Skip to main content

NOTE: As per my update, below, when I first posted this diary, I wrongly refered to a "decertification", when I should have referred to a "failure to re-certify". I have left the text of the diary, as is. My apologies for the confusion. The progressive Caucus of CA will remain in limbo until November. After that, I don't think anybody knows, what will happen.
However, the main point of this diary remains. PDA and PCCC are silent on the issue, but should not be.

I just checked both their websites ( and and there is nothing on the decertification, which doubtless was precipitated by them calling for “exploring” a “possible primary challenge to President Obama”. See CA Dem Party May Dump Its Progressive Caucus – Can You Guess Why?

Here’s what they should have done: The should, at the very least, have condemned the decertfication, demanded it’s reversal, and also demanded an apology.

Now, if they were more committed to progressive positions, and less to the Democratic Party, they could have gone further and issued reasonable electoral threats to the Democrats. They could have picked a few non-Progressive Dems, and said, “We’re going to take you out, with a progressive, if possible. If not, we’ll vote a Republican in, in the general election. If you want to avoid this fate, we suggest that you do your part to successfully reverse the decertification.” (Meaning that they will exert electoral retribution if the effort to reverse decertification fails, no matter how much their non-Progressive targets may have tried to help, and no matter how little influence they had. Obviously, it’s better to pick more influential targets, to begin with, but it’s not necessary. This is a common sense idea, given the Democratic tribalism factor, but I will eventually write a diary on the subject, which will be part 3 of my “PCCC ( does something right” series.

They could have also urged at least a temporary abandonment of the Democratic Party, in favor of, say, the Green Party, or the New Progressive Alliance.

The decertification has made me wonder whether or not the people who argue, like Anthony Noel of the NPA, that the Democratic Party is irredeemable, are more correct than incorrect.

And the non-response of both the PDA has made me wonder if the PDA is, indeed, a member of the Veal Pen, as some have claimed. PCCC recently issued a credible electoral threat to Obama, so I can’t reconcile their silence on the CA decertification with their recent demonstration of political aggressiveness. But, I have to hold this against them.

12:33 PM PT: I'm about to re-title this, from "PDA and PCCC are Silent on CA Dem Decertification of the Progressive Caucus", because of criticism that tabling a normally automatic recertification is not the same thing as decertification. I will leave the text as is, though, as many people have already read it, and commented on it.

6:04 PM PT: There's an excellent diary, from an insider's perspective, on the tabling of the recertification of the Progressive Caucus, by Seneca Doane, that was posted today, called CA Dem Party goes meta, progressives hit with pie


Should both the PDA and PCCC condemn the CA de-certification of the Progressive Caucus?

80%29 votes
19%7 votes

| 36 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  we progressive Dems (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, Floande, Sunspots, renbear

    do need to have a full, free and vigorous discussion of what it is going to take to get us taken seriously by the party and the president.  I think this diary contributes to this discussion.  It may be that the the only thing to get us attention is a credible threat to walk.

    I am afraid this diary is going to get HR'd into oblivion because this subject has become anathema since the abuse perpetrated by the idiot Nader. It would be good to have Kos weigh in on this issue anew given the curent circumstances.

    Scientific Materialism debunked here

    by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:50:54 AM PDT

    •  why I called Nader an idiot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He did not set forth his demands to the party and the candidate in any meaningful way.  Nor did he attempt to establish the Green party as a long term effective presence in blue states where they could have demanded attention.  He merely did his damndest in swing states to prevent Gore's election.  In so doing he seriously set back the cause of progressives by using such tactics in the most damaging and least effective way possible, thereby discrediting them.

      Scientific Materialism debunked here

      by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:59:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Better to have just left his name out of it. (4+ / 0-)

        You do not know what you are talking about. He has made demands of those Democratic candidates that he has endorsed since his last run, that is why he endorsed them, and he ran as a Green because the Democratic Party would not let him run as a Democrat.

        He has not set back the Progressive cause as you claim, he practically wrote the lexicon by which it is pushed forth. Name the movement that started with a winning candidate and then we can talk.

        •  maybe so (0+ / 0-)

          I admit I have not followed Nader closely. Did he make  demands of Gore before opposing him and make it clear what he would do otherwise? Having endorsed a Dem or two since then is not very meaningful.

          When you say the Dems "would not let him run as a Democrat" do you mean because they didn't grant him the nomination?

          He took Rethug money in 2004.  How can you excuse that?

          Scientific Materialism debunked here

          by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:41:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clearly you haven't. (0+ / 0-)

            He was trying to run AGAINST Gore, when he was not allowed into the Primaries, that is when he ran with the Greens. I seem to recall that he made an agreement not to run against him in swing states that he did not honor, but then the Democratic Party has not been very honorable wrt his issues either. There are no saints in this calculus.

            That is the takeaway lesson here.

            •  a web search (0+ / 0-)

              failed to find any reference to Nader "not allowed" into the Democratic primaries.  Each state has their own rules for being admitted to a presidential primary.  For example here is Massachusetts:

              Candidates may file nomination papers with at least 2500 certified signatures. For primary ballot placement, signatures of at least 2,500 voters must be certified by local election officials and subsequently filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

              Please explain to me how, in light of such rules, a party could "not allow" Nader into its primary?

              Scientific Materialism debunked here

              by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:14:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Were you a "Naderite troll", like myself, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                you would have read the stories in the Nineties when he first ran that showed there was more to it than just gettting petitions filed. The Parties, though one may not realize it, are corporations too. They ultimately make their own rules and can determine what they want with little actual blowback.

                •  oh? (0+ / 0-)

                  then kindly link to "those stories" about how Nader was "not allowed" to enter primaries. Like how he actually went as far as filing petitions and had them refused.

                  Scientific Materialism debunked here

                  by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:41:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I had a hard enough time tracking down the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kurt Sperry

                    articles that showed how the Obama Administration pushed through "Drill Here Drill Now" energy policy through ther Ninth District Court two and a half years ago, and even then I had to cite them.

                    Do your own research. The problem is not Nader but the issues that he has professed. He is not the issue, the issues that he represents are. You want to keep losing elections with the precision of a metronome, more power to you; just keep on keeping on.

                    Continuing to whinge about lost elections will have absolutely no effect, whatsoever, upon the one we are about to lose. For all of the usual reasons.

