How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months

[red states rule]

This is from the liberal rag "The Nation". Dems are not liked by their own kook base



How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months
[from the August 27, 2007 issue]

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.

Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense.

Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating "inexperience." Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.

Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed.

So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.

Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?

The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it.

For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now--as my brother Patrick recently pointed out--gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War.

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17--the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070827&s=cockburn

[bluestatesrule]

You were the one who predicted the democrats would lose last fall? Any predictions for November 08.....You did say Hillary would lose to whoever would run for the G.O.P...

[KarlMarx]

actually, Congress' approval ratings are very low... even lower than President Bush's. It took W years to get to his approval ratings, but only months for Congress to get to theirs.

Remember that "100 hours" thing? They were going to be the equivalent of the White Tornado (for those old enough who remember that commercial)... instead they didn't manage to do a whole lot.

Perhaps Speaker Pelosi can multi-task and actually do something beside play political games with the Iraq war, trying to make Bush look bad and trying to turn our country into a Socialist Republic.

[nevadamedic]

This is from the liberal rag "The Nation". Dems are not liked by their own kook base



How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months
[from the August 27, 2007 issue]

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.

Just as the Democrats work tirelessly to demonstrate to the voters that it makes zero difference which party controls Congress, the political establishment forces all candidates for the presidential nomination to sever any compromising ties to sanity and common sense.

Right now they're hosing down Barack Obama because he said in the YouTube debate in South Carolina that he would be prepared to meet with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to hash over problems face to face. The pundits whacked him for demonstrating "inexperience." Experienced leaders order the CIA to murder such men.

Then Obama drew even fiercer fire by saying he would take nukes off the table in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama told the AP on August 2, adding, after a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

I'm beginning to respect this man. He displays sagacity well beyond the norm for candidates seeking the Oval Office. He comprehends, if only in mid-sentence, that when you drop a nuclear bomb, it will kill civilians. He also realizes that strafing Waziristan with thermonuclear devices in the hopes of nailing Osama bin Laden is a foolish way to proceed.

So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.

Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?

The left is as easily distracted, currently by the phantasm of impeachment. Why all this clamor to launch a proceeding surely destined to fail, aimed at a duo who will be out of the White House in sixteen months? Pursue them for war crimes after they've stepped down. Mount an international campaign of the sort that has Henry Kissinger worrying at airports that there might be a lawyer with a writ standing next to the man with the limo sign. Right now the impeachment campaign is a distraction from the war and the paramount importance of ending it.

For sure, there are actions around the country: Quakers and Unitarians picketing outside shopping centers, campus vigils, resolutions by city councils and so forth. It's all pretty quiet, in a conflict that has now--as my brother Patrick recently pointed out--gone on longer than the First World War. At the liberal blogger convention, Yearly Kos, held the first weekend in August, the organizers nixed any serious strategy session on the war. John Stauber of PR Watch had to force an impromptu (and very successful) session with leaders of the Iraq Veterans Against the War.

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17--the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070827&s=cockburn

:laugh2: I thought this was going to be another thread about Bill Clinton blowing his load. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

You were the one who predicted the democrats would lose last fall? Any predictions for November 08.....You did say Hillary would lose to whoever would run for the G.O.P...

Go back to the Peanut Gallery.

[red states rule]

You were the one who predicted the democrats would lose last fall? Any predictions for November 08.....You did say Hillary would lose to whoever would run for the G.O.P...

Your Dems have LOWER poll numbers then the Republicans had last Nov. BSR, we both know your party lives and breaths by polls

BTW, this article was from the Nation - are you going to say The Nation, is part of the right wing media?

[red states rule]

Go back to the Peanut Gallery.

He lives there. You have to take a few posts from him daily. I have to listen to this at work five days a week

[red states rule]

This should be good

Markos Moulitsas to Debate Harold Ford Jr. on ‘Meet the Press’
By Noel Sheppard | August 11, 2007 - 19:33 ET

After the press spent last weekend gushing over liberal bloggers with nothing but glowing coverage of the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the media's fascination with the Netroots continued with reckless abandon this weekend.

On Saturday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, to be followed by a debate on Sunday's "Meet the Press" between the head Kossack and the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford, Jr.

