Take A Bow, Mike Stark

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 15:01


Welcome Daily Kos readers.  Please check out the rest of our site and stick around.

A recommended diary at Daily Kos is asking Mike Stark, founder of the MyBo group "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right" now that Obama has voted in favor of the Dodd amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the FISA bill. Here is a relevant quote:

Respectfully, I ask Mike Stark to change the name of his MyBO group with haste. I am all for having a MyBO group that expresses the feelings of Obama's progressive supporters. But if it remains a group that criticizes Obama for voting the way that he absolutely has to on the overall FISA bill, I hope that people will begin quitting the group en masse.

As a simple matter of logic, even if you voted in favor of the Dodd amendment, to then vote in favor of a FISA bill without the Dodd amendment is the same thing as voting in favor of retroactive immunity. So, if Obama votes in favor of the overall FISA bill, which contains retroactive immunity for telecom companies, then Obama has voted in favor of retroactive immunity for telecom companies. As such, Obama will not have gotten FISA right.

Logic aside, I have to wonder why hundreds of people on Daily Kos would desire for people to leave a group that is critical of Obama from the left. This is to effectively ask Obama supporters to stop asking things from Obama. The inability of some to tolerate any criticism of Barack Obama is pretty depressing.

Since the end of the primary season, Mike Stark's group is the only proven means of making Obama answer criticism from the left. It is also the only proven mechanism for making Obama actually self-identify as a progressive. To shut down the group would be to effectively shut down any hopes of having Obama actually address the concerns of what he calls his "friends on the left." The desire to see such a group disappear is thus functionally the equivalent of desiring to end criticism of Obama from the left. That's not something I would like to see, and reminds me more of the DLC than of the progressive netroots.

Instead of asking Stark to change his group name, BlogPac will donate $2,000 to Stark's cause. This is the sort of innovative, progressive accountability activism we need more of, not less.  

Chris Bowers :: Take A Bow, Mike Stark

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Take A Bow, Mike Stark | 62 comments
And it brings to mind .. (4.00 / 3)
an even bigger question .. which has been floated about .. is electing Obama about getting things done with Democratic favored things .. or is it a cult of personality .. the Dkos diary makes me think the person that wrote it .. and those of like minds are more about the cult of personality .. which is not good .. as you say
It's always . . . (4.00 / 2)
been a cult of personality.  During the primary his policy positions were pretty much mainstream Democratic ones, and his rhetoric has always been the same old cliches.  So, what else could possibily have attracted so many supporters?
[ Parent ]
Well the reason to shut the group down is not that (0.00 / 0)
it's that the cause is now lost.  The final cloture vote failed.  They only managed 26 Nay's.  There is no way to stop this damn law now.  It's now time to start trying to push Obama on something else.

Pro-democracy senators:

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenburg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Wyden

Harry Reid voted against cloture.  Isn't that rich?

cause not lost (4.00 / 7)
we lost a huge battle. this loss will cost our country a great deal on many levels. but the larger cause of restoring the fourth amendment is not lost, it will simply have to regroup.
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Yesterday's post-vote open letter asks Sen. Obama that an Obama administration do more than have its "Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and ... make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."


The letter asks that his administration revisit this flawed bill, release legal opinions that support spying on us for public review, and conduct a full investigation of Bush's terrorist surveillance program.

 Check it out.

 



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
So why not rename it to just "get it right" (4.00 / 9)
and make it a vehicle for other issues as well?

It is good to have criticism of Obama but I question taggin him as a flip-flopper or playing into any of the "he's not one of us" variants.  But criticism is good if it is basically constructive.

And people do have to learn not to fall in love with candidates.  And not to look to them for validation or meaning or to fill a hole that only healthy relationships with real people can fill.  

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

[ Parent ]
"Get it right" is an excellent and aggressive name. (4.00 / 5)
It's expansive enough to move forward, and yet it would recall the FISA effort, without any undertones of acquiescence.

