On the Electoral Productivity of Circular Firing Squads

Greg:

The biggest problem I have with you and Ed on this is not on the Lieberman issue - though I strongly disagree with you on that - it is the way both you and Ed ignore the extreme provocation from Marshall Wittman. His attack on dailykos was ridiculous, wrong on the facts and uncalled for.

What I have written what kos wrote? No, but I don't imagine you or Ed would have written what Wittman wrote. The childish attack from your colleague Wittman escapes mention.

That is pretty disingenuous from two fellows who are usually standup. Wittman picked a fight, and he got it. And you guys ignore that fact.

I ripped Wittman myself, but, pointedly, I didn't think of it as a reflection on the DLC. Ed has chosen to compeltely side with Wittman, thus identifying himself with those noxious remarks. As have you.

Again, I don;t agree with kos' approach to the DLC. Our idsagreement on the issue is acknowledged. But it seems amazing tome that youboth chose to discuss kos' remarks without acknowledging the nonsense that Wittman initiated.

Greg:

The biggest problem I have with you and Ed on this is not on the Lieberman issue - though I strongly disagree with you on that - it is the way both you and Ed ignore the extreme provocation from Marshall Wittman. His attack on dailykos was ridiculous, wrong on the facts and uncalled for.

What I have written what kos wrote? No, but I don't imagine you or Ed would have written what Wittman wrote. The childish attack from your colleague Wittman escapes mention.

That is pretty disingenuous from two fellows who are usually standup. Wittman picked a fight, and he got it. And you guys ignore that fact.

I ripped Wittman myself, but, pointedly, I didn't think of it as a reflection on the DLC. Ed has chosen to compeltely side with Wittman, thus identifying himself with those noxious remarks. As have you.

Again, I don;t agree with kos' approach to the DLC. Our idsagreement on the issue is acknowledged. But it seems amazing tome that youboth chose to discuss kos' remarks without acknowledging the nonsense that Wittman initiated.

Wait a minute now ... Wittman started this? Really? Last I checked, dKOS was calling for the banishment of the DLC *AND* The New Republic since before Marshall Whittman even went to work at the DLC.

I've read Wittman's post, and re-read it just now to double-check. I'd recommend another one for anyone else. It's relatively benign if you can bother to accept that he's not *quite* the lefty that many kossacks are (yes, that was sarcasm ... feel free to chuckle). He doesn't call for the banishment of said bloggers, but "more humility and thoughtfulness." Egads. If that offends, then I'm thinking there's some serious projection going on.

Would I have written what Wittman wrote there? Probably not. I might have to check my own missives in the great KOS/DLC battles to make sure, though. But my name isn't Marshall Wittman. When McCain decides to run for President after 2006, I'd be shocked if Wittman doesn't once more return to that side of the battle. He's an ally of convenience for now. He has an appreciation for centrist politics from the other side of the realm and I happen to think that adds to our ability to encompass voters in the center and speak to their dreams and aspirations as well as our more traditional bases of support.

Yet, still ... note how quick Markos pivots from his critique of Marshall to his oft-heard refrain of Joe-bashing. I mean, damn, it took all of one freakin sentence. A paragraph would have just lost the moment, I suppose. Ironic that the post was about typecasting, eh?

Now, if Wittman is wrong on the facts of his critique of liberal bloggers, then by all means, lay out the facts of how he's wrong & save the explanation for cloture voting habits for another post. He makes an historical comparison that, I'm sure, most on the left don't appreciate (why they'd cringe at being compared to 1960s antiwar protesters is beyond me, though). Make of it what you will for good or bad, but I'd think that, based on your objections, there's a more factual response to it than what Markos posted. But one fact I'd start with is that Marshall Wittman did not call for the purging of bloggers in the post Markos links to. That's a fact.

Cutting to the chase, it's hard not to just accept that some (Markos and Sirota being the foremost) just don't want there to be any toehold within the party by those who bother to disagree with what appears to be the booming echo of a liberal chorus. I mean, that's the whole idea here, right? To just run the DLC out of existence. Matters not what good Bruce Reed or Bill Galston or Robert Shapiro did in high level Clinton White House roles, we just can't tolerate anyone that points out the occassional (and occassionally disasterous) shortcomings of anyone who holds a positive view of government's role in society (more sarcasm, more pointed, less chuckling). But when said chorus runs out of answers, they seem to revert to purity tests and calls for excommunication first, facts second (if that high). That gameplan's never worked for us.

