Great write-up, Jill. This is definitely a signal that the Idaho Democratic Party has arrived.

Many thanks to mcjoan for her support. John Foster deserves kudos, too, for nailing this down.

This wil be a great start to what ought to be a very good year for Idaho Dems. Well actually, our presence in the February 5 Super Tuesday events will be the great start, and this will keep the ball rolling.

This will make the winger head's explode. Watch, they will freak out about "far-left this" blah, blah, blah. You look at Kos' politics and he is rather a centrist ex-marine.
It would be great if the author of this article could also note he writes for Newsweek and the Hill.

Flounder, I did note those things, paragraph 7 above.

Julie, I'm not sure but the Kos appearance may, in fact, have the opposite effect. In Idaho, D's are in the minority. I see the appearance and the event being a 'love-in' by the already committed choir. For Idaho D's to so openly align with the controversial and polarizing Kos may only serve to energize R's and prevent any real converts to shift power. A much better speaker would have been Joe Liberman after his stated support for John McCain. That wouldn't have done much for the choir but it would have fished for converts. Just think if someone like Louis Farrakhan had accepted such an invitation to speak in Boise at a D event. Neither Farrakhan nor Kos have mainstream persuasion.

Thanks for the nod and kinds words, Julie and Jill. This is going to be fun.

Craig, if preaching to the choir was so bad, then there'd be no need for churches.

And of course Craig is the first winger to complain. Hey Craig without using your usual sources of disinformation, back up this statement--"the controversial and polarizing Kos". In fact just use Kos' words to back it up. You apparently watch too much of that paragon of virtue Bill O'Reilly and you obviously know nothing of Kos. We can all agree that Coulter is controversial and polarizing, she admits it herself. I believe she was the Republican keynote speaker at their banquet in the not too distant past.

LOL. Lieberman? Uh, Craig, news flash. Lieberman ain't a Democrat. He was replaced by Connecticut Dems and elected by Republicans.

And echoing McJoan, Kos ain't the future of Idaho Democrats, his audience is.

Sisyphus, remember when Kos gloted over American deaths in Iraq? This comment was so offensive and un-American that Kos finally pulled it and apologized. Now today, we learn of 'contorversial and polarizing' tactics advocated in Michigan. See: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/progressive-blo.html

>>>>>>>>>>

Progressive Blogmeister To His Troops: Vote for Mitt!
By Sarah Lai Stirland January 10, 2008 | 8:24:52 PMCategories: Election '08
Superstar blogger and progressive political activist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga on Thursday urged his netroots compatriots in Michigan to vote for Mitt Romney next Tuesday.

No, the blogger hasn't suddenly changed political affiliation (he recently endorsed Barack Obama after senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut dropped out of the race.) Rather, Kos wants to mess with the Republican party the way he says it's messed with the Democrats in the past...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Harold Ford, Jr. gave a warning last April about the consequences of going to the extremes. See: http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010454

>>>>>>>

Democratic Dustup
The far left isn't the path to a governing majority.
by KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, August 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

"They'll find their way back to the middle. And if they don't, they won't win." So says a blunt Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, of his party's current crop of presidential candidates. The question is just how many would-be Democratic presidents recognize the wisdom of his words.

Mr. Ford is in a feisty mood throughout our chat, as well he might be given the shelling his group has recently endured at the keyboards of the far left. Skip back 15 years, and the DLC stood as the proud architect of Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" campaign victory. Liberals derided the outfit's goals of nosing the party back toward the political center, but Mr. Clinton understood the perils of running as Jimmy Carter. He took the DLC's advice, talked up "opportunity, responsibility, community" and won.

Today, the DLC is again battling for the souls of those Democrats who would occupy the White House, urging them toward a centrist agenda that will seek to convince the broad middle that Democrats can be trusted on national security, values and fiscal responsibility. Mr. Ford's colleague, DLC founder Al From, thinks the stakes are giant, and that the public's unease over the war, health care and the economy has created the "first time in modern political history" that his party has the opportunity to "build an enduring majority in the progressive center..."

Mr. Ford, for his part, has dark warnings for those activists selling the line that last year's election is proof that their liberal ideas are now "mainstream," or that Democrats' reputation on national security and the economy is so secure that the candidates run no risk going left. "That's called short-term memory," he says, with a few references to Carter, Mondale and other ghosts of failed Democrats past.
As he does his convincing, Mr. Ford is going to be holding up a few key facts, ones that no belligerent blogger has yet been able to refute. The party's most impressive gains last year all came from politicians straight out of the DLC cast. Four governors spoke at the DLC convention this year; all four had beat Republicans. The vast majority of the pick-ups in the House came from DLCers in red states in the South and Midwest. The Senate wouldn't be in Democratic hands were it not for Montana's Jon Tester.