Are media recognizing the power of the Netroots, or just trying to assist their efforts to move the Democrat Party further and further to the left?

Regardless of the answer, Moulitsas continued to posit in the Post the same absurd assertion from his keynote address last weekend that he and his ilk represent the center of American politics (emphasis added):

A new day is dawning for the progressive movement. The distrust between Net-roots activists and more traditional progressive players in the party establishment and issue groups has given way to respectful cooperation as we all adjust to new technologies and the promise they hold for institutional change.

Last week, at the YearlyKos convention, all these players came together to celebrate our newfound unity and to organize for the coming battles in 2008 and beyond. The DLC was nowhere to be found -- unless you looked in Nashville, where its members continued to preach, in empty halls, about the "vital center." Even the Democratic presidential candidates have figured out where the heart of the party now lies: with the new, unashamedly progressive movement.

The DLC had two decades to make its case, to build an audience and community, to elect leaders the American people wanted. It failed.

Its members number in the hundreds, compared with the millions that the people-powered movement can claim, and they are reduced to attacking our movement from the studios of right-wing Fox News and pleading that in the next election they'll really prove that the mushy, indistinguishable "middle" is where the American people want to be.

Their time is up. The "center" is where we stand now, promoting an engaged and active politics embraced by significant majorities of Americans.

Every time you hear someone on the far left state that his or her political opinions represent the center of American politics, you really have to wonder what the color of the sky is in their world.

On the other hand, you have to give Moulitsas credit, for unlike Al Gore, at least he's willing to debate folks he disagrees with. But, he had better be at the top of his game, for the Post published an op-ed of Ford's on Tuesday, and the former Congressman is clearly loaded for bear (emphasis added):

Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

In fact, Ford seemed to be pointing a cautionary finger right at Moulitsas and his ilk:

As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great -- and too rare -- to pass up.

In 2006, conservatives lost the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and, as a result, both chambers of Congress.

A similar battle is being waged in the Democrat Party, with just as significant ramifications for the upcoming elections. As Kimberley Strassel wrote in Friday's Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

The far left has found something to unify it -- hatred of George W. Bush. Technology has given it the means to organize; what the right found in talk radio, liberals have found in the "netroots" Internet, from Moveon.org to Daily Kos. Its activism has of late overshadowed groups like the DLC, which still believe in such creaky notions as ideas. Even Mr. Ford, who took over the DLC chairmanship in January, is willing to admit his outfit has been eclipsed: "The DLC and other moderate groups have struggled a bit to find not only our voice, but a way to be heard."

Making it harder is that this newly energized left is directing inordinate firepower on the DLC itself, in a crazed, purist drive to purge any group that would exert a moderating influence on the Democratic Party. New Republic scribe Noam Scheiber let loose a few weeks back in a New York Times hit piece, calling the DLC "radioactive" and "quaint," gloating that its "fading influence was good news for the entire party," and arguing that it should just get lost. Markos Moulitsas, chief flogger-blogger on the Daily Kos, this week slammed the DLC as a group that wants to "blur distinctions with the GOP," and reveling that Democrats had won in 2006 because liberals like himself had "forced" Americans to pick sides.

The real target audience for these pronouncements is the Democratic presidential field, and the threat is clear: Touch the DLC, and you will be (to use a favorite, medieval Kos word) "punished." At least a few activists danced a victory lap, too, a few weeks back when every last Democratic candidate spurned the DLC's annual convention in Nashville, instead turning up at Mr. Moulitsas's YearlyKos event in Chicago.

Yet, the celebration might be very premature:

Congress alone should be cause for the DLC's concern. Nancy Pelosi shrewdly presented her party as more centrist in last year's election, yet upon winning tossed the gavel to her liberal wing. Egged on by activists, Congressional Democrats have spent eight months fighting for surrender in Iraq, tanking trade pacts with Latin America and South Korea and maneuvering to institute backdoor socialized health care. This undoubtedly has something to do with Congress's approval rating, which now stands below that of even President Bush.

And the presidential candidates? Mr. From says he's happy that none of the front-runners have so far "gone off the deep end," but this might be considered faint praise. The one grown-up on national security has been Sen. Joe Biden, who barely registers in Democratic polls. Hillary Clinton has come out against even a South Korean trade deal; this from the wife of the DLCer whose own free-trade impulses (at least his first term) delivered Nafta and GATT. Barack Obama produced a little shiver among his party's fiscal disciplinarians when he recently blurted out (at the Kos event, in case you were wondering), that he'd be happy to run up deficits in the name of greater domestic spending.

[...]

Mr. Ford, for his part, has dark warnings for those activists selling the line that last year's election is proof that their liberal ideas are now "mainstream," or that Democrats' reputation on national security and the economy is so secure that the candidates run no risk going left. "That's called short-term memory," he says, with a few references to Carter, Mondale and other ghosts of failed Democrats past.

In fact, Moulitsas' ego seems to be getting the better of him when he suggests that he and the Netroots were responsible for Democrat successes in November 2006. As Strassel pointed out:

The party's most impressive gains last year all came from politicians straight out of the DLC cast. Four governors spoke at the DLC convention this year; all four had beat Republicans. The vast majority of the pick-ups in the House came from DLCers in red states in the South and Midwest. The Senate wouldn't be in Democratic hands were it not for Montana's Jon Tester.

"The reality is, without the DLC, and without candidates who subscribe to our platform, Democrats wouldn't be in the majority today. If we abandon that group, we will lose the majority and we will lose the White House," says Mr. Ford.

Certainly, conservatives hope Ford is right, and that Democrats will foolishly follow the inexperienced Moulitsas into the river.

That said, Markos better be prepared tomorrow, for Ford is a lifelong politician, not just some guy with a laptop and an Internet connection.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/markos-moulitsas-debate-harold-ford-jr-meet-press

[red states rule]

You were the one who predicted the democrats would lose last fall? Any predictions for November 08.....You did say Hillary would lose to whoever would run for the G.O.P...

and the legacy of Bill Clinton lives on in Chris Matthews and his little watched show

Leering Chris Matthews Asks Female CNBC Anchor to Move in Closer to Camera
By P.J. Gladnick | August 12, 2007 - 09:44 ET
Apparently Hardball host Chris Matthews has a bit of a problem keeping his lust in check on the air. On Friday evening's Hardball, Matthews was interviewing CNBC's Street Signs anchor, Erin Burnett, about the latest Wall Street news when suddenly he switched gears as you can see in this video. The official transcript isn't up yet on the MSNBC website but here is a transcription of the conversation as best I could understand it:

MATTHEWS: Could you get a little closer to the camera?

BURNETT: What is it? Is it (garbled) in strangely?

MATTHEWS: Come in closer...no...come in...come in further...come in closer...really close.

(Burnett leans towards camera.)

BURNETT: What are you, what are you doing?

MATTHEWS: Haw! Haw! Just kidding! You look great! Anyway, thank... Erin it's great to have...look at that look... You're great...

BURNETT: I don't even know. I'm going to have to go look at the tape here. I'm in a strange location.

MATTHEWS (laughing): No, you're beautiful! I'm just kidding! I'm just kidding! You're a knockout! Anyways thank you, Erin Burnett. It's alright getting bad news from you even. Okay. Thanks for coming on Hardball.


Chris, I know it was Friday night and Erin Burnett is indeed a knockout. However, perhaps you could be a little more subtle about your attraction for Erin. After all, among the few dozen of your Hardball viewers, Mrs. Matthews could have been watching your leering performance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/08/12/leering-chris-matthews-asks-female-cnbc-anchor-move-closer-camera

[nevadamedic]

Your Dems have LOWER poll numbers then the Republicans had last Nov. BSR, we both know your party lives and breaths by polls

BTW, this article was from the Nation - are you going to say The Nation, is part of the right wing media?

They have the lowest approval ratings in history, and it only took eight months. I love giving that I told you so. I'm just waiting to see how they blame this one on President Bush. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

They have the lowest approval ratings in history, and it only took eight months. I love giving that I told you so. I'm just waiting to see how they blame this one on President Bush. :laugh2:

Oh, BSR will find a way to circle the wagons around his beloved Dems

[red states rule]

They have the lowest approval ratings in history, and it only took eight months. I love giving that I told you so. I'm just waiting to see how they blame this one on President Bush. :laugh2:

The kook left have taken over - here is the head kppk from the Daily Kps on Meet The Press


Markos Moulitsas Abandons Netroots For Democrat Party Establishment
By Noel Sheppard | August 12, 2007 - 20:58 ET

Folks that watched Sunday's "Meet the Press" debate between former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tennessee) and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas might have witnessed the final transformation of the Kossack leader from Netroots chief to Democrat Party operative.

In fact, you could almost hear Emperor Palpatine cackling in the background.

Ignoring the actual lack of substance in the discussion, one thing was made impeccably clear: Markos is now fully ensconced in today's Democrat Party, while Ford and his centrist DLC are persona non grata.

By no means does that validate Moulitsas' absurd claims that Kossacks and Netroots members represent the center of American politics as reported here and here. However, the inanities and hypocrisies uttered by Moulitsas Sunday could easily have been stated with a straight face by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

For instance, read the following nonsensical assertion made by Markos if you have the stomach for it, and ask yourself how many of the current Democrat leaders and presidential candidates could have said the exact same thing (video available here):

The problem we have though is we've had an organization that, one, has been on the wrong side of a lot of ideas. We're talking John Breaux, Sen. John Breaux who's an architect of George Bush's tax cuts, which have led our nation to record deficits, record debt, and a crumbling infrastructure as we've seen in Katrina and as we've seen in Minnesota...What do you think, you're going to cut taxes and not pay for the priorities in our nation? I mean, obviously, there has to be a way to pay for these things. And, to come out and say, "Oh, we're going to cut taxes, and we're going to let these deficits run up, and we're going to let our infrastructure crumble" clearly is the wrong way to go...

Extraordinary. Sounds exactly like Reid, Pelosi and virtually every Democrat presidential candidate, right?

In reality, instead of crashing the gate of the Democrat Party establishment, Moulitsas is now speaking all its talking points, so much so that his op-ed in Saturday's Washington Post shouldn't have been entitled "How We Won The Mainstream," but "How I Sold My Soul To Become Part Of It."

Such was immediately evident as like virtually all of today's Democrats, Markos unashamedly displayed their same specious command of the budget process, and just as cynically as the worst of them, relied on viewers being similarly uneducated when it comes to fiscal matters.

Of course, this has been a mainstay of Democrats for decades: misleading the citizens about the federal budget.

Sadly, as the owner of a website who should understand just how easy it is in the year 2007 for folks to get the facts, it really is disgraceful how loosely Moulitsas played with them. And, as someone who claims to want politicians to be honest with Americans, it is deplorable that Moulitsas is so comfortable disseminating the same fallacies that have become commonplace in the Democrat Party establishment he professes an interest in changing.

In fact, the Emperor must have been in full cackle when Markos disingenuously connected tax cuts to levees in New Orleans and a bridge in Minneapolis regardless of projections for federal tax receipts to be $515 billion more this year than in fiscal 2000 before the first Bush tax cuts were implemented, a 25 percent increase.

Beyond this, Congress will spend almost $1 trillion more this year than in fiscal 2000, a 56 percent increase. As such, claiming that there isn't money available for anything is a despicable lie that one would only expect from a seasoned politician, the type Markos used to claim to his followers he was fighting to unseat.

As a result, rather than presenting a new idea created by himself and the Netroots on Sunday, Moulitsas was singing the same tune about tax cuts and spending the Democrat Party has been sadly singing for years.

But that was just the beginning, for Markos' conversion also impacted his view on the war:

On the Iraq issue, this is semantics whether we get out in three months, six months, or a year. There is a strong consensus, almost universally in our Party, and vast majorities amongst the American public, that people want out. People want this war to end, they want to bring our troops home...

Even guest host David Gregory recognized that hypocrisy:

But how you get out is not just semantics. It's a very important point.

Markos responded with the perfect Democrat talking point:

Of course it's semantics. Well, when you ask a poll question though when they say, "Do you want to get out immediately, or do you want to get out in six months, or a year?" It's, we're talking semantics. The bottom line is...

Gregory: Doesn't that speak to the issue of how you form an exit strategy?

Moulitsas: No. Not at all, because we're not going to get out while we have George Bush as president. I mean, so, if we say we want to be out in three months, clearly, if we could be out yesterday, I'd want to be out yesterday. I also understand as a veteran who worked in logistics that you can't pull out 160,000 troops overnight, or even in three months. So, yeah, there's an ideal situation which is "Let's get them out as quickly as possible." So, the poll questions in that regard are very much moving in semantics.

Amazing hypocrisies and rationalizations much like what consistently emanates from today's Democrat leadership, and used to be offensive to Markos and his followers.

After all, the Netroots' modus operandi in 2006 - most notably represented by their support of Ned Lamont in Connecticut - was to get troops out of Iraq immediately. The term "immediately" certainly wasn't semantics last year. It was a rallying cry.

These same folks have been pushing for Congress to stop funding the war, and were very disappointed when this didn't immediately occur after the Democrats took over in January.

Yet, almost seven months later, this staunchly anti-war liberal is claiming that the difference between three months, six months, and a year is irrelevant, and that it really doesn't matter what Congress does because as long as Bush is in the White House, the troops aren't going anywhere.

I thought this was all about saving lives, and the sooner we got out, the fewer Americans would be lost. Suddenly, time is no longer of the essence, and Markos is okay with the idea that troops will remain in Iraq until at least another president is inaugurated seventeen plus months from now.

Sound like the same rationalizations and inanities coming from the Democrat leadership and presidential candidates? Sound like Moulitsas is now firmly a part of the Democrat establishment, carrying water for them at every turn, rather than looking to sway them towards his and his followers' point of view?

Yet, maybe the most delicious hypocrisy - and finest example of how Moulitsas is now a fully converted Democrat pol - came during this exchange:

Moulitsas: Will you stop going on Fox News and attacking Harry Reid for abandoning the troops, betraying the troops. Because you just did that a couple of days ago.

Ford: But, Markos, in all fairness, your site has posted awful things about Jewish Americans...

Moulitsas: Oh, that's not true...

Ford: You now have something up about Cindy Sheehan, she uses it as a, she has a heavy presence there and talking about her run against...

Moulitsas: It's called democracy. If you don't like regular people, hundreds of thousands...

Ford: No, I love it, but you can't be critical of us...

Moulitsas: ...you're going to have...of course. Because I don't control hundreds of thousands of voices. You're an organization of a few dozen people. You can control that message, and you don't need to attack Democrats.

In reality, this exchange was filled with so much hypocrisy it's tough to know where to begin.

First, Moulitsas made it clear that in a democracy, people should be entitled to free speech. That's what he claims happens on his website, and he doesn't believe he should control it.

Yet, in Moulitsas' view, Ford shouldn't go on Fox News to speak his mind, and should control the message being spoken by his organization. Amazing.

Moreover, Moulitsas admonished Ford: "you don't need to attack Democrats."

Excuse me, Markos, but isn't that what you meant by crashing the gate? Aren't you tired of the Democrat Party establishment, and looking to change it? Isn't that what the Netroots is about?

Furthermore, next to George W. Bush, one of your biggest targets for years has been Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut). Isn't he a Democrat? Haven't you spent years attacking him?

In reality, this exchange perfectly demonstrated how Moulitsas has now adopted the convenient mantra of all liberal Democrats - "Do As I Say, Not As I Do!" - and has now been totally transformed from a leader in the liberal blogosphere, to just another Democrat operative.

And, to make it clear to those who still didn't understand that Anakin Skywalker ceases to exist, Gregory read for Moulitsas a previous Washington Post column of his wherein the Kossack leader had very negative things to say about Hillary Clinton (emphasis added):

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

[...]

She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "

[...]

Yet staying away from big ideas seems to come naturally to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps first lady Clinton was so scarred by her failed health-care reform in the early 1990s that now Sen. Clinton shows no proclivity for real leadership as a lawmaker.

[...]

She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq.

[...]

But what remains is a heartless, passionless machine, surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party's grassroots in utter contempt. The operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership. And to top it off, a sizable number of Democrats don't think she could win a general election, anyway.

Can Hillary Clinton overcome those impediments? Money and star power go a long way, but the netroots is now many times larger than it was only three years ago, and we have attractive alternatives to back (and fund), such as former governor Mark W. Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold.

Just as we crazy political junkies glimpsed the viability of the candidacy of an obscure governor from a small New England state three years ago, today we regard Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anything but inevitable. Her obstacles are big, and from this vantage point, possibly insurmountable.

Such were Moulitsas' views of Hillary Clinton in May 2006. Apparently, he's changed his mind, as he now appears to be on his knees asking, "What is thy bidding, my master?"

She's an incredible human being. Very accomplished. They're making strides. Yes, absolutely. I think they're realizing that this isn't a movement, we're talking hundreds of thousands of millions of people. This isn't something you just toss aside, or dismiss. And, uh, she's making great strides in giving this community proper respect.

Quite different from "part of a failed Democratic Party establishment...surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution" who "shows no proclivity for real leadership as a lawmaker" and "doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name" leaving her "behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq."

Can't you hear Emperor Palpatine cackling in the background again?

In the end, this transformation was as easy to predict as Anakin's, for at some point, becoming part of the establishment - with all the pomp, circumstance, and financial rewards that come with it - was going to be impossible for Markos to pass up.

In fact, we probably should have known the conversion was complete when Moulitsas showed up on the set wearing a tie rather than his trademark collarless shirt.

All he needs now is a black mask and James Earl Jones' voice, and even his followers will understand what's happened.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/12/markos-moulitsas-abandons-netroots-democrat-party-establishment

[red states rule]

Dems blew it when it comes to fighting the war on terror


Built-in scandal potential
Dan K. Thomasson
August 13, 2007

By giving U.S. intelligence agencies unfettered, unsupervised access to the overseas telephone calls and e-mails of Americans, Congress has set the stage for a major scandal. If history is any indication, and it generally is, that scandal comes when someone discloses — or leaks, if you will — that the electronic spying is far more invasive than originally presented, despite assurances to the contrary.

But in the name of fighting terrorism, the good lawmakers who can't solve any of the nation's domestic problems because of partisan squabbling have agreed in their infinite wisdom that government spies and sub-spies are basically trustworthy and loyal and would never make unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of their fellow citizens. After all, haven't all those who assured them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction given their word that no honest American's international communications would be the target of eavesdropping?

So where were all those congressional Democrats who pledged never again to allow such an unconstitutional disregard for American rights as the warrantless wiretapping that took place immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and was discontinued only after it was exposed? Fearing they might be labeled soft on terrorism in next year's election, the Democrats scrambled to get aboard this latest circumvention of due process in the name of national security. In so doing, they proved once again that one doesn't have to put them all in a bag of dog doo doo and shake them up for all to come out stinking.

But let's get back to history. In those dark days of Watergate and Vietnam, nearly the same proposal came out of a White House where the only thing more pervasive than paranoia was dishonesty. It was a plan to do almost exactly what the current presidential administration has done — suspend judicial review of wiretapping and other surveillance in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism financed by outsiders. Young war protesters, some admittedly violent, had to be getting their support from overseas enemies, the White House reasoned, and the national interest demanded a suspension of the rules.

Everyone signed off on what was then called the Tom Charles Huston Plan, named after a wet-behind-the-ears junior aide to President Nixon. Everyone agreed — except J. Edgar Hoover, who found it too distasteful even for his red meat palate. Besides, the FBI director saw it as an invasion of his turf by the hated CIA and the equally sinister National Security Agency. He didn't trust those agencies whose employees necessarily have taken the art of lying to new heights. So he refused to add his name to the approval list and the White House chickened out, canceling the plan and relegating Huston to an inglorious but important footnote in history.

Yet here we are again — with one difference. This time there is congressional certification that permits what more than one Founding patriot regarded as state usurpation of the most basic human right, privacy.

The barriers are down and the safeguards are gone no matter what the government says. The expanded surveillance rights of the state leave us little better than those nations where it is almost life-threatening to utter a criticism over the phone.

No one wants the faceless, morally twisted thugs that threaten our democracy to have free rein. We understand the need for swift access to the communications of those who would plot against us. But to do the job of limiting our liberties for them is intolerable. Judicial approval should never be suspended even if there is a remote chance some important clue might be missed. It is the price paid for freedom.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070813/COMMENTARY/108130020/1012/commentary