Questions for Kossaks:
Do you believe Harry Reid is a "crook"?
Do you think it's productive to call "Harry Reid" a "crook" if you are trying to improve the health care bill?
Even if you, in good faith, believe it's productive to call Harry Reid a "crook," do you believe that the benefits outweigh the harm that such an accusation will cause a vulnerable Democratic incumbent Senator in his '10 match up against what is sure to be a right wing Republican?
I'm asking this question because in addition to the obvious recent example of such an accusation, I'm seeing more and more rhetoric of this type from the progressive netroots.
I awakened politically in November and December 2000, during the recount. The brutal, bullying, and dishonest Republican machinations from those days -- all of which worked -- was enough motivation for me to to get off my butt and do something.
But I have another painful memory, deeply burned into my political consciousness, originating from that period. Had Ralph Nader not run, there would have been no Florida recount. Al Gore would have won the Presidency flat-out. Ralph Nader, of course, insists to this day that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Most people in the "reality based community" disagree.
A faction of the progressive netroots is moving in the Ralph Nader direction. This netroots faction has come to the precipice of suggesting that there is no difference between the Republicans in office and the Democrats.
I know many here have pitchforks and are going in that direction. I've seen the comments and dairies, some (although blessedly few) even on the front page. To you I say, remember remember the 12th of December (the 12th of December 2000, that is). The Democratic party may not be perfect, but as Billmon once said, (and I have to paraphrase because I can't find the original), it is the only organization that has any chance of bringing about progressive change and, perhaps more importantly, preventing a right wing assault on our values. There is no B team.
Advocating for progressive values and holding office-holders accountable (including through primaries) is one thing. I'm all for it. However, destroying Democratic office-holders with libelous rhetoric when you have no feasible alternative or back-up plan? That's old Ralph Nader wine in a new bottle. And I'm not drinking it.