home

On Iraq: Ineffective Pundits, Ineffective Activists

The views expressed in this post are, as always, solely my own

In 2005, the Democratic Party wanted to avoid taking a strong stand on Iraq. The Democratic base and the Netroots strongly criticized people like Rahm Emanuel for not standing strongly on Iraq, particularly on ending the Iraq Debacle. In 2006, the Democratic Party got religion, brushed off Karl Rove's summer 2006 "cut and run" nonsense and went on to a smashing victory in the 2006 elections, because of the contrast on Iraq.

Now in 2007, Matt Stoller writes:

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, the Iraq war debate is lost until Bush leaves office.

On Meet the Press this morning, Bob Shrum and James Carville sounded very much like Stoller and Greenwald. If the Democratic Party listens to Shrum, Carville, Stoller and Greenwald on Iraq, and runs on the idea that nothing can be done about Iraq until 2009, Democrats will suffer politically. Shrum, Carville, Glenn and Matt are wrong. Iraq will not go away until 2009. It will be the leading issue from now until November 2008. And Democrats need to fight as hard as they can on Iraq NOW.

This is poor punditry and poor activism and implicit bad advice from Carville, Shrum, Matt and Glenn. If the Democratic Party, the Democratic Presidential candidates and the Democratic base and the Netroots follow the views espoused by Matt and Glenn, the Dmeocratic Party will suffer. Moreover, for folks who do not care about ending the war in Iraq as soo as possible, acting as if nothing can be done about Iraq except as a political issue in 2008 (as Move On seems intent on doing), then the political issue will be blunted. Their approach is self defeating, even when viewed cynically.

Luckily, Atrios, FireDogLake and Daily Kos, three of the leading progressive sites, are not taking the tack Stoller implicitly recommends. And I am thankful for that.

< Weekend Open Thread | Simple Answers To Ridiculous Questions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    predictive or prescriptive? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by selise on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:45:19 AM EST
    BTD - i think glenn was predicting congressional inaction (based on experience), not advising inaction.

    Bad activism (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50:34 AM EST
    Self fulfilling prophecies.

    Bad show.

    Glenn blew it there.

    Stoller has blown it consistently.

    It strikes me as ridiculous to demand action on Iran while conceding the argument on Iraq.

    Unless Glenn is someone who want to be in the "I told you so" business, he should stick to arguing about what Dems should do, not what he thinks they will do.

    imo of course.

    Parent

    You can't demand action on Iran (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    and concede the argument on Iraq and still have both hemispheres of your brain communicating with each other.

    Parent
    You can;t be an activist AND (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    a pundit at the same time.

    Period.

    Parent

    Pundit v. activist (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    You can't be an activist AND a pundit at the same time. Period.

    But the criticism you voiced wasn't "bad activism" but "bad punditry."  

    Pundits should tell the truth.  So should activists.  Activists have a responsibility to devote their energies to things that are possible.

    I don't see them in conflict.  Pundits express views and tell the truth.  So do activists.

    Parent

    But it is possible that (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    the Democratic leadership would vote differently. Everytime they approach a new vote we approach a new opportunity for new solutions and different solutions.  If no pressure is being applied to them they have no reason to even consider voting any differently than they have in the past.  Why should the Democratic base and liberals and progressives not take full advantage of every opportunity to apply as much pressure as possible for those votes to change if they are unhappy with the status quo?

    Parent
    If you are an activist (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    that is what you do, if you are a pundit, you predict what they will do.

    Parent
    But what does a soul do (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    when predicting pundits provide cover for lazy representatives......or do they?  This is an Excedrin paradox of a conundrum for me!

    Parent
    Lets (none / 0) (#48)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    hear a different solution.  

    Parent
    I'm all ears (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    what's yours?

    Parent
    I disagree on acitivists (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    Activists must believe in their causes and not stop to think about the likely outcomes.

    Pundits are pundits.

    Parent

    I think you've just identified the problem (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    with Congressional Democrats.

    Parent
    As well as the Republicans who (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    say they favor withdrawal but don't follow up with their votes.

    Parent
    Beyond that (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    What are the likely outocmes of NOT fighting for action on Iraq now? Think about 2009, and a Supine Dem base on this issue.

    Parent
    And let me be clear (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    I have chosen to be an activist on IRaq utterly and completely.

