Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Open Letter to Jane of Fire Dog Lake; FDL bloggers/readers and blogosphere


The purpose of this letter is to provide you some warnings about Firedoglake. I thought I'd spend some time sharing with you my experiences there.

FDL posters raised concerns about various issues. After taking their requests for assistance seriously, I was banned for providing links. Here's what I learned:

(1) The requests for inputs were disingenuous;

(2) FDL is not open to "all" new ideas, but a very narrow range

(3) They will request information, appear to genuinely desire assistance, but they are not open to what they request.

(4) They may request information, but are not serious about dealing with all the responses to their request;

(5) Don't take the FDL community seriously

(6) The Fire Dog Lake community is abusive, they're only open to new ideas if they believe (a) FDL is the source; or (b) the idea reflect well on them.

(7) FDL community members will target those who do take them seriously, and also those who ignore them or treat them with the same disdain they show others. In so many words, unless you blindly cooperate with their abuse, they'll target you.

* * *


Here are some links showing you the specific posts where FDL members specifically encouraged multiple posts, and requested general assistance. You'll see that the initial requests were not genuine. When others may respond to that information/request, they'll target them.

Link This link shows you the line of comments which I responded to. You'll see quickly that FDL-Hamsher specifically requested information, multiple posts, and provided no direct information that the responses were a problem. Rather, all feedback from Hamsher was the opposite: "Thanks." The surprise was when others on FDL took action wholly inconsistent with the initial requests.

Ref Sample concerns with FDL, abuse by people who are associated with FDL.

Link Here is some background information about Christy Hardin Smith. She's a former asst prosecutor in West Virginia. In my opinion she has overstated her credentials; she is no longer a fully paid member of the WV state bar. She may have a law degree and experience, but I would encourage you to carefully consider her qualifications, and fact that she's not a current member of the bar: She has no legal requirement to continue receiving continuing legal education. Unclear why she's used as a legal source in the open media.

Ref This link shows a sample of how I deal with one of the FDL trouble makers after I was banned. He had been posting incorrect information on many sites. I went out of my way to respond to his requests, but discovered he was not interested in receiving the information, merely making misleading statements.

Ref This is how anohter trouble maker was handled after I was banned -- they were allegedly linked with illegal use of a computer system. Others were brought into the investigation.

Link This link goes to the Haloscan comment feed, or the "big blue box." The large blue box at the end of this blogspot is the final transcript from the last interaction on FDL. You'll see that the interchange is very unusual. I've included comments to share what I was thinking, but not posting. As you read the blue box-commentary, you may get some insight into what is happening by comparing the comment line with this link: It will show you that I had a reasonable basis to continue posting information, but I had no idea they were not interested.

Link Here's a discussion on the contrast between what FDL-Hamsher says publicly about what FDL is all about, and what FDL actually does. It relates to the contrast between what Hamsher was comments (in re George Clooney) vs. what I personally observed: A big inconsistency.

Ref : This link goes into what some detail of what someone connected with FDL was doing to abuse others. You can see whawt was done.

Ref The rude awakening for FDL after I was banned was when they realized who I was, and what I was doing. I am the author of this quote Details, which Barbra Streisand read to the DNC; and I and many others were the ones behind the three state proclamations currently before Vermont, California, and Illinois state legislators, calling for Congress to impeach the President using House Rule 603. With no help from FDL.

- -

The remainder of this information goes into some examples of problems with the FDL online information. There are links to the Haloscan feed. You'll see the contrast between what they say to others, and what they'll openly do with that information. Bluntly, they're not consistent. The information below contrasts Hamsher's public disclosures in the motion picture industry with her public statements on FDL. It is not intended to be complete. Rather, it's a starting point to show, perhaps, there's more to the story with Hamsher's credentials. Based on my personal experience, I am not impressed: She appears to be closed minded, despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.

I have learned. Good luck and watch your back on FDL.


Hamsher likes to think she and the "net roots" are saving America. From my perspective, she actively thwarts people who are attempting to genuinely work with her and FDL to protect the Constitution. There are other people who are more credible, and open to new ideas.

Don't waste your time with FDL. They're more of the problem we have in the Republican Party: Two faced, arrogant, and disingenuous. How do I know? I'm in the RNC and working to lawfully remove this President from power. The likes of Hamsher will ensure this legal objective is not achieved. As an alternative, I would encourage you to spend time on ConyersBlog and AmericaBlog.

* * *

Watch Your Back

What FDL-Hamsher says, and what they do are not consistent.

Welcome visitors of Firedoglake. This information below is designed to assist you.

The goal is to share with you some cautions, and lessons from others who have gone before you. Do not make the following mistakes. If you do, you could get banned.

Enjoy your visit to Firedoglake!

* * *

Disclosure of Problem: We did a random test of one of the comments below -- originally captured for your reference. That comment, when you plug it into google, is missing. It looks as though they've deleted from Halsocan the comments saved below. [ CLick ] Obviously, you'll have to include this in your assessment of whether the comments below are bonafide. We understand that, and proceed anyway with what we know.

* * *

FireDogLake or "FDL" has a new site that incorporates comments into the blog. They have room monitors who are not official bloggers, but have been given the power to ban. One of them is Valley Girl. [ Click ]

The old site has a combination of Haloscan-Blogspot. The bans are on Haloscan, and they used both single IP and net-range. Here is a Kos discussion on FDL Firedoglake Bans issues with Haloscan: [ Click ] For your reference and planning, all the comment-links go to the old Haloscan comments.

[A review of another upcoming event: YearlyKos, and background on Christy Hardin Smith, one of the panel members at the Yearly Kos and also a blogger on FDL. . . ]

Preparation for entering FDL

The following information is merely to assist you in planning. The links are to examples of each comment.

Headgear needed. There is a concept called "mirrors" -- if you ask someone something, how they respond says alot about them. Notice this example: This comment forecasted many problems with the interaction, and recommended taking a helmet. Indeed, this comment applies equally to FDL, take cover: [ Click ]

FDL Comments about WaPo blogger also apply to FDL. It is intresting to read about their assumptions. For example, when Jane was publicly discussion what she might do -- attend a forum -- one curious response was that the decision should hinge on "what she could get out of it." [ Click ] What about simply being there to contribute, without an agenda, and without a desire to "get something" but a desire to jump right in and give everything you have to contribute? That's all I did on Firedoglake, but that's not something they think is real. Very sad.

Constructive ideas rebeffed. It's amazing to read the comment feed for Firedoglake, and consider what they were saying about others -- then look at their conduct and compare and contrast. For example, this comment is amazingly a mirror: Valley Girl said that Jane was wasting her time trying to make comments and suggestsions. [ Click ] It is curious that they have the same attitude toward others -- you too are wasting your time if you attempt to make construtive commenting: They don't want to hear it, and create excuses to rebuff the efforts to assist with the same non-sense they decry others use to ignore them. It would be interesting to see if they realize how their behavior mirrors what they judge in others.

Rejected apologies. Mentioned was the Cuban Missile crisis, and the double messages. Kennedy chose the most favorable one to achieve his goal, ending the crisis. [ Click ] After I realized I was confused, and not clear over what happened, I apologized pubicly -- as they had said should be done -- but that apology didn't get anything but more accusations that I was a problem. [ Click ] I am sad that I cannot simply read their comments about what should be done to resolve an issue -- an apology -- and admit that I am sorry, but that is not accepted for what it is. I apologized, but they took the apology in the light least favorable, and most at odds with what would resolve the issue. I find the contrast amazing, not only from a personal standpoint, but how they openly discussed the issue of choice: Notice what FDL community chooses -- to continue the disagreement, and not accept the apology as it was intended: To say I am sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. They chose to reject what might have been a resolution, very similar to how the US has appraoched Iran over the issue of Isreali recognition -- the US chooses to reject the Iranian effort to recognize Isreal, thereby ensuring the dispute continues, and basis for war escalates. That is is irresponsible, and raises serious questions as to their real motivations to "fight" terrorism and what is behind the NSA domestic monitoring. Rather, the entire discput apepars to be manufactured for stock gains in defense contractors. Truly disgusting to see, especially when the solution is easily achieved: Through peaceful discussion.

Proudly abusive. It's sad, disheartending, and stunning to read what they say about others in the blogosphere and media; only to realize they actually do what they decry in others: Attracting you to their area so they can terrorize you in the blogosphere. [ Click ]They'll complain when others throw stones at them; but then quickly turn around and publicly gang up on others and do the same to those who are trying to help. [ Click ] What's curious is that they'll then say to the new people, "We're a really nice community." Take this with a pound of salt: [ Click ]

Two faced: Public image is "nice" to newbies, don't be fooled. [ Click ] What is surprising, breathtaking, and laughable is their concern that they should not be abused; but if they are abused, then this would justify a lawful reciprocation of like response. [ Click ] Yet, they openly take pride in their abusive, uncivil approach to people. They believe that if they are rude that they will get attention. Actually, if they have a valid point, they're far more likely to get attention if they simply outline what they are trying to accomplish, and how it will solve problems. My experience is they aren't willing to do this, nor listen to other ideas and solutions. Rather, they want things "in their narrow view" of what is acceptable, and are not open to broader solutions that may include other people. [ Click ] Yet, they'll quickly turn on others for the "uncivil conduct" -- however that is arbitrarily defined. [ Click ]

Liars. This is an outright lie -- Constant was never warned about anything, nor were there "numerous warnings" nor did Constant leave profanity or harassing remarks. [ Click ] Moreover, when the FDL's go to other sites, they demand links as proof; but they provide none when smearing; and ban others who provide links. They will then change the story after they ban to convince others it is the right thing to do. They have been also reportedly engaging in "rexing" or "trexing" which is changing the comments' content after someone is banned. The full comment feed is below for your reference in the long blue box. Notice who is cursing -- FDL's.

They pride themselves on accepting comments -- as a way to distinguish themselves from the RNC; but then they ban people. What's stopping them from blogging themselves and commenting on what they really want -- to be given access to other blog comments; and are they willing to accept "No" for an answer? Not seeing anything blogging about teh subject, or the ponts made. Rather, they "complaint about comments and links" -- and then copmlain about "how comments are or are not in the right format." So much for substantive, constructive discussion on the solutions to problems. [ Click ]

They'll claim they're sincere, but when others reciprocate, they'll accuse them of not being sincere. [ Click ]

They complain that others do not take the time to clarify their comments; when I went out of my way to describe in detail what I was thinking, and share with them what I thought would be a solution -- they complained that the commets were too wordy, too long, too ramblintg, not focused, not in the right format. . . They complain when you try to meet them halfway. Then when you go out of your way to try to anticipate what they might discuss, ask, or review -- they complain again. [ Click ]

* * *

Assessments: Checklists to help you calibrate yourself while in FDL

Passive Aggressive: Accuse others of being passive aggressive.

A. Case study: How people -- who are intimidated by novel ideas, other approaches, commitment to excellence, or refined conduct -- will lower themselves, be abusive, then blame others [ Click E-mail etiquette: Do the rules apply when discussing issues in real life; how does one share solutions with an audience, that has different backgrounds, experiences, and goals? Click ]

B. Key lesson in re Iran: FDL's approach -- as is most of America -- is distributive, not integrative; not active listening; little interest in problem solving across multiple fields and disciplines: They do not know how to deal with candid, honest people attempting to openly assist, they suspect hidden agendas [ Click ]

C. Negotiation: How to do it on FDL [ Note the following stategies well used on FDL Click Others: Click ]

D. How to deal with difficult people on FDL [ CLick ]

E. Assessing whether a community is willing to share ideas, and build trust on the internet: [ Click ]

F. Assessing whether the online community is interested in solving the right problem [ Click ]

G. Assessing whther an online community is receptive or closed to novel solutions [ Click ]

H. Things you can do on the internet: Building teams [ Click ]

I. Problem solving skills: Team Building: [ Click ]

J. Turning chaos into teams: Online collaboration [ Click ]

K. Passive/Aggressive/Assertive: Understanding the differences [ Click ]

L. Dignosis and treatment: [ Click ]

M. There's an issue of absolutes and constructive use of power: [Click ] Sometimes Hamsher may think in terms of "if you are not with me, or completely understandable, then you are the enemy." The issue is that many on FDL and Hamsher included do not like to admit that their way of "winning a competition" is to shut people out, be abusive, or shift the focus of the attention to those they do not understand.

N. There might be some major issues here with Jane Hamsher: [ Click ]

* * *

"When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

The following information contains five [5] general sections:

Overall Comments

Overall assessments

Warnings for others

Things other researchers may want to review

A desire to help

How providing back up information is not considered a nice thing

Asking questions about what others are saying warrants a ban

Rules of Fire Dog Lake: Animal Farm

Abusive Signs of a Cult: Do they really want solutions?

You may be banned if you discuss George Clooney's movie about the Constitution . . . [Click ]

You must tolerate the abuse of others; if you question whether you are or are not being treated fairly, you may be banned;

You are expected to endure profanity without comment or question; if you comment on their profanity, link to it, or mention the contents of their profanity in another blogspot, you may be banned;

You are expected to tolerate their non-sense abuse and snark; they may or may not tell you what they are truly offended about;

You are not allowed to offer novel ideas; if you offer "too many ideas" or "hope" you may be banned;

If you offer novel ideas or solutions, you can only offer a limited number -- they may or may not tell you that you are doing "too much"; you may be banned;

You are not allowed to provide "too many" links to back up material in a number that others find irritating -- they may or may not tell you whether they are irritating;

You are not allowed to provide hope or offer solutions -- if you do, you will be blamed for promoting your site, even though you may be simply attempting to provide information to assist;

You are expected to feel "comfortable" walking on eggshells;

You are not permitted to ask "too many questions" or "dialog too much" with those who are confusing or not clear; they reser4ve the right to consider your question to be an accusation, or a basis to ban you;

You may or may not be told if you are causing someone to be upset. Rather, they may behind your back have you banned without notice; those who abuse may or may not be banned; those who are the target of the abuse, may be banned for commenting on the abuse of others.

Legal Background

You must read legal comments by someone who is not an active member of the WVa bar association; if you question whether they have the credentials to comment onthe matter, despite their Journal Article on the insurance industry, you may be banned;

You must read comments by someone who says they are a prosecutor, even though they only list themselves as an Associate Prosecuting Attorney [APA]; if you ask questions about their credibility as an attorney or their caseload, you may be banned;

You must read the comments of someone about the Plame leak case, even though the court has banned all leaks on the case; but you are not allowed to ask where the infromation -- that the court has stipulated should not be releared -- is coming from; if you do, you may be banned;

You may not ask questions about the briefing given on 12 Sept 2001 to the WVa; if you do, you may be banned;


You may not ask questions about whether someone did or did not finish their Master's Program at the USC Film School, or why she merely lists herself only as "enrolled"

Post Banning Etiquette: The unmentionables in exile

If you offer a genuine comment of aplogy, you may be expected to grovel more, or be accused of being disingenous even though you are being honest;

If you discuss someone who has been banned, you must qualify your statement with, "I'm not trying to defend. . . ";

After you are banned you have no right to expect anyone to consider your apology, or request to understand what you may or may not have done to offend them;

Strange Comments

What happened

The rejected apology letter

The additional firedoglake comments after being banned

What was actually said

A sample comment feed: What you may experience

Section 1. Introduction and cautionary comments about Hamsher

Section 2. Links and research notes related to Fire Dog Lake ["FDL", "firedoglake"]

Section 3. An open letter to Hamsher and blogosphere in re Fire Dog Lake

Section 4. A sample Haloscan feed showing online commentary from FDL; with important bold comments to assist your review

Section 5. Concluding remarks and risks related to Hamsher

* * *

In re Jane Hamsher

Notes for YearlyKos Convention, Preparation notes for Plame Panel discussion: [Click ]

I see you were unable to stay away. This blog spot shares the experience of Fire Dog Lake. The goal here is simple: To express the commentary and feedback. It is hoped this information may be of assistance to you.

* * *

Legal notice: All statements below are to be read with the following in mind, "This is my opinion" or "In our view" -- these are not facts; they are merely views and personal opinions that may or may not be widely held. You are advised to seek legal counsel before making any material decisions related to legal matters, job offers, or other significant decisions. This is not legal advice.

* * *


For researchers doing background research, one of the issues you'll want to explore are the indicators of management, communication, and leadership. Whether this is a recurring issue from Hamsher's experiences with motion pictures remains to be understood.

Integrity issues: Hamsher allegedly "organized an attack on a book at that you admitted you never read but you nonetheless disliked." [ Click ] If you review the Washington Post piece, you'll see a contrast in what Hamsher says, and what she actually does, as discussed below.

What's curious is Hamsher is willing to let others do her attacking for her; but fails to impose standards of civility on those she associates. [ Click ]

For the reasons cited below, we judge the following evaluation warrants you attention [ Click ]: Issues of seriousness, credibility, professionalism, gossip, and depth of character. Not one known to rise above the issue; rather quick to tear others down, especially when they refuse to "go her way" -- whatever that way is.

We are not inclined to offer her any support, nor take seriously any issue she hopes to advance. She appears to surround herself with people who choose to be hopeless; and she does not take seriously efforts by others to contribute in novel ways. She appears to be quick to embrace gossip, even information disconnected from reality. She does not appear to effectively interact with those who have reasonable solutions and suggestions to support her objectives. She does not appear to be an effective team leader, or a reliable team player. Approach with caution.

It appears there are two recent events that have had an impact on Hamsher: 9-11, and the interactions on Kos. The two are at the extremes of emotional significance. Hamsher appears to have been banned from Kos in 2004; it remains to be understood whether this was a galvanizing event, or something rather transitory.

Hamsher's legal background appears to be related to experiences with entertainment law as a film producer; we find no direct evidence that she has attended nor graduated from any law school. It remains to be understood whether her current legal discussions are related to adversarial legal action from counterparties. These remain to be understood; should you pursue legal matters, recommend your law firm work with your Certified Fraud Examiners and a private investigator familiar with motion pictures and the various guilds. There may be information in the Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild Association, and Producer's Guild Association shedding light on management, communication, and responsiveness issues. These, combined with any issues with IATSE may for the basis to assess counterparty risk.

At this juncture, the primary risk with working with Hamsher appears to be communication, management oversight, and a poor ability to effectively link resources with overall objectives. Rather than rallying resources, there may be a risk that resources are ineffectively used, raising the prospect of inefficiencies. These not only translate into cost and schedule overrun risk, but raise the liability issues in terms of overall production costs. Guilds and Unions are expected to command a premium should Hamsher's apparent communication issues drive talent and supporting crews to command higher wages for tolerating the abusive interaction.

The details below outline some of the issues raised. We remain open to other views on what may or may not be a material decision in your selection.

Our personal view is we do not encourage others to interact with Hamsher in all forums, whether they be business or politics. Thank you for your interest and we wish you best in your future endeavors.

* * *

Legal disclaimer As you read the following, keep in mind this is a personal opinion, and may not be widely held or supported. Feel free to discuss the issues of defamation, libel and slander. We are fully prepared to litigate; and well know the Anti-Slapp Statutes in re commentary on public issues.

It remains to be adjudicated whether Hamsher is a public figure or a limited public figure. It is our view Hamsher is a public figure in that she has injected herself into the public forum, has made public comments, and has not qualified them. Moreover, she has publicly asserted that she has links with both the political community and the motion picture and entertainment industry. In short, she loses a defense that her speech is a private matter, or that her comments are not worthy of public comment.

Going forward, we have one primary concern: To what extent Hamsher’s conduct and management practices in the film and motion picture industry are a fair or unfair proxy or benchmark to assess current political practices. It is our view that the management practices are consistent; and the conduct within the blogosphere is a useful proxy to shed light on matters both backward in the motion picture industry, and going forward in business practices and politics.

It is our view there is a communication and abuse issue. To what extent this is at the foundation for Hamsher’s motion picture career apparently trailing off remains to be understood. It is our view that a fair warning to potential investors is in order. Namely, those who might produce films do have to explain the basis for the cost estimates and budgets; we encourage investors and outside investigators to review to what extent this may increase the cost premium for union workers and talent. The difficulty to which talent and crews find working with Hamsher will tend to increase the cost basis for the motion picture budget; and in our view increase the risk of cost overrun.

* * *

There are specific areas of concern. First is Hamsher’s credibility on a professional level. She lists herself in the IMDB database as having been enrolled – not necessarily graduated from – the USC film school. This is a four semester Masters of Fine Arts program, lasting two years. Clearly, whether one does or does not have an MFA has no bearing on whether one can or cannot become a produce. The issue is whether there is a “work completion” issue; conversely, if Hamsher does have an MFA, it remains unclear why the public information is not consistent with that higher accreditation. Under Statement of Accounting Standards 99, there are various indicators of risk. SAS99 is a standard accountants use to evaluate indicators of fraud. One factor is management misrepresentations. During contract negotiations, we encourage counsel to review the audit rights and stress the need to include in your cost basis the time required to double check various line entries in the accounting documents. We recommend audit scope be increased.

Second is Hamsher’s effectiveness in human interaction. We remain concerned that her public statements are at odds with her actions. Whether this is a material issue, or simply a recurring business practice remains to be explored. It is our view that her public statement cannot be relied upon; rather, the time required to double check the information could be better spent interacting with those who are straight shooters. It is our view that Hamsher says one thing – but her conduct does not support that assertion.

Let’s be specific. Hamsher is the primary controlling agent of the of the Fire Dog Lake, a well known public website on the internet. Fire Dog Lake is known as a blog, short for “web blog.” Blogs are used to record ideas, share information, and be available for public viewing and scholarly research. Blogs are also effective in quickly disseminating information, interacting with readers, and engaging in a dialog with those who use the internet. Fire Dog Lake has been effective in writing critical and timely reviews on the full spectrum of political issues.

Hamsher on Fire Dog Lake has specifically encouraged others to provide feedback and solicit ideas on how to solve problems. This is the heart of this report: Hamsher has publicly stated an admirable goal of solving complex political issues and problems. In order to achieve that outcome, Hamsher has published on her blog various action items for others to follow in order to encourage politicians to vote for or against various legislation. This is an effective use of blogging tools.

The issue is to what extent Hamsher remains open to other views; and to what extent those other views are or are not tolerated. Conversely, when there is no communication on other views, and no feedback, it remains to be understood whether counter parties do or do not have fair warning of issues.

At the hart of the matter, and of interest to researchers is to what extent Hamsher is sacrificing long-term allies by short term experience. It is our view that Hamsher does not take the time to carefully consider different views and approaches which may ultimately achieve the same outcome.

If this thesis is correct, we should expect to find a number of anecdotes either supporting or not supporting this conclusion. Namely, if Hamsher does have a problem interacting -- communicating, listening to other views, or working with others who may or may not agree with her approaches, but share a common objective -- we would expect to find evidence of this in the Screen Actor’s Guild bond complaint files; various anecdotal reports from the IATSE union issues, and feedback from Columbia Pictures on negotiation issues.

It is our view that there are some litigation risks. First, it appears as though Hamsher may send mixed signals which may or may not get memorialized, increasing the potential cost of litigation to resolve issues which may not necessarily have been documented. Second, under tight budget and schedule deadlines, it remains unclear to what extent Hamsher’s management style may or may not interrupt the planned shooting schedule. It remains to be understood through discussions with the script supervisors, sound crew, and the art departments to what extent Hamsher’s on-set conduct assists or detracts from the overall effort. It is our view that the Directors Guild Association may not necessarily provide direct information; but anecdotes from set crew may provide a better indicator of her on set style. At the same time these anecdotes should be contrasted with both her blog and her novel to find patterns. It is our view that there are issues to be understood when assessing the investment and political risks.

* * *

The following comments are merely an opinion, and may or may not be true.

You are invited to discuss these issues with Jane Hamsher. Keep in mind the following is merely an opinion, and it is not here stated as fact. Any assertion that this is a “fact” about Jane Hamsher is a misrepresentation. For purposes of litigation this satisfied the “fair notice” rule that the comments are protected free speech, and do not form the basis of any defamation, libel, or slander case. A fair comment or opinion – as this is -- about a person who may not be a limited public figure is considered a fair defense for purposes of litigation in a civil matter.

In my personal opinion. . .

We can tell a lot about a person by the people they associate with. Hamsher’s associates are simply what we can read on Fire Dog Lake. But there are other associates who have yet to have a voice.

As you make your decision whether to continue to associate, interact, and create contractual arrangements with Jane Hamsher, know there are other views and fair warnings. Clearly, you must make an informed decisions. Which information you choose to focus on or ignore will have a bearing on how you review the results going forward.

We do not know the future. But we can make informed judgments of who is or is not likely to be part of the problem, part of the solution, or ones who will effectively navigate to provide leadership.

Hamsher’s strengths are her connections, her voice, and her energy. She has a great drive, she is determined. However, in our view that well placed and well intentioned determination is not well tempered by prudent judgment; rather, it is a more one characterized as a someone who is reacting, not building.

There is evidence supporting this view. If you review Fire Dog Lake, you’ll find the posts are reactive, they tend to respond to the issue at hand, and do little to shape events, nor do they transform the way we look at a situation. With time, we believe Hamsher will take on these qualities, but she is not there yet.

The purpose of the remainder of this note is to outline the specific areas Hamsher needs to address. Whether she chooses to take these as a personal attack, or constructive feedback is not our interest. Rather, this discussion is simply a one-way presentation of our assessment of the risk areas; and the basis for others to asses her conduct and future interactions.

* * *

Leadership is more than distracting attention; it is about seeing a situation and transforming the future into what is possible. Hamsher’s view of leadership appears to be one more closely linked with exciting a group, and getting them to rally to something that may or may not be of substance.

As you interact with those she closely associates with, you’ll notice a common pattern: They are not well grounded in reality. They take information as an attack; and they view others efforts as “about agendas” not as what they can be taken on face value: A sincere desire to assist.

Hamsher appears to surround herself with people who are not well versed in multi-jurisdiction litigation; nor are they sufficiently well educated, nor do they have advanced degrees. Rather, her associates are excitable, not well versed in psychology, and well practiced in abuse.

We recommend future research into the area of the Screen Actor’s Guild Bonds, and review the file of complaints – if any -- against Hamsher filed with SAG and IATSE. We encourage investors and future associates to better understand the reasons Hamsher has apparently shifted her focus from motion pictures into politics. The reasons may be benign.

However, our concern is that there are material issues warranting your consideration in the risk nexus. Namely, issues raised or encountered in Hollywood are not unique to Hollywood; rather, they are of the same kind in politics, litigation, and counter party operations on Wall Street. Suffice it to say, it appears as though Hamsher has two faulty assumptions:

  • 1. By leaving Hollywood she is leaving behind problems;

  • 2. The rest of the world operates in a better way

    Both assumptions – if true – are at odds with reality. First, Wall Street and DC operate by clear rules: They are competitive. The issue is whether Hamsher embraces the rules, or attempts to rally others to assert new rules. Our view is that Hamsher is more likely to fight the existing rules – not out of a desire to change the system – but to improve and transform the way the system operates. We wish her well in this endeavor.

    Unfortunately, to achieve her goal, Hamsher burns bridges with those who share her goals, vision, and desired outcome. Rather than work with a broad view of approaches, Hamsher appears to take a very narrow view of what is or is not acceptable. This is problematic. National building and transformation is not something that happens over night; rather, like all interactions they take time. Hamsher appears to go for the quick win; and is not willing to see the larger message. Rather, she tends to believe that the nuance is sufficient; all the while she misses the obvious: The world is on her side.

    The issue is Hamsher isn’t fighting life, or asserting a cause. Rather, she’s fighting herself: She desires an improvement, but wants the world to assent immediately to that vision, which she has yet to articulate much less demonstrate. The core issues is that there is an inconsistency between what Hamsher asserts as a standard; what she does; and the actual conduct she sanctions. The three are different. What is curious is that Hamsher is at this age, but has not seen the disconnect. Rather, she has surrounded herself with those who feed into the disparity between conduct, values, and goals.

    * * *

    Without specific knowledge nor are we aware of any event, we judge Hamsher’s world view will not change unless there is a significant event in her life – One that is transformative, one that lets her realize that the answer is inside, not “out there.” She’s conflicted, and those who embrace this conflicted personality are equally conflicted: Poor communicators, hypocritical, unwilling to truly listen and understand others as they are.

    The issue isn’t that Hamsher does or doesn’t listen. She does. Rather, she tends to reject the views and positions of others without seeing how her own position might be transformed and build with others. That is not a personal attack: It is simply an observation. Hamsher’s issue is driven by a desire to transform; her issue is she awaits the needed catalyst to transform her world view from within. That has yet to occur.

    Across all spectrums observed, we judge there are communication, abuse, management, and team building skills and defects. This is not to expect perfection. Rather, it is to simply say what is on the table: Hamsher does not appear to be well suited to effectively lead; she’s well suited to excite than to transform. This is the same as leadership by abuse, not by inspiration.

    As already discussed, it appears the thin profit margins are related to high cost premiums relative to product value. Talent and crews are willing to forego price premiums when they view the relative benefits and advantages associated with non-monetary benefits outweigh those related to normal consideration. In cases where management issues and complexities are high, the crews will command a higher price, lowering margins. In politics this translates into issues of credibility; and conversely will tell you something about the voters so inspired, or put off.

    It is our view that Hamsher is excellent at calling attention to an issue; but falls down on the transformative leadership needed to address the substantive issues. Most problematic are the inconsistencies between what she asserts as a standard for others, and what she asserts is good enough for her. In short, her conduct on Fire Dog Lake, although impressive at first glance, suggests she is more inclined to find the problem “out there” rather than explore her inner workings and decide whether the issue is something about her.

    The media has done her a disservice. They have ineffectively communicated to her in no uncertain terms that her conduct is known, and that the issues need to be addressed: Poor consistency between actions and comments; and a failure to acquire the requisite experience and credentials to invite public support from the senior American leadership. Rather than acquire the needed credentials, Hamsher appears more inclined to point to the well grounded institutions and leaders as being in the wrong. This may be true, but Hamsher does not offer a more credible vision and better grounded foundation. This is at the heart of her credibility problem.

    Springing forth from this core crack, is the alternative approach: Rather than go inside, Hamsher’s approach appears to be one of distracting the world with excited utterances. But the leadership knows the ploy well. It does not carry favor.

    Yet, rather than admit that the vision is poor or the foundation weak, Hamsher is more likely to defend herself by going on the attack, or letting others act as her proxy. This is her fatal error – for it too is known and well understood as a smokescreen. In the end, it comes down to one thing – whether Jane Hamsher does or does not want to be a leader. Her current trajectory would have us believe she is serious; however her sustainable momentum suggests that she is on an unsustainable course. This is not to say that many will not get caught in the excitement; rather it is to say that for one to have a hope of a viable future one must have hope, not simply talk about it, then reject the hope when it arrives. Hope will have to come from within Jane Hamsher; she’s not willing to have the hope that others are willing to accept her as she is – and work with that; rather, she moves with an unspoken wanting of something “out there”. She may not realize until late in life that the real answer is already close, often ignored, and regularly pushed aside. She appears to be fearful of what might become should she transform, and this propels her distractions, and drives her to interact with those who she need not bother with. She is inclined to pay attention to those she perceives and advantage, but unwilling to listen when provided what she may wish never to see: A mirror.

    It appears Hamsher most detests American leadership – whether they be on Wall Street, in Hollywood, or in DC – simply because they remind her of herself: That they are not perfect, that the masses can be excited, and the world may give her time on the stage. But there is a difference between having a small part in a community theater, and a role in transforming society for the ages.

    * * *

    The risks with Hamsher are simple: Communication, self-awareness, an ability to listen, reasonableness, and an ability to identify real problems and transformative solutions. She chooses to disconnect herself from responsibility, and either encourage or assent to abusing others. This is noted, and not one we need to seriously consider, merely look at as a curiosity.

    Hamsher remains a curiosity, fully capable of transforming, but equally capable of reaming stuck. It is not our job to transform that which chooses to resist. Rather, we can only transform that which we can control: Ourselves. That others may or may not be inspired is of no consequence – that is the unintended consequence, not the aim. The answer lies in those who desire to assert standards and do what must be done; not simply talk about standards and fail in the execution. With Hamsher we have no confidence her knowledge of standards is well grounded in legal theory or jurisprudence; rather it is merely in the transitory knowledge one acquires through connections. Unfortunately, these connections are merely mirrors, not necessarily transformative.

    We do not observe Hamsher being inspired in the short term by those who are open minded; nor can influence here with well founded principles. She is inspired not for what she might become, but what is before her – even if that vision is disconnected from her conduct. She knows what is possible; she also believes that she must choose between what is possible and what may or may not be understandable. The two are not exclusively different.

    * * *

    You’ll notice a change in communication style depending on her audience. If she believes she can defeat others – those who are obviously weak and in need of help – she will take great pains to nurture them. Those who are no different are seen as opposition, even if they seek the same goal. For those who may desire to assist, know that Hamsher does not view your assistance as a gift – but as something that is either or: You are either going to give her something and she will take it; or you will not be available to continue.

    Hamsher is in a weeding out process as she begins her transformation. She believes that things must change; she is not willing to believe that others will accept her transformation, not encourage her to become what she is capable: A leader. She doesn’t trust those around her to treat her with the respect she knows she deserves; rather, she’s inclined to treat that respect as the opposite: As an attack, a threat, and an imminent trap. In our view, she remains wary, fearful, and not a well grounded person. She seeks a foundation, something that appears to have been shattered not too many years ago. The wounds are deep; and that foundation appears to have been rebuilt quickly, poorly, and without well entrenched roots. She desires to create something which she cannot provide: Cooperation, communication, understanding, and a willingness to build. There is something missing, and she cannot find it.

    Hamsher is stuck in the petit accolades from those she least needs to surround herself with: Abusive, manipulative, insecure, and not well grounded. She’s inclined to ignore the visions, and more inclined to lower herself to what is familiar not what is possible. Ironically, by leaving Hollywood, she has embraced what she hopes to avoid.

    * * *

    The problem the RNC face is in how to effectively work with those who desire results, but have no clear vision of how to get there. Those like Hamsher are not isolated nor aberrations, rather they are prizes the RNC hopes to exploit – by exciting the DNC base with the likes of Hamsher, the RNC can still impose an agenda, even when the RNC is collapsing. The DNC remains stuck in the reactive mode; and despite only being out of power for a few short years, it is as if they have ignored the lessons of history, and believe they must prove what is self-evident: They have a track record of leadership; all they need to do is lead. They refuse to do what they’ve proven they can do. It is a choice, not a problem.

    Psuedo-psychologsts call the behavior, “Crazy making.” This is the habit of redefining reality to make others believe they do or do not have a problem. This is at the heart of abuse, denial, narcissi, and psychological operations. Hamsher’s issue is she doesn’t realize that others know she does this. Rather, she’s insulated herself from this feedback by surrounding herself with those least capable of understanding: No matter what others do, it is never good enough – so they complain; but when they are given what might address their complaint, they reject it. It is not credible they are yet interested in change.

    * * *

    It is curious to contrast the approaches the RNC uses and that of the Fire Dog Lake. You’ll notice a common pattern: A use of crazy making, codes, and attacks. The approaches have been well refined by a common challenge; the problem is the approaches fail. We judge the entrenched incentives to continue this approach far outweigh the perceived benefits of changing.

    Rather than own the results, Hamsher has been observed feigning confusion over what is or is not happening. Rather than setting down standards and clearly communicating them, Hamsher’s approach is to change the subject from the abuse – which she may or may not consciously know about, contribute, or endorse – to a perplexed question, “How did this happen?” Rather than characterize a discuss for what it is – a communication – Hamsher may characterize the interchange as an argument or hostility. This is an issue of perception; the results and conduct speak for themselves. Hamsher enjoys discussion so long as she can control the perception, hence the understandable desire to adjust text in comment feeds, even organizing others to rally for or against issues she does not fully understand. We encourage others to question closely the details related to her motivation, and what her true intentions are. She may not rally a group on the basis of reality; and she may not motivate others to move on the basis of facts or prudence.

    Understandably, when challenged and without a defense, Hamsher is quick to claim the comments are a personal attack. Indeed, the ruse is well known and transparent and need not be given much attention.

    * * *

    Hamsher suffers from two defects: First she is not well grounded in statutes; and second, she takes a legalistic view of things: An adversarial approach with the objective of convincing a fact finder of truth or fats.

    Hamsher’s problem is simple. In order to “win” on these terms – namely to win the favor of the perceived fact finder – she takes an all or nothing approach: You are ether with her agenda, however convoluted or unclear it may be – or you are against her. However, as she appears to have not learned from Hollywood, Wall Street, or politics is that the rules do not command us to assent to a single way.

    The objective of the leader is not to win; the objective is to lead. There is a difference. Leaders will transform; winners will mark their successes. The two are sometimes at odds, especially when the majority holds another view.

    Let’s consider the simplistic analogy of a court room where the adversarial approach is taken before a sitting adjudicator. It is a mistake to apply that model to leaders in the sense that the goal isn’t to win over a single adjudicator; but to incorporate all three in the transformation: Your opponent, your side, and the observers.

    This is where Hamsher falls down. The way forward for her is isolated to winning, not in transformation so that all transform and enjoy the fruits of the transformation.

    * * *

    Hamsher’s confidants appear to be defective. They are reactive. Curiously, and what should be expected is when the chorus blames their reaction on other factors. This is to say that the ones who have manipulated her have convinced Hamsher that “their reaction” is about her – it is not. It is the opposite: It is their choice how they react.

    This is a common theme of Hamsher's along the observed anecdotes. Rather than transform reality, Hamsher transforms perceptions. But this is illusory and transparent.

    The greatest threat to Hamsher is honesty, genuineness, and sincerity. She does not trust it. It appears as though something happened to betray her trust. This remains her issue.

    Hamsher’s reaction is about Hamsher, no one else. How she rises or falls is up to her. It is a failure of transformation to blame others for ones reaction – especially when our reaction is a choice, is about us, and we simply are reacting to one thing: Our reaction. Hamsher does not yet understand this, but soon will.

    There is one thing far worse than silence. It is the truth and a clear mirror. They will quickly destroy it, forever ensuring they remain stuck. This is by design. The error is to fail to see the common vision of the RNC and DNC, and create confidence on all sides that you can transform the nation, not simply appear to win a single point.

    The trap was set. Hamsher fell into it, and revealed much far more than she realizes. A fateful error, especially when made before those who desire nothing more than the best.

    * * *

    Let us continue. Leaders are those who can work with all sides, not simply those they can massage to embrace an artful perception. It is an error – and Hamsher’s vulnerability – in that she has a narrow definition of what is acceptable.

    Hamsher’s narrow prescription can be measures across many axis: Interaction style, language content, dialog, speech, reactions, and conduct. These are choices.

    Hamsher’s chorus does not well listen to understand; rather, they listen to be reminded that they are winning. They have a narrow view of what they wish to achieve; and their signals are not well honed for the nuance of support. They do not well communicate what they really want: To be led; rather, they communicate that they want to remain hopeless. So they are.

    Hopeful people will be open to new ideas; the hopeless suffer two flaws – first for having lost hope, when it is not really gone; and second for rejecting anything that might give them what they most need: A reminder that the basis for hope is inside, not out there.

    To those who desire to provide hope, your example must be something that attaches importance in terms of perception, not in reality. If you want to provide hope to Hamsher’s chorus, you will be expected to adorn yourself with things that are illusions of power – merely transitory perceptions: Wealth, organization, values, and a commitment to a principle.

    Here’s the problem: Politicians, Wall Street, and Hollywood know how to send the signal of competence in order to be perceived as worthy of support. However, they may not have the true character, integrity, or transformative abilities needed to provide leadership. They may or may not.

    Hamsher’s failure is to confuse the perception of power and principle with the transforming principle of leadership. The two are easily confused – by design.

    * * *

    One measure is the extent to which Hamsher’s confidants really want people to transform; and to what extent the chorus is fully capable of applying the principles to their own conduct and interactions.

    they speak of principles they do not practice: Leadership and vision; curiously, this is the same complaint made of the RNC. Bluntly, the closer you look at Fire Dog Lake and Hamsher, the more you will see that there is little difference between the approaches the RNC and DNC take: Both are based on manipulation, perception, and assertion of standards not practiced. This is hypocrisy. The only difference is the color, not the flavor.

    * * *

    Fire Dog Lake visitors will realize quickly that there are non-public communications behind the public comments. This is to be expected. The existing relationships are well established; they may say they are friends, but they are friends in the “My New Best Friend”-Hollywood way – whatever is perceived as beneficial in that moment, not on the basis of what is in the long-term.

    You’ll also notice the cryptic style of communication which has the roots of a cult. They may have views or comments – simply a reaction, not a fair comment on content – but remain silent, letting this build up. They do explode without warning. If you enjoy waling on eggshells, enter Fire Dog Lake.

    It is reasonable at times to wonder whether there is any difference between the RNC and DNC, especially when you observe the interactions on Fire Dog Lake: They are just as abusive as my peers in the RNC. The only difference is they assert – with equal force – that it is something else. This is denial, further evidence of a cult. The non-sense which has driven this country to the brink of dictatorship is not isolated to the RNC; rather, it crosses both parties – if the non-sense were truly outside the norms, the majority would have rejected it. Rather, the issue isn’t that there is or is not abuse; the issue is that the DNC is not able to perpetuate their version of abuse. Thus, the real way forward isn’t to wait for an election, but to increase the consequences for the abuse of authority and power – however justified it might be. The worry is that the DNC is not willing to rise above the party, nor lead either the DNC or RNC – rather, their motivation is revenge. This is to be carefully monitored, and is at the heart of the RNC members concern with the alternatives to the current RNC non-sense: Even if the country embraces an alternative, would the leadership move all of us forward, or would it simply change the tilt of the hat on the prison guard.

    Real leaders have to plan for “what comes next” and also “how do we move everyone forward.” We’re not there.

    * * *

    To those who wish to do detailed research on Fire Dog Lake and Hamsher you need to secure the Archives for the old Fire Dog Lake. It will be interesting to compare over time the originally posted comments with those later archived. Hamsher has a reputation for allegedly changing comments – it remains unclear whether the approach is designed to misrepresent comments, or whether it is merely a curiosity.

    A plain reading of a comment stream may be at odds with how the Fire Dog Lake readers are reacting. There is a double talk: They say one thing, but what they are actually saying may not be clear. They may assert it is “right” to punish those who “do not understand” what was not communicated. This is the sign of a cult. Communication is two way: the burden is on those who communicate to be clear – not to simply make a vague comment and expect all others to understand. Fire Dog Lake readers and posters are unwilling to be direct; yet they afford themselves the liberty to directly demean, insult, and abuse that which they do not understand. This is another sign of a cult: That of violating standards of conduct they arbitrarily impose on others. So noted.

    * * *

    Fire Dog Lake readers and Hamsher suffer from a fatal problem: they want the world to be a certain way, but complain “others don’t get it.” A similar charge could be made of Hamsher and Fire Dog Lake: They expect others to understand a nuance, but do not understand the nuance associated with “providing assistance” and a “good faith effort to contribute.” Noted.

    The world need not care when Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher make a comment or plea for help. The real issue is what are they doing to create in themselves what they desire to see in the world: They do not point to examples, rather they tear down others. That is not a leader we need take seriously. Show, do not tear down.

    As you further explore Fire Dog lake and Jane Hamsher consider whether there is anything of value, whether they are open for feedback, and whether they genuinely want to find hope. There is reason for hope, but not at Fire Dog Lake – there is a reason to run.

    Whether you do or do not have an input, know this: Your comment may have to be couched in a specific way, with a favorable flavor, and packed in just the right paper. Your audience at Fire Dog Lake likes to be impressed with the style and puffery, less so with the responsibility: That change is a burden on them to show, not simply complain is not occurring.

    * * *

    You’ll also notice that the Fire Dog Lake community does not make a fair showing that they are different than the RNC. When asked directly, “Are you with the RNC?” they do not answer; rather, they accuse those who ask them a simple question of, “Accusing them of being the RNC.”

    Let’s consider that:
  • What is the difference between a question; and an accusation.
  • Do they know the difference
  • Why would someone view a simple question as an accusation
  • What does it say about Hamsher and Fire Dog Lake when a simple comment is taken as something that it is not

    The issue is the expedience to which they want others to arrive at a desired perception. If it is in their interests, they will quickly cut down that which is perceived to be a threat, is unfamiliar. They live in an either-or world.

    Let’s take the simple notion of linking. The idea behind a link is to permit readers to link to and read more information. The benefit of linking is to save the site from reposing content. Some sites prefer links, not content. Those who like to help like to provide links. Links are there so you can read the information that might be of assistance.

    Here’s the issue with Fire Dog Lake: They complain that they are without hope; then encourage people to share information; then say nothing when they “react to” something; and whine.

    In other words, rather than saying, “The reason we’re reacting is because we are reacting to our reaction” – Fire Dog Lake readers will externalize that reaction onto those they associate with that reaction. Does Fire Dog Lake assent to that reaction? Indeed, they choose to both react and then blame others: By default Fire Dog Lake readers are saying that they cannot manage their reactions; like to blame others; and will fine a scapegoat to justify their reacting; and blame the perceived “bad reaction” on someone else.

    In short, they choose to react, but assert the “reason” for their reaction is something outside their control. By default, we have to conclude that they like to blame their choices on factors that are not within their control; That is a personal choice, and a perceived defect in personal management.

    They like to react that way. They choose to do so. They are feeling safe expressing their views. Their problem is that they do not realize that they are moving in the wrong direction; the energy they have should be focused on their personal transformation, not in tearing others down. They have made an error.

    * * *

    Let’s apply the above discussion to the current dilemma facing the Senior Executive Service. The dilemma is simple:

  • A. If you explain things for idiots, it will take time;

  • B. If you don’t explain things, they whine.

    The tradeoff for the SES comes: Do you value time more or less than your hearing. Remember, no matter what you do, you’re dealing with a stupid audience. They do not want to change. The issue is: How to raise the bar to keep the whining out, and focus on problems.

    This it the current problem the SES has with the RNC and DNC.

    The DNC also suffers another problem. The DNC leadership does not effectively listen; and contrary to the RNC assertions, the DNC is well organized and well led – they are just poorly positioned to demonstrate that with results. The issue is execution, not in intent.

    Here’s the problem that the DNC has: When someone wants to help the DNC defeat the RNC, the DNC doesn’t know what to do; rather, they assume there is “another agenda.” They do not look at the information or contribution in terms of what it can transform, but from the opposite view: How is this information or person a threat.

    * * *

    Transformation depends on many things. It is more than leadership; it is more than a desire; and it is not simply whether one is or is not willing to follow. The issue is whether there are or are not strategic thinkers.

    The way forward is to transform, mobilize, and lead the underlying momentum, not simply mobilize what is already not working.

    Conversely, those who say, “We can’t do that” or decide without debate have aligned themselves with the problem: Unclear questions, fears, frustrations, and ineffectual causes. The DNC’s problem is that it doesn’t educate the base what is to be expected of a strategic thinker, then actually deliver it. The DNC has failed to inspire both the RNC and DNC base, and the non-voters to reasonably expect more; and provides no basis to believe that they can better deliver on that expectation.

    It is reasonable to let the public know – regardless the party – of what is possible and simply deliver it without fanfare: in the moment, by example, and with a willingness to transform, not simply win.

    * * *

    Gone are the days when voters need to put up with what they are getting. Voters drop out because they know it’s not their issue: It’s a leadership problem. Whether it be Jane Hamsher, Fire Dog lake, or the American political landscape: The message is clear – people are not demonstrating that they are really interested in transforming, listening, or dialoging with the goal of transforming America. Rather, they listen with one goal: To defeat the other. That is not transformation. That is an adversarial system which belongs in debate and in the court room. But it does not inspire America, nor does it transform society. It forces America to make a false choice between one or the other.

    The way forward is to embrace the other view – not to embrace it as a lover, but to embrace it to understand. We may not agree, nor may we like them: But the key is to simply listen long enough so that we can repeat exactly what they are saying – at that moment, we may see that there is an agreement. Then we can move forward to a common solution to that common agreement of what the problem is.

    That is the debate before America: What is the debate about. America’s leaders refuse to agree across both parties what we commonly want to achieve, and what we will do to work with the other side to transform America. That is leadership.

    If Jane Hamsher wants to be part of that process is of no consequences to me. In the long run, the defective human communication skills will backfire as they have always done. The voters know that blaming others and not listening to other views is part of the problem. The way forward is to look at what we must do, and simply do that not talk about it.

    Fire Dog Lake visitors: It is your choice whether you want to rise to the occasion; or be open to other views. There is no reason to treat others with disrespect, especially when you fail to demonstrate you desire to be treated with respect. Your words and choice of language is about you – if you choose to use profanity, then do not complain when your opponent refuses to play and insult you back. Your issue is you are incapable of rising to the occasion; rather you look at any civil interaction as the opposite – something that warrants attack. That is your issue, but the world no knows what is possible and what does not need to be tolerated.

    * * *

    Going forward, there are solutions. You may raise reasonable questions. But the fears you have can be addressed by other solutions. If you fear being left out, your fears have contributed to your fears: You are going to be left out of what you do not wish to enter: Civil discourse. If you are asked about an issue you have raised, and refuse to entertain that discussion – we can wonder:

  • A. Why do you raise the issue but ignore comments;

  • B. Are you serious about “other views” or are you narrowly defining in advance what is or is not acceptable as a ‘suitable response”;

  • C. Are you really open to other views, or simply asking the question to appear to be open;

  • D. Why are you blaming your reaction on others;

    * * *

    Let’s consider the way forward. The issue is what is to be done about the failure of government to challenge the abuse of power. It is more than simply crossing the line, or asserting power to check power. Rather, there is no perceived incentive to do what should be done; and a perceived benefit to taking no action.

    The way forward is to explore how we most appropriately define the problem: In terms of power, our constitution, rights, and the rule of law. But it is a mistake to assume that those who oppose your approach oppose the rule of law. They may, or may not. The failure is the unwillingness to listen. You may not agree. The key is to ask.

    You will find there is common ground. The way forward is to listen, to understand, but not necessarily do that which you rebuke. If you fear what is different, you cannot be expected to lead that which is different. The issue isn’t change; but the ability to change. Are we serious about overcoming our fear of change, and moving beyond our hopelessness and realizing we in the RNC and DNC will have to decide on a common way forward to assert the rule of law.

    The way forward may be as simple as discussion, education, and inspiring the voters to talk about what is really important. You may have the answer. But if your answer was clear, why are you shutting out the views of those you hope to inspire? There is a common future.

    There is no reason to fear being left out of something that is not worthy of being associated with. There are other options.

    The voters can see they have a choice, there is a reason to care. But it means inspiring them to believe, not simply abusing them to take one or the other hand of abuse.

    * * *

    I remain unconvinced the Fire Dog Lake is serious about listening; nor am I convinced they are open to having their message embraced. They are not leaders, they are simply asserting an agenda using abuse.

    There are more effective ways. One need not react. I remain unimpressed with the communication. It is clear your audience – both the leadership in the RNC and DNC, and the voters -- does not comprehend what you are trying to do. New methods are needed. You remain unwilling to consider new methods.

    I remain unconvinced you seriously believe your views will be embraced; or that others inspired what you say will really respond. Rather, when they are inspired to respond and contribute in novel ways you reject that. Aren’t you one to be surprised.

    * * *

    The Senior Executive Service needs to know the DNC members have been suppressed; and they are quick to lash out. Expect sudden changes with briefings. Get used to it. There remains in both parties and “all or nothing” approach – at odds with the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq.

    The DNC and RNC share a common problem: They cannot cooperate – and choose not to cooperate – therefore they both blame others. The way forward is to discuss what will ensure the RNC-DNC cooperation is in harmony with the rule of law.

    The challenges is going to be to how to rally others to build multi-jurisdiction teams with a broad view of solutions, and let go of the narrow view of what is acceptable. The challenge will be whether they can see the “other things” they have in common – or could have in common – and build upon the sprouts to transform the American landscape.

    * * *

    Fire Dog Lake’s issue is one of projection. This was the first time I had any interaction with them. Before, there were merely passing comments, but nothing serious.

    What is noteworthy, was the effort to discuss – and met with the desire to do the opposite: Insult, demean, ignore. That is understandable. But the world knows.

    Lets be specific. The claims of links is frivolous. The opposite claim – that the content was too long – is equally devoid of foundation. If you truly desired to assert your choice you would skip over that which offends you so: A desire to assist.

    Despite openly admitting the ideas are valid, the only real claim is that the content was not presented with the right “appearance” – your issue; and your response, shut out the discussion. Again, that is your issue.

    It is a misrepresentation – and I urge all to note carefully – that any question is the same as an accusation. We need only look at their reaction – one of defending their choice to either be in or out of the RNC – with a simple desire to find out: Are you or are you not in the RNC? That is not an accusation. It is a question. But you would have the world believe the opposite.

    The issue isn’t whether you are; the issue is that you are so offended by a desire to reach out and understand. That is what makes your kind despicable. You have no reasonable quarrel – you openly admit you’re well aware of the many discussions and efforts to reach out. The only issue is that you are not willing to engage in a dialog. Part of that means listening; and also communicating what you are saying, not what you want others to assume by “reading between the lines.”

    Here’s the nuance: You’re defective. You fail. You do not inspire. You conduct is at odds with what is reasonable. You assert a standard of civility, but fail to meet it. A genuine desire to understand is responded with a “F = = = you.”

    It is an error to assert that you are the “vocal majority” – indeed, you are vocal, and you are a majority of “vocal majorities” – but you are not speaking to 75% of America: 25% in the RNC, and 50% who reject the RNC and DNC.

    At most, you are 25%. That is not a majority, but a deluded minority that calls itself a majority.

    * * *

    Fire Dog Lake as it currently stands is not a safe place to effectively interact with sensible people. The goal of their conduct is not to help, but to vent – their reaction – on a convenient target. That is called abuse. Your denial is merely evidence of a cult.

    The problem with Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher is that this culture of abuse is tolerated, encouraged, explained away, and unwilling to civilly interact.

    Your issue is that you are not willing to say directly what you have: A problem, and an unwillingness to listen to other views; and an error of assuming those who desire to help are doing so because of ‘something they want”. A tragic error.

    The world now knows that you do not desire to really have hope – you say you do – but when offered real hope – that of an example – you reject the hope, you reject the example, and you reject the means to believe otherwise. That is hopeless.

    What do you offer 75% of America that reject the DNC? You do not offer an alternative that is real; you are not interested in real conversation; nor are you genuinely interested in the content or substance of a solution – unless it fits your narrow view of what is or is not winnable. But the issue isn’t victory – the issue is whether we can transform America to do what must be done: Prevent abuse, and ensure rights our protected. Your conduct shows you are not for that: You spread abuse, and are not concerned when others are or are not doing what they can to help you protect and assert your rights. That is your issue. You cannot explain to America why you have a “better view” or a “more viable approach” when it is no different than what is failing: Abuse, closed minded, and little tolerance for “other things that you do not wish to take the time to understand.”

    What is most troubling is that despite your apparently “well known concern” about a particular issue – you chose to remain silent. That is fine. But who is really in charge of the media if you are silent on an issue that causes this much distress: That when faced with an offer for help, your chorus treats it as if it is were the hand from a cess pool. That may be true, but at least that hand has reached out, not done what your chorus has done: Stomped down those who have dived into the cess pool simply to see how you might react.

    You chose poorly when tested. Yes, Jane Hamsher this was a test of your leadership, you willingness to read words, and whether you were or were not willing to take a step back and say, “We need to really consider new approaches.” No, your approach was more of the same: Perception, chorus, manipulation, and assent to abuse others enjoy asserting, then feigning ignorance. But it is familiar to you: More of the same, just as you had on the sets and with the negotiations – the common problem: Jane Hamsher.

    * * *

    Despite a clear method to communicate, you chose to do the opposite: Silence. It’s your responsibility to be clear. You didn’t do that. Your issue.

    The issue is simple: Your chorus whines that they have no hope; but they show they do not want hope.

    Your chorus ignores the nuanced intent; and focuses on the reaction of others. Brilliant, you have well demonstrated what you least desire: Contempt.

    Fire Dog Like is like a wolf pack. They are large in numbers, but their approach isn’t to transform, it’s merely to assert a misguided and reckless strategy, no different than the current mess in the RNC and White House.

    They whine about what is or isn’t wrong in the world; but look for an excuse to engage in the same conduct: That of abuse.

    They desire to have a summary of things that are already summarized. They simply want the world to whittle itself down to nothing; to assent to non-sense. Thank you for banning me. It has opened my eyes to the stench on Fire Dog Lake: That chooses to remain stuck, and rebuffs the effort by 75% of the America to build a common future. Your leadership sucks – you are not willing to do what is needed to transform within. You remain aloof from any desire to really listen to your critics.

    And why not be hypocritical? You have no consequence for being so.

    * * *

    The error is to assume the quest is for something “out there” – all you have to do is listen to what you already have nearby, in your heart, your experience, and what has been in your way. The same roadblocks of many years ago – remain but in a new forum.

    You have no time to listen; but plenty of time to react and respond. That is reckless, in my view. That’s not management – that’s a follower in search of a guidance. You do not wish to be led by facts, but by perceptions.

    Fire Dog Lake tells us that the DNC does not want to be distracted with reassurances; rather they wish to live in fear – it has become a familiar bed fellow.

    As removed as they are, they still are perplexed and captivated. This is what narcissism is all about:

  • A. Special exceptions to the rules

  • B. Secrets

  • C. Name calling

  • D. Indirect communication

  • E. Abuse

    The world knows about Fire Dog Lake. It’s no longer our job to “better communicate” – the burden is on you. Civility must be demonstrated, not simply expected.

    If you have two sets of rules – you will be surprised when others do not follow those rules; and you are not familiar with others who have a single set of rules. Rather than understand new people, you impose on others your hypocrisy. That is not a problem with the party – it is a problem with arrogant Americans who want the world to believe – in this case the 75% who are outside the DNC – that you are novel, different, and new. No, you’re Americans: Arrogant, closed minded, and unwilling to be real – merely fearful, running away, and tired of your reaction. Your issues.

    You impose requirements not to inspire, but to deflate.

    You startle others not to wake them up, but to cast them down.

    You rely on perception because you have no facts.

    You abuse because you cannot simply love those you most cherish: Yourself.

    That is your issue. We need not apologize for being inspired; rather, it is the inspired who should apologize for assenting to your non-sense.

    To be called a “ [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]” after you explicitly invited me to post comments in the wake of Feingold’s censure movement – and in the wake of the failed filibuster of Alito is merely a reflection on you. Your chorus is not in tune with what you said you wanted to happen: Feedback on what could be done to improve the assistance for you.

    Should we mention what comes to mind when we hear the word “ [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]”? One thing comes to mind: Someone on your blog has been reluctant – and has no public discussed often – the issue of her rape.

    How dare you equate linking – with the intent of assisting – with the vile abuse of your personal space. That is utterly disgusting.

    Shall we explore the real issue of * * * [Constant changed: Originally “hore” with W at beginning]s? Shall we explore the real vileness of rape?

    Let’s ask: How did it really feel: Tell me what does it fell like to get raped by someone you trust. I’ll tell you what it feels like – it feels like the world has come crashing down.

    As if the world is spinning. But the problem is – this doesn’t happen until much later – after you realize what has happened. At the moment it happens, you can’t quite figure out what is or isn’t happening. But suddenly you realize – you’re stuck there, this is happening, and it’s already started. It can’t suddenly “not happen.”

    That is what it feels like to be betrayed by Jane Hamsher: After you have invited me to open up and share solutions – you and your chorus have done something far worse than when one might have been raped: You have simply used that invitation to abuse others. That is worse than anything I can imagine.

    Not only do you invite others to open up; but you then cast that aside as if it were an idle word on a SAG contract – a term that you may or may not have any intention of being accountable for if you violate.

    You are despicable. Along with the Fire Dog Lake Chorus.

    * * *

    What is to be done with America? Are we going to solve the dilemma? There are many ideas, but no leadership.

    The way forward is to give the Congress a legal, lawful surprise. They must know that they must assert their power, or they will lose the right to assert that power.

    America must know that the current plans and rules are not gone; rather, they will be asserted and employed in a manner consistent with the constitution. Those who defy the rule of law must be given their day in court, and shown that they are not worthy and irrelevant in a civilized society.

    One cannot compel the world to transform, when we at home remain fixated on the uncivil discourse so well demonstrated by Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher and her Chorus.

    Where they feign disbelief – they do so with the desire for one thing: to induce other to e confused, then strike with more abuse.

    The Senior Executive Service continues to plan. Both parties know well the 25 year plans inside DoD. These are now up on the air – as always.

    The DNC is far better organized than the RNC gives credit; and the RNC members are far more compassionate that the buffoons in the White House who have committed war crimes.

    The way forward is to recognize we have a common problem and a common enemy: The common way forward is the Constitution.

    * * *

    Do not ever whine there is no hope. Or utter another breath of air resembling a plea for assistance – and expect anyone to seriously consider your remark. It is all well and good to convince others, but your game has ended. The world now knows.

    It is only a matter of time before they start turning their backs. Letting you grovel in the mess you enjoy to call Fire Dog Lake. It is a cess pool.

    To the world, return to Fire Dog Lake, and consider, “Knowing what we know now, how would we read the comments posted. Would we bother taking the issues seriously?”

    Perhaps you may have more compassion, and feel more pity for Jane Hamsher. Read the messages, heed the cautions.

    Ask yourself whether there are real solutions. Are the risk mitigated. How open are they really being. Is the communication system and leadership something you admire. Are the responsive. Is it credible.

    But most of all, is it believable.

    No one may claim an intrusion – and ask the world to assent to that pity – only to then portend you have not manipulated.

    Are you asking the world to assent to accusations of being a “ [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]” but you are not subject to being accused of the same?

    How dare you have a double standard on whether words can or cannot be used. You contributed to this problem by failing to clearly state what you were or were not all about.

    But we find out. And we now know what a real [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”] is all about.

    * * *

    The problem you have is that this has only started. Does this remind you of something? I wonder what.

    Jane Hamsher likes to motivate people. It’s just not clear how motivated you are going to be.

    At this point, I no longer care whether you and your chorus are or are not motivated. “We prefer more moderately motivated – those who do not take us seriously – so that we can then whine when we are not taken seriously.”

    Leaders are read. You are not ready.

    Go to the archives of Fire Dog Lake. Ask about what Jane has written. Do you see the common problem: “Woe is us,” and “nobody cares” and “I can’t believe this.”

    It is Fire Dog Lake’s problem. There is room for hope. That is, if you wake up from the spell of Fire Dog Lake.

    * * *

    Should America care about Jane Hamsher. The real issue is whether Jane Hamsher really cares about America. If she did, she’d listen. She doesn’t. She has excuses.

    That’s not leadership, Jane. It’s more of what we already have. Perhaps the issue is Jane hasn’t decided whether she really wants to hide, or really wants to help, or really wants to lead. Maybe there are issues of trust. Is it because we don’t know better?

    We have little reason to care about Jane Hamsher. May you stay stuck.

    Big yawns: “Woe is us,” and “nobody cares.” And the whining about the “main stream media, not getting it.”

    There’s one person who is not getting it: Jane Hamsher. She’s not media. She’s not a lawyers. She’s not in Hollywood. She’s not on Wall Street.

    What’s Jane All about? Fire Dog Lake: You are the dog; you are at the lake, and the fire is bearing down on you. If you run, or hide the fire will destroy you. If you dive into the lake, the fire will consume the oxygen. You cannot hide forever in the Lake, Jane.

    * * *

    Fair warning to all: If you are inspired by Fire Dog Lake or Jane Hamsher, you‘re on your own – you may not be able to rely on their support of your support.

    Next time I hear Jane Hamsher’s name I will thinking, “Who cares – your problem, not a reason to be concerned, leave a message.”

    Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher have a hard time understanding that they might inspire or believe that that they might inspire someone to have hope. It is false hope. It is more of the same, but disguised as hope. Don’t take the bait at Fire Dog Lake.

    * * *

    It is surprising what is done when people don’t understand. There is little reason to have sympathy. Do they care if there are solutions that the 75% might believe? Clearly, they can’t handle one person who is inspired – there’s no prospect of them being able to manage the 225 million who remain skeptical.

    Things will take time. It is incremental. Or, so we are asked to believe. That incremental step has to be linked with something that is transformative, not simply giving us more of what has failed.

    The recurring theme is clear: Where there is an issue they blame others; where there are failed solutions, there are no backups; where there are options, those are rejected.

    They do not want to win. They have no plan. And their vision is not linked with anything the 225 million American care about. The answer is not to blame America – the answer is to find a new leader.

    How do we force this? What is to be done? We need not seriously consider Fire Dog Lake as part of the solution. Rather, they are part of the problem – and arguably the problem – closed minded, arrogant Americans who talk a lot about perceptions, but cannot transform all walks of life. Turn around -- speak to America, Jane not to your chorus before us.

    * * *

    What are our options. What are we going to do with preserving this Constitution? The way forward is not to keep doing what isn’t working – the way forward is forward.

    The problem with the membership in the DNC and RNC is that they both want power for themselves more than they want a solution for American.

    If the required changes are self-evident, why fear those who offer that idea; or who build on that idea? What is the excuse? The majority of voters can take action; and they can also see when they’re being given non-sense.

    Fire Dog Lake = more non-sense:

  • A. “We knew there was a problem but cannot agree what is to be done.”

  • B. “We’re tired of solutions, we want to be hopeless.”

    Are you more inspired or fearful?

    What will be done to deprive America of the means to abuse power?

    Is it a matter of education?

    If we can’t get Americans to be concerned about the 4th Amendment, does it matter whether or not the President violates the law? It’s more than whether someone cross the line; it’s whether Americans see the real danger of the abuse.

    * * *

    If you are around Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher – watch out. If you disagree or you have “another view” or you have a solution – it will likely be twisted around into some unrecognizable mess. Thank you, Jane.

    It’s not worth the hassle. Very difficult to work with. Not trusting. Uncooperative. Not able to discuss and dialog with things. Unable to work with those with slightly different perspectives.

    This is non-sense we’d read on an elementary school report card!

    Your classmates do not cause your reaction – you do.

    If you do not want to look at material – skip over it. Fire Dog Lake crew can’t figure out how to skip over a link; “Hay, we cant stand blogs, we can’t stand links, we don’t like your message.” What they really can stand: Their reaction to a desire to assist them.

    Fine: Keep doing what isn’t working.

    Fire Dog Lake’s ‘approach to life” is to ensure it “does not get upset”. That’s nothing you as a researcher, investor, or auditor can manage. It’s something the SES cannot control.

    Why do they resent people who share new ideas? Beware the unspoken rules on what is or is not acceptable; or what may or may not happen without warning.

    They view simple questions with fear, leaving one to reasonably conclude they are worried for a reason – the perception of the question – not whether or not the issue is or is not simply addressed, “Yes, I am with the RNC,” or “No, I’m not in the RNC.”

    Rather than discuss, they accuse; rather that dialog, they whine; rather than look for hope from within, they throw rocks at those who dare believe they may desire assistance or to be transformed.

    You do not desire to change. You desire to change America. You do not inspire, you destroy. That is not something America should ignore, but carefully watch.

    Yes, it is reasonable to ask why Jane Hamsher is an expert on anything – there’s nothing linking her to what she is or is not an expert on: Blogs aren't movies; blogs aren't books; and blogs aren't -- in Jane's world -- something to read unless it's consistent with her narrow view of reality. Is this correct, Jane -- or do you let your Chorus do your talking for you? Maybe next time the Washington Post has a discussion on ethics, we could discuss – before that discussion – what ethics is all about – and what are criteria to decide whether someone is or is not a worthy participant to opine on ethics.

    * * *

    A film producer is not a God. They are a person. Their “world view” is what is imprinted on the film. We need not take that view seriously, rather it is simply one that is to entertain.

    Life as a stage is a world view. Whether your world view justifies scapegoat or non-sense is of little consequences: The issue is simply – what will the debate be about.

    Fire Dog Lake and Jane Hamsher enjoy scapegoating. I have personally experienced it first hand. Look at the Halsocan feed above and the comments. That is absurd. None of those comments were called for.

    Fire Dog Lake has failed to understand what does or does not happen. Your audience changes throughout the day. The players at certain times have more familiarity than at others. Players at certain times will – because of their schedule – cross paths. If you want to drop hints, don’t be surprised when others miss what you’re saying.

    If you are not willing to communicate, then ask yourself what you are afraid of if you are direct.

    * * *

    Congressman Conyers has recently given accolades to Fire Dog Lake. I’m not sure if that is a real endorsement I’d like to have.

    Last time the media asked him a question about certain personnel matters, we didn’t get an answer but a, “Please contact my attorney”-like response. What’s up Congressman Conyers – is there a particular legal issue you have that you would like to discuss?

    Whets the status of the investigation?

    Are you concerned about any indictments?

    * * *

    A movie producer. A book writer. What’s up with the USC MFA – was that something we neglected to include on the résumé, or are we just not clear on what is or is not an auditable risk indicator?

    Do you really want help – or are you simply asking America to not take you seriously?

    * * *

    If you want to be called a “ [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]” after being invited to continue to provide assistance, maybe we should ask who’s the real [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”].

    Ask Jane Hamsher. She likes to get you excited. You know the rest.

    She likes to ban people who dare discuss issues. She has double standards. She has a reputation for changing comments.

    I am glad I am banned. I shall forever recall where I first learned about [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]s: On Jane Hamsher’s Fire Dog Lake.

    F = = = you, Jane Hamsher. And you can take that any way you like it.

    Feel free to litigate. We are fully prepared to issue an Anti-Slapp lawsuit and introduce all the links, back-up material, and every other comment that supports the above fair comment and opinion.

    I dare you.

    You don’t have the guts.

    If you do not like “your reaction” – go find a counselor. America could do for a break from your bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word].

    Note: All conversations below have been fabricated: Anne at Hollywood Reporter never said, "F = = = you" and the USC film school never mentioned anything about Don living in New York. However, the Haloscan feed is an actual transcript.

    * * *

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    * * *

    "But if the debate becomes dominated by group think and bullies on both sides, the bullies will be left shouting at each other. The decent people will have gone home." Ref

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    * * *

    Is it true -- this banning problem was related to Kos banning Jane in 2004? [ Click ]


    If you've got a question for Jane, see how well she responds: [ Click ]

    Seixon has a tale of woe: Click over Jane and FDL. The trick that goes around -- they will change the comments of those they are targeting -- this is known as "Trexing" [ Click ] This helps create pressure on the Community to have the person banned. It looks like this is a common tactic which Jane does.
    There’s more than one way of trexing a troll personally I favour the method pioneered by the eponymous TREX himself but that may be because I so enjoy watching it used with devastating effect by Jane Hamsher.Click
    Here's a sample discussion on Trexing [ Click; also known as Rexing ] [ Sample Haloscan discussion on Rexing. ]

    * * *

    These are two people who crossed paths

    1. FDL: Bio: Huffington Post Click

    Check the film: Last work in 2001 5 years since 2001. Compare what's not listed in the bio -- What happened to Apt Pupil; Double Dragon (1994); An American Summer (1991) -- why aren't these listed?

    Notice there's no mention of a degree, just training with the Peter Stark Producing Program Click: Where's the degree; is there an advanced degree? I'm not seeing it. The program is listed as leading to an MFA; if you've got one, why not list it -- did you not finish the program; or do you not want to let anyone know you have an MFA; or what's up? It was only 4 semesters. Did you or did you not complete it? Simple question: Yes, or no.

    Let's check her answers: 213.740.3304,
    "Ever heard of someone named Don Murphy? Oh, graduated in '88, wow thanks. What about Astro Boy in '99 -- what happened to that? Jim Henson, never heard of him. Sorry, never heard of any frog either. You'll have to talk louder, a-word. We have a bad connection. Your cell phone must be going. Call me back later. You're breaking up. You've got my number. Thanks. OK, thank you very much. There, are we friends now?"

    . . . speed dial . . .

    Hi, Anne are they paying you enough at Hollywood Reporter? -- about this January piece you did on Don -- you've only got two films listed for his credit, but his bio has other ones. Other films! Which films are you including in this list of films; and why did you exclude all the other ones? There's a difference between being a producer and being on crew. I thought you were talking to his rep -- did they give you bad information; or is there a problem with your reporting; or are you not able to explain whether the other films are actually films? It's been 10 years: And you're not being fair -- he's got more than two films. What the hell doesn't it matter 'he's from New York." That's meaningless: Either his bio is or is not correct. Which? Oh, I'm sorry: You're in Hollywood. That means you have your head up you’re a-word. F = = = you too."

    2. Who we're talking about: Pachacutec Click (202) 251-1263
    Registered carrier: Blue Licenses Holding, Llc

    ALEXANDRIA / LANDMARK $570/mo. Furn Room, Priv
    room in condo, w/ priv BA. Gym, pool, cable Internet, basic
    CATV in room, W/D in unit, shared kit/LR, AC, secure prkg
    off-street all incl. Perfect for grad student. Metro 5 mins
    away. (202) 251-1263. No drama, smoking or pets

    You know these people?
    Joseph Schuler, (703) 751-2883, , Alexandria, VA 22301
    Marie Schuler, (703) 575-9830, , Alexandria, VA 22301

    How about this one:
    AJ Schuler 703.370.6545

    Note this writing: Why people resist change, from their diary at Kos: Click

    My comment to the "clients" -- as you read below, consider the people your "expert" is hanging out with: Apparetly people who don't listen. You want to be a client of someone who hangs out with a crew like this?

    What's curious is we have an "expert consultant" on human dynamics, and the system they're involved with -- FDL -- appears to be toxic. Wow, glad I figured that out. Guess which "expert" and "representative list of clients" I'm not going to have any contact with? That's right.

    * * *

    One approach I take when encouraging others to get involved is to show by example. Namely, if I'm going to encourage others to 'blog about it' -- then as a courtesy to the readers, I look at it this way: Rather than talk about "what people could do" -- show them what can be done.

    Unfortunately, in an isolated number of cases, this has backfired. Rather than say, "here's someone who's trying to help us," people have said, "This person is trying to us for their own purposes."

    Bluntly: That's a load of non-sense and they don't believe it. You're free to ignore the information; the fact that I have to say that -- in my view -- simply insults the reader. To the small group of people who -- for whatever reason -- like to claim that others are "doing things" for their own purposes: You're right, I'm doing this because you're not: I'm the one that's spending my time because I want to to stand up for what we are supposedly all about: The Constitution.

    If this country really wants to do the "right thing" -- this country's leadership has one goal: To get in the way, stifle interest, and dissuade people. Well that's non-sense. Look at what this country is doing: We have clear laws, but no will to enforce those lows; or make sure the explicit powers in the Constitution are preserved.

    This is Congress' job; but it's also our job to lawfully wake them up. what disgusts me most about the cess pool on Fire Dog Lake is that a good faith effort to assist with their objective -- holding leaders accountable -- gets thrown back in my face.

    Fine: You're on your own. Go solve this on your own. I can't believe the idiots there: They talk amongst themselves and whine, "Oh, nothing is happening" -- and when someone like me shows up -- offers them information and assistance -- and that gets thrown back in my face -- go jump in a lake. I don't care if you read this information. I do care that when people are whining about "losing hope" that they not forget that there is a reason to have hope: A single person can make all the difference.

    Two examples:

  • 1. Remember that Quote which Barbra Streisand read? Here's the quote: CLick

  • 2. Remember the 603 effort about impeaching the President? Click

    Guess who did that? That's right: Me, one person. I'm not taking credit -- if I did, I'd tell you who I was. The point is: This isn't about me; not my blog: It's about standing up for The Constitution.

    This isn't about me: I am going to make you act -- or not act -- on the basis of my words alone. I'm not going to manipulate you with my background, or anything about me. You have to choose to stand up and decide this. If my words won't do it -- and my words can't get you to do what you can do, then I'm not going to do more. You're not listening; I will find another way.

    That's it.

    I can't tell you to "not lose hope" unless I can point to an example. But America and Americans -- you have to decide: What more do you want before you realize that you can make a difference. I did it.

    And so can you: You, one person, can make a difference and touch others. That's why I'm so annoyed by FDL: Someone shows up with a proven track record of having been able to touch others, and they shut it down.

    Fine. Your loss.

    I'm not alone. There are many others working behind the scenes. We're on your side: For the Constitution. But you are missing the point -- your opponents aren't taking you seriously; and your interest in "making yourselves look good" by tearing each other down isn't helping.

    This blog spot is about one thing: To those who are looking for an outlet, watch out. Feel free to ignore what I say or what you learn below. This is my personal experience; it may not be what you find.

    I have never come across such a group of moronic idiots who fail to see the reality of the situation; or fail to see what is at stake. Someone shows up to offer help, and they throw it back. They have no idea what they've done; who they've done this to. That's the point: They don't care; they want to be impressed by power and access and appearances.

    Look at the title of this blog: Constantpated. Exactly that: it's the least reputable thing you can imagine. The very reason it was chosen: To make you focus on something other than the name or "catchy phase." The fact that I have to say this is merely an insult to you.

    The words alone have to do it for you -- as with the Constitution -- the words alone are going to have to speak to you, and you're going to have to decide on your own whether you are for or against the Constitution.

    That's it. Nobody is going to show up and save you. You have to do what is needed and stand up for your Constitution. And your leaders aren't doing that for you. You're going to have to act like leaders: That means working with all people; listening to those you disagree with, and being open to new ideas.

    Your problem: You're not ready to listen to new ideas; you've been kicked in the rear end since 2000, that the first chance you get to lash out, you do so. That is a good sign; it means you're not afraid. But stop burning bridges with those who are motivated to support you behind the scenes. They just roll their eyes thinking, "The children are squabbling." You are not part of the solution -- you are a distraction.

    That is, unless you want to start working with everyone -- and simply choosing to assert the rule of law. I can't make you. I can't force you. You have to choose to do so, and in each moment decide that is what you are all about and what you're committed to doing.

    What I've seen is more of the same: You talk about "big things," but you fail in the moment: You don't listen; you refuse to see that there are other forces working in concern with yours; and you refuse to accept that someone is simply saying what is in their words. Look at the Haloscan feed below -- read it over. Surprise yourself: Look at the non-sense that is there. All you do is trash that which might support you; and you whine that "nothing is happening." sure there is -- alot is happening -- you're contributing to your own mess.

    This will be solved. The issue is whether you want to solve it in "your way" or simply admit that there are far larger forces working to destroy all you vale; and that you would rather fight and ignore those who are trying to help you, than simply turn your attention onto those who are already doing what they want: Trashing your Constitution.

    That's all this blog is about: Your Constitution. That’s it. It's not me, not my blog, not my hits, not my reputation.

    If I was really concerned about "my reputation" I'd have done what all of you are doing: Silence those who are speaking the truth; and nod my head, "Yes, President Bush, I completely agree with you."

    That is [Constant changed: Originally c-word]!

    This note is about one thing: To those who follow me, you have fair warning: You're going to have to find another method, "Other than your words" to do the right thing. My disgusts me is that I had hoped to do this without manipulation, without bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word], and simply let the words stand on their own: And trust you to do the "right thing."

    Thank you: You did "the right thing" -- you said, "go away." Thank you. I will find others to work with who are interested in new ideas, and not closed minded.

    Get it through your heads: these people are trashing your constitution; and there's nothing you're doing that is stopping them. Something new is needed. And when "new ideas" show up -- you rejected them. Fine: Don't whine when they keep doing what they're doing -- you're still doing what you're doing: Not trying new things.

    I can't make you change. You have to want to do what is needed. I don't have an answer to your problem: I do know that others should not spend their time trying to "work with" those who are closed minded like you. I have no sympathy for your whining, and nobody else should. You're not serious. You're not credible. You only know one thing: Whining, and then complaining when you get exactly what you want -- assistance.

    Figure out your own problems. I no longer care whether you sink into quick sand.

    This blog is a warning to others about the Fire Dog Lake Cess pool. Watch out. It will suck the life out of you unless you "play their game" -- whatever that bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] game is.

    This blogspot is about throwing all your bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] back on you. First we'll start with non-sense; then we'll start with some details.

    Then we might tell you some more. Maybe not. It's all so confusing, like the idiots at FDL.

    * * *

    Warning to visitors to FDL: There is a group of people on the site who like to claim they do or do not have a problem. If you post information there to assist them, they may state you are "trolling for hits." So much for taking their "please for help" seriously. Big yawn. [ Some board managers prefer links, not content -- here are samples Think Progress; America Blog Atrios C&L ]

    * * *

    Dungeon Master

    Also on FDL is a Dungeon Master. This is a person who may or may not be officially sanctioned.

    Their role is simple: They may take it upon themselves to impose discipline, rally others, designate scapegoats, and decide when rules are or are not to be enforced.

    The Dungeon Master is primarily responsibility is to appoint themselves as organizer, disciplinarian. Rather than admit that they have nothing of substance, nor that they are willing to listen to other views, the Dungeon Master will rally others to look in a specific direction or person.

    Dungeon Masters are known for their ability to manipulate others; they are not all that intelligent or novel in their thinking; however they are cunning, very competitive and have a perceived special relationship with the blog site owner.

    Some blogs may permit a dungeon master to have their way. A good blog master -- someone who owns the blog -- will set their own rules, and ensure that there is no dungeon master.

    A dungeon master will consume the life of the bloggers who visit. They engage in narcissism, abuse, and have selective reading of texts. They will encourage others to skip of important material; accuse others of wrong doing; and change the dynamics from ideas to personal attacks on unsuspecting visitors.

    They speak in codes; they may or may not explain what their goals are; and their objectives and purposes are not necessarily clear. Rather than manage their own board -- using whatever rules they create or ignore -- the Dungeon Master will use the host blog as their own: One they manage, and freely use as their playground and amusement.

    A dungeon master's greatest weaknesses are their inability to create novel ideas; be open to new approaches; listen to other views; or lead a full spectrum of people from various views. Dungeon Masters tend to have an either-or view of the world: You are either with them -- and their non-sense -- or you are subject to attack, ridicule, and exile.

    When you interact with a Dungeon Master, always know that their view on life, how they interact, and what they do or do not say is not about you -- rather, it is about them, their view, and their choices. Your job is to know that they dungeon master may or may not be obvious; they have considerable influence; but they also move and blend with the hopes of not being discovered.

    In short, a Dungeon Master will accuse others of being trolls because the Dungeon Master is an evolved troll: One who knows how to appear to fit in and "not appear like a troll" -- but they are quick to chase others away who resemble the Dungeon Master: Those who can think, those who can observe, and those who are able to see what is going on.

    If you meet a Dungeon Master on FDL, you will recognize them by their speech: They talk in codes; their aim is to confuse; and they will rally others to look away from them and at someone else.

    Blog owners may or may not sanction the Dungeon Master. The responsible blog owners will set clear rules themselves; the irresponsible ones will let the blog descend into chaos -- letting the dungeon master take responsibility for the monitoring, reporting, and on-blog discipline. The weak and especially weak spined blog owners will feign stupidity about what is going on; rather than take responsibility or nurture those who are actively supporting the blog objectives -- however clear or vague they might be -- the blog owner will at times throw up their hands, plead confusion, and say, "How can all this fighting go on." Little do they realize it is the blog manager who has significantly contributed to the problem by setting clear goals, encouraging others to meet those goals, then punishing those who outperform the blog owner.

    In short, when you have a blog with a leadership problem -- and someone who is insecure, novel in their aspirations, but not clear on their larger role in leading many people -- a Dungeon Master will emerge. The Dungeon Master may not be a specific person, but can be a group of people who self-appoint themselves to assert a principle, even to the extreme absurdities.

    FDL has shown that it may be open to requests for assistance; but spend little time waiting for a public response or feedback. You may or may not be able to get a desirable response in private. In short, they talk about creating a grand future, but the Dungeon Master and Blog Host will fall down on the individual relationships with those they are unwilling to take the time to listen to, understand. Rather, they view those they do not understand as something that is impossible. They are not leaders. They are simply blog hosts who insult those they may inspire.

    * * *

    Beware the Dungeon Master and Blog Host on FDL. You may or may not know where you stand. This is the way of the fire, the dog, and the lake.

