It's really quite simple. Don't suggest that people who oppose Bush's war are all traitors, and you can get along with the left blogosphere just fine

Here's your clever plan: Don't throw your political party under the bus every week in order to boost your own popularity.

Bath tub drownings?

if you don't, you have to watch every word that comes out of your mouth, always in terror that you might say the one thing that gets them screaming for your head on a pike.

How does that make bloggers different from Republicans?

Keith: The CSPC says 75 babies a year die in bathtub drownings!

>Someone just has to figure out how to predict >their (eg., bloggers) behavior better. And — trust me on this — >someone will.

Uh ... not really. The universe of bloggers is larger than the universe of people trying to predict their behavior better.

Shorter Kevin Drum:

Ezra said something that I don't really agree with but I don't have any anecdotal evidence to refute his but it's time to post something so I'll fill this space with this nonsense.

Blogs and the net more generally do represent a potential for a quite different method of decision making and of politics. A method more like a free market or a network, where the result is created by all the participants and can not be controlled by any center, not even the professionals, the experts.
This has the potential of undermining the power of the mainstream media and the current political party structures.
This potential may be realized or it may be suppressed or it may turn out that it can be absorbed into the old way in such a way that it replicates the centralization of knowledge and decision making that is the hallmark of current structures. I think it will depend on how many people want the dynamism of fuller participation and how many trust someone above them to take on the decision making and the responsibility.
God, I sound like a romantic, don't I?

If you knew, you could craft some clever plan to triangulate around it, but if you don't, you have to watch every word that comes out of your mouth, always in terror that you might say the one thing that gets them screaming for your head on a pike.

Ted Stevens has a clever plan, involving constriction of all those TUBES.

Thanks BTW, Kevin, for constricting parody Al. I noticed his blather (which I skip over nowadays anyway) disappeared delightfully into the bitbucket right before I saw your reply to Keith above.

Maybe you were just riffing, because man this sentence's a doozy:

"While a threat from NARAL or the Club for Growth is a known quantity that can be dealt with, no one has quite figured out what sorts of things might set off a blog lynch mob."

1) No, we have not figured out how to deal with the Club for Growth and the neo-cons. Notice how the right wing controls just about every lever of US power? Notice how the US foreign policy is now a disaster? And our fiscal house is a wreck?

If we've figured out how to control these nuts, I haven't seen "us" doing it very successfully.

2) How did we get from the Lieberman - Lamont campaign to a "blog lynch mob"? Just like the old "he invokes Holocaust first, loses" rule, let me propose the "he who invokes lynching first, loses" rule.

The blogs wanted Lieberman out of the Senate, not to lynch him for crying out loud. That rhetoric is pretty common amongst the right wing nuts, but not so much on the left wing.

Ezra makes a good point here - the powerbrokers are freaking out - because they don't want to lose power. And then all of a sudden it becomes a lynching? Please, Kevin, you're a much better analyst than that.

I tend more to agree with Ezra's take. The other groups mentioned, and their compatriots in the "establishment," will also jump on anything said that seems even slightly threatening or contradictory to their positions - or, as Tim F noted, purely for partisan gain.

It does seem that the anger is more likely coming from the direct challenge to the "establishment's" position as those that choose the policies and candidates. After all, the other groups can always cut deals with each other - but you can't (yet) cut a deal with the Blogosphere.

>"figure out how to predict their behavior better. And — trust me on this — someone will."

Slight correction to the above and you've got it:

"figure out how to control their behavior better. And — trust me on this — someone will."

I think the Lieberman race has been getting more attention than the Chafee race next door for a couple reasons.

1) Most D.C. political reporters are Lieberman-style Democrats themselves. It's certainly showed up in their coverage of events over the years.

2) The right-wingers have every reason to play up this race. It's win-win for them either way.
If Lieberman wins primary: "Hee-haw! The noisy netroots are losers who are too extreme for their own party's voters! Dur-hyuk!"
If Lamont wins primary: "Hey, Red America, the noisy netroots are taking over the Democratic Party. Psst, hey Joe, we understand ya, buddy. How'd you like a regular column in The Weekly Standard to beat up on those traitors who forced you through the indignity of the democratic process?"

Kevin,

I think you've missed Ezra's point. The Club for Growth and NRAL are entitled to keep doing what they do for the same reason Lieberman is entitled to keep doing what he does: they've always done it. Blogs and Lamont are both new, so they're entitled to nothing.

We're not talking about fear of the unknown here. We're talking about anger at impudent upstarts daring to ask for what doesn't rightfully belong to them.

Honestly I don't know why they are so damn threatened. The internet is a fantastic political tool. But it does require taking a block of time that goes to listening to expects and investing it in listing to the commons. That's all the blogs are; distilled common wisdom and opinion. How someone doesn't see that as useful baffles me. I suppose it's a bit weird doing ward fixer politics with people you have never met before, but I think they can make the leap. I does also mean taking on the entire Washington concensus and the media power brokers, because they are out of touch with Americans.
I guess it would help if you enjoy being a bit of a rebel.

Blogs represent a potential new form of political power. More generally, they represent a new method of how to organize politically.

This is a threat to the established order. The established order is reacting against it (institutions seek to perpetuate themselves, regardless of what they were founded to do).

Ultimately, this will all settle down and blogs and web-organizing will be incorporated as part of the established order, perhaps significantly reducing the influence of existing parts. Until then, the existing institutions will react in alarm at the actual or perceived harm that may happen to them.

Sheesh Kevin. Boy did you not get the point.

A blog lynch mob?

Weak.

Die Lieberman, you worthless turd!

Except that bloggers tell you over and over and over again, in tedious detail everything they find objectionable about everything you've ever said or done. If you want to know what will set off a blog lynch mob, READ THE BLOGS.

But this isn't a blog movement. Lamont wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without heavy support from local democratic leaders.

Lieberman is one of those mushy-middle centrists that the lazy DC pundits like to pretend they are - safely isloated from the masses by tenure and incumbency. and none of them like to see the rabble standing up and saying "no!" to their comfy status-quoism.

