I agree that Feingold's actions are consistent with who he is as a politician. I believe the same can be said with equal truth about Kerry's actions, Kennedy's, Boxer's, Durbin's, and even Lieberman's. What I do take serious issue with, though, is the implication that the other dems are not signing on to Feingold's proposal out of fear. I just don't believe that is the reason, not for an instant. Where is the evidence? Dana Milbank's editorializing? Please.

Were the other dems afraid to sign on to Kerry's Alito filibuster? Was Feingold afraid to filibuster Alito himself? Was he afraid to vote against Roberts? I don't believe so. There are any number of strategic calculations a politician has to enter into before taking a given action. It's part of their job. Feingold makes his personal calculations just as the rest do. It's arguable whose public positions have been the most consistently courageous, but I don't really want to discuss that here.

My point is that democrats are calling democrats cowards for no good reason except their own frustration with Bush administration policies. How about zinging the policies instead?

Here's what I propose to do about it. The next time I come across a post about democrats that contains the words "spineless" "coward" "gutless" "weak" or any other such term, I will immediately stop reading. I'll take that site off my bookmark list. If I come across them on Kos, I will rate that comment down and explain why. On DU I will put that person on ignore and explain why.

My venom is reserved for those who truly deserve it. Those monsters who betray the public trust at every turn.

Is anyone else with me?