Come on Greg:

This is what Wittman wrote:

". . . The Moose grazes in the vital center. Unfortunately, much of the political blogosphere is utterly predictable. Whether they be the freepers or the kossaks, they dwell on the fringes of American political life."

Freepers or kossaks? He is comparing dailykos to the free republic? You don't see how that is offensive? Do you think I am the equivalent of a freeper? If so, thanks alot.

Then he says

". . . But for far too many of those who put fingertips to keyboard, there is an ideological rigidity that is appalling when it is not either profane or inane."

Since he used the word "kossak" - I think it is fair to assume he is referring to us again. Say what you will about us, ideologically rigid we are not. Stupid, misguided, whatever - but not ideologically rigid. Harry Reid is no loony Left guy. And he is the dkos hero now. Why? He fights, at least we think he does.

Right or wrong, we believe this a time to fight the GOP, not find compromises. That's not ideological rigidity, that's asking for a certain political tactic. Again, we may be wrong, but not for the reasons stated.

And then this - "Michael Moore became a multi-millionaire with his tirade against the Bushies, but W. got the last laugh."

Michael Moore is nothing to me, and to most of us at dailykos. He's an interesting filmmaker, that's it. Who cares about Moore? You know who cares? The GOP, who likes to tar us with him. And this guy Wittman, uses a GOP talking point to attack us? Is that not contemptible? BTW, do you think Michael Moore is why Kerry lost? Come on. Then this -

"The recent rage on the left is to heap scorn on Joe Lieberman. The Moose is honored to stand with Joe against the dogmatic idealogues of the blogosphere. And he wears their scorn as a badge of honor."

Again, Joe's voting record is not the big problem, it is his insistence, in our opinion, on playing pet Dem for the Hannity's of the world. We think this har,s the Democratic Party. We may be wrong, but that is our argument. It would be nice if you guys addressed it so we could discuss it civilly, instead of having another round of childish name calling. Then this -

"[T]he Moose would argue that those voices on the left who would transform the party into a dogmatically left-wing party serve the wishes of Rove and company in a profoundly significant way."

I agree - who are those folks? It's not dailykos. More GOP talk. It offends. And this -

"The cyberspace lefties are the political progeny of those folks who screamed "Dump the Hump" and helped give us Richard Nixon. . . And now they are turning their backs in a juvenile pique on the President and one organization that helped win the White House twice in a row."

Come now Greg. The DLC was the key to Clinton's wins? I've had this discussion with Ed Kilgore, and this strikes me as almost delusional. The DLc was a help, but this makes it sound like the DLC was the key. It wasn't. Then this -

"History did not begin with the emergence of the internet. Grow up bloggers. --"

No kidding, who says otherwise. What is this nonsense that you find cogent. This is bile filled with nonsense. You guys should not be suppporting this kind of stuff. Heck, it's not what you guys are about.

Distance yourself from this. A chance for a Sistah Souljah moment.

Om markos:

I think you completely misread him. He is a Big Tent Dem. But he is also a fighter. When he thinks people are trying to kick him out of the Tent, he kicks back. I disagree with his approach. I was and am trying a different approach. I think Ed and I have started a good dialogue. I will continue, though Ed may not respond now. Sounds like he won't.

But this is a 2 way street. Everybody needs to stop pissing on each other.

I think this is an argument I should stay out of but what's the deal with the site?

So what about the "fact" that Marshall Wittman called for the banishment of bloggers, MoveOn members and Lord know who else from party ranks? So what about the "fact" that Marshall Wittman started this whole duel by pitchfork? If you can pin down the goalposts for me, Armando, I'm pretty sure I can split the uprights as long as I'm within my range.

- Comparisons of kossacks to freepers are sometimes too easy to make, although still on target more often than even I'd wish for. Don't like it, then demonstrate the difference rather than complain about it. There's a handful of writers from the site that I do tend to appreciate for a more thoughtful response, one of which would be yourself, and I'd be remiss to not note the difference by author.

- re: Ideological rigidity. What, am I just supposed to suddenly ignore the entire previous two years of Joe-bashing? If he's not too hawkish (ie - not with the anti-war, hyperpartisan program), he's too moralizing (ie - not with the secularist, hyperpartisan program), or too critical of Howard Dean (ie - not with the Howard Dean program of hyperpartisanship). Yes, Harry Reid gets some love ... because he hasn't cast a vote yet as party leader that crosses said ideological rigidity. While Reid is notably pro-life, when was the last notable pro-life vote that really pops into mind that Reid had to cross the aisle to support? Point being, that as long as the non-rigid aspects are for show only, fine and well. But I recall Stephanie Herseth getting a rather irate response when she suggested that she'd vote for Bush if the election were thrown in the House and South Dakota voted for Bush. since it never really came to that, we can sweep that under the rug, though. So yeah ... ideological rigidity sticks. Sorry.

- Michael Moore ... sidebar issue, I think you attach the criticism too readily to the points about the far left blogosphere. Point being that outrage may sell, but it has yet to win elections for us.

- Back to Joe ... again, these goalposts shift around way too much. It's either a) he voted to support Iraq, Rice, Gonzales, bankruptcy cloture etc; b) he constantly criticizes other Dems; or c) we just cannot believe that a Dem can hold the views he holds in good conscience. But seriously pick one. If, as you say, it's his constant attacks on fellow Dems, then let's hear them. The last I recall hearing such verbage was his critiques of Howard Dean. But for a very good reason ... they were both angling for the same job! Hell, by that comparison, where's the tirade against Dick Gephardt? So Joe lands a few TV gigs that you wish we had a bigger attack dog on. If he went on Meet the Press for the millionth time, would I really be wrong in expecting the goalpost to shift again to "Why can't MTP get a real Dem on instead of Joe?" I fail to see the issue as Joe's ready reference of everyone as "my good friend" rather than just the fact that it's Joe freakin Lieberman ... period.

- Ideological transformation ... here's a major sticking point I've got with mostly what Markos writes. Remember, I've been around the blog a while, so don't try and snow me. This is a man who has called for Max Baucus to be run from the party, only to reverse course when the impossibility of a Senate majority was raised. The solution? Any of the Nelson-Baucus-whoever class of Democrat should just get elected, sit on the back row, and never be seen or heard from except back in their home states for re-election. As a diehard Dem who holds more than a few discordant views from the majority of my party, I don't particularly find that a very inviting proposition. You cannot expect a diverse party to attain a majority while squelching the voices (even the discordant ones) that comprise that party. That goes for all factions of the party, but come on. Max Baucus??? Don't force me to dig up the more extensive list of "sell outs" that Markos has railed against (granted, some are from the old server and hence immune to search).

- The DLC & Clinton ... If the DLC wasn't a healthy part of the reason for Clinton's rise to fame, then the people and dollars that the DLC (and its network )bestowed surely did play a huge role. Check "One Car Caravan" and see what Bill Clinton was quoting chapter and verse when looking at the 1992 race. Here's a hint ... it was from the DLC's think tank. Otherwise, tell us what organization Clinton used to fund his travel prior to 1992. Tell us that Ed Kilgore didn't practically write Bill Clinton's entire crime policy. Tell us what platform he had for those New Covenent speeches. Tell us where he got his policy advisors, where he developed a national core of fundraisers and donors (this was pre-internet, ya know). Clinton wisely synthesized a wide array of winning ideas from across the party, but the DLC influence and role is unmistakable ... and unmistakably positive.

Simply put, there's no Souljah involved here. You're asking me to make something more akin to a Sister "Fresh Prince" moment instead. Or maybe a "Marky Mark" moment.

Finally, as one who agrees that everyone needs to just get their crap together, pack up the arrows with their fellow partisans into the dustbin of history, and focus on the campaigns ahead, I think there is a need for a more reasonable approach. From what I've seen of your own writing, I give you credit for being pretty close to that (obviously, the biggest lingering point of disagreement is going to be Joe). Reading NuDonk from day one, I think you've seen a great insight into their approach (plus Ed's sheer genuis "Cracker"-isms). Marshall's a different animal (pun intended), but his role is vital as well. I think at this point, anything Joe says will get parsed a million different ways for different ways in which he might have dissed liberal bloggers - as if we just KNOW that elderly Senators spend their days reading blogs. If Joe held a press conference saying the sun was up, I'd half-expect a few Kos comments stating how he was merely parroting GOP talking points and should have made it a point to bash Bush on something or the other instead of talking about the sun being up. So part of that arrow burial requires a step from the left that heretofore just hasn't been seen (from Markos, at least). Granted, the anti-TNR screeds have slowed down. Guess that's something.

