Disclaimer: my views only, not those of any candidate or organization.

How do we win the defunding debate, as discussed by the erstwhile Armando Llorens in his full-name-signed editorial in The Guardian?

First, we should recognize that maybe we can't, but let's put that aside.

Second, think of what we're actually trying to accomplish.  We need 218 votes.  Having the leadership is not enough, because of the prospect of a discharge petition, which 218 Reps can sign to bring legislation to the floor.  It's also not enough unless we can always set rules that don't allow amendments to add funding to any bill where it might happen.  That means that we will need to convince all but a dozen so Bush Dogs (or, to be polite, Blue Dogs) to stick with us through thick and thin.  Because if we don't do that, we lose.

What else do we need?  (more)

    A couple years back, Armando frontpaged a diary of mine here about Kos visiting England for the 2005 elections; I shan't look for the link here, but it's poetic justice maybe that I'm writing about A's appearing in today's London Guardian.
    (emptywheel writes for the G too, by the way.)

    Anyway, homeboy says in Netroots on the cocktail circuit: The leading left-wing US bloggers are now more interested in sucking up to the Democratic party than in ending the war in Iraq or genuine debate.,

   

"So far 2007 has been a watershed year for the netroots, the left-bloggers that have fought and scratched for their vision for the Democratic party. ...
    A new "establishment" - the leading lights of the netroots that includes MoveOn.org, MyDD and the like - has come into being. ...

    (more fun below fold)

Those of us who miss the big lug can get a huge heaping pile of opinionated, self-righteous Armando at bhtv.

The first part is a bit spotty, but he offers a very civil account of his departure. Then gets into the meat of his current interests.

The good news is that Armando seems more muted and more reflective than he used to here.

Say what you will about former DailyKos frontpager Armando/Big Tent Democrat, you cannot dispute that he he has a razor-sharp intellect, an acute understanding of Democrats need to do to win important political battles, and an outsize personality not afraid to mix it up with those who disagree with him.

What many in the progressive blogosphere may not know is that, in the wake of the kerfuffle that led to his 2nd departure from Daily Kos, he has been doing outstanding work on Iraq, Libby and a host of other issues over at TalkLeft.  Together with fellow contributors and attorneys John Wesley Hall and T. Christopher Kelly, Armando has been scathing in his coverage of GOP criminal and moral malfeasance, and of the weak-kneed Democratic enablers who fail to adequately stand up to it.

Like his op-ed colleague, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich can be hot or cold. This week, he is very cold indeed. (Times Select) Indeed, he slides further into beltway conventional wisdom than I can ever remember.

What's depressing is that he gets such a good start:

President Bush is less an overreaching Machiavelli than an epic blunderer surrounded by Machiavellis. He lacks the crucial element of acute self-awareness that gave Nixon his tragic depth.

Follow me after the flip and I'll show you where he flies off the tracks.

[Cross-posted at ProgressiveHistorians.  Please note that my opinions are mine only, and reflect neither on my site nor on any of the people mentioned in this article.]

In the history of every sociopolitical movement, there comes a seminal moment when the leaders of the movement must decide whether to stay true to their principles or to give in to the easy prerogatives of success.

    Note that's not Big TENT Democrat; "Tet" reminds of the Tet offensive, of which more later. ...

    Anyway, some folks on our Super Blog have condemned the Warner/Levin resolution, e.g., the honorable and Honorable Sen. Russ Feingold in this diary. Feingold has fine goals but one wonders about some of his language, e.g., "It rejects exactly what is most needed in Iraq – an 'immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces'", and "And I’m not going to focus on finding (16), which salutes the muddled and wishy-washy report of the Iraq Study Group as 'valuable.'"
    (Sandra Day O'Connor, you pathetic fascist dupe!)

    So not only does the Senator venomously slag the ISG (putting himself on the same side of Bush, in an odd way), he goes against even the majority opinion on Daily Kos, at least as per today's poll by Trapper John, in which most DKos responders don't favor an immediate withdrawal.

    (more big controversy below)

I just Wikied Kos, he was born September 11 (Bummer of a birthday dude), 1971, so he will be 37 in 2008, and he would be constitutionally able to be President.
Not only that, if he were to make Armando his VP, no one would risk the Wrath of Armando (Cue Bill Shatner screaming ARMANDO) that would be unleashed from any attempt on his life.
He's a veteran, he's Greek and Hispanic, and you know where he stands.
He was once a Republican, so he can claim that "He didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left him" (Reagan Reference which also mirrors James Webb's experience).
Furthermore his experience with journalism (he managedthe Northern Star college newspaper) will help him on the stump.
So, who is your choice for blogger president?

By popular demand, I have decided to post a "Big Tent Democrat is ruining Daily Kos" diary.  How exactly is Big Tent Democrat ruining Daily Kos?  The answer is, as Mr. Holmes would say, elementary.

Over the flip, I've cobbled together some of the words used by Big Tent Democrat in his last week of comments to show just how nefarious this new influence is.

