Netroots Nation

As you've probably heard if you read blogs, the event formerly known as "YearlyKos" is now "Netroots Nation." But you may not have heard about the exciting Netroots Nation fundraiser happening on Wednesday (i.e., tomorrow) here in DC at The Mott House.

I guarantee you this is the only fundraiser whose organizers would think it made sense to list me as a draw, but more interesting people like Russ Feingold and Reps. Brad Miller (NC-13) and Lloyd Doggett (TX-25) will also be there. Come on out -- the donations they're asking for ($35 or $50) aren't big, it's an important institution-building cause, should be a good time, and they're promising "free food, cheap drinks, lively conversation & progressive camaraderie" all of which are good things.

Comments

OT, but damn, Glenn G. just ripped your girl McMegan a new one. Post, please!

Posted by NCProsecutor | April 8, 2008 10:22 AM

NCProsecutor:
Pass the popcorn!! ;-)

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 10:28 AM

"Netroots Nation."

Sounds too much like Stephen Colbert.

Posted by Pigpen | April 8, 2008 10:30 AM

Thanks for the plug, Matt!

Posted by Nolan | April 8, 2008 10:37 AM

This is so far off-topic it's not even a topic at all, but how many Congressional Districts does North Carolina have? I just did a quick double take at your post, and had to wonder who the representative of "NC-17" is :-P

Posted by ResumeMan | April 8, 2008 10:39 AM

I'll be there.

Posted by KCinDC | April 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Doggett and Miller are both very good guys. Incidentally, I'll have voted for each of them by the end of this year.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 8, 2008 12:48 PM

NC currently has 13, though it gained one each after the censuses of 1990 and 2000. At those rates, Dirk Diggler can have his own district in 2042, the first race after the 2040 census.

Posted by Doug | April 8, 2008 4:28 PM

A lot of what Greenwald says in his column linked to above could apply to Matt as well, especially this part:

"Instead, I want to leave their specific claims behind and focus on what is actually important here. What really underlies the mentality of people like McArdle and Drezner are two pervasive though toxic afflictions -- a drooling, self-loving American exceptionalism, along with a self-interested refusal to acknowledge that there is anything truly wrong with our political and media establishment because they both support and are part of that establishment.

As for the first matter, people like McArdle and Drezner think it's fine that we spend so much time talking about Obama's bowling scores and Edwards' hair because things are basically going well in our country. Sure, there are some problems here and there. But it hardly rises to the level of a crisis or anything where we need to be so serious and act as though there are things that ought to distract from our constant entertainment.

Things like war crimes, torture, aggressive and illegal wars, and the destruction of the rule of law are things that, by definition, don't happen to or in the United States. Those are principles which only apply to the dark, dank, wicked places -- not here. Thus, the Yoo memoranda and what they spawned are not a big deal because they don't reflect anything fundamentally wrong and evil with our government, because, as America, we're immune from anything like that ever happening. So even when conclusive evidence of those things emerges, there's no reason to pay attention to it. They're just isolated matters from the boring past, no reason to act as though there's anything deeply wrong here and certainly no reason to distract us from the vapid, petty chatter in which they wallow.

And then there is the self-absorbed motivation to defend the establishment which they support. Both of them supported the Bush administration and advocated for the invasion of Iraq. Hence, the absolute last thing they want to face -- just as is true for most of our political and media establishment -- is that the things they cheered on have spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction.

It can never be the case that there is anything profoundly wrong -- fundamentally wrong -- with the American political establishment. Why not? Because the McArdles and Drezners both support it and are part of it, and they are Good and thus can't possibly be responsible for things like "war crimes" or "torture regimes" or illegal wars of aggression. That's why the political establishment is so desperate to stay in Iraq until we "win" and to convince everyone that the public supports them again. They are desperate to wash their hands of that which they enabled so they can pretend they never did."

Matt at least has owned up to being wrong on Iraq - but he still displays many of the same attitudes that MADE him wrong on Iraq. He STILL thinks these people in Congress are somehow deserving of such respect that their clear self-interest - $200 million worth of investments in the military-industrial complex - is to be ignored as a causative factor in the way things turn out in US foreign policy. Which is why Matt never understands why things are done the way they are done or why the shit hits the fan.

And since he proclaims his book to be an insightful analysis of the POLITICS of foreign policy and national security, I'd say he's quite a bit short of the mark if he doesn't understand this.

When he gets a clue in this regard, he can then be regarded as a useful "pundit". Until then, he's not much better than McMegan, as Greenwald shows.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 9, 2008 12:25 AM