Skip to main content

Yesterday, in a diary that was swallowed up by dkos' afternooon tech problems, Marcy Winograd officially endorsed Francine Busby, laying to rest the concerns of a few fellow Kossacks.

I Endorse Francine Busby
As I am dedicated to the proposition of taking back the House for the Democratic Party, I endorse Francine Busby for Congress in CA-50.   I hope when she wins that seat she will strongly oppose the Bush administration's war policies, help this country withdraw from Iraq, and help keep us from venturing into any other needless war.

Although personally I have never had any reason to question the shade of blue Marcy bleeds, a few here have questioned her commitment to the party, suggesting her ideology superseded her Democratic credentials.

I found that issue odd, even as I, among her supporters, was branded `pathetic' by a fellow Democrat and Kossack, and watched the retributive troll ratings fly.(please don't worry, this is not a meta diary-I actually considered them proof positive that we as a community were finally dealing with those issues that truly resonate.)

I won't hypothesize as to why this had become an 11th hour issue, but Jeff Lieber did suggest this:

IMHO, the reason a Harman endorsement helps Busby is that they are both conservative Democrats (and its the exact reason Harman is no longer appropriate for very liberal CA-36), but a (liberal) Winograd nod might cause those in CA-50 to flinch.
The House is all about local representation.
Busby is the EXACT RIGHT Democrat for CA-50.
Winograd is the EXACT RIGHT Democrat for CA-36.

Anyway, the question is now moot.

Rep. Harman showed up again on Kos thurseday, and I respect that, even given what I consider the impersonal nature of her post and replies, and more importantly, the hornet's nest of opposition to her record by Kossacks.  

A few Kossacks found the way she was treated by commenters as disrespectful. One mentioned the respect Rep. Conyers receives when he posts.  

Marcy's husband Buddy and prolific poster stated,

Winograd should not be judged by the behavior of her DKos supporters, any more than Harman should be judged by the behavior of hers, which I for one, at this site and at others, have found occasionally rude, hostile, patronizing and insulting.   I'm a big boy, I can take it (haven't trolled anybody), and while it may frankly give me some satisfaction to see the other team sniveling, I don't let it color my view of Harman herself, whose positions and performance I disapprove as a matter of substance.

I consider Rep. Conyers a personal hero, and as I have had scant few in my lifetime, I considered  what could be causing the disparity. It didn't take long to arrive at an answer, and the answer was a `matter of substance'.

The war.

The war that will ultimately define our peculiar period in history.  
The war that is bankrupting our country.
The war that has  led to the loss and destruction of tens, if not  hundreds of thousands of lives, and the erosion of our civil liberties.

We can have lengthy and substantive discussions here at Kos as to whether or not single-payer health care is the desired option, whether or not public financing of campaigns is feasible, whether or not we need to reign in the military industrial complex, and they will most likely be devoid of ad hominem comments and threats of troll ratings.

But apparently not when it comes to support of this war and the degradation of our Constitutional rights.  I hold that these issues should rightly inspire the passion of our fellow Kossacks, our fellow Democrats, and our fellow citizens.

Our 230 year old experiment in democracy hangs in the balance, and it seems we as Democrats are the last line of defense.  I have stated that I will vote Democratic until they pry my paper voting receipt from my cold, dead hands, but I will not buy into the myth that this primary in any way adversely affects the electoral prospects of the Democratic party on Tuesday, or in November.  

Quicksilver, a resident of 36, and someone whose opinion I have come to greatly respect, stated that he initially `wanted to think the best' of Rep. Harman.  I echo that as a fellow 36er, but this war, this matter of substance, this ongoing horrific threat to the very core of our American character calls, pleads, begs for strong and vocal leadership.

And this is why I must support Marcy.

Originally posted to Ozzie on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:05 AM PDT.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The diary, btw, proposed the first online debate. (10+ / 0-)

    Does anyone have an update if the Harman camp has accepted?

