Kos Folds Up the Big Tent

[Beacool]

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

By Matt Bennett and Jim Kessler
March 19, 2014

If Markos Moulitsas had his way there’d be no Affordable Care Act, no Dodd-Frank, no economic stimulus package. That’s the price when purity tests are applied to Democrats.

In a remarkable post yesterday, Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive community site DailyKos, celebrates the departure from the Senate of 10 moderate Democrats over the last decade, and makes clear his hope that Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) lose their tough reelection battles this year. He doesn’t name some other moderates in tight races, like Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), but his logic suggests that he’d be only too happy to say goodbye to them as well.

........

A charge implicit in the Moulitsas post is that moderate Democrats lack political courage—that they would do the right thing if only they were brave enough. This just doesn’t withstand scrutiny. We actually sat in meetings with Senate moderates during the darkest days of the ACA deliberations. They knew that voting for the bill could send them to the Valley of the Doomed, and for many it did or still could. They put their careers on the line and took that vote anyway—every single moderate named in the piece who was still in the Senate voted for the ACA. So did those unnamed, like Senators Begich and Hagan. That is political courage.

........

Moulitsas might have a stronger case if the moderates he abhors were replaced by more liberal members. But almost every instance saw the opposite result. Of the 10 former Democratic senators that Moulitsas identifies, seven were replaced by Republicans, one by Montanan John Walsh, who is in a fight for his political life this year, and another by Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is unlikely to make the DailyKos Pantheon of Progressiveness. Just one, Joe Lieberman, of midnight-blue Connecticut, was succeeded by someone to his left. Meanwhile, the moderate Democrats in tough fights this cycle are running against Tea Party true believers.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/daily-kos-democrats-moderates-104817.html?ml=po_r

I think that some factions of the party would cut their nose to spite themselves. I remember the glee in 2010 when several Blue Dogs lost their seats. I could have understood it if they had been replaced by progressives, but they were not, they were replaced by Republicans. It was the year that brought to DC the Tea Party crowd. Pretending that a Blue Dog is the same as a T.P. member is asinine. It appears that we might see the same scenario this year, except that if these moderates lose their seats, Republicans will hold the majority in the Senate.




Below is Moulitsas' response to the Politico article.

Third Way puts words in my mouth to defend Zell Miller

So Third Way took a shot at me today, using Politico as their vehicle, because I guess having no constituency is no barrier to access if you have enough hedge fund managers on your board.

Politico has given me space to respond, so I'll save my substantive rebuttal for that venue. But I do want to make a couple of quick points. First of all, it's easy to see why it's happening.

It happened because Third Way co-founder Jonathan Cowan was once an aide to Andrew Cuomo, who is the second coming of Joe Lieberman. I've been beating up on Cuomo lately, so Third Way is leaping to his defense by attacking me. Fair enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286181/-Third-Way-puts-words-in-my-mouth-to-defend-Zell-Miller#

[ProSense]

1. Kos indicates he'll rebut that piece at Politico. Until then:

Third Way puts words in my mouth to defend Zell Miller

by kos .

<...>

...This appears to be the nut of their argument:

Of the 10 former Democratic senators that Moulitsas identifies, seven were replaced by Republicans, one by Montanan John Walsh, who is in a fight for his political life this year, and another by Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is unlikely to make the DailyKos Pantheon of Progressiveness.

Donnelly didn't replace Evan Bayh. He replaced Dick Lugar. But that simple fact check isn't the point I want to make. The point is this:

Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans? Ten years ago, Democrats had 49 members in the Senate. Today they have 53 plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King. And even if they lose the Senate this year, which they won't, it won't be much more than a rental as 2016 is a stellar map for us (up to 10 potential pickups).

So is it better to have Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in a 49-seat minority, or is it better to replace them with better Democrats in a 55-seat Democratic majority? Only morons would argue for the former, but apparently, that's what Third Way wants to be.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286181/-Third-Way-puts-words-in-my-mouth-to-defend-Zell-Miller

[Beacool]

4. Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans?

I care. This is not the year to be a purist. As it is, we may barely hold the Senate by the skin of our teeth.

[calimary]

7. No shit! I care, too.

Because then you better believe they're gonna start impeachment proceedings. What stopped them last time when that idiocy rampaged through the House of Reps, there was a Democratic majority in the Senate and the Senate did not convict. What do you suppose a republi-CON majority in the Senate would do? Probably NOT the same thing.

[Bandit]

15. To relieve the President of his duties takes three quarters of the Senate.

Even if the House did Impeach, there is no way in Hell the Senate would ever vote to remove him.

[calimary]

52. THIS Senate wouldn't - because there's a Democratic majority.

I'm worried about the next one. After the November elections.

[ProSense]

10. "Were," and

"Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans? I care. This is not the year to be a purist. As it is, we may barely hold the Senate by the skin of our teeth."

...in the context of the point he made, he isn't arguing that Democrats will lose the Senate. Zell Miller was completely useless, and no one misses Blanche Lincoln.

In the case of Donnelly replacing Lugar, Democratic pickups are a good counter.

I don't want Democrats to lose to Republicans, and Democratic control of Congress is key, but no one should pretend there aren't significant pitfalls of having too many Democrats who muck up the works by siding with Republicans.

[tabbycat31]

13. Thank you

To be honest, this purity test on the left makes me sick. As a political staffer, I've mostly worked for Blue Dog type candidates and the potential vols it makes me wonder if they honestly want a Republican in that seat.

Democrats hold the senate majority now because of purity tests on the other side (5 seats-- 3 in 2010 and 2 in 2012) and instead of eating their own, they should see this as a lesson (here included).

[Beacool]

22. You're correct, but we'll see if they learn their lesson (both sides).

I see so many here going on and on that they won't vote for the "lesser evil". Well, I hope that their smugness does not cost us the Senate this year and the WH in 2016.

[Number23]

37. Great post.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

41. You and Rahm Emanuel alike

[tabbycat31]

42. The Dems took back the house on his watch

Say what you want to about him (I don't really like the guy myself) but he got shit done.

I'm a campaign staffer who has mostly worked in conservative districts (I'm about to ship off to a very red state). I've heard 'too liberal' from many voters, but I've never heard 'too conservative' once. Sure, run a progressive in Vermont or San Francisco, but you have to know your district.

In House of Cards, they use the term 'vote your district'.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

45. Look

If we didn't have the Adam Greens and Markos Moulitsases speaking out for liberal principles, we'd be left with you, someone willing to walk away. In fact, walking away has only moved this country further and further to the right. Don't deny it then stick your head in the sand.

[tabbycat31]

47. Ok answer this

Would you rather have a senate with 20 Elizabeth Warren types and 80 Republicans or the senate as it stands now (55D-45R)?

I'm all for supporting the most progressive electable candidate (my state rarely has competitive primaries, but I backed a progressive congressman instead of a celebrity mayor in my state's last US senate primary). In this state, the GOP candidate was carved out of the looney bin (he actually brought Sarah Palin in to campaign for him) and any Democrat would have beaten him. Not so in other states.

I used to think that way, and then I worked on campaigns for a living. I first was (deeply) involved in politics in a wave year (08) and took things for granted. I've lived most of my life in blue states (the Clintons moved 1.4 miles away from my childhood home) so I took it for granted. I've since worked in five states (using 2008 numbers 3 blue, 2 red, 2012 numbers 4 blue 1 red) and mostly not the progressive areas. I've had to tone down a candidate's progressiveness before (we didn't win but we ran ahead of Obama and the Democratic senate candidate who eventually won).

I'm about to head off to a deeply red state where a Democrat has a chance at winning a statewide office. The candidate is moderate, but I don't expect a progressive to have a fighting chance given the state (where self-identified Republicans outnumber self-identified Democrats 2-1). I don't agree with his public position on issues like marriage equality, but I see where he's coming from and how supporting marriage equality could be toxic for his campaign.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

48. Let's play with real numbers, not yours

This is part of Moulitsases reply to the attack:

Who cares if seven of the 10 were replaced with Republicans? Ten years ago, Democrats had 49 members in the Senate. Today they have 53 plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King. And even if they lose the Senate this year, which they won't, it won't be much more than a rental as 2016 is a stellar map for us (up to 10 potential pickups).

So is it better to have Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in a 49-seat minority, or is it better to replace them with better Democrats in a 55-seat Democratic majority? Only morons would argue for the former, but apparently, that's what Third Way wants to be.

I understand your predicament and sympathize. I've only lived in the deepest blue cities in the country (SF and Chicago), so my shit don't stink And, despite rushing to Moulitsas's defense, I have no problem voting for a Third Way candidate when the alternative is a Republican. Your initial comment really pissed me off, tabby. I hope you've walked it back some. It seems that way to me.

Green, Moulitsas et. al. have a very important place in our conversation. I don't always agree with them but I'm glad they say what they do. People have completely forgotten what liberal principles are. They confuse voting Democratic with being liberal. Capisce?

In any event, I wish you all the best, my friend. Keep fighting the good fight.

Marc

[Bluenorthwest]

66. So you are willing to promote anti gay views for a fee and that's supposed to be

a good thing? I mean, for you it is a living, but the fact is that as a pragmatist, what you claim to 'believe' is just a claim, it is your actions that show what you really think, and your actions are to work against marriage equality.

[Beacool]

60. Thank you for the reality check.

Sometimes this place makes me feel like doing this:

[amandabeech]

49. Thanks for posting. n/t

[djean111]

2. Pretending a Blue Dog is a Democrat is also asinine.

[el_bryanto]

3. Do they caucus with the Democrats? nt

[Beacool]

8. Yes, let's throw them out so that they can be replaced by Republicans.

Why do you think that they are moderates in the first place? Most of them come from conservative districts where a progressive has a slim to none chance to get elected.

Using that logic, you must have been thrilled in 2010 when so many of them lost their seats. Oh yeah, small detail, Democrats lost their majority in the House.

[CJCRANE]

16. The poster is using the "All or Nothing" tactic.

Which amounts to saying this: this person or policy won't deliver everything we want, so let's do nothing, accept the status quo or accept worse.

It's a common technique, an easy way to criticize things without offering any alternative or realistic solution.

[Beacool]

23. It's not a productive way of participating in politics.

I constantly read the same kind of comments about 2016. "If Hillary is the nominee I'm not voting". Hasn't 2010 taught them anything???? I would take 100 Blue Dogs over any of the Tea Party a-holes.

Here are some of the "winners".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

[Jamaal510]

46. She's not my #1 Dem candidate,

but I agree--it would be counter-productive for some Democrats to not vote if she were to run and get the nod. Even Hillary is at least 100 times more competent and 100 times less toxic for the country than anyone from the Republican field. And of course, voting 3rd party is not an option, either, since their candidates have little-to-no name recognition, no money, and therefore no shot at winning.

[djean111]

55. And this is why there is no ENTHUSIASM - the deck is stacked so that even if the Dems

win, progressives/liberals are not represented.
Who do Blue Dogs caucus with? No matter who Buacus, for instance, caucuses with, he seems to work behind the scenes for GOP issues.
Hard to get excited for "less toxic". And, traditionally, the toxicity is moving more and more to the right, and the Third Way is good with that - the Third Way is, under its skin, Republican.

[Glitterati]

17. OK, then explain someone like John Lewis in GA

cause there ain't a soul on this earth who could call John Lewis a Blue Dog!

Yet, he still wins in a red state.

[JI7]

19. he is in a Blue district, just like DArrell Issa gets elected in solid blue California

by being in a red district.

[okaawhatever]

51. Easy, his district is D+31, has had 1 Republican rep since the Civil War, and is majority African

American. John Lewis is not an average candidate either, he is a hero of the Civil Rights movement and a legend for his activism. I deeply respect the man's accomplishments and would vote for him on that alone, and i'm not from Georgia nor am I AA.
Just to show you how competitive things are getting, the Republicans ran a candidate against him in 2010 for the first time in years.

[Recursion]

54. Sigh. This is still wrong.

Given the choice between a conservative who votes for Pelosi as speaker and a conservative who votes for Boehner as speaker, there is no question which is better. In fact, if we have finite campaign resources it's better to spend them getting that blue dog elected rather than a Republican than it is to support a more liberal primary candidate in a safe district. Nothing matters if we can't count to 218.

[CreekDog]

5. yeah i'll believe what Politico says about Kos when pigs fly

[bullwinkle428]

9. +1000. Charlie Pierce nails them : "Tiger Beat on the Potomac"!

[amandabeech]

50. That's giving "Tiger Beat" a bad name that it doesn't deserve.

Hey, c'mon. Some folks really liked the photo shoots of the Beatles.

"Tiger Beat" knows its audience and serves it well!

[JI7]

6. so is he supporting their primary opponents ? and who are the primary opponents ?

or is it just complaints without actually trying to do something ?

this happened with terry mcauliffe where he had no primary opponent and ended up winning the nomination. as we got closer to election day that's when these so called liberal activists started complaining about him not being liberal enough or some other shit.

so why didn't they run anyone in the primary.

[Beacool]

12. Exactly!!

On the other hand, I would take 10 Terrys over one Cooch. The guy is simply awful. I hope he never again runs for office.

[sabrina 1]

11. Wow, that's quite a flip flop for Kos, former Republican who was KNOWN for hating liberals,

banning so many of them from his forum we lost count, thousands as of 2007.

Something must have happened to have caused him to change so dramatically. Maybe his funding stopped or something. A few years ago he told any Liberal who complained about his right leaning views and support for the Third Way factions on his forum, who threatened to stop donating to DK, that 'I don't need your money' and then stopped, airc, fund raising on the forum. He stated he didn't need to be beholden to them, the 'left' which he and his front pagers mocked more than FR did.

Interesting. But he has a habit of switching from side to side periodically, as he switched from Republican to Democrat.

[MindMover]

28. BINGO ... and later, political winds change ....

[Ikonoklast]

31. Ratfucking.

That is Kos' MO.

[Whisp]

14. Hmm, I think I'm going to rec this.

maybe I should read it over again...

[Beacool]

27. Wow, knock me with a feather.

[Whisp]

29. I know! must be the 18 beer I just had.

(no, I didnn''tttt) ha

[Beacool]

30. Maybe..........

[mopinko]

18. well, yeah, when dems lose, they are succeed by the republicans who dealt that loss.

logic folks?
the question is, who succeeds them?
teabagger joe walsh was replaced by tammy duckworth in the house. year terms make this harder, but i have a feeling a lot of the 2010 gains will flip in 2016.

[Beacool]

24. Maybe so, but that's 2 years away.

They can do a lot of damage in 2 years if they get to control the Senate.

[mopinko]

38. without a doubt. without a tiny doubt.

but that is the price of purity tests, the question is- are they worth it?
this is why we should have more robust primaries.

[4now]

20. Idiots like him will cost us the Senate

It will be like 2010 all over again.

[Beacool]

25. That's my fear, losing the Senate.

If we lose the Blue Dog senators, who as it is are hanging by a thread, Republicans will win the Senate.

[LuvLoogie]

32. WE don't lose Blue Dog senators.

They lose of their own accord. By running from the Democratic platform and knifing the baby on legislative initiatives. Republicans that run to the center to get elected, then veer right in office--so do Blue Dog Democrats. They entrenched the individual mandate and killed the public option.

[Beacool]

33. No, they will lose because Obama and the ACA are not popular in their states.

I don't think that even Bill Clinton can save Pryor in AR.

[CreekDog]

35. Kos has responded, would you please put his response into your OP

Politico has a history of bad reporting and I would think you were actually hoping to post something accurate about Kos...

so posting his response to this would seem like a way for you to actually get closer to the truth on this.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286181/-Third-Way-puts-words-in-my-mouth-to-defend-Zell-Miller

[Beacool]

61. I added his response last night.

[CreekDog]

63. thanks!

[Beacool]

65. No problem......

[LuvLoogie]

36. Because Pryor never made the argument

that if the ACA is good for a blue state; it's good for a red state. He pedaled to the right his whole term.

It's a simple argument to make.

Illness and accidents are the bad guys of bodily harm. Uncle Sam wants to help struggling families in Arkansas to protect their households. The Medicare expansion is your sidearm protecting your family's wellness. etc. blah blah blah

[Orsino]

21. Another swing and a miss by Politico.

Blame Kos for not welcoming nominal Democrats? When Citizens United just opened a big new tent next door, and pays much better than the Dems can?

Fuck Politico.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. As much as I hate to admit it, Mr. Goldwater might have had a point.

". . . Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Particularly social justice to put my progressive spin on it.

[Aerows]

44. Indeed. n/t

[DCBob]

34. The notion that a liberal/progressive can win in a Rethug leaning district is simply ignorant...

and frankly dangerous. That mentality will send us to RW hell.

[BlueStreak]

53. That is EXACTLY the thinking that got us the blue dogs in the first place

In the big picture, we are better off losing some of those battles. When we have a couple dozen people that give us a nominal majority, but thwart every attempt at the kind of progress that will wind strong FDR-style support of the public, that is a death spiral. The public says "Look, you guys have the majority, but what good have you done for me?"

Kos is right. We can never have an effective party with dozens of those snakes, and we have made great strides in replacing the worst of them with people of greater conviction -- the sort of conviction that will take the country forward.

I don't deny that there are some realities along the way where certain issues just are too poisonous for certain states at certain times. Yes, we must be pragmatic about those things. But that isn't the problem with people like Evan Bayh, Max Baucus and the others. They simply were never on the team. They undercut us hundreds of times where it never would have been an issue at all for their constituents. They prevented Democratic governance from doing the things that would be both effective and popular.

When a person does that frequently at the moments of truth, we truly are better off if those seats are Republican. At least there is an opportunity to accurately place the blame in that case.

Beyond that, part of this is leadership. People like Tom Harkin, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Tom Udall, Kirsten Gildebrand, Elizabeth Warren and many others are not just voting. They are also actively EDUCATING the public. Some of this will take a generation of education. When did you ever hear one of the Dogs trying to nudge their state forward? Never.

[Dawson Leery]

39. Politico(R).

With that said, as bad as Ben Nelson and LIEberman are, they cannot be compared to a genuine anti-woman/theocrat/confederate dixiecrat such as Zell Miller.

[WhiteTara]

40. Didn't he cop to be CIA?

I'm tired of the perfect being the enemy of the good because it's our guys who listen and try to adjust to the entire picture. Flame away.

[Aerows]

43. A lot of people in the Democratic party

have folded up the big tent, and want to turn it into a third way station. Liberals are going to A) Complain B) Grumble and then C) get enough of it and rebel.

No political party owns anyone. When you start thinking you do, you forget what politics is about.

[davidpdx]

56. I don't particularly like bluedogs, but they are a necessary evil

For the most part in Oregon we have progressives in Congress. Unfortunately in our House delegation we have one R and one bluedog. I'm registered (but don't live in) the district (because I'm overseas). Come the primary I will vote against him just for the hell of it. As for the GE I haven't decided what I will do.

[idendoit]

57. Moulitsas hasn't changed his views.

Politico and the OP are snipe hunting.

[Chathamization]

58. No need to read what Moulsitsas actually said in his blog post when you can

read what Politico imagined he said in his blog post.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. "Who cares is seven of the ten were replaced by Republicans" damns him out of his own mouth.

Anyone who doesn't care about that is daft, frankly. Their heart may be in the right place, but their head is on holiday.

[truebrit71]

70. So let's keep 7 people that vote like republicans...

..rather than getting 1 or 2 or 4 that are ACTUAL Democrats...

Makes perfect sense...

[JPZenger]

62. Yeeeeaaa - Arkansas is going to elect a liberal, right

[Beacool]

64. The depressing fact is that in AR and the rest of the states where the Blue Dogs are in danger,

the reality on the ground is that those districts have become even more conservative since the time those Democrats were elected. What some on the Left can't seem to grasp is that if we lose those seats we won't get them back in years, if ever.

The loss of these Blue Dog seats will probably hand over the majority of the Senate to the Republicans.

Is that concept so hard to grasp????

[Bluenorthwest]

67. It's easy for you to say 'Big Tent' but what you are asking of others is to support bigots

who oppose our basic rights. Would you ask racial minorities to support racist candidates? What you ask of us is the same thing. Upthread a posters is bragging about joining an anti equality candidate, thrilled to do so. Can you imagine the same glee over working for an anti Jewish candidate being acceptable? 'He has to be anti Jewish to win....can't you understand that?'
It's disgusting. Some folks have no standards. People who will use a group of people, slander and oppose them for their own advancement are bad people doing an immoral thing.

[Beacool]

68. OK, then. Let the chips fall where they may.

I'm more concerned about the big picture, which in this case is holding on to the Senate. You are more concerned with the short term. Everyone will have to do what they think it's best.

[truebrit71]

71. If we lose the Senate then we'd better hope our (D) President blows the dust off the veto stamp...

...of course that would require that he take a public stand on something...

[truebrit71]

69. What a bunch of bullshit...

Moulitsas is 100% right. Fuck the Blue-Dogs. That's one of the reasons we have the Health Insurance debacle, too many fucking weak-minded centrist's and not enough REAL Democrats.