I think that bloggers and Washington power brokers who think "if it wasn't for those nasty blogs, Joe would be cruising" are deluding themselves. Joe has proven himself more than capable of screwing up his own reelection campaign. This election year, in any number of tone deaf ways, Joe, who lives in a very blue state, has embraced a deeply unpopular president as his own. He has made statement supporting the President that would make members of the President's own party uncomfortable. He has been critical of members of his own constituency for not blindly supporting the President's policies.

The bloggers would love to take credit for Joe's problems, but Joe is far more responsible for Joe's difficulties than the Daily Kos.

That said, I can understand why the inside the beltway folks are howling. The blogs empower people to go right around them. They empower folks to demand the inside the beltway crowd pay attention to the common folk living outside the beltway. Suddenly they have to work at governance. Suddenly they can be challenged. They can't coopt the bloggers in the ways they coopt each other. It is hard to take 500 bloggers to lunch. Who wants to invite that many people to an insider's lunch. The media manipulation skills they have spent years learning are obsolete. How irrelevant must some of them feel these days. No, times they are a changin. The chattering classes will scream like monkeys until they adjust to the brave and empowering new world.

Kevin, I'm not sure your argument was well thought out. Aside from the incendiary "lynch mob" comment (we weren't a lynch mob when trying to replace Bush in 2004) -- triangulation and predictive behavior? Blogs are means of communication, not structured organizations with weekly planning meetings.

Trying to grasp and control a large, ever-changing, geographically and ideologically diverse group of people with no specific political agenda is hopeless. And if someone were somehow able to create a predictive model for a blog or series of blogs, that would cause those blogs to become irrelevant, and something else would take it's place, no?

The internet has rekindled a sense of community, something that has been in decline in America for about 50 years. Religious conservatives find community in a church subculture and have become their own political power. Liberals, until recently, were just so may individuals that turned up on pollsters’ spreadsheets. The internet has changed this, and the sense of community has emboldened liberals to challenge the assumptions of a decadent establishment.

It is very interesting how this insurgent liberal power within the Democratic party is being treated by the ancien régime; it reminds me of how the cultural conservatives were treated a dozen years ago, and still are.

I don't much care for the lefty blogosphere these days. It's partly the vitriol and hyperbole, but also their feelings of entitlement. What I mean is, there are many people who have been Democrats for years, have donated money to Democrats for years and have volunteered countless hours for Democratic candidates--whether they agreed with them 100% or not. The "netroots", who to me seems pretty new to politics, then comes along and starts claiming they are the the "base" of the Democratic Party, not the people who have dedicated their lives to the Democratic Party.

I'm only in my twenties and have only been involved in the Dem Party for a few years. But from my experience, it isn't the "netroots" (who like to call themselves the "grassroots") that are doing the canvassing and making the phone calls. When the "netroots" try to claim that they are the first signs of "grassroots" for the Democratic Party, even I find that offensive. I'm constantly working with and talking to seasoned veterans of campaigns, both big and small--the real grassroots. I would call them the "base" of the Democratic Party (not to mention african americans).

If you had two friends, one who has been there for you all the time and fought for you and the other you just met, whom would you trust more? It's really not hard to understand why veteran politicos are not necessarily ecstatic about the "netroots". But what Lieberman and his anti-anti-Lieberman supporters fail to comprehend, is that they took their real base (i.e. not the netroots) for granted.

It really isn't a dispute between the blogs and Lieberman/moderation. That is how the GOP and the media, and to a large extent, the blogs would like to portray it. But it isn't the case. One group is trying to scapegoat the blogs. The other group wants to believe they have more influence than they really do have. Either way, it fits nicely into how the GOP would like to portray it.

Liberals, until recently, were just so may individuals that turned up on pollsters’ spreadsheets. The internet has changed this, and the sense of community has emboldened liberals to challenge the assumptions of a decadent establishment.

Beauty! I would just add the adjective "smart" in front of "individuals."

1) No, we have not figured out how to deal with the Club for Growth and the neo-cons. Notice how the right wing controls just about every lever of US power? Notice how the US foreign policy is now a disaster? And our fiscal house is a wreck?

If we've figured out how to control these nuts, I haven't seen "us" doing it very successfully.

Depends how you define "deal with". I suspect the Bull Moose/Kondracke types don't mind them being in control as much as you or I do. All these ex-student council presidents that flocked inside the beltway are more comfortable with their supposed opponents in the club than those outside of the club they expect to get in line and support them

Lieberman fancies himself as a centrist. But centrism does not mean what he thinks it means.

Blogs are a threat simply because the power brokers, image shakers and media makers simply cannot CONTROL the message, like they do on FOX and Limbaugh and Meet the Press etc.

More importantly,there is no financial pressure point they can bring to bear to STIFLE the message either.

That's why, those who seek to 'control and stifle' the message view the blogs as a 'lynch mob'

They are a critical mass of influence without a means of being halted.

Josh Marshall nails it!
(on Talking Points Memo. Not here at Washington Monthly.)

But from my experience, it isn't the "netroots" (who like to call themselves the "grassroots") that are doing the canvassing and making the phone calls. When the "netroots" try to claim that they are the first signs of "grassroots" for the Democratic Party, even I find that offensive. I'm constantly working with and talking to seasoned veterans of campaigns, both big and small--the real grassroots. I would call them the "base" of the Democratic Party (not to mention african americans).
Posted by: gq on July 21, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Who's got the sense of entitlement?

The netroots vote.

If the Democratic party wants their vote - they better damn well start listening to the netroots.

gq

Lots of us have spent hours and hours working for the Democratic party at the grassroots level. I have canvased. I have been a county committeeman and a delegate. I have given money. Lots of us "netroots" have done the same.

