Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Kos Promotes a Republican on His Democratic Website

I've been enjoying your exposure of the hypocrisy, Frenchy.... :)

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

by CabinGirl on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 02:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shouldn't Kos be banned from DailyKos? (none / 0)

Or DailyKogs, as I now call it...

After all, Kos lavished praise on Arnold Schwarzenegger. Last time I checked (and I'm a Californian, you may recall), the Gubernator was a Republican.

What's Moulitsas doing, promoting the candidacy of a Republican? Hasn't he read the FAQs?

This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together.

Written by Moulitsas himself in 2004.

But let's move our time machine forward to 2007:

And while not even a real Democratic governor is perfect, fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State.

Pop quiz, folks. Markos Moulitsas is:

A. A flaming hypocrite;
B. A closet Republican;
C. Suffering from early onset of Alzheimer's;
D. Using a ghostwriter, so he has no idea what "he" wrote.

You can choose more than one!

I chose: A&B.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 10:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Delusional DailyKoggers (none / 1)

The Kogs are so delusional that they actually think that No Impeachment Nancy has laid a trap and is a "genius" for having done so!

Eureka!
I get it now.
Pelosi - ooooh, is she sharp, or what?
Madam Speaker laid a trap.
She lulled the arrogant pricks into hubristic complacency.
They figured they could do whatever they wanted. By, quote, "removing impeachment from the table" - heh, heh - she tricked 'em.
Like the 6-month-olds they basically are, the criminals in the Bush administration figured, Since I can't see it, it must not exist.
Pelosi and Co. lured the White House right into the trap.

Uh...yeah...it was all just a ruse. All that talk about "impeachment is off the table" was just a clever Wile E. Coyote trap that's gonna get the Roadrunner. See, Pelosi didn't really mean it...she was just luring Bush into a false sense of complacency.

Oh, by the way, the "Alias Mister Smith" who is referenced in that delusional "Nancy Pelosi Is a Genius" diary is my DailyKos name. Or it was, until I was banned for questioning the DailyKog version of "reality".

Ah, me, the fun one has on the Internets nowadays. I can't wait for Pelosi to catch the Roadrunner THIS time.

Does anybody have a great big industrial size can of Reality Spray? If so, could you trundle it over to DailyKog and empty it on them?

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 11:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh snap. (4.00 / 2)

That's all I'll say on this particular subject. Carry on. :)

Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 02:23:21 PM EST

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (4.00 / 5)

Unquestioning loyalty is apparently not the exclusive province of Repugnicans.

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

by boran2 (blogistan@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 02:40:48 PM EST

I Shudder at the Party Line Comments @dKos (none / 0)

.
Why be afraid of open debate?
See the Israeli argument and basics of censorship.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

by Oui on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Shudder at the Party Line Comments @dKos (none / 1)

`Cause the wrong people might, y'know, WIN...

and it's only a REAL democracy if the power elites get to do all the actual deciding. Sure, sometimes you have to fake it a little, just to keep the peasants happy, but nobody who matters cares what they say.

We are all captives of the pictures in our heads -- our belief that the world which we have experienced is the world that really exists. -- Walter Lippman

by stormkite on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 02:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DKos' major sticking point seemed to me to be Sheehan's gaffes about the Dems being "the party of slavery" and something about starting all but one of the 20th century's U.S.-involved wars (all "Republican talking points" and some dubious interpretations of history). Not to mention that whole abolish the income tax thing. At least that's what the, um, "most vocal" DKos users cited. Personally I'd guess that the specter of a many-headed hydra of non-Dem candidates is starting to really make some users there feel besieged and fall back on ye olde "rules & faqs" memes, but then that makes it sound all "Fortress DKos" and I don't know if that's accurate either.

I don't know if it's because Dkos feels threatened, or if the regulars there are frustrated by or weary of "invasions" of hyper-earnest supporters of Nader/Paul/Bloomberg/Sheehan/Generic Not Dem, but it really does seem to be bringing a few folks to the end of their ropes (again). Lotta short fuses. It's frustrating enough for me to read, as far as something that will just turn me off entirely, but I don't know anymore why people behave the way they behave- on any site, not just Dkos. No guess seems to offer a sufficiently true explanation for everybody.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 02:50:30 PM EST

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (4.00 / 3)

We're all getting tired of the hypocracy meme: dedicated to the election of Democrats. The Lieberman gaffe seems proof enough that it is about the election of some Democrats and not others. Sheehan obviously can't beat Pelosi, but she can help set the agenda. And why shouldn't she be allowed that platform?

by shergald on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why not indeed? I don't know. Other people with opinions apparently more important than mine have decided that for DKos there has never been a platform for anyone other than loyal Democrats.