Ok Greg:

I won't do a rebuttal on your facts, except one I jst can't let go by - freepers and kossacks the same? No, that is just plain wrong. You really should retract that. It is just factually wrong.

But now I whiz down to the bottom - you have a tolerance for Wittman, you say we need him. I'll take your word for it. What do you say about us "fringe Left" types? Don't you think you need us too? How's about a little tolerance for us? I've been arguing that we need a Big Tent, and the DLC in it, at dailykos. I believe that. I also believe that common sense tells you you guys should think the same about the Lefty Blogs. Tolerance.

On Joe, I think we have to agree to disagree. BTW, at this point, do you think it is only the Lefty blogs who are dissatisfied with him on the question of Party loyalty? You've got blinders on then. And don't tell me you think we're that big an influence on it.

Why has Lieberman caught so much flak in the past 2 years? Come now, he was running for President Greg. Clark caught it.Kerry caught it. But Joe was so adamantly for the war, and is, till this day. He took pride in his closeness to Bush. Have you read Daniel Munz on the subject? And he worked for Lieberman's campaign.

Here's how I see it - let's put our water pistol aside, and let's keep shooting live stuff at the GOP.

I actually think that this debate among different factions of the Democratic Party is healthy and invigorating. We have lost the White House more often than not in Presidential elections since the Democrats' golden age, bracketed by FDR and LBJ. We are in the minority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Most of the country is colored Red. The Republicans increasingly hold sway over the federal courts, despite all of the Conservative talk of Liberal judicial activism. I should think that the time to debate our past mistakes and how to revitalize the Democratic Party is now, after such a devastating, across-the-board defeat in 2004. Yes, Democrats must remember that the one thing that unites us is opposition to the right wing Conservatism of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. However, if the Democrats are going to make a come back and be a victorious Big Tent coalition a la FDR, then we must not fear debate among ourselves, which is healthy.

Many Dean supporters and Kossacks are forever calling on Democrats to emulate Harry S. Truman and his "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" approach to electoral politics. Yet, they forget a few facets of Truman's political career and tenure in the White House. Yes, Harry Truman was feisty and combative and certainly gave Thomas Dewey and the Wall Street Republicans a memorable shellacking in the greatest come-from-behind victory in Presidential politics. However, Truman was equally combative in taking on the left wing appeasement of Henry Wallace and the Dixiecrat dogma of Strom Thurmond, at least after Hubert H. Humphrey and like-minded Liberals successfully pushed for a strong Civil Rights plank in the 1948 platform. Moreover, while in the White House, Harry Truman believed that his premier responsibility was to govern successfully, not to wage perpetual war against Republicans. Thus, while Truman constantly battled the right wing isolationism of Robert Taft, he reached across the aisle to forge a consensus with the internationalist-minded Arthur Vandenberg in support of the Containment and Truman Doctrines.

On Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, I am of two minds, though generally supportive of him.

I think that Lieberman is seeking to emulate the old Cold War Liberals. If you look at his ideological ratings, you must quickly conclude that he is a Liberal, not even a moderate. He is significantly to the left of John McCain and even the so-called "RINOs," such as Lincoln Chafee. However, Lieberman believes in a strong defense and pro-democratic internationalism and has acted decisively on his beliefs. In contrast, the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party has lost favor with many Americans because of the impression that Liberals are either weak on defense or apathetic, allowing Republicans to dominate the national security debate. Lieberman also occasionally strays from big government dogma and frequently shuns ideological litmus tests on social and cultural issues. I think that this is healthy, regarding Liberal interest group and litmus test politics as a weakness of the Democratic Party.