   "Friends on the left" adopts a weak frame here,  given that it originates out of his counter-argument. We want this understood as his failure, not ours. "GIR" is perfect.

[ Parent ]
May I quote your suggestion? (0.00 / 0)
We're debating our next step here, and I'd like to include it.

John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
go BlogPAC (4.00 / 5)
Great move. Keep it up Mike!

On twitter: @BobBrigham
Speaking as an Obama supporter (4.00 / 16)
I don't think Stark should change it. The point should absolutely be to shame Obama. The point should be to shame him enough that he never does this again, or that he feels obligated to act to regain his credibility on constitutional issues. This shouldn't be a deal-killer on supporting Obama or his candidacy, but it isn't something to be ever forgotten or forgiven either. This represents the biggest failure of Obama as a candidate since he appeared on the national scene, and it should never be represented as anything other than a shameful aberration, a break by Obama with his supporters and his own stated principles.
My thoughts and sentiments exactly (4.00 / 3)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
100%, yes (4.00 / 2)
I mean, we're libruls and all, right, so we can do nuance.

Here's the deal -- Obama voted for all three amendments to try and improve the bill, which is good. He voted for cloture and passage of the overall bill, which is bad. On balance, he showed zero (0) leadership on this issue after talking a good game on it during the primaries, which is disappointing and makes me wary of whether or not he sees the full game here.

But at the end of the day, this whole mess isn't his fault. It's Steny Hoyer's and Harry Reid's and Jay Rockefeller's and Nancy Pelosi's. And the votes weren't there to sustain a filibuster. Maybe had he and Webb and a few others shown some backbone and led on this issue, maybe. But to expect THIS Senate to all of a sudden show spine and some inkling of tactics or strategy is to wish for that which is obviously not there.

We suck it up and move on, and take note of those that did us wrong. That's how I'm compartmentalizing it, at least.  

[ Parent ]
That's the thing, though. (4.00 / 5)
But to expect THIS Senate to all of a sudden show spine and some inkling of tactics or strategy is to wish for that which is obviously not there.

I'm not expecting the Senate to show spine. I'm expecting Barack Obama to show spine.

Otherwise, agreed-- regardless of what my expectations of Obama's personal participation in the outcome here may be, the outcome itself is not "his fault"; his vote on this issue didn't change the outcome either way, and (given that his newly-minted position at the top of the party is likely much shakier than he's trying to project it as) it's uncertain whether leadership on this issue could have either (although if anything could have stopped this outcome once the dam broke in the House, it would be the leaning of the Democratic presidential nominee). The actual actors here, the people who are responsible and who any negative consequences should be directed at, are the Hoyers and Reids and such...

But the original question wasn't about fault or consequences. The question was about whether we should "put the 'Obama Caved On FISA' talk to an end"-- whether it is time for a specific pressure group to stop pressuring so specifically. And I don't really think it should. Just because Obama has failed our expectations on this issue in this instance doesn't mean those expectations should be dropped or changed, or that we should stop talking about what those expectations are. This issue is going to live on past the loss on this bill-- if anything it's going to be more important to keep up the pressure on the issue now, since next year Obama is going to go from just issuing ceremonial votes on FISA to actually working with the FISA court. The pressure needs to stay targeted on Obama to do the right thing on fourth amendment rights at least until such time as he starts demonstrating that he can be trusted to do the right thing without pressure.

[ Parent ]
Agree fully (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Broader than FISA (0.00 / 0)
Also, this provide the people who have created the group a way to start to voice their concerns over accountability. It provides progressives a way to say "hey, we are here, and we aren't going to just fall into line on this or other issues so you need to listen to us."  The thing is someone wrote this great diary over a Daily Kos about there is constructive and destructive criticism. The line that's being crossed here is by those who would pretend that criticism is criticism without regard to the purpose and nature of it.
[ Parent ]
Change to Obama Get It Right (4.00 / 2)
And make it a broader vehicle of pressure from the Left.  See above comment.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
The bill just passed: 69-28 (0.00 / 0)
Obama voted for it. Clinton voted against it. McCain was not present (apparently too busy trying to figure out how social security and paper clips work).

