But if there's any radicalism here, or even a tendency to drift in that direction, I sure don't see it. As I said yesterday, it's only modestly to the left of the DLC — and maybe not even that. I'm not an expert on the DLC's positions on everything, but it doesn't look to me like there's an awful lot there they'd argue with.

I think they'd fight "gay marriage" and instead push for "civil unions", for one, and I'm guessing their stance on marijuana is the convention "war on drugs" angle.

And on that, I have no idea how to square the circle. I don't think anyone else does either.

I think there's agreement that Bush pulled a bait-and-switch in getting us into it, and if the pro-war contingent of the Democrats were honest, they would have to admit they were complicit in trusting that SOB, even though he clearly merits zero trust.

There should also be fairly broad consensus that things aren't going well there and that we need a viable exit strategy - soon.

Universal health care, any move to decriminalize drugs, and supporting "gay marraige" would all be portrayed as radical were a Democratic Congress to pursue them. They are also the least likely to be on the agenda for a hypothetical Democratic Congress, IMO.

And that is the whole point. You nailed it.

The right wing and the DLCers branded everyone who was against the Iraq war (i.e. the netroots) as antiwar peacenik greenpeace "radicals." That label bled through to the whole liberal sphere. The moderates and centrists are trying to shake off the radical branding and therefore have to distance themselves from the netroots.

Until the liberal world realizes that being against the Iraq war isn't such a radical position, that's where we are.

That Mr. Chait thinks that Grover Norquist is more open to dissent than, say, Atrios, would be hilarious were it not for the fact that he is being dead serious.

If you read between the lines, it seems that Mr. Chait'r real aim is to push back on the characterization of TNR as the Joe Lieberman Weekly.

His main complaint seems to be that even though TNR agrees with the liberals 80% of the time, the big bad lefty blogs continue to denigrate his employer.

Well if you are nice to me 99 times and you kick my balls the 100th time I meet you, I sure as hell will forget the prior niceties.

TNR columnists supported the Iraq war 100% and characterized the opponents as un-serious about security. Now that they have been proved utterly wrong, those who were right have all the right to call them on it.

Of course we'll regularly click through to someone like Atrios, we won't typically click through to your friends like Marshall Wittman and Ann Althouse.

But if there's any radicalism here, or even a tendency to drift in that direction, I sure don't see it.

Of course YOU woudn't see it Kevin. But that's because you're part of the New Left. Your list of policies that the New Leftists must accept is just another example of the Stalinistic/Marxist aesthetic of the New Left. You constantly attack those who disagree with you because of your paranoia that anyone who disagrees with you must be destroyed. Your constant praise of Stephen Colbert's performance is also a example of ignoring his total lack of humor and artistic humor and instead praising him because you agree with his left wing viewpoints. It is your total lack of intellectual rationale because of your need for power above all else that makes you and the rest of New Left like Atrios and Kos radical and dangerous.

Teehee!

"is suggestive of a tendency to move in more radical directions over time"

sure sounds a lot like "weapons of mass destruction related program activities".

Looks like Al is slipping, or else his minders are getting late with their paychecks. Five earnest poster beat him to the punch! Maybe translating those RNC talking points into Al-drivel isnt as fun as it once was.

this is the story that you don't want to miss.....

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

Kevin,

The problem has never been that the blogs on the left have been radical (far from it, in fact). The real problem is that the news media, especially the TV news media, behaves like courtiers in a tyranny rather than a fourth estate. They are willing to (mildly) criticize a lack of decorum, but otherwise consider any honest critique of the administration as rudeness at best and open subversion at worst. As it stands any policy position not from the far right is labeled, "radical".
This change in the media began at least as far back as the Carter administration and the uncritical treatment of base charecter assassination of Democrats, especially those on Pres. Carter himself. Over the years, the press has become increasingly cowed by well-financed right-wing pressure groups that attack critical analysis of vapid slander. Add to this the gelding of the FCC and rampant mergers resulting in a few powerful right-wing interests controlling nearly all news broadcasting and a majority of print news that occurred during the 80's and 90's and today's political climate is unsurprising.
It's been a long slow 30 year process that brought us from the media of election '76 and today's sycophants.

Streamline government, fix the taxes and prepare the nation for Bush's stagflation, that's enough.

If you put all those details in the platform, you will be screwed.

Even just reading that list, I think, Oh God. you guys never learn. Your candidate will be out there checking off this or that item on the list everytime he/she speaks to some special group. Gore did that, against his better judgement.

Al,

You can't recognize a Stalinist policy even when it comes up and kicks you in the balls. What the hell do you think the indefinate detainment of enemies of the state as defined exclusively by the executive is?

Atrios weighs in with a short list of stuff that he thinks most lefty bloggers agree on. Since I know most of you guys won't click through to read it even if I ask really nicely...

Kevin,

You can get them to click through, but it won't happen by telling them he has "a short list of stuff that he thinks most lefty bloggers agree on."

What you need the link to say is, "Atrios has a really funny picture," and end the post there.

Consider paper ballots:

Hillary: We need to protect the right to vote, we need to beware the dangers of electronic ballots, be certain, be vigilant, use paper ballots.

McCain: A laser printer cost $200

Hey! What makes you think he wasn't serious when he said "Imprison Jeff Goldstein for crimes against humanity for his neverending stupidity"? ;)

I'd add:

- Increase funding for education at all levels.
- Implement immigration amnesty program and make INS processes more efficient.
- Campaign finance reform
- Lobbying reform

"obviously, details matter." Geez, ya think?

I can make proposals like that:

"Eliminate poverty." (obviously, the devil is in the details on this one)

See how easy it is?

Go for it. Work up some details. Put all the tax increases, business-killers, indexing of wages to inflation, the "to hell with religion" stuff, and all the rest up in some form of "Contract" and have the Democrats run on it in 2006 and 2008. Then when you pick up your jaws again after the elections, you can go back to inventing Diebold conspiracies.

There is nothing on that list that couldn't have been written in 1969.