                    •  like I said (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I looked and didn't find anything.  Nader has made no discernible improvement in the Democratic party or the state of politics in the US. It has only gotten worse.  His only accomplishment was to help the disastrous Bush into office.  Had he actually troubled himself to run in the Democratic primary might have been in a position to extract concessions in exchange for his endorsement.

                      You have failed to raise any substantive evidence counter to my initial assessment:  Nader has behaved as an idiot and only served to discredit the progressive movement and oppositional tactics.  You doubt it? Then go have a talk with adept2u at the bottom of these comments.

                      Scientific Materialism debunked here

                      by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:01:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Enjoy your election! (0+ / 0-)

                        Your opinion is important, but you fail to understand that it is not the only one. I hope that you can make up for those you alienate.

                        But I doubt it.

                        •  not the only one but that opinion IS (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wilderness voice

                          in the majority, both around here and in the nation.

                          It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                          by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Johnny Q

                            Given the close division of the electorate, it is the minorities that determine electoral success.

                          •  exactly - which is what gave us 8 years (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wilderness voice

                            of bush.

                            how do you feel about that minority "decision"?

                            It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                            by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:42:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pretty good actually. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Johnny Q

                            I like to think that what happens does so for the best. We wouldn't be having this conversation, again, were it not for past failures, and present ones for that matter.

                            I wouldn't spend a lot of time blaming those who were right on the issues for voting their conscience. To do so would obviate the whole point of the electoral process.

                          •  there is nothing further for me to say here. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                            by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:17:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What answer did you expect? (0+ / 0-)

                            That I have been whingeing and pulling my hair out for the last fifteen years because no one appreciated the Third Way?

                            Grow up. What you see now is a direct consequence of what so-called "centrists" have been supporting for over thirty years. If you don't like it, then have the grace not to support it. You cannot bitch about the neocon wars supported whleheartedly by both the DLC and Bush and whitewash Obama's. You cannot bitch about the effects of Neoliberal economic policy and at the same time support advocates of it.

                            Try and make some sense. You are not going to guilt me into taking responsibility for the Bush Administration when y'all had far more to do with his election than such as I ever had. SWucvh as yourself, after all, legitimized it every step of the way.

                          •  wtf? (0+ / 0-)


                            It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                            by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:46:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am just sufficiently bored to answer this. (0+ / 0-)

                            I remember back when Clinton/Gore were running. I didn't like Clinton, but I remembered Gore's stances on the environment and Global Warming. When they were nominated, I thought, wow! Maybe this will bring Global Warming onto the big stage! Maybe it will get the attention that it needs and we can FINALLY move on to the green energy future that got me so excited about Carter.

                            And then Gore was put in charge of the task force which eased regulations on coal plants in Ohio which made it possible for more to be built.

                            Then came NAFTA, CAFTA, the lack of follow through on those agreements that would have made them "fair trade" as well as "free trade", MFNTS for China, gutting of welfare, the farce of the health care debates, Bosnia but not Rwanda, the deregulation leading to media conglomeration, the Rubinites......

                            I voted for them again anyway whilst supporting the Nader candidacy. Someone needed to get the message out, and it clearly was not going to be Gore. Gore, you see, had been coopted. Clearly, obviously. He admitted it after he failed to push for his own Presidency. That is why he never became a President. Not because he couldn't have won, but because he was weak. The fact that he was weak was the reason that Joe Lieberman was put on his ticket as VP. The Party tought he needed a babysitter every bit as much as later the Republican Party thought that Bush did.

                            Something that Nader pointed out. Nader was not wrong about this, Gore agreed with him. That is why he is no longer in the public sector.

                            So, we can no longer tell what Gore would have done, but we do know what his babysitters would have done. We know what the NeoLiberals would have done, because they were in charge of economic policy during the Bush Administration. We know what the NeoCons would have demanded, because Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are NeoCons. It is not really, therefore, a stretch to think that Gore would have blindly followed them just as he followed them for the eight years that he was a VP.

                            Again, something that Nader pointed out. I voted for Kerry anyway and supported Nader's candidacy just as I did once before. I knew that Kerry would do nothing because he was as weak as Gore was. He couldn't even defend his own veteran status from a passel of draft evaders. Something that is immediately brought to mind when one considers his NeoLiberal, NeoConservative voting record.

                            It was no coincidence that the wars and taxation were issues during that campaign. There really wasn't a whole lot of daylight between the candidates. Again.
                            So, Bush won, again, because people just like me could not stomach yet more of the same.

                            But you "centrists" could.

                            So, we got the last Presidentials. Again, the usual suspects lined up with a few sacrificial goats to give the illusion of inclusion,  and the usual suspects talking down anything that might have altered the status quo. Again I voted for the candidate that was selected for me by the centrists who so love them some status quo. Those like me did it your way because Bush was such a disaster, and we got Bush's third term.

                            It ain't gonna happen again.

                            I'm tired of being forced to vote for shit that I would normally go to the polls specifically to vote against. There are a lot of us. I doubt that Obama will win another term. It won't be because of anything we did. He brought this upon himself by being weak, coopted, Republican, stupid, whatever you want to call it. It is not the fault of those who saw it coming, it is your fault for not doing your homework, for not connecting the dots, for shouting down anyone who attempts to say something you consider unorthodox, for acting like voting your conscience is treason.

                            Every step of the way "centrists" have been supportive of what has led us to be where we are today. Clearly they are happy to continue the journey. If they want to bitch that there are those who do not want to be in the same clown car with them, they need only recognize that triangulation can work against them as well. By only aiming for fifty percent plus one, they run the inherent risk of ending up with fifty percent less one as well.

                            This appears to be a lesson that you will never learn as long as you are hung up on shooting the messengers who make you look so terribly naive and playing guilt by association games that only make you look stupid. Respect is earned, I would suggest you learn something, and thereby earn some.

                          •  what IS is with this bizarre obsession (0+ / 0-)

                            by progressives with "weak" - "spineless" - etc.

                            maybe all progressives want is a bully they can call their own.

                            not me.

                            i want a democracy - NOT a dictatorship.

                            ick.  i actually read this answer and i am more disturbed by it than if my comment had been ignored!

