Actually, that "whiff" is the pungent smell of the GOP talking points you're reading from. And it is a strong smell. Your "question" makes about as much sense as asking, "Should Democrats stop undermining President Bush's efforts so American can win the war in terror?"
Oh, jeepers. Let me think hard on that one.
When you stop posing as a cranky senior statesman dolling out advice to the little people, and start asking questions that are more than Republican sound bites, maybe someone will start taking you seriously.
Until then, I'm going to keep using your clever little "hint" in brackets formula...
I think we need to get in the habit of not feeling hurt or angry when the establishment Dems try to slam the door in our faces. Tauscher's remark was a gatekeeping statement--but it was also a sign of fear: fear of us.
Last year at YK, Stoller made a passing comment on a panel discussion that most people missed--but which I thought was the most insightful observation of the entire event (not intending to give Matt a big head, here): We won't get power by asking for it, but by standing up and taking it.
Everybody needs to write that short sentence on a piece of paper and read it at least once a day. Then, when some establishment Dem over the next few weeks or months or years tries to slam the door on the Progressive movement, we don't respond with anger, we don't respond by feeling betrayed. We just say, "You're goddam right we are taking over this party. And if that makes you afraid, you're in big trouble."
When a Dem says that the party needs to be "protected" from going over the Left "cliff," that means that she feels her power being taken from her. We need to see those kinds of remarks as affirmations of our success, not as acts of betrayal. Only then will we truly begin to take hold of what we have worked so hard to build.
I believe we can win these elections. But whether or not we win all of them--whether or not we take back the House or the Senate, or Lamont wins or Webb wins--we are here, now. The future of the Democratic Party is ours, and nothing can stop that but our own modesty--our own unerstandable desire to be welcomed. It would be great to have the Tauschers of the party welcome us with open arms. But even if the do, we need to stand up and take it.
This would be an instance of political speech, not private business negotiation. Schumer speaking would be an act of politics. For Schumer to speak out against Bloomberg would show the country that the Democrats don't like down and die when an independently wealthy Republican with Presidential aspirations sends his minions to overturn the will of the people in CT.
A political act. I would expect Bloomberg to ignore Schumer. But so what? What's important is the reaction of voters in Connecticut and other contested states, who would see a strong Democratic leader holding his ground.
Let me just make sure I have this straight: (1) You voted for a Republican. (2) You continue to identify yourself as a supporter of that Republican. (3) That Republican that you identify with is working against THE Progressive netroots candidate in CT. (4) You somehow think all this makes you qualified to give advice on what Democrats in the netroots should do to win the election in CT?
I'm sure there's a blog out there for Republican Democrats (or whatever you call yourself), and that they would relish your advice. But honestlly, it makes no sense here.
Bloomberg Democrat? I laugh when I hear people say that.
You voted Republican because the "Democrats didn't nominate a better candidate." That's like saying that you just couldn't find a synagogue you liked so you went to mass instead and called yourself a 'Jewish Catholic.'
It's actually Lou Dobbs who keeeps me away from the word 'populist.' I think he may wear the populist mantle more than anyone else these days. Also, I really believe that what we are seeing this cycle is something new--and while populism was fueled to some extent by newspapers and radio, I think this 'people powered' stuff is distinct. We'll see I guess. It's definitely an interesting topic, though. I'm glad Jerome brought it up.
I'm not sure why Jerome is backing away from his own term "people powered" in favor of the much less accurate "populism." Lou Dobbs is a populist. It's a political ideology based on so-called common sense and economic issues.
The movement we are seeing in this country right now is not, in my view, populism. It is a renewed fascination with political participation, but the classical formula of American populism isn't there. This time it's a values and principles movement combined with an appeal against ideology, but which does not seem to break the electorate down in terms of popular vs. elite.
It's a movement, alright, but just taking shape and seems to have roots in a long host of Progressive ideas that are taking new shape in a media-driven environment.
That's my sense. Sorry about the cryptic first comment.