I know why foreign policy was left out. The Left had nothing in 2004, they've got nothing now, and they won't have anything in the future. Unless you call "appeasement and surrender" a foreign policy.

The problem with "increase funding" for x,y,z is that nothing will be inceased if progresive tax rates are raised. That was the whole discovery that Cato made about the conservatives, and that we have stated over and over.

Under the Dem tax scheme, government growth will drop to 3%, or even less, in real terms. Very little increase in anything will occur. You can change the priorities a little, but the paltry expansion in government you need will put most programs, including defense, on a slim, efficient budget.

The would-be Grover Norquists of the left fashion themselves as shrewd political tacticians. In fact, the conservative activists have been able to move the political center toward them in large part because they understood the difference between someone who agrees with them 80 percent of the time and someone who agrees with them 0 percent of the time.

Baloney. Conservatives have been targeting moderates like Specter for years and scaring them into behaving. The GOP didn't become a reactionary party by letting guys like Specter roam off the reservation without suffering any consequences. Maybe Chait doesn't like this tactic, but he can't deny that this is what they do.

And who isn't able to see gradations or play well with others? The blogosphere supported Kerry and Hackett.

At the same time, Chait was bashing a moderate like Howard Dean and even had a Dean-o-Phobe blog that consistently warned people of the danger of his nomination. (Mission accomplished!)

The only danger of extremism in this country right now comes from the Right -- and Chait still wants to play his triangulating games -- because the lib blogosphere is "suggestive of a tendency to move in more radical directions over time."

F--- him.

Love letter from Heaven!!

Sexy rule is Love and Peace, and no border.
So we are asshole bro!!

Enjoy human life!!

I love motherfuck?!

Thanks Bro!!

You bastard?!

totatpptaka agjog oajaljgjflhjflafjfafhfahaflhflhaflahfhfahalfhlafhflhlaghalfjjlahglalagag

Perhaps it's just that the center of gravity in American politics has been moved so far to the right that any suggestion that government can provide useful answers to social and economic problems is automatically considered to be radicalism.

I don't think I see any radicalism, but I do see some bad ideas (indexing an inflation driver to inflation seems a little sketchy).

I see a lot of ideas that won't do what democrats think they will do, and that will probably make things worse, not better. I see democrats using these ideas to sell a lot of bad policy. Devil is in the details.

This is just another senseless pissing match in the blogosphere.

I hadn't even heard about it until now, but if it comes to putting Chait in his place, he better be careful before he makes it a point for less prominent but through progressives to put him in his place.

Um, more thorough, and far more surgical.

Not Radical, bareley liberal. All good points I think, but lacking even the mushy grandness (I mean that in the best way) of liberal thought. alot of this is just nuts and bolt scleaning up the poop from the last few years.

How's this for progressive:

Flat tax rate for income. Another flat tax rate for investment income. And a standarad deduction of the per capita GDP for every individual, applied only to non-investment income.

Businesses have no dedutions, so hiring people is the only way to get a tax advantage.

Or, screw the flat tax shit. Just no dedutions except for a per captia GDP deduction for each individual.

It seems that both sides talk around each other, and that's probably due to both of their occasional dishonesty.

Calling left blogistan "fanatics" betrays Chait's point that idealogoically, there really isn't more than a thin slice of (government) cheese between TNR/DLC types and the great blogging proletariat. But if Chait is unwilling to acknowledge that even guys like Atrios aren't particularly different from him & his set, then the Atrions, in their attempt to portray TNR, the DLC & other likeminded compatriots as 5th columnists for the most trivial of infractions are just as unwilling.

I find the latest riff over Ana Marie Cox quite telling. Here's a woman, a former blogger alumni, anti-war, hates Chris Hitchens & the "decent left" types etc. She makes the (fatal) mistake of admitting that neither she, nor her Husband found Stephen Colbert funny and this alone seemed to be legitimate enough reason to excommunicate her. I don't care what you say, but the type of mentality that produces such an outcome is not rational nor reasonable.

Chait is clearly nursing grievances about the left blogosphere's attitude toward the New Republic. He feels that he and many other TNR writers have been misjudged because the magazine isn't 100% against Bush and his war.

The problem is that TNR betrayed its readers. Its editorial line provided ideological and political cover ("even the liberal New Republic") for the worst abuses of the Bush administration--the warmongering and the torture.

I still read every New Republic article I can get my hands on via Lexis-Nexis and free on their website. But I will not turn over even $20 for a subscription (the pitiful cut rate they're offering to get readers back) as long as the magazine's editors refuse to apologize to its readers for getting it so flagrantly wrong for so long. It's a small statement that I make despite the high quality of most of the magazine's writers--Judis, Chait, Lizza, Cohn, among others. The magazine as an institution bears responsibility for the war, and it's refusal to admit the mistake is unforgivable.

Notice what we are doing folks. We are establishing a set of baseline common goals. Thanks to Atrois, Chait and Drumn.

Those common goals or issues are not radical, or even really very liberal. They make good sense.

Now would somebody tell me what the fight is all about? Better yet, how do we turn the national conversation to those goals?

Notice what we are doing folks. We are establishing a set of baseline common goals.

by the circular firing-squad method.

POINTLESS to list the 'reasonable' domestic intentions of the left, new left, left left - whatever. It's all about foreign policy and posture. If elections were only about reasonable dometic policy the democracts - if they could keep Pelosi's mouth shut - would win hands down, which they may do anyway [athough they need to tread very lightly when it comes to god and sex]. It's the war, stupid, not just the present one, but the ones that will surely be coming: if you look weak in relation to that [as dems always manage to do] it will strike a primitive, visceral chord in the psyche of most Americans which will turn your sweet harmony of resasonable left wing policy into a discordant cry in the alley. Most of the blogsphere left fails to recognise that the coming elections are winable because George Bush has been such a miserable failure and NOT because middle America has woken from a bad dream, looked in the mirror and seen Bobby Kennedy staring back at them. If Bush wasn't such a complete idiot the republicans would have weilded 9/11 like a hammer and beaten the left into oblivion. Hillary seems to understand this. McCain certainly does. Kos and his ilk do not.

by the circular firing-squad method. cleek on May 9, 2006 at 7:54 AM

Whatever works.

Actually the circular firing squad has something to do with the natural competition between the old media types over at TNR and the new media folk like Atrois. Both are trying to carve out market share. In so doing both have to give the bulk of we readers a reason for sticking with them. One way to do that is to demonize the other guy's target audience. What reasonable soul wants to read the insanity that is the DailyKos? What person wanting change wants to hang out with the status quo losers at TNR or in the DLC? The truth is there is more than enough room in the left blogsphere for both Atrois and Talking Points Memo.

Richard Cohen is crying in his milk about being
verbally assaulted in thousands of e-mails ('the digital lynch mob' is after him). He really has gone off is rocker. To be sure, this is just the beginning of the end for Bush apologists like Cohen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801323.html

Abolish gerrymandering.

Abollish the Electoral College.

I'm going to reiterate my position that the progressive core values that draw together the two halves of the left-center coalition that is the Democratic Party are primarily economic issues, often dealing with distributive justice.

If we remove gay marriage (which sticks out like a sore thumb), that's pretty much the list right there. This doesn't mean that progressive views on social issues are not valuable, just that they generally aren't among the core beliefs that pull together Democratic voters and aren't central to energizing our base (although they can be valuable in energizing single-issue voters).

Kevin, you unwittingly point out the flaw in the entire plan. As a moderate, I could support most of your recommendations. But without a strong postion on defense, candidates who support this plan could never get my vote!

Pretty good list but wrong on #6.

Yes, there are a lots of pro life progressives like myself. Fine on abolishing abstinence only education and yes for lots of contraception. How about equal parity with Viagra. But, we are sick of pregnancy being our *problem.* Pro choice tells me that being pregnant is a problem if you want to succeed. It is the worst type of sexism. "Get rid of the baby, Honey, if you want to play in the Boy's world."

And what saintsimon said.

On the contemporary scene, the radicalism is entirely on the right--mainstream right-wing politics has many fascistic, corporatist, oligarchic, and theocratic elements. And, again, I emphasize, these are MAINSTREAM.

The so-called radicalism that actually exists on the right is a highly energized, angry, and extremely frustrated ANTI-fascism.

The fact that self-styled moderates don't get this is really outrageous.

Let us face it, blogs are highly critical of republicans. The question is, are they right? For right now, yes they are. It is simply that the republicans really are this bad.

R2K

What about stop selling off public lands and start protecting the environment, fully fund national parks and protect endangered wildlife?

Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice.

What the hell does Kevin mean by "choice"? Does he mean, perchance, abortion rights?

When even lefty bloggers like Kevin are too squeamish to utter the "a" word, you know the conservative fantasy of overturning Roe has long since ceased to be a mere fantasy.

"is suggestive of a tendency to move in more radical directions over time."

hmmm.... That sounds an awful ot like:
"dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities..."

Bring back the Clinton-era rule on disallowing felons from doing business with the US government.

I know why foreign policy was left out. The Left had nothing in 2004, they've got nothing now, and they won't have anything in the future. Unless you call "appeasement and surrender" a foreign policy.

Hey, tbrosz, Ah have yer foreign policy right chere in ma pants! Fucking dickweed.

Reduce corporate giveaways..'

' Reduce'!?

Que?

Wtf are 'corporate giveaways'(!) in a free market society?
That stinks of national socialism. Oh and where are the black holes in the budget?

( The pentagon stupid. The pentagon is Sovietized country in its own right )

Whoever you vote for Gerry Mander will get in but I support Tweedledee and Tweedledrum in '08.
I'm a moron and I approved this mess.

Atrios misses the point. It's not a question of whether the bloggers believe in anything or agree on liberal or semi-liberal positions. It's whether they spend any time pushing those policies. They don't. They spend most of their time attacking Bush (who deserves it), attacking people with the temerity to disagree with them (who don't always deserve it), and focusing on political campaigns. That focus might be good and it might bad -- that's a judgment call, and frankly I couldn't care one way or the other. But Kevin is absolutely right: they devote the least amount of time to actually arguing policy.

Don't believe me? Check out Eschaton right now, for example. Since Sunday, he's posted two items that could marginally be considered about policy -- and only marginally. That's one more than he's posted about Tom Cruise.

I think it is a shame that the word "radical" has such negative connotations. To me, it is often the case that the moderate position is the least defensible. Policies reflect worldviews. It is often the case that if you hold world view 1, then policy A is best, and if you hold world view 2, then policy B is best. Policy C, which is a "moderate" compromise between A and B, might make no sense in any world view.

Concrete example: Bush's drug plan. It makes no sense from the point of view of those who believe in national healthcare, and it makes no sense from the point of view of those who believe the government should keep out of healthcare.

Another example: Outlawing abortion except in the case of rape or incest. That makes no sense from the pro-choice perspective, and it also makes no sense from a right-to-life perspective.

To generate your own examples, just see whatever policies Bush is in favor of, in just about any area of government: environment, education, foreign policy...

Yeah! Chait is so right.

The repub blogs like milkin and national review coroner routinely publish policy treatises and welcome notes for the moderates everyday. No dem basing there. no siree.

The left blogosphere is not radical in a policy sense. We are radically opposed to accepting rightwing or centrist bullshit. That's what we're radical about. And we don't care so much about decorum -- we're much more concerned with substance.

A few important ones were left off the list:

*push for more social engineering in schools, especially multicultural curriculum and mandatory acceptance of homosexuality

*impeach Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Negroponte

*transfer all prisoners at Guantanamo to federal prisons in the US and appoint them Public Defenders

*engage in diplomatic talks with Iran, thereby giving them more time to develop their nuclear program

*announce we will pull out our Iraq troops by the end of 2006, thereby breaking faith with the Iraqi people and emboldening the unsurgents to 'hang on' until we leave.

tbrosz: "Go for it. Work up some details. Put all the tax increases, business-killers, indexing of wages to inflation, the "to hell with religion" stuff, and all the rest up in some form of "Contract" and have the Democrats run on it in 2006 and 2008. Then when you pick up your jaws again after the elections, you can go back to inventing Diebold conspiracies. . . . There is nothing on that list that couldn't have been written in 1969."

Some of it by Nixon. Which tells you how much the country's drifted since then, given that a surprising number of his (noncriminal) actions (and more broadly, basic governing assumption) would now be considered raging leftism. (Obviously others would be insanely idealistic for that time, like gay marriage, and others reach back much further, like ballot issues.)

But tbrosz, I'm curious.

Certainly the absence of foreign policy is striking, though I think it's also indicative of how badly the current administration has messed up, as well as the party's internal conflicts over positioning. I can't see how killing faith-based funding is equivalent to "to hell with religion stuff" - we're seeing the very kind of conflicts and problems that fbf opponents warned us about; I doubt the vast majority of folks have any problem with the pre-existing system of federal funding - although it would certainly be spun like that and picked up by people prepared by 'War on Christmas and Christians' rhetoric to accept it. And it's always possible that Bush will so poison the reputation of the Republican party that all we would have to do is run minimalist time for a change campaigns, where real specifics risk small losses of votes . .

But I'm getting distracted. I'm curiosus - what isyour response to these (admitedly vague) policy proposals - especially the non-tax/wage ones? (Minimum wage increases, I'd definitely go for; CPI indexing, well, that's another story . . .)

Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.

In my opinion the second sentence harms the chances of the first. Those opposed to medical marijuana want to obfuscate the issue and claim that this is a slippery slope towards general decriminalization.

I admit my own bias, I support limited medical marijuana but not a broad move towards decriminalization. These are separate although closely related issues - keep them separate especially if you want to portray these positions as not radical.

Allowing States to regulate Medicine including Medical Marijuana is not only not radical but in some ways conservative in its respect of Federalism (Personally I think respecting Federalism can be liberal as well as conservative although most people associate Federalism with conservatives. Of course the GOP has demonstrated convincingly that the principle of Federalism has no real content for them other than as a political tool to pursue other ends when convenient and to be completely ignored when not in areas such as medical marijuana).

Whether or not you believe drug decriminalization is "radical" I suspect that most Americans believe that it is. In any case, if you dont buy my argument of leaving out decriminalization then at least be consistent in framing and instead of saying move generally towards decriminalization write:

Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards leaving the states alone on issues how they want to criminalize drug use by their citizens altogether.

Universal Healthcare unfortunately is considered radical by most Americans although it shouldnt be. Radical or not, America needs a move in this direction although it is true as you say the devil is in the details.

The take on the Medicare Modernization Act is interesting. The MMA is a complete and total disaster and puting Medicare in charge is unlikely to fix it, but I get the gist of the message and agree that a big part of the problem is this gerry rigged complex system of for profit insurance companies basically being in charged. Worth including a statement of allowing the government to negotiate for prices in a mannar analagous to the highly successful Veterans Administration drug purchase program.

Many of the policy choices listed are not part of any coherent framework but do speak of a sort of tolerance almost libertarian worldview. I suggest that the real dividing line is class warfare. For the last 30 years the rich have been winning through "tax reform", "welfare reform", "reduced government regulation", "free trade" "bankruptcy reform" etc. The rich have done this by demonizing tolerance, engaging in cultural wars, controlling the media and generally having a better public relations plan than the middle and lower classes. Foreign policy in large part is driven by the same interests which is why we are bogged down in Iraq, rattling sabers at Venezuala, and Bin Laden is running around continuing to incite terrorism. Capitalism is like fire, extremely useful to people--indeed where would we be without it- but with the potential to destroy everything if allowed to run unchecked until it burns itself out. IMHO we are very close to the burning itself out phase right now.

Iraq will always be problematic for Dems because Bush is Commander in Chief until 2009. It does not matter what Dems say because Bush trumps them. All Dems can agree that much more OVERSIGHT of Bush is needed for the war and just about everything else.

The reason the Right thinks that the Left doesn't tolerate dissent is because the Right simply either doesn't know what the word "tolerate" means (it doesn't mean "don't criticize or insult the opposing point of view" despite conservative claims to the contrary) or they've conveniently redefined the word (not an uncommon occurrence for conservatives) to mean something different which then allows them to use it as a criticism (in other words, they construct a strawman).

Hint to conservatives: intolerance of other viewpoints would involve censuring those viewpoints from being presented and/or denying those posting such viewpoints access.

Not happening.

Quit lying.

tbrosz, I'll cut you a deal. I'll agree that "The Left" doesn't have a coherent foreign policy, if you admit that neither the Republican Party, nor the President, nor the conservative movement has a foreign policy anymore.

That is, unless you consider "staying the course" in Iraq and loudly doing nothing everywhere else to be a foreign policy.

Cheney: When was the last Democratic Convention where a pro-life platform was allowed to be debated?

When was the last Republican convention where a pro-tax platform was allowed to be debated?

When was the last Boy Scout convention where homosexuality was allowed to be debated?

When was the last Catholic convention where Muslim beliefs were allowed to be debated?

Again, you are trying to redefine 'tolerance' and limit the circumstances in which we consider its application in order to create a strawman to knock down.

More, typical dishonest claptrap from a conservative.

Sorry if that sounds 'intolerant' under your convoluted and self-serving definition of 'tolerance'.

. They don't [push policies]. They spend most of their time attacking Bush (who deserves it), attacking people with the temerity to disagree with them (who don't always deserve it), and focusing on political campaigns.

The left blogosphere is not radical in a policy sense. We are radically opposed to accepting rightwing or centrist bullshit.

