Firedoglake does the Full Nader

[NJmaverick]

There is no better argument against the "Democrats are no different than Republicans" canard than seeing someone attempt to defend it.

Today's exemplar is provided by Jon Walker of Firedoglake, who offers up this piece of analytical roadkill. Mr. Walker does us all a good favor, by showing that the argument that that "Democrats=Republicans" is so weak that anyone buying it could not win a policy debate with a bowl of Cheerios. Wear your asbestos goggles, because teh stupid burns below.

SNIP

It seems disingenuous for those who consider Barack Obama and Democrats to be spineless wimps who just want to suck up to Republicans to suggest that they wouldn't get rolled by a triumphant GOP returning to power with an electoral mandate.

Stupidity is the enemy of progress and progressives. If anyone peddles stupidity trying to dampen progressive opposition to Republican rule, they're not on your side.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/9/900396/-Firedoglake-does-the-Full-Nader

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...

especially your bolded excerpt.

Sid

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. LOL

[POAS]

3. I'm glad someone from DKOS is calling out FDL for

the obvious anti Democratic rhetoric that they spew.

Seems that it is high time for DU to reconsider the status of FDL as a legitimate source of material for posts here.

[Cha]

21. Especially if they're not aware enough to know the

difference between john boehner and Nancy Pelosi.

Or being stupidly obtuse..whatever.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

4. Thanks NJmaverick.

K & R ;)

[MineralMan]

5. In my opinion. FDL has been moving in the direction of

encouraging the defeat of the Obama Administration for some time. This article is just the smelly, brown icing on that tasteless cake. I'm not sure who is ultimately behind FDL, but it's not friendly to the Democratic Party in any way.

[placton]

59. noooo

FDL moving in the direction of Common Sense

[mmonk]

6. Maybe if some Democrats try hard enough,

they can rid themselves of the professional left and pesky liberals before the election.

[NJmaverick]

7. FDL is in no way, shape or form progressive

[mmonk]

11. Like the catfood commission? Or the public schools plan?

[NJmaverick]

13. "The Cat Food Commission" sounds like it came right out of Karl Rove's office

I would feel comfortable betting a sizable sum that FDL is a GOP funded operation.

[mmonk]

15. No, more like FDR's.

If Democrats don't start concentrating on Republicans to voice their ire instead of liberals and other Democratic constituencies leading up to this election, this party is heading for a train wreck.

[MineralMan]

17. Could be this thread is doing just what you requested, eh?

Who invented that "Catfood Commission" line, anyhow? Do you know?

[mmonk]

32. Townsend maybe?

I haven't researched it. But I know it referenced the poor elderly going through garbage for something to eat.

[NJmaverick]

25. FDL is working hard to accomplish what you are opposed to

FDL is working hard to develop liberal acceptance of GOP rule. FDL is more supportive of the GOP than Politic these days.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. "If Democrats don't start concentrating on Republicans.......

to voice their ire instead of liberals and other Democratic constituencies". For once, I agree with you, but probably not for the reason you think. You have no idea the irony in that statement, coming from you. Perhaps you should send this pearl of wisdom over to FDL? Most of us figured out that once Jane Hamsher teamed up with Grover Norquist, who wants to drown goverment in a bathtub, that she had lost all credibility, and found a lucrative stream of revenue, at the same time. Jane ain't working for free, that's for sure.

When it's finally uncovered that she has taken her 30 pieces of silver for trying to derail Democrats, ala Ralph Nader, I'm hoping you and others won't need counseling. And I hope to hell Skinner is made aware of this thread. FDL crap should no longer be allowed as a source here, as they are obviously working at cross purposes.

[sabrina 1]

84. Do you have anything to back this up? You just made statements

about someone who has been a well-known Democratic blogger for many years, without a shred of proof. She fought for a PO in the healthcare debate and that appears to have sent a few people off the rails. To me, they are the ones I would suspect of not being Democrats.

Personally I never liked Hamsher's style, and never joined her blog, but she has never given any reason to justify what you just said about her being a Republican.

Exactly what is it that you are seeing that most other people who have been aware of her for years are not seeing? Do you have more than just your opinion, which appears to be based on a policy disagreement. Why should we assume that YOU are the one who is correct? On that policy issue I agree with her. Does that make me a Republican also? Since when did Republicans support Single Payer healthcare for all Americans? Are you serious?

What you are saying makes zero sense and I think you ought to provide something more than a policy disagreement for your opinion especially since the one you disagree with IS a Democratic policy.

And don't waste time on the Grover Norquist issue. Norquist was invited to speak to the President's Deficit Commission recently. Apparently those on the inside of the Democratic Party have no problem with him, sadly.

[MineralMan]

16. That wouldn't surprise me at all, but I don't really have any

idea. I don't ever go there, and don't voluntarily read any posts from there. I think the source of quoted material should appear in the title of posts, especially if there's no comment on the posted material. I could skip an awful lot of useless threads if that were the case.