  •  Marcy brings out the best... (6+ / 0-)

    in those around her.  Those who know her and work with her naturally follow her lead.  Which means... honesty, integrity and working for the common good.  There's no time for ad hominem attacks in the world of Marcy Winograd.  If it's not based in fact, it's not said.  If it's not useful or well-intentioned, it's not done.

    As Budlawman says, and as I was attempting to say yesterday when Kos went down for awhile, Marcy Winograd is not responsible for the statements of those who blog... not mine or anyone else's.

    Let the fruitful discussion begin!!!!!!!

  •  Hi Ozzie! (6+ / 0-)

    The war, reprehensible in itself, consumes so much of our national assets; our youth, tax dollars, global goodwill, leaving little or nothing for correcting social problems here at home.

    As we know from past Republican presidents, there is a pattern - increased military spending, tax cuts, a growing national debt which in turn leads to calls for cuts in social spending.  We need to turn the tide on our militarized society!

    •  Well, Jane (0+ / 0-)

      did vote for the motion to recommit the Iraq War resolution.

      This motion was made by Dennis Kucinich, and supported by nearly every progressive in the House, including Solis, Schakowsky, Becerra, John Lewis, Filner, Frank, Baldwin, Sanders, McDermott, McGovern, Barbara Lee, Hinchey, Woolsey, Stark, George Miller, Rangel, Conyers, Slaughter, and pretty much every other member of the House Progressive Caucus except for Neil Abercrombie.

      The text of the motion to recommit can be found on page 7796 of the Congressional record here.

      Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:46:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Marcy's Claims versus the Truth - Part I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DemocraticLuntz

        Marcy's Claim: Harman supports the Iraq and didn’t support an “exit strategy” until she was challenged in February 2006.

        • The Facts: Congresswoman Harman has challenged the case for war in Iraq since 2003 and called for an “exit strategy” in November 2005, following her third trip to Iraq.

        • In June 2003, Harman launched an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

        • In October 2003, she voted AGAINST the $87 billion supplemental bill for Iraq proposed by President Bush, calling it “profoundly flawed” and “a blank check.”

        • In June 2004, she spoke out against Dick Cheney’s claims about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

        • In October 2004, she called Donald Rumsfeld the worse Secretary of Defense in history, and has urged he be fired.

        •  Could you give some links? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:10:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Links (3+ / 0-)

            Exit Strategy, 11/16/05 - http://www.house.gov/...

            Investigation on Pre-War Intelligenc - 6/16/03
            http://www.house.gov/...

            Harman Opposes Blank Check for Iraqi Funding, 10/16/03
            http://www.house.gov/...

            Cheney's Claims, June, 2004
            http://www.house.gov/...

            •  Let's examine this 'evidence' (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              patsburgh, Ozzie, Linda Milazzo

                1.   "Exit strategy"  

              All that's missing is a strategy.  There is no timeline (still none even today), there is little detail, just a lot of fluff, talking points, happy talk, and some criticism of the Bush administration. She wants credit for this ephemera?  

                2.  Investigation of pre-war intelligence  

              Harman had in her possession what few others had: the National Intelligence Estimate that contained a great deal of CIA info that characterized the Bushian WMD claims as dubious.  Jane did nothing, went right ahead with the war, and kept voting for it notwithstanding this investigation, in which her concluding quote suggests she was still under Bush's spell about the existence of WMD, at a time (June, 2003) when I recall even Bill O'Reilly expressing doubts about Bush's WMD claims:

                 

              "Hopefully, Iraq's WMD will be located and dismantled promptly. The longer the weapons are out of U.S. control, the greater the chances they could fall into the wrong hands. In the meantime, I hope the hearing today will help answer some questions about the quality and objectivity of pre-war intelligence."