"The reality is, without the DLC, and without candidates who subscribe to our platform, Democrats wouldn't be in the majority today. If we abandon that group, we will lose the majority and we will lose the White House," says Mr. Ford.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mr. Ford makes a powerful point about appealing to mainstream America who are umimpressed with moonbats from the right or the left.

Ah yes. You mean the same Mr. Ford, head of the all but defunct DLC. A job he got by default because his "theory" of making Dems more like Republicans failed miserably in his senate bid in Tennessee despite tons of money and corrupt opposition. No I think the future of Dems in Idaho is to be more like Schweitzer and Tester and not run from progressive policies but to run on them because the polls show they are popular. No need for us to take a bite from your poison apple. Its a loser. But thanks for your concern.

And of the millions of words Kos has written is that all you could find in the Republican Talking Points on Kos?

Kos is far from being as inflammatory at Ann Coulter. This is the woman who mocked the 9-11 widows. Is he controversial? Yes. It's his job. Craig has definitely forgotten that Ann Coulter was the GOP headliner a few years back and the Statesman fawned all over her in a front page article.

I, for one find Coulter, very distasteful. I see no difference between her inflammatory words and Kos. Both shot from the lips and fire for effect.

Sisyphus, I belong to NO political party or philosophical group. You continue to dodge my point that Kos may push Ma and Pa Idaho away from the D party. Mainstream America isn't partial to Kos' un-American tyrade nor keen to the Michigan tactics advocated by your keynote speaker. Hearts and minds aren't changed by such chicanery. As your name implies, perhaps rolling rocks up hill appeals to you but is a 'pass' for others. You may wish that hemlock is served as you 'party hard' at the Kos snake charmer event so you don't have to wake up with the ugly reality in the morning that you have marginalized yourselves. That is Mr. Ford's warning.

Craig, it is so obvious you know nothing of Markos, the more you spew the dumber you appear. You really haven't proved a thing, you know. BTW, you may want to look at KOS's record of support and how he tends to back winners.

Kos is an incredible speaker, he's compassionate and he's centrist on the majority of his views. How would that be a turn off except for lying scumbags like yourself that will Swift Boat him?

Jay, calling me names doesn't change a thing.

My point: Idaho D's have to sell themselves to Ma and Pa Idahoans to convert to voting D.

++Kos wrote an outrageous, un-American column gloating over American deaths in Iraq that he later pulled and apologised for.

++Kos advocates D's interfering in the Michigan R primary.

++Harold Ford Jr. argues that extremist behavior is a loser.

Please tell us Jay, which of those statements are a lie and how my main point is invalid?

Did Kos himself write the article? Did it have Markos's name on it?

No.

How does Kos advocating for D's interfering in the Michigan R primary have any bearing on anything at all? The spirit of what he did has been done in any number of elections but has had so little effect on the actual turnout that it could be assumed he did it in jest. I know how you feel about closed primaries, and I think that is coloring your interpretation of what he proposed.

And Sisyphus pointed out that Ford is a DLC jackass, one of the ones that still supports LIEberman and the Iraq War. His opinions and his campaign staffs are responsible for many of the previous losing campaigns and horrible candidates that were all emulations of what right wing pundits have said the Democrats need to be. However the populist message is getting out, despite people like Ford. Hillary is slowly losing, Obama's and Edwards' populist liberal message is gaining force and turning independent voters more towards Democrats. They are the ones that are using Kos's strategy and winning. So how does that harm Idahoans or Democratic chances in Idaho? It may only do so because of lying twisting swift boat people like you.

Jay, as you know the original Kos column was removed. However, his apology still exists. He stated, "There's been much ado about my indifference to the Mercenary deaths in Falluja a couple days ago. I wrote in some diary comments somewhere that "I felt nothing" and "screw them". My language was harsh, and, in reality, not true. Fact is, I did feel something. That's why I was so angry."

You say that the political chicanery advocated by Kos for D's to meddle in the R primary is not relevant? That's not progressive no matter how you try and dress it. Trying to reason with you and have a discussion about differences is about as fruitful as talking to a Klansman about civil rights. It is a waste of time.

Here's the funny thing, you and I might be in violent agreement about Obama. I like the guy. We need a real leader. And no he does not engage in the verbal rhetorical Kos bomb throwing that you are in love with and demonstrate here evey chance you get.

Jeez Craig. Kos is advocating the Michigan ruse in part because Republicans did it twice before in that state with some success. Fighting back using successful tactics is what Kos is all about. And he's advocating it because the Dems there got stripped of their delegates in a boneheaded move changing their primary date. Not sure I agree with the tactic but it seems a decent use of the resources given the Dems don't have another reason to vote.

