And in my case, one of my main concerns is ‘productivity’.

I was in on the early days of email threads, then Web-based threads, in an entirely different context and what began to intrigue me (then, later, fascinate me) was the ability of a good group with good guidelines to get a phenomenal amount of work produced, at a very high quality, in a terrifically efficient amount of time.

People no longer had to sit in longggggg meetings; information could be exchanged very effectively, and decisions could be made, and you could easily search and retrieve info that you needed. It was like going from a tricycle (phone + Dayrunner + meetings) to a Ferrari (Web-based topical threads with archived info). It was like growing wings.

And for several years, I told myself not to even look at political threads/blogs because the Political Junkie side of me would spend endless hours on them, and it would impact my… productivity.

Well… as it happens, over the past couple of years the linkages between healthy social networks (as opposed to corrosive ones), and economic vitality, and trust/openness have become ever more apparent to me. (Shorter: if you’re an asshole and you lie, cheat, steal — or torture — you may have short term economic/political benefits, but it’s an asinine, head-up-the-ass long term strategy.)

So if we want a different, better kind of politics — the kind of politics that makes better governing possible — then we need to be more… ‘mindful’. More thoughtful.
That doesn’t mean get rid of Trash Talk (!).
It means: “trashing and flaming go on Trash Talk threads, but other productive work goes on Topic Threads”.

I guess that much of this comes back to expectations, and also to creating the consensus about objectives.

I think it’s fine to rant (God knows, I do plenty of it!). But maybe we need to be more clear about keeping the rants on “Trash Talk” threads. Because one reason that I can’t even stand the Orange Satan is that the information there just seemed to be devolving into emotional ranting and I didn’t really see anything getting done or moving forward.

Whereas at FDL, or EW, I felt as if each week I had a few more puzzle pieces, a few more timeline items and things started to make more sense: “Oh, Hunt… Texas… Kurdistan… Okey dokey, now I’ve seen that name before, so now where does that piece fit…?” It’s a bit like being in an online course; each week, you have a few more facts in your knowledge base.

I would point out — with tremendous respect — to EW and bmaz (and the one or two others who might read this) that all of us are more knowledgeable about the torture issue than we’d have been without EW’s posts. And some of that information is do unpleasant that it does raise the level of frustration with Congress.

At the same time, and I say this from my experiences serving on boards, or serving in admin roles on occasion, I think that when you are ‘behind the curtain’ it really hits home how little power/influence you have UNLESS AND UNTIL you have more people who understand the issues, can speak about them, and agree with your objectives. Without those, you are a powerless voice in the wilderness.

But what I came to realize is that people ‘looking at ‘the show’, who are NOT behind the curtain and don’t have that perspective’ tend to invest you (in their own minds) with some kind of superhuman powers that you don’t actually possess. So they start acting demanding, and they make statements like selise’s “voting the right way isn’t enough” comment.

Because I can say in complete honesty that makes me want to absolutely scream and slam doors.

I gotta say, i want to ask — Selise, have you ever sat on a commission, board, council, or committee with people who have a ton of resources against your views? Have you ever had to play the kabuki on a committee where you’re up against ‘Free Marketeers’ who have a ton of connections that each and every day subvert your objectives, and are proud of doing so?! For Christ’s sake!! I kind of want to say, “PLEASE get a fucking clue!”

Sen Levin is up against world class ratfuckers.
Step back one minute and figure how much m-o-n-e-y is involved in Armed Services. How many Blackwater and other contractors want money! Money! MONEY!! How many defense contractors want contracts, deals, access to this man…? THOUSANDS.

So step back a minute and think about Levin must be up against.
He’s up against Cheney. And Bush. And all the resources they can still muster: executive privilege, Pixie Dust, 4 Supreme Court Justices (and often a few add-ons), DoJ, DoS, CIA…

Get a goddamn fucking CLUE!!!!!!!
He’s dealing with world class ratfuckers who do not want to have any penalties or inconveniences to their nice lives.

Now, I’ll never know the in’s-and-outs, but it’s a fair guess (given Mora’s testmony and other ‘tea leaves’) that some current and retired military, some FBI, are pissed as hell about the torture debacle and they’re probably rooting for Levin to get to the root of the disaster.

To do that takes shitloads, boatloads, planeloads of time, detailed documents, endless interviews, and every fucking ‘i’ has to be dotted and every damn ‘t’ has to be crossed.