[el_bryanto]

18. Really?

That's kind of odd. I mean i can see saying their policies aren't helpful or saying they are impractical - but in no way shape or form progressive. What does progressive mean? Are the liberal?

Bryant

[NJmaverick]

45. Did you read the original OP?

[el_bryanto]

49. Yep- and as much as I disagree with Nadar I think he's a progressive too

No True Scotsman indeed.

Bryant

[G_j]

26. direct from

our resident expert.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Liberals cast votes based on what is best for the country, not hurt feelings

Sticks and Stones and all that.

[Spazito]

8. Yep, infested with Naderites and Rand Paul supporters...

same shit, different day on that pitiful site, imo.

[Born_A_Truman]

9. Well, there you have it ...

Surprised?

[Cha]

10. The stupid burns large over

there at fdl if they think we're going to join their little suicide pact.

[LoZoccolo]

14. K&R for exposing professional left tactics.

:kick:

[leftstreet]

19. UnRec for not posting the actual FDL article

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/08/why-should-i-care-leaders-lack-good-reasons-to-vote-for-democrats-or-against-republicans/

...which actually makes a good point re: the 60 vote myth

[geek tragedy]

20. What about the government shutdown/spending power?

A wee bit dishonest for the FDL folks to ignore that, right?

[Cha]

23. They ignore a lot and make sure they write a lot

of crap..that's what they do.

[druidity33]

22. same here...

The FDL haters abound on this board. Sure Jane is abrasive, but her viewpoint is inevitably instructive and among her stable of bloggers she has Emptywheel and Spence among many other shining stars. Not to mention David Dayen and Siun.

Kicked and Unrecced.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

24. "FDL haters' has an eerily similar tone as the old "Bush hater" label

used to falsely dismiss important concerns.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Wow you should change your DU name to Stretch

So putting anything in front of "hater" is eerily similar to "Bush hater"? Does that include polka hater, traffic hater, and Obama hater? :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

48. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote

:eyes:

[whatchamacallit]

51. Please explain it then

if you can

[druidity33]

oh, please...

that's one article/post on a website that puts up nearly 100 posts a day (not to mention individual Poster diaries). There are many different authors and topics. The site itself is separated into 12 sub-sites.

You're the one dismissing the entirety of FDL because you don't approve of Jon Walkers position/argument. Which is distinctly why i described you as a hater... because you are dismissing the entire site without engaging/exploring it. I have been seeing that A LOT around here lately. But there are many viewpoints there, just as there are here at DU. Why don't you go over there and register so you can join the discussion in that post? You will find an extremely knowledgeable group of people commenting on the merits/defects of the article... i think the discussion is up over 170 posts now.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

This is the number one diary, so you are the one doing the dismissing

and improperly so

[druidity33]

60. and that tells you everything?

the #1 diary gets to be #1 because of the amount of comments. As you can imagine, Jon Walker's Post has generated a good amount of comments.

Have you read the article and the comments?

Have you ever spent time perusing FDL's sub-sites? I find Emptywheel particularly instructive in Legal analysis (bmaz too), and Attackerman for all things regarding Iraq and Afghanistan (miltary in general). The book salon is excellent too...

:)

[G_j]

the OP supplied no link

or clue that they even read it.

[POAS]

74. Go back and look again

A link is there to the relevant GKos piece which quoted and linked to the FDL piece.

Don't be so lazy in your thinking prior to posting.

Or maybe your just not interested in reading the DKos piece so you didn't know a link is there.

[G_j]

76. Don't be so stupid in your thinking

I still see no evidence that the poster actually read it


EOM
:hi:

[POAS]

80. You said he had no link

don't change the subject. I didn't question your premise that he didn't read it. I have no way of knowing that.

However I can clearly see that there is a link when you said there is no link.

[G_j]

81. a link, at the link

OK

[Ignis]

78. Maybe that's due to your "ghost recs" hypothesis.

Or does that only apply to posts you dislike seeing on the Greatest Page?

[Forkboy]

99. I was thinking more like the "Obama hater" label

used to falsely dismiss important concerns.

[sabrina 1]

101. I was thinking the same thing. Great minds etc.

[Forkboy]

118. Projection is pragmatic and sensible.

[Ignis]

127. And one that's still used daily without fear of censure.

Why the disparity? :shrug:

[Spazito]

27. LOL, I guess Ms. Hamsher was merely being "abrasive" when she...

aligned herself and her site with the likes of Grover Norquist and Phyllis Schlafly as well? Was that alignment done out of principle or political expediency? I say the latter as the former is and has been absent for some time.

[sabrina 1]

102. And why is her signing of a petition also signed by Grover

Norquist a big deal when apparently having Grover Norquist deliver advice to Obama's Deficit Commission does raise an eyebrow?

Personally I am far more upset that Grover Norquist was given the power to influence this Commission on SS and the Fed. Government's Fiscal problems, than I am about his signature being on the same petition as some blogger.

Since Grover Norquist is such a pariah, how come there is no outrage over him being invited to address that Commission? A littly hypocrisy goes a long way sometimes.