For too long we the people out side the beltway have been ignored by the air warriors in Washington. I have watched election cycle after election cycle as my state changed from Blue to Red because the air warriors in Washington were all too anxious to ignore us and to write us off. That is why I support Howard Dean's party rebuilding efforts. We need to make sure the people are returned to the heart of the Democratic party.

gq writes:

"The "netroots", who to me seems pretty new to politics, then comes along and starts claiming they are the the "base" of the Democratic Party, not the people who have dedicated their lives to the Democratic Party."

The "netroots" claim they are Democrats and citizens and ask to have a say just like everybody else.

The netroots will respect the candidate choices of Democratic voters as reflected in primaries.

Apparently, to gq, that amounts to a sense of entitlement.

If expecting democracy in the Democratic Party is a sense of entitlement, I plead guilty.

Oh for the love of God...it's a primary...a sitting fat cat is having his feet held to the fire.

Big Deal, people who think Lieberman, or for that matter, any fat cat getting challenged is a big deal have been sitting on the pot for too long. Wipe and flush guys.

On the blogger thing, the Republican party had spent a lot of money making the US media as compliant as Pravda...of course their pissed, their investment has come up lame...should Republican party hacks with their teeth clamped on the goverment titty get a bail out? Why because the market didn't work their way, or should the goverment stymie the competition for them?

Free market...my ass.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The bloggers are the modern political equivalent of Jefersonian independent farmers. They are not part of an institution which concentrates all expression in the person at the top of the institution, and their jobs don't depend on impressing anyone either in or out of their workplace. As a result they are free to speak truth to power, and boy do they.

The old boys hate that.

More importantly,there is no financial pressure point they can bring to bear to STIFLE the message either.

BINGO! That's it in a nutshell.

Diffuse as they are, they can't be bought. And if you can't be bought, you're dangerous.

If you had two friends, one who has been there for you all the time and fought for you and the other you just met, whom would you trust more?

Well, if my old friend, despite his history, was just sitting around with his feet up while I was being robbed and beaten, and telling me that if only I'd be more like the person who was assaulting me I'd be alright, and I should really stop being so angry and unreasonable about this attack, and my new friend, meanwhile, walked up and punched my enemy in the nose, well then, I guess I'd have to go with the new guy.

Armando,
How does your comment in anyway contradict what I said? It's fine to feel a sense of entitlement, but it's absurd to expect others who have given to the Party not to feel a similar sense. That's human nature.

What I was trying to point out is that you can't expect a politico to accept you wholesale overnight. People are going to trust who they are familiar with and who fought battles with them in the past. I stated specifically, that Lieberman and the anti anti-Lieberman camp have pretty much taken everyone for granted. I believe this is less so in Lieberman's policy positions, than in his apparent lack of interest in building a campaign that cultivates relationships with the people.

I do take offense to those who claim to be the base who I never see at the phone banks or canvassing operations--and there are lots of them.

Stefan,
I stated explicitly that Lieberman snubbed his nose at most people and deserves the trouble he's in.

The problem with this whole way of thinking of bloggers is it acts as if it doesn't include the set of interacting relationships that go beyond the individual blog readers.

When I told my mother in law I was giving money to Lamont back at the very begining of his campaign, this 85 year old in rural Wisconsin woman immediately asked me for the donation address. Democrats all over the country hate Lieberman for the back stabbing boot licker he is. Having been thrust on the national stage by the 2000 run, many Democrats now remember what he says and does and doen't like it. Lieberman has used his stature as a former VP candidate to GO OUT OF HIS WAY to weaken the Democratic party and work against its core values. Democrats all over the country know it.

By attacking Democrats the way he has he gratuitously helps Republicans in my state 1000 miles away. The red state Democrats don't hurt me in that extra special way.

Kevin,

For a smart guy, this was a really stupid analysis.

gq. You are in your early 20's. Like me, you have more time than money right now. For both of us it makes sense to volunteer. Later, when we have more money than time, it will make sense for us to contribute money. Both contributions support the party, both are valid.

Also, if Joe loses, it repudiates all the "beltway wisdom" they've been spooning out for years:
--support Republicans in their foreign policy ventures (no matter how insane);
--support Republican smear attacks on your fellow Democrats (Clinton condemnation);
--support Republican efforts to privatize government (more pork to dole out, and you get to falsely claim you shrunk government!);
--support progressive policies only when it's obvioust that despite Republican efforts to misrepresent them, they're supported by a supermajority of Americans.

If Joe loses, then this whole policy of "support the Republicans in order to be a good Democrat," the hallmark of Beltway wisdom, has been repudiated.

No wonder they're terrified. It's not just his job, it's all their jobs at risk!

If the Democratic party wants their vote - they better damn well start listening to the netroots.

I agree and never stated otherwise. Something I see all the time in the blog comments is "If Senator X doesn't vote this way, I'm never going to vote for him/her again" or "if Democrats don't do X, I'm going to reregister Parties." It is perfectly withing their right to do so. That said, how can you expect a politician to trust you if you are always saying such things?

Back during the emergence of the Christian right an article in the Washington Post described conservative christians as "easily led." The Christian right has beaten the mainstream media about the head and shoulders ever since over their insensitivity to people of faith. Its remarkable that bloggers are the only group that it is acceptable to criticize in theatrically perjorative terms. Mr. Drum gets into the act here (I think unwittingly) by comparing a primary election to a lynching. Mr Drum is a reasonable guy so I would ask him to explain 1)why he feels that a primary challenge to Senator Lieberman is similar to a lynching (there are websites that have pictures of the latter), and 2) whether any primary challenges of incumbents are ever appropriate. I'm not simply trying to be a jerk here I really want to know.

Adam,
I don't follow. I know people with lots (Silicon Valley "lots") of money who also volunteer.

I don't understand how liberal internet folk can decry Bush strawmen, but throw out their own when it suits them...

ASIDE:
Is Bill or Hillary Clinton campaigning for Joe really a good strategy for Hillary's 2008 campaign? Or is this where they show the money that they are the safest candidate for the status quo?

Kevin, is "bathtub drownings" code for "Club for Growth"?

Someone just has to figure out how to predict their behavior better. And — trust me on this — someone will.

