The result if the Dems had not voted for Bush's Iraq resolution

[NNN0LHI]

1. If every Dem had voted against the resolution it would not have mattered one bit. Bush and his minions had already made up their mind to invade Iraq and they would have.

2. The Republicans knew Iraq was going to be a mess and the Dems would have been blamed for the mess for not supporting it by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

3. The reason for Bush's failure to garner international support (which Bush didn't really want anyway) would have been blamed on the Dems.

4. Every single death or lost limb of an American soldier would have been blamed on the Dems.

5. Karl Rove is a pro at playing the blame game. We all know that is a fact.

6. All of the extra tax dollars needed for Halliburton and other Bush friends would have been blamed on the lack of the Dems support.

7. The soldiers who have been called up for Iraq and are pissed off now at Bush and his minions would have blamed their fate on the Dems lack of support.

8. The Bush spin machine would be saying that this nightmare in Iraq would be over by now if them damn Dems had only supported their president during a time of war.

9. Bush owns the bully puppet right now and his spinners know how to use it. Especially with the assistance of a media who wears knee pads and are proud of it too.

10. End result would have been 4 more years of of Bush and a Republican congress until who knows when.

Does anyone disagree?

Don

[Brucey]

1. I think everyone.

You ask if anyone disagrees... I suspect it will be everyone. People should maintain some integrity regardless of the outcome. But the outcome would have been quite different than you suggest.

[Cha]

3. I agree! Integrity first and that has a way of working out in the

End! And who cares that the repugs try and blame "giving comfort and aid to the enemy"...they do that bloody well do that anyway.

And another thing...the repukes are the ones who gave AID and a whole lot of Comfort to bin laded! :grr:

[clar]

2. I disagree

The least political vote you ever cast should be one on whether or not to go to war. Both my Senators, bless their souls, voted against it, and gave cogent and compelling reasons why.

[Cha]

5. Are you refering to Levin and Stabenow, clar?

Lucky you! My two senators wimped out ...schumer and clinton.

[ShimokitaJer]

4. Just to get this straight...

You're suggesting that the Democrats did the right thing in supporting the granting of unprecedented power to GW to wage a war on Iraq without the approval of Congress, because it was politically expedient to do so.

Is that right?

[Cha]

7. Isn't that what did happen?

:-(

[ShimokitaJer]

11. Of course that's what happened

and I think it's our place to condemn them for that, rather than praise them for doing the right thing.

[Cha]

15. That's right! Look what happened in the 2002 elections...who

lost? Jean Carnahan, Max Cleland...two Senators who did vote for it.

[Iverson]

6. souls for sale! getcher red hot souls!

Some parts of this apologia are simply not credible.

"1. If every Dem had voted against the resolution it would not have mattered one bit..."

There is a significant difference between presenting the public with a war prosecuted by one party only versus a war legitimized by support from both mainstream parties.

"2. ... and the Dems would have been blamed for the mess for not supporting it by giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

Dems and those other of us anti-war protestors get blamed anyway. And in any case, fear of being called bad names is insufficient reason to fail to do the right thing.

#3,4,6,7,8. (see #2)

If it is politically wise to go killing the civilians of a country that has not invaded us, then I support political foolishness.

But that's OK. If other people sincerely believe in their hearts that pre-emptive invasion is a fine policy, then we can have an honest difference of opinion. Cynical and calculated support for it, though, is just disgusting.

[Cha]

13. "getcher red hot souls" "souls for sale"!

[fla nocount]

8. Logical scenario.

But I'm with the above poster. There's a difference between right and wrong. The idea that the Pug-lites were merely being clever and not boot-licking me toos is too far a stretch for my puddin brain.

[ikojo]

9. While the outcome may not have changed my

opinion of Democratic politicians would not be as low as it is today. They would have demonstrated some courage and proven that they are different from the Republicans.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. I don't disagree, however . . . .

I don't disagree, however I don't think it's relevant, either.

The Bushies are accusing the Democrats of treason, anyway. This is without regard to how they voted on the war resolution.

What is actually relevant is that the opponents of the war were right on the following counts: Saddam was not a threat; Saddam had no association with al Qaida; the war was colonial piracy; the UN saw through Bush's lies and refused to authorize the war; the Iraqi people would resist colonial occupation by any means available; the war would strengthen rather than weaken Osama. The anti-war movement can only be faulted for overestimating the number of civilian casualties ahead of the war.

The war was a moral and pragmatic failure. Those Democrats who supported it should now offer contrition to those who opposed it. Those in the junta should stand trial befor an international tribunal.

[reachout]

12. Yes, I disagree.

I think that if that many Democrats had stood up in front of the country and clearly articulated why they opposed the war that it might never have happened. The public was very divided, much more so than any war I've seen in my lifetime, and a clear, well articulated opposition may well have tipped the scale in favor of those who wished for peace.

There should not have been one senator (Byrd) standing up and saying long-and-loud why this was wrong. There should have been two dozen.

[Cha]

14. Yea! Bryd and all the others who did Stand up and be counted

against this crime against humanity.

http://www.clw.org/control/iraqvote.html

And I gotta bring up my hero Jim Jeffords for voting "No", too! :kick: ANd the other Senator from Vermont ..Senator Leahy!

[Nazgul35]

16. I disagree for a completely different reason...

and that was the election of 2002....If the Dems had shown some backbone against the Bush cabal, had exposed the claims made by the administration as the foolish nonsense they were, then we would have done much better in the 2002 elections!!! And Bush may have been forced to get an approved security council resolution that would have been acceptable to everyone....

How can you win in the court of public opinion when you refuse to question the other side's witnesses?!

I blame the 2002 debacle squarely on Daschle and Gephardt....they were our leaders in the Congress and they were so concerned about the upcoming 2004 presidential race (for themselves) that the surpressed any move to fight this...they chose a moderate position for an election that clearly is fought on partisan turnout...they surpressed Dem turnout with their loser strategy....

And that's just on a strategic level....I haven't even addressed the morality of voting for this resolution just because it was too hard to fight...W was picking on us and we didn't want to put up a fuss....

[ArkDem]

17. What would have happened if the Democrats

had all voted against the war is we would have had even MORE loses in the 2002 elections which would have had Bush even more firmly entrenched.

[Booberdawg]

18. Thank you!

I agree that bush was going to have his war whether the Democrats voted for it or not. The Dems were SMART in not allowing the issue to be used as a weapon against them later.

Those who hold that vote against the Democratic candidates now as a single reason for NEVER EVER voting for that candidate in the general election are simply naive and not seeing the bigger picture.

[MadHound]

19. A disagreement here

First off, a resounding NO, followed up by issue ads and very public speaking engagements by prominent Dems could have stopped this war. Imagine the gain that the Dems would have gotten in the '02 elections if the Dems would have fought and painted Bush as a bloody handed warmonger. You have to fight the spin with the truth, and quite frankly the Dems caved.

Secondly, you would have energized your base for both the '02 and '04 elections. As it is now, you have a large number of progressives and liberals leaving the party for Greener pastures because the war vote was the last straw. Running after corporate cash and rattling the battle saber is not the way to endear yourself to those of us on the left end of the spectrum, especially when the threat that we went to war to prevent turns out to be entirely bogus.

Third, you would have given the Dems a club the size of a skyscraper to beat the 'Pugs with. Instead of having to be meek and mild because they too voted for war, the Dems could have stood up to Bush, and if he went ahead with his war anyway, we could be railing on him everyday about where the WMD are, how the war and occupation are being mishandled, etc. etc.

Fourth, it was the moral thing to do. A pre-emptive war is completely immoral, and the American public senses that. If the Dems had stood up and vigorously opposed it, we quite possibly wouldn't have gone, for I think the American people knew it was wrong thing to do, but got buffaloed into supporting it.

Hi and welcome to DU reachout, from a fellow Missourian!

[leftofthedial]

20. There is no room in poitics for idealism

Unless you want to spend your life ruled by fascists.

Voting, whether by the public or by an elected representative, is a PRAGMATIC, PHYSICAL ACT.

Don's scenario would indeed have been the likeliest practical outcome. The Repugs OWN the frigging Congress. The outcome was certain.

[Nazgul35]

23. except at the time....

the Dems controlled the Senate...

Daschle could have put the vote off until after the election, using Bush's own father against him (Bush, Sr. waited until after the election to have his resolution)...

