Sweet, sweet alcohol. How you will comfort me come November.
Fuck loyalty. I want to win. I happen to like the three mentioned (though I don't think Conyers is helping, and may be hurting). But everyone should be on notice, always.
The very idea of Waxman with subpeona power gives me a special feeling down below.
Can Democrats just stop being afraid of being Democrats, already? Sheesh.
The point is that loyalty helps you win. Those guys are the Democrats we've got. If, when Republicans say they suck, our response is to say "Oh, yeah, I guess you're right. They really are kind of weird and awful. We'll get rid of them and find better people to run things," we look completely useless. The response when a Republican calls Waxman frighteningly liberal is to say "Damn right you should be frightened -- next January he's going to have the power to slap you with a subpoena and make you explain what you've been doing for the last six years."
Loyalty isn't an alternative to pursuing power, it's the way you get there.
a special feeling down below
The very raison d'etre of representative democracy.
I've said it before, but the Democratic Party only stops forming circular firing squads long enough to eat their young. It's as mystifying as it is depressing.
I can't comprehend the Democratic party.
I mean I know they are wimps with centre-right political values, but, for fucksake...
In the short term it may make sense to try to win by trimming the message and moving to the center, but we've had many consecutive two-year chunks of short-term fixes, and it hasn't worked.
It always seems unhelpful to say this right before the election, and after the election everyone is too tired and wants to take an 18-month break. (The consultants we depend on go out to hustle their cute butts to the malefactors of great wealth, which is one of the big problems.)
The Democrats need a 4-year campaign like the Republicans have. They need to have more salaried party people out in the general population (not DC). They need a bunch of think tanks to develop the message (in slogan form) and get it out there -- provide free copy for newspapers, free guests for TV shows, little conferences for college kids, jobs for up-and-coming college Democrats, etc. That's what the Republicans do.
Don't say, "Yes, but what about this fall?" I've heard that over and over again.
Don't say "We don't have the money and have to make choices". The way we've been doing it doesn't work. Rather than continue this way, we should just concede everything forever and figure out how to emigrate. It's not going to start working.
My partner Dave Johnson at the "Seeing the Forest" has been developing this idea for 3+ years and it doesn't fly. Big-money liberals will not pay for that kind of thing (primarily, I think, because their interests are pretty specific and they've been getting what they want -- for many of them the Democrats are just brakes on the Republicans).
So as a result, we're still running away from liberals and planning to shaft some of our best people. Someone ought to write a self-help book about this: "Cringe your way to success the Democratic way".
I'm not a hard-core Democrat, so calls for loyalty make me check my wallet, but this strategy is bullshit. It's one thing to decide that the head guys in the party aren't worth supporting, and it's another thing to decide that they're not worth supporting because the Republicans might get mad. Grow a fucking pair and get back to me when you're ready to play, boys.
Also, pay the interns. Jobs for up-and-comers is a lot better than no jobs. (If I were to leave school now and go into politics, I couldn't unless I were a Republican because the Democrats I guess would expect my parents would be bankrolling my unpaid internship.)
It might be useful to keep in mind how the other party handles this.
I haven't heard about Pelosi's comment, and if no one here has either, feel safe in saying that it has been meagerly reported. Could that mean it was just a matter of saying different things to different audiences? To some audiences, you note that committee leadership does not automatically follow from having been the ranking member (without making any commitments either way), to others you accuse the Republicans of barely disguised racism and insulting their voter's intelligence by trying to drum up fears of older black men running committees, and to yet others you defend the record of the relevant candidate and challenge the Republicans to refute you.
My partner Dave Johnson
I didn't know you were on the other bus John. Congratulations!
Grow a fucking pair and get back to me when you're ready to play, boys.
Throwing Lieberman overboard is an essential element of that growth. I want a clear message sent that consistently kneecapping your own party will get you bounced.
Right. What Leiberman needs to get bounced for is his own disloyalty.
Here's the Newsweek link. It sounds pretty lame of Pelosi, though I hope there's still enough time to realize that 13 is what to do.
I endorse 10 and 11 but a lot of the discussion here sure sounds like a circular firing squad without the constructive criticism. If you're already rending your garments about how poorly the Democrats are going to do, you're not going to have anything to wear in November.
