Centerfield

I met Markos once at an informal gathering of Portland area bloggers before a fundraiser that Markos was involved with for a local candidate.

I must say that he very much impressed me. I didn't detect a trace of arrogance even though to call some of the assembled bloggers "small time" would have been something of a monumental understatement. He was very personable and made a point of quietly giving you his full attention when you were speaking to him,looking you right in the eyes and not once interrupting.

I honestly expected more of an ego then what I found. Frankly I think it would have been completely understandable if he had've had a bit of an ego.

All of which is to say that I suspect it probably took some doing to push him to the point of lashing out like this. Markos strikes me as fairly long-suffering.

Oh... and full disclosure: I'm not a DKos reader. Never have been. A bit too partisan a crowd for my tastes.

I'm with Kevin, the crowd is way to partisan, so I rarely read anything on the site. That being said, I would not necessarily categorize this as 'lashing out'. Of course, that's just my opinion. The point he is trying to make is sensible to me, but since I admitedly don't frequent the site, perhaps in context this is 'lashing out'.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree with his point.

I agree with his point too. Good for him for having the seeds to tell his audience something they may not want to hear.

There may be a problem if Kos discovers he's really been an entertainer the whole time he thought he was a leader. What the choir wants is to be preached to from their bible. Go off the script, try to add new material, the choir might look for a new preacher.

The first thing I thought of when I read this was how Streisand was getting booed for having anti-Bush political skits during her recent concert tours. I have this picture of a diva lecturing the audience, only to have someone who paid $300 for a ticket stand up and whip a rotten tomato and hit the diva in the face. The diva stares in shock and disbelief at the tosser, who stares right back and rudely says "shut up and sing. That's what I paid for."

Yeah, the DK is something of a sociological train wreck isn't it. I still read it, even though I would never post a comment there...I've been called a dipsh@t often enough without courting it from kos' crew.

I've found that kos' co-bloggers seem little different in tone from the comment section..just fewer expletives.

Its funny this comes up here because I wrote about this yesterday:

"Reading the Daily Kos is a little like watching someone who has a serious mental illness but refuses to take their medication. The daily fits of hysteria, anger, seething hatred, interspersed with moments of lucidity, makes for a slightly surreal reading experience. (That is as long as you don't venture into the comment section, which blows so far past surreal that one could only conclude that we, as a civilization, must be doomed.)"

Take that Mr. Chavez. Now Kos has something else to complain about.

Oh, come now. I read (and post) at Kos and y'all positively adore me.

BTW, Rich, it's spell "It's", not "Its".

Note to self; and it's spelled "spelled". ^%$#@()!

Hope everyone is having a great weekend. I post this more for friends who frequent Kos AND this site to read the commentary. This morning I was standing in line at the grocery store and saw Schumer’s book-blasting of Democrats on the front page of the Post. Unfortunately, his 50% solution does not talk very much about a huge strategic mistake the Democrats are in the process of making yet again. Leaning more to the Left, I am constantly amazed and frustrated at the dangerous abdication of objective national security assessments by Democratic leadership. Despite the international trends and news over the last several months, Democrats seem lost in some political suicide strategy, divorced from the opportunities and pitfalls on the international scene that even even the AP regularly reports. First, let me summarize the last few months of trends issue by issue followed by the Democratic response (or lack thereof)

1. Iraq.

a. Bush replaces SECDEF, Iraq Commander, Chief of Staff of the DOD and other personnel. He admits mistakes. He reads the ISG, which clearly advocates GOING LONG despite the undercurrent of surrender. He states that the Iraq government is now on notice that America will not stay forever and proceeds with a variation of GOING LONG. He clearly spells out a list of requirements that Maliki agrees to. They included shared oil wealth, equal military action against ALL militias and deploying more Iraqi troops.
b. The Democrats launch a pre-emptive strike and essentially claim the recent election was an endorsement of withdrawal from Iraq. They declare Bush’s plan is the worst foreign policy mistake in US history, that Maliki cannot be trusted, that we have given enough to Iraq, that our military is falling apart, and that our military leaders are being forced into keeping silent. Even Obama throws his hat into the retreat wing playing to the special interests of the anti-war fringe.
c. Democrats talk about cutting funding (a bluff) while Maliki actually allows Shia militants to be captured or killed. He pushes through a plan to share Iraqi oil wealth with all regions. He moves to deploy Kurdish soldiers to Baghdad and publicly states ALL militants should be contained. The Democrats ignore this and continue to press for redeployment and negotiations with Iran and Syria. They appear to hope Iraq fails.