                            It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                            by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:14:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  i just call nader an idiot. period. (0+ / 0-)

        and your comment is right on the money!  i put the blame for this nation's current woes right in his lap.  had bush not ascended to power, we wouldn't be in the damnable situation we're in now.

        nader.  there's a special place in ring nine waiting for ya.

        i'm all for decertifying ANY group working against democrats in 2012.  why should democratic funds go toward putting more republicans in office!

        for those who are incapable of realizing the democrats ARE "progressive" and republicans are "regressive" - there is no hope.

        It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

        by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:10:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  groups working within the Democratic party (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          should not be decertified even if we do not agree with them.  I do not see it doing any harm in the general if someone primaries Obama.  OTOH, a 3rd party like the greens running in the general might very well have the same result as in 2000.

          Scientific Materialism debunked here

          by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:19:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  this caucus was NOT "de-certified" - the motion (0+ / 0-)

            to "RE-certify" was tabled - and for excellent reasons!  did you read the linked article?

            not all democrats are suicidal, ya know... only a small percentage.

            It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

            by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:24:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you were the one that used the term "decertify" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kurt Sperry

              although this in effect amounts to the same thing:

              The Progressive Caucus’s certification expired at the same time, and while other caucuses were routinely recertified that day by the state party, the Progressive Caucus (I’m told by its chair, Karen Bernal) would not have been, had a vote been held.  So the recertification was tabled, and the Progressive Caucus is in limbo.

              failure to re-certify the progressives is suicidal as compared to letting them have their say.

              Scientific Materialism debunked here

              by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:33:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I edited this diary's title to satisfy your (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wilderness voice

              complaint. My bad.

              I left the text, as is, since there have already been so many comments on it.

              •  thank you - but you also need to correct the (0+ / 0-)

                first paragraph... you can update and note it, but until you do, my criticism stnds.

                I just checked both their websites ( and and there is nothing on the decertification, which doubtless was precipitated by them calling for “exploring” a “possible primary challenge to President Obama”. See CA Dem Party May Dump Its Progressive Caucus – Can You Guess Why?

                It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:40:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, won't do that (0+ / 0-)

                  However, I added bolded text at the very beginning of the diary, that nobody can miss.

                  •  thank you for clarifying. (0+ / 0-)

                    unfortunately, many of the comments were concerning the erroneous presentation of the material instead of the actual event - worthy of discussion.

                    that event was the tabling of the certification due to the call for primarying the elected democrat in the white house during a very precarious year.

                    should the progressive caucus push a primary and the subsequent outlay of campaign funds prior to a contentious national election?  that would have been a valid question.

                    and it would have generated a very different discussion, don't you think?

                    It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                    by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:16:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "and it would have generated a very different (0+ / 0-)

                      discussion, don't you think?"

                      Hard to say, but unfortunately, I don't see any discussion as to the timidity of the PCCC and PDA, other than one by kck, which is what I was mostly concerned about. Instead (besides the usual Jane Hamsher/FDL smears) there's concern about the wisdom of the CA Dem Party in not recertifying.

                      Of course, these two are very related. But I don't see the Democratic Party 'regulars' reforming the Democratic Party, anyway. My expectation is that is will require reform groups, theoretically groups like PCCC and PDA. However, if they're too timid, then they're not going to reform very much.

                      That's a problem....

                      A "very different discussion" would probably have been an improvement, but I expect I still would have failed to get people to focus on what I wanted them to focus on.

                      •  as for hampster and fdl - when allied with (0+ / 0-)

                        people that she chose to form a coalition with - on the far right, i hardly call it a smear to describe her with despicable contempt.

                        It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

                        by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:15:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  I voted, "No" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordcopper, We Won

    I prefer that the Democratic grassroots coalesce better and agitate for a fucking voice, one that can shift the Party in DC with one much louder message. As a transplant from NYC I view the CaDemParty as quiet, afraid of criticism, and shamefully accepting of the non-voter population.

    I guess I'd say that as a party Ca Dems need to raise the bar internally rather than bray about a  national primary, that's bad taste and wholly unhelpful. We have grave problems and Dems should be leading in the state before trying to lead the country.

    Just MHO as someone sick of Democrats performance in Ca since the 2010 election and revolted by DC.

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:02:21 AM PDT

  •  I was shocked when I saw that. (5+ / 0-)

    The Party must be in fear to so stupidly slap the single largest part of its' constituency. Unlike elsewhere, the Progressive caucus there is a real factor in politics. Those who did this really need to worry that they just told the most active and largest part of the Party that they have no where else to go.

    I think it was a mistaken move, watch the Greens.

  •  Guess that shows the kind of pull (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie, ThisIsMyTime

    Those "progressive" organizations have in the real world.  I didn't see how the de certification process worked from your diary, but I would assume it would take some kind of vote, or action by elected representatives.  

    You guys really should start your own party.  I wouldn't vote for it because I hate your tactics and your leadership, and so does apparently most of the rest of the party.

    "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

    by Adept2u on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

    •  do you really mean to say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      you would rather have progressives leave and join the Green party instead of fighting to have their voices heard within the Democratic party?

      Scientific Materialism debunked here

      by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edrie, fcvaguy, ThisIsMyTime

        "Progressives" with their "criticisms" have done great damage to any idea that they would be an ally of mine.  I see them as being akin to a cancer inside the party that is internal with the desire to do nothing but attack and tear it down.  I would be happy if the people who are considered "progressives" as evidenced around here were considered a third party or they most definitely may join the greens, and then we wouldn't have people who are supposedly allies speaking the same memes and destruction as the teabaggers from inside.  Yes leave.

        "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

        by Adept2u on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 10:58:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  halleliujah and amen to that! n/t needed!!! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, ThisIsMyTime

          It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

          by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:14:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  be careful what you wish for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          if the 16% of the electorate that qualifies as progressive were to "leave" the Democrats would never be a majority party again.

          It seems to me that what you define as "progressive" is a far cry from how it is defined by progressives.  As someone who reads and appreciates your UFO diaries, I respectfully request you take this entertaining quiz to see where you fall on the progressive scale.

          Scientific Materialism debunked here

          by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:28:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It could be a lot worse than 16% (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wilderness voice

            Self-identification can't accurately portray the complexity of positions on various issues. It's a very crude method of categorization.

