserving the status quo. It was an agenda created and carried out by the Establishment of the day. (Immanuel Wallerstein, to name one source, has written much of interest on the subject.)

                More recently, the demonization of "the L-word" in the US managed to associate the term with New-Deal style, centralized government. The implication was Big Bad Establishment -- cheerfully hypocritical, of course, as it came from ever-so-Establishment Republicans.

                I don't believe, though, that the association is going to be broken very soon; given that, and the history of the term, it might make sense for those who consider themselves anti-Establishment to reconsider describing themselves as "Liberal." YMMV.

                Of course, the terminology is likely to stay muddled for some time, perhaps until some coherent movement emerges to counter the Right and the status quo. At that point, it seems likely that such a movement would include a distinctive self-desribing label.

        •  maybe (none)
          this can be a "post-Christian" blog.

          I went to a UU church with some friends in North Carolina recently and had to drop that in; actually I'm a proud atheist. But what I believe has nothing to do with the government.

          •  religion's place (4.00)
            is not in government.  Unless you follow Islam.  Or certain aspects of the jewish doctrine ( I think ).  Chrisianity has not specific mention in its doctrine as to its place in government (beyond give to caesar what is caesar... blah blah).  However, if you listen to the media -- and what is swiftly becoming CW, liberal means amoral, and not christian means amoral.

            Moral has increasingly become defined, at least in rural America, as Christian.  This is not a 2004 thing, either, it has been a growing trend.

            Just another sheeple wondering what the flock everyone else is doing.

            by coffeegrrl on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:15:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you and see it (3.66)
              everyday around me but the appalling thing, and I do mean appalling is that not only is liberal amoral and not Christian amoral (and even immoral) but the only thing that defines morals is sexual activily.

              As long as you don't commit (or are not found out to commit) adultry, are not gay, you are moral regardless of what else you do.

              I belive that morals are how you treat other people, not just who you sleep with.

            •  Not just Islam (none)
              Point 1:

              The Vedas describe the model society as divided into four main occupations: brahmana (priestly), ksatriya (government), vaishya (farmer/merchant), sudra (laborer).  Brahmana's are above ksatriya's in status, but they cannot accumulate wealth.  In addition to teaching the general public, they are advisors to ksatriyas.  There are examples in the Puranas (the history component of the Vedas)of brahmanas killing an evil king by chanting mantras and installing a new king, and of a brahmana taking up weapons to lead a successful rebellion against an oppressive emperor.

              In Vedic society, monarchs were highly trained in justice and morality by the brahmanas and then ruled according to the advice of brahmanas.  Vedic society was significantly weakened by Islamic invaders, and essentially destoyed by the British empire.

              --------

              Point 2:

              Christian definitely doesn't mean moral.  It may have been a revolution in morality 2000 years ago in the Middle-East, but they've got a long way to go before they know anything about morality.  A big step would be to close the slaughterhouses.

              The Vedic version, on slaughter

              "Animal-killers cannot understand God. I have seen this. It is a fact."

              on abortion:

              "If you kill the cow, who is your mother, then in some future lifetime your mother will kill you."  - A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada

              ... and on war:

              "They are killing mother cow in the slaughterhouse. They are killing babies in the womb. Therefore they will have to send their sons to the slaughterhouse of war."

              "Now if you are willingly killing cows and so many animals, so how much we are being responsible? Therefore at the present moment there is war, and the human society becomes subjected to be killed in mass massacre -- the nature's law. You cannot stop war and go on killing animals. That is not possible."

              Srila Prabhupada on cow protection

              Government has the responsibility to protect all the inhabitants within its borders.  Instead it supports slaughter those who most need protection.  Might makes right, they say.

              Hare Krishna,
              Pandu das

              •  Not much a student (none)
                Of hindi religion -- my focus has been on the "big three" and fundamentalism lately -- and my own personal fascination with Buddhism and paganism.

                thanks for the info on hindi faith.

                Just another sheeple wondering what the flock everyone else is doing.

                by coffeegrrl on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 07:32:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Yay for UU's... (none)
            UU principles from: http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

            The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
            Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
            Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
            A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
            The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
            The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
            Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

          •  Well (none)
            Some of us liberals are motivated by belief in social justice, and for some of us religion plays a part in that.
            •  Texas UU (none)
              As a Texas UU, repukes scare me...what is scarier is THIS  repuke lady---there have been rumblings on her running for Gov of TX:

              Not very long ago this happened:

              The Comptroller of Texas is foisting upon a certain UU congregation in Texas. Carolyn Strayhorn, State Comptroller, has denied tax-exempt status to a Fort Worth congregation on the basis that it will not proclaim that all members must believe in God; this in spite of the fact that in prior challenges the Texas courts have agreed with the UU's.

          •  yay (none)
            for UU's AND NC'ers (i'm both)...where did you go, if i might ask
        •  You hit the nail on the head: (none)
          I tend to feel ignored and forgotten by the democrats.

          Absolutely.  I voted for Fulani in '92 and Nader in '96 (hey, back in '96, he was a different candidate!)  I joined forces with the Dems because, frankly, Dubya is sooooo bad that defeating him was more important than standing on principle.

          But the Democratic Party -- instead of embracing those of us from the left -- ran away from us, cringing at the idea of supporting true social and economic justice, and instead trying as hard as possible to be the lesser of two evils.

          I understand Markos's reasons for calling it a "Democratic blog", but not his reasons for calling some of his members "dishonest shills" -- how inclusive is that tent?  Still, in the past, this has been a blog that's been willing to say the right things even if they weren't blindly partisan -- and I hope that will continue.

          Same handbasket, different day.

          by osterizer on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:43:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a liberal (4.00)
        But "liberal" is an ideological expression. If this blog is an expression of my ideology, then it's all over the fucking place (Herseth, Chandler, Carson, et al).

        It's a partisan effort. I don't give a shit where a democrat sits on the spectrum, so long as they are proud Democrats and members of the loyal opposition.

        •  Important words: (4.00)
          "loyal opposition"

          Sums up the problem with Joe L. very succinctly.

          I put things where they don't belong at Switzerblog.

          by switzerblog on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:05:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This blog has taken on an identity of its own. (none)
          Most of the people here do give a shit where people sit on the political spectrum -- that's why we care who chairs the DNC, whether the party moves to the right, etc.  Personally I don't think much of those who are more concerned with their organization winning than they are with what  policies are enacted -- the latter affect the whole planet and its inhabitants.  Painting "the battle" in terms of ideology is the only honest way to paint it.  That Americans have been conditioned to see politics as a horse race or a football game is a good part of why we're in the mess we're in.
          •  the horserace (none)
            is not just an American obsession with sports but also the result of lazy journalism.

            How many more times did we hear that Bush and Kerry were campaigning within 10 miles of each other or what the latest polling numbers were than we heard what they were saying?

            I do think this is about balancing ideals with practicality about getting them implemented. (This is why I'm not a Green voter, even when their platforms are better than the Dems.) But the Democrats need to stand for something.

            •  right -- American journalism (none)
              I wasn't referring to an American obsession with sports, but rather a way of looking at politics that Americans have been conditioned to.  It isn't just lazy journalism, it's a matter of a certain ideological view -- or rather the lack of a certain ideological view -- among mainstream journalists.  Those with a more sophisticated understanding of "politics" are filtered out.  Markos misunderstands what ideology is and fails to understand its importance.
              "the Democrats need to stand for something" -- exactly so.


              i·de·ol·o·gy  n.

                 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
                 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

      •  guess that means (none)
        we're from the democratic wing of the democratic party: )

        If Kerry had been more proud of his liberal record, he might have inspired a few more people to vote for him. Clinton always seemed proud of being called a liberal, even though he isn't one.

      •  Whoa, Nellie (none)
        they realize that Joe Lieberman is no longer a moderate, but a neocon hawk who's making his way towards Zell Miller territory, politically speaking.

        Your evidence for this is what, precisely?

        •  Well... (none)
          On several posts on dKos, there have been mentions that Lieberman is no longer really a Democrat but a DINO; all you ever hear from him is praise for President Bush's resoluteness on the 'war on terror', and his blind pro-Israel statements. He was ambivalent towards affirmative action before Gore adopted him as VP candidate; then he was fully pro-affirmative action. He was also pro-voucher for private schools, if I remember correctly. So yeah. I know most politicians, Democrats included, are blindly pro-Israel as well. But when was the last time he said a damn thing about what DEMOCRATS could do? Why do you think he's always invited back to Fox.
        •  the problem with Lieberman (4.00)
          This is enough to prevent me from ever voting for the guy:
          He responded to what he called the “miracle” of his nomination with repeated public professions of faith in God, along with declarations that religion is the basis of morality and that the Constitution provides “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” In a speech at Notre Dame, he linked secularism to a “vacuum of values” that had been filled by—what else?—“our omnipresent popular culture.”

          With that, and his support for the war, I don't see any real difference between him and a Repug.
          •  What is wrong with what he said? (1.00)
            Sounds like common sense. If morals are not grounded in religion, everyone can do whatever they want and claim to be "moral".
            •  That's a scary tree you're shaking (4.00)
              what about atheists?
              I was raised by two of them.  Does that mean i was raised without morals?

              Just another sheeple wondering what the flock everyone else is doing.

              by coffeegrrl on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:54:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Even if you are atheist (none)
                I am an agnostic myself.

                But you have to admit that if you trace your morals far enough you will find they are rooted in religion.

                •  true (none)
                  The Greeks and the Romans.  good point.

                  It's time to reject a President that says to the American people 'Ignore my record, forget my failures and fear the future.' - Kerry Campaign

                  by Armando on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:23:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No, Not Quite (none)
                  Morals come from people, not religion.

                  Religion comes from people, remember?

                  Morals are what people generally decide that they are.  Morals change with people.

                  Do the words 'Victorian era' ring any bells?

                  If communities tend to reduce the role of religion in members' lives, the more they tend to utilize other institutions to justify, enforce and disseminate morality and other rules of personal/social conduct.

                  The idea that religion spawns moral or, more accurately put, acceptable and consciencious behavior, puts the cart before the horse.

                  Scandinavians aren't generally less moral people, they're just generally less religious.

                •  I am an atheist (none)
                  and my morals have absolutely nothing to do with religion, thank you very much.

                  Death row is filled with penitents. Atheists are no more or less moral than anyone else; just less hypocritical about the rationale for our actions in the world.

                •  Switcheroo (none)
                  OR is religion instead rooted in morals? This holy mystery thing we call religion could just be the codified wisdom of the ages, passed down from generation to generation of humans from the primate days as the practical rules that allow people to live together. Things that are ancient enough become faint in the fog of time and we mythologize them, assigning them special significance since they seem to be uncanny wisdom emanating from the mysterious past. I'm just saying, you have to allow for the possibility.
                •  Values rooted in religion? (a la Joe L.) (none)
                  Possibly.  But then, shouldn't you be arguing your well-taken point with Lieberman?  He's the one who clearly contrasts religion (and the values it bestows) with secularism (and its "lack" of values) in the quotation above. You seem to take the opposite tack, which is that religion and secularism are false dichotomies.

                  Sure, one could easily make the case that morality is rooted historically in religion (of one kind or another). But I doubt that was Lieberman's point.  He was pretty strongly implying that "secularists" necessarily lack the moral values of "religious" people.  As a good Protestant (UCC), I believe this is simply not a sustainable opinion if one has any meaningful breadth of experience, and I suspect it's not sustainable in Lieberman's experience either.  Which makes his pronouncements seem even more craven.

                •  I have to admit that what's false is true? (none)
                  No, I don't have to admit any such thing.  My ethics are rooted in my upbringing, which had no religious element.  Tracing them further, they are rooted in human culture, which is rooted in human biology as a social species.
                  •  And when you think about it (none)
                    - basic morality must have predated religion by eons. After all, the latter depends on language, a rather recent development. If our evolutionary ancestors hadn't been biologically disposed for altruism - at least within the primary social group - then the hominid line would have crashed and burned long before that.

                    Europeans are to Americans what Greeks were to Romans. Educated slaves. - Luigi Berzini

                    by Sirocco on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:16:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Morals Rooted in Religion (none)
                  If a "moral" is something that has to come from an "authority" then maybe morals come from religion. But, even then, they really come from something you have chosen. So, they don't really come from the authority, they come from your own choice.

                  By "morals" you seem to mean "a system of beliefs about what kind of conduct is right and what kind is wrong." Most religions have sets of morals and you can pick up your set by going to a religion and adopting theirs.

                  But some people just don't. They either develop their own set, based on their own experience or they adopt one from a non-religious source. (I suggest liberalism as a source, but what does that mean? In my case, it means going back for guidance to specific people, like Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell; going back to certain documents, like the U.S. Constitution; and, using logic and my own observations to supplement that.)

                  I think morals based on liberalism are compatible with most religious systems of morals. That doesn't make them religious. But maybe it's a comforting thought.

                  Maybe it just doesn't feel like you made the choice yourself, like it came from your spiritual self. I can understand someone saying that all morality is rooted in spirituality, if that means that it's hard to point to a specific source in the physical world where the morals seem to come from. I'm worried that that just avoids responsibility. All our thoughts "come from" somewhere. Can you tell me where they originate? Looks like magic to me!

                  Liberal Thinking

                  Think, liberally.

                  by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:24:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  morals and religion (none)
                    Someone can go pick the morals they want from their choice of religions, but that doesn't mean anything at all.  Religion must be bona fide or its useless.  Bona fide in this case means it came from God.  If it didn't, it's bogus religion and a bogus moral system.

                    If God loves cows but you pick a religion that condones beef eating, tough luck for you.

                    "As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births." (Manu-samhita.5.38)

                    Sri Caitanya-caritamrta,(Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 166): "Cow killers are condemned to rot in hellish life for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on the body of the cow."

                    Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture

                    Hare Krishna

                •  WRONG! (none)
                  just not true, morals are rooted in philosophy, of which religion is a popularization.
            •  Re: What is wrong with what he said? (4.00)
              It's a direct attack against people like me who have no religion but who are moral/ethical people (I consider myself a secular humanist).

              I'm perfectly willing to vote for conservative Democrats with whom I disagree on quite a few issues, but not for someone like Lieberman who has time and again gone out of his way to make me feel like an outsider in my own country.

            •  If morals are taken from religion (4.00)
              it seems like people all too often make up a nice convenient religion that reassures them that whatever they want to do is moral.

              Death penalty, revenge, torture, racism, sexism, homophobia, child abuse, back-alley coathanger abortions, slaughtering civilians in a war of aggression launched with lies... all these are perfectly okay, according to the perverted death cult heresy so prevalent now in much of the United States, which falsely calls itself "Christian".

              None of that is moral by my standards. I don't see that believing in just any old random religion automatically makes a person moral. I think people are under an obligation to judge religions by whether they are moral, not blindly let their morals be dictated by a religion.

              Because... some religions are very bad moral influences indeed.

              Massacre is not a family value.

              by Canadian Reader on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:44:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  everyone can do that in any case (none)
              The religious do whatever they want and say God approves.

              Studies show that atheists are generally more ethical than believers.