The Democrats are responding to people like Dean, Kucinich and Clark precisely because they fight back...and i'm sorry for those of you who think we are ideological and naieve....but if you look at the history of the party, we have done our best when we fight....not cower!!!

Take that DLC startegy back to them and tell them to sit squarely on it...

PS: A change in 52,000 nationally would have made it a sweep in favor of the Dems...what was the turnout amongst dems?!

[sangh0]

27. except at the time. Zell Miller promised to vote with the Repukes

making passage of a resolution GARAUNTEED.

[leftofthedial]

59. plus, vote or no vote,

Bush would have found a way to invade anyway, and the polls would tell us that 70% of Murkans approved.

A missile fired at a US plane; an "Iraqi" incursion into Kuwait; any of a thousand trumped up Gulf of Tonkin events would have given Bush his way and the Repugs would be blaming the Democrats for every one of their miserable failures right now.

[ShimokitaJer]

25. And you're voting for Kucinich?

If anything, Kucinich seems to stand for the exact opposite ideals you espouse: commitment to ideals even if they are unpopular or not politically expedient.

And isn't Kucinich proud of the fact that he didn't vote for the war resolution? I know I'm extremely proud of him for that physical but non-pragmatic action.

[MadHound]

32. Hell, we're being ruled by facists now

And if you're saying that a NO vote is not pragmatic, then I think you had better look up the defenition. Look, the mail coming into the Congress at the time of the vote was running overwhelmingly against the war(by a stretch of 200:1 or better), yet instead of representing their constituents(which is their job by the way), they instead opted out and voted for war for some vaguely undefined reason that looks suspisously like a lack of cajones.

And yes, while Congress is dominated by 'Pugs, the majority in the Senate is quite slim, and with some vigorous fighting and ads I think the resolution wouldn't have passed in the Senate. As it is, the Dems rolled over and pissed all over themselves and are still being blamed for all the woes in Iraq on top of looking like hypocrites(which they are).

And since when is the moral position to be snubbed as "idealism"? We the people have always looked to our represenatives to do the right thing. While this doesn't always happen(an increasingly common occurence these days), it is still one of the things we look for in our government officials. Why do you think there was such a big broohaha over Bill and Monica's excellent adventure? Yes, a great deal of it was whipped up by the VRWC folk like Scaife et. al., but at the core of it, the ordinary everyday man WAS morally outraged. That is the reason you've got the left leaving the Dems in droves now, because they are morally outraged at what the Dems are doing, including the pro-war vote. I like Jean Carnahan, but voted Green Party because I was morally outraged at her pro war vote. Lots of people did the same, and she lost. Are you one of those DLC Dems who just want to kick the lefties to the curb, consequences be damned? Good luck with that strategy, 'cause it didn't work in the last election and it won't work in the next one either.

[leesa]

21. It is blamed on the Dems now too.

They have to stop being sniveling cowards and they need to stand up for their principles. Haven't you had enough of playing these political games? If we hold their cowardly behavior as an expectation, it will never change

[lcordero]

22. Not ONE Senate Democrat that voted against has lost his or her seat

[JVS]

24. The IRW would have been defeated 51 to 49.

"The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

29+21+1=51

Look, The democrats had 50 senators at the time of the vote. That is the strongest minority that can still be a minority. To say that this is too small a minority to make any difference is ridiculous. If a 50-50 split is too much of a disadvantage for the party to function as an effective minority, then it has some big problems. We haven't even begun to discuss the possibility of a filibuster, or some kind of deal to sway republican senators.

[lcordero]

26. One of those 50 is an Independent

It's kind of too bad since he(Jeffords) had a 95% ADA rating last year.

[JVS]

35. Accoding to the article there were 50 senate Democrats

29 for 21 against. Though Jeffords brings up an interesting point. Hadn't his defection from the Republican party given the Democrats majority control of the Senate? (50 vs. 49?, sorry about the crap bracket) I believe that was what all the joy here was about when he defected. So I guess I'll have to revise my statement not only are our Democratic senators as a body incapable of fielding an effective opposition when they are in the largest possible minority, it turns out that they are incapable of fielding an effective opposition even when in the slight majority.

[sangh0]

28. Historical revisionism! - Z Miller supported the Repuke resolution

and so the 49 remaining Democrats could NOT have stopped the resolution from passing.