    Everything I write is geared towards activism on Iraq.

    Folks should read me that way.

    Parent

    I get your point (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    I appreciate that you clearly outline the differences between a political pundit and an activist because the two are not the same unless pundits do things that attempt to influence political action or inaction.  Then they are beginning to play on a different field.  I'm also very grateful that you are an activist on Iraq because we desperately need thoughtful hardline activists on that issue.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    marches have you done?  Sit-ins, etc?

    Parent
    Is that your view of activism? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    If sitting at a computer and writing angry articles is activism, then my father-in-law has you beat hands down.  He is in his 70's and sits at home all day writing.  Illegal Immigration is his topic.

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    Writing the Declaration of Independence was not activism.

    Nope...

    Parent

    Not to mention those pesky (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    Federalist Papers.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    Then you are you and I am me and we have different views of these things.

    Parent
    Scanning the FP of DK this weekend (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    gives me hope that activism through punditry here is having a positive effect there.  That's progress.

    Parent
    That's how I read it, too (none / 0) (#95)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    Everyone, activists or pundits, have to make their assessments about the givens of the situation (cf., BTD's Godot Republicans).

    I haven't seen  any evidence that the Democrats in Congress as a group are willing to take a strong stand on any issue.

    Parent

    It does seem like Stoller (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    is unhappy about not being able to do anything about Iraq until 2009, he has given up on the Democratic leadership and is revoking his own ability to apply pressure to them to do their jobs though.  If the Dem leadership is going to give up so easily on doing their jobs and the Dem pundits and base give up so easily on demanding accountability from them.........well........gee.......who is going to get tough on wimps?  The tangent of Petraeus and 2012, what if I really don't care what Petraeus does outside of him do the job with ethics and competence that I pay him to do right now?  What if I only worry about holding him fully accountable for that?  What if I know that I advocate ideas and solutions firmly ensconced in full reality and in the realm of the possible, doable, and humanist and not worry about what idiot schmoes do or don't do in the crystal ball future?  What if I do the right things right now for the greater good of all and if Petraeus shows up on the political battlefield in 2012 I'll meet him there with my rap sheet of successes and humanitarianism done in real time and in the real world and we can have a real debate.  I refuse to worry about bringing my strawmen to the Republican strawmen debates anymore while real people suffer and real people die.  Sorry, but silly flatulence is annoying and I just wish people would go outside to do it.  P.S. the military is broken, the military is broken, the military is broken, the military is broken, the military is broken.....so what is all this talk of future war?  Using who's army?

    Here is what I would ask (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    from Glenn and Matt - if you don;t want to do anything about pressuing Dems on Iraq, then do not.

    But just do not get in the way of the people trying to.

    As I commented to Selise, unless having an "I told you so" moment really matters to them, what good does that comment do?

    Who is Stoller serving with that? Who is Greenwald serving with that?

    I can play that game too on their issues - Irtan and FISA (well now it is
    Stoleer's issue) and Bush Dogs.

    Nobody ids going to do anything so why bother?

    And Then I can say "I told you so."

    Let me put it bluntly - if you are gong to be an activist, you NEVER EVER EVER get to say that.

    EVER.

    Greenwald is a commentator more than an activist.

    Stoller wants to be a NEtroots leader. I have had this fight with hom before.

    IF he wants to be Stu Rothenberg and all that entails, then go do it. But he does not get to call himself an activist at the same time.

    It is a problme both he and Bowers need to resolve. PErsonally, I think their performances, along with MOve On this year have been as bad as Dems in the Congress.

    I give them all Fs.
     

    Parent

    Cheerleading (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    Your reasoning is EXACTLY the one invoked for years by war supporters -- if you want a good result, all you have to do is click your heels three times, keep insisting it's coming, and soon enough - you'll win!

    I'm not advising Democrats to give up on Iraq.  I think they ought to force the President to withdraw.

    But I'm not going to lie to my readers to make them feel better.  Everything I've seen from Democrats makes me conclude that nothing that anyone does will ever make them stand up to the President with sufficient unity and in sufficient numbers to force him to stop the war.

