One word -- Judenrat. They thought by working with the Nazis they could ameliorate the massacre. They were wrong.

Appeasement monkey, pure and simple. The lesson from Munich was valid, if overapplied. You cannot appease a bully; it only whets his appetite. The only question, then, is whether or not you're dealing with a bully, and Chimpy's virtually a classic example.

Further, these pip-squeak actions by our 'leaders' will only turn off Dem voters - We will never again gather up the support of the faithful the way we did in this election if those leaders do not turn a page and get tough.

I think I find Lieberman's brand of GOP kowtowing even less appealing than Zell Miller's.

The only answer is to act smarter.

Rule no 1: Attack! Attack! Attack! You can talk nicely behind closed doors. If you don't feel it's in your interests to attack - then don't attack.

Rule no 2: Shift your primaries to next spring and get a leader ready who will be your Prospective Presidential candidate. Get him or her out everywhere. If they are not committed to doing this then they will not win anyway.

Rule no 3: Get a Karl Rove figure - get them to organise nationally state by state. Every state should do phone canvassing from next spring. Every Soft Repub/Dem/Moderate/Independent/Ex-Nader person should be contacted. Then maintain that link with literature and the ongoing campaign nationally. It's less hard work in the end as all your themes will be implanted in the voters minds beforehand.

Rule no 4: Get radical - if there are parts of the constitution you don't like say you'll change them like the Rethugs.

If this doesn't happen the DEMS WON'T WIN and you can kiss goodbye to government.

In that case you seriously need to think about forming a new party or one devoted to creating the blue states into a new country.

It's the only way to take your country back.

little john......you must be smoking the kind of stuff that i was smoking back in 60s......'think about forming a new party or one devoted to creating the blue states into a new country".in case you werent paying attention eleven states seceeded circa 1861 and it caused a minor contretemps .i did not vote for bush or gore because i thought they were both empty suits. my leanings are right to be honest. but if left spouts kind of bilge you spout here ,it will never recapture the glory days.as a post script i thiink the economy and the dollar will lead to a bush implosion and a resurgence by dems in 2006.stick to your basic blocking and tackling and seize the moment when it presents itself.jjj

I'll say one thing for Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson: At least they aren't criticizing other Democrats.

If only more of the rest of us could do the same.

Think Lieberman doesn't criticize other Dems? There are plenty of swipes in his Fox interview yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138516,00.html

I would argue that liberals generally do not criticize our Beltway moderate bretheren for sport, but we are trying to send a constructive message that the way they practice politics ensure more defeat.

We need each other to win. Liberals, for the most part, just want moderates to fight harder and stop being patsies (Dean had a moderate record in VT, but he at least was a fighter). Whereas these moderates seem to want liberals to just go away, which cannot mathematically get us to 51%.

Lieberman has worked steadfastly to undermine the Democratic Party, starting with his crumble in the 2000 Debates. When you want to start fixing the Dem Party, guys like Lieberman must be the first to go.

I don't see the swipes in that interview, much less "plenty of them". The only thing I see is some very mild comments about Howard Dean: "not the right man to lead the Democratic Party now."

Here, I see the phrases "Quisling Democrats", "Holy Joe", "the Pious One", "miquetoast Red State Dem", "puppy-dog subservience", "idiotic".

There is no equivalence. This is not a constructive message.

If we need each other to win, why are we trashing Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson? What aren't we trashing George W. Bush and Arlen Specter and Bill Frist?

T2, If you "fix" the Dem party by tossing out people like Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson, how exactly do you propose to win a majority in either the Electoral College or the Senate?

Peter,

I stand by every word. These so-called "centrists" are complete snakes, and have undermined the Democratic opposition for the past 4 years.

Yuval, I'm very disappointed to hear that. I would hope we could conduct an intra-party discussion of strategy and tactics without using such polarizing, insulting terms.

Is there a method to this madness that I am blind to? What is the goal?

If you wish to persuade them to adopt more confrontational rhetoric and strategy, then this seems extremely counterproductive.

Lieberman mistakenly believes that his name is Job, not Joe. This is precisely the kind of accommodationist crap that had contributed to the slaughter of 6 million + -- don't forget, gays, prostitutes and "liberals" were also on THAT list (curiously, adultery with SS members was actually encouraged, so there are some other parallels here).