    One meaning of Fire Dog Lake: Toby Asks: What does that mean, "Fire dog lake?"

    Based on my interactions with Fire Dog Lake, this is the best that I can come up with.

    1. Imagine that you are a dog, standing at the edge of a lake.

    2. Imagine that just off the horizon is a large fire, heading toward you. The fire is the pack of FDL readers who make stupid comments, whine for help, and then complain when you give them what they want: Information, listen to them, or talk to them.

    3. Your job is to decide: Do I stay at the edge of the lake, and get burned by the fire; do I run toward the fire and get consumed by the FDL mob; or do I jump into the lake and get protected from the fire?

    4. Before you answer, know that if you jump into lake to protect yourself, that you will have to come up for air. The problem is the FDL-fire will have consumed the oxygen; and you will be gasping for air after you try to save yourself.

    My recommendation: Never go near the FDL, stay out of the water, and run anytime you hear that someone has a comment about FDL.

    * * *

    Let's take a look at the concept of "Dungeon Master" on some other blogs. Let's consider two: Winter Patriot, and the Conyers Blog in general.

    First, Winter Patriot: Here's a style of letter that is sure to get their attention. Winter Patriot typically runs around making accusations. Again, as with FDL if you have information to share -- save your breath. Winter Patriot likes to accuse others of "promoting their blog," even though your only aim may be to respond to a question or provide information.

    As with FDL, Winter Patriot as "Dungeon Master" may or may not be clear on what the rules are; nor may the rules be consistent with what they do or do not enforce. Some people are banned; others are given warnings; and when Winter Patriot faces an onslaught of many people -- with a mass spam campaign -- those blogs may or may not be deleted. He doesn't read very well, and assumes all things he doesn't understand are out to get him. He appears to be insecure, fearful, and not all that intelligent -- possibly a military veteran.

    Let's deal with the more complicated Conyers Blog. They have a registration problem; and the board admin may or may not respond; and the Admin may or may not enforce rules consistently; if there is a problem -- with someone expressing another view they will permit the group to act as a single dungeon master and target the offensive one.

    FDL, Winter Patriot, and Conyers Blog have common problems: They promote ideas of tolerance, solutions, and a grand vision. Unfortunately, when it comes to ideas -- they expect the content, information, and links to fit within a very narrow band of acceptability. This may or may not be clear. Unfortunately, they may not be clear with the person they have a "problem with," all the while relying on hints. Clearly, there is a communication problem. It's not the job of the world to interpret signals: Rather, your job is to be clear with what you expect.

    The issue with FDL, Winter Patriot, and Conyers Blog is that they have admirable goals; but they fall down on execution: They do not demonstrate that they are willing to listen; they expect others to conform with standards they may or may not make clear; and they are genuinely admirable in their desire to do the right thing, but are not willing to spend time to look at truly novel approaches to pursue the same objective.

    The people who interact with Winter Patriot and FDL may or may not be secure when they interact with someone with novel ideas. Rather than accept the information as a genuine desire to assist, they will accuse others of "promoting lousy blogs." Well, they've missed the objective and purpose of the information: It was to make a good faith effort to assist and provide information. Rather than let that information settle down, they'll focus on their short-term objective -- whatever that might be -- and are willing to take extreme action to destroy the potential for a long-term, constructive interaction.

    For the most part Conyers Blog members are high quality and I would put them in the mid to high range on novelty. Winter Patriot is at the other end -- well intentioned, but -- in my personal opinion -- very reckless in delivery, and ability to effectively interact in a direct way. I would put FDL slightly above Winter Patriot, more toward the lower end of the spectrum: Again, a motivated group, more inclined to engage in abusive behavior, and undermine long term relationships than to take a larger view of a situation.

    For the most part, if someone on Conyers Blog says they're going to do something -- you can count on it. With those around Winter patriot and FDL, it depends more on a personal relationship that may or may not have any weight with your particular issue.

    * * *

    The following was my attempt to extend a fig leaf to Jane--if you read the full Haloscan comments below, maybe you'll be as confused as anyone else: What is the basis for the bans; and who has the ear of FDL on who does or doesn't get banned? It appears they have a secondary communication system where they decide who will or will not get banned without warning.

    Whatever . . .

    * * *

    Result: Complaints about A Public Apology

    Immediate Action -- Letter of apology: Rejected as "Disingenuous"


    Dear Jane, [FDL: Click]

    I'm sorry how things turned out. I thought about what has happened, and accept that there are many things I do not understand. I have only just learned how much pain and anguish I have caused you.

    I am very sorry for what I have done and I will spend time doing what I can to make things right. I am very sorry for what I have done, and take fully responsibility. It was all my fault for not understanding. I wish there was something I could have done earlier, but I have failed all of you. I can only offer you my words.


    GAP, enjoying treats

    P.S. Sqwak!

    * * *

    Fire Dog Lake Readers and blogosphere,

    Please pass on the following best wishes to the community.

    * * *

    Dear FDL readers and posters,

    My reason for writing it to wish you well and send good thoughts your way.

    Today, I was posting on a number of sites and getting good feedback. I’d been posting elsewhere and jumping back and forth.

    My reason for writing is to ask for your support. My goal is to continue to work behind the scenes on the 603 efforts, and continue to share ideas with new people. [ 603 Effort: State Proclamations for Impeachment Click ]

    Clearly, many of you know who I am; for those of you who do not know me – I’m simply someone that is trying to protect the Constitution. [ Constitutional Convention Archive [ Click ]

    Today was especially challenging and I am happy that I accomplished a lot. My reason for writing is that I have unfortunately – in my zeal to spread the news as I did with the 603 effort – have offended the FDL readers.

    I apologize sincerely, and do not wish to make light of the offenses that I have caused. I make no claim to be an angel; nor do I claim to have the answers. My only plea is – if I remain banned – please know that I will continue to work on your behalf, behind the scenes and I wish you well. [ Click ]

    I shall not go into the details of what was or wasn’t going on – but I only wish that the ban be removed so that I may continue to do what I have always been doing: Sharing my ideas.

    Indeed, many of you are “tired” of having me around; in fact, some of you are so tired, that you were the ones that helped spread the word on the 603 effort – and that is why things are taking off.

    Perhaps my ideas are not taking hold; however, that is fine. I do know that when people challenge my thinking, that is helpful. My only regret is that I did not have the chance to finish the conversation I was having with the FDL community.

    As to the specific comments that people did or didn’t make – I find it curious that despite what was or wasn’t said how quickly things can turn on a dime.

    My reason for posting is not to excuse or explain away what did or didn’t happen; at this juncture, I’m at a lost as to why I have been banned. All I know is that out of the blue people specifically commented they were “tired” of the links. OK, that is fine.

    But when I attempted to discuss the Constitution and the other issues, it was rather strange – perhaps you are all with the DNC and progressives. I am unclear why people were saying that they supported Bush and Gonzalez; I thought there were people that were trying to stifle a discussion.

    Anyway, I am sorry that I didn’t get a chance to finish my conversation with ZennNurse, she and I have been passing in the night, and I said something long ago that I have not been able to clear up.

    Going forward, there isn’t much I can say. I am sorry that I did not realize – until today – that you didn’t want to have the links. Yes, I was very busy – and thought my links with the comments I was making were germane to what was being said. Clearly, my view on the matter is not consistent with how my conduct has or has not been interpreted.

    I make no claim to have “the answer” – only that I desire to make sure that if there is any chance that I may be of assistance that I can do that. If the decision is to keep me banned, I understand that; I shall continue to do the work that I think needs to be done.

    I would be interested in knowing more – from my perspective I was simply “throwing” back the catcalls that were coming at me: My goal was simply to talk to people, and get their views on what they were talking about. From my understanding of Jane’s blog, at the core of the concern is the Constitution. That’s why I was sharing my ideas, and interacting with people.

    Unfortunately, my desire to interact with more people today backfired; and I ruffled up many feathers. That was not my intent, and I apologize unreservedly for the conduct that I chose to do: To dialog, to persist, and not back down.

    I shall not ask for “fairness” nor shall I ask that I be permitted to go where I am not wanted; nor do I desire to make a pest of myself. Clearly, over the many months many have had views on things – what I was saying, what I was not saying or what I was doing – so it comes as a surprise that the first opportunity that I had to dialog with people, I was told in so many words to cool it. OK, I can cool it. And rather than post links, I wanted to dialog about the Constitution.

    It comes as a surprise, but I have learned from Job that when one is exiled and banned this is the opportunity – I shall return one day and I shall have a gift of something that you are seeking.

    I do know that when I visit the blogs there are more calls for quitting; and there are claims that people need to just give up. I do not think that is something to ignore: Rather, it was, and shall remain my goal to continue to offer hope to others: There is a way, and the world need not fear the RNC tyranny – rather it can be lawfully tamed.

    My goal in posting isn’t to get hits – but to make sure that new people who are discouraged know that there is something that they can have faith in and believe: There is something that a single person that they can do to make a difference.

    And that is what I hope all learn – if nothing else – from me: That all you have to do is persist, find the right person, and then things will click. That is why I am glad that I found the right person 7 weeks ago: Since then the 603 effort has taken off.

    My goal is to find the “new next person” who can have faith that there is hope. I remember when I first realized that the world can be changed with one person. It was when Barbra Streisand read my comments: “Beware the leader.” Yes, I am the author of that quote. [ My comments she read to the DNC ; what I didn't get to tell Barbra Streisand before she spoke: Click ]

    Since then, I have continued to make progress; and regularly touching new people. That is what I will continue to do. I realize that my be banned from Fire Dog Lake is something that is meant to be; I am glad that I had the chance to post on the new site, and see that it is very nice, despite the minor technical challenges. I trust in time Jane and her fine bloggers and associates will continue to make great strides. I am sad that I won't be able to join you.

    Unfortunately, the problem I have is that I will no longer be able to share as easily my ideas that I had with new people who have lost hope, and are giving up, and are throwing in the towel. That is understandable.

    But I do know that one person can make all the difference. I’ve seen it, and am glad that in my small way – a single idea has taken off. Although you may not agree or understand what I am trying to do – I accept your decision, and respect that we must part ways. This is meant to be and I am glad that you have made your decision.

    To those in the Fire Dog Lake and the community who are new, or may read this in the future, know that there are people who have gone before you, who have found hope, and then found inspiration from Jane and the FDL community.

    It is with sadness and some confusion that I move on, but when I visit with you again we will have made great progress. Yes, things will be difficult, and going forward there will be challenges. Know there are people working behind the scenes inside the RNC – me – who are doing what they can to assert the rule of law, stand up to tyranny, and ensure this Constitution is preserved.

    This nation will find its way. It will take time. The way forward is to continue to share your ideas. As I depart, I hope that the following suggestions are accepted with the intent that they are sent and hoped that they are accepted for what they are, simply observations:

  • If you are concerned about something, please feel free to leave comments in the comment feed in Haloscan;

  • If you are unsure of something, ask questions

  • If you have a problem with what I am doing – let me know.

    My concern is that “out of the blue” – when I stopped posting links, and attempted to dialog some – if not all – took that in a way that deserved banning. I accept that I may never know the answer as to what happened; nor do I wish to “make up stories” as to what did or didn’t happen: It’s all there in the Haloscan feed.

    Rather, my only thought at this juncture is that if you were truly annoyed by my links, was there something I was doing that made people reluctant to say so earlier?

    Again, I realize I may never have the answer. Rather, going forward, if you visit the Fire Dog Lake, know there are some very interesting links there and some very curious people. It was only today that I hand the chance to actually interact with some of them; clearly, they were not impressed. I am not sure why, and unfortunately, didn’t get the chance to finish the interaction.

    But I will say this: When someone tells me to “* * * [CONSTANT CHANGED: ORIGINALLY F-WORD] OFF [politely]} – their words – I’m a little confused as to what that came from. That is fine. But the real issue is: Where did that come from? Oh, well.

    But going deeper, what is surprising is when people say they are or are not friends with the Attorney General – and then I call their bluff – I hear nothing.

    Yes, I understand that I am banned; and I understand we are going different directions. And I do not ask that anyone come to my aid. If you would like to post this link to the FDL that is your choice. I have no power whether Jane does or does not receive this link.

    My only reason for writing is to let you know I will continue, banning me doesn’t mean the end of my communication, and that I’m on your side.

    If someone shows up with ideas, or attempts to dialog – rather than treat them as if they are “messing with you” – treat them as if they are neutral: Genuinely interested in hearing your views. Perhaps you have e-mail; perhaps you are not interested. That is fine; but don’t comment to people about how they should or should not be; and then when they attempt to discuss the issue simply remain silent – only to ban them when they throw things back at you.

    I do not know what I have specifically done. I suspect it has something to do with the volume of comments – but if you go around to the other sites, I’m interacting there as well. I consider a public ban a public act – and I do not consider this something that the world needs to spend much time on. But going forward, think to ourselves, if someone were to appear and genuinely want to help – but they didn’t understand what you were trying to say and asked questions – and your response was to tell them to jump in a lake, what’s that say about your leadership?

    It sends a clear message to me:

  • Listen, do not talk.
  • We have rules, but we drop hints.

    When you as leaders in the DNC will interact with foreign people – you will have the same challenges. The State Department will be there to do its job. But when you are in charge, and faced with something unusual, rather than shutting them out – maybe if you simply interact with them.

    That’s what I tried to do on FDL. When you’re a leader you cannot assert your position – you have to listen. That’s what I tried to do by visiting the site, interacting, and discussing what others were or were not saying on the Constitution,

    I’m sorry I’ve done something that warranted a ban. I am not clear what I did or didn’t do.

    I’m sorry that I have been annoying.

    And I’m sorry that we couldn’t have this conversation in person.

    I’m sorry that in my desire to do the right thing and offer hope, I have caused people to be upset.

    I’m sorry that my conduct and behavior – which I freely chose to assert – warranted being banned.

    I’m sorry that I am not able to read your mind.

    I’m sorry that I didn’t get the hint.

    I’m sorry that my desire to be a real person – despite the realities of the internet —got interpreted as being a jerk.

    I cannot make you believe or not believe anything. All I have is my words. But when people tell me to do or not do something; and suggested that I look things up , or go elsewhere, then I take that for what they are saying.

    My confusion – and I realize this is my problem, my issue, and my dilemma – is that when someone tells me that I have to do or not do something – or that “other links” are out there discussing what I am saying – I am confused when I ask “what are those links”?

    I don’t have that answer. It makes be believe that I was being given the run around, the blow off, or simply being told to run away. Perhaps that is your desire; but you have made a choice.

    My goal at this point is simply to let you know that in the future when you are leaders of the country, you realize you will be meeting new people from other lands; they will do things that confuse you. That is not their intent. Their goal is to do something.

    In my view, the work of a leader is to take a broad view and listen. My goal at this point is to let the world know I am listening. I read your blogs; I take time, and you are where I get my ideas from. So thank you.

    I am sad that when I come up with new ideas that FDL has inspired me to share – I will not be able to let you know personally; and I will have to let the blogosphere share the information indirectly.

    I accept that.

    Anyway, I am glad that I am banned; I have had the time to reflect on things and I will be in a position to understand things better. What I am confused about – and what others may be wondering – is how is one to “appropriately interact” when they are genuinely confused about what is or is not being said? I do not have an answer.

    All I know is that when I tried to reach out, attempted to “do what I though was acceptable” I got shut out. That might be a lesson for others: Are there rules that they have that they know – and are not sharing – or is the real issue that they’ve found a convenient person to blame or vent?

    It doesn’t matter what I think. The answer going forward is to realize within the ranks of the RNC and DNC – people are on edge. They desire to do the right things; there is ono problem. The RNC is on the wrong side of the law.

    Despite this “being on the wrong side of the law” – the country’s problem is that there is little confidence that the needed solutions are in place.

    Today, I simply shared new links – so it is surprising to hear, despite creating something new – that people say they are tired of me continuing to link to the same content. That is impossible: The content is brand new; rather, someone said that what I was saying was old – and I asked about the constitution. At that point, I would have to point to something I had already written.

    Again, know that some have the desire to assist you; and when they take your comments seriously and attempt to clarify what you are saying – the right answer is for you to realize: They are confused. If you have rules and “ways of communication” that are not clear, then this is the flaw that others will exploit.

    Your job is to realize that the same energy that created the rule 603 movement was inspired by the example you have shown: Despite the fear that there is no solution, there is always a way for the rule of law to prevail.

    Even when you are down, and out, and believe the person you are talking to is trying to annoy you – the best thing to do is to ask them where they are coming from. I attempted that.

    Others desire to have things shorts, succinct, and clear. That is fine; but not all people will read all things – some skip; others skim. Some of my regularly readers will ignore my content, then come back and catch up.

    That is fine. I’m not here to be abused or discredited. Rather, my goal is simply to make it clear exactly what I am saying – so that is why I simply say what I do: to make it abundantly clear what my point is: And then you can decide what you do or do not want to ignore, skip over, or share with your friends.

    I have been given the honor of having my comments shared on e-mails; and there are other things going on as well. Suffice it to say, I am glad that I have been banned: It will teach me a new solution of how to inspire those who have lost faith and hope, but are in areas that are far removed from easy access.

    I have some other thoughts and simply wanted to wish you well and encourage you to continue to reach out to those who are around you: Don’t lose hope. Fitzgerald and others are working behind the scenes; and the Grand Jury is working to review what is going on.

    With a heavy sigh, I realize I shall have to move on, and wish Ii had the chance to speak to you personally, but I realize this is the party of the ways. I tried my best and am glad I have learned many things; and going forward I shall move with confidence that there were some very nice people on Fire Dog Lake who I didn’t get the chance to meet with. Maybe I’ll see you on another site, and we can have a conversation, or you can blog about what our thoughts are.

    Either way, my only goal is to let new people who are losing hope know that there are people working behind the scenes form many non-American nationalities to assist you. They have access to information; and they are doing what must be done to assert the rule of law, and protect our Constitution. They are not loyal to the RNC or the White House. Their only loyalty is to the Constitution. They will continue their work and hopefully very soon there will be some good news.

    Between now and then, the clouds may grow darker, and you may lash out at others. That is a good sign: It means you are willing to assert yourself. Your job is to focus your energy to be the leaders you want to be and continue inspire others to believe they can make a difference.

    That’s what you gave me. Hopefully, others will also be inspired and also move on to do wonders around the globe.

    I wish you well; if I see you on the internet, feel free to say hello; if you don’t that’s OK. I won’t know unless you say hello.

    Until we meet again, I’ll see you at the victory party. The RNC has no hope. The rule of law shall prevail.

    They have wished for this!

    Hoc Voleurunt!

  • In hindsight, what struck me was the common pattern: Fire Dog Lake bloggers and readers were conistently complaining, regardless what was done.

    They complain:

  • When they have no hope or are frustrated;

  • Then when others offer solutions

  • Then when others attempt to discuss solutions or their concerns

  • When others refuse to lower standards to their level

  • When not around

  • That an apology over a communication is something else

    In short: FDL should be called for what it is: Hopeless Trolls.

    There's one person who is letting this happen: Jane Hamsher.

    Suggestion: Take their comments and complaining with a large sweetener-pill, and let them figure things out for themselves. Don't waste your time taking them seriously. No matter what happens, they're going to complain. Do not waste your time trying to help them -- they will complain that your assistance does or does not meet some arbitrary standard.

    * * *

    What I had hoped to accomplish: Before I realized what was going on

    My goal in posting comments on the Fire Dog Lake Blog was very clear: To provide assistance, and many were well aware of what I was hoping to contribute:

    Concerns about Solutions

    FROM: Me DaVinci, 31 Jan 2006, 2 weeks after announcing the State Proclamation Effort for Bush Impeachment [ Details ]

    Dear FDL & Readers,

    Constant of has asked for suggestions on getting primary info out for use by us awesome residents of Blogistan Land.

    I think we should help!! Here's the request ...

    >>If you have any suggestions, or thoughts on "what I could do better" when I have stuff, feel free to let me know.
    Constant | Homepage | 01.30.06 - 8:12 pm | #
    Me DaVinci | 01.31.06 - 11:48 am |Click

    Here was someone else who was posting a word of hope: [ Click ]

    During my time posting, I do not recall any of my comments getting deleted, or getting a notice like this about my comments: Never came across any problems like this -- "SCROLL TROLL COMMENT SCRUBBED
    "[ Click Atrios Troll Ban Messages -- these were not very commonly used on Fire Dog]

    After the Alito failed-filibuster effort, some/many on Fire Dog Lake were at a loss what to do; you'll read a sample action list here. Click. I started to think of what could be done, I started to show others what could be done. When someone asks me a question, and I've details elsewhere, I can answer a question, and point them to the details. It's up to them whether they want to look at it. Tularosa comments were supportive: "all the rest of the great bloggers who have given me some hope that our country isn't completely lost . . . Thank you for your tireless work, y'all." Ann Regina: "all those at FDL comes a HUGE THANK YOU for all your inspiration, spirit and most of all humanity!!!" That's all I heard, "Thanks." like this one from [ Mary ] Entire time I was there, I never recall interacting with this one -- kind of one of those names I skipped over: Didn't seem to interact. Fine.

    So I kept doing what I thought was desired: Provide hope, and assist.

    The day that I last was able to post, and in subsequent comments about what happened -- other posters have openly admitted that the interchange and comments thrown my way were: "SNARK". Here is what that word means: " It could loosely be described as irritable or "snidely derisive"; hence, 'snarkish', 'snarky', 'to snark at somebody'." [ Click ] If you read the Haloscan feed of the comments, and look at it from where I was coming from -- a desire to assist, see what others were talking about, and clarify what I was confused about, I fail to see what justified the FDL comments, rudeness, or the approach. Moreover, it is curious that despite my shock at what was happening, I still maintained composure and attempted to be polite. Yet, this was take as if I was doing the opposite. Bluntly, I fail to see how one might effectively interact with them. They appear to have made a decision to be rude, not interact, and fail to see what was going on. Yet, the later comments clearly suggest that they were well aware of the confusion, but attempted to play it off as if it were someone else's issue. In short, my view on the FDL community is that they're not straight shooters; they bottle tings; up and have a hard time communicating directly; and when someone shows up who attempts to contribute they take it the opposite way. I fail to see why there are many accolades. I am at a loss. However, I am not one to avoid looking at what I've done to contribute to the problem. The purpose of this review is to look at the situation and think what I could have done different. In sum, the only thing I could have done was what I did: Make a good faith effort to contribute, be civil, ask questions, and respond as openly as I could. In the end, I realize that attempting to be civil and going about my business to contribute was taken the wrong way. I am sorry that my approach was taken the wrong way; and I wish there was something I could do differently. But I have not been given that chance. That is acceptable. I have learned many things. The purpose of this essay is simply to outline for you what I have learned, and share with you what I found. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree; rather, I'm simply documenting what has happened and letting the blogosphere make judgments. I'm willing to accept that I've done something wrong -- but at this point, all I hear in response are statements that do not make sense, are not consistent, and are simply turning things around. That's not what I saw, and what was going on with me. Maybe others took it the wrong way. Overall, the only thing I will apologize was for not leaving sooner and deciding not to return.

    I have learned the signs of problems and when it is time to move on. Next time, I will let people flounder, not listen to their pleas for assistance, and even though I may have a solution, I will not believe they really want help. They may want help, but I'm going to force people to be explicitly with what they want; otherwise, I'm going to be silent with my solutions, suggestions, ideas, or ways that I might contribute. If you have a desire to learn more about what I might have been able to provide -- to future issues -- you are free to review this blog. This is just a place where I quickly write down things. You'll see that things are very long; I can type quickly and I can do that very easily. Oh, well. You're free to find someone else to help you. I had thought that I might have found an outlet for my ideas, and an audience that was interested in the Constitution. When I raised this issue in my last posting on Fire Dog Lake, they never seriously discussed the issue. This is surprising in that George Clooney, the subject of the last blog I was involved with on Fire Dog Lake, made a movie about legendary reporter Murrow. The movie was about how the Constitution America was undermined by the McCarthy smear efforts, and mob crowds. How ironic that FDL did with me exactly what McCarthy did: Mindless smearing, exile, and delusional accusations disconnected from reality. This is the heart of my concern: That they're claiming to fight for an agenda, but the methods they use are no more admirable than what I have personally seen in the RNC. One cannot simply claim to offer an alternative -- you have to be that alternative. This is where FDL completely disconnects itself from its stated agenda -- to provide a new agenda other than what the RNC is offering, and ensure the RNC is held to account for the White House abuse of power. FDL uses the same methods the Bush Administration does, and they also deny it. You'll see more about that below. I find it absurd that Jane Hamsher posts his picture, all the while her bloggers-FDL's-dogs refused to dialog on that issue. Suffice it to say, despite the desire to protect the constitution, I see little interest in listening to new ideas, or a desire to take people as they are: Interested in helping others. It's curious what people will ask for, but not accept when freely given. Those days are over. You’re going to have to work for it now. I do not plan to assist you. I'll still do what I think needs to be done, but I'm not going to share or go out of my way to let you know what else is going on. You will have to whine -- and others will have to find out that you're not serious. Hopefully, this will serve as a warning -- they may whine, but they're not really serious about listening, or seeing how larger efforts fit in with what they're trying to do. This is called a leadership problem. In my view, the problem rests with Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith. To test that theory, I did extensive background research on them. The results are for you to explore below. I found some curious patterns. Again, you're free to ignore what I write. I'm not writing for you. I'm writing for myself: TO know that I did what I could to do what I could, and give fair warning to others that may follow. Good luck.

    As you read the following, keep in mind I know that there are many things I do not know; and there is another side to the story. I'm not here to convince you my side is correct. Rather, I'm must letting you know what I know: not a whole lot. Hopefully you can use the information below to your benefit. If you check back later, you'll find that it will be better organized. I hope to help others learn what I learned more quickly. I understand that as things are currently written they are very wordy and I am working on that. Maybe with time I'll have a better way of summarizing things. I'm not writing -- I'm thinking out loud, and you get to see the raw material. There may be some better groupings in the future; and some checklists for you to consider on the types of things I was seeing. I have some ideas, but will simply post the results, rather than "talk about what I'm talking about."

    Single Point of Support

    Eyes Wide Open: As for constant, I haven't followed the "incident" but I urge Glenn to ask firedoglake to allow constant to come back. He's a dreamer and dreamers have their role also. His heart is definitely in the right place, and his efforts are tireless. I visit his site every day and have benefitted(sp?) from those visits. Although I would love to see a Constitutional Convention called, I don't think it will happen, at not least in the immediate future, so I haven't participated in that venture. I've been wishing constant would lend his awesome abilities to the NSA scandal matter, and now that Feingold's censure motion has come up, constant's efforts in that cause would be very welcome. It's not a Convention, but it's a start for all who want to see government held accountable.

    Constant, whatever you did, don't feel so bad. Your heart is in the right place. As a person who makes more mistakes daily than the next ten people combined, I know that mistakes can happen, and often are no indication of bad will. I don't know if you in fact made a mistake, but if you did, I hope firedoglake, a terrific, essential site, will forgive you and take you back.
    [ Click ]

    * * *

    I had one goal on Fire Dog Lake. I was hoping to contribute. That was all. The only thing I got in return was a ban, and my experience is not isolated:
    Apparently, Hamsher and ReddHedd have finally come up with a cogent, well-reasoned answer to my charges: They've banned me from Firedoglake. Aw. Is that the extent of your eloquence, Janie,Ref: Aaron

    Here's another: [ Click ]

    Tony or Toby Petzold: [ Click his blog is here ]

    NTodd, how do we add value -- can we provide a link or do we have to say our comment in a single line; are we allowed to disagree; what if we have another view -- what if we are confused -- can we ask questions? [ CLick ]

    * * *

    What does fire dog lake for firedoglake mean? Jane says they are the the three things that she loves: Sitting by the lake, by a fire, with her dogs. [ CLick ]

    However, from a former-vistor, my view on what Firedoglake is all about is something quite different. The story of Fire Dog Lake for Toby: Imagine you are a dog, at teh edge of a lake. There is a fire approaching you. Yo have to decide: Should I run away; should I dive into the water, or should I face teh fire. If you run, you cannot run fast enough; if you dive into the water, when you surface the fire will consume all the oxygen. What's the lesson? The Fire is the Blog. The solutoin is not to go near it.

    * * *

    If you have been banned, consider it a blessing. It’s over. You’re free. It is right to distance yourself – and enjoy being distant – from abuse. Nor do you need to spend your time interacting with or assisting others or take their claim of frustration seriously. To those who do not believe in a desire to help, why should we believe you want help or an open ear for your frustration?

    Thank you for your support. If you would prefer direct contact please provide your contact information. Until then. . .

    Should there be challenges in the future, notice who’s there with support and who’s there with nothing. You’ll be able to answer who you can trust to lead; what kind of people you want to surround yourself with. An opponent will sometimes do the most outrageous thing to surprise. Thank then and ask them how they are. The public has to choose between someone who is table, and someone who relies on non-sense. Let them be on their own. What goodwill and support they may have is transitory.

    * * *

    I see little difference between the hypocrisy on Fire Dog Lake and the Bush Administration. They both use invalid arguments and are hypocritical.

    It would be hypocritical to speak out about the President on Iraq/WMD/NSA, but be silent on this hypocrisy. It is it hypocritical to remain silent on one set of hypocrisy over another.

    It is absurd to believe the choice is between the absurdity of the RNC or DNC. Both have seven months to prove their validity. Curiously, the same people who go after the President for absurd statements, use [ . . .wait for it . . ] absurdity. They also use irrelevant information – only available after a decision has been made -- to justify absurd arguments. This is no difference than the President’s non-sense over Iraq WMD and AlQueda. What’s surprising is that those on FDL that use this flawed argument fail to see the similarity; nor do they challenge it. Both still look for an excuse because there was no basis for their action.

    Notice the similar hypocrisy of Bush and FDL. You don’t get points by doing what the White House does, but at a different degree. I no longer care and lack sympathy for your goals. There is no excuse.

    Both have common issues:

  • They don’t want proof, backup, or links

  • They don’t want to believe that others may want to help

  • They don’t want to believe what people may say may be true

    Rather, both FDL and the White House have already decided. They justify, defend by changing the subject and focus. There is little reason to respect them. Others should not be inclined to show them as much respect as they show others: None.

    There is little reason to care whether you do or do not respond; rather, this merely to say what I want to day. I do not care whether anything does or does not happen after you read this or ignore it.

    * * *

    The thing with the internet: You never know for sure whether the person you’re talking to is the same person who wrote this. Some may or may not have read this. But they will not something you’re not sure about: All people will have that advantage over you on FDL. Always.

    I have never found amusement in another human being’s suffering. Until now. May you suffer a long life of arthritis and medical problems. I know full well the joy suffering can bring.

    On the current trajectory over the next seven months, fully expect FDL to have a major problem with something: The Germans have a word for this – the enjoyment at the suffering of others. The first person on the list of “people who might have helped, but do not care” – is me. You’re welcome.

    * * *

    There is no basis for the commentary or reaction of those on Fire Dog Lake. They engage in the very conduct they accuse in others. They are confused, they do not understand, and they easily confused by content marginally above their IQ level.

    In the comments related to ZennNurse and punaise, you’ll notice both are confused. It remains to be understood whether either of them are on some sort of medication. It is not the job of the world to explain things to them, or reassure them.

    Punaise’s comments are revealing. She appears to be mentally challenged. Notice the claims of “passive aggressive” – yet, she remains silent on what she would prefer, what this means to hear, or whether there are or are not specific examples.

    If you would like to charge someone – Punaise – with being passive aggressive, your job is to make the case. You have failed.

  • You fail to provide a definition

  • You fail to provide a basis to believe that definition is valid, appropriate, or relevant

  • You fail to provide examples

  • You fail to provide any other explanations for what may or may not be happening

  • You fail to discuss how long you have noticed this

  • You fail to discuss what methods – if any – you used to communicate your concerns, what you expected, or why those expectations are reasonable.

    In short, the error is to assume that your arbitrary evaluation criteria – whatever that is – is relevant. You merely assert something as if it were true, but offer nothing to justify confidence in your argument, your assertions, or yourself. Rather, you let the statement sit there as if it were something which deserves serious consideration.

    After much thought and consideration on the matter, it appears as though you have exhausted your argument. We see nothing before us to suggest that you desire to expand your argument or provide other information that might bolster your otherwise flimsy argument.

    You do have one thing going for you – you well describe yourself: You are confused, naïve, and being indirect and not specific. That merely lowers yourself below the standard that you have accused others of violating. You defeat yourself with little effort.

    * * *

    Here is the Haloscan Feed; you'll need to review this when it comes to an understanding of what did or didn't happen. Feed

    1. The Haloscan Feed is a copy of what happened; I've made no alterations to the original content, I've added comments to let you know what was going through my head at the time.

    2. I see nothing in the feed/comments -- from my perspective -- that warrants the abuse, insulting treatment, derogatory language.

    3. Everything that I said in that comment feed was what I was actually thinking: I had no Idea who Wilson or egregious were; and I had never heard of blogwhoring. Now, thanks to the * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]-bloggers on Fire Dog Lake, I know full well what that terms means.

    Legal notice: The following information contains information which may be an opinion; the information is not intended to be legal advice. Rather, the information is here for your own use. You are free to ignore this information.

    * * *

    Let’s broaden the discussion. Let’s consider the calendar. The original statement was on 15 March 2006; eleven [11] days later on 26 March 2006, you are unable to make up your mind as to what happened, or what happened.

    Did you have a plan to ask a question at some point; or are you only now able to admit that you’re confused? Thank you for the opportunity and invitation to speak and I am grateful for your support. It is unfortunate that you are confused, and are only now able to express yourself. Perhaps you are not able to express your true feelings right away. That is merely a transitory obstacle. Remember, if there are dark skies, I am associated with all things negative. If you are gloomy or sad, not to worry – things will soon turn around. I am sorry for causing you all this distress. I have caused you great grief. I am sorry that I caused your confusion, negativity, and despair. The reason that I can without being present cause this despair is that you are easily ruffled by what is honest, genuine, transitory, and meaningless. Anyone can do this to you simply by being honest.

    * * *

    If you consider what punaise said, you’ll notice a contrast. On one hand she says,

  • A. Someone may have gone over someone else’s head; but then later she says

  • B. She spent eleven days confused.

    Clearly, honesty is over her head.

    * * *

    As to the issue of “naiveté”, ZennNurse and punaise will have to look into that:

  • Ask Christy about her medical condition

  • Ask Christy about her fantasy writing

  • Ask Christy about her presentation on 12 Sept 2001, and what interrupted the preparations.

  • Ask Christy why she gave up being an attorney.

    Then compare her answers with responses that you think are or are not naïve. Is someone you know being naïve?

    * * *

    The reason I don’t have to remember what I write is that I honestly say what I think. You deserve to be mocked. I might have felt sorry. Now, I have no sympathy.

    Notice what Zenn Nurse said. She made a qualification. She can’t “just say” what’s on her mind. Rather she has the following issues:

  • She’s on eggshells because she’s torn: What she knows has happened – is at odds with what she’s being told;

  • She fears being banned for standing up for a principle she asserts is important – fairness, understanding, communication, and reasonableness

  • She doesn’t understand something, and has been afraid to ask

  • She feels something is not wrong with a ban, but is looking for an excuse to rationalize the decision, even if that excuse is something that is unrelated to the decision, or whether it is or is not real.

  • She feels conflicted in that others view the situation as funny, but she was confused as to what did or didn’t happen; or how to interpret the results.

    Indeed, she is confused.

    * * *


    Here's the fallout:

    A. Notice the contrast: First we hear that she is letting others know about something – but they admit that they’re not sure why they’re doing what they’re doing what they’re doing.

    Then we hear that eleven days later, they were confused.

    Here’s the interchange: Notice the dates, the confusion, the time lag, and the failure to ask in a timely manner:

    A. Notice on March 16 -- punaise says:

    Still Discussing What They Would Not Discuss

    March 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
    zennurse says:
    March 16th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    I was kinda baffled by that whole “constant” sequence last night. he/she/it was clamoring for attention in a passive-aggressive way.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    B. Notice eleven days later on 26 march 2006 – punaise admits to being confused, around something that was not understandable, yet where was her question or request for clarification at the time? Nothing, she merely stated it matter of factly.

    Two Weeks Later: Still Discussing What They Would Not Discuss

    JWR | 03.26.06 - 11:50 pm | #

    good times. a stroll down memory lane. that was a weird thread, huh.
    punaise | 03.26.06 - 11:57 pm |Ref

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    C. Then after ZennNurse responded, she confirmed that she was confused, but doesn’t provide anything specific. This is not helpful nor constructive feedback.

    Feigning Confusion, Unwilling To Ask Questions

    punaise says:

    March 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    I was kinda baffled by that whole “constant” sequence last night. he/she/it was clamoring for attention in a passive-aggressive way.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    D. Again, eleven days later punaise confirms the confusion, makes no mention of having learned anything, and fails to provide any other useful comments or clarification.

    Still Reviewing What They Would Not Review

    JWR | 03.26.06 - 11:50 pm | #

    good times. a stroll down memory lane. that was a weird thread, huh.
    punaise | 03.26.06 - 11:57 pm |Ref

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    We’re only left with one reasonable conclusion:

  • 1. punaise is being passive aggressive in not being specific; rather, she’s feigning confusion

  • 2. punaise is confused about something, has been confused about something, and did not ask questions

  • 3 punaise failed to look at what she was doing to contribute to the problem

  • 4. punaise was confused for 11 days, but changed the subject from her confusion to whether someone else may or may not have understood what was going on.

    * * *

    Let’s consider what ZennNurse said

    Notice the following:

    Failure to provide the full record

  • She admits she’s reading another site, but fails to mention all the other sites where the information remains understood and well posted. ZennNurse shows she failed to read the full discussions on the other sites.]

    Failed to meet credible burden of proof

  • The following comment is baseless and without merit: “Claiming not to know who Wilson or egregious were and not to know what blogwhoring were in the editorial comments is disengenuous [stet],” As to what basis she has for claiming that someone’s assertion is or is not true, ZennNurse fails to share this information with the reader; nor does she provide any textual references to show that any other conclusion has more merit. The burden on ZennNurse is not met.

    Using Assertions is not evidence

  • This statement is not specific: “with an intense personalization” – we see nothing before us that would suggest this statement has any merit; rather we have a vague assertion of “intense personalization”. ZennNurse fails to communicate. Again, ZennNurse fails to meet her burden.

    Asserted conduct at odds with actual conduct

  • Let’s consider this – that the snarkiness was to be tolerated -- “and inability to understand snark,” – if that is true, what was the basis to ban someone else who was the target of the comments? Again, the issue is that first Fire Dog Like likes to laugh something up as a joke – fine; then when questions are raised about what ZennNurse understands to be confusion – the FDL response is to ban. The disconnect between snark and banning is noteworthy. The inconsistency between the “snarkiness” attitude and the final action – banning – is evidence of hypocrisy.

    Multiple examples of ZennNurse being Disingenuous; while failing to provide any basis in assertions about others

  • Has “important information” to share, but has to admit that the source of the comments isn’t able to post. ZennNurse admits that she’s doing something, but isn’t sure what her motivation is; yet at the same time it is clear she has a point – that she understands something, but wants to make it appear as though it is the opposite. This is disingenuous. Strike 1.

  • False confusion about others, while real confusion about herself. Asserts that the comment is or is not strange or weird, without discussing the basis for that characterization; yet later fatally admits that she understands something about what they read, but then claims confusion about her own actions. This contrast is evidence ZennNurse is being disingenuous. Strike 2.

  • Feigned confusion at odds with understanding. Makes a comment about the length of the commentary, and asserts the comments were rambling, without stating what the key points were; yet later contradicts herself when she openly repeats the core point. This fatal contradicts is evidence of being disingenuous. Strike 3.

  • Misleading characterization of confusion at odds with comprehension. Fails to discuss the apologize, openly admits there were multiple apologies – so how can the comments be considered rambling if she understood that the message was an apology? No answer on that inconsistency. ZennNurse’s claim that she’s confused about something which she later admits she understands is not credible and disingenuous. Strike 4.

  • Feigned confusion about others at odds with actual confusion about herself. Asserts that the editorial comments in the Haloscan feed – shared after the decision to bad, therefore are not relevant to whether there was or was not a band – were to be believed; yet raises questions about the basis for her actions – openly asking why she was or was not doing something, leaving the audience to fill in the gap. ZennNurse has the problem – she openly admits she understands something; but then casts that understanding to the wind as if it were confusion. This is not merely inconsistent, it is disingenuous. Strike 5.

  • Feign confusion at odds with actual comprehension. Makes a comment about something but isn’t sure why she’s doing it: “thought you should know about it, but I’m not sure why”. There must have been a reason for ZennNurse to post a comment that asserts the comments were rambling, yet she openly admits she understood it was an apology; so how can she credibly have a point in commenting on something she understood, but wants to feign confusion over? This is not credible; ZennNurse is being disingenuous. Strike 6.

  • Feign confusion at odds with distractions. Notice this contrast: First ZennNurse says, “thought you should know about it, but I’m not sure why”. then saying “I think FDL is just a little over constant’s head.” Which is it – is ZennNurse not getting it, or is she merely not understanding what she already stated was obvious: “apologizing to FDL repeatedly”? Clearly something that is repetitive is lost on ZennNurse, and she wants us to believe she fails to grasp the essential truth: Sorry about the confusion, all the while asserting it is something other than what she says she repeatedly understood: What it was, an apology for the confusion. For ZennNurse to assert confusion over something that she clearly understood; then turning around and claiming that something is “over someone else’s head” is not credible and is disingenuous. Strike 7.

  • Feigned personal disorder at odds with orderly comprehension. Let’s consider the point which did not escape ZennNurse – that there was confusion – “repeatedly about being banned and not understanding why” – fortunately, the repetitive comments clearly indicated this. Yet, what is baffling is that despite recognizing the confusion, ZennNurse then turns this around as if it were an advantage: How can something be understood to be confusion; but then characterized as weird; if it was a truly rambling comment, how can ZennNurse have the ability to see the multiple comments – wouldn’t it have been reasonable to have said, “It made no sense?” But she didn’t do that: She did the opposite: She characterized the comments as rambling, but clear understood what was going on: An attempt at an apology and share there was confusion. How can ZennNurse claim confusion over something she’s clearly understood? Again, it is ZennNurse who is being disingenuous. Strike 8.