As we enter into power, we will be faced with a fundamental choice – whether to draw clear distinctions between us and the Republicans or to act like Republicans. It does not matter where you run – if you draw clear distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, you are more likely to win elections than you would if you act like a Republican and try to secure the blessing of David Broder or Robert Rubin for your policies.

The reason is clear – regardless of political affiliation, people want candidates who give them straight answers – even if those are not the answers that they like. They don’t want people who waffle or who beat around the bush – they want people who will give them the facts. People are more likely to vote for a guy with whom they will disagree with and who will give straight answers to their questions than they would if they faked being a Republican and attacked straw men of the fringe left.

     Once there was a blogger named Armando who had a little...ADDICTION. He liked to...

     BLOG.

     Despite years of treatment and therapy, along with his good friend (and role model) Mel Gibson, Armando could no more shake his addiction than "Make-me-a-drink Mel" could. A'o could be found at the computer, all unholy hours of the day and night... But he was heard to claim that he would not blog until December! Would he hold out?

     --My friends, addiction is a terrible disease; and today, we see that Armando is fallen back off the wagon, with this handy dandy little item. Tsk. Tsk.

     Is there any way you can help? The donation phone lines at the Betty Ford Clinic are open right now, as we speak; so if you can open your hearts and wallets, we may be able to get a certain frontpager the professional help he so truly needs.......

On Lieberman
The problem is not that Lieberman is a Democrat, but that the Democrats are Liebermen. Hillary opts to stay out of discussing the Iraq war, because that is a divisive issue. On the other hand, universal health care is not so divisive, so into the breach, Hillary! This is how you slowly become Liebermen:
- first, you avoid taking a position on divisive issues;
- then you start looking for non-divisive issues;
- finally, you just support the other guy's issues: after all, he is so vehement about it!

And then, you look around in amazement as all the highly-paid advice from all those Carvilles, all those poll-driven positions, have only made you the laughing-stock minority party in Congress. Or, as the Rovians so succinctly put it: they create the reality, you write about it. And you can only whine about Diebold and voter purges stealing your elections.

I received the following in an e-mail from Armando, with the request that I consider posting it on his behalf. We've had an ongoing discussion about integrity, the seriousness of attacks on individuals' integrity, and the general reaction here and in the blogosphere.

So, for your consideration, is a post from Armando. Below the fold.

When it comes to news reporting and journalism, good intentions are not good enough. Throughout the three years of this site's existence, one of the main premises of this site is that the media has been too compliant towards the Bush administration and that they tend to downplay or ignore facts that do not reflect well on the Bush administration. Therefore, if we wish to present a credible alternative to the mainstream media, we have to hold our own people to the fire when they botch up a major news story like the false claim that Rove was indicted.

On another thread earlier today, an interesting problem was raised for discussion.  

What happens if your boss tries to fire you because they don't like what you've been saying in the blogoshpere?  What kind of rights does an employee have should their boss try to fire them for holding political beliefs that the boss doesn't like?  Given the recent uproar about the "outing" of Armando, and the realization that there really is no such thing as anonymity anymore, I think this is an important question to begin thinking about.

I appreciate Armando's desire to protect his professional life and keep it separate from his online persona.  That is a legitimate concern.  But I have come to the conclusion that he must take the risk.  This isn't only because of the talent and special knowledge he brings to the blogging world.  We could find poor stand-ins to fill those shoes and continue on without him.  No, the reason that Armando must come back to blogging is to stop Karl Rove and his minions from using similar techniques to silence other voices in the blogosphere.

It is no secret that the rightwing extremists currently running our country want to silence the left side of the blogosphere as much as possible.  If they are successful with Armando, what makes you think they will stop there?  They already tried to reveal the identity of Atrios before he was ready to do so (turns out he is doing just fine and most people still don't know his name even though it has been publicly revealed) even though he left fewer breadcrumbs than Armando has.

I heard the four words myself this last week. I came dashing in from picking up some printed materials in deepest darkest Vermont at the end of the day. But before I could collect my things, check my messages and head home, my boss rather uncomfortably came up to me and expressed her desire to have a discussion. How did she begin?

"It's about your blog."

That single sentence hit like a ton of bricks. Partly because I've worked very hard to keep a bright shining line of seperation between my work and Green Mountain Daily during it's young life, but mainly because I knew that the only reason it could possibly have become an issue at my workplace was if someone had gone out of their way to make it one.

There are few times in my life I've felt more vulnerable than that moment.

Hi kids!!!

Guess what???

They 'got' Armando.

Whether you like him or not. Whether you are in the camp that says its Armandos own fault that he was outed and neutralized. Whether or not you believe Armando is overeacting. Whether or not you believe that it is NRO's concious decision to engage in a patent political hit. Whether or not you give a shit. They got him. He's been silenced.

Virtually Disappeared.

The RW, represented in this case by the execrable, pusillanimous, hypocrtical hit-men at National Review Online, has silenced an important voice of the Left Wing. OUR Wing.

Us.