General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Supporting the values of the Sanders movement is not "refighting the primaries". [View all]pat_k
(9,313 posts)... for war crimes, they paved the way to the hell we are in.
Dem so-called "leaders" allowed an election to be stolen in plain sight when they refused to stand up and join the CBC and the other principled members of the house who fought to have the unlawfully appointed Florida electors thrown out. (All SCOTUS did when they stopped the count was render the FL election incomplete. Electors appointed pursuant to an incomplete election cannot be lawfully counted... but count them they did.)
The thing is, criminals will be criminals. When the people we hire to protect us against the criminals decide to turn a blind eye, that's when we are truly screwed.
And just as criminals will be criminals, right-wingnuts will be right-wingnuts. Our Democratic members of congress are the people we "hired" (elected) to protect us from them. And they have, over, and over, and over again failed to stand up. Their irrational rationalization for inaction are a legion.
And when it came to defending the constitution against war criminals in the WH, Democratic leaders didn't just fail to do their own duty, they actually went out of their way to stop others within the caucus from acting. In 2005 they congratulated themselves for quashing the growing movement within the caucus for impeachment. (I can dig up the quotes from Reid and Pelosi if you'd like.)
Were they being evil? Cowards? Stupid? We're they victims of irrational group think?
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
Was it a struggle to try to get through to them? Was it a struggle to help them see what moral principle demanded of them?
Yes.
Who is worse? A criminal? Or a "good" cop who thinks they have 'good reasons" for turning a blind eye to the crimes?
Who's worse? The murderer? Or the one who helps the murderer get away with it?
Who's worse? A Republican predictably defending the torturer in Chief? Or the Democrat who thinks they have "good reasons" for refusing fulfill their oath to defend the constitution by impeaching Bush/Cheney?
When our party leadership refuses to do what is right, it's up to us to challenge them. To lobby them. Challenge their irrational rationalizations for inaction. Shame them for their shameful conduct.
We agitate. We lobby.
We lobbied for rejection of the Florida electors in 2000/01. We lobbied for rejection of the Ohio electors in 2004/05 (and got Barbara Boxer to stand up with Stephanie Tubbs Jones). We lobbied Senators to filibuster Alito. We shamed those who refused to actually stop him by joining the filibuster, and then claimed to "oppose" him by casting a losing No vote on the floor. We lobbied for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Many of us worked to elect Sanders. Many of us worked to elect Hillary.
You may not consider it a struggle. I can tell you this. After 25 years, sometimes it feels like I've just been banging my head against a brick wall. Getting "back in the fray" and doing it again, is a struggle.
But, gotta do it. This time it's lobbying Senators to filibuster Gorsuch.
What I'm having trouble figuring out right now is what sort of sensibilities would find any of this "offensive."