Do you have a c-l-u-e how much work it must have required to set up the hearings he held?!!

Because we’ve all watched Rove slip out of one tiny pinhole after another — always on a ‘technicality’. Because that’s how ratfuckers always reveal themselves — they’re never interested in honoring the spirit of the law, and they always use ‘the letter of the law’ to slip away. Which is why to track down and catch ratfuckers is tough, sloggy, almost impossible work.

But it happens.
It took years for Enron to implode, but it did. Because it was evil.
And BushCheney are evil.

But to catch them requires careful, patient, thankless, sloggy work.

I think that some on the blogs (and I am guilty at times myself) think that just because someone is a US Senator they have Magical Powers and they can Make It So. Well, step back a minute.
That’s NOT the bridge of the USS Enterprise they’re standing on.

Yes, they have power, but they also have lots of constraints.
I think that some of those who comment on blogs think that they can just say, “HOLD impeachment hearings!!” and that presto! magically, it will all happen before the popcorn is eaten.

Life doesn’t work that way.
Levin is up against huge forces — I can’t even imagine what he’s up against, but i can look back to some of my own experiences and roughly extrapolate.

He’s up against people who think he’s standing between them and their paychecks, or between them and the risk of prison. These people are going to take **anything** he says out of context. They are going to screw him every chance they get. They are going to lie to him, evade him, yadda, yadda, because that’s what ratfuckers do.

So basically, EW worked her ass off for several years to build the kind of resource that FDL/EW has become, and she invites a Senator on, and people think they’re justified in ranting at the man?
Yikies.

Saying that ‘Voting the right way isn’t enough” is pretty naive, IMHO.

On the one hand, it’s not. First, you gotta do the homework.
Then you gotta understand WHAT the fuck you’re supposed to be voting on, and if there’s a last-minute amendment, then WTF will it mean down the line?
Then, after the vote you have to figure out how to fund whatever got voted on — and make sure the budgets are clear and funded.
So ‘voting’ is the tip of the fricking iceberg.
And that’s why it’s damn insulting to someone like myself to read, ‘It’s not enough to vote the right way”.

Cause I kind of want to say, “Oh? Really??! So I’m also supposed to clean your damn toilet, mop your floors, flx your car engine, pay off your mortgage and also care for your aging parents?! WIll THAT be enough???!”

Followed by a really fast, “Fuck off.”
And then by a ‘Anyone who runs for office in this day and age is nuts.”

Shorter: maybe we should all cut each other a bit more slack.
Maybe we should clarify what senators like Levin are up against — NOT ONLY in terms of Republican control of the Senate, but in terms of the ECONOMIC interests affected by their decisions.
Maybe we should get more information.
Then we should clarify our objectives.

Then we should seek to meet them in a productive fashion.

Okay… good think I don’t bill for the time writing blog comments, ’cause I just lost money on this lonnnnnnnggggg comment’.

Selise, don’t take it personally — I’m kind of using ‘the Idea of Selise’ to create an argument. But I DO hope that my perspective helps you think more broadly about why the Levin thread sent me spinning.

I hope that EW doesn’t give up the idea of having people come as guests, but I do think guidelines, and a more realistic sense of what KIND of power people have, and what they’re really up against, would help people be more grounded, more decent, more productive.

All that said, I personally pretty much agree with Marcy when she says

There were a bunch of torture questions–over 20 (though that includes about 3 or 4 impeachment questions; it also includes two from Hugh). But the thread went from one where just about everyone was discussing torture to one where just about everyone was talking about impeachment and/or frustration with Congress.

Call me crazy. I find that unproductive.

I find it inherently unproductive too; although, I don’t think that it was intentional or malicious by anybody. We are all frustrated by the lack of accountability, and specifically consideration of impeachment, and it literally oozes and boils out at every opportunity. I share that sentiment completely. But you know, change comes from within the system, that is the way our Constitutional republic government is designed. In that, we have to realize when critters are at least mostly on our side and afford them some respect and support, and help them help us. We may want better, but they are the best we currently have. Hey, if it was Lieberman, I would have been chucking stones with the best of them.