So, Kevin, you think someone will learn to tame the thunderous barbarian throngs that are the blogosphere? It'd be like herding cats!

Bloggers/CT citizens: We think Lieberman undermines the Party and question his loyalty to the Party and the best interest of the country.

Lieberman "campaign": We don't need to do anything to win, we're just that good.

Media: Bloggers are unhappy with Lieberman, but I won't ask CT voters.

Blogger 1 (most): Lieberman is just out of touch. Out of touch with the netroots. Out of touch with the country. And out of touch with CT voters. Here's someone that can beat him, let's help him.

Blogger 2: Lieberman and Democrats need to start taking us seriously or else...

Media/Lieberman camp: Liberal bloggers want to "lynch" Lieberman.

Blogger 3: Wow, what is going on in CT?

GOP: Hehe, this is fun. Let's get Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity and Rush to start talking up Lieberman. Maybe we can get them and other neocons to donate a few bucks to Lieberman. That should cause a scene.

CT citizens: Wow, we have a candidate who can likely beat the GOP if he beats Lieberman. I'm not terribly Liberal, but Joe has been so clueless. Let's check out this other guy.

Blogger 2: See, Lieberman and Democrats need to start taking us seriously or else...

Purple GOP candidates: Lamont and his Democratic supporters want to push out all moderate voices and we need to stop them.

Media: Lamont and his Democratic supporters want to push out all moderate voices.

Some guy procrastinating data analysis: This is all very amusing.

Kevin, I have a quibble with this:

" While a threat from NARAL or the Club for Growth is a known quantity that can be dealt with, no one has quite figured out what sorts of things might set off a blog lynch mob.? If you knew, you could craft some clever plan to triangulate around it, but if you don't, you have to watch every word that comes out of your mouth, always in terror that you might say the one thing that gets them screaming for your head on a pike."

How you deal with it is actually pretty simple. Don't lie, and when you make a mistake, admit it right up front. The proof of this is shown quite nicely by contrasting Debra Howell's cluelessness at the Washington Post with Ariana Huffington's very quick and thorough mea culpa during the George Clooney contretemps. Huffington retained her credibility and Howell has lost hers, apparently for good.

Someone just has to figure out how to predict their behavior better. And — trust me on this — someone will.

What a cynical comment. People want representatives who will truly represent them. No secret there, nothing to "predict." Democrats haven't won any elections -- and those who are against this Administration and it's Rubberstamp Congress are tired of that -- again, no big secret. I'm fine with politicians "predicting" that citizens want to be really represented. Your casual take on the thousands of people blogging and the millions doing grass roots work to take back our government is not helpful, not riffing, just lazy, in my opinion.

Democrats haven't won any elections

Really? So the Congress is 100% Republican?

cmdicely -- you are right. They just haven't won enough elections to take back Congress and the White House.

I would equate the battle for control of the Democratic Party with a middle management rebellion.

Read an analysis that discusses the connections between the efforts to elect Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race and Howard Dean’s Fifty State Strategy…and how the outcomes of, and ramifications for, both may be intertwined…here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Stefan, I stated explicitly that Lieberman snubbed his nose at most people and deserves the trouble he's in.

That's true, you did, and that wasn't what I was taking exception to. I agree with your statement above, but my analogy off your analogy was attempting to elaborate on why, because of the current dire circumstances, some Democrats might value fighting spirit in the present over a record of loyalty in the past.

A blog lynch mob?

I don't know, I sort of figure it is the right of mainstream members of a political party to campaign hard in a primary.

Lieberman brought this on himself by many different actions. Remember Terry Schiavo for one non-Iraq related issue?

gq. You are in your early 20's. Like me, you have more time than money right now. For both of us it makes sense to volunteer. Later, when we have more money than time, it will make sense for us to contribute money. Both contributions support the party, both are valid.

True enough. You won't see me making calls at the phone bank that often -- but I will help pay for the phone bills, and to rent the room to house the phones. It does us no good to turn this into a contest of who's the most monastically pure Democrat.

I have no dog in this fight. But there's something that makes me wonder: Why don't the Clintons take issue with Lieberman's statements about him back then? Why don't current Democratic officeholders feel as betrayed by Joe as the bloggers? Maybe he told them about what he was going to say, and what he was going to do?

If you want to get cynical about it, then you have to figure out what advantage there is to them in supporting Joe. If they feel a debt of loyalty, then they must not feel betrayed by his statements on the war.

There's a sense in which I agree with Lieberman's statement, even though I thought Iraq was a bad idea from day one. We are on very dangerous ground, and cutting the legs out from under the sitting President isn't obviously the best course. There's such a thing as respect for the office, if not the man.

At the same time, Lieberman seems really caught by surprise by this, and inept at dealing with it. And he shouldn't be.

By the way, many of the voices on these "liberal lefty blogs" are moderate Democrats. Opposition from the start to the war in Iraq does not make you some kind of Bolshevic. (We were right, it seems, and the propietor of this blog was wrong). Opposition to Lieberman does not make you a lefty lynch mob, and it also needs to be said that no stand on any one issue can place a politician so far at odds with the core values of the Democratic party.

But a repeated pattern of shitting on the members of your own party, abandoning values held by the vast majority of your own party, and enabling the single worst Administration in national history will eventually get you in trouble. Refusing to agree to abide by the results of the primary is particulary repugnant.

I have donated to Ned Lamont and I am dead set against Lieberman, and I consider myself a middle of the road Democrat. And I am tired of losing elections, and I think that the people who are supporting Lieberman are the same people who have gotten us where we are today. So fuck them if they find our little "lynch mob" appalling.

Here's a thought -- maybe Lieberman's people could have predicted the Lamont movement if they'd only just read DailyKos. Kos and the site's community have been railing against Lieberman for years. The netroots have a history of rallying against people they despise, and they despise no member in their own party than Joe Lieberman.

Of course, the media presented DailyKos as just a few thousand cranks. Little did they know those "cranks" have wide appeal and are getting good at shaping a message that appeals to the base of the Democratic party.

