DC "culture of fear" still alive

I often talk about the DC "culture of fear" -- Democrats afraid of doing or saying anything even midly controversial, lest they get bitten by the big, bad, Mighty Wurlitzer.

Dean started changing things, unafraid to take on the idiots on the Right. The blogs are doing their part. And, for a while, it seemed as though the party was starting to grow a spine. But alas, all it took was some lame Whoopi jokes to get them to revert to form.

(Click image to enlarge.)

From press release:

Margaret Cho has been "uninvited" to perform at the Unity 2004 event which is taking place at Avalon, this coming Monday, July 26, around the Democratic National Convention. The Human Rights Campaign is one of 10 GLBT groups coming together July 26 at the nightclub to "celebrate GLBT strength and unity." Asked to headline the event, Cho was preparing to preview material from her new State of Emergency tour as part of an unpaid benefit performance. She has since been "uninvited" by a spokesman for the HRC, who cited "a potential media firestorm" and referenced the recent criticism of Whoopi Goldberg's routine at a Kerry fundraiser. Unity 2004 is not officially a part of the Democratic National Convention or the Kerry campaign.  Many of the groups involved in Unity 2004 did not agree with the decision to rescind the invitation.

"I am not surprised at the reversal in light of how the Kerry campaign distanced itself from Whoopi's routine in response to the unrelenting media hype and Republican criticism," said Margaret's manager, Karen Taussig. "It's Whoopi's job as a comedian to say things that are sometimes shocking. I wish they could have backed her up. Dennis Miller can make gay jokes about Senators Kerry and Edwards at a recent Bush rally in Wisconsin to a complete absence of media scrutiny. No one demanded a tape of that event or alleged that his comments as a comedian might reflect poorly on Bush."

Spineless asses. They were spinless when Democrats refused to laugh off wingnut indignation at Whoopi's jokes (the way Republicans effectively laughed off indignation over the "girly men" incident), and they're spineless for letting the Right Wing dictate who can speak at our events.

I had great respect for HRC until today, even if they do blame the cancellation on pressure from the Kerry campaign and the DNC. This time, the Republicans won.

•  spelling

  Spin-less (lacking spin).  Hardly.

  Spineless (lacking spine).  Boy, howdy.  And amen.

  by ogre on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:16:00 PM PDT

  •  my letter to those panies

    To Whom it May Concern:

    I am very disappointed in your decision to uninvite Margaret Cho to the Unity 2004 Event.  Why do you Democrats in Washington D.C. have such weak constitutions and plyable beliefs?  Are you really all just a bunch of damn pansies?  I risk getting the tar beat out of me going door to door in rural South Carolina trying to advance the GLBT cause and get Kerry elected and you wusses are afraid the Republican media will paint you in a negative light?

    WAKE UP!

    They already hate you.  They are always going to spin up anything that makes Democrats look bad and you play into their hands by not STICKING UP FOR YOURSELVES!!!  This constant capitulation to bullies, morons with megaphones, and would-be dictators is getting very old.  If you have no interest in standing up for other Democrats - even if it means that Fox News might have a few words of consternation for you ( like they really need any excuse anyway ) - then you don't deserve to be leaders in the party.

    I am sick and tired of the weak-wristed Tom Daschle responses you Washington Dems seem to specialize in.  Get a damn backbone or go back in the closet!

    Angrily yours,
    Scott Fanetti

    by ScottFanetti on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:11:09 PM PDT

    •  My e-mail: Where is Your Backbone?

      To Whom It May Concern:

      I will keep this short.

      I learned growing up as a gay man that I would not give any power to those out to bring me down. Evidently, the leadership of the HRC did not learn the same lesson. Otherwise, you would not have canceled Margaret Cho's participation in your Unity 2004 event in Boston on Monday, July 26th. I have always seen your organization as an ally in my fight to build and maintain my dignity. This decision has made me question whether you guys still have balls.

      I'm very disappointed and angry. When you examine your souls, I'm sure you guys probably feel the same way. Do the right thing and re-invite Margaret. To paraphrase that line ubquitous after 9/11: if you don't, the other side wins.

      John Campanelli
      Delray Beach, Florida

      by John Campanelli on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:43:29 PM PDT

      •  Also

        I think we should write to GLAAD, NGLTF, and other co-sponsors.  If HRC made the call on their own, I'm sure they would have something to say about it, too.  Write separate letters, or CC them:

        NGLTF:  Matt Foreman, Executive Director. [e-mail]

        GLAAD:  Joan Garry, Executive Director.
        [e-mail]

        The Victory Fund:  Chuck Wolfe, President & CEO.  [e-mail]

        by CoolHandLuc on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:32:38 PM PDT

        •  Sent

          by John Campanelli on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:40:59 PM PDT

        •  Reply I received from Matt Foreman

          John,

          Thanks for your comments. We had nothing to do with the decision and were informed only after the announcement had been made.

          I'm not attending.

          Matt Foreman, Executive Director
          National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
          90 William Street, Suite 1201
          New York, NY  10038
          [phone]

          by John Campanelli on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:27:39 AM PDT

          •  Bravo

            good on ya, Matt.

            by MAJeff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:45:14 AM PDT

          •  NGLTF withdraws (press release)

            Well, it looks like those letters had some effect ladies and gentlemen.

            
            NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
            MEDIA RELEASE
            MEDIA CONTACT:

            Sheri A. Lunn, Director of Communications
            202-641-5592
            http://www.TheTaskForce.org

            Thursday July 22, 2004

            National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Withdraws from LGBT "Unity 2004" Event at
            Democratic National Convention

            Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director

            "We are dismayed that Margaret Cho has been disinvited to perform at the LGBT
            Unity 2004 event scheduled for Monday, July 26 in Boston. We had been a
            co-sponsor of this event.

            Throughout her career, Ms. Cho has been a staunch supporter of equal rights for
            gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans, has contributed her time and
            talent to dozens of LGBT fundraising events, and is much loved by our
            community. We were proud to give her a Task Force Leadership Award last year. Ms. Cho
            has said, 'I'm more than bi(sexual).' She is, indeed, one of us.

            Under these circumstances, we must regretfully withdraw our support for this
            event."
            

            by roarkdc on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 02:47:34 PM PDT

      •  great letter, just 1 way I'd edit...

        I have always seen your organization as an ally in my fight to build and maintain my dignity. Oh yeah, except for that Alfonse d'Amato endorsement. What the hell was that?

        by Doug in SF on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:05:45 AM PDT

    •  More drama from parts of "the left"

      Either some people didn't read the whole article or they just can't wait to call someone in the party a "spineless ass."