              In any case, Lieberman is wrong about the meaning of the 1st amendment and the views of the founders who wrote and approved it.

      •  Markos isn't shaking off the word... (none)
        "liberal" at all---he's just saying that there are all strains of Democrats here---on a Democratic blog. You are being embraced, partner (as am I).;-)
        •  Democrats and more (none)

          there are all strains of Democrats here

          Not to mention the odd libertarian grouch, yr. obt. svt. serving as an example of the breed.

          Strange bedfellows and all that. But I'd far rather be sharing all of your company in this bed than to lie in the Procrustean one to which Dubya has led the country.

  •  Speaking of media... (none)
    please read my diary here on starting an assault on the right-wing media.  it's close to being a recommended diary right now, and this is an effort that may be long overdue.

    http://www.dailykos.com/recommend_list/2004/11/15/192613/47

  •  speaking of Karl Rove and the gang... (none)
    one of their tactics that seemed to work well was the "going along with the opposition--to the extreme" move, i.e. the robocalling "for" Kerry with the "make sure you get out to support gay marriage!" message.

    I think we need to organize a big group of people to protest somewhere appropriate (say, a movie premiere) with a whole bunch of signs that say things like "DEATH TO FAG LOVERZ" (which I might add, is very similar to what Fred Phelps's crew actually -were- displaying outside the 2003 Iowa JJ Dinner)

  •  Yeah... (none)
    take that! I got your back, Kos!
  •  I got back up! (none)
    And from the man himself no less.

    This was a source of a disagreement the other day.  I call the blog a Democratic blog, my friend's gf calls it a liberal blog.  I even used the Latino blog argument and that went nowhere fast.  She didn't get it.  I'm thinking her mindset is that Democrats are too far right for her tastes.  I hope she sees this.

    "...Bush could kiss Osama bin Laden on national television and Karl Rove could spin it into a punch in the face." - Jim Hoover of Huntington Beach

    by fabooj on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:28:41 PM PST

  •  I don't care what people call it (none)
    It's the best place for those of us in the reality based community to find out what is really going on in the world.  

    All the funny and sarcastic posts are just icing on the cake.

    When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. - James Carville

    by sgilman on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:28:49 PM PST

  •  Howard Dean (4.00)
    Thank you for pointing out that he's centrist. And the rest of you, please remember this. Howard Dean was never a liberal candidate.

    He started as a centrist governor, he became a grassroots candidate, but he was never liberal. That accusation came from the psycho crazy F*cks at the Club for Growth and stuck. Repeating the meme with no basis in fact simply proves how effective lame television advertising campaigns can be in defining a stereotype and the reinforcing it.

    •  The main reason I wanted Dean... (4.00)
      I'm definitely way left of Dean, but Dean had the right issues at the right time on GUNS (state's rights), the BUDGET (fiscal responsibility), HEALTH CARE (at the very least for every child), and the War on Fanaticism (screw the "war on terror" which is a Republican frame).

      He had a simple message "I want my country back" which resonated with many people from many parts of the political spectrum.

      When Kucinich, Edwards and Gephardt torpedoed Dean in the Iowa caucases, I was dumbfounded, then amazed when the media created "I have a Scream". Fucking incredible.

      Now that the Dems have rolled over once again (well, ok, I entertain the notion that Kerry is waiting in the wings for the recounts), I'm ready to once again put all my eggs in the Dean basket. He's the first politician I trust to some extent, and the first I ever gave money to.

      GO DEAN!

      •  Dean for Prez (none)
        I'm also 100% behind Dean for President. I sent him an email to tell him that I hope he will skip the DNC chair and start his 2008 campaign right away. The great thing about Dean is that he partially broke free of the confines of special interest orthodoxy to talk about our core values, that are more acceptable to the vast center of the country.

        This is definitely a reform democratic blog. The great thing about this blog is the number of people experimenting with ideas for breaking out of the extreme positions we're often stuck in, without losing our core values. This is where we Dems will find our winning message.

      •  Me, too. (none)
        I heard him one time talking to a reporter on NPR and I was so impressed with his forthrightness I went right to his Web site and contributed. I contributed more than I have to any candidate. (Before that I contributed more to Gore in 2000.)

        I didn't mind Dean's somewhat centrist stance. I felt he stood for democracy, takning our country back from the right wing extremists and being proud to be a Democrat again. If Dean is a Democrat, I'm proud to be in the same party.

    •  we need to talk for us and not for them (3.50)
      " Howard Dean was never a liberal candidate.

      He started as a centrist governor, he became a grassroots candidate, but he was never liberal. That accusation came from the psycho crazy F*cks at the Club for Growth and stuck. Repeating the meme with no basis in fact simply proves how effective lame television advertising campaigns can be in defining a stereotype and the reinforcing it."

      Agreed, and thanks for making the point. Howard Dean is a centrist. But repeating the meme perhaps proves more than how effective lame tv advert campaigns can be. It demonstrates how democrats buy into the talking points of republicans. If democrats can't laugh gently at republican talking points and then say whatever is on democrat minds, regardless, there's little hope.

    •  And if my mother had wheels, she'd be a wagon (1.25)
      Howard Dean was never a liberal candidate.

      Yeah, that "Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand" point was classic centrism.

      •  Thanks for swallowing (3.80)
        the SCLM spin hook, line and sinker.

        The quote you reference was actually preceded by the words "one of the more interesting theories I've heard" and followed by ", which I don't personally believe".  It was a way of pointing out the ways Bush's behavior has left him vulnerable to these rumors which only distract from our actual national security.

        Get over it.  Dean's not liberal.  He's not your enemy.  He loves this party, has fought for it, and is fighting for it now.  And he's fighting for it so all of us, you and I and the liberals together, can be winners with principles again.

        I put things where they don't belong at Switzerblog.

        by switzerblog on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:11:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  :) D'oh. (none)
        Dean said something fairly radioactive only a few days ago, just to remind people of what would happen were he the public face of the party.

        Why am I suddenly thinking you are one of those people on dKos that my ideological filters tended to shut out, when I would have done well to pay close attention?  Hmm.. live and learn.

        We must cultivate our garden.

        by daria g on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:29:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It was saying what CW called unsayable. (none)
        At the time, that is... Dean did that sort of thing a fair bit:

        "We don't know if Iraq is going to be better off without Saddam Hussein." Turns out he was right to be suspicious. The country is obviously a whole lot worse off now.

        "The US needs to maintain an even-handed position with respect to Israel and the Palestinians." Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see whether Bush's policy of blatant partisanship ever works out; so far, it seems to have made things quite a bit worse.

        Oh, and as for the "Bush knew" business -- haven't you heard about the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing? Bush did know. He just didn't think terrorism was an important enough threat to take any actions to try to stop it.

        So. Are you quite sure you want to maintain that being smart enough to be right about things before others figure it out... and bold enough to say what you see... is a sign of being liberal?

        Careful -- if you think about that one too much, you might turn into a liberal yourself.

        Massacre is not a family value.

        by Canadian Reader on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:51:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: It was saying what CW called unsayable. (none)
          "We don't know if Iraq is going to be better off without Saddam Hussein." Turns out he was right to be suspicious. The country is obviously a whole lot worse off now.

          That is not at all clear, to put it mildly, and is one reason why, despite the fact I am a Democrat, I could never have voted for Howard Dean.

          Oh, and as for the "Bush knew" business -- haven't you heard about the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing? Bush did know.

          He knew there was a generalized threat, and arguably he did not do enough to stop it.  But that is very different from knowing of a particular plot at a particular time and date and keeping it quiet because of pro-Saudi tendencies, which is what Dean accused Bush of doing (excuse me, said he found a "very interesting theory" or whatever). The difference is one of negligence versus intent, which is something a first-day law student should know.

          I do agree that Dean had an unexpectedly hawkish foreign policy advisor in Leon Fuerth.  Nonetheless, the buck has to stop at the candidate at some point.  The CW called Dean's statement unsayable because it was outrageous and an insult to all the victims of 9/11.

          •  Arguably? Arguably? (none)
            "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

            And what did Bush do about that? Precisely nothing.

            How do you know that was just negligence? How do you know there wasn't more to it? How do you know that Bush's known, well-proven, Saudi financial connections had nothing to do with his reluctance to act?

            You don't know, because anyone who ever asked the question was instantly shushed and called an extremist. Isn't it more of an insult to the 9/11 families to claim that Bush's motives for failing them may never be questioned? As if the US President holds his office by Divine Right, and questioning his motives is lese-majeste!

            And if you don't think Iraq is far, far worse off now than it was under Saddam Hussein... you must have been purposely not paying attention. The evidence abounds, but you have to be willing to not filter it out.

            Massacre is not a family value.

            by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:21:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Dean is no centrist! (2.50)
      Lieberman is. Dean is, if anything, downright crazy with his suggestion that there is a Bush-Saudi conspiracy.

      If we had nominated Lieberman, we would have had a much better chance of attracting the conservative vote than with Kerry or Dean.

      We should lose these insane liberals like Dean if we ever want to be taken seriously by the rest of the country.

      •  Try to follow the point (none)
        Kos himself said:
        But it has nothing to do with ideology, and those who continue painting the battle in those colors is nothing more than a dishonest shill in the best tradition of Karl Rove and gang.

        It isn't about ideology.  Shedding liberals just makes the Democratic party smaller and weaker.  You've got to get past this.

        I put things where they don't belong at Switzerblog.

        by switzerblog on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:12:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is a "centrist"? (none)
        I have asked this question a half dozen times over the years here at kos, and received not a single substantive answer. Not one.

        A lot of people have talked about how this that or the other are NOT "real" centrists.

        But no one has ever articulated the ideology of the centrist.

        What is this mythical center?

        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

        by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:14:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  defined (none)
          A centrist is someone who's not sure whether he really believes anything or not. Wait... or is that agnostics. Damn it, too much Monty Python.

          Hey, I hear Brookings is centrist. I read somewhere, though, that people mistake this for meaning they're neutral. They're not. They have positions. But uh... not sure what they are. But it's heartening to know someone thinks centrists have some, at least. Crank up your google.

          •  Yellow stripes and dead armadillos (none)
            as Jim Hightower used to say, is all you find in the center.

            "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

            by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:42:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Is This a Serious Question? (none)
          A centrist is like Kos: he just wants to get people elected and doesn't care if they come from the left or the right of the political spectrum.

          Okay, I'll leave Kos out of it. His blog is centrist, but he's a lefty. Er, leftist. Er, liberal. He's on the left, that's what I want to say.

          Take any issue, like abortion for instance. A leftist would say, "Let the woman decide." A rightist would say, "Let the fetus decide." A centrist would say, "Split it down the middle and see what happens." In other words, they're like Solomon.

          No, I'm being fascist. I mean facetious. A centrist might say that you can't always do it one way or the other. You have to look at the case and see what's right at that point. You take the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus and weigh them (somehow) and then make a choice.

          A centrist is sometimes described as a "moderate". That's someone who doesn't get red in the face. They can't get excited about either extreme. So what if the woman gets an abortion? So what if she can't? Who cares?

          Or take prescription drugs. (No jokes, here, please!) A socialist might say, "Let the government pay for all of them." A capitalist might say, "Let the patient pay for all of them." A centrist might say, "Let's subsidize them, but with a co-pay so they don't abuse the public trust."

          Centrist are the glue that holds the government together. They're like that guy on "Yes, Minister" who puts the minister on the horns of a dilemma and then gets him off of them by skewering him.

          I can hardly wait for Condi Rice to take over State. She'll have centrists to the left of her, centrists to the right of her and centrists dead ahead. It ought to be interesting.

          I think this should completely clear the matter up.

          Liberal Thinking

          Think, liberally.

          by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:43:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or maybe (none)
        ...we should lose those members of our own party who accept the media party line without question. Dean never said there was a Bush-Saudi conspiracy, he said that Bush's insane secrecy led to things like people suggesting a Bush-Saudi conspiracy. He was actually condemning the conspiracy theorists at the same time he was condeming Bush for giving them fodder for their theories. Go back and actually listen to the interview...
      •  trolling (none)
        kos, can you remove this guy?  Looking around his posts he just seems to be a troll.

        I think he was trolling for a while at mydd too until he was banned.

  •  While We're At It (3.50)
    I'm
    1. For Economic Patriotism (anti-pro-capital "Free Trade," ie NAFTA, WTO).
    2. Pro-Keynesian Economics of Demand-Side and Public Works economic stimulus that may, in the short term, result in an unbalanced budget.  Why, because it's a capital investment (I also took out loans to go to school, so I went temporarily into debt, but for a good reason).
    3.  Love burgers and other kinds of meat (though not on the bone, as this reminds me of a reality I'd rather not think about).
    4.  Have a family background that's German and English (which really isn't much to be proud of).  However, we've been here since the Revolution and fought on the right side everytime (Rebels, North, Anti-Fascists).
    5. Not all that interested in stressing identity politics, thinking that we should ditch gay marriage and focus on economic issues.

    and I still think this is a great blog and like that I'm in the same party as Kos.

    Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

    by philgoblue on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:30:24 PM PST

  •  Nothing wrong with being liberal (none)
    The Founding Fathers were the parents of Liberalism.
  •  if Kos says (4.00)
    it's a Democratic reform blog, then that's what it is.

    It's Kos's world. We just live in it.

  •  Hear, Hear (none)
    That was something that needed to be said.  Well done, Kos.

    Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

    by cerebrocrat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:33:13 PM PST

  •  Well, it's still a liberal blog. (1.33)
    How else do you have the far-leftist crowd claiming that any sort of moderate view is equivelent to being a bushie?

    What's wrong with being a liberal blog anyway? Is Kos shying away from the term liberal as so many dems these days? Amazing that the cons were so effective with label war.

    •  Nope. Score (another) one for Kos (none)
      I'm liberal, too, and proud of it, but I appreciate diversity even more. And, as we have discussed, bringing together various factions is what Rove & co. did so well to deliver the dead meat (a.k.a. bacon for you non vegans)on Nov. 2. We have got to transform the Democratic party into a powerful umbrella party capable of bringing together varying factions around a common, relevent, SHARED vision.
      •  Open Umbrella Wide (none)
        Good point. Respect for the opinion's of others and not attacking on personal grounds is key. Seeking Common Ground on issues important to all Americans.

        The Repugs in charge don't believe either of these are important. You see that in the party and now in the purges in the CIA and the nominations for the Cabinet that Bush is orchestrating.

    •  moderate (none)
      Depends on who you allow to define the word "moderate".  Lieberman to me is a conservative.  The bush agenda we atack here is not moderate but radical in its agenda.
      •  Depends also on your perspective. (none)
        Take me. I'm a centrist obviously and consider myself a moderate. I prefer divided government which is part of why I supported all dem candidates this year...republican power grabs irk me. To me, Lieberman is a conservative democrat, pretty moderate overall. Hawkish for a democrat.
    •  Far-left? (none)
      Is anyone here from the Red Brigades? the Beider Meinhof Gang, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias Colombianas? If so, I've never seen any indication in this blog. Hell, I've hardly ever read any Kucinich people here.

      Maybe the label "far-left" is so easy to throw around because the "center" has moved so far to the right in our lifetime.