Kos is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to the mood of the Democratic party's activist base. Lieberman's camp were just too stupid (or too hubristic) to pay attention.

We are on very dangerous ground, and cutting the legs out from under the sitting President isn't obviously the best course.

I have to disagree. Cutting the legs out from under the president when he's proven himself to be a fanatical ignorant and dangerous incompetent is the best course. I don't know why I always think of this analogy when I think of George Bush, but the first thing you do with a drunk driver is take away his keys.

...cutting the legs out from under the sitting President isn't obviously the best course. There's such a thing as respect for the office.

The foreign and domestic policies of the current President and his advisers are insane and will do great damage to our national interests, probably irreversably. They are a radical departure from previous GOP policies. They are dangerous and they are quite obviously mistaken. It is one's patriotic duty to oppose Bush's war adventures, his attempts to shred the Constitution, and his plundering of the economic resources of the country.

If that means "disrepecting the office", so be it.

Of course, Clinton was impeached for a personal matter.

There's such a thing as respect for the office.

The person who has shown the most disrespect for the office of the president, and indeed for the Constitution and the entire American system of democratic governance, is George W. Bush himself. He has disgraced the American presidency in the eyes of the world by turning it into a front for his criminal enterprise.

We obviously disagree on that assessment, Stefan.

I don't think he's off base at all. The reason any politician (or ex-President) is lining up to support Joe has far less to do with their own personal likes or dislikes of the man but because they do NOT want the bloggers to get a sense of their own power by toppling him. Can you imagine the horrific scenarios running through their heads mostly centered on a populace that begins demanding that they represent the people fairly and do a competent job? I doubt any of them want THAT kind of thing comming to pass. Scrutiny of bills, a demand for social and economic justice, the dangers of accepting kickbacks and lobbying money never knowing if it might end up getting reported on some damn blog and killing a political career? What the hell kind of a nightmare Democracy would THAT be? That the PEOPLE might actually begin to PARTICIPATE?!? MADNESS!!!

The Democrats are not so different from the Republicans when it comes to thinking they were voted in to become kings of men, not public servants. The last thing ANY politician wants is the interference of a mere citizen.

I am amoung those enjoying the show. Pass the popcorn!

GOP:

It's fun watching golden boys go down. I'm sure you had quite the blast when The Mousketeer From Hell went down in GA this week, eh? :)

Shit, I didn't even know they *sold* Brylcreem anymore ...

Bob

And, as if roasting Lieberman is not entertainment enough:

Arizona
Pederson's Self-funded Campaign Falls Behind
Because Arizonans have been unresponsive to his campaign, Dem challenger Jim Pederson has no choice but to open his own checkbook. Recent FEC figures show that Senator Kyl raised $2 million in contributions for the 2nd quarter which runs from April 1 to June 30. During the same period Pederson managed to raise $2.3 million, but $1.7 million came from his own pocket, which leaves $600,000 in contributions from donors other than Pederson. Combine his weak fundraising numbers with news of a new campaign manager (the third one for his campaign) and it's apparent that Pederson doesn't have the support of Arizonans.

Maryland
They Came For Crabs, But Stayed For Steele
Marylanders are quite familiar with the annual J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake, and they also appear to know quite a bit about Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as well. Steele attended the event on Wednesday where he received a warm welcome and plenty of praise as he traversed the crowd, meeting and greeting Marylanders.

From Roll Call:

CRISFIELD, Md. - On a sun-baked parking lot in this faraway corner of Maryland's Eastern Shore, the many advantages that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) brings to this year's Senate race were on vivid display Wednesday.

Steele arrived at the 30th annual J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake, stepped out of his state-issued bulletproof black SUV and was greeted like a conquering hero. He seemed to know everyone, hugging Crisfield Police Chief Clarence Bell.

[...]

Compared to other contests in the Free State this year, the Senate race has been a relatively quiet affair, and it was no different at Tawes on Wednesday. The two frontrunners in the Democratic primary, Rep. Benjamin Cardin and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume were among the missing - a metaphor, some cynics would suggest, for the campaigns they're running.

[...]

"I think everyone has to determine their own campaign priorities," said Len Foxwell, an Eastern Shore native and former Democratic operative who is now a top administrator at Salisbury University on the shore. "But I would suggest that this is the most important event on Maryland's political calendar."

Which is why the afternoon appeared to belong to Steele, who moved easily through the crowd.

"There's a reason why the politicians show up," Steele explained. "We say hello to each other and we get to show each other a little civility."

"He's definitely the rock star of the day," said a politically plugged-in state employee who was playing hooky from her day job.

But Steele said he didn't see it that way.

"Nobody's thrown a crab claw yet at me," he said. "I'm happy."

Michigan
Stabenow's Anti-Midas Touch
It's no secret that Michigan's economy is struggling. It's also no secret that Debbie Stabenow hasn't been able to do anything to help the situation. That's why the prospect of losing her seat in November is starting to look more like a possibility. Stabenow's been asleep at the wheel, and it's time for Michiganders to drop her off at the next rest stop-you'll be better off.

From the Washington Times:

[...]

[Stabenow] won in a squeaker in 2000 but has since been one of the least effective senators in Washington, passing no major legislation of her own and taking no proactive leadership role in behalf of Michigan's failing economy. Mrs. Stabenow has been one of the most invisible Democrats in the Senate (ed. unless you are sitting behind her).

[...]

"She doesn't cast a big shadow in Washington," [Republican Senate candidate Michael Bouchard] said. "Debbie has been in Washington six years and the only thing she has done herself is get a federal building named" [he] told me.

"The issues in this campaign will be jobs in Michigan's economy and her ineffectiveness as senator. She should be helping employers here to create jobs, but she has a zero percent voting score from the National Federation of Independent Business, the small business lobby, and a 30 percent score from the National Association of Manufacturers," he said. "She voted against every tax cut to help the economy. She has favored the liberal wing of her party instead of looking after the needs of Michigan and its workers. When I go to Washington, I will be the senator from Michigan, not the Republican from Michigan," he said.