[Spazito]

116. Well, from some posters principle should come before political expediency...

and it certainly seems Ms. Hamsher lacks the principle and goes for political expediency by aligning herself with Norquist, Schlafly and the teabaggers. Is it not hypocrisy on your part to excuse the lack of principle displayed by Ms. Hamsher while voicing outrage against others? A little hypocrisy certainly does go a long way sometimes as Ms. Hamsher has clearly shown by her affiliations with the rabid right when it is politically expedient to do so.

It seems okay for Ms. Hamsher to be 'bi-partisan' with the extremes of the right even though some consider her part of the 'progressive left', it is interesting.

[sabrina 1]

119. Excusing or accusing a blogger of something is not the point.. I'm not as obsessed

with bloggers as some here appear to be. They are not in positions of power and therefore have no influence over policies. All they can do is to offer their opinions on things and because of that I spend very little time worrying about them.

My question was why a Commission set up by a Democratic president, so respects Grover Norquist's opinions on the Federal Government that he was invited to advise that Commission, especially since we all know his opinions on the Federal Government?

They actually have the powers bloggers do not, to influence the lives of all Americans. And the last person I would have invited back out of the political gutter the American people tossed him into, to give his two cents on matters of fiscal policy, would be Grover Norquist. Where's the outrage from the very people who are screaming about this blogger's bi-partisan efforts?

You ignored that, proving my point that people here are far more obsessed with a blogger who associates briefly with Grover Norquist, than with the President's Commission who invited him to help shape our fiscal policies. You made no mention whatsoever of that in your response.

It is quite remarkable, this obsession with a blogger. Why the hypocrisy? Is it that you really do not find Norquist all that objectionable? And if that's the case, then why the hysteria over a blogger doing what the president believes we ought to be doing?

Obama is for bi-partisanship. That is how the door to a democratic commission on fiscal policies came to be opened to the likes of Grover Norquist. Are you not angry about that? Yet you are exceedingly angry at a blogger for being bi-partisan even though she cannot infuence policy the way the president and his bi-partisan friends, like Norquist, can?

[Spazito]

120. LOL, the reason I did not respond to your red herring...

re Grover Norquist and the invitation to speak is because it has nothing to do with the actions of Ms. Hamsher and those who frequent her site. Ms. Hamsher's affiliation with Norquist, Schlafly and the teabaggers and the track record of the site since the inauguration of President Obama, the article in the OP being a perfect example, IS the issue.

Your posts seem to want to take the focus off the OP and, as usual, onto the President and the Commission. I prefer to stick to the subject of the OP. Do you support the position taken by the author of the article, Jon Walker, in that:

"Democratic voters have no reason to vote for Democrats, or even much reason to vote against Republicans."

"There needs to be a tangible reason to support Democrats this cycle, and there just isn’t."

This position, imo, is a Naderite position and is a pathetic attempt to convince voters to, at the very least, stay home or, at it's worst, vote for repubs.

[sabrina 1]

121. Why put the focus ON Hansher. She probably thrives on the

attention. Most bloggers do. Some of them even deliberately do controversial things to get attention for their blogs. Look how many hits she got from this OP alone?

I don't much care about bloggers beyond reading an article they may write if it looks interesting, but they are no more informed than the rest of us, so I do not go looking for them.

Grover Norquist is the name that caught MY attention in this OP. He WAS mentioned wasn't he? So how am I diverting from the OP by mentioning him in my comment? I would NOT have mentioned him if someone did not do so already.

And I noticed that once again, when Norquist IS mentioned, it is the same old boring story of a blogger who had some interaction with him.

Why on earth is this important? That is my question. Hamsher has always been a controversial blogger and often very wrong. I never read her stuff to be honest so I am bored when I see her name quite frankly because SHE DOESN'T INFLUENCE policy.

But Grover Norquist has done so, we kicked him out, and now he is back, allowed back by a Democratic Administration.

Here you are all riled up over over Norquist and a blogger. So I asked, since there are so many boring OPs about Norquist and the blogger, all expressing outrage over the alliance, why have I never seen the very same people express outrage over the President's Commission and Norquist.

Is that an unreasonable question? I am outraged over Norquist's invitation to that Commission. I don't care about bloggers. And you still have not given your opinion on Norquist and the Commission which I believe answers my question. It is NOT Norquist who bothers you, it is a blogger who has the gall not to agree with you. She doesn't agree with me either, but my priorities are different than yours.

[Spazito]

122. Your post, again, has little, actually nothing to do with the OP and...

the article in question. Let's focus on the OP, shall we. Do you support the position being posited by the author? Do you disagree with the OP in that the article is NOT encouraging it's readers to get out and vote for Democrats?

[sabrina 1]

123. And you still have not answered my question.

As far as the OP, I am slightly familiar with the DK diarist and know that he is not a very good source for political analysis. He is extremely reactionary and biased airc so I wouldn't be looking for him to guide my thinking on politics. However, since you asked. I see one blogger criticizing the writing of another blogger. I am not that familiar with the FDL blogger.

The FDL blogger states that people are disappointed in what the Majority Democratic Congress accomplished over the past few years, and that 'we need 60 votes' was their excuse for that. The conclusion of this blogger is 'so what difference will it make if they hold onto the majority with an even smaller majority?'.

The DK diarist otoh, claims that if Republicans win they will shut down the government to get their way. Which invites the question 'if Republicans can use their power to get their agenda passed then why couldn't Democrats do the same thing?' Not a very good argument since he essentially makes the FDL blogger's point for him.

That is the kind of logic I would expect from this diarist. He does not make the case for a Democratic majority, he whines about how powerful Republicans will be should they win and his focus in on attacking another irrelevant blogger. He tries to use fear rather than solid, positive reasons for voting for Democrats. Republicans ca do things without a huge majority but Democrats cannot. That's the point he made, probably unintentionally.

Bias blinds people, and the DK diarist lost his argument by allowing his personal feelings towards the FDL blogger to guide his analysis of the FDL diary.

The way to make the case for a Democratic Majority is NOT to claim Republicans will use their power while Democrats did not.

So all the DK diarist did was to support the contention of the FDL diarist.

Only on a partisan blog would this diary get any traction. Which is why I do not look to these blogs for real information or inspiration.

To help Democrats win, if that was goal, he should have ignored FDL and focused on the issues. He should have attempted to explain how if they win again, they will not allow the Republicans to control the agenda nor will they spend so much time on attempts at bi-partisanship since they tried that already and it failed. But his goal was to attack another blogger. Big yawn!

But all these blogs are affiliated and link back and forth to each other in a never-ending circle-jerk, giving each other hits, which attracts advertising for all of them. They all belong to the same email groups, and controversy, fighting publicly, gets them even more hits.

Hamsher and Kos and MYDD and Talkleft and Ezra Klein et al are all one group and basically have the same goals. That became obvious a while ago to many people, and for that reason I am not interested in their opinions or their blog games/wars. They are the online version of the MSM and are there to make sure the MSM is represented on the internet.

I read both articles because you asked me to, and I can see nothing has changed since I gave up reading those blogs long ago. Create a faux fight between blogs, link to each other, discuss policy messages in the private email list etc. etc. Same old stuff. And like all big organizations, which this alliance of blogs is, there are some personality clashes, which keeps things interesting for the audience, in a meta sort of way. But they are not the place to go for real information on politics unless you enjoy soap opera.


As for the real issue, which has been completely side-tracked here in this thread by the focus on FDL and Hamsher, how to help Democrats win in November, there is nothing. And I just wasted about ten minutes of my time reading two blogs I have zero interest in since I discovered a few years ago that they were just the online version of the MSM which is why you see people like Hamsher and kos appointed as spokespersons for the online liberal community.

So, how can people be persuaded to vote for Democrats in Novmember? For that purpose, this thread was a complete waste of time.

[Spazito]

124. I am confused, if FDL is of no interest to you nor is Ms. Hamsher...

nor, it seems, the article and it's author, as your post states, why the need to respond at all unless it is to try and shift the focus of the OP to one of criticism of the Obama Administration. There are plenty of threads discussing the Commission with posts pro and con for the kind of criticism your post contains so I am sure you can understand my confusion. To be clear, my confusion stems from this:

"I read both articles because you asked me to, and I can see nothing has changed since I gave up reading those blogs long ago. Create a faux fight between blogs, link to each other, discuss policy messages in the private email list etc. etc. Same old stuff. And like all big organizations, which this alliance of blogs is, there are some personality clashes, which keeps things interesting for the audience, in a meta sort of way. But they are not the place to go for real information on politics unless you enjoy soap opera."



I have pointed out previously but will do so again as to why I find your questions regarding the Obama Administration and the Commission to be extraneous to the OP and I would prefer to focus on the topic within the OP which I will do by responding to your points regarding the diarist and his perspective vs yours. To wit:

"The DK diarist otoh, claims that if Republicans win they will shut down the government to get their way. Which invites the question 'if Republicans can use their power to get their agenda passed then why couldn't Democrats do the same thing?' Not a very good argument since he essentially makes the FDL blogger's point for him."

Why on earth would the Democrats want to shut down government? I am sure they do not as opposed to the repubs who most assuredly would and have done. The Kos diarist, in no way, makes the same argument as the author of the FDL article. Quite the opposite, he points out quite well where the author is deliberately misleading ie the Constitution and how Congress ACTUALLY works as well as pointing out the Naderesque slant that is obvious in this article as well as on FDL as a whole.

Why do you think an article like the one that is the topic in the OP is being published at this time, so close to the 2010 election? Do you think it is an article encouraging it's readers to vote for Democrats or discouraging it's readers from voting for Democrats?

[sabrina 1]

126. Why would I make a comment about the hypocrisy of

attacking a blogger for something the Democratically appointed Commission has done without much comment? Because the hypocrisy interests me. Not that Hamsher cares. She is getting the attention she wants, and then she is viewed as an influential blogger which to my way of thinking she is not. With that reputation she earns a spot on media talk shows.