      Sorry for the tone; I am seriously riled up about Fallujah today.

      Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!

      by eoglesby on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:03:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was wondering the same thing... (none)
        I've identified as a socialist for a long time. Though not too far left and definitely not state socialism. More like the socialism that Marx was trying to get at at one point, which would be an outgrowth of capitalism, what capitalism would look like if it was actually interested in human potential.

        Whew, after writing that last sentence I guess I should cut down on the martinis.

      •  Weeeellll, no, but (none)
        my late second husband was a member of The Party in the 40s and and was asked to testify before HUAC (he refused, of course). We belonged to the telephone war tax protest during Vietnam and were in the Attorney General's list. :)
      •  read his comments (none)
        he is an antisemitic troll. Don't take it personally.

        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

        by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:43:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see the center as moved. (none)
        Just the balance of power has swung far right. But politics is like a rubber band, and eventually forces will snap that wayward movement back to the other direction. The dems reigned in the legislative for 40 years under the FDR coalition. They'll reign again after the republicans have their turn, even Rove has admitted as much.
  •  I am sorry to disagree. (4.00)
    This IS an idealogical fight. Not specific positions, but if we want to regain the credability we have lost, WE MUST MAKE STANDS ON ISSUES. We have lost, over and over and over again, becuase our "leaders" have run from every fight for 30 years.

    My issues are FAR left of the mainstream, even here, but I support ANY democrat willing to stand up and fight. I AM starting to wonder if the democratic party is so discredited that it is no longer viable, but they are still the only game in town.

    Wrong time, wrong war, WRONG PRESIDENT!

    by Mr Tek on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:35:38 PM PST

  •  Progressive Blog (4.00)
    personally, while it's your blog kos and you can define it as you like, I can be a cat in the herd too, and to me, it's not more a Democratic blog than it is a Vegan blog.

    The Democratic Party is a vehicle... yeah, reform it... yeah, help it... it's the best we have... but if it stays broke down, does this blog go down with it?  Hell no, this blog will help chose the better party, the better vehicle.  The ideology is key.

    To the degree we have all these thousands of new people, we need to identify that ideology, and the put it into the Democratic Party as much as possible, and if that is not possible, then the Democratic Party loses and ally, not myself.

    I'm a pragmatist and I'll stick with the Democrats through some thick and thin... my loyalty is real.  However, the pressure is on the Democrats to satisfy us, not the other way around.

    In the end this is another way of saying it's about "reform"... without telegraphing, as I have, that I'm willing to bail.  I mean, I know you don't want to be a fairweather ally to the party, me neither, but this is a comment in a threat... akin to an unspoken idea... and I want to tell everyone that no shit, the Democratic Party cannout count on me if it's not willing to change.

    time for an INTERVENTION.

    ----

    Democratic Party walks in:  hey... what, what are all you guys doing here?  Is it my birthday.

    Us: No... no, sit down... everythings going to be all right... it's just, well, we're worried about you... and....

    •  ideology (none)
      I'm glad to see that you don't shy away from the word "ideology".  I've often thought the demonization of ideology is even more absurd than the demonization of liberalism.  Ideology is unyielding principle.  Liberalism is, in some sense, a subset of that.  I for one am an ideologue and a liberal.  I believe people have basic human rights that cannot be trumped, and that forms the basis of my ideology, my liberal ideology.  Support for a party without saying anything about why you support that party (i.e., what ideals you share with that party) is pointless.  Imagine that over the next few years the two parties basically switch core principles, as has happened in their past.  How many Kosistanis would continue to support the Democratic Party?  I would hope no one would.

      I would understand Kos' stance on that if he means that this blog does not support an one ideal but a general ideology that can easily be seen as distinct from another ideology.  But he surely must not mean that it has no interest in furthering any ideology whatsoever.  How absurd that would be.

    •  It is what it is ... in living color! (4.00)
      I certainly have a clear impression that Kos is a Democrat. Many of us are not. Many are Green, some are Yippies, many are independent, and the odd anarchist pops up from time to time. It is an open blog, where all views are expressed and debated. The Kossacks tend to run Progressive, Left, Democrat or whatever isn't to far to the right.

      I think there is a big mistake being made. The label indicating our positions on some putative spectrum is, well, total bullshit. We all wear gaments made up of threads on individual issues. Hundreds, maybe thousands of threads, each of which can be placed on a spectrum from green to red. It is perhaps accurate to say that you don't see too much red in our intellectual coats. But many green and blue threads.

      I'd like to add yellow to the color scheme, for the cowradly bigots who propose constitutional amendments to discriminate against gays, or who would sacrifice civil rights because of a few threats.

      But stop with the monochromatic pigeonholes, please!

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:00:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I swear I didn't use ESP (none)
        this is something I'm working on you might like to help with.

        Red Green Blue Politics.... what color are you...

        Replacing RightToLeft

        Yellow, interestingly enough, is a Warlike Steward... so I think it fits your hope.  Feel free to post the sample diary yourself with or without editing if you do want to help with this idea.

        And if this idea isn't your cup of tea keep me in mind as an ally in bringing the world of color to the political spectrum.  This blue-red nonsense has played right into our hands... <evil laugh>

        •  I'm a moderate radical pragmatic independent dem (4.00)
          Which puts me in the pragmatic catagory. Basically, I am for equality over religion secular over orthodox. Small effient gov. over wastful large government. Progressive taxation because that is where the money is to strengthen the country. Leaving a better country and world for our children. Live and let live as long as you respect others views. Solutions that take into account all interest as being equal and compensating effected parties to one degree or another. Democrates are losing election for a number of reasons and one is letting the other side define them and not defining the other side. All or nothing thinking over slow progress toward our goals. One size fits all solutions over basic agreeable goals. We have been fighting to keep Roe v wade without talking about how to lower abortion rates (Education being the big one)
          Taking about gun violence without upseting rual america. Budget and principals with defining what they are. Letting the media off the hook without pointing out it's failure.
          Corporate america is bad without understanding that is who employs many in america. Seeding Values to the Republicans without talking about Greed and excess. This list could go on and on.. The dems need reform and the establishment can't do it. Dean would be my second choice at this time but Rosenberg would be my pick. The govenor of iowa would be farther down the list. Of course I think that they need to offer their vision and priorities at least semi publically.
          I have been critical of the DLC but understand the frame they were operating in and think that they are reform orientated and that yesterday is gone and being upset over yesterday brings us no closer to solutions. They have an interesting post http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253005  
          On reform that is inline with what we are saying in one way or another on this democratic big tent BLOG.....

          So lets not miss the view for the trees in the way... Think Big go for broke never lose your hopes and dreams. Respect the truth above all else and always be pragmatic with your pricipals or else you will get none of what you want and little of what we need.

          Lots of people see the world in Black and White. It is mostly just shades of grey.

          by Davinci on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:18:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hallelujah! (none)
      Amen, brother. PREACH! Intervention indeed.

      "Democratic Party... we love you, see, all of us.  And we hate to see you like this. We're your friends and family and it's time somebody told you to stop. You can't keep living this way. We're here to help you if you'll let us. We know it won't be easy but we won't watch you destroy yourself. Take over, Uncle Mike..."

    •  Put the Pressure On! (none)
      However, the pressure is on the Democrats to satisfy us, not the other way around.

      Well said!

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:53:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My (none)
    fight against extremist Republicans is not a left (Liberal) vs. right (Conservative/Neo-Conservative) struggle, it's an up (powerful) vs down (regular folks) struggle. Middle Class and Poor people have been kept down by those folks at the top who place special interest (oil, lumber, pharmacuticals, etc) concerns over the rest of ours.

    The Media can call me Liberal, Populist, Progressive, Moderate, Centrist, whatever the f*ck they want but I come to DailyKos to communicate with like-minded folks as myself to look for ways to lift people up, get people active, and change this country.

    Bush 286-Common Sense 252

    by EMKennedyLucio on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:40:01 PM PST

    •  but... (none)
      But that's liberal! The right can try to hijack the concept of populism and apply it to cultural issues, but the whole point of more equitable distribution of wealth on the fiscal side is a liberal idea. And that's what this is about. The conservatives want a return to pre-1929. They want to erase regulation, erase taxes, and erase workers' ability to organize towards better wages and conditions because it helps them become the robber barons they remember so fondly. That's conservative.

      You want to "change this country" but how? Once you've thrown the bums out, what then, my fiesty sibling? A pitchfork is not enough.

      The "regular folks" you speak of are regular because they're not rich. The "folks at the top" are rich and intend to stay that way by holding on to government and screwing the rest of us. They longer they're there, the more they'll change the rules to benefit themselves. The "special interests" you cite are the ones that buy these politicians in order to line their own pockets.

      Aside from the nutcase moral crap, every aspect of the administration's policy is designed to make the richest people in the country absurdly rich and to perpetuate their ability to stay absurdly rich. This has been the plan since the New Deal first knocked them to their knees. Secure access to the Middle East's resources via wars and puppet governments? Rich. Defense industry bonanza? Rich. Deregulate everything in sight? Rich. Sell off the environment? Rich. Privatize Social Security? Rich. Kill entitlements? Rich. Tax Cuts? Rich. Corporate welfare? Rich. Corporate tax holidays? Rich. Unrestricted free trade? Rich. Keep the third world destitute, desperate, and cheap? Rich. Yaaaargh! Be a damned liberal!

      Populist revolt is meaningless unless your plan opposes the plan of "the folks at the top". In this case, the plan at the top is the one that paves the way for a few people to control most of the wealth (and bans all sex and dancing and hippies). A plan to oppose that would be one that places checks on that power, regulates business so it can't screw you, the country, or the planet, and allows "regular people" to make a decent living and enjoy a decent quality of life. That's liberal and has been for at least 70 years.

  •  Like Will Rogers said: (none)
    "I not a member of any organized political party- I'm a Democrat."  
    And that's why I embrace the party wholly. No oaths, no signed pledges, no penalties for actually speaking the truth, and no expectation of any orderly following. Its the true Big Tent.

    "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." -JFK

    by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:40:41 PM PST

  •  oh oh....... (none)
    I feel welcome....
    =)
  •  Our body of ideas (none)

    With all due respect, what does that mean, "the battle for the party is not an ideological battle."  Of course it is. In the sense of wanting the Democratic party to develop a coherent vision. What is ideology anyway? The dictionary says ideology means "a body of ideas." We are fighting for that, aren't we?

    There are real things at stake in these debates, real policies, real consequences, like health care and no more bombings of civilians. What is the point of electing Democrats if they are not advancing the "body of ideas" we hold dear?

    Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!

    by eoglesby on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:43:27 PM PST

  •  Thanks Kos (none)
    thanks for that...one of the first times I have felt that little lump in my throat from reading on this blog, since before the day that kicked our collective asses. Labels..maybe that's why their winning...they know how to use those frigging labels. I guess it's all in the marketing. Whatever anyone calls this place it won't matter. It's all about You and the good people who come. Keep putting the fight back into all of our spirits.

    educate 'em when they're young

    by Chamonix on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:43:32 PM PST

  •  Daily Kos is (none)
    America's Blog.
  •  Well, hell. (4.00)
    Oh sure.  NOW you tell us this!

    They just don't make them good old liberal, Latino, vegan, retired military, gay rights blogs like they used to, goddamit!  I feel so... so... so deceived!  

  •  The path to Democratic reformism (none)
    Lies in the successful articulation of a liberal - in the FDR mold - agenda.

    I have no problem supporting someone like Herseth, so long as it's done as part of a bigger strategy. I think Kos articulates that quite well.

    Of course, the open nature of this community means that different people will argue different things about what this place is. And I think that is a productive process, even when it involves subtle disagreements with its creator's intention.

    WA State dKos drinkup - 6PM This Saturday, 11/20, at the Pike, 1st and Union, Seattle

    by eugene on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:46:40 PM PST

  •  Jesus was a liberal (4.00)
    but apparently not so much anymore

    GWB: The buck stops across the street and down a coupla blocks...

    by permanentE on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:47:00 PM PST

    •  no sirree (4.00)
      Yeah, I saw him hauling a muddy four-wheeler in the back of his Ford F-250 the other day, and he flipped off this old lady who was in the crosswalk. I'm pretty sure he's not a liberal anymore. Wait, did you say Jesus?
  •  Memo to kos (3.50)
    Just being "anti" is not enough.

    Being "anti-Bush" was not enough.

    As you have often said, we need to stand for something.

    So this flight from "ideology" is a bit silly.

    Of course you have an ideology. And the Democratic Party needs to rediscover its ideology.

    Does the Right not have an ideology - despite the fact that they run the spectrum from moderate to libertarian to authoritarian to theocrat with neocon stuck in the middle?

    If you don't stand for something...well, we all know the end of that saying.

    The irony, of course, is that the entire message of the Dean movement and the aroused progressives and populists in the party is that we NEED a change, not just for its own sake, not just to be "anti" because its hip and young and now, but because we need an ideology.

    How curious of you to simultaneously celebrate and deny that grass-roots impulse.

    But, if you choose to join all those in the status quo who run from the "liberal" label, go ahead. Please recognize, however, that the rush to the center just makes you seem more like the DLC you profess to be "anti".

    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

    by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:47:13 PM PST

      •  kos... (none)
        I don't think galiel articulated it very well, but I think the message was about your claim that your blog is not an ideological blog.  Maybe you'd be interested in reading the thoughts I wrote above about that.
      •  What part didn't you understand? (none)
        You said:

        The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions.

        As if that were an alternative (a superior alternative, in your opinion) to an ideological battle.

        I said that it is not enough to be "anti". That much of the specific critique of the failure of the Dem Party leadership is precisely this refusal to stand for a clear ideology, this desire to appeal to the mythical middle, and the failure to present to the public a clear, unambiguous liberal alternative to the clear, unambiguous ultra-conservative GOP. That, in fact, is a great part of Dean's message.

        It is not incompatible with the "big tent", it merely sets clearly the boundaries and the principles that hold it up.

        I'm not sure what your "huh?" is in response to.

        You ranted about how ideology is bunk and this is all anti establishment, and about how the democratic party isn't liberal and neither are you.

        Seems to me you are out of step with not only the reform movement within the party, led by the grass-roots, largescale, Meetup-driven, Dean-legacy DFA (though you keep pretending it is led by the NDN, which no one but Washington wonks has even heard of) but with your own blog community :-)

        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

        by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:12:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dunno man (none)
          but if you aren't Cuban, you should be.

          It's time to reject a President that says to the American people 'Ignore my record, forget my failures and fear the future.' - Kerry Campaign

          by Armando on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:56:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being a Democrat better be something more than (none)
          Just being on a "team". That's the point I take from galiel's post, and although I would probably differ with him on a number of issues, not to mention tactics, I agree that without some fundamental, common interests/values/ideology, a political party is nothing more than a "team" fighting for the bulk of the political spoils.
    •  The Right has an idealogy (none)
      And Bush hijacked it.
  •  If God didn't want us to eat animals... (none)
    He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

    "Party on", Kos!!!

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:51:44 PM PST

  •  I haven't been around long (4.00)
    and call me a panderer...but, it seems it's all of these things and more.

