Confessore On The Netroots
Nick Confessore, now with the Times, writes on the "Uneasy Alliance" between the netroots and the Democratic establishment:
[Precriminations about the Lamont campaign were] the latest round in the long battle between leading netroots activists and their critics, real and perceived, among Washington’s Democratic elite. But such disagreements may soon be on the wane. As the smoke began to clear after Election Day, two things seemed clear. Though the netroots have forever changed how campaigns raise money and find votes, the results demonstrated that they cannot yet win elections on their own. But the Democratic Party cannot win major national elections without the netroots.
“The establishment needs them, and they need the establishment,” said Carol C. Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University.
Mr. Confessore, who once wrote and blogged at The American Prospect, is presumably knowledgable and sympathetic. However, let me help him with this evident mystery - although he has no trouble crediting other bloggers, this seemed to puzzle him:
Answerable to no one in particular, they could sometimes go off-key: During the Democratic primary, a blog supporting Mr. Lamont put up an altered photograph of Mr. Lieberman showing the senator in blackface, much to Mr. Lamont’s embarrassment.
Times' readers may or may not remember that incident involving Jane Hamsher of firedoglake, but here is the graphic, the non-apology from Ms. Hamsher blaming Karl Rove, and my own thoughts. Headier days, indeed.
As to the role of the Netroots in Dem politics - in a bloggingheads appearance with Dan Drezner, Matt Yglesias noted that every other interest group in the Democratic Part is organized, so there is no reason not to expect the same from the educated urban libs. Dan Drenzer suggested that, since no special interest group is complete without a label, we call these the "Aaron Sorkin Democrats".
Or, "Nutroots", as popularized by Mark Coffey.

Toronto votes on the 13th for local positions. Advanced polling started the day Carvilee showed up and then Bill made a surprise stop here.
Liberal Democrats, pain, accidents, strokes; the things we don't worry about when we vote.
Well, New York there was a time 'psychic' notice of something bad in New York and I think a psychiatrist bought it. That happened in Toronto yesterday, again, so never guess how Toronto will trade it?
Indeed, the Confessore has joked.
Posted by: Secteriantraffic | November 12, 2006 at 01:45 PM
Long live the nutroots..I'm suggesting they move out of their urban enclaves into fundieland and preach the gospel.
Posted by: clarice | November 12, 2006 at 02:27 PM
What is the price the nutroots will extract for their support,"Impeach Bush" might be messy,but Iraq should be easy to throw to the wolves.
Posted by: PeterUK | November 12, 2006 at 02:31 PM
Fundy. Bay of Fundy. New Found Land. Newfis. Gospel. Urban.
So, they're a bunch of neandertals in the mist?
Posted by: In Caves | November 12, 2006 at 02:44 PM
Yglesias shouldn't try to vlog and coach third base at the same time. Most impressive collection of tics I've ever seen.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | November 12, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.
"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."
A spokeswoman for Lieberman would not elaborate when contacted by The Associated Press.
Keep Hounding Joe, FDL
Posted by: clarice | November 12, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Liebermans Jewish, so in the tradition of Joe Kennedy, we know he can't be trusted.
But it will not matter, the Democrats announced this morning we will have finished the cut and run out of Iraq by April and let those little brown people kill each other.
Not our problem.
Posted by: anonymous | November 12, 2006 at 03:38 PM
Netroosters and prodigal chickens:
Joe's in the catbird seat and he knows it. He's been in the Senate long enough to appreciate his uniquely pivotal position and to use it to institutionalize his position as the voice of moderation. He'll be a primetime player in 2008.
His very presence is a rebuke to the netroosters, and a powerful reminder to Pilosi and Reid that bad things happen to opportunistic partisan ideologues.
Joe Lieberman doesn't own the US Senate, not entirely, but so long as he maintains his Independence, he can call the tune on most issues whenever it suits his fancy.
Imagine if he gathers a few like minded Senators into a moderate coalition who vote together and swing left or right according to their centrist inclinations. That prospect is keeping Harry Reid up nights.