So, I am asking again, if those who continue to attack this blogger for an association that is apparently quite acceptable to the Democratic Party realize that they are just whistling in the wind. She and Norquist and Rove and Democratic politicians are all getting along very well while the 'little people' focus on trivia but do not call them out on what really matters. Which is 'why is a Democratic administration bringing Republicans back into powerful positions'? I CARE about this. I did not support Democrats in order to bring Republicans back.

As for your interpretation of that very badly written diary, we disagree. What I saw, and what most people would see if they bothered to read it and were not blinded by their petty blog wars, was that he pointed that Republicans will use that power to get what they want, and Democrats didn't.

Democrats SHOULD threaten to shut down the government while they have the power to do it and then BLAME REPUBLICANS. Do you not realize that this is not a country club? It is WAR. And this is why we are told 'sorry, we cannot get a PO because we don't have the votes'. Start FIGHTING, dirty if necessary to get what the American people deserve. Your way we would need 80 Senators before there's any hope of changing things in this country.

And Grover Norquist is NOT a person who should giving us advice on Fiscal matters. You still have not regestered any objection to that. These blogs and their meta wars are just distractions as they are meant to be.

[Spazito]

130. I can only gather that you do, in fact, support what the author of the article...

has posited by your defense of his position regarding shutting down the government. Thanks for that clarification. As to Ms. Hamsher's 'associations' ie Norquist, Schlafly and the teabaggers as well as the despicable 'blackface' incident, would you not agree there is a pattern of behavior as opposed to a single incident, that Ms. Hamsher has displayed that warrants criticism?

Your posts keep insisting I buy into the red herring of commenting on the Commission instead of remaining focused on the topic at hand. If the article or the OP had made any mention of Norquist being asked to speak before the Commission then I would see the inclusion of your question as having merit but, seeing as there is no mention of that aspect I find no need to reference it. I will, however, give you my opinion of Norquist, Schlafly and the teabaggers, leaving out Ms. Hamsher, and that is I find them to be scum, rabid rightwing scum WITHOUT exception.

As to what is "badly written", I posit it is the article published on FDL, it is poorly researched as to the facts. as pointed out by the Kos diarist, as well as being deliberately misleading as to how Congress works according to the Constitution.

I must say you have confused me, yet again, with this comment:

"...and then she is viewed as an influential blogger which to my way of thinking she is not."

The confusion exists because, after re-reading the whole thread I found where you posted she IS a well known Democratic blogger. Are bloggers, by the very fact they are well-known, not influential?

[sabrina 1]

132. No, you've got it wrong. I am not led by the opinions of bloggers

If you are asking do I think Dems should have shut down the government, if want MY opinion, they should do whatever it takes to defeat a party that they surely knew was never going to play nice. They should have forced a filibuster, forced them to threaten to shut down the government, expose them for what they are. Iow, they should have recognized that to beat that party you have to be as willing or more, to play by the rules Republicans even in the minority, are making.

If this blogger is of that opinion, then it would be more correct to say that he agrees with me since I have never read his opinions before today.

You seem to be inferring that I might be interested in hiding my opinion, I can assure you that is not the case. I am very open about what I think. But your inference that I 'agree with the blogger' tells me you give these bloggers far more deference than I do. Their opinions are no more informed or worthwhile than any commenter on this forum, so I hope I have myself clear. YOU asked me to read the OP, I obliged you otherwise I would have little interest in reading anything from any of those affiliated blogs.

As for Hamsher, you seem to know a lot more about her than I do. I never was a 'fan' and have rarely visited her blog. So I know her only because of the numerous threads here and elsewhere whining about the latest utterance from her. Her opinions as far as I am concerned are worth no more and no less than any commenter on any blog.

And no, bloggers are not influential because they are well-known. They are well-known because many of them sold out to be on the inside at a time when politicians began to realize that the Internet might have an effect on how they were viewed. So they sought out people who were were willing to represent them on the internet. Better to hire people already known to the online community. They did not reveal their alliances with politicians until they were forced to do so.

Iow, some people who were on the internet decided they wanted to make a career of it. Most of us simply wanted more information than was available on the MSM and to discuss issues with other people.

Those are the bloggers whose opinions I do not care about as they are constrained by not wanting to harm their 'access'.

As for Norquist and Hamsher, since she is from that circle of bloggers who gained access, it should never have surprised anyone that she or any of the others, might one day form alliances with people the rest of us viewed as the enemy. You know I'm sure that Democrats have been known to attend the same parties as Karl Rove eg. So why would anyone, except for those of us who maintain some principles and don't mix in the Cocktail Party circuit where they all 'respect' each other, be surprised when they are seen in public together. It's 'bi-partisanship' and it's all the rage in DC. Like Bush and Clinton. Or Obama and Lindsey Graham or Judd Gregg. It's a club and most of us don't belong to it. But some bloggers have sneaked inside the door.

And that is why I am outraged by Grover Norquist being given the chance to address the President's commission. That to me is far more outrageous than a blogger collaborating with him. I do not think they have any power that is not given to them by the party. I do know of one blogger who was not willing to hold back and was basically tossed out of the club.

I thought all this was pretty common knowledge. It is the reason why the 'liberal bloggers' were yelled at by Rahm, they were not SUPPOSED to go after Blue Dogs and replace them with progressives. And they fell in line. What kind of influence is that?

[Spazito]

133. So you don't agree with the author of the article?

or you do? It is again unclear. I don't recall asking you to read the article at all yet you have now stated that as fact twice. I DID ask your perspective of the article that was, after all, the key reason the OP came about. I had assumed you would have read the article at FDL before commenting, my mistake, it happens sometimes for sure.

It seems one of us wishes to stick to the topic of the OP, the article referenced and the FDL site while another wishes to discuss the Commission which is NOT in the OP at all so we are at a stalemate.

I do see and appreciate we are in agreement in one area and that is that FDL is NOT a site to go to if one wants the real facts and honest discussion. I could not agree more!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. That's funny.

FDL stands against everything your Tao Te Ching quote is for. Do you understand the Tao or just like the pretty words?

[G_j]

29. for you

he who says, doesn't know
he who knows, doesn't say..


Do you understand the Tao?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. You do realize you just violated your own quotation, right?

Just checking.

[G_j]

33. whatever....

:think:

[MineralMan]

35. The Tao of Larouche?

Or was that the Tao of Nader?

[G_j]

37. simply

a quote from the Tao Te Ching

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

38. Yes. My post is commentary.

I have read the Tao Te Ching. Multiple times.

[G_j]

39. well then, you lost me... nt

[MineralMan]

40. No doubt...

[druidity33]

56. please explain this...

"FDL stands against everything your Tao Te Ching quote is for"...

do yo ever read the articles at FDL?

[Ignis]

128. "Do you understand the Tao or just like the pretty words?"

Thanks for yet another example of the New Civility at DU.

:puke:

[G_j]

136. I found that rather offensive

myself...
:shrug:

[Ignis]

140. Which hexagram translates as "Act Like a Dick," anyway?

I must have missed that one, but perhaps you and I are just poor students. :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

138. Like you're one to talk.

[Ignis]

139. Yes, I sure am. You, not so much.

:hi:

[Cha]

62. What's not to hate...idiots that want to sit out an election and take

dumps on Democracy..fuck that.

[druidity33]

67. there is a good discussion

going on over there in regards to this post by Jon Walker. You know, well thought out comments that don't involve one liners and smilies. Some supporting the premise, some opposing...

I submit that if you think FDL is composed of "idiots that want to sit out an election and take dumps on Democracy" then you just don't know what you're taking about, and have likely not read the thread in question or the comments that supercede it.

:shrug:

[Cha]

70. You can submit it all you want..I know that fdl is

the professional left that tries to bring in money with their fear and loathing.

They're no better than the rwhacks..same MO same goal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. +1

Thank You.....

[druidity33]

73. whatever you say...

:eyes:

:)

[DevonRex]

77. Exactly right.

I wonder who their biggest contributers are since they're trying to suppress the Democratic vote. :shrug:

[Cha]

93. Does grover norquist have an org.? nt

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gkhouston]

117. +1. I had a fit when I read the title of Walker's article, but then I read the

actual article, and the comments following it. I don't agree with everything that's said at FDL, but then I don't agree with everything that's said at DU, either. I give the witch-smellers all the serious consideration they merit--none.

[SoxFan]

30. K&R

[MineralMan]

34. Man...I'd like to have some spalted lumber from that dead

tree. There is going to be a lot of beautiful figuring in it. You just can't tell what's inside a dead tree until you fell it. The mold will create amazing patterns in the wood. That from an old woodworker.

[robdogbucky]

36. Okay, so the gang's mostly all here in one place

Let's get to the bottom of this thing you all have with FDL. I can tell from the constant repetition that the underlying issue is with some alliance with Grover Norquist by Jane Hamsher. No one ever wants to discuss that underlying issue. Why not?

Odd Couple Of Norquist, Hamsher Call For Investigation, Rahm's Resignation
Dec 23 2009, 4:12 PM ET

Grover Norquist and Jane Hamsher are not often on the same side of anything, beyond both usually being in the Western Hemisphere. Norquist is a leading voice of fiscal conservatism as head of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform; Hamsher is a leading voice of the digital left, whose blog Firedoglake has taken on influence in speaking up for progressives during the health care debate and in pressuring lawmakers through its activist arm, FDL Action.

But the two have united to level serious allegations at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and demand his resignation.

Hamsher and Norquist coauthored a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today calling for a Department of Justice investigation of Emanuel for his role on the board of Freddie Mac, alleging that the White House, since Emanuel arrived there, has blocked an investigation of the government-sponsored mortgage lender.

Emanuel served on Freddie Mac's board in 2000-2001, when he quit to run (successfully) for Congress. He has also recently sparked the ire of liberals like Hamsher after it was reported that he pushed for Senate Democratic leaders to compromise with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on health care reform and jettison an expansion of Medicare from the Senate bill.