      See if you can find these words in the press release:

      Unity 2004 is not officially a part of the Democratic National Convention or the Kerry campaign.  Many of the groups involved in Unity 2004 did not agree with the decision to rescind the invitation.

      by BCF on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 08:50:51 AM PDT

      •  it does not matter

        We know they ar enot a part of the Kerry Camapaign, but some of the same people- and types of people - that are board members of the HRc are members of the Democratic leadership.  These are leaders within the party and they are bending over backwards to capitulate to a little bit of pressure from the Republican Noise Machine.  They should not do that and Kerry should not have left Whoopi flapping in the wind.  Both issues stem from the same lack of guts that got our candidates trounced for the majority of the past 30 years.

        by ScottFanetti on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 10:21:03 AM PDT

•  I can't beleive

  That they are bending to this. Remember how the repuglicans laughed off criticism over monkey boy's "I can't seem to find those WMDs anywhere" satire. I mean he was poking fun at a situation that has killed 900 soldiers and they laugh it off while we back down because Whoopi Goldberg compares bush to her privates. Crap.
  How can we expect to look strong in the war on terror when we back down in the face of baseless critisism!

  by smidogg on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:18:55 PM PDT

  •  That is what's astonishing

    It sounds bad, but damn it, I want to see more left-wing demagoguery. Why aren't the Democrats screaming bloody murder over things like Bush's WMD jokes? Where is our outrage? The GOP, with help from Drudge, Fox News, etc. have got the art of whipping up a fake scandal down to a science. The Democrats, instead of responding with their own jabs, just flee. It's pathetic.

    by soultaco on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:23:39 PM PDT

    •  Amen!

      As much as it pains me, I totally agree with respect to needing our own demagogues. It seems that in our society those windbags are the ones who get all the attention. We need someone to piss and moan at Miller's jokes and Bush's jokes, the same way those kooky wingnuts cried about Whoopi's.
      And maybe replay their outrage over Whoopi alongside a clip of their girlie man response. Although I personally think both were funny, it is time to fight fire with fire and get down in the mud with these jackasses.

      by muscleheadblog on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:29:10 PM PDT

      •  Actually the public's response to Miller

        is the best one.  Which is to completely ignore him.  The only funny part of his show is how he lamely tries to coax laughs out of his own hand-picked audience.

        Miller has a sort of repulsiveness that at some point will estrange himself from the audience he's trying to reach.  I was so wishing he would run for the Senate.  

        by BCF on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:03:33 AM PDT

    •  what about...

      Dennis Miller's "joke" about Kerry/Edwards while introducing Bush?

      "Those two cannot keep their hands off each other. I have an idea for a new campaign slogan: 'Hey, get a room!'"

      IOKIYAR
      

      by the awful truth on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:31:42 PM PDT

    •  Wait a minute ..

      My guess is that the people who uninvited Cho represent democrats from swing districts, where this sort of stuff matters. I don't agree with the decision, and think it sucks.  But you have to take account of the fact that not every democrat comes from a sure district.  Control of the House turns on the swing districts, and rightly or wrongly, this element of the democratic leadership think that by soft-pedalling the democratic message they can squeak through.  It is a timid but understandable policy.  Think of Daschle's precarious hold on his Senate seat.

      Rather than rant about it, we ought to have a real discussion on the question whether the Dems can do better globablly with a forward policy, which all of us emotionally prefer, or a defensive one.  What are the pros and cons?  Has the balance shifted in one direction or another over the past two and a half years?  

      My guess is that the odds are shifting towards a more aggressively progressive stance by the Democrats.  But who am I?  The question needs to be tought and talked through.

      by Knut Wicksell on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:00:59 AM PDT

  •  the new spin

    How can we expect to look strong in the war on terror when we back down in the face of baseless critisism!

    damn that's a good point.  not because i think people will think this in and of themselves, but because the republicans will play it up.  they love to have things both ways - it wouldn't be below them at all to bring this up in the fall saying, "you guys can't even hold a private party without caving in to media pressure!"

    we're rolling back the republican crime wave

    by zeke L on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:29:17 PM PDT

  •  Slim Fast

    Dumped Whoopi. Abramson the Slim Fast king helped fund the anti Dean Osama ads in Iowa.

    by The Secret Team on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:24:40 PM PDT

•  Here's a letter I just sent HRC

  Here's my letter terminating to the HRC:

  To Whom It May Concern,

  I'm both schocked and dismayed that you "uninvited" Margaret Cho from your "Unity" event in Boston.  As an HRC member, I am disgusted that this organization would bend to pressure from the DNC and Kerry establishment in light of the recent furor over Whoopi Goldberg's appearance.

  If there's one thing I learned about being gay, it's that at some point you have to stop apologizing for something that isn't wrong in the first place.  Comedy deserves an equal voice in our election process. Cutting off a significant donor and supporter of our cause (CHO) does little to further our ultimate goals. My disgust is palpable.

  If there was some way I could revoke my membership I would.  I can simply say that you will never get a single dime from me again, despite your worthwhile efforts in other areas.

  Sincerely,
  [Name deleted] - FORMER HRC Member and proud faggot

  by DemoCratic on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:22:26 PM PDT

  •  Yeah.

    About once a year my wife and I consider donating to the HRC, and about once a year the HRC reminds us why we don't.  We support NGLTF instead.

    by Go Vegetarian on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:17:58 PM PDT

    •  Yeah Yeah

      One of the HRC "leadership" was my partner's boss. El bosso hit up all employees for donations and let them know it would be silently factored into their job evaluations. You can imagine the spontaneous and joyful outpouring of support that resulted.

      Rumor is that el bosso got some kind of award for bringing in so much money. So much for their reputation, and the reputation of other gay and lesbian organizations that will just get lumped in with the HRC in the unwilling donors' minds.

       Since then, I've had nothing to do with this organiziation of spoiled, whiny, rich gay people.

      by bramish on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:03:14 PM PDT

  •  Here's Mine

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing to express my outrage and frustration with the Human Rights Campaign's decision to disinvite Margaret Cho from the Unity Event in Boston next week. Margaret has been a staunch campaigner for LGBT equality throughout her career. Her work has inspired and entertained many of us within the community. It has also educated people throughout the country (including my students, as I have used both "I'm the One that I Want" and "Notorious C.H.O." in classroom settings, as have many of my colleagues and professors across the country). This is how she's being repaid, by saying her work will hurt us. This is ridiculous.

    This decision represents, as did the endorsement of Alfonse D'Amato, the worst side of HRC. It represents the spineless, don't make waves, D.C. mentality. Our communities, indeed our nation, deserves better. We deserve an organization that will, like Margaret, speak truth to power. We deserve an organization that views our communities as more than sources of funding.

    I have always had issues with the organizing approach that HRC takes. The contempt the organization holds grassroots activists in has always been troubling. Now, we can add artists who take a stand to the group of people HRC holds in contempt. Your action has ensured that you will never receive a dime of my money.
    

    by MAJeff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:47:54 AM PDT

•  I did all I could do.

  I sent them an email pulling my support for their organization until they proved themselves to be courageous enough to stand up to the right and the "potential media firestorm."

  by Rakkasan on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:23:33 PM PDT

  •  Same here

    No spine-ee, no turkee.

    by filkertom on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:51:49 PM PDT

  •  Here's what I sent to HRC and to Kerry....

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am appalled and disgusted by the spinelessness of removing Margaret Cho from the Unity 2004 event.  You hired a controversial comedian, and now you're dumping her because she might be controversial!?

