WP: Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center (Dems ignore base

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701505.html

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

<snip>

The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party's base. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter. I'm going to say what I think needs to be said and they seem very comfortable with that."

Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos, a Web site popular with liberals. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a leading liberal and critic of the Iraq war, told reporters Kerry's viewpoint is not shared by most in a culturally conservative swing state such as West Virginia. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster.

...more...

[UpInArms]

1. gotta add two more paragraphs:

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

The blogs-vs.-establishment fight represents the latest version of a familiar Democratic dispute. It boils down to how much national candidates should compromise on what are considered core Democratic values -- such as abortion rights, gun control and opposition to conservative judges -- to win national elections.

excuse the shit out of me - they want my money and my energy and they want to give me nothing and then they want to "compromise" the core issues that are important.

:puke:

I am not sure if this article was written just to piss me off :steamingmad:

[Malikshah]

2. This says it all

Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Elmendorf...dude-- what the F*^( are you doing thinking you have wherewithall to say *anything*

Get over yourself big time you beltway whore

[leftchick]

4. Elmendorf = DLC Corporate Whore

nuff said

[IndianaGreen]

13. I hope Kerry doesn't rely on Elmendorf on his 2008 run

We now know how ineffective the 2004 campaign was in standing for anything resembling principle.

[brentspeak]

28. What did this guy say that was wrong?

Some Dems are on the left, but that doesn't mean that they should have a disproportionate influence. Why should they? They're part of the party, just like all the other Democrats are part of the party.

[IndianaGreen]

31. The Left has no influence at all

as the Beltway Democrats become more like the GOP used to be before it was taken over by the fundies.

[pop goes the weasel]

44. what he said that was wrong

is that he essentially is saying that, once again, he wants us to do the work and contribute the money but to do it without any promise of getting anything we want. The "moderate" Democrats have spent the past 30 years rolling over and playing dead. They give the conservative Republicans not only everything they want, they refuse to speak up and defend civil rights or to explain in simple terminology how conservative power grabs are dangerous to the Republic. Their kowtowing to the right is to such an extreme that the majority of voters don't even bother to turn out. Who turns out? The right wing, which regularly hears exactly what it wants to hear.

[Solon]

52. If they are so few in number, why keep them in the party at all?

Then let's see who is needed and who is not! Some like to assign blame for the 2000 debacle on Nader and the Green party. Regardless of whether or not the vote was just close enough to be stolen(likely scenario) or it was an outright loss, the blame isn't on the VOTERS or even Nader. Since when is the party OBLIGATED to get votes from the voter, why not try to EARN them instead? I thought earning votes, rather than just being given them, is in the best interest of democracy.

[SoCalDem]

8. Gee how nice of them.. they want our money and energy, but

plan to ignore us.. Isn't that what's always happened already? Seems like that's what our biggest beef with the status quo IS..

"LIB" doesn't HAVE to stand for Lying Insolent Bastard..

and isn;t it JUST like the "spokespeople" we seem to have attracted, that they are always ready to blab their guts out to anyone with a stenopad or microphone.?

[IndianaGreen]

16. That's how the Democrats have treated LGBTs for years

They want LGBT money and energy, but they won't give LGBTs equal rights with heteros.

[ninkasi]

23. They can give everyone equal rights...

and start acting like Democrats, or they are going to lose a lot of our money, and our votes. Equal rights for all citizens should not even have to be debated. I would rather donate money to Dems who are standing up for our principles even if they are in other states, than Dems who are wishy-washy in my own district. We need more hard-core Democrats, who are ready to return to the ideals which the Democratic Party was founded on.

The others, the DLC, and the GOP-lite, can take a hike. Whatever they win, it will be without my money, my vote, or my time. I'm tired of the timidity, the failure, and the back-pedaling. We either stand up for what we believe in, or we give up, and turn our back on our civil liberties, and equal rights for all.

[brentspeak]

27. I didn't see anywhere in this guy's quote about "ignoring" anyone

Where is it?