                3.  "Opposes blank check"

              Right, Harman did say she didn't want to give Bush a blank check: she wanted the Iraq war on the installment plan!!!  Her October 2003 statement was fully supportive of the war effort despite her faint doubts about the Bush lies that duped her into voting to invade; she just (correctly) wanted more oversight into the corrupt war effort's financing. This is not to be mistaken for fundamental opposition to the war, such as other members of Congress had voiced, and as Winograd has asserted from before the war was a gleam in Dick Cheney's and his neocon cabal's eyes.  The following quote from "Janie come lately" sounds an awful lot like Lieberman/Bush, if you take out the last line:

                 

              "The United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere - and I support finishing that job.

                 To this end, I would support, as I believe many other Members would, an incremental approach to the supplemental package - one that provides funding in installments and only after certain benchmarks and milestones are met.

                 But I am not prepared to provide this Administration with another blank check."

                4.  Harman vs. Cheney on Al-Qaeda

              Yes, Harman partially saw the light, in June, 2004, criticizing Cheney for making Iraq a terrorist center, but she thought it wasn't inherent in an American invasion of a country we had no reason to attack, but merely because of poor planning:

                 

              "Unfortunately, Iraq is now flypaper. It has become the central training ground for terrorists and terrorism. This was not a problem before the war, but it is now due to poor post-war planning."

              That is a fundamental problem with Harman's view.  She remained supportive of the thoroughly discredited war, but again still only on tactical grounds.  There were predictions that Iraq would become terrorist central as soon as Bush & Blair started rattling sabers (in late 2002), and of course that is primarily the failure of Bush (and Blair), but Harman was uniquely positioned (as was Murtha not so long ago) to call Bush out, and she failed.  She utterly, pathetically failed.

              I think VeniceDave was hoping people would accept his characterizations of his "evidentiary" support for Harman's failures, and no one would bother to review what he posted.  The truth is, Harman did nip at the edges, but what was needed, and what she was in a good position to provide, was a credible frontal attack on Bush's decisions to go to war as well as his planning and execution.  That would have been good opposition leadership.  

              Harman flunked.  She needs to go.

        •  Perceptions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter, Ozzie, DemocraticLuntz

          As I wrote last night  here,  there is a perception among many Venice voters that Jane Harman has not vigorously opposed the Bush administration and their agenda.  I believe that it is this perception that motivates much of the support for a progressive anti-war opponent in the primary, plus the knowledge that we are in a safely Democratic district.

        •  But... (4+ / 0-)

          ...Harman has also backed the administrations assault on civil liberties by not challenging... and at times affirming... the NSA spying program.

          She's also well funded by the defense contractors in the district, which makes us all wonder who's interests she's looking out for when she takes positions on the war that are considerable "right" of the district she represents.

        •  not what I saw - (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Budlawman, Ozzie

          "The Facts: Congresswoman Harman has challenged the case for war in Iraq since 2003"

          that is not what I saw on TV back in 2003 when it started looking like the WMD's that rummie was certain were in iraq were nowhere to be found; back then I saw harman giving cover to rummie on sunday talk tv by saying things like "the WMD's could be in syria, we just don't know" -

          harman must now pay for all the cover that she gave to the bushies via all of her appearances on sunday talk tv -

          back then harman reveled in the role of playing the "lieberman centrist", she ate it up, and now she needs to answer for that; there is no free lunch, there is no forgiveness, not in politics anyway.

          "Congresswoman Harman has challenged the case for war in Iraq since 2003 and called for an “exit strategy” in November 2005"

          you are confusing harman with murtha; it was jack murtha who in 11/05 had the guts to finally proclaim boldly & publically that iraq was a failed strategy and that we must cut it short, and I recall back then that there were precious few other house dems standing with murtha on this, and we certainly did not see harman standing with murtha, so I have no idea what piddling mealy-mouthed harman nonsense you are talking about here.

          "In June 2003, Harman launched an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence."

          well whoop-dee-do; we really saw a lot come out of that initiative, eh?