Having said all of that, I disagreed with Joe Lieberman on the advisability of invading Iraq, considering the invasion a strategic blunder and distraction from the War on Terror. I also fail to understand the reasoning behind Lieberman's vote for Gonzales. I considered Gonzales' record as Counsel to the President as egregious on the issues of torture and U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions. I am still waiting to hear Joe Lieberman's explanation for that vote. However, I imagine that he voted the way he did for what he regarded as valid reasons, just as I am unwilling to completely consign Ken Salazar to the "outer darkness" based on that vote. I find it ironic that KOS first embraced Salazar as the embodiment of a new type of populism rising out of the west, only to later condemn the Senator as a Benedict Arnold. I wonder if the KOS love affair with Schweitzer will end on a similarly sour note.

I have to agree with much of what Marshall Whitman said. I will single out this Bull Moose quote: "The cyberspace lefties are the political progeny of those folks who screamed 'Dump the Hump' and helped give us Richard Nixon. They are McGovernites with modems whose ancestors played into the hands of Tricky Dick. And now they are turning their backs in a juvenile pique on the President and one organization that helped win the White House twice in a row." I am a graying Cold War Liberal, but do not want to purge anybody. Yet, I believe that there is more than a kernel of truth to these sentiments. It was not the so-called moderates or the pro-defense Liberals such as Lieberman who were responsible for the political descent of the Democratic Party to minority status. The post-Vietnam Liberals and New Left took over the Party at the end of the Johnson Administration, helping to drag Humphrey down to defeat and consolidating their dominance with the 1972 McGovern nomination. Post-Vietnam Liberals such as McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry have brought us one ignominious defeat after another. Americans were willing to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976, because they considered him a pro-defense Southern moderate, or perhaps a more traditional Democrat in keeping with the traditions of 1932 to 1968. They turned on Carter once they decided that these impressions were erroneous. They were willing to turn to New Democrat Bill Clinton and gave a majority of the popular vote to Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore.

One reason Gore arguably lost the electoral vote in 2000 was his partial renunciation of Clinton's legacy. I believe that the key to success in 2000 and 2004 was to build on the Clinton legacy, redefine and update progressivism, renounce knee-jerk ideological litmus test politics, embrace mainstream values, and formulate a national security philosophy based on a strong defense and pro-democratic internationalism. When I speak of renouncing ideological litmus tests, I mean that the Democrats should return to a Big Tent philosophy. I hardly expect that all or even most Democrats would subscribe to my views and philosophy. They clearly do not. We must learn to inhabit the same party, respect our differences, debate those differences and unite behind our "core values" in opposition to the right wing Republican Party and Administration of George W. Bush.

What are our core values? Clearly, we are going to have to debate even that. The Republicans are now the dominant political party. During their ascendancy, they were hardly afraid of intra-party debates. We should not fear philosophical debate either.

Actually, now that I am on the subject, I think I will highlight another Bull Moose quote. The Moose states: "Unfortunately, much of the political blogosphere is utterly predictable. Whether they be the freepers or the kossaks, they dwell on the fringes of American political life. ... [For] far too many of those who put fingertips to keyboard, there is an ideological rigidity that is appalling when it is not either profane or inane." I gather that this text is exactly what kicked up the "fuss" in the first place. Clearly, the Moose's words do not apply to all Kossacks and were perhaps impolitic in equating Kossacks and Freepers. The response was predictable. However, these words would appear to apply to many of the posters on DAILY KOS. You could not have this sort of dialogue on DAILY KOS itself, for example, because more extremist and virulently left wing elements would quickly flame dissident view points and seek to chase those alternative beliefs and opinions off the site. Indeed, anybody who has ever sought to express alternative view points on DAILY KOS has felt the pain of being torched and flamed. As Bull Moose suggests, this flaming frequently is characterized by the most vulgar and tasteless of profanity. The best that a dissident Democrat can generally expect on DAILY KOS is to be shunned.

Scoop:

On your last comment, that is simply not true. I can demonstrate it because I have. I post on the fornt page of dailykos. I posted about working with the DLC specifically. It was a very good thread on the issue, with the DLC being discussed respectfully for the most part I thought.

That is why your embrace of Wittman is so troubling. Wittman sets back efforts like that. I think he is either looking to start trouble and succeeding or just stupid. Take your pick.

But your seeing Wittman as blameless here reflects on either you lack of information on the subject of dkos and the DLC, and my posts in particular, or a wrongheaded approach on bringing back cooperation from all sectors of the Party.