Posted by: mokus | November 12, 2006 at 03:39 PM
The Joe Gang of ?
Let it bite the Dems in the ass this time.
Posted by: Stormy70 | November 12, 2006 at 03:43 PM
And us...eventually.
Posted by: lurker | November 12, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Remember the Strom Thurmond death watch? I haven't ruled out the possibly that one of the older dem senators might pass away over the next two years. If that senator is from a state with a republican governor the senate becomes even. Let's see how it all plays out. All the dems need the netroots for is money.
I don't buy the conventional wisdom about Rumsfeld or President Bush being the reason some repubs lost their seats.These candidates realized their danger too late in the game. In Ohio, Blackwell and DeWine weren't in Northeast Ohio nearly enough before the election.You can never take voters or your perceived position of strength for granted.
Posted by: maryrose | November 12, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Lurker,
That's what I see coming down the pike.
Posted by: Jane | November 12, 2006 at 04:33 PM
Someone should give Joe Lieberman a list of the ages and ailments of the Democratic Senators.
Of course, such a Senator doesn't even need to be from a Red State. Say Robert Byrd goes into a lunatic rage induced coma and can't vote, but also can't be replaced by the Governor.
Posted by: Patton | November 12, 2006 at 05:31 PM
Senator Byrd is a good bet, he walks with two canes and his wife finally sought blessed relief from his putrifying rascist behind by assuming room temperature.
Of course the old Bull Conner rascist Democrats seem to hand on long beyond their time as useful symbols to the party that built the KKK.
Posted by: Patton | November 12, 2006 at 05:34 PM
And Menendez--FBI bearing down--If indicted, I fully expect the Dems to follow the Delay rule they demanded.
Posted by: clarice | November 12, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Clarice, Ya think? Somehow the house dems have different standards.
Posted by: SunnyDay | November 12, 2006 at 07:13 PM
You notice how fast the Democrats are to embrace Joe Lieberman since it means getting power.
Didn't all those Democrats just remounce him as a standard bearer for their party?
Plus, they also reward the guy with his seniority as if he was an elected Democrat.
I guess the Democrat leaders consider it a good payback to the Nutroots to throw Lieberman back in their faces.
Posted by: Patton | November 12, 2006 at 07:32 PM
What in the world is the basis for this statement, I wonder:
But the Democratic Party cannot win major national elections without the netroots.
I'm not certain I understand what the netroots is functionally, other than a group of geographically dispersed voters. The so-called leaders of the group are not transparent about who they pick to support, nor are they consistent. They worked the hardest to oust Lieberman, but also supported the relatively conservative Webb and Tester.
While it's obvious the Democratic party can't win major elections without voters, I have yet to understand what the netroots supposedly bring to the table other than money-funneling. Can anyone else tell me?
Posted by: MayBee | November 12, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Thank you, sir, for the credit on the Nutroots phrase...in my sad, pathetic life, it's all I have left to hold onto...In all seriousness, I'm enjoying the hell out of the new Kos-Carville feuding. Being in the minority ain't all bad...
Posted by: Mark Coffey | November 12, 2006 at 07:51 PM
The other thing that but the netroots and the major parties now have in common is that .. it is possible to spend more and more money and get no better results.
I sit here in PA-6, one of the seats that the Democrats went after with a vengence. So did the Republicans. The TV comericals got so thick that eventually the voters, including myself, just tuned them out.
The same thing happened in neighboring PA-7. Unfortunately for Weldon in PA-7, the prompting by certain parties for an FBI investigation and the later release of knowledge of the investigation by certain parties, created a hurdle that could not be surmounted.
Here in PA-6, the Republican Gerlach won reelection by 3000+ votes. No amount of additional money, short of outright bribery, could have changed the vote.
Posted by: Neo | November 12, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Speaking of the "Delay rule" .. how did Delay do in his forced race in TX ?
Just because the Democrats asked for a candidate replacement in NJ in 2004, it didn't mean "hoot" when it came time to replace Delay, who tried to drop out even earlier than Bob Torricelli.