    This blog has apparently, through gathering facts and information and sheer numbers with a concensus of opinion, broken stories into the MSM. That's a stunning exercise of democracy. The people demand to be heard and answered. Spectacular!

    Does any sect of liberalism gives one superiority over other liberals? Or give them more of a right than others to express their opinions (wow - a little like the real world, eh?)? I don't know that we wanna go down that road.

    For me, as a newbie, coming here to lick my wounds in a safe corner after that horrible, horrible day, has been grand. What I've enjoyed most was the ability to find people willing to discuss what I was thinking with intelligence and great good humor, tin foil or not.

    While direction is certainly good, please don't let this blog become the victim of civil war or paralysis by analysis. Thanks kos, thanks everybody.

  •  Gay blog (4.00)
    ...but no one claims this is a gay blog.

    No. HOw could we be happy. It's depressing as hell because we comment on the mess made by the faith-based empire.

    Oh. You didn't mean that type of gay. Then read my gay diary here.

    (You can lead a diary whore to culture, but you can't stop his link.}

    Well, Watson, we seem to have fallen upon evil days. -- Sherlock Holmes.

    by Carnacki on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:52:28 PM PST

  •  I believe I heard Brian Lehrer from WNYC refer... (none)
    to dailykos as a left leaning blog...let us not be in denial here. I am not ashamed to be refered to as a liberal. WHy should daily kos?
    •  left-leaning is fine (none)
      a conservative Democrat is still (generally) to the left of a "moderate" Republican.

      But the left is huge territory, and "liberal" speaks to an ideological faction. I am not pushing Dean or Rosenberg as DNC chair because they line up with my ideology, but because they bring with them the promise of reform.

      The folk who currently run the party range from conservative to liberal Dems. They suck. I want a new crew, who can range from conservative to liberal Dems, that will shake thinks up. It's got nothing to do with a candidate's position on NAFTA. It's got everything to do with competence and a commitment to uniting the various factions of the party under one rhetorical umbrella.

      •  Question about Reform (none)
        Your post is very welcome and heartening.  And it has motivated me to redouble my efforts to be more civil and more open-minded when engaging your readers in debate.

        I do have a question about reform, however.

        I happen to agree with you on your choices for DNC chairs and I agree with your reasoning as well.  I believe we need fundamental _organizational_ change at the DNC, not ideological change.

        But does this blog have an official position on how reform must be implemented?  I saw someone's diary today suggest a different kind of reform than the one you called for, and they were treated rather harshly.    

        That's part of the give and take of the internet--flame wars are eternal--but when we have the discussion about reform, if 'we' of your blog have decided upon a particular course of action for reform, it can be helpful for us to know it.

  •  I found you on the internets (none)
    I was doing a search for the new Carl Levin/Paris Hilton video and just stumbled across your site. What's a blog?

    Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill... - Riverbend

    by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:56:01 PM PST

  •  A disturbing trend on dKos (3.85)
    ...that I've been noticing lately is the tendency to use the rating function to troll rate comments that come from the more conservative side of the party.  No, I'm not talking about troll rating comments that come from Republican trolls; I AM talking about posters who, for instance, advocate the election of Tom Vilsack as party chair because they believe the party needs to go to the middle.

    I disagree vehemently with the party going to the middle.  I've posted more than once that we play right into the wingnuts' hands when we do so, because that just gives them an excuse to move the goalposts further to the right and leave us "out on the extreme left wing" again, even though what we're in what used to be the center.

    But that doesn't mean that people who disagree with me are trolls.  They deserve to be engaged, debated with, cajoled and persuaded.  They do not deserve to be troll rated.  They are not trolls; they are misguided souls.  I won't ever give any of them a 4, but I won't give a 1 or a 0, either.

    Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

    by DC Pol Sci on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:56:40 PM PST

    •  Hear! Hear! And not just on ... (4.00)
      ...the subject of Vilsack.

      But one group of people - as ideologically diverse as the Democratic Party - that I am getting close to troll rating are those who begin their posts with "The real answer ..." "The truth is ..." "The only solution ..." which all translate into "Nobody gets it but me."

      Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:20:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: A distrubing trend on dKos (3.75)
      DC,

      May I, as a Republican troll and now poster, postulate another option?

      Maybe you should look at the dynamics of the country as a whole, not just one fixed set of opinions that you may have?

      It may be time for you, as a liberal Democrat, to look at where you, and your party is, and come up with a message that will resonate with the people you want to reach.  You didn't do it this election, nor in 2002, or in 2000 (though the FL presidential debacle overshadowed everything else).  As a Republican, I see that your party has mired itself in sixty-year-old ideas and policy, and it ain't working.

      Get a message, get something that voters can look at and just maybe, maybe, they will.

      •  Thanks for that. (none)
        I've been thinking a lot about where the party stands and where it's headed.  Not that I have any real influence beyond the scope of this blog, as I'm not a party insider or a fundraiser or anything else, although I am seriously considering getting involved in politics in some capacity back in my (heavily GOP) hometown.

        Still, after this election there's been kind of a minor Copernican revolution in the way I see things.   This is probably dumb & obvious to veterans of the game, but I used to be so big on insisting how we were right and had better policies and more facts and evidence on our side.. that it hardly occurred to me to think about where the electorate really stood and what they thought of us.  Live and learn.

        We must cultivate our garden.

        by daria g on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:44:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where you are. . . (none)
          OK, one more post before bed.

          Never, ever think that you have no influence on your party, or what you want from your party.  If you belive what you do, don not hesitate to get involved in it and just go!

          Good luck!

          Roger

      •  Blur, (none)
        There are many reasons for this, the biggest one of which is that we are afraid to be who we are.  The reason that we are afraid to be who we are is explained very well by George Lakoff:  progressives have to define themselves in terms of negatives in order to counter the frames that neoconservatives have put in place to define the political spectrum, and when we do so, we sound like radicals.

        In point of fact, progressives aren't radicals; we're not even really "liberals" in the old sense, i.e., favoring huge government programs with little fiscal restraint.  Progressives favor fiscal discipline but also don't necessarily see government as an evil; we think government can be a positive force for change in things such as health care and the environment.

        But these things are framed as, for instance, "a government takeover of health care."  Look at the word "takeover."  Takeovers are bad.  Hitler tried to take over Europe.  Takeovers rob you of your freedom.

        We don't want to rob anybody of their freedom; we just want everybody to be able to see a doctor when they get sick.

        I'd bet as a moderate Republican, things are looking pretty bleak right now for you in your own party.  Come on over.  You're more than welcome.  Yes, you'll be on the conservative wing of our party, but we have a long history of being a big tent.

        Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

        by DC Pol Sci on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:47:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  'liberals in the old sense' (none)
          " favoring huge government programs with little fiscal restraint"

          No, that isn't the "old sense", that's the Republican propaganda sense.

        •  Who are Democrats. . . (none)
          Hi DC, thanks for your nice response.

          First off, my disagreement of your position on Lakoff's position is strong.  One must never resort to negatives to prove a positive (isn't there a postulate somewhere on this?).  In politics, positive always (mostly) wins over negative.

          And I know that most progressives are not radicals, most sane Republicans know this as well. We are all interested in the outcome of this ongoing experiment we call America.  You folks have your opinions of what is best for us, and we ours.  This is what makes us the greatest nation on earth.  Yes, I would like everyone to be able to visit a doctor whenever they want (which, actually, they can through public clinics and taxpayer-funded hospitals).  The myth is that people are denied health-care in this country.  The truth is that we have the healthiest country in the world - per capita.

          But, no, DC, things are not looking bleak right now.  I live in Texas, where GW was governor (arguably the weakest governorship in the country) before his ascension to the Presidency.  He did a lot of things us Republicans didn't like, but he had the respect of many Texas Demorats.

          I'd rather offer you the chance to come over to my party, and join me in the moderate wing of the Repbulican party.  We need people like you and I to help offset the perception that us 'Bublicans are intolerant.

          Favorite e-mail of the day - Condi on her first trip to Saudi says "hot weather, give me the keys to the damn car."

      •  Older that that (none)
        Our ideas go back to 1787, 1868, 1933, 1965.

        Those are the years that really inspire us.

        It's time to reject a President that says to the American people 'Ignore my record, forget my failures and fear the future.' - Kerry Campaign

        by Armando on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:50:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the Idea (none)
        But I don't totally agree. Our problem, if anything, is that we spend too much time looking at the country as a whole and worrying about what will resonate with them.

        However, what I agree with is that we really need to find a way to connect with them about what we do stand for. It's a pity that we didn't get every last vote from people who work at Wal-mart. That by itself would have probably changed the election. Here are people who are just getting screwed by the capitalist system and they'll still vote for Bush because he wants to put an anti-abortionist on the Court.

        Both of these are part of the same problem. We look too hard at the voters to see what we can get away with and don't look at them hard enough to see how to reach them with our message.

        It's a self-correcting problem, though. We've gone back to the free-wheeling capitalism of the 1880's and we've picked up all the same problems that led to the Great Depression and the rise of unionism. At some point I got to believe that we won't have to go find the voters--because they'll come find us.

        Liberal Thinking

        Think, liberally.

        by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:12:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a liberal (3.50)
    and damn proud of it. But I do have my conservative principles as well. The deal with the word liberal is that the Republicans had a two-pronged strategy.. first demonize the word, and then paint every Democrat with that label, thus demonizing every Democrat.

    So when they say D-Kos is a liberal blog, they mean it is a Democratic blog, but they want those two words to be synonymous. They want to eventually create "two Americas," to use a John Edwards phrase..Republicans and Liberals, and if they can smear the word liberal enough, they can have one, Republican America.

    The strategy, unfortunately, is working. Then of course they can work on calling other things liberal...as they already have in many cases..liberal media, liberal elite, liberal programs, etc.

    Our conundrum is this: do we accept and embrace the word liberal while they simultaneously demonize the word, or do we distance ourselves from the word, in which case they accuse us of running from our principles or hiding our true "liberal agenda"

    Even as I type this, I do not know the answer. It is the proverbial Catch-22. But maybe our liberal campuses and professors have made us smart enough to come up with something...

    •  good question. (none)
      but not every dem really would accept being called a liberal. i think maybe we need to hear from some more traditional dems before assuming it's possible to talk about "us" embracing or rejecting the word.  

      but why go on the defensive? why don't we talk about what the repub right has come to mean: idolators of greed, warmongers, dominionists. that's the message i'd be more concerned about getting across.

      We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

      by yankeedoodler on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:12:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but the point is (none)
        if they are going to declare every Democrat a liberal...then the choice to embrace/reject the term will by default be left up to every Democrat..

        that's the point I was trying to make...whether you call yourself a  moderate, a liberal, a progressive, a Democrat, or whatever..they eventually want to tag you as a liberal..their(the Republicans) thinking being "you're either with us or you're a liberal"

        I personally despise labels to define oneself..even though the subject of my post was "I'm a liberal.." ...but it's happening whether we like it or not

        •  i get where you're coming from. i just think (none)
          it doesn't work with folks like brad carson and (despite my grave misgivings about him) he does have a say re the tagging.

          so i'm of the view that we should laugh when the label is put forth. even the liberal among us. not that they should deny they are liberals, if they are, but that they should point out that they are dems first - and labels don't define us. dems include a lot of people who don't agree on everything but who do care about their country and their fellow americans.  

          then i'd turn it around and raise the issue of how repub has come to mean, not conservative, but rightwing. and what that means: idolators of greed, warmongers and dominionists.  

          We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

          by yankeedoodler on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:00:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, you got it... (4.00)
      I often wish for a public service type TV ad that talks about what liberals believe liberalism IS and not what conservatives say it means.
      •  the liberal ad campaign (none)
        I've had this corny ad idea in my head for a while. There's a regular Miller-time type guy and his kids fishing in the woods; everything's pure and perfect. On their way back to the truck they pass a redwood tree, one of those really huge awesome ones. The kids put their arms around the tree and then dad does too. It's a magic family moment. The words come up: There's nothing wrong with hugging a tree.

        And then blah blah blah about protecting the environment. Okay, it's cornball, so shoot me.

        Maybe MoveOn should sponsor another 30-second ad contest, this time to define "the other values," -I bet they could get some great ones.

      •  I agree... (none)
        that the message needs to show them what conservatism really means...you have to show people how so-called conservative policies hurt them...and how so-called liberal policies help them....and show the utter hyporicsy of many conservatives at the same time...i mean, it's not conservative to have huge deficits and spending bills and an almost imperialistic military agenda no more than it is liberal to improve education, CONSERVE the environment, balance the budget, and help the working class...

        If there is one term I would like to see defined in the next 2-4 years it's the word "reform"...In Republican terminology reform means eleminate..and the voters need to know that..when they talk about tort reform, they mean get rid of not just the "junk" lawsuits, but all lawsuits that protect consumers..when they talk about welfare reform, that means get rid of welfare..when they talk about Social Security reform..that means get rid of the whole program, little by little, piece by piece...when they talk about tax reform..that means get rid of taxes on the wealthy which in turn shifts the burden to the working class and slashes programs that help the same working class and the poor..

        and I'm sure next on the list will be blog reform..;o)

    •  I think you've said it perfectly, crowbar. (none)
      Like you, I've been attempting especially since I moved to Texas 12 yrs. ago to find some answer to this.

      For awhile I thought  "Progressive" was a good term to use since "liberal' had such nefarious conotation but I'm seeing the far right turn it into a dirty word just as they have "liberal".

      It seems, again and again to boil down to what has been called their "echo chamber", the media they control and in which they can repeat over and over again, whatever they want, any way they want to cast anyone they disagree with in the very worst light.

      Since all the public hears is this constant echo of "liberal" as "devils", "evil", "libertines", "godless", "unChristian", "wicked" this is what they come to believe and just changing terms isn't going to help since they'll do the same with whatever term we use.

    •  Take the word back. (4.00)
      The more often you use it proudly in the context of true liberal principles, the less effective their demonization will be.

      And don't forget the power of ridicule. Make fun of them for being afraid of a word. "Liberal, Liberal, LIBERAL!! Run and hide, the big bad Liberrals are coming!! They'll defend your civil rights! They'll balance the budgets! They'll stop corporations from ripping you off! They'll promote education and health care for your kids! Oooh, isn't that awful? Be very, very scared! Run, run, hide under the bed! Liberal! Boo!"

      Massacre is not a family value.

      by Canadian Reader on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:12:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We Need a Mascot (none)
        Like the monsters on Monster.com. A big friendly-looking liberal monster, who chases right-wingnut political candidates in campaign commercials, making them hide in weird places, like trash cans and oil rigs. It could be shorter than the average politician, too.

        I like it already!

        Tag line:

        "Don't be scared of a little word, like the wingnuts are!" We could license it for all Democratic candidates and 527s to use on their opponents.

        Big plus: it will draw in the kiddy vote. Build brand loyalty with two-year-olds and they'll be voters four presidential campaigns later.

        Liberal Thinking

        Think, liberally.

        by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:33:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Run Away! Run Away! (none)
      NOT!