This also means that the accusations of his shifitng positions during the 2000 campaign might have been on the money--he was just as accommodating to Gore's agenda as he is now to Bush's. The man is not principled at all--reminds me of an old (occasionally anti-Semitic, but usually ethnicity neutral) joke. When an accountant is asked how much is 2 times 2, he responds, "How much do you need it to be?" This also means that his social position claims during the 2000 campaign were utterly insincere.

And, by the way, he's not an Orthodox Jew, as his biographical sketches often claim, but a Conservative ones (although he is leaning toward the more conservative side of Conservative Judaism)--that is, his position on religion is also accomodationist to his needs. He's Orthodox when he wants to be and not when it suits him (e.g., coming to Senate deliberations on Saturday for important votes). Where's Metzenbaum when you need him?!

In case you are wondering, my comments are not anti-Semitic--quite to the contrary, Lieberman's politics disturbs ME as a Jew.

Lieberman mistakenly believes that his name is Job, not Joe. This is precisely the kind of accommodationist crap that had contributed to the slaughter of 6 million + -- don't forget, gays, prostitutes and "liberals" were also on THAT list (curiously, adultery with SS members was actually encouraged, so there are some other parallels here).

This also means that the accusations of his shifitng positions during the 2000 campaign might have been on the money--he was just as accommodating to Gore's agenda as he is now to Bush's. The man is not principled at all--reminds me of an old (occasionally anti-Semitic, but usually ethnicity neutral) joke. When an accountant is asked how much is 2 times 2, he responds, "How much do you need it to be?" This also means that his social position claims during the 2000 campaign were utterly insincere.

And, by the way, he's not an Orthodox Jew, as his biographical sketches often claim, but a Conservative ones (although he is leaning toward the more conservative side of Conservative Judaism)--that is, his position on religion is also accomodationist to his needs. He's Orthodox when he wants to be and not when it suits him (e.g., coming to Senate deliberations on Saturday for important votes). Where's Metzenbaum when you need him?!

In case you are wondering, my comments are not anti-Semitic--quite to the contrary, Lieberman's politics disturbs ME as a Jew.

Lieberman mistakenly believes that his name is Job, not Joe. This is precisely the kind of accommodationist crap that had contributed to the slaughter of 6 million + -- don't forget, gays, prostitutes and "liberals" were also on THAT list (curiously, adultery with SS members was actually encouraged, so there are some other parallels here).

This also means that the accusations of his shifitng positions during the 2000 campaign might have been on the money--he was just as accommodating to Gore's agenda as he is now to Bush's. The man is not principled at all--reminds me of an old (occasionally anti-Semitic, but usually ethnicity neutral) joke. When an accountant is asked how much is 2 times 2, he responds, "How much do you need it to be?" This also means that his social position claims during the 2000 campaign were utterly insincere.

And, by the way, he's not an Orthodox Jew, as his biographical sketches often claim, but a Conservative ones (although he is leaning toward the more conservative side of Conservative Judaism)--that is, his position on religion is also accomodationist to his needs. He's Orthodox when he wants to be and not when it suits him (e.g., coming to Senate deliberations on Saturday for important votes). Where's Metzenbaum when you need him?!

In case you are wondering, my comments are not anti-Semitic--quite to the contrary, Lieberman's politics disturbs ME as a Jew.

Sorry, guys. I did not mean to post three times--my accomodationist server decided to go into a fillibuster. When I checked the post, it was not there, so I reloaded the page. Next time, I'll wait longer.

Peter,

Just because a swipe is subtle doesn't necessarily make it less pointed or significant.

Infighting is never ideal. But we have major strategic disagreements. It is possible to try to openly hash them out in the off-years, and close ranks in the election years (as we just did in this past election cycle).

It would be preferable to just have smart, tough leadership that would lay out a 2-yr/4-yr strategy that we could all help execute, but the Dem leadership is very fractured right now, making that impossible.

Those of us on the outside have more influence (via the blogosphere, Air America, MoveOn, etc.) than is typical. If we can show our methods are more conducive to winning, than there is a chance that those in the Establishment will follow. That makes our efforts more than counterproductive carping.