And please I'm still not seeing anything here that shows how Kos is controversial or extreme. Certainly not to the degree that Coulter is. Kos doesn't say intentionally hurtful things to sell books or grab headlines. You guys are just parroting what you hear bobbleheads saying. I would like to give you credit for more brains than that.

And geez Craig. Kos picked and help elect two Dems to the Senate. How's Ford doing? Couldn't get his own ass elected with that message. Why again should I listen to him? Or you?

Ma and Pa Idaho are independent, fair and want less intrusion of governement in thier lives. So does Kos. That message worked for Tester and worked for Schweitzer in Montana. I'll stick with the winners.

Sisyphus, I thought D's wanted to take Idaho, not hand it to R's on a silver platter. Ma and Pa Idaho are not motivated to respond positively to a blatant, boastful display of dirty tricks by Kos. Having the Idaho D party fawn over and embrace the architect of such dirty tricks tars the party with the same brush. Any moral high ground against the likes of Sali is lost. Guilt by association. One bad act does not justify another to Ma and Pa. Kostic rhetoric deriding fallen Americans and Kostic antics interfering in democratic processes gets treated to a bar of soap and a hickory switch by Ma and Pa. Enjoy your party. I have nothing further to add.

Craig, you're a pathetic liar.

The post isn't gone. It still exists, in its original form and complete. Kos didn't write the article, he only wrote the comment. He hates the mercenaries that are benefiting from the death and destruction in an illegal war and he spoke out. Good for him for being honest.

And screw you for lying.

You haven't even slightly proven that Kos's visit to Idaho will be anything but a plus and a shot in the arm for Democrats in this state that have been left out of politics for so long. Bad act? Where is there anything illegal about it? Kos is about winning, he's NEVER said anything different, and sometimes he will cross the line. It's up to the actual voting public to make their own decisions. Kos doesn't command, he doesn't hand out missives, he doesn't have operatives. He's one man that made a suggestion.

You however, are a liar, sir. Go away.

Jay, here is the link where the offending comment was original posted: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/4/1/144156/3224/16

I stand by my statement that Kos pulled his un-American remarks. They simply vanished. Now others repeat the outrage but Kos pulled it. Even John Kerry delinked from Kos after those remarks.

You're still a liar.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/144156/3224

They're still there.

If you don't know how to do a simple search, then that is your problem.

Jay, you are correct. The offending comment is still there. I simply missed seeing it. I was wrong. My mistake. I missed it when rereading those comments after reading Kos' retraction and apology.

Sorry again for the mistake everyone. Please replace "pull or pulled" with "retracted." I think that clarifies the error. Here is the Kos retraction: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/2/175739/8203

I messed up. Good on ya.

Well that last link is certainly enlightening! He retracts the "screw em" comment from before, then adds the following"

"My language was harsh, and, in reality, not true. Fact is, I did feel something. That's why I was so angry.

"I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition.

"So I struck back."

Pretty hard to disagree with that argument. If he speaks as well as he writes it could make for a heck of a program.

Actually, it is easy to disagree. First, these four Americans were not mercenaries as Kos claims. A mercenary is a soldier who works for some country other than his own in military service. These civilians were traveling in a vehicle at the time of their capture. They were burned to death and hung. There are grizzly pictures on the web. Kos either knew this or should have known this. He never corrected his error. I don't believe he ever apologized directly to those wives and children that he references. Kos was presumptuous over the reasons those men were in Iraq without ever exploring their individual reasons. He seemed to remain somewhat defiant after his retraction: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/3/15557/07630

Not exactly heart felt regret for the pain he caused the wives and children of the dead Americans.

In addition to John Kerry pulling his Kos link over this incident, there were liberals like Kevin Drum who were not satisfied: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003612.php

Drum wrote in the Washington Monthly:

>>>>>>>>>
KOS....I'm really uninterested in the game of "which lefty bloggers are going to criticize the latest lefty outrage," but I wish Kos would just step up to the plate and apologize for saying "Screw them" about the deaths of the mercenary/contractors who were burned to death and then strung from a bridge in Fallujah on Thursday. This and especially this aren't sufficient explanations.

I really don't think it matters if they were private contractors in any case. They were burned to death and hung from a bridge. Nor does it matter much that you don't like the war. Some of the wingnuts on the right gloated over the deaths of UN workers in last August's bombing, and that was wrong as well, regardless of what they thought of the UN.

Bottom line: like it or not, Kos is a spokesman for the left these days, and this kind of stuff doesn't help us. His advertisers are pulling out because of course they can't be associated with statements like this. It's a vote killer. And the end result will probably be a million bucks worth of fund raising for conservative causes. Not exactly what we need right now.