Obama has now officially rendered his "Take my words at face value" remark null and void.

He said that he'd vote against such a bill. He voted for it today. So much for profiles in honesty and courage. I will vote for him--McCain is clearly unacceptable--but not happily.

Great words, unmatched in great or even tolerable actions of late.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

what to do next? (4.00 / 3)
everything we can to get rid of those Dems who did not vote with the courageous 27.  If one of them "represents" you, get to work.  Get your self out in the streets, on the net, setting up meetings, building connections.

This FISA bill is a catastrophe, as anyone who's reading our group on MyBO can see and find all the reasons for.

The country's in an unbelievable mess as well and any work you do to build middle-of-the-road, progressive or liberal unity on the issue of getting rid of those who voted against the amendments - that work will come back to be useful to you and the country at large for the few years we have left in which to deal with all the problems.

Barack is right about at least one thing - we have to make the change.  Not him or McSame or anyone else.  Just us.  Every one of us.

Most important (4.00 / 2)
Is to defend the ones who voted right.  If running against them from the right doesn't work, there will be a lesson in it.  The fact that it did work against Max Cleland in 2002 scared a lot of Senators.   Next most is to pressure Pres Obama to start to dismantle the security state once he gets in office. And to pressure the Senators who are up next time like Feinstein and Mikulski to retire, not run again in 2010.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Name Change (4.00 / 1)
I tend to think the name should change once the final bill is passed, or perhaps wait until it is signed.

But it should be changed into something more generic that can be used for the remainder of the campaign.  Something like "please don't forget us" or "your friends on the left".

Regardless, the strategy did seem to work, even if the tactic did not..  Obama did get a bit defensive, even if he didn't change.  Notice was served and actually heard.  At a minimum, he'll keep this in mind going forward.

A moment of humor: (4.00 / 4)
Oh, a little offtopic, but just for the record. The McCain campaign is blasting Obama for not supporting a filibuster of telecom immunity after previously saying he would. McCain, of course, by contrast, took the principled and consistent stand on this issue of not showing up to vote.
Take a bow Mike (0.00 / 0)
While we continue to be spied on and have our records turned over to the gov't anytime it wants to.

This proves Obama is NOT progressive, folks.

Benny, no offense (4.00 / 1)
the governement IS already doing so AND will continue to do so as long as Bush is President, no matter what laws are signed or not signed, because Bush believes he is above the law. So, Obama's vote is actually pretty inconsequential in this regard.

The question remains open if this situation will continue when the next President takes charge.  

[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
He also voted for cloture and not to vote on the other amendments.  So now, what example is he setting for the rest of us?
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying his vote is inconsequential overall (4.00 / 1)
just in regard to the surveillance already ongoing. We don't know what we don't know about how much Bush is breaking the law and illegally surveilling all of us.

He sets a bad example with these votes, is telegraphing caution and expediency, which directly cut against his core brand. I'm pissed at any Democrat that votes for this trash, especially him.

I have castigated him in no uncertain terms in earlier threads.

My point was just a narrow one -- in an administration that cavalierly breaks the law, this legislation won't affect how it continues to break the law, only how those that helped it break the law get treated in court.  

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
this legislation won't affect how it continues to break the law, only how those that helped it break the law get treated in court.
 
[ Parent ]
these are the people who don't believe in the 4th Amendment (4.00 / 2)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

If any of them belong to you, get working!

You're missing a name (4.00 / 3)
.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I noticed that too n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
a mccain by any other name (0.00 / 0)
would still stink so foul

but I guess you meant Obama.

McCain's name should be on that list.  He's a vocal supporter of the bill.  

[ Parent ]
Are these the ones who didn't vote right at all? (0.00 / 0)
Not even once?  Because there were 32 votes for the Dodd Amend and only 12 Dems here.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
That's the final vote (0.00 / 0)
Baucus and Inouye certainly voted for most of the amendments, and I think some of the others did too.

On the flip side, Conrad voted against several of the amendments, but I don't see him on the list of those who voted for the bill.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
You've Got Me All Wrong (4.00 / 2)
I like Mike Stark, I like that the group exists, and I sincerely hope that it will continue exist in some form in order to hold Obama accountable and to amplify the voices of Obama's progressive supporters. That's why I think Stark should change the name, as he suggested on a call-in to WNYC this week. I want to see it turn into something useful, not just linger as a haven for single-issue concern trolls.
We're not fucking concern trolls (4.00 / 4)
so drop that bull shit. They completely rewrote the law today to benefit a select few very powerful people and themselves. And while they were at it they tore the 4th amendment up and pissed on the pieces of paper left.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
This person to whom you are speaking currently has a diary (4.00 / 2)
up over at daily kos. There are reasonable supporters, and there are unreasonable one. The unreasonable ones are apologists like the following diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

That is to say- I wouldn't waste  my time arguing with the unreasonable ones. He could walk on stage naked and do a lap dance, and they still wouldn't see anything wrong.

[ Parent ]
Best line I've read (0.00 / 0)
LOL!
[ Parent ]
maybe you should ask for your right to respond (0.00 / 0)
While I agree with Chris's support for the group, I think he has fit your post to fit into a pre-existing narrative.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
"concern trolls" (4.00 / 2)
I don't think you understand what that term means.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
TROLL! (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
This is the mentality that is harmful (4.00 / 8)
Its not the agitators who are to blame, its the ones who are abusing their power and breaking their word who are to blame.

Obama should and must be criticized when he runs away from progressive principles and we should be vocal in our criticisms or else we don't have any power because he knows we are going to vote for him.  

Ship of State (0.00 / 0)
The ship of state is sinking and we are debating whether to bail with a bucket or a pail.

The overall FISA bill was a disaster from the start, but there was never any chance of it not passing. How people vote on this becomes a symbolic statement. Politicians always balance whether they will gain or lose from symbolic votes.

There were reports out today that a large number of other agencies are engaged in domestic spying regardless of any limitations contained in FISA.

We live in a proto-police state. We have a secret police function which in not beholding to anyone. It is not even clear that the president is aware of all the aspects of it. The FBI under Hoover ran rogue operations that were unknown to anyone outside the branch.

If you were Obama and got elected, how would you go about restoring the rule of law? Remember that states with secret police forces don't respect elected leaders either.

Policies not Politics

"How people vote on this becomes a symbolic statement" (4.00 / 2)
Wiping your ass with the Constitution is shitty symbolism.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Why I left the MyBO Telecom Group (4.00 / 2)
You really don't know the answer to this?

I have to wonder why hundreds of people on Daily Kos would desire for people to leave a group that is critical of Obama from the left. This is to effectively ask Obama supporters to stop asking things from Obama. The inability of some to tolerate any criticism of Barack Obama is pretty depressing.

Firstly, there's nothing in that diary to justify your lumping it in with those who don't tolerate any criticism of Obama. The diarist makes it plain why they either want the name changed or for people to leave the group:

We all know that in this day and age a serious Presidential candidate absolutely cannot vote "no" on a bill even loosely related to preventing terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain--who didn't even bother to show up and vote today--a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism.

The "Obama turning rightward" media coverage has gone on long enough as it is. We don't need to fan the flames of that storyline anymore.

I agree. We don't need to fan the flames of that storyline anymore. Otherwise, the narrative may well end up exactly like 2006. I'm sure you remember how the media painted that as a victory for conservative Democrats and downplayed the role of progressives in winning back Congress. Well the storyline is set to repeat. If progressives keep showing Obama their disdain over every variance from progressive orthodoxy then they aren't going to reap any credit for his win.