            Most of the public is progressive when it comes to healthcare, having wanted a national healthcare program for decades. I don't know much about the CA progressive caucus, but it may well have lots of people who are strongly progressive on a few issues, such as healthcare, right along with most of the populace, or else a large minority - but not that progressive, for the taste of a card-carrying, self-identified progressive.

    •  ? What leadership are you talking about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, Sunspots
      You guys really should start your own party.  I wouldn't vote for it because I hate your tactics and your leadership, and so does apparently most of the rest of the party.

      I'm posting this diary because I consider the leaders of PCCC and PDA to be weak. And, I hope they somehow get this message, and respond in a dynamic manner. I engaged Mike Hersh of the PDA, here and Mike Hersh and Laura Bonham of the PDA at FireDogLake, to try and get them to move PDA in a more aggressive direction. Didn't get the feeling that I succeeded...

      Their weakness makes for less conflict with non-progressive Dems, which I suppose has positive aspects. Less stomach indigestion and stress, e.g.. However, it also means a steady exodus of progressive from the Dem Party. And for those who remain, how enthusiastic will they be, if they consider themselves  members of a doormat subgroup of Dems? Demoralized Dems will not be effective at GOTV, right?

      (How large this exodus is, I don't know. That would be an interesting question to research.)

      •  Hi (2+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, ThisIsMyTime
        Hidden by:
        Kurt Sperry

        I would sooner eat a bucket of worms than go to your negro re-education camp that is called firedoglake.  When I speak of the "progressia" and "leadership" that I consider a non starter, it is people like the leader of that website.

        "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

        by Adept2u on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:41:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jane Hamsher is in jail right now, for protesting (3+ / 0-)

          a tar sands pipeline. So, she wouldn't be able to defend herself against your notion that FDL is a "negro re-eduction camp".

          I've seen this quote "negro re-education" before, so just googled it. Probably you get this from an AngryBlackLady article, here: "Jane Hamsher’s “Afro-American” Reeducation Program Rolls Through Washington, D.C. (and Other Ratfucking Tales)".

          John Cole took her article down, at one point, then re-added it with the following inserted:

          This is John speaking. Personally, I am profoundly uncomfortable asserting that Jane is part of some racist campaign because of what some idiot diarist at FDL has done. I know that we (ABL and I) have disagreements about who is responsible for what over there, with ABL feeling that because they moderate some comments and diaries, they therefore own the rest of them. I disagree with that. All I see is some idiot named Figaro promoting this idiocy and then thanking the community, but I have seen nothing from Jane anywhere that would indicated she was involved, much less knew anything about this silliness.

          If there is any evidence that Jane is responsible for the bus ads in any way, I would love to see it. But I can’t in good conscience ignore a post calling Jane out for racist behavior when there is no real evidence she was involved. There’s a simple reason for this- I’ve been called a bigot, misogynist, and a homophobe for no reason whatsoever, and thought they were vicious unfounded smears. It bothered me, so I won’t allow that to happen here.

          And before the haters pile on ABL- I like her, and will have her back when I think she is right. I just think this one is a little thinly sourced, so I am making a rare editorial decision. If it turns out Jane was involved, show me the proof and I will have your back.

          And for those of you following this shitshow, I originally took this post down, then agreed that that was the wrong way to handle things. I’ll leave it up (nothing disappears on the internet anyway) and just note that I think it is factually incorrect and lacking evidence.

          The "Re-educating Afro-Americans" part must be a reference to my diary A Seriously Trouble-Making Proposal (Dear Cornel West and New Progressive Alliance)

          Nowhere to I used the term "re-education" or "Negro". I do use the terms "education" and "Afro-American", and it should be clear enough exactly what I mean by "education".

          •  Hi we negros have our own thoughts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy, ThisIsMyTime

            We don't need to read them elsewhere, see that's your problem you really think we're stupid.

            "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

            by Adept2u on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:27:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're entitled to your own "thoughts" (opinions) (0+ / 0-)

              You're not entitled to your own facts.

              I suppose people are entitled to their own ignorance, but how does that help them deal with reality? The point of educating the public is to dispel ignorance.

              Once again, the educational efforts I recommend were never supposed to end with the AA community. And I'd be happy if they were seriously undertaken starting with any demographic.

              Obama's backstabbing deal with Tauzin was first exposed in mainstream media. The NY Times, and one other paper - I think the LA Times. However, I know about it because of FireDogLake.

              Alas, FireDogLake, like most every progressive blog, is not also an activist platform. Sure, there's activism that works through it, just like there's activism that works through dailykos. However, I'm convinced the potential is vastly under-utilized.

              IOW, FireDogLake doesn't do a particularly good job at educating the majority of any major demographic segment of the population. I'm pretty sure that at most, less than 1% of the population has read any FDL diary, at all.  Those who prefer ignorance have cause to celebrate, I suppose.

              •  The arrogance and white privelege (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wilderness voice, ThisIsMyTime

                reeks in that comment. Shame you have no ability to see it.

                And the irony of you accusing Obama of backstabbing deals.

                Hamsher - BP? Grover Norquist? CommonSense Media?

                And did we ever find out who paid for the Obama attack ads on the buses only in the Black areas of DC?

              •  what is the point of such an education? (0+ / 0-)

                the polls point to increasing unhappiness with Obama.  What are people to do with this education? Vote Rethug? stay home?

                Bus ads calling Obama a RePuke and saying "primary Obama" serve what purpose?  If one were seriously seeking a primary opponent this would not be the way to do it.

                Scientific Materialism debunked here

                by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 03:51:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I called for educating re Obama a year ago (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wilderness voice

                  The hope, at that time, was that the resulting increased awareness would lead to primary challengers, including minimalist ones for Congress. ala the Full Court Press..  

                  There's still a window for a Full Court Press, but there seems to be no enthusiasm for it. As for primarying Obama, Nader has said that there will be somebody. I don't think he meant Gravel, but Gravel recently said that if he could get 1 million dollars, he would run. When a challenger to Obama does appear, he/she will have a harder task than if the public was already educated, and if progressives has already sufficiently organized to pull off that education.

                  I'm more concerned about process, strategy, and attacking systemic rot. The particular personalities that run, or who deserve to be challenged, are far from my main concern. Unfortunately, I seem to be in a small minority, and most people seem more constrained by tribalism; many progressives just don't seem to grasp the possibilities that they have, as well as the milquetoast quality of their leadership.