This makes a lot of sense, at least for this general region of the left blogosphere. I mean, social psych 101 would suggest that throwing all us angry lefties together would end up with us past the European left, but these proposals are almost centrist. It would seem that much of the energy goes into fighting the general rightward current (maybe pulling some folks back to slight leftyness, at best), and talking trash about the Bush administration. Ok, and constructing a overarching narrative critique of said administration. Which, given the nature of the regime, seems to be shifting Left Blogistan almost into a kind of conservatism, in the very broadest and most fundamental sense.

All the folks in a tizzy about our bad manners and incivility should be very, very happy. After all, you don't worry so much when the drums are beating as when they stop and it goes all quiet . . . too quiet . . .

Anyway, this is why I've thought for some time we should have a Blogging Day Without Bush (and the Bush administration).

Matt:

Last time I was at an ATM, I noticed it was a Diebold machine.

And it had no problem spitting out a receipt.

I think the real issue is being ignored here. I'm a former Republican, finally driven from my party by the criminality and incompetence of the current party "leadership". I don't much like the Dems because they aren't taking advantage of the stupidity and low polls, but that doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to vote Republican again. What the Dems are willing to do in legislation and policy isn't exactly what I want, but I can live with it.

The issue in the blogoshere is the way in which a certain group of lefty bloggers, most notably Atrios and Kos, are drawing up political enemies lists and attacking people for being insufficiently loyal to their interpretation of what the left should be. When I read the attack on Wonkette, what stood out for me was the way Atrios attacked her for *not being Blue*, i.e., for being an apostate. Kos's frontal assault on Sen. Clinton makes me wish I lived in new York so I could vote FOR her. Want a clue, kids? I *liked* what the Clintons did for America, especially after the last six years of Bush.

I read the comments in this blog and see the same. I see people going after Kevin personally because he doesn't say things or think things you guys want to hear. I think Kevin is pretty darn sensible most of the time, and the way you turn disagreements into ad hominem attacks on him, frankly, sounds just like the wackos on the right who have destroyed the Republicans.

I agree more than not with the list Kevin posted. I am revolted by the voices in the blogosphere. You sound just like the people you oppose

Well, Cheney, maybe it's just that Democrats choose to draw the line at compromising on something that's very important to them - a woman's right to choose whether to bear a child.

Just as you Republicans draw the line at compromising on what's most important to you - lowering taxes for rich people.

Cheney: All of those would be "intolerant" according to YOUR definition, not mine.

Uh, no they wouldn't, anymore than prohibiting Kerry to get up during the President's State of the Union speech and start propounding his own ideas would be.

It is not "intolerant" to prohibit people from inserting their opinion anywhere and anytime they want, which is what you implied from your question.

The question is not whether pro-life speakers are allowed to speak at the convention, but whether they are prohibited from being in the party as the result of speaking in open forums about their beliefs - they are not.

Your deliberate use of a closed forum, closed by its nature just as a particular speech is, to compare to an open forum such as a blog, is the strawman and you once again exhibit your dishonesty.

None of the examples are examples of intolerance anymore than refusing to let one interrupt another's speech on pro-life to intermittently spout your pro-choice would be an example of intolerance - but you are trying to make it just such an example.

No Democrat has been censured for expressing pro-life views.

Reid is a leading example.

As I said, you either don't understand the word or you deliberately misuse it for dishonest reasons.

Tell you what, Cheney, when you stop bathing with your brother, come back here and we'll have a discussion.

tbrosz.

First clean up your own house. Get a real foreign policy. Get real domestic policies. Throw out the thieves and the bribery takers from your party. Seek some professional help for your delusions and the voices that continue to feed you bullshit. Take courses in ethics and morality and logic from the local community college.

Then I will be happy to comply with your instructions to do this and that.

I don't think I see any radicalism, but I do see some bad ideas (indexing an inflation driver to inflation seems a little sketchy).

The minimum wage link to inflation is pretty non-existent.

ELR, while I do think that a lot of the louder pro-choice voices hem and haw over the difficulty of pregnancy, I think it is fair to say that if you are pregnant and don't want to be, that's a problem. If the government is standing in the way of you preventing the pregnancy that you don't want to carry, it's a problem. And, for that matter, off the top of my head I can think of two major feminist bloggers who actually have children (one was a teen mother, in fact) and still make their views on abortion rights clear - Lauren formerly of Feministe and Bitch, PhD. If abortion is an issue that affects women, it's an issue that affects mothers.

But, we are sick of pregnancy being our *problem.* Pro choice tells me that being pregnant is a problem if you want to succeed. It is the worst type of sexism. "Get rid of the baby, Honey, if you want to play in the Boy's world."

it's not 'our' problem. there are specific women with specific circumstances who know better than you whether or not they can handle a pregnancy and a new child. likewise, 'we' are not saying "Get rid of the baby, honey." what 'we' are saying, "It's your choice whether or not to continue a pregnancy." you are equating pro-choice with anti-child and pro-abortion attitudes, and i find it deeply insulting.

Ouch, Paddy Whack - talk about giving a dog a bone!
Posted by: Cheney

Not really. A laundry-list of strawmen from a senseless troll is not painful.

I think it is a shame that the word "radical" has such negative connotations. To me, it is often the case that the moderate position is the least defensible. Policies reflect worldviews. It is often the case that if you hold world view 1, then policy A is best, and if you hold world view 2, then policy B is best. Policy C, which is a "moderate" compromise between A and B, might make no sense in any world view.

Philosophically that's true, but practically, not so much. To use your own example of only allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest, it's logically inconsistent, but it's a compromise. Both sides get what they want (assuming it actually becomes the rule instead of just a new jumping-off point to push the status quo even further right): the anti-abortion side reduces the number of abortions by a lot, while the pro-choice side still preserves the availability of abortions for those who need it the most. That might be acceptable for both sides, so they can get on with their lives.

At least, that method might be on other issues, though it obviously wouldn't be on this one. And it's a position I don't happen to hold. But complaining about centrism being unprincipled is missing the point — it's not supposed to be principles, it's supposed to work. Whether or not it does is the question, of course.

Well, to sum up what lots of folks are saying, it's a difference of rhetoric, not policy. I don't have many policy differences with Kos or Atrios. I think I'd probably like them in person.

But they use the "inflammatory voice" that is so common to email and electronic written communication. If you heard them talk, they would give a different impression.

Now, some folks like that voice. These are the same folks that take Kevin to task for being to milquetoasty. But I'm a milquetoast, too.

In the following sense: I almost never allow any expression of contempt to make it past the "Post" button. I'm happy to criticize ideas or actions or statements, but not people. Condemn the offense, not the perpetrator.

Just like Rush found an audience saying things that the dittoheads thought to themselves, so have Koz and Atrios, I think.

Good job, Jason ... [blah blah blah] ...

charlie, hush. be quiet. the adults are trying to have a conversation about values. this is an insanity-free zone.

Cheney (Charlie) obsesses over abortion...again. Why am I not surprised?

Cheney (Charlie) obsesses over abortion...again. Why am I not surprised?

it's just an extension of his obsession with other people's sex lives. he is just as obsessed with emergency contraceptives, birth control, sex education, pornograpy, and homosexuality. any culture war issues that has anything remotely to do with genital stimulation is guaranteed to attract him. which means he probably has a very dirty mind.

Cheney, I guess, like your name sake, you are delusional or just sadly ignorant.

LOL Jason - pro-life Democrats are "welcome" about as often as the lepered - the proof is in the pudding. If you can seriously equate the number of pro-life Democrats on the national level (name more than two) with pro-choice GOP (I can name a dozen off the top of my head), then you are more delusional than even I thought. - Cheney

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008769.php#882344

From the Democrats for Life All Star Pro-Life Democrats (in order by state):

Sen. Mark Pryor (AR)
Rep. Marion Barry (AR)
Sen. Zell Miller (GA)
Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)
Rep. Jerry Costello(IL)
Rep. William Lipinski(IL)
Rep. Ken Lucas (KY)
Rep. Chris John (LA)
Rep. Dale Kildee (MI)
Rep. Bart Stupak (MI)
Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN)
Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)
Sen. John Breaux (LA)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
Sen. Ben Nelson (NE)
Sen. Harry Reid (NV)
Rep. Mike McNulty (NY)
Rep. Tim Ryan (OH)
Rep. Mike Doyle (PA)
Rep. Tim Holden (PA)
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (PA)
Rep. John Murtha (PA)
Rep. Jim Langevin (RI)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Rep. Charlie Stenholm (TX)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV)
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV)

For a more recent list see: http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=0

The highest ranking Pro-Life Democrat is Senator Harry Reid, how about pro-choice GOP? Believing these days a pro-choice Republican could be elected the GOP leader would be delusional thinking.

You seem to confuse the fact that most Democrats are pro-choice with the conclusion that Pro-Life Democrats are "lepered." The fact is that it is an important issue for many Democrats and such opposition to individual choice and liberty and support of using government power and criminal sanctions to force a woman to have a baby often comes with other postions not consistent with many Democrats beliefs. However, the evidence supports the conclusion that Democrats are far more tolerant than most of the GOP, after all its the so called pro-life position that abortion is murder, who wants to elect a murderer if thats what you truly believe and what does it say about your moral flexibility if you dont oppose what you claim to be murder?

The minimum wage link to inflation is pretty non-existent.

That's true, the minimum wage link to anything is pretty non-existent.

NcCullagh makes good points:

"Policy C, which is a "moderate" compromise between A and B, might make no sense in any world view."

But, we are learning a lot about government and there are linear examples between the two.

Take healthcare. If the Dems said, step one is to regulate the insurance plans offered today into three or four different "grades", then for a few hundred million, you greatlty simplify the system we have, make it easier to doctors to decide which plans they accept, and after a couple of years you can look at wat is happening and decide whether government needs to subsidize particularly low grades of insurance.

Same with education, rather then destroy a generation of children with billions and a standardized single certificate, why not offer a lower grade certificate and let the children add on optional math, automechanics, science, history or other bonus certificates. Doing this would have cost a few hundred million, saved children from government and accomplished most of what we wanted.

Except, of course, the number of jobs at and below minimum wage.

One very important issue that I never see mentioned on any potential Democratic agenda is for Congress to override the executive order that the administration used to seal and prevent the release of previous presidential records, and to insist on strict adherence to the Freedom of Information Act.

Let's shine a light on what's being done in our name.

[...] LOL - I could examine each "pro-life" voting record from Senators down to City Council too [...]

ssshhhhhhhh. hush now.

It's a busy morning and I apologise because I haven't been able to read all of the comments above. I just want to throw in my $.02 worth:

This list sucks. If this is the best the liberal world can come up with, we're doomed.

Matt is right: "Streamline government, fix the taxes and prepare the nation for Bush's stagflation, that's enough."

tbrosz is right: "There is nothing on that list that couldn't have been written in 1969."

I had a long conversation on Sunday with two gifted 16-year olds. One is studying economics, the other military history. They had better proposals than this. Their proposals started with four assumptions: 1) The long term strategic threat is China, 2) our economy is addicted to cheap oil, 3) global climate change will destabilize existing nation states, and 4) the world has been gone too long without a major conflict for too long so unless we figure out how to avoid such a conflict, it is Sarajevo, 1914, for us.

So, first, they reasoned, we need to restore our historic alliance with Europe and we need to develop a strong alliance with India. If we can get those two blocks on our side, we can stand up to China. We also need to ameliorate our ties with South & Central America. We don't want to be distracted by threats in our hemisphere. They thought we could do that by repairing our ties to Mexico.

But everything depends on the US developing alternative and sustainable sources of energy and smoothing the transition to those alternative sources of energy. If we remain addicted to oil, then we remain enmeshed in the ME, vulnerable to Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela and overstretched trying to secure oil sources. If we don't lead on addressing the causes and consequences of global climate change, we exacerabate the problems.

This list should be non-negotiable. It's not radical enough to necessitate or allow for compromise.

"But if there's any radicalism here, or even a tendency to drift in that direction, I sure don't see it."

Wow...this speaks volumes.

Lets see if anyone can guess what may be considered radical within this list?

...the only thing I care about is the perception among the American voters...
Posted by: Cheney

This pretty much sums up the mindset of the GOP, trolls, the wingnuts, the Religious Right, the RNC, the Bush administration...

Pathetic really.

Real lobbying reform.

And I mean serious neutering bordering on elimination. And public financing of Congressional elections. That in itself would help with the lobbying.

Pro life Democrats: Well, let's see--Mayor Daley of Chicago, Former Senator John Breaux, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, soon to take wingnut Ricky Santorum's seat. Check out Senator Ben Nelson, Represenative Jim Oberstar, Representative Jim Langevin (that's three, and they're all in the Congress and they're all Democrats--what do you need? Most people can't even name their own Congressman or Congresswoman.)

Don't forget Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, currently the highest-ranking Democrat in government, is pro-life.

Pro choice tells me that being pregnant is a problem if you want to succeed. It is the worst type of sexism. "Get rid of the baby, Honey, if you want to play in the Boy's world."

Point #14: "Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies"

A move that -along with other policies such as an increased minimum wage and other measures to decrease economic insecurity, if effective - almost certainly would decrease abortion rates.

But more generally, I'm really sorry that's the message you're heard. Beyond the excellent points above - not 'get rid of the baby,' but 'it's your choice - we're making sure you have that option - realistically, there are many aspects of abortion that are really just an extension of the long-term movement towards control over fertility, family planning, fewer children, in order to provide better for everyone in the family, rather than being overwhelmed with mouths to feed. The path to the middle class has been built on the nonexistance of many potential offspring. (The anti-contraception crusaders are trying, utimately and perhaps unknowingly, to roll this back.) It might even be argued that many people don't make it out of poverty to some (relatively small) degree because they have markedly different views on family planning - although I don't really agree.

We can buffer this sort of necessity with a generous safety net, but only to some extent. Unless, of course, you're willing to make Europe look like a bunch of pinch-fisted family-hating Scrooges and fundamentally transform the US into some sort of mistyeyed utopia - which I'm all for but have to admit is probably impractical right now . . .

I'm not sure what you would want to hear, honestly? 'Have the baby, honey (you have to, it's the law?), but there won't be any consequences? Daddy will take care of everything? Ha ha, now you have to deal with the consequences, you wench? Um . . .what?

Cheney "Do you think there is ANY cognitive dissonance when it comes to "parental notification" vs. "pro-family"?

Just don't shoot me in the face and I'll say whatever you want!

Seriously? Not very much, at best. There are various reasons, and I'd love to hear somebody smarter than I and with a good philosophy background explain why this is the case. My take? The fancier version is that 'the family' is also composed of individuals with sometimes competing aims and even rights, all of which matter; not merely a monolithic unit or a strict hierarchy (God->Bush-Dad->Mom->Kids, to be a bit snarky). Simple version? We're better at dealing with reality. (We are part of the growing reality-based coalition, after all!) Given functioning families, there is a certain percentage of teens who would go under the radar, but also many who would notify their families their own selves. Compulsory parental notification would serve some teens who would get support they'd otherwise avoid, but you'd also end up with teens who keep silent and end up with late term abortions or unwanted kids (or worse, like trying to self-induce abortions). There are also the cases where there's a very good reason that the girl is not notifying her family, which is that we sadly can't assume functioning famililes as a given- whether it would place her in physical or related danger, or because a member of the family is the father. Beyond the strictly practical, there's a sliding scale of it-being-her-decision. A 12 year old, well, we recognize that she's not equipped to make many decisions. A 17 year old . . . it's a lot less clear. Since we can't go on a case by case basis . . .

Oh, and by the way - there are a lot fewer radical Christian cleric-panderers in the Democratic Party than the GOP has business-oriented seculars. Is that because we specifically, intolerantly drove them out?

Al:

> ... the Stalinistic/Marxist aesthetic ... "

Stalinist/Marxist *aesthetic*? You mean like ... Socialist
Realism? Like Shoshtakovich, harmonizing Georgian folk tunes
(but not too much like Aaron Copland), cranking out scores for
propaganda movies and writing "The March of the Secret Police"
in the middle of doing your serious, subversive symphonic stuff?

Or do you mean more like Theodor Adorno, championing Shoenberg's
12-tone system over the bourgeois carnival pastiche aesthetic of
Stravinsky's Russian primitivism -- and falsifying the dates of
music history to argue for a dialectical progression, including
ever more notes into the scale until "dodecaphonic democracy"?

Or do you mean that you wouldn't know what "aesthetics" were
if Martha Stewart shoved a designer dildo up your ass? :)

Bob

On the Iraq issues, Leftists should demand the prosecution of war crimes against the leaders in the Bush administration: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and a couple of the enabling generals. We should not treat these war criminals any differently than we treated the Nazis, except no death penalty.

The Left had nothing in 2004, they've got nothing now, and they won't have anything in the future. Unless you call "appeasement and surrender" a foreign policy.

You're a tedious and small person.

"Lets see if anyone can guess what may be considered radical within this list?"

Radical? Gay marriage. And not for an increasing number of Americans, specifically - and tellingly - younger ones.
____

"Many of the policy choices listed are not part of any coherent framework but do speak of a sort of tolerance almost libertarian worldview. I suggest that the real dividing line is class warfare"

But that is a coherent framework. And in this case we're defending lower and middle class folks, not to mention the ideas of social mobility and equal opportunities . . .

_____

"I'm a former Republican, finally driven from my party by the criminality and incompetence of the current party "leadership". I don't much like the Dems because they aren't taking advantage of the stupidity and low polls, but that doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to vote Republican again. What the Dems are willing to do in legislation and policy isn't exactly what I want, but I can live with it."

Everything else aside, we're glad to have you on our side - that is, the side fighting for (relatively!) noncriminal, competent government. Why the Republicans are trying to force out everyone with a brain and/or a heart, I don't entirely understand

But we're off to see the Wizard . . .

PTate - are they Orson Scott Card fans, by any chance?

I think the Democratic theme on foreign policy should be "A Return to Normalcy."

Bob

Repeal the estate tax repeal.
Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.
Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code

How about we cut to the chase,
and just say it outloud:

WE NEED TO TAX THE RICH.

As much as I support gay rights, I also think that America isn't quite ready yet for a nationalized right of gay marriage.

I'd argue the way to go is to assure that the rights secured by civil unions are at full legal parity with those of marriage.

Gay marriage will eventually happen ... but I think it'd be counterproductive to push it before young people -- who seem to have little to no problem with it -- get into positions of social power as they mature.

Bob

The Left had nothing in 2004, they've got nothing now, and they won't have anything in the future. Unless you call "appeasement and surrender" a foreign policy.

I usually end up regretting this, but here goes:

Please tell me what constitutes "serious" foreign policy. And be aware that your answer had better compare favorably to PTate's post at 11:02. If you can't beat two 16-year-olds, then we're taking away your Darth Vader helmet.

Dan S.:

But I'm getting distracted. I'm curious - what is your response to these (admitedly vague) policy proposals - especially the non-tax/wage ones? (Minimum wage increases, I'd definitely go for; CPI indexing, well, that's another story . . .)

You'll notice on that list that there's a lot about increasing taxes. There's not much about reducing the size and waste in government.

Start by doing something about spending.

Right now, as I write this, some Republicans in Washington are trying to reform things like earmarks, transparency, and other ways that crap gets added to almost every spending bill that goes through Congress. They are mostly being slapped down, and, I'm sorry to say, by other Republicans. Yeah, Trent, I'm talking about YOU. Both parties are pigging out big time.

Bush needs to frigging VETO something. It will be about five years too late, but at least it will be a start.

Actually, some of the things on that list are not bad ideas.

Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana.

How about leaving the states alone on a LOT of issues? Wages, drug laws, abortion, education, highways, etc. etc. But that's a whole other story.

The War on Drugs, like the War on Poverty, long ago stopped being more help than hindrance. I have never seen any rational reason why alcohol and marijuana should be treated any differently under the law. Prohibit them both, or legalize both.

Paper ballots? Sure. I think a better idea is just having a printed optically-readable ballot card that pops out of an electronic voting machine. The card goes into a normal ballot box at the voting site. If everyone's happy with the electronic results, the boxes get stored like regular ballot boxes and collect spiderwebs. If not, you can do an optical, or even manual recount. You get the easy voting, the instant results everyone demands, and the backup options. How hard could this be?

I'd have no trouble with the FICA cap going up. I'd have no trouble with means-testing benefits, either.

Atrios' list isn't bad for coming right off the cuff. It's a lot more informative than simply writing "open thread" over and over again...

I must note here that liberals do get hung up on process issues (framing etc.) and when they wake up from that utterly futile exercise, they buckle up to write Ph. D. theses on policy issues.

None of this wins elections. It's a good device for Republicans to constantly accuse you of being bereft of concrete solutions, but it is equally bad for the democrats to make any attempts to respond to these charges.

Kos and Atrios and their ilk have it exactly right. Democratic party would not exist without a set of basic core principles (not necessarily concretely enshrined a neat little document) and so the point is to do what it takes to win the elections rather than to constantly try to reconfigure your ideology. Forget about the WATBs and wankers like Chait and Cohen and Klein.

There's not much about reducing the size and waste in government.

... says a little man who vehemently supports a party which raised the national debt by $2.6 trillion over the past 5 years.

Small and Tedious. That's your new name.

“Radical? Gay marriage. And not for an increasing number of Americans, specifically - and tellingly - younger ones.’

Increasing numbers don’t disqualify something as “radical”.

“On the Iraq issues, Leftists should demand the prosecution of war crimes against the leaders in the Bush administration: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and a couple of the enabling generals. We should not treat these war criminals any differently than we treated the Nazis”
That strikes me as radical.
“Don't forget Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, currently the highest-ranking Democrat in government, is pro-life. “
Yes, the new prominence of pro-lifers within the Democratic Party is interesting. I don’t think it’s an accident. As a practical matter though, they don’t vote to confirm conservative judges. Pro-lifers know this.

tbrosz:

Before we tackle the size of government, earmarks, transparency, etc. -- we need to re-equitize the tax structure.

Once hyperwealthy people have an equivalent stake in fending off government waste, they'll petition their Republican legislators accordingly.

Now, with a bifurcating income structure that's eviscerating the middle class -- it's all just a dog and pony show.

Bob

Well, it's not personal frustration. I actually really enjoy mixing it up, and oddly enough I enjoy being personally attacked as well. But the disposition of the left blogosphere toward TNR is suggestive of its paranoid mentality. They cannot see gradations. They cannot see differences between individuals within an institution. (This is the same problem with their unrelenting hostility toward the DLC, some of whose members are much more liberal than others.) The lefty blogosphere is simply unable to process the fact that TNR has published lots of extremely sharp attacks on Bush, and lots of genuinely liberal commentary, from the very beginning. That stuff is 80 percent of the political commentary we publish. They disagree with the other 20 percent, and they should. The problem is that they have no mental category for an institution that agrees with them 80 percent of the time.

Geebus!

A fatalist epitaph for poor Jon Chait and his TNR career.

If a magazine loses it's readership and thus closes it's door - whining about how all those readers just did get you, and that the readers just don't understand your position is another example of an oxymoron.

Excuse me, Chait, are you stupid or something?

Perhaps it's closer to the truth that whatever Chait was marketing just wasn't a sellable commodity to liberals in general, end of story.

Perhaps liberal understood the DLC better than did Chait. Not to dispair too much dear Chait, simply send your resume off to the NRO - I'm certain they can see all those "gradations" that those lefty-liberal, sub-class citizens of blogosphere have failed to see all this time.

Only a word of caution Chait - Bush's poll