    That's just reality.  They can't even restore habeas corpus or defy the President's demand for vast new warrantless surveillance powers.  The idea that they are going one day soon wake up and Stop the War is fanciful, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise (and, contrary to your weird praise of Atrios, he has made that point more emphatically and more continuously than anyone I know).

    I'm not writing prescriptively, but descriptively.  I'm not recommending that Democrats not try to stop the war.  I'm not recommending that anyone stop trying.  I'm just giving my honest assessment that they are not going to do it.  

    Maybe you think your duty is to feed your readers soothing cheerleading chants.  I think mine is to write what I think as honestly as possible, regardless of whether that makes people feel nice and tingly inside. And my honest view is that, no matter what happens, Congressional Democrats will not force an end to this war.  Many of them don't want to do that, and many lack the courage to do it.

    Keep saying you will win and you'll win!  The slogan of Bush followers on the Iraq War and the slogan of BTD here at Talk Left.

    But the war cannot continue without (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    active participation from Democrats in Congress. If we don't tell them that we don't want them to fund the war, who will?

    Implicit in your claim that the war will continue through 2008 is that reality that Democrats do not actually want to end the war. We cheered for the Democrats in 2006 largely because they campaigned on ending the war. Is it only acceptable to cheerlead for a cause that you consider likely?

    Parent

    Prescriptive v. descriptive (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    But the war cannot continue without active participation from Democrats in Congress.

    They've been funding the war all year.  If anything, more of them become MORE WILLING, not less willing, to do so.  What evidence is there that they will stop?

    If we don't tell them that we don't want them to fund the war, who will?

    I constantly write that they should end the war.  I probably spend more of my time working on undermining the "Progress" claim than anything else -- it's why I interviewed Mike O'Hanlon, researched Gen. Petraeus' lengthy history of optimistic claims.

    I constantly write against the war.  I constantly work to undermine pro-war claims.  I constantly urge Democrats to stop the war.

    But I also think there is no chance that they will.  Why should I not say that if I think that?

    Implicit in your claim that the war will continue through 2008 is that reality that Democrats do not actually want to end the war. We cheered for the Democrats in 2006 largely because they campaigned on ending the war. Is it only acceptable to cheerlead for a cause that you consider likely?

    Feel free to cheer for the war's end.  I do the same.  But that doesn't make it likely to happen.  

    And if Democrats are failing to stop the war - as they are - why should anyone refrain from being honest and saying so?

    Parent

    I don't disagree with anything you say here (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    See Edger's reply below.

    Parent
    Your last line is imperative (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    But the question is why? To pressure them to react and do the right thing? OR to just say so?

    We all have eyes. The question is what we want them to do and how to make them do it, if we can.

    Parent

    Bluedogs (none / 0) (#81)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    like my congressman, Donnelly in Indiana, couldn't care less about ending the war. He's worried about holding onto a seat he took from former Rep. Chocola, who was being groomed for a House leadership position. Donnelly is worried about being outmaneuvered on the right. What pressure can you bring on a bluedog like Donnelly?

    I'll keep phoning, emailing, but I have no expectation of success here. I don't even think he's listening. If the Dems win big in 08, will the bluedogs lose their color?

    All that we have to go on here is "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

    Parent

    Glenn... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    I agree with your assessment that Everything I've seen from Democrats makes me conclude that nothing that anyone does will ever make them stand up to the President with sufficient unity and in sufficient numbers to force him to stop the war, but I disagree that they can't, or that they can't restore habeas corpus or defy the President's demand for vast new warrantless surveillance powers.

    They have the power to do all of those things if they want to.

    I think they [Democratic Leadership & Democratic presidential frontrunners] don't want to.

    Parent

    Edgar (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    They have the power to do all of those things if they want to.

    I think they [Democratic Leadership & Democratic presidential frontrunners] don't want to.

    I agree entirely.  I'm not sure the Democratic Leadership could actually get enough votes to stop the war.  But I absolutely agree they could restore habeas corpus and/or defy the president on FISA.

    They just chose not to.

    That's why I don't understand how anyone thinks it's remotely realistic that they will  stop the war.

    Parent

    I agree, Glenn (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    I think you've misinterpreted BTD a bit here, and that he and you are fundamentally in agreement as many of us here and you are.

    What I think you interpreted as "cheerleading" is really more of a man (metaphorically) putting his shoulder against the mountain and pushing, as hard as he can, with the knowledge and understanding that the mountain will only move if he never stops pushing AND enough other people push too....

