I took some grief for my Examiner piece on Joe Lieberman – the one where I said he’d win and the netroots crowd pulling for Lamont were basically feathering their nests?
Here’s Kos (hat tip Mickey Kaus)
Finally, I’m not afraid of money, and I’m putting it to good use — the abandonment of Scoop and a massive ground-up redevelopment of Daily Kos to be the ultimate blogging platform in the world, and the establishment of a corps of “fellows” to do great activism.
More details on those projects will emerge in December, but bottom line is that I won’t cry if Chevron or anyone else wants to help fund the rise of a professional netroots activist class.
It’s not that he’s wrong to do it. It’s just that I was right when I said that it was about the jobs.
That is such utter horsesh*t, A.L.
Jesus Christ man. So easy to vaguely smear someone, you know?
Back about 2 months ago, I asked for PROOF when you said Kos was all about getting money from the political system – I linked to all the various ads that were on the site. You didn’t respond to that then, did you? (And also, this doesn’t have much to do with Lieberman – I agreed he woueld lose – so why are you linking the two? Typical propaganda.)
It was very clear, for my response, that the money going into Kos was NOT from anything to do with taking political money out of the system, but from – guess what? People and companies advertising their wares. If you have a problem with THAT, then you have a problem with the whole american system!
The money from Kos went the other direction – to netroots candidates.
What is with you and these unjustified smears? Look how you word this: “It’s not that Kos is wrong to do this”. Oh, he isn’t? Then why the next line – “it’s about the jobs”.
What in the HELL does that mean? And doesn’t it contradict the previous sentence, in that you imply that it is all about Kos, and thus it IS wrong?
Seriously – what are you doing?
Bring soem PROOF to your vague smears, okay? Some PROOF. Otherwise, you are just a smearing troll, and should be written off as such.
You DON’T examine the actual policy itself – as embodied by the Nation.
You DON’T ask – what are the other choices?
The thing about a netrooks activist class – Kaus points out the pontential dangers (and even Kaus has some honesty to ask “how is this different from what you do? And his answer is, there is no difference.)- but what are the options? The Carvilles of the world attempt to dictate terms from Washington to Peoria?
Let netroots activists and party activists IN Peoria speak to what Peoria needs!
At any rate – there are potential dangers to the rise of a netroots activist class – but this thoughtless propaganda blogpost doesn’t address those dangers in an honest way.
Also, SOMETHING needs to rise to countervail the nine figure yearly funding of various right wing foundations, fake business thinktanks, paid rightwing media shills.
Why not a netroots activist class?
Again, there might be a better way to get at the challenge, but I don’t see you offering it – just a vague hitpiece blog.
This also is good post by Chris Bowers on:
“netroots versus Washington consultants”:http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/17/163035/06
_When Carville criticizes Howard Dean, keep in mind that he is using Howard Dean as a placeholder to attack the entire progressive netroots and the entire progressive movement on behalf of big donors and consultants who once again want to rule the party with an iron fist. But we were the ones fighting for these seats, tooth and nail, along with local Democrats on the ground. National Democrats from the corporate wing of the party were nowhere to be found in these races._
YOU are the person who ALSO complains about the limousine and Washington liberals, and their consultants. As exemplified to a Tee by Carville, and others.
The “netroots activists class” is a response to this. Perhaps it isn’t the best response – what do I know?
But it is a much better responsive way to do local politics, than the Carville class.
In Illinois, Dean put the money in the wealthy suburban districts and not in the poor rural districts that used to be represented not so long ago by people like Dick Durbin (when he was pro-life).
Not saying its not a savvy strategy to hit at a Republican flank. But when some people say “progressive,” what they really mean is gentrification.