Sigh. We all lose our tempers and say dumb things sometimes. I wonder why it's so hard to back down when it happens?
<<<<<<<<<<<

His comment about Kos' remarks being a 'vote killer' and a motivator for 'conservative causes' is exactly my point about Ma and Pa Idaho.

I got to thinking how I got it wrong about the disappearing Kos remarks as I remembered so clearly almost 4 years ago. I recalled there was discussion about this. See WSJ: http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004904

>>>>>>>>>
by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, April 2, 2004 5:08 p.m. EST

'Screw Them'
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Angry Left Daily Kos blog, had this to say in a post yesterday about the murders of four American contractors who were helping to deliver food in Fallujah, Iraq:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Zuniga has taken down the original post, but in a new post he acknowledges it and offers a partial retraction, which essentially amounts to saying he didn't actually "feel nothing"; in fact, he was angry at the victims. Blogger Michael Friedman has a screen shot of the original post.
<<<<<<<<<<<

Others have made similar statements and reference Michael Friedman. That is what I remembered. I errored in not revisiting that issue before claiming here that Kos pulled his comment. I am sorry for my error and the confusion. I thank Jay for his gentle correction.

So Craig,
I'm trying to figure it out. I looked up mercenary in Merriam Webster and I got the following definition:
One that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
Now I've watched the movie 'Iraq for Sale' where they talk to the families of these Blackwater employees. They all cite the massive amounts of money they were making as the reason they went to Iraq. We know that many military specialists are not re-enlisting and instead hire on with Blackwater, who pays over 3 times as well. If it isn't the wages motivating them, what is it? If they were there for patriotism they would stay in the service.
So according to your 'split the baby' definition of mercenary, are the Venezuelans and South Africans who work for Blackwater mercenaries while the Americans are not?
I would argue that people who are going to Iraq primarily for profit are mercenaries and/or war profiteers, regardless of their nationality.
And just to clear things up, while I think these people who were killed and burned were mercenaries, I also think they got a raw deal from Blackwater, who lied to them about their job duties and security provisions, then tried to strong arm their families into signing away their right to sue for wrongful death, then fought against paying anything for said wrongful death by hiding behind the fact that Blackwater operates outside both US and Iraq law (thanks to corrupt Republicans).

Flounder, Webster has it right and is more clearly indicated by the Geneva Convention. "Foreign service" means employed by a foreign entity. The Geneva Convention refers to a mercenary being a person who is not a national or resident of the countries involved in the conflict. These are dead Americans. America is involved in the Iraq conflict. These men were employed by an American company under contract with an agency of the American government. Without knowing what the motivations of these particular murdered Americans were, it is highly pretentious to assume negative motivation. Their families deserve better than to have their memory sullied by such callous presumptions.

----------------------------------------------------------------
da BEST part of Kos's visit (imho) to this RightWing planet called Idaho ?
IT PISSES SO MANY RePRIGs OFF !

WE don't need to get along with the ReTHUGs while they call us the DemocRAT Party amid the last 2 decades of personal partisanship 'n pettiness from the Grand-(very)Old-Persecutors , , ,

WE need to Slam them in the (metaphorical) face with the 2x4 called "TRUTH" !

Thanx Bro Kos , , , KEEP THEM ANGRY & STUPID !!!

=================================================

Craig, Like I said, the families of these people that were killed were interviewed for the movie "Iraq for Sale". When the wife of one of the men who was killed says he took the job because he could make 4 times as much driving a truck in Iraq than in West Texas I believe her.
This new Vanity Fair article details how the DOJ has been trying to hide how the mercenary companies have been robbing America blind via their involvement. Fun fact: Alberto Gonzales got his big break at the law firm that has represented Halliburton for 30 years or so.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/halliburton200711?printable=true¤tPage=all
Americans wouldn't steal from their own government, when you steal from your countrymen I think you are giving up any and all claims to operating under the flag of this country. By the same token, any of these "Americans" who watch the companies they work for steal from America and don't speak up are not patriots. Rather they are party to crimes of a vile and un-American nature. Some people have spoken up, you know what they are called? Fired.
So if you are operating in a war zone and you have ceased to act as an American, acting instead as a criminal that sure makes you a mercenary. Whoops.
I can't wait until we get a Democrat in the White House and all the False Claims Act suits the DOJ has been sitting on start coming to light. I will laugh and watch as wingers like yourself keep trying to defend these thieves through increasingly desperate means.

Don't forget, foreign service also allows you to rape an American soldier and get away with it scott free.

Dog bless you Craig Moore, you've shown me how wrong I've been.

Craig Moore has so much hard to read crap to spew you'd THINK he'd have his OWN blog . Then , I may ignore it instead of having to slog thru his tap-dance of obfuscation in order to (try) and follow this long dead thread.