"Smith's worst nightmare"
It seems that it's Peter DeFazio Week in the blogosphere, as DailyKos weighs in again - citing a conversation with our very own Kari Chisholm, as well as yesterday's column by David Sirota.
Quoting Markos:
DeFazio sounds like the kind of guy who can set progressives in Oregon on fire, while reinforcing the lesson from 2006 -- that the DLC model of politics is obsolete and simply doesn't work. What more could a soul ask for?Run, Peter, run!
Update: Loaded Orygun weighs in - with the obvious point that has to be made:
Memo to DeFazio: While Markos isn't the be all and end all of politics and campaigns--his blog has the power to reach MILLIONS of readers--many of whom will gladly send money to a candidate sporting a big, fat Kos endorsement.Just sayin'.
Discuss.
|
April 04, 2007
Posted in elsewhere. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:44 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Would love to read the rest, but dKos is firewalled here at work. Any other salient portions fo the dKos bit?
3:21 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Maybe we should have an "I'll donate fifty bucks if he runs" list so that he can see what he's looking at in terms of pre-race support. I'm in.
3:21 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Kos is getting a bit big for his britches. The DLC model worked superbly in 2006. What other lesson can you draw? Did they learn nothing from Ned Lamont's thrashing (and the victories of the many other moderate candidates)?
The irony is that he views DeFazio as some indicator of a non-DLC model (whatever that implies). Peter is no firebreather, which is why he should run and why he can win.
3:35 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
The DLC model worked superbly in 2006
What the hell are you talking about?
The 50 State Strategy came almost entirely out of Howard [DLC's antichrist] Dean's DNC, with huge netroots support. Meanwhile, Harold Ford ran the DLC playbook to perfection (big donors, tout your religion, corporate support, waffle on the war) and got spanked by a corrupt mayor.
THE issue of the 2006 election was the war in Iraq, and the DLC has been consistently on the wrong side, even now supporting Bush's moronic escalation. Hell, even Gordon Smith is to the Left of the DLC on the war now.
Even now the poster-child for the DLC, Hillary Clinton, is losing the money battle with Obama and discovering just how shallow her support really is.
3:40 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
The DLC model did NOT work superbly. It spent millions of dollars on corporate Democrats, pushing aside more populist candidates--and this strategy was only somewhat successful. Their backing of Tammy Baldwin was especially egregious, IMO. At the same time, it all but ignored the opportunity for candidates like Larry Kessler in NC to win if only they got SOME small measure of help. They got wise to people like Kessler, Larry Grant in ID and Gary Trauner in WY only after Kos and other places like MyDD fairly shamed them into it--and it may have been to late at that.
The 2006 election was BY FAR a victory for progressive candidates, and not the faux-cons that the DLC likes to support. Look especially down ballot in places like New Hampshire and NY, where Republicans were obliterated by solid, grass roots progressive candidates.
Finally, blaming the Lamont situation on KOS? That's outrageous! Try the Washington establishment that backed the loser of their primary, sticking their fingers in the eyes of CT Democrats. It was their silence that allowed Holy Joe to run in the first place; if they had shamed him for being a traitor to the party like he deserved, he wouldn't be the bug up the ass of Harry Reid like he is now.
Sheesh.
3:41 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Thank you, Nate. What he said!
Apr 4, '07
Paul, what Universe are you in? There were 6 big Senate races and the only Dem who lost his was the DLC backed Harold Ford.
Apr 4, '07
[Please don't copy and paste whole articles from other websites. People who are firewalled at work should wait until they get home.]
Apr 4, '07
Is this really the kind of stance that sets Oregon progressives on fire or did Kos mean to say inflame?
DeFazio on immigration
Though I applaud Defazio's reasoned take on this issue, I can't envision most progressives cheering it. Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I want to know), but isn't the prevailing sentiment from the far left more of a "No person is illegal", "Open Borders" kinda thing?
I disagree with Peter DeFazio's position on some issues and only resided in his district for a brief period, but I have more respect for him than any of our current congressional reps. There's a reason he consistently wins reelection and it's more than just Lane county voting blue. Why? He's a good dude, has a conscience and is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. The guy gets things done and doesn't easily sell out his beliefs in the name of partisan politics. His record also suggests that he respects the second amendment and the rights of gun owners. Now, if he'd just distance himself slightly from some of the Moonbats in the progressive caucus (yeesh), I might even vote for the guy. Just my 2 cents, but DeFazio is head and shoulders above any other potential candidate mentioned so far, Kitzhaber being second. The rest are little more than pipe dreams, Steve Novick representing the biggest bong hit.
4:58 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Joe, you should take your schizo meds again.
I'll quote two sentences from your above post.
Though I applaud Defazio's reasoned take on this issue, I can't envision most progressives cheering it.
Now, if he'd just distance himself slightly from some of the Moonbats in the progressive caucus...
Maybe your second paragraph should read your first paragraph.
5:05 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
He's a good dude, has a conscience and is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.
That's what most American and Oregonian and particularly swing voters are looking for. Those of you who are trying to take a sweeping ideological mandate out of the 2006 election are barking up the wrong tree.
5:17 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Did I say copy and paste whole articles?
No, I said where there any other salient points other than the snippets presented here. Paraphrasing and giving a synopsis is fine with me. Besides, everything on dKos is fair-use if linked back and is not copyrighted.
5:40 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
FYI, Jon Tester was widly supported by Kos himself (align with many around here) and he is also not against gun-ownership and populist (like Webb, also hugely popular and supported by the dKos community). I myself contributed to both, and also am not anti-gun owner (like Kos himself).
So what is the "moonbat"-ish (nice Fright-Wing slur there I might add) position that you think DeFazio needs to distance himself from exactly?
BTW, paul up-thread must be posting from the same Bizzaroworld where McCain can safely walk through parts of Baghdad without previous day massive security sweeps, combined with 100+ armed escorts, body armor, 4 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships circling overhead... when he asserts that the DLC model was vindicated, when the exact opposite occured. Not just in the already cited Senate side where DLC darling Harold Ford Jr. lost and all the populist netroots supported candidates won (Tester, Webb), but also on the House side where DLC hand-picked darlings like Duckworth IL-06 blew through some $6 million and lost as well, while non-DLCers supported by the netroots won (Hodes NH-02, Sestak PA-07, Walz MN-01 to name but a few).
5:44 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
To clarify, when I said up-thread:
I meant that Kos, is also like myself (and DeFazio as well) not anti-gun ownership (nor are most in the dKos community for that matter).
Apr 4, '07
I assure you Kari, Blue Alpha Dog of Blue Oregon, most sophisticated, old, wise and enlightened of Blue Oregonians, I am in no way mentally impaired (that I know of) and not in need of psychoactive drugs. Funny how you didn't respond to my question, though. Not really funny, actually. Just pathetic and dishonest. Suit yourself.
6:27 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
Any chance you will respond to my question to you upthread?
6:51 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
I thought open borders was the GOP position. After all, the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States doubled in 6 years of GOP control over both branches of the legislature and the White House.
I don't know of any any Democrats at the Federal level who support an open border policy.
I have been discribed, inaccurately, by one Republican blogger as "uber-liberal", but strongly support enforcement of our borders and increased penalties for trafficking humans, among other things.
Does that answer your question?
7:11 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
The rest are little more than pipe dreams, Steve Novick representing the biggest bong hit.
I totally disagree, but this sentence still cracked me up.
8:38 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
I guess I see a different DLC strategy than other do. I see their strategy personified in Clinton's twice successful campaigns, outmaneuvering Republicans on issues where they hold traditional advantages (in this cycle, budgetary management and foreign affairs) and not running too far out toward the left.
If Tester and Webb are models of the netroots / "Kos" strategy, then I have no idea what sort of ideological profile this has other than let's figure out the right candidate to win and man we hate a war that 70% of the public hates as well. And that sounds an awful lot like the DLC to me.
The "50 state" strategy is classic party building activities. Is this "Kos"? Or is it a smart governor figuring out how to build from the base? Does the 50 state strategy deserve some credit for 2006? Or a terribly failed foreign policy.
It took the GOP 50 state strategy a decade to come to fruition. We'd be grossly naive to expect that the Democratic response would work in two short years.
Man, 2004 must be ancient history.
9:27 p.m.
Apr 4, '07
I agree with Nate Currie that "Steve Novick representing the biggest bong hit" is completely wrong, but very funny. If Gordon Smith were that funny he might have a chance of beating me ... but he isn't. I think Kos is right about DeFazio, and personally if he were runnng I'd give him $1,000, as I did in the Senate primary in '95 (despite my affection for Wyden and despite the fact that it was more than 10% of my net worth). But my interpretation of the Register-Guard article is that although he's being polite to the DSCC he really doesn't want to run, so I still don't think he will.
Apr 4, '07
Anytime you want to go somewhere that's firewalled, just try this:
google.com/translate?u=site.com
For example:
google.com/translate?u=dailykos.com
Cheers.
Apr 4, '07
My current concerns about DeFazio -- and I'm completely open to arguments that these concerns aren't valid -- are that he seems unenthusiastic about campaigning (a sure key to losing), and that we probably don't need the "moderating" anti-forest/anti-foreigner positions to win -- positions that he's accused of having around these parts but of which I have no independent knowledge. Anyone care to change my mind on these issues?
Apr 5, '07
"Any chance you will respond to my question to you upthread?"
Sure. What's my beef with the progressive caucus? I don't have the time or the inclination to write that lengthy diatribe and I don't reckon the blog owners would appreciate it either. In short, I'm not keen on race baiting or class warfare, prefer classic liberalism to socialism and really like my individual liberties. The CPC is your extremist wing, no better or more helpful to this nation than the religious right in my estimation.
So you supported some middle-of-the-road Democratic candidates last year. Good for you. Nice to see the Democratic party finally beginning to recognize that the anti-gun aura has been shooting themselves in the foot with many voters. I might begin to take them seriously on the second amendment when guys like Chuck Schumer are no longer operating the levers behind the curtain and the voting records of most elected Democrats actually demonstrate their respect for law abiding citizens. Somehow I think I'll be waiting a long time.
Still have respect for DeFazio though. Clearly he's not my dream candidate, but I'd trade David Wu for him in a heartbeat. Might even give him the nod in a senatorial race against Smith. Well, better pop a few more schizo, have another bong hit and get some shuteye. Goodnight Blue Oregon. ;)
Apr 5, '07
Oddly, I agree with Joe12Pack. I don't see anything mentally ill about 1) appauding someone's stand on issue A, and 2) wishing they'd change their stands on issues B, C, D.
But Joe does seem to get his idea of what Democrats think of the immigration issue from Lars Larson. In my experience, there is no "Democratic" position on the issue that's held by every registered Dem or left-leaning Independent. There are instead many positions -- some nuanced and well-thought-out, and some knee-jerk and, um, not-so-well-thought-out.
Republicans see it as a possible wedge issue. They wish it had been the main issue in 2006 instead of the Iraq War. They like the issue because, as with so much, they have a response that is simple, clear and wrong: blame the undocumented immigrants for everything bad, but don't do anything to actually address the root cause of illegal immigration.
7:21 a.m.
Apr 5, '07
If Tester and Webb are models of the netroots / "Kos" strategy, then I have no idea what sort of ideological profile this has other than let's figure out the right candidate to win and man we hate a war that 70% of the public hates as well. And that sounds an awful lot like the DLC to me.
Paul, I'd suggest reading "Crashing the Gates" by Markos and Jerome Armstrong. It's a very thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis of the recent changes in the political environment. I was pleasantly surprised that it was NOT an ideological screed.
In general, the Kos-led netroots are - contrary to media assumptions - very highly partisan, but not very highly ideological. It's an approach that says every district and every state is different, let's find a way to win. But the non-negotiables are these: ya gotta be a partisan Democrat that wants to win, and ya gotta have an approach that says the grassroots matter - not just the K Street money hunt.
It sounds like you think the DLC circa 2002-2008 has something in common with the DLC circa 1988-1996. It really doesn't. I used to be a DLC fan too, when they were partisan Democrats trying to find a way to win post-Dukakis.
But the DLC has morphed into an organization that has no constituency outside the Wall Street/K Street axis. They don't oppose the war; they support it - and they strongly backed Joe Lieberman.... who didn't fail ideologically (his numbers on non-Iraq issues are quite lefty), but failed to be a good Democrat. He consistently undermined other Democrats - smacktalking the party on Fox News, etc. And he's become entirely a creature of the Money Party, disdaining even the notion of grassroots involvement in politics.
Going back one more cycle, it's worth noting that Howard Dean's ideological profile was one of the most conservative of the 2004 field: pro-gun rights, pro-balanced budget, etc. But the DLC engaged in a campaign to destroy him because he had the temerity to suggest that power might exist somewhere other than the Wall Street/K Street axis.
That's why the Kos-led netroots hates the modern DLC.
8:17 a.m.
Apr 5, '07
Maybe we should be talking about the "current DLC" or "classic DLC"/"original DLC".