Until there is, of course.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re: Lieberman gaffe (none / 0)

not quite following you here - did kos support Lieberman over Lamont?

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They did not. (none / 0)

Indeed, the support of Lamont over Lieberman is a prime example of one of the missions of Daily Kos: that we must reform the party from the inside out by making it more progressive. One way to do that is to primary our more conservative or traiterous Democrats, like Joe Lieberman.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They did not. (4.00 / 2)

How's that primary thing working out for you? Where are the Democratic challengers stepping up to put pressure on Pelosi? Frankly, I think your theory of party reform is utter crap. It's extremely rare that you'll find a worthy challenger for a sitting Democrat. Instead you'll get lousy campaigners like Lamont. The reason is simple: no experienced politician is going to put her career on the line to challenge an incumbent in her own party. So you get outsiders, amateurs who can't win the general even if they eke out a primary victory.

The way to make the party more progressive is to make the public more progressive. Read the Federalist Papers, not the simplistic "Crashing the Gates."

by new topographer on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 09:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 1)

Frankly, I think your theory of party reform is utter crap.

You insult the good name of crap by comparing it to the "we'll support primary challenges" idea. Crap at least has some value as garden fertilizer.

Incumbents have truckloads of money, a recognizable name, and a staff to help keep them in office (not to mention the cooperation of the mainstream media and a lazy, complacent public).

Primary challenges? Yeah, right.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 04:11:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

You are correct. I apologize to crap everywhere for my insensitive comparison. I would replace the term with "nonsense," but that would similarly tarnish the name of Edward Lear. Suggestions are welcomed.

by new topographer on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Than just how does it mean to support Democrats "LEFT TO RIGHT." Isn't that the theme? Democrats uber alles no matter what they believe. Of course it is bullshit. Yet, progressive is just a euphemism for liberal. Still, we saw support for Tancredoists in the fight over illegal immigration, where DKos failed to support the progressives.

by shergald on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they supported Lamont in the primary over Joe L - but the issue with Cindy isn't that she wants to make a primary challenge. after the primary Joe L didn't run as a democrat.

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But the stats were out there for Joe beating Lamont as an independent, and he did. I am very skeptical anyway that DKos had anything to do with the primary result. For that matter, I am skeptical that DKos had anything to do with the Democrat wins in 2006. The monies collected and contributed were miniscule relatively speaking.

I would be impressed with DKos as a political force if I did not see the DLC agenda winning hands down, and the Left Wing of the party losing miserably. When I was a DKos member, I was never part of the illusionist audience.

by shergald on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that was my understanding; what is shergald getting at about the hypocrisy that it's about the election of some democrats and not others? One of the central points over there is that Cindy is not making a primary challenge to reform the party from within. a primary challenge would be ok

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shergald and others feel (none / 0)

Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, Jon Tester and Bob Casey are all exactly the same, and are confused by our support of the latter three and our campaign against Joe Lieberman.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shergald and others feel (none / 0)

didn't Joe run against the democratic candidate?

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:18:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

since i haven't been to dkos since he booted me off his blogroll, i haven't had to put up with any of this hypocrisy.

by skippybkroo (skippybkroo@aol.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 08:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So people are dying in Iraq (4.00 / 2)

And our country is being torn apart while Iraq descends into civil war....

And all the DailyKoggers can focus on is that Sheehan insulted the Democratic Party????