                  I've expressed my frustration with progressives in more than 1 recent diary.

          •  If you can see the relationship (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Your post at FDL called for the need to educate African Americans about the failures of Barack Obama, presuming that African Americans are too stupid to make their own judgements about Barack Obama's failures. In addition, Hamsher herself has called the President's "most ardent supporters the dumbest Motherfuckers".

            What TiMT is doing is showing you what you and Jane sound like to a Black Man. Of course, you're free to say that TiMT, a Black man, has it all wrong. And that you, the White progressive are the Oracle of what is and isn't racism.

            And frankly, I don't have much sympathy for your opening line, since that seems to be what you're looking for sympathy. I almost fell for her tweeting frenzy from the Quantico gates and her spin of what was going on there until I found out the facts myself -

            1) She had no proof of insurance
            2) Her vehicle registration was expired
            3) and, to add insult to injury, her car is illegally registered in California, rather than Virginia, where she has lived now for at least a few years. Why? I don't know. But, as a Virginia resident, I can tell you that I paid $1200 in annual excise tax last year on my VA-registered vehicle. California does not have such a tax. Make of it what you will.

            None of you have any right to demand respect for Hamsher. She's a public figure and per the FAQ, worthy of whatever criticism comes her way.

            •  I have not been following these issues (0+ / 0-)

              so if you could bring me up to speed as to who TiMT is, it would be much appreciated.

              Also, do I take it correctly that Jane got busted for these motor vehicle infractions rather than the protest itself?

              I certainly do get how the idea of "educating" black people as to Obama's failings is condescending, and well, racist, as in "too dumb to make their own judgments".  It also smacks of a RePuke false flag job to peel blacks away from the Democratic party.

              Scientific Materialism debunked here

              by wilderness voice on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:51:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I've already answered the "stupidity" charge (0+ / 0-)

              You're spewing BS. And in a nasty enough manner, I'm not going to help you out by finding my previous comments. Look for them yourself, if you're interested. And feel free to do a poll of you AA friends and acquainances, who don't bother with political blogs, and ask them about whether they know about Tauzin's deal with Obama. Also, feel free to poll non-black, non-blog readers. I'd be shocked if you found no less than 90% were ignorant of the deal. I've never met anybody, in person, who doesn't read blogs like dailykos, who even knew who Tauzin was.

              What I will do, though, is point out that ignorance of Obama's backstabbing deal with Tauzin is just one example of a large number of Obama's "scandals". Some guy named Hugh (no public last name) is maintaining an Obama Scandal list. Obama is on track to surpass, in magnitude, the scandals of the Bush years (as determined by the same Hugh.); certainly if he gets another term, but he might 'achieve' this dubious milestone by the end of his first term. The Tauzin deal bothers me the most, but it's by no means, alone.