          "In October 2004, she called Donald Rumsfeld the worse Secretary of Defense in history, and has urged he be fired."

          so what? that means nothing. by then, even the most rabid neocons, like perle and kristol, were mad at the bush admin, mad that the bush admin did not proceed to invade iran and syria and even saudi arabia, like the neocons had originally envisioned.

      •  Too little, too late (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ozzie, Linda Milazzo

        The petition began circulating in December, as DL's link shows.  Harman, inspired by the Winograd campaign, finally signed it at the end of April.  Hmmmm.

  •  Hey look... I'm in print! (7+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the nod.

    Part of me... (and its just a little part)... is sad that Marcy had to/decided to/felt compelled to endorse Busby, as it seemed like such a non ACTUAL issue and she and Busby are such different candidates that it sort of made sense that she just said nothing on the matter.

    That said, since the non-endorsement of Busby seemed like the ONLY thing Harman supporters could seem find to question Winograd... better to just take it off the table.

    •  Why It Was and Is and Important Issue (5+ / 0-)

      Marcy's endorsement of Francine Busby is an important issue, and I am glad, at whatever motivation, Marcy endorsed Francine.  If we are going to be truly successful at taking back the House, come June 7th we are going to have to have a unified Democratic Party. The 36th District Dems are now unified in their support of Francine Busby. I am a solid Harman supporter for many reasons, some of them pragmatic, but I will stand foursquare behind Marcy if she wins the primary.  Marcy has said she will endorse the nominee of the Party for the 36th Congressional District, and I am looking forward to that endorsement.

      While many in the 36th CD may think this race is about Harman's voting record, that issue is only true until Tuesday.  Come Wednesday morning, it is all about George Bush, the White House gang who can't shoot straight, the failed policies in Iraq, the lawless trampling of civil liberties, and TAKING BACK THE HOUSE.  Without a majority, there is no oversight, no committee hearings, no subpoenas, and impeachment is a pipedream.

      •  I would disagree as a 36er (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter, venice ca, trashablanca

        I have felt that my support of Marcy is directly related to opposing BushCo.

        Pragamtism and this war, IMO, just do not jibe.

        But thank you VeniceDave, for your expression of Democratic support.

      •  I would only amend your statement... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        venice ca, Budlawman, Ozzie, trashablanca

        ...so far as to say that, along the way, Harman has often enabled the President and his merry band of Warmongers, which is why... in a disctrict that is 100% Democratic safe... electing Winograd IS part of the largest picture possible.

        •  Where do you get 100% safe??? (0+ / 0-)

          Once again, in the Gubernatorial recall, 61% of the votes went to Republicans (Schwarzennegger and McClintock).  In the Mike Gordon race, although he won by an 8% margin, he did not carry the Beach cities, and only won by 50.5% of this very "safe" district.  I don't know about you, but "safe" means all the doors are locked, the alarm is on, and the burglars can't break in.

          Call it an "anomaly" to bolster your argument, but in at least two cases, POST GERRYMANDERING, the burglars have gotten in, and in one case, they were successful.

          A no-name Republican?  The District did not know the name of Marcy Winograd three months ago.  Take this no name Republican, add about 3.5 million dollars from the RCCC, and see what how "safe" this district becomes.

          •  But with50.5%, Gordon still won by 8%... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            venice ca, Ozzie, trashablanca

            ...(hardly as squeeker) and the REASON Marcy can come out of nowhere to potentially win is that the district has been set up the way it did.

            The recall is... was... you can't use it to prove anything at all. It was a space in time.

            •  The Recall (0+ / 0-)

              I can use it to prove that this is not a 100% safe district.  Call it a "space in time", call it an "anomaly", call it what you like, but it means this district is not 100% (unless you have some new version of fuzzy math of which I am not aware).  

              •  What number... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                venice ca, Ozzie, trashablanca
                ...would you put it at? 97? 98? 95? Whatever the number is... either candidate in this race wins going away.
                •  See my other post (0+ / 0-)

                  We have had three elections district wide since gerrymandering.  Two congressional and the gubernatorial.  In the congressional elections, Rep. Harman won going away, as did John Kerry by 60%.  But, interestingly enough, there was at least a 10 percentage point SWING when the ballot came down to Mike Gordon in 2004.  As I have already posted ad infinitum, ad nauseum, Republicans carried this district by 61% in the recall.  So, in three elections,  one was carried by Republicans.  67% Democratic wins is not anything close to safe, especially when we see swing patterns as we did in the down ballot voting in 2004.

                  Also, as a non-presidential election, the Congressional race will be at the top of the ballot, just below the Senate race.  That will help Democrats as Sen. Feinstein tops the ticket.

                  But, in a suddenly open race, against a relative unknown (as Marcy still is), the RCCC will spend at least as much money as they have in the Busby race.  That also doesn't include any IE's by defense-related pac's.  

                  This is not a matter of fear, but a matter of fact.

                  •  You can try to game the numbers anyway you want.. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Budlawman

                    ...but in the end it's just a scare tactic.

                    CA-36 is seen, by most, as a safe Democratic seat.

                    The RCCC is not going to dump CA-50 resources into this race, because CA-50 is a seat they must have in a district they have huge advantages in and CA-36 is an impossible get and Winograd's unknownish will be a moot issues when she gets enough votes to beat Harman.

                    I don't know that you support Harman, but I'm guessing from your comments that you do (and God bless, that's your right), but even if you don't, I find it telling that the only knocks on Harman are a series of scare tactics... "maybe she's not a good Dem because she won't endorse Busby"... Winograd is an unknown and there's a chance (however minute) that the we could lose this seat."

                    I don't think those arguing those points believes a word of them, but its a lot easier then trying to figure out a way to defend a record that a majority of CA-36 residents object to.

          •  I believe Patrick answered this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter, trashablanca

            last night here

            You keep peddling this same cannard... (8+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:JeffLieber, peace voter, venice ca, Budlawman, Ozzie, trashablanca, granny rose, wakeupandsaveyourcountry

            "In the Mike Gordon race for State Senate, it was his wins in Torrance and El Segundo (his home turf) that narrowly (50.5) gave him a win, even though he carried Venice heavily."

            So many things to note:

            50.5% is plenty when your Republican opponent gets only 42.5% of the vote.  That's an 8-point spread... not exactly a squeaker.

            It wasn't the State Senate race, it was the Assembly (District 53)

            CA-36 is not exactly the same as AD-53 (the Assembly district that Mike Gordon carried).  CA-36 includes a greater portion of liberal West L.A. than does AD-53, and CA-36 also includes the heavy union stronghold of San Pedro.  AD-53 does not.

            CA-36 is a more liberal and more Democratic district than AD-53.

            Patrick Meighan
            Venice, CA

            Please also note: Mike Gordon's "narrow" win came over a very tough, established Republican foe: the longtime Mayor of Redondo Beach.  By contrast, the GOP’s nominee for CA-36 this year is a political non-entity with no electoral experience, no campaign experience, no activist experience, no volunteer base, no website, no campaign staff, no campaign office, no campaign phone number, no campaign signage, no stationery, and no clue whatsoever.  As such, the winner of Tuesday's Democratic primary (be she Harman or Winograd) is a lead pipe cinch to win it all in November.  In other words, the Democrats of CA-36 really do have the opportunity to vote their hearts, and without fear come Tuesday.

            Don't let Dave tell ya different.

            Patrick Meighan
            Venice, CA

            by patsburgh on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 05:20:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll  ]

            •  Throwaway Terms (0+ / 0-)

              "lead pipe cinch"
              "100% safe"

              The 50.5% that Mike Gordon received was in juxtaposition to the 60% that John Kerry received in the same election.  Simply put, it means there is a significant swing factor in the 36 A.D.  As for the
              "anomaly" of the recall, this shows that it has happened, and by the way, do the count:

              Since gerrymandering:

              2 congressional elections
              1 gubernatorial recall

              Of the elections held, in 33.3% of the elections, the electorate of the 36th CD voted by 61% for a Republican alternative.

