Kos Pens A Myth For The Washington Post

Interesting by line today in the Washington Post but does Moulitsas' bragging hold up to serious scrutiny?

How We Won the Mainstream By Susan Gardner and Markos Moulitsas Saturday, August 11, 2007; Page A17

Three years ago things looked bleak for the Democratic Party. George Bush had just won a second term while his party consolidated its grip on Congress.

Yes, such a dominating Bush victory, it wasn't until the next day we were clear on just who had won. Contested Governorships were split by the parties, most races were closely contested and Delay's re-districting in Texas had more to do with the GOP "consolidation" of legislative control, than did voter attitudes. It's important to note that as Moulitsas and his fellow liberals are attempting to make it appear as though there's been a sea change in American politics toward the Left when there's scant evidence to suggest it's actually true.

The piece notes: In the House, Democrats chose Nancy Pelosi to lead them over current DLC Chairman Harold Ford, who warned of disaster if Pelosi won. Some might pronounce a 3% approval rating precisely that. And as for this:

Months later we championed Ned Lamont's victorious primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Beltway insiders predicted that our success would cost Democrats the U.S. Senate, and consultants allied with the DLC fretted that activists were "pushing the party to the left."

In fact, we pushed the party so far left that we positioned it squarely in the American mainstream and last year won a historic, sweeping congressional victory, something the "centrist" groups had been unable to accomplish for decades -- not even in the DLC's glory days of the 1990s.

The above is laughable, particularly given that this alleged great new (Left of)center of which Kos brags, at least in the form of Connecticut voters, rejected Lamont and returned Lieberman to the Senate 50% - 40% with another 10% going to Republican Schlesinger. The fact is, Kos' vision of a new center in the form of Ned Lamont lost by a landslide. But let's not let that get in the way of his fanciful bragging about it as some form of a greater victory, when all it is, is precisely what Harold Ford suggests, a push of the Democrat Party toward the ultimately unelectable Left.

Like a good Liberal, hoping to capitalize on the recent bridge collapse, Kos' revisionism has also just now somehow discovered that infrastructure was important in the 06 elections. That's absurd and the rest of this next bit isn't much better.

By early 2006, so-called centrism had offered up Iraq, a tax regime that puts the burden on the middle class, bankruptcy reform that gave away the farm to irresponsible credit card companies, an outdated physical infrastructure, legalized torture and a crippled disaster-response effort in New Orleans. The American people, infinitely smarter than Washington insiders, had had enough. Unapologetic, muscular Democrats swept into office in dramatic numbers in state and local races nationwide.

"Muscular" Democrats? Is Kos' putting together a ticket, or a calendar? Because those so-called muscular Democrats are the very ones most worried about the Netroots influence over the Democrat Party as a whole. I didn't see Jim Webb, or Heath Shuler at Yearly Kos, did Marcos? Or was he simply imagining those muscular guys in his dreams?

The reality is, Kos' rhetoric is long on the same old faux populist themes Liberal, sorry, Progressive Democrats have been touting for decades and recent polls show that, when asked, people still understand that when a Democrat says tax the rich, they still intend on coming right at the Middle Class, as that's where the overwhelming majority of taxable dollars reside. On top of that, to remain at least somewhat credible on National Defense, the leader for the Democrat presidential nomination in 08, Hillary Clinton, is walking a tightrope, desperately trying not to get pulled off balance by a weak Left she needs if she wants to have a prayer of winning a General Election.

Don't look for the Netroots to be bragging come next year when control of the country really matters, they'll likely be hiding their mostly Leftist views as much as possible and working as hard as they can to drag whatever Republican scandals they might out of the closet in the worst of American politics, just as they did with Foley and whatever company he kept in 2006, which had far more to do with Republican losses, than did anything else ever written at DailyKos.

It's the Foleys and the Duke Cunninghams of the world, as well as a difficult war, that gave Democrats their current day in the sun. And to the extent they ignore that and start thinking America has somehow shifted Left even while the rest of the world, see France, is going Right, it'll ultimately be their undoing come 2008.

On the other hand, Democrats may well consolidate recent gains in 2008. But if they do, it'll be because of victories by still more of those so-called muscular Democrats you'll never find associated too closely with the likes of DailyKos, except perhaps, as noted above, in Markos' dreams.