    This is unbelievable cowardice on the part of everyone involved in this decision.  First the Republican spin-doctors get all crazy over Whoopi Goldberg, to the point that she loses an endorsement contract, and now this.

    YOU CANNOT ALLOW THE REPUBLICANS TO DICTATE YOUR ACTIONS!

    They will always be horrified and disgusted and morally outraged that we dare to call them on their atrocities.  The chance that Margaret Cho might say something offensive is pretty high.  But it's considerably lower than the chance of her advocating torture, outing a CIA agent, or carpet-bombing a country under false pretenses.  And it's legal under -- let's see, what do they call that thing? -- oh yeah!  THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

    I am sending this comment to the Kerry campaign as well as posting it on dailykos.com and atrios.blogspot.com to show my support for Ms. Cho.  I have unsubscribed from the HRC mailing list, and you aren't getting any money from me until I see a little courage.

    Tom Smith
    Ann Arbor, MI

    by filkertom on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:03:50 PM PDT

  •  And here's what I got back, and how I replied....

    HRC sent out a press release by e-mail:

    NEWS from the Human Rights Campaign
    1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
    Washington, DC 20036-3278
    E-mail: [e-mail]
    http://www.hrc.org
    ___________

    For Immediate Release
    Wednesday, July 14, 2004

    Contact: Steven Fisher
    Phone: [phone]
    Cell: [phone]

    Contact: Mark Shields
    Phone: [phone]
    Cell: [phone]

    STATEMENT ON DEMOCRATIC UNITY 2004 EVENT AND MARGARET CHO

    Statement of Steven Fisher, Communications Director

    July 22, 2004

    "The Human Rights Campaign loves Margaret Cho and we have featured her at many of our events.  However, those close to the event planning know that when we spoke with her representative earlier this week we were apprised to expect an incendiary and controversial performance.  During that discussion, it was mutually agreed that unless everyone was comfortable with that message we should agree to reschedule a performance."  

    "This Convention is about more than parties.  It is about uniting with our allies to beat George Bush in November."

    The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

    And here's what I wrote back:

    Unacceptable.

    Your allies are more united than you seem to think.  Your allies are the only ones who would be likely to attend this rally, except for some who will of course shriek "AAAAH!  MARGARET CHO, THE NOTED COMIC WHO SOMETIMES PERFORMS OFFENSIVE MATERIAL, IS OFFENSIVE!  WE ARE DISGUSTED!  MORALS!  FAMILY VALUES!  By the way, Kerry/Edwards should get a room.  And how about that Sandy Berger?  And Richard Clarke?  And Howard Dean's anger?  And...."

    This is not a time for cowardice.  We are united against Bush.

    But not behind you.

    Farewell without me,
    

    by filkertom on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 03:50:44 PM PDT

•  Just one more example

  Of how far we've fallen. Its only been a few months since Kerry's secured the nomination and the Dems have ALREADY lost their spine transplant!

  If we don't do something by the time November comes Lieberman will have somehow claimed the nomination.

  by DeanDemocrat on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:23:48 PM PDT

  •  Ah but what to do?

    I agree, but how do we exert pressure on Kerry when criticism from the left is amunition for the rabid right?  

    by TustonDAZ on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:28:01 PM PDT

    •  Answer: Nader.

      You vote Nader, tell Kerry to f**k himself, and get Dean on the ticket in 2008.

      by morph on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:36:10 PM PDT

      •  Nader mania

        Ok first a caveat: I am not looking for a pissing match so please take what I am saying with a large grain of salt. It is just my opinion, and that and my sphincter (the anal one) makes me just like everybody.

        1. If enough of us "lefties" vote for Nader, Bush wins and look for the end of the world, soon(no, I'm not being melodramatic; it would take a dissertation (or two) length paper to describe why this true and how it would go down, so just take it on faith<wink>).
        2. Nader (or any third party canidate) is a wanker, egomaniac who is more interested in personal aggrandizement than what is needed at the moment. Either that or he's delusional if he thinks he could win or govern if he won. Whatever.  

        I too have no faith in the two party system. But until the Greens or the Libertarians or the Reform's or whoever gain enough prominence through winning local,state, and national political posts, then no third party canidate will ever win(please no replies about TR, that is sooo last millenium).

        by TustonDAZ on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:56:56 PM PDT

        •  Parlimentary System, Take Me Away !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          by JackAshe on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:05:06 PM PDT

      •  Let's not get carried away

        I agree that the cave in is bullshit, but as long as the media is owned lock stock and barrel by the GOP, there isn't much we can do about it. Try to call them on it, they'll stick their fingers in there ears and present with relish the next round of talking points.

        I am as pissed off as anyone in this discussion, that these bastards make me wish reagan was president is criminal enough. George with 4 more wars-fuggetabout it the constitution will be invalidated the courts packed with so many activits right wing natural law nazis that 10 years from now I'll be wishing that scalia was the chief Justice.

        I understand the outrage fatigue that leads to dispair that this house of cards has not been exposed, but I really believe that people are not stupid and that there are a lot of good signs. These guys have 4 months to hang themselves. Iraq is not going to be anything Codpiece Crusader is going to be able to spin into silk by November, neither is the Economy. The AssHats in the media know that if Bush gets the boot, pitchforks are going to be coming after them. SO they will continue to lie, spin, avoid any substantive discussion, because they don't want the party to end. I absolutely hate the month of November, but it can't come fast enough this year.

        Let's vent, throw things stc. Then lets keep cool and not let this bullshit break our will to win.

        thanks,
        Kent

        by kent on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:10:38 PM PDT

        •  the SCLM

          You're spot on with your excellent comment. The dems know who owns the media and exactly how things will get spun once they open their mouths. They are aware of the double standard just as well as we are, its just they have to deal with it on a constant basis.

          I don't approve of getting rid of Cho, but what the fuck are they supposed to do? Linda Ronstandt dedicates a song to Moore and all hell breaks loose in the media, while Moore gets his ass handed to him in the press over anything in his last film which might in some way be slightly inaccurate.  Miller can call Kerry and Edwards a couple of homosexuals and there's no outrage in the media. You bet there's outrage from people willing to speak to the media, but to the SCLM its a "non-story."

          Bonnie Raitt dedicates a song to Bush in a smart-ass fashion and every media outlet is reporting on it.  I mean its McCarthyism out here. The dixie chicks. The Reagans. etc.

          Okay, so the response is "fight the media."  Well, Howard Dean tried that and they killed him. They waited for some dirt, didn't find any, but got the "Dean Scream" and played it until you couldnt stand the man.  People were openly and seriously talking about his "mental state."  I mean, its a no-win situation.

          Maybe these dems are right. Maybe they should keep a very low profile until October and hopefully saner minds will put Kerry in office and at least get rid of the "we're afraid to lose access" excuse from the media.

          Man, the Daily Show is up for a news award.  I mean, its beyond the pale.  If the dailykos community were in charge how would we handle it? I don't want to condone getting rid of Cho, but man its a tough decision on what to do with "controversial" entertainers when the media is against you and is shameless is its partisanship.