But while Levin may not be perfect, he is very easily among the better ones for us, he is older and very timid and skeptical of this format, and he needed perhaps a little of what lawyers call respectful sandpapering. He is also Marcy’s homestate Senator, and was here by hard fought personal work by Marcy. I can flat out tell you, she has been working very hard to get Levin involved like this for a long time and is convinced that, if Levin could be made comfortable interacting with us, that very good things on both sides could result. How she feels about Levin in this regard is no secret, it was plain to see for years, but especially recently on the Rules Committee liveblog, and even in the advance thread announcing Levin’s visit. This was not the normal FDL meet and greet, and I think it is very easy to see why Marcy is so frustrated.

Lastly, I would like to say that perhaps there are more and better things that can be done on the front end as to delineating the topics when it is not a free fire meet and greet, and conveying to commenters why that is the case. I truly think that this discussion has been very valuable in that regard. I pledge to do all that I can to help see that we do indeed get better at this, both in my role as a commenter and whatever other roles I may play. I also hope that Marcy will continue to make the efforts in spite of the frustrations encountered in this one. It is vital for all of us, and if we can get it right, it could be critical for the legislators as well. The enthusiasm, passion and intellect is all here in spades; we can all strive to learn and focus them to better serve one and all. My thanks and appreciation to everyone.

I appreciate your statement that you didn’t mean to insult me. Sorry I mis-read it. (Though the fact remains that Hugh basically has accused me of being an access whore.)

Also, as I stated above, I think your comments had a nice balance of critical constructiveness.

My issue is not that the impeachment question was asked–I think it was an appropriate question to ask, once or twice, constructively. It’s that it was asked over and over again and hijacked the thread and became increasingly personalized. Look back at your catalog of questions. See what you didn’t count (just because of the categories you established, I understand, but still, it’s really telling)? Torture comments.

THere were a bunch of torture questions–over 20 (though that includes about 3 or 4 impeachment questions; it also includes two from Hugh). But the thread went from one where just about everyone was discussing torture to one where just about everyone was talking about impeachment and/or frustration with Congress.

Call me crazy. I find that unproductive. And frankly, if someone offered another opportunity to do one these, I’d turn down the opportunity. What’s the point? I see now it is the top priority of folks here to harangue members of Congress. That’s fine–you all are entitled to your own priorities. But I found that thread profoundly unproductive because of those priorities and I don’t intend to set up another similarly unproductive thread because it is a waste of my time.

marcy – my intention was not to be insulting, but to take your concerns seriously and to reply in a serious way. perhaps i should have just written that you may have had another goal (without specifying what it might be) than we did. what i was trying to communicate is that i see nothing wrong with that, if it was indeed the case. i just want some guidance on how i can best help you in furthering the goals you have for all of us. that is all. certainly not an accusation of any kind. where did that come from?

i don’t see the issue of torture as separate from the responsibility of congress, and levin in particular, to put a stop to it and hold those responsible accountable. one way to do that would be impeachment hearings on the issue. so for me – and i’m not trying to say you are wrong and i am right, i’m just trying to explain my thinking – the issue of torture is not a separate issue from consideration of impeachment or more broadly, oversight in general. and furthermore, i see the issue of usa’s policy using torture as something that the Ds are in part responsible for creating – not only in permitting to continue.

the purpose of additional comments in support of an issue raised in an earlier comment is to make clear how important the issue is considered. that is why, for example, i brought up iran in 6 comments (and that was just me) during the wexler thread.

i see now that you don’t like that. but i didn’t know that until after the levin thread (and i’m guessing other commenters didn’t know it either). i would happily have tailored my comments, as i’m sure many at fdl would have, if we knew what you wanted.

i do like the chats – that is why i particpate whenever i can.

i don’t think i insulted you – that was certainly not my intent.

i don’t think the fact that levin voted against telco immunity and h.r.6304 (and s.2248) is a reason to give him a pass on the issue of congressional oversight of the use of torture. first of all, voting the right way is not enough. second, it’s not like levin was on the right side of all the issue’s on glenn’s list that i reference. finally, and more importantly, even if levin was perfect except on the issue of torture oversight – as you point out, torture was the topic of the discussion.

and yes, i did and do think it was productive to give levin a hard time. but i’m quite willing to reconsider and even more, to follow your judgement (after all it is your blog) instead of my own – if i know what your judgement is before the thread. again, i think that is true of most if not all of us.

i really don’t understand why you are so pissed off at me for having a different view point. i don’t understand why yesterday morning you said you didn’t think we were rude and then last night you wrote that we threw a “temper tantrum”, that we “beat up on” levin and we were “snippy.”

