No, I'm not calling out the diarist... instead I have a podcast you should get over here and listen to, Pyrrho and One Pissed Off Liberal in conversation.

One Pissed Off Liberal.... a great diarist at DailyKos and MLW

Podcast Link

We discuss Iraq and Impeachment, I hope you enjoy as much as I did.

I have been told I hate dailykos. I have been told if people that if they don't like something, they don't go there. But I do like reading dailykos. I also like being honest. Part of that is being reality based, and please hold me to that, and the other part of that is being truthful about how you feel.

All the times I have criticized markos' decisions, or some dailykos policy, never has kos made a complaint, he has come and said he was interested in my opinion once, and replied on issues, but never complained. I am sure kos has a pretty thick skin. Kos and I do not have a problem understanding one another. I have bought Kos and his wife a beer, I would again.

First of all I'd like to start clearly by insulting a large group of people, but only because they're liars. Practically everyone wants impeachment.  Practically everyone here in fact believes there is reason to call for impeachement. If I'm wrong and you don't know that... I don't believe you.  YOU WANT IMPEACHMENT. You think it's embarrassing or bad timing to ask for it now, it's premature... whatever, but you can't deny "wanting" it.

You are lousy relativists so you have no access to the trivially easy simile to opposition to the war.  We were not to oppose the war in 2003, remember, because we were supposed to wait and see how it goes, wait for those WMD vans that Colin showed us. If we broke that rule, we were traitors.  TRAITORS! But we called for it anyway.  

We're the detractors wrong, those saying it was pointless, the nation was pro-war? Was it really possible to stop this war? Um... well, you havn't yet stopped it yet, so I suppose there was a grain of truth to their claim your calls we "unrealistic".

Do you regret making the call, YEARS ago?  Do you feel embarrassed by that?

I have to confess I never did support the Iraq war. I knew Lieberman was a less than admirable Democrat in 2000 (I shit you not, no, it's true!  some of us knew!  No really!!!). I knew that Reagan's was not really (1) a great Republican Administration (**cough**Teddy Roosevelt**cough**), that it was fraught with some pretty bad corruptions, like selling arms to our enemies, our clearest enemies even, enemies they ran against in the election, essentially.

I knew the work of the Gang of 14, aka "The Nuclear Compromise of the Capitulating Seven" meant that the filibuster would not be used by Democrats. I said so. Can I get a free Frisbee? like a "Street Prophets" Frisbee or something? Being right on this stuff for decades has got to be going in some sort of account somewhere, right?

I knew it all.

Where is my gold star?  What do I win?  I'd like a tangerine or whatever you have in the way of copyright free images.

One thing that really bothers me about the "withdraw from Iraq" debate is this sense of smell I have... this sense of political wind, a sense of reality that "geopolitics" has certain unspoken rules that those in power obey, end of discussion.

One such rule:  you never remove a military base from a forward installation unless forced by military means to do so.

I believe there is ZERO chance of the democrats arguing for such removal, that is, one that includes the US bases in Iraq. Indeed, Obama recently used the phrase, "combat troops"... as in, "removing combat troops"... leaving what sort of troops? those in hibernation?  Those not in "combat" mode, but ready, of course... the bases.

Those bases are staying. They want "emotional withdrawal"... not physical or actual withdrawal.

My question, do you want them to stay?  If our Democratic Party gets a "withdrawal" that still leaves tens of thousands deployed to Iraqi Bases, will you consider that the victory you were hoping for?

The thing about relativism is that it explains why things have multiple "sides", as we like to call them, and it is indeed because of dimensionality... a two dimensional impression is one side of a three dimensional object, a different two dimensional impression composes the other. It would be the same for things which are four dimensional, like Einstein's relative frames, their three dimensional representation is just "one side" of their four dimensional whole, that is, everything they have been or will be in their whole lifetime.

So I understand why Delaware Dem's side of my fundamental political position is that I'm a crazed independent radical. It's not due to political positions, imo, (e.g. he's the one that is for single payer). It's just that I reject hierarchies, I am autonomous, I don't like being governed, and I don't think I'm alone in this. That's not "radical", that's the American Principle.

Ok, this is petty and quick. I have long wanted to not think about the "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" micro-slur, that's the sort of button they will love to push forever, always a coy look on their face, "who me?". I have little time for puzzles like that (boring!)

But you can't just forget things like this, let someone needle you forever, language is important, and one must face the currents of language, even when they seem minor... I don't have to explain that to you, this "Democrat Party" stuff drives you nuts too...

So, people have recommended, "Republic" party, etc., but nothing really sticks, well, mine may not either, and I can't decide for you anyway, but for myself I think I'll just start calling theirs the "UnDemocratic Party".  That should settle it.

Reid covers various issues quickly in this 2 minute video posted just under an hour ago:

• the libby trial
• the Presidents healthcare "idea"
• the status and role of our "decider", "it is really unfortunate he is unwilling listen to the American people", or his own generals... "who agrees with him?" asks Reid of Bush.

The link is here.

Reid didn't post it himself, the PoliticsTV people have.

He also speaks about the death of Maria Leavey, here.

Harry speculates that the evidence in the Libby case appears more and more valid as time goes on. That Bush's tax-care idea is muddled, and points out we are not a decider-ocracy.

I am really pissed.  I didn't learn anything new about what a modern filibuster is composed of from the clarifications provided to thereisnospoon... I knew that stuff.

The fact is... Reid should not have caved to an administrative filibuster.  It DOES NOT MATTER if that filibuster looked like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington... Reid could say, "well, we are going to bring this through to an up or down vote, just like we gave the Republicans on their judges." And, "Why should a judge making a six figure salary deserve and up or down vote, but America's poorest workers don't?"

Original Title: Where is the SOTU Open Thread, maybe here... or as DD said (paraphrased), "Post my Fucking SOTU Thread, Kos"... but we are a do it yourself blogosphere.

or alternately, this is it, I warn't going to use my diary today... but seriously, did I miss it?  Is it coming up at the last minute?

Is there a nefarious plot not to have one?

Madame Speaker I demand an answer.

PS: is it too much to ask for Pelosi to do the little horns behind the head thing? Or maybe flick things at Cheney?  

UPDATE: Embargoed text of the SOTU!  

btw: The SOTU via C-SPAN online --> here

When you say, "it's like Vietnam" to Jim Webb, it has a different meaning than it does to me.  Webb, as you know, is a new Senator, a darling of centrists, our "progressive" (yes I have heard him called that, no I won't get a cite and if I never see another such reference, that's all I could ask for) savior.

In this article at USATODAY Webb is quoted as saying "I can still justify the war in Vietnam".

UPDATE: commenters provide a likely context, a Meet The Press interview that I remember now that it's been brought up... the quote is not exactly the same, but very similar, see comments for the quotes/links.

"Electability".  Nothing more than a way for "centrist" dems to complain about liberals without needing any facts or policies to talk about. "But getting elected is really important"... no shit?  Really?  It's important you say?  Right, it is.

Too bad "electable" candidates DON'T WIN!  There is that little problem!

On the "Insufferable Scale" it's right up there with "liberals" that think things like Nationalized Healthcare are just a little bit too radical and unheard of to have in this country, "the people will never accept it even if it is a good idea... even if polling says they would, I'm certain for I have asked my corporate sponsor, they assured me, no, certainly not." They may have a point, just because a rich country like Bolivia can do it doesn't mean we can. Leave free medicine to stable nations like Chile I say, and spend your time electing electable electro-victorious election winners.

Firstly, let me say that unlike many of you I do believe there is a tradition of conservative ideology in this nation which is not inherently corrupt. It is, however, not in power, not very near power, and what we have instead called "conservativism" is a sham of dysfunctional and defensive taboos: Conservative Correctness.  Some of the rules of conservative correctness:

(1) Never apologize, you're never wrong, if you were wrong, somehow you were still right because of things to the north, the south, a little to the west and also to the east a bit.

(2) Never admit what you really think about Jesus' bleeding heart liberal talking points

(3) DO NOT EVER suppose a problem cannot be solved by war, related to ...

(4) Never appear "weak"

(5) Moral strength is material weakness

(6) Never rely on human rights to make arguments

(7) We are fundamentally superior to (fill in the blank)

(8) We must all think the same thing, and since we don't, you shut up

(9) Never coddle, to exploit is fair play, but never coddle

(10) Never follow rules when defending a fellow group-member

(11) Demons require unethical treatment

(12) War is Strength

I have noticed that people will take a lot of criticisms sitting down up to the point you imply or outright say they are "bad people" for whatever the criticism entails.  So let me not be subtle. I don't want to imply something unintentionally, so I'll be fully intentional about it.

Followers are bad people.

Humans the world over seek out leaders, they cry, "where are our leaders?" and "I wish we had the type of leaders we had back then".  They rejoice every time some new game generates "winners" who, gasp, might just possibly be the promised savior(s) foretold by pessimistic romantics and former slave owners which requires a miracle of benevolence of some other "good master", in order to be free, instead of personal conviction by which human says "I shall be free."  

Not me.

I'm sick of leaders. I think mankind is going to die off unless individuals learn to lead themselves. A lead human follower is a waste, our physical gift, so to speak, is not wings or a projectile tongue (exceptions, you know who you are), it is our brains, and every human will learn to use this brain eventually, and use it specifically to lead themselves.

I don't have time to screw with this old thread and why bother. I want to answer BTD in this:

So, in sum, it seems to me that the COMMUNITY has forgotten about these two uncrossable lines.

(1) Daily Kos demanded the FACTS.

(2) Daily Kos demanded respect for the character and integrity of community members UNLESS they had proven themselves to lack in these areas.

What happened?

What happened was that dkos became just a place to elect democrats, and facts contrary to that were not appreciated as much. The pushes for higher standards because "high standards in how it makes us look to hold that issue" which is contrary to "reality based".

The "vlog" is at MLW where it can be embedded.

I hate the framing of the term "electability"... for one, "electable" candidates don't actually win, I find that a problem.

In summary I think that electability is an despicable smear used by conservatives Democrats to criticize much more inspiring idealists and progressives.

I created a video log to that affect a day or so ago and I wanted to share it.

I think I may have missed some cultural evolution at Dkos. I see teacherken in his latest diary talks about "letting" folks adjust the tags on his diary. I have been asked if changing a tag was "ok" in my diaries.

What are the collective standards about tagging? The whole point of tagging is that users do it... I myself do not worry about putting a complete or accurate set of tags, others are SUPPOSED to add those.  They  are supposed to even know the "proper" tag, so if I put "Mountains" someone can put "Molehills" because I may not know the use of a tag that has developed out of the collective unconscious.

Did tag abuse lead to a community standard I don't know about? It is unfortunate because the whole idea of tagging is that it's community driven, otherwise, it's just a top down keyword sorting scheme.

btw: monkeybiz suggests I link to the Approved Tags List in the wonderful dkosopedia, which seems reasonable.