BTW, I posted this at

DailyKos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/29/134542/609

and

MyLeft Wing
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2912

Notice the difference of those discussions. At DailyKos, which is supposed to be the big shit of blogs, the psycophants are there ego-feeding their leadah by attacking the very notion of questioning the likes of Feingold or Leahy.

At MyLeftWing the dynamics are completely the opposite.

It's differences in discussions like this one that make me wonder how effective is having a site like DailyKos dominate the progressive blogosphere.

I love your thinking. Vote those 23 libs out of office. While we are at it we should get rid of the other 22.

Hello Liza Sabater,

Outstanding Report!!

I agree with you centiment wholeheartedly.

This is what is wrong with the democratic party.

As I am a democrat, I know there is no chance for our party as Hillary Clinton with Condoleezza Rice and Newt Gingrich grinning from ear to ear like cheshier cat and the ultimate sabotash from within of the Democratic party from our own elected officials who are democrats.

I have posted your report at JRE Grassroots, KPFK, Al Gore, BV Caucus, Miami Herald, Boston Herald, and Ring of Fire Forums.

Let's take the mf's down in 06 and clean the House and the Senate and bring new Democratic leaders in from all over the United States.

I'm mad as hell, just like you.

I don't want to take it anymore because our country is going to hell under the Bush Administration, and these democrats are helping it.

Liza, Go to Ed Shultz.com for more of my thoughts:

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=11

Email me at anytime, day or night.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent

Good post, Liza. Glad people are speaking out. We need to demand better.

As for the Kossacks ... I'm beginning to think they're all in a cult.

Ohh Liza,

This is really about ABORTION isn't it? Hurry up and go get your abortion before the big bad Christians make it illegal.

Abortion is your holy grail. You rally around the right to kill a baby while it's still inside your body. Why? so you don't look fat at the opening of your boyfriend's new exhibit? So you can still fit into your little black dress and go clubbing? Thank God your mother didn't feel the same way (oooops, I forgot you are an athiest) How is it you practice yoga?

Funny how you libs are all into free love and no judgement, but you wont extend those rights to the children in your womb. You go girl. Take those motherf#ckers out as you so eloquently put it.

Remind me not to send my kids to NYU

Hi. I hereby dub you Sire Double Standard.

Conservatives had issues with the viewpoints of both Breyer and Ginsburg, as well as their refusal to answer questions, yet overwhelmingly supported them based on their merits, NOT their views.

However, you flip a lid that half the Democrats acted in the same good faith, when Conservatives replaced a Conservative on the Supreme Court with someone about the same on the left-right spectrum?

What I think is funny here, is to note that Ginsburg was replacing a Conservative, and that the Republicans had a majority and could've easily blocked her, but instead confirmed her with over 90 votes. Why? Because they understand that getting on the Supreme Court is about merits, not viewpoints.

With this attitude, I can guarantee many Republicans will be drooling at the chance to Bork any Democratic nomination to any Judicial position the next time a liberal wins the presidency.

Skippy certainly placed himself in the lead position for Misogynist of the Year.

Hey, Liza-

I say, whatever it takes, they've got to go.

Also, your rhetorical question about K, he's hurting us. The Dems in Congress think he represents the rest of the blogosphere, which he most decidedly does not. We need to get a woman's voice up front, and I don't mean Wonkette.

Liza,
Ignore the hate mongers. You're saying what's right.
lb

That half the Democrats don't see Roberts as "out of the mainstream" tells me something. Maybe, just maybe, you and the other half are!

Because, if my math is right, 78% would constitute "mainstream", and 22% would constitute "fringe".

Ask around. Almost everyone knows that Roberts will stand merely where Rehnquist did on most issues. No real change.

Speaking partially to this and partially to the post above,I think those 21 just cut their own throats.

I do not think Howard Dean walks on water. But I do think the post a few above this one mischaracterizes Dean's reaction to what the Democratic wing of the GOP is doing. Taken as a whole... this is a slap with a platemail gauntlet.

"Despite his refusal to answer basic questions about his views and record, John Roberts is set to begin his lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sadly, the White House stonewall means that Americans simply do not know what type of Chief Justice John Roberts will be, and must now cross their fingers and hope that Roberts will interpret the Constitution to protect the rights and freedoms of every American.

"When President Bush makes his next Supreme Court nomination, he owes the American people better than the obstruction, distortion and delay his Administration employed to win Roberts' approval. Whoever replaces Justice O'Connor will be the crucial swing vote on a wide variety of issues the Court will face in the coming decades. The American people should not have to cross their fingers and hope once again that the next Supreme Court justice will be committed to upholding their rights and freedoms.

"Democrats are committed to standing up for what we believe and will fight any nominee whose views fall outside of the mainstream, who is not qualified to sit on our nation's highest court and who refuses to provide honest and straightforward answers about their record and views."

Dean has been going around pouring money into the state-level parties, giving them an alternative to the whims of the DCCC. I don't think that last bit was boilerplate, I think Dean was very publically adding them to his list of targets, or at the very least putting them on notice that if they aren't going to act like what he and the grassroots are working for the Democrats to be, then they shouldn't be expecting support from the Democrats that do.

We, meaning the people in the U.S. who aren't solidly in the investor class and who have large offshore corporate assets, are going to lose some important fights while we're working to change this crap, and we're going to have to keep fighting even as this is happening. That's political momentum (if someone says Joe-mentum I'm gonna bite 'em. Hard. Before getting rabies shots or brushing my teeth.), it takes a while to turn things around. The GOP has been building this machine for YEARS, and we're in the biggest, suckiest game of catch-up imaginable.

Scant comfort to those of us who will be screwed over in the meantime... but there is no way to change the system quickly without breaking it. I have a feeling it will be another 5-10 years before the remains of millenial fever wear off, the Rove school of political discourse gets reclassified as criminal, and the course of things really begins to turn. Remember how long it took the GOP to do this. Think of the scale we're working on, involving hundreds of millions of people, and every connection between them making it geometrically more difficult to make the message that most of the U.S. hears the same as what we're saying. I'm amazed and grateful that we've done so much in only five years.

The good part, small as it is, is that the Dominionists have only won a temporary victory; reality is patient, has no morale to break, doesn't give a damn what any of us believe, and always, always wins. And for the moment, the grassroots activists arguing and fighting from the base of what is real. Let's hope that never changes.

Liz, for a pragmatic answer to your question: it will take running our own candidates against them in primaries. (CF Japanese PM Koizumi's "assasins" strategy in the recent Japanese election.)

We analyze the districts and what it takes to win the general, *and* to unseat the incumbent in the primary.

We run women--because the GOP admits they can't defeat strong women Dem candidates.

We make it a long-term project. We run our women for smaller offices first--so they can build up a supporter and fundraiser base and fine-tune their campaign skills.

We build our own policy cabinet to crash-course them on policy issues. We build our own campaign school (and/or hijack existing schools) to get them the campaign skills quickly.

We staff them with our own trained staffers so that when the DLC, etc, start waving checks, there is someone in the office with the backbone to look for the strings attached.

We undercut the big money, big media campaigns with grassroots field campaigns and win the only way that Democrats have ever won in this country--with a fraction of the budget.

We start small with a manageable pilot project, and get big aggressively as we fine-tune methods and procedures.

And, we start with the most egregious offenders, as a shot across the bow, and give the lowest on our list a chance to reform and save us the short-term resource expenditure of taking them out (alhtough we may, eventually, anyways).

Are you for real about this? Because I know people on the same wavelength. Allow me to make some introductions...