"Can he not see the difference between someone who is trying to describe the world as he sees it, regardless of where his argument leads him, and somebody who is trying to create a message that will advance liberal politics?"
I think this is the salient point. "Liberal politics" ITSELF exists because so-called liberals are "trying to describe the world as they see it".
There is a difference between being paid to "create a message that will advance liberal politics" and actually believing in that message and working to advance liberal politics as a result. He seems to be accusing all of us of being the former, rather than the latter.
Else, how can he, on the one hand, say that it is okay to "describe the world as you see it" but NOT okay to "describe the world as you see it if it advances liberal politics"?
Or perhaps his belief is that "the advancement of liberal politics" trumps your "describing the world as you see it". Ie, that you are to some LYING and being DISHONEST in order to advance liberal politics and a liberal agenda.
I generally equate pluralism with masses and mass movements. Diversity is usually used in relation to individuals. So, I'm not sure Chris is wrong to use this term rather than diversity.
Also, as the adage goes "The only thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance." Is it really "anti-pluralist" to isolate/purge anti-pluralist or otherwise intolerant doctrines/ideas/positions (such as "pro-life") from the party? In the sense that we don't universally and without exception "welcome everybody", yes. But is civilization still civilization if the barbarians are allowed inside the gates?
based on your analysis, would the democratic party be better served in '08 electing the "white christian" demographic candidate (edwards) or the one that represents the future demographics (Obama)? Put another way, are we better off electing Edwards as our nominee now or should we anticipate these demographic trends and pick Obama (or would that be getting ahead of where the public is currently at)? Or, since both will be representing the non white-christian coalition, will it really matter which we pick this time around?
Americans don't like losing wars, but I think most of them see it as 'already lost' and have already appropriated blame for that. Democrats have a potent shield in that regard: "Bush did it".
Dems may be "in charge" in congress, but Bush is actually "in charge" of the war. He makes that point quite often.
So, you argue "don't take ownership of and 'lose' the war now, so that in 2009 we can take ownership of the war and 'lose' it then"? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, given that we will essentially only be buying time with the lives that will be lost in the interim, only to be faced with the same choice then as we are now, except NOW we have the OPTION of doing our best to make sure the blame goes to the current president and his party, rather than ourselves (and given the current state of things, I don't think that that's a hard sell). Once we are in charge of everything, we have no such options and are in a worse position re: blame for losing Iraq.
Let them vote with the Republicans and the Dem Leadership for the "clean bill" they are apparently planning on. Any dem with a conscience will vote against it. And the list of names on that will be telling. And very useful to us as far as targeting idiot Democrats for instant vilification as "Bush Appeasers" and possibly a primary campaign against them. I can guarantee that I won't forget that vote.
After they are held up for public ridicule for a couple months and the politics of this plays out further, perhaps they will realize their mistake.
Did Bush have to sign the AUMF and the Iraq War Resolutions? If not, then your interpretation may be correct. If Bush did sign it like a regular law/bill, then that would argue that these sorts of things are treated in the same manner as laws, ie, the president can sign or veto and congress can override.
My thinking is that it would be subject to a veto. There is a constitutional case to be made, however, that the constitution exclusively grants that to congress and the president doesn't have the authority to veto war resolutions. However, the courts are likely to look at past practice and uphold whatever the tradition has been on similar measures in the past.
If I want I can (assuming it were available) buy the domain for Halliburton.com. IF Halliburton wants that site, they have to pay me for the rights, regardless of whether they had the name first. This is similar to "Doing Business As" situations. A man I once knew bought the rights to an insurance company's name/trademark in my state. Now, this company was located in a neighboring state but was expected to expand. When they DID expand, they had to buy rights to their own name from the guy who bought the rights.
So, basically, this is a "first come, first serve" sort of deal. As with patents, if you get to the patent office and obtain the rights to something FIRST, then you get the benefit of it if those rights suddenly become desirable for someone else. If Obama doesn't think the site is worth $39,000, he could have counteroffered with what he thought it WAS worth. Otherwise, the site should have been Anthony's. IANAL, but I would say that he might very well have some legal claim against Myspace for doing Obama's bidding and taking away his page. Certainly an option he should look into.
Start a campaign for the heads of these organizations. Either get credible statements by their leadership (preferably including an endorsement by their board of directors) that demonstrates that they've learned their lesson and who will fricking FIGHT for women's rights, or call for the installation of new leadership who will.
This decision is as much a testament to their effectiveness as leaders forwarding this issue. This decision is a clarion call that says that if things don't change, then we can only expect further erosion of our rights. It is not wrong for us to now express our loss of confidence in the leadership here and demand change.
Some info regarding what everything is, from Matthew Hurst's site:
The larger, denser area of the graph is that part of the blogosphere generally characterised by socio-political discussion (the periphery contains some topical groupings). Above and to the left is that area of the blogosphere concerned with technical discussion and gadgetry.
A lot of these firings occurred on Dec. 7 (pearl harbor day), and I've heard this referred to at other places as the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre. You could also use substitute Pearl Harbor Day Purge interchangeably.
"Prosecutor Purges" is also a good shorthand, since it describes both what is happening and to whom it is happening.
Sent. I completely support this effort to try and wake up our party establishment to our feelings re Fox and what a political no-no it is these days (at least intra-party) to deal with them.
I also edited the suggested text to make additional points. I would include some of it here, but unfortunately, I don't have a copy. I did get a "Thank you" e-mail from BlogPAC, but I would have liked to have also been auto-sent a copy of my letter, so I could send it to friends or post excerpts here or whatever. You should have a box a person can check for the option of receiving a copy of their e-mail or simply send a copy as a matter of course. It shouldn't be that difficult a thing to do, I wouldn't think.