I think there are quite a few of us who were fans of "classic DLC" as Kari professed himself to be, who aren't real happy with Lieberman, et al.
The whole Howard Dean fiasco only goes to underline the point that ideology is not as much at the base of electoral politics as some of us tend to think it is. It is amazing that Dean is still considered by so many people across the political spectrum to be ultraliberal.
Apr 5, '07
RUN FOZIE, RUN!!!! RUN FOZIE, RUN!!!!
Apr 5, '07
Upthread Joe12pack said:
Hi Joe,
I'd like to respond to your statement there. First off the 'race-baiting' thing. Are you sure you're talking about progressives and not neo-cons? Secondly the 'class warfare'. Now I know you aren't really fully informed. Because I gotta tell ya, this country is in the middle of very subtle but very strong race/class warfare and it's being spear-headed by the neo-con sect of the Republican party that has had a death grip on the reins of control of that party for more than 25 years.
Anyone who reads history and news and does actual analysis can see that. This country has been under assault by those people for a long time ad you want to accuse the Progressives of class warfare?? Give me a break man. We are just recognizing the obvious and trying to take the blinders off everyone else.
As for your comment regarding how you like your civil liberties. Are you trying to say that you believe that Progressives are trying to take soe of tem away from you or am I just misinterpreting your words? I totally could be. Suffice to say that if that is what you think then I'd like to strenuously disagree with your position.
The reason that people like you, and I'm not trying to say anything more than there are other people who believe the same thing as you and I'm just lumping you all together, think that the Progressive Caucus is extreme is because the mass media is controlled by enormous conservative conglomerates and has been for a very long time. Those media conglomerates have been very actively using brainwashing techniques on our culture for more than 20 years. They have convinced everyone that most liberal progressives are whacky, berkenstock wearing, granola eating, patcoulli smelling, hippies.
That attidtude permeates everything and influences even people who may not agree with that statement in the general but make statements like "The CPC is your extremist wing, no better or more helpful to this nation than the religious right in my estimation". Sir, you are incorrect. Please don't believe me though. Look into what the actual platform of the Progressive caucus is and make your own judgment.
9:32 a.m.
Apr 5, '07
"Class warfare" is never an issue in this country unless a significant faction of those at the top are already waging it. When they pull out that accusation, you know they are up to no good.
9:36 a.m.
Apr 5, '07
While we are wandering all over the place anyway: those of you who are so enamored of Al Gore and so negative about John Kerry might want to consider that Al Gore boosted Joe Lieberman and John Kerry did the same for John Edwards.
Apr 5, '07
Wow. What a thread!!
First of all, I think there are so many political views on various issues that it's a mistake to try to box in any given view as "Democratic". That's a game the right plays, and the very far left feeds, that ends up with people saying things like Democrats support open borders.
To that end, it's always good when the far left attacks a Democratic candidate. It means they're appealing to a broader section of voters. The far left has got to face the reality that Kucinich went head-to-head with John Kerry in the primary, visited every city in the state, and still only got 20% of the primary vote.
So people like Markos, who I do not like defending, are looking to take the broad goals of the left and flesh out a new path to attaining those goals. DeFazio did vote on the healthy forest bill, but also introduced legislation to improve that bill. He did it because we did need money and community wildfire protection plans. Sadly, the plan looks like mow down all the trees in some places, but the intention was good. There has to be a place to meet between cut nothing and the need for wood. Like there has to be a place to meet between open borders and immigrant round-ups. We want that to be a populist Democratic Party; not the DLC corporate sell-out wing, and certainly not the corporate crony conservatives.
So I think DeFazio is a good fit. Maybe not perfect, like Tester and Webb aren't perfect. But a really good fit for the kind of return to the people politics we need right now. The more folks we get in DC who are honest and for the people, the better.
11:56 a.m.
Apr 5, '07
While you went off on nonsensical tirades about progressives seeking to curtail your civil liberties (pure bunk there I might add) you still didn't answer my question, which was "So what is the "moonbat"-ish (nice Fright-Wing slur there I might add) position that you think DeFazio needs to distance himself from exactly?"
Specifically, what positions does DeFazio take that are things he needs to distance himself from, chapter and verse as it were?
Your claptrap about progressives not respecting law-abiding citizens is pure horsehit and to be frank, pathetically insulting.
Apr 5, '07
lestatdelc,
I'M the one casting insults? Wow, thats rich. Do you actually read your own comments?
I thought I answered your question and summed up a few of my personal opinions without being insulting or attacking you. I don't have to quote you chapter on verse on anything. Big waste of time. I'm never going to change your mind and I don't think you are much interested in any point of view that does not strictly conform to your own. I could be wrong.
Faolan,
Yes, I was referring to things I happen to find objectionable about the progressive movement, including playing the race card ad nauseum, attempting to pit socioeconomic groups against each other and second amendment concerns to name a few. I offered no excuses for the behavior and polices of neocons. We might share a wide swath of common ground there. I also wont accuse you of being ill informed simply because of philosophical differences or perception. That's bullshit. Believe it or not, the best informed, most intelligent, well adjusted person in the world might not concur with some of your opinions or mine.
Apr 5, '07
Joe 12 pack said ... I am in no way mentally impaired (that I know of) and not in need of psychoactive drugs.
The mentally ill are always the last to know, arent' they?
The drugs make them able to function, but once they're functioning they think they doin't need the drugs, and then they spiral out of control. It's said really.
Apr 5, '07
oh c'mon Joe, you gotta be kidding me here with the race-card stuff. You really think it's Progressives who bring that up in the first place? Really? Come on man open your eyes.
Progressives are only addressing a pressing concern that is there for the world to see and does constitute true social injustices. Just because black people aren't slaves anymore you think we should stop fighting to make sure they have the same rights as everybody else?
On the issue of socioeconomic class conflict, I already told you that you're missing something there. Class warfare is going on in this country right now. Whether you want to believe it or not. I guess if you refuse to see that then there's not much more I can do to convince you. The information is there if you but read it. But it is a reality whether you want it to be or not. Progressives are just doing what we can to make people understand that it's happening and to try and fix things that are causing it.
This is not an issue of philisophical differences. It's a fact, not opinion.
This country is still dealing with race and class conflict. I was born lucky. I'm white. I have not faced systemic bigotry that I have witnessed people of color have to deal with. All I'm asking you to do is look at the world in a little more open manner and maybe you will see it too.
As for gun rights I have to add my voice to many other Progressives before me "We don't want to take your guns away from you!!!" How many times do we have to say it. Believe me I am very Liberterian as far as guns go. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. I personally believe that all males between the ages of 18-45 should be issued military rifles and required to attend militia training at least once a year if not monthly.
Progressives are just against people owning machine guns and grenades and crap like that. They want to make it difficult for someone to get their hands on a weapon over the counter on an instantaneous basis. It is a reasonable caution.
3:07 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
Yes, inherent in your claptrap about progressives not respecting law-abiding citizens (which we ourselves are) is very much an insult (among many).
Of course I read them, since I wrote them. And calling your insulting assertions insulting is not an insult, but an observation. If you step on someone's foot and the yell "ouch, you just stepped on my foot!" ...do you think they are insulting too?
Actually you didn't, and you did insult every progressive with your fraudulent and absurd assertion that someone we law-abiding citizens (progressives) do not respect law-abiding citizens.
You're correct, you don't have to do anything. Of course if you choose to not back up your assertions, with things like facts and specific examples, don't be surprised if many of us are left less than impressed by the merits of your arguments or assertions and say so.
So far you are batting .000 but I guess we can agree that your openness to at least admit you could be wrong should count for something. So should we take your refusal to address my question with specifics an admission you have nothing or take the facile excuse that since I am the problem you can't and won't waste your time blinding us with your brilliant arguments and reams of supporting examples?
3:10 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
Should read:
Apr 5, '07
Wow. Did Joe12Pack cross some invisible line that I'm not aware of? I don't agree with all of his posts, but they seemed polite enough.
And he's right about this: on matters of opinion, well-informed, intelligent people can still disagree. And I suspect that he finds the right-wing nuts just as objectionable as the rest of us do.
4:07 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
Apparently since the implication inherent in Joe's comments upthread are that he objects to progressives going around not respecting law-abiding citizens, which not only factually crap, but is insulting to progressives. Progressives ARE law-abiding citizens and do not go about disrespecting citizens because they are law-abiding, and to insinuate anything other than that is broad-brushed, fraudulent false-framing and an insult. I guess you see nothing wrong with the implication that progressives are hostile to being law-abiding citizens and are somehow not law-abiding citizens themselves.
Apr 5, '07
lestatdelc,
I insulted ALL progressives by expressing a less than favorable opinion of the DPC? Jeez, you're just looking to be offended, aren't ya'? Did I not also have some positive things to say about DeFazio, the progressive candidate were discussing here? Don't mistake my retort as an "ouch". You are incapable of hurting my feelings. Just thought I'd point out for your benefit that your retorts came off as needlessly personal and combative.
Look, I asked a legitimate, sincere question about DeFazio's stance on immigration to a largely progressive group. Just curious and genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of how many on the left agree with his stance or how they reconcile it with their own views.
I shared my own brief synopsis of DeFazio and expressed a few opinions about the DPC along with it, but I'm not going to write a lengthy (even lengthier at this point) editorial just for you to crap all over. I don't expect you to agree with me, but c'mon. "Nonsensical tirades", "claptrap", "horseshit", "pathetically insulting", "pure bunk", "fraudulent" and so on? Is there any point in attempting to have a rational conversation with the likes of you? I didn't think so.
5:30 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
hey, did I miss some excitement? I was just doing a few bong hits over here, and all of a sudden it seemed like everybody was yelling. Can't we all just get along, man?
5:32 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
I'm sorry, I thought you posted this:
Granted I am not an elected Democrat, but that reads as a pretty sweeping statement and implication that somehow Democrats, specifically progressive Democrats are en masse not respecting law-abiding citizens and are somehow apart from law-abiding citizens and are busy hurling odious laws at law-abiding citizen's. Couple that with FReeper the pejorative of "moonbat" it is not unreasonable or difficult to unpack and expose the implied sweeping (and yes insulting) assertions within your post upthread.
"likes of me"...?
That little missive aside, sure. There is usually a point in trying to have a rational conversation. I am a rational person who actually supports personal gun ownership rights (though with background checks and limitations on automatic assault rifles, and reject some of the extremist arguments that all arms, even grenade launchers and such are an inherent right of private ownership).
5:39 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
LOL, well I can't speak for Joe12pack, but I am not "yelling". My not letting pass without commenting upon what I read as sweeping blanket (and false assertions) coupled with FReeper pejortives made by someone who has otherwise stated valid takes on things, thogh I amay nto agree with them entirely, isn't yelling, nor I have not taken Joe12packs repsonses as "yelling" either.
Apr 5, '07
Nor did I mean to shout. Please pardon my excessive display of boldness. Rather than placing emphasis on ALL, seems I went and emboldened the whole damned thing. Oh well, at least Caps Lock wasn't enabled.
9:20 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
Sweet, the Draft Peter DeFazio movement is getting off to a rockin' start! Not derailed at all by yet another garden-variety concern troll that we've all heard at least once each for every thread... Squarely, on topic, baby! Woot!
I hope Rep. DeFazio runs for US Senate, I really do. He'd crush Gordon Smith. He just has to step up.
I'd pay attention to two things: who you can get to run for his House seat in OR-4, and whether or not Rep. DeFazio feels like he's being ordered around by the DSCC as to what to run for.
If I were him, I'd run the Peter DeFazio campaign, and not the DSCC one. No Beltway consultants, no K-Streeters, no megacorp donors. They've made some horrible decisions as to who to get behind (and that goes double for Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC), when, and with how much. I hope they don't torpedo him.
Anyway, yeah, if he runs for Senate, I'm sending him money. It's not like Bill Nelson needs or deserves it, or we could mount a credible challenge to Mel Martinez.
Apr 5, '07
If de Fazio is not enthused about getting involved with Chuck Schumer and the DSCC, that is another sign that he is his own man and has enough sense to keep his distance from that bunch. My brief experience with de Fazio encouraged me to believe he is a man in touch with the real world, which is more than can be said for Smith who keeps modifying his positions and Schumer who thinks he can bully his way anywhere he wants.
11:52 p.m.
Apr 5, '07
OK. Joe and Lestat. Please go to your respective corners and take a breather.
Apr 6, '07
... he is his own man ...
There will be many factors that go into de Fazio deciding whether to run for the Senate or not, but I believe retaining his personal integrity will be one of them. If he has to sell out to get Democrat funding, then I believe, and hope, he will stay in the House.
As for the immigration issue, taking one side or the other of the options put forward will not solve the problem. The United States must get involved with Mexico and other Central American nations to reduce the grinding poverty the drives so many desparate people north to the this country. From what I have been reading lately, this will also include taking another look at NAFTA which appears to be a contributory factor in causing the massive poverty that prevails south of the border.
11:38 a.m.
Apr 6, '07