Washblog

Sanity 1, McGavick 0 is how I read it.

by asshat2001 on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 09:10:46 AM PST

---

dlaw was there (where were the "knives" you promised for Dwight?), Murphy was there, N was there, Fred was there, Edelman was there, I was there -- looks like all of us were there.

Are we going to have one of these "six blind men describing the elephant" diaries?

I thought Murphy's resolution was reasonable, and I would have voted for it if I had a vote. I see nothing wrong with questioning, or expressing concern with, an elected Democrat's position on one issue or another.

But it has to be in the "whereases" that we support those elected Democrats and intend to campaign for them.

We did this in the 34th with Ron Sims and his plan to allow Southwest Airlines to move to Boeing Field. Correct me if this is wrong, but I think the 36th did it too.

We had the same discussion about whether the Rats would pounce on this and make political hay of it. We defeated an "expression of concern" resolution and passed the "we oppose" resolution.

But we had already endorsed Ron for re-election, by acclamation, in May. So we were on record.

Same thing with Nickels. We're Nickels' home District. We like Nickels. I like Nickels. But we busted Nickels but good over the Monorail, with His Honor right in the room, to the point that it drew comment in both the Times and P-I.

But we had endorsed Nickels for re-election, by acclamation, back in April. None of that Al Runte bullshit for us. So we were entitled. And he listened, just like Sims listened.

It will be harder to do that with Cantwell, because she hides from us. But I'm not giving up on it. And flame away if you want, but I have little patience with losers who do.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 11:37:30 AM PST

---

Pelz, saying things passionately he didn't mean about somebody he clearly can't stand. People who were up in arms about Maria hours before becoming Stepford Wives and not voting against her.

"Oh, the Republicans will use this against her...Oh...the sky is falling!...the sky is falling!"

Maybe the fact that people were so worried about a tiny, gently scolding resolution by a liberal LD is because they know Maria is so vulnerable. Why? Hmmm, let's think...because she makes votes that piss off her base (for cloture) AND piss off people on the East side (against Alito)? Because she doesn't have the sense to use a great opportunity to beat up an unpopular President AND an unpopular war? Because she's, you know, kinda sucking at her job?

Last night was a gentle little kick in the pants for this party.

Expect less gentleness in future.  

by dlaw on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 10:37:08 AM PST

---

This post is kind of rummy, sorry.  Fighting a headcold.

I attended the 46 LD.  Dwight Pelz addressed the resolution of censure.  I think he did okay.

Later, this crafty older fella managed to get the resolution tabled.  There was a bit of drama.  It was good television.

My positions on Murray and Cantwell and everyone else haven't changed since 2000: Where the hell is my opposition party?

This debate about Cantwell's vote on Alito is just the trigger.  Recall that Murray voted for Roberts.  (Whereas Cantwell voted against.  Geesh.  One of my biggest complaints is our Senators aren't even predictable.)

I strongly feel this debate is about us, the Progressive grassroots, vs the Status Quo Party: Steadily Sinking Fast.  We're overdue for another one of those cyclic Progressive political realignments (cite: Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy").  I figure we've got another 4-6 years to go before we get back on the right course.

As a party, the Dems can't even acknowlege that elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 were STOLEN. [1]  I predict more stolen races in 2006.  And the fur will really fly in 2008.

So, what I want to know is this: Why are we even talking about policy when our votes aren't being counted.  Does anyone still believe we live in a democracy?  Debates about electability?  Please.  (Everyone knows King Co is on schedule for getting a Diebold makeover, right?)

I have nothing personally against Cantwell.  She's a product of her times, when there was a national concensus.  Before things got vicious.

Sadly, Cantwell isn't able to adapt to the new circumstances.  And politicians rarely, if ever, change direction without lots of pressure.  So I'm totally cool with primary challengers, resolutions, censure, and everything else.

Of course, I'll still be voting for Cantwell in the general.  Please.  It's not even a question.

([1] Make no mistake: all politicians are equal opportunity offenders.  It's just that the current regime is explicitly authoritarian and eliminationist.)

by zappini on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 01:46:37 AM PST

---

it took a party chair with decades of experience 10 mins. to scare 2/3 of those present, and 1/3 didn't buy it.

I do not know how much time I'll spend on can'tdonada in the next few months, in particular convincing other dems of what they can, and will, figure out for themselves.  

I know that there will be many great candidates to work for.  

Candidates who don't have the belltowner view of history, and the belltowner solutions for 20+ years of getting our asses kicked - keep supporting the lame - straight outta the playbook of the DLC.

it was fun chatting with ivan, N, fred and dlaw, even though some of disagree on much w.t.o. can'tdonada.

rmm.

 

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 08:43:44 AM PST

---

Did you attend the same meeting?  I didn't detect much in the way of your 4 bullet points.

the thugs will lie about us if we challenge Cantwell, (um, they always do, so they will lie again ... that is part of politics, and part of politics is having communications and media people to spin the lie into the void, instead of onto the front pages),

Yikes.  I didn't get that vibe at all last night.  Seems a little paranoid.

We are NOT an opposition party now...

Tell that to Rep. Gene Taylor, and Rep Nancy Pelosi, two ideological diverse Democrats who worked together to halt Bush' Social Security Elimination Act.

Also, isn't 1981, like, a really long time ago?  Let Tip go.  Reagan's dead.

Here's another bit:

as someone who had crappy self financed "health care" in '93 / '94 when Yale Garduates Hillary and Ira Magaziner BLEW health care reform - I support the tattered, unreliable programs - the programs most low income people instinctively know won't be there for them when they need them

You support shite health care?  Huh?

Stop blaming Hillary.  You sound like Grover Norquist.

by Belltowner on Fri Feb 17, 2006 at 10:36:55 AM PST

---