    Parent

    Cheerleading (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    is the opposite of what I am doing.

    Indeed, I am accused of playing the blame game all the time.

    Parent

    Only (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    when you light fires under a..., I mean chairs. :-)

    Parent
    Mr. Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    I listened to your podcast you did with Cato last month.  It was pretty good.  

    Parent
    Glenn is the BEST (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    activist for the Constitution our side has BAR NONE.

    MY critique of him in this post does not in any way take away from the fact that Glenn is far and away the best issues blogger there is, bar none.

    Parent

    I think that (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    we are all on the same side here...

    Parent
    We are fighting something (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    that has been going on for more than a century.

    It's not so much the Democrats or the Republicans that are the problem as it is foreign policies and imperialism combined with propaganda and the myths and mindsets of American Exceptionalism and entitlement that are the problem.

    I think that both you and BTD are well aware of that.

    Even Matt tossing cheap shots from the cheap seats is well aware of that, I'm sure. :-)

    Parent

    I respect your POV on this (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    Talk Left does not say "keep saying you will win and you'll win" though.  My interpretation of BTD's activism and commentation on Iraq is that we have absolutely no guarantee of any kind of success and it is more likely that what he advocates will never be realized.  There are some things though that liberals and progressives should never just swallow and go gentle into the good night on and the Iraq War is one of them.  The existence of the Iraq War and the continuation of the Iraq War defiles everything that liberals and progressives hold dear and we risk becoming numb to our core beliefs if we just yeild to excepting without constant questioning and challenging that this is how the Democratic leadership is going preform until 2009.  It is a numbness I cannot resign myself to without losing something vital within me.  I highly respect your many words and your many efforts on the grassroots left.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    is an activist?  Is that true?

    Parent
    On Iraq? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    No question. Not a pundit that is for sure.

    Parent
    Good thing too... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    Punditizing tends to make punditizors get a little full of themselves, occasionally. ;-)

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    It is my considered view that your opinion on whether the Dems will fight is not what is needed by your readers. I think they have a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen, ESPECIALLY if activists are predicting this.

    WhAT WOULD BE OF MORE VALUE TO YOUR READERS AND to the ISSUES IS TO DISCUSS what Dems SHOULD do.

    I think you understand this as you re not discussing what you think Dems will do on FISA or Iran even though I think we can be pretty sure what your opinion is there.

    You are playing the possibilities game. So am I.

    The possibility may be 1% to stop the Iraq war now. It willbe 0% if we do not try.

    The possibility of stopping FISA extension maybe 10%, if we fight, it will be 0% if we predict there is nothing to be done.

    Same for Iran.

    Pundit or activist? I think it is hard to be both.

    Parent

    Should v. will (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    As I said, I spend HUGE amounts of time and energy arguing what Democrats should do. I do everything in my power to undermine the "we-should-stay" rationale.  I write endlessly about why Democrats would be politically better off if they stopped the war.  I can't do more in that regard.

    But at the same time, I am going to be honest and also say what I think will happen.  And I don't think Democrats will stop the war, even though they should.  I think there is a better chance that they will stop what I believe to be a virtually-inevitable attack on Iran.  I actually think, at this point, energies are better directed there.

    I can only do two things - (1) work to achieve the results I think are best, and (2) be as honest as possible.  One can do them both simultaneously - I actually think that (1) is strengthened the more someone does (2).

    Parent

    I know you do Glenn (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    There are few people who have done MORE than you on ALL of these issues.

    Your work on O'Hanlon alone is more valuable than ALL I have done for a year now.

    Here's my point - the point of that work in the short term imo, is to try and make the Dems do the right thing.

    You undermine your unparalleled work when you write that this is a fait accompli even if you believe it.

    It is your opinion and frankly, a sound one. Probably right. But we can't stop fighting because you are probably right and some will precisely because you ARE Glenn Greenwald.

    Consider how your views influence actions.

    Parent

    Disagreement (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by GlennGreenwald on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    I think disagreements like this are fine, even healthy.  I think the work you've done arguing on Iraq and the netroots has been good.  I've often agreed with you.