i don’t understand why you accuse hugh of hijacking a thread and making the impeachment point “ad infinitem” when he made (if i still know how to count) exactly 2 comments on impeachment (out of a total of 4 comments) during the conversation with levin.

i thought we had just begun to discuss your questions on how to best handle our group interactions with members of congress (see my replies @170, @173 and @174), and i thought it was clear that we are all starting from very different places on this question. i don’t understand why you are angry now that we don’t all see it the same way before anyone has articulated an answer or we’ve even had a chance to really hash it out.

i’ll quit now if you want. i really have tried to respond in a constructive fashion. even if it is beyond my capability to do that, i hope you will understand that is my intent.

I don’t disagree with your point that after Levin blew off the impeachment question, that’s when the pile-on started. That’s kind of my point. If you got no response the first time, why try a second, third, fourth, and thirteenth time? At some point, that becomes unproductive.

This:

however, if the desired goal of the thread was not to give commenters the chance to ask questions that reflect our priorities and concerns, but instead to further marcy’s research, i think that is a perfectly legitimate goal. but we’ve got to be told that is what is wanted,

I think is a false question, and I find it frankly, insulting. The point of the chat was, first and foremost (and my response about Levin prioritizing these questions should have made this clear to you of all people), to discuss TORTURE. Not to discuss impeachment. And everything that has been said here has to do with whether the commenters at this site used that opportunity productively. To suggest I had Levin on to “further my own research” turns what I thought was an attempt to make an opportunity for readers into a selfish goal. Had I wanted to “further my own research,” don’t you think I would have just talked with Levin, without sharing the time? But I am just about convinced that it wasn’t worth the effort, because apparently it gets me accused of putting access ahead of my readers, of staging this discussion to further my own research, and so forth. I get it!!! You guys don’t like these chats!! You insult me when I set one up!!! I won’t make this mistake again!!!

As to the context of FISA. Yes, we’re frustrated. I get that. So why is it productive to beat up on one of the guys who voted against BOTH immunity and the bill itself?

Let me contextualize my comment from the standpoint that the Dorgan live chat was about contracts and Levin’s was about torture. When looking at both topics, torture is quite a few buttons higher on the “trigger anger” scale (in my observation). In that regard, I think if “anyone” talked about contracts the live chat would have gone the way Dorgan’s did and that when one live chats about torture, there is a higher risk for escalation of inhospitable interaction (extremely so) in the comments. Thus, I do not think “it” was Levin, but the interplay of torture being a heated, personal topic of justice and humanity (or injustice) and consequently “impeachment frustration” tends to interplay quickly when torture is the topic. This view does not justify what happened in the thread, not one bit. It’s just my view of “how/what” probably happened. Thus, my closing comment at 176. My regrets for not clarifying my reasoning.

Please know Marcy I am in support of your concerns on the overall outcome of the live chat and my comments have not meant to insult you or Senator Levin. I have simply been trying to make sense of what I saw evolve online as I lurked the live chat because, I was taken by surprise in many ways but then began to somewhat understand the undercurrent of anger, again, surprising myself. One of those “seeing both sides of the same coin” moments…As a mom, I usually “balk big time” regarding expressions of inhospitable behavior, not giving an inch for the “why”. Although, the chat was not all inhospitable.

You’ve got to know something, outside of my husband, parents and children, you rank quite high on my “most respected persons” list simply based on your tireless commitment to democracy through your blogging, authorship and networking efforts to build coalitions of cogent people resources in an “iron sharpens iron” fashion for the rule of law, and you manage to convey that you are a real person, just like your readers. An amazing gift for all of us.(And yes, bmaz ranks up there too for supporting the Buckeyes –had to get that in there…)

Having worked in DC (and worked with many Senators/Reps) working to set up a meeting with someone, who has extremely limited time, is difficult. Once the time is made, it becomes crucial for the time to be effective. Especially, for future access and time. “People influence” is a real tool for change. Often the “people influence tool” tends to receive negative views because it is interpreted as the “within the beltway game” the “rubbing shoulders”. We both know this acute reality. And I understand your overall frustration through the reality of what evolved online. My hope is that Levin understands on some level the “hot button” of torture and that you are an amazing gift not just to all of us but to him and his staff too.