Comments

[daveinboca]

This midget has been beating his chest for years now. His demented autistic crew vaunt their victory over Joe Lieberman in CT. Anyone notice who's STILL SENATOR there?

The DLC has more of a following with the American people. The "mainstream" manic dwarf Moulitsa is talking about is a blog-bubble representing perhaps 20% of the informed American electorate. The vast informed middle considers itself independent or conservative with a tiny rump of liberals at about 20%. Those are from Pew, Gallup, Zogby & Rasmussen polls taken this year. The Kool-Ade drinkers of the far-left hallucinate that they are the only people in the room.

[joeCitizen]

Unfortunatly for you guys, he is right, and you are wrong. His side IS winning, your side IS losing. And no amount of flustered snark can change that reality.

"..start thinking America has somehow shifted Left even while the rest of the world, see France, is going Right, it'll ultimately be their undoing come 2008."

Oh, France is the "rest of the world" now? I wonder if this is some sort of a pattern developing. Whoever is on the outs in American political life suddently develops an atrraction for France.

I would point out to you that just at roughly the same time that America was electing Ronald Reagan, and starting us on this long national nightmare of conservatism, the French were electing their first, and only, Socialist president. So the two countries being out-of-phase in their ideological cycling is hardly a novel phenomenon.

[whippoorwill]

I love the smell of sour grapes in the morning, smells like... Victory

[Rich Casebolt]

Long nightmare of conservatism?

I remember the nightmares I lived through in the 1970's, at the peak of Leftist influence in our nation ... and I thank God that I didn't graduate from college and start my career until 1983.

The head Kos-hack is spreading the organic fertilizer here ... for it was the Blue Dogs, whose only tie to the Kos-hacks was their common support for one political party ... and whose only value to the Kos-hacks was their ability to gain just enough seats to flip majority status in Congress.

Tell us, Kos-hacks ... just how many of your policy objectives have been presented to the President for a veto, much less implemented?

Joe Liebermann marginalized yet?

Are we out of Iraq yet?

And how about those Congressional approval ratings? They make the Prez look rather good these days.

Let us not forget, that President Reagan's support included some voters known as the Reagan Democrats.

IMO. the more traction the Kos-hacks get within the Democrat Party, the more 21st-century Reagan Democrats we will see at the voting booths ... because the Kos-hacks have joined the old diehards of Woodstock Nation, as true believers in historically-verified stupidity.

And, as for the reasonable people of this nation ...

... we won't be fooled again.

[Joe Citizen]

"And how about those Congressional approval ratings? They make the Prez look rather good these days."

Actually, if you look at all the polls, rather than a few cherry-picked ones, three things emerge.

One, Congressional approval is actually no worse, in fact somewhat better than the presidents.

Two, Republicans in Congress have much lower approval than Dems in Congress, dragging down the numbers for the whole Congress.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/RrixvFjhRMI/AAAAAAAACTw/x0_PV1TOneU/s1600-h/CongPartiesJob.png

Three. Hotline poll from 7/19-22 has Pelosi's job approval at 37%. Quite a bit higher than the president.

Bottom line question:

Pew Poll - 7/25-29/07

Are you happy or unhappy that the Democratic Party won control of Congress in last November's election?"

Happy - Unhappy - Unsure
50 - 35 - 15

"And, as for the reasonable people of this nation ... we won't be fooled again."

Yes, Rich, that is exactly what the reasonable people are saying. Which is why the GOP is doomed.

[Rich Casebolt]

Joe ... a 3% approval rating is an awful ripe cherry for the plucking.

The President's ratings have been higher than those of Congressional Democrats on many occasions over the last year or two ... even when people like you thought the Prez was on the ropes.

And your bottom line question ... which describes a most mercurial metric ... indicates what we knew already; that the Dem hold on Congress is tenuous.

Mark my words ... the farther left the Kos-hacks and others drag the party Left, the lower both the Happy and Unsure numbers will become. We've seen it before.

And like I said ... where is the progress of those the Kos-hacks have championed and are now crowing about?

The Iraqi Parliament has met more of its benchmarks than this Congress ... and people are SHOOTING at the Iraqi MP's.

We won't be fooled again ...

... by the Kos-hacks ... or by the likes of you.

[southdakotaboy]

This country goes through swings every so many years. Most people who are now party activists were not really aware of politics when they were growing up in the 70's (if they were even alive) and the older generation has had time dim the memories.
I fully expect the American public to give the Dems control in 2008. Soon as the 2010 elections roll around the American people will realize how bad that choice will have been. They will see the ruined economy, disastrous government run health care and the constant terrorist attacks carried out by muslims in the US and will get rid of the Dems for another 20 to 30 years. That is about how long it will take the American public to forget how bad the Dems really are.

[Nordbuster]

A thorough and judicious rebuttal, Dan. What the Kos and Gardner (fellowship? a Kos fellowship?) completely neglect is the outright bungling of the Bush administration, the Republican congressional leadership, and the GOP political apparatus during the 2005-06 election cycle. Let me cite just four examples:

1. SOCIAL SECURITY -- House Republicans, under DeLay's tight discipline, could have passed any plan the Bush administration had wanted. But fearful of being hung out to dry by Republican senators, DeLay & Co. insisted that such measure first be passed by the Senate, where the power of the minority to filibuster meant that it never had a chance. So the GOP expended months arguing for Social Security reform, only to end up with nothing (actually worse than nothing, since the Democrats were able to demonize the GOP among senior citizens even for suggesting to change the system).

2. TERRI SCHIAVO -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush didn't have the guts to take action in Schiavo's defense, but Republican strategists saw an opportunity to appeal to Catholic pro-life voters, so Congress took a high-profile stance on a hard-to-understand "issue" that (in a proper conservative view of the Constitution) should have had nothing to do with the federal government whatsoever. Time and political capital wasted, while liberal media was able to spin this as "Republicans want to force you to linger on as a comatose vegetable" (every senior citizen's worst nightmare).

3. SCANDALS -- Republican Party officials should have demanded that Bob Ney and Tom DeLay resign from office as soon as the extent of their involvement in the Abramoff affair was fully known (i.e., no later than December 2005). It should be noticed that Mark Foley had not planned to run for re-election in 2004. Foley wanted to quit Congress and make some K Street cash as a lobbyist. Instead, Karl Rove personally intervened to convince Foley to seek re-election. In presentations to Republican leaders and conservative journalists in 2005-06, Rove consistently scoffed at the notion that scandal was doing political damage to the GOP brand name. Karl Rove, you dishonest bastard.

4. IMMIGRATION -- Nothing killed the enthusiasm of the GOP grassroots in 2006 so much as did the Senate's May passage of a "comprehensive" (i.e., amnesty) immigration bill. This was another of Karl Rove's brainstorms, and as with his handling of scandal issues, Rove consistently denied how much political damage the immigration issue was doing to Republicans. Karl Rove, you dishonest bastard.

If Democrats want to know who to credit for their 2006 victory, it's not Markos Moulitsas and the Fightin' Netroots. It's Karl Rove. Karl Rove, you dishonest bastard.

[Fred Beloit]

Nutbuster writes: "So the GOP expended months arguing for Social Security reform, only to end up with nothing (actually worse than nothing, since the Democrats were able to demonize the GOP among senior citizens even for suggesting to change the system)."

See how Nutbuster reasons that the Dems opposed any helpful change to stop Social Security from going broke down the road, but it was all the fault of the Republicans that no improvements were made. Brilliant. Emotions trump rationality again. Nutbuster, you sly but illogical, dog.

[Fred Beloit]

Nutbuster, continuing to rampage, writes: "3. SCANDALS -- Republican Party officials should have demanded that Bob Ney and Tom DeLay resign from office as soon as the extent of their involvement in the Abramoff affair was fully known (i.e., no later than December 2005)."

This is a game anyone can play. Watch: 3. SCANDALS -- Democrat Senators should have resigned after voting "not guilty" during the impeachment of W.J. Clinton. A judge had found Clinton guilty and fined him for perjury, and he was disbarred for the same offense, yet every Dem in the Senate voted "not guilty". He clearly, clearly was guilty and admitted it.

[Fred Beloit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/17/newsid_4537000/4537597.stm

[Fred Beloit]

More fun for Nutbuster: Read how Howard Dean implicated Harry "Hangdown" Reid in Indian Casino money scandal. Aren't you the fine, little Congressional historian, Nutbuster, you wag?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/110005.shtml