[IndianaGreen]

32. Take our energy and money, and give us nothing in return

The GOP takes care of its base, and they win.

Democrats shit on their base, and they lose.

"The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

-- Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701505.html

[splat]

10. What does he have to offer?

<i>"The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."</i>

"The trick" would be to flip it around on cynics like this with ordinary respectable people saying, "America can be better society than this one that says "You're on your own."

Sane, normal, good people might be candidates if guys like Elmendorf aren't "advising" the freshmen.

[54anickel]

19. To politicians, we are just the flip side of the right-wing fundie base.

Toss us a bone once in a while, play up a wedge issue to work us into a tizzy when need be, then back to the pink tu-tus and centrist crap. Let's face it, there is no two party system. The deck is stacked in favor of the plutocracy and they run their favorite ponies on both sides of the fence at the same time...they win with either ticket. Been that way for decades. Last one that snuck past them was Carter (JMHO). That's why they were so quick to squash Dean - no outsiders allowed to become actual contenders (again, IMO).

Next time around I'm stickin' with my gut. If my first or second or maybe even third choice doesn't make it this time - I'm going 3rd party. Might be a waste of my vote, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste time, energy, money or my vote on one of their ponies.

[truth2power]

42. You've said it, Nickel..

"There is no two party system that I can see." The people who say we should support candidates just because they're Democrats are the same ones who ridicule Bushbots because they support the Boy King and his minions whatever they do. You can't have it both ways.

And this: "Next time around I'm stickin' with my gut. If my first or second or maybe even third choice doesn't make it this time - I'm going 3rd party. Might be a waste of my vote, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna waste time, energy, money or my vote on one of their ponies." A-friggin'-men!

[reprobate]

46. But there IS a two party system. The Corporatists and the rest ofus.

And there IS one issue most of the public would support. Everyone is sick of the corporate money that buys our politicians. We would have no DLC without it. And that would be a GOOD thing.

The issue is PUBLIC FUNDING of elections. It already is law in three states and has been introduced in others. It would take the profit motive out of politics and allow the politicians to spend their time on OUR interests rather than spend fully half of their time raising money from corporations

If our Democrat leaders would get behind this the repugs would be left with their mouths hanging open. But they won't because they are the beneficiaries of the corporate largess.

That's the issue we should be backing. To our STATE reps and senators, because when you consider it, ALL elections are state elections. Even for president, because when we vote for president in this screwey system, we don't vote for President, we vote for state electors to the electoral college. This is the issue that could change America, if we all got behind it.

What's your idea on the subject.

[54anickel]

47. I think it's a great idea - I already check off the little box each year

on my tax return. But, I doubt it will ever fly for the reasons you stated and we would never be heard above all of the noise from the lobbyists. Networks certainly aren't about to give air-time away, advertisers won't waste their money on such a limited audience (if you're watching politics that closely you're probably too smart to be conned by an ad so why waste it). It's truely a sad state of affairs, we are wasting billions on campaigns that could be put ot much better use.

They'll continue to chisel around the edges with what they call campaign finance reform. David Obey and Barney Frank agree with you on public financing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/25/congress.lobbying.ap/

snip>

In the House on Wednesday, Democrats David Obey of Wisconsin and Barney Frank of Massachusetts said they would introduce legislation to eliminate all private money for House elections, turning instead to public financing.

"The problem with politics is more fundamental than meals or trips with lobbyists," Obey said in a statement.

Taking a different approach, Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, and Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, unveiled a plan to create an independent commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to recommend ethics reforms.

"What is at stake here is clearly the credibility of the institution," Coleman said at the hearing.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, separately wrote Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, asking him to join in establishing a bipartisan Senate lobbying reform task force to explore the various proposals. :eyes:

more...

[reprobate]

56. Nickel, I would't be so sure about the negative.

So far six states have passed clean elections laws, thirty nine have it on the agenda. It's an idea whose time has come and it's picking up momentum every day.