Missouri
Talent Runs First Television Ad
Senator Jim Talent is running his first television ad of the campaign season. The ad highlights Talent's work "to combat meth abuse, reduce prescription drug costs and boost support for ethanol. . . . 'Most people don't care if you're red or blue, Republican or Democrat,' the announcer says. 'They don't use words like partisan or obstructionist. They care about getting things done, knowing the difference between what's right and what's wrong. That's why Jim Talent reaches out. Why he listens. Because it's not what you promise that matters, it's what you do.' . . . Campaign spokesman Rich Chrismer said in a statement that Talent 'is sharing his positive message for Missouri in every way including personal visits, on his Web Site and through media of all kinds.'" The 30-second ads are running statewide.

Montana
Burns Discusses Why We Need To Win The War On Terror
In a guest opinion piece for the Billings Gazette, Senator Conrad Burns outlined his views on a variety of issues facing Montanans. Below is an excerpt of what Senator Burns had to say about the War on Terror:

Montanans face a stark choice in this election and that's a good thing. We like choices and so I am glad to talk about my vision for the future. As a country we have many challenges, but Americans have always risen to meet every challenge.

Our strategy in the war on terror ought to be to win. Time and again Islamic radicals have been emboldened by a feeble American response to terrorism. When the Marines were bombed in Lebanon, they were quickly withdrawn. When Blackhawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia, we packed up and left. When embassies in Africa were bombed, we bombed sand.

We were attacked on 9/11 by people who wish us harm. It is naïve to believe that the violence will end by cutting and running. The fight would simply shift from Fallujah and Baghdad to places like New York and Washington, D.C.

We can and must win this war on terror. We need to give our troops every tool they need to win this war on terror. I don't want to stay there forever, but I don't want to leave before we've done the job right. The people who should make that decision are the generals on the ground, not Washington, D.C., politicians.

Nebraska
Ricketts Focuses On Taxes
Republican Senate candidate Pete Ricketts turned his attention to taxes this week. In an article from KETV.com, Rickets states "I believe taxes are a bigger issue than the war in Iraq. While Nebraskans are very concerned with the war in Iraq, by and large you find a lot of support for the war. What you see is people are concerned about their property valuations, they're concerned about income tax, they're concerned about the capital gains and dividends taxes, they're concerned about the death tax. That's what I hear when I'm on the road."

New Jersey
When It Rains, It Pours
It's hard to keep up with all of the ethics questions surrounding Robert Menendez these days. Just when you think you might have a little respite, something new comes along. This time Menendez is shrouded in the alleged ethics violations of his campaign finance chairman.

Via the Asbury Park Press:

TRENTON -- An ethics commission has found "indications" that the chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, who is also the campaign finance chairman for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., violated state ethics laws in his government role, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

For months the State Ethics Commission has been investigating the relationship between Turnpike Authority Chairman Joseph Simunovich and one of the authority's largest contractors, Joseph Sanzari, after it became known that the Turnpike chairman took flights on Sanzari's private plane. State ethics rules prohibit government officials from accepting gifts from people doing business with their agency.

A confidential letter written by Ethics Commission Director Rita Strmensky and obtained by The Record of Bergen County said a preliminary inquiry had "determined that there are indications" of violations of ethics laws.

Ohio
Brown Hit On National Security Record
Sherrod Brown has been unable to hide from his woeful national security record. His inability to address the issues facing our nation's security is the focus of a new ad being run by Senator Mike DeWine.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

GOP Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio is on the air with his first ad attacking Democratic rival Sherrod Brown.

The 30-second spot charging that Brown, a House member from Avon, is weak on national security is already the third television ad aired by DeWine, though the first two focused on his own record. Brown has not yet run a television ad.

"Where does Sherrod Brown stand on protecting America's homeland? In Congress, Brown voted to slash national intelligence programs," the ad says in part. "Sherrod Brown. Weakening America's security."

Ohioans deserve a Senator who is strong enough to stand up for our country, not a politician who will cut funding when it is needed the most.

Pennsylvania
Veterans Stand Behind Santorum
There is no question that veterans deserve our support. That's why no one has been more visible or supportive of our veterans than Senator Rick Santorum. This week, Santorum met with two Iraq War veterans who had some candid words for Bob Casey.

From the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal:

[...]

The two men had some choice words about Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who hopes to unseat Santorum in the November election.

At issue were Casey's stances on national security. Or, according to the veterans, the lack thereof.

[...]

At the Penn Square event, Air National Guard officer Kevin Dellicker of Kutztown and former Army Capt. Ryan Aument of Quarryville, cited statements Casey made in late 2005 that he would have voted to authorize and fund the war as Santorum did three years ago.

[...]

But Dellicker said Santorum maintains the edge on security issues.

"Santorum wins on national security every time it's brought up," he said. "He's no wallflower on the issue. I want someone to be with me to win the war, not to win the election."

Washington
Support Declines, Vulnerability Increases
It doesn't take a genius to understand that the more support you have, the less vulnerable you'll be. It's a lesson Senator Maria Cantwell is learning the hard way. Unable to silence critics within her own party (except for those she subsidizes with cushy campaign jobs), Cantwell is anything but safe.

West Virginia
Raese's Job Plan
John Raese is determined to revive West Virginia's struggling economy. Job loss has plagued the state and Raese has vowed to spur economic growth through a jobs plan that puts West Virginian's first.

From the Huntington News:

After listening to John Raese's remarks over the past several months on the topic of economic development, a plan for West Virginia's private sector renewal seems to be taking shape. Since the private sector has been and remains the chief means by which jobs are created in America, any fresh ideas are worth consideration.

[...]

What emerges from Raese's speeches on the subject is a combination of traditional business sense and a kind of West Virginia-first populism. For example, when Raese talks about the need for less regulation, he couples this with the realization that West Virginia has more regulations on business than competitors like China.

[...]

Jobs are at stake here. Good paying jobs with benefits. Raese knows this and is demanding that our political leaders take a fresh look at what they're doing to American families. Just how many families have to look hard for replacement jobs due to some regulations that are unnecessary--and hobble our chances against un-regulated China.