  • Feigned mental confusion at odds with real comprehension. Again, it is ZennNurse is the one that says, “I thought you should know about it, but I’m not sure why.” – saying she’s doing something but not sure why she’s doing it. Again, she characterizing the post as rambling, but admits she understands the confusion in the communication, but then admits her own confusion about why she is or is not doing something: ZennNurse: “I’m not sure why.” You mean you’re not clear why you’re still confused about why someone is confused by the communication; or are you confused as to why you’re commenting on something that is rambling; or are you feigning ignorance about something that you openly admit you understand; or are you not sure? Clearly, ZennNurse does understand there is a communication problem – after multiple attempts – but feigning confusion is not convincing. Clearly, ZennNurse got the message, the apology, understood the message was an apology, but characterized that apology as the opposite. What basis is there for ZennNurse to both understand that there were multiple apologies, but then claim ignorance about why she was or was not doing something? Again, it is ZennNurse who is being disingenuous. Strike 9.

  • Feigned miscomprehension at odds with actual banning. As to the point of snark – “inability to understand snark” – if that was what was going on, then why the ban. Surely, if it was snark, then we could have had a good laugh and say, “Ha!” Snark should have been just that: Snark, not a last attempt to probe, then shut off. So if you would like to call banning “snark” that’s fine. You’re the one who is not sure why you’re doing what you’re doing. Don’t turn it back on others. If you would like to assert that something is rambling, while at the same time clearly communicating that you comprehend something – you have a real issue when you claim you’re not sure what you’re doing, but you actually understand what is going on. In short, it is ZennNurse who is being disingenuous. Strike 10

    Complainingn About An Apology

    Summary: ZennNurse Feigns Confusion, but Clearly Understands an Apology

    Here are the overall comments zennurse says:

    March 16th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    this is ot, just wanted to mention that I followed a strange comment at Glenn’s site by Constant with a wierd [stet] apology. He/she has this incredibly long rambling post apologising [stet, notice the British spelling suggesting she's not a native American, but perhaps lives in Australia -- who is she to comment on Americans and whether they do or do not "get something"?] to FDL repeatedly about being banned and not understanding why. He/she has posted comments with his/her own editorial comments which indicate either a profound naievete [stet] or a deep sarcasm. I thought you should know about it, but I’m not sure why. I’m not defending Constant, I think the banning was unfortunately the right thing to do. Claiming not to know who Wilson or egregious were and not to know what blogwhoring were in the editorial comments is disingenuous, and with an intense personalization and inability to understand snark, I think FDL is just a little over constant’s head.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    * * *

    A. We learned about someone named Aaron Veenstra, who was banned, and then FDL people wanted to find out what was going on. Aaron, if you read this I can completely sympathize with the banning-reaction: They do it without warning. After the Alito hearings, I noticed many of them appearing to be very angry; and I took the time to provide many links over the next month -- I thought they should know that someone can make a different. It backfired. You can read about it below. [ More ]

    B. Some thought the comments were funny; I thought there were disappointingly, confusing. When I asked, I got banned.

    Some thought it was funny, so why call it "intense"?

    punaise - wrt ccmask's prediction, click. It was on a really funny thread, one that I suspect led to the banning(?) of Constant. But I don't think you got an answer then, either.
    JWR | 03.26.06 - 11:50 pm | [ Ref ]

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Dear JWR,

    I'm glad you were amused. If it was funny and lighthearted, what was the basis to ban someone?


    C. Some admitted they were confused:

    Two weeks later: Still Talking About What They Refuse to Discuss

    I was kinda baffled by that whole “constant” sequence last night. he/she/it was clamoring for attention in a passive-aggressive way.

    JWR | 03.26.06 - 11:50 pm | #

    good times. a stroll down memory lane. that was a weird thread, huh.
    punaise | 03.26.06 - 11:57 pm |Ref

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Thank you for your comments. OK. So, eleven [11] days later, you admit you were confused. Wow, did you plan on asking anyone a questions; or did it take you 11 days to realize you were confused; or did you know you were confused and not ask at the time? I asked, and got banned. Thank you!


    D. There was another reaction, without any sympathy, and asserting that all comments were naive, sarcastic, or false.

    No Basis For Assertions

    zennurse says:

    March 16th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    this is ot, just wanted to mention that I followed a strange comment at Glenn’s site by Constant with a wierd apology. He/she has this incredibly long rambling post apologising to FDL repeatedly about being banned and not understanding why. He/she has posted comments with his/her own editorial comments which indicate either a profound naievete or a deep sarcasm. I thought you should know about it, but I’m not sure why. I’m not defending Constant, I think the banning was unfortunately the right thing to do. Claiming not to know who Wilson or egregious were and not to know what blogwhoring were in the editorial comments is disengenuous [stet], and with an intense personalization and inability to understand snark, I think FDL is just a little over constant’s head.

    punaise says:

    March 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
    zennurse says:
    March 16th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    I was kinda baffled by that whole “constant” sequence last night. he/she/it was clamoring for attention in a passive-aggressive way.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Dear punaise,

    Thank you for your concern. If it was snark, why the ban? You have no answer. You are not consistent. You seem like an expert on psychology. Maybe you would want to ask Christy Hardin Smith about the report she presented near 12 Sept 2001 in WV, at the Marriot.


    Dear ZennNurse,

    Thank you for your feedback. I'm sorry that you don't understand someone being honest.


    Similarities With Bush WMD:

    Using New Information To Justify Absurd Conduct

    I think the banning was unfortunately the right thing to do. Claiming not to know who Wilson or egregious were and not to know what blogwhoring were in the editorial comments is disingenuous. . . [ Click ]

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Let's review your specific comments.

    1. First, you misspelled the word: It is spelled d - i - s - i - n - g - e - n - u- o - u - s click

    2. The word means the following: "not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness". Look at Hamsher. I've looked up her USC records, and still find nothing that says you graduated from the 4 semester program. I only see that she was enrolled. Is someone lying -- why not ask about that?

    3. You have no basis for your statements. You're simply looking for an excuse. The information on "whether I did or did not know Wilson" was revealed after the ban, so is irrelevant as to the prior decision to ban. Hay, where did we hear that before: "We have no foundation for what we did, so let's look for a reason why we invaded Iraq. AlQueda, maybe we have some later documents." Hay, * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] for brains Hamsher: You're doing the same thing that Bush is doing: Hunting for an excuse that will convince those who are stupid around you to believe your hasty -- and in my personal opinion -- reckless decision to ban was justified. If you think you're so "right" why not let the words stand for themselves? Oh, you won't do that will you? It appears Hamsher uses proxies, and they like to feign stupidity.

    4. There is no basis for your later comments. You should apologize for misleading your readers, and engaging the same non-sense that Bush does. How are you going to be a credible member on a panel discussing the same issues: Veracity, ruthlessness of statements, and whether people are or are not to be believed? Again, you're not a litigator, and I'm so glad that we learn how prosecutors like Smith work: On the basis of -- IN MY PERSONAL OPINION -- bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. Wow, glad I got away from you. How dare you say -- ZennNurse -- that I was not being straightforward. I'm not here to defend myself. I'm here to say that you refuse to accept what people are saying as "what they mean." It is outrageous for you to say that someone saying, "I not know. . .[whatever]" is false; or not being truthful. That is an outrageous claim. F = = = off! F = = = your community. You clearly refuse to accept what people simply say in writing. That is your problem.

    5. You have no credibility and are being hypocritical when it comes to matters of whether you, Hamsher, or SMITH can credibly comment on issues of veracity. You speak as if you're the judge and jury. Fine, the blog is Hamsher's; have at it. But don't for a minute think that you've fooled everyone. As already stated. I did not know who Wilson was. Any claim that this is "disingenuous" is that: Baseless. I could take a lie detector test and pass it. No, I'm not going to give you the courtesy of ever interacting with you or any unfounded accusations. Beware all, Hamsher likes to make decisions, then after the fact come up with a "really good reason". Doesn't that sound exactly like what the President did in re AlQueda, Iraq WMD, and Joe Wilson. What hypocrisy -- the same two idiots who don't take people on their word, are now asking that you believe that they can decide whether or not "someone else" is or is not to be impeached. Get real. Your problem is that you refuse to accept that once -- maybe once -- someone in your life actually was honest. Congratulations on destroying that bridge with someone who is genuine as they are. Your loss. Not mine. I'm not sorry that I was honest; and I'm not sorry that your "reaction" is to ban -- and get other to believe -- that those who ask questions are naive. You're right, I am naive: I actually thought when someone on a blog expressed a concern that it might be something that I could assist with. I stand corrected: Next time I run across someone that dares express frustration with political issues, I'll be sure to send them to Fire Dog S-word Lake.

    6. As to statements of fact, belief, understanding, or comprehension -- you clearly fail to provide anything to convince anyone that I should have a certain level of comprehension. I can't read your mind; if I have a question I ask. You're right, I am naive: I think the moon is nice to look at. Given the many links, and given the many "issues" and "hints" which were not sinking in, it is obvious -- IN MY OPINION -- that you cannot recognize when there is a problem with communication: I do not understand what you are trying to say. So why should anyone believe you when you make similar statements about the President? I did not know what blogwhoring was. Again, I could take a lie detector test and pass it. At the time -- until I looked up the word -- I had never heard of the term. Again, I could take a lie detector test and pass. Present condition, state of mind, and what I knew at the time were all honest reflections of what I knew: I had no clue what it was, never understood it was an issue, and never had any feedback from anyone that it was an "issue" with posting helpful links on your site. Again, you were the one that asked the others in the community to provide me feedback. I got nothing. Remember what you said after the Alito Hearings, when I started providing links in my effort to assist: This is a project, let's provide Constant some feedback. Well, I got nothing saying otherwise, so I kept posting to help. Yet, your * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] for brains community -- that can't communicate -- threw it back in my face. Fine! Let the world know: These people on Fire Dog Lake refuse to accept people at face value, what they are saying, and constantly question those who are attempting to assist. Again, whether this effort to assist is or is not accepted is beyond what I care at this point. You have really twisted things around. If you have a problem with someone posting links -- especially after your crew has whined that they are looking for assistance, hope, and some new ideas -- why not be honest and day, "Hay, even though we're pathetic, we really don't want help." Screw you!

    7. For you to say that what I reasonably was representing -- as a truthful statement -- as something other than that -- says alot about you: Whether you believe what others are genuinely statement. You don't believe honesty. That's your issue. But then to laugh it up as a joke -- if it was funny, what was the basis to ban someone? No answer.

    8. But let's turn this back onto you and our "prosecutor" friend, Christy. What evidence do you have to claim otherwise? Nothing. If it's a "reasonable view" that you thought something -- fine. Eat * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. I don't want to be around people who -- when given truthful information -- assert the opposite. You live in a fantasy world. How dare you accuse anyone of being a liar or not truthful when you have no basis for it. Again, I'm glad I'm banned. How many fantasy novels have you written; and do you actually believe the fantasy novels are real? You're the one's that are living in a problem-driven world; but what do you do when people show up -- who are simply "themselves" and honestly say, "I don't know who you are, is this what you're saying, am I reading this right, your conduct is kind of strange, are you with the RNC" -- what's up with that? Why the refusal to respond to a question: Why not simply say, "No, I'm not with the RNC; I just act like I am because I'm an [Changed: Originally a-word, with SS], with an attitude." That's the issue: DNC and RNC are no different: You both have communication "issues" and you both jump to conclusions. Again, the issue is when you’re in charge, and interacting with people from different cultures, what are you going to say, "Well, they weren't being honest." F = = = off! That's why we have a mess in Iraq -- because when people came forward and said, "We have no WMD," everyone including the pieces of * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] attorneys said, "They must be disingenuous." How dare you!

    9. As to the issue of "intense" -- what's your deal? You're just making up excuses. I can't help it that I can type quickly; or am simply honest with what I'm saying. If someone is acting strange -- in my world -- I ask about it. Don't you? No, you just pull your bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] movie producer crap. How's Astro Boy, and was there a problem with that? Are people not allowed to discuss issues? Get real. As to whether your view on the matter is or is not true -- fine. You've made your choice. But your views are not more valid that what Bush is saying: You’re simply asserting a set of "facts" and then standing by them. If you don't want to talk to others, and make decisions -- as Bush has done -- that's fine. You're no different that Bush: Jumping to conclusions, not finding out, and making decisions. Beware blogosphere.

    * * *

    I had/still have no idea who Wilson and the other people are. I have never spoken with them, and have no idea who they are. That they may or may not be well known to you and the others is irrelevant to whether or not you have any basis to say what you have said. F = = = you! Those names are simply that -- just names.

    As was already stated in the comment feed – linked above – I stand by everything stated in the comments: What I said was what was there and I mean everything. It's not my job to make you believe I'm telling the truth. I don't care at this point. The world should know: Watch out for Fire Dog Lake. They are really strange. If you attempt to find out about things, you could be called a liar; if you try to help out and offer them assistance, they'll accuse you of promoting your blog. In other words, no mater how honest you are, they will not accept you as you are. It was like walking in the twilight zone. Maybe everyone else know what was going on, but all the questions asked of the people there were what they were: Questions. Attempts to clarify.

    Why do you take questions other than what they are? Holy crap. Watch out everyone, they’ll do a Page Six on you and completely turn things around.

    Why do you question people’s public statements-- get it through your head -- I don't care who Wilson is. We've never interacted. So for you to "claim" that I was "claming not to know" -- you're a flat out liar!

    How dare you say, "Constant was claiming not to know . . ." Bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. I didn't claim anything. I emphatically asserted it: I had no idea who Wilson was. Quit changing the subject. You may know who he was, ZennNurse and punaise, but I had no clue.

    How dare you make assertions that my statements were or were not factual. What evidence do you have that my statements were incorrect? Nothing. F = = = you and F = = = your site. You're just making bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] statements. Everyone knows: If you dare make a statement as to what you think -- they're going to say that your "claims" are not founded. Who wants to be on that kind of bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] site? Now, after all that has happened, and what I've learned, I'm so glad that I'm banned. I discourage anyone from interacting with anyone there. just my personal opinion, but I would never work for Jane Hamsher or ever hire either her or Christy Hardin Smith. They're not straight shooters; if you're a straight shooter with them, they'll throw it back on you and make it out to be your problem. You want to spend time auditing their work products? Not me, I don't have the interest, budget, or manpower to duplicate their work. Watch out, in my personal opinion it's not worth the hassle being around those two.

    Watch out!

    * * *

    But despite the ban, and despite no interaction, guess who's still talking about "what they refuse to talk about"? That's right: Three weeks later, after still having no access to the board, they won't give it up.

    HEre's the discussion, showing they've still got it floating through their heads.

    Four [4] Weeks Later: They still discuss what they refuse to discuss


    1. This is four [4] weeks later.

    2. Notice the common name: punaise; previously punaise was confused, made comments, thought it was 'appropriate' for a ban -- clearly understood there was a ban -- but is still worried about the ban not working. That's kind of strange.

    3. Why are they concerned: There's a ban, it's impossible to get access.

    4. If this issue was "resolved" with a ban, while still discussing the issue?

    * * *

    BullGoose says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:07 am
    I’m such a rookie. How many times I looked at Malkin’s smug .jpg for nothing. If instapundit and malkin no longer allow commenting, why are they still called blogs? They’re online rags.

    Comment: 50
    BullGoose says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:10 am
    Instapudding, or instapuding?

    Comment: 51
    punaise says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Comment: 54
    Valley Girl says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:16 am
    punaise says: April 8th, 2006 at 1:12 am constapating
    Geez, punaise. Don’t give that guy and opening. I don’t want him back. Do you?

    Comment: 55
    punaise says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:17 am
    Josh wrote a nice thank you note re a donation to get TPMuckraker off the ground.

    Comment: 56
    punaise says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:18 am
    VG - huh? did I miss quelque-chose?

    Comment: 58
    punaise says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:18 am
    oh, that guy. (constant)

    Comment: 63
    BullGoose says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:26 am
    #54 Valley Girl says:
    punaise says: April 8th, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Geez, punaise. Don’t give that guy and opening. I don’t want him back. Do you?
    I thought our constantpated * * * [Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”] was female? If a * * * [Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”] is male, he shouldn’t be called a * * * [Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”], but a blogstud. :-)

    Comment: 65
    punaise says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 1:32 am
    oops - I think I got some screen names confused. constant/constantpated - my bad.
    it’s late - zitF, all.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    . . . .

    1. If it was the "right" thing to do, why keep brining up the issue which you do not want to discuss?

    2. Notice who's acting in a passive-aggressive way: Indirect comments, not being candid, and still discussing the issue.

    3. Notice who's blaming: They're blaming "their reaction" on someone -- a person -- who has no means of influencing them. Yet, they're still getting upset by things that are not actually around.

    * * *

    Back to Introduction

    Original Haloscan Comment Feed

    Here is a copy of the oriignal comment feed. You'll see below "added comments" in bold which will explain what I was thinking and noticing, but not actually saying.

    You'll quickly see that there's a major communication problem.

    Jane Hamssher appears to listen to a few key people, quickly react, and ban people for simply discussing things.

    What's most surprising, and further undermining Hamsher/Smith/Fire Dog Lake Credibiltiy is the refusal to discuss issues which supposedly related to what George Clooney was discussing in his movie about the McCarthy era: Threats to the Constitution.

    The comments below were from the blogspot on Fire Dog Lake about Clooney.

    Notes: Hamsher has a reputation for changing the Haloscan comment feeds. This is called "rexxing". This means that the comments are allegedly changed to make people appear to be saying things that they have not. I have not personally witnessed this.

    Return to Top

    [ Ref: Haloscan feed for the comments. ]

    Here's what I learned

    dannyboy | 03.15.06 - 4:19 pm | #


    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 4:20 pm | #


    OT OT


    I need to know where you stand on planning for more lawful options.

    Let me know where you stand on this -- are you in support of the planning?

    You don't have to do anthing. Just say, "Yes, I support the idea -- keep going" or "No, don't bother."

    Either way -- archive.html

    Let others know. If you support, I'll add your name to the list.

    Constant | 03.15.06 - 4:21 pm | #



    the "lions" and the "lemmings" box - from Digby, you say - where is that found on his website? And does the different groups mean those senators who've definitely signed on or said no?
    anonymous | 03.15.06 - 4:22 pm | #


    Constant, you are giving the strong appearance of blogwhoring. Chill a tad, please !
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:23 pm | #

    Comment: Never heard of "blogwhoring"


    Jane--you go girl! Great Pic! I am so freakin jealous. In a good way, of course.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 4:23 pm | #


    Blogging being the act of writing an 'article' and posting it on the web. Blogging is rather like publishing. With a one person editorial committee. So Arianna took a 'conversation', put into 'blog' or article form, and sent it to Clooney's representatives who approved of the 'article.' And she then published.

    What is Clooney disagreeing with now? He claims he did not give his permission?
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 4:25 pm | #


    kinda sucks when we have to harsh on one of the good guys. he'll get over it.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 4:26 pm | #


    all this chatter on TV about how the White House needs to bring in 'fresh blood' : with the departure of Claude (Sticky Fingers) Allen, there's a high-ranking job slot available ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:26 pm | #


    Jane-- you lucky lady-- I love these guys, duh. Good on you. Great pic and post.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 4:27 pm | #



    What happened to the new site? I logged on yesterday, couldn't get on it later (error message from the server), and now we're back at blogspot.

    As I am clinically addicted to this site, I become understandbly anxious. Possibly even more so than when my Ambien supply runs low.
    mauricehall | 03.15.06 - 4:28 pm | #


    OfT: "Iran Boogeyman: The Generals Beg to Differ"
    by emptywheel
    "I pointed to the way the Administration was churning its Iran scoops the other day, this time that Iran was supplying Iraqi insurgents with improved IEDs. There was some debate whether the basis of the scoop had any merit: were the Iranians supplying such IEDs, or is this just more Iran Bogeyman?..."
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 4:28 pm | #


    What is Clooney disagreeing with now? He claims he did not give his permission?
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 4:25 pm | #

    read the HuffPo link - he's saying that he didn't agree to his quotes being represented in a format that appeared to be him blogging (it had been prepared by HuffPo as a sample of what a blog by him could look like). Guess the publicist messed up in approving it for posting "as is"..
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 4:28 pm | #


    Got to disagree with you on this Jane, whether you and John Amato were there at the time is not the point honestly.

    The point is the post was represented as something that Clooney wrote for the blog. It wasn't. It was pieces of a couple of interviews pieced together to make a blog post.

    It's not ethical to misrepresent it as an original post directly from Clooney.

    You decry the media when they act unethically, but yet you defend Arianna on this - that is hyprocritical.

    I don't blame Clooney for being ticked, I would be too - probably you would as well, if the shoe were on the other foot.

    Liberal bloggers should not be playing the games the decry the media for. Arianna was wrong to do this. You are wrong to back her up.
    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:33 pm | #


    I thought it was written by Clooney also, until now.

    In other news:

    SILVER SPRING, Md. (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday that he's against extending the May 15 deadline to give the elderly more time to sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug program.

    "Nobody is making you do anything," Bush said. "I'm just traveling around saying take a look."

    Scores of residents stood along the roadways inside this retirement community to cheer and welcome the president. Not all were their to fawn. Two seniors, bundled against the wind, sat on a park bench holding up a handwritten sign that said "Impeach George W. Bush."
    I wonder what the real ratio was regarding cheerers & jeerers.......
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 4:39 pm | #


    P.S. I stand by my opinion on this here - p=2279
    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:40 pm | #

    Comment: A link to an outside page; thank you.


    Jane, fwiw, what I don't know about Hollywood and this Clooney situation could fill libraries. I bet Jim "Church Lady" Brady would love to have Clooney as a "guest blogger." WaPo is trying to drive their numbers and Clooney's, "name-recognition," would imo outweigh any WaPo concerns about his "liberal" leanings in the direction of the "rule of law." Clooney's publicists may have been concerned that HuffPo was "too small a room."
    Are there other lesser Hollywood "names" that would want to blog at HuffPo and might actually be able to handle it? Meryl Streep?
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 4:41 pm | #


    Pamela -- you didn't see the emails, you have no idea what you are talking about and you are wrong to make a judgment about me, Arianna or anyone else without having done so.

    It was explicitly clear what was going on. Can you prove otherwise?
    Jane Hamsher | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:42 pm | #


    Screw politics! Tweety said we will be at 2 trillion buckaroos soon.......and the tax cuts are STILL IN EFFECT!

    Time to install a nice free exit loop at the WH gate!
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 4:42 pm | #


    It sounds like a simple misunderstanding, between Clooney and the PR person. Arianna sent it for comment, received approval and posted it.

    What a tempest in a teapot.
    TheOtherWA | 03.15.06 - 4:42 pm | #


    speaking of bloggers: Froomkin today in an online chat explained how he was buouyed by the support he got after the "ombudsman's bizarre column". He said he pulls less punches now !
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:44 pm | #



    I don't have to see the emails - it's obvious from what Arianna herself wrote today and what was in the LA Times that Clooney's interviews were made into a blog post and put on the Huffington as something written expressly for the Huffington by Clooney. That is not the case.

    I stand by what I say, jane. If liberal bloggers are going to hold the meida accountable for unethical behavior than liberal bloggers should hold themselves to the same standard.

    Arianna had the sense to atleast post that there was a misunderstanding. That seems to be an understatement. Comments on her blog show that readers are disappointed.

    You're free to defend her, but I too am free to disagree with both you and her.
    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:49 pm | #


    Speaking of blogging, does FDL have a dog in the blog regulation fight coming up? I should think it would. What's FDL's stand? 935
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 4:49 pm | #


    "He said he pulls less punches now !"

    should read:

    "He said he pulls fewer puches now!"
    The Copy Desk | 03.15.06 - 4:50 pm | #


    fewer putsches
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 4:51 pm | #


    Pamela, you went to "hypocritical" way too fast. We're all on the same team, remember. I've seen what Jane does to trolls and I would strongly invite you to "dial it back" if you want to continue.
    Midterms are in November.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 4:51 pm | #


    ccmask thank you for your comment on Medicare
    There is so much scandal going on here that it is difficult to keep track. This Medicare D thing is one of the biggest failures of this admin, all of us know Medicare covered people, some of them our loved ones. this preznit goes on the road to a nursing home yesterday and lies thru his teeth to the most vulnerable among us. Hey, if you can't command your audience, just go to a nursing home in upstate NY and spout off to a truly captive audience. This program is a disaster and bushco is leaving States alone with a hush- hush mentality and very limited funding. The states are left to explain and bail out this HORRIBLE plan-- a complete fubar. hey, we're all going to be there one day, it's past time to help our seniors now. these asshats lied and threatened honest govt employees with their jobs if the truth was told. check out the former medicare man, scully and the new one,-- snootie's bro and the son of the repub turned independent from tx.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 4:51 pm | #


    cc mask-- forgot to comment on this

    "Nobody is making you do anything," Bush said. "I'm just traveling around saying take a look."

    who the hell is he, a snake oil salesman???

    answer, yes.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 4:53 pm | #


    BTW Pamela is aka Kerry Goddess and loves to do drive by shootings. As far as I can tell from previous knowledge of her, liberals in the Dem party should be brought into line. Her real job is aromatherapy (really), or at least it used to be.
    FDL fan | 03.15.06 - 4:53 pm | #


    brought into line (by her way of thinking)
    FDL fan | 03.15.06 - 4:54 pm | #


    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 4:51 pm | #
    beg to differ. I believe reasoned alternate/competing opinions are generally welcome here, which for the most part, that was.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 4:54 pm | #


    What is going on over at the Huffington Post?

    The bloggers are censoring?

    I have posted there numerous times, fully complying with the rules, and my posts are NOT posted, most especially on the blogs.

    It may be hours before it appears, if it does appear at all.

    I don't have this problem elsewhere. But this has happened so many times on the blogs on the Huff Post, that it is beginning to look as if Arriana is out of control with all those bloggers on her site.

    I think she needs to address this.

    I think the bloggers censor or else there is some glitch in my sign up.

    I have written to them numerous times and yet have to receive any answer.

    The HP is beginning to look like it is a tabloid, hell bent upon sensantionalism. sorry to rant, but I have no understanding as to why this happens.

    If anyone has a connection to the HP, please ask them why my posts do not appear for hours on end in the blogs, if they do appear at all.

    I may be missing something.
    Porta Bella | 03.15.06 - 4:58 pm | #


    When you write like * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] on your crummy little blog that nobody reads there really is no other way to drum up traffic than stopping by the big blogs and taking cheap shots.

    Poor Pamela. A loser to the bitter end.
    erica | 03.15.06 - 5:01 pm | #

    Comment: Missed this comment the first time through; not sure who it is directed at. Perhaps using names would be helpful. You're right, "nobody reads it" -- that's why the State of Vermont, Minnesota, and Rhode Island are moving to impeach the president using rule 603.

    To be clear, I do not care about traffic; I do care that when people are "looking for solutions" that they know someone is listening and working on solutions; also, if I have a point to make -- I like to back up what I'm saying. How would you like others to make their comments: "This is what I think, but I have no back up." It goes without saying, you are free to ignore the link.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    End Comment


    Bush response to low ratings:

    Pew! Putcsh Poll!


    Apolgies to Punaise.
    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:01 pm | #


    from todays Froomkin Live Online wp...6031001195.html
    Louisville, K.Y.: Dan,

    It's been a while since you were moved to the opinion section. Do you think your column has changed at all?

    Dan Froomkin: I don't think the "move" to Opinions was a big factor. But some combination of having a baby and reading the incredible outpouring of support from readers after that bizarre ombudsman column in December may have caused me to pull even fewer punches than I did before.

    [see? our Froomkin did use 'fewer' correctly. I made the grammar error. Mea maxima culpa!]
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:02 pm | #


    Sorry, Arianna is way off base here, and I can see exactly why Clooney is * * *[Constant changed: Originally PO’d word]: this is fan magazine "ghostwriting" bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. As the main figure in control of a (possibly) major blog, Arianna should never even have suggested this. From her post, it's unclear if Clooney's press agent knew what the hell was going on, much less Clooney himself (the reference to a "sample" blog doesn't inspire confidence she really ever explained exactly what she had in mind).

    Clooney has a real right to be [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]ed off - and Arianna better make damn sure she doesn't pull this sort of stunt again, and hope it doesn't come out how often she's done it before.
    dave™© | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:02 pm | #


    There is so much scandal going on here that it is difficult to keep track.

    Boy, you've got THAT right, Angie.

    Speaking of scandals, here's an old one. The Boy King tried to say the other day that IEDs are being manufactured in Iran. When I heard that, the first thing I thought of was the vast amount (300-some-odd tons, wasn't it?) of explosives which were taken from a munitions depot in IRAQ shortly after the invasion.

    Remember that? Wasn't it at some place called "Al Qaqaa" or some such? And the stuff was stolen because the U.S. couldn't be bothered guarding it after the invasion. At the time this was revealed, shortly before Black Tuesday, November 2004, wasn't it clear that Iraq would be hip-deep in "improvised explosive devices" for years to come?

    Seems to me that Iraqis have no need whatsoever to import stuff when there's hundreds of tons in explosives available in their own country. Isn't this just common sense, or am I misunderstanding something here?
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 5:03 pm | #


    The Democrats will lose again come November. The entire planet will rejoice.
    Spell My Checker | 03.15.06 - 5:04 pm | #



    I don't have to see the emails - it's obvious from what Arianna herself wrote today and what was in the LA Times that Clooney's interviews were made into a blog post and put on the Huffington as something written expressly for the Huffington by Clooney. That is not the case.

    I stand by what I say, jane. If liberal bloggers are going to hold the meida accountable for unethical behavior than liberal bloggers should hold themselves to the same standard.

    Arianna had the sense to atleast post that there was a misunderstanding. That seems to be an understatement. Comments on her blog show that readers are disappointed.

    You're free to defend her, but I too am free to disagree with both you and her.
    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:04 pm | #


    Aromatherapy goddess

    Kerry Goddess albums...erryGoddess.jpg

    Apparently (per dab long ago) she has been kicked off various Dem boards. That's hearsay, of course.
    FDL fan | 03.15.06 - 5:04 pm | #


    George Clooney insists that he did NOT have SEX with that BLOG POST.

    We're going to subpoena John Amato's shirt if you kids don't cut it out.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:05 pm | #


    Thanks punaise, I take your comment very seriously.

    I would not have said anything except for Pamela's "that is hyprocritical."

    For me the "hypocritical" part crossed a line. Pamela's addressing not just a commenter, but a poster, Jane, in this case, but my reaction would have been similar had it been ReddHedd. I find Jane and ReddHedd to be very authentic, the opposite of hypocrites. JMO.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:07 pm | #


    what do you expect from "hollywood PR people"?

    i've had numerous of these completely odiouis, worthless examples of humanity as clients in a previous professional capacity, and this whole incident reeks of their incompetence-meets-arrogance.

    clooney needs to fire whoever handled this and hire a real human being instead of these "connected" leeches.

    i still dig clooney, but this is a classic example of what happens when you have PR assholes speaking for you.

    and please don't tell me you "need" them in hollywood. someone of clooney's stature could be getting by just fine on his own, and let some low-level functionary handle all the basic request stuff.
    Jim in LA | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #


    FDL fan | 03.15.06 - 4:53 pm

    I make no secret about who I am. If I did I would not be posting here under my own name with a link to my blog, nor if I were worried about anyone finding out who I am would I post on my blog, and before that as regular contributor to the John Kerry campaign blog, under my own name.

    And, yes, I'm still in the aromatherapy business.

    Some Dems think it's important to get a strong coalition together and get people on the same page. I'm one of those Dems. We can stay split on the issues, or we can band together and start winning elections again.
    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #


    Hey, Mrs. K8--How are you?
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #


    Wilson46201 - Blogwhoring. LOL learn a new term every day.
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #


    The most disappointing part of Arianna's post was where she said some of the blog entries are FAXED in. Jeezus, ppl. I work in info/media blah blah blah and have faxed maybe three times total. Faxing is stupid.
    Spaz Cadet | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #


    ...I find Jane and ReddHedd to be very authentic, the opposite of hypocrites. JMO.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:07 pm | #

    no argument from me on that point.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:13 pm | #


    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 5:03 pm
    Don't know if you saw it, I linked to emptywheel's latest above, 4:28, and it addresses your comment about Iran and IED's.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:13 pm | #


    Mrs. K8--I ask because I've been kind of lost on the Web trying to connect to FDL--if you've posted about that *&!@* infection, I missed it. Apologies.
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:14 pm | #


    Oh George, we'll always have Fresno . . . . NEXT!
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 5:14 pm | #


    Kos is on KO
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:14 pm | #


    FDL Fan

    Let me help you out - you spelled my name wrong. Not sure what your point is but thanks for the free advertisement for my biz.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:15 pm | #


    who the hell is he, a snake oil salesman???

    answer, yes.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 4:53 pm | #

    now, that's just not fair to hard-working snake oil salesmen...
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:15 pm | #


    just look at Dayton's pic--he didn't always look so old and remote.
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:16 pm | #


    Kos is on KO
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:14 pm | #

    not to be confused with Costco
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:16 pm | #


    Comment: Not sure at this point what things were referring to.


    Rolling up my pants cuffs to wade in to a blogfight that I know I should avoid, BUT...

    Some Dems think it's important to get a strong coalition together and get people on the same page. I'm one of those Dems. We can stay split on the issues, or we can band together and start winning elections again.

    Then why are you suddenly appearing here to accuse our hosts of hypocrisy?


    I don't have to see the emails -

    That's a stance worthy of John Hinderaker. "I don't need the facts! I've already formed my opinion!"

    With debate skillz like that, maybe you could get picked up by Pajamas Media.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:17 pm | #


    We can stay split on the issues, or we can band together and start winning elections again.

    Hey Pamela -- this is your idea of "banding together?"

    I'm changing my comment. You're a * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing hypocrite and a loser.
    erica | 03.15.06 - 5:17 pm | #

    Comment: After being called a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" I thought I'd ask about what I thougth FDL was about -- asserting the rule of law.End

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 4:23 pm |

    Did you have a specific comment on the Constitution?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:17 pm | #


    you mean I need special oil? I have always used W-40 on my snake...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:17 pm | #


    punaise, in "revisiting" my 4:51, I could have said it better.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:18 pm | #


    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:19 pm | #


    Constant, I have many views on our Constitution but you seem to come in here just to get folk from here into your blog. that is called blogwhoring. your blog is not the only repository of knowledge about the Constitution nor the only place with action guides. usually you limit your blogwhoring to one comment per story but tonight you were almost trying to act as moderator.
    thus blogwhoring...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:20 pm | #

    Comment Wilson, sorry you feel that way; I don't care if people visit my blog; if someone wants to visit -- that's fine. But people shouldn't walk away thingking, "nobody has a solution" or "we are stuck.

    Also note Wilson sayd Blog is not a resporistory of Constitution/action guides; I asked him about other action guides -- but didn't get a response.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Ah... Pamela!!!!

    Maybe Jane has priors on her. I sure do. Her reply to me about my criticism of Kerry- there wasn't a love of love for Pamela back then, I can tell ya', if you read through the rest of the thread. Her comment to me (PL to VG ..Honestly, get a grip. Your rantings are offensive and show the level of your understanding of politics, the law and general good sense.) Pamela claimed to have an inside line to Kerry, but got quickly taken apart.
    read original here: archives...00001728.htm#23
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:20 pm | #


    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 4:51 pm

    Thanks for the advice. Just stating my opinion. If that's considered trolling here, well then I am sorry. What if an investigative blogger pieced 2 & 2 together and figured out that that was a post of quotes put together? That's where I feel the misrepresentation comes in.

    If I had read that post by Clooney, which I linked to on my blog, and enjoyed very much, and it was clarified that it was a comilation of Clooney quotes, I still would have enjoyed it and linked to it.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:21 pm | #


    . . . cat fight. . .

    Pamela | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:11 pm |

    You can yell at me if you like.

    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:17 pm |

    Pajama Media. LOL

    . . .

    Let's see: Do they talk about the Constitution: Are you for it or against it?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:21 pm | #

    Comment: Here's where I was following up with Wilson on the Constitution. At this point, I was trying to simply get him to focuse on the Constitution -- that's what we're talking about. I don't think I had quite digested what he had said earlier and was still thinking about "blogwhoring" -- that kind of threw me for a loop.


    I should patent the countdown here,it never fails.Good on ya folks.
    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:22 pm | #


    anybody see the photo of Bolton on the NYT site--somehow looks out of place--an alien presence? His mustache looks as if it has a life of its own.
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:23 pm | #


    Here's that Pew poll scroll down and look at the box that uses one word discriptions of Bush. It's on the right about 2/3 here
    yaweh | 03.15.06 - 5:24 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I followed up with Wilson again and wondered if Wilson was trying to say something to me.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:20 pm |

    Sorry you feel that way. Actually, all I'm trying to do is get a conversation going with you Wilson.

    Did you want to talk about whether you are for or against the Constitution; and are you for or against the RNC?

    If you have a site or something you would like to discuss, I'm all ears. Do you have a critique about the content or do you just like to state your opinion on "appropriate commenting"? Either way is OK with me.

    Thank you for your feedback.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:24 pm | #


    Comment: Pamela worked for Kerry!

    Valley Girl

    I was a writer for the Kerry blog from August 03 through the election. I still have contact with his press office, that's pretty much common knowledge in the blogosphere. And yes, I defend Kerry, when the need be.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:25 pm | #


    Did I already miss Kos ?

    or is on segments 1 2 or 3 ?
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 5:26 pm | #


    OK, I grew up in a very alcoholic family, so I don't do conflict well (actually, at all) and tonight find myself trying to move the ball, change the topic. Way uncomfortable. Whenever things got tense in my childhood, my mother would always ask, "Anybody want toast?"
    Anybody want toast?
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:26 pm | #


    Comment: Missed this one -- not sure why there are comments about "picking fights". Also hearing the "polite warnings" -- didn't sense that it was a "warning" more like a "point of view." Up until now, I had heard nothing. Again, I'm not promoting the blog--I'm providing back up to the points I'm making; and just reaching out to the new people who seem to be discouraged. You're free to ignore the links. As to it being "their blog" -- that goes without saying; but they've also opened up the blog for comments -- so we can comment.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    I'm for the Constitution.

    I'm against people who come onto JANE and REDD's blog and pick fights with them. This isn't the town square, it is THEIR blog.

    I'm also against people who promote their own blog again and again even after polite warnings from other posters.


    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:26 pm | #


    Mrs. K8--right, that's the name of the huge ammo dump that I remember.
    I went to look it up to make sure, and there were many sites left unguarded.
    From 2004:
    "A Pentagon official Thursday acknowledged that the United States had been forced to leave many ammunition dumps in Iraq unguarded. The official, who declined to be identified, said the U.S. military had identified about 900 sensitive weapons sites in Iraq but had assigned only "a brigade-sized force" to deal with them. A brigade typically has about 3,500 soldiers.

    "The country was made into a major ammo dump by the Hussein regime as they prepared to fight, and have left cleanup to us," the official said by e-mail. '
    Margot | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #


    cbl yes you missed kos-- he was good.
    sorry for you :(
    angie | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #


    Comment: here's where I asked about what Wilson was talking about -- this was news to me -- I'd been thinking about things, and didn't realize that maybe I'm using the wrong words in my google search.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:20 pm |

    Oh, wait -- do you have a "link to an action guide" on what is to be done to preserve this Constitution, and remove the President from office?

    I haven't found one -- just alot of pepole talking about, "Oh, there's no hope." I think there is hope: There is plenty that can be done -- like talking to friendly people like you who are very observant.

    You have a better solution to the backup plans to protect our Constitution? If so, I'm all ears. Thanks!
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #


    Comment: Despite the above dialog, this is what I got End

    @ Constant: [very politely] CAPITALS * * * [CONSTANT CHANGED: ORIGINALLY F-WORD] OFF !!!
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #

    Comment: At this point, I have no idea what is going on, who wilson is, or whether he's some sort of troll. I have no idea. This is the first time I ever ran into this guy.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    I'd love some toast. With butter and marmite, please. Failing marmite, strawberry jam or preserves, please.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #


    maybe it's the full moon thing?
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #



    Thank you for your

    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm | #


    Sorry to see that Pew didn't poll "Cluster [* * * Constant changed: Originally “F-word”]" but I guess incompetent idiot liar will have to do...
    Dru | 03.15.06 - 5:28 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I followed up after reading egregious comment -- I was thrilled -- someone was actually being clear. Yeah!

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:26 pm |

    Right on!

    Do you have a solution to what is to be done if there is a problem with the current efforts?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:28 pm | #

    Comment At this point, I was hoping to see if he knew of any backup plans, and wanted to know if tey were mitigating those risks; that's what I was working on. If he was unclear, I was going to direct him to some templates and checklists of what is being done on the RNC propaganda efforts. But that didn't happen.


    Apolgies to Punaise.
    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:01 pm | #

    no need - what goes on in haloscan stays in haloscan.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:29 pm | #


    Comment: This comment was curious -- "Africa Gray Parrot" -- and "we're all friends" -- I thought someone was extending an olive branch saying, "Hay let's talk."

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Constant, tell the truth. We're all friends here. Are you an African Gray parrot that someone taught how to type?
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:29 pm | #


    :: Yawn ::
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 5:30 pm | #


    angie | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm

    thanks sweetie, will tivo repeat - I've never seen him, only read him
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 5:30 pm | #


    No doubt Arianna was unequivocally green-lighted by Clooney's publicist and she has the emails to prove it. No doubt Clooney did not clearly understand, or was unaware, that his interview material was to be recycled as a blog post. But it seems that Arianna is missing a couple of points: first, that making amends with Clooney outweighs whether she acted in good faith or not; second, that many of her readers feel faked out by a fake blog.