And as I've said it will pass by state and what the federal congress does is irrelevant. All elections are state elections. Even the presidency is a state by state election, since we vote not for a president but for electors to vote in the electoral congress.

Cneck out these sites

http://www.publicampaign.org/campaigns/index.htm and
http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/pantry.html


Don't give up, join the fight that can change our world

[pinerow]

55. There is only one party in the U.S...

it has two wings...the republican wing and the democratic wing...

[brentspeak]

29. Where did this guy say that "nothing" would be given?

Elmendorf said that the Democratic party should not look like its a "captive of the activist left." Hard to disagree with that. Are you saying that if someone donates time or money to the Democratic party, a Dem candidate is then a slave to that particular person's exact agenda? Doesn't make any sense.

As for "compromise" the core issues: some of those core issues are not really core issues; do all Democrats support gun control? Not on your life. Others are more clear cut.

I wouldn't hire this guy to run a campaign for me (seeing as he had a losing record with Kerry's campaign), that much I can say.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. Oh my....this is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE mistake on the Democratic Party's part

If the "establishment", who WORKS FOR US, BTW, doesn't want to be Democratic...they can kiss my ass and say goodbye to MY MONEY, MY TIME and MY EFFORTS.:grr:

WHAT ARE WE? CHOPPED LIVER?:nuke: If it wasn't for US, they wouldn't be where they are! Fuck them and their DLC "sensible center" bullshit attitudes. They need to wake the hell up!

CAPTIVE OF THE ACTIVIST LEFT??????????????!!!!!@#$%^%$#@! WITHOUT THE "ACTIVIST LEFT" THOSE SOBs ARE FINISHED!

OK....now I'm pissed again.:grr:

[Zhade]

58. Polls consistently show that most Americans support liberal policies...

...so Elmendorf is either ignorant or lying.

[ragin_acadian]

3. Okay guys, we've had a pretty easy time of it. Early on, the

Beltway Bullies dismissed us as an aberration. (Kidz, whatcha gonna do with them? Let'um throw a tantrum.)

Well, we who are about to be swiftboated salute you. The Beltway Bullies and their Payola Pundits will make things pretty ugly for bloggers. And why not? Anyone that will attack a man's service record and his commendations won't think twice about attacking us.

[RaulGroom]

5. This could easily have appeared in the Washinton Times

The Post has fallen so, so far.

[benfranklin1776]

6. The only truthful part of the article

"John Kerry is beginning to bring the traditional Democratic leadership in Washington together with the untraditional netroots activists of the country," James Boyce wrote on the Huffington Post. "A man often accused of being the ultimate Washington insider looked outside of the beltway and saw the concern, in fact, the distress among literally millions of online Democrats."Other Democrats, Boyce wrote, "triangulated, fabricated, postulated and capitulated."

I think that sums up the current situation perfectly. A pox on the houses of the triangulators who cower from supporting a filibuster. They have reduced themselves to irrelevancy with their gutlessness. The call themselves "centrist" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. In this case Centrist=soulless. How does selling out workers, the environment, civil rights and the bill of rights equate with a "mainstream" position. It does not. It equates with selling out the average American.

[Rex]

7. Waaaaaaaaaaaa! wwwwwaa!

Someone stop the bad bloggermen mommy! :spank: They be mean to us and call us names and play UNFAIR. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Stick a fucking sock in it! x(

[mzmolly]

9. This might concern me were it accurate, however ...

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster

Not any longer according to many sources. I'll wait and see how this thing shakes down before I draw any conclusions about whether or not I'M being ignored.

[rodeodance]

12. well, IMHO--Reid has not been exactly jumping on the bandwagon.

[rodeodance]

17. the new 'twist" is the Web-says a Dem strategist.

Many Democrats say the only way to win nationally is for the party to become stronger on the economy and promote a centrist image on cultural values, as Kaine did in Virginia and as Bill Clinton did in two successful presidential campaigns.

The new twist in this debate is the Web, which in recent election cycles emerged as a powerful political force, one expected to figure even more prominently as more people get high-speed connections and turn to the Internet for news and commentary. Unlike the past, the "pressure is conveyed through a faster, better organized, more insistent medium," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist.

[mzmolly]

45. I think that's accurate.

The web is the NEW medium for news/activism.

[expatriot]

11. So Bush, with a 38 or so percent approval, defines the center? WTF?

I swear if there were a vote tomorrow on whether to declare the United States a theocratic dictatorship and name Bush the emperor for life and if there were some Democrats who intended to vote with Republicans on it and there was criticism of those Senators on "leftist" blogs, the media who have the exact same headline: Blogs attack from Left as Democrats reach for Center.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Yeah, if there were a vote about making Bush Ayatollah for Life, there

would be Democrats who would show up on Fox News to explain that they were supporting Bush because they didn't want to appear "obstructionist."

With some of these guys, I have to wonder if there's anything they won't surrender on.

[sasha031]

14. the corporate media hates us because to us

they are irrevelant...all change has to happen at the grass roots. Look at Latin America, how many presidents have they literally thrown out of office (I am envious) the corporate whores will always sing the same song, we are a threat to them.
they will bend over backyards for the christian taliban because fascism and theocracy have more similarities than with normal people.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. What if the Left IS the base? Dems can afford to lose more of...

the fickle center than they can their activists.

[farmbo]

18. BS alert...Author of this article has been BUSTED as a RW shill...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/28/12115/1563

Jim VandeHei of The Washington Post, whose wife Hanna used to work for Tom DeLay and whose house is reportedly adorned in wingnut finery, has an article in this morning's paper that amounts to nothing but a hit piece on the progressive blogosphere. It seems that the netroots campaign to hold the Post accountable is freaking them out.

The article, titled "Blogs Attack From Left as Democrats Reach for Center," tries to set up a false premise that progressive bloggers are lefties foaming at the mouth over the fact that the Democratic Party wants to be a more moderate party. As "evidence," VandeHei points solely to bloggers and posters at The Huffington Post. Their crime was complaining about the choice of newly elected Democratic Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia over Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha to deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union address. Now, I don't know what planet VandeHei lives on (I think it's called Cocktail Party, and I'm pretty sure it's in the Beltway system), but here on Earth, the progressive netroots hasn't been vigorously attacking Governor Kaine and Rep. Murtha is not a flaming lefty.
<snip>

And getaloada this KOS posting from a Kossak who recently went through VandeHei's Washington bungalow during a realtor's open house:

Another reason to cancel the WaPo (none / 1)

I'm disgusted with my paper, now more than ever...

Real estate open houses are a wealth of information if you are observant.

A certain front page WaPo reporter's (VandiHei's) house was open this weekend, and being a neighbor, I stopped by.

As I looked at the study I was stunned to see signed pictures of Dear Leader and an autographed copy of the House Impeachment Committee...Wife is ex-aide to DeLay. Then again who isn't...

Look out for J.V. Re-read his shit. That they have him on Plame is a joke. Fox guarding the hen house. His fortunes are tied to the Bushies. Wife's an appointee.

SCLM my ass.
<snip>

Scott Shields winds up his review of VandiHei's article as follows:

The reason The Washington Post is on the attack is that they see their influence waning and are desperate to tear down the credibility of the blogosphere. This is a campaign of marginalization. And it's not coming from a political party. It's coming from a newspaper, a traditional media outlet that is charged with reporting facts and news. Instead, they've decided to use their pages to mount a political campaign against progressive bloggers, who they've apparently decided are their sworn enemy. It's absolutely paranoid and ridiculous.
<snip>

So take heed. This VandiHei article is just an orchestrated attempt to drive a wedge between the Democratic establishment and the progressive bloggers... as well as the rumbling of an ancient, creaking dinosaur-- the tree-devouring MSM-- on the verge of a well-deserved extinction.

[UpInArms]

20. thanks for that information - I went digging and here's what I found

Wash. Post's VandeHei wrongly reported as fact that Wilson was sent to Niger "at the suggestion of his wife"

In an October 13 Washington Post article, staff writer Jim VandeHei reported as fact an allegation in great dispute -- that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger in 2002 "at the suggestion of his wife," former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Wilson, a former diplomat specializing in Africa, was sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA to investigate a reported sale of Nigerian yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The CIA, however, denied that Plame selected Wilson for the trip, and the Senate Intelligence Committee did not reach an official conclusion as to who made the decision to appoint Wilson to the mission.

As Media Matters for America noted, the CIA has disputed the allegation that Wilson received the assigment based on Plame's influence. A July 22, 2003, Newsday article quoted an unidentified senior intelligence official as saying: "They were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising. ... There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason." According to a July 21, 2004, USA Today article:

The committee also questioned Wilson's repeated denials that his wife had "anything to do" with his selection by the CIA to go to Niger. It quoted from a memo by Plame that lays out Wilson's qualifications for the assignment. Wilson and the CIA confirm that the agency, not Plame, selected him for the mission. He says the memo merely laid out his qualifications after he was picked.

...more...

[54anickel]

22. I still think it's more political than it is the paper being threatened by

the blogs. Trying to divide the party, cut into the phenomenal fund raising ability on the net by pissing us off, and it almost worked. I think Gore and Kerry are "trial ballons" testing the water to see just how much influence the blogger-types have. Toe in the water for '08 or guinea pigs for the rest of the party? :shrug:

[beltanefauve]

33. Nice catch!

I just love DU!

[KakistocracyHater]

21. There's one part that really gets me, I do hope it's smear gossip but-

"I'm not anybody's mouthpiece..." HELLO- you are OUR REPRESENTATIVES! What part of standing in for the people did you not get about your jobs?! Please let it just be rightwing bs! Otherwise it's high time to get recall signatures at EVERY rally-REQUIRED SIGNING of them to attend. I don't mind & it would be the perfect place to collect signatures, where everyone attending desperately & adamantly wants & needs change. There should be places at the edges with signs indicating state, senator, house rep, city mayor, etc. They would need the resident zip codes on a list so people would know which ones they could sign.

[BenDavid]

24. I will use some messages

from our friends as Buzz Flash....A BuzzFlash Declaration of Independence -- "Harry Reid, What Will be Your Excuse for Defeat Next Time? The Democratic Leadership in the Senate May Not Fight for the Constitution, But We Will." This Isn't A "Vote Of Conscience" Concerning A Filibuster; It's A Vote To Save Democracy. And If Reid Can't Cajole And Bluster 41 Democrats Into Saving Democracy, He Should Resign His Position -- A BuzzFlash Editorial. The average Joe or Jill knows that if someone is threatening to beat you up, you don't hand him a bat. Senate GOP Seeks to Force Vote on Alito. Reid Appears Not to be Supporting a Filibuster. In That Case, He Should Step Down. We Need a Warrior, Not an Enabler. Giving Bush's Incomprehensibly Illegal, Lying and Failed Performance as President -- He Screws Up Everyday and is Soooooo Vunerable -- You Wonder if Certain Democratic Senators are Moles, Because Otherwise You'd Have to Work Very Hard to Always be on the Losing Side. 1/27

Some Democratic Senators are Worried About "Looking Bad" Because Guys in the White House Who Should Be in Orange Jumpsuits and Handcuffed Say They Will? They are Up Against the Most Corrupt, Lying, Incompetent, Law Breaking Administration in Memory. And Some Dems are Worried About "Looking Bad" If They Stand Up for the Constitution. Such Dems are Gutless Wonders.

[leftstreet]

25. Politicians are getting ripped off by their strategists

If campaign strategists are all that, why did Bushco have to steal two elections? Why wasn't their abortion/gays/school prayer message enough to bring millions to the polls?

The highly paid "advice" givers are so lazy they'll only go after the current voters. Swing 'em this way, swing 'em that way.

[brentspeak]

30. Agree totally

No question that the current batch of Democratic strategists are the pits. There were some people on DU during the presidential campaign (some of whom were probably Freeper types) who harrased anyone who criticized the moves that Kerry was/was not making. Their usual flame: "You think you can do a better job?"

Yeah, I think I -- and a whole lot of other people -- could have done a lot better job running Kerry's campaign. Better than the losers he surrounded himself with.

[cosmicdot]

26. who is this WP 'writer', Jim VandeHei?

googled his name for some hits to puruse ... here's how he scribed the SOTU speech a year ago:

"With an eye toward history and his uncertain place in it, President Bush today will deliver a relatively short -- but distinctly idealistic -- inaugural address about America's calling to spread liberty, democracy and personal freedom around the world, according to White House officials."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22191-2005Jan19.html

with an eye toward history? distinctly idealistic? that's editorializing the news to me

LeftCoaster has this to say about VandeHei covering Abramoff:

Tuesday :: Jan 24, 2006
Why Is Jim VandeHei Covering The Jack Abramoff Story?

Can someone tell me why the Washington Post sees no problem with assigning Jim VandeHei to cover the Jack Abramoff beat and the White House spin emanating from Abramoff’s plea deal, when VandeHei’s wife used to work for Tom DeLay? On top of that, they paired him with Steno Sue Schmidt, who was Ken Starr’s leaking buddy during the Lewinsky days. So let’s just assume that the Post isn’t really serious about getting any Pulitzers on the Abramoff story, OK?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006643.php

Daily Howler picked up on VandeHei in February 2005:

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005

GOOFUS AND GALLANT: The Washington Post deserves major props for the accurate info in today’s editorial. Hallelujah! When they discuss the shrinking ratio of workers-to-retirees, they say it’s going from 3-to-1 down to 2-to-1 without throwing in irrelevant noise about the ratio in 1935. And when they discuss the gloomy projections of the SS trustees, they describe the CBO projections as well. Good God! They even cite Bush’s semantics:

WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (2/1/05): uture beneficiaries would receive more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they do today because of the way benefits are adjusted for wage growth. When Mr. Bush says that the system then "will be flat bust, bankrupt," he is flat wrong.

Yes, the term “bankrupt” is flatly misleading. But will somebody tell Post reporter Jim VandeHei? In today’s paper, he reports on SS. And in his own voice, he uses the term that the editors say is “flat wrong:”

VANDEHEI (2/1/05): With most Democrats opposed to the president's proposal, Bush intends to use the State of the Union speech to begin to detail these ideas, and to argue that new Social Security accounts will be highly regulated and voluntary—and necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt decades from now.

VandeHei isn’t quoting Bush there—and if he did quote Bush saying “bankrupt,” he ought to provide some clarification.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020105.shtml

more Daily Howler on VandeHei:

CECI REDUX! Has the Washington Post found its new Ceci Connolly? Jim VandeHei’s work makes us ask:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004

CECI REDUX: Has the Washington Post found its new Ceci Connolly? Jim VandeHei’s work makes us ask.

On January 31, the Post scribe penned a foolish, front-page report about Kerry’s receipt of contributions from lobbyists. As we’ve explained, the report was grossly misleading. It has since formed the basis for a blatantly bogus claim—the claim that Kerry ranks first among all U.S. senators in receipt of special interest money.

This morning, VandeHei is at it again, with another silly front-page report about Kerry’s fundraising. It’s hard to read these reports without recalling Connolly’s work from Campaign 2000—a campaign in which the Post committed vile offenses against you and your American democracy.

This morning, VandeHei is upset about some of Kerry’s contributors and fund-raisers. “Kerry Donors Include ‘Benedict Arnolds,’” the headline screams. “Candidate Decries Tax-Haven Firms While Accepting Executives’ Aid.” Yep—phony old Kerry is at it again! Here’s VandeHei’s opening statement:

VANDEHEI (pgh 1): Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives “Benedict Arnolds” if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. (2) But Kerry has accepted money and fundraising assistance from top executives at companies that fit the candidate’s description of a notorious traitor of the American revolution.