Menendez was appointed by Corzine to replace himself. If Menendez goes down, Corzine will make a pick even lower in the New Jersey food chain.
Posted by: Neo | November 12, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Nick Lampson won.
Posted by: lurker | November 12, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Corruption in demland will come to light. Jefferson will not achieve 50% in Louisiana house race. Menendez will be ousted and Reid will be politely pushed aside by the ambitious Hillary until it favors the repubs again by some fluke.
Posted by: maryrose | November 12, 2006 at 09:11 PM
Nancy has her first big fight--Hoyer announces he's challenging Murtha and has the majority of votes on his side in response to her announcment that she's backing Murtha.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
and if Hoyer is right and he wins..won't their relationship be lovely?
Posted by: clarice | November 12, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Well the Reid-Pelosi team are about to get some real world training in nut cutting. The nut roots were useful idiots. The real Dem base is center left.
If I'm the DNC, I'd give the Kos a pep talk. "Thanks, youngster. We appreciate the help, but now it's time for the adults to play. You get ((a tasty tid-bit)). Your nutters get more Dem wins. After all, that's all they really want. To make that happen, we've got to move right.
Bring your nut roots in line or you'll be a loser again in '08."
Two big ifs here. Is there a Dem leader with the nuts to lead, and are their nut roots with the brains to follow?
Posted by: Old Dad | November 12, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Sara (squiggler) + clarice-true lezbo love-lol*
Posted by: Eharmony | November 13, 2006 at 01:33 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nutroots only success has been the Lamont nomination.
Aren't Senators bucking a traditional tide running for POTUS? In my short, 66-year, lifetime, only two once-Sens have been POTUS, Kennedy and Nixon (2 years Sen before becoming Ike's VP). I'm going to call that 1 1/3 and call them outliers. Americans seem to sense different talents are required for the offices.
Posted by: Larry | November 13, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Senators getting elected President is a steep hill to climb. Just ask John Kerry and Al Gore. That's why Mitt Romney looks so good to me.
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2006 at 10:45 AM
only two once-Sens have been POTUS
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but there have been 15 ex-senators who became president. 2 of those moved directly from the senate to the WH, Harding and Kennedy.
Posted by: Sue | November 13, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Larry,
I misread what you said, but the answer to that would be 4, if you were born in 1944. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Kennedy is the only one, during your lifetime, that moved directly to the WH from the senate office.
Posted by: Sue | November 13, 2006 at 11:10 AM
if you were born in 1944
I need another cup of coffee. I meant 1940. I owed H&R a ::grin:: anyway.
::grin::
Posted by: Sue | November 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Sue, right on Harry, but Lyndon was House of reps. 1940. SMILE--big smile.
Posted by: Larry | November 13, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Oops, sorry. Wrong Larry.
Posted by: Larry | November 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM
I'm just thankful that if Teddy's liver finally gives out, that "Free 'Em All Deval" doesn't get to appoint his successor, thanks to the MA Dem legislature who were worried that a Kerry win in '04 was going to lead to a Republican Senator appointed by Romney. (Of course, it would be just like these weasels to change the law back.)
Posted by: Abu Al-Poopypants | November 13, 2006 at 11:32 AM
but Lyndon was House of reps. 1940
Are you saying he was not a senator? I'm not sure I am understanding what you are correcting. He served in the House of Representatives but he was also a senator.
Posted by: Sue | November 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Rule #3 for dems-
If current law conflicts with what we want to accomplish-change the law to suit our purposes.
Example: Torricelli steps down after deadline and Lautenberg is appointed.
I still am hypothesizing on a the possible demise of a Senate dem from a state with a Republican governor. California, Minnesota and Nevada come to mind as does Florida.
Posted by: maryrose | November 13, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Good mornin' Sue. Sorry I couldn't wait - just finished my 3rd cup o' coffee. But then again it's already afternoon here. (i would complain, but heck, it's monday and monday's don't usually move so fast)
Posted by: hit and run | November 13, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Pelosi guarantee "the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history."