"let's put our water pistol aside, and let's keep shooting live stuff at the GOP"

Way ahead of ya. Already got three fine Democrats on my to-do list for a few projects today.

One thing I think has been missing here is the failure to address what is ideological rigidity. Greg seems to think it involves hyperpartisanship. That's where I think a lot of the debate goes south when discusions between some of us more to the left and the DLC.

Hyperpartisanship does not entail becoming more Leftist. It entails becoming more Democrat. My district is represented by Chet Edwards, D-Waco. He is fairly conservative on social issues and something of a deficit hawk. He's even pro-Life. I will vote for him every time tough. Why? Because he is good person and a proud Democrat.

Most of us in the blogosphere don't get that sense from Joe. He seems way too ready to go to the other side of the aisle to hammer out a compromise before we've even gotten started. I'm tired of compromises; I want to win something. I want the Democrats to come out on top. I don't give a rat's ass about his positions. He can be fore the war if he wants. I think it's stupid, but he's an adult. I don't need him enabling Republicans to do things that hurt this country.

Armando --

I do not believe that you have proved your point by any means. I have personally experienced the wrath and enmity of the famed Kossacks.

I have been reading Daily KOS for some time and have been following the DLC and New Democrats for even longer. Yes, you have been carrying on a dialogue with New Donkey, but it has involved you posting on DAILY KOS and Ed posting on his Blog on the NDOL Website. You are also right that you have been respectful and the dialogue has been, in the main, civil and constructive. I said that the comments of Marshall Whitman (or Bull Moose, if you please) did not apply to everybody at DAILY KOS. If New Donkey were to have posted on DAILY KOS, many Kossack posters would have presumably rushed to "flame" him. I should know. I used to post comments on DAILY KOS under various sobriquets, and the Deaniacs and Kossacks routinely flamed me, sometimes employing extremely hate-filled, profane and even obscene language/rhetoric. You may be interested in dialogue and I laud you for seeking comity rather than internecine warfare, but that is hardly the prevailing sentiment among Kossacks. In that regard, the Kossacks would seem to be emulating KOS himself. You surely can acknowledge that darker side of DAILY KOS, can you not? Indeed, I believe you yourself have been seeking to moderate the tone of Daily KOS.

Regarding Marshall Wittman, I cannot disagree with him at all on his post, although he and I would presumably disagree on other matters. That may be due to my own philosophical leanings. The two traditions that I have long admired are those embodied by FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, Hubert Humphrey, LBJ and Scoop Jackson on the one hand and Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller on the other hand. My understanding is that Wittman is a McCainiac who could no longer countenance the right wing drift of the Republican Party. In some respects, McCain is trying to carry on the progressive Republican tradition, while being quite Conservative in other respects. I like McCain, but certainly had little respect for the way in which he seemed to sell out his own convictions in supporting Bush so aggressively in 2004. If Wittman left the Party to support a McCain candidacy in 2008, I would not join him. Yet, I note that Wittman left the Republicans in 2004, rather than hypocritically embracing Bush like McCain. I would say that the Democratic Party should be welcoming the Bull Moose.

What about Daily KOS? I think it has two aspects. There is the dark aspect that Wittman and Kilgore highlighted. I frankly am tired of all of the Lieberman, DLC, TNR and Beinart bashing. Yes, there are Daily KOS Bloggers like you who seek to strike a more amicable and constructive note. During the last campaign, DAILY KOS had about the best race horse and inside story postings anywhere. I do think you can take great pride in that. Furthermore, even KOS has acknowledged the need for the ilk of Carson, Knowles, Herseth, Chandler, Casey, Langevin and other Democratic figures who might be described in some cases as moderates or centrists or in other cases as pro-Defense Liberals. Yet, these even handed postings are frequently followed by raging, bile-filed attacks on anybody who does not hew the politically correct line, at least as defined by KOS himself.

Jon Chait filling in for Josh Marshall.

The political press, and websites like this one, have been obsessing for weeks over the politics of privatizing Social Security. I think we may all have missed the single key development: Lindsey Graham has switched sides.

. . . .

And yesterday, Graham voted with the Democrats on a sense of the Senate resolution rejecting large benefit cuts or increases in the national debt.