Party before country, that's the DailyKog Krowd.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 11:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (3.66 / 3)

What does Sheehan's opinion on history or the income tax have to do with whether or not she can post at Daily Kos about her campaign?

by BooMan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's just it- I don't know. The rationale seems ever-changing. I share your sentiments on this.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's three things 1. it's not a primary challenge to Pelosi, with the goal of moving that house seat leftwards on some issues like impeachment. she's not talking about a Lamont/ Lieberman primary. 2. Cindy's platform is a right wing challenge. I can see why Kos wouldn't want that, and would invoke the ground rules against it. Why not Lyndon Larouche promoting a candidacy there? 3. Cindy S is very well known and has posted there on the Iraq war: it's not like an unknown posting a diary about a proposed challenge to a democrat. Result: perception associates the site closely with her candidacy, more closely than it would be with an unknown. Hence the fact that it's not a primary challenge and it's a right wing challenge become even more a factor.
p.s. I recognize there are hundreds of people posting over there about it, but I consider myself a pragmatist, not some kind of "true believer" party loyalist. Please don't bash all of us with the same brush.

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (3.50 / 2)

Right-wing? Why? Because she agrees with Alan Keyes on the income tax? Please try to be serious. Cindy Sheehan may use some anti-Democratic rhetoric borrowed from Bob Dole but she isn't running from the right.

by BooMan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how is it a right wing run?
please explain.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

let me try to her statement for you (if may be unavailable it it's now troll rated)

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cindy Sheehan was troll rated on Dkos? (none / 1)

That says it all right there.

by northcountry on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cindy Sheehan will be banned from DKos soon (none / 0)

Depend on it.

Sheehan will be banned because she thinks for herself, and says what she thinks--and what she thinks and what she says do NOT agree with Kos' official talking points.

That's the "death sentence" on DailyKog.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 03:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Two issues. (none / 0)

First, she attacks the Democratic Party using smears that came straight out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. If name was not Cindy Sheehan, she would have been troll rated. "Democrats started World War II." "Democrats are (present tense) the party of slavery." Her views on the income tax had nothing to do with the anger at her (although it reveals her as not a true progressive, just a LaRouchian).

Second, was Ralph Nader allowed to advocate his 2004 Presidential campaign on Daily Kos? No, he wasn't. Neither will Cindy Sheehan.

Daily Kos, according to the site's founder, Markos Moulitsas, is dedicated to 1) electing Democrats and 2) reforming the party to make it more progressive. Markos states that it is a partisan Democratic blog.

Thus, advocacy of third party and independant campaigns are not welcome, with the rare exception of Bernie Sanders.

If people do not like that, they are free to come here, or to MyDD, or to OpenLeft, or to My Left Wing, or to a host of other politically oriented blogs that cater to whatever your issue is.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two issues. (4.00 / 9)

It's stupid.

You would have banned Ralph Nader?

What are you afraid of? That he might have a point about a thing or two? The best way to deal with people that agree with you on most things is to engage them in debate. Right-wingers tend to spew talking points incessantly, which is why they generally get themselves troll-rated into oblivion. But why does this have to be a management position?

by BooMan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course I would have banned (none / 1)

Ralph Nader.

"there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Repubican Party nor between Gore and Bush."

Lies.

Ralph Nader may have a point or two, and he may have been a great consumer advocate in the past (thanks for the seatbelt), but when you repeat lies like that above, and then take GOP money for your campaign and GOP support to get on the ballot, tell me, why should we engage Mr. Nader in any debate?

As for Cindy, it is really a shame that she did not run in the Democratic Primary against Pelosi. I, for one, would have stayed silent. I may not agree with her on most issues, but I encourage Democratic primaries for they tend to keep our Democrats honest. Further, primaries are really the only way to reform the party, for you can oust Democrats that stray from our ideals. Cindy could have pursued that path and had nearly 100% support from Daily Kos and its members.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course I would have banned (4.00 / 4)

You have a totally different conception of coalition building than I do.

As for Sheehan, let me make two points.

She isn't going to even make Pelosi break a sweat. She should have picked on someone that might actually have to worry, like Ike Skelton or something. It doesn't matter whether she runs in the primary or the general. She'll have no effect on the outcome. And if she has any effect at all, it will be a positive effect.
Trashing her and forbidding her from discussing her campaign is just weakening your community and causing scads of people on the left to feel unwelcome.

Dumb and Dumber.

by BooMan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Answer (none / 1)

I agree.
I feel she has to apologize to all Democrats everywhere for her lies about slavery and starting wars. That was an insult, not a prelude to a debate. Until she does, no debate with her or her supporters about her candidacy will be possible. Indeed, I would ask her supporters if they endorse her opinion that the Democratic Party is currently the party of slavery and that the Democratic Party started World War II.