      Look, if we abandon "liberal" we abandon our principles.  And for what? To go off to a new and smaller territory, where we can be attacked and surrounded again?

      If we are going to stand and fight, it's time we did it on the "liberal" platform.

      And there's a huge advantage to putting "liberal" back into play. If turns the tables on them. If "liberal" suddenly becomes chic, every dollar they've put into denigrating it suddenly works in our favor. It becomes free advertising. They've painted every Democrat as a liberal. If liberal becomes the new "conservative" in the minds of the voters, look out. They will run you down to be with liberals.

      Here, please go look at How to Run as a Liberal.

      Liberal Thinking

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:23:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hear, Hear (none)
    Liberal, vegetarian, but yes the main thing is stopping Republican crazies from taking over the world, and that means working to elect just about any democrat.  Best vegan substitute for Thanksgiving Turkey--Winter Vegetable Stew, baked under a pie crust.  See pg. 224 of The Greens Cookbook, by Deborah Madison.  Delicious, takes as long to cook as a 20 pound turkey, so creates perfect Thanksgiving day ambiance.
  •  It's hard being God (none)
    Hehehe.. it looks like you've created a world, kos. And it's just hard to figure out where it's going, or what's it's about anymore...

    What's great about this conversation, is that it reflects perfectly what's going on in politics: on the right, they'll all be called conservatives or even brainless elephants, so long as they can do what they want (power groups getting their share eventually).
    On the left side, it's all about respecting everyone else's opinion while stating that you are different. It's weird: we're a tent where everyone wants their sleeping bag to be different from the other sleeping bags... and refusing to buy them in bulk...

  •  Kos is really not a liberal blog (none)
    I'd have to admit that Michael's comments are true, he really isn't a liberal blog - more one that runs to the Democratic party (although the recent questions about the Ohio vote make one like me wonder).

    No, this is a good blog, which for the entire political season I read with interest but refraind from posting to as a Republican.

    But, my comments to Mike directly are that you are a voice on the left (whether you like it or not) and that is a good thing.  You do know how many times right-leaning (or outright right-wing) blogs linked to your site - for a reason.

    Good to hear to other side.

    You happily embrace people of all spectrums, well, embrace this Republican who happens to represent the moderate wing of my party. You know, just like the moderate wing of the opposition party you represent.  My party embraces everyone as well.  It may be time for us to finally have ideological, rather than just political, views.

    IMHO,

  •  I Say Its a Latino Blog (none)
    Heh.

    It's time to reject a President that says to the American people 'Ignore my record, forget my failures and fear the future.' - Kerry Campaign

    by Armando on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:00:14 PM PST

  •  all those recipes in the first few posts (none)
    really had me worried. it would be the first time a front page diary by kos had been troll rated.

    We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

    by yankeedoodler on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:00:44 PM PST

  •  I'm really glad to see this. (none)
    I needed it after another diary invited me to get the hell out of the Dem party if I thought a third party might match my agenda better.

    I really, really needed this.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mohandas Gandhi

    by boadicea on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:01:09 PM PST

  •  Hmmm... (none)
    And I always thought I was hanging out at a liberal vegan free trade gay latino blog.  Guess I will have to leave ;-)

    Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

    by Ed in Montana on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:03:25 PM PST

  •  Latino? (none)
    I could SWEAR Kos was Greek.

    I don't think Kerry's "liberal" in the same sense as Obama. Far from it.

  •  why are you handcuffing yourself? (3.50)
    Why say you're partisan?  Partisans are annoying, partisans fail to embrace ideas from the other side, partisans aren't good for political discourse, and partisans have to be loyal inspite of the wrongs their party commits lest they be called sellouts.  

    Are you really ready to pledge your loyalty to a party that is failing to get their act together?  Or do you feel that pleding your loyalty will give you some sway with the party?  "we can count on kos he's a loyal Democrat".  

    I hope that us unaffiliated voters can still speak our mind around here?

    Whatever exists will, sooner or later, be turned inside out.

    by jbou on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:07:55 PM PST

  •  Liberal or Democrat (none)
    I am a liberal to the core of my being
    I am a democrat because they are the best option at present. I support the Democrats that share my principles and do not support Democrats that don't, and there are plenty of those.

    The history of Libralism in both the USA and Europe is a proud one. The same cannot be said about the history of the Democratic party.

  •  Something special has happened here.... (3.66)
    ....from my limited perspective.

    As I say to my students, `step up a level and take a look.'

    Think about all those folk between the ages of 18-30 who did vote.

    Think about all those aged Republicans who went looking for something other than Bush.

    Think about the lack of leadership in this Nation from the perspective of the ideals that one readily perceives by `stepping up a level and taking a look' at just what has been posted, already, in this Diary.

    Then consider that not only does our American franchise need leadership it needs a cogent, passionately articulated platform on which those leaders step before the people of this Nation and express a set of ideals and pragmatic steps towards those ideals.

    What you have here Markos are a diverse group of citizens who can forge that platform and either recruit or become the leadership this Nation needs.

    And, you have a medium, already very well validated, for launching the endeavor - this blog and those internets.

    Step up a level, see what you have all created here at dKos and consider not `shoe horning' it into a tired, broken and largely discredited organization, but delivering a crystal clear option to all Americans.

    No matter what you and your fellow citizens here do, just know that I am grateful for the experience of being among all of you.

    "It's about America" [currently on life support and in need of immediate and sustained, heroic treatment]

  •  Sorry, Kos, but it's a liberal blog. (none)
     
    While Kos may disagree, Daily Kos is a liberal blog.  The right wing of the blog trails off somewhere between Chafee and Lugar, while the left wing of the blog is somewhere past the Kucinich camp.  That means, as a whole, we are a liberal blog by American standards.  

    We also have people who believe that an average rating of 2.5 is a bad thing -- it just indicates that some people disagree with you while others agree.  I'd argue for more respect for the 2.0 and 2.5 crowd, if only because they make the rest of us stretch a bit.  Those of us who get twos should realize that we are being criticized, not censored.  And for every TU throwing zeroes at people he doesn't like, there's probably another reading hidden comments to fish them out of oblivion.  

  •  Labels???? (none)
    How about a Progressive Pragmatist Blog.
  •  he who is in charge... (none)
    ...decides what is reality.

    if the conservatives say this is a liberal blog, this is a liberal blog, whether anybody likes it or not.

    the mere fact that conservatives don't like this site is evidence enough.

  •  It's a liberal blog (none)
    First comment.  

    It's ironic.  "Liberal" is to Democrats as "Feminist" is to Democrats as "Unionism" is to Democrats.

    Neofascists from Colorado Springs are not our party's main problem.  No, it's the discomfort we have with our basic beliefs that's our problem.  I fear many of us--including Kos--don't want to belong to a club that would admit people like us as members.        

  •  Sigh. (3.66)
    What's funny and sad is how this "Memo to the world" just accepts the Republican redefinition of the term "Liberal" as some kind of crazy left-wing fringe.

    Truly, this is more than a little dissapointing.  There was a time when "Liberal" meant middle of the road.

    Now apparently even for Kos, "Liberal"="Crazy town."

    I'm sorry, but imho to accept the notion that "liberal" is an extreme position is just to give in to the Repbublicans.  Liberals are those in the  the mainstream.  With Socialist and other radicals on the left, and radical/reactionary theocrats and corportists on the other.

    The Liberal tradition is the mainstream of American Politics, and must be defended as such.

     

    •  There was a time when liberal (none)
      was a good thing. I believe Lyndon Johnson used it to describe favored candidates. "Let's elect some good liberal candidates as in "for the people".

      Too bad the word has been hi-jacked by the right.

      Let's take it back.
      And while we are at it, let's take Jesus back too!

      To serve the people is
      to question authority.

      •  "...Lets take Jesus back, too." (none)
        Not being a Christian, I couldn't care less about taking Jesus back, personally, but for the good of the Democratic Party and for liberals who are Christians I can see an advantage.

        Question is "How?"

        To do this we need a massive amount of help from the Christian clergy and we aren't going to get it.

        The majority of the sane members of the clergy are too timid to speak out, just as so many were during the Civil Rights struggle, and the rest are right wing extremists who want to "kill" liberals. (You'd be surprised at the signs I see on churches here in Texas advocating all kind of violence against liberals, gays, etc.)

        The small part of the Christian clergy who are not part to the right wing needs to start speaking in a very loud voice and long and often.

        •  Actually (none)
          I have heard quite a few angry Christians speak out against this hi-jacking of Jesus. They don't want to be lumped in with these extremist evangelicals. Sort of the way liberals don't want to be lumped together with socialists, communists, terrorists and wingnut created evil in general. Hence the association with liberals as the enemy. Scary about the signs.....and they call themselves Christians......more like Christians jihadists.

          There are other ways to define morality without using religious terms. As in fairness, decency and tolerance.

    •  Wrong reading (none)
      Kos claims to be a liberal. He is not disparaging the liberal label. He is only saying that this is not a liberal BLOG.

      Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in Interesting Times

      by Chris Andersen on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:00:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on! (none)
    Kos, you fucking rock!

    History furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. -- Thomas Jefferson

    by Billy Shears on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:23:14 PM PST

  •  I'm a Democrat (none)
    And if you want any sort of controversial stand from me, here's one. I'm not totally in favor of banning the Death Penalty. I'd keep it around, but it would be used on fewer occasions. I don't quite agree with taking it away. Plus, some people probably deserve some sort of execution. No offense. But it applies to stuff like Serial Killers and Terrorists. But the prison system in the US is very flawed too.

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:36:10 PM PST

    •  Keep the death penalty! (none)
      Just don't execute kids, the innocent, or the mentally deficient, okay?!

      Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

      by Jonathan4Dean on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:39:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To quote Dan Bern (again) (none)
        ...in his song in which he enumerates the things he'd do in his first ten days as President...

        "Day six, I swore no prisoner more would face his death inside;
        Thou shalt not kill applies to us all; too many mistakes, besides.
        Day six, I swore no prisoner more would ever face his death;
        At least until my jury hears the crimes of President Bush."

        Proud Member, Controversial Daily Kos Extremist Group

        by DC Pol Sci on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:50:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  yeah... (none)
        that way we'll end up killing a smaller number of innocent people.
  •  Ya misunderstand, Kos! (none)
    The overwhelming majority of this blog is liberal.

    I welcome a poll to prove the point.

    Would you call yourself:

    A Hardcore liberal Democrat? (Kucinich or further to the left)

    A Progressive Democrat? (To the right of Kucinich, to the left of Dean)

    A Moderate Democrat? (Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards)

    A Libertarian Democrat?

    A Conservative Democrat? (Lieberman, Bayh, etc.)

    An open-minded person who favors a variety of positions, depending upon the issue---but a Democrat nonetheless?

    I take a variety of pragmatic positions, depending upon the issue. But otherwise, I'm a moderate. And although I don't begrudge a soul for it, I'm definitely in the minority here.

    Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

    by Jonathan4Dean on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:38 PM PST

    •  Wait a sec (none)
      Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards makes a Moderate and then you declare yourself in the minority?

      Come now, that's 99% here.

      It's time to reject a President that says to the American people 'Ignore my record, forget my failures and fear the future.' - Kerry Campaign

      by Armando on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:46:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Liberals and Progressives (none)
        I happen to think 60% or more here would define themselves as "liberals" or "progressives" not "moderates" or "conservatives."

        People supported Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark out of necessity.

        Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

        by Jonathan4Dean on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:01:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You haven't read Kos correctly ... (none)
      Okay ... can we set this all straight.  Kos said:

      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

      Hello!  Kos is right.  Dean is less liberal than Kerry.  Somehow he got labeled "liberal" because he wanted to reform the party.  I wonder who might have done that!  ;-)

      This is what we mean by framing the language.  When a buzzword is used and no one really remembers what the buzzword means only that that buzzword is somehow "bad", we all are yanked around by the shorthairs.  It's manipulation darling!

      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

      by Glinda on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:20:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dean's a liberal (none)
        liberal
               adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad
                      political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a
                      liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's
                      opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant]
               2: having political or social views favoring reform and
                  progress
               3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism,
                  orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]
        •  Yes then everyone can themselves a liberal! (none)
          ... since everyone thinks that they are, by definition #1, broad-minded and the other side is narrow-minded.  Did you actually ever meet anyone who thought of themselves as narrow-minded?

          And as for definition #2 the neo-cons and the conservatives in the 1980's claimed that they were for reform of the system and "progress".

          As for #3, I've been around long enough to notice that many political liberals are way bound by orthodoxy and tradition.

          Saying all that, I consider myself to be a liberal.  

          For a good overview of liberalism go to the Liberalism entry in Wikipedia. Especially good is the section Liberalism Today

          But liberalism today is significantly different from liberalism 20 years ago. It's a more "free market" stance than it used to be in the heyday of unions.  

          "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

          by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:29:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  get out and meet more conservatives (none)
            and evangelicals.  Being broad-minded is not considered a good thing -- moral relativism and all that.

            wikipedia, by its nature, is not very authoritative.  But I don't see anythig in that article that would contradict my claim that Dean is a liberal.

            •  Evangelicals are NOT conservatives (none)
              I know a lot of conservatives and many are my friends.  I'm talking Wall Street Journal editorial page and National Review readers.  They think they are far more broad-minded than any liberal!  I have been arguing with them for more than 20 years about politics.  We never agree but we do find come common ground.  

              One of the "common ground" issues is that Evangelicals are nuts and their influence is damaging when it enters the politics of America. They may not say this in any media outlet but they sure admit it in private! Do not equate "Evangelicals" with "Conservatives".

              "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

              by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:33:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh and one more thing! (none)
                I was actually surprised at how accurate in general the Wikipedia entry for "liberalism" is.  I had quibbles with a few parts, but only since I had a front seat view of liberals [being one and hanging out with liberals of diverse age groups] in the 60s, 70s and 80s that the writer(s) might not have had.  

                And if they are my age, they have rose-colored memories of some of the "liberal mistakes" of the past since the entry glossed over some of the nuttier positions that we embraced and then discarded.

                I'm a liberal.  But Dean has moderate positions on many things that I have to admire since they allow the forming of coalitions.  And the Democratic Party desperately needs to do some coalition building!

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:09:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  wikipedia is open source (none)
                  If you think there's something wrong with the page, you can fix it.  Your comment about the experience of the authors of the page is off the mark,since the authors are a nonspecific set of internet users. And your talk about "nuttier positions" is also off the mark -- the article isabout liberalism as an ideology, not other positions or ideologies that people who now identify themselves as liberal may have once adhered to. Also, that liberals discarded certain positions does not make those positions mistakes or nutty.

                  And that Dean has some positions that can be described as "moderate" doesn't mean he's not a liberal.  As I wrote, "I don't see anythig in that article that would contradict my claim that Dean is a liberal", and you haven't pointed out anything that I missed.

              •  look up the word 'and' in the dictionary (none)
                I never said evangelicals are conservatives and I never equated them.  Next time you might want to reply what is actually written -- which was about moral relativism, a issue on which conservatives and evangelicals tend to have common ground.  Also, you and your conservative friends seem to share an offensive stereotype of evangelicals -- they are not, generally speaking, "nuts", and many of them don't support Bush.  Not all evangelicals are Dominionists.
              •  Terms and definitions (none)
                A few definitions:

                Evangelical---a Christian who spreads the good news and isn't afraid to convert others

                Fundamentalist Christian---a Christian who believes in the "fundamentals" of the faith (God and the Trinity, virgin birth, that salvation comes through Christ's sacrifice, resurrection of the Dead, Heaven and Hell, etc.) and that the majority of the Bible should be taken literally and factually.

                (Please note: a reasonable fundamentalist can and does believe that portions of the Bible are poetry or heavily symbolic, especially the Book of Revelation)

                A Born-Again Christian----a person who recognized that they were sinners and had a faith-experience in which they gave their life to God. Sometimes, but not always, associated with Baptism.

                Modernist---a Christian that doesn't view scripture as poetry or a work of literary art expressing some good moral principles. They believe much of the supernatural content of the Bible to be far-fetched.

                Social Gospel---the movement based on the idea that scripture should inspire people to help the poor and needy to make "heaven on earth."

                A Conservative Christian---Fundamentalist Evangelical who sees scripture as supporting a rigid, conservative social order as well as a moral sense of right and wrong.

                A Progressive Christian---a Christian (could be Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist, but often neither) that views scripture as supporting their world-view of peace, understanding and tolerance, as well as a moral sense of right and wrong.

                ----------------

                I personally am a Fundamentalist, Born-again Progressive Christian. I believe in the fundamentals of the Bible, I had a faith-experience that brought me to God, and I believe that Jesus would vote for a Socialist before he voted for George W. Bush any day of the week.

                I'm not comfortable with the term "Evangelical" because I'm not obsessed with converting anyone. If anyone wants to hear my story, they can ask.

                Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

                by Jonathan4Dean on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 11:03:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Excellent post! (none)
                  I stand corrected.  

                  Wow! I'm going to have to create a PDF just for your entry ... I must save your definitions!

                  Being brought up Catholic by a mother who can best be described as a "Born Again Catholic" long before I ever heard the term used at all, I can relate to the nuances around various shades of Christian belief.  The Catholics were probably the original Evangelicals.  I vividly recall the appeals every month or so at Mass to donate money to support the work Catholic missionaries across the globe.

                  I was raised during the heydey of Modernist Catholicism and was a fervent "Modernist" in grammar and high school. While in college I came face-to-face with the hypocrisy of the Church hierarchy via some interesting experiences that foreshadowed the Catholic Church's recent "problems" and their whitewash of it all.

                  Today I consider myself a Modernist Non-Denominational Believer.

                  I would love to hear your story...

                  "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                  by Glinda on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 11:32:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I appreciate it (none)
                    but please note I made a mistake: a modernist DOES view scripture as highly symbolic and/or poetic.

                    -------

                    Modernists generally break down into two camps: those that believe the essence and overall message of scripture to be true (that God exists and loves mankind) but the Bible is a flawed book.

                    I personally have no problem with most of these folks; they represent many of the liberal Christians I know and love.

                    But there also those Modernists who go further---and argue that the Bible and much of the Christian experience is sexist, homophobic, and overall antiquated.

                    I think of as "Zell Miller" Christians---those who are essentially agnostics in their approach, but don't have the heart to distance themselves from the religion.

                    Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

                    by Jonathan4Dean on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 11:23:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  My story, in brief (none)
                    I'm the son of a non-denominational Protestant minister.

                    My father generally votes for Republicans, my mother generally votes for Democrats. Both are pretty conservative across the board.

                    I'm the grandchild of devout Christians/Democrats (who are like most old folks---social conservatives but on domestic issues like social security are VERY liberal).

                    I'm engaged to a Catholic girl who is far more liberal than I am.

                    I consider myself a moderate Democrat and a Fundamentalist Christian. I believe the Bible to be mostly literal and inspired by God. I don't attend church as often as I should, but when I was baptized at age 11 (yes, immersion) I had a strong, "born again" experience.

                    My religion influences my politics, and my world-view influences my religious faith. And neither lead me to feel inspired to vote for Republicans.

                    -----------
                    An anecdote on "the God gap":

                    At a recent meeting of around 200 independent and liberal pundits/news commentators, the moderator/speaker asked two questions:

                    "How many of you know someone who is openly gay?"

                    At least 150 raised their hands.

                    "How many of you know someone who is a born-again Christian?"

                    Two out of two hundred hands went up.

                    Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

                    by Jonathan4Dean on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 11:37:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, I have to disagree (none)
        On the two most important issues of the day, the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war, Dean positioned himself DECIDEDLY to the left of every other mainstream candidate.

        What other candidate said they opposed the war from the start AND wanted to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts?

        Dean's record as a Governor? Conservative by Democratic standards.

        Dean's overall policy ideas? Moderate by Democratic standards.

        But the way he ran in 2004? A liberal maverick.

        And, in all likelihood, the way he will run in 2008? As a liberal maverick.

        Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

        by Jonathan4Dean on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:59:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is that liberal? (none)
          True, traditional Lefties were against the war, as they are with most wars as were the Pacifists, by definition.  But I know a few traditional conservatives who also were against our involvement in Iraq.  And I know a few self-described liberals who were terrified of those WMDs and so reluctantly supported the war.

          I think a better description is that Dean took a "principled stance" against the war.  He was more of a "skeptic" than a "liberal" on the war.  And at the time I couldn't figure out why everyone wasn't being more skeptical.  That war was so obviously marketed to us.  The language they chose in their speeches was the fuzzy double-meaning language of Madison Avenue. I can't figure out why the majority of Americans were so shocked that there weren't any WMDs. It seemed obvious to me that it was based on no real intelligence. But maybe I'm just lucky that I live in NYC and have access to a lot more information from all sides of the spectrum. Even NYC cabdrivers knew we were all being sold a bill of goods.

          As for the Bush tax cuts, the part of Dean's argument against the cuts that objected to the decidedly non-progressive nature of them is indeed a liberal position.  But on the other hand, his position that it is irresponsible to  cut taxes when you are waging a very expensive war is a fiscally conservative position.  Budget deficits are abhored by conservatives; liberals traditionally didn't mind small budget deficits in time of war during the middle part of the last centruy.  But only neo-cons have no problem with deficits of any size if they are allowed to pursue their dual ends of tax relief for the wealthy and re-making the world as they would like it.

          Dean is indeed a maverick. And there are a lot of "liberal democrats" in power who very much want the status quo, even if they are not in power since the status quo is what gets them power.  Reform in this case doesn't make him a "liberal".  It does however make him a "reformist".

          [I'm making this my diary entry for today as well.  At this late time, no one will actually see this.]

          "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

          by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:25:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's style and substance (none)
            Dean was an enigmatic candidate because as a Governor, he was a perfect DLC candidate. Hell, he was more pro-business and anti-tax than most people on Daily Kos.

            But he saw the void in the party for a serious, passionate anti-war candidate and he filled it.

            In 2003, Dean went to a DNC meeting and began his electrifying speech by roaring, "What I want to know is why all these Washington Democrats aren't standing up against George Bush's unilateral war in Iraq! I'm Howard Dean and I represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!"

            A lot of reasonable conservative folks opposed the war, you're right. But no one criticized Bush and conservatives as eloquently and passionately as Dean. No mainstream candidate embraced the frustrated Left by claiming their mantle.

            Ideologically? He ran the gamit. But he did take liberal positions on the issues that bothered Democrats most---tax cuts, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Iraq.

            Sadly, Democrats fell in love with Dean, but were soured when they read the Tom Brokaw-Tim Russert-RNC inspired conventional wisdom:

            "Dean can't win against Bush. He'd get slaughtered in 47 states just like his liberal buddy McGovern."

            Oh well.

            Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

            by Jonathan4Dean on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 10:36:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  P.S. (none)
              My advice to Howard Dean (if he wants to run in 2008): kiss and make up with the moderates in the party.

              To win, he has to run both an unconventional internet campaign AND a conventional GOTV campaign.

              And to run an effective conventional campaign? You need minorities, elderly voters, and yes, moderates.

              Kerry won the primaries because he carried a reasonable minority of liberals, a plurality of moderates, and a reasonable minority of conservatives.

              Flex your moderate-to-conservative credentials. Speak at the DLC. Talk about fiscal responsibility. Talk about gun control. Talk about the role of morality in your decision making.

              But in all of this, never lose your passion and truthfulness.

              Caution! These are shark-infested waters! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

              by Jonathan4Dean on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 10:42:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Reading all these posts? (4.00)
    Obviously it's a Democratic blog, at its very essence. You can't get two people to agree on what it is--we're definitely Democrats. Wouldn't have it any other way.

    All the snark that's fit to...er...pixelate? liberal street fight

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:40:51 PM PST

  •  Hell yeah. (none)
    Of course, you own the blog, and you could call it an upstairs-wing, anti-cereal, hatethought site, too.

    But you don't, you're all right, and I love you for it.

    "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for President. One hopes it is the same half." - Gore Vidal

    by sapper on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:43:02 PM PST

  •  Illogical? (none)
    Kos, as much as I like and respect you, and agree that nobody should pin labels on this blog, I usually chafe at contradictions and illogical ones at that... such as you saying dKos endorsed Stephanie Herseth, who supported the "Hate Amendment".   Well, regardless of whether the site endorsed Herseth or not, if you call it the "Hate Amendment", that's tantamount to being a bit ideological, isn't it?   Not that I favored that amendment; I was against it.    You certainly have the right to endorse Herseth and take a principled stand against bad legislation.    But pointing out that you endorsed Herseth, and then in the same sentence, saying she supported the "Hate Amendment" which you opposed, is like shooting yourself in the foot; it's counterproductive and makes you look a bit illogical.    That undermines your message and your very cool site.  
  •  Kos (none)
    Thank you! And well said!

    Now what does democratic victory mean?

    Legislation through service to the people and not through  mandates?

    What could be more idealogical and less representative the a pre-determined mandate.

  •  I like it here. (none)
    I do not consider myself a Democrat, but I like it here.  I also eat many different animal species but not Republicans, nowadays they make me sick.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth.

    by Shockwave on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:46:33 PM PST

  •  seems like... (none)
    as the last poster has listed, the Democratic party has become a catch-all for the remnants of other parties more on the liberal side of the house, and the Republican party houses the right side. If we had more than two parties, I would bet many of us here would not be Democrats.

    I doubt the Democratic party would be as strong without the impetus of dethroning King George. Without that one defining element, we would all be split among many different parties and ideologies.

    So, if this is reform, is it possible to cater to all these parties melded into one?

    •  It will be tough... (none)
      ...but not impossible.

      We all understand the 2 party system is here to stay.

      But we must try to join forces.  We should not try to cater to everyone.  Instead everyone should agree on common goals and objectives and everyone should pitch in.

      Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth.

      by Shockwave on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:55:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lately, I've felt like making it a cursing blog... (none)
    Sometimes it is just so goddamned satisfying to tell someone to "Fuck off."

    That is the one (and only) point of agreement I have with Dick Cheney.

    (It's also the result of playing years of competitive hockey.)

  •  Liberty means freedom (4.00)
    Maybe we're democrats, maybe we're liberals, maybe we're both, but we shouldn't care much about the labels, but be proud of who we are and the power of our voice.
    The word liberal comes from "liberty" and "liberty" means freedom. I, for example, am here because I value freedom and seek to preserve it for all Americans. Fear takes away freedom. If people are scared because they can't find a job to pay the rent, put money on the table, if they're scared of getting sick because they have no health insurance, if they are scared of being drafted to die in a war for oil, they are not free.
    Equally important is the freedom to voice your opinion without fearing that you'll end in the Guantanamo concentration camp.
    Now there're other issues that make a liberal a "liberal." Like wanting the raise taxes so the government can pay for education and help the minorites. I call that a "compassionate" approach, not necessarily a "liberal" approach, because you show compassion with those in need.
    I never saw the Kos blog as anything other than a liberal blog, because of the meaning that I attach to the word liberal and the liberal people I know.
    If we want to force another, more moderate label on this web site, like "democratic" it means we'll stop being true to ourselves, and we should be proud of who we're: I just told a friend yesterday, she should join this blog because she'll find many intelligent, well-educated, informed, passionate people, who post fresh, polite and  smart comments on the current political state of affairs. What label would include all those things I've described above? "progressive?" It doesn't matter, because no matter what we call ourselves they're going to call us whatever they want to call us.
    •  i.e. (none)
      Names are things other people give you.

      I've been called a whole hell of a lot in my short, short life. Don't base my worldview on it, mmmh-hmmm.

      "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for President. One hopes it is the same half." - Gore Vidal

      by sapper on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:59:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Question is, "What is the left?" (4.00)
    First let me say, I have been extremely guilty of this, but this post has got me thinking, what is the left? I see people say, I'm a moderate (Centrist) Democrat. I see people say I'm a liberal? Some say they are progressives. Yet, with regard to the party isn't it all just "relative" bullshit? Is a moderate Liberal someone who doesn't want to feed the starving, house the poor and help someone who is out of work? Is a liberal someone who doesn't want to defend America? Or is the difference religous? Are the liberals the ones who don't mind Gays getting married and Centrists do? I'm just asking, because I see all of us, myself included, use these terms without defining what the hell they actually mean. Hey, I'm for free trade, if that's what actually is. It isn't. More labels.

    I do like the democratic label for this blog, however. Because that is very much the case here. As someone above posted, I also consider myself an Independent more than any other label. However, partly due to the state I live in and how I vote, politically I call myself a Democrat.

    But has there ever been a serious discussion here over what a "Liberal Democrat" is versus what a "Centrist Democrat" is, or may be? Perhaps that's a discussion we need to have? If for any reason, it allows us a common reference for future discussion?

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:06:09 PM PST

    •  sure, it's relative (4.00)
      I think we generally agree about goals and values on the left-liberal side of the spectrum, but not necessarily about methods.

      Our goal here should be to find framing language that expresses our values, not a laundry list of policies and legislation that we can debate at length once we win back the Congress. That's how the other side does it, for the most part. If we agree on the basic values, we can hammer out policy differences later. The purpose here should be the search for commond ground -- and we may be surprised that even some conservatives will agree with our values and be willing to accept some of the policies.

      Let's take welfare reform. This was a divisive issue, still is. But some people thought the Dems had to shake off the worst aspects of welfare-state liberalism, to emphasize responsibility, both for the individual and for the government's budget. Clinton did that -- some on the left attacked him for it, but it had a masure of success.

      Unfortunately, there has been no follow through. Some people have simply fallen out of the statistics, out of our sight. But others have lifted themselves up. Generally, I think the poor would be better off with our version of compassionate welfare reform, but it's remarkable how little welfare is an issue anymore.

      Unfortunately, on some level, when you solve a political problem, it goes away, taking its positives with it. We barely remember now what it meant to be saddled with the label of being pro-welfare dependency. The label hurt us, and moreover I agree that it hurt the people on welfare.

      Now we have a much more valid claim as the party of honest work and of workers. We should be taxing wealth, not work. We should reward work, not idleness -- whether the idle are ablebodied people who refuse to work or the idle rich who collect tax-free dividends.

