IMHO they've demonstrated that they're both uninterested in and incapable of actual debate.  MyDD was the smart person's Kos back in the '04 cycle, but trashed that reputation by coddling thoughtless PUMAs in '08.  Maybe it can recover, but only after demonstrating that PUMAs are completely unwelcome.

You're clearly not an Obama fan, Charles, and have both trashed OneGoodMove and used NoQuarter as a platform, but at least you have something interesting to say.  These PUMA idiots have nothing to contribute, and should be sent back to their echo chambers.

I've heard that lands you straight in GITMO.

Have another hit off the pipe, buddy.

Exactly.

He's capable of making lucid points which is why I don't want to ban him plus we don't ban for expressing opinion. But the hijacking of threads has become a problem.

I am befuddled why we have this problem to begin with. This doesn't happen at FDL or Open Left.

Okay, thanks.

That felt good!

a) I said I agree with the idea of allying with people who are not progressives. I m not sure it is going to work. There is doubt. What I don't agree with is your attempt to reinforce personality as the sole determinant of action. I am interested first and foremost in experimentation because clearly what you and others are doing is not enough since the Democrats right now don't give a shit what you or I think. They certainly don't give a crap about Charles posting his diary at mydd because they know push come to shove Charles will be with them. As will , I am guessing (althogh I have no certainty on this point) most of you.  I am for risk taking. I am not for sitting around saying what should or shold not be in bounds until I see what happens with it. It is a different perpsetive on politics than personality, party or ideological driven politics. There is little to add if you don't undrestand the need to change. Many don't. They think we can keep doing the same things decade after decade, and obtain a different result.  I don't. That's why I am open to something riskier.

Second, she's grouping with  him over potential government corruption. It is anissue she has covered at her site outside of health care. The fact you don't know that she covers these issue, and that this is not about health care says to me, you have not done any research.  That's also part of the problem.  A lot pontificating. Not a lot of checking out what people are actually saying/

Were I too take your argument seriously, you would have been against Obama crossing the aisles when interests aligned to work with Senator Coburn (if I am remembering the odious Republican). What's the difference here since both people are odious- Norquist and the republican in the Senate.

And, the means is calling for an investigation (what a horrible end to call for) and  end is to find out whether there has been govt corruption (again a horrible thing). I have no idea whether the allegations are true. I would like to find out. Even if legally valid, Rahm's actions, if true, are ethically questionable. He should not e any where near deals involving the two organizations. But again, that's assuming you believe in interests outside of ideology, partisanship and personality. My interest is in good government here. Not who is calling for it.

As side note, Glenn Greenwald put it- it is incredibly easy now that people are trying to sell the bill to mischaracterize the arguments of others. You  do that here. If you are not willing to actually listen, and mischaracterize what people are saying, there is little point to this.

I wrote up a comment recently in which I specifically stated to someone claiming that they needed the recission provision fo the bill that in fact a) the recission provisions are loosely written to fail and b) that the bill had no enforcement provision. Neither point was a theorectical argument based on my opiniion. It was based on the language of the bill as to how it has been applied at the state level, and the fact there is no federal enforcement for the bill. Instead they will rely on the defective state level. this person responded as if I was just siting opinion rather than actually listening.

This reminds me of Booman this weekend shilling for the administration with absurd arguments over the PO. Saying anti corporatists were against corporations rather than the concern being that a monopoly who has acted in bad faith will continue to be a monopoly that acts in bad faith. I f you again want a legit discussion, discuss the legit arguments being made rather than mischaracterizing them. The kill the bill crowd is concerned that things are moving along as Bloomberg just illustrated without people much giving a shit if the bill, even on its own terms, even does what it says it does. The problem is no one gives a shit. They just want to say they have passed something.

Webb last week was damning in saying something similar to what Bloomberg said.

b) The proof of fear is in behavior. The Administration and Dems don't fear anything. They already through surrogates setting up the usual "It was because we went too far left" as their rebuttal to loses next year. Never mind how far right tey are right now. that will be their argument, and it will work because progressives are too stupid to fight. Instead, they say silly things like "means to an ends" which means nothing unless one looks at the means and the ends, and what is being done with specificity and does not as a rule eliminate any choice or risk so long as it can reasonable achieve a specific end.

By the way- I am not the "left.' I am 60 percent o f the American public. I am the moderate here. DC is acting as the extremist.  In deed this is true on most issues you can name regarding how I think versus how the American public thinks versus how DC thinks. It is completely unreal to speak of "left" when discussing some of these issues. What is left about questioning the bailout of banks that are too big to fail? You are changing the definition of left as being anything that is against where the administration and party leaders are. The problem is that I know that's what is happening. There is nothing left of center about their policy making. It is at best right of center, and more specifically neoliberalism run wild. Never has it been argued that the solution to a monopoly is to ignore the monopoly and give it a captured customer base. I imagine that old leftist Teddy Roosovelt is spinning in his grave considering his views on trusts. ''

We don't know what will benefit us. If we did, we would not be losing.

c) I note the back slapping going between you and Jan 20. This is illustrative of what I mean by some of the swarming that occurs here. One of you jumps in then another often not adding anything other than back slapping to each other. It is a form of intimidation. Of course, the part I love is where you then complain that someone else is posting too much although they are really responding to each person swarming them. I am not even going to respond to 20 because i don't want to hear how I am "trolling"

What normally has happened in the negative version fo this in the past, is someone will jump into a diary saying out landish comments, and then when someone responds, they swarm with negative comments.

Fair analysis. I am just a bit sensitive to the swarming I see around this person. Having been on the receiving end of this sort of attack by several of those rushing in to chime in on the subject, I can say it makes them less credible defenders of appropriate behavior here to me.

With regard to your plans of action:

1.  I agree with you here.  This is an easy task, with no potential for loss;

2.  how do we pressure Harkin and others in an effective manner?  If we cannot apply effective pressure today on the bill, where are these reserves of power going to come from?  More importantly, sure, Harkin can go ahead and introduce additional legislation, but how will it get much further than that?  What can we do to make that happen in light of the fact that we haven't been able to make anything happen with regard to this bill?  Harkin introducing legislation with no possibility of it passing doesn't get us anywhere- especially because much less attention will be paid to some piece of legislation designed to tinker around the edges of healthcare;

3.  you can hold out hope that Obama will miraculously see the light, but I think that is folly.  And it certainly is not something I will put any store in.  We already know Obama has gotten the bill he wanted, which is supported by his claim that he did not campaign on a public option.  It is this kind of passive thinking that renders the left useless.  "Maybe he will get on board"- and what if he doesn't?;

4.  At this point, I don't think sacrificing a few scalps will do anything to increase the strength of the progressive movement.  First, it will have no real effect because, as has been made clear on this bill, we don't have enough strong progressives willing to stand up for us to make any difference.  One or two more ineffectual so-called progressives will not help matters at all.  It only serves to perpetuate the current game.  Perhaps with a few more Dem progressives [sic] in congress, we'll be listened to.  Perhaps with more pressure, Obama will listen to us.  Your plan is full of maybes and what-if's.  We cannot afford to barter in this trade any longer if we want real progress.  Your ideas actually perpetuate the rotten system with hopes for a brighter future based on nothing substantive.