Sure, I understand the logic which says you've got to push push push your representatives to vote the way you want. That's why I joined the group in the first place. But now that the vote has been lost the rationale falls apart.  The problem is ... Obama isn't President, he isn't the leader of the Senate, and other than being proclaimed by the blogs as the putative leader of the party he has little real power over other Democratic politicians. Yet. So excoriating Candidate Obama when he takes cover amongst the herd on a controversial vote seems counterproductive to me.

In 2009 I'll wholeheartedly endorse pressuring President Obama if he so much as toes the conservative line. But not now. Now the focus needs to be on getting him elected and not on fighting the last battle, FISA and Telecom Immunity, which we just lost.

that is (0.00 / 0)
if we get an election.

And if McSame doesn't win.

[ Parent ]
The FISA capitulation is a huge huge huge deal (4.00 / 3)
And it rightly dims the enthusiasm of a LOT of us who were passionate about Obama's candidacy before this crap blew up.

I will remain a member of the MyBO FISA group, and i hope it remains as a stain on Obama's website and in the memories of all progressives.  He sold us down the river on this in a big way, and i am pissed off.

[ Parent ]
Well, So Much For All That New Politics, "Yes We Can!". etc. (4.00 / 2)
We all know that in this day and age a serious Presidential candidate absolutely cannot vote "no" on a bill even loosely related to preventing terrorist attacks.

In short, Obama's whole spiel is a lie.

Nice to have it stated so openly.

Now we can simply get back to the same old reality of voting for the lesser of two evils.

He's certainly better than some of the lesser evils we've been asked to vote for in the past.

It's just that America's hope has always come from her people, rather than her "leaders".  And that hope depends, in large measure, on people being clear about what they're up to.  This includes not being deluded by those leaders into thinking that the leaders are more important than they are.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
To be fair... (4.00 / 1)
While I don't think he voted correctly, the whole purpose of voting on the amendments is to seek compromise.  If, as you keep saying Chris, we should take Obama at his word, he didn't like retroactive immunity but he liked the rest of the bill (overall).  He tried to remove the part of the bill that he didn't like but failed, but felt that the pros of the overall bill without the amendment outweighed the cons (the fact that he couldn't get rid of a part that he didn't like) and voted in favor of it.  It was a "compromise" in that sense, and I suppose one could make the argument that he therefore "got it right", even if he didn't for the purist (which would mean, vote no on anything with retroactive immunity in it, even if trying to strip it first and failed).

We can all go apeshit about how there is "no compromise" on this bill, but clearly, if we're taking Obama at his word, this is the way he felt about it.  He doesn't like retroactive immunity, but since he couldn't get it stripped, he compromised and had to vote for the bill anyway.  It sucks, but this is what compromise means.

Obviously, we need better Senators, and a lot of them.  19 more were needed for Dodd's amendment, 14 for Specter's, 9 for Bingaman's (reduce by 1 if Democratic president).  That's a lot of votes we need to flip.

Btw, what's next? (4.00 / 1)
Can we bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law (ie, breaking the 4th amendment)?  Not that I have even a glimmer of hope that the current Supreme Court would overturn it, but is any group planning to challenge the law itself now?
Here's what needs to happen: (4.00 / 2)
If this new FISA Amendments Act violates the constitution--which it so obviously does--then the group formed to protest Obama's position should work with other groups to get a case into court to test the law.   They can call themselves the Dolly Fruitcake Gang for all I care.  If the issue is the unconstitutionality of a law, then the only way forward is to test it in the courts. The protest was inspiring and deserves credit for bringing attention to the issue.

Mike--a 2L--should get an internship with CREW and work with them to bring a case.  The $2,000 can be used to pay for one tank of gas to commute from Charlottesville to DC and back.  

The fight against Obama was well-timed. Once this bill is signed, the fight is with the law.  

Changing the name is good (4.00 / 1)
To something more broad now that a model has been created for activism within the Obama unit.

But the diary in question is crap. The argument presented is that Obama would have to vote for any bill, no matter what it contained. If that's how the campaign is run, then that's how the first term is run and that's BS.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

What should the name be? (4.00 / 1)
People signed up under the old name.  Changing the name afterwards is kinda nasty.