[JVS]

30. The Hypothetical was

"If Democrats had voted against it" in the thread header. I take this to mean all the democrats, even miller.

Revisionism yourself, More people than just Zell miller supported it: Kerry, Clinton, Lieberman, the list goes on and on.

[sangh0]

33. And if pigs had wings

they could fly.

The reality is that Zell Miller was willing to vote for the resolution Bush* wrote, which was far worse than the one that passed. If he would vote for that, how could anyone possibly justify the possibility that Miller would vote against the weaker resolution>

[JVS]

36. The reality is that this is a hypothetical discussion

about what it would be like if the dems had balls! If you don't like what that would imply feel free to go to another thread.

[sangh0]

43. No it's not

The reality is that a resolution was going to pass. If you have a realistic scenario that describes how a resolution could have been presented, I'm all ears.

[JVS]

44. It is so a hypothetical!

"The result if the Dems had not voted for Bush's Iraq resolution"
Is the subject header! Notice the if and the subjunctive?
But many did vote for it, either because they are gutless turds or DINOs.

[Iverson]

45. silly you

I mean, why rely on the meaning of words?
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[sangh0]

46. Silly me! Ignoring the reality

of Miller's desire to please Bush* is "crazy".

Pretending that Miller is anything but a Repuke is "realistic"

[Iverson]

48. er, no

The point of contention, which I cannot fathom how you missed, was the hypothetical nature of the thread. You denied it. It was demonstrated to you with quotes that every careful reader could have noted in the original posting.

Superimposing the element that you wish to be at the forefront is a losing argument. Continuing to insist upon it now just looks unhandsome.

[JVS]

49. Thanks for being able to explain that so nicely.

I was having a difficult time coming up with a way to sugarcoat a reply enough so that it wouldn't be deleted. Probably some unkind words about the intelligence of the other poster would have leaked out.

[Iverson]

50. I have teenagers

That helps with survival skills around here a great deal.
;)

[sangh0]

29. I agree!

Well said. There was nothing to be gained by having ALL/most of the Dems voting against the resolution. The 49 Repukes in the Senate, combined with Zell Miller and Cheney's vote garaunteed the passage of a resolution.

[Iverson]

37. whoa! better support pre-emptive invasion, then.

I mean, hell, if the alternative is losing a vote in Congress, then invading another country and killing their civilians in the bargain must the right thing to do. Damn peacenicks!

:mad:

[Terwilliger]

31. Democrats are cowards

they should have unified and universally opposed Bush's plans for war.

[JVS]

38. But they can't be united because of Zell Miller!!!

So I guess that it is best to collaborate shamelesly!

[Terwilliger]

39. Then they need to tell Zell to GET THE FUCK OUT!!

If he's not a Democrat, he should get another party, because he's not serving Dem interests.

Now, if that many Dems in Georgia ARE served by Miller, then THEY should get the fuck out too

[JVS]

41. But, but, but that would be a party purge!

And only sick degenerate commie bastard pinko totalitarians would tell a wothless piece of shit like Miller to take a hike,


Ummmm, so where can I find this commie bastard pinko totalitarian party?

:-)

[Terwilliger]

42. I dont know

it doesnt seem as if Democrats believe in anything

but OF COURSE...Nader is wrong to point out the egregious similarities

[StandWatie]

34. so why bother doing anything

If you are really that fatalistic and think the Republicans control everyone's mind with remote control why bother fighting them at all. What good does it do to vote in puppets who function at Karl Rove's pleasure and can be dispatched by him over challenging any of his policies.

If I thought like this I would either just move or at least quit worrying about politics altogether.

[TahitiNut]

40. Point by point, and then some.

1. If every Dem had voted against the resolution it would not have mattered one bit. Bush and his minions had already made up their mind to invade Iraq and they would have.

Voting one's conscience and in accordance with the Constitution always matters.

The "Use of Force" resolution was corrupt on two levels: (1) it again abdicated Congress' duty to declare (or not) war, which is the sole Constitutional legitimacy for initiating the use of military force, and (2) it was premised on overt lies and disinformation. The act of this pResident in preemptively invading Iraq was exactly the kind of abuse of power foreseen (based on hindsight) by the Framers in granting sole authority for declarations of war to Congress. Such has been the behavior of Imperialists/Monarchists for centuries and it's that very behavior that our Constitution is intended to forestall.



2. The Republicans knew Iraq was going to be a mess and the Dems would have been blamed for the mess for not supporting it by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Guiding one's own choices based on fear of reprisals or blame is neither courageous nor conscientious. Participating in any atrocity under the presumption of "we can't prevent it" is even less ethically laudible than the acts of those who perpetrate such atrocities out of narrow self-interest.


3. The reason for Bush's failure to garner international support (which Bush didn't really want anyway) would have been blamed on the Dems.

Again, one does not seek the approval of either the insane or the malicious when opposing insanity or malice. The Busholini Madminstration is not the consituency being legitimately represented nor are their interests congruent with the interests of this nation. A system of governance has but one legitimizing precept: Justice. Condoning an unjust and predatory act out of a fear of 'blame' is ethically worse than perpetrating it.


4. Every single death or lost limb of an American soldier would have been blamed on the Dems.

See above.


5. Karl Rove is a pro at playing the blame game. We all know that is a fact.

Then don't play the (zero-sum) "game". Play another "game" (one that's not zero-sum) where the rules are more fair and established by the Constitution.

Anyone can 'win' a game where they get to declare the 'winner'. This is the only 'rule' of Rove's game.



6. All of the extra tax dollars needed for Halliburton and other Bush friends would have been blamed on the lack of the Dems support.

Nonsense. See above.



7. The soldiers who have been called up for Iraq and are pissed off now at Bush and his minions would have blamed their fate on the Dems lack of support.

And a drought is water's fault?



8. The Bush spin machine would be saying that this nightmare in Iraq would be over by now if them damn Dems had only supported their president during a time of war.

And the response is obvious. The "nightmare" would be over if they'd never started it in the first place. Opt for the sweet dreams of justice and equity rather than the nightmares of predation and greed.




9. Bush owns the bully puppet right now and his spinners know how to use it. Especially with the assistance of a media who wears knee pads and are proud of it too.

He's merely renting it. Turn your backs on him; heckle him; toss rotten fruit at him. Form another congregation. Find another pulpit or build one.



10. End result would have been 4 more years of of Bush and a Republican congress until who knows when.

Only if there's no alternative. Anyone who wants something (anything!) else must help build and offer an alternative that's more attractive -- not just nihilism. And it's neither sufficient nor productive to engage in vandalizing the alternatives built by others.

[Q]

52. Good post, TahitiNut...

...and bascially sums it up.

- The thread author gives little but rationalizations for the Dems lack of principle and their failure as an opposition party.

[Jacobin]

60. Saved me the finger power

and did a much better job deconstructing the defeatist attitude of apologists for warmongers than I could have.

Thanks! :-)

[Evil_Dewers]

47. RE: The result if the Dems had not voted for Bush's Iraq resolution

Look, the Dems who voted to authorize Chimpy's "use of force" in Iraq have no moral authority re: Iraq.

That's why Kerry and LIEberman and Edwards and my congressman Richard Gephardt are DOA in my book.

They also handed the 2002 Congressional elections to the Repukes on a silver platter.

[Old and In the Way]

51. I'll conjecture with you, Don.

First, let's set the backgrond to the vote-

9/11....univestigated, but many suspect LIHOP/MIHOP
Anthrax attack on Democrats.
Mid-term elections right around the corner.

Now what if the Democrats had all voted en masse to vote against the Iraq resolution? A reasonable expectation under normal circumstances.

I think it's quite conceivable that another "event" would have occurred.

Result? Democrats are "Pro-terrorist".

Game, Set, Match.


Oh, and I doubt there'd even be a DU today to even have this discussion.

[blm]

53. Bush had Miller and Lieberman's vote for his real blank check.

Why folks can't appreciate the curtailing of Bush by those Dems who did the negotiating is just incomprehensible and cruelly unfair.

[ButterflyBlood]

54. Only one Democrat who has voted against that lost his seat

that was Maloney in Connecticut in the House, who was redistricted against a Republican incumbent in a new district that favored her. The argument the Dems couldn't of voted against because they would've lost is total bullshit.

so yes, I do agree. I'm interested in how Bush would tell everyone that all the problems in Iraq are becuase the resolution only passed by a few votes and not unanimously.

[Cocoa]

55. It would be something like that

also, every time a dem questioned the planning of the war, or any current decision about the war, the answer would be "well, you dems were all against the war from the start."

[Q]

56. Almost every day on CSPAN I hear callers bring this up...

...saying that the Dems were FOR the war and are against it now only because they 'hate' Bush* and are trying to score political points before the 2004 selection.

- That's the problem with not taking a principled stand...it always comes back to bite you in the ass.

[Cocoa]

58. it didn't bite your boy Al Gore in the ass

his being one of the few dem votes for the Gulf War resolution is widely credited for Clinton's choosing him as running mate. :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

57. Had all the Dems voted against Bush's Iraq war resolution...

Had all the Dems voted against Bush's Iraq war resolution, we would be discussing today who Kerry should be picking as his VP on the ticket.

[NNN0LHI]

61. Forget the counting of votes already

Had the vote been 51/49 against the resolution, it wouldn't have made a gawd dammed bit of difference. The outcome of the vote was meaningless. This had been planned for years. Bush didn't need no vote for the resolution to invade Iraq anyway. If invading Iraq was so important why didn't Bush get the ball rolling as soon as he got in office. Its because he was trying to get the most political mileage out of this as possible. Thats why he waited until a few months before the mid-term elections before he got all worked up about Iraq. He was saving it for the most opportune time to destroy the Democratic party. The vote was nothing but a political ploy to sucker the Dems. Thats all it was. And it all blew up in their face. Don't you get it? A 51/49 vote against the resolution would have only given Karl Rove a hard on if that had happened. Having the Dems vote it down wasn't going to stop nothing. Actually it would have been worse had the resolution been voted down. All that would have done is have given Bush even more political cover when everything turned to shit. It wouldn't have saved one damn life. The Dems didn't fall for it though. Now Bush and his minions are the ones taking the heat for it too. The only heat the Dems are taking now is from some of their constituents who are not smart enough to figure this out for themselves. Get it?

Don

[JVS]

63. I will never forget counting votes & won't forgive the failure to....

count them.

That is what got us into this mess in the first place. Not counting the votes! If counting votes is bad for the party then damn the party. Votes are important and must be taken seriously!

[NNN0LHI]

64. Wrong votes. This was no election. This was a set up. Jeezus n/t

[JVS]

65. Where does your sick cynicism stop?

Our elected officials are there for a reason. Their votes are important because they are a supposed to represent us. It is important that they do this or others will be found to replace them.

edit: punctuation

[NNN0LHI]

67. My sick cynicism stops at the edge of ignorance n/t

[JVS]

68. You'd do better to have it stop sooner.

You need to think less about Rove. Rove is a spinmeister. Any situation he is handed he will try paint in the best light for the Repubs, that is his job. Instead of worrying about what lies Rove is going to tell about our actions, we should be more concerned about what the real consequences and meanings of our actions are.

[Carmerian]

62. I must disagree, NNN0LHI

As has been mentioned before, Daschle could have simply pushed the vote back a few weeks until after the mid-term election, just as Bush Sr. had done. WHY didn't he?

Instead, we got a pro-war vote less than a month before the elections, and I think it thoroughly demoralized the party base. I live in Austin, and in the immediate run-up to the election, it was fellow Democrats around here I heard cursing the Democratic party the most! That's not exactly what you want in the run-up to a vital election that should have been a slam-dunk from a historical perspective. The Democrats may have lost some swing voters by delaying the war resolution a few weeks, but I'd bet a much larger percentage of the party's rank and file just sat out the election in disgust.

Can you imagine if we had won the mid-terms? Slowing up W's war would've let people examine his claims more closely, and conceivably the war might not've happened at all after when his fraudulent evidence was exposed. Economically, the Democrats could have been beating him senseless over the economy from a position of power these last months, and we might not have to worry about craziness like him trying to repeal overtime-pay rules.

Cynical realpolitik may work for you when an issue is small, but when the issue is a defining one for the parties, playing games is going to get you hurt - just like it did.

[ulysses]

66. in other words

the Dems *had* to do what the Republicans told them to do, because otherwise the Republicans would call the Democrats names.

Like they're doing now anyway.

In what way does this mean anything other than "we're fucked"?

Long live the opposition!