      But unlike those who are content to let the poor fend for themselves, we are also the party of the safety net. There are some people who are simply unable to work, either because of handicaps, the lack of opportunity, old age, or because they must take care of others, such as small children.

      So we are the party of work and the safety net.

      Here's another example. We can disagree about abortion, but we must not forget that it sometimes seem that the most fervent abortion opponents only care about fetuses until they are born. We care about them after they are born, how they are educated and protected, fed and clothed. We care about adoption and better foster care. And I think we can find common ground with many on the pro-life side -- call them on it. If these children are going to be brought into the world, who will care for them? And maybe we can agree to some reasonable counseling and methods to give young women alternatives to abortion. There are plenty of young women who might choose to have a baby but not raise it. We sometimes forget that choice means just that -- you don't always choose to abort. It also means that we need better sex education and contraception services -- that is the best way to reduce abortion. But it must be a legal option, because women died when it was illegal, and their lives matter too. Abortion is not the only pro-life issue: We are also against unnecessary killing of adults -- the death penatly, which kills many people who turn out to be innocent, and wars, which kill many civilians and innocents and should be a last resort in foreign policy. Surely there is common ground to be had here with some who call themselves "pro-life" and want a "culture of life." We are life-centered, too:  keeping abortion legal, safe and rare; ending the barbaric practice of execution, because the system itself is unjust;  So, we are the party of affirming life for all, not just fetuses, but not excluding fetuses. We recognize, though, that moral questions cannot be reduced to slogans. Let us accept that as a value and sort out the policy later.

      OK, so far so good. The party of work, the safety net and affirming life. That's enough examples for now. We haven't even mentioned the environment.

      You see how we can agree on the general values, whereas the traiditional labels all have to do with how we accomplish these goals. Some of you might be so far on the left that you would support progressive taxation that effectively puts a ceiling on wealth and a guaranteed income that ends poverty altogether. Others of you are so far to the right that you are willing to accept free trade and market forces to a greater degree, which means you also accept a certain amount of suffering is necessary for a strong economy (yet you still support a safety net for those who have trouble competing in a free trade economy). You may, as a centrist, share the values of the environmental movement even as you are skeptical about the efficacy of government regulation. Again, those are policy differences. We still share basic values.

      This is how we need to think: what values do we share, not
      are we all in favor of a specific health care plan or opposed to drilling in certain areas. We also need to focus on the most important issues and decide that some issues (gun control perhaps) cost us more than we can afford. Let's go for the things that help the greatest number of people, and if we win the trust of the American people, with decades of prosperity and a safety net for all, then perhaps we can talk about some of the more controversial policy prescriptions. Indeed, we may find that we even outgrow some of the debates that have divided us, as times change. (Take gun control -- as populations become denser, we are bound to win that argument by default; as hunting declines and close quarters reduce the tolerance for weaponry).

      So, choose our values. Then choose our battles. Then choose candidates who are both pragmatic and able to frame the message. We had a pragmatist this time, but he was not the greatest messenger. He may even have been the best -- but we needed better choices. Many of our best people held back, as is often the case when an incumbent is in a race. The 2008 election will be wide open. We should be examining the talent closely and encouraging those who have what it takes to build upon the common ground.

      An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - M. K. Gandhi

      by SpiderHole on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:09:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see your point (none)
        and I agree with most of your post.  It's obvious from the replies to this Diary that we all agree on some things.  There are many things we will never all agree on.  So, yes, we need to decide what our values are, but IMO we also need to prioritize our values and consider where/if we are willing to compromise.  Because I hold beliefs that conflict with both parties stances, I have always had to prioritize and vote for what is most important to me.

        For example, here is a small sampling of some of my views in order of their importance to me:

         Equal Rights  (including gay marriage and abortion)
         Protection of the environment
         Protection of Second Amendment rights
         The death penalty for recidivist felons

        According to my list, you and I don't agree on some issues.    Some of my views conflict with those of the Democratic Party.  However, the most important issues to me are numbers one and two.  If I have to give up numbers three and four to achieve equal rights and protection of the environment, I will give them up.

        That is why I have always voted for Democratic candidates.  I may not agree with the party on all issues, but I always agree on the core issues of equal rights and protection of the environment.

        I think you're right that the general public has lost sight of the Democratic Party's core values and need to be reminded.  So what do we all agree on?

         

    •  Yes... (none)
      I think I might be a Centrist, except I'm not exactly sure what that is!  I would welcome a dialogue on that.
  •  I Approve This Message. (4.00)
    I want to win.  We might have great ideas, but they don't do a damn thing if we don't win.  Lately, our candidates haven't even had great ideas, because it might some alienate some voter.  Our candidates are even too afraid to say that we want a country without a hungry or illiterate child, we think the government can do more to help people than steal from our children and give to the rich, we hate war but know it is sometimes necessary, we have nothing to be afraid of from or should never give up our freedoms because of a handful of delusional murderers.  

    Our so-called strategists are content to say "My opponent wants to do something completely stupid to fuck up the country.  I agree with the goals of my opponent, but I have a plan that would only fuck up the country half as much, and less of the cost of the fucking up would be suffered by the middle class."  

    I don't want to concede gracefully.  I don't want to play nice while we are savagely attacked, because it might piss off some swing voter.  I want the right wing and the thieves to pay for trying to ruin this country.

    I like Howard Dean, because I throughout his campaign, except for the three weeks in Iowa when he had a bunch of well-meaning kids running around making him look bad, and getting swiped by Dick Gephardt, he was able to define himself and not have anyone else define him.  We nominated a courageous war veteran but cowardly politician, and we wouldnt have done any worse with the courageous politician and the short guy with the bad back from the state of Ben and Jerry's.

    Dean gets it and Lieberman does not. We learned that having the courage of convictions is its own reward among some of the half-wit Bush voters, no matter how idiotic your policies are.  That is the difference between Kerry and Bush.  We wanted to cover for him.  We knew he liked to nuance.  But we all know we wish we would have heard him say about voting for the resolution "Yeah, that was really stupid and cowardly, because I really should have known Bush is a giggling murderer.  However, everyone needs to remember there is only one giggling lying murderer in this race."

    •  Good post (4.00)
      and I'm in agreement. I'm probably a lot more liberal than Dean but I'm also pragmatic. I also love someone who says what they think and Dean did that. He helped me feel proud to be a Democrat, to be a U.S. citizen again.

      I'd like to say to the poster above this, too that I think the definition of "liberal" is something we've allowed to be done by the far right. I know what I think a "liberal" is and what I think a "centrist" is but others may differ on the fine points.

      Our problem is that we are not defining ourselves, the right wing is defining us. This is why I hoped we'd be able to reconcile under the "progressive" label if we need a label, because we believe in progress. Progress for the country, for the whole human race and the planet. We believe in progress in health care, education, helping those less fortunate, progress in realizing a common human goal to improve all of our conditions.

      Unfortunately, the far right grabbed it and latched it onto the "liberal/libertine/evil/godless/unChristian/pro-abortion/pro-murder/pro-criminal/crooked/crazy/whate ver" and so again we've been left without a title, as it were.

      The "wing'nuts" can always say the are "right" and the very meaning and sound of the word gives them legitimacy that "left" doesn't have.

      They do know how to use language and the "sound bite".

  •  I'm a moderate radical pragmatic independent dem (none)
    Which puts me in the pragmatic catagory. Basically, I am for equality over religion secular over orthodox. Small effient gov. over wastful large government. Progressive taxation because that is where the money is to strengthen the country. Leaving a better country and world for our children. Live and let live as long as you respect others views. Solutions that take into account all interest as being equal and compensating effected parties to one degree or another. Democrates are losing election for a number of reasons and one is letting the other side define them and not defining the other side. All or nothing thinking over slow progress toward our goals. One size fits all solutions over basic agreeable goals. We have been fighting to keep Roe v wade without talking about how to lower abortion rates (Education being the big one)
    Taking about gun violence without upseting rual america. Budget and principals with defining what they are. Letting the media off the hook without pointing out it's failure.
    Corporate america is bad without understanding that is who employs many in america. Seeding Values to the Republicans without talking about Greed and excess. This list could go on and on.. The dems need reform and the establishment can't do it. Dean would be my second choice at this time but Rosenberg would be my pick. The govenor of iowa would be farther down the list. Of course I think that they need to offer their vision and priorities at least semi publically.
    I have been critical of the DLC but understand the frame they were operating in and think that they are reform orientated and that yesterday is gone and being upset over yesterday brings us no closer to solutions. They have an interesting post http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253005  
    On reform that is inline with what we are saying in one way or another on this democratic big tent BLOG.....
    So lets not miss the view for the trees in the way... Think Big go for broke never lose your hopes and dreams. Respect the truth above all else and always be pragmatic with your pricipals or else you will get none of what you want and little of what we need.

    Lots of people see the world in Black and White. It is mostly just shades of grey.

    by Davinci on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:20:39 PM PST

  •  Proud to be a liberal (none)
    When someone calls me a liberal, I thank them and take it as a compliment.  They resent the fact that I don't accept the label as pejorative.

    And I give them a standard definition of "liberal" from the American Heritage dictionary (in case they are confused):

    liberal

    SYLLABICATION:
    lib·er·al

    ADJECTIVE:
    1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

  •  Evita Vresnoc (none)
    That's all we should be, right?

    (it's conservative backwards, for the humor impaired)

    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

    by galiel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:51:57 PM PST

  •  here, here (none)
    That's what I like about it. I get annoyed over at Atrios, even though I'm a liberal. We need to figure out how to win.

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - M. K. Gandhi

    by SpiderHole on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:36:41 PM PST

  •  consensus (none)
    Having read the first third of this thread earlier today, and briefly glancing at the new posts (I've got to get up early tommorrow) I'm taking the chance that the general gist hasn't changed.  I hope this is relevant.  Flame me mercilessly if it's not:

    I've come to realize that there are a number of things that don't work right in our country and are unlikely to ever change in meaningful ways if left to our leaders in Washington.  Any real change can only come at the prodding of a unified electorate.  

    What are the problems that the vast majority of Americans could agree need fixing?  Well, there are many issues for which the majority could not agree on the right course of action, the ones the media labels hot button.  But shouldn't there be some problems which the majority could agree need fixing and, further, could agree on what the fix should be?

    What if there was a list of, say, ten fixes that the overwhelming majority of voters agreed on.  Let's say these ten items would be so obviously the right things to do, that this voting bloc would forsake their party affiliation and agree to vote for any candidate who would pledge to fix this list of ten problems.

    Successful candidates would lose support if they went back on the pledge and new problems could be added to the list of ten, should the original ones be solved.  Alright , I know I'm overly optimistic here, but bear with me.  So what are ten problems that most of us (and I mean most Americans -- not most progressives or conservatives or moderates) could agree on?  

    Well, I don't know for sure, but I can guess on some that might pass the test.  Here is my partial list, and I would welcome knowing yours.  Can we find ten points of agreement on dKos even?  Am I deluding myself?  What's the frequency, Kenneth?

    I.   Uniform ballots, uniformly counted and uniformly verifiable by the voter for all national offices

    II.  Gradually increasing maximum class size for each grade level through high school combined with mandatory nine months of unpaid primary school service for high school graduates

    III.  Eliminate campaign advertising, but allow debates, speeches, position papers, etc. that are presented through the appropriate media via federal funding and regulation

    IV.   National minimum wage level calculated to allow the resulting increase in federal income tax proceeds to pay for a national health plan and allow businesses to shift health plan expenses to employee wages

    V.  Accrual accounting for federal budget, or some way other way to stop the financial chicanery that allows things like social security insolvency  and deficit spending

    VI.  Income tax credit for voting, or serving on a jury or other non-paid govermental bodies

    VII  Comprehensive energy plan linked to greenhouse gas reduction

    VIII.  Something to eliminate lobbying industry, or at least cripple its power.  Ideas?

    IX.  ???

    X.  ???

    •  Get the money out of it (none)
      VIII.  Something to eliminate lobbying industry, or at least cripple its power.  Ideas?

      This one's easy (well, you know: "easy").  Simply make it illegal for lobbying organizations to give money to candidates or politicians.  Their jobs are to lobby--that is, communicate to a candidate or politician the correctness of their view on a particular matter and the incorrectness of the opposition.  They shouldn't be in the business of giving their money to anybody.  If they want to use their organizations' money for REALLY fancy PowerPoints instead of mere fancy PowerPoints, more power to 'em.

      •  Ah, but (none)
        what if their chosen delivery method for communicating their view was a $1,000 an hour escort service? ;-)
        Seriously though, you're right, that would work.  Course if federal funding for elections passed, the need for lobbyist money would evaporate. LOL If, if, if.  
        Thanks for the response.  
  •  Websters says...It's a liberal blog! (none)
    Webster's says some interesting things about the word liberal.  You should  check it out for yourself.

    Daily Kos is a liberal blog.  

    It is 'not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms'.  
    This blog is 'marked by generosity' and is 'OPENHANDED'.
    The flow of ideas are 'AMPLE and FULL.'  
    The Daily Kos is 'befitting a man of free birth'.  

    Yes, the Daily Kos is a liberal blog.  You can even add a capital letter to that and it still fits.  I am proud to say I am a part of this liberal online community.

    The Daily Kos is based upon the principles of liberalism:

    Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
    Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
    Function: noun
    1 : the quality or state of being liberal
    2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

    All of these words describe us; as well as you can describe a large group of people.  They describe most American's, red or blue.  The idea that we have allowed the word liberal to be perverted into a venomous curse in the political arena is pretty scary.  The reluctance of our leadership to identify with the word has seemed to legitimate that assault.  

    This actually reminds me of a book I read when I was a kid called Tigana.  It told the story of a great and noble people.  By far the most advanced society on their world.  They were defeated by evil, magic and treachery.  The few people of Tigana who suvived the war were allowed to live, but their enemy cast a spell removing all memory of Tigana from the world. No one knew of the wonderful history, their beautiful society, their language, their music, their government, their tolerance; no one, but the people of Tigana.  They could remember.  

    They could tell no one.  Nobody could even understand the word Tigana, let alone the concept.  The conquering enemy was in control of the land.  The people of Tigana were trying to rally people and fight, but they could not speak plainly about the goals and aspirations because no one would understand the concept of Tigana.

    Sorry if that was hokey, but it seems like it fits.  

    Anyway...

    We need to stop running from the 'liberal' label.   Liberalism's assault and defeat of totalitarianism in so many of it's forms is something that we should trumpet.  

    Liberalism is the American Way!

    •  A dictionary entry isn't very helpful on this (none)
      Liberalism (as with most "-isms") is a very big concept.  There have been thousands of books over the past two centuries trying to encapsulate "liberalism" and its principles. Billions of words have been expended trying to present liberal positions.  

      Sorry, a dictionary entry of a few dozen words is massively simplistic.  If one chooses to call themselves a liberal based on a dictionary entry, one needs to read a little more about it and decide if they truly want to sign on to the label.

      I think it's a good label for myself, but understand why someone else wouldn't want it.  I'm not happy about the "dictionary liberals" who wake up one day and don't want to support the tougher principles.