    I also agree that if bloggers say that all is hopeless on Iraq, that will have an effect on whether people think it's worth it to fight.  But that's really the point - if (as is true), I DO think it's hopeless to try to pressure Democrats to stop the war -- and I really do, as much as it pains me to say it -- then it makes sense to encoruage people to focus their energies on an issue that matters, where it can make a difference.

    I have this argument all the time re: impeachment, and if memory serves, you've made the argument, too.  We all have finite energies, time, resources, etc.  We all have the obligation to expend them and to encourage others to expend them in a way that will actually result in something good.  There is only one reason why I say that staying in Iraq is a fait accompli - because I really believe it. I can't for the life of me even imagine Democrats ending the war and I certainly can't imagine any meaningful number of Republicans doing so.

    I wish like hell that weren't true.  I still -- despite myself -- write about it and try to do what I can to get people to see that we should withdraw, etc.  But I feel an obligation at the same time to be honest and to encourage the direction of resources where it can make a difference.

    Parent

    question... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by selise on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    glenn - just thought of something.... when you say that the dems in congress aren't going to end the occupation of iraq, do you mean this congress? or do you mean ever?

    because if your answer is only this congress, then the effort that is being expended now may not (in fact, won't, if you are correct) end the occupation before jan 2009. but come the next administration, we'll still have to get them, and the next congress, to withdraw.... and the work that's being done now can help build public pressure that the next administration may respond to.

    Parent

    I have always felt that Selise (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:33:03 PM EST
    This fight is for now, and Gawd forbid, for 2009 too.

    Parent
    With an active duty husband (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    and active duty friends and all of the rest of us trying to survive this as military families and Iraqi families I find it impossible to agree with you because this is an unnecessary war.  Our loved ones leave and leave and leave again to very likely kill people and accidentally kill collateral or be killed by people who never did anything to us and if they don't do this then they can go to jail.......it's just too crazy for me to consider that there something more important for us to spend our time and energies on.  People dying and being destroyed while our representatives who could do something do nothing, those they represent want something done and this was the NUMBER 1 voting issue in the last election, and we think other things are more worthy of our political time and efforts?  I just can't get that to add up for me!

    Parent
    Glenn (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    It's very difficult to imagine a political reality developing under which current Democrats (again I refer to leadership and presidential frontrunners) will end the occupation of Iraq.

    But it is not at all difficult to imagine how it can happen.

    I believe that people would feel energized if they saw enough people leading us in the right direction on Iraq... if they heard enough people say to them that they will not vote for ANY Democrats next year EXCEPT Democrats who have been vocally, and by their votes on supplementals, calling for total withdrawal from Iraq.

    They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.

    If they were full of fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end it.

    I agree with him that because of who you are and because of your reach, your writing can either contribute to that possibility, and though it's a very long shot perhaps help make it reality, or become a self fulfilling prophecy when you say I can't for the life of me even imagine Democrats ending the war.

    I think that BTD is right and is suggesting caution when he says we can't stop fighting because you are probably right and some will precisely because you ARE Glenn Greenwald.

    Consider how your views influence actions.

    Parent

    Tis true (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:44:54 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald is a somewhat brilliant incredible credible dude.  Glenn Greenwald has influenced me before.

    Parent
    Hoisted on my own petard (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    And yet, I do feel there is a difference.

    First, expect nothing from Republicans was my point on  impeachment which I think is a fair one. Others could opf course think otherwise and criticize me as they do and did.

    Second, my biggest gripe was and remains with the idea that defunding should not be discussed because Bush will do . . . something . . . no matter how impossible to defeat it.

    I felt thast some were not playing fair on the issue.

    But all that said, a fair riposte and one I need to consider.

    Parent

    I was going to comment (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    that your cause only requires Democrats, but I figured you'd come back to respond.

    I think we could sell tickets to a BTD/GG court battle. ;-)

    Parent

    I'm better at stamping my shoe on the podium (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:07:45 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    Much more interesting than any (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    Presidential candidate debate, so far.  What do you think?  Solicit questions via YouTube?