According to VandeHei, Kerry has accepted money from “top execs” at firms whose conduct Kerry decries. But wouldn’t you know it? He smuggles in a helpful new category as he offers a bit more detail:

VANDEHEI (3): Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry’s presidential campaign, a review of his donor records shows. Additionally, two of Kerry’s biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world’s best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show. Kerry has raised nearly $30 million overall for his White House run.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022604.shtml

MediaMatters on VandeHei:

Thu, Oct 13, 2005 6:11pm EST

Wash. Post's VandeHei wrongly reported as fact that Wilson was sent to Niger "at the suggestion of his wife"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130007

[Placebo]

50. Wow! Thanks for all that research!

Certainly reveals a lot about the author's motives.

[xchrom]

34. time to confront wapo again with the credentials

of the author of this article?

[droidamus]

35. Believe in something!

Voters in this country are looking for a party that believes in their core values and is willing to fight for them. They see this as strength and that is what they want in their political leaders. They will even go as far as voting against their best interests just so they can have a 'strong' leader. They see compromise and civility as wishy-washy weaknesses and therefore move away from the DLC Democrats. The way to win the middle is to let them know that you really care about what you stand for and are willing to fight to the end to protect those values. You don't gain their vote be changing what you stand for you gain their votes by convincing them that your stand is the best for them and for the United States of America. Stand up, be proud of your progressive ideals and use your intelligence, time, energy and money to convince those non-believers that we are in this together and we must build a society that protects and elevates all of its citizens and the freedoms granted them by the Constitution.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. No bona fide progessive Democratic is going to describe

what "the trick" is. Political spin-meisters choose their words carefully, so it seems clear that his intention is to staunch the flow of funds from the Net into the Democrats' coffers. He sure knows how to wind us up though!

[occuserpens]

37. Blogs and campaign finance

Most of the campaign funds are used to buy PR time on TV. On the contrary, blogs are cheap. But it is a well known fact that dems are weak on the Web. Now it is official that not only freepers are after dems, left bloggers are also unhappy with dem rightists. The question is, what they want campaign money for? Clintonites can't even maintain dirt cheap Web presence!

[mydreamcametrue]

38. Uh...I believe the base is the "center."

[Fovea]

39. I think you were correct in 1999

But I think that the base has moved dramatically to the left since 2001. I think there are two important reasons for this.

The policies of the Republican party, and the DLC.

[many a good man]

40. Majority of Americans support Dem platform but find leaders weak

Poll after poll after poll tells us the same thing.

Why don't we try the OBVIOUS solution for once!

[primavera]

41. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece"?

Um, excuse me, but weren't you elected to represent your constituents? So isn't a "mouthpiece" precisely what you're supposed to be?

[depakid]

43. Pravda framing the issues again

Yes, there's a problem- but it's not the way the Post would have anyone believe.

Reinforce the DLC and the far right- that's what they're all about.

Don't fall for their propaganda.

In fact- like CNN & Fox- stop bothering with it- unless of course, you enjoy being misinformed.

It's actually getting insulting.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. They really are scared of us

so the only thing they can do is to try to discredit us. Oh well.

[Placebo]

49. How come we don't hear Republicans having this conversation?

"Do we appease our right-wing base or do we try and appeal to a larger center?"

And they still win elections. More than democrats do, no less.

Why can't we be like Republicans? The "Liberal Agenda" is nothing to be afraid of, politicians. It's something to fight for, and it's patriotic to the core.

[krkaufman]

51. Typical B-S implying that "center"-ing will reach a broader audience

People left the Democratic Party because they (Clinton, et al) quit standing up for the worker. When the hell are they gonna get that through their heads?

[nodehopper]

53. excuse me, but aren't they supposed to REPRESENT us?

what is this BS about not "being the mouthpiece for the party BASE"? Isn't that what they are, actually SUPPOSED to be doing?