Should Democrats in the Senate and Congress stage a walkout?

[Q]

Democrats have now been effectively shut out of Bush's* one-party government. They were used to help Bush* start an unnecessary, aggressive war and then thrown away like a used condom. Without an effective opposition party to use checks and balances and oversight to keep the executive branch from taking too much power...the Bushies have placed themselves above the law.

The American Corporate Media (formerly known as the Free Press) have become little more than stenographers for the Bush* White House and the GOP-controlled houses.

Dissent is on the verge of becoming illegal during a 'time of war'. Protesters are rounded up in cages, gassed and shot at with 'crowd control devices'. The Corporate Media pretends the protests never happen.

The lack of an active opposition is beginning to look like appeasement, collusion or betrayal. