jump to navigation

Slide! The hill, the market, the nation… ;) 27 February 2007

Posted by marisacat in California / Pacific Coast, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, San Francisco.
trackback

  Classic San Francisco move, taxi cab and shopping bag!
James Nysather helps Linda Branco move some of her belongings out of his condo in North Beach. Linda and her husband, Jeff, who own Coit Liquors, were staying at Nysather’s condo when the mudslide happened. [Chronicle photo by David Paul Morris]

Tho in fairness, it was not all so (relatively) easy.  More than one house on Broadway is an older wood frame building with small, warren-like apartments or, in one case, an old style rooming house.  The Red Cross was there, and assistance at the Chinese Community Center..

“I remember watching part of a hillside come down in the 1980s — I saw a boulder the size of a Volkswagen Bug roll down the hill on Sansome Street,” she said.

********************************************* 

The Markets…

BBC (television news) says markets in the Pacific Rim are opening off:   From the Bangkok Post, early returns from the opening markets and a recap:

[E]arly Wednesday, New Zealand’s benchmark stock index tumbled 3 per cent, taking its lead from global markets.

Australian stocks tumbled 3.5 per cent Wednesday. The benchmark ASX200 dropped 200 points, or 3.5 per cent, to 5,771.

Sarah Rubicon, an analyst with brokerage Goldman Sachs J B Were in Sydney, said there was no panic and that buyers had come back into the market to pick up stocks cheaply. [...]

Recap:

[R]uss Koesterich, a portfolio manager at Barclays Global Investors, told the Bloomberg financial news agency that Tuesday’s action was “a fairly violent sell-off.”

The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 416.02 points, or 3.29 per cent, to 12,216.24. The S&P 500 plunged 50.33 points, or 3.47 per cent, to 1,399.04. The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index plummeted 96.65 points, or 3.86 per cent, to 2,407.87.

The US currency declined to 75.514 euro cents from 75.84 euro cents on Monday. The dollar fell against the Japanese currency to 117.9 yen from 120.61 yen on Monday.

Gold was off $9.55 to $676.20 per fine ounce.

The sharp slide came amid a tumble in global markets as fears about an economic slowdown in the United States and the end of the Chinese economic bubble sparked a global wave of selling.

Analysts at Briefing.com called the action “one of the worst days for stocks in recent memory [snip]

************************************************** 

The fearsome political concrete we are stuck in… From Tom Paine:

Precisely because we face such crucial policy choices in Iraq, the Middle East and the world, we must remember that while W. and the neocons are a problem, they are not the problem. Sweep this particular gang of thugs and thieves out of office, and … what? A kinder and gentler imperial policy designed by Democrats is still an imperial policy, and imperial policies always have the same result: The suffering of millions—others that are, too often, invisible to us—in support of policies that protect our affluence.

Name a politician at the national level today who has even come close to acknowledging that painful reality. Go ahead, think about it for a minute—I can wait. [...]

Gotta stop selling those elections:

I’m not arguing for a holier-than-thou purism on all doctrine at all times; we have to be strategic in offering support to politicians with whom we inevitably will have some disagreements. Instead, I’m arguing for an honest assessment of politicians, and of ourselves. If we are willing to excuse so quickly the pro-imperial policies of our so-called progressive leaders, might that be in part because we haven’t broken with the imperial mindset ourselves?
 
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan crumble under the weight of this imperial madness, we owe it to the people there not only to critique the policies of the psychotically self-righteous madmen of the Bush administration, and not only to point out that the current Democratic leadership is too timid in its opposition to these wars. We owe it to Iraqis and Afghans—and to all the people living in places that our empire targets—to critique the allegedly more humane and liberal face of empire.
 
If we look in the mirror, whose face is that?

It just leads to a kitchen drawer loaded with campaign buttons… and plenty of misery around the world.  And at home…

****************************************************

UPDATE, 10:52 am on the Pacific Ocean, we are cold clear and bright there…

A couple of hours ago, Martin of BMT posted to Mcat. I do believe he wished to imply that I am intimidating.  That appears to be his premise. 

Here is his first comment.  If you have an interest in what preceded his comments (in this thread that is) and how the thread evolved, please read below. (Bolding is mine.)

25. BooMan – 28 February 2007

Is there a reason why you are discussing the identity of my lawyer?

Do you have plans to post a picture of him?

Do you have plans to post his dating preferences?

Are you planning on posting his address and phone number, or telling everyone who his clients are?

I hope not.

I can see why you posted information about funding. None of that funding ever materialized, but I do understand why it is a topic worthy of discussion. What I don’t understand is why my lawyer has anything to do with this.

It seems like pure intimidation. And it fits right into a pattern that has been taken with at least 3 other lawyers that have aggravated you. My lawyer hasn’t done anything to warrant criticism, or even discussion.

 ****************************************************

OUT NOW. 

STOP FUNDING THE WARS.

About these ads

Comments»

1. marisacat - 27 February 2007

ooo Madman jsut sent this, Feingold HuffPo:

Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold says the Iraq bill his fellow Senate Democrats are working on is so weak that it “basically reads like a new authorization” of the war.

“I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats,” Feingold said in a statement this afternoon. “I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq.”

He hasn’t given up on “using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end,” he said, though the Senate leadership has not only rejected that approach, but said it would be tantamount to abandoning the troops. [snip]

2. missdevore - 27 February 2007

I just started reading Peter Galbraith’s “The End of Iraq” , and the bluntness therein is something we should be hearing from politicians. But then we have this nonsense from Levin, and I just read that Pelosi is saying that she think’s bush’s judgement on Iraq is “a little impaired.” Thanks Nancy Nice. Be a stereotypical female, for all your vaunted historicness.

3. marisacat - 27 February 2007

I never figured out the games Peter G had going iwth the Neo Cons in 2002, but his signature was on some of their dox and official letters. My guess he rationalised it to himself based on his love affair with the Kurdish part… (at least publically he is all for the split, the tri partite so called solution)… but it seemed an unholy alliance.

4. Miss Devore - 27 February 2007

yes, I did detect the Kurd/partition bias. thanks for the perspective.

5. New Fake Name - 27 February 2007

Marisacat: I’m with you on Peter G. Something doesn’t ring quite true, and it feels like he is carrying the watered-down neocon-flavored koolaid in some of his writings and appearances.

6. Miss Devore - 27 February 2007

omigoddess…..I feel like such a troll! (je blague)

am proceeding with caution….actually, I did fall asleep reading and listening to Kitka.

7. New Fake Name - 27 February 2007

Well, I’ll throw this against the wall and see how it sticks (and then duck):

The Washington Post’s crush on right-wing bloggers

8. marisacat - 27 February 2007

ooo that is a messy pile of scheisse from MM, when one gets down to the slobber for the so-called left blogs.

MM has been a source of money in Blogland.

Years ago, some parts of even the Dem party were a bit askance at ugh whatshisname.. The Republican of MM who thought the better of his R era acts. I sort of wrote it off.

But likely wise to keep it in mind (Oh BROCK, that was his name, just came to me).

Here is an interesting comment (set of questions) in a long thread following some days of nasty contention at BMT. BTW, the questions detailed in the comment were as well presented directly to Brock at MM.

There were never any answers from either Martin nor Brock/MM.

I am leaving the name off the cut and paste of the commenter as she no longer participates in any way on the blogs. She is an atty, however. The questions were not idle.

If the Boyz wanted transparency, they damn well would make sure they answered questions. They never do. They bullshit.

Re: Ideas on Slander (none / 1)

There is indeed some money coming soon to liberal bloggers. That money is coming through Media Matters, which has received some funding through the Democracy Alliance (an arm of the NDN), but a lot of funding from other sources as well. The money is going to be made available for a variety of purposes that will potentially benefit all liberal bloggers. There are no strings attached, there will be no quid pro quos, and there will be no mandated talking points. The idea is really not that different from an artist cooperative where various photographers, for example, pool their limited resources to buy color printers. In this case, cheap or free technical support might become available. Or access to Lexis-Nexis. Maybe broadband can be bought in bulk. Who knows? These things are still under discussion.

to whom is media matters distributing this money? who gets to decide how that money is spent and which liberal blogs will benefit from it. these things are still under discussion by whom?

Smaller bloggers stand to benefit the most as liberal blogging gets more publicity and costs come down and expensive resources are pooled.

how will small bloggers benefit the most? what expensive resources are going to be pooled? who decides who will get to participate in that pool?

Where women’s voices are valued and respected… Our Word

by _________ (___________ at aol.com) on Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 10:11:34 PM EST

Re: Ideas on Slander (4.00 / 3)

all good questions.

I’ll make important mistakes if I try to answer all those questions, so I won’t try.

I will try to get those answers for you though.

I have discussed these issues with Chris Bowers at great length. I satisfied myself that:

bloggers that claim to be progressive, liberal or Democratic will be welcome. (provided they are not demonstrably lying).

there will be nothing expected in return besides blogging

it is not for the purpose of coordinating message

and that the purpose to empower the left-wing blogoshpere, to amplify the message (albeit still not centrally controlled)…

by BooMan on Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 10:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ideas on Slander (none / 1)

thank you. i am looking forward to the answers to my questions.

Where women’s voices are valued and respected… Our Word
by _______ (________ at aol.com) on Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 10:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

media matters money (none / 0)

boo,

any word from chris yet in answer to my questions about the media matters money?

Where women’s voices are valued and respected… Our Word

by ________ (_________ at aol.com) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 07:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The posting and thread was Ideas On Slander.

So Armando of him…

He had his friend and atty “Cicero” on hand.

Anybody else think these are straight forward political discussion sites, where “community” is respected and involved in a small d democratic process?

I sure the fuck do not.

9. liberalcatnip - 27 February 2007

The RedStaters are drooling all over Levin saying that he’s calling for an attack on Syria. They even have their little Drudge-like cop light flashing to show how alarmed and excited they are by this “breaking news”.

10. marisacat - 27 February 2007

Levin so trashed himself and spouted R talking points on MTP that he deserves it..

thanks for the link.. ;)

The bi partisan war. Forever more…

11. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

Oh yeah MCat and remember the WaPost article funding of the New Left … with all unnamed sources of funding!!! People should not confuse “net neutrality” with unaccountability.

What I found hysterical was this crap from Stoller

You may not want to believe it, but the DLC is still in charge of the party in the form of the New Democrat and Blue Dog caucuses, as well as a whole crew of consultants warning the party off of dealing with Iraq.

How many times have the White Boyz declared that the DLC was irrelevant and in it’s last throes of power in the DP??? Lots …

Hmmm… New Democrat Caucus … isn’t that from the NDN ??? And weren’t the majority of Netrootz Progressive candidates…. Blue Dogs…. who are they kidding????

12. marisacat - 28 February 2007

There is also a post up there carefully serving up who we should venerate. Pelosi, Murtha, Waters and Moran…

They are undercutting the serious Democrats – Jim Moran, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Jack Murtha – who are actually interested in protecting and funding our troops.

gee. How about NO ONE?

Make them all pungle up.

13. Sabrina Ballerina - 28 February 2007

I remember when that issue came up (MM and money going to liberal blogs). Seems it’s still a secret. As to whether they are just political sites, I don’t think so anymore.

They silenced everyone after the election also, banned people for pushing for impeachment, for pulling out of Iraq, iow, for demanding accountability from Democrats. Now, they are panicing.

Having used their blogs to cover for do-nothing Dems, they are now, finally realizing what most of us knew back in Nov., that Dems should not have been given any respite. It was an emergency! There was no time for taking breaks. I remember trying to tell one of the dk kops that. Her response was ‘I am more interested in getting some domestic programs passed’ and when told that Bush would veto every bill unless he was threatened and backed into a corner, she slinked away, having exhausted all of her talking points.

It is infuriating to think of the time that has been wasted. The much-glorified netroots really has no power. They are now bemoaning the fact that the Dems are not doing a great job.

Btd has a diary on the rec. list tonight. He is praising Chris Bowers for ‘waking up’!! As if that was of any importance, other than proof that they are not worth whatever money they are being payed.

Today, 18 Iraqi children were blown to bits on a soccer field near Baghdad. In varous other bombings several more Iraqis were killled. Four US soldiers died in Iraq today also, and dk is more worried about the role of the netroots in politics than anything else.

Mitm is right. We have not made enough noise, nor has the Internet been used effectively to affect change and pressure elected officials. They’ve had five years, and what have they accomplished? They could have united to start strikes, boycotts etc.

I think there will arise a real progressive online presence as more and more people realize that sites like dk, are businesses whose job it is to protect the parties.

14. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

There are also numbers with Gore included, which I don’t care to post because I have long made it clear that I don’t think unannounced candidates should be included in these polls.

Cuz Bowers… knows stuff…


2/22-25/07 1/16-19/07 12/7-11/06

% % %
Hillary Clinton

36 41 39

Barack Obama

24 17 17

Al Gore

14 10 10

John Edwards

12 11 12

Bill Richardson

3 1 2

Joe Biden

1 3 2

Wesley Clark

- 1 1

Chris Dodd

- – -

Dennis Kucinich

- 1 n/a

Unsure

3 3 4

Why does Bowers feel the need to censor information? Isn’t the fact that Gore who is not running just gained 4 pts in a major national poll and now has firmly outpaced Edwards… a fact that should be at least discussed… particulary in terms of the very loud statement that people are not satisfied with the present field.

Also in the poll that Bowers shows to censor is the fact tha tthe front runner, Hilliary, has dropped 5 pts and Obama increased by 7 pts and eventhough Edwards increased by 1 pt he is now 3 pts behind Gore

This also shows that the plurality of voters are against every single candidate. The front runner Hilliary is pollig only 36% in favor ie 64% against her nomination… but Bowers is too “pure” to put all the facts on the table… and thinks by some act of God he can ignore… facts. Sure sounds like a Republican to me.

…and the White Boyz wonder why they are “out of touch” with reality”

15. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Too too funny

LOL I suspect they are all drunk. They remind me of the impotent generals, gasping to rewrite history, shuck off their own responsibility for a “finish off America” war, last spring.

Boyz slammed people, banned people, for THIS FUCKING CONGRESS.

They all should b ‘curled up in a ball, sick in bed’.

They are panicking. Big time.

16. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

Here is a good response to Stollers “Some of my best friends are CBC” post:

“The CBC doesn’t recognize that the netroots are not actually the old progressive movement.”

And why do you think that is? Is the CBC blind to the awesome unbearable lightness of being that is the netroots movement? No! From my perspective the netroots and the “old” progressive movement are cut from the same cloth, in terms of background, social perspective, etc. That’s what the CBC and others see. The netroots views of the black community are just as stunted by the social segregation we still live under, as their predecessors. And why is that, netroots? Why hasn’t there been any progress in that regard? What are YOU doing to break down those barriers?

“It’s not impossible, but frankly, we can’t provide the money that multi-billion dollar corporations can because we don’t have it.”

So you think its all about money, that the CBC and other black leaders and organizations only partner with those who have “multi-billion dollar” resources. And I guess you are that ignorant about blacks that you don’t even realize the insult that is, and yet you proclaim:

“We are new, and much more open to collaboration and working together with a newly energized African-American political progressive movement.”

With comments and ignorance on display like this, there is nothing “new” about you. Try spending some time — not just a day trip — in the black community and getting to know people, what they deal with every day; their issues.

17. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

And here is Bowers… I know Black people too...

For quite some time, basically as long as I have followed Democratic primaries, I have wondered if an alliance between African-Americans and white progressives could result in a progressive African-American winning the Democratic nomination (back in early October of 2003 at a Dean Meetup, I actually wrote a letter to Jesse Jackson asking him to endorse Howard Dean in an attempt to forge just such an alliance) .Obama was able to use that alliance to win the Democratic primary for Senate back in 2004, but it remains to be seen if he can put together such an alliance–or even if such an alliance would work–in a national campaign.

So now we know who made that happen….also Obama was saying different shit then

18. liberalcatnip - 28 February 2007

D Throat,

Thanks for keeping me enlightened about the “relationship” or lack thereof between the BBBs and the African-American community.

19. the paine - 28 February 2007

SB writes :

” Congress is where the hope may be
but not if we allow the ‘netroots’
to choose the candidates who are deserving of support”

.apropos the netroots “…self appointed…” “LEADERS”
she adds the bastards are shocked ’cause …
they’re discovering ( “… .. big revelation …”)
“….the ‘people’ are ahead of ”
THEM

her comments on same :

” we are NOT looking for ‘leaders’ online, but for information”

“They really do seem to think it’s all about them”

.” Opportunists are exactly what we do not need right now”.

beautiful !!!!!

20. the paine - 28 February 2007

have mercy on me …

but are there here
a few remaining
followers of senator foolzgold ???

what am i missing ????
i see very un self critical self importance
and a tune of opportunity
too well suited to proxmired left-deft-consin voters

21. ms_xeno - 28 February 2007

Paine, I think that the hope is that Feingold (and Gore) will behave more ethically than the candidates for Prez, because after all they are running for the White House.

Myself, I’m skeptical. They are still running for something, after all. If nothing else, they can’t endure a prolonged snubbing or being shut out of lucrative, post-term gigs should they either choose not to run or end up ousted. (Or, in Gore’s case, want to make more movies, and the like.)

Again, it’s not the divisions that fascinate me but the clear unity among prominent Progs. As I said the other day, both Blumenauer and Murray spout the same condescending bullshit as Pelosi about why impeachment is not to be bothered with. I’m sure they’re not the only ones who routinely insult their base with such canned bullshit, either. Of course there is “unity.” Either these people have no consciences at all or they are terrified of being slandered and vilified in the public sphere– not merely by the Right Wing media machine, but by their own. Look at how Durbin was hung out to dry by his cronies for the astounding revelation that soldiers in wartime commit attrocities against civilians– routinely.

Yeah, that includes Feingold. He twists and turns but he is still on a short leash, for as long as he chooses to remain a Democrat. Gore, too. All of them. They could walk tomorrow if they chose, together. Probably they won’t, though.

BTW, speaking of the Right Wing Machine, is it wrong that I don’t give a fuck if Kos and MyDDDDDDDD get their justly-earned share of lovey-dovey from the goddamn Post, or any other fucking mainstream newspaper ? I enjoy sniggering at Michelle Malkin’s pyschotic episodes as much as the next person, but really– why is it news that behaving like a reactionary psycho gasbag will make the papers fawn over you;The papers love that stuff, because deep down the high-rollers in the papers wish they could get away with that kind of crap, but don’t dare because they must preserve the flimsy pretext of “impartiality” or “high journalism.” Oh, unless they’re the “liberal” NYT, of course.

Yet we’re all supposed to be bummed out because Kozzies and their imitators just can’t get a glossy fashion spread in the fucking Post. Oh, such a setback for The Cause, whatever the fuck that might be. I usually don’t say this about other people than myself but, shit, get a life, BBBs.

22. ms_xeno - 28 February 2007

Arrgh. 1st paragraph: Gore and Feingold are NOT RUNNING.

Sorry. :/ Not my morning at all…

23. Sabrina Ballerina - 28 February 2007

Marisacat #15 – I read that thread, and yes, they did ban people. The Opol wars too were about the passionate calls to not allow Congress off the hook re Bush, and the diaries pointed out that Bush would do as he pleased unless steps were taken towards impeachment, and to not take it off the table.

But none of these ‘reality based’ warnings were welcome on dk, and many were banned and FPers threw temper tantrums in those diaries, Hunter, DhinMin and the rest, P.Page et al trying to shut up ‘voters’ who had well-founded, serious doubts about anything changing if the people did not pressure Congress.

To give credit where it is due, btd was not a part of that, airc. But Kos was and encouraged the bullying and banning of those who dared to speak out. So, in the end, Opol was right and the ‘big boyz’ were wrong. When has kos ever been right?

And now they are ‘shocked’ – and we are supposed to be grateful that the ‘netroots’ is waking up. It is laughable. It makes me so angry to think of the time that has been wasted which could have been spent pressuring Congress instead of protecting them. But then, is that why the ‘netroots’ is being paid?

the paine, Sen. Feingold seems to be pretty much alone. Reid will not support any effort to withdraw Bush’s authorization to wage war, Nancy has taken impeachment ‘off the table’. ‘Iraq will still be there’ when they get around to it!! It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

At least I’m glad to have discovered that the ‘netroots’ is not what it seems, before the next election and before wasting any more time with them.

24. Sabrina Ballerina - 28 February 2007

Ms xeno, this is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. It’s all about ‘them’! They’ve driven away or banned those who really cared about the important issues and were not online to enhance their own ‘careers’ being that most already have careers in the real world.

Yet we’re all supposed to be bummed out because Kozzies and their imitators just can’t get a glossy fashion spread in the fucking Post. Oh, such a setback for The Cause, whatever the fuck that might be. I usually don’t say this about other people than myself but, shit, get a life, BBBs.

Ask anyone you know if the know who kos is in real life. Lol, I have and have yet to meet anyone who has a clue. They need to get away from those lap-tops and out into the real world so that they stop telling themselves lies about how important they are. The efforts to stop the madness in this country are going on without them in the real world. And people are doing a far better job in that real world because they have their priorities straight.

25. BooMan - 28 February 2007

Is there a reason why you are discussing the identity of my lawyer?

Do you have plans to post a picture of him?

Do you have plans to post his dating preferences?

Are you planning on posting his address and phone number, or telling everyone who his clients are?

I hope not.

I can see why you posted information about funding. None of that funding ever materialized, but I do understand why it is a topic worthy of discussion. What I don’t understand is why my lawyer has anything to do with this.

It seems like pure intimidation. And it fits right into a pattern that has been taken with at least 3 other lawyers that have aggravated you. My lawyer hasn’t done anything to warrant criticism, or even discussion.

26. ms_xeno - 28 February 2007

I know, S.B., I know. And as long as the standard line in spaces like Pandagon is that it’s still “Bush’s War,” so long as there is no drumbeat of “You Democratic officials got us into this war and you’d FUCKING BETTER get us out of it now,” they are as emeshed in falsehood as the likes of Malkin, so far as I’m concerned. They are merrily and quite consciously manufacturing their own brand of consent, for whatever strokes and material goods they can get for it. Nauseating. >:

27. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Is there a reason why you are discussing the identity of my lawyer?

how is his moniker “his identity”.

Why do you mention him in that thread? Shall I post the comment in which you mention “Cicero” and call him “my lawyer”? I assume you read your own site and particularly your own comments at your own site.

IIRC at one time early on (or there abouts) he ran an ad for hs legal services at your site.

You forget Martin, you operate and post on a public forum. As do I.

If “Cicero” comments on your site and it is known he is your atty, that would be your doing.

Perhaps you need to take your blog to a private, members only site.

The Boyz are so confused they think they can control what is written elsewhere.

28. marisacat - 28 February 2007

9:06 am

**** The site is on full moderation. ****

29. BooMan - 28 February 2007

I am not confused.

I would not be in the least surprised if some Republican used any information they could find to undermine my credibility.

What I don’t expect is for people that largely share my political goals, or are contributing members of my blog would do those things.

It seems like you are suggesting that Media Matters gives me money. They don’t and never have, but there was a time when Media Matters was thinking about giving out some stipends. It didn’t happen.

And I think it is valid to ask about where bloggers get funding or whether they are disclosing that information. But, for the life of me, I can’t see how the fact that I have a lawyer has anything to do with it.

And since you seem to think it is fair game to look up all the information you can find on lawyers and publish it, I thought I’d ask what exactly you think you are doing bringing my lawyer up in a discussion that seems to have nothing to do with him.

If I thought you would respect his privacy I wouldn’t say a thing. But I have no reason to think that you wouldn’t be malicious towards him.

Again, you act like I am naive to think my privacy will be respected. That’s not my point. I only want my privacy to be respected by people that want to be contributors at my blog. I don’t think it is cool to post personal information about me as a way to try to undermine my credibility and then show up at BT as if you are a happy member of the site.

Cicero is my lawyer and he used to get free ads on my site. It’s not a big secret. But your history suggests that you might invade his privacy or otherwise try to do him harm as a way to strike at me.

I have no idea why you have a problem with me, but it seems that you do. And I’d prefer if you refrained from dragging innocent bystanders into your grudge match.

If you don’t have a problem with me then I apologize.

I see people calling my friend Chris Bowers an insect and disparaging me, and I assume that you agree with them.

I understand that we have political differences. I wonder why there is so much personal hostility though. Mentioning my lawyer seems like a threat to me. If I’m wrong, tell me I’m wrong.

30. spiderleaf - 28 February 2007

I remember that thread. In fact I recall defending Martin in that thread. But right, who needs facts when you’re vying for the “goddess of the serial blogwreckers” title, right BooMan?

Oh, and here’s the comment…

well said (4.00 / 3)
i think I was totally upfront about whatever conflicts of interest I have. Basically, if you make shit up about Rush Limbaugh I neither care if you hurt his feelings, if he resents me for publishing it, and chances are I don’t know if the charges are true or not.

None of that is true when it comes to Chris Bower’s. So, I have a limited tolerance for seeing him defamed on this site. The same goes for my lawyer Cicero. I never pretended that there wasn’t a personal element here. Parker never pretended to respect that, or to get her facts right.
by BooMan on Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 11:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Was your lawyer defamed on your site or were you saying as a lawyer he had a limited tolerance for it? What was your point and umm, who didn’t “out” whom again?

31. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Why do you expect that I should protect you Martin.

Why do you come here blubbering?

Because that is what you are doing.

Why do you forget so much then blame others.

These are legitimate issues. As is criticism as I see fit.

You AGAIN think you can control what is written elsewhere.

You look exceedingly foolish Martin. And that is your own doing.

Disabuse yourself of mad thougts that I shall be apologising “profusely”.

To you or anyone else.

All the lot of you look like is a gang that rushes to protect each other from free commentary.

Again you all look very foolish. But LOL of course looking foolish is highly legal. You also look like a very ineffective poorly thought out heavy.

32. ms_xeno - 28 February 2007

[snerk.] Booman, I am an unreconstructed Nader voter. At the local level, I vote only for Indies and Greens. Your friend Bowers routinely sneers at any Leftist outside the DP’s hegemony, blames people like me for every self-serving conniving piece of crap his supposed “allies” on Capitol Hill shove down our collective throats, etc. He tells voters and activists like me to “go to hell,” at best. (His masters, and yours, use the most despicable tactics to throw my candidates off ballots and to bankrupt them in bullying lawsuits.) He’s lucky that the worst I’ve called him to date is a brain-damaged insect.

You infer that insults based on political disagreements are tantamount to violations of privacy and threats to personal safety ? All I can say is “grow the fuck up.” If that were true, I would have sued 90% of the so-called Progressive boards/blogosphere for libel and slander starting around 2000. Oh, and The Nation and its countless even paler clones, as well. Gevalt…

33. spiderleaf - 28 February 2007

I’m confused. If he advertised services on your site as an attorney how would his privacy be violated by someone knowing who he was? I assume he didn’t pass the bar as his screen name right? I have no idea, nor do I care, who he is, but your logic is really just pathetic Martin. Come on, do you need to drive traffic to your site so much you have to invent shit to take offence to?

34. arcturus1 - 28 February 2007

demothugs – not even original

35. BooMan - 28 February 2007

Ok.

Nonresponsive Insults.

I shouldn’t expect anything else.

It would be too much to ask for any explanation for your hostility or any respect for the privacy of your ‘enemies’.

Understood.

36. marisacat - 28 February 2007

But Martin YOU posted on “slander” and you had your atty buzzing around the site.

I am going ot have to start laughing soon Martin.

Read the comment that follows your own mention of your atty. In “Ideas on Slander”.

Get with the flow here Martin. This is not remedial teaching about your own actions and comments.

LOL I think you think that you can come here, be a poor “heavy” and somehow affect my comportment and deportment. And last but not least,
you think you can affect/change what I post…

Again, you are making a fool of yourself. Reminds me of poor “howie” who threatned LSF, for his friend “GregNYC” over an email addy he advertised at more than one site. I had a legal opinion by 10 that night on the games the boyz were running. But Theoria was made of silly putty. Pity. And he liked erasing a woman. When he was mad at em dash.