16: What joe o said. The ability to discipline matters, and Pelosi (usually, "left-wing liberal Nancy Pelosi") has been successful insofar as she has actually been able to impose some discipline.
It's the reasons. There's nothing sacred about seniority as a method of picking chairmen -- if, say, Waxman had been behaving like Lieberman, I'd be with Pelosi in saying that he shouldn't count on a leadership position. But we can't run away from our guys because the Republicans don't like them. (I'm not sure Pelosi is doing this -- hopefully w/d has it right in 13.)
Disrespect of seniority is fine, but I don't like spinning it as a response to Republican efforts to demonize the ranking members. The Allen piece makes it sound like that's what she's saying, though the Daly response ("No, you suck") is more heartening.
I'm with Joe in 15. I think this is Pelosi using external pressures to signal that she's not bound by party tradition to name the ranking member if dems win in November. Sometimes these games are played on multiple levels. Is a move like this really so devestating to the party? It hardly seems worth getting worked up about until she's actually handing out committee chairs. It may not be Waxman she's after but other ranking members who are do nothings.
If she had jurisdiction over Jay Rockefeller, this would make me happy.
FL -- could you put 12 in more words? I don't quite get your meaning.
I think that city government in Chicago is a good model that the Democrats should apply at the national level as well. More corruption, not less, guys. "Corruption is how we win!"
That said, Conyers seems to be the only voice of truth and reason -- as opposed to a voice of moderation. Bush should be removed from office -- in fact, he should've never entered office. Why is it "radically left-wing" to say so?
This blog has gotten away from its strengths. Herewith, my new favorite euphemism: "briefed on micro-finance." Angelina Jolie can micro-finance my briefs anytime.
Cala is right about paying jobs. The old Democrats were always able to help out up-and-coming guys, and the Republicans are able to now. Pork barrel is a necessity. I'm not sure Adam was serious, but there will be more strong Democrats if there are good motives for being one.
Waxman is exactly the guy I want chairing a committee. He's one of the Democrats who's been doing his damnedest all along, rather than just quitting and playing the horse-trading game. He'd be dynamite.
Rangel, Conyers, and some of the others aren't necessarily pretty to look at, but they're tough and smart. The House Democrats have generally been less wimpy than the Senate Democrats, though they haven't had a lot of success.
I read somewhere that Americans self-describe as 18% liberal, 32% conservative, and 50% moderate or indifferent. (Old data). Given those numbers, the moderate Democrats are right, sort of, but the Democrats lose. Changing those numbers is really a necessity, and my beef is that the Democratic powers don't really want to, because they're sincerel;y anti-liberal.
Changing those numbers is really a necessity, and my beef is that the Democratic powers don't really want to, because they're sincerely anti-liberal.
That's been my impression, from afar.
Waxman is exactly the guy I want chairing a committee.
Damn straight.
though they haven't had a lot of success.
Unlike the Senate, the minority party in the House doesn't have many tools at its disposal. Which is why the endless capitulation triangulation of the Senate Dems is so maddening.
they're sincerely anti-liberal
Such a significant part of the party has become moderate that I'm not sure what "liberal" means in the US political context anymore.
Wellstone was liberal. Harkins and Feingold often are. No retreat from the New Deal, pro-labor, anti-war tendency, civil libertarian, and generally "socially liberal". The last of these (sex and gender questions, identity politics) is actually the weakest with these guys, whereas for most people liberalism means ONLY "social liberalism".
Liberalism of that description has survived in the midwest while the bicoastal elites have gone mushy.
The word 'liberal' is almost completely useless. Half the time it means 'toward the left' -- 'Dennis Kucinich is more liberal than John Kerry'. The other half the time it means 'a moderate Democrat, not a leftist' -- 'I support Kucinich because he's a real leftist, not a weenie-liberal like Kerry'.
I call myself a liberal, but the word is all confusing and useless these days.
"I read somewhere that Americans self-describe as 18% liberal, 32% conservative, and 50% moderate or indifferent. (Old data). Given those numbers, the moderate Democrats are right, sort of, but the Democrats lose. Changing those numbers is really a necessity, and my beef is that the Democratic powers don't really want to, because they're sincerel;y anti-liberal."