So how or why did Graham switch sides? My guess is this. Graham is an earnest guy, and he sat down with Democrats thinking he could win them over to his point of view. But as they hashed it out, and they brought up the inherent problems with establishing private accounts, he instead came around to their point of view. Instead of Graham coopting the Democrats, the Democrats coopted Graham.

I don't know if Chait is right or not; it has the ring of truth. If so, Joe Lieberman was one of the Dems hashing it out with Graham. When the story is all told, it might be Joe who gets credit for saving social security.

Nate-N:

You seem to be stating that there is a problem with confusion between hyper-partisanship and Leftism, or excessive Liberalism. That all depends on how you define the core values of the Democratic Party. I, like the Deaniacs and Kossacks, believe in a "Give 'em Hell Harry" approach, but am certainly not a Deaniac or Kossack. I think that Harry Truman would be astonished that Democratic partisans are frequently invoking his name to advocate post-Vietnam Liberalism.

I do not believe that Truman would have sympathized with modern Liberals' frequently weak positions on defense and foreign policy or seeming apathy about national security, presumably born of a desire to focus on domestic and economic issues, perceived strengths of the Democratic Party. I also think that Truman would be astonished at some things that Liberals declare to be core tenets, particularly in the realm of so-called social and cultural values. I doubt that Harry Truman would have ever had a problem with Red State or region voters over God, Guns, Gays and Abortion. For example, to the extent that Truman had a problem in the South, it was over Civil Rights. He also would never have allowed Right Wing Republicans and Joe McCarthy types to steal the American flag and patriotism from Democrats. Truman certainly would not have obliged Blue Collar Union workers to choose between their patriotism and values on the one hand and their economic interests on the other. That was a problem that the Democrats did not generally have from 1932 to 1968, which is to say during the days of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society.

I am afraid that Democrats are doomed to have these debates, and it is not really such a bad thing. We disagree about many things, just as is the case in any Big Tent Party or political coalition. We are not going to be an ascendant party again until we tolerate such a divergence of opinions. The one thing that unites us is our opposition to the ultra-Conservatism of the Republicans. There is one other thing that should unite us and that is that we need each other. The left wing of the Democratic Party cannot triumph without a united party and without winning over swing voters. The same is true of moderates and pro-defense Liberals.

Rachel,

Good catch there ... I'm among those that somehow finds Graham far more credible of a bipartisan worker despite some not-so-fond memories of his work in the Clinton impeachment. But what I find interesting is that, while Graham has switched sides in some ways (and presumably this warrants applause by us Dems), he's still about 90% on the same page as Lieberman, who gets vilified for holding the same views and pretty effectively standing his ground for a number of years.

But sometimes, unfortunately, the perceptions matter more than facts.

Greg:

Graham is a Republican and he will vote with his Party at the end of the day. More importantly, and I assume you mean why Graham is not vilified by the GOP, Graham is not getting covered by the Media.

Lieberman is trotted out to undermine the Dem position,and he plays along. Call me when Graham is trotted out to do the same to the Republicans.

I think the difference is crystal clear.

I've been flamed many times over there.

Armando,

Does this count?

Furthermore, Graham did not vote with his party's majority on the Nelson amendment. While I'm not about to make the case that he's suddenly reading more Galbeath and less Gilder, it's pretty much the exact same sort of behavior that would send 500 KOS commentators to proclaim what a sellout Joe was for doing the same exact thing.

Armando -- The Club for Growth and other ultraconservative Republicans feel about their "RINOs" just the way many Deaniacs and Kossacks feel about their "DINOs." Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Spector, Hagel and even McCain have felt the wrath of the far right. Thus, both parties are capable of horribly self-destructive political cannibalism. Lindsey Graham is less of a maverick, but he himself has incurred the wrath of rightists on the issues of interrogation and torture, as well as social security. In the House, Congressmen such as Shays and Hefley are hardly that popular right now in the Republican caucus. The difference is that the Republicans can afford such self-destructive behavior far more than can the Democrats, being in the ascendancy and in the majority. The Democratic Party truly does need a big tent approach. It desperately needs to renounce its old ideological litmus test mentality. If the Democratic Party doesn't have room for the Joe Liebermans, Kent Conrads and Ben Nelsons, it does not want to be the majority party very badly.