Daily Kos

Obama's scold is a good sign

Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 07:42:05 PM PDT

but not for the reason other people might think it is.

The fact of the matter is that politicians do not lead. Not usually. Not with civil rights, not with abolition, not with the american revolution, not with nuclear freeze, not with women's equality, not with opposing war, not with gay rights. And to be completely honest, in a democracy they aren't supposed to lead, they're supposed to follow the will of the people. Because we live in a democracy that understands ultimate sovereignty as residing in the people, not their aristocratic betters (as the framers of the constitution to some degree envisioned) or their political betters, as many in DC seem to see it.

The fact that it has come to the point where they sent out Obama, one of the most popular democratic politicians with the blogosphere and the democratic base, to tell us to back off, to stop being so unreasonable, is a good sign, because it means that we're getting to them. It means that they've heard us, and that we're bugging them, and that they're getting defensive about not following their constituents' will when the chips were down.

And they should be defensive, because they sold us out on roberts by not fighting from the get-go, as a unified team, using whatever methods available, from the fillibuster on down to running series after series of attack ads, to public rallies around the country, to talking points on the talk shows, and threatening to slow everything in the senate down to a crawl until roberts answered whatever questions that we had for him, to our satisfaction. The supreme court, after all, is an extraordinarily important nomination, and a chief justice doubly so.

Their defensiveness is to be expected. their perspective is not our perspective, and they do not suffer from the policies that they pass or do not pass in the immediate way that we, the people, do. The beltway insulates them, and it is our responsibility to wake them us from time to time, hopefully with more peaceful methods than those that Thomas Jefferson, our party's founding father, intended and explicitly called for over two centuries ago.

The great news here is that we are really starting to bother them. And that's a good start. They notice us now. But they do not yet fear us. That's step two.

Obama will be a great statesman one day, when he lives in a nation where the popular sentiment, the will of the mob, is raging for change, and forces him at the point of a ballot box or threat of widespread civil disturbance to legislate the liberal agenda that he believes in, deep down inside, in private. Obama will be a great statesman when he is able to act as FDR or JFK once did, and moderate the impassioned cries for progressive change, and stand up to the forces of reaction and oppression, and negotiate a new truce between those two opposing historical forces. But he won't do that without our dialectic force pushing him inexorably in that direction, necessitating the intervention of statesmen such as himself as peacemakers and moderators.

It is our job not merely to inform our senators and representatives what we would like them to do, although that is a part of it. It is our job to demand that they do what we want them to do, and make them hate us if need be, but more importantly to make them fear crossing us politically. At that point, when we have helped to turn the tide of public opinion, and have made it clear on what issues they cannot cross us without paying with their careers, under no uncertain terms (and that, to be clear, also means making it clear among ourselves what things we are willing to bend on, and what things are deal-breakers, so that we have more discipline, and pick our battles), we will have done our job as citizens.

We have believed for too long that citizens vote and politicians lead. we need to act like true and sovereign citizens who hire politicians to do our bidding, and do the leading for them, and then play hardball with them if and when they falter. We have squandered precious time after the primary season of 2003-4 by waiting for the Democrats to lead, when we should have been thinking about how to make the political status quo such that their political interests lied in not crossing us, much as the Christian right has done with the Republican party and conservative Democrats in decades past. Dean gets this, i think, as FDR did before him, and both have encouraged us (with a wink and a nod) to take the power that is our god-given right, and force the politicians to do the right thing.

They're listening now. Let's turn the heat up and hold their attention.

</rant>

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 145 comments

  •  tip jar (4.00 / 127)

    boos, yeahs, and brickbats appreciated. i'm just glad to get that off my chest.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 07:42:11 PM PDT

    •  Wu Ming, (4.00 / 5)

      I've been seeing you hear for a while now, but lately it seems like you've really found your voice.  Like everything I've seen from you here lately - diary or comment - has been amazing.
    •  You've gotten (4.00 / 7)

      it off your chest, and I'm very glad that you did it here, so that we could all benefit from it, too.

      I'm starting to feel better already. ;-)

    •  Passing the baton (none / 1)

      You need to write a lot about the Next One.

      You so it much better than me.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 08:48:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well said (none / 0)

      When the people lead, their "leaders" will follow. Let's get to work.
    •  bravo, wu ming! (none / 0)

      Beautifully said.

      JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

      by chumley on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:26:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know. (none / 0)

      It seems to me there are a lot of unknowns.  Was Obama's press release directed at the blogs?  I didn't see any clear indication that it was.  There are a lot of interest groups.  I don't know if it means what you think it means.  Bloggers are a weird sort of constituency, aren't they?  Citizens but also quasi journalists, strategists, and operatives.  Vocal and always paying attention, but not yet winning elections.  It's going to take me some more time to figure this out.
      •  my "we" is pretty big (4.00 / 5)

        i think the blogs are only a part of the audience for obama's response. in fact, i think we've erred in not building closer connections between our networks and those of the single-issue advocacy groups, and other left-aligned organizations, trying to flex our power individually as the blogosphere rather than collectively in solidarity with the rest of the vast, left-wing conspiracy. we are an unusual creature, bloggers, although i'd put the "citizen" part above the other stuff, in terms of political importance. it's gotten us citizens to start acting like citizens again.

        surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

        by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:48:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Though I agree (4.00 / 2)

      with the values and sentiment espoused in this post, I disagree that Obama was 'trotted out' or any such thing.  Upon reading his remarks in context, it becomes clear to me that he was just defending a buddy in good faith--not unlike my own personal reaction, given my own faith in Senator Leahy.  Furthermore, all Obama said was that he was "deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups."  That hardly sounds like crushing dissent or condemning the liberal blogosphere to me.

      In short, I think what Obama's central point is, too much in-fighting against our obvious allies isn't going to move us forward.  I tend to agree, even as I disagree with many individual votes/decisions now and then (Novemember 2004 anybody?).

      •  Also agree with the sentiment (none / 0)

        But looking back to where our country came from and where it has been, I simply cannot agree that our democracy is meant to have leaders simply follow the will of the people.  In virtually every major event in our history (notwithstanding completely natural and understandable, and I personally would say appropriate, knee-jerk reactions like declaring war against Japan and Afghanistan), the will of the people has typically been opposed to the visionary position.  Take independence from Britain - as far as historians can tell, popular sentiment was decidedly against independence, instead it was for reconciliation with the Crown.  Zoom right up to the present - gay marriage, where it took the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to rule that gays have rights just like the rest of us under the state Constitution; people were initially shocked by the ruling (even here in MA) but over time saw that the world did not end and now public opinion has caught up with the visionaries.  There are numerous examples in between.  

        Whenever we get down about our stalled march of progress, about our sometimes steady erosion of democracy, we have to remember that folks like us posting on this weblog are blessed with the natural gift of thinking about how to get the greatest good done for each individual person.  We are not normal.  We will never make up a significant portion of 'the people'.  But it is up to us to share our gift with our leaders (and become leaders ourselves) to get work done efficiently, and also with 'the people' so that they are ready to accept the march of progress.  So I disagree that politicians' ultimate responsibility is to the will of the people - it is to the spirit of laws and the Constitution that has the blessing of the people.

        Give me liberty, or give me death!

        by salsa0000 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:42:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As William Tecumseh Sherman Once Said ... (none / 0)

      "They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us."
    •  When I see wu ming on a post (4.00 / 2)

      I know I have to read it.

      A whole diary is gonna keep me up a little later tonight, and that's okay with me.

      Thanks -- from a member of many advocacy groups.  Sadly, the Dems don't look like one lately.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 11:06:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Wu Ming " meaning (none / 0)

      Nameless in Chinese?
  •  You are preaching... (4.00 / 4)

    ...the the choir, as we all do, but the chorus is getting louder everyday. Your central point is an important reminder. Unfortunately, the will of the people is, I think, fairly accurately reflected in the current leadership. America is full of Baptist Taliban who wish to enforce their version of Sharia on the American people, and who are completely oblivious to the fact that the implemention of their wishes comes at their own expense, in rising gas prices, stratospheric health care prices coupled with degenerating health care quality, negligent or intentional destruction of iconic American cities, the systematic extinction of endangered species, the fattening of our country, and the economic starvation and dumbing down of the American public school system.

    We should still strive, even though failure is assured, and your message is inspirational.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 07:50:48 PM PDT

    •  Largest "voting" bloc every 4 years (none / 1)

      is NON voters !

      the Taliban are part of the razor thin majority of the 60% who vote, but I think there is a larger percentage of people voting against their own interests who would vote Dem IF:

      - they thought the tax dollars would be to more nurses, cops, teachers, home health aides ...

      NOT the well paid powerpoint bureaucrat managers who f*ck things up in the public sector as much as they do in the private sector

      Out here in Seattle we have one of these incredibly selfish sons of bitches - Tim Eyman - who gets all these anti tax initiatives passed ... why?  

      well, how about Sound Transit, voted for in '96 and hundreds of millions of dollars later, they are closing the downtown tunnel for 2 years to fix it for light rail when it was supposedly built for light rail? How about the monorail, which has pissed away 150 million and done what ... powerpoint slides and reports?  

      the census has a report - Money Income - at about 35,000 a year, you are doing better than about 67% of the people with money income, or about 135 Million people - at 55k, you're doing better than about 85% with money income, about 170 million people

      how many of that top 35 and 15% of the Monorail and Sound Transit are Dems managing the excuses, the cost over runs, the delays, the piddling around ... NOT trains, buses, roads?

      a HUGE percentage of those 135 or 170 million peons gotta work their asses off delivering the goods, or they'll be fired yesterday and they'll be losing their lifestyle by Christmas.

      WHY should all the peons support that top 15 or 35% --

      ONLY cuz the thugs are so f**king bad ??

      I like wu mings perspective & I am going to keep call these worthless ass "leaders" incompetent, corrupt, or a mix of both, until I can influence some others to STOP giving these worthless bastards money and time.

      rmm.

  •  Agreed (4.00 / 3)

    I believe we are much closer to a pragmatic form of government.  One that doesn't kill the beast (Bush) nor feed it's lazy idleness (some dems).

    If we strike for both reason and passion, we'll find the common good ahead and save our country from the wolves.

  •  Well said (4.00 / 10)

    and right on point. And you say it so much nicer than I ever manage!

    The hardest thing is that the "speech" they most hear is green and comes in as campaign contributions. It will take louder and more sustained speech to peel their "ears" away from the checks they have coming in.

    It's going to be a long struggle.

    •  we're halfway there on the green (4.00 / 3)

      they noticed that we can raise a lot of hard money fast back in 2003-4, but they're still cocky that they can milk us regardless of what they do. being willing to "strike" in a narrow, targeted sense, both in terms of focusing it on challengers and selectively denying it with a clearly defined political "ransom" might talk even louder. booman did a great diary a couple of days ago on the history of political money & the democratic party that points the way towards influence in the post-feingold-mccain world of campaign finance. that bill shifted the playing field for us in ways that i'm not sure have been completely realized. yet another reason why russ is a good guy for us, even if i'm pissed at him at the moment.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:14:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sadly, though (4.00 / 4)

        I see attempts by Congressional leaders to use modern fundraising and certain blogs to replicate the way the old machines used to work: to stifle dissent, squash creativity and push their "message" from the top down. The biggest problem w/ the "machines", especially the Kennedy and Daley machines, was how driven they were by the personalities and beliefs of a narrow group of people.

        Our salvation is in our diversity, our creativity. Trotting out Obama is an attempt, as you indicate so well, to use a persuasive agent to get the unruly voters to submit to a top-down message.

        We must resist, demand, push and agitate for change.

        •  Yes, (4.00 / 6)

          I see attempts by Congressional leaders to use modern fundraising and certain blogs to replicate the way the old machines used to work: to stifle dissent, squash creativity and push their "message" from the top down.

           that's why I so enjoyed the results of yesterday's 'fantasy' polls.
          That said the entire Roberts vote is gamed as is the response. I couldn't help but notice how nice everyone got after the Judiciary Committee's vote. How unusually conciliatory or (thankfully) silent. I couldn't help but notice how we're supposed to ignore the fact of being sold out and tempted with the carrot of the next time. Like we haven't heard that before.
          Trouble is we saw their hand early on with the Casey and Langevin push. Rhode Island. I mean really, what an insult.

      •  Right on the Money (none / 0)

        they noticed that we can raise a lot of hard money fast back in 2003-4, but they're still cocky that they can milk us regardless of what they do. being willing to "strike" in a narrow, targeted sense, both in terms of focusing it on challengers and selectively denying it with a clearly defined political "ransom" might talk even louder.

        Amen.

        My "litmus test" going forward is the IWR (your mileage may vary).  Kerry is the last pro-IWR Dem to get a free ride from me.  Getting rid of Bush was just too important in 2004 but, alas, we failed (but I digress).  

        Back to the green - I refuse to donate to the DNC, mainly for fear that my hard-earned money will go to support an Iraq War supporter (but I also don't want to hazard the chance that someone benefitting from my cash will be giving a speech at the 2008 GOP Convention).  
        If I ever receive a solicitation from a pro-IWR Dem (doubtful, since both of my Senators and my Rep voted against it), I will write "IRAQ" in red sharpie across it and send it back.

        Alternatively, I will vigorously support - with cash, time and and everything else I possibly can - any Democrat with spine.  

        No more Republican rule.

        by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:17:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The way it should be. (none / 0)

          While I won't fire broadsides at every Democrat who dosen't agree with everything I believe, I wouldn't waste warm spit actively supporting a Democrat who couldn't be bothered representing Democratic principles. If I supported Democrats no matter what they did, what would that make me? A Republician.

          Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

          by HunterKiller on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:38:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  it won't just be long (none / 1)

      it will be neverending.

      state your terms.  achieve your terms.

      invent new terms.

      i'm not criticizing that.

      just don't kid yourselves you'll ever get what you want, because by the time you do, you'll be thinking about other things and complaining about why you don't have them.

      the battle is not long.  it is neverending.

      it is a priori.

      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

      by BiminiCat on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 11:08:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well of course (none / 0)

        it's ongoing. This whole "purity" thing idiots like you project on me is completely off the mark. At its base, if the Democratic Party doesn't fight for human rights and social justice, it betrays its greatest accomplishments, the accomplishments that JFK, RFK and MLK were martyred for.

        It's a lot to ask for, but these are demands that must continuously be made.

        Props on the Twin Peaks reference in you sig, though.

  •  I like your thinking there (4.00 / 5)

    about the Dems we elected, and us.   I myself am not sure Obama is "the one." He hasn't proven himself to me yet.  I am with you all the way, however, on your general point of view.
    •  i like obama a lot (none / 1)

      i think he is the best liberal speaker out there today, and having read his autobiography, i am confident that unlike most american politicians - hell, most americans - he knows, if mostly from an observer's perspective, what the heavy weight of social injustice in our own inner cities as well as in developing countries means to the people trapped in the oppression of utter hopelessness and bitter poverty. i think he could turn out to be a great statesman yet. i guess my point is that we must work to bring about the political climate that allows him to become one, because our status quo cripples them politically.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:21:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great to see this getting so many recommends. (4.00 / 3)

    I am sure it will be on the Recommended List soon!
  •  The Roberts confirmation (4.00 / 3)

    is now a done deal. The next one is the one we have to focus on. This is indeed a good sign, but they need to know it's not enough to just explain a bad vote. They need to fear making that bad vote in the first place. I like Obama, I like some the senators who went over to the dark side on this, but they shouldn't have. All the scolding in the world won't make me happy with that.

    There still are two Americas. I live in the other one. John McSame wants me to stay there.

    by high uintas on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 08:32:32 PM PDT

    •  It is not (none / 0)

      a "done deal".  There is still the ability to threaten and at least attempt to fillabuster the vote, if only to make the point loud and stinking clear to anybody with ears that just like with Bolton this Admin. is hiding something unsavory within the paper they are refusing to release.

      But Holy State (we have lived to learn) Endeth in Holy War. - Kipling

      by nargel on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:08:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  re:Dark Side Isn't Fair (none / 0)

      I don't think it fair for us to declare that Pat Leahy, for instance, has gone over to the dark side on the Roberts vote.  Leahy has been in so many ways a strong liberal voice in the Senate.  I mean, how many other Democratic senators have made the Vice President curse at them--in front of the cameras--in the Senate?  

      I'm not really aiming this response at you, High Uintas, but more generally at the left, because it seems to me the response to senators' announcements of their intended votes on Roberts resembles our damned old circular firing squad.  I know we won't ever march in lockstep like the Republicans, because we don't have fascist tendencies.  But I'm so freaking tired of these purity tests!  Leahy used to be great, but then he sold us out!  I know that we cannot trust the motives of many of our own senators much of the time.  I personally trust Schumer, Leahy, Feingold, Obama, and some others most of the time.  I think that everything Hillary does is politically motivated, which isn't to say that her decisions are always bad, just that I wish they were the result of personal convictions.  But that's an idealistic wish.  These people are politicians, which means the one thing they're definitely good at is politics.

      Here's one possibility: Leahy and many other Democrats are stunned that Bush nominated Roberts, because he's not the ideologue they expected to see.  They accept that some of Roberts' stated positions were written while advocating for causes his Republican bosses had told him to take.  They actually believe that it is their duty to vote for Roberts if they find him a suitably strong candidate for the position.  And they believe their position will be far stronger next time around because they didn't fight over Roberts.

      I have heard from several well-placed Democratic legal sources in DC that they were delighted by Roberts' nomination, and that they couldn't believe Bush would nominate him.  I know there are many unknowns, but there always are with Supreme Court nominees.  Now I hope for the best: that in Roberts, we will have someone who leads the court with brilliance and compassion.

      •  You see, this belief *is* the problem. (none / 0)

        Politics through low expectations: this belief in political triangulation, self-serving moderation, and nonpartisan back slapping that only enables the politically bankrupt nature of our leadership. This kind of belief, and it is only a belief, will hobble any effort at reforming government and providing accountability to citizens.

        The Republican leadership may sell low expectations to their voters, but they themselves expect nothing less from the government than total responsiveness to their needs, pillaging taxpayer assets for personal gain. Right now, despite all protestations to the contrary, the Democratic leadership is right there supporting Republicans in doing just that. Observing this, the 'moderate' or 'independent' voter sees the Democrats as no different from the Republicans on fiscal or national security matters.

        They don't settle for less, so why should you? Moderates don't distrust democratic leadership because of their social liberalism, they distrust them because they are perceived to be the same kind crony capitalists as republicans and with the exception of an outspoken few in the house, I don't see any indication they are mistaken.

        If we are going to reform the corrupt process, much less expect to gain a coalition with moderates, Democrats must put principle first.
           

        Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

        by HunterKiller on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 11:00:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree... (4.00 / 2)

    and I think your analysis is EXCELLENT!!!
  •  Tonight I got a fundraising call from the DNC - (4.00 / 12)

    At some point, the caller said something about Sen. Clinton coming out against Roberts. I countered that Leahy was supporting and that Dean needed to get his "soldiers" in line.  And in that moment, with that one word, it struck me and I continued - that that is what they (Congress, Senate) are supposed to be - OUR soldiers - sent into battle on OUR orders and for OUR protection.  

    I doubt my words will get passed on but I felt more embolden with the analogy.  

  •  Good point (4.00 / 5)

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

    We've risen to the point where the Democratic celebrities actually have to acknowledge our existence.  That's pretty great considering that there WAS no strongly organized Left a few years ago.  I have no doubt that the netroots WILL get a big win very soon.  We've already got a Chairman on our side, as well as a few big names.  2006 may be the year that blogs break past the "laughing at you" point...

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 08:44:49 PM PDT

    •  Hey Chicago Dem-like your sig (none / 0)

      you happen to have a link to that quote? And/or any idea on contact info for Kanye?
      Thx

      Habeus Corpus-gone, Posse Comitatus-gone, now, will US citizens need permission from DHS to travel overseas? Had Enough?!

      by Rigjob on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:20:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sort of (none / 1)

        It's from the song "Crack Music" off his new album "Late Registration".  The song's about America/the government's response to the "crack epidemic", and its impacts on black culture, but how rap and a lot of the culture of that time has become so popular since.  Here are the lyrics:

        (Kanye)
        That's that crack music nigga
        That real black music nigga

        (The Game)
        That's that crack music nigga
        That real black music nigga

        {Verse 1}
        (Kanye)
        How we stop the black panthers?
        Ronald Reagan cooked up an answer
        You hear that?
        What Gil Scott was hearin
        When our heroes and heroines got hooked on heroin.
        Crack raised the murder rate in DC and Maryland
        We invested in that it's like we got Merill Lynched
        And we been hangin from the same tree ever since
        Sometimes I feel the music is the only medicine
        So we cook it, cut it, measure it, bag it,sell it
        the fiends cop it
        nowadays they cant tell if that's that good shit
        we ain't sure man
        put the CD on your toungue yeah, thats pure man.

        {Hook}

        {Verse 2}
        From the place where the fathers gone,
        the mothers is hardly home
        and the...
        gonna lock us up in a...home
        how the Mexicans say we just tryin to party homes
        they wanna pack us all in a box like styrofoam
        Who gave Saddam anthrax?
        George Bush got the answers
        Back in the hood it's a different type of chemical,
        Arm and Hammer baking soda
        raised they own quota
        Writin when our soldiers ran for the stove cuz--
        Cuz dreams of being 'Hova went from bein a brokeman ta bein a dopeman
        ta bein a president look there's hope man
        this that inspiration for tha mos and tha folks man,
        shorty come and see if mama straight overdosin.
        And this is the soundtrack,
        this tha type of music you make when you round that----
        crack music nigga,
        that real black music nigga.

        (Hook)

        (Game)
        That's that crack music, crack music,that real black music, black music

        Our father, give us this day our daily bread ...give us these days and take our daily bread,
        see I done did all this ole bullshit
        and to atone I throw a little somethin, somethin on the pulpit.
        we took that shit, measured it and then cooked that shit
        and what we gave back was crack music
        and now we ooze it through they nooks and crannies
        so our mammas aint got to be they cooks and nannies
        and we gonna repo everything they ever took from granny
        now the former slaves trade hooks for grammies
        this dark diction has become America's addiction and those who ain't even black use it

        Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

        by ChicagoDem on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:46:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That is what Howard Dean meant.... (4.00 / 17)

    when he said he could not make the changes, we could.  He fully expects us to stand up and be counted.  That is why he said "you have the power."  Over and over he said the power to change things is in your hands, not mine.

    "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

    by floridagal on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 08:45:22 PM PDT

    •  yup (4.00 / 12)

      that's what made him so unusual as a politician, is that he understood the proper relationship of citizens to politicians in a healthy democracy. it wasn't a line, he was trying to save us from our political passivity and the false hopes that that relationship beings.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:23:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But... (none / 0)

        Where do policy proposals originate?  How are they communicated to "the people"?

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:40:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ideally from the ground up. (4.00 / 4)

          Not everything works in an ideal way though. As to who makes the issues, there will be a meeting in Phoenix in December, and part of it will be setting an agenda.  

          The DLC/PPI/Third Way Branch have already set up their agenda.  The DNC sets one in December.  

          Dean's goal is to pull together issues from the various states and try to meld them.  Momumental task, one only Howard would attempt.  

          I think he believes that setting goals like that is important, and some might just succeed.

          "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

          by floridagal on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:53:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who's invited. Can I sign up? Will it be webcast? (none / 0)

            n/t

            Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

            by HunterKiller on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know, I am not that sure. (none / 0)

              I never thought about it.  Here is a paragraph about it.

              "The Democratic National Committee postponed their fall meeting in Phoenix because of the hurricane, First Read has learned that some business that was scheduled to take place leading up to, and at the meeting is happening right now: the election of at-large and DNC committee members via mail-in ballot.  The new DNC membership and reconstituted standing committees will meet in Phoenix in December."

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5613473/

              "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

              by floridagal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:10:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Great analysis! (4.00 / 2)

    And they SHOULD be listening to us, dammit! We're the American people, aren't we?????
  •  Not "us" as a blog... (4.00 / 3)

    But "us" as in "we, the people".

    I was reading some stuff earlier and saw someone comment as follows: "I would dictate that... state government offices can post the Ten Commandments if they feel like it."

    Yet that directly contradicts "for the people". That's not government dedicated to the people, that's government dedicated to the governers' own religious agenda.

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 08:55:10 PM PDT

  •  nah. (none / 1)

    i disagree. i dont think that obama got sent out as an attack dog.

    i think that he's just a conscientious guy, and i agree with him. not about roberts, but about his defense of leahy. what he was defending was leahy's right to make an informed decision and then end up disagreeing, which is something that modern politics has lost a lot of respect for.

    you know, the reality-based community we always talk about? that thing? that's what he's talking about. and that is a good thing.

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      Obama just had an instant reaction to a colleague of his(and overall a very progressive Dem) getting attacked and he stepped up to defend him. Course someone doesnt do that for Dean, we say when will they stand up for one of their own. When they do, we are upset. I honestly dont know what he meant by "advocacy groups", I didnt take it to mean blogs.  
    •  Disagree (4.00 / 2)

      Leahy doesn't need Obama - or anyone else - to defend him.  Leahy's been around a while.  He's a known good Democrat, and he's got big shoulders.  He made an unpopular choice, and certain constituencies voiced their displeasure.  That is all.

      Obama's chief concern was himself.  Way to grab some press and build some cred with the D.C. bubble Dems.

      I worry about Obama.  I worry that he's similar in many ways to another first term Democratic Senator that was too ambitious, too soon.

      No more Republican rule.

      by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:12:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about "need", (none / 0)

        but maybe Obama defended him because he wanted to. I mean some of the comments here have even wished harm on Leahy's children.
        •  Understandable (none / 0)

          Some folks needed to blow off steam.   Really, it was a terrible vote.  

          I wish Leahy hadn't done it.  But I trust him (he's no Joe Lieberman)  I'm willing to bet Leahy got something in return but, again, I disagree with his vote.

          No more Republican rule.

          by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:22:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think (none / 1)

            saying things about someone's kids is understandable. They didn't cast this vote.
            •  Won't Someone Think of the Children! (4.00 / 4)

              Ok, so who made the remarks about the kids?  Did DFA, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, Atrios, Kos, DU, or better yet the entire progressive movement stand up and demand the scalps of Leahy's kids?  No.  

              Don't use an isolated incident to paint the opposition to Leahy's vote.  That's pretty disingenuous.

              No more Republican rule.

              by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:32:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never said any of that (none / 0)

                I never said that those groups made those remarks, whether you want to imply I did or not. I said "someone". And I got the quote wrong. It said "someone" Leahy is close to, so I guess they meant spouse, friends, kids, whoever.

                Many of the comments have been understandable. Others have been pretty ugly, and if these were the types of remarks that Leahy heard, then I can see why Obama spoke out.

                •  Implications (none / 0)

                  I never quoted you regarding those groups.  The only implication was yours - that those speaking out against Leahy's votes were wild-eyed lunatics intent on harming Leahy's children.  (By the way, given Leahy's age, how old would you suppose his "children" would be?)

                  No more Republican rule.

                  by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:53:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I said "some" (none / 0)

                    I never said that all of Leahy's critics were saying those things. You then chose to imply that I was claiming Kos or NARAL or whoever else had made those remarks.

                    The person said "someone", so that could mean grandchildren, or pretty much anyone. I think that wishing harm on them because Leahy voted for Roberts is counterproductive and unfair, at best. And I don't think it's right to wish harm on someone's children even if they were adults.

                    If you choose to believe I claimed that all those who criticize Leahy are "wild eyed lunatics", go ahead. But it's not what I said.

                    •  Down Thread (none / 0)

                      Your retraction down thread is as follows:

                      and I apologize, they didn't say children. They just said "anyone close", which isn't really better. Comment:

                      "Leahy is a sell out and there is no other way
                      to explain his vote for Roberts. Hopefully
                      someone close to Leahy will suffer from one
                      of Roberts fascist decisions."

                      So, no "children" were threatened.  The way I read the quote is that someone (out of bitterness) hopes that someone close to Leahy will be confronted with the loss of their reproductive rights due to Leahy's vote for a Chief Justice of the SCOTUS who does not believe in a woman's right to choose.

                      While that may not be nice, that's a far, far cry from painting Leahy's opponents as folks who would do harm to his children.  

                      No more Republican rule.

                      by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:03:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I said wished harm. (none / 0)

                        Not do harm. And when they say "someone", then yes, I do wonder if they meant his children or his grandchildren or any number of people. I never said they would do harm to his children.

                        They left it vague. So yes at first I did think they meant children. When I realized that was not explictly stated, I apologized. But the original statement and what it implies is something that is just repulsive, especially when Leahy is not any kind of deciding vote on Roberts.

                        •  Splitting Hairs (none / 0)

                          First, you split hairs on word choices (yours).  Now, you split hairs on votes.

                          Realize, I'm not one calling for Leahy to be thrown to the wolves for this.  He's always done us proud - just not in this instance.  And, even so, I'm sure he's getting something out of this for us, even though we may not see it.

                          At the same time, his vote DOES matter.  EVERY vote from EVERY Senator matters.  Each vote - and there are only 100 votes for a position that will have a profound affect on us for decades going forward - was a "deciding vote."  

                          Sure, Roberts was going to go through (the GOP has the Senate).  But, Leahy's vote counted toward the total.  In the future, people will realize that, especially if our future involves a return to back-alley abortions.

                          I'd rather not have that around my party's neck.

                          No more Republican rule.

                          by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:23:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not splitting hairs (none / 0)

                            I wasn't splitting hairs on my word choice, but if you want to discuss the vote, OK.

                            I know why people are upset with his vote. And why they feel betrayed. But I think that it's easy for people to forget that Roberts would have been confirmed with or without this vote. So yes, they should be upset, but I don't think it's fair for some to act like Leahy could have somehow stopped Roberts. One vote is just that. One vote. Some liberal Democrats voted against Souter because they thought he was going to be a bad justice; if not for Souter's vote, Roe v Wade would be gone now. No one holds that against them. They know it was just that one vote. And in the future people are going to weigh Leahy's one vote against all the good that Leahy has done for his state and on other matters.

                            •  Worse than Splitting Hairs (none / 0)

                              Where your attempted sliming of Roberts' opponents was concerned, you were being incredibly disingenous and trying to score point off of "children."  

                              Back to the CJ SCOTUS vote.  No, Leahy couldn't have stopped Roberts.  But he could have gone on record as having been opposed.  As an aside, could you imagine our prospects going into 2006 if every Democrat had stood up (like the majority of Dems did) and voted against the IWR?  Not only was opposition to the IWR moral, it turns out it was good politics, too!

                              Are you familiar with the concept of a "good loss" or are you still enamored with the '90s DLC concept of triangulation?

                              No more Republican rule.

                              by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:40:13 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  You see what you want to see (none / 0)

                                I was bothered by SOME of the comments. If this were some campaign to smear all who have criticized Leahy, then it's news to me. You seem to want to believe that this must be some kind of anger towards anyone who is upset by the vote, even though I never said any such thing. I'll say it again - I can see why people are upset by Leahy's vote, and I think 95% or more of the criticisms against him have been fair.

                                And yes, he could have voted against Roberts. But it's not comparable to IWR, since Democrats had the Senate at the time and could have done something to stop the scenario from playing out.

                                I oppose the DLC as much as you do but this is a situation where Democrats really had no say in the matter. They could, at best, make the best of a horrible situation. Many of the things the DLC came up with, like NAFTA, or the things they supported, like endless tax cuts, came about when Democrats controlled some or all of Congress and the White House.

                                •  Some? (none / 0)

                                  There was ONE comment that you posted, and it made no reference to "children."  Do you have more?

                                  And yes, he could have voted against Roberts. But it's not comparable to IWR

                                  I would submit that a vote for SCOTUS, esp. the Chief Justice, could have a more profound impact on all of us than the Iraq War.  How many 5-4 decisions have we seen in the last decade?  And remember, thanks to Clinton's triangulation (and BJ - I hope it was a really good one) and the DLC, we are are utterly powerless at the Federal level.

                                  I hear you on NAFTA (I live in Michigan and I know from NAFTA).  NAFTA was ushered in by the Clinton administration and passed by spineless Dems with GOP support.  That has situation has to change.  

                                  I don't wonder for second that people perceive the Democratic Party as standing for nothing except their prospects in the next election.   There is no message.

                                   

                                  No more Republican rule.

                                  by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:59:07 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  It said someone (none / 0)

                                    close to Leahy, so I did see that as implying children. If you don't, fine, we can agree to disagree. There have been other comments about "traitor" and others that don't do much good.

                                    "I would submit that a vote for SCOTUS, esp. the Chief Justice, could have a more profound impact on all of us than the Iraq War. "

                                    I would agree. But there are 2 confirmation fights, with Roberts replacing a very conservative judge. And unlike IWR, Democrats don't have the power to oppose Roberts. So I can see why Leahy or Feingold may have voted for Roberts if he thinks that will help with O'Connor's replacement.

                                    It's not an easy choice. The ultimate no-win situation. I know why people are upset with Leahy. I just think that they should see the vote in a broader context instead of just something like, "DC Dems love to sell us out."

                                    •  Only Later On (none / 0)

                                      Only later on did you say "someone."  Initially, you attempted to foment a bunch of handwringing over "children."  As far as your new word "traitor" goes, well, we're used to that around here. :)

                                      Back to Leahy.  I trust him.  I'd fight and die for him.  But I disagree with his Roberts vote, and I don't mind saying so (even if you call me a baby killer or a traitor).

                                      Now, to the Democratic Party as a whole:

                                      I just think that they should see the vote in a broader context instead of just something like, "DC Dems love to sell us out."

                                      Maybe folks would be more apt to see that broader context, if:

                                      1.  NAFTA (and thereby the destruction of the American Midwest) hadn't been championed by the Clinton Administration.

                                      2.  The IWR hadn't enjoyed such high-profile Democratic support (even thought the majority of the Democratic Party were against it).

                                      3.  Welfare "Reform" hadn't happened.

                                      4.  DOMA hadn't been signed by President Clinton.

                                      5.  Democrats (while chasing the center and knocking the teeth out of their base) hadn't fixed a course against every guiding star in their galaxy and thereby lost the House, the Senate, the majority of State legislatures, the majority of Governorships, and finally the Presidency, and yet STILL to this day insist upon following the failed strategy of triangulation and chasing the "center" while more and more (mostly former Dems) refuse to vote

                                      I could go on and on, but my point is Democrats have to stand up, or simply go to that great political party in the sky.  There are no more options, and you can't blame Nader anymore.  

                                      For Democrats, it's lead or cease to exist.

                                      No more Republican rule.

                                      by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 11:25:47 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  That's true, but (none / 0)

                                        I wasn't disagreeing about DC Dems. I just don't think Leahy fits that profile. I think he's made some wrong moves (he voted for DOMA and NAFTA), but overall he doesn't seem like one of those who only cares about DC. Biden and Feinstein voted against Roberts, but for me that doesn't make up for all the times they have bashed other Democrats, blamed easy targets, voted for ugly legislation, etc. The same goes for Feingold, who has a pretty good track record.

                                        I meant that we should view Leahy or Feingold's vote in a broader context. I think people were so shocked and they just reacted out of their gut, when there is probably more to the story here.

                                        You have every right to disagree with Leahy. But when someone takes that further into personal insults, then I think it's self-defeating. I think that's what Obama was complaining about.

    •  not an attack dog (4.00 / 3)

      but rather a spokesman. it isn't cynical to think that the senators anticipated that we'd be pissed off, and wanted to get someone respected by the left to try and calm us down. given obama's temperment and his real concern for bipartisan comity in general, it made him a great choice to speak to us.

      the fact that they're trying to reassure us at all is the big story IMO. they didn't do this after the other judicial nomination battles, or even after the iraq war resolution, and yet they do now. the shift is heartening IMO. because it means that they care about our reaction. which means we're gaining power.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:34:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I might agree if (none / 1)

    this were Lieberman or Biden who had been attacked, because they have often been attacked. But I think Obama stepped out because Leahy, who has just about always been on the right side of the vote, made one controversial vote and immediately people were basically spitting on him and tearing him apart. Obama seems like someone who doesn't like to be in the middle of trouble. A consensus-builder. Leahy is a strong person, and I doubt he needed anyone to protect him. Obama probably spoke out because he was blindsided by some of the invective on a confirmation that Democrats had no chance of stopping anyway.

    If anything, "turning the heat up" would only alienate some of them further. Supposedly, one of the reasons Harry Blackmun moved further and further to the left while on the Supreme Court was because of all the hate and rage that was sent his way by conservatives after Roe v Wade.

    •  wrong (4.00 / 4)

      they need to know that we are paying attention, and that we demand our values be represented. We owe THEM nothing, they owe us their jobs.

      I think wu is right b/c this was SO out of character for Leahy and Feingold. It has the feel of the usual triangulating "stategy" that the DC Dems continuously put forth.

      I say we turn up the heat, but that is, of course, no suprise.

      •  The people of their state gave them a job (none / 0)

        If people in Vermont and people in Wisconsin are outraged, that's their right. But they don't owe me anything, and the same goes for anyone who does not live in their states.

        Feingold and Leahy are far from the usual DC Democrats. I can understand why people are feel betrayed, but I think that in this case, they had their reasons and that this isn't some grand strategy to piss on the Democratic base or Democratic groups. They knew that Roberts could probably not be stopped, and they know that it will be almost as difficult to stop O'Connor's replacement. They (or at least Leahy) are trying to figure out the best strategy.

        People on here who are calling them traitors or saying things about their kids may make themselves feel better, but I don't think they are going to make a difference. This might be Leahy's last term anyway.

        •  I saw none (none / 0)

          of the children stuff you keep bringing up.

          You're a smart guy, and I find it baffling that you don't think that some negotiating and strategizing about who might cross the aisle didn't go on.

          I'm actually a constituent of Kohl and Feingold, and they both got angry messages. Kohl didn't terribly suprise me, but Feingold did, especially given his tough line of questioning.

          •  Here it is (none / 1)

            and I apologize, they didn't say children. They just said "anyone close", which isn't really better. Comment:

            "Leahy is a sell out and there is no other way
            to explain his vote for Roberts. Hopefully
            someone close to Leahy will suffer from one
            of Roberts fascist decisions."

            I'm sure that there was some bipartisan discussion behind the scenes. And if that can help stop a psycho from replacing O'Connor, fine.

            I think that a lot of people are comparing this vote to IWR, but the Democrats really WERE in a position to derail IWR. That's what made their vote so frustrating. Here, they have very little to work with and I can't blame them for trying to find any way out of the worst possible scenario.

      •  i'm not convinced it isn't some brilliant move (4.00 / 5)

        that bears fruit in the next battle. it had better. but that's kind of beside the point anyway IMO. they need to know we're here, and that we're pissed, even if that confirmation is a smart move in the end, so that all future machinations take the threat of our backlash (and its flipside, our passionate support for doing right) as a real factor. the fact that it was leahy and feingold that did this has me half-wondering if it isn't something bigger, but that is no reason why we shouldn't use this to make a point anyways with everyone who is watching our reaction that we're watching, and that we care a great deal about these things. it may embolden the next dean, seeing that energy out there, or even encourage the triangulators out there to tack left.

        radical labor allowed FDR to do his thing, just as MLK forced JFK's uneasy hand.

        surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

        by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:29:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Back in normal times (4.00 / 7)

          I was a "go along" kind of girl.  I thought there was always a middle road to find compromise.  George Bush's administration has changed me totally.  Normally strategy in the Senate is par for the course and no surprise.  

          But 9/11 and Bush changed everything.  Or more specifically 2000 election changed everything.  These people cannot be strategized with.  They must be defeated.  And when voting on Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, principle stands over strategy.  And at times like these, it most definitely is an absolute with me.  

          I want my country back and Roberts has no intention of letting me and those I love have a meaningful part in it.  When my counsin who is gay can't participate publicly and my granddaughters can't have the medical care they choose, then I fight back.  NOW.  With everything I've got.

          •  I Lost it Much Earlier (4.00 / 2)

            In our memory, I saw Nixon as criminal, but individually so. He used various societal forces and government agencies but wasn't the tip of a vastly larger iceberg.

            Reagan was different, he was obviously the mouthpiece for a machine that as you say about the Bushistas was patently not the kind of party or movement that our system was designed to cope with. They like the Bushistas were determined to destroy it. They appear to have been less devastating purely because they were early. I'm not alone in saying that almost everything outrageous about Bush was begun during Reagan.

            You can't have your country back because of all the elements of economy and culture that have been either dismantled, deported or honed in efficiency to the point where they're beyond the ability of individuals and families to operate or participate in.

            For example we don't lack a good press because of corporate ownership. We lack it because even a village newspaper finds it profitable to sell gossip, and unprofitable to cover the zoning or school boards. Businesses of every size have learned that old people are too expensive to carry, that technology and markets change too fast for it to be worth investing in retaining employees long-term, that the cheapest 3rd world labor is 1,000 times cheaper than North American labor, and that owners can make the most money by cutting taxes and pro-citizen regulation--enough in many, many cases to leave the owners feeling safe against the havoc that these policies will eventually wreak on the rest of society.

            Our system of government is Rip Van Winkle, a century out of its element. Elements of it are eternally brilliant but the whole cannot stand against this brave new world.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:33:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I perceived that may be a problem (none / 0)

              under Reagan.  And believed there were larger powers at work.  But always believed (naively it seems) that there was always a counterbalance to that.  The media, and the democratic party.

              But with the constant, organized, and vitriolic bashing of Clinton, beyond all reason, made me ask what was going on.  With the selection of Bush, it ripped the last denial I clung to that republicans controlled everything.  And what Bush has done since is proof that I am not the crazy one.  They are taking us in a direction of fascism as I understand the word, and corporate control.

              A little late to reality, but even us "go along" kinds of people get our dander up eventually.

      •  Turning up the heat??? (none / 1)

        Shouldn't we be turning up the heat on the opposition instead of wasting time whining and
        complaining about our own team players.  

        In a representative democracy, the constituencies of the Senators reside in their own home states and those are the folks who can "turn up the heat" if you will because they actually elect the Senator and might have some influence because of the vote, contributions toward campaigns, and volunteering to work for campaigns.

        I live in a red state and try to contact my senators and get so frustrated because they don't even pay any attention, other than scolding and lecturing to say why they are correct in their positions.  I realize the responses are written by a staff member, yet this is where I see a need for opposition.

        Shouldn't we be out trying to work toward 2006 to make some changes in the House and the Senate instead of jawing, demanding, and talking general BS about what elected reps owe us and demanding this and that.

        I don't mean this argumentative but I just see folks expending their energies when they are so desperately needed to find candidates for each district.  

        As far as guessing what the motivations were - has anyone asked?  Wouldn't direct, respectful  questions be more productive than all this guessing and speculation.  I can't see where it gets us collectively.

        As far as demands, we don't have a right IMO to demand actions from our spouses, family members, or communities - so why would it be any different with elected reps.  Draw up some kind of constructive suggestions that are workable, that have some dedicated thought and research and take that info. to your House member or Senator.

        Personally, I have the feeling the votes were planned and that Reid is the architect of the plan  and the plan is for a filibuster.  Guess I will just wait and see.

        We do employ Dubya and Cheney so "turning up any heat" possible is appropriate in that case.  I pray that we don't spend the next election cycle ranting and raving here on dailyKos and not get out and work on registering folks to vote and talking to them about candidates.  I really think there was a lot of that the last go around and unless we want a re-run of the 2004 debacle we had better all promise to do whatever we can to make a difference.

        Ann

        WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

        by PaintyKat on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:51:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same in most states (4.00 / 3)

          I live in a famously blue state, and I don't even get the kinds of responses from my senators that you describe. That's why finding the right candidates and getting them elected is only half the battle. You can have completely Democratic representation, as I do, and still not get anything you want from them. Which in turn makes it that much harder to get  people reinvolved with politics. What's the point if you know your representatives are never going to do anything for you?
        •  that is a fundamental misunderstanding (none / 0)

          of how politics work.

          Our "leaders" WORK FOR US. We're not here to do as THEY tell us to do, but the other way around. Wasting you breath yelling at the right is like screaming at the tiger as he leaps for your throat. THE DC Dems are supposed to kill the tiger. When they don't do their job, we need to call them to account. As it is, we aren't demanding enough, so the only voices they pay attention to "speak" in big fat corporate checks.

          This isn't a team sport. They work for us. We're not fans, we're their bosses.

    •  One all-important difference (4.00 / 4)

      If anything, "turning the heat up" would only alienate some of them further. Supposedly, one of the reasons Harry Blackmun moved further and further to the left while on the Supreme Court was because of all the hate and rage that was sent his way by conservatives after Roe v Wade.

      Blackmun didn't have to run for reelection.

      •  Leahy doesn't have to either (none / 0)

        He's been in the Senate for 31 years. And Feingold could always decide not to run again. A lot of people seem to think they need to find a more progressive Democrat anyway, so they would probably welcome both these departures.
        •  If he's not doing the right thing, so be it. (none / 0)

          I'm sure there's a new job waiting for him ... in Washington. /snark

          Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

          by HunterKiller on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 11:19:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  who is this "they" you refer to (none / 1)

    and why do you think "they" have the ability to send Senator Obama out as though he were their puppet?
    Also, even though it might make some here feel more important, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama was even talking about "us" when he referred to "advocacy groups."

    I do appreciate your eloquent call to action, but I think it is misplaced.  Our challenge is not to raise our voices, but raise our numbers.  We need to take our case to our friends and neighbors, not to our politicians.  If there's one thing politicians understand, it's votes.  A few loud voices can be dismissed as extremists.  An army of voices cannot be ignored.

    •  in this case (none / 0)

      the "they" would be the senate leadership, and i'm not saying that obama is being sent as if on an errand. i fully imagine that he honestly believes what he's saying, and i don't even disagree all that much with what he said. my point was that anyone bothered to respond to our outrage at all, and i think it reveals an important development in this little social movement we've stumbled across over the last couple of years. at any rate, it's not so outrageous to imagine that a group of less than 44 people who caucus together wouldn't think about who makes what statement, or at least talk things like this over. i'd be worried if the senate leadership wasn't thinking about PR and targetting messengers to various kittens to be herded.

      as for voices or numbers, i agree that the latter is more important than the former, and if we are ever to be taken seriously we have got to be able to deliver on both carrots and sticks, and be smart about promising either. if you look closely, i'm actually admonishing us to take our role in the dance a lot more seriously.

      see you on the streets tomorrow.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:42:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for the clarification (none / 1)

        I jumped on you too hastilly before reading the whole diary carefully.  It sounds like we probably share quite a bit of common ground on this.

        The bottom line is ust about everyone here is upset about the Roberts nomination and apprehensive about the next one.
        We need to turn all that negative energy into positive energy and tomorrow is gonna be a good opportunity to do that.

  •  Conyers/Obama '08 n/t (none / 0)

    "Oh, your god!" -- Bender

    by Myrrander on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:21:14 PM PDT

  •  I'm not convinced your take is right-but RECOMMEND (4.00 / 2)

    because you are right on the passion, the noise and the power.
    I truly believe speaking out, whether bitching, arguing, persuading or kudos, is the way to move forward.
    I look back and see how I went from passionate argument, in your face fact-based challenges, to analysis and assessment tools, using framing, perspective, and questions (id their weak spots to break through the wall), and then, slowly, to withdrawing, quieting down, "picking" my battles and my exposure carefully.

    Typical "Battered Spouse" syndrome:)

    Anyhow, a crucial element you didn't address here, but one you've touched on elsewhere-our collective "heat" must be brought to bear not only on our elected reps, but to our immediate neighbors, friends, family, local groups, and on and on and ononandon
    THx lovely rant

    Habeus Corpus-gone, Posse Comitatus-gone, now, will US citizens need permission from DHS to travel overseas? Had Enough?!

    by Rigjob on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:39:37 PM PDT

    •  Great Point (4.00 / 3)

      our collective "heat" must be brought to bear not only on our elected reps, but to our immediate neighbors, friends, family, local groups, and on and on and ononandon

      I think that's very important.  We need to stop acting like it's ok.  We need to stop acting like our current government is one that we're opposed to simply on partisan grounds, when it's so much more than that.  This government is anti-American and harmful in the extreme.

      We all need to speak out, often.

      No more Republican rule.

      by HarveyMilk on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:47:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree with a caveat (4.00 / 2)

    First, we should have a strong message or opinion about how the country should be run.  This message should be know by them.  So, if they cross us then they should know they (our representatives) are crossing us, and expect it.  Second, if they do then we should criticize them based on the message, and leave out any profanity or threats.  

    But, yes, they will to the right thing when they have to.

    •  totally (none / 1)

      if we're going to demand a response, we need to know ourselves what that response should be, and then let them knop well in advance, so that there's no confusion or ambiguity. and then we have to deliver carrots or sticks, to be credible.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:51:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  could you put a link to the original story up top? (none / 0)

    This one is as good as any:
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/23/195417/679

    My toes were curling trying to figure what the hell you were talking about.

    Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. - JFK

    by Kire on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:08:00 PM PDT

  •  We are the government (4.00 / 3)

    People constantly complain about the sorry state of government without recognizing the fact that we are the government.  Regardless of whether or not the people elected are democrats or republicans, the people elect them, (well some of the past elections challenge my notion) and it is up to us to hold them