I've read that a thousand times, referenced by both moderates and progressives. I think I sorta remember reading once that there's parity between people who identify more with the left or the right. I haven't managed to find any polls who ask about that though.
But if it's true, maybe the liberal-conservative questions doesn't actually tell you anything interesting about the US electorate? It seems clear that people in US politics think it does, and that that poll question in itself has had some influence on the differing strategies of the GOP and the dems.
But if it's true, maybe the liberal-conservative questions doesn't actually tell you anything interesting about the US electorate?
I think this is true, partially for my reasons in 33, and partially because GOP demonization of liberals has been more effective in moving people away from the word 'liberal' than from support of left policies.
33 -- a good substitute word is "bright".
Also, that famous New Yorker article showed that many people don't know what liberal and conservative means, and they both have other non-political meanings.
One thing people have found is that a lot of people who are liberal on many or most issues refuse to call themselves liberals because the term has been stigmatized. These are probably the same uninformed "undecideds" who Karl Rove gets to vote Republican with things like the "Wolves" ad.
To me the term "liberal means" "both an economic and a social liberal, and not a big hawk". It's sort of a watered-down European Social Democrat with a civil liberties committment.
There are social liberals who aren't economic liberals, and economic liberals who aren't social liberals (e.g. New Deal Catholics.) The label isn't meaningless, but there aren't many liberals any more so it isn't real useful.
To many, "liberal" means "indulgent, not strict, letting things happen, not caring, enabling, cynical, negativistic, hyper-critical, pro-kinkiness, pro-thug". That's the smear.
If I was a more popular blogger I'd do a bleg (sorry, Alameida) about left vs. right polls. I do wonder if this isn't fairly important. Perception is reality.
Doesn't this give you a warm feeling? Weenies!
There weren't any more self identified liberals in the 70s, though.
In the 70s there were fewer self-identified conservatives, I think, and a lot of centrists were pretty liberal. Reagan's 1980 win was especially significant because something like eight liberal Senators were knocked off (one from Idaho). Neither the Democrats not liberlaism has recovered.
I think that the Republican machine (which I call "Karl Rove") has also been very attentive to various small structural details of American politics and have exploited them all very efficiently to maximize conservative impact. Districting, lobbying, media, porkbarrel, the committee system, etc., etc.
In effect, 20% of the potential electorate can run the show in Congress. (45% of the electorate doesn't vote, and 45% are Democrats, so the voting Republicans are 30% of the total. 2/3 of the Republicans are hard right, and they bully the rest. You can tweak these numbers, but in Congress it's the majority of the Republican majoritywhich is in the the driver's seat, because party discipline is enforced.)
I've also tweaked the ideology numbers. Starting from a 18-50-32 left-center-right mix, only 20% of the electorate would have to move one step left to get a 28-50-22 mix.
The winner take all system magnifies things everywhere.
Seems like a good thread to wish all a Happy Nixon Resignation Day. Parts of his domestic policy seem like a socialist paradise compared to what most Democrats offer today.
I really wanted to say something about Angelina Jolie micro-financing my briefs, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that I actually wear the dorkiest of male undergarments. If she wants to micro-finance my boxers, however, she's more than welcome to.
Joe Lieberman is a wrinkled little raisin of a man! Come on, Connecticut, don't let us down!
46 -- what do you want, Schwarzenegger?
I have to say, I think the DOS attack justifies him in running as an independent no matter how much he loses by. Or, well, if he doesn't lose by such a huge margin that it's clear the DOS attack had nothing to do with it. Bad hacker!
Someone who doesn't look like Yoda crossed with the "Inconceivable!" guy from Princess Bride.
Huh. Physical appearance is not high on my list of qualities I look for in a politician. Indeed I don't think it's really on there at all.
The DOS attack is shitty and counter-productive, but I have to wonder what difference it makes when a 4-term incumbent senator's campaign website isn't functioning the day before a primary. I mean, how many people here have gone to visit a candidate's website the day before a primary to help them decide who to vote for?