Finally, Booman, people are going to discuss her campaign on Daily Kos. What we are talking is whether Cindy herself, the candidate herself, should be given the free (to her) bandwidth to do so.

Going back to the two missions of Daily Kos as stated by Markos, the obvious answer is no, she should not be.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answer (4.00 / 7)

Well, personally I don't really care about her insulting the Democratic Party. Her statements damage her credibility, not the party's, so I don't see what the problem is.

You take these hardline positions and then wonder why people are so freaking angry with Daily Kos.

by BooMan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sheehan doesn't have to apologize (none / 1)

First, to whom should she direct the apology? How do you apologize to a political party? Is she supposed to write an individual letter to each registered Democrat?

I've been a registered Democrat since 1980, and I don't feel Cindy owes me an apology.

Democrats WERE the party of slavery--and of segregation. Southern politics was controlled by Democrats during the time of segregation--and George "Segregation forever!" Wallace was the Democratic governor of Alabama.

Some reputable historians do feel that FDR baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor; if you'd put down your Playstation long enough to read a few history books, you'd realize that. FDR froze Japanese assets in July 1941, helping to cut off their supply of petroleum; the Japanese considered that and many other acts a prelude to war, and they struck first. FDR had been agitating for the US to get involved in World War II for two years before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Not only that, but the President during World War I was of what party? Democrat. What party had the White House when the US got into the Vietnam War? Democrat.

Sheehan doesn't have to apologize for anything she's written. It's you who owe her an apology, but of course that would require a degree of grace and dignity you have not heretofore shown.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 04:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Books on FDR provoking the Japanese (none / 0)

Herbert Feis, The Road to Pearl Harbor
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950);

Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Vol. III, The Rising Sun in the Pacific, 1931-April 1942 (Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1948);

The two volumes of William L. Langer and S. Everett
Gleason, Challenge to Isolation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952).

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 04:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two issues. (4.00 / 4)

I always thought that the answer to bad speech is more speech.

My mistake.

if Sheehan's threatened run forces Pelosi to put impeachment on the table, i support it, and so should other progressive democrats. I trust other progressive democrats want impeachment back on the table. I trust other progressive democrats believe in consequences.

or should we just turn a blind eye when our democrats act badly? Should I not be calling out, say Joe Sestak and Pat Murphy for voting to fund the School of the Americas? Should I not call pout Joe Biden for the bankruptcy bill or his "we're a slave state!" nonsense?

Would my criticism be any less valid if i were an independent? And if so, does that mean my criticism of the GOP is less valid because I'm not a republican?

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what people always misunderstand (none / 1)

You all always feel that to be supportive of the Democratic Party and a Democratic Party member means that no criticism of the party can ever be made. And you all feel that because Daily Kos is dedicated to electing Democrats, that no Democrat can ever be criticized.

That is what is utter bullshit.

Of course you can criticize Pat Murphy and Joe Sestak and Joe Biden and any other Democrat who votes wrongly.

The mission about electing Democrats is only about the general election, when you are faced with a choice between a Democrat, a Republican and a Independent.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what people always misunderstand (none / 1)

"You all always feel that to be supportive of the Democratic Party and a Democratic Party member means that no criticism of the party can ever be made."

No, I DON'T feel that way. In fact, I supported a number of democrats in 2006, including the odious bobby casey.

but "And you all feel that because Daily Kos is dedicated to electing Democrats, that no Democrat can ever be criticized."

I don't feel that way either, but there are a lot of people at daily kos that DO feel that way. heck, a number of responses to my recent posts have expressed exactly that sentiment.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two issues. (none / 0)

1) and 2) are mutually exclusive.

by new topographer on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 09:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Democrats Uber Alles"... (none / 1)

...can lead to some disturbing hypotheticals, Mr. Delaware DailyKog.

Let us suppose that the Democratic nominee for the Senate in the mythical state of East Dakota is an anti-abortion rights, pro-segregation, anti-environmentalist, anti-union, anti-Semitic, homophobic racist who is also a convicted child molester and snorts meth while hurling water balloons at the East Dakotan press corps.

The Republican nominee is his twin brother, and just as bad.

Both of them are opposed by an independent candidate named Raymond Shaw, who has worked all his life for progressive political causes and is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

By the logic of the Rules of Kos, DailyKos would not allow diaries by Raymond Shaw, even though Shaw is the only progressive (and mentally stable) candidate in the race.

As Emerson once wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

I'm guessing that Ralph Waldo Emerson would have gotten himself banned by one of you online TonTon Macoutes a LONG time ago; he never was one for blind, unthinking loyalty.

Not only that, but in addition to his independent mind, Emerson possessed something in his anatomy that made him unsuitable to be a DailyKog: a spine.

Oh, and one other word, Mr. Delaware DailyKog: What have YOU done to stop the illegal occupation of Iraq? Compared to Cindy Sheehan? How many sons have you given to the service of this country? What have you sacrificed other than the electricity it takes to run your computer?

Pffft, these DailyKoggers....

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 11:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny, your pal Major Danby... (none / 0)

...called ME a "Karl Rove troll" for questioning the wisdom of Pelosi and Reid in taking impeachment off the table as an option after the 2006 elections. He lost the argument, of course, and was losing so badly that he had to go fetch Hunter to despatch me from DailyKog before Minor Danby further embarrassed himself by flailing around in his own flopsweat.

Of course, Major Danby hasn't got a fucking clue, and neither do you--I've been a registered Democrat since 1980, and still am--and I've been around long enough to remember a time when the Democratic leadership had guts (like Tip O'Neill) and stood up to Republican bullies.

If this crop of Democratic "leaders" were around during Nixon's time, Nixon would have served out his entire second term--and the DailyKoggers would have made excuses for those spineless bunch of appeasers.

That bullshit about "trolls"? You need to pack it in, DelawareDailyKog. You people can't separate honest dissent from a suicidal, self-defeating leadership from honest-to-God right-wing trolls.

That's just fucking stupid--not to mention suicidal. You're so busy driving away potential allies that you can't focus on the GOP enemy. Instead of listening to dissent and learning from it, and finding a way to accommodate those who are disgruntled--which is what you do when you're building a coalition--you unleash the flying monkeys to beat people into submission (or failing that, ban them from the site).

Eh, it's OK. You're clearly not on the side of political progressives, and I'd rather not have "allies" like you. You make me far more nervous than the straight-up right-wingers. At least they don't PRETEND to be anything other than what they are.

Visit me at The Blogging Curmudgeon

by The Blogging Curmudgeon on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 03:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Compared to Cindy Sheehan, dKos Is ... (none / 0)

.
just bandwidth.

Cindy Sheehan alone put the Iraq War on the political calendar for Election 2006 and the women of America were decisive in the results.

by Oui on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 03:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In response I'm trying to be accurate and was looking for quotes but can't get her diary to open past the opening paragraph. maybe they took that one down. other diaries of hers opened.
anyway, I'll defer to Delaware Dem below.

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Well, I don't really understand it either. That was just the gist of some of the comments I read.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 09:54:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cindy's Diary 'Upgraded' to Troll (4.00 / 5)

.
Over @dKos - CindySheehan's diary :: ::
Tags: Cindy Sheehan, GBCW, troll diary (all tags)

I too would extend a warm welcome to 'refugee' Cindy Sheehan to take a plunge in BooMan's pond! Fond memories ...

Losing Our Fear of Bush: Sheehan has Punctured Bush's Shield ◊ by Shadowthief
Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 11:28:19 AM PST

I've been on holiday in Italy and returned to find that the ground has shifted underneath Bush's feet ... caused by a force of nature named Cindy Sheehan. I returned from Italy with a photograph of Michelangelo's "Pieta", a sculpture he did in his early 20s, which has significance for the strange and wonderful saga of Cindy Sheehan ...

by Oui on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:27:01 PM EST

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (4.00 / 5)

So now Cindy Sheehan has a Kos Problem. In general, I'm kind of fed up with DKos. It has become a big echo chamber, just in the way older Kossacks used to harp on the winger sites. Orthodoxy or else! The 'debates' strike me as increasingly one-sided, and an awful lot of people got banned for, um, thinking for themselves I guess.

OTOH, it is in their FAQs....

Anyway, that's why this place is on my links bar and DK isn't anymore.

by pilgrim99 on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:10:40 PM EST

Re: Sheehan and Daily Kos (4.00 / 3)

A few comments:

Booman's blog is truly a progressive blog, rather than a Democratic blog like dKos. Both have valid purposes.
Booman's blog is superior to dKos because of the openess of this community.
Historically, the Democratic Party was the party of slavery. But the movement of Dixiecrats to the Republican Party in the 1950's and 60's where they are both more welcome and more at home should identify which party is the party of slavery now.
Just because Cindy Sheehan is against the war and has become a tremendous spokesperson for the anti-war movement doesn't mean she's a progressive. It means she's against a stupid war fought against the wrong enemy for the wrong purpose, the justification of which is 100% a pile of lies told by Bush and Cheney and their lackeys.

All Progressives need to become ardent supporters of the Second, as well as the , First Amendment

by phronesis (swwiener@gmail.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:38:46 PM EST

In regards to #3, the 1964 voting rights act really tipped the scale. Before that, the "Solid South" meant one thing, after that it meant the opposite.

We need to push for Progressive change, now more than ever.

by keepinon (jaukkuri@sbcglobal.net) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 06:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you, BooMan, for welcoming Cindy here. It is a bit discouraging to witness the orange spiraling down the tubes into irrelevancy -- or at the least, becoming a Tower of Babel. Makes one appreciate the Pond all the more.

"Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness. Listen to it carefully." -- Richard Bach

by WolverineBlue (camster9ATyahoo.com) on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 04:48:04 PM EST

Cindy, Didn't You Get the Meme? (4.00 / 2)

To paraphrase Elvis:

You either shut up or get cut up;
they don't wanna hear about it
You're interfering with their mass appeal
And DailyKos is in the hands of such a lot of fools
Tryin' to anaesthetise the way that you feel.

More here.

US Constitution v1.27 is to modern democratic government what CP/M is to modern computer operating systems.

by Red Harvest on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 10:06:36 PM EST

I absolutely support her threat to Pelosi. In fact, rather than vote for DiFi, I wrote her in for my vote.

The reason is clear. She has no chance. It is a protest vote. It is a message to the powers that be that we are pissed. Pelosi's people have made it abundantly clear that impeachment should be sought. She refuses to listen because of some fucked up politics. Sheehan is using her notoriety to make it clear as glass. The people are pissed and we are tired of her pussy-footing around the Republicans. We want action. Real action.

The Kos reaction is just fucking shocking, not too surprising, but really sad. I would welcome Cindy here. She is not stupid, she is making a statement to end the war. I support that and I know a lot in SF would support her too, not enough to win, but enough to make a statement.

She speaks for all of us who want to see the Dems get aggressive. They got the majority, despite vast voter intimidation, for a reason. Now act!

I am so losing hope in the system. I put up with Ronnie Raygun, who started this neo-con shit, and the Bushes, but how far do we have to sink before people rise up. Cindy is rising up and I respect her for that. I just want a government who really cares about humanity. Is that so much to ask?

by Kamakhya (onyx at earthlink dot net) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:29:27 AM EST

respectfully disagree - I love this site, booman's insights, the open-mindedness here, and I get fed up with the orange place for various reasons (I migrated over here during one of the battles of yore). Nevertheless, and I've posted a few comments on the Cindy threads to this effect, it seems fair to say Cindy is not welcome to use DK as a base from which to advocate for an an anti-democratic party candidacy; no one objected to her posting opinions and discussion on the site in general. Since she proposed to run against The New Deal among other things, my comment over there was - if the democratic party is "the party of slavery" then run as a republican, "the party of emancipation".

Viva Obama

by Errol on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:09:41 PM EST

I think she should run (none / 1)

We need people rattling the democratic cage now and again. Beyond getting dems elected we really need to restore the rule of law and reverse these crazy executive privelege precedents Bush II is trying to set.

I agree with Booman on Pelosi. I think Pelosi's craftier and more in tune with core democratic values than we think or see...but I do think the party and leadership still needs some radical shaking up.

And thank you Booman for inviting her to post here.

by northcountry on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 03:15:33 PM EST