    Parent
    truth matters... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by selise on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    i'm so sick of political kabuki!  i find it so refreshing to read anything where the author is trying their very best to be brutally honest and frank... it shouldn't matter which party is being analyzed.

    when atrios says that he thinks that bush will never end the iraq occupation and the Rs will never try to force an end, he's telling the truth as best he can. when glenn says that he thinks the Ds will never try to force an end to the occupation, he's doing the same thing - telling the truth as best as he can.

    and i don't think an accurate evaluation of reality affects my willingness to be active in working towards a better outcome... in fact, i think it helps me figure out what actions i want to take.

    i do think, as i've said elsewhere, that telling people that what they're doing is useless is demoralizing and can lead to defeatism (this is different than suggesting that there is something else the person could do that one thinks is likely to be more effective).

    the fact of the matter is that we really don't know what might end up being critical. i like the story that daniel ellsberg tells about seeing (or reading about?) some young people getting arrested as part of a civil disobediance in protesting the vietnam war.... and it made him think: if he was willing to go to prison, what action could he take to end the war? his answer was the pentagon papers.

    we're all on the same side here, doing what we can. the best we can do is to try to be scrupulously honest, use moral/ethical means and respect the contributions (no matter how small) of others.

    Parent

    iraq and iran (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by selise on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    i don't think iraq and iran are necessarily separate issues. here's what zbigniew brzezinski said on feb 1, 2007 when testifying before the senate foreign relations committee:

    If the United States continues to be bogged down in protracted, bloody involvement in Iraq -- and I emphasize what I am about to say -- the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran, and with much of the world of Islam at large.

    A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote-unquote "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.



    Parent
    They are the same issue (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    when it comes to whether there can be an attack on Iran.

    The prete4xt for an attack on Iran will be Iraq.

    That seems clear to me.

    Parent

    Dave Obey on local radio (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    a couple minutes ago, paraphrase, 'Even if we pass a  bill to cut off funds, we can't get it through the Senate without 60 votes.' Alas, no followup, on 'what if you don;'t pass anything?'

    Your final sentence implies a pundit shouldta (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    tailor his/her words to the wishes of the person paying the bills.  

    I deleted 2 of my comments (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    in response to a nasty attack from Matt Stoller.

    Let Matt's attack speak to his character.

    My comments were in violation of site rules and thus had to be deleted as I have done.

    Matt's comment (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    would have been deleted by me because of the "bullsh" word (profanity not allowed here) but so many people commented I'm leaving it up.

    Those of you visiting for the first time, please use the link button for your urls, otherwise I have to delete the whole comment when they overrun the box as Scoop doesn't allow editing of comments.

    Welcome, Glenn. And Matt (even though I too think you took an unjustified swipe at BTD. You don't judge lawyers by their clients.)

    Parent

    In fact, I have now deleted it (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    Now that Matt has had his chance to express his disagreement on the front page of TL (insult free) his comments attacking Big Tent have been removed

    Parent
    So anyone (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    who takes issue with your strategy and isn't, by your definition, an activist, is not only wrong, but also a "bad person?" Or is BTD just a bad person because he works for a living? If I shop at Wal-Mart, am I a bad person? I know some people believe that, I don't.

    He can't be criticized (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:58:44 PM EST
    This is actually a Left blog disease.

    The fact is I think SDtoller has done a crappy job of blogging and activism this year.

    I have explained why often.

    I may be wrong. I think I am right.

    But Stoller's resort to ad hominemm tells you alot I think.

    Parent

    WOW (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    Just .....wow.      

    I've tried (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    but I can't make an appropriate response that would not have to be deleted.

       

    Parent

    Our host tried, posted, and then deleted! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    I can imagine (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    We"bad"people tend to get justifiably offended when we're told we aren't pure enough to have opinions because we have the wrong profession or, at least,  the wrong clients.  

    And, of course, that is just utter b**s*t.  It's an attack made to avoid having the real discussion by  people who must not feel they can make their points fairly and resort to ridiculous  personal attacks to divert the conversation .  

    Glenn has impressed me today, Matt has not.        

    Parent

    Everybody to include corporations (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    needs representation.  That is a legal reality and I hope you know that I get it and I'm sure that most everyone else gets it too.  I don't really care to be a part of an America where representation is denied Maryb and I'm not sure how a lawyer goes about being pure :)

    Parent
    How a lawyer goes about being pure? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:27:25 AM EST
    By vigorously defending a clients legal rights? Even if many people, perhaps even the lawyer her/himself, doesn't like the client?