Interesting:
Sounds Authoritarian Cultish like to me.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 13, 2006 at 12:30 PM
And don't let it escape notice that here we have the anonymous "Democratic official" willing to leak to the media on the inner workings of the dems leadership battles.
He or she has a "front row seat" but is giving us a "behind the scenes" look.
Posted by: hit and run | November 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM
UT OH...
Nutroots won't like this (via the prowler)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 13, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Hah. Riehl posts this about a Murtha pick:
Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=172
Posted by: Enlightened | November 13, 2006 at 04:27 PM
Bwwaahhhhh. This is just hilarious - just look at all the nutters in the New Leadership who are grasping for the top rung. How predictably infantile.
Sadly, this is exactly what weaker nations wanted - America in disarray. The perfect time to pounce.
Well, all the conservatives that did vote, and have been saying for a very long time that this would happen will not take satisfaction in the knowledge that they were right, because that knowledge also dooms them to terrorist power, and the yabbering of Nancy Pelosi and her "children".
Posted by: Enlightened | November 13, 2006 at 04:33 PM
The only reason Pelosi has tapped Jack Murtha is she knows he can be bought and she knows his price..its all on his Abscam video.
Posted by: anonymous | November 13, 2006 at 06:06 PM
Just to answer the question on LBJ: He was first a congressman, but won a senate primary against Coke Stevenson in a much disputed election in 1948. (He was jokingly referred to as "Landslide Lyndon" ever afterwards.) And there's not much doubt that fraud gave him the win
Posted by: Jim Miller | November 13, 2006 at 06:39 PM
At least Murtha didn't go rat the Arab bribers out to the Feds or the Ethics Committee on whcih he served...no he was a real man and cut a deal once caught to testify against his fellow Congressmen so he wouldn't be prosecuted.
Now thats the kind of guy you want out front when the going gets tough! A guy who will turn on his own to save his own skin!
Posted by: anonymous | November 13, 2006 at 07:42 PM
中国癌症网 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 肾癌 食道癌 子宫颈癌 乳腺癌 卵巢癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 皮肤癌 甲状腺癌 胰腺癌 前列腺癌 膀胱癌 骨癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤 癌症 癌症新药网 乳腺癌 肺癌 胃癌 食管癌 肿瘤 直肠癌 结肠癌 肝癌 宫颈癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 前列腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 恶性淋巴瘤 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌 糖尿病 高血压心脑血管 肿瘤 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 食道癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 乳腺癌 宫颈癌 贲门癌 卵巢癌 鼻咽癌 骨癌 膀胱癌 肾癌 脑瘤 白血病 甲状腺癌 前列腺癌 胆管癌 胆囊癌 皮肤癌 胰腺癌 喉癌 舌癌
中国康网 健康导航 资讯中心 男性健康 女性健康 两性健康 大众健康 母婴健康 疾病大全 中医中药 医学知识 药学知识 药品大全 中国文秘网 2006年工作总结 述职报告
Posted by: 癌症 | November 13, 2006 at 09:57 PM
Chinese pictograph person:
I agree completely.
Posted by: shaman ∞ | November 14, 2006 at 01:07 AM
"中国康网 健康导航 资讯中心 男性健康 女性健康 两性健康 大众健康 母婴健康 疾病大全 中医中药 医学知识 药学知识 药品大全 中国文秘网 2006年工作总结 述职报告"
الى انهما لن يخففا ضغوطهما على ايران وسورية برغم دعوتهما للمساهمة في دعم
الاستقرار في العراق.
ورفض الرئيس الامريكي جورج بوش التفاوض مع ايران قبل ان توقف الاخيرة انشطة تخصيب اليورانيوم.
وقال ان على ايران ان تواجه "عزلة اقتصادية" في حال استمرت بانشطتها وطموحاتها النووية.
Posted by: stan | November 14, 2006 at 02:35 AM
OT but close enough....
The World According to Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter The King of "Cut and Run"... what a dumb fuck!
Posted by: Bob | November 14, 2006 at 07:09 AM
Finally -
14,000 and 1 Things to be Happy About.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | November 14, 2006 at 08:10 AM