See their letter below:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/odd-couple-of-norquist-hamsher-call-for-investigation-rahms-resignation/32543/



So, that took place and it still looks to me like a credible position to take to look at Mr. Emanuel's actions vis-a-vis FM.

But let's not stop there, let's look at everything else that takes place over at FDL, you know the place with real people going out and doing things like real investigations and real interviews, etc. Not just a gossip column like DU seems to be.




From today's items there:


Temporary Extension of All Bush Tax Cuts Looks Like Path of Least Resistance
By: David Dayen Thursday September 9, 2010 12:30 pm


NPR Highlights the Democrats’ Problem, in a Nutshell
By: Blue Texan Thursday September 9, 2010 11:25 am

"PR’s story on Tim Kaine this morning featured this comment from a college student, who volunteered to help elect Obama in 2008 (audio ca. 2:55).

“We thought there was going to be a huge change in the country, and a lot of people aren’t quite sure that it’s worth putting in the effort this time around if we’re not going to get the promises that were made.”

Yep.

When you campaign on CHANGE and you double down on the Bush/Cheney wars, expand the Bush/Cheney police state, extend the Bush/Paulson TARP program, and deliver Mitt Romney’s health care plan – you have to expect a certain level of disillusionment..."


NORML: Full Legalization, Full Steam Ahead (Panel Liveblog with Michael Whitney and Neill Franklin)
By: Teddy Partridge Thursday September 9, 2010 10:10 am

Washington Post’s Ceci Connolly Checks Out… and Cashes In
By: emptywheel Thursday September 9, 2010 9:00 am

President Obama Discusses the Harm to National Security from Covering Up War Crimes Burning Korans
By: Scarecrow Thursday September 9, 2010 8:00 am

"he hateful, unchristian charlatan who understands he can become richer and a celebrity by threatening to burn Korans has now received a plea from the President of the United States not to endanger our troops by giving al Qaeda another recruiting tool. Meanwhile Obama insists we make our torture practices state secrets..."

Our Banana Republic: US Income Inequality Grows
By: emptywheel Thursday September 9, 2010 6:05 am

Early Morning Swim: Jon Stewart Interviews Tim Kaine on “The Daily Show”
By: Blue Texan Thursday September 9, 2010 4:53 am
http://firedoglake.com/


So, gossip columners, have at it. Trash me if you dare. I am not a repuke, nor am I a mole for anyone. This is my opinion and I realy want the truth.

Why hide that behind invective, insults, deflections, non-answers, obfuscation?

And oh, yeah, "Just Say Now!"



rdb

[NJmaverick]

44. My issue with FDL is they either are or act like they are on the GOP's payroll

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. "My issue with FDL is they either are or act like they are on the GOP's payroll"

"Bank" on it. :thumbsup:

[druidity33]

75. yes

we know you have issues...

with FDL.


:)

[NJmaverick]

79. Good to know I am developing a good reputation

:hi:

[Raineyb]

113. You have no proof of that.

And your head up the ass assertions are not proof. Your problem is you don't want to hear anything that may actually disprove what you pass off as thinking.

Blind cheering isn't any better from those who claim to be Democrats as it is from Republicans.

[Marr]

137. I think several people here either are or act like they're on the DLC's payroll.

But I haven't any proof, so why talk about it?

[JonLP24]

53. I was about to post it

A lot of people like to talk about the alliance but they never talk about the why.

It is kind of funny to me because the President has done quite a few bi-partisan things with a party that doesn't like him no matter what he does.

[ClarkUSA]

41. That's funny, considering Jane Hamsher/FDL were 100% behind DLC darling Hillary in 2008

All of a sudden, after the election, they start attacking Pres. Obama from the left. This is more nuttiness from FDL, because Hamsher and her fans are always doing their PUMA best to cast Obama as a failure.

Pres. Obama in Milwaukee, yesterday: "If I fail, they win." This saying doesn't only apply to Republicans, obviously.

[robdogbucky]

42. And so were half the folks here at DU

Your point being?

[blondeatlast]

57. Half the folks at DU got over it 'coz they're grownups. JH and her BFF didn't. nt

[Cha]

58. Good point..they're still wallowing in their bitterness. nt

[Luminous Animal]

50. Prove that they were with Hillary.

Because they were not. And in fact, Hillary supporters accused FireDogLake of purging them from the site.

Everyone is open to criticism but I expect more than baseless smears.

[gkhouston]

55. No, it wasn't, and I don't see what's objectionable about having been a Hillary

supporter during the primaries.

Most of us have left 2008 behind us. Why haven't you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. I want other progressive blogs & talk shows to expose Hamsher.