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd likes to think of himself as the great federal jobs king, but his jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to the number we have lost as a state over his time in Washington, D.C.

[...]

. . . West Virginia needs a plan like what Raese is developing -- a jobs plan whose benefits extend to every corner of the Mountain State.

rmck1 / Bob:

That was quite a disappointment, especially considering Reed was responsible for the entire GOP turn-around in Georgia. I guess party loyalty ain't what it used to be on BOTH sides of the aisle.

GOP:

Jesus, where did you get those clips? Was that, like, from a party email or something?

Reed went down because if your entire rep is Mr. Squeaky Clean Morality Man -- you had better not have so much as an unpaid parking ticket in your past -- at least not while courting a fundevangelical base.

And Reed had Jack Abramoff ... 'nuff said.

Bob

DISCLAIMER: Contributions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from corporations, foreign nationals and federal government contractors are prohibited. Federal Law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.

Paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.gopsenators.com

Not produced at government expense.

Contact Us:news@gopsenators.com
425 2nd Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002

GOP:

Oh. In the unforgettable words of Emily Litela:

Nevermind.

I guess you did that so Kev wouldn't bust ya for copyrighted material :)

Bob

; )

GOP:

Why do you hang around on Political Animal, anyway? You don't seem nearly as obnoxious as our usual crew of trolls ...

Bob

Bored on a Friday night. Just watching TV too, so it's at least multi-tasking. You?

GOP:

Well, I'm a regular. I mean, I *fit* here, ideologically :) I wasn't intending any sly barbs at your social life or anything.

What's my excuse? I missed calling my buddy earlier; I think he's out seeing The Lady in the Water, and my other friend gets home late. So about the same ...

Bob

Bob:

No barb taken. I enjoy relaxing on the weekends, so we try to keep social commitments to a minimum.

Chris & rea:

Did Joe Lieberman really suggest all people who oppose Bush's war are "traitors"?! Even I use the word "most" to hedge my bet.

GOP:

I think all this hullaballoo about challenging Joementum in the primary is kinda overblown. I mean -- the GOP does it all the time; conservative make it quite clear that if you don't push their issues -- incumbent or no, you will go.

Being able to do that is a sign of an energized party. Democrats used to only *whine* about it -- and hold their noses and vote for the incumbent.

Mainly, you guys have become such born-again Liebermaniacs because of the war. The war's why Howard Dean -- a fricken Rockefeller Republican if you ever reviewed what he supported -- has been tarred as a "leftist." It's put a huge ideological distortion on both parties.

But plain fact of the matter -- you don't have to be some kind of screaming liberal to oppose the Iraq war. It's just common sense, really. You can hit it from a Cato isolationist angle as easily as you can from a Denny Kucinich Ministry of Peace angle.

And I'm telling you something else. All you guys cozying up to Lieberdude are only making his chances worse. We know you know that :) We know your love for the mensch is anything but sincere -- kinda like Republicans donating to Dean in the primaries. But if you think that a Lamont win means anything more than the voice of Connecticut has spoken -- you have been sold a bill of goods.

Sure, Kos and the Kossacks are self-important. They've vastly overinflated their influence. And lords know -- I should know, as a former Deaniac. The blogosphere isn't reality. And you know damn well, too, that we aren't giving Liebby the boot because he's "not liberal enough." The dude's got a 100% from the League of Conservation Voters!

It's cuz he spit in our Party's eye.

And if we want to become a strong Party again -- we have to make that kinda stuff matter again.

Just like, you know, *you* do for *your* Party.

Bob

Bob:

There are more "conservative" Democrats in Congress than Lieberman, so I dispute any 100% rating. Joe is PRO-CHOICE for god's sake!

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/lieb012103spt.html

Stefan:

Are you "absolutely certain" that Kevin cannot be bought?

GOP:

That's basically what I said. The League of Conservation Voters is an *environmental* group. He's got a high rating with ADA and with some consumer groups as well.

The issue with Liberdude isn't ideological.

It's that he did the next bext thing to calling Iraq War opponents disloyal to the country.

That's just flat-out unforgivable. We're *patriots.* The Iraq war does not serve America's interests in any way, shape or form.

Bob

Sorry, Bob -- I read your "conservation" as "conservative" (so much for multi-tasking ; )

But for all of you complaining about Kevin's BLOGGER "lynch mob" analogy, I find myself defending Kevin yet again -- it's an ANALOGY, people!!! Just wait until Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman runs as an Independent!!!

GOP:

See, here's the thing. I dunno how old you are, but I remember the Vietnam war. And it isn't like the Cold War, where opponents of Vietnam -- dumbass as that misadventure was -- could be genuinely seen to harbor sympathies with Communism generally or strong antipathy to the American way of life. Much of that criticism was overblown (and most of the criticism of the Vietnam war was correct on the merits), but even so -- there was a certain justification to the suspicions that cold warroriors had about doves that they harbored at least disloyal *impulses* or *sympathies.*

But today, in the GWoT, you can't say that *at all* about Iraq war opponents. No liberal that I know harbors a fancy for Islamist terrorism or Saddam Hussein, the way many of my peers during Vietnam held romantic notions about Che Guevera or Ho Chi Minh. Nobody on the left thought Zarqawi was just this misunderstood guy who was trying to do good in the world. No lefty can read Osama's screeds without doubling over in dry heaves about collective punishment of civilians for the crimes of the regime. It's all hateful, evil garbage.

No lefty supports Islamist radicalism as some kind of potential utopia, the way many of us young'uns (and I was very young) read Marx during Vietnam. It's anti-modern, anti-enlightenment, anti-human rights. It's vile 11th-century literal-minded garbage and the Muslim world needs very much to evolve beyond it.

So when *any* Republican accuses us of *aiding our enemies* -- we tend to flip out. When they accuse us of opposing the war because we harbor romantic notions of what a *nice guy* that sadistic bastard Saddam was -- we go berserk with rage. You wanna know where so much "liberal anger" comes from -- it's right there. Those kind of accusations by the right make us livid.