I should qualify: if it is indeed a denial of service attack. Both this site and my own personal site go down fairly regularly without malicious attacks or payment problems just because web hosting companies are teh suck.
49: I always think of him as Grandpa Simpson, primarily because of the similarity in the voices.
51: It's not a good reason not to vote for someone, but it's a good way to get a sense of how you feel about them. If I thought well of Lieberman, he'd probably look like a nice old man. As it is, he looks more like the Emperor Palpatine.
52: Agreed on the 'if', and the hosting company may have extra incentive to call it a DOS. Anyway, the difference would be if (as claimed) it's disrupted internal campaign e-mails.
My understanding is that it's pretty certain it's not a DOS, but rather that they exceeded bandwidth.
"exceeded bandwidth" could certainly be the result of a DOS attack -- such an attack would involve a number of clients repeatedly requesting large pages from the server until the bandwidth limit was exceeded and the host company shut down the service. Not even a very difficult attack to engineer.
Indeed I'm finding it radically unlikely that the Lieberman campaign's web site would exceed bandwidth absent a malicious client. There's just no way, they're not serving huge files or a hugely popular site, and they're not on a shoestring budget.
Dude, I wasn't offering it as a high policy or voting justification, just pointing out that the dude is funny-looking. Lamont looks like he's been dipped in a vat of tanning solution and then dunked in formaldehyde.
Sorry Cala -- I have obvious reasons for being sensitive about people calling other people ugly.
But we are all beautiful, in every single way. It's just that some of us are beautiful like wrinkled Yoda raisins. ('Support the war in Iraq you will...')
We're all tall, too, in our uniquely different ways.
I do not participate fully in the form of Tallness. But my petiteness is merely a privation!
Girls are so cute when their tallness is less than five feet.
By the way, can we finally stop pretending there's much of a difference between the Weekly Standard and the New Republic:
"HH: Do you want the Democrats to win majorities in the House or the Senate, Martin Peretz? MP: I'm...I'm appalled by some of the people who would become head of Congressional committees. HH: Is that a no? MP: Uh, but I'm also appalled by some of the shenanigans... HH: But is that...I've got five seconds. Is that a no, Martin Peretz? MP: It's a cowardly refusal to answer. HH: (laughing) Okay. We'll carry it on, later. Martin Peretz, thanks."
So this guy thinks Hewitt is "center-right." Why fucking bother with language?
For what it's worth, MyDD has this up about the alleged DOS attack (sorry, I don't know the html for creating a link in comments): http://mydd.com/story/2006/8/8/152553/5182.
49--Vizzini.
And I hope Lamont wins by at least 10 percentage points because Lieberman needs to be convinced out of his Lieberman for Lieberman campaign.
Anyone know if this makes up? And, given how well the rest of Lieberman's campaign has been run, I'm definitely leaning toward "fuckup" rather than "DOS."
(jmcq: type
<a href="http://unfogged.com">woot</a>
to get woot.)
I have to say, I think the DOS attack justifies him in running as an independent no matter how much he loses by.
Come on, that's just crap. How many actual voters even visit a candidates website? And it's not like he wasn't sucking it up in the polls before.
And I agree that given how the campaign's been run, incompetence seems the likely explanation here.
I'm not sure. I do know that the screenshot that says 'This account has been suspended' proves bupkus.
And it's not like he wasn't sucking it up in the polls before.
As of last night it was 51/46 Lamont, within the plus/minus. Still a great showing for Lamont even if he doesn't win, but I think it's going to take more than a few points margin of victory to keep Lieberman from running, given that he has (surprise, surprise) a reasonably large Republican base and the Republican challenger is a doofus.
DoS or not, Lieberman is going to blame those nasty nasty liberal bloggers. God, I hate knowing what exactly what all of those news stories are going to look like.
As of last night it was 51/46 Lamont, within the plus/minus. Still a great showing for Lamont
To have multiple polls show you behind when you're a 20 year Senate incumbent? That's sucking it up big time.
I think it's going to take more than a few points margin of victory to keep Lieberman from running
Maybe we can have him hauled off by Teamsters or something.
The metafilter comment thread that Matt linked above seems pretty convincing that this is not a DOS attack, but typical crappy web hosting.
I just looked at Google News. Smith from the Lieberman campaign is playing this hard and explicitly accusing LaMont or "his supporters". If it turns out not to be an actual DOS attack Lieberman has dug himself a deeper hole. It almost makes you wonder whether it was a fak DOSA attack.
a fak DOSA attack
I'm sure -gg-d or one of his countrymen will be able to figure it out, then.
"has dug himself a deeper hole."
Only if the media plays it like that.
If Kos is right about this, they're really going to look stupid.
It wouldn't surprise me if it were to turn out to be a DOS attack (it's a really freakily coincidental server outage), but I doubt it would be anyone connected with the Lamont campaign, especially since it's not like tying up a phone bank or preventing voters from getting to the polls.
DoS attacks don't affect particular accounts on a server. They bring down the whole server. The attack site is up, their campaign site is down. This isn't a DoS attack.
Is that the case, though? Some of the comments over at Kos (badcala) seem to think that it's possible for one site to be down but the others up.
I think 15's right, and we're being suckered by the *meme* that the Dems eat their young, which is how any Democratic change is going to be reported. In contrast, a lack of change would mean, of course, that the Democrats are just sticking to the same old losing formula.
I'm not sure how much I'd make of the Kos thread. If you do the reverse-lookup for Unfogged you get lots of interesting server information and sites, too, and I just don't know what to make of it. Certainly it's not evidence of the Lieberman campaign's incompetence that there are other sites hosted by their hosting company.
Now MyDD seems to be down. What fun!
It's not that there's other sites on the server, it's that there's too many. Hosting a shitload of sites on one server is a way to try and make money off of a bunch of low traffic sites. For 15 bucks a pop you're not going to try and maintain normal ratios. Not anything wrong with it, but not really the kind of service I imagine you'd buy for a Senate campaign.
This is of course assuming Kos's info is accurate.
other sites hosted by their hosting company
What gswift said. It's not that they host other sites, it's that they're hosted on the same machine. That's what you get for $15/month, and if you want a reliable website that can handle traffic spikes, that's a really dumb thing to do. But at this point, we have no idea what's happening. One of the Lieberman folks I saw quoted was very clear in saying that it wasn't a traffic spike. That could be a lie, of course. I guess we'll find out. Let's just keep hoping that Lieberman loses by twenty points.
I'm not sure it is. It seems to have been obtained by looking up the provider and then looking at what they say their hosting packages are on their main site, which doesn't prove anything about the campaign's deal. It's all speculation at this point, which should not detract from Lieberman's toolishness in claiming that Lamont's campaign did it.
Now MyDD seems to be down.
Lamont strikes again!
It seems to have been obtained by looking up the provider and then looking at what they say their hosting packages are on their main site
No, they look at the IP of the Lieberman site, then see what other sites have the same IP address. All those sites are on the same server.
Yes, but the $15 per month quote is from looking at the provider's general information, isn't it?
Yeah, I think so, you Lieberman apologist. But if it's a shared server, which seems like a safe bet, it's also a pretty safe bet that they got one of the standard packages. We should find out soon enough.
TPMuckraker has the Lieberman tech guy saying that they pay more than $15/month, he won't say exactly how much but it sounds like not much more.
Pffffbblt. I'm more reacting to the 'He paid $15 THEREFORE he is a bad candidate who thinks the Internet is made out of tubes!!' sentiments at Kos, to which my reaction, is 'No, you don't know that and the reason he's a tool is for accusing the Lamont campaign without proof.'
The proper response: That's your own damn fault for reading comment threads.
Which means that Unfogged has a more robust hosting setup than Lieberman.
But Lieberman probably doesn't have threads about cockjokes.
That's why the server is down! Lamont has an enormous schlong! Who's the Boss now, bitch!?
Joe2006.com is still down. If they weren't milking this incident for all its worth, they would at least get that url to point to another page with some short-term content, maybe even the google cache Lamont's people linked to. The web dude TPMmuckracker talked to said he was spending all his time talking to reporters rather than a) fixing the site's problems, or b) figuring out what went wrong. Even if there was a genuine hacker event, which is seeming unlikely, I have zero sympathy.