              Obama Scandal List Table of Contents:
              1. Reneged on pledge to filibuster FISA Amendments Act (July 2008)
              2. Lobbied for $700 billion Paulson TARP bank bailout
              3. Pushed for no sanctions against Lieberman despite his support for John McCain
              4. Nominated healthcare company lobbyist Tom Daschle as Secretary of HHS
              5. Had neoliberal Robert Rubin as his chief economics adviser
              6. Then had the equally neoliberal Larry Summers assume this role
              7. Chose the failing upwards Timothy Geithner to head Treasury
              8. AIG bonuses and money to Goldman under Obama
              9. Doubling down in Afghanistan
              10. Delay and reduction of withdrawal from Iraq
              11. Moving Guantanamo activities to Bagram
              12. Military commissions for some detainees
              13. Support for indefinite detention
              14. Refusal to release torture photos under FOIA
              15. Refusal to investigate and prosecute Bush era criminality
              16. Geithner’s DOA economic rescue programs: the PPIP and TALF
              17. Minimal help for homeowners and no cramdowns
              18. Treatment of Chrysler and GM with bankrupcy compared to bank no fail “stress tests”
              19. Kabuki of TARP repayment by banks while still dependent on government credit lines
              20. Extra-Constitutional use of the Fed by the Executive for fiscal policy
              21. Credit Card bill without usury caps and with 9 month delay for other reforms
              22. Business friendly Mary Schapiro named to head SEC
              23. Gary Gensler who helped deregulate derivatives named to head CFTC
              24. $787 billion stimulus: too little, too late, poorly structured
              25. Use of financial crisis to attack Social Security and Medicare
              26. The great healthcare non-debate
              27. Continued use of state secrets argument in ongoing Bush era cases
              28. Use of signing statements, including one to punish whistleblowers
              29. Vetting process problems, especially tax related ones
              30. Leaving Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head OLC twisting in the wind
              31. Eric Holder, failure to reform DOJ, not removing worst of Bush USAs
              32. Failure to move against new oil bubble
              33. Retention of Bush Defense team: Gates, Patraeus, and Odierno
              34. Continued missile strikes inside Pakistan
              35. Keeping Bush’s domestic spying programs and adding a new one, cybersecurity
              36. Choice of Elena Kagan who favors expansive Presidential powers as Sollicitor General, her subsequent nomination to the Supreme Court
              37. Leaving EFCA (to help counter anti-union companies) to wither in Congress
              38. Welcoming Arlen Specter who brings nothing to the Democrats into the party
              39. Weak ineffective proposals for financial reform
              40. Obama wanted John Brennan at CIA but settled for making him his counter- terrorism adviser
              41. Chas Freeman with broader Mideast perspective done in by AIPAC
              42. Dennis Blair made DNI; failed to act to stop atrocities in East Timor
              43. Choice of McChrystal involved in torture in Iraq to head Afghanistan command
              44. Obama threat to suspend intelligence cooperation with UK over Binyam Mohamed case
              45. Efforts to keep Bush and Obama White House logs secret
              46. Playing games with “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
              47. Filing a brief to overturn Jackson (access to lawyer) in the Montejo case
              48. Not withdrawing Bush brief in Osborne DNA case
              49. Egregious brief in challenge to Defense of Marriage Act
              50. The Supplemental which made Iraq and Afghanistan Democratic wars
              51. Choice of Rahm Emanuel as the President’s Chief of Staff
              52. Choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy and then his move to the White House
              53. Politically embarrassing processes to fill Obama and Clinton’s Senate seats
              54. Choice of Bill Richardson, then Judd Gregg to head Commerce Department
              55. Reneging on pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA
              56. Obama's throwing his pastor Jeremiah Wright to the curb, then reaching out to religious conservative Rick Warren
              57. Continued challenges to habeas corpus petitions over indefinite detention, the Janko case
              58. The Obama White House website
              59. Continuing an ineffective program that Iran can exploit politically
              60. Going slow on climate change when there is no time to
              61. Not withdrawing a Bush-era amicus brief in the Ricci v. DeStefano reverse discrimination case and supporting a rollback of Title VII
              62. Appointment of a CIA General Counsel who doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture
              63. Appointment of a DNI General Counsel who doesn’t know if waterboarding is torture
              64. CIA delay in a FOIA request concerning torture
              65. The influence of Goldman Sachs in the Obama Administration
              66. Attempt to keep secret the Cheney interview on the Plame affair
              67. Mountaintop removal under Obama
              68. Attempt to restrict Congressional notification on intelligence matters
              69. Opposition to a second stimulus
              70. Another egregious attempt to fight a habeas corpus petition in the Jawad case
              71. Continuing charter schools and standardized tests
              72. Holder's decision to support a weak, narrow review of torture
              73. Re-appointment of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman
              74. Continuing renditions
              75. Politically dubious company was used to vet reporters in Afghanistan
              76. Judge vetoes a too weak SEC plea bargain with Bank of America
              77. Justice’s argument for making Bagram a new Guantanamo, the al Maqaleh case
              78. Defense to turn over databases to poorly controlled fusion centers
              79. Obama changes but keeps Bush's Star Wars program
              80. Failure to win an Israeli freeze on settlements
              81. White House refuses to back its own staffer environmentalist Van Jones
              82. Politicized US Attorney in the Siegelman case cleared by Office of Special Counsel
              83. Criticism of Iranian nuclear program; support of Israeli nuclear weapons
              84. Support for a weakened reporter's shield law
              85. Use of the Zazi case to retain broad Patriot Act surveillance provisions
              86. Wilner v. NSA, continuing the coverup of warrantless surveillance of communications between attorneys and detainees
              87. Attempt to spike the Goldstone report on Israeli-Hamas war crimes in Gaza
              88. Slowness in filling federal judgeships
              89. Inadequate aid to overwhelmed state budgets
              90. Attempting to dodge the Supreme Court deciding whether innocent Guantanamo detainees can be resettled in the US
              91. Allowing drilling in the waters off the north coast of Alaska
              92. Keeping detainee accounts of CIA torture secret
              93. Current FBI manual allows for widespread domestic spying
              94. Securitization invalidates most foreclosures
              95. Geithner wanting unlimited powers to save large banks
              96. Another state secrets defense to conceal domestic spying
              97. Circuit Court dismissal of Maher Arar suit
              98. Weakening Sarbanes-Oxley and calling it financial reform
              99. Unemployment
              100. Inspector General for Fannie and Freddie ousted for investigating fraud
              101. Gaming courts to convict Guantanamo detainees
              102. White House counsel removed for his principled stands on torture and Guantanamo
              103. US seizes mosques claiming Iranian connection
              104. Howard Dean removed as head of the DNC
              105. Scientist with close ties to Monsanto put in charge of all governmental agricultural research
              106. Pesticide lobbyist nominated as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for trade
              107. Effort to let some government contractors avoid paying taxes
              108. A bad US Attorney nomination for Northern Iowa
              109. Hunger in America
              110. The breast cancer recommendations fiasco
              111. Ongoing confusion and disorganization in the military commissions process
              112. Phillip Carter another official in closing Guantanamo resigns
              113. Refusal to sign anti-land mine treaty
              114. The Ghizzawi case and the legal limbo of "cleared for release"
              115. Black prisons at Balad and Bagram
              116. Delay in declassifying historic documents
              117. Max Baucus' conflicts of interest in healthcare and with his girlfriend
              118. Major security breach at a White House party and a ridiculous assertion of "executive privilege"
              119. Dana "Pig Missile" Perino nominated to the Broadcasting Board of Governors
              120. Cass Sunstein, an anti-regulator in a regulatory position
              121. Warrantless for profit electronic surveillance by telecoms and search engines
              122. The government sides with torture lawyer John Yoo and attacks Bevins actions again
              123. The TSA publishes its security manual online
              124. Toxic legal arguments in al Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, yet another Bevins action
              125. The Nobel Peace Prize and a neocon acceptance speech
              126. Blackwater's involvement in military and CIA assassination and drone programs
              127. Congressional Research Service censorship in the firing of Morris Davis
              128. AIG writes off $25 billion in debt and sticks taxpayers with the bill
              129. The Administration plays hardball to kill an amendment that would lower drug costs
              130. A poorly considered blank check to Fannie and Freddie
              131. Continuing a Bush botch in the Nisoor Square massacre case
              132. Jonathan Gruber, a major defender of Obamacare was also a paid consultant for it
              133. A Geithner related cover up of the AIG at par payments on swaps
              134. Adoption of stealth signing statements
              135. al Bihani, more bad legal reasoning in another Guantanamo habeas case
              136. Cutting Medicare and Social Security by deficit commission proposed
              137. A 3 year non-freeze budget freeze proposed
              138. NASA flights privatized
              139. OPR report on Yoo and Bybee watered down and its relation to the Padilla case
              140. Government targeting of US citizens for assassination
              141. Abuse of informants by ICE agents
              142. Obama leaves Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board empty
              143. Obama backs firing of teachers in Rhode Island