I've heard that she's a Fox News staple these days, kinda like Dick Morris, who also took the money. :puke:

Hamsher has no principles, and it was clear when the Tea Bag lady from Texas said that they were working with Jane Hamsher during the HCR debate. Hamsher is nothing more than a money grubbing, attention seeking, mediawhore.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

61. She's done a good job of making a fool out of herself.

<< Hamsher has no principles, and it was clear when the Tea Bag lady from Texas said that they were working with Jane Hamsher during the HCR debate. Hamsher is nothing more than a money grubbing, attention seeking, mediawhore. >>

Absolutely 100% spot-on. It's all about driving web traffic and getting on TV shows.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. I like that our enemies are being exposed. Whether they be paid Paultards,

or Naderites, they should all be treated with the same disdain. Their one & only goal is the destruction of the Democratic party. Greens seem to think that the only thing standing between them and their government takeover is the Democratic Party. :rofl: I've got news for 'em......

[ClarkUSA]

69. They have so much sore loser bitterness and/or outright hatred for Obama that they're easy to spot.

<< Greens seem to think that the only thing standing between them and their government takeover is the Democratic Party. I've got news for 'em... >>

They're deluded, too. I used to be a Green until Nader fucked this country by taking GOP $$ and running in 2000 as a spoiler, so I should know.

[Scurrilous]

86. ..

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

63. .

[MineralMan]

66. Could you tell us how you really feel about Jane Hamster?

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. "Could you tell us how you really feel about Jane Hamster?"

Not if I don't want to get banned. :rofl:

[BzaDem]

64. I can't wait to see Jon Walker's posts should Republicans take the House.

While I wouldn't personally wish ill on anyone, he deserves EVERYTHING he gets. When the sheep that listen to him stop getting their Social Security checks during a long government shutdown, perhaps then he will realize the difference between the parties in full color and amazing detail. Reality (as opposed to his magical world) has a tendency to focus the mind, and this is no exception.

[depakid]

90. Well, since it's your wing of the party that's caused the problem

I'd echo your sentiments regarding deserving what you get.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

82. So true.

If anyone peddles stupidity trying to dampen progressive opposition to Republican rule, they're not on your side.

Word. Kicked and rec'd

[Panaconda]

83. Both articles are weak

One may very well agree with Walker's thesis but Walker himself does a very poor job at detailing his case.

Likewise the critique of the article devolves into routine jabs of little depth.

Not much critical or analytical thinking on either side there.

[flamingdem]

85. K + R

[NNN0LHI]

87. Recommended

[quiet.american]

88. Can't say it clearer than that, NJMaverick. nt

[firedupdem]

89. K&R

Firebaggerlake is ridiculous.

[Canuckistanian]

91. I once did a Full Nader with a half twisting Perot

But I lost to a guy who did a Double Stockdale.

[quiet.american]

92. Okay, that's pretty funny! :) nt

[Born_A_Truman]

94. But did you leave your hat on?

:evilgrin:

[POAS]

95. Well you didn't stick your landing so no wonder you lost. n/t

[bvar22]

96. Daily Kos?

Isn't that the conservative site with all the paid Right Wing Trolls?


No wonder they are attacking FDL.

[AtomicKitten]

97. blogger warz

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. ...

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

100. Not surprised to see this considering the diarist who wrote it.

Some things and some people are so predictable. A biased opinion piece considering the source.

[NJmaverick]

106. Predictable in no way should be associated with wrong

[Hekate]

104. Kick and Rec

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

105. Interesting 68 recs and 68 unrecs

Not often a post is listed in both on the fence and the top rec getters.

[LoZoccolo]

107. I recall that you had 15 recs not long after you posted it.

One would think that it would be far into the positive by now if that ratio would have kept up.

[NJmaverick]

108. What's more interesting is that the the unreccers appear to be ghosts

because they certainly have not checked in on this thread. You have about half a dozen DUers supporting FDL and about 2 to 3 dozen who are opposed to what FDL is doing posting on this thread.

[LoZoccolo]

110. I tried to remedy a similar situation with the LoZo-matic™ poll.

It was poorly understood, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8012499
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8012499

[SidDithers]

109. Word must have gone out....

your post was probably a welcome diversion from discussions about the Temporary Emergency Rules.

:rofl:

Sid

[LoZoccolo]

115. lulz

Martial law on the Internets!

[Scurrilous]

129. @#$% them DLCers!!

:o

[LoZoccolo]

131. They fed the tape of the Dean scream to the media!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3349253

[Peacetrain]

111. Did you guys read this?

"Democratic voters have no reason to vote for Democrats, or even much reason to vote against Republicans." what a complete and total turncoat.

Edit to add.. I have not read the original article..just the DKOS read.. if the gist of this is wrong..was not said or implied..then I will gladly recant the turncoat statement.. if it is as it is..then it stands.

[flamingdem]

114. k n r

[OregonBlue]

134. Hamsher is nothing more than a mean spirited attention monger. She thrives on creating controversy.

It feeds her overinflated ego. Watch her sometime. Every time she creates a big controversy she gets herself on the TV, where she smiles coyly and gloats. I personally don't believe she cares about the country, I believe she cares about numero uno and nothing more.

[johnaries]

135. Well, there ya go. Proves what many of us have been saying

for a while. Thanks, NJMaverick.