          The democrats really need to first start talking about bias in the media. The way the GOP owns the bias issue is wrong and if the dems started taking this issue to the people it would probably help them a great deal and get people thinking, especially Bush supporters who are bewildered on why there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, among other things.

          by skallas on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:52:13 PM PDT

          •  also

            Its not helping that Cho's current image is based on leftist revolutionaries.  I mean, come on this is the US. If you want to court the mainstream, don't wear a che guerra shirt. She wasnt a great pick to begin with, not that this condones the dropping of her, but this episode, and others, ask some really important questions:

            1. How can we have free speech when the media machine is anti-free speech?
            2. How can we have justice when injustice is portrayed in the media as justice?
            3. How can we have smart foreign policy if the media overplays fear mongering?
            4. How can we have rational discourse when the politics of entertainment and fear rule?

            The dems are victims of the SCLM.  They are constantly considering damage control because of this bias, while the GOP does damage control because of their failed policies.

            by skallas on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:00:11 PM PDT

          •  SCLM

            One of the reasons I am really looking forward to the vice presidential debate, is because I think Cheney will blow a fuse. He isn't going to be facing a mealy-mouthed limp dick this time around. Edward is going to hand him is ass on a plate untill Cheney eats his own ass on TV for all to see, or explodes into streaming piles of invective.

            The presidential debate will be scored as last time. Geaorge will get points for not crapping his pant's.

            I have to admit that these days I am more angry with the SCLM than I am with the power mad, theocracy desiring, crony capitalizing bastards running the show. At this point to expect them to behave otherwise is foolish. And I think a few folks are beginning to see them for what they are.

            Everytime that you think to yourself how they would respond to idiot move X if Clinton did it, shows you the biggest problem we face. I kid you not if Tucker Carlson knocked on my door, I'd punch him. Or Pumpkin Head or any of the bastards.
            I am not sure what we can do about this problem, besides bringing back the fairness doctrine, toss the goons out of the FCC, punch a pundit daily, or reframe the debate by coming up with some kind of centilized message distillery. Untill we can hand out reasonably juicy soundbites for the heathers to feast on, we just have to turn them off.

            thanks,
            Kent

            by kent on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:18:51 PM PDT

            •  The Sad Thing Is

              Tucker Carlson is not the worst of them.  Not by far.  He's a dumbass prick, but he can actually be thoroughly honest.

              by stephdray on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 04:59:04 PM PDT

              •  you are correct

                Stephanie,
                I have his recent dismissal of the types of cases Edwards worked on as "Jacuzi cases" on my mind. Like somehow getting your guts sucked out of you and having to be fed through a tube for the rest of your life is so easily discounted.

                No if I really had to set up a list of people I would like to find in a dark ally, he's way down the list, but culpable none the less. Prick. "jacuzi cases" ...

                Thanks,
                Kent

                by kent on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 06:03:41 PM PDT

                •  Fair Enough

                  I think this country would have a rude awakening about the quality of our lives were our litigous nature to deteriorate.  

                  by stephdray on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 01:30:57 PM PDT

        •  The Reason

          it is not exposed: There is only one game in town. People that live in glass houses ...

          Kos mentions "the mighty wurlitzer:"

          OSS veteran Frank Wisner ran most of the early peacetime covert operations as head of the Office of Policy Coordination. Although funded by the CIA, OPC wasn't integrated into the CIA's Directorate of Plans until 1952, under OSS veteran Allen Dulles. Both Wisner and Dulles were enthusiastic about covert operations. By mid-1953 the department was operating with 7,200 personnel and 74 percent of the CIA's total budget.

          Wisner created the first "information superhighway." But this was the age of vacuum tubes, not computers, so he called it his "Mighty Wurlitzer." The CIA's global network funded the Italian elections in 1948, sent paramilitary teams into Albania, trained Nationalist Chinese on Taiwan, and pumped money into the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the National Student Association, and the Center for International Studies at MIT. Key leaders and labor unions in western Europe received subsidies, and Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were launched. The Wurlitzer, an organ designed for film productions, could imitate sounds such as rain, thunder, or an auto horn. Wisner and Dulles were at the keyboard, directing history.

          http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/CIAPRESS.HTM

          Its not just the "GOP" press either. The NPR/CIA connections are overt Ken Close for example. Sponsored by Archer Daniel Midlands.

          Democrats need to realize, this is a fight. Ever see a fair fight?

          This is just Realpoltik. They do not want to go after Bush on certain issues that would make for real reform of the system that allows them to feed at the public trough.

          If you want real reform support indy media, get computers into as many hands as possible, help get big money out of the Democratic Party. Vote with your dollars.

          by The Secret Team on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:41:05 PM PDT

        •  Excellent reasoning, one importantcaveat

          Timing.  

          In the days of McCarthy -- unhappily a comparison that fits the FOX-like media,in general, & the absurd charges against Sandy Berger, specifically--remember what it took to bring him down?  One comment-- by the appropriate (respected) man --at the perfect moment.

          That's 3 variables.  Nobody stopped big bad Joe when he rampaged through movies, broadcasting, publishing, through the State Dept, through the educational system (how many teachers lost jobs? A lot) "Red Channels" published names at will and ruined lives.

          Who spoke up?  A few.  But they weren't heard. It didn't register.

          It took the right voice at precisely the right moment-- one remark, one gesture (walking out)-- and it was over. To all intents and purposes, McCarthy was finished.

          We are living through a similar experience. The limp response of Dems drives me kee-razy from time to time. And I for one do believe it registers on the public awareness as wussiness. Yesterday, in a comment, I said Kerry must speak up-- and got lowball rated-- just above troll.  It made me reconsider-- but only a little.

          This must be tackled, IMO.  When? By whom?  With what words?  I'm not sure.

          But I am increasingly convinced of this--- you can step over dogshit on the sidewalk. But if you find yourself walking through a sewer, with crap floating around your ankles, inching towards your knees, you cannot pretend you're in a field of daisies.

          The attack on Sandy Berger is as revolting as the attack on Max Cleland.  Who is going to defend them?  Unequivocally? And call our attention to the fact that, by God, there is a difference between shit and shinola.

          by Tulip on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 10:49:42 AM PDT

      •  Hahah

        If there's anyone with less of a sense of humor and more thin-skinned than these dems its Nader and his people.

        Do you really think this passive-agressive nonsense will work to do anything? If you vote Nader the signal you are sending is "The ultra-lefties are gone, don't bother trying to get us back," not some complex critique of electoral politics.

        It blows my mind people who can't stand ultra-conservative policies would love to get Bush in office again purely out of spite. Spite they dress up as "protest."  Why not write some letters, talk to your rep, etc? Is it so hard to understand that changes comes from inside the party not outside?  I mean Nader has been doing his thing for decades; Dean gets a couple of months of media time and he's gotten more people mobilized with realistic goals than Nader could in 100 years.

        Whatever. Vote Nader for all I care, but don't pretend you're making a difference with your 'holier than thou' vote.

        by skallas on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:38:42 PM PDT

      •  Vote for Nader?

        And then what? Nader can kiss my furry ass. I'd much rather vote for the Green candidate, i wouldn't vote for Nader even if he was running for city council.

        Advocating votes for Nader is totally uncalled for considering this whole thing wasn't the result of Kerry's doing, but what they chose to do by themselves, trying to block controversy.

        Yeas, it is spineless. Frankyl i would have expected more, but what can you do. The media has chosen their side and it's not the side we're on.

        by Jonesyboy on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 05:58:08 AM PDT

      •  Say Nader and get Stoned

        Grow up, it's shit like this that makes the fringes so pissed off
        Dems have a track record of jelly fish of late
        Im mad as Hell over a lot of shit and I aint gonna take it anymore

        by JackAshe on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:03:22 PM PDT

    •  Don't target Kerry directly.

      1. Criticize people who are not running for office, and who aren't well-known enough to make the papers. Last night, we put pressure on some guy from the DCCC.  That criticism won't hurt any of the current candidates.

      2. Make it clear that it is a criticism of style, not substance.

      by joshyelon on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:43:23 PM PDT

      •  Excellent point

        It's possible that some edict came from a scared staffer in Kerry's office (who's his campaign chairman anyway, Bert Lahr?).

        All of this brouhaha offers an excellent opportunity for the Democrats to stand with Voltaire and say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it."

        The Repugs who are so outraged at Whoopi's comments are the same ones who laughed off Cheney's anatomically impossible suggestion to Leahy, who make snide remarks about the outrage over Ahnold's "girlie men" epithet, who shrug off the atrocities at Abu Gharib as "just a fraternity prank".

        Isn't amazing that they want to present a "tough guy" image, yet get all thin-skinned over a few remarks? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

        'Nuff said for the moment...

        by Cali Scribe on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:17:07 PM PDT

    •  hmmm, From the "left"?

      The tart and clearly delighted hoopla ranging from (much in last week's) Newsweek to a sharp and clever take down campaign piece from the RNC set to music and composed of film of the 4 days of "introducing Edwards" was built not on the words or actions of the left.

      The RNC/BC04 made extraordinarily effective and broadly based hay out of the cmapiagn conduct, as filmed and then used.  The left was not involved in that one.

      I guess Cho was "delinked".  Is anyone surprised.
      I hope not.  

      by Marisacat on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:49:33 PM PDT

      •  Right

        Because the Repugnatats have the complacency of the SCLM to reinforce their bullshit the last thing Kerry needs is for us to give them real firepower (e.g. What Rand Beers advising Kerry means for U.S. involvement in future Asian wars, the East-Coast Elite/Bonesman angle, etc.,etc., ad infinitum aud naseum)
        

        by TustonDAZ on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:30:05 PM PDT

        •  What I am saying is

          they are very adept at what they do and have a well honed response mechanism from which the Dems retreat in panic..  It matters not at all what the left does.  It is the DEMOCRATS response to the legitimate and long enduring left that is seriously fucked.

          As in the ''disinvite'' (read:  Go F yourself) to Cho.  The right LAUGHS.  And then they laugh again.

          by Marisacat on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:34:13 PM PDT

          •  i hope the hrc feel better after having said it.

            yeah. i hope the hrc feel better after having said it.

            www.nornsisland.com

            by n69n on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:56:04 PM PDT

    •  Answer: Consider a Vote for Cobb

      Especially in safe states, where your vote for Kerry won't do anything to re-defeat Bush, consider a vote for David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate for president.

      Unlike Nader, Cobb understands that defeating Bush this year is very important. And, also unlike Nader, Cobb is trying to contribute to a long run effort of building a progressive alternative to the Democrats.

      Sixty percent of Americans live in states that will not be in play in November.  This is monumentally unfair, of course. But so long as we're stuck with the electoral college and winner-take-all methods of deciding electoral votes in most states, the silver lining is that those of us in "safe" states can vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" anyone.

      by GreenSooner on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:29:07 PM PDT

      •  Concur

        And I thank GreenSooner for adding the "only in safe states" qualifier.

        The world is watching Cobb and the Greens to see if they hold to the safe-state strategy.

        by somewhereinthecity on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:42:42 PM PDT

  •  I guess the legislation they've blocked

    and the juducial nominee they filibustered is chopped liver. Or do you not count that?

    No party is perfect. But I think that some people want the Democrats to be spineless. That makes everything more simple and makes the whole thing look more noble.

    by JamesB3 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:35:47 PM PDT

•  I lost most respect for HRC

  when they endoresed Gordon Smith in 2002.  

  As my grandma would say, "the chickens have come home to roost".

  by Manny on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:25:44 PM PDT

  •  For me

    it was their endorsement of Al D'Amato

    by MAJeff on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:41:19 PM PDT

    •  ugh

      didn't know that.  

      by Manny on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:11:24 PM PDT

  •  The HRC lost major support in NYC

    When they endorsed Al D'Amato long ago.  They seemed to be rebuilding support here, but I fear that stunts like this will send them reeling again.

    I like most of their recent work on the FMA, but this is really spineless.

    by gboston on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:42:22 PM PDT

    •  1998

      I've never forgotten that endorsement. It was one of the most shocking endorsements I can ever recall. It made me even gladder when Schumer won. Did HRC not realize that a vote for Al D'Amato was a vote for Trent Lott?

      And remember the 1994 elections in New York? A D'Amato pal, the fuckstick Guy Molinari, said that Karen Burstein (who ran for AG) was "unfit for public office" because she was a lesbian. Don't think Molinari didn't have D'Amato's blessing to engage in this line of attack.

      The only good thing to come of that was Eliot Spitzer's eventual victory four years later.

      by DavidNYC on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:54:24 PM PDT

•  OT and Annoying ...

  ... so I welcome troll ratings, but this is my new crusade:

  Stop with the 'Wurlitzer.' I just learned what that means tonight, after many months reading dKos. It's entirely obscure, it's opaque, it's baffling, it doesn't tell a story. It doesn't do any good.

  Say: "Republican Noise Machine." Say it loud. Say it long. Republican Noise Machine! Say it early and often. Say it again, huh!

  "Democrats afraid of doing or saying anything even midly controversial, lest they get bitten by the big, bad, Republican Noise Machine."

  Many yowls from the Republican Noise Machine about Sandy B.

  The Republican Noise Machine is clamoring about Whoopi.

  "Well, Wolf, although it's clear Sandy made a mistake, this is really a perfect example of the Republican Noise Machine at work ..."
  

  by GussieFN on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:26:22 PM PDT

  •  Been here over two years

    ...and I still don't know what Wurlitzer means.

    And while you're schooling me, can someone please remind me how to surround text in a grey-colored box?

    Thanks in advance

    by DWCG on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:52:42 PM PDT

    •  Thanks to DavidNYC

      I can school you!

      This is the link he gave me in a previous thread today, so if it offends you in any way, you know who to blame.

      Mighty Wurlitzer

      As far as grey-text goes, I don't even know how to make little linklets. Mine are all long and ugly, unless the above actually just says 'Mighty Wurlitzer' and not an actually URL, in which case I RULE!

      Oh, and, um, Republican Noise Machine. Thank you very much.

      by GussieFN on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:58:11 PM PDT

      •  Wurlitzer

        I only use that term on here. Otherwise, I prefer James Carville's "media puke funnel." That gets the point across pretty well, too. (The puke funnels up from Drudge to the New York Post to Fox News to the Wall Street Journal editorial page until it hits the mainstream media - aka the SCLM.)

        by DavidNYC on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:57:14 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, but 'media puke tunnel'

          doesn't link directly with the Republicans.

          You and I know that 'Mellon Dick' Scaife and Drudge are the Source of All Puke, but you have to explain that phrase, for others to understand. Republican Noise Machine makes sense, even if you don' t know about Brock's book. All you need to know is, this is Republican Noise: the concept of the ideology delivery system is just icing.

          The right doesn't call it "the biased media," they call it "the liberal media." Says it all, for them.

          Yeesh. I'm already getting tiresome on this point, and I've only been crusading  for a single day. I dunno how the Bushies do it.

          by GussieFN on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:16:53 PM PDT

    •  The Secret to the Grey Box

      [div class="blockquote"] type text here then [/div]

      whereas, [ ] = < >
      

      by GreenSooner on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:48:51 PM PDT

      •  for...

        ...succinctness of directions

        by claude on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:17:48 PM PDT

  •  Agreed...

    As long as SCLM controls cable, TV, and most of the press, no one will jump on any Republican gaffs. Dems will continue to be the victims...who's going to speak up for them besides Air America? I think it's going to be up to the blogs to do it, and maybe, just maybe, eventually some of them will have a little shame. I'm not counting on it, though.

    by NYmom on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:15:43 PM PDT

  •  I have this on my hard drive:

    The Mighty Wurlitzer is the Republican propaganda machine - the WH press office, the shrieking heads on TV and radio, etc. The name comes from the Wurlitzer organ played at skating rinks.
    ---
    Saw it at Atrios some months ago and snatched it up. Hope this helps. That being said, 'Republican Noise Machine' sound way more better.

    by Zoelef on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:21:49 PM PDT

    •  Mighty Wurlitzer

      It refers more precisely to the CIA media control machine, as described in a Rolling Stone article by Carl Bernstein published Oct. 20, 1977.

      by Jules Siegel on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:37:50 PM PDT

  •  Democratic Noise Machine

    We need to create our ownn DNM to counter the RNM.  We have to stop relying on representatives in DC to attack for us.  This power is in our hands, and we have to go on the attack against them.  It's starting to happen, with organizations like MoveOn.  If an organization doesn't have any balls (like the DLC, like HRC), then don't give them money.  Start up other organizations (like MoveOn), and give them money when they say and do the right things.  This is the only way we can keep with with the RNM.

    I don't see "noise machine" as a perjorative, but as a very useful phrase and something to aspire to.  The best thing about saying "that's just the republican noise machine again" is that it puts whatever they are saying in context.  It identifies it as spin.  And we should be out there spinning right alongside them.

    by Katydid on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

    •  The dem machine is marginalize

      Moveon, Michael Moore, most of the blogs in the US, etc.  We have them but the media marginalizes them. Why? Propaganda model of media.

      Wake me when the Fairness Doctrine is back or when ownership of the media changes.

      by skallas on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:59:58 PM PDT

•  kerry as nominee....

  ....is a win for republicans.
  
  not because of his voting record, the state he represents, or his hair/botox issues.
  
  john kerry won because of percieved electability vs. a republican... ultimately making him more "electable" among democrats. but "electable" was, is and always will mean how much one can blur the lines between "our" side and "their" side - not how forcefully and successfully we can advocate for a set of princiiples. the assumption is that "their" side's winning, so we must be more like them.
  
  i guess i can understand the logic. but held up against the evidence - no white house, no congress, fewer statehouses, etc... - the strategy has not worked for our side unless we have an inddiviidual candidate with tremendous personal appeal (clinton).
  
  we don't have that right now in john kerry. thankfully, we have an opponent with considerable ability to polarize and enrage. that's why i think kerry will win- in a landslide.
  
  but short term, kerry's prominence just means more of the same - our policy fights will be on republican terms.
  
  

  by shux on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:27:29 PM PDT

  •  HST

    I think Truman said it best:

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

    It's time the party started acting like the Democratic party.
    

    by highlander on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:47:22 PM PDT

    •  LOL

      I saw HST, and opened your post expecting to see some Hunter S Thompson stuff ... shows where my head's at ...

      Good Truman quote ...

      by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 10:10:52 PM PDT

•  HRC

  "I had great respect for HRC until today"

  I'm glad I hit the link.

  At first I was wondering:

  What's Hillary done now?

  by zuzu on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:27:31 PM PDT

  •  speaking of which

    isn't GBLT a sandwich?

    by tatere on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:04:25 PM PDT

    •  It is..

      ..if done right.

      (I keed, I keed!)

      by McMasters on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:27:01 PM PDT

    •  Darling, I've got the pictures to prove it

      (Well, I don't actually, but my twenties, were, shall we say, my salad days).

      by seriously blown cue on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 08:11:19 PM PDT

    •  GaucamoleBaconLettuceTomato

      by claude on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:22:13 PM PDT

•  Margaret Cho

  Here's a comment that might not go over to well...but since this os about the HRC and Democrats not having a 'set', I'll speak my mind. Margaret Cho used to come across as an intelligent, articulate and obviously funny woman. Then she lost a bunch of weight and every time I see her on TV now, she seems obviously under the influence of something-really spaced out and strange. I saw her make an appearance on FOX news taking the anti-Bush side and she was embarassingly screwed up. My point is-I miss the overweight, yet brilliant and coherent Margaret Cho.

  by chicagochristianleft on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

  •  funniest. comic. ever.

    I haven't seen any recent TV appearances, but her concert films are absolutely brilliant.  

    She's powerful and flat-out funnier than #$%@!

    by Roadie on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:36:36 PM PDT

    •  State of Emergency

      The material she's working out for this tour is pretty damned funny.  I saw her here in Boston about a month and a half ago.  Couldn't stop laughing.  She's more explicitly partisan in her politics this time--she's always had a strong dose of cultural politics (particularly race, gender and sexuality) but she's getting hard core into party politics this time.

      At the opening of the concert, she discussed the fact that she is working the material to take on the road to "battleground states" this fall as part of a GOTV campaign.  This is how she's being repaid.

      HRC has always been particularly gutless.

      by MAJeff on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:44:44 PM PDT

      •  state of emergency

        state of
        emergency
        thats where i want
        to be
         - björk, jóga

        www.nornsisland.com

        by n69n on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:01:37 PM PDT

      •  "Battleground states"

        means no chance in hell of seeing her here in the SF Bay Area.

        Oh, Cheney...

        by Cali Scribe on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:28:31 PM PDT

  •  Opps....

    Thinner and not to withit, hope she is not back on dope. This Administration will drive you to substance abuse, I can attest to that.

    by PLS on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:34:02 PM PDT

  •  Not a fan.

    Other than the fact that margaret cho isn't funny, she's great!

    Maybe they finally saw her act?

    I jest, but she's what I'd call "flip-worthy." As in flip the channel.

    Lame that she's uninvited, but the debate over her funniness is for another time, I suppose.

    by blueinbrooklyn on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 10:18:20 AM PDT

•  When are we going to get it?

  Whoopi does a comedic stand-up routine in front of a closed fundraiser.
     GOP Response: All are aghast at the lack of family values.

  Arnold declares in a speech that the Democratic men (and women) of the California senate are "girlie men."
     GOP Response: Liberals, get a sense of humor.

  Cheney says F-U on the Senate floor to a U.S. Senator.
     GOP Response: What's the big deal? He's was pushed into it.

  Why do we never cease to get it? They only control the agenda because we let them.

  by lapis on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:29:50 PM PDT

  •  Bingo

    Thank you, lapis.  We need to come back on them at every point, and need to have the talking points as well organized as the Republican Noise Machine.  We aren't there yet, but this blog and mine and all the others are the places we can school ourselves.

    by Melanie on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:05:58 PM PDT

    •  What is the point?

      The only people that can mount an effective response are dim bulbs like Daschle and "liberals" like ^{alan colmes}.

      We all know what the proper response should have been.  "Whoopi was making a joke.  It is not our fault that the Republicans have no sense of humor." Instead the pansies in democratic D.C. tut-tut-tut all the way to the losers circle.  

      They can't spin for shit.  How the hell do they get all the way to Washington without being able to spin for shit?

      by ScottFanetti on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:01 PM PDT

      •  It's not difficult.

        You'd be surprised at how many congressional seats run uncontested. Senator John Warner (R, no relation to Mark) has been reelected so many times that no Democrat will run against him now. This allows him to, when his constituents send him a left-leaning letter of concern over an issue, reply with a form letter expressing his dedication to the other point of view!

        Now that I think about it, even contested seats tend to strongly favor the incumbent. A good argument for public funding of congressional campaigns, IMHO (if only at the state level).

        by Andrew M on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:37:33 PM PDT

        •  Clarifying Parent

          John Warner is from VA, BTW.

          by Andrew M on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:40:33 PM PDT

  •  Dean

    Jesus fucking christ, you are so fucking right. This kind of crap is reminding me of the not-so-long-ago bad old days of 2002, pre-Dean, when it seemed that the Democrats were endlessly spineless. Fuck, I really do miss Howard.

    by DavidNYC on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:59:51 PM PDT

    •  I seem to recall

      I seem to recall that Dean made it a point to come out onstage after a foulmouthed comedian at one of his events and disavow the comedian (which, again, many spineless others would not have done).
      I don't think it was just because he was afraid of the Wurlitzer - but then again, he was running for president.

      Why is Cho being disinvited?  Is it because she targets Bush, or because she targets Bush with NC-17 language?  (I don't know - I seem to recall that Cho uses especially salty language in her routines, but I haven't seen any of her acts lately)

      HRC does seem kind of wimpy over this, but I dunno, I'm starting to get outrage fatigue...

      by NYCO on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:01:50 PM PDT

•  Rethugs can say anything...

  Such as a governor calling Democrats "Girlie Men", or the VP telling a Senator to "go fuck yourself" on the floor of the Senate.

  Democrats can't say SHIT without a "media firestorm".  When the media is bought and paid for by the rethugs (yes, I called them RETHUGS!), what can you expect?

  I am sick and tired of it, which is why my bulletin board at work is full of anti-bush stuff...and I speak out all the time, whenever I get a chance.  

  by Tom P on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:30:21 PM PDT

  •  Clinton Lesson No. 18

    The media went bat shit about Clinton getting his dick sucked; his favorability ratings went up.  Al Gore brings Joe-Mr. Virtue-Lieberman aboard and promptly takes a dive.  When will they ever learn.  Stanley Aronowitz said in the Nation that the Democratic establishment always thinks itself illegitimate because it has to rely on labor, women and blacks for support.  Maybe that's why they always seem to be apologizing for themselves.  Sad sacks all.

    by kaleidescope on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

    •  You and Stanley have nailed it

      Stanley Aronowitz said in the Nation that the Democratic establishment always thinks itself illegitimate because it has to rely on labor, women and blacks for support.  Maybe that's why they always seem to be apologizing for themselves.  Sad sacks all.

      The Democratic establishment always appears to be ashamed of their own party and of who they are...
      

      by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:07:54 PM PDT

      •  Country-Club Power Brokers

        It's all about golf.  Golf players think they run the world.  You don't bring women or ethnics or workers out on the course; such are not refined enough for the subtle athleticism of golf.

        </snark>

        by claude on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 09:42:12 PM PDT

    •  I agree whole heartedly.

      They act like they are Republicans that are just pissed that they have to pander to the "left".  They act like they should be ashamed of gay people, latinos, women, hell - everybody that is not Zell Miller.  Why?  What does that bring them?  

      They are facing Republicans with a delusional level of support - a cult-like reverance - for a truly despicable human being.  Why do they feel they have to respond to those idiots' message?  Their message will always be that Democrats are shit for reason X.  It does not matter.  

      If you don't have faith, you are not part of the club.  They will never win over the Republican faithful.  Why do they try?

      by ScottFanetti on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:29:47 PM PDT

      •  to see how they think

        check out this story over at the Village Voice:

        The Church of Bush by Rick Perlstein

        Here are some things that Christopher Nunneley, a conservative activist in Birmingham, Alabama, believes. That some time in June, apparently unnoticed by the world media, George Bush negotiated an end to the civil war in Sudan. That Bill Clinton is "lazy" and Teresa Heinz Kerry is an "African colonialist." That "we don't do torture," and that the School of the Americas manuals showing we do were "just ancient U.S. disinformation designed to make the Soviets think that we didn't know how to do real interrogations."

        Chris Nunneley also believes something crazy: that George W. Bush is a nice guy.

        It an interesting read about meeting people who otherwise seem like nice people. All of us here probably know people just like them.

        So what does a conservative say when such "nice guy" jazz is challenged? Say, when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses? Or, closer to home, whether he would (as Bush did in late 2000) go on a fishing trip while his daughter was undergoing surgery, and use the world's media to mockingly order her to clean her room while he was away? Doesn't signify with Chris. "If you're in one camp, the idea of being firm, 'tough love,' is very popular. If you're in another, you can say, 'Well, that's just mean!' On my side, well, I like the whole idea of 'tough love.' "

        This is a journey among the "tough love" camp. The people who, even in the face of evidence of his casual cruelty, of his habitual and unchristian contempt for weakness, love George Bush unconditionally: love him when he is tender, love him when he is tough—but who never, ever are tough on him.

        This is of course, one of the frustrating thing about the current political climate; the other side won't even listen. We might as well be speaking another language.

        Like many here though, I'm seeing anecdotal signs of hope. A coworker of mine has, for months, responded to my tentative attempts to try to show her the damage Bush was doing by declaring "I'm a Bush person!!"

        Today, she told me that she was looking again at Kerry. An elderly aunt had visited over the weekend, and spent both days tearing Bush apart, and speaking highly of Kerry & Edwards. She comes from a Michigan/Wisconsin 'Reagan Democrat' family, but having one of her own tell her much of what I'd been saying was able to turn her around in one weekend.

        I hope this is a trend observed throughout the country.

        (reposted from open thread ...)

        by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:51:36 PM PDT

    •  oh, and don't forget

      us gays....

      by Tom P on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:09:00 PM PDT

•  The HRC deserves a firestorm

  Not only is this spineless, it's really bad PR.  Sends a signal of fear, and invites more of the same kind of treatment for other performers that don't toe the "line".  

  Truly a dumb move.

  by littlesky on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:31:47 PM PDT

•  Hope.

  They are spineless. We hoped and prayed that they'd grow spines. They won't, there is no hope for them.

  The only hope for us, is to make them more afraid of us than they are of the GOP and their machine.

  by Lords on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:31:51 PM PDT

  •  Bingo

    This is the answer

    by kos on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:34:56 PM PDT

    •  Re: Bingo

      "This is the answer."

      It doesn't matter that we're in the midst of an election campaign where our side's strategy seems likely to lead to a re-alignment for our side.

      All that matters is stoking the outrage at the edge.

      A low rent Stephen Moore, minus the ideological agenda.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:41:16 PM PDT

  •  Real problem may not be

    that Dems are afraid; real problem may be that a plurality of Dems actually agree with the Repubs.  Remember it isn't just the repubs who demonize liberals and the left, the right wing of the Democratic Party does it too.

    by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:58:49 PM PDT

  •  How would that work exactly?

    Do you mean that you should stay home, like tons of people did in 2000? That didn't make Dems "afraid" of being total wusses in 2001-2002, did it?

    Or do you mean that you should go crazy on this blog, or stop sending them money? They're a big machine. They would just stop taking money from Daily Kos, and move right along. All you would to is confirm to them that their "spinelessness" was the right thing to do.

    It's a never-ending circle. You want to show the Democrats who's boss. They get terrified and back away. You become even more outraged and fly into a rage. They become petrified and take yet another step away.

    It might make you feel big, but it doesn't really help solve any situation.

    I think a lot of people are envious of the fundies because they snap their fingers and the GOP falls into line. Well they didn't start doing that until the past decade. They waited a long time, until they managed to make over their party and get their party serious gains. They didn't just expect the GOP to do what they wanted if they screamed loud enough, or held their breath until they turned blue.

    by JamesB3 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:08:39 PM PDT

    •  That isn't really how it happened

      the fundis have been screaming for most of the four decades I've been on the planet. They screamed, were told to shut up by the mainstream Republican party. They screamed some more, and started raising money, which they donated to the mainstream, which took their checks and ignored them. The continued to scream, getting bigger as their din attracted others to the cause, ran for school board and dog catcher, raised money which they gave to the mainstream, which finally said ... "thanks guys, but could you tone it down?"

      No toning down, they got even louder, and were a major factor in the rise of Ronald Reagan. They stopped running their local extermination business and farms and stuff, ran for state and federal legislature, and won. Within a few years, screaming all the while, they took over the leadership of both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary and the White House ...

      No, we wouldn't want to emulate that record of failure.

      by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:22:25 PM PDT

      •  You DID read my post, right?

        Because you're basically agreeing with every damn word I said!

        How does your little analogy compare to what Lords suggested, which is basically just, "I'm going to get mad and then the Democrats will do what I want."

        That isn't what the fundies did, is it? No. They worked even harder to reshape their party. They knew that the party was not going to revolve around them just because they give a limited amount of money and yell a lot about how much they loathed the Presidential nominee, how he's an ass, how this is a great example why they should vote for Greens, and so forth.

        by JamesB3 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:26:36 PM PDT

        •   Well they didn't start

          doing that until the past decade. They waited a long time, until they managed to make over their party and get their party serious gains

          I took that to mean they were quiet and waited until their moment to take over, getting to that point by playing along and working behind the scenes.

          I'm sorry I misread your intent ... that's how I read it.

          by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:43:02 PM PDT

          •  What I meant was that

            they knew when to take victory and when to take defeat. They kept very quiet, or fairly quiet, building support during the Reagan era. He did very little for them in terms of social policy. Only in '88 did they start becoming more vocal. It was all in steps, and they had a longrange plan.

            That's why I wondered what Lords' plan is. If it's nothing more than saying, that Democrats need us and stomping his or her foot, then it doesn't help the situation. The last time people tried to "send a message" to Democrats, with Ralph Nader, it was a disaster. But now, when the party is trying to some degree to fight back and find a middle ground, this constant outrage and vitriol over everything, even some one-sentence response to Ginny Schrader in The Hill, doesn't make the Democrats need us. It makes us seem unhinged and dangerous to associate with, because they will feel that anything they do is going to anger us.

            by JamesB3 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:00:00 PM PDT

            •  I don't know

              how much middle ground there really is.

              I know you and I disagree about this, but I sincerely believe the key to victory, and maybe even overwhelming victory, is to excite and bring back people who've given up on the process ...

              by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:20:37 PM PDT

              •  Please tell me how people screaming and

                raving and attacking Democrats (for things that they don't have any real evidence for, or based on one whopping sentence in The Hill) helps "fire up the base". All it really does is helps to alienate not only the party, but also anyone on this blog who wants to see both sides instead of spending all their time talking about how much they hate the DLC and how America survived 2 World Wars and a Depression, so 4 more years of Bush doesn't matter as long as the DLC goes down in flames.

                by JamesB3 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:58:31 PM PDT

            •  My Plan.

              I started this thread by saying that change will not come from within the party, that is, from our elected representatives, so it must come from without.  From us.

              I think that we (the base) have to find ways to better streamline and organize ourselves, so that we are more effective. We must applaud those Dems who we think are doing a good job of representing our interests, and those who sho courage,  while scorning and ridiculing those we find wanting. Shame them, and we must be prepared to lose them. The Liebermans and Millers. They do nothing for us anyway.

              Then we must seek ways to make our agitation felt on a more practical level. It seems to me that the ONLY thing that a politician is scared to death of is a primary. We therefore have to strive to be in a position where we can select, and fund strong primary candidates against those Dems who stray, and against those who do not have the backbone to stand up to the Republicans.

              There will be exceptions of course. A Dem senator in a bright red state for example deserves some flexibility on our part.

              Just imagine what will happen if solely from contributions on Kos & Atrios, we raised 3 million dollars to fund a candidate to run against congressman X in the 34th district? And since its the primary and we control the base, he's in trouble. Sure we may lose the general, but the SOB will have learned his lesson, and the other spineless wimps will be watching with the doleful eyes of a zebra watching a lioness devour one of their own.

              This could be in the form of thousands of emails via some quick response format to selected congress people if and when they are faltering. Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.

              And, if and when

              by Lords on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:54:47 AM PDT

            •  My Plan.

              I started this thread by saying that change will not come from within the party, that is, from our elected representatives, so it must come from without.  From us.

              I think that we (the base) have to find ways to better streamline and organize ourselves, so that we are more effective. We must applaud those Dems who we think are doing a good job of representing our interests, and those