2. Iran.

a. Bush refuses to support the ISG recommendation to negotiate with Iran.
Gates, who worked on the ISG agrees that now is hardly the time to talk to a country that is funding terror, racing to build a nuke and kills Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. Iran even is helping to kill its own Shia followers by assisting Sunni insurgents.
b. The recent election in Iran produced large domestic objection for their President’s nuclear policy, his anti-Semitism, his friends, and his behavior. Evidence mounts over Iranian involvement in Iraq, acquiring uranium abroad and operations in Lebanon and Africa (not to mention hit squads in South America-see Argentina). It is also clear that Russia is supplying weapons and technology in defiance of the intention of Security Counsel Resolutions.
c. The Democrats insist Iran be engaged diplomatically despite the obvious
question of why. It is clear from numerous declarations that they think we have little advantage and are defeated. Gates approves a new battle group to the Gulf, going after Iran in Iraq and condemning Russia military transfers to Iran.
d. Democrats call this “escalation” and a plot to take out Iran. Obama and
other candidates still advocate negotiation as a” plan for victory” despite t
the rationality of Gates’ comments.

3. Syria

a. Bush rejects negotiating with Syria. While the ISG was working, Syria agreed to help stability and then murdered a Lebanese political icon. It continued to supply Hizb’Allah and destabilize the region.
b. Democrats continue to advocate negotiation despite the counterintelligence community viewing Syria as an adversary seeking to drive the West out of the region and stoke Shia/Sunni conflict in Iraq.

4. Russia and China

a. Russia and China are in the news regularly. From Polonium to assassinations of important figures in Russia, to supplying technology to rogue regimes and testing ASATs, these two are quite clear in their behavior to obstruct the West. Russia extorts with energy, while China builds a big military, gobbles up resources and supports whoever to get the resources it needs.
b. Bush has not been very hard on these two, but the Democrats completely ignore such behavior. They give little comment on the “colored” revolutions taking place or the human rights abuses in both Russia and China.
c. Democrats were eager to spend the savings of the end of the Cold War on entitlement programs. They are loath to admit that this “war” is not over and it is fueling a new and dangerous extremist threat. It was through Chinese and Russian programs that those today seeking WMD are as advanced as they seem.

5. The War on Terror

a. Somalian Islamists have been defeated for the moment. Sudanese extremists commit genocide in Darfur. Across the globe, extremists seek to increase their strength. Nigeria is on the verge of oil stoppage. Numerous plots against the West have been foiled. The Security Counsel objects to Iranian nuclear intensions, but no one is willing to do anything about it.
b. Afghanistan is faced with a Taliban revival as Europeans, in general, show no willingness to defend Democracy.
c. In Lebanon, Syria and Iran plot to install Hizb”Allah and spread their extremism to Africa and Central Asia.
d. South America witnesses Chavez and others uprooting the Constitutional Process to bring back a form of communism lead by tyrants.
e. North Korea, after testing a nuke, receives little rebuke. In fact, the UN appears to have funded the regime while China refuses to interdict WMD materials. They test the first space weapon in decades.
f. The Democrats say little about this. Reid did blast Chavez, but in general, they have no plan to deal with the proliferation of technology wearing a terrorist flag. Instead, they propose to negotiate and decrease our military profile. They pretest missile defense. They question increasing the Army and Marines. They suggest international police can deal with terror and proliferation and accuse the Bush administration as being the primary moving force that provokes our adversaries and threatens our liberties.
g. Rockefeller blasts Bush’s policy towards Iran, while Democrats go to Syria to sit down with Assad. They complain that WE must resolve the Palestinian issue as though we can stop their civil war and enforce peace (see Iraq). They ignore Bush’s recent diplomacy and walk a fine line between abandoning Israel (see Carter) and offering an empty plan for peace, which the Israelis will not swallow. They could care less about Lebanon or Somalia. Democrats like Kerry talk tough about preventing Iran from getting the bomb, but do zero to accomplish this and decry the very leverage we need to force eventual negotiation.

I suggest that Democrats do not listen much to the news. They do not support going after opportunities unless they are political and suggest policy options that would quicken chaos and our adversary’s advantages. They do not state realistic plans and ignore daily events. They do not protest bad behavior of others or cheer when the news is good. Isn’t it clear that they would be disappointed if the situation improves in Iraq? I heard Biden threaten Bush with impeachment should he strike Iran. WTF? It is quite sad. As I have still never voted for a Republican. If the Democrats take their narrow victory and proceed along this pathetic line of reasoning for political fantasies, that may change. They have an opportunity to switch their tactics and strategy, but if fear they have little clue about exploiting advantages. They have been over reaching and guessing wrong since 2000. As Schumer said this morning, they won in 2006 because Bush screwed up. It is time they examine the merits of their own plans and stopped playing to the special interests. The interests of all Americans and the Free world are at stake.