From BlogSpot's "GET RID OF THE DLC": Being in the Position to Do Nothing

[Totally Committed]

BEING IN THE POSITION TO DO NOTHING

There has to be a reason why the Democratic Party won't stand up for basic civil liberties, freedoms and rights. There has to be a reason that they won't stand up to a President whose approval ratings are 25% (or less, depending on who you ask), with a VP whose ratings are so low they don't even register in polling.

When you see this Democratic Majority:

1. cave in to Bush on funding the Iraq quagmire
2. cave in on this wiretapping legislation that is so horrendous, Alberto Gonzales couldn't get then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off on it because it violated the Constitution;
3. Threaten vetoes for legislation designed to help the working masses of people in America and have no back up plan
4. Get Pelosi and Reid to announce "Impeachement is off the table" and watch how this Administration continues to lie, cheat, steal and piss on the Constitution without impunity;
Then I think we have to look at other reasons why the Democrats are giving us, who elected them in 2006, the "finger".

If you're like me, you got pissed when Harry Reid said to the press on the Iraq authorization that "Americans had too high an expectation of the Democratic Majority" after hearing from constituents all over the United States about his piss-poor performance in "keeping his powder" dry.

Dammit, I'm choking on all that dry powder; how about you?

When there was a ReThug majority in both Houses of Congress, the Democrats had a ready-made excuse for doing nothing. Now that they're in charge, it is no different than when the ReThugs were running things; as a matter of fact, there is no difference between the ReThugs and the current Democratic Leadership.

When you want change, you go about effecting change. You create strategies for change, and you become responsive to the demand by the masses for change. I did not give up my hard-earned money, wear out shoe leather, monitor voting places for fraudulent turning away of voters, drive old people to polling places to vote, and everything else an activist citizen does, to get Democrats elected so they could piss on me and reprimand me for expecting them to do their jobs by challenging Bush on his BS legislation and running of this country. The fact that this current crop of Democrats are "all hat, no cattle" is pissing me off to heights of pissivity I've never imagined before now.

In pondering my frustration, it began to occur to me to ask what do certain Democrats gain by maintaining status quo? We see what it's getting faux-Democrat Joe Lieberman; a platform upon which to blackmail his Democratic colleagues in the Senate if he doesn't get what he wants. He always threatens to vote with the ReThugs - Reid pacifies him, and Holy Joe votes with the ReThugs, anyway.

So much for maintaining that majority. But when you see the obvious, and you have made your demand of those who you elected to public office, and they literally ignore your demand, for me, there is only one conclusion, and it's not about Reid and Pelosi being cowards.

I'm talking about liking the status quo and being unwilling to change it.

Most of you know that I've got this research project on accountability going with the Congressional Black Caucus because many African-Americans felt that for achieving the goal of getting 10% of Congressional Representation by African-Americans, we should have some bang for our buck. We couldn't figure out why we suddenly had a faction of that caucus voting directly in conflict with the long-held ideas and consensus of most African-Americans.

You know, stuff like quality education for our children, a safe and livable environment, jobs paying a living wage, universal healthcare.....STUFF LIKE THAT.

STUFF that is not unique to African-Americans, but is the desire of all Americans.

We wanted to know why there was a faction of that caucus that voted for Iraq war authorizations, knowing that money could have gone to fund all those things I listed in the above paragraphs; why they would vote for a bankruptcy bill that would worsen an already tanking economy; why they would vote to eviscerate our basic civil liberties and freedoms- many of which our ancestors fought and died for.

So, we began a project to start holding them accountable. While it's working, I find in my observations of Congress, that there may be an even bigger problem than demanding accountability on the part of our lawmakers. I think the Democratic Leadership actually likes being in this position of do-nothing. I think someone's benefitting from ReThug largesse, and to actually have to respond to the demand of the American people, would actually upset that largesse. What other explanation can there be of a Congress who still caves into a President that has no clothes on and the entire world knows it?

It is not about cowardice, or lack of spine or backbone. Plain and simple, there are some Democrats who actually like being in this position, because they have ready-made excuses for not listening to our demands, or for not representing our interests. Now the question is, who are they, and how do we go about getting rid of them?

You are not going to accept my vote and then piss on me and tell me it's raining. Those days are over - if they ever really got started. If you like being in this position, and you believe your constituents will understand, then dammit, switch parties. I would rather have a number of Democrats who walk their talk and who mean what they say, rather than a bunch of undercover ReThugs posing as Democrats, who spit on us every chance they get and tell us they're not spitting on us, despite evidence to the contrary.

If they like this status quo, let them "status" their "quo" somewhere else. They can enable the Bush Administration on their own dime and their own time, while someone else gets the actual job of legislating done.

http://getridofthedlc.blogspot.com/


TC

[blm]

1. These 'leaders' never bothered to show up and help oppose Bush all these years.

But they sure do know how to undermine those Democrats who have been opposing Bush all these years.

KandR for your post.

[Bobbieo]

2. What do the initials DLC mean?

Possibly, Democrative Legislative Committee?

[tomreedtoon]

5. Democratic Leadership Council, if you didn't know.

It was the group that orchestrated Bill Clinton's election; trying to get the votes of Republicans by keeping a "business friendly" and a "conservative values friendly" attitude in Democratic candidates. There is another name for these people: DINO's...Democrats In Name Only.

[truedelphi]

7. Nope It has meant "Dirty Lying Corporatists"

For some time now.

[Baby Snooks]

3. But where are the challengers?

I don't see anyone challenging Pelosi for her seat. Some may vote for Sheehan. But most will wave the Democratic flag and vote for Pelosi. You can't replace someone unless you have someone to replace them with. And it's not just Pelosi.

The problem is the Democrats themselves apparently like the status quo. If nothing else, it gives them something else to bitch about when they can't bitch anymore about the Republicans.

The only way you will see impeachment is to impeach Pelosi. Which means her constituents recalling her. I don't see that happening.

The Democrats took back Congress last fall. And then proceeded to turn it back over to the Republicans.

[groovedaddy]

4. Possible explanations

1. Members of Congress, overall, regardless of party, share the same socioeconomic status and that is what they primarily defend.

2. How did NEW members elected in 2006 vote on these issues? Incumbants who voted for all this shit prior to 2006 and got re-elected must be assuming that their constituents are satisfied with the jobs they've done or they wouldn't have sent them back. In particular, look what happened with Lieberman - knocked out in the primary but reelected in the general as an independent. A plurality of his constituents were satisfied with the job he was doing. If CT had an IRV system, Lieberman probably would have gotten a majority.

3. The Democratic base understands much of what is taking place at the national level but the general population does not (read the most recent report from Media Matters on the MSM's slant to the right). Our Federal representatives are responding to the "desires" (fears?) of the general population and have no desire to "lead" by telling them the truth for fear being smeared by the rightwing slanted media.

4. They really believe that Iraq will fall apart, devolve into anarchy and open the way for regional conflict, if U.S. troops aren't there to stabilize things. They also fear what will happen to world's oil supply and the subsequent impact on the economy if this scenario unfolds.

5. They really believe that Islamic Fundamentalism is such a real threat that civil liberties have to be curtailed in order to deal with the threat.

[reprobate]

6. I have no answers and no hope for the party or the nation at this point.

We are in a situation where no one trusts the congress, and that means both paries.

Personally, I no longer have any faith in the Democratic party. The leadership has become no different from the repuglicans. They are both owned by the same corporations. In point of fact, Pelosi appointed Emmanuel as head of the DCCC. We had a bunch of progressive newcomers trying to run last time. He, as head of DCCC supported and funded conservatives, some of whem even had just switched from the dark side. So we ended up with forty Blue Dog democrats who vote with Bush every time theres a vote fight. We are saddled with a one party system, they just make it look like two parties by having the Repuglicans LOOK smarter than the Democans. It's America's criminal class.

Oh what big hopes we had for the last election! We got snockered once again.

Too bad there's no effective third party. I'd vote for a socialist right now, just to break the hold of the predatory capitalist class.