    I don't have an axe to grind, am a huge fan of blogs, and rely on them as my primary source of information. FDL in particular. I'm pointing out that Arianna, in her response, didn't seem to fully recognize the importance of perceptions or of properly setting expectations. There is a "fake blog" meme among the respondents that her response won't dispell, and it's easy to understand why it's there. She gave people the perception that Clooney wrote that post himself, and it didn't have to be that way.
    MarcLord | 03.15.06 - 5:30 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I followed up with Wilson after he told me to F = = = Off. I didn't quite understand his comment. I didn't want him to think that I was ignoring him. I had theimpression that I was missing something, and didn't quite understand what he was trying to say.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm |

    Wilson, are you upset? I said I was willing to listen to you.

    I was hoping we could have a conversation about where you were coming from. I through you were a nice person.

    I feel very sad. I'm sorry that I upset you so. Can we be friends? It sound like you are with some very nice people.

    I really would like to discuss this with you: Is there something that you would like to talk about to protect the Constitution? I took the time to think about it, and thought we could talk about it here.

    Is there something that you have as idea? I'm all ears. You can share with others your views on what is to be done to protect this document from the RNC. Is that what you would like; or are you saying that you would rather not talk about that right now because you would rather do something else?

    I'm really not clear on your position. You asked for "no more links" -- but now that I'm talking to you -- you say, "Something else." That's kind of odd. Makes me think you don't want to talk about the Constitution. Is that correct?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:31 pm | #

    Comment: Rather that get some links, Wilson didn't give me anything so I followed up -- is there something he wants me to look at; and why is this not consistent with his desire that I "F = = = off".


    i would love some toast-- perhaps some butter with Esrom and lovely strawberry preserves. or Nutella. or butter with whipped honey........ and a cup of tea. thanks, wondering.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 5:31 pm | #


    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 5:03 pm | #

    Another story debunking Bush's IED/Iran connection: U.S. general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms. reuters
    I recall an extensive Kos dyskopedia entry as well.
    JWR | 03.15.06 - 5:32 pm | #


    Comment: At this, point I was trying to figure out what this "Parrot" and "Firends" things was. That seemed different.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:29 pm |

    Great! Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you concerned about something?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:32 pm | #


    Hi folks.

    Trying to catch up after a day on the road.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:32 pm | #


    Comment: I read this, but didn't understand what Wilson was trying to say. Obviously, he had brought up a valid point before -- about the links,and other content, but I didn't understand the "F = = = off" remark; and was wondering if he had some information that he was tyring to communicate by way of providing links.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    End comment

    this is so much like political meetings Ive been at where somebody just wants to trash the sponsoring organization. and then theres the well-meaning oddball who wants to divert the entire meeting to discuss the importance of spay/neutering or not-driving-automobiles or whatever its pet project is ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:33 pm | #

    Comment So this is where I asked about what Wilson was talking about. Wilson had time to talk to me indirectly -- I assume -- but didn't reference any links. So I wanted to know: Where are you coming from -- do you have a link; and what's the issue with being told to "F = = = off" and being called a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]".

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm |

    Wilson, you suggested that there were "other guides" out there, but I hear nothing better than what I've talked about.

    Are you being clear with me, or are you still looking for a link?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:34 pm | #


    Comment: At this point, I have no idea who Valley Girl is; and I hear "pain in the but" and "nuanced" -- indeed, I did miss the nuances comments: "F = = = off" doens't really communicate anything to me; and someone talkign about a link that may or may not exist doesn't move us forward.

    Notice I'm simply asking a question, but they turn it around:

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Constant, would you please stop being such a pain in the butt? You are evidently missing some of the more "nuanced" comments here.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:34 pm | #


    Pach--you might want to fasten your seat belt there. Want some toast?
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:34 pm | #


    "no need - what goes on in haloscan stays in haloscan."
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:34 pm | #


    Toast? How about Mojito's?

    Pamela, is your site hosted by bluehost? I think they could handle your traffic.
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    punaise, in "revisiting" my 4:51, I could have said it better.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 5:18 pm | #

    nahhh, your instincts were right. I was just trying to distinguish between a not-without-merit differing opinion (although Jane may not agree with my take on that, seeing her 4:42) and an out-and-out troll smear. I can see how the commenter's the rhetoric muddies the water.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:26 pm | # Growing up in Chicago, the question always was…How bout dem Cubs?
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    Comment: After being told to "F = = = off" -- for reasons I didn't understand; and referred to as a "blogwhere" -- which I had never heard before, I decided to follow up with Wilson again. It was nice of Wilson to respond, I was just trying to figure out what he and I could talk about that would be consistent with what I thought Jane's blog was about: The Constitution, and the rule of law -- things that lawyers swear an oath to.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:33 pm |

    Maybe you have a point: Would you prefer to focuse on the Constitution? I thought that's what Jane's site was all about: Discuss what is to be done.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    angie: Bush goes to the nursing homes because the audience has a hard time leaving the room.

    Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, sees his presidency sink like a lead balloon while he listens with a tin ear, while alternately playing pocket pool with his titanium members and copper pennies & nickels sporting pics of dead colleagues.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    I love this place.
    moi | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #


    Toast? Yes please. Excellent idea, and excellent metaphor. Let's adopt.

    I'm going to set a good example by being silent for a while.

    My many hot-headed posts in the last few months generally do contain action items. To date no reputable biographer has volunteered to assemble them for posterity.

    Constant, some of your ideas are worth discussing. But when you post so often and link your own work multiple times, it gets old. Your ideas will be better served with less frequent posting and rare reference to your own work.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:36 pm | #

    Comment: OK, so egregious got around to explaining the concern -- despite all this time my taking time to offer hope, provide information -- some in the community are concerned about the links.

    Fine. Why aren't people skipping over the links; and if it is "such a bad deal" that I've got links -- why do new people keep visiting the site; and why are returning visitors going up? [Not that I care -- the issue is that someone says, "IT gets old" -- that's at odds with the apparent good will that Jane seems to have, and the lack of any negative information, until now.]

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Comment Here's where I asked VG point blank: Am I missing something obvious? {Obviously I was -- but I didn't know that.]

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:34 pm |

    I thought Jane's blog was about the Constitution and the rule of law. Is this not what this blog is about?

    What is to be done when there is a "big crisis" but people say, "Hay, we don't want to hear about solutions". That's kind of strange.

    Jane, help!
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:36 pm | #

    Comment: I thought people were trolling around -- I'd never had a problem like this here. Usually people either read the comments; or skip over them. And the point stands: Curious that people talk about "crisis" but there's no discussion on the solutions, backup plans, or alternatives. Isn't that what the blogosphere is all about -- sharing ideas, letting people know, getting the word out to new people: "Hay, we're going to fix this problem". [That's not a question.]

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    a toasted bagel with nutella is yummy ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:36 pm | #


    Hi Pach. Long day for the ladies I'm afraid. And now i have been watching a remarkable series of comments. Play some catch up while you put yer feet up.
    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:37 pm | #


    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #

    showing your mettle, err, metal. unfortunately he's not playing for chimp change.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:37 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I got back with egregious -- who was nice enough to respond and give me some useful information above.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:36 pm |

    OK. So, this is the right place to at least say, "Hay -- here's what's up"

    and "don't lose hope."

    That's all I was doing: Spending some time to say, "Hay, not to worry: there's a solution." Are people upset at the desire to offer hope?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:38 pm | #


    this is so much like political meetings Ive been at where somebody just wants to trash the sponsoring organization. and then theres the well-meaning oddball who wants to divert the entire meeting to discuss the importance of spay/neutering or not-driving-automobiles or whatever its pet project is ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:33 pm

    H*ILARIOUS and so true, Wilson.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:38 pm | #

    Comment: It wasn't later I thought, "Is this referring to me". . . didn't quite realize what he was saying about "not driving automobiles" -- I started to think about that: How does that work -- does it have a steering wheel -- I started to think about how to design that: Hay, it could be done.

    Anyway: The "pet project" -- I thought -- is what Jane is trying to do: Protect the Constitution. It's not "my" project -- it's our Constitution.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Now, toast with Nutella and sliced strawberries? That's beyond good.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #


    Well, let me just say, having done the Hi, my name is...background thing, growing up with a bunch of alcoholics really prepares a person to live in the United States of America, circa 2006, and cope with the Bush administration.
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #


    punaise- I have great intuition and believe me when I tell you right now: Bush will be out of the White House (and I don't mean on vacation) by April 15th.

    I see things.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #

    Comment: I read this and thought -- hmmm, maybe ccmask knows something . . .

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    I'm just spayin'
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #


    Supreme Court Justice Reveals Death Threats
    yaweh | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #


    Valley Girl

    I was a writer for the Kerry blog from August 03 through the election. I still have contact with his press office, that's pretty much common knowledge in the blogosphere. And yes, I defend Kerry, when the need be.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:40 pm | #

    Comment: Pamela again and Kerry! Hello.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Bush will be out of the White House (and I don't mean on vacation) by April 15th.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #

    2006? no s**t? do tell!
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:40 pm | #


    I'm just spayin'

    Iiiii'm jussshht sprayin'!
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:41 pm | #


    Comment: Normally when the Secret Service starts to hear something about "Pennsylvania Avenue" and "burning" that tends to catch their attention. Thought, "Is someone planning to burn down the White House?"

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Speaking of toast, there is a smell of burning toast emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:41 pm | #


    Pachacutec - I'm glad to see you are home safe and sound. You were helping move your Dad home, right? I hope all went well.
    B. Muse | 03.15.06 - 5:41 pm | #


    Now, toast with Nutella and sliced strawberries? That's beyond good.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #

    Nutella and peanut butter - try it.

    gotta go - back for Late Nite.
    punaise | 03.15.06 - 5:41 pm | #


    I'm just glad FDL is back. Couldn't get in at all this morning.

    And all this talk about toast and bagels is making me hungry. Can I offer anyone a bagel with a honey nut schmear? BTW, I don't know or care how "schmear" is supposed to be spelled. ;) Just sayin'.
    TheOtherWA | 03.15.06 - 5:41 pm | #


    Comment: After realizing people didn't want to read my links, I thought I'd refer to the 603 effort -- That's the state proclamation effort. At this point, I was hoping to change gears and get people to open up on the issue there were all apparently "not talking about" --

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Here's the point: 7920

    This idea started on this site.

    It had to start somewhere.

    If you do not want to share the link with others, that is fine. But someone has to start.

    If you do not want to support this effort, that is fine. 7920

    It started here.

    You're welcome, I'm glad I dared to spend my time continuing despite those who would desire Not to have it happen.

    Thanks for listening: 7920
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:42 pm | #

    Comment: After being referred to as a "blog * * * [Constant changed: Originally “hore” with W at beginning]" and told to "F = = = off" and not given any links, I just wanted to let people know that there was another link that they could look at to see what was going on -- and there were other efforts underway.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Comment: At this point, I followed up on the potential burning Pennsylvania comment, and wondered if there was something going on -- all I did was ask for some clarification on what was known about the "imminent loss" of the President. Seems kind of strange to talk about a specific date; and something smoldering on Pennsylvania avenue.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm |

    Really? How so?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:43 pm | #


    I don't think Pach meant he was going to see his folks earlier. He was sayung see you later folks. With folks meaning us.
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 5:43 pm | #


    ccmask and angie,
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 5:43 pm | #


    Damn, I have to go. I would love to see what's gonna happen here in a little while.. To the regulars: Keep up the good fight.
    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:44 pm | #


    Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, sees his presidency sink like a lead balloon while he listens with a tin ear, while alternately playing pocket pool with his titanium members and copper pennies & nickels sporting pics of dead colleagues.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:35 pm | #

    he is hurting our friends and families, the very people who cared for this country before we were born. no respect for the parents, and grandparents at all. totally against the 10 commandments-- it is absolutely deplorable that he and his compadres want to save the thought of an unborn child-- not just anti- abortion, but also anti-contraception; yet they use young men and women as cannon fodder and help to dishonor our elderly. i also like your pocket change thing. i can't get it outta my mind-- big ole pretend texas cowboy rattling change in his pocket impressing everybody. not.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 5:45 pm | #


    Comment: Busted knuckes said above, "Keep up the good fight" -- so I wished him well by saying . . .

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Bustednuckles | 03.15.06 - 5:44 pm |

    There you go!
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:45 pm | #


    Comment: It seemed kind of cruel that someone was trying to express a view and they were not getting listened to. So I thought I would listen to Pamela.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Just to set the record straight, Jane is not one to mince words and I respect that. I would think on the same level Jane would respect when someone disagrees with her. Jane & I have met, we've talked, I link to FDL, because I respect what she and Reddhead are doing here.

    It's shame I can't state my opinion without having my character and business assaulted here.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:46 pm | #


    Dad comes home tomorrow. Thanks for asking! We go to get him in the morning.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:46 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I asked Pamela if she wanted to express what she was saying; and I tried to reassure here than I would spend the time to view what she was tring to express; prehaps there was something I could do on my blog and talk to my firends -- and we could put somet things together.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:46 pm |

    Did you want help? I can listen.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:46 pm | #


    for somebody involved in aromatherapy, you seem to have brought a stink in here ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm | #


    I thought Pach said last night that he was driving up to New York. I didn't sleep last night, so very well could have imagined that. I think I've repeated myself a few times today, so probably should just read and nod in agreement.
    B. Muse | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm | #


    Nothing wrong with ghost writing. But the person with the by line has to approve the final copy. No way around that.
    lina | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm | #

    Comment This is a copy of my comment and a response -- after being told to "F = = = off" and being called a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" -- I thought: What's up with this?

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:46 pm |

    Did you want help? I can listen.

    Awwww, look. They're noticing each other.

    Could it be love?

    They're so cute at this age.
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm | #

    Comment: Whatever


    Comment: Sent another message to Pamela saying, "Sorry to hear . . ."

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:15 pm

    Sorry to hear the room is giving you problems.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I thought someone was talking about the blog activities going on with Glenn Greenwald, Feingold -- not sure what the "hit squad" is -- kind of wondering about that 15 April Date above; and the burning Pennsylvania avenue thing.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Reviewing the comments today, I am again insanely proud to be a member of this hit squad community.

    We are making definite progress. They feel our heat. When the music starts, sometimes the dance floor is empty, but once a few people hit the floor, more and more follow.

    We brought a couple of new dancers out today. More will follow. Keep up the pressure.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm | #


    Comment: Here's where I really sent a clear signal: Thesaurus -- what's up. I get called a [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]; told to "F = = = off" -- not getting clear answers. And then Pamela is getting ignored; and then I'm getting mocked for listening. I was thinking these guys were with the RNC. Note I didn't say that -- I simply asked a question: "Are you friends with Rove?" Which should have yielded a direct answer: Yes or no.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:48 pm |

    Are you friends with Rove?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm | #


    [crickets chirping
    the smell of toast
    lightly buttered]
    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm | #


    Yay Pachacutec. That's wonderful. I didn't think I was completely off my rocker.
    B. Muse | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm | #


    sorta like puppies licking each others [Constant changed: Original text was a-world with SSes] ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:50 pm | #

    Comment: OK, thank you Wilson -- your comments are not helpful.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Comment: This where I thought they were talking about "great efforts in the blog" so I was saying, "Hay nice to meet you."End

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm |

    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:50 pm | #


    Comment: After being told to F = = = off and called a "blog * * * [Constant changed: Originally “hore” with W at beginning]" and treated rudely; and then had "asses" mentioned, I thought I'd ask directly -- to Wilson who I'd never met: "Hay, are you a troll from the RNC, and are you here pretending to be a local, or what is going on? This was completely new.End

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:50 pm |

    Are you in the RNC?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:50 pm | #

    Comment: Seems fair enough: Are you with the RNC -- get them to commit -- are they or are they not with the RNC. It seemed odd what he was doing: "F = = = off" and " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" and "asses" and . . . This felt like the twilight zone. Never happened on FDL.End


    I did drive to NY today. You were awake!
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm | #

    Comment: This was a comment in response to me.


    ccmask and angie,
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 5:43 pm |

    Oops, I must of hit one of them Microsoft mystery buttons by mistake.. and posted your names by mistake.

    Bush sez he aint gonna extend the Medicare Drug Bennie enrollment deadline... because... well, because there gotta be a deadline, thassall. (usual clarity of reasoning, there, huh?)

    OK, then his Medicare Drug Bennie goes belly up. Not enough people are signing up for it to work. After taking into account the poor slobs who were forced into it via pre-existing enrollment in comprehensive HMOs and elderly Medicaid recipients, the voluntary enrollments are trickling in way behind schedule.

    Tune into the unfolding disaster here...

    Drug Bill Debacle at TPM: some very good posts about the voluntary enrollment problems:

    You think the thing is way too expenseive now, wait until it ends up a couple a ten million enrollees short and we'll be talking expensive.
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm | #



    I'm in my mom's house. Far from the RNC.

    I think if I were to enter RNC HQ I'd be attacked by dogs.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm | #

    Comment: This was to me: She was describing her location, not whether she was in or out of the RNC.End


    [munching toast
    but if I were to speak
    I would note in some cases
    18 posts is
    about 18 too many]
    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:52 pm | #

    Comment: Not sure what this meant.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm |

    I was wondering if Wilson was in the RNC.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:52 pm | #

    Comment: follow up on the "F = = = off" and " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" and "asses" and no links and not getting a straight story on what the deal was with Pamela.


    Comment Hmmm, so they’re talking about Pamela.

    In all seriousness, Pamela's postings to VG on BradBlog (back when Kerry was waffling on the Ohio recount) opened my eyes to the rabid right wing of the Dem party. I henceforth started identifying myself as an "independent"- making the Fitz mistake. (Don't like the "family values of the Independent party, so no to them).
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:53 pm | #


    Comment: I asked this thinking they were messing with me and actually trolls with the RNC messing around on the FDL.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:52 pm |

    How many posts have you posted in support of the RNC?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:53 pm | #


    oh golly, I step away for a few hours, then find that my wireless card is "roaming" for a network (WTF?), some of my toolbar icons have changed while I was at lunch, I finally get back online and into FDL - my favorite home away from home -

    and see that there are at least 3 different wars going on here! Hey, it's all about discourse, right?Having a conversation? I don't mean to be acting like goody-goody little Susie in homeroom, but this bickering really getting anybody anywhere?

    I'm just not sensing that Clooney is nearly as upset as some of the folks here. Chill, and live.

    Cause otherwise, it's reminding me of that day in 1972 when the girls crips gang showed up at my junior high school and beat up all my black classmates. (not a pleasant memory).

    On my way to the kitchen to make toast...
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm | #


    Comment: Didn't know where this came from: "Disruptive jerk" and "disruptive". Also, notice the comment of "get out of here" with the little Green Footballs. I wasn't clear why asking questions about people who tell me to "F = = = off" and you are a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" -- in a civil manner -- is disruptive.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Funny how people asking a question -- gets turned around as "Disruptive".


    Constant: by now you are just an obnoxious jerk. your disruptive behavior benefits the RNC objectively. i'm sure littlegreensnotballs can use your love of the Constitution and your offers to talk it out ...
    yeah: you are acting like a troll.

    p.s. the 2nd toasted bagel with orange marmalade is sweet ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm | #

    Comment: Then I realized: This was from Wilson -- notice they didn't want to talk to me in here about the Constitution.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald



    Comment: Here I followed up with VG -- she seemed concerned about Pamela -- I was trying to see if we could focus on some solutions to this, rather than focusing on Pamela.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 5:53 pm |

    OK. What would you prefer to see as a solution to things?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm | #


    I just think if Clooney wants to blog about political issues on Huffpo or anywhere else, he needs to write the blog himself, not have someone else cut and paste stuff together and stick his name on it and then deny he allowed them to do it. If he's too lazy to do that, then forget about it. All this talk of his publicists doing this or that makes Clooney look a bit...umm....removed. And what does he care what some bozos on fox news think?

    And since Clooney apparently didn't really write the blog post over on HuffPo, I think it would have saved a lot of headaches for Ariana to simply make that clear on the post because it really was a bit misleading (in my view)- it did seem like it was meant to be taken as though he had actually written it when it actuality it seems (if I understand the facts, which I may not as I have read different things in diff places) to be someone else putting together a bunch of his quotes and interview answers. I kinda think there's a difference.

    I like HuffPo. I like Clooney. But if Clooney wants to become involved in politics, he should leave his publicist out of it and do the work himself and Huffpo should expect nothing less. I'd rather read a thoughtful, intelligent post from a no-name blogger over at huffpo than a celebrity bigwig who has someone else do everything, including the actual writing, posting and well, everything else, for him or her.
    Stacyb | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm | #


    Comment: OK, I get told he's not in the RNC: Why is he telling me to "F = = = off" and that I'm a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" and that I should sniff someone's [Constant changed: used to be a—with double ss]; and why treating Pamela that way; and not clear why he's calling me a troll. He's saying there are other links out there -- but I have nothing from him that I can read. I've given him links; but I don't have anything. End

    Wilson in the RNC? Umm, I don't think so.
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm | #


    Comment: OK someone brings up another topic.

    Seriously off topic but...

    it seems like the dubai ports deal is still on. 09.htm
    Hope the link works. If not, copy and paste into browser.

    The weeks-long saga of Dubai Ports World's purchase of operations in Miami and five other U.S. seaports took another turn Monday, when the company's Fort Lauderdale nemesis publicized a private e-mail and charged the note shows the Arab company has no intention of selling its U.S. assets.

    Eller & Co., now a partner with DP World in a Miami operation after DP bought out a British firm last week, shared an e-mail that said the Arab company's sale of U.S. assets "would probably take a while."

    The e-mail from Robert Scavone, a vice president for the port company now owned by DP World, also told managers in Miami to assume for now "ownership … is not going to change."

    "Eller's lawyer Michael N. Kreitzer said Monday the e-mail proves the Arab company has no plans to meet Thursday's pledge to transfer U.S. assets to a U.S. entity. The move aims to quell political furor -- much of it stirred up by Eller on Capitol Hill."

    "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said a Dubai purchase could still go through. If a U.S. buyer is not found, and a 45-day review finds no security risks, "I don't see how the deal would have to be canceled," Frist said on ABC's This Week."
    Griffon | 03.15.06 - 5:55 pm | #


    I am telling you the truth. I've had this thing going my whole life where I see things ahead....and Bush is on his way out. The tide is turning. The Dems are in hiding. The media is growing balls.

    God bless Feingold. He is brilliant and he is a true patriot. The censure resolution is politically brilliant in that in order to define it, you must bring up the Impeach word.

    "Bush 43 is history" and it rhymes.
    Further proof!

    April 15 is d-day for this preznut. My sister-in-law will need therapy.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:55 pm | #

    Comment: WTF! 15 April 2006 D-Day for President Bush? Who are these people, and how do they know this? End


    the Medicare drug benefit (whom?), troop strength in Iraq, WMDs, IEDs from Iran--alcoholically speaking, it really does hang together--all those elephants lounging in Dubya's living room.
    wondering | 03.15.06 - 5:57 pm | #


    Comment: Pamela reveals here that she and Jane are friends; so I thought I would say, "hay -- wish Jane well."

    Just to set the record straight, Jane is not one to mince words and I respect that. I would think on the same level Jane would respect when someone disagrees with her. Jane & I have met, we've talked, I link to FDL, because I respect what she and Reddhead are doing here.

    It's shame I can't state my opinion without having my character and business assaulted here.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:57 pm | #


    I think that when the publicist said that what Arianna had submitted was okay, he or she meant that was the kind of format or expression of Clooney's opinions that they had in mind. I am guessing that Clooney wasn't approving (or didn't think he was) that post to be presented as it was. Arianna thought she was getting the go-ahead to run the posting, but the publicist was merely agreeing that that's what they had in mind.

    I know, I know, there are emails that probably prove that things were not as vague as that at all. If that's the case, I wish we could see them. I never like it when politicos tell us Things Are This Way without showing us any proof to back up said claim.

    It's the old "Because I Said So" response. It doesn't wash when those in real power use it, and it doesn't wash here, either. This is why the term "hypocrite" was tossed around earlier, I think.

    And it's worth noting that a person can very well be genuine, honest, noble, and forthright and still act in a hypocritical way from time to time. It's called being human, and it's not an apocalyptic insult by any means. I know nothing of Jane or ReddHedd other than what I have read here, and I believe them to be absolutely wonderful. This, however, does not prevent me from thinking they can make a mistake here or there.


    Dan | 03.15.06 - 5:57 pm | #


    trex-5:48 LOL bwwwaaa
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:57 pm | #


    Comment This is where I was confused: Didn't get a response; and they changed the subject away from what they knew I was asking. Notice the words, "relentless" and "Noxious" -- after being told to "F = = = off" and " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]". All I'm thinking is, "hay -- all i hear is whining about 'nothing can be done' -- and then people say, "Well we know there's no solution -- but if you are too persistent, we might be upset at that as well.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Who's doing the name calling?


    How many posts have you posted in support of the RNC?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 5:53 pm

    Relentless Noxious Constant?
    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:58 pm | #


    Watch Keith on Colbert....
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 5:58 pm | #


    I believe Jane when she writes that Arianna had permission to publish this in blog form. But why would she want to? Arianna herself writes that she put together old interview answers as a sample for Clooney to look at. When Clooney's people said he was okay with her sample, she was under no obligation to publish it.
    SaltinWound | 03.15.06 - 5:59 pm | #


    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm | #

    thanks, great information!

    the thing is, though, it is a * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]ty plan that costs both the seniors and the taxpayer too much. i would be willing to pay a lot more in taxes to cover people if the govt would not make it a giveaway to the pharms and the insurance co.'s. we need to do this better. other countries do. but it's hard work pretending to be the world's greatest superpower/democracy.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 5:59 pm | #


    another gutless, hypercritical, cowardly website
    tedd | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #


    Was this our comedy central thread?
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #


    Comment: So rather than be rude, I thought I would post a link and see if they wanted to talk about something related to "solutions": 603 project. Here’s the Kos link. Notice also I put it out what I think about the RNC: they are wankers – other Haloscan comment-posters use that alot. I'm thinking, "Hay this is kind of fun -- they tell me to "F = = = off" and I can ask about what they will not comment on -- whether they are for or against the RNC. At this point, I'm thinking they're trolls, and have been sent in here by the RNC. I never met Wilson before.End

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:54 pm |

    Thank you. If you wanted to talk about this, that would be helpful: 7920

    Question for the room: Does Wilson regularly make comments about "what is or is not appropriate" -- but then is rude as he has been here:

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:27 pm |

    . . . .


    If you want to read about wankers, go here:

    If you want to read about big wankers, go here:'

    The RNC's efforts at "national security" are a farce -- they know it -- Karl Rove is a loser.

    Fitzgeral indictments! Libby is indicted. New York lawyers are losers! RNC blog boobies are losers. There is no hope.

    Did you get the link about Gonzalez' disbarment? He's a wanker: view=30
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #

    Comment Libby's lawyers are from NY. I have had the pleasure of reviewing the documents they have reviewed -- they're upset that it's known outside their office what they were looking at. The documents reviewed were legally obtained using interception methods which the NSA cannot detect. Anyway -- Libby's lawyers in my view are losers because they're filling motions that are non-sense, and they're simply being annoying to Fitzgerald.

    As to the comments about Gonzalez: Well he's in the PA bar, and that's another project: the Gonzalez disbarment effort. End


    Comment: Hmmm. . . this was kind of weird. . . HQ and attack dogs. Are they talking about this room in code . . .or is there something weird going on.

    I think if I were to enter RNC HQ I'd be attacked by dogs.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 5:51 pm | #

    The RNC has sensors that can tell when intelligent life enters the doors. That's when the dogs come out.
    B. Muse | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #


    wondering --

    Sorry it took so long to respond here -- I had two phone calls come in.

    And not to worry about missing what I said about how the battle with the nasty staph stuff was resolved -- I've been posting sporadically, and can only assume there are others who also post sporadically, and we just miss each other.

    The sulfa drug worked, praise the heavens! Then came a phase where my body had to absorb and process the toxins left behind by the dying bacteria -- there were dark, dusky looking patches visible on my legs, that was the toxin under the surface of the skin.

    For a while, every day I would get a bout of sudden, massive exhaustion and brain fog -- and would crawl into bed and sleep for a few hours. Then later the dark patches would be considerably lighter. So I think that was the processing and expulsion of the left-over gunk.

    Now I'm desperate to "catch up" with chores and eager to start projects that got abandoned through all that. We also are planning a trip next month, which will take some preparations. So I'll be posting sporadically for a while!

    Sigh. There's nothing I'd love more than to be back to my daily, on-top-of-all-the-threads FDL connection. That'll have to wait.

    But my heart belongs to FDL. No matter what the blog software, no matter what the temporary kinks in the system. I love this community, and am still ever so grateful to our hosts for creating it.

    So, wondering, that's the scoop. How are YOU? Hope all is well.
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #


    Comment: Notice this comment -- after Pamela expresses her view, someone named "Harry" tells here to ignore it. That's not an answer. Do they do this to everyone who dares interact with FDL?

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    I agree Pamela: It's a shame people can't share ideas. BUt it's OK for some to curse, but not OK for others to comment on that cursing. WHy is that?


    It's shame I can't state my opinion without having my character and business assaulted here.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 5:57 pm | #

    Relax some, shake-it, no stirred-it and enjoy-it
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #


    Comment They keep talking about a specific date that Bush will be gone -- not on vacation. This is starting to make me wonder. They keep talking about this 15 April dateEnd

    punaise- I have great intuition and believe me when I tell you right now: Bush will be out of the White House (and I don't mean on vacation) by April 15th.

    I see things.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #

    ccmask - do you see him filing for an extension? (Sorry - I couldn't resist the "taxing" play on words.) What do you see for Dick Cheney? If you see Bush out of the White House by April 15, what do you see happening thereafter?
    Stephen Parrish, CPA | 03.15.06 - 6:01 pm | #


    Comment: Wilson is still here and simply throwing words, not interacting -- that's OK. Maybe I can try another approach. [Keep in mind, at this point, I have no clue who this person is or what they're trying to say.]

    egregious: you missed a chance to use that Agnew-word: Relentless Nattering Constant ! I never did quite know what that word meant but somehow it seems to fit in this application...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:02 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I thought I'd throw some more of the RNC-hatred around. I thought these were funny links: "Bush Impeachment" and Bush getting in trouble over wiretapping.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:58 pm |

    Share this with the RNC: hl=...ush+Impeachment

    Look who's friends with Nixon:
    http://www.afterdowningstreet.or...ment/reply/ 8929
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:02 pm | #


    Comment: "Stayed out the gutter" -- you mean it gets worse?!?!? After being told to "F = = = off" and " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" and "a-word-ends with --ss" -- this was good? Holy moly.End

    Ok, I'm outta here. At least we stayed out of the gutter.
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 6:04 pm | #


    Comment: I'm in shock -- "Good night, maybe I'll talk to you tomorrow when I have some new solutions to impossible problems."

    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 6:04 pm |

    Have a good one.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:04 pm | #


    Some people, like Dick Cheney, don't seem to know who they are aiming their gun at.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 6:04 pm | #

    Comment: Yes, at this point, I have no idea who these people are, which party they are in, are they trolls -- they're rude to me, and my efforts to be civil to them are just responded with non-sense.End


    Comment: I think I missed this one.

    Relax some, shake-it, no stirred-it and enjoy-it
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #

    LOL! Can we make that a round of doubles?
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:05 pm | #


    Jane / RH--how can I reach you by email? The addresses are in the profiles--is that where it should go?
    Professor Foland | 03.15.06 - 6:05 pm | #

    Comment: At this point, I'm seriously thinking these guys are messing with me -- come on! This is the twilight zone. If they're not with the Republican Party, why not say, "Hay, this is really our way of hazing you."

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    I didn't hear anything in response, and ergrious was not being responsive. I asked again:


    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:58 pm |

    So, you're with the Repukeliican Party?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:06 pm | #


    Was this our comedy central thread?
    anotherpawn | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm

    Is... light relief amidst the relocation? And here we are yukking it up while Mom is doing all the hard work for the move. Fun to be a kid again, sometimes.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 6:07 pm | #


    So can somebody tell me what happened? I am late to this, but I read Arianna's post first...
    I am so confused.
    DJ DrZ | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:07 pm | #


    egregious | 03.15.06 - 5:49 pm---ROFLMAO
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 6:07 pm | #


    Comment: Notice this one -- it looked to me like they were calling tedd a troll, so I was thinking, "Shoe phone is one of the good guys."End

    another gutless, hypercritical, cowardly website
    tedd | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #

    Just like I thought. Another gutless, hypercritical, cowardly troll. Named "tedd".
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 6:08 pm | #


    Toasted poppy seed bagel with a schmear of nice, ripe brie!

    Yum... Tea for me too, milk and two sugars. Thank you.
    Jacqrat | 03.15.06 - 6:08 pm | #


    This is not me.
    George Clooney | 03.15.06 - 6:09 pm | #


    Comment: Here's where I said to shoephone, "You are my friend" -- wanted to be kind of primal: I was thinking about the African Parrot ... maybe that's what this room is about. Still having a hard time with knowing what the little code words were. Oh, well.End

    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 6:08 pm |

    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:09 pm | #


    Comment: Here's where they talked about the Bush being gone again -- specific date, talking about toast, smoke from Pennsylvania Avenue, and they keep saying it over and over again. But they won't provide details. I'm thinking -- some people outside the WTC were pointing to the Twin Towers before 9-11 saying, "They won't be there," and their friend told them to be quite. End

    Bush will be out of the White House (and I don't mean on vacation) by April 15th.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 5:39 pm | #

    Yes, do tell! What do you see? Inquiring minds, and all that.
    Jacqrat | 03.15.06 - 6:10 pm | #


    Yay! Five lions and Two lemmings so far.
    Stacyb | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:10 pm | #

    Comment: I read this and wondered -- aha, we have a jungle theme here: African Parrot, lions, lemmings. I was wondering if this was a sign, or a symbol. Or how do people get their names. End


    I think that when the publicist said that what Arianna had submitted was okay, he or she meant that was the kind of format or expression of Clooney's opinions that they had in mind. I am guessing that Clooney wasn't approving (or didn't think he was) that post to be presented as it was. Arianna thought she was getting the go-ahead to run the posting, but the publicist was merely agreeing that that's what they had in mind.

    I know, I know, there are emails that probably prove that things were not as vague as that at all. If that's the case, I wish we could see them. I never like it when politicos tell us Things Are This Way without showing us any proof to back up said claim.

    It's the old "Because I Said So" response. It doesn't wash when those in real power use it, and it doesn't wash here, either. This is why the term "hypocrite" was tossed around earlier, I think.

    And it's worth noting that a person can very well be genuine, honest, noble, and forthright and still act in a hypocritical way from time to time. It's called being human, and it's not an apocalyptic insult by any means. I know nothing of Jane or ReddHedd other than what I have read here, and I believe them to be absolutely wonderful. This, however, does not prevent me from thinking they can make a mistake here or there.


    Dan | 03.15.06 - 6:10 pm | #


    New thread from Jane. We can only hope what was said here stays here.
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #

    Comment: "what was said here stays here" -- why -- don't want anyone to ask about what you said here? Come on -- I got told to "F = = = off" and no links as I thought I might get; and called a troll. This is the twilight zone. This has been a completely pointless interchange. All I've done is had my time wasted, they didn't share what they were concerned about; and they didn't answer any questions.

    All I could assume -- was that they were messing with me, and these people were trolling around here, and Jane didn't know.End


    It has become clear to me that George Clooney is in need of a competent personal assistant to act as a liaison between him and his PR person. I am willing to step into the breach. For the good of the country and the blogosphere y'know.
    Dru | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #


    Comment: This is where I asked about the lions and lemmings -- Now that I notice, I think I may have asked the wrong person.

    Stacyb | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:10 pm |

    Which are you?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #


    " i would be willing to pay a lot more in taxes to cover people if the govt would not make it a giveaway to the pharms and the insurance co.'s."

    Sorry I was so cryptic. You are partly right. Here is the point-it is precisely because the plan is such a give away to vested interests that it is not such a good deal for many elderly. And therefore many of the more healthy elderly will not sign up for it. So only sickest elderly, or those forced into is enroll. And the program is far more expensive to sick poor elderly and tax payers than it needs to be.

    So we got the worst of both worlds for 99% of population.

    But SOP for BushCo
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #


    Comment This was my effort to understand what they were saying about "keeping it here".

    RBG | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm |

    Did you have something you didn't want me to tell the world about?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:12 pm | #

    Comment: I didn't get a response, and thought I would ask them about what they weren't talking about in the next thread.

    I think left here; and then rechecked back several times, but didn't see anything else. The rest of the comments I never read, I got banned and everything shut down.End



    In the event you drop in here at FDL to check the weather on the HuffPo matter: this could all be cleared up if 1) you posted and explained matter-of-factly what twinked you and 2) you started a blog or joined one as a guest. We progressives are starving, having too few role models who regularly exercise free speech; we probably wouldn't be in a dither except that we are so very hungry for leaders with spines. Spend a couple dozen words on item 1), and give us a year on item 2), please. Thanks.

    And ditto what Stacyb said above; you don't need a publicist when you speak live. Just blog what you'd tell us in normal conversation. BE AUTHENTIC. That's probably the single most important rule in blogging.

    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:12 pm | #


    StephenParish: This is crazy but I see Dick Cheney and Andrew Card sitting in the big chairs. Possibly.

    Bush cannot survive the stress. He may resign.

    Or the Tecumseh curse......god forbid, of course. I don't wish that on any American. I sound like a wacko hoopie scoop now, right?

    Whenever I see Indians.......the problem is the president is too tents.
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 6:12 pm | #


    No matter what the circumstances that led to this, it shows the fundamental weakness of The Huffington Post: its infatuation with celebrity.

    If the blog community (both right and left) has any strength at all it's that it has been a meritocracy. The Huffington Post screams for attention by getting (or trying to get) celebrities to post there. No one should give a * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] that George Clooney is blogging until he's proven himself worthy to invest time reading -- as have Kos and PowerLine and Firedoglake and Instapundit (throw in any right, center or left blogs you like).

    But The Huffington Post wants us to get all giddy because they've got ACTORS posting! That's weak.
    John Pearley Huffman | 03.15.06 - 6:13 pm | #


    Thanks to Margot, JWR, John Casper (am I missing anyone?) for your comments on the IED situation.

    I never thought there was some sort of factory producing IEDs in Iran (and BTW, not so long ago Georgie was singing the same fairytale melody about SYRIA, for God's sake).

    It annoys me, however, that the idiot/corrupted "news" media can't be bothered to bring up the little matter of the tons of explosives IN COUNTRY already. It's like everyday is a new day for our news * * * [Constant changed: Originally “hore” with W at beginning]s, no collective memory of prior events, just a tabula rasa of amnesia where a functioning brain should be.

    I mean, why SHOULD it be up to US, the reading public, to remember these news stories from 2004? Shouldn't THEY remember what they wrote?
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 6:15 pm | #


    Relax some, shake-it, no stirred-it and enjoy-it
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #

    LOL! Can we make that a round of doubles?
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:15 pm | #


    When it comes to turrusts and their nefarious plots against Murika, George W. Bush thinks he has nerves of steel, but when you get down to brass tacks, he's ready to be fitted for a tinfoil hat.
    The Copy Desk | 03.15.06 - 6:17 pm | #


    angie -- hmm, no toast at this second, but I've got a fresh pot of Bodum Black Vanilla Tea mixed with Bodum Green. I'm sure I could whip up toast from a loaf of multigrain French, have a nearly unlimited selection of jams including black raspberry, spiced peach, strawberry, you name it.

    Looks like I'm going to need a splash in the tea, tho', if this "full moon" thread is an example of what's in store this evening...
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:18 pm | #


    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #

    i did not think you were cryptic, i saw where you were coming from and very much appreciate it. this is a debacle and i just don't think that the elderly have much of a voice, they and their families are confused and upset and that is exactly what the admin wanted. it is one giant and planned cluster * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word] and it will be up to our next President to fix it, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, and so much more they have screwed up.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:22 pm | #


    pamela -- you show up, throw out disrespectful ad hominum attacks about someone on their own blog and then demand respect?

    You are a hypocrite, a loser and a pathetic joke.
    erica | 03.15.06 - 6:22 pm | #


    Rayne, I'll be right over... ;)
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:24 pm | #


    dru - I read somewhere that Clooney so appreciated a previous personal assistant that he bought her a house.

    Be thinking about which neighborhoods you'd really like to live in...
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 6:24 pm | #


    OT and probably doomed to be EPU'ed but the government prosecutors have basically thrown themselves on to the mercy of Judge Brinkema in the Moussaoui sentencing trial. Some of it was pretty lame: "But gee, the witnesses who were coached said they wouldn't have changed their testimony anyway." (So no prob, right?) It's like nobody explained to them what tainting means. I can just see Judge Brinkema going, "Well if they say so, then I guess it's OK, not!"

    The prosecution has a somewhat better shot at introducing a "new" untainted witness to testify about how good potential FAA screening might have been but this whole sentencing trial which started weak really seems to be into the grasping at straws phase.

    I say let it go. Moussaoui will still get life without parole and the government can spare us the embarrassment of more antics from wayward TSA attorneys and government prosecutors.
    Hugh | 03.15.06 - 6:24 pm | #


    dru-- thank you for volunteering for that arduous task. good nite and good luck.......... heh.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #


    Relax some, shake-it, no stirred-it and enjoy-it
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 6:00 pm | #

    LOL! Can we make that a round of doubles?
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #



    I'm not demanding anything nor did I attack Jane. I didn't call her names, I didn't post personal information about her, I didn't dig up old quotes from her, I simply stated I disagreed with her and why. That's not an attack.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:30 pm | #


    Could someone open the windows in here because it's getting really stuffy.
    If you don't know what a [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”] is, then I guess you probably qualify as one.
    If you want to toss out judgments of our host about information you don't have at your fingertips, then you're going to have to take the heat.

    Thanks to those who suggested we reply to Howard Dean's ironic request for Feingold Coat Tail moolah with a serious shake-up. I just got done unloading my custom made $23K Italian slingshot at Dean's Lemming Bus and asked him to go and beg them to show some pulse because they are going to need it.
    meta | 03.15.06 - 6:31 pm | #

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- click here if you haven't signed moveon's petition to support Feingold's censure resolution)
    Neal | 03.15.06 - 6:33 pm | #


    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    pamela -- You did not state you "disagreed with her," you called her a "hypocrite."