              As for the GOP nominee, it doesn't matter that he is a political non-entity.  Give me $4 million from the RCCC and I can make a lamppost a competitive candidate.

              •  Given the current polling on Republicans (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter, Ozzie, trashablanca

                I don't know how likely it is that CA-36 would vote against a Democrat.

                Of course, between now and November there is the slim possibility of an upswing in the support for the Iraq war, an end to sectarian violence in Iraq, great improvement in the economy and an electorate that is happy with Republicans in charge of Washington.

              •  Dave, have you EVER heard of San Pedro? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter, venice ca, Budlawman

                Dave,

                You keep using AD-53 and CA-36 interchangably.  They're NOT interchangable.

                San Pedro is in CA-36, and it's a union stronghold.  San Pedro is NOT in AD-53.

                Also, again, there's MORE of Mar Vista and West L.A. in CA-36 than there is in AD-53.  For the last time, CA-36 is even more Democratic than AD-53.

                The Democrat who wins on Tuesday (be she Marcy or Jane) WILL win the election in November, unless she's found with a live girl or a dead boy.  And maybe even then!

                Dave, if you're such a big believer in Jane Harman, for God's sakes, why don't you try this: sell Jane based on her merits.  How 'bout that?  Don't try and scare us into voting for someone we don't believe in by pretending that Jane's opponent has electability issues that she doesn't.  Heck, your perpetual use of this cheap tactic makes me begin to wonder if even YOU believe in Jane Harman!

                Patrick Meighan
                Venice, CA

      •  But let me also say... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        venice ca, curtadams, Ozzie

        ...on Wednesday, whoever has the most votes is my favorite local Democrat until at least late 2007.

  •  I am sorry Marci had to endorse (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, venice ca, mikenlola

    Francine Busby.  It really has nothing to do with her candidacy, but Harmon supporters made it an issue, having nothing else of substance to critique.  I hate wedge issues, be they Dem or Repub.  They are wrong and they add nothing of substance to the debate.

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." J. Lennon

    by trashablanca on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:00:18 AM PDT

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    I do think Harman was treated poorly here. I don't have a problem with people not supporting either candidate, but there is something about being polite in how you voice disagreement. The way Harman was treated was disrespectful. And frankly, if I were her, I would tell my colleagues not to come back, lest they be insulted and crapped on by shrill people.

    •  Jiacinto, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, Linda Milazzo

      Maybe you can also post your comments in the open thread, to the larger dKos community - they deserve to be seen by more people.

      There were rude comments, some embarrassingly so, but I don't recall that any were made by the people posting in this diary (as of 12:00 PM).

    •  Not on this diary... (4+ / 0-)

      Jane Harman hasn't been mistreated on this diary.  She's been discussed based on her conduct as a member of Congress.  Which should happen.  It's more appropriate than ever to be harsh toward those who condoned this war.

      Rather than directing the adjective "shrill" to those who oppose Harman's position on the war... why not consider as "shrill" the sound of bullets, bombs and explosions when they kill innocent women and children in war.  Why not consider "shrill" the voice of Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Jane Harman as they championed this war.

      If there's anger toward those who supported this immoral war... can you understand why that anger is justified?

      Although, as I've already said, I haven't read anything on this diary that is even remotely "shrill" toward Ms. Harman.  Regardless of how much it might be  deserved.

    •  Stop Hijacking the Diary, Jiacinto... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, KathleenM1

      ...this diary is about stopping the war and supporting Marcy Winograd. Take your meta-policing of people's behavior to another thread.

  •  Harman did receive rough treatment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikenlola

    here.  It wasn't pretty but she did bring a good deal of it on herself by doing a couple of drivebys and not answering legit questions.  That said, politicians have to have thick skins to survive.  If she's so delicate she won't come back here, I say good riddance.

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." J. Lennon

    by trashablanca on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 11:42:03 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site