              144. Irish human rights advocate Edward Horgan has US visa pulled
              145. Threatened veto of 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act over Congressional notifications
              146. Obama Administration intimidation of whistleblowing site: wikileaks
              147. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to ignore science on endangered species
              148. Senate vacation more important than jobless benefits
              149. Government seeks to compel turnover of emails without a warrant
              150. Obama goes after an NSA whistleblower: the Thomas Drake case
              151. Obama goes after a CIA whistleblower: the James Risen case
              152. Weakening Miranda rights in national security cases
              153. Advocating the privatizing of public housing
              154. Another step in making Bagram the new Guantanamo, the al Maqaleh case, the appeals court edition
              155. Massey mining disaster, 29 die because of corporate greed and poor regulation
              156. Obama proposal for a line item veto
              157. A military commander allowed to use military forces for intelligence operations without Presidential approval
              158. Political pandering in sending 1200 National Guardsmen to the Southwest border
              159. A sad record on resisting Guantanamo habeas petitions
              160. Israel attacks an aid convoy for Gaza; Obama punts
              161. A further erosion of Miranda: Berghius v. Thompkins
              162. Naming James Clapper, a Bush appointee, to be the next DNI
              163. DOJ seeks to protect Vatican in sex abuse scandal
              164. Yahya Wehelie, an American exiled without charge
              165. Failure to replace National Labor Relations Board members means hundreds of decisions must be reviewed
              166. SCOTUS opts for overly broad definition of material support to terrorist groups
              167. Speaker Pelosi backstabs Social Security
              168. Complaints by government scientists of political interference at Bush era levels
              169. Flip flop on free trade agreement with Colombia
              170. SEC declares major victory but lets Goldman off easy
              171. Private contracting of intelligence continues under Obama
              172. Two Guantanamo prisoners to be deported back to Algeria against their will
              173. The Shirley Sherrod affair: trumped up charges of racism and a bungled response 174. Whitewash report on Bush era US Attorney firings
              175. Despite its record, Blackwater still gets big US government contracts
              176. Wikileaks releases government files showing Pakistan involvement with Taliban and admission that things are going poorly in Afghanistan
              177. Obama seeks to get access to everyone's web histories without a court order
              178. Teacher funding sacrificed to keep Education Secretary Arne Duncan happy
              179. State's top Iran hand resigns over Obama's Iran policy
              180. Citizens United: validation of unlimited corporate political funding
              181. Push to expand US arms sales around the world
              182. Project Vigilant, Infragard and "volunteer" corporate spying for the government
              183. Obama's approval hits Bush levels in Arab world
              184. Effort to pre-empt state environmental lawsuits involving green house gases
              185. Justice's Anti-trust division asleep at the wheel
              186. Kagan's recusals render her even more ineffective on the Supreme Court
              187. Poverty level highest since 1994
              188. Courts run interference for corporate violators of international law
              189. Warren named to set up but not to run Consumer Financial Protection Board
              190. Chief economic adviser Larry Summers leaves; Obama looks for someone even more pro-business to replace him
              191. DOJ IG report goes soft on Bush era surveillance against peace groups and other activists; meanwhile the Obama Administration conducts raids against similar groups
              192. Move to put backdoors in the internet to facilitate spying and more requirements on banks on international money transfers of any size
              193. HHS Secretary Sebelius delays for at least two years required insurance coverage for contraception
              194. Americans on Medicaid increased to 48.5 million in 2009
              195. Big home lenders suspend foreclosures as their documentation gets challenged in court
              196. HR 3808, a bill passed by Congress, to facilitate the acceptance of false documentation by banks in foreclosure proceedings
              197. ICE raids and deportations increase under Obama
              198. Social Security COLA frozen for second straight year; no action taken
              199. Waivers for military aid to countries with child soldiers
              200. Big and deserved losses in the 2010 elections
              201. 42 million Americans on food stamps at the end of FY 2010
              202. No indictments for those involved in the CIA destruction of the torture tapes
              203. The Bowles-Simpson Cat Food Commission proposals
              204. $3 billion in aid for Israel for a 90 day settlement freeze
              205. No change in Democratic Congressional leadership after 2010 election disaster
              206. Forced proselytizing still prevalent at US Air Force Academy
              207. TSA harassment and violation of the 4th Amendment
              208. More TSA idiocy: full body scans and invasive pat downs
              209. The response to the 2009 coup in Honduras
              210. Use of diplomatic personnel to spy at the UN
              211. Fed proposes rule change to Truth in Lending Act to protect bank fraud
              212. FCC head Genachowski takes an axe to net neutrality
              213. Lieberman and seek to censor wikileaks
              214. Pressuring the Spanish government into dropping torture prosecutions against 6 high level Bush officials
              215. Neoliberal free trade deal with South Korea at a time of high unemployment
              216. Hamfisted banning access to wikileaks by government departments
              217. Massive screwup in printing $100 bills
              218. Extending tax cuts for the rich in a poor compromise on jobless benefits
              219. Dancing boys of Afghanistan paid for by US contractor Dyncorp
              220. EPA backtracks on smog standards
              221. Former OMB director Peter Orszag goes to Citigroup
              222. Obama breaks the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to supply Israel with nuclear fuel
              223. DREAM Act for children of illegal immigrants done in by Senate Democrats
              224. DOJ drops investigations of corrupt members of Congress
              225. The FBI's Guardian database, another useless, intrusive surveillance program
              226. Pentagon weakens rules on contractor conflicts of interest
              227. Investigation by state Attorney Generals into foreclosuregate: no criminal charges
              228. Obama names Mr. NAFTA Bill Daley as his new Chief of Staff
              229. Obama names neoliberal free trader Gene Sperling to replace Larry Summers
              230. Executive Order to make regulations more business-friendly
              231. Gulet Mohamed: Detention and torture of US citizens by proxy
              232. Nelson v. NASA: government can demand intrusive, unnecessary information about its employees
              233. Choice of GE's outsourcing CEO Jeffrey Immelt as Obama's Jobs Czar
              234. Failure to weaken or eliminate the filibuster
              235. Corporate targeting of Wikileaks and liberal organizations
              236. Reaction to the popular revolution in Egypt
              237. HHS Secretary Sebelius helps states cut Medicaid rolls and funding
              238. Petraeus accuses parents not US attacks for burns to children in Afghanistan
              239. US general in Afghanistan sets up illegal propaganda program targeting Americans
              240. Obama plans to devastate small block grants program for the poor
              241. Silence on the Wisconsin labor protests
              242. Former Senator Christopher Dodd quickly becomes lobbyist after promising not to
              243. Obama reinstitutes sham review tribunals at Guantanamo
              244. DOJ colludes with Bush era official Scott Bloch to keep him out of jail
              245. The treatment of Bradley Manning
              246. State Department spokesman PJ Crowley forced to resign over Manning comments
              247. Massive conflicts of interest in David Stevens at HUD and soon to be head of main lobbying group for the mortgage industry
              248. Mild reaction to bloody anti-democratic repression in Bahrain and Yemen
              249. Torture psychologist appointed to White House task force
              250. FBI program which allows them to investigate anyone doesn't work (surprise)
              251. In his Libya war, Obama has completed the unconstitutional process of Presidents' usurpation of Congress' power to make war
              252. Obama accepts award for transparency in secret
              253. Democrats create PACs to receive unlimited contributions from anonymous donors 254. 2011 government shutdown threat as Shock Doctrine
              254. The 2011 "great" biprtisan budget deal
              255. The OCC deal to cover for banks in foreclosuregate
              256. Reshuffling neocons at DOD and the CIA
              257. Leak of Detainee Assessments shines light on the weakness of cases against many Guantanamo inmates
              258. Geithner shields foreign exchange derivatives from Dodd-Frank regulation
              259. Crazy new application for some US passports
              260. DOJ wants SCOTUS to allow for GPS tracking without a warrant
              261. An industry stacked panel to study fracking
              262. SCOTUS attacks small claim class actions
              263. SCOTUS okays fraud in financial presentations
              264. SCOTUS attacks large class actions and Title VII
              265. DOJ's non-investigation of torture produces few results
              266. Department of State threatens participants of Gaza flotilla with terrorism charges
              267. Detainees now held on ships to avoid judicial scrutiny
              268. CIA operating a black site prison in Somalia
              269. SCOTUS and DC Appeals Court torpedoing detainee habeas petitions
              270. SCOTUS greatly expands warrantless searches; Obama DOJ approves
              271. Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after the 2011 spike in gasoline prices
              272. Christine Varney, head of DOJ Anti-Trust Division, goes to law firm that had case before her
              273. Senseless 2011 debt ceiling crisis, budget cutting, and attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
              274. TSA closes US airspace to Mexican human rights activist
              275. DHS guts its unit monitoring right wing terrorism in US
              276. "Recovery" benefited corporations, not workers
              277. Harassment of a government scientist Charles Monett because his work clashes with drilling in the Arctic