As I say, the Boyz are confused.

Martin, call your lawyer. Ask him what has been breached here.

37. BooMan - 28 February 2007

I don’t really understand any of what you just wrote. It’s inside baseball and involves people I don’t even know. I never suggested anything was breached.

I just asked you why you are bringing up my attorney and whether it is your intention to do him harm.

38. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Truly it must be asked:

Do the Boyz have any skin at all?

Much less thick. Not even thin, that would be my take.

Why are they in “political work” ?? It seems so self defeating.

39. arcturus1 - 28 February 2007

too funny! wtf are you talkign about “privscy,” Martin?

reading comprehension really isn’t your forte, is it?

40. marisacat - 28 February 2007

I repeat, what “privacy”? Why did you have your atty advertise at your site?

Call your atty Martin.

You seem to understand little.

41. marisacat - 28 February 2007

As I said Martin, you came here as a rather ineffectual heavy.

If you are unaware of ‘GregNYC” then you know nothing of my banning at Dkos.

This is not remedial reading.

I am slowly, carefully trying to explain to you martin that you are out of order.

But you are unable to grasp simple things. Or so I must deduce.

You are attempting to affect what and how I post. It is not working.

Ask your atty why the lot of you ran a messy push back on me that failed. You were such an eager puppie to help Big Ol’ DD.

But you, all of you, fell flat. Maybe Cicero can explain it to you.

A bit of kind advice, don’t ask poor Armando. The king of the lie accusation, the king of the threaten to sue for “slander”.

You look silly Martin.

42. JJB - 28 February 2007

BooHooMan,

I would not be in the least surprised if some Republican used any information they could find to undermine my credibility.

No need to worry about that, what doesn’t exist cannot be undermined. :-)

43. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Poor Martin:

Is there a reason why you are discussing the identity of my lawyer?

Do you have plans to post a picture of him?

Do you have plans to post his dating preferences?

Are you planning on posting his address and phone number, or telling everyone who his clients are?

I hope not.

It is just a few mins ago. Call your atty Martin. Ask what has been breached.

Other wise you look like Bush v Iraq here. YOu know, stupidly pre-emptive.

Go away Martin. You are not amusing. write something on “non-democrats” or something.

44. not LV - 28 February 2007

Writing to the WordPress executives regarding the ongoing threats and harassment hosted at this site is the only way to affect change.

http://automattic.com/about/

I strongly suggest any and all lurkers here do the same.

45. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Be my guest.

Be sure and so what someone who masks their IP does.

not LV | dion679@gmail.com | mydd.com | IP: 168.215.171.1420 72.232.131.2

Writing to the WordPress executives regarding the ongoing threats and harassment hosted at this site is the only way to affect change.

http://automattic.com/about/

I strongly suggest any and all lurkers here do the same.

Feb 28, 10:54 AM

46. marisacat - 28 February 2007

btw, do you think that attys and other bloggers who are NOT sympathetic to the Boyz do not, as well, read this site and communicate with me?

Are you, that would be The Boyz, aware that I receive attempts to post (that would be “comment attempts”) here with highly interesting information, posts that I DO NOT approve out of moderation, but which I do retain?

Think again.

47. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Read (I am making the directions simple) what was just emailed to me:

“Not LV” should really read the T&C of sites he is asking people to complain about…

Responsibility of Website Visitors. Automattic has not reviewed, and cannot review, all of the material, including computer software, posted to the Website, and cannot therefore be responsible for that material’s content, use or effects. By operating the Website, Automattic does not represent or imply that it endorses the material there posted, or that it believes such material to be accurate, useful or non-harmful. You are responsible for taking precautions as necessary to protect yourself and your computer systems from viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and other harmful or destructive content. The Website may contain content that is offensive, indecent, or otherwise objectionable, as well as content containing technical inaccuracies, typographical mistakes, and other errors. The Website may also contain material that violates the privacy or publicity rights, or infringes the intellectual property and other proprietary rights, of third parties, or the downloading, copying or use of which is subject to additional terms and conditions, stated or unstated. Automattic disclaims any responsibility for any harm resulting from the use by visitors of the Website, or from any downloading by those visitors of content there posted.

Responsibility of Contributors. If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website to material on , or otherwise make material available by means of the Website (any such material, “Content”), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content. That is the case regardless of whether the Content in question constitutes text, graphics, an audio file, or computer software. By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:
the downloading, copying and use of the Content will not infringe the proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party;
if your employer has rights to intellectual property you create, you have either (i) received permission from your employer to post or make available the Content, including but not limited to any software, or (ii) secured from your employer a waiver as to all rights in or to the Content;
you have fully complied with any third-party licenses relating to the Content, and have done all things necessary to successfully pass through to end users any required terms;
the Content does not contain or install any viruses, worms, malware, Trojan horses or other harmful or destructive content;
the Content is not spam, and does not contain unethical or unwanted commercial content designed to drive traffic to third party sites or boost the search engine rankings of third party sites, or to further unlawful acts (such as phishing) or mislead recipients as to the source of the material (such as spoofing);
the Content is not obscene or libelous, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party; and
you have, in the case of Content that includes computer code, accurately categorized and/or described the type, nature, uses and effects of the materials, whether requested to do so by Automattic or otherwise.

Remember some people failed the DE bar multiple times.

Here is the link, knock yourselves out. By the way that, “knock yoursevles out”, does not contitute baiting if you are already challenged in being circumspect, wise and thoughtful. Not attributes that, generally speaking, accrue to the Boyz. Or their [cough strangel choke] consigliere.

http://wordpress.com/tos/

48. Kevin Lynch - 28 February 2007

OK

Trying to get back on topic here. Do you think the Murkin public is really ready to admit what the costs of empire are? Will they admit to themselves that for over a century, our corporations have been gaming the “undeveloped” world so that our lives became better while theirs slid into the sewer? “Western” civilization has been the biggest parasitic entity in world history. Sucking like a vampyre. Draining 80% of the world so that 20% can have just the greatest 200 year party! Crank out the party hats and confetti! Just so long as those Chinese workers don’t get more than 10 cents an hour for doing so

Will they admit that, when it comes, we’ll deserve what we get?
Kevin

49. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Maybe a refresher Martin… that is if it is stil legal to repost public commentary:

Re: well said (4.00 / 2)

boo,

my apologies if this is obvious to everyone else, but i’m a little dense when it comes to context and subtext. rather than make assumptions, i prefer to seek clarification. what do you mean by this comment:

So, I have a limited tolerance for seeing him [Chris Bowers] defamed on this site. The same goes for my lawyer Cicero.

does that mean that you have a limited tolerance for seeing cicero defamed on this site? or does it mean that cicero, like you, has a low tolerance for seeing chris bowers defamed on this site?

if its the first, has anybody been defaming cicero? and if its the second, are you implying that cicero, as an attorney, will take legal action if chris is defamed? is that legal action he would take on his own out of his own lack of tolerance, or action he would take on your behalf?

Where women’s voices are valued and respected… Our Word

by _________ (______ at aol.com) on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 02:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 1)

I presume that Booman doesn’t “name names” because calling somebody a “slanderer”–which is a very serious accusation–without proof is, itself, actionable.
I’m sure Booman’s attorney advised him of this, which is why he hasn’t said a single person’s name.

On the other hand, perhaps he’s using the same attorney as Hunter Thompson?

“Sounds like big trouble. You’re going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you’ll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special messages. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours.”

by Lord Farquaat on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 04:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 0)

brilliant.

by BooMan on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 11:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 1)

Lord, seeing as how you just joined Booman – um, today, by the look of your user number – maybe you should take a little time to get to know what’s going on before you go all judgmental here. You know, ask questions, read, evaluate, stuff like that…

“History is ruthless, and will never flatter anybody.” Zhou Enlai

by Other Lisa (redandexpert at that mega-ISP called yahoo.) on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 0)

My guess on this one, and it’s just a guess, is that it’s Shadowthief since Recordkeeper and himself have been using the Duloc/ Lord Faarquet analogy about this site recently and Recordkeeper just posted that ST was banned last night/ today.
Although I could be wrong, just seems a bit too coincidental.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 0)

Ah. ‘Nuff said.

“History is ruthless, and will never flatter anybody.” Zhou Enlai

by Other Lisa (redandexpert at that mega-ISP called yahoo.) on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well said (none / 0)

cicero is one of my closest friends. No one has defamed him. But if they did I would have limited patience for it.

by BooMan on Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 11:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly. Does your atty pay you? I think the apparent roles are reversed. And still reversed. That or he cannot look out for his own interests.

Some atty.

You take care Martin.

50. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Threads are On Topic at all times. Whatever anyone wishes to post is the topic. ’til it is not… LOL.

51. BooMan - 28 February 2007

For the record, I have no idea who notLV is and I haven’t instructed them to post here or complain.

For Ms. Xeno, I can understand why you are politically opposed to Chris and why his positions irritate you.

For that matter, since I am likewise a supporter of the Democratic Party and opposed to third parties (at least until we can get proportional representation), I can see why you would be irritated with me.

I have no problem with that. Political differences are natural and strong feelings are good when it comes to politics.

I also understand why people get angry with people that have an attitude online and engage in bullying behavior. And I understand why people push back against them.

And I also understand that Marisacat has a major beef with Markos and his site. I don’t really understand how that all came about and I don’t really care. She can write whatever she wants and obviously will.

But that doesn’t mean she is correct about a lot of things. For example, the entire premise of her post that I asked about seems to be that Media Matters is funding all the big boys of blogging, or whatever. She’s wrong about that. I haven’t received a dime from them. I am pretty sure that Duncan has a paying gig with them, but I have no relationship with them. I don’t know what arrangements Chris Bowers has, and I don’t really care.

In any case, speculation is fine and good. Conspiracy theories about how we are all funded and controlled it fair game.

I think it is also fair game for me to correct the record if it is wrong.

As for Marisacat, she seems to have misunderstood my intent.

She seems to think that I accused her of committing a crime. I just asked her why she was mentioning my attorney and if she was intending to do him harm.

I’d like it if she refrained from doing that. But it would be quite legal for her to do so if that is her desire.

52. earth to meg - 28 February 2007

These Boy Bloggers seem like they are scared shitless. About what? Why are they so threatened by this blog? Marisacat is a woman. That’s probably one. They are being challenged, their “cred,” but most importantly their I.V. lines to the Dem party.

Sorry, I’m an outsider to all of this but continue to think it’s important to address. Clearly, they are lurking here on a regular basis. Keeping tabs, as it were. Whatever. These (claimed) “outings” that are really non-outings are going to keep happening to them because they want the rest of us to play by rules that they don’t want to follow. Sounds like the Dem Party incarnate.

53. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Why did you post that you expected to be paid then, Martin?

Why did you leave questions directed to you (and as i stated, directed to MM as well) about the nature of the expected payments unanswered? (see your own thread).

It is entirely natural to speculate on paid influence in as big a game as national state and local politics. That won’t be going away. Tons of money flushes around specifically seeking influence. Blogs and esp Blahgs operate as little more than tabloids.

It is also entirely natural not to accept simple denials from the Boyz. In light of advertisements of expected payments, “stipends” (the word you used in August of 2005)…

Get real. OR did you miss what politics – and the voice of the people – is all about, Martin.

Seems you did.

Why on earth would I do what you wish Martin?

Unless you have forgotten about “apologise profusely” and other assorted crap, bullshit and other various and sundry public, and ignorant, statements.

54. marisacat - 28 February 2007

From Martin :

And I also understand that Marisacat has a major beef with Markos and his site. I don’t really understand how that all came about and I don’t really care. She can write whatever she wants and obviously will.

For the record… LOL I have an issue with, and concerns about, online, machine styled, SYFPH politics. And with squirrelly, weak operatives.

That will not be going away.

Martin needs to re read his first comment to this thread. One reason I elevated it.

55. BooMan - 28 February 2007

At the time there were discussions about possible stipends. It never happened.

If it had happened then I would have disclosed that Media Matters was paying me a stipend. As far as I know, it was an idea that was discussed briefly and it fell apart.

As I said above, there is nothing wrong with speculation.

But let me take this opportunity to address a couple of things that keep coming up.

There is no one paying me anything. I have no hidden sponsors. There is no advertising being funnelled to me or withheld from me.

I think I might have made a few more dollars last year if I hadn’t been so outspoken against Bob Casey, but I can’t prove that, and it didn’t deter me. In fact, Bob Casey advertised on my site at the very same time I was editorializing against him. I even laughed about it on the site at the time.

My contacts with the Democratic Party are limited to a few chiefs of staff and a few blog outreach people. They send me emails to make me aware of what their bosses are doing and they hope I will write about their issues and treat them favorably. That probably won’t surprise anyone. And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they tend to be friendlier if they get what they want, and less friendly if they don’t.

That is how they try to control the netroots. Money plays no part in it. It’s no more corrupt that the relationship between the news reporters and the government. If you want a source to be available in helpful you have a natural conflict of interests when it comes time to write something unfavorable about them in print. (See Scooter Libby/Tim Russert/Chris Matthews).

That stuff goes on, for sure. But it’s just human nature and the way all media deals with the people they cover.

I, of course, am not aware of all the private dealings of other people and it is possible that some other bloggers are being paid and not disclosing that fact. But I hope this at least dispenses with any concerns that there is some kind of hidden hand or collusion between these sites. As far as I know, there isn’t.

56. JJB - 28 February 2007

Oh what a tangled web . . .

As for Marisacat, she seems to have misunderstood my intent.

She seems to think that I accused her of committing a crime. I just asked her why she was mentioning my attorney and if she was intending to do him harm.

Roy Cohn couldn’t have done that last sentence any better.

Must be a boring day over in Armandildo land.

57. marisacat - 28 February 2007
58. arcturus1 - 28 February 2007

“criticism/discussion” = “pure intimidation”

straight from the pup’s mouth

la bonne blague!

59. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Oh please Martin. You are straining here, as you have done previously. You did not, very clearly, pay a price for tepid, non-endorsement of Casey at your site. And a few weak, toss off comments about Pennachio. That did not equate for full throated endorsement. Not even close.

People are not as stupid as all that. YOu feared insulting women and others at your site about Casey and related very hot issues within the Democratic party. That is all. That ws my take. Still is my take.

I think I might have made a few more dollars last year if I hadn’t been so outspoken against Bob Casey, but I can’t prove that, and it didn’t deter me. In fact, Bob Casey advertised on my site at the very same time I was editorializing against him. I even laughed about it on the site at the time.

*******************************

This is just laughable. If accurate, then you are not free to make blanket statements about the Boyz. Bolding is mine.

I, of course, am not aware of all the private dealings of other people and it is possible that some other bloggers are being paid and not disclosing that fact. But I hope this at least dispenses with any concerns that there is some kind of hidden hand or collusion between these sites. As far as I know, there isn’t.

Why would that dispense with concerns?

All it says is I dunno what I dunno but I sure dunno, but I still have opinions and will (lol) defend my buds as though I nu… WHich I don’t

LOL Martin, the Boyz and cohorts long ago lost any shred of credibility. Long ago.

Martin whoever is advising you would be smart to advise you to retreat to your blog.

YOu are planting the cow patties and then stepping in them.

Cease – LOL – and desist with your own tangles.

60. BooMan - 28 February 2007
61. BooMan - 28 February 2007

Here’s just a sample of the writing I did with albert and jpol on Pennaccchio.

Casey v. Pennacchio/ Pennsylvania Senate Race

Pennacchio for PA and Beyond

An Evening with Chuck

Casey is for Alito

Casey Bashing Thread

On Choice in PA and Beyond

Casey Leads Santorum. Or Does He?
Bob Casey Does it Again

Seems like a lot of effort just to avoid insulting some people.

62. aemd - 28 February 2007

“My contacts with the Democratic Party are limited to a few chiefs of staff”

Oh really? Care to elaborate? :-)

63. colleen - 28 February 2007

These Boy Bloggers seem like they are scared shitless. About what? Why are they so threatened by this blog?

I know and they also believe that banning and other techniques of public shaming and humiliation are and will remain an effective deterrent along with their Big Mean Daddy personas.

They’re threatened by this blog because some of the folks who post here have excellent memories, interesting collections of data accumulated over the years and see no downside to the destruction of the status quo.
Martin needs to acquire a sense of perspective before he starts ineffectually picking fights, getting all emotional about his friends ‘dating preferences’ being exposed on a small blog and accusing others of intimidation.

64. liberalcatnip - 28 February 2007

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Can I get back the 5 minutes I just spent here reading Booman’s comments?

What a joke.

65. bayprairie - 28 February 2007

well marisa, you’ve certainly discovered the “c” word that sets booman off…

66. marisacat - 28 February 2007

albert was an unabashed supporter of Pennachio.

No question.

Now having followed your hosted chats with pols (Dodd worked out so well! Did his aides get back to finish? The questions were excellent… as I have stated here…) did you ahve Pennachio on your site for a hosted half hour with three intros.. begging people, full adults and voters, to be respectful (as you did with Dodd) ot be ready with their ONE question… to be ready having read a pdf you assigned. Gee Martin?

have any of you party blahgers figured out why VOTERS are angry? YOu represent the party, you exhort for votes, you do cover their shakey white asses – til you are gagging.

To some degree you have, several of you are looking quite ashamed of the 110th. But you all hide it in different ways. Mostly ineffectual chit chat aobut “leadership”.

Look to yourselves.

You forget Martin, you are right there in PA. Soft balling it on Casey from you at your site, where you hae stated you were working on, advising, volunteering on 5 campaigns, meant nothing.

I well remember albert and jpol.

And that you were surprised that Patrick Murphy did not hesitate to joint the BLue Dogs.

Lordy, you just look clueless Martin.

67. colleen - 28 February 2007

Here’s just a sample of the writing I did with albert and jpol on Pennaccchio.

Martin,

I feel fairly safe in saying that No one here, no one, is interested in another display of how wonderful and libural you are.

68. Revisionist - 28 February 2007

regarding the ongoing threats and harassment

What threats? What harassment? This isnt DK, you don’t get to create your own version of reality. I would personally like to see examples of this.

69. JJB - 28 February 2007

Yeeesssshhh!!!

Now he’s treating us to his greatest hits.

We’re all really impressed BooHoo, so much so that we can’t believe Kosolini didn’t give you a fellowship (or whatever he calls it) so you could put out a book.

70. arcturus1 - 28 February 2007

lol catnip!

those lyrics were running through my head earlier!

well-tuned transistors ;)

(have a good one y’all! I’m outta here

71. marisacat - 28 February 2007

BTW, the comments with links were delayed. Not in moderation, due ot the number of links they went to the Spam file. Took longer to land on them and “release” them.

72. liberalcatnip - 28 February 2007

Save the lawyers. Save the world!

(with apologies to the teevee show Heroes)

those lyrics were running through my head earlier!

They’ve been running through my head for a while now. I wonder why…

73. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

I think that there are four times as many links of Boo battering commentors that said that they were refusing to vote for Casey no matter what. Then a few weeks ago Boo writes a pathetic CYA diary as to the “success” of Casey winning….

Boo, Bowers, Luscious Vagina, Duncan… all Philly bloggers… and what shit came out of PA… Casey and Murphy…. a fundie and a Blue Dog…

Viva la Revolucion

74. marisacat - 28 February 2007

hmm more than that out of PA. IIRC.

Double check New Dems which swelled by 13 iirc. Blue Dogs swelled by 7 (there is some cross over between the two groups)… and the recently elected from PA.

Democrats for Life boast of an increase in 6 for their special interests. Doubt Kos and others care about that one. Rather suits them, I think.

Further some conservative Dems don’t join either org.

For instance I am unsure that Sestak has joined any coalition congressional group. Would have to check again.

They wanted majority, and they got it. Now they shift uneasily and publicly from foot to foot.

Big job coming up!, gotta sell ’08.

OG&P!!

75. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Most of the Blue Dog site is under REconstruction.. LOL so southern of them.

But catch this frm the New Dem site… I was off, they claim they are now 63.

Read the names from the Press Release:

- Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)

- Joe Sestak (PA-07)

- Heath Shuler (NC-11)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)

- Chris Carney (PA-10)

- Nick Lampson (TX-22)

- Jason Altmire (PA-04)

- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)

- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)

76. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

Wow seems like the Boyz in PA helped tp produce a bumper crop of corporate non progressive Dems…. and let’s not forget about Casey

Gee Boo and Chris remind me not to listen to a word that come out of your mouths…. geez that is the worst state in the Union!!!

77. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

Ha !!!! Blogmaid just put up a “testy” FP about Blue Dogs!!!!

78. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Trying not to be a BLue Dog sympathiser. If they say so it must be so.

meanwhile Bowers is attempting to push (and neatly sells a Dem in 08 as The Only Way!!!!) that the really rather weak “progressives” in congress are the blockage… LOL:

It is now difficult to see another opportunity for Democrats in Congress to restrict and / or end the war in Iraq for another year. I don’t know who is behind this, but I strongly suspect Steny Hoyer.

No matter who is behind it, it is clear that many Democrats in Washington, D.C., do not view their position as derived from the electorate, but rather than conditional upon their favor within beltway circles.

As long as that attitude persists, you will never see a populist, much less a progressive, majority in Washington, D.C.

Hon, hon, that is not nooooz to most of us…

The opposition to this plan now comes from the progressive wing of the party, rather than the Blue Dogs. Even though the progressive caucus is much larger than the Blue Dogs, 71 to 44, I don’t imagine that the leadership will hold up the bill because of their concerns.

In the end, liberals and progressives are taken for granted on the Hill just as much as they are taken for granted within the base. The progressive caucus needs to step up, get organized, and start showing some more teeth. I would be happy to help with any such effort.

But sweetie! Kinda late NOW!

here comes the Sell Job – with quick caveats:

It seems to me now that the only way to end the war will be by electing a new Democratic president in two years time.

Not only is that nowhere close to a guarantee, considering Giulinai’s strength, but if Clinton ends up as President I don’t particularly trust her to actually end the war. Remember that she is one of only four Democratic Senators who do not regret their Iraq war vote (Schumer and the Nelsons were the others). She can introduce whatever legislation she wants that supposedly will start troop withdrawal and that has no chance of passing, but the trust factor is lacking. Actually, I think that would be a far more useful line of attack against Clinton than her refusal to apologize: how can we trust her to end the war?

Gush on..

79. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Let’s see… just to round out this discussion… and to point out:

what were the Boyz thinking of (were they thinking?, it must be asked!) as they pushed pushed pushed their picks… LOL:

You may not want to believe it, but the DLC is still in charge of the party in the form of the New Democrat and Blue Dog caucuses, as well as a whole crew of consultants warning the party off of dealing with Iraq. Business lobbyist centrists rule the roost, with progressives pushed to the side everywhere from the think tank world to Congress to the Presidentials (no, there is no progressive in the race, and though several have instincts that way no one has developed yet into a genuine liberal).

That is Stoller talking from a day or so ago (it all meshes to the congealing fuckball, sad to say…)

80. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

yup…

but they still want to be seen as revolutionaries… eventhough all the people that have been banned was saying this three years ago…when Kos and Jerome where swearing up and down that the DLC was in its last throws and had no power in the DP.

Still there is no clarity on the funding from Demcracy Alliance via NDN to the blogshits

81. ms_xeno - 28 February 2007

Booman:

…For Ms. Xeno, I can understand why you are politically opposed to Chris and why his positions irritate you.

For that matter, since I am likewise a supporter of the Democratic Party and opposed to third parties (at least until we can get proportional representation), I can see why you would be irritated with me.

I have no problem with that. Political differences are natural and strong feelings are good when it comes to politics.

I also understand why people get angry with people that have an attitude online and engage in bullying behavior. And I understand why people push back against them.

Well, you are clear then, that it was I who called Bowers the icky name in question, not Mcat. You are also clear that my calling Bowers an icky name is not tantamount to me driving by his house and throwing a cinderblock through his front window, correct ? It is not libel. It is not slander. It is not “outing,” whatever that means in the context that you use when attempting to discuss it with Mcat. We are 100% clear on that, correct ?

BTW, do you advocate proportional representation ? I mean, right now, on your blog. As opposed to fifty years from now, under your breath. Just wondering. Because I can’t tell you how sick I am from seven years of Democrats telling the stragglers and cranks on their left how we’ll eat pie in the sky when we die, but for now “it’s a winner-take-all system” and blah blah blah fucking blah get in line you stinky losers blah blah blah.

Your good friend Bowers, how does he feel about electoral reform ? Do either of you ever spend time in places like Ballot Access News or the Center For Voting and Democracy ? Do you get why this system you so eagerly feed off of needs a huge shakeup as soon as possible ? I’d really like to know.

82. Madman in the Marketplace - 28 February 2007

wow, I get home from work, and find that the cats have been playing and there are bits of boomice all over the place! Oh, the carnage!

83. BooMan - 28 February 2007

Ms. Xeno-

I do support proportional representation and any reforms towards it.

I don’t spend much time on it. But I think we would be much better off if we had it on all levels of government.

The only thing we gain by not having it is a very stable predictable government that is good for making business projections because it is not prone to big swings etc. But it is not worth the trade-off, which is a very stultified two-party system.

One thing I have a really hard time relating to here is all the comments that are critical of people for helping to elect the 110th congress. Did you want another Republican congress?

Also, sorry for the double posting earlier, I was confused by the delay.

84. marisacat - 28 February 2007

Did you want another Republican congress?

I long ago called that sort of bullshit from party apparatchiks, rhetoric from poverty. Bile that is vomited up then swallowed for sustenance.

That is the old “so vote for Bush”, “so vote for Nader”.

Clearly with the Blue Dogs and New Democrats you did not know who you worked for, elected. Not too surprising that pic of DD, the conservative, reactionary party organiser, hanging over the earnest young workers on Election Day. That pic you had up and forgot all about..

I don’t think this was a good outing for you Martin.

85. D. Throat - 28 February 2007

critical of people for helping to elect the 110th congress

You mean the one that is impotent in regards to the Iraq war … that one.

That is because… you are PURIST… there is more to an election than a “D”… I know you are not stupid … it is just willfull ignorance that you pretend that all “d” are the same…

86. marisacat - 28 February 2007

McClatchy, from Talev, on the tired fucked mess.

One of so many reports.

87. ms_xeno - 1 March 2007

Booman:

…I do support proportional representation and any reforms towards it…

So you’re able to write this, and then almost immediately fall back on the guilt-tripping crap about how far-Left stragglers and would-be reformers of the system somehow probably sustain a deep, forbidden love for the GOP. Uh, no. It’s a bit more complex than that, and D. Throat is correct: You are playing dumb to avoid the real issue at hand, which is that your newly-minted “majority” is doing NOTHING to end the war and NOTHING to stop Bush. Your would-be saviors care about themselves, and no one else, which is why they let themselves be led around with a ring through their nose on the major issues.

Well, stuff it, Booman. I’m not stupid and I know when I’m being patronized for the 7,000,000,000,000 time by a Democrat. When you’re ready to seriously talk reform and not cringing in fear of the nasty old GOP (as if they were the sole factor in this fucked-up mess), get back to me.

88. Fire fight « Marisacat - 10 March 2007

[...] However, nowhere is Martin’s attorney mentioned in the IOZ post, so perhaps I can avoid the threat of sackcloth, ashes and public thumb screw in the square routine.  Not that I ever knuckled under for the bullshit. [...]

89. Whatever! The mere words include a shrug of the shoulders... « Marisacat - 30 March 2007

[...] surely of interest to Martin who guards the door for attorneys like the Chinese palace pi dogs (and failed badly when over here to “talk” to me about his issues) … I suggest he take note: Adam B [...]

90. That big bad world… and then Blahgs and blog issues… « Marisacat - 21 June 2007

[...] poor Martin *… I really think his less than fortunate forays here (this one was described to me as, live cat dead mouse..several times I suggested he call his atty, poor [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: