It seems to be mostly about central and south American issues.

with great people. All the issues boil down to justice, which is what School of the Americas Watch is about.

It just seems to me, given that the crazies get themselves thoroughly covered via this conference every year, that the Liberal funders and go getters are missing a very good opportunity to put out our ideas and ideals.

with this year's propaganda. Even by conservative standards, does anything good ever come out of it, policy-wise? What good would a liberal version do?

is that the national conversation on any particular topic is based upon the right's terms and terminology. To be fair, the crazies over there at CPAC don't always do themselves any favors as their "crazy" gets the exposure they thought they wanted.

Are you happy handing the keys of the liberal left over to a few rich people?

Or are you envisioning a conference with no-one setting the agenda, but at which we magically don't bicker constantly, just as we do on DU, Daily Kos etc.?

Actually, talking of Daily Kos, they do organise something like you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netroots_Nation

But, perhaps someone or a group with similar goals could cobble together and put one on. He who pays, gets to set the agenda. Those of us on the left will surely spot and support that which passes the smell test of corporatism.

I don't see the harm in having a conference. It might allow us to play offense instead of defense all the damn time.

Social forums are probably as close as you will get to your idea.

go anywhere near a conference with the word "liberal" in the title?

Since there isn't one, therefore we have no hard data either way.

is proof positive that the left fails to stand up for itself by not putting on an equivalent conference. By and large, the American people are left with examining whether the right is or isn't too crazy for their liking. And from the left we hear....crickets chirping.

'liberal' label for decades, all my adult life at least. It terrifies them. Most of today's Dems are very quick to point out that they are moderate or bi-partisan. With few exceptions, there are no elected liberals.

I know I personally proudly state my liberalism in conversations when it's called for.

I don't think there is any such equivalent. Netroots (does that still exist any more?) is probably the closest thing and Occupy had the potential to unite progressives with its simple "We are the 99%" message but that, sadly, fell apart.

Republicans love going to CPAC. High profile Democratic politicians are simply not going to associate themselves with a similar group of left wing activists, unless they represent a substantial ethnic or other interest group. Democrats will go to NAACP, of course and to feminist and gay rights groups but shun anything related to advancing economic equality unless a sizable amount of votes or money is attached to it.

Lack of coverage or hostile coverage of liberal events by the mainstream media is perfectly understandable. Liberal ideas threaten corporate profits. Conservative ideas, properly disciplined, do not.

is that what mostly passes for being on the left these days, is standing for those principles and institutions in place since FDR. And now the range of ideas and what is acceptable to stand upon as our principles, are considered the realm of untouchable leftist activism.

that won't ally with each other due to failures of ideological purity somewhere. It seems inherent that the right has an advantage when it comes to organizing. People on the left are more idealistic and will allow schisms to form over disagreements. Thus the cat-herding metaphor.

The left tends to win long term as society is always going forward, but it's slow, since conservatives are able to exploit fear of change. A liberal conference might well scare the average American too much.

Maybe the ones straddling the fence need to wake up, listen to some fresh ideas and work for change.

conservatism. Reassurance things won't change.

of pure purchasing power. The fact that you perceive this as some organizational advantage is troubling. It's like when some kid inherits millions then claims to have 'saved and worked hard' when spending lavishly.

When they get to talk in a vacuum, we're left discussing whatever it is they put on the table. No matter how you describe what they do and how they do it, they are indeed doing it and the national media covers it. And that.....is exactly the reason they do it! And... I mentioned nothing in regards to organizational advantage. My point was about the left putting something on the table of national discussion, so we're not left with just the right's ideas and agenda to peruse.

are superior organizers, hence CPAC existing, when the fact is that CPAC is just a purchased constructed product, not the result of excellent grass roots organizing, but simply the result of having lots of money to throw around.
The question 'should we do one as well' is a different question entirely.

My bad.

Did you miss it?

You're not serious, are you? Not enough Liberal red meat slinging!

As far as media coverage, the majority of the CPAC coverage appears to be negative. That's to be expected, because the crazy shit coming out of CPAC is what attracts the media. More hate and Obama bashing. No policies of any kind that the majority of Americans support. Frankly Americans aren't tuning in to watch CPAC, and the hate has become stale and boring. And Americans hate being bored.

If there was a DPAC, the media would be looking for the crazy from the other side of the aisle.

I'm not saying there should be an LPAC in order to answer the cons. I'm just saying that our side should have its own conference to highlight our principles. In doing so, it takes away the right's ability to drive the narrative and would give us the ability to put them on the defensive more often. I suppose you're right about the spotlight they are given being largely driven by their crazies, but they still get far too much attention without a competing narrative.

but now that they have some power it's become a negative for them, precisely because it gets media coverage.

It's not just the crazies who show up and are allowed to talk. It's the groups they shun and keep out of the conference that end up being media stories outside of the conference. It's an airing of the dirty laundry of the R Party.

A D conference would have the same effect. We'd keep out the Larouches of the world, but we'd put existing Party divisions fully on display, and that's what they media would cover.

If there were no stories of conflict, the media would invent them.

No, I think we're better off letting the Rs have a monopoly on the clown show.

The clown show stuff.

It's big, but hardly gets coverage.

When air America was still on, we had Al Frankenstein do his show live, from the stage, holding a panel discussion. I talked to Howard Dean, Al Franken, and a few local party poobahs. That was 2004, it seems a lifetime ago.

You are right though, the media hardly mentions Netroots.

What is funny is one of the guys selling merch, he sells tshirts at political events. He's politically agnostic, he does not even vote. For that one he had to order them since locally liberal themed tshirts don't sell. He sold out, talk of pent up demand. He ordered more express shipping.

Have met him at other shindigs, he says that weekend was the best he's ever done.