They should "move on" from these ads to supporting a primary challenger to Reid. Perhaps that would teach him to stop blowing off progressives.

"We believe people should be focusing their efforts on expanding the Democratic majority -- and that should be their singular focus."

Translation: I know you all have this quaint idea that it's your government, but you're wrong. We're in charge, and we'll do what we want to stay in charge, without interference from you annoying voters (except every 2 years, when we ask for more cash). So sit down, shut up, and let us get on with the work of ensuring that we keep our comfy chairs.

"The DCCC chair said their 'singular focus' should be on 'expanding the Democratic majority.'"

Anyone surprised? Not to be negative, and let us give the Democratic Party its due where it governs well, but overall this is a very frustrating political party, and a comment like this is an unusually explicit reveal of the organization's true priority.

With a self-interested majority party and a single, ineffectual alternative, we could really use a another party organization with credible alternatives and asking good, challenging questions of the majority. Since for some strange reason Americans don't want that, MoveOn and Americans United have to do what they can with ad buys.

"But, really, what is that MoveOn and Americans United for Change want? For Democrats to support a popular agenda. They're urging "centrist" Dems to vote for measures like a progressive budget and health care reform. This helps leaders like Reid and Van Hollen instill some party discipline."

You're assuming here that Reid and Van Hollen want to support a progressive budget. How do you know that's true?

I remember, before Ronald Reagan was elected, that the complaint was that there was no real difference between the two parties. If the emphasis is to always go for a "center" position, then the Democrats will not be making a very good case for being the party of change.

Whatever party is in the majority, the mission should be to accomplish goals consistent with the expectations of constituents, not simply to get the best numbers.

This helps leaders like Reid and Van Hollen instill some party discipline.

Sure, that would be true if Reid and Van Hollen are indeed interested in instilling party discipline.

Seems to me that they are interested not in party discipline, but instead in ensuring that popular legislation (READ: popular with the people, and not necessarily those who write the corporate contribution checks to Reid et al.) does not pass the Senate.

But MoveOn *is* urging Democrats to take reckless risks that will undermine the party's *fundraising* in the future. Because the party's campaign funds are underwritten by rich special interests who do not agree with MoveOn's agenda.

Reid wants to take a moderate position between the party's populist base and its elitist bankrollers.

Good luck with that, Harry. I'm rooting for MoveOn, myself.

but overall this is a very frustrating political party, and a comment like this is an unusually explicit reveal of the organization's true priority.
- Algernon

Actually, I think it's reflective of an old political mindset. "We just wanted you to collect money and put up yard signs. We don't expect people to understand the issues." But this is a new era. We should be grateful for organizations like MoveOn and Political Animal. There is nothing wrong with occasionally pushing them in different directions. That's what makes for a healthy democracy.

Why do people continue to refer to the blue dogs as "moderate democrats"?

They are NOT moderate.

They are right wingers posing as democrats in order to win in primarily democratic districts.

We should be calling them "right wing democrats".

Because papers won't print "asshole democrats".

Harry Reid is proving once again that he's quite willing to accomodate whatever the Republicans need. Maybe the Dems could trade him for two Maine Senators.

Who cares if all of the members of Congress are Dems if they won't do what we want them to?

Harry Reid: GOP establishment tool.

If the Dems want to lose big in '10 that's fine by me. As of now, with no Bill of Rights, banker kleptocracy, and continued insurer predation on healthcare consumers, I don't see any disadvantage to the GOP.

When will Harry stop sucking elephant dick?

This is off subject, but I understand that Repub senator Richard Burr of North Carolina is holding up Obama's pick for veterans affairs - Tammy Duckworth (who lost both legs in a helicopter accident) She would be a superb representative for all veterans (my husband is a disabled veteran) I have written to him and would ask that others would please do the same. I don't think Burr ever served in the military!

Earlier this week, DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen warned of a "circular firing squad," adding, "We believe people should be focusing their efforts on expanding the Democratic majority -- and that should be their singular focus."

Van Hollen happens to be my Representative. And I have some news for him. He works for me, I don't work for him. It is not my job to "focus on expanding" his political party's majority. And while that may be his job as DCCC Chair, it is not his job as my Representative. His job as my Representative is to be responsive to me as a constituent.

If he is not responsive, and his party is not responsive, then I will vote for someone else. So if he really wants to see his party's majority grow instead of shrink, he should be less arrogant and pay more attention to what folks like me and the MoveOn members have to say to him.

And in fact, although he is a pretty good Representative, in the last election, I did vote for the Green Party candidate for his seat, precisely because of the House Democrats' collective record of ineffectiveness and unresponsiveness.

And it's funny how their complaints about "circular firing squads" always seem to target progressive and liberal voters and Democratic legislators -- rather than the so-called "conservative" Democratic legislators who consistently side with Republicans to push the interests of corporations and the ultra-rich over the interests of the American people.

For the very first time, I voted a straight Democratic ticket, because it was important to send a message to Republicans that they are behaving like morons.

However, I will gladly donate to the fund to defeat Senator Bayh when he's up for re-election. I don't even live close to his state, but it will be well worth to get rid of this embarrassment to the Democratic party.

Being a conservative makes you a Republican; if you don't like the way Republicans are behaving, then work from within to change the moronic behavior. Don't pollute a progressive agenda in the Democratic party because you think it is easier to win an election as a hypocrit. Bayh... Nelson.... looking at you.

A couple things here. First, piss on Harry Reid. Now that's out of the way, I just sent an email to Sen. Bayh, pretty much mentioning what an ethically challenged disgrace I think he is and that he is sure as hell isn't his father's son. Oh, and Steve King from Iowa is a nice role model as well...

bruno, I agree with you; anything to defeat Bayh.

Kabuki

MoveOn helt Reid and Van Hollen partly by giving them an opportunity to stand up for self proclaimed moderates. Reid helps MoveOn help Reid by criticizing MoveOn and drawing attention to MoveOn's criticisms of Evan Nelson.

Steve Benen understands perfectly and is playing his role.

Those of us on Move-On's side of things should say what's good for one is good for all - if progressives need to back off, then so should moderates and wingers also back off. Why is it OK for everyone but progressives to advocate forcefully for what they believe? A lot of the Democratic leadership is still pretty anti-democratic.

When will Harry stop sucking elephant dick?

When the elephant is done with him.

It occurred to me that maybe Reid's problem was that pushing these DINO's to do what is right may backfire in that it would get them ticked off. But it doesn't seem to have happened.

I think the reason Reid and Van Hollen are freaking about this is because of the undeserved bad reputation have put on these two organizations - especially moveon. They're paranoid that the GOoPers will use this as a propaganda tool.

"See how the Democrat leaders in Congress [and they'll be sure to say DemoCRAT, too] are beholden to the lefty loons in moveon?"

Of course it could also be because they're just as much in corporations' pockets, too....

Steve, what Reid and Van Hollen are doing is remarkable, if unsurprising given the quality of Democratic leadership and Democratic caucus loyalty: they're defending the right of *Democrats* to help *Republicans* sabotage a *Democratic* president.

What MoveOn doesn't understand is that this is a central value of the Democratic party: just as the GOP has Reagan's famed 11th Commandment, and Israel has a "right of return" (or something like that), each of which is a fundamental principle of group identity, the Democratic party consists of such a wide variety of people that it can't even agree that *Democrats* should advance *Democratic* policies by working with other *Democrats*.

It'd be one thing if Reid and Van Hollen were staying neutral in the Democrat-vs.-Democrat attacks.

But it's another thing entirely that they're siding with anti-Democratic Democrats *against* pro-Democratic Democrats.

They're not party leaders; they're quislings.

Reid and VanHollen aren't from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. They're villagers, and believe in droit d'signeur.

MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change aren't going away. If they make Senator Reid uncomfortable, then they're doing their job.