I sent Levin a thank you for coming and that he is the right person to be working on the deep concerns regarding torture.

You risk so much on your readerships’ behalf when you are in the middle as host and constituent, bridge building for the progressive netroots. We are a community which needs to build networks of influence to uphold the rule of law, restore diplomacy and address global concerns which our nation needs to get back to reflecting leadership policies on such as human rights, alternative energy and the environment. Being in the middle of that bridge building can be …so many realities…

Hopefully, this clarifies the context of my last comment at 176.

in no way do i think the comments during levin’s visit justify the above statements and i’m going to try to show why i think this. but first i want to make clear that this is not about the comments i left – as they say on the senate floor: i would like to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, my fellow commenters.

levin was with us for a total of 38 minutes and 65 comments. seven of the comments were from levin, so i’ll subtract them from the total, which leaves 58 comments from us.

of those 58 comments, 38 comments (or about 66%) are included in one or more of the categories below:

impeachment is mentioned in 13 of them by 9 different commenters with no commenter mentioning it in more than 2 comments. (comments 6, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 37, 39, 41, 48, 49, 51, 63)

criminals, crime, justice, trials, or prosecution of bush administration officials is mentioned in 13 comments, (comments 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 24, 33, 45, 47, 51, 58, 61)

oversight, accountability is mentioned in 13 comments. (comments 3, 13, 16, 22, 25, 30, 38, 45, 47, 57, 58, 60, 61)

the responsibility of congress (or the Ds in congress) is mentioned in 13 comments. (comments 9, 17, 20, 22, 36, 41, 42, 47, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63)

complicity of the Ds in congress is mentioned or implied in 9 comments. (comments 22, 25, 30, 31, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56)

as i said above @148, “i think impeachment is really just a short hand way to reference and encompass the whole issue of congressional oversight and putting some limits on an out of control executive branch. finally, i think impeachment is also a way to indicate that preventing the kinds of abuses we’ve seen from bushco is congress’ constitutional responsibility.” imo, this is consistent with our comments during levin’s visit. thirteen comments mentioning impeachment is certainly a lot, but it does not characterize the “entire FDL thread” – what does characterize the thread during levin’s visit is the issue of the lack congressional oversight we’ve seen from the 110th congress, specifically wrt to the issue of torture – which was, after all, the advertised topic. impeachment is only one part of this larger issue.

here are the comments left by levin:

1 – Hi everyone. Thanks Marcy.

7 – In response to emptywheel @ 2 (show text)
We know that Jim Haynes is close to David Addington, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and former counsel as well, but I would not want to draw any conclusions about a lawyers representation of a particular client.

12 – In response to selise @ 3
Could anything have been done differently? Lots. For one thing, the Republican Congress was protecting the Republican administration and did not engage in oversight that was so essential to force the administration to follow law. The legislative check and balance was MIA.

21 – In response to JPL9 @ 6
I believe that an Obama administration especially can reach out to countries around the world and dramatically change the impression of America by ending the unilateralist policies, and the cocky, arrogant rhetoric of the Bush administration. For instance when Senator McCain proposed that we kick Russia out of the G8 he makes it harder for Russia to join us in putting the kind of pressure on Iran which is essential to resolving the threat of an Iranian nuclear program. That kind of comment represents a continuation of the Bush unilateral approach which comes across as domineering and bullying. I don’t support impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

26 – In response to Siun @ 11
Urge Senators Obama and McCain to commit themselves to apply the interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual to all U.S. employees and contractors, including the CIA. And also of course vote in November.

40 – In response to Valtin @ 16
Lt. Col. Baumgartner did so testify at our hearing. However information relating to his discussions with Shiffrin remains classified. When our report is finalized we will press the DoD to declassify this matter.

59 – In response to emptywheel @ 38
Congress has three powers that can be used: they can pass a law, even in classified form as a classified annex to an unclassified bill (such as the intelligence authorization bill), second, the power of the purse which can be carried out in a classified or unclassified manner, and third there is of course our oversight power and responsibility.

65 – In response to Valtin @ 53
We have many pending requests for declassification, and we’re not waiting for our report to be finalized to ask for declassification of numerous documents. The Yoo memo is an example of where we put maximum pressure on for declassification. There is only one minute left in the roll call, so I have to run. Thanks for joining me today.

i don’t want to criticize levin’s comments – as i wrote above, i think he did pretty well especially in comparison to some of the other guests we’ve had. but i do think it’s important to look at levin’s comments because they show several things central to our discussion.

1. when levin (@21) replied to JPL9’s comment on impeachment and essentially blew him off, there had been to that point exactly one comment, JPL9’s, that mentioned impeachment. it was only after this reply from levin that there was a burst of comments on impeachment.

2. when levin (@12) answered my question about what the Ds could have done differently with blaming the Rs, he was both ignoring my question to blame the Rs and avoiding any mention that Ds are now in the majority, that he is now chair of the senate armed forces committee and that the responsibility for forcing the administration to follow the law, to provide a legislative check now rests with the Ds.

3. when levin (@26) answered Siun’s question about how can we citizen’s can support levin’s work with a comment about obama and mccain and voting in november, he was ignoring the responsibility of the 110th congress and what could and should be done now with kicking the can down road to november’s election.

i think it is important to note that all but one of the impeachment comments comes after levin dismissed the possibility without explanation and that it was after levin’s comments @12 and @26 where he ignored the responsibility of the Ds in the 110th congress and his own as the senate armed forces committee chair that our comments got more insistent, direct and angry.

our comments were, at least in part, a response to a senator who came to talk about torture – certainly an impeachable offense if there is one – and then proceeded in effect to deny any responsibility for preventing or stopping it.

……

there is something else i think is important to consider – and that is the context in which our conversation with levin occurred. we had just spent the last few weeks coming to terms with the fact that the Ds in congress had, instead of providing oversight and preventing the bush administration’s abuses and lawlessness, just contrived to cover up, give immunity to and “legalize” bush’s program of warrantless wiretapping. here’s what glenn greenwald wrote about that just 3 days before our conversation with levin:

Torture and the rule of law

Things like “torture” and “illegal eavesdropping” can’t be compared as though they’re separate, competing policies. They are rooted in the same framework of lawlessness.

If the rule of law doesn’t constrain the actions of government officials, then nothing will. Continuous revelations of serious government lawbreaking have led not to investigations or punishment but to retroactive immunity and concealment of the crimes. Judicial findings of illegal government behavior have led to Congressional action to protect the lawbreakers. The Detainee Treatment Act. The Military Commissions Act. The Protect America Act. The FISA Amendments Act. They’re all rooted in the same premise: that our highest government leaders have the power to ignore our laws with impunity, and when they’re caught, they should be immunized and protected, not punished.

When our political and media elite aren’t defending the Bush administration’s lawbreaking, they’re dismissing its importance.

my bold.

and here is glenn again, early on the morning of levin’s visit:

The motivation for blocking investigations into Bush lawbreaking

As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it’s vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.

In light of this sordid history of active complicity, is it really any wonder that these leading Democrats are desperate to quash any investigations or judicial adjudications of Bush administration actions that they knew about and did nothing to stop, in some cases even actively supporting?

on the day before levin’s visit, after describing the “overwhelming Democratic victory” in november 2006, glenn lists what the Ds in congress have done with that victory. the list is a list of outrages and levin was at least partially responsible for many of the items on glenn’s list.

Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows: The strategy and rationale

As the above-chronicled events demonstrate, all of these assaults on our core civil liberties and the rule of law are not Republican attacks with Democrats fighting against them. They are attacks launched by the political establishment against the citizenry, and they ought to be responded to as such.

as i wrote above, “the benefit of the thread is that it is my one and only chance to have a comment i write on an issue i care about actually read… i have no other forum for that – and that is a very big deal to me. but it strikes me now that you were looking for something different – that you really did want the chance to ask questions and get specific detailed answers that would further your own research.”

now, if one disagrees with glenn’s assessment, then perhaps i can understand why our comments might have seemed a bit harsh. but for those of us who do think we are under attack by the political establishment – of which levin a member – then i think our comments were completely fair. they were an accurate reflection of our concerns.

however, if the desired goal of the thread was not to give commenters the chance to ask questions that reflect our priorities and concerns, but instead to further marcy’s research, i think that is a perfectly legitimate goal. but we’ve got to be told that is what is wanted, otherwise we will do what we have done before when we have a problem with either the actions of the guest or the responses of the guest.

as an example of what is typical, i think it is helpful to look at the recent thread (june 29) with representative wexler – a thread in which i participated. in this thread several of us did intentionally (at least it was intentional on my part) pile on wexler for his co-sponsorship of h.con.res.362. i personally left 6 comments on h.con.res.362 or iran in general. my comments were very pointed with phrases like, “aggressive, provocative posturing,” “dangerously irresponsible” and “wrong, dangerous and counterproductive.” my goal was to communicate both how wrong i though his action was and how much i cared about the issue.

again, if this is not what was wanted, we need to be told what marcy and bmaz want us to do differently. and for everyone who has been claiming how unproductive this kind of confrontational exchange is, please take a look at how wexler changed his position and on july 9th wrote this op-ed: “Iran Resolution Must Change” – which, btw, generated a lot of high-fiving over at FDL.

anyway, i have a very long general reply to post. hopefully it is not too long or has too many links to be caught in moderation. if that is the case, my apologies and we’ll just have to wait for it to be released.

i will also try to respond specifically to a few of the new comments (since my @181).

FWIW, here’s my take too damn late on a weekday evening:

1. Marcy Wheeler, Jane Hamsher, Christy, and whoever runs the servers work their asses off. They’ve created something amazing. IMHO, they therefore have not only the right — but the obligation — to set some general guidelines.

2. I don’t figure that Levin or anyone else is **ever** going to come here b/c of my contributions or what I have to say. When I start my own blog (ha!!), meet the caliber of quality day in, day out that EW and bmaz and Jane Hamsher and other posters produce — content so good that it draws the interest of senators– then (and ONLY then) will I think that it’s okay for me to be rude or hector an elected official that they’ve invited to the site.

3. Bit of personal background — FWIW — I’ve certainly had to prepare for meetings, listen to testimony, work with staff, review and sign off on reports… yadda, yadda. I have busted my ass, and I can tell you for a fact that I’ve lost respect for people who whined and pissed and moaned and wouldn’t let go of a topic. They may have had a lot of knowledge and completely legitimate points of view, and sometimes even expertise — but dammit, we’re only human. After a certain point (like, after the third bitching whiner) you kind of want to say, “Okayyyyyy, I heardddd ya.” Your eyes glaze over.

4. You mention Levin in June 2006. Okay, that was before the Dems were in control. The most he could hope for was to get information into the public record; was Frist still Majority Leader then? The Committee Chairs were rotters like Toobz, Domenici… I figure it’s a near miracle Levin managed to remain sane through that mess.

5. It’s a fair guess that Levin has had to put a lot of focus just to move torture as far forward as he has. Yet people on that thread didn’t even always acknowledge what he HAS accomplished. How is that useful?

6. I hang outI don’t show up at my friends’ home to insult HER other guests, so why do it online?

7. What Marcy and FDL offer is remarkable. It’s not me busting my ass over obscure documents the way that CHS and EW do. I think a little basic courtesy and respect are in order, if only because they’ve put years of work into creating a forum that can provide a good exchange of info. They may want to consider saying, “On this thread, for this guest, the topic is A. Stick to it, please. Here’s the objective for today’s thread: we’re collecting ideas, (or asking for feedback on Issue B).” I think that’s reasonable.

8. Simply from a viewpoint of ‘resources management’, the issue is not about being heard. It’s about resources. Time, money, energy.
An hour of a Senator’s time, or a manager’s time, is valuable.
But I’d also note that an hour of bmaz’s time, or EW’s time, or Wm Ockham’s time, or MadDogs’ time, or your time, or my time — it’s valuable.
One Senator; many of us.
So if we’re not focused on what is to be accomplished, it’s a waste of valuable, limited resources.
And I say this because — particularly on FISA, or Net Neutrality, or any number of topics — the expertise is actually in the netroots. The people who know valuable (technical, scientific) information are more likely found among commenters than it is on Senate staff (and yeah, I say this based on my experiences with Senate and Congressional staff in my state).
That means the Senators (and Congresscritters) chance to learn FROM the resources on the netroots is really valuable.
So why ruin that potential by harranging them on impeachment?

In the bigger picture, it’s about ensuring that information flows freely, in a trustworthy fashion. Ranting and hammering any elected on a topic they didn’t show up to discuss is going to impede the information flows that need to happen.

FWIW, I think massacio opened a hornet’s nest, but a very valuable one. Sometimes a little buzz and confusion is a good thing if it results in more clarity moving forward. This is all being invented as we move forward, and it still beats the hell out of bad information or talk radio.