I agree (4.00 / 5)

I've been happy to see the honest appraisal of our own party from the liberal blogosphere. That's why I come to it for news in the first place. I know I'm getting honest opinions.

Our fight goes on.

---

by: Semblance @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:22:09 PM UTC

Personally (0.00 / 0)

I actually tend to give Obama's statement more credibility than the netroots on the subject.  

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:22:16 PM UTC

I'm taking (4.00 / 1)

a wait and see approach. Obama's statement was not exactly inspiring, but he did, in the end, say he is opposed to immunity. So the question now is what happens in the Senate. From Obama's statement, one would guess that they do a formality vote to strip immunity which Obama votes for but which nonetheless fails, maybe Dodd and Feingold try a filibuster which I don't think Obama supports, and then they vote on the bill with Obama in favor. (Assuming, of course, that Obama is even in attendance -- it's also very possible he'll just skip the whole thing). Which would be very depressing, if it happens. But maybe it won't -- who knows.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:45:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you are okay.... (0.00 / 0)

...with rolling back all the reforms of the Church committee.

Amnesty for telcos is important, but it is not the only problem with this legislation.

---

by: Taylor @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:08:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is EXACTLY Why Dem Leaders Voted For This! (0.00 / 0)

They think that everybody will be upset for 48 hours and then it'll all blow over and it'll all be fine for the election -- they think we're all sheeple just like you in fact who won't make unnecessary fuss and the destruction of the constitution with a shrug because there are "other more important things to worry about."

As one poster who called a congressional staff put it he was told that "they [the Dem caucus] think you learned your lesson with Nader."

They don't care what liberals think because they figure they have no place to go. It's a sneering "what are you going to do? Vote McCain?"

Unless they are made to feel real pain they will laugh at everyone who posts here. . . and get away with it.  

---

by: Cugel @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:36:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Curb the Dogs Fund (4.00 / 4)

I've supported Glenn Greenwald's fund and think that's a great vehicle for now.  I also like the idea floated on Paul's Great American Blogger thread about starting a fund (probably in November) for primaries against the worst of the Blue Dogs/Bad Dogs.  We could start the fund, then let the Dogs know that we are going to fund primaries against the worst of them by early 2010.  It would also serve as encouragement for potential primary challengers and give time for finding/researching challengers.  By having a pool of money we would have flexibility to reward and punish right up to summer 2010.

But I agree it should look at a variety of issues, including progressive budget measures, not just civil liberties and the war, as those (hopefully) won't be the most salient issues in 2009.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:12:10 PM UTC

What we need to find (4.00 / 1)

is a nucleus of progressive stakeholders in every Congressional District, and then find a way to support them and help them recruit other like-minded individuals to slowly take over the party apparatus in these districts. Money is obviously important, but I don't think that robocalls and radio and newspaper ads alone will get the job done (not that I'm saying that Jane and Glenn et al believe this to be true, just that that's where we seem to be at right now).

People like Steny get away with what they get away with because the local party operatives and activists make it very difficult for primary challengers and dissent to bubble up.

To me, the rule of law/constitutional fidelity issues are of paramount importance (this, in my mind, encompasses the illegal war issue), but we need to figure out a universal set of criteria that can pull in the largest number of people while still keeping true to progressive values. I learned on the ground in the Byrne/Connolly race that our progressive coalitions (Leslie supporters) are often outnumbered and ad hoc. Equal protection (full marriage equality for all citiznes), universal health care, fighting global warming by curbing fossil fuel consumption (moving towards a carbon neutral energy economy), electoral reform, a foreign policy based on multilateralism and building global institutions, and trade reform are probably other prongs that we at least need to include in this progressive coalition set of principles.

If we want to give Steny and Nancy and Harry the fights of their lives in 2010, we need people on the ground in those districts NOW and for the next two years. I support finding resources to challenge all three of these disasters of leadership. But how do we get there without this being a vanity project?

---

by: Ron @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:30:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Barack Obama is enabling the Bush Dogs (0.00 / 0)

Stop talking about them...this is no longer in their lap...it's in his lap and he could have stopped it and he hasn't...

Gabbering away about the Bush Dogs or the Blue Dog Democrats is just a diversion from the fact the  presumptive nominee of the Democratic party is behaving like them.

Get a grip and face reality.

You would do a hell of a lot more good by writng something critical of him at this point than to keep complainging about Steny Hoyer et al.

And since Daniel can't have read what you wrote later, I would hope that he would not be crowing about the courage of the Netroots.  I don't see any.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:46:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No prisoners (4.00 / 1)

we may have lost the fight, but we can at least try to make sure the traitors suffer some casualties. 285K! that's awesome. I have to go make a donation, and then I'll email the Obama camp (whom I've given to before) that I sent the money their instead of to them this time.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:51:51 PM UTC

re: your comparison to the Right (4.00 / 1)

I think your comparison to the Right is so unflattering to them because the kind of things you focus on are not the kind of things they focus on.  Corruption and lying aren't important enough to them to get them upset, but just look at how incensed they became over immigration reform.  So, uh, yes: the Right can turn on their leaders on what's important to them, they just have really screwed up priorities.

---

by: notapipe @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:00:30 PM UTC

Ok. (0.00 / 0)

But think they would hesitate to go after an indicted Democratic majority leader?  Or if Pelosi covered for a member who liked the pages?  They wanted Clinton removed from office for lying about a blow job, but cannot imagine removing Bush from office for lying about war.

They're not consistent with the standard to which they hold politicians.  You're right that they have a few lines unsafe to cross, but they'll ignore anything else for someone who is "right" on those few things.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:23:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Immigration (0.00 / 0)

Well, to be "fair" to the right-wing bloggers, they opposed Bush pretty strongly when he wanted a non-xenophobe immigration policy.  Everyone has their line they will not cross, party be damned!

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:33:53 PM UTC

MoveOn's email (4.00 / 1)

http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1  

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.
Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_...

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 20:53:10 PM UTC

Very much agree with this post (4.00 / 1)

I have been struggling with a vivid memory of 1992 when a generation of people who'd never known a president better than Reagan or Bush I were completely disarmed by electing Bill Clinton.

Perfectly sensible people were so relieved to have a President who seemed to imagine the texture of life for ordinary citizens, who would utter the word "AIDS", that they gave him a pass for 6 months to a year while he floundered and weaseled.

We're not going to do that again with a President Obama.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:21:49 PM UTC

Won't get fooled again (4.00 / 2)

If Kerry had been elected, maybe the netroots would be more forgiving (and I fucking hope we wouldn't have had to deal with half of the shit we've had.)

But after four more years of collaboration of capitulation, never again. The scales are very definitely listed from our eyes.

I think Chris may have a point about the netroots being instrumental in Obama's victory. But we aren't a quiescent part of his coalition. I think the era of fine words is over.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:38:23 PM UTC