On Providing Cover

Sometimes, I hear Right-Wing voices talking about the views and desires of the "Move-On" wing of the
Democratic Party, or the "Left Wing Extremists on blogs like The Daily Kos..."

We all know that Kos thinks of this project as partisan rather than ideological, and we all know that
evidence is valued above sheer volume here, unlike the insides of some noise machines we might name.

Kos has repeatedly said that he has/does/will cut slack to red/purple state politicians on positions
that don't correspond to issues that are seriously in play. That's his perogative, and it is
consistent with the views of many here that politics is a game of pragmatics and what matters is
getting results. That's an honest opinion, and plenty of evidence can be marshalled in its defense.

But to think that volume, ideological purism, and even shrillness don't get results is wrong. They get
positive results. Just not the ones the voices are demanding. And thus, I think our reasoned approach
provides a disservice to our partisan intentions at times...

Which of these scenarios is better for the red-district democrat:

1) She votes to confirm Roberts, and the loudest voices on the left say "that's okay, he was
going to get confirmed anyway, and a yes-vote helps us keep her seat"

or

2) She votes to confirm Roberts, and the loudest voices on the left say "What a pathetic excuse
for a congressperson. She's what's wrong with the Democratic Party"

or

3) She votes against confirming Roberts.

If it's #3, then agreeing with us has helped her out. If it isn't #3, it CAN"T be #1. A centrist vote with
tacit support from the left might as well be a liberal vote for electoral politics purposes.
A centrist vote within the context of real pressure and disapproval of the left is a vote that gives her
cred with the moderate voters in her district. If taking a stand against us helps her,
it is our duty to make that stand count for something.

I repeat, cutting slack does nobody a favor. Either the support of progressives is a net positive for a
politician, in which case they should earn it, or the support of progressives is a net negative, in which
case we should actively withhold it. Even when they make the right decision on a single vote.

But if we are going to embrace the role of left-wing boogeymen (left-wing boogeypersons has a nice ironic ring
to it, actually), what do we get out of it? Aren't we strengthening the party at the cost of marginalizing
true liberals and progressives? Absolutely not. Because Centrist exists at a point exactly halfway between
the recognized left-wing and right-wing positions. If a huge tax-cut for the rich and a small tax cut for
the middle class is the "conservative" position, and a small tax cut for the rich and a small tax cut for
the middle class is the "liberal" position, a merely big tax cut for the rich and a small tax cut for the
middle class becomes the moderate, centrist position.

On the other hand, if a huge cut is the "conservative" position, and a huge tax increase is the
"liberal" position, then no tax change for the rich (but a small cut for the middle class) becomes the moderate
position.

So what?

Which is going to be easier, convincing the electorate that Daily Kos is not the leftist looney bin that
O' Reilly, et al. claim it is, or convincing the American public that there are a bunch of folks on the
left who are pressuring their congresspeople to forswear censure and ITMFA,
allowing said congresspeople to say "Whoa! The President needs to be held accountable, but I won't go
beyond censure...," And allows the media to present three 'sides': impeachment, censure, no accountability.

Kos and the front-pagers, perhaps, have more tangible credibility to defend. If they want to argue for the
positions that they actually would support when an issue is settled, well fine. As for me, I'm going to have to
fight my instincts all the way. I tend to see multiple sides of an argument, I tend to offer reasonable
compromises. No more, at least not here. If people on the street aren't willing to grant "reasonable people"
status to people who make reasonable arguments, but are willing to grant "unreasonable argument" status
to arguments made by people they see as unreasonable, then I am going to start owning it.

I will make arguments that go well beyond what I think is reasonable. I will leave it to my
Democratic candidates and officials to "triangulate."

Reasonable people could use our help, they could use unreasonable attacks from the left. It's the only way to
make people actually listen to reason.