Justice and truth
Dear Mrs. O'Brien, don't you understand that the truth cannot be forever denied, nor justice permanently postponed? You can smear and defame, and say what you will, but ultimately the truth will out.
Here you are, the "netroots," claiming now to be the rising force of the Democratic Party, having claimed victory in making Howard Dean chief of the DNC and Nancy Pelosi minority leader in the House, and having drawn Senate Minority Leader "Dingy Harry" Reid as a speaker at your Yearly Kos convention. The "netroots" leaders (who deny being leaders) are now influential in candidate recruitment, fundraising, policy and electoral strategy.
So if Democrats lose (again) Nov. 7, who will be blamed? And how can you deny your responsibility for having led the party so far left that you cannot win in competitive "swing" districts? You're already 0-for-eternity and if it weren't for fools like Mike DeWine, you wouldn't even have any hope to gain anything this fall.
By shouting from the rooftops how powerful and important you are -- in a mid-term election where the GOP has serious electoral problems -- you thought you were positioning yourself to claim credit for Democratic victory. If instead, as seems increasingly likely, the result is a crushing defeat for Democrats, you will not escape the blame.
Please, then, Ms. O'Brien, waste your time worrying what a rather low-traffic blog is saying about you, personally, and don't concern yourself with politicians and issues. Let Kos and Jerome handle that. And we'll see you Nov. 8, loser.
Where did the finger-wagging campaign originate? Why is the MSM suddenly piling on Kos this week? Is attacking Kos a back-door way of derailing candidates associated with Kos? Like Mark Warner? Or Sherrod Brown? Or Ned Lamont? Who is orchestrating this?It was your friend Ms. O'Brien, then, who sought to turn the discussion away from "the substance of what is written" -- i.e., is there any truth to the "Ko$ola/JeromeGate" allegations? -- and toward identifying a villain whose malevolent motives could explain why anyone would suggest that Armstrong and Moulitsas were other than noble and selfless idealists.
This is a familiar strategy of Democrats, Bonnie, as you would know if you'd read the discussion of the Lewinsky scandal on pp. 12-13 of DONKEY CONS. In January 1998, Bill waved his finger in America's face, denying he'd had sexual relations "with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Then Hillary went on the "Today" show, to suggest that a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" was behind the accusations, which she likewise insisted were false.
For the next seven months, the Team Clinton spin machine worked this tactic --- "accusing the accuser." So by August 1998, when DNA tests confirmed that Bill had done exactly what he and his wife had both flatly denied, many Americans were so confused as to imagine that what Bill and Monica had been engaged in was a courageous act of civil disobedience against "Sexual McCarthyism." Perjury? Suborning of perjury? Obstruction? No, everyone repeat after me, "It's about sex!"
So here Kos and Armstrong are trying the same thing: "It's not about what we did, it's about the political motives of our accusers. It's not about stock-touting, or astrology, or Paul Hackett. They're attacking the Movement! You must rally around the leaders, because it is you, Our People, who are the real targets."
This, you see, was the totalitarian tendency that Lee Siegel was complaining about: Creating such a strong identification between The Great Leader and his followers that the leader is never accountable, because the masses -- on whose behalf the leader seeks "social justice" -- will automatically side with the leader against any enemies.
Thus, if DailyKos or his mentor, the "icon of progressive politics," are criticized, it must be "Lieberman-worshipping neocons" or some such other fictive villain who is to blame, because you cannot accept the possibility that you've been bamboozled. (BuckeyeState is wiser than you.)
You, dear Bonnie, have succumbed to a cult of personality and an ideology of power politics in which a declaration that "I'm all about winning" is viewed, not as Machiavellian cynicism or Nietzschean nihilism, but as a "progressive" vision. Win at all costs: Ask Jack Abramoff how that works as a political strategy, Bonnie.
You will not listen to words of caution, and any suggestion that you may be mistaken in your course is dismissed as politically-motivated malevolence.
And I will see you on Nov. 8.