Would you support changing it to: "Obama - once you are president, please post transcripts from warantless wiretapping of GOP congressmen talking on the phone to prostitutes."

I think that may be a fun name.  But suspect others who already joined under the current name may disagree.

[ Parent ]
Criticizing Obama on dkos is tricky (4.00 / 2)
as there is a troll hunting group there that will descend on you and troll rate you until your comments and their attacks disappear into hidden comments. The administrators have been told and still it continues although some have been scared away from reccing each other for saying ahem, ummmm and stuff like that.

Obama has shown sensitivity to netroots issues and he needs to keep getting informed about how we feel as we are the creative minority that fuels his campaign. We are where the door to door energy is.

Hi Sailor! New in Town. (0.00 / 0)
Christ on a crutch!  Sometimes reading the comments here I get the feeling that people on OpenLeft think of themselves as kingmakers. Be critical.  Keep organizations in place to hold politicians accountable.  Lash out when a politician goes against his word.  But keep the end of the day in mind. I'm disappointed with Obama, but I expected to be disappointed with him.  I didn't support him because I thought he was not a politician.  I supported him and continue to support him because he is a politician who I think will - with all his flaws - be able to raise money, create enthusiasm, and engineer a victory that will bring along many Democrats downticket.  Maybe that won't happen and maybe not all those Democrats downticket will be progressives, but I think if it does happen it will be a significant step in changing the political landscape. If Obama's worried about criticism, he can always look back to Harry Truman's experience in 1948 when half the South walked out of the Democratic convention and the Henry Wallace left kissed Harry goodbye.  Truman won anyway.  Rest easy Barack.
I find your post confusing (0.00 / 0)
Mostly becuase you talk about how people think of themselves as kingmaker, and then you seem to think what you personally thought of Obama is relevant to the discussion.  both of which miss the point of the diary in the first place. its about buidling infrastructure- not being a king maker.
[ Parent ]
Thanks, blogPAC (0.00 / 0)
And I'll second the motion: Take a bow, Mike Stark!

jon

Thanks, blogPAC! (0.00 / 0)
Much appreciated.

John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
A well-deserved $2000. (0.00 / 0)
and that is the kind of thing that makes me a BlogPAC donor.

Quit the group en masse?  Hahahahaha.  It'll keep growing.

I this dKos has a worse problem in the other direction. (0.00 / 0)
I Chris's sentiment is shared by the vast majority of the left blog contributors, including dKos. They're a community loyal to a doctrine, not an individual (apart from minor hero-worship of their exalted leaders like kos himself).

However, a community organized around pushing through a specific doctrine has its own serious problems. Dkos is not kind to heretics, leftists who don't share their doctrinaire conception of how to best achieve social justice, environmental conservation, or some other goal they all share. There is much more flaming of the "you're a heretic" sort than there is discussion. And this isn't only on dKos, although the sheer magnitude of users doesn't help the signal-to-noise ratio.

But the answer isn't to splinter off into smaller fiefdoms of like-minded leftists if the closed-mindedness of Kossacks becomes too annoying to bear. Closed-mindedness isn't made better when contained in ghettos of the like-minded. It's made worse. I don't know what the answer is. I try to do my part by being both respectful but critical, and try to state the reasons for my criticism. Dkos is a place that definitely needs that! Also, I have asbestos undies.

Totally Agree (0.00 / 0)
Obama must be held accoutable and we must let him know how we feel about this.  I think it is a great group.
Jobs (0.00 / 0)
I'm new to this dialog, but I was wondering whether hatchinbrooklyn and his ilk are positioning themselves for work in the Obama administration, in the Dept. of Sycophancy.
The group is now encouraging post-vote advocacy. (0.00 / 0)
We've just launched an online tool that allows you to email senators  (with a pre-filled or customized message) with just a zip code and a couple of clicks of the mouse. 

Send an email to your Senators regarding yesterday's FISA vote.



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
Take A Bow, Mike Stark | 62 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox