Not surprising the Bush Bluedogs... (0.00 / 0)

voted to condemn their own. I told you, Chris and Matt, that Joe Donnelly is barely better than who he replaced.

Joe Donnelly also voted to condemn Moveon.org despite the fact Moveon poured $450,000 in ads to help defeat Chris Chocola, a right-wing Bushie, last year. That is how you thank your friends?

See my analysis of Donnelly's votes this year. He voted for war funding, for FISA Bill, against stem cell research, etc. etc.

http://www.dailykos....

---

by: IndySteve @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:39:44 AM CDT

the deal -- the agony (4.00 / 2)

I'll bet the deal was that his fellow Dems would oppose censure as long as Stark apologized.

---

by: jeffroby @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM CDT

Almost certainly (0.00 / 0)

I was thinking the same thing.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:48:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does that say .. (4.00 / 3)

about Pelosi and a lot of the Dem caucus? ..  Not very flattering comment on where their collective heads are at.

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:59:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't worry (4.00 / 3)

  The Democrats look extremely strong now that they forced this apology from Stark.

  No Republican or beltway boob would EVER dare criticize the Democratic Party again, now that they've shown such steadfastness and resolve!

  Isn't that the way it always works?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:02:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't anybody simply say... (4.00 / 1)

"Pete Stark speaks for himself only, but I do think there's a question of whether or not this President and those who have unfailingly supported him take seriously enough the sacrifices of the men and women who have had to actually carry out his failed Iraq policy.  This administration's colossally poor judgment has incurred enormous costs, and none of those costs have been borne by those who so cavalierly set out to remake the middle east according to their feverish visions."

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:07:32 PM CDT

Obviously not .. (0.00 / 0)

it seems like most of the caucus never took PR 101 in college(for all those caucus members that are college grads)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:01:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Certainly Don't Agree (0.00 / 0)

with the censure motion but Stark did the right thing in apologizing for the few unnecessary words he made that detracted from an otherwise good speech he gave on the floor of the House. Anyone who viewed the video of his speech could  easily see that his unnecessarily offensive words added nothing to the argument for S-Chip.

As I said here a few days ago I don't think it was wrong at all for him to compare the money for S-Chip and Iraq as many others had done before him. It was just his 'wingnut like' personal attack on Bush that was not helpful in  forwarding S-Chip, nor was it helpful to Stark individually or to Democrats in general. There is no need for us to be Coulteresque.

I feel somewhat vindicated by Stark's apology - an apology he didn't have to give but knew it was the right thing to do. I feel vindicated because when I posted here the other day my feelings expressed in the first two paragraphs above I was meet by behavior not becoming of the party of the "Big Tent". Without mentioning any names a well known poster here attacked me with name calling like doofus, and troll, and rightwinger, etc - just for having an opinion. Unfortunately this poster has a habit of doing the same to others who have a differing opinion than him. I find this behavior entirely unnecessary and unbecoming for someone who represents this site to do to a person who just had a different opinion on Stark's words. If one cannot come here with a perfectly legitimate opinion without being called names and purposely ridiculed then this site will be no different than any of the other myriad of sites who welcome and tolerate that kind of behavior that only dilutes the seriousness of what is trying to be communicated by that site - especially this one which prides itself on being a serious leader of ideas in the blogosphere.

Stark's immediately recognized his error in his choice of words and acknowledged such the following day in a radio interview. Now today he takes that recognition a step further by formerly apologizing to those who he unnecessarily offended. I wonder if the person who attacked me for having a legitimate opinion that Stark has now confirmed as valid via his apology will do the same.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:18:43 PM CDT

That's BS ... (4.00 / 1)

why were you offended? .. because Stark told the truth? .. so you don't think The Decider listens to people like Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol?  Are Dems supposed to be above the fray?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:03:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Try Reading What I Actually Wrote (0.00 / 0)

I was offended by the unnamed poster's name calling and ridicule here on this site. No one likes to be named called with no provocation.

I was not offended by Stark. I just thought he said one thing that was unnecessary and didn't advance his case but instead diminished what it was he said. People say more than they should all the time and shoot themselves in the foot - Stark is not alone in that but that doesn't excuse him from doing what he did that he admittedly says was the wrong thing to do. His has long been a public figure and he should have stayed on topic, which he admitted the following day on the radio.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:38:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was on topic .. (0.00 / 0)

just look at today ... Bush is asking for another 45 billion for his misadventure  .. yet he can't stomach an increase for kids health care?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 22:31:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

god, I hope not! (4.00 / 1)

Stark didn't apologize because he saw the error of his ways.  He apologized because he was beaten roundly by his fellow Democrats on the head and shoulders with lead pipes, and told that they would only oppose the motion if he apologized.

One sign of his good sense is that he only apologized AFTER the vote, not before it, lest Lucy/Pelose yank away the football one more time.

His tears were tears of humiliation, not tears of regret for Bush's hurt feelings.

---

by: jeffroby @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:37:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Troll" and/or "doofus" seems to cover (0.00 / 0)

the reasonable interpretations of your comments on the subject of Stark. I'm voting "troll." But in case you're merely a doofus, may I suggest that willfully ignoring the content of people's responses to you and carrying over carefully nurtured personal grievances from other discussions are also great ways to dilute "serious" communication.

---

by: Mobar @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:56:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Mobar (0.00 / 0)

I've seen enough to vote troll.

---

by: bystander @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:03:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obviously (0.00 / 0)

you didn't follow the discussion and aren't qualified to respond. But I do notice that unprovoked you name call also when you had no part in this. That doesn't say much about you as a person does it?

---

by: progressivesouls @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:43:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I simply can't agree with that (4.00 / 2)

It's a misstatement, yes, but I don't think it merits an apology. If somebody was brutally offended by it, tough luck. They need to grow a spine.

Especially when you take it in context. Earlier this year Don Young called for Congressmen like Pete Stark to be hanged. He attributed it, with an absurdity that's breathtaking if you know a little history, to Abraham Lincoln. When it was pointed out that this was ridiculous, he insisted that he still agreed with the spirit of the quote.

Now perhaps if Don Young had been censured and forced to publically apologise, and if the countless Republican congressmen who've been similarly appalling over the years hadn't gotten away with it scot-free, maybe there might be grounds for Stark to apologise.

But since that's clearly not the case, the response should not be an apology. A correction, perhaps a statement from the caucus that they feel he raised a good point but not necessarily with good phrasing. But a forced apology in order not to be censured? That's absurd.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 17:41:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jeebus (4.00 / 1)

When I read that quote I, literally, thought it was an Onion article.  I agree that about 3 words that Stark used were ill-chosen.  Yet, except for Trent Lott when he spoke nostalgically about Strom Thurmond's racist campaign, I do not remember any R ever apologizing for anything they have said. And yeah, Lott was still thrown overboard by Bush, so you can see how helpful such apologies are.  But Republicans routinely accuse the Democrats of siding with the terrorists against our own citizenry and never apologize.  Honestly, at times like this I really do think that we Democrats are just too weak and unprincipled to govern.  Jeebus.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:25:16 PM CDT

This is grounds for five primary challenges (0.00 / 0)

On the one hand, these five congressmen are all freshmen from fairly red districts who replaced Bush rubber-stamps, so a primary would be both risky and divisive. On the other hand, you could argue that what America needs right now is strong progressive leadership and these five are far too bloody stupid to provide anything even close to that.

Five primary challenges, beating them up from the left, would not be the worst thing in the world, especially if they were close but unsuccessful, since they'd frighten the congresscritters but allow them to appear moderate. Although progressives helped put them in power, they don't fear progressives because they don't think they'll be the ones to remove them. I think there's a very valid argument to be made that making them doubt that assumption would be a very smart long-term move.

That said, the aforementioned risk is a very important counter-argument. A safer option selected polling on issues in these districts, possibly on the model of Rosenberg's Battleground district strategy, followed by ads against them chiding them from a progressive viewpoint.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:29:38 PM CDT

Stark was right the first time (4.00 / 1)

for the President's amusmentment.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:38:58 PM CDT

Hold on one cotton-picking minute! (0.00 / 0)

Just looking at the sheet on H Res 767, that is one crazy vote!

They split 196-173 to table, D195-5, R0-173.

But that misses out all the interesting bits: we have 8 reps voting present and 55 not voting.

What's up with that? (A similar number no-voted in the bullying res you mention.)

---

by: skeptic06 @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:40:48 PM CDT

Where is the link .. (0.00 / 0)

to the vote tally? .. I bet the 55 NV's didn't want to be a part of the stupidity of Pelosi and co.  .. and I can't blame them ... Why does Pelosi want the Dems to be punching bags?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 13:06:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sad, profoundly sad... (4.00 / 2)

From someone commenting at FireDogLake:

I called Stark's office in DC to complain about his apology. The person answering the phone told me that Stark had no choice; Stark was told before the vote was taken that should he not apologize, the vote to censure would pass. According to his office, that is the only reason he apologized.

---

by: bystander @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 14:36:16 PM CDT

Somebody explain to me... (4.00 / 1)

  What is the purpose for the existence of the Democratic Party?

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:28:22 PM CDT

to employ people (4.00 / 2)

consultants, staffers, politicians, policy analysts, and the like. not everyone can stand to be a Republican, not everyone is allowed to be a Republican. besides, the TV people like this whole "two party" setup. for every Globetrotter, you gotta have a General.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 16:37:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think most of us would be wise (0.00 / 0)

to simply forget about establishment politics as a way of changing things.  We need to engage in non violent civil disobedience like other peoples who are dominated by their government and disenfranchised. Think Gandhi, think MLK.  Forget Roosevelt, or JFK.  That is just not possible now. Anyone know how to start one of the soapbox blogs?  Where you get server space and so forth and so on?  How much it cost.. I want to be involved in the antiwar movement now, and in nonviolent protest, but they are old hippies and don't seem to know how to organize the netroots way.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:54:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]