    You are so full of * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] it is coming out your ears. Why don't you take it back to your crappy little blog where nobody will notice?
    erica | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    Okay, angie, firing up the toaster...

    Cracking open the homemade mango-quince jam...

    And lacing the tea with Nassau Royale vanilla liqueur...

    Probably ought to move up to something harder 'cuz the weather isn't looking any better in this thread!
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:36 pm | #


    Catch you guys on the flip-flop. My Mom is coming for a 4 day visit and she is a clean freak. I have to roll up my comforter (filled with books and papers, etc...) and hide it somewhere.

    The bad thing about blogging when you live alone is things tend to run into each other and there is no one around to point out the error of your ways. See you late night :)
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 6:41 pm | #


    I have nothing to add to this on topic conversation other than to add my fav food of the week is TOASTed tuna & cheese sandwiches on really good 12 grain bread. I have had 2 today alone.

    Reporting on some T.V. watching -- whatever happens to the censure, the news is reporting on it. And reporting on it. Even when Gingrich is poopooing the idea as a political stunt, they are talking about it.

    In my mind, the idea is what is good. Keith O asked Kos about the censure and wondered what the benefit would be with most of America still seemingly agreeing that wiretapping is O.K. if it keeps them safe.

    Kos rightly IMO answered there are law for that sort of thing and he willingly went around them. Whether they keep us safer, questionable at best, is besides the point. There was a law, Bush did not obey it, end of subject.
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 6:42 pm | #


    mmmmmm, toast. mmmmmm, quince. mmmmm, burnt toast, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....mmmmmm........
    meta | 03.15.06 - 6:43 pm | #


    Comment: Didn't read this until the next day -- Notice this Material misrepresentations -- They incorrectly assert that I "blasted" Wilson for "being" in the RNC. They misrepresent the situation. Wilson "blasted" me with a "F = = = off" and a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" and was uncivil despite my attempt to discuss this issues. Again, I simply asked them where they stood on the RNC -- I never got an answer.

    Again, I didn't read this until the next day

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    The touching constant concern....

    First being so concerned about hurt feelings, then blasting Wilson and me for being charter members of the RNC.

    And your dear friends harry, pamela, and tedd, perhaps sharing a computer to save money. Have a swell party.

    Lightly toasted, real butter, cherry preserves please.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 6:45 pm | #


    Rayne-- do you make your own preserves? That is a nearly lost art and might I say, a lovely and scrumptious nearly lost art.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:46 pm | #



    I'm not demanding anything nor did I attack Jane. I didn't call her names, I didn't post personal information about her, I didn't dig up old quotes from her, I simply stated I disagreed with her and why. That's not an attack.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:08 pm | #



    Pamela! Clear your fields before you hit refresh!


    Some people...
    Thesaurus Rex | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:21 pm | #


    Thesaurus Rex

    Thanks - I forgot haloscan does that. I thought I was seeing double or someone was copying my posts. Much appreciated.
    Pamela Leavey | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:29 pm | #


    It's a wrap.....
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 9:04 pm | #


    ccmask - maybe W will just stay at the ranch after Easter and they'll run it without him.
    OhioBlue | 03.15.06 - 9:06 pm | #


    angie -- whew, finally quieted down in here! Yup, I make my own, but I can't lay claim to the mango, a friend made it. I do make black raspberry, raspberry, thimbleberry, peach and spiced peach, blueberry, blu-barb, strawberry and a few more from scratch -- even grow and pick my own berries in the case of black raspberry and strawberry, get the rest at U-Pick farms locally. There's absolutely nothing like a fresh batch of jam or jelly, especially that first skimming of foam off the top of the batch. Mmm-mmm, heaven on fresh French bread with real butter.
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:16 pm | #


    Why dont you stay at home and wash the dishes bitch and stay off the internet.
    Chris | 03.16.06 - 2:54 am | #


    I don't know if Clooney got spooked because Fox News went after him . . .
    I heard that Bill O'reilly, surrounded by Fox police goons, attacked him with a loofah. (OK, I made that up, but I'd really like to start a rumour. falafel man is a ticking time bomb.)
    Mui | 03.16.06 - 4:01 am | #


    Grandma, With regard to ammo for eid's, my nephew, a ranger in Iraq, at one time was "guarding a munitions dump that was 19 miles square. Guess they couldn't keep track of all of it. This'll likely get EPU'd, but hey, I can't guard the whole ammo dump at once.
    Old Sow | 03.16.06 - 6:46 am | #


    Chris | 03.16.06 - 2:54 am

    Now we have a new species of troll emerging; they are getting even more desperate. Not only do they plead with concern, now they scold women to stay in their place.

    Methinks they picked the wrong blog.
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 7:32 am | #


    * * *

    Second Thread

    Where I asked about the previous comments made, and was banned here.

    Yes, I linked to the Haloscan feed and asked what the deal was with the link and realted it to the topic.

    Would you prefer people not stand up for themselves, or not ask questions about something they are confused about?


    firedoglake comments

    california_reality_check | 03.15.06 - 6:06 pm | #


    that just about says it all, crc!
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:07 pm | #


    What a bunch of freakin' cowards they are. But Harkin comes from the great and mythical heartland, so maybe that combined with fresh batch of ca 35% polls will help a few of them grow a pair. The more I see of Menendez too, the more I like him.
    DemByDefault | 03.15.06 - 6:10 pm | #


    great pic, and I agree completely. I mean, how long did it take FDL to rise to the occasion? We are all so hungry for someone to stand up to this loser preznit @ 33%. way past time, go Feingold, Jane and Christy.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #


    Oh, I'm so sure Hillary and Chuck are going to rally to Russ' side.

    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:11 pm | #


    Jane - I posed this question to ReddHedd today. Said I should ask you. I have a technical interest in what has been happening here at FDL regarding the conversion. Would it be an invasion of privacy to ask for details of issues encountered and software acquired? Also, I'm wondering if this new stuff might be too expensive for the Moms. Could we little people help a little?

    california_reality_check | 03.15.06 - 6:12 pm | #


    Hard to believe there's only five senators so far in support?!?

    Keep on 'em! I was on hold at Sen. Wyden's office for five minutes this morning because of the call volume.

    Not only will I attend to whether he signs on in support, but how long it takes him to do so.

    The meter's running, Ron . . .

    oregondave | 03.15.06 - 6:12 pm | #


    Feinstein! Uh, oh, nevermind.
    cupholder | 03.15.06 - 6:13 pm | #


    cup - She is rught behind you ALL the way to the bank.

    california_reality_check | 03.15.06 - 6:15 pm | #


    MoveOn got its mailing list on the Censure Case. Today I got a mailing from "Pride at Work", organized labors LGBT group. They are faxing Senators upon request... More liberal groups will also turn on their automated outreach systems. It's building !
    John Conyers is catching the wave too. He sent out a mailing for folk to get on his original Censure resolution in the House...

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:16 pm | #


    And speaking of Tim "we can do better" Kaine; did y'all hear that he and a couple of other specially selected Governors were chosen by the DoD to be secretly whisked away to visit the troops Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan? Hm?

    Dru | 03.15.06 - 6:16 pm | #


    I had the same basic thoughts about Feingold today. He's not a dummy.

    What went through his mind when he was considering whether to go ahead and propose the censure or to first check with other Democratic Senators.

    My hunch is: it took him no more than 15 or 20 seconds to realize what he had to do.

    Who's showing leadership skills here? Who's the most Presidential-looking on this subject now among the Dems? It's happening quickly.

    Slothrop | 03.15.06 - 6:16 pm | #


    I asked about Menendez in an earlier thread -he doesn't have any real 'cover' or patron in the Senate, so I was thinking they are using him as a trial balloon - just like the Repubs tried w/ Jean Schit
    newest member, SOP< blah blah blah

    so, how is it playing in New Jersey ?
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 6:16 pm | #


    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Here's where I was trying to figure out what they were talking about:


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:16 pm |

    Is that the "Democratic Response Team" Jane was talking about?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:17 pm | #


    "Together We Can Do Better" - gods how I hate that wimpy little phrase!! Arrrggg!!!

    How about "We will throw out the law-breaking mother * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ers and then actually *catch* some terrorists". The Nixonites in BushCo haven't done * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] about real terrorists. Why aren't the dems calling them on that?

    Markinsanfran | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:18 pm | #


    Menendez is not a beginner. He is a tough political fighter, having won many elections. He had spent years in the House -- he just transferred to the other side of the Hill...

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:18 pm | #


    The Digby diagnosis is right on as usual. Only four or five Dems with enough guts to back "Forward Feingold" or the Badger, or whatever nickname he gets.

    Even the ones who didn't like what he did, they should have had the sense to give "Russ the Ready" some cover and go after the Bu * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]es. As Digby said, a goold old pol would know how to do that. Especially after BushCo started the standard smear and distortion job against "Guts" Feingold.

    But my goodness, I read someplace that some Dem consultant said that things weren't properly prepared yet. After almost five years of these 100% bad news gents?

    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 6:19 pm | #


    based on how the Democratic party has acted during the past 5 years, I can see why alot of gays still keep registered as Republicans.. there doesn't appear to be much difference. Actually it might actually be better for gays to continue withint the GOP to try to push back whatever they can versus complete rollover from the Dems.
    steve talbert | 03.15.06 - 6:19 pm | #


    Feingold announces on Sunday that he is going to offer a censure resolution on Monday.

    The Dems had all the time in the world to figure out how to respond. What we say was a planned response --- they ducked.

    cowardly scum....
    paul lukasiak | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:19 pm | #


    The man is my pick for prez...with fitz as attorney Gen...{just dreaming}
    snuffy | 03.15.06 - 6:19 pm | #



    No sooner do I finish reading Digby than I find your take on it here.

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 6:19 pm | #

    Comment: Here's where I followed up with Wilson's comments about "F = = = off" and provided a link. I was attempting to be civil by saying, "You were nice.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:18 pm |

    You were very nice. Thank you. Could you say more about the other views you have on the DNC Fast Response team. #410740

    All: Have you heard of this before?
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:22 pm | #

    Comment: Here is the link I asked about -- I wanted to know why people are allowed to say "F = = = off" and everyone acting like it was completely normal.


    Comment: Notice here he refers to "my man Gonzalez" -- referring to AG Gonzalez.

    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald


    Constant: Why did you knock my man Gonzalez for in the last thread?
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 6:24 pm | #


    This is where I was banned. I responded thinking his previous comments above were actually genuine: I had no idea who he was, and asked.

    Yes, I responded to the effect of: "I thought you were friends with him;" or something like that. To the effect of: "I took what you were saying as was true."

    In hindsight, I suspect it was sarcasm, but didn't realize it at the time.

    There is a missing comment here.

    Notice this confirms: They said, "My man" Gonzalez -- I considered this to be confirmation they were in the RNC. -- That's when I posted a response.

    End Comment


    Pach -- we believe in rapid response :)
    jane hamsher | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:25 pm | #


    Those DLC-Dems can't decide whether or not to go to the bathroom without sticking their sorry fingers in the wind.

    We need to give them a wind they'll never forget.

    DLC: bu-bye.
    Splash | 03.15.06 - 6:25 pm | #


    paul -

    Exactly. They knew it was coming, they had plenty of warning and more than enough time to consider the motion.

    Besides, If it takes this long to pull five Democrats into the fold this thing is dead in the water already.
    cupholder | 03.15.06 - 6:25 pm | #


    "Sorry if he disturbed anyone's peaceful slumber, but we have a serious problem here".


    But only if you consider a concerted, ongoing assault on the Constitution a problem.

    Otherwise, sweet dreams.

    "What, me worry"?
    Sonoma | 03.15.06 - 6:25 pm | #


    Comment: Read this the next day: Who wants to read this? Why not provide a link so we can skip over it? [Sroll, scroll]

    A short "evangelical message of hope".

    Until recently I was on the faculty at Harvard University. As you may have heard, the President made some intemperate remarks, and the faculty held a "no confidence" vote in his leadership. [Not the time and place to discuss the actual controversy. Entirely beside the point here.]

    When we went into the room before the vote, I think it's fair to say that pretty much nobody thought that motion had any chance of passing. The sponsors were consistently accused of grandstanding. The faculty who introduced the vote publicly said beforehand they expected to lose with about one-third the vote.

    As you may have heard, the sponsors put it out there, and it passed. And now, a year later, the aforementioned president is gone. [Again, whether you agree with this result is beside the point.]

    The situations are not perfectly analagous (for instance, secret vs. open ballot.) And I'm not a wild-eyed optimist that thinks this proves that George W will be gone in a year if we just stand up to him. But there is a useful lesson.

    When you stand up for what you think is the right thing to do, and put it out there, all sorts of crazy things can happen. And some of them succeed beyond what you could reasonably have hoped for.

    Just thought we could all use a happy example :)
    Professor Foland | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #


    paul lukasiak --

    EXACTLY!!! Every single Senator SHOULD BE monitoring the Sunday morning programs, and Feingold gives them a 24+ hour head start on the resolution.

    Cripes, I'm blown away at their slowness and inability to see a telegraph. I want to lose faith, would be so easy, but I have kids and they need me to fight this complacency, this sleepwalking torpor. Time for a fresh batch of faxes.

    By the way: does anyone have a link to any article that documents Kerry's and Menendez' support for the resolution? Need them for a local party website, trying to make the ironclad case for complacent locals to get off their butts and call their Senators. Thanks.
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #


    Democrats have lost touch with their political instincts.

    That is so not true -- the very notion that Democrats have political instincts to lose is an oxymoron.

    Democrats used to have political instincts -- but other than Russ Finegold, none of the Beltway Dems seems to have a frickking clue.
    ck | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #


    Holy * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word], 202 comments on the Clooney Incident? Somebody anywhere let's get our * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] together, wasting energy among allies in wartime against fascism

    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm | #


    I've got a question maybe someone around here can answer...

    Seems to me the CW was that Rock-a-fellow and the Democratic leadership decided to put DiFi on the spygate subcommittee, a snub to Feingold.

    But is there any evidence that is true? It seems equally -- possibly even more -- likely that Feingold was asked and said "yeah, right." Why would he dream of being party to that subversion of justice?

    I think the Democratic leadership isn't being truthful when they claim this caught them off-guard. How could they be this unaware?

    And any claims they are making that this somehow distracts from other priorities and scandals are demonstrably false.

    So... anybody know conclusively one way or the other about Feingold and that stupid subcommittee?
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 6:27 pm | #


    OT, but not entirely
    I read Greenwald's piece on Kevin Drum after Jane or RH linked it (somewhere!?). Sounds like Drum is an enemy from within, but I don't know much about him.. except that he sounds like a beltway insider whose advice (if he's a "Dem") is the sort of thing Feingold is Not swallowing... not meaning to imply that Feingold ever listens to the guy. Anyway, I don't know if Kevin Drum has any kind of real influence-- if so, seems like he would be a great target for an "educational" FDL late night contest.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 6:27 pm | #


    Kevin Drum is a well-meaning muddled 'liberal' - i think it is fuzziness, not malevolence. he isnt the brightest bulb on the tree...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:29 pm | #


    ccmask - here's hoping you have the sight. ;-)

    Can you get a pic of Feingold in the Oval Office while you are at it?

    Here's something I do wonder about, bc it has bothered me so much. The Prosecutor who was pulled off the Abramoff investigation (Black).

    I haven't seen anyone doing or saying much on this, although I thought I read a little while back that there were some investigators in Guam looking into Abramoff related matters (or course, there were the matters Black had been investigating - in addition to him being pulled off)

    I just have to wonder what would happen if, on the 29th, Abramoff were to tie Rove to having Black pulled off. Wishful thinking?

    I have to believe that surely that would get someone's attention?

    Oh well, a girl can dream.

    John Casper - great letter below. Kudos.

    After looking at the Pew Poll, I was just that much more perplexed over the Dems who won't back Feingold. Not so much the abysmal numbers. More the descriptions.

    Three of the top four one were descriptions people were using for GWB were Incompetent, Idiot an Liar.

    Now - in the context of giving him the right to violate the Fourth Amendment and break the law, don't the Dems realize that most people see him as:

    1. Too incompetent to pick the right phones to tap;
    2. Too much of an idiot to do anything worthwhile with the information; and
    3. Too likely to be lieing when he says its only an "al-Qaeda calling" program.


    Final note - on the child porn convctions. It is a horrible situation and I am glad they have a crew together and are getting convictions and closing some things down. I read the USA today story. I was ok, except for the picture of Gonzales. How sad that when I saw that and the headline, I had to try to think of something other than Gonzale's toppick Yoo and his thoughts on crushing a child's testicles in front of their parent.

    There is so little that is not tainted in this White House. *s*
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 6:29 pm | #


    Comment This is where I followed up -- on Gonzelz with ccmask; I thought he was serious as being in the RNC. End

    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 6:24 pm |

    OK, so I didn't realize that Gonzalez was such a fine friend of yours.

    Does that mean you're
    A. With the rebellion against the Constitution; or

    B. You're just pretending to be with the RNC, but you like to defend the Constitution?

    Maybe the DNC fast response team can get some "really good advice" from Gonzalez-loser-chimp head.
    Constant | 03.15.06 - 6:30 pm | #

    Comment: Me still not clear on what the "fast response team" was -- never got a straight answer from Wilson; or from Gonzalez-lover.End


    why are governors visiting the troops? why are we paying for that?

    i'll take fitz' eyebrow over kaine's anyday.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:31 pm | #


    Digby is way off base on this one. I think the Democrats are ready to go to war with Wilson against the Kaiser. All they need is a little more time to get used to the idea.
    Hugh | 03.15.06 - 6:31 pm | #

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (click here if you haven't signed moveon's petition to support Feingold's censure resolution)
    Neal | 03.15.06 - 6:32 pm | #


    Two questions for the group:

    1. How do we make Dems stop using the "but there's an investigation" excuse? I heard it today from Murray's office and have seen it too * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing many times in the last 48 hours. The lack of investigation is what [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]ed Feingold off enough that he felt the need to push for censure.

    2. Just asking for a quick reality check., but was today's call volume to Senate offices the result of just the censure issue or were there other large groups calling about issues in the budget resolution?
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 6:32 pm | #


    I love Fitz. While the neo-cons make excuses about being allowed to out CIA agents, he's busting child porn rings.

    But the press conference with Abu must have been nteresting. "Psst, chief - thanks for supporting me busting these evil f**ks, but where the hell are the WH emails I requested? Huh?"
    narexbyrnes | 03.15.06 - 6:34 pm | #


    Feingold knows which side his bread is buttered on - and it ain't with the Vichy Dems.

    Why the hell should he have given them any kind of heads up? Each time he tries to rally them around the cause of guts, integrity and leadership, they cower like little girls. Patriot Act reauthorization? They screwed him, and us at the same time. He probably figured he only needs one or two betrayals from those [** constant changed: used to be, “jack” with a- then ss] , before he takes the lead and somes out in defense of the U.S. constitution on our behalf. They're too busy figuring out how to raise more corporate $ for their re-elections.

    They don't deserve any warning.
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 6:34 pm | #


    Sharkbabe; of the 202 many were kindly remarks regarding toast; there was also an offer regarding employment. I believe we are back on task now, for the most part.
    Dru | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    OT: and just how did the US benefit from going to war with the Kaiser or the King? An absolute total waste of resources. WW1 will find few defenders nowadays...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    What Democratic Party would he have consulted when even Reid and Pelosi can't even hit the same talking points?
    Nancy in NYC | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    Sorry to come back so soon, but I'm so steamed and all. IMO this is more than just whining that the Dems don't do whatever political activists and old time party precinct workers, etc, suddently decide they should do.

    Cheney, the more abject Presidential Scotty, Frist, Mehlmann, the usual crew, started smearing the Dems with the usual accusations of sympathizing with terrorists, declaring the US President the enemy, and crap like that qs soon as Rampaging Russ introduced the censure. Potentially very damaging false smears for the upcoming election, too, by the way.

    And Feingold made it clear that the censure was about Bush not following the law, and not following it for no good reason at all, and for potentially spying on US Citizens that had nothing to do with terrorism.

    So, I think, that after BushCo started their usual smear campaign, every Dem office holder should have hit back at that hard. Regardless of whether they thought Fearless Feingold did just the right thing at just the right time in just the right way, or not.

    That is a matter of simple self-respect. The Dems flunked that test again. Am I just a whining? Well, if you see these joke Democrats doing things over and over again that I think is very damaging to their chances in the next election, yeah, I guess I am just whining.

    I guess all the doorbells I rang, and phone calls I made, and late nights busting * * * [Constant changed: Originally a-word, ends with SS]getting people to polls was just whining too. I guess it was. They want me to help them come election time, maybe they should act like a political party that exists once in awhile and doesn't just sit there an allow itself to be defamed over and over again with no organized response at all.

    OK... I'm calm now.
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    Comment: read this the next day, "Thanks for the insight" -- after banning me? Well, VG can be civil and direct. OK. So you would prefer the comments posted directly here? There's not enough space.

    Professor Foland | 03.15.06 - 6:26 pm

    Thanks for the inside info the Harvard/ Summers episode(s). I followed the whole controversy closely from the get go because I took Summers' insults personally.

    Your point is an excellent one- and one that many people have voiced in different ways here at FDL. That is what got to me about the Kevin Drum article- the idea that Dems shouldn't fight battles unless they are sure they can win... this is total nonsense. Everytime someone stands up to fight- win or lose based on principles the ground gets shifted just a little, at the very least.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    Together We Can Do Better.

    Seriously, whoever came up with this worse than nothing pap, and whoever else sat around in a room with other actual grownup humans who can read and write, in the year 2005/6, having beheld years now of the absolute and total Bushco Ruination Train -

    I am not kidding, somebody give me a gun.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #


    Comment: This is a misrepresentation. They overstated the number. Credibility issue.

    sharkbabe said "Holy * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word], 202 comments on the Clooney Incident? Somebody anywhere let's get our * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] together, wasting energy among allies in wartime against fascism"
    Don't worry Sharkbabe, 181 of them were constant's.....
    ccmask | 03.15.06 - 6:36 pm | #


    Disagree here. But it seems like I am in the minority.

    When actions are fueled by emotions rather than reasoning, not always the best outcome.

    Timely article today that approaches just this subject: 2...ain584753.shtml
    um | 03.15.06 - 6:36 pm | #


    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:18 pm

    I was aware of Menendez's background- just found it interesting that Dems not even facing re election are running from Russ, and this guy is willing to risk his shiny new Senate seat ?
    And my limited understanding tells me the most junior member is the likely candidate for testing the winds ( lord knows our Dems never do that ) Regardless of what's behind it, I applaud the guy heartily, jes wonderin'

    btw, he was appointed by Corzine, so he is facing reelection, right?
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 6:37 pm | #



    Bush to unveil new national security strategy
    WASH. POST WEDS: As Bush drops to 33 percent in new poll (story), he will unveil a new national security strategy, focusing on "pre- emptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled in Iraq."
    me to me | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:37 pm | #


    "When people like this feel weak and small, they need to lash out, to re-establish their warrior credentials." -- Glenn Greenwald

    Trexxing? Does this mean change the comments?


    Paging Dr. Trexler.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 6:37 pm | #


    The democratic response is just nonsense. After Lewinsky and all these years of republican lawlessness, censure should have been at the tip of every democratic tongue in the country. Why don't they just come out and say it: "No one could have foreseen a censure resolution."
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 6:38 pm | #


    Oh, what a bunch of whiners. Feingold's censure resolution caught them off guard and is distracting them from...well, what, exactly? Their probing investigation of the warrantless wiretapping? Keeping radical right-wingers off the Supreme Court? Protecting a woman's right to choose? Getting our young men and women out of Iraq? Closing down Gitmo?

    Memo to Dems: We (your base) don't see you doing much beyond cowering under your desks. If you aren't going to support Russ's resolution, could you please tell us what, precisely, you don't agree with in it? It's only a few pages long. Just point to the part that you think isn't on the mark.
    Frank Probst | 03.15.06 - 6:38 pm | #


    Oh and I like it here in the old familiar digs, I don't like the new place at all, it's cold, have I mentioned that.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:39 pm | #


    the man thinks he is the person that is to be the usher of the biblical rapture
    me to me | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:39 pm | #


    It has been suggested (and I've done it myself) that any email you receive from the DNC, the DCCC or any other Democratic fundraising plea be met with "When you support the Feingold Resolution, then I'll support you."

    I gotta tell you -- it feels pretty damned good.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:40 pm | #


    yup - Menendez is up for election this fall, i believe. If he thought he might lose the vote, he certainly wouldnt have signed on with the Censure Resolution. NJ tends liberal so an anti-Bush thingie wouldnt hurt.
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:40 pm | #


    "Could it be that Democrats are finally emboldened against a President with a 33% approval rating?"


    I have been railing against "Gentle Ken" Salazar - US Senate (Casper Milktoast Party) Colorado - for several years.

    The sad part is, his brother, John Salazar (CM Party - Colorado 3rd Congressional district) is my US Representative.

    Catholic culture of guilt emasculates again!
    Mac in Colo | 03.15.06 - 6:40 pm | #


    Don't worry Sharkbabe, 181 of them were constant's.....

    ha ha


    my inner Pach reflexively says, eyes on the prize people
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:41 pm | #


    Comment: More comments of weeping -- I could offer them hope, but I've been banned.End

    me to me | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:37 pm | #

    pride goeth before the fall and he's falling. not helpful, but the part of the world that isn't weeping, is chuckling. too bad most of us are weeping.......
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:41 pm | #


    Wesgpc - I thnk that Jon Stewart's take last night with Paul Hackett made the very same point. Funny, in the Stranger in a Strange Land sense of funny.

    Together We Can Do Better

    looking over shoulder

    Can I admit that sometimes I've done better alone?
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 6:41 pm | #


    Good idea, watertiger.
    jane hamher | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:42 pm | #


    WW1 will find few defenders nowadays...

    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm |

    If there had been no WWI, then WWII would have WWI and everyone would have been confused.
    Hugh | 03.15.06 - 6:42 pm | #


    YAY! Judith Miller is back in the news. God I missed her. Actually, I missed both Jane and Arianna's posts about Lil' Judy.

    Look's like Libby's sending her a little love.
    Stacyb | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:42 pm | #


    It has been suggested (and I've done it myself) that any email you receive from the DNC, the DCCC... be met with "When you support the Feingold Resolution, then I'll support you."
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:40 pm | #

    * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. Now I gotta go through the garbage.
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 6:44 pm | #


    Comment: "Offer our support" -- sure, we're doing that with the 603 effort, but I can't post.

    Conyers has 30 cosponsors for his call to investigate impeachable offenses - I'd like to see us offer him the same support we're giving to Feingold and censure.

    Watching Marcos on KO - nice to see him interviewed but disturbing, esp today, to hear him say we can wait until 2008 to get rid of Bush ... the same day we learned that 5 Iraqi children were shot in the head by US troops
    (Erdla is holding down the fort while mark gets a chance to rest and regain his health)

    , the same day a General John Abizaid talked for the first time about permanent bases in Iraq http:// informationclearinghouse....rticle12340.htm,

    and W's crew cranks up the plans for Iran ixportal.html

    maybe Kos can wait but the people of the middle east cannot.
    siun | 03.15.06 - 6:44 pm | #


    Yeah I hope we can kick Katherine Harris to the curb.

    She was on Hannity just now. She plans to spend 10 million of her own money that her father left her for the Senate race. She is staying in.

    Rally the troops!
    MsAnnaNOLA | 03.15.06 - 6:45 pm | #


    to me the salient point is that the Dems, having followed the *strategists'* direction have lost the White House after 8 years of virtually unparalleled economic growth, faild to regain it four years later when anyone paying attention could see that the Republican's were ineffective and executing poorly.
    Now, after the President admits committing a crime on National television, high level staffers are being indicted and arrested, the war is going down the tubes, two 'rogue nations' are flaunting nuclear arms...
    mack | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:45 pm | #


    Pelosi is absolutely useless.
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 6:45 pm | #


    to add insult to injury, W is transferring 'temporarily' 800 additional troops into Iraq...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:46 pm | #


    Pointing out the obvious....Isn't the senate minority "leader" supposed to lead? I miss Tom Daschle, who by the way, coached Harry Reid on invoking Rule 21 late last year.
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:47 pm | #


    Comment: Rude.

    10 million? My god, her breasts will require their own zip code if she keeps this up.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:47 pm | #


    Comment: "The real fight" -- how can you fight if you don't know your allies?

    Thanks Dru also re last thread - I just can't stand the idea of wasting one iota of energy on infighting given what we're up against - it's insane - the powers of every one of us, celebrity or nobody, must be totally engaged in the real fight.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:48 pm | #


    in addition to Grandpa's money, Katherine Harris' husband is a wealthy appliance importer -- both are multimillionaires.
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:49 pm | #


    Yeah I hope we can kick Katherine Harris to the curb.

    She was on Hannity just now. She plans to spend 10 million of her own money that her father left her for the Senate race. She is staying in.

    Rally the troops!
    MsAnnaNOLA | 03.15.06 - 6:45 pm | #

    Thank you, God.
    narexbyrnes | 03.15.06 - 6:50 pm | #


    RBG, wrt your questions
    "1. How do we make Dems stop using the "but there's an investigation" excuse?"
    IMO the dynamic is this: Feingold states:“No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law.”
    WaPo and Bloomberg frame the Censure resolution as a "debate on terror."
    Where's the debate on terror?
    IMO it's the unbelieveable lack of traction in the media on this issue that causes the lemmings to hesitate. That's no excuse, they're all grown-ups. This is the goddamned U.S. Constitution, we're talking about, not to mention the "rule of law."
    You asked "2. Just asking for a quick reality check., but was today's call volume to Senate offices the result of just the censure issue or were there other large groups calling about issues in the budget resolution."
    RBG, as per usual I think you nailed it, although I forgot about it until I read your questions. Mimikatz had a great post about this over at tnh
    "Senate punts on rising debts"
    I suspect a lot of Senators spent a lot more of Sunday afternoon on this budget vote than they did on Feingold's Censure resolution. I think the vote is tomorrow, and then I think they recess for St. Patrick's day recess.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 6:51 pm | #


    My god, her breasts will require their own zip code if she keeps this up.

    Gotta catch up on the tred and don't know what this is in regard to (KH?), but you LOL me anyway wt
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:51 pm | #


    siun -those links just depressed the hell out me.

    I am very glad you posted the gorillasguides - I had lost that link. I have to hope that the story of the 11 killings is wrong, but I just have no faith left.

    I really do have to wonder if Pace's "no" response to the evidence of Iran as supplier is bc Bush really is pushing to start something and it's the Gen's "still small voice" trying mild dissausion?
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 6:53 pm | #


    Pelosi is absolutely useless.

    Yeah shoe, wtf happened.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:53 pm | #


    So any takers on my question? Does anybody have evidence that the Dems didn't ask Feingold to be on that Intelligence subcommittee... or evidence that they did and told them to stick it?
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 6:53 pm | #


    Comment: They admit they were nagging.

    are we sure the nagging Constant isn't the nagging Stanley Rosenthal?? :lol:

    They sound identical in their repetitiveness.
    elroy | 03.15.06 - 6:54 pm | #


    She plans to spend 10 million of her own money that her father left her for the Senate race. She is staying in.

    Yeah and yeah. Give it to me baby.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:54 pm | #

    me to me | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:37 pm | #

    was anybody able to open that story about bush's new national security blitzkrieg? I couldn't get it to open--anybody have a link to the story itself?
    The Copy Desk | 03.15.06 - 6:55 pm | #


    Wilson 46201-- I cried/gagged when i read this today.

    U.S. to send extra soldiers to Iraq for Iraqi holiday

    Sounds like they were invited, eh?
    (from USA today)
    angie | 03.15.06 - 6:55 pm | #


    Thought you'd get a kick out of this, from new court documents.

    In arguing for keeping classified information away from the defense, Fitzgerald has noted in court papers that the underlying criminal activity Libby is charged with is the failure to adequately safeguard sensitive classified information.
    AP 3/15/06

    pollyusa | 03.15.06 - 6:56 pm | #



    there has been some . . . enhancement . . . to Mrs. Harris' physique.

    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 6:57 pm | #


    Cozumel -

    "senate minority "leader" supposed to lead?"

    A political oracle once said: "Leadership is defined as figuring out where the people want to go, and getting out in front of them."

    Feingold knows how to lead. It just takes the tick, tick, tick of time.

    An elephant is eaten just one bite at a time.
    Mac in Colo | 03.15.06 - 6:59 pm | #


    Dover B - I think the entire Congress is the mad hatter's tea party at this point. Feingold is saying * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word] this * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word].
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:59 pm | #


    I suggest we all keep a close eye on this report about bushies "new" national security policy" Pre-emptive means we start bombing the hell out of the rest of the middle east...and could see other unspecified bad things coming down the pike....tip of hat to 'Me'
    snuffy | 03.15.06 - 7:00 pm | #


    I got a mailing from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee today asking for a donation. I used their postage paid envelope to send them a note telling them that after I got their mailing I went online and gave my money to Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund where it will do more good.
    Alvord | 03.15.06 - 7:00 pm | #


    pollyusa -- that's hilarious.
    jane hamher | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:02 pm | #


    Comment: Look at this: “I'm not kidding -- someone give me a gun.”

    I am not kidding, somebody give me a gun.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 6:35 pm | #

    here honey, it's only a 410, but it should work on those squirrels

    Together We Can Do Better
    hey, have you tried this New Coke ?
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 7:03 pm | #


    Pelosi stepped out for a lunch break from which she has never returned.

    I like Feingold's move all the more now that it's clear he didn't get permission from all the old fogheads. Russ wants to put on his own pj's, thank God.
    meta | 03.15.06 - 7:04 pm | #


    Sharkbabe, I think you are right. Just wondering if anybody can say for sure. Seems like everybody was complaining that he didn't get asked to be on it.

    I really shake my head when I see Democrats pointing out that most Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Do they think that doesn't include them? This idea that they can sit back and watch the Republicans screw up -- at no cost to them or any of the rest of us -- is myopic and entirely lazy.

    Feingold seems to be one of the only people who gets it.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 7:06 pm | #


    I hadn’t actually seen Katherine Harris for quite a while and just had to take a peak during her Hannity show tonight. Forget the silicon, what I found fascinating was how appropriate that Katherine Helmond/Brazil graphic was that was used here last week.
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 7:06 pm | #


    Feingold knows how to lead. It just takes the tick, tick, tick of time.

    Speaking of leadership, when I called Sen. Harkin's office today to confirm that he was backing censure and then to thank him for it, I asked the staffer to tell him he is a leader, a patriot and a good Democrat. Of course, Feingold is the real leader here, but it looks like Harkin broke the ice in terms of backing him. As near as I could tell.
    The Copy Desk | 03.15.06 - 7:06 pm | #


    Hugh at 6:31 -- took me 3 reads to understand, but that is ROTFLM*O. It was the word Kaiser that finally make the lighbulb go off.
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 7:07 pm | #


    Pelosi bugs me more and more-- she panders and does not answer serious questions when put to her. I understand that the House rules are fractured, but she giggles and licks her lips more than she speaks out. there, i said it.

    I heard a report on tv today describing K. Harris as glamorous..........huh?
    angie | 03.15.06 - 7:08 pm | #


    How The * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word] Could We Do Worse
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 7:08 pm | #


    our society is so goddamn * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing corrupt - K Harris on a horse putting forth her ridiculous [Constant changed: used to be dumb then a- word with double ss; second word was female body area below neck] job - she should have been shunned forever by all civilized people five years ago
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 7:09 pm | #


    Does anyone know why Kennedy is not supporting Feingold? Has he given any indication at all?
    walkingg | 03.15.06 - 7:09 pm | #


    elroy | 03.15.06 - 6:54 pm | #

    they sound like * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing moonies or scientologists

    I know it's just letters jammed togther on my screen but can you say affect: flat ?

    unlike Mrs. Harris of course
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 7:09 pm | #


    anyone see this byron york piece about why warrantless spying is legal?(if not already posted): yo...00603150741.asp

    INAL, but I question any assertion that the authority of the Review Court of the FISA Court allows ruling on sweeping permanent conditions like "inherent authority" to bypass any need to apply for a warrant. Something about that doesn't pass the smell test.

    I understand the purpose of the Review Court is to rule on a case by case basis if ever needed, not to render invalid the very function of the court whose cases it reviews.
    Muzzy | 03.15.06 - 7:11 pm | #


    Over the next week, if we keep it up, I would not be surprised to pick off a couple more cosigners to censure.

    They will come in small bits at first, and it will take some time.

    And don't get me * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing started on Pelosi.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:12 pm | #


    Any of the 19 so-called Dem Senators that backed a proposal to censure Clinton that do NOT back Feingold's proposal to censure Shrub ("hi there, Joe!") should be "excommunicated" from the Democratic party. There is no difference between them and any (other) Republican. Any (of us) who have these Senators representing them should give the Senator a piece of our mind -- which would triple their IQ!!!
    sonate | 03.15.06 - 7:13 pm | #


    You know, I don't know why. Must be 'cuz I'm tired.

    But I just got the joke with the graphic for this post.

    Spew, spew!
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:13 pm | #


    at worst, we will have about as many Democrats on board for Censure as we had for the filibuster...most likely the identical Senators too!
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:14 pm | #


    Seen elsewhere:

    People will vote for an incompetent corrupt leader over an incompetent corrupt follower any day.


    pollyusa - what I liked about the link was it shows just how much Cheney is really involved.

    When they criticized the prosecution for speaking out of both sides of its mouth is when I knew.

    Who, beside Cheney and The Penquin do you know that only uses ONE side of their mouth to speak?

    I rest my case.
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 7:15 pm | #


    Also, they're a bunch of control freaks and we upset their little strategy.

    Enough! DLC Bu-bye.
    Who are the geniuses behind the scenes? Who are these "consultants" and why do these losers call the shots?

    I get 2 fundraisers today from the DCCC today, one with a letter from Pelosi, one with a letter from Hilary, asking for support ! and not WORD ONE about Russ. Id say the DCCC is leaking front-group ooze right about now.

    Whatever leverage can be obtained over the situation has clearly got to be seized focibly.
    Splash | 03.15.06 - 7:15 pm | #


    Jeez...we in the blogosphere knew about this days in advance. If the Dem leadership didn't know about it then something is the matter with them and their "intelligence" gathering. If they didn't know, they are out of touch with what is going on in the street and if they were in touch, then they were being passive-aggressoids for not calling Feingold up and talking with him.

    I think that Dean knows/knew the energy that is out here in Blog-i-stan. I think Senator Feingold knows. Maybe a handful of other others. Those that don't understand what is happening out here, ignore it at their peril.
    mayan | 03.15.06 - 7:16 pm | #


    do you think that the plastic surgeons attached the perma lift to Katherine's new boobies to her right eyebrow and cruel lips? I heard somebody on today tv say she was "the glamorous Katherine Harris" huh? archive...rine_harris.jpg
    angie | 03.15.06 - 7:18 pm | #


    OT but mentioned on a previous thread re: the problems with the budget bill and having different versions. Interesting article, tho not sure what to make of it, since the author is from AEI. ==="Founded in 1943, the American Enterprise Institute is today the single most influential think tank in America and the country's main bastion of neoconservatism.=== 1431
    ===Will Scalia Blow the Whistle on This Constitutional Farce?
    To those unfamiliar with the issue and controversy, the House and Senate passed a major budget bill by the narrowest of margins in both chambers, including a tie-breaking vote in the Senate case by Vice President Cheney, but it turned out that the bill passed the House and Senate in different forms.

    This was not simply a transcription error, a misplaced comma or a misspelled word — something that would be plenty serious — but a $2 billion discrepancy that arose over a last-minute compromise between the two chambers over the time allowed for the rental of medical equipment for Medicare patients. After the House had passed its version and the discrepancy became known, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) unilaterally changed the House bill to match the Senate’s and then sent it on to President Bush, which he signed to great fanfare.

    But a seventh-grade civics student who has done his or her homework would immediately know that what the president signed is not a law. Laws, as Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution makes clear, must pass both chambers of Congress in identical form and then be signed by the president....

    Hastert and Frist are unlikely to budge, despite Democrats’ fulminations on the issue. But a suit has been filed by a private citizen contesting the act’s legality. It may get to the Supreme Court. If it does, we will see how strict Scalia’s adherence is to his own professed judicial philosophy — and what term he would apply to leaders who don’t understand that the Constitution says something and doesn’t say other things.===
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 7:18 pm | #


    I think York needs heap big haircut.

    BTW - when you call your Senators asking them to sign on, ask yourself: Did I sign on as a citizen co-sponsor?

    If the answer is no - go here:

    http://www.progressivepatriotsfu...ion/ censure0306
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 7:19 pm | #


    I hope we're in a thing here people, with Feingold. He's a handsome articulate mother * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]er. Against the war, against the Patriot Act, against the whole Drunky & Dickhead Let's Ruin Our Nation Industrial Complex.

    A (totally battered) nation turns its lonely eyes...

    Let's make this guy happen.

    I've seen at Digby comments and Left Coaster this person starting a movement to flood Feingold's WI offices with snail mail love and also small bucks, just to make a show. I've done it and if you haven't go to Left Coaster.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 7:20 pm | #


    Me - Here is the article that I believe Rawstory was trying to link to from WaPo. wp...6031502297.html

    ANd remember, not that I am alone in this (it not all about me), but I have posted often about the Repugs having only one trick and why they only have one trick, so once again we are going to see that trick. But, the trick doesn't work once the audience knows how it works and that there really is no such thing as magic.

    Rawstory just linked back to its homepage.

    Feingold's strategy has been brilliant, no other word for it, all the vapor being spewed is just that - people in both parties with a spine to stand on. If other Dem's dont realize that not only is it the right thing to do, but that it is the winning thing to do, then they don't deserve our support.

    Also, it may be off topic, but as a nom de weasel for Joementum, how about just plain little joe - and yes, the lower case is important. I'm thinking more Lou Reed ("little joe never once gave it away, everybody had to pay and pay, a hustle here and a hustle there......") than Bonanza, but either way.

    Consider me agnostic on Clooney/Huffington. I do have opinions on it, of course, I'm a universe after all, but still, there seem like better issues to devote a lot of energy to.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 7:20 pm | #


    ".....without a spine....." DAMMIT.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 7:22 pm | #


    I highly recommend this piece by Armando in censure: 145
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:23 pm | #


    angie--re: katherine harris--

    this link shows how she looked when she was secretary of state. It pretty much eliminates any doubt as to whether she has been "enhanced"... 3DN
    neurophius | 03.15.06 - 7:25 pm | #


    Mary ... depresses me too ... more and more each day

    the killing of the Iraqi children is coming from several sources I believe and Erdla's sources through mark and du are very reliable ...

    and we can't even get a censure vote let alone support the house reps aiming at impeachment
    siun | 03.15.06 - 7:25 pm | #


    I heard somebody on today tv say she was "the glamorous Katherine Harris" huh?

    Egads, angie! Were you looking at the screen? Is it possible the person was wearing a big fat smirk, and made air quotes around the word "glamorous"?

    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 7:26 pm | #


    Pelosi was made leader because:

    a) everybody realized Gephardt was on his way out
    b) she's a she - and they wanted to make a point
    c) she had been a good fighter in the 2000-2004 years, proving how weak Gephardt had become after House Dems were now spending years in the wilderness post-Contract w/ Amer.

    But there's a differnece between being a great bo'sun, and being the captain of the ship. IMO she's still so wowed that she got the top spot, and so afraid of losing corporate financing, she forgot that she was supposed to lead. And there are male dems in the House who were [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]ed she got the leadership role, they connive behind her back.

    Russ is a leader. Reid is not. And Pelosi is at heart a follower. And apparently, so are all the other dems, minus the five who have dared to stand with Russ.
    shoephone | 03.15.06 - 7:26 pm | #


    Money quote from Armando:

    What we must NOT do is what too many in the blogs are already doing - declaring defeat; calling Dems cowards and worse; condemning them instead of cajoling them.

    When we do this we declare defeat TODAY! IF we have lost already, there is no chance of success a week from now, a month from now. Senator Feingold has welcomed the fact that his resolution will be taken up in the Judiciary Committee. We should also. We should understand that only the first act of this drama has unfolded. There is more to come.

    Declaring defeat NOW let's them off the hook now. It's not a question of trusting them, as one friend of mine wrote to me today. It's a question of understanding and thinking about what will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on them in the battle to come.

    I submit that declaring them a lost cause TODAY is not only not effective in this fight, it is harmful. Before we decry the defeatism of our Democratic officials it is best that we avoid it ourselves.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:27 pm | #


    Feindude & censure pickin up steam, ever so gradually. Every single shred of steam is HUGE in this neocon chimp shut-up-&-die-peasant soviet political culture.
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 7:28 pm | #


    Katherine Harris is staying in!

    Just when I was starting to think there was no G*d...

    The state of our nation: a corrupt Congresswoman who stole our country's presidential election is running for Senate, and that's the good news.
    Professor Foland | 03.15.06 - 7:28 pm | #


    Democrats' real slogan: Together, we can do nothing.
    Cujo359 | 03.15.06 - 7:29 pm | #


    These days, I never see Mrs. Harris without thinking of the late Great Charles Pierce as Bette Davis
    cbl | 03.15.06 - 7:30 pm | #


    I feel like Reid is running out of gas or something. What did happen to the Dem rapid response team?
    molee | 03.15.06 - 7:31 pm | #


    What we must NOT do is what too many in the blogs are already doing - declaring defeat; calling Dems cowards and worse; condemning them instead of cajoling them.

    If I may: STFU, Armando.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:31 pm | #


    "But I just got the joke with the graphic for this post."
    Agree, I was laughing before I started reading.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 7:32 pm | #


    It's a question of understanding and thinking about what will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on them in the battle to come.

    Sorry, I'm getting heated up all over again, but this "keeping the powder dry" argument is really tiresome.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:34 pm | #



    I'm surprised by your reaction, and so I'm curious.

    I'd be happy to hear more of what you think.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:35 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:34 pm | #

    I don't know, but maybe I did his diary a disservice by pulling one part out, without the rest of his context. Maybe not.

    But I'm still interested in your thoughts.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:36 pm | #


    siun, Mary, others, wrt the 5 Iraqi children, it is an important talking point that Dana Priest made several weeks ago in one of her WaPo online chats. We are creating a lot more "terrorists" than we are killing, according to all the intelligence people she talks with.
    I don't like the word "terrorist," but we continue to give people more and more reasons to really really hate us.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 7:36 pm | #


    narexbyrnes | 03.15.06 - 6:34 pm | #

    100% right, I thought I saw Fitz with Abu Cucaracha Gonzo...
    Harry | 03.15.06 - 7:37 pm | #


    omg - pelosi - because of gephardt - god I'd forgetten his inept name - these names - daschle - etc etc

    all of them sitting around producer Karl's table with their scripts, hoping to do their best work for this project of Karl's

    jesus the * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 7:37 pm | #


    Who, beside Cheney and The Penquin do you know that only uses ONE side of their mouth to speak?
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 7:15 pm | #

    Edward G. Robinson? “Ahhh, whadaya think a your Moses nowwwww” ... Must be a gangster thing.
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 7:37 pm | #



    So Armando is saying that pointing out defeatism is, in itself defeatist? Isn't Armando being a double-secret-super defeatist by claiming blogs are being defeatest about defeatism... :)

    He may be right, but some of us (me) are tired of feeling like the party leaders are a bunch of school children who need to be sweet-talked into doing their f'ing jobs and defending the f'ing Constitution.

    Watched "Glengarry Glenross" last night... great line (of many) by Al Pacino:


    That column Digby referenced was just a litany of bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] excuses, a few of which directly contradict one another.

    They wanted to use this week to tout their new ports initiative... and they planned on pivoting away from the ports issue.

    Not buying any of it.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 7:37 pm | #


    neurophius | 03.15.06 - 7:25 pm | #
    she should have stuck with that look and aged gracefully and even with a little help, i have no problem with that. but she gave in to her inner demons and the wish to dominate the ill informed and her face is way twisted and her enhancement is fine for those that care about that sort of thing. but hey, ugly creeps out in amazing ways, especially when you're a millionaire rethug intent on taking your country on a hellish ride by your own notoriety.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 7:39 pm | #


    Armando quotes diby in his diary and gives him full props.

    Do me a personal favor, because I'm really interested in everyone's thoughts:

    Read the whole armando diary, if you have not already. Then please come back and educate me.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:39 pm | #


    look at the timing! tonight is just Wednesday night - Feingold dropped this Censure bombshell around noon on Sunday. We just started calling on Monday morning. Five have flipped already and more will. Things are percolating in DC... Congress is taking a 'district work break' in a coupla days. They will be hearing from the voters back home. More will flip. the Preznit's got 1000 days left in his term - censure will become an issue!
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:40 pm | #



    Given what I read, it sounds like Armando is telling us to play nice. We've all seen what playing nice gets us.

    The deafening silence that met Feingold's speech on Tuesday set me off (so much so that I actually WROTE a post about it! With just ONE photo!). The Democrats have consistently rolled over and exposed their bellies to this Administration, and while Armando is not suggesting we do that, it sounds like he's extolling the virtues of the high road.

    It doesn't work.

    Maybe I'm completely off-base here, but you're talking about a President with a 33% approval rating running an incredibly unpopular war, and we're supposed to play nice.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:40 pm | #


    I feel like Reid is running out of gas or something. What did happen to the Dem rapid response team?

    Yeah and what happened to that phase 2 investigation thingy he made such a stance about? Bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word], total bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word].

    Feingold, people. Only thing happening.

    He's handsome, America. What are we waiting for?
    Sharkbabe | 03.15.06 - 7:41 pm | #


    It's gettin a little nervous out there. Yesterday, Bush makes a speech claiming that the Iranians are supplying weapons for the insurgency in Iraq- and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs immediately steps up and contradicts him..

    Tomorrow, Bush is goin to release a 49 page document reminding us that pre-emptive strikes are the policy of the nation- and mentioning Iran and North Korea..

    The White House has been issuing a steady drumbeat of cries about Iran-

    Tonight on Tweety- Buchanan and Tweety discuss the likelihood of a strike on Iran to raise Bush's poll numbers..

    I'm starting to not like this A LOT.
    rwcole | 03.15.06 - 7:42 pm | #


    Valley Girl: I'm one of the folks who linked to the "two chambers, two budgets in one year" story. Ornstein is not a wingnut and has integrity. AEI was not always a shill for neocons and used to have much more integrity. Ornstein is from that side of AEI. The GOP is trying to call the discrepancy a typo. I think if Ornstein thinks it might be an issue, people should pay attention.

    Hey, Colbert (or Daily Show) had Ornstein on and didn't make too much fun of him. And the ex Redd-Hedd, Ms. Christy Smith, linked to a report by him with a recommendation. He can't be too bad, even if rather conservative by my standards.
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 7:42 pm | #


    Pat Buchanan on Hardball today said the Dem's "doing nothing" is a strategy in itself, and a good one, i.e. let the repugs implode. I agree with practically nothing he says policy wise but he's very savvy politically IMO.
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:42 pm | #


    Well, we out our own operatives, we sell our ports to smuggling cartels, we get failing grades for terrorism preparedness, but in the name of national security we do manage to prevent those traitorous gays from getting security clearances, because clearly they'd sell out out to OBL without the slightest hesitation to further the global cause of rainbow pride... who the heck comes up with these policies?????

    Associated Press | KATHERINE SHRADER | March 15, 2006 at 10:12 AM

    The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.
    Blub | 03.15.06 - 7:42 pm | #


    watertiger: and who have just been vilely smeard *once again for the thousandth time* by a bunch of liars.

    And they do not defend themselves or one of their own.
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 7:44 pm | #


    Muzzy - York is laughably, unbelievably WRONG.

    I know nothing about him, but please - someone tell me he is NOT a lawyer.

    Please dear lord don't tell me someone got a license who doesn't even know dicta from - other things that start with d. ;)

    BTW - the guy that DOJ had pretty much fill the Judiciary Committee in on In Re Sealed Case was Kris - the guy that the had the story about last week bc his emails (he had left DOJ and was/is with Time) with DOJ Atty (Elwood?) after the info came out in December were released under a FOIA request.

    The article also said that he provided to journalists, when his emails came out, a legal memorandum.

    In any event, the appellate decision that York relies upon a) did not actually address the President's rights independent from FISA to wiretap since that question was not before the court in any shape or fashion; b) could not have addressed the PResident's actual program bc IT was not before the court and the judges were not briefed on it; c) does not deal with the issue of the conflict between the PResident's inherent rights without enabling or limiting legislation v. teh PResident's rights when confined by on point legislation; d) define "foreign surveillance" which, in the only cases addressing it at lower levels have only involved surveillance of foreign nationals in the US - not surveillance of American citizens on American soil by an American Agency; and e) doesn't deal at all with Bill of Rights and Fourth Amendment arguments bc, once again - they were not in front of the court.

    Here's a very lightweight surface explanation of what WAS at issue in the In Re Sealed Case case.

    Bc the standards for getting a wiretap for "intelligence surveillance" under FISA were, in essence, easier and used a different analysis than the standards for getting a wiretap in a criminal investigation, there had been an issue as to whether or not the information obtained under an intel wiretap could be used in a criminal prosecution and at the AG level the old thought was probably not.

    As a result, they put into place a set of requirements that put up a "wall" and prevented those who were getting info under intel wiretaps (FBI) from sharing information with those who were doing criminal prosecution (DOJ). In connection with the Patriot Act revisions, there were some changes that were intended to lower the wall and make it easier to share information.

    HOWEVER, the FISA judges themselves apparently still had some reservations as to whether this was appropriate - letting criminal investigators have access to info that they could not have legally obtained through their criminal investigations.

    The FISA judges have the right, under FISA, to put limitations on how a warrant is dealt with and how the information can be used. WHile this was probably meant to be done on a case by case basis, the FISA judges went ahead and put into effect something like "standing" or routine limitations that helped keep the wall up.

    This is what went up on appeal - whether the standing limitations were judicially undoing what the Patriot Act revisions had tried to address (which they were) and whether the FISA judges were correctly re-establishing the wall or not.

    IRSC decided that they should NOT have put those standing limitations in place - that's it (ok, not necessarily "it" and I did a crappy job explaining but ...) The case has nothing to do with wether or not the President can wiretap outside of FISA for intel purposes; has nothing to do with trying to figure out if domestic agencies spying domestically on domestics is domestic surveillance (which is already covered at the Supreme Court level by Katz and Keith case and it is settled that a warrant is REQUIRED); and does not ever touch on Youngstown issues involving President's rights without statute v. President's rightw in face of limiting statuet.

    Finally, and imo as I harp on most importantly, IRSC does not address the Fourth Amendment and Bill of RIghts arguments that - from Ex Parte Milligan, establish that even in a state of martial law, if the civil courts are open and operating - the PResident may NOT suspend any part of the 4th, 5th or 6th amendments.

    He's an idiot - please don't tell me he's an idiot with a JD!

    Of all the arguments anyone wants to try to make for the program - tell me they have more than the dicta in In Re Sealed Case?!?
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 7:44 pm | #


    Pat Buchanan on Hardball today said the Dem's "doing nothing" is a strategy in itself, and a good one, i.e. let the repugs implode.

    Y'know, at this point, the Republicans have about a kilometer of rope with which to hang themselves, and they haven't yet. That's not to say that they won't, but I certainly don't want to wait around.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:44 pm | #


    I'm surprised by your reaction, and so I'm curious.
    I'd be happy to hear more of what you think.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:35 pm | #
    Scroll down to:
    Dear DLC, DNC and Senate idiots
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 7:45 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:40 pm | #

    Did you read the whole diary or just my excerpt?

    For myself, I find myself simultaneously in wholehearted agreement with Glenn and Digby and Armando:

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.c...cision- and.html 145 2...246500620393659
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:45 pm | #


    I don't hear Armando arguing for doing nothing. Quite the opposite.

    Thanks for the link, Bullgoose. I'll read it now.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:47 pm | #


    it strikes me that this is, actually, a perfect moment for them all to rally righteously. clever russ has devised a case which is all about THE LAW. It's not a sexy case; there's absolutely nothing partisan about it (fundamentally) because, it doesn't - really, when you pay attention for more than thirty seconds - require an opinion. It's an open and shut case that can be concisely presented by russ doing his very best sam waterston imitation.

    it's also a perfect moment to remind the voters that, perhaps, we shouldn't be so * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]in' eager to elect idiots who might be fun at a barbecue when we need people who are able to think fast and understand the rules all at the same time. dick durbin didn't have his heart in it, but he was able to make the great prosecutor, specter, look foolish because, really - they have nothing with which to defend themselves.

    if each and every democrat in congress doesn't stake out his/her claim on being different from the loathed (pick your poll) republicans, then they should be made to understand that many of us will prefer the underfunded, local high school teacher who loves the Constitution (or the internationally famous actor/talkshow host/entrepreneur) who is running on some obscure party's ticket - and we might even get some of them elected.
    DeeLuzon | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:47 pm | #



    Buchanan also suggested Bush could attack Iran (in October) as a way to regain support! That's how bad he sees it evidently! ; )
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:49 pm | #



    I agree entirely with that link you directed me to and I see absolutely nothing in Armando's diary that constradicts it.

    If you can find it, I'm open to seeing where I missed it. I'm not just saying that: I am.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:50 pm | #


    Comment: Why are you wasting your time "reacting" to what the RNC is or is not doing; why not simply move boldly on the larger issues the RNC cannot stop.

    watertiger, Pachacutec, re Buchanan: I think the Dems MUST actively and aggressively respond when the GOP smears them. Not to do so is very damaging politically -people who do not have time or interest in politics judge parties on the basis of that kind of back-and-forth.

    And on some thing Bu * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]es are doing, the damage to country is so great, Dems really should speak out, regardless of political tactics.
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 7:50 pm | #


    I do agree with Armando on this point -- just wailing that our leaders are losers gets us -- well, not sure.

    But demanding our leaders fight Bush on every corner with every scandal is real. If Reid did not want to commit to backing the censure, then he sure could have given a fiery speech about accountability and how are we, the Congress, going to make sure he doesn't break laws that are meant to protect its citizens.

    That is the argument, and is the one that Kos gave on Keith's show. Armando is calling for us not to give up on the censure because the dems are wobbling all over the place -- he is asking that we keep after them.

    Or at least that was the point I took away from it. I have always been against walking away from the dem party as tempting as it is. And admittedly I take my lead from Howard Dean.

    One day he had enough and stood up and wanted his party and his country back. And he is still going at it. Do we have the spines to stand up and continue to demand accountability when either we are being told to sit down and shut up, or told it is no use and we should all find a new horse. I intend to stay and fight.
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 7:50 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:44 pm | #

    And all the links I linked agree with you and Not Nazi Pat.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:51 pm | #


    What shoulda happened immediately when Feingold announced censure:

    1. Group photo of all Democratic Senators (no, not Lieberman) in front of the White House.

    2. Democratic Party organizes synchronized censure rallies in every major city and state capital.

    3. Democrats storm the media talk shows with fire in their eyes and bellies and with cogent simple arguments.

    4. Dramatic TV and radio commercials in favor of censure are produced and aired within 2-3 days (Hey! Put Hollywood to work!).

    5. Sit back and watch the Democratic Party come to life and the Republicans realize they're finally in a real fight (Don't think the great inert mass of citizenry wouldn't notice).

    6. Then bring on the 2006 elections! With paper-trail voting a major agenda by 2008!
    Larry Piltz | 03.15.06 - 7:51 pm | #



    I'm having trouble accessing DKos. Greenwald and Digby are spot on. I will try to find the Armando post, because I don't want you to think I'm flying off the handle here.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:52 pm | #


    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 7:50 pm | #

    Your understanding of Armando's argument is pretty much mine.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:52 pm | #


    This is an interesting sentence from the WaPo article linked by EPU above:

    "President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq."

    The sentence is ambiguous. Does it say that bush is going to attack terrorists and hostile states that POSSESS chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or does it say that bush had a doctrine that calls for preemptive war against such entities, with the U.S. USING chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? I think both readings are possible. What does "with" modify--"terrorists and hostile states," or "preemptive war"?
    neurophius | 03.15.06 - 7:53 pm | #


    "Pat Buchanan on Hardball today said the Dem's 'doing nothing..."

    Accepting advice from Buchanan is just like accepting it from Rove. These men are the enemy; they do not like us. Pay no attention to anything they say.
    susan | 03.15.06 - 7:53 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:52 pm | #

    I'm more likely to think I'm missing something.

    It's been a long day and I'm tired.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:53 pm | #


    It appears that the "marketing plan" for the war against Iran has begun.
    rwcole | 03.15.06 - 7:54 pm | #


    Pach - I'm sure will get a new post now, but I will take you up.

    Digby, whom I agree with, targets his remarks to politicians.

    Armando seems to say that critique of Dem politicians by the blogosphere is in itself defeatism. He seemingly reaches this conclusion b/c of the words used by the blogosphere to express its collective disdain for Dem politicians who aren't supporting Feingold. Words such as "coward."

    That is an awfully big assumption to make - that calling a Dem politician a coward with respect to standing up for censure is the same as being defeatist on censure.

    I think Feingold was right (morally, legally and politically), I think the Dem's should support the measure (b/c it is right morally, legally and politically), and agree with those and have opined that many Dem's seem to lack a spine.

    That being said, I also have posted that I think we should give time for Dem's to come around, and that getting shunted off to committee was good b/c it obviated forcing Dem's to vote but kept the issue alive. I think the issue is a keeper, and the longer it is around the better (to me talking about censure is as good as voting on it).

    I don't see any logical disconnect among the positions I have taken (which have been taken in whole or in part by many others), and I certainly don't see any of it as "defeatist."

    I have more on this if you want, but the above sums it up I think.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 7:54 pm | #


    damn i missed this from today-- check it out-- death threats against the judiciary? 20060...insburg_threats
    angie | 03.15.06 - 7:55 pm | #


    Pach --

    I agree with you about what Armando is saying. He's not telling us to suck it up, he's saying we shouldn't throw in the towel. We need to keep the pressure ON Dems in Congress.

    That's how you read it, right?
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 7:55 pm | #


    Accepting advice from Buchanan is just like accepting it from Rove. These men are the enemy; they do not like us. Pay no attention to anything they say.
    susan | 03.15.06 - 7:53 pm |

    I'm just saying the guy is politically savvy, IMO. Nothing more.
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:57 pm | #


    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 7:55 pm | #


    He is urging persistence in fighting, and cautioning us that our understandable rage with the slow moving dems might lead some of us to give up.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:57 pm | #


    I don’t imagine his party’s stumbling, bumbling, timid response is any surprise at all to Badger Feingold (yes, I vote for Badger!). I think he’s looking to do two things: 1) force the cowering democrats into true opposition now that the country will be behind it and 2) catapult himself above the crowd of 2008 presidential aspirants, stand out with the base (= us = primary voters), and get more national recognition (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Color me impressed anew with his strategery, political instincts, timing, and guts, on top of his progressiveness and integrity which I already admired.

    Pach, I’m gonna go to Drinking Liberally tomorrow, because your wish is my command.
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 7:58 pm | #


    fyi Jane:


    Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7
    understandinglife | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 7:58 pm | #


    I've tried to look for news re: Hillary Clinton and censure. Seems to be a real dearth of "news". I haven't noticed any posts from NY FDLers who have called Clinton's office. Following is ALL I could find-- via Nexis/ Lexis- couldn't find online at NYPost, so I'm copying it here, FWIW. Hillary certainly hasn't had a lot to say on this one, eh? (and LOL that she is a Prez contender from the "left" of the party.)

    === The New York Post
    March 15, 2006 Wednesday
    BYLINE: GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent

    WASHINGTON - Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) accused fellow Democrats of "cowering" under political pressure instead of censuring President Bush for "breaking the law" - as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged repeated attempts to get her to comment.

    Feingold - who may challenge Clinton from the left for his party's 2008 presidential nomination - introduced a resolution censuring Bush for authorizing wiretaps of terror suspects' phone calls without a warrant.

    Feingold announced his move Sunday - but Clinton refused three requests for comment yesterday.

    "Hey, how ya doing?" she said as she strode briskly toward the Senate floor.

    "Talk to you later," said a Clinton aide as his boss exited a Senate Democratic lunch meeting through a back door.

    Normally outspoken Judiciary Committee member Sen. Charles Schumer at first said he would comment, then passed off the job to Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    "Go listen to him," he said.

    Senior senators fear Feingold's effort could make the Democrats look petty.

    GRAPHIC: RUSS FEINGOLD Puts Hillary on spot.===
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 7:59 pm | #


    Pach - I dont read it that way, I see him as saying that the rage is the defeatism (or will cause the defeat). But, that is me.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 7:59 pm | #


    GrandmaJ and EPU --

    Thanks to both of you for being lots more eloquent on this topic than I'm capable of being today. You expressed my sentiments, too, when you stated your own.
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 7:59 pm | #


    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 7:18 pm
    Thanks Valley, missed that.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 7:59 pm | #


    Keep reading "should haves" I would like to get with others on what we should do tomorrow on this issue. I have called and e-mailed almost every Dem senator and my two steadfast bu * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]es here in Utah (Hatch & Bennett). So what next?
    shooogarp | 03.15.06 - 8:00 pm | #


    Looks like Judy Miller is back in the Plame Game and add Kristof to the list. There will be more in tomorrow's NYT.

    The subpoenas, the newspaper said, seek Miller's notes and other materials, including any other documents concerning Valerie Plame "prepared by Ms. Miller and Nicholas D. Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist for The Times; drafts of a personal account by Ms. Miller published in The Times in October concerning her grand jury testimony; documents concerning her interactions with an editor of The Times; and documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article on the investigation.
    E & P 3/15/0

    pollyusa | 03.15.06 - 8:01 pm | #


    EPU - I think that was an excellent example of arguing in the alternative. I'm taking notes.

    BTW - what you said about legal shows is why I can't read Grisham. However, I can watch Boston Legal - I just never happen to be around at the right time.

    Cap'n Kirk is so campy - and James Spader is -- James Spader.

    It could be about the National Grocers Association convention scheduling and I'd watch if I could.
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:01 pm | #


    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 7:54 pm | #

    Actually, I interpret Armando's argument to be consistent with what you have described as your position.

    My synopsis of his argument is in my Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:57 pm | #.

    Accordingly, my interpretation of his argument is not the same as yours.

    In my interpretation, he is cautionaing against another kind of defeatism that comes from giving up with slow moving dem politicians out of frustration, and not, as you say, that all criticism of dem politicians is defeatism. After all, he fully associates himself with Digby's post.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:01 pm | #


    op99 | 03.15.06 - 7:58 pm | #

    Have a great time! What city are you in?
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:02 pm | #


    New Dem slogan

    when we cower Together, we can call it a huddle
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:03 pm | #


    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 7:27 pm

    Pach, we need affirmative messages to get the Beltway Dems off the dime -- I think that's what Armando is saying.

    Personally, I agree; however -- since Finegold is playing US Grant to the DC Dems McClellan, what can we say or do to advance the cause?

    Seriously -- this is where we need blogosphere message development leadership . . .

    How do we express our outrage, while encouraging the duck and cover Dems to join the fight?

    ck | 03.15.06 - 8:03 pm | #


    Pachacutec @ 03.15.06 - 7:39 pm -- I've read it, and both it and the Digby article he quotes make many good points. I also understand the power expectations can have, both on those who have them and those who are the object of those expectations.

    Sun Tzu has some wisdom to offer also - "Know the enemy, and know yourself, and you'll always win. Know yourself but not your enemy, you'll win half the time."

    Some Democrats are just slow to catch on - perhaps they're busy or whatever. Others clearly are afraid. How you deal with them depends on who they are.

    The ones who are slow, and some of the ones who are afraid might be cajoled into doing the right thing. The ones who are truly afraid will only listen to us if they are more afraid of us, or what we represent, than they are of anything else. This isn't likely to happen, at least on this issue. I don't know what else there is to do about them, other than try to get rid of them as the opportunity arises (IOW, elections, persuading them to run for something they can't win, or appointing them out of the way).

    I'm not feeling very hopeful right now, because the issues of this censure resolution seem so obvious to me. If they don't see, it's probably because they don't want to. If, after all this time, they still can't come to a decision, what is their problem?

    Right now, we know ourselves pretty well. We don't seem to know the enemy (our Democratic Senators, in this case) well enough to know what to do about them. Sun Tzu says it's a coin toss right now, even assuming we accept Armando's definition of victory.
    Cujo359 | 03.15.06 - 8:03 pm | #


    Lest I forget, just want to mention that I think HARKIN is a really good guy.

    I'll never forget hearing him (and Durbin, too) on the floor of the Senate reminding everyone of Negroponte's background as facilitator of death squads in Central America, in explaining his (Durbin's too) refusal to vote for his nomination to whatever the hell it is he's supposed to be doing today as intelligence Chief.

    [Smoking fine cigars and getting massages during three hour lunches is what I hear....]
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 8:05 pm | #



    Can't get to Armando's post on Kos. If WT's post would be considered "cajoling" rather than "condemning", then I see no contradiction either.
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 8:05 pm | #


    I think Digby's post is just about the politicians, Armando argues re: the blogosphere. I agree with Digby also, but I don't think you can take arguments regarding "defeatism" amongst politicians constantly having their lunch money stolen by bullys, to the blogosphere and its critique/reeation/suggestions for those politicians.

    It just doesn't follow for me.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 8:05 pm | #


    It appears that the "marketing plan" for the war against Iran has begun.
    rwcole | 03.15.06 - 7:54 pm | #

    And just think! WHIG doesn't even need to change it's ackronym!
    shooogarp | 03.15.06 - 8:05 pm | #


    Pach, Rochester NY
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:07 pm | #


    TDS covering censure now.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 8:07 pm | #


    If WT's post would be considered "cajoling" rather than "condemning"

    Ordinarily, I use the "flies with sugar, not vinegar" approach... :)
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:08 pm | #


    In honor of Badger, although I don't really think I like that nickname
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:09 pm | #


    Jon said bueller, bueller? now he's playing soledado.
    angie | 03.15.06 - 8:09 pm | #


    MSNBC Poll March 13, 2006
    What do you think of Sen. Feingold's proposal to censure Pres. Bush?

    What do you think of Sen. Feingold's proposal to censure Pres. Bush? * 32249 responses
    Political grandstanding
    A way to hold him accountable

    MSNBC is no longer accepting votes.

    I posted this earlier today, but it seems appropriate here. IMO both Dems and Republicans are polling this question over the St. Patrick's recess.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 8:09 pm | #


    "It appears that the "marketing plan" for the war against Iran has begun."
    rwcole | 03.15.06 - 7:54 pm |

    But will it work? As Shrub himself has so eloquently stated, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me can't fool me again!!'
    sonate | 03.15.06 - 8:10 pm | #


    Or maybe this one?
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:10 pm | #


    "In honor of Badger, although I don't really think I like that nickname."
    Thanks Mary, it has its limitations, but I prefer it to "cheesehead."
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm | #


    Senior senators fear Feingold's effort could make the Democrats look petty.

    If I may acquaint you with an image I've made popular at the rough-and-tumble Eschaton:

    (bangs forehead on desk)
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm | #


    ck | 03.15.06 - 8:03 pm | #

    There are a lot of bloggers wrestling with those very questions right now, and very publicly.

    Coordination happens without centralized organization, which is for our side often a strength. It allows for maximum creativity and passion all around, without the baggage heirarchy brings.

    That said, the degree to which an open source movement begins to collaborate for message development is still an open experiment, and I observe it with professional interest, as one who professionally builds organizations, and not just as an activist.

    Practically speaking, bloggers, who write and like to use their own words, listen to some talking point suggestions but must write with their own voices. The downside of highly organized message development in the blogosphere is the creation of dittoheads (and, I would argue, the supression of writing talent like that of our hostesses, which would hurt traffic).

    But you've hit a topic I've been thinking a lot about lately.

    There is no consensus across the blogosphere yet as to how much to attack dem senators, shame the, or lobby and cajole them. We all agree, I think, that most of them reqquire some combination of both, but we all may draw the fine lines at different points along the spectrum.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm | #


    Pach, Rochester NY
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:07 pm

    op99- interested to know if you have called offices of Clinton and Schumer re: censure, and what response you got?
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 8:12 pm | #


    Why can't condemning be cajoling? Just askin? And that is really how I view it - I just dont' see defeatism in using strong words or taking strong opinions.

    I might even say that Armando is getting into the bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] of the false gentility of the Senate.

    "I thank the right honorable piece of * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] from the great state of Wisconsin for yielding......"

    That is one of the reasons the Dem's lose.
    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 8:13 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm

    no link....???
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 8:14 pm | #


    Mary @ 03.15.06 - 8:09 pm -- I don't like that nickname either - it brings to mind Badger from Firefly, who was about as unlike Feingold as an english-speaking white guy can be.
    Cujo359 | 03.15.06 - 8:14 pm | #


    Oooh rip van :)

    Emily | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:14 pm | #


    Ordinarily, I use the "flies with sugar, not vinegar" approach... :)
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:08 pm | #

    You caught alot with that one. But who you calling a fly? If I was offended, I might point out that the best fly bait of all is neither sugar nor vinegar : )
    BullGoose | 03.15.06 - 8:15 pm | #


    Valley Girl,

    that IS the image. Me banging my forehead on my desk.

    Usually in a parenthetical.

    Like Pach, I'm a little weary. But not bowed!
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:15 pm | #


    Cujo359 | 03.15.06 - 8:03 pm | #

    I think we're pretty close to the same position.


    I guess we;ve gone as far as we can go. We don't read 'mando's piece the same way. No problem.

    I'm sorry some of the other can't get into the diary, as I'm interested in their thoughts.

    As ever, if I'm not around, anyone can email me if they want at ajschuler at erols dot com.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:15 pm | #



    It's time to boot the dem establishment. They can't figure out how to take on a president with 33% approval rating, whose long term trend puts him well BELOW NIXONIAN post-impeachment levels by the elections.

    The first sign of trouble was making Paul Hackett drop his sentorial bid. It;s time to take the rudder of the shipm it can no longer be left adrift.

    Get HR 1606 passed and then start moving.
    patience | 03.15.06 - 8:16 pm | #


    Calling Dems weasels when they act like weasels is not defeatism it is description. The solution is not to avoid calling them weasels it is for them to stop acting like weasels.
    Hugh | 03.15.06 - 8:17 pm | #


    As ever, if I'm not around, anyone can email me if they want at ajschuler at erols dot com.

    You da bomb, Pach.
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:17 pm | #


    the NYTimes at has a story about GOP reaction to the Censure Resolution
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:18 pm | #


    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:15 pm

    Ahhh... thanks. And, I hope you know that I was quoting that article as "information" only...
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 8:18 pm | #


    Evil Parallel Universe | 03.15.06 - 8:13 pm | #

    Now really I disagree with that. He is warning against activist anger that leads to despair that leads to quitting, and there are people who are doing that, throwing up their hands, etc. Maybe not you, but if you read around the blogosphere, it's happening.

    Armando can be accused of many things, but I've never heard anyone accuse him of being too polite.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:19 pm | #


    The big question that has me wondering is what kind of time table bush has for his implementation of the next war? will it be tied to the polls?@30%will Tehran be turned to glass?
    The timeing of this emphisis on pre-emption should have everyone getting ready for some really,REALLY stupid moves by the administration.My guess,timetable is set for Iran,as well as many other civil liberty infringements as they think they can get away with...attacking at any sign of resistance to their program is a trademark of this political{roves} machine
    snuffy | 03.15.06 - 8:19 pm | #




    Add Firefly and I'm thinking we're still "just looking" for now.

    I still think we could maybe hypnotize some lightweights like York with repetitive images of dancing badgers singing *mushroom mushroom*.

    Makes at LEAST as much sense as letting GWB run the country.
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:21 pm | #



    I think Armando is plain wrong.

    First, he is confusing scorn with defeatism. Bloggers railing against the pathetic display we've been witnessing aren't howling in defeat. Some (at least one) of us are in disbelief that a blatant violation of the law requires some additional review by the Democrats in order for them to reach some sort of conclusion in the ballpark of fighting for the rule of law.

    Second, the answer given by the Democrats -- we need to wait for more investigation -- may be acceptable to Armando, but it's bull * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word] to anybody who's been paying attention. There will be no investigations worth having because the Republicans * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]canned them and the Democratic leadership went along with it.

    Third, Armando shouldn't be admonishing bloggers who are sick of Democrats' endless ruminations on clear-cut issues like whether to demand that the president follow the law. The people who started bitching first were the Democratic leaders. They're the ones running to the media for unattributed quotes whining about Feingold.

    What [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]es me off is that the answer is so * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing obvious it hurts. Feingold played the censure card. Don't like it? Tough * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]... either become Superman and spin the planet backwards or get on board and fight for the Constitution. Bitching to the AP about your foilbled week's worth of plans shouldn't be a * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing option.

    Armando is worried about the wrong people. It's not unlike GOPers blaming war critics for the * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ed-in-half * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ed job the administration has done in Iraq.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:21 pm | #


    Yes, I agree with Pachacutec's quote. We have to continue to deluge them with phone calls, emails, faxes, and letters.

    I called and wrote Feinstein today and will keep doing it until she answers my questions...How far does this man, who thinks he is a king, have to go before our (my) elected officials (you) stand up for what is right? and...What part of Senator Feingold's censure motion don't you support?

    It's also a good idea to contact Reid since he is supposed to represent all Democrats, not just those who live in Nevada.

    Don't give up yet.
    Deborah | 03.15.06 - 8:22 pm | #


    "There is no consensus across the blogosphere yet as to how much to attack dem senators, shame the, or lobby and cajole them."
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm |

    With respect to the 19 rogue Dems that voted to censure Clinton, any attack (short of physical violence) is warranted. To support a censure of Clinton while refusing to support a censure of Shrub is a violation of principle, party, and plain logic. Let's get rid of 'em if they don't step up! They're unreliable when the chips are down. If a Repub is elected in their place, maybe the DINO's will (finally) get the message. Then we can bag elephants instead of chasing [Constant changed: used to be Jack, with a-word, and ss] !
    sonate | 03.15.06 - 8:22 pm | #


    Okay, before I head off to dream about a dinner date with Keith Olbermann, Pat Fitzgerald, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, George Clooney and Russ Feingold...

    ValleyGirl, I called both senators Schumer and Clinton for their thoughts on censure, and the responses I got were unsurprisingly noncommital.

    This just seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Peace to you good people of FDL!
    watertiger | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:22 pm | #


    the fact that Bob Menendez and Donna Brazile 'get' the Censure Resolution gives me hope ...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:23 pm | #


    Armando is worried about the wrong people. It's not unlike GOPers blaming war critics for the * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ed-in-half * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ed job the administration has done in Iraq.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:21 pm | #

    I just don't agree. He's not slagging our side's activists; I hear him trying to keep our energy focused for the long haul.

    But just for you I'm going to reread him again, because I really don't take from my reading the interpretations of his meaning that you are. And I'm going to keep your comment open before me as I read it.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:25 pm | #


    From Wilson's NYT's link: "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base"
    IMO these are people who are going to vote red no matter what and that further confirms the accuracy of Feingold's political instincts in crafting the Censure the way he did. If the NYT's is accurate, Dems aren't going to lose any votes by fighting for censure. The Censure is a pry bar (one of several I hope) to get the middle 33 and 1/3 to vote blue at midterms.
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 8:26 pm | #


    Comment Fire Dog Lake Name: Pachacutec

    If a Repub is elected in their place, maybe the DINO's will (finally) get the message. Then we can bag elephants instead of chasing [Constant changed: used to be jack with a-word, ending with ss] !
    sonate | 03.15.06 - 8:22 pm | #

    It really bugs me not to agree with my longtime friends here like you in this post, sonate.

    But taking our anger (which I share) to such a point of action that we are willing to act so as to add Republicans to the senate majority is to me the height of foolhardiness.

    How many more wars do you want?

    Of course, none.

    Again, I would refer people back to my front page post about the building of a movement: yet.html
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:29 pm | #


    John "The Human Muppet" Bolton did the old "Imagine 9/11 but with nuclear weapons" yesterday.

    That will be enough to keep the 27% wingnut base manning the barricades and stocking up on powdered milk and tuna.

    As I have said many times, that will be curtains for us all.

    Russia and China are standing in the way of any signifcant action. So if the US acts it will be all on our own. Old Messiah Complex George may be just the man to do what everyone says will be suicide.

    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:30 pm | #


    The censure also changes the direction of the talk - IMO.

    BTW, MoveOn seems to be getting serious. I have received 2 different types of emails from them in the last 24 hours. They make is ez - the most recent email is asking for calls to Senators and all "my" senator info is there all spelled out nicely for me.

    Well organized effort IMO.
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:30 pm | #


    As always Pach, yours is a thoughtful and wise take on whether the Democratic party is balloon or millstone. For the short term, I just can't see how the federal-level Dems can reorganize themselves quickly enough to become relevant in 08, which they think they'll simply inherit (like 04, right?).

    Whereas I can see a third party rapidly forming behind Feingold. It could peel off pragmatic Republicans (one of whom could be Veep) as well as Democrats, and run on fiscal sanity and de-hegemony. That's about all the platform you'd need. Because if those two things aren't accomplished right pronto, our whole country and possibly the world are in the * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]ter anyway, as more and more people are realizing.
    MarcLord | 03.15.06 - 8:31 pm | #


    Comment: Referencing the Constitution -- OK, so I was in the right place until I got banned. Note: Refernce to the swearing; and the "don't give up" comment.

    Curious, they talk about hope and not giving up -- the the links get ignored.End

    Pachacutec, I appreciate that. And sorry for all the swearing... I'm just at my wit's end with this bunch.

    Ducking a principled fight should not be allowed by anyone representing progressives or people who respect the Constitution. Running to the media to anonymously whine about the way someone on your side is fighting is just stupid.

    I don't think Armando's attention should be on people like me right now. We've got bigger things to worry about than bloggers' frustrations.

    If all he wanted to say was "Don't give up!" that's all he should have said.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:32 pm | #


    The NYT's article that Wilson linked to says how "overjoyed" conservatives are at impeachment talk. One neocon who is not "overjoyed" is Scooter Libby. The lower ClusterBush's JAR goes, the more likely Scooter is to start thinking "deal."
    John Casper | 03.15.06 - 8:33 pm | #


    VG, called them both, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Got nothin'. This afternoon Clinton's aide said she "hadn't announced a position yet" and would be issuing a press release, couldn't say when. (After the polling, I guess.)
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:34 pm | #


    Comment: Why are they asking for help -- they're given help and they don't want the information.


    "They make is ez - the most recent email is asking for calls to Senators and all "my" senator info is there all spelled out nicely for me."

    I used that. Being in Texas, and not a masochist, that's as "personal" I want to get ; )
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:35 pm | #


    VG, emailed them too. Nothing back from Clinton at all, Schumer at least instantaneously form emails back that he received it and appreciates it.
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:35 pm | #


    Comment: Actually the UAE is a false flag ops. Egregious speaks volumes, "We are becoming Nazis." Sure -- if you refuse to listen and not realize what you're doing to people who are trying to help you.End

    It sounds like the neocons have planned a nuclear black ops false flag incident against us, which will be blamed on Iran. 'We have teams that can identify the nuclear signature of an exploded radioactive bomb.' -- newspapers six months ago.

    The only remaining question is where this black ops incident will be.

    Can war against Iran be stopped?

    Are we truly determined to have yet another war of aggression?

    How did Germans turn into Nazis?
    Answer: little by little.

    We are becoming the new Nazis.
    I wish I were exaggerating.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 8:36 pm | #


    From the school of bad portents:

    "Consumption seen as next big driver of growth
    After more than 25 years of economic growth driven by exports and fixed-asset investment, China is turning towards consumption to sustain the boom." englis...ent_4307518.htm

    This means China is gearing up for a nice big US recession and they are going to turn to a domestic market to drive their economy.

    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:36 pm | #


    Rereading Armando, allow me an extended quote (emphasis added):

    The other defeatism is coming from the Left blogosphere. It is the knee jerk reaction of some to condemn Democrats before they have even decided on the issue. This is defeatism of a very dangerous sort. Why? Because it makes even a success a defeat. This morning I wrote:

    With the exception of the dim bulb Dodd, [no Democrat (Lieberman doesn't count)] said anything really harmful. "I'm going to wait" is not my answer. It is not Feingold's answer. And in a perfect world it would not be the answer given by ANY Democrat, or Senator for that matter. But that's not our world.

    Now there are different ways to say "I am going to wait." The manner in which our Democratic Senators did so is an exercise in stupid politics and weakness. Here is a simple lesson for them -- Next time, excoriate the Bush Administration for their arrogance, apparent lawlessness, "JUST LIKE IN THE PORTS SCANDAL," and their inability to "come clean with the American People," but Censure is a serious matter and one not to be decided lightly. Say that you will seriously consider the Resolution from Senator Feingold, "A MAN OF PRINCIPLE," but that you are not taking a position at this time.

    Senator Reid, of the undecided Dem Senators, comes closest to this. But the opportunity to criticize the President must not be passed up. Argue from strength. Not ready to take a position? Then don't. But do not act afraid. Whatever you think of the resolution and its effect on Dems' image on national security, the pathetic show of weakness by these Dem Senators has done 10 times the damage - feeding every negative Dem sterotype of weakness and lack of principle.

    Now, does this mean the fight is over? I say decidedly no. We must cajole, urge, fight with and plead with our Democratic Senators to do the right thing on principle and politically.

    What we must NOT do is what too many in the blogs are already doing - declaring defeat; calling Dems cowards and worse; condemning them instead of cajoling them.

    There are three conditions for those in the blogosphere that Armando is calling out for his definition of defeatism from the left:

    1) declaring defeat
    2) calling Dems cowards and worse
    3) condemning them instead of cajoling them.

    As I read it, all three clauses, separated by a semicolen, are ncessary for his category of those whom he is cautioning.

    It seems some here are interpreting a hidden "OR" between each of those cluases and accordingly are taking understandable offense, believing he is conflating criticism, for example, with defeatism.

    I don't read it that way. I read an unwritten "AND" between each of his conditions, though I can see how his wording allows for some ambiguity.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:36 pm | #

    Comment: They're talking about 29 people out of 435 -- this is meaningless. What's needed is for the states to force a vote -- where do all 535 Senators and Members of Congress standEnd

    let's not forget the 29 House members who have been backing John Conyers similar Censure Resolution for months. The Black Caucus in the House is usually pretty damn progressive. There's a Progressive Caucus with about 60 members in the House too. The Senate was designed to be more conservative...
    The majority (slight) of Democratic House members voted against Bush's War on Iraq...
    Wilson46201 | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:36 pm | #


    Ack! Sorry I did not close bold.

    Damn I must be tored.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #


    Comment: Game of "wait" is what the UAE deal is all about.

    So I'm going to ask the question do we get Dem's off the "wait until the investigation is complete" meme?
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #


    Comment: Theyh're woried about whether people are or are not comforable expressing views on blogs. Wow, and why should anyone blog if you're not going to pass the word on solutions; and nag others -- telling them to "F = = = off" -- when they do exactlyu what you want?!?!

    Susan you are asking teh right questions -- I can't help you, I'm banned. End

    "There is no consensus across the blogosphere yet as to how much to attack dem senators, shame the, or lobby and cajole them. We all agree, I think, that most of them reqquire some combination of both, but we all may draw the fine lines at different points along the spectrum."

    My concern was articulated upthread: we don't fully understand why they frequently seem impervious to our suggestions.

    But, some of them are starting to feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on blogs.

    Would it be helpful to encourage them to tell us why they are not always receptive to us?

    Should we invite them to join us on a thread? Would we be more successful if we extended a hand toward them rather than a fist in the form of (outraged) e mail, phone calls and letters?

    Or, is it naive to think that an honest dialogue could even be initiated?
    susan | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #


    nicknames: I agree that 'cheesehead" is a bad nickname. But is Wisconsin the place that has that chili with all sortsa goobly gooey good stuff in it poured over spaghetti? That is not my usual eating style but I like it. Then there's the brats. Maybe we can find a fighting food angle here.

    In the meantime, I'll throw out Ragin' Russ Fighten' Feingold, with a few more eff-style modifiers thown in if you like, like Feisty, or Foxy (for the ladies and others that like his looks out there).
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #


    VG, Clinton updates her website press releases at least daily, even if it's just about a pasta factory or some such * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word]. So watch there:
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:38 pm | #


    To me badger connotes feisty and scrappy, but then I didn't see Firefly lol.
    op99 | 03.15.06 - 8:39 pm | #


    Comment: They talk about "backchannels" -- what about the public discussing what is well known: You're not read to listen to people discussing issues -- you tell them to "F = = = off". End

    susan | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #

    MOst of them will only do it through staff and back channels, if they do it at all.

    After this year, when the power of the netroots becomes so apparent that they can't ignore us anymore, they will begin to adapt.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:41 pm | #


    Comment: The only way to make them face the issues is to compel the Congress to vote -- you can't lobby Congress on impeachment -- you have to force them with a piece of paper to vote up or down. That is what the 603 does.End

    I wish the 'let's wait for an investigation' Dems in Congress would just 'Wake up and smell the Tar and Feathers!'
    P J Evans | 03.15.06 - 8:41 pm | #


    Pachacutec: when my party is dishonestly smeared daily by GOP liars and bad faith artists, and the elected representatives of my political party do not respond, that is very very bad in my book. And if they do not respond to dishonest defamatory attacks, I feel they need to be called on that. And if it comes to calling them cowards, then I feel that has to be done.

    So, where am I in the Armando blogger taxonomy?
    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 8:41 pm | #


    Fiengold... * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]in' A.

    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:42 pm | #


    Comment: Notice -- confirmation on "Jane" name linked with Pachacutec.

    Notice: "We're dying out here" -- in reality, they don't want help. They want to flail and they want someone to save them. You're on your own. You shot a hole in teh life raft.End

    Amen to that, Jane.
    Note to Dems in DC: We're dyin' out here, guys. H-E-L-P and I mean N-0-W dammit, not "let's hold a meeting and form a committee in 3 months." Right now.
    Margot | 03.15.06 - 8:42 pm | #


    "Together, we can fart in our shorts."
    axelgrease | 03.15.06 - 8:42 pm | #


    Comment: The problem is they are waiting for "the leaders" to do something; a 603 will force the Congress -- regardless party to face the issue on impeachment.End

    We do have a serious problem, and part of it is our Democratic Senators' capability to communicate with their constituents. Today I received a letter from Dianne Feinstein dated February 15th about the USA Patriot Act. Yes, it arrived one month from the date on the letter, and I've had at least four more one-way communications with her office in the last week alone.

    Can our Democratic Senators be Luddites as well as cowards? Can they be so lame as to not only be unable to master the communications tools needed in the 21st century but also unable to muster the courage so prized by their predecessors in the 20th?

    It bothered me that the Democrats thought that Feingold "sprung" his resolution on them when I had seen him on Stephanapolous (thanks Crooks and Liars!) and then read his resolution. Why can't the Democratic Senators or their staffs or their consultants -- no, don't get me started -- read the the damn resolution and take a position?

    Had enough?
    TeddySanFran | 03.15.06 - 8:43 pm | #


    RBG | 03.15.06 - 8:37 pm | #

    Keep pushing them, lobbying them and shaming them.

    One nice thing about the blogswarm is that some of us can play a little more bad but reasonable cop while others play nasty bad, bad cop.

    The mistake we make is when we fail to recognize that we can work together in tandem, and instead go after each other.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:43 pm | #

    Comment: Jane, Wilson was the one who told me to "F = = = off" -- was he banned as well?End


    Comment: Notice they share small tidbits of ideas, they don't set the whole thing together.

    Pach - I'm in Dover Bitch and Watertiger's court on this one. I went and read the full post and to me it reads like "talk nice and maybe the dems will someday decide to say a weak ok to censure."

    Perhaps his text is not as clear as it should be but I'm also taking this in conjunction with marcos' KO statments of "we can wait" etc.

    Here are the thoughts that keep popping up in my head:

    1- I think it's starting to get uncomfortable for folks who are heavily allied (even as the mouthy outsiders) with the dem party. There's some dissonance going on as people face the lack of action from the Sen. dems over and over and we need to watch how this impact strategy.

    2- It's nice to sit in left blogosphere and be patient - it's not so nice in Iraq and soon to be very bad in Iran when the Israeli/US bombers hit. I keep repeating this because we are obligated to acknowledge the urgency of our current situation and the repercussions of our govt's actions.

    I cannot even begin to understand the patience shown with the dems after everything that has happened and the fact that only one dem senator (who has clearly decided that the blog base is a good base to use in a run for 2008 which shows he has some smarts - not a slam at Russ, just we need to acknowledge that this is also strategy for him) after all this time dares to mention censure, not even impeachment.

    3- continue to find it interesting that there is so little discussion or active support for Conyers impeachment investigation - we don't pay a lot of attention to the Black Dems unless they're named Obama.

    and as I type (and am prob EPUd) Nightline begins a discussion of Bolton and Iran.
    siun | 03.15.06 - 8:43 pm | #

    Comment: They whine about the media -- then watch it.End


    Comment: "Losing hope" and "I feel like crying" -- I might help you, but I've been banned.End

    They talk about Bush in a about Dems in a bubble?...I'm fast losing hope here...once I belonged to this "group" and we were all supposed to vote together before action was taken.. it was like trying to fly an elephant...they just t-a-l-k-e-d and t-a-l-k-e-d and never did a thing...I took matters into my own hands, went out and panhandled some money from the old rich guys who hung around the laundromat looking for action and came back with the dough and they were still sitting there talking about it! But they were REALLY [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]ed at me, ugly is a better description, and they threw me out of the group saying I didn't follow the rules, get out, here's your hat, what's your hurry...for all I know they are still sitting there trying to figure it out...this is what has happened to the Dems...Feingold got sick of waiting for them to get off their high paid asses and work for a living...I called Boxer's office about this and the phone person there says: So, are you saying you want her to support censure???? I felt like crying....
    Spiderpaws | 03.15.06 - 8:44 pm | #


    Comment: Why are you talking about it -- why not simply look at examples of "working together" -- you have examples of civility, and you throw it back at them, calling it "Nagging" -- No, telling someone to "F = = = off" and that they are a " [* * * Constant changed: Originally “blog”-”hore” with W at beginning of “hore”]" is not a nice example.

    Yet, despite that rudeness, you banned me. Get real. You are screwed up and I have no sympathy if anyone in the Country "feels like crying" or is "losing hope" -- you throw people out, you do not answer questions, you openly admit you are messing with people, and then you admit the ideas are good -- but they're not in the right form. Get real -- quit complaining when you get exactly what you want: real people.End


    The mistake we make is when we fail to recognize that we can work together in tandem, and instead go after each other.

    Exactly why Armando's column [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]es me off. And why the unattributed Democratic quotes about Feingold [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”] me off.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:45 pm | #


    Comment: Look they're talking about defeatism -- I could fix this -- I could come in here and show them that one person can make a difference. But I can't do that. I've been banned. That's what my links are all about -- people can see that one person can make a difference. But you miss the point: You say it's a "lousy blog" --well, how do you explain the 603 resolutions across the country? You can't.End

    Well what would be considered defeatism? It is what I have succumbed to at times -- that no matter what our side does (that is when they actually do something) they will be one rhetorical point ahead of us. No point in trying. My despair lasted about a week and then I went on.

    Our angry response to the dems not coming out immediately, is not defeatism in my opinion. Anger brings our energy to work to keep this issue, along with the thousand other issues we have with Bush, on the stove bubling.

    I am going to go back to Armando's whole post and read the comments. Maybe someone can lend more light.

    Hi Mrs. K8. I read you are doing better. So is Cody, although very slowly. Funeral was last Friday so we are getting on with the living part of life. As was intended albeit with heavy heart. And my 'worry' gene kicking in big time for my son and his family.
    GrandmaJ | 03.15.06 - 8:45 pm | #


    Reporting back in on action taken:

    Today we received two solicitations for funds (DSCC & DCCC).

    Took a big fat sharpie to the return page, and wrote across it in big fat letters:

    "No Money From Us Until You Support Russ Feingold -- Censure King George -- Save Our Constitution!"

    Messages tucked in envelopes. Going out in tomorrow's mail.

    [The last time I wrote in big fat sharpie pen on money solicitations was when I said -- "No Money Unless Howard Dean is DNC Chair." That worked out. Here's hoping we have success here too.]
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 8:45 pm | #


    Comment: Is this an issue: "Snarf" -- ?

    "Together...we can snarf George Bush's nuts."
    axelgrease | 03.15.06 - 8:48 pm | #


    GrandmaJ --

    Here in our house, you and Cody and your son, and the whole family are still mentioned every single night in our prayers.

    Have things worked out with the in-law side of things? We prayed especially that there would be resolution of the threat to seek custody. Hope all is now peaceful, with everyone working through their grief together, giving each other a hand.
    Mrs. K8 | 03.15.06 - 8:48 pm | #


    Comment: Lions and lemmings -- Africa -- it is a code.

    Wesgpc | 03.15.06 - 8:41 pm | #

    Well, I can't speak for him, but speaking for my interpretation and I guess for myself, you're with the rest of us.

    I would rather we reserve the word coward for the other side, because when we replay Rove's talking points we just do his work.

    Notice Jane's list is "lions and lemmings." Those are not Rove's labels, they are ours.

    When we replay Roves frames, even when our guys are being chicken * * * [Constant changed: Originally s-word], we do his work. It's tough not, because objectively, they are playing to Rove's labels, which is what Greenwald is saying.

    Those are my thoughts. I can't argue with your sentiment. But I have to point out the downsides of your word choice.

    And as for Armando's group of concern, if you're not quitting on these foundering dems, who are not currently acting like real dems on this issue, then you're not one of armando's "defeatists."

    At least, that's how I read it.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:48 pm | #


    Comment: "Struggling" over tactics -- hay, wake up -- someone who might be able to help you has been banned. "They put us in this position" is non-sense -- you didn't see through what they were doing before they did it. They're playing you like a fiddle. I can't help you now.End

    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:45 pm | #


    BUt remember, we all share the same goals. Fight! Keep at it!

    We're just struggling over tactics, and frankly, thay's the fault of the fainthearted faction of dems who have not yet come out in support of censure.

    They've put us in this position.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:51 pm | #


    chili with all sortsa goobly gooey good stuff in it poured over spaghetti

    To me that sounds like Cincinnati Seven Way

    But Wisconsin COULD have it.

    I had a friend who lived in Milwaukee and when I used to write (long ago) she ALWAYS sent me her address back. Being pretty oblivious, it took me a long time (and her a lot of capitals, arrows and ink) before I noticed that, although I had the zip right, I kept addressing to her in Milwaukee MN.

    OK - that says really bad things about me, I know.

    But it does "sound" better - Milwaukee MN - and I think it shows some deepseated inner aversion I may have to WI (although a niece is in school there now) .

    Still - I've been in Feingold's camp since I saw him work the Patriot act filibuster in Dec (about when I found this site).

    If I HAVE to wear the stupid hat, I will.
    Mary | 03.15.06 - 8:53 pm | #


    Comment: FDL idea of "netroots" is to tell people to "F = = = off" -- how's that for "customer service." Crap. End

    very long article looking at a $$$$ supporter of HC (the $$$ behind the HC throne), along with pushing Warner as second choice. But, this one tiny part caught my eye:

    ===To be a successful insurgent in 2008, a candidate probably needs a serious following online. The activists in the so-called Netroots, people who connect to politics primarily through and the liberal blogs, will be even more populous and more motivated than in 2004, and while it's impossible to generalize, it seems that most of the Netroots are eager to find a candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton. Among the anti-Hillary contenders, Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark have the strongest constituencies online.===
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 8:53 pm | #


    Comment: Look they've given up -- not using the links -- not using the reasonable questions -- they keep going over and over, "We can't do anything." If that is true: Why is the White House not taking action? Answer: Because they dare not act so long as the public knows -- and thorws the links around -- for DoJ and the DIA analysts who visit this site to reviewEnd

    "Together...we can watch George Bush strategically bomb Iran's nuclear installations and lose the midterm elections in a swell of southern trailer park patriotism."
    axelgrease | 03.15.06 - 8:54 pm | #


    Gosh -- I miss the tolet paper background that was on the non-halo scan version of the site yesterday.

    It look so soft and comfortable, and like it would really be a great feeling cleansing wipe too.

    Honestly, it made me want to...

    ...well, never mind. But I did like your new design.
    Anonymous | 03.15.06 - 8:55 pm | #


    Comment: There is a solution, but I can't help you now. You banned meEnd

    Our nation is fast approaching the status where it will be referred to as an "international pariah".


    "Ecuador's interior minister has resigned after continued nationwide protests over a possible free trade agreement with the US." 4811342.stm

    Granite State Destroyer | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 8:55 pm | #


    siun | 03.15.06 - 8:43 pm | #


    You don't have to agree with me!

    From my perspective, it took the other side eight years to gin up a push for impeachment. They started right from the day after election day.

    There's no doubt our side has been veal on the GOP farm. I've written about that many times, as you all may recall. I don't like it any more than you do.

    However, I'm more optimistic than Armando: I think we can win this, but I think it will take a year.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:56 pm | #


    Comment: Look at what they're doing -- not playing to the DNC strength: the rule of law, reason, and logic. Force a 603 vote and give the voters time to digest it. Don't wait.End


    I'm with you and I'm not giving up. I'm saying it along with Glenn and it's not just Rove's talking points they're playing into.

    I've said it here before, but after Reid's Rule 21 maneuver, Frist said the Dems had no ideas, principles or convictions.

    Here's an opportunity (AN OPPORTUNITY, for any leader reading this) to prove Frist wrong and they're wavering. It disgusts me.

    But if I gave up, I'd put on my headphones and head to the beach. I wouldn't call both my senators and start swearing like a sailor on a blog.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 8:57 pm | #



    Thank you for the
    link. It has entertained me for the past several minutes.
    neurophius | 03.15.06 - 8:58 pm | #


    OMG--You're all over here! For some reason, the type is red and I can't change it. I think EPU has cursed me at both sites.

    Wesgpc: It's Cincinnati that's known for chili over spaghetti, not Wisconsin.

    Heard from Moveon twice and Howard Dean once today. Oh, and the DNC. Also, regular mail from teh DNC. I said, support Feingold and I'll write a check.
    dana | 03.15.06 - 9:00 pm | #

    Comment: This is talk of "Aren't we victims" -- you don't know who you banned. They're listening.End

    The dems we resent the most have been in Congress for a long time. (Hillary excepted, but she's no new comer.)

    The old boys and girls are fat, rich and complacent. I don't think they give a flying @#% who's in power as long as their status quo is maintained. Most of the come from very safe seats, and they know they will be re elected without expending too much energy.

    Thus it has been and will be UNTIL the lean, hungry and ambitious see opportunities and arrive on the scene ready to break the china and establish themselves as alpha leaders.

    This is, I think, what we (netroots) are waiting for, and maybe without even know it, fomenting.
    susan | 03.15.06 - 9:00 pm | #


    For the record, lest there be any confusion:

    I'm more looyal to the progressive movement than I am to the dem party.

    I want to inflitrate and take over the dem party to make it progressive. I think that is within reach within a few years.

    I believe the only way to achieve a progressive agenda in the US is through the dem party.

    Accordingly, I want to do whatever I think will be successful and legal in effecting that takeover, and I intend to be reality based as I do it.

    Not "I," but "us." I see this as a movement, and if I push and prod my friends here on this and around the blogosphere the way I am tonight, it's because I want us all to be successful with this goal I think most of us share. I'm trying to keep us together as a movement.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 9:01 pm | #


    "But taking our anger (which I share) to such a point of action that we are willing to act so as to add Republicans to the senate majority is to me the height of foolhardiness.

    How many more wars do you want?"

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:29 pm |

    You're right in that my anger is probably getting the better of me here, but (for probably the first time) I wonder how much different some of the DINOs are from Repubs. I think that several (hope not all) would willingly follow Shrub to the next war (as long as my family -- and not theirs -- fights it). You believe (I think) that even a DINO is much better than a Repub -- and I belived that too, until yesterday. Maybe tomorrow the Dems will "wake up" and support Russ. There is still hope. Anyway, thanks for the nudge in the ribs.
    sonate | 03.15.06 - 9:01 pm | #


    Pach, if you're still here, do you agree with the Censure Resolution being raised now or do you think it's a distraction?
    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:02 pm | #


    Comment: If Then Else Approach.

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 8:11 pm

    What I do like is an organic organization combined with structured organization. Last year's Downing Street Memo protest gathered 500+ bloggers (indie500) to draw attention to the lack of media coverage; all started with a couple of posts at DKos. And then for a while there was Flood-the-Zone-Friday by Seems like FDL offers both methodologies -- but the challenge is developing a critical mass of bloggers to work cooperatively at any given time with either or both approaches. The viral spread has to catch fire and reach a tipping point where it burns of its own accord, without being forced.

    I can't get DKos to open, can't read Armando's post, but I think from what I've read so far he may have a point that might not be well articulated; when we're tearing at ourselves, throwing ashes and donning sack cloth, we aren't available to develop that critical mass, promote that tipping point, fanning the flames, what have you. We actually fall prey to the GOP's talking points that we've internalized.

    F*ck that sh*t. I'm not taking it lying down any longer. We need to develop a matrix approach -- an If-Then-Else scenario for encouraging our Senators, use the two approaches for starters.

    BTW, a side question to Mary, Stephen Parrish, et al, in re: Rules of the Senate and Sen. Allard's defamatory labeling of Feingold as a traitor -- is there a Senate Rule pertaining to Decorum or Conduct that prohibits such behavior? I think the House has such a rule, but the Senate's similar standing rule only applies when the Senators are debating. Anybody? Anybody?
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:02 pm | #


    Comment: Notice -- complaining who will or will not "do" something -- hay, the "netroots" visitor you had -- me -- has already done it. Quit talking about this as a future event; the genie is alrady out of teh bottle. Force a 603 vote and give voters a sense of what is going on: The federal government has failed to assert the rule of lawEnd

    I should note that I continue to call and email and try to move them coz that's just how I am but ...

    they are not cowards, they are collaborators and since they won't *do* anything to oppose the Bush Crime family, what difference does it make that they happen to have a D after their name. They count on us always reflexively giving in and voting for them coz we fear the repubs but what, when we get down to actual govt actions, makes them a better choice. Just brainstorming here so don't jump on me but maybe if a few big dems lost coz we sat home (no $, no vote, no volunteer) the other might think again ...

    of course, the more I see the clearer I feel that they do not oppose W because they really don't disagree with him - this is why huge numbers of people do not vote and I worry that we are the naive ones here who keep assuming they are just scared or listening to the wrong consultants - maybe they are doing precisely what they believe is right?

    again, I remember that these are the Clinton dems - born of triangulation and the great move to "the center" ... why do we expect them to be progressive?

    just thinking out loud ... each time I look at the last 3 photos on gorillablog, I want to cry ... how to we answer those children?
    siun | 03.15.06 - 9:03 pm | #


    Mary - thank you for your 7:44 elaboration. I plan to share it.
    Muzzy | 03.15.06 - 9:03 pm | #


    Comment: why are they "fired up" -- because they're not focused on the big picture -- they're fighting little skirmishes, not moving to get things actually done -- and force Congress to act.End

    Pach --

    Thanks for trying to calm down the fired up FDLers --

    Persuading the Democratic Establishment to do the right thing is tough nut to crack -- when our team is going all blue face Brave Heart, the DC suits get nervous.

    This is a topic for extended discussion -- the passion of the moment might preclude quiet deliberation . . .

    ck | 03.15.06 - 9:04 pm | #


    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:02 pm | #

    I support it wholeheartedly and like the timing.

    Jane quoted my comments to this effect on the front page Monday morning.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 9:04 pm | #


    Comment: Notice -- they "killed off" consultants by banning them at the net roots.

    To paraphrase the Bard:
    "First, let's kill all the consultants"

    It's either all hands on deck, or everyman for himself.
    Gyro Gear Lose | 03.15.06 - 9:05 pm | #


    Comment: Wow, lets collect some more data: "Who is lost and pathetic?"

    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:02 pm | #

    Interesting systemic observations.

    I'm still collecting observations on this topic, and will be for a while.

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 9:08 pm | #


    Agh...DKos is broken, "undergoing maintenance" now. I'm going to head to bed and hope nothing else breaks between now and dawn.

    In the mean time, here's a link to digest: archi...ne_fridays.html

    This was a pretty cool concept in its day.

    And then this is where the buzz started about the Downing Street Memo: 251

    georgia10 and the gang rocked. You can blame yours truly for the meme, Did you get the Memo?

    Both concepts were sustained for a period of time, at least as long as we have between now and the election. I could see the FDL Roots Project fitting here (she says with a stifled yawn as she publishes and powers down for the night...).
    Rayne | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:11 pm | #


    Coment: They call themselves the "voal majority" -- you suppress other views, you ignore coments, you chase ghosts. That's not a majority -- that's a mob of lemmings.End

    After reading the comments all day here....

    It's a BAD move when calling senators that you are part of an organized effort to call them, i.e. FDL or whatever. They know we are the vocal majority and while they may be sympathetic, they care about what the "silent majority" thinks. That's what KILLED the "ports deal", not us.
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:12 pm | #


    "vocal majority"

    Sheesh, I meant "vocal minority"

    Nite! : )
    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:15 pm | #


    Cozumel | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 9:12 pm | #

    If I have anything to do with it, we will be seeing that "silent majority" meme more.

    It came up in some phone conversations this morning, and I'd like to get it out there for media and lobbying pushback on a number of fronts.

    If only to [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”] off Bill Safire, who coined the phrase for Agnew.

    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 9:15 pm | #


    Comment: E-mail Confirmed Pachacutec s Jane Schuler -- ajschuler at erols dot com

    Ok, gnight folks.

    As ever, I can be reached at ajschuler at erols dot com.
    Pachacutec | 03.15.06 - 9:16 pm | #


    Comment: Disgusted -- can't help you -- I'm banned.End

    I have read the links and remain completely disgusted at Democratic reticence on this and many other subjects pertaining to the illegal, unethical and irrational acts by this administration. I hear what is said about the need to work with the core and to mutually support as we work for change. But I also agree with watertiger when she asks why we have to practically force these people to uphold the Constitution and do the jobs we elected them to do. What I hear is that we have to batter them and "shame them" until they represent us. I know we have a participatory democracy, but I don't think this is what theFounders had in mind when the gave it to us. It sounds like the tactics of the Christian Coalition to get Bush to keep abortion and gay marriage on the table and I think it stinks.

    This isn't some subtle issue where there is a real question about whether bush is guilty or not, and it's not impeachment either. As we said during all the hard work we did around the Alito hearings, if not now, when? If it takes battering and shaming to move these Senators in the direction of ethical and legal correctness, then maybe they don't deserve as much support as they assume. I don't think they believe that a significant number of voters will abandon the Party over this, but I am utterly terrified of another war and have plenty of evidence already that Dem Senators may let it happen.
    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:17 pm | #


    If everything the dems do is stupid, at some point ya gotta wonder why you are a dem.

    nader in 08'
    hadenough | 03.15.06 - 9:19 pm | #


    Comment: Notice they aren't sure what to do.

    ck - why precisely should we be calmed down ... fired up seems like a good way to be at the moment

    and that does not mean giving up or lacking deliberation

    we get very afraid of the anger we feel and the shame of what our country is doing in our name...

    Each of the Iraqi children killed by the United States was our child. Each of the prisoners tortured in Abu Ghraib was our comrade. Each of their screams was ours. When they were humiliated, we were humiliated. The U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq - mostly volunteers in a poverty draft from small towns and poor urban neighborhoods - are victims just as much as the Iraqis of the same horrendous process, which asks them to die for a victory that will never be theirs: Arundhati Roy, "Tide? Or Ivory Snow? Public Power in the Age of Empire," stat...ati_Trans.shtml
    siun | 03.15.06 - 9:20 pm | #


    Comment: VG -- to act, you have to have a plan -- I'm not talking reacting to the RNC plan -- but creating a plan that trumps everything. Can’t help you discuss it, links not allowed. SorryEnd

    Pach, also not able to open Armando's post. But, I agree with those above who have said that anger is not the same as defeatism. Any strong emotion is a great motivating force for action. Well-placed anger gets people talking, saying things publically to all and sundry. Passion does work. Of course, we need the "strategic" approach too, but to reach those who have not been reached before, well-placed anger can have a powerful role. I think that the beltway Dems need to hear the anger from the populace. Okay, maybe they need to hear the more measured words too, but I still think that getting people talking with passion, who normally don't talk with passion is only a good thing.
    Valley Girl | 03.15.06 - 9:20 pm | #


    Comment: Slogan -- Do no harm -- sounds nice, but you don't follow it. You already turned on eachother. America is watching -- and you are very rude. End

    Ah, come on. It was plain wrong to not tell the party first. First rule is do no harm. This didn't help us, period! Timing is everything. The majority of the country is just coming around to the fact that we're being lied to. LET IT SINK IN and while it's sinking in the Dems need to be on the air daily pointing out the misleading statements, inconsistancies, and outright lies, and the fact the Repubs refuse to do their job of oversight. Remember Bushco's house of cards is falling apart and America is watching so don't distract them. The right time will show itself, but if we turn on each other we'll blow it.
    Rita | 03.15.06 - 9:23 pm | #


    Comment: Fury is from fear -- they fear not having a vision or a way forward. There is one, but you aren't listening. You are not read. You may have to suffer more despair.

    "silent majority"

    Unless Iraq takes a turn for the better, that huge, amorphous group of Americans will go to the polls in the fall and vote out the Republicans.

    For the last three months, I have been conducting my own not-so-scientific survey around my community. The message these otherwise tuned out people have gotten is that Bush got us into a war that we are LOSING. They are furious, and they are going to vote AGAINST his party.

    I live in the Denver area, and anger toward all things Bush is quickly escalating. People are seething.

    My concern is not that we won't be the majority in the Nov., but do we know how to lead? Where will we take the country?
    susan | 03.15.06 - 9:26 pm | #

    Comment: Congratulations -- one of the "big challenges" for leadership is to become one -- if you are given it, without a struggle, you are not well equipped to be leaders.


    Comment: Who is or isn't getting lied to. End

    Rita, I'm not necessarily turning on them, I feel they are turning on me. With all we know about the lies before the war, the lies bush has told us in speeches and the secrecy he and cheney want as thier atmosphere, as well as the filthy dealings done on the floor of the Senate by Republicans to get thier nefarious agenda pushed through, Democratic Senators have a president who has said he will continue to commit this crime and is actively sending henchmen into Congress to get his way. His buddies in the Majority are giving us and the Dems in the Senate a bunch of nonsense and lip service about oversight with which bush will never comply. I am very angry that senators with the experience of Feinstein and Kennedy will not even sign on to this because they think they will actually get some kind of answers in the sham committe oversight investigation. It is beyond belief that with a president who is at 33% and a VP at 18% who are sending more troops to Iraq and preparing to preemtively strike Iran against international disagreement, Democratic Senators actually believe there is anything to discuss or wait for.
    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:32 pm | #



    Feingold is giving up on his own party. He knows that informing them would've done jack squat, and for that matter we don't know he DIDN'T inform them. He acted because they wouldn't, and trusted that something good would come out of an honorable action. It will.

    As for lying just starting to sink in and the right time coming, LOL, what'll be the right time? When we nuke Poland?? I doubt the Democrats would do much about that, either.
    MarcLord | 03.15.06 - 9:35 pm | #


    Comment: "We're being lied to" -- well, what happens when someone tells you the truth? You ban them. You don't want to know the truth: What someone really thinks, or what a real plan might be. You're not interested. End

    Rita wrote:
    The majority of the country is just coming around to the fact that we're being lied to. LET IT SINK IN

    This is not accurate - the majority of the people in this country believe the war was not a good idea - look at the polls.

    The only people who don't seem to understand popular opinion seem to be the dems who are still thinking it's 2001.

    And while the country has turned against Bush and the republicans, the dems popularity is tanking ... weren't the numbers lower than Cheney's for Dem Senators?

    People will not continue to support the republicans but the Dems need to give them some reason to get out and support Dems - so far they are failing on that part of the task - and when they fail to take back either house, they will once again claim that this is a justification for climbing even further into W's lap.
    siun | 03.15.06 - 9:46 pm | #


    good point, susan, and an excellent question. How will the Democrats govern if they can't agree on this clear-cut and obvious issue? What will they be waiting for then as they approach every decision with process instead of progressive action? If nothing else, this is demonstrating for me that many dems are just as disconnected from the opinions and needs of "the people" as all of the Republican Party.

    Now we have a Task Force on where to take the country led by our old buddy James Baker. I'm sure that report (costing what?) will give us all a laugh, just like the Abu Ghraib investigation and the internal investigation into the Katrina response. Can you imagine that James Baker will listen to anyone who says Bush is a liar? The press will follow him like lapdogs and he will simply say, "It's all good. Nothing to see here, move along." And here we have Bolton saying he can't sign onto a Human Rights Council, ???maybe because the US might be implicated. Sure, it will be a pointless council with a number of membars involved in abuses, but it's just another example of bush administration irony.

    Sorry about these rants, really, but my reaction to the Armando post and some of the comments about it were a little like a pat on the head for the cranky children who need to calm down by the wiser grown ups. It [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]es me off to be told I should edit myself about something as important as the constitution and the illegal acts of the president of the united states.

    I'll settle down now.
    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:46 pm | #


    Zenn dear friend - don't settle down - we are right to be furious and right to say so.

    Tonight on Chicago local tv, big story was 2 suspicious happenings at big skyscrapers - inc. the Sears Tower - we're not supposed to worry but of course we're supposed to worry and then cheer for W when he bombs Iran (or has his buddies in Israel do it)

    we should all reread egregious above:

    Can war against Iran be stopped?

    Are we truly determined to have yet another war of aggression?

    How did Germans turn into Nazis?
    Answer: little by little.

    We are becoming the new Nazis.
    I wish I were exaggerating.

    egregious | 03.15.06 - 8:36 pm | #
    siun | 03.15.06 - 9:54 pm | #


    Comment: Notice the language of "bloggers" -- they missed the point of what they are doing.


    I am right there with you. I don't need anybody telling me to calm down. The only people acting like CHILDREN are the senators who apparently don't know an obvious case of right vs. wrong when it presents itself and react to boldness and principle by running to the AP to gripe without attribution.

    Anybody who points to the reactions of bloggers and blames us for the problems with the DC Dems is no different in my book than the GOPers who blame the media for the problems in Iraq. We're not making the party look bad. It's doing that to itself.

    Feingold issues his motion to censure. Democratic Senator, do you ...

    A) Say "Yes, the executive of the country must be held accountable!"
    B) Sigh privately and say "Yes, the executive of the country must be held accountable!"
    or C) Say "Uh, I don't know" and then call the Washington Post to bitch about Feingold and provide a lame excuse as to why you have priorities other than defending the Constitution.

    If the answer's not A, then it better be B or Dover Bitch is going to call you out, like it or not.
    Dover Bitch | 03.15.06 - 9:57 pm | #


    I am heading for some sleep but I ask everyone to go to markfromireland's blog and look closely and long at the three photos Erdla has posted there (Erdla is our friend Dubhaltach's fiance - who is serving in Afghanistan with non-US forces) - look closely at these photos then think about all of this again:
    siun | 03.15.06 - 10:04 pm | #


    Comment: "Our job is to be tenacious" -- you are good at that, your FDL friends like to tell others to "F = = = off" without having a civil conversations. You want to fight, but you are not sure what your strategy is. End

    democratic underground has a tally on the censure call. keep pestering your congressperson to come out and get behind feingold. an avalanche can start slowly. it's only been two days since the call was made. our job is to be tenacious and relentless.

    is it a surprise that rush limpbough is rallying the republican base? is it a shock that mehlman says it will end up hurting the democrats? do we expect them to just lie down and roll over? a cornered rat is dangerous. it will fight to the death.

    remember: take names and kick [Constant changed: a-word, ending with ss].
    coyote | Homepage | 03.15.06 - 10:43 pm | #


    Say what you will about Jessica Simpson, but you can't say the girl doesn't know how to read the American public. domesticNews
    RBG | 03.15.06 - 10:50 pm | #


    Comment: This is a logical fallacy -- things can change before the elections -- 603 will force them to commit; and then subsequent to that vote on impeachment, the cards will come crashing down. We're actually 7 months, 2 weeks until the election. Can't focus on "their wrongs" unless you're willing to be firm which what you are for -- and what the real problem is: they shift the burden of proof.End

    Zennurse, unless the Dems get back either house nothing will change that's just a fact. You're right Bush won't comply and the Repubs won't make him. Censuring Bush NOW won't change Iraq, stop Iran, or stop the illegal activities. Not everyone is a political junkie most people have no idea the scope of what's really going on but lots are paying attention right now because of the ports. So what are they hearing - cowards no ideas, blowing it. What is it 8 months until elections, I say we keep the focus on all the wrongs of the Republicans including the illegalities and not us. MarcLord, I agree Fiengold's action was honorable and something very good may come of it but any action that makes use look weak doesn't help. It has to be done smartly if were going to get the power that will allow us to bring Bush & Co to account & stop them & yes, censure Bush too.
    Rita | 03.15.06 - 11:04 pm | #


    Sorry if he disturbed anyone's peaceful slumber...

    Rip Dem Wankle
    punaise | 03.16.06 - 12:59 am | #


    I often wonder if the "K Street Projet" idea of pressuring for Republican lobbyists wasn't also done to the DC Media as well.
    owlbear1 | 03.16.06 - 4:20 am | #


    Comment: Jane weighs in on fairness, anger -- Pachacutec -- is banning someone who attempts to help "fair"? Start acting fair and maybe you can expect others to meet your example. Until then, you have no credibility.End

    zennurse | 03.15.06 - 9:46 pm | #

    I never, ever said calm down.

    I never, ever said don't be angry.

    I have, for myo own part, advocated staying in this fight for the long haul and I have agrgued for my own perception of strategic focus, which includes recognizing these half-wit, lemming dems for what they are, and still making sure the vehicle we seek to overtake in support of a progressive agenda is not further weakened, putting more Republicans in office in '06 and '08 than we need to.

    Because I don't like the * * * [Constant changed: Originally f-word]ing wars either.

    And I'm frankly getting a little [* * * Constant changed: Originally “PO’d” word”]ed off myself that people are assuming I'm saying or meaning things I'm not. I mean, frustration here can go both ways.

    It's not pleasant having these struggles here with my friends. I don't seek it out. BUt I hope my credibility around here is such that I'm not to be accused of patting people on the head. I find that unfair.
    Pachacutec | 03.16.06 - 5:06 am | #


    how 'bout: "together we can't bother" ?
    Flying Dutchman | 03.16.06 - 6:05 am | #


    This response to Feingold is all about 2008 and Clinton. He moved to take the lead in the Dem party and the rest of the Dems aren't having it. They are being good Clinton soldiers. Seems obvious.
    J. Post | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 6:37 am | #


    I called Senator Menendez's Washington office to thank him. They say he hasn't taken a position on the censure resolution yet.
    greenmountainsailor | 03.16.06 - 6:52 am | #


    Comment: Mui, I realize things can be frustrating. But there is hope. Your job is to use your frustration to move with focus -- your small effort is adding up. Thank you.End

    I am looking for the page that lists senators who will support the Feingold on Democratic Underground and can't find it. That is frustrating.
    mui | 03.16.06 - 7:06 am | #


    the democratic leadership is beholding to the same corporate masters as the republicans, it is not in thier interests to lead on the issues.
    feingold scares them precisely because he will not heed thier advice.
    americans have shown they will follow leadership, even bad leadership(bush, cheney) if they behave as if they have a backbone.
    the grassroots democrats have more of the interests of an opposition party trying to regain power than do the democratic leadership.
    einstein | 03.16.06 - 7:12 am | #


    Comment What's you can't find a link? I might be able to help you -- but I can't post, I've been banned.

    I mean I can't find a link for senators who support Feingold's censure proposal.
    mui | 03.16.06 - 7:13 am | #


    Comment: How do you propose to do this? That is called a strategy -- you need to have a credible legal threat of litigation; and you also need to clearly send a message that you're willing to change it all unless you lawfully have what we are entitled: The assent to the rule of law, and mandates that they comply with the law. End

    Censuring Bush right now is just dumb politics.

    The only thing Democrats should be concerned with right now is taking back the senate , House, Governorships, and State legislatures.

    After that, you can run Bush's * * * [Constant changed: Originally a-word, ends with SS]out of town on a rail.

    The Republicans are already using the censure vote to try to jack up their turnout for 2006. Claiming it is really impeachment.

    Democrats are already at near record highs for the generic vote for Congress. Bush is collapsing. Stop handing them a weapon to shoot at us with.

    Withdraw this resolution now. Kick their [Constant changed: a-word, ending with SS] in November, re-intoduce it in December.

    We can stop Bush for good by winning in November. We can't do it now. Get real people and get to work!
    TOM | 03.16.06 - 7:51 am | #

    Comment In order to win in November, you have to prevail -- you cannot fall into what the RNC wants you to believe: "The answer is after November" -- no, the answer is now: Compel congress to act, or tell them things are changing at the election. You need to organize to communicate: The options are on the table, we can lawfully revoke powers, change language, and compel something before the election with 603 and a well formulated Constitutional Convention Agenda and list of solutions to self-evident problems. It is easy; the problem is getting people to believe the RNC order is backwards: Do not wait until after the election -- then you will have nothing. It is like Phase II, they want you to delay -- force them to react with 603.


    Withdrawing the resolution will hurt '06 chances all around, unless you think dem turnout is unnecessary.
    Pachacutec | 03.16.06 - 8:03 am | #

    * * *