And leave us not forget when Joltin' Joe voted, along with his Rethug brethren, to override Clinton's veto of the FASB bill, which essentially gutted investors' rights to investigate and challenge the actions of brokers who were diddling and churning their accounts. Investors lost to the tune of millions+++ when the Enron/WorldCom/et al. debacle came tumbling down shortly thereafter. Thanks loads, Joe. Could you please turn the lights off as you leave?

Washington Dems are like snitches in Prison movies.

They keep the convicts in line to get a few extra favors from the Guards.

And I need not tell you who the Warden is . . .

LiberalOasis,

If we can show our methods are more conducive to winning, than there is a chance that those in the Establishment will follow.

So how does lashing out with disrespectful, very un-subtle swipes show that your methods are more conducive to winning? If you want to swipe, perhaps it would help to learn the art of making subtle swipes, couched in respectful terms.

This is more complicated than just an outsider versus establishment fight. (Especially since the 'establishment' is more represented by the Clintons and John Kerry than by Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.) I am an outsider, yet have no allegiance to either side in this fight. And I suspect I am not alone. These allegations of "Quisling Democrats", while perhaps useful to rally the self-proclaimed "outsider" cause, only serve to piss me and others like me off. And that does your cause no good.

"If you "fix" the Dem party by tossing out people like Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson, how exactly do you propose to win a majority in either the Electoral College or the Senate?"
Well, Peter, you simply get better, more committed candidates who have a spine and intestines. Candidates who are more concerned about the lives you and I live than the paycheck they get.

Stop kidding yourself Peter. This is the same Joe Lieberman who excorciated Dean on MTP. To say play nice when one side smiles then smacks you about the head and shoulders is not feasible. Lieberman and the DLC are steering the dems toward another train wreck. Exactly how many do we need before we switch drivers?

daryl, I read Lieberman's comments in the link above, and while critical, they fall far short of "excoriated". And Lieberman isn't driving anything. He does not control the party, as should be obvious from his pathetic showing during the primaries last year.

And what justifies trashing Harry Reid and Ben Nelson?

T2,

(Y)ou simply get better, more committed candidates who have a spine and intestines. Candidates who are more concerned about the lives you and I live than the paycheck they get.

So if this is so important, why not run primary challenges against these guys? If they are so out of touch, it should be easy, right?

Peter,

We in base raise our voices so the elites know what it will take to get us energized, what will give us incentives to give and raise money, what will entice us to volunteer. Proposing alternative strategies is a somewhat separate matter. If you follow the link to LiberalOasis that is in this Left Coaster post, you will see how you can productively do both simutaneously. (if you go back over the last two weeks of LO posts, you will find more.)

Of course, The Left Coaster and many other great liberal blogs do this all the time.

""If you "fix" the Dem party by tossing out people like Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson, how exactly do you propose to win a majority in either the Electoral College or the Senate?"
Well, Peter, you simply get better, more committed candidates who have a spine and intestines. Candidates who are more concerned about the lives you and I live than the paycheck they get."
Leave Harry Reid out of this! If you'd actually watched the Senate in action in the last year, and seen Harry Reid on the Senate floor, you'd know that he has been a loyal Democrat, an incredible Minority Whip, a tireless workhorse, and a fighter on behalf of the Democratic Senate Caucus even when he ultimately votes with the Republicans on an issue. He is pro-choice, but that didn't stop him leading and supporting the filibusters of Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and company. He is anti gay-marriage, but that didn't stop him from supporting the fight to block the FMA. He is pro-gun, and voted accordingly on the Gun Liability Bill and Assault Weapons Ban Renewal etc., but as Minority Whip, he supported the efforts of Democrats and moderate Republicans who were supportive of the gun control, fighting for the party, then voting his conscience. Harry Reid has been a solid leader of Democratic obstructionism, a promoter of Democratic policies, and a consistent thorn in Bill Frist and George Bush's sides when it comes to procedural tactics and repeated verbal jabs, serving as a constant reminder of the presense of a vocal Democratic minority in the Senate. He is quite often a subtle pain in the butt to Frist when Frist is trying to get through his unanimous consent requests and Reid asks time-wasting questions about each one just to bother Frist and remind him of the Democratic presense. So don't include Harry Reid with Joe Lieberman in you list of Senators who undermine the Democratic Party. Its just not true, and I think Harry Reid will be a great Minority Leader. If you want an example of a weak Democratic Leader, try Tom Daschle during the first two years of Bush.