We just didn't think that blowing up Iraq would make anything *better*.

And guess what -- it didn't. Civilian deaths are at 100 a fricken' day.

And in the interest of allegedly fighting a loathesome ideology -- we've only given it an endless set of excuses to continue to breed.

To hear this out of the mouths of Republicans, well ... all's fair in love and politix, I suppose.

But to hear it out of the mouth of Lieberman has turned the man into an outcast.

Bob

At least I can understand that, Bob, but then it is, in fact, a BLOGGER "lynch mob", right? Why are Samuel Knight, Armando, john, PapaJijo, rk, Slideguy, and Ba'al all denying that fact?

I don't think blogs are a threat, but they are one of the only venues left that approach being a "free marketplace of ideas". Of course, they frequently devolve into a food fight, but that is mainly due to the anonymity they offer, in my opinion. If people were required to use their real name, I would guess they would quickly become much more civil. It's the same reason you give someone the finger on the freeway when they cut in front of you, but you smile at your neighbor when he backs into your garbage can. It's much more uncomfortable to be mean to someone you know.....

As for Lieberman, why doesn't he just change parties and get it over with? He is a tiresome boor...

Did anyone else think of that old Tom Hanks movie "Joe Versus the Volcano" when you first saw this thread?

GOP:

Oh, c'mon, it's not a fricken *lynch mob*. If rhetorical metaphors like that were valid, then every page of Ann Coulter is directly equatable to Mein Kampf.

(And don't protest too loudly until you've taken then Ann Coulter -- or Adolf Hitler? online quiz. They take quotes from both and ask you to identify them. Out of 14, I only got 9 correct.)

As part of the gusts of blogger hyperbole -- yeah, sure. The piling-on of Ralph Reed by the anti-Abramoffites was a "lynch mob," too, in that sense. So was the whole California recall circus, for that matter. Or any time an electorate angrily throws a bum out. Those kinds of metaphors are part of our political language, I guess.

But if you just stare at the phrase and don't put it in context -- if you take it a tad too *literally* -- it's ham-handed at best, and connotes a lack of justification characteristic of genuine lynch mobs that the anti-Libermanites simply do not possess.

Lieberman's been tried and convicted in the court of Democratic primary voter opinion. He wasn't just slimed or ad-hom'ed or Karl Roved with some baseless and bottomlessly vicious personal attack.

And that's why my liberal confreres object so strongly -- and so correctly -- to Kevin's ill-chosen blunderbuss characterization.

Bob

Joe's past it. He thought he was bullet proof but he's not. And Kevin - you're starting to sound alot like these guys:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21043

I'm just saying....

漠北孤烟博客 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣 皮肤病医药网 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤癌症肿瘤新药鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗

hey, thanks! i was wondering where i could get some 性淋巴瘤治疗 !

"More importantly,there is no financial pressure point they can bring to bear to STIFLE the message either."

This is key. If you are a pundit for NBC or FOX or WP, you have to worry about the financial pressure point, the corporate owners, advertisers, etc. If you are commenting in a blog you are free of these pressure points. You can state what is on your mind without fear or favor.

The so called "free press" was never free.

I think Clinton as well as other Dems are supporterting Lieberman because he is blackmailing the party.

They fear he will run as an independent and screw the party. I can see him running as an indy, saying he will vote for Reid and then once elected join the GOP.

It is the kind of thing he would do.

Well, Nan, what's good for the Jeffords . . .

Lieberman sponsored the legislation that permitted Enron etc, supports the war in Iraq, treats fellow Democrats like crap, and (finally) is running for an office that permits a primary opponent.

Why is the fact that he has a Democratic opponent in his primary news?

Why is Kevin so sure someone will figure out how to predict our behaviour better. The behavior in question is not just subtle, but almost purely subtle. It's not as if there are many who even comprehend its workings. From what I've seen, even the best of these (who are rarely heard and almost never studied by a wide audience) don't know what's going on. They not only don't understand, they admit it. The best term they come up with for it is "frothy edge" of global culture. How do you predict the frothy edge?

My god - if those hoardes of unwashed liberals defeat dear ol Joe I may need to actually campaign for the party's presidential nomination. Don't you people understand how demeaning it is to share a stage with out of work governors and nutty congressmen in bleak Iowa farm towns. In America we have political dynastys so the the sytem works like this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton and then George P. vs Chelsea in the tiebreaker. You bloggers are making the Founding Fathers weep

Hillary:

Very droll, girlie. Do you know my sister still has your picture of the two of you on her fridge, when you were in her office?

Gods bless my kid sister, but after all these years, I still want to smack her around sometimes ... "You don't understand. It's Time. I know Hillary has to say all these centrist things to get elected, and yeah some of it troubles me ... "

"Like her backpedaling on abortion rights"

"*sigghhh*"

"And the Iraq war"

"*sigghhh*"

"Not to mention that goddamn legislation she *sponsored* to 'protect' the flag from desecration"

"*sssssiiiiiiggggghhhhhh* I know, Bob. But you know her heart's in the right place, so once she gets elected I'm sure she'll do the right thing ... "

I just went to the fridge and got another beer at that point. Sheesh, my own flesh and blood.

Bob

Mr Drum!

With respect to Lieberman, it seems to me very simple. The man is a quintessential Chadband. As has been said repeatedly, the problem for many is not Iraq as such. It is that Lieberman, or at least his public persona (which is all that matters insofar as he is a politician), is that of a fawning ass.

Concerning the blogosphere, it seems to me that it is much too early to understand what its medium and long-term effect on politics will be. I doubt, for example, that Gutenberg had any notion of the consequences of universal primary education. As for the often strident tone of blogorbia, this is the result of the exaltation of pop-culture in the US, with its devotion to fake-emotion.

Lastly, happy birthday. Please do also accept my best wishes for fortitude and condolences for whatever has caused you to have to exist in Orange County, armpit of the nation.

Nebraska

Ric