              •  OH LAWD!!! (0+ / 0-)

                You never answered the spuidity charge. And its not a charge. Its a fact. I quote Hamsher, Obama's most ardent supporters are the "dumbest motherfuckers". There's no charge to answer. Its a fact, irrefutable.

                And I'm full if BS, lying even. And the proof is in the plethora of your previous comments. Except, I have to go find them. LOL@U.

                And wow at that list of 277 scandals!!! Maybe there's something in there for you to impeach Obama for.... for something!!!

        •  i've brought my spoon - can i join you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and i'm white!

          It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

          by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:16:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  your diary is filled with innuendo and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        what is your purpose in posting this?  to divide this community?  to start a meta war? to promote a third party?

        really - go read your own linked article.

        pathetic, this is.

        It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

        by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:26:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the largest segment of the largest DNC Delegation (4+ / 0-)

    is de certified - and this is only the second post I have seen on it  ?!?!

    thanks metamars - T & R'd

    Interview w/ Karen Bernal - CDP Progr. Chair

    It keeps happening, it's kinda like seeing a crime before your eyes.  .  . "
    •  please! go read the article. (0+ / 0-)

      this diary is not telling the truth.

      the caucus was not "RE-certified" - the motion to re-certify was tabled - for good reason!

      read their idiotic and stupid resolution and then read the end of the article.

      i will never again support a progressive caucus candidate on the california ballot if there is any other dem running against him/her!  

      and, hey, i vote in california - so this diary may have just backfired by its misrepresentation of the facts!

      It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

      by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:29:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh good GRIEF! yet another misleading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    diary that relies on the likes of fdl in the comments with hampster references!

    the article quoted says that there is a resolution to primary obama was the reason the automatic recertification of the caucus was TABLED - not "de-certified".  it was not RE-certified!!!  the caucus is in limbo - and, imho, that is where it should remain.

    the effin' caucus put out a resolution calling to primary the democratic president for 2012.

    don't these effin' idiots ever learn?  don't they EVER give up the attention seeking ME! ME! ME! behavior!!!

    throw the damned caucus out of the democratic party and let them go start their own f*cking party instead of wasting valuable campaign funds to run a stupid, idiotic, pathetic, hamsterwheel in the primary!


    i am SOOOOO outta here - this diary is a misleading, sucks eggs, stupid, tool, stinking pile of hampster poo.

    It's the Supreme Court, Stoopid!

    by edrie on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:23:28 PM PDT

  •  the fact that (0+ / 0-)

    these progressives can say "we will consider republicans" in this environment with rush limbaugh controlling the republican party reinforces my thoughts of the DPA of California saying "f you" to this progressive caucus.  

    you are only helping to set the country backward and not forward.

    republicans make the country go backward.

    •  You are thinking in terms of slogans (0+ / 0-)

      But is that really thinking?

      I've quoted from the accomplished political game theorist Bueno de Mesquita in The Jesus Christ of Political Game Theory on the Stupidity of Lesser Evilist Voting.

      If a progressive voting bloc, faced with a lesser evil choice, decided to strategically vote in a way that punishes a bad (i.e., non-progressive Democrat), and if the size of the voting bloc was smaller than an expected margin of victory by a Dem, then they would fail in their mission if they simply refrained from voting in that contest; or else voting third party. If, OTOH, the voting bloc was 1/2 size the difference, then they would succeed in defeating the bad Dem, by voting Republican. This is simple mathematics.

      In this scenario, the progressive voting bloc would have to suffer a Republican, whose voting wasn't much different than the bad Democrat, for the next term. During the next election, though, whatever Democrat runs, knows that he or she can't take the progressive voting bloc for granted. That is the effect that the voting bloc was looking for. It requires patience, and a perspective that extends beyond a limited, one-election-cycle-at-a-time mentality.

      There are complicating factors, in both directions, regarding the wisdom of applying such a strategy. I don't want to get into them. Suffice it to say, that the complicating factors should be carefully considered, also. Thinking in terms of slogans is not what's called for.

      The Tea Party has 'crossed the Rubicon', and will start throwing Republicans under the bus, in coming elections. progressives should learn from whatever succesful examples of successful tactics the Tea Partiers have to teach them. See Tea Party about to cross the Rubicon, become more effective - Wimpy Progressives, watch out!  Jane Hamsher made a strong case for going after weak progressives in Bernie Sanders to Primary Obama? Don’t Make Me Laugh.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site