      When I was in my 20s I was only a "dictionary liberal".  But I made some choices and decided to sign on for the long haul.

      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

      by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:57:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why not the dictionary? (none)
        Liberalism (as with most "-isms") is a very big concept.  There have been thousands of books over the past two centuries trying to encapsulate "liberalism" and its principles. Billions of words have been expended trying to present liberal positions.
         

        Yes, and all of the positive has been torn from from that word in the last 20 or so years by the right and their media machine. For a couple hundred years this world depended on liberalism for freedom, justice and the advancement of science and technology.  Today it is a dirty word.  It is a dirty word because we have allowed the right to define this word.

        My post was meant to be simplistic.  The concept is simplistic.  We are liberal, and we need to stop running from it.  

        Sure the dictionary says a few things about liberalism that do not fit my ideology: dependence on free markets being the dissonant term  for me.  I am sure that there are others for you.  

        How can you ask people to fight with you or to understand your point of view when your legitimacy can be stripped away by a single word that's definition has been perverted.  

        Keep in mind, I never use the word liberal when it comes to my discussions of politics.  I like progressive, myself, but I will not seek to distance myself from the liberal moniker if it is applied to me by someone else.  I try to correct the definition, and lay out positives of liberalism: universal suffrage, child labor, trust busting, seperation of church and state, public schools, etc.

        I believe that the dictionary helped me to see what a big word it really is, and how applicable it is to the left in general.  It also pissed me off that the definition has become so perverted.

        I would like to know more about how you have signed on for the long haul, and what that long haul is, and, also, why the neophyte needs to be wary of connecting with that label.

        •  I don't run from the term "liberal" (none)
          I am one and "proud".  I even have a "Liberal and Proud" t-shirt to prove it. I've probably been a liberal a lot longer than most of the posters on dKos have been alive.

          I just don't like glib generalizations and misinterpretations of what a liberal is.  

          It is these fuzzy meanings that have gotten us into trouble and which have allowed the right to portray us as "tax and spend" and "bleeding-heart" and "peaceniks".  We need a few "frames" of our own to use as weapons: "Republican disfunctional family values", "Emperor Bush", "Grand Inquisitor Evangelicals", "Republican freeloaders".  [Hell I'm not very good at getting to the visceral frames that are needed.]

          I just don't like it when the word "liberal" is  thrown around with abandon by either side.  We have to be precise on what "Liberalism" means or others get to define it. That's why I think the Wikipedia entry is a much better source that Webster's.  

          And BTW, a liberal is not a leftist.  Call a leftist a "liberal" and you'll get your head handed to you!

          And as for the really long haul ... it's very easy to be a liberal when you are a student or you make very little money.  I've seen many of my friends shift from being liberal to being pretty damned conservative as their income grew along with their success.  I've had my income grow quite a bit too and it's tough to see how much goes for taxes.  

          But I honestly believe that the benefit of spreading out the burden of the cost of "social programs" and having the top 5%-10% pay more taxes than they are currently paying makes for a better society and a healthier economy.  

          I just hold my nose at the portion of my tax bill that's currently going to Halliburton!

          "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

          by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:10:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  additional frames... (none)
            We need a few "frames" of our own to use as weapons: "Republican disfunctional family values", "Emperor Bush", "Grand Inquisitor Evangelicals", "Republican freeloaders".  [Hell I'm not very good at getting to the visceral frames that are needed.

            How about 'tax and hoard republican'... 'pay your republican war tax'... 'cold hearted'... 'warmonger', 'if it sounds right say it'... 'Racicot, Gillespe & Enron'...'greedy'...'they have to hide the truth'...'Republican veil of secrecy'...

            •  Ooh those are good! (none)
              I especially like "tax and hoard" and "republican war tax" Pithy!  

              How about uping the ante: "tax and extort" or "cradle robber barons".

              "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

              by Glinda on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:07:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  good lord (none)
    might as well see if i can't rock the boat.

    Yes this is a LIBERAL blog.  Yes it is open-minded.  Yes to all things.  It is a "reform" blog?  maybe in the future.

     But it is above all an ego blog.  a vanity blog and a listen to me cuz i'm right blog, just as all blogs are.  Blogs are impersonal, no repercussion zones of debate where every poster is essentially trying to get someone else to believe that they are smart, right, and worthy of being listened too.  This goes for points and counterpoints, every poster including myself wants to be read, paid attention too and be praised for what we say.  

    But why try and change the obvious?  This is a liberal blog.  Call it what you will progressive, open-minded, freedom of speech blog, whatever, but those are just synonyms for liberal.

  •  As Sam Adams said . . . (none)
    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds"

    "A true patriot would keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances, and not allow them to rest till the causes of their just complaints are removed. Our ship is in the hands of pilots who are steering directly under full sail to a rock. The whole crew may see this course to violate our liberties in full view if they look the right way."

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

    by SarahLee on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:00:28 AM PST

  •  This is a fun blog (none)
    It's as American as Apple Pie. Its a free speech blog. Long live Liberty. We are Self Governed.
  •  Liberal Blog (none)
    If your Democratic blog turns out to be a liberal blog then maybe that just represents progress. (Which would make it a progressive blog. But I digress.)

    It should come as no shock that my position is that in order to win elections Democrats must embrace liberalism in all its glorious colors.

    So, if this is a complaint that people are somehow doing us a disservice when they write "liberal blog", I don't agree. Nor is ideology automatically bad. Bad ideology is bad.

    I would be the last to insist that you had to belong to some ideology to post here, but that does not mean I will stop being a strong advocate for what I believe in. The only thing I ask is that you be just like me (a strong advocate)...in your own way (with your own beliefs).

    Now, if only I could get it to be a vegan blog, I could get some good recipes!

    Liberal Thinking

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:46:16 AM PST

  •  Liberal/Democrat (none)
    I thought I was a Democrat, but if Lieberman is a Democrat, I'm not. Instead, I am a Liberal.

    If being a Democrat means that, because Bush won the election, I have to accept his war in Iraq, then I am no longer a Democrat.  I am a Liberal.

    Winning an election does not give permission to Bush to commit genocide, or whatever name you wnat to give to what we are doing in Iraq.

  •  Liberal, progressive, centrist ......who cares!! (none)
    Republicans win elections by manipulation.

    Lets face it, the repubs have become much better at manipulating the American public than the dems.

    While we whine and search for mythical frames they twist, distort, and lie their way to victory.

    We are weak because we think truth equals victory, but this is false.

    Elections are won on the streets and in the media, and the repubs have better discipline and infrastructure where it counts.

    We have a great product, but we lack the sales channel.  Sure, get a message, but lets stop playing catch-up by getting mirred in discussions of liberal vs. progressive, etc.  This is exactly what the repubs want us to do!

    My suggestion: we should all call ourselves conservatives but push the agenda/ideologies we want.  

    Lets "conserve" our democracy and fredoms,
    lets "conserve" the constitution and bill of rights,
    lets "conserve" our economic health,
    lets "conserve" our leadership position in the world
    lets "conserve" our environment for our children
    lets "conserve" our civil liberties........

    When anyone asks me I say "I'm a conservative!"

    The positions are more important than the labels.

    •  And to add anecdotally...... (none)
      When I "frame" my beliefs this way to my Republican co-workers and neighbors we actualy find common ground for discussion.  I got three fiscally "conservative" co-worker republicans and a neighbor to support Dean in the Virginia primary using this approach.  Of course they all switched back to Bush for the general, so you never know!
    •  Vocabulary is a breach (none)
      Vocabulary is the greatest hurdle that we need to overcome when talking to the right.  I believe that the right purposely distorts the vocabulary through the frames that they develop, and this causes a breach in reality between the right and left.

      For example, every conversation about Communism always leads to problems for me because I am talking about Marxism, and they are talking about Stalinism.  They think Hitler was a Socialist.

      It is getting worse these days because so called liberals are staking out a conservative position: defending the gains that liberalism has offered, and the right is fostering change in a radical way, which can hardly be called conservative.

      I find that the soft right is usually quite receptive to liberal arguments, once the vocabulary is nailed down.  Most of the disagreements occur over solutions, there is usually agreement on the problem.  

      Your 'jedi mind trick' on those soft conservatives is a simple appeal to the dictionary and a clearing up of the dissonant vocabulary of the right and left.

  •  Put it in the TITLE (none)
    Daily KOS:  A Democratic Reform Blog

    At least anyone coming to the site will know the truth.

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which c

    by SWicklund on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:55:41 AM PST

  •  Is this a joke? (none)
    Is this a joke? Not only are the politics espoused here in the blog entries clearly liberal, but every time that someone posts a comment that supports the Democratic party yet questions conventional liberal thought, they get jumped all over and flamed.

    Why be embarrassed about being liberal? That is a dangerous path.

  •  Kos? (none)
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog,
    democratic reform blog, democratic reform blog

    feel better?

  •  WhutYouSmokin? (none)
    John Kerry is a liberal ? This is just factually incorrect by any reckoning or fudging. Of course, the blog is what you want it to be. So... not Liberal, that's nice. I'm a radical leftist.

    The Democratic party reformed or otherwise is an enormous putrid clusterfuck and the pristinely center-right Kerry ((outside of US borders/press =  right) was the perfect posterboy for this. Dean or whatzisname for Chairman? Its all like arguing about which hairstyle looks best on the corpse. I have voted and will vote for Demo candidates (including..uh..Kerry) when appropriate and necessary but the party doesn't represent me and apparently neither does the blog. Like the Irish girl says in Caddyshack "Tanks fer nuttin."

  •  Reform? sorry, that's on the other side (none)
    The Democrats are the ones espousing the status quo of the last 30-40 years on all kinds of issues -- social security, taxes, global strategy (containment/internationalism vs. pre-emption), education, welfare, military/intelligence transformation -- on all these, the Democrats have advocated "leave things the way they are/were", and the Republicans have been the ones promoting and advocating reform.  

    The reforms may not be the ones you favor, but they are nonetheless reforms.  

  •  I'm a vegan too (none)
    But no, I didn't back Kucinch, even though I know he's vegan as well. It does make me like Moby and Brandy and Alicia Silverstone, et al, more, though.
    •  Brandy (none)
      Ah, the secret to liking Brandy. Knew there had to be one.

      We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

      by easong on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:01:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reform blog = liberal blog (none)
    I would argue that "liberal" is a term that should be applied to anyone, Republican or Democrat, seeking to change the party away from the status quo, and "conservative" should be applied to anyone trying to maintain the status quo.  Right now we have "radical" for the right and "progressive" for the left.  It seems to me using a pair of labels that applies equally to both parties would make the terms more descriptive.
  •  Reality-based Blog = Liberal Blog (none)
    This is where extreme lefties like me come to talk to regular lefties, with the occasional democratic centrist or disgusted republican providing come color.

    We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

    by easong on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:00:08 AM PST

  •  Daily Kos is a Democratic Community (none)
    Cause it ain't really just a blog any more.
  •  Glad to see this posting (none)
    In response to one of my diary entries I was told that this was a "progressive blog" and that I should take my middle leaning thoughts elsewhere. I'm glad to see that isn't the supported thought.
  •  'liberal blog' (none)
    0-0-0-0-0. that had to hurt. otherwise how come so many peeps rose to the bait? actually, my dear, who gives a rat's _ what some no-neck wants to label free speech. let them go Cheney themselves. You have an excellent blog here, lot of good peeps reading/writing. what's wrong w/ that?

    Here in red NC, the term 'liberal' was embedded forever in the lexicon of the faithful by Jesse Helms, who was able to say it with a twist of his lip no one has since been able to duplicate. I think in order of despicability, the worst thang you can be in NC is a Commie, then a gay, then a liberal.
    Age of Enlightenment, no not quite yet.

  •  we are liberal trust me (none)
    Ok lets stop kidding ourselves, not only are we democrats here the majority of us are pretty liberal. I mean used to be a card carrying member of the socialist party (before i could vote though), i'm as liberal as you can get without being a commie, and i'm willing to work within the framework of the democratic party, IF we get results. if we keep on losing, I don't see why splintering off and forming a true progressive third party would be such a bad option

    Nous sommes désolés We Are Sorry

    by dank on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:10:48 PM PST

  •  It's official (none)
    Charles Gibson on ABC News just called this a "liberal" blog.  Guess that makes it official :)
  •  Hi, Liberals, Democrats, Kossacks whatever!! (none)
    I really am amazed since becoming an overseas guest on DKos at the extraordinary  quality and civility with which your discussions are conducted. This thread is an example.

    Much of what I read here is mirrored in our own debates, not least by the fact that sometimes it seems easier to describe what we as liberal democrats are by describing what we are not.

    The Founding Fathers were thinkers in the British Whig tradition, a tradition which evolved into the UK's Liberal-Democratic Party, to which I subscribe. Far from being a term of abuse, there was, until recently, a great tradition of liberalism that I perceived in the Republican as well as the Democratic parties of the USA.  They were both "one nation" parties.  They may have differed on the best means of achieving the common objective, but they agreed on the objective, well encapsulated in the Pledge of Allegiance:-

    I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands:  one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

    "Liberty and Justice for All" - not liberty and justice only for the few, only for the corporate elite, only for the wealthy residents of exclusive homes in gated and security-guarded suburbia, only for those adhering to certain interpretations of certain religious creeds.

    A liberal ideal - and an ideal that made the United States of America a nation for others to emulate.

    As the neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican Party and rejected entirely its liberal traditions, I feel a great affection for the community on DKos. Whatever you decide to label this blog and label yourselves, I am content that what I read here is by true liberal democrats determined to regain the heart and soul of America in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

    You lot on DKos enable me to tell my friends in the UK that you have the determination and guts that will make sure that this happens. Europe needs to hear this - there is a great danger that, with Bush in his second term, we (and I talk now as a European and not as a citizen of the closest ally of the United States) will decide to disengage entirely from your country.

    This would be a disaster for the free world and another major mistake of the Bush administration.

    •  John Kenneth Galbraith on liberalism (none)
      http://tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/lewis/archives/04/11/61493825.shtml?Element_ID=61493825

      Perhaps when Markos returns from his much deserved vacation he will recognize that this is a liberal blog and that, without ideology, "the Democratic Party" is just a meaningless collection of letters.  We're interested in the Democratic Party as a vehicle  through which to enact liberal policy and retard the sort of life- and planet- destroying policies of the right.  And it is important to understand that liberals can be quite moderate, and even conservative, relative to the radical revolutionary reactionaries of the right.

  •  LIBERAL--IT'S A GOOD THING (none)
    When and how did "liberal"  become a bad thing? Democrats need to define and defend the term and they also need to define the term "conservative".  I wonder how many in those red states really know what conservative means.  Inasmuch as they say liberals are commies, conservatives lean to the ideology of nazism.  Do they realize and accept that?   Think about all the types, etc. that conservatism does not embrace or at least feel are equal.  Afro-Americans do not seem to find a home there.  Gays/Lesbians do not. Women's issues? There is nothing there for poor people.  It is a philosophy of exclusion.  Only those with resumes of extremism are welcome.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site