    Parent
    You are always about principles (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    aren't you?  I thought Stoller's angry tantrum was the super lowest because good lawyers do their jobs regardless of their personal beliefs about a client.  His attack reminded me of a few personal attacks on the military in this Iraq mess, a principled soldier doesn't get to pick the war they just get to obey orders.  But when people get frustrated ALL the facts can quickly dissolve in their arguments.

    Parent
    I guess I am, now that you mention it. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    I don't really think of it that way though. I just say what I think makes sense.

    I think Matt made a bad mistake with his smear attempt, and I would bet money that if he were charged with a crime carrying a potential serious prison sentence he would want the most skilled and effective defense lawyer he could find to defend him. Even if that lawyer had done work for a corporation Matt doesn't like.

    I agree. The job of a good lawyer is to do his or her job, to the best of his/her ability. Regardless of his/her personal beliefs about the client.

    And I'm pretty sure that is that standard that Matt would want a lawyer he needed to defend him to meet...

    Parent

    Everybody, especially corporations, (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:33:55 PM EST
    which cannot appear in court w/o an attorney.

    Parent
    Thats cute (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    as well as factual.

    Parent
    Tecnorati rules! (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    out of line (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by selise on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    any chance you'd be willing to stick to arguing the merits and skip the personal attacks?

    Activism: Is it cheerleading to remember history? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    Well, should we not forget what Martin Luther King said when people told him that the United States would not change?  

    "We are not satisfied and will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a might stream."  from "I have a Dream"

    And why cannot we learn from the persistence of Gandhi who took on the British Empire at the height of its power, with a vision of non-violence and "indomitable will?"  

    And whatever you may think of RFK, he or his writers had a way with words:

    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

    So if we want to stop our unjustified killing of Iraqi civilians, subjecting our troops to needless death, stop unprovoked bombing of Iran which could cause a "holocaust" in the mid-East, and spend our money, not on fatcat government contractors, but on our schools, our health care, our poor, our Katrina victims, then we can't throw up our hands and say it isn't happening.  We have to keep acting, speaking, writing our wimpy Congress and banging our pots and pans in the street, as our beloved Molly Ivins said.  

    Stoller, you embarrass (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by TomP on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    yourself with such ad hominem attacks.

    Let's see: John Edwards is a "little racist" in his approach to politics.  Now you attack Armando for working for a living.

    How low will you go?

    I am disgusted by your repeated attacks.  This is not Open Left where you and Bowers can ban people you disagree with.

    Looks to me like some of the old "gate-crashers" want to be the new gatekeepers.

    I stand with BTD/Armando.  You owe him an apology.

    "A bad guy" (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by okamichan13 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:04:10 PM EST
    evil incarnate? devil with a blue dress? really?

    just a tad over the top here.

    You got 0 points for fighting (none / 0) (#18)
    by koshembos on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    Accepting that Democrats shouldn't give up on the fight to end the Iraqi debacle. Pundits basically don't matter and there is no reason to listen to them. The only of the pundits who is worth listening to is Carvel, but there is no need to agree with him.

    There is, however, a major point that is missed. If one claims that the Democrats can carry the day, she/he should show the calculation or scenario that makes this possible. Saying for the umpteen times that the Democrats can win doesn't help. Also, fighting sounds positive but the debacle wont end because someone fights and fights even more.

    Big Tent Replied (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    As I understand your critique...

    You are arguing that I have not laid out a stratregy for not funding the Debacle.

    To which I reply -

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You must be joking.

    I had to delete it because the "haha" part went on so long it overran the comment box.

    Parent

    No comment. Just subject. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:45:32 PM EST


    New sig line. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:53:36 PM EST


    Nothing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    wrong with Wal-mart, I get most of my ammo from there.  American made at that.

    Food CHain (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:37:32 PM EST
    BTD provides them ammo and they provide you ammo and so on.

    Plenty of ammo to go around.

    Parent

    Excuse me, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Marie on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    ...Daily Kos, three of the leading progressive sites,

    ROFLMAO.  Raucous yes, progressive, I don't think so. Unless denying reality within the confines of a delusional echo chamber and beating one's head against the wall to make it change is defined as progressive.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    Quote were in order.

    Parent
    Is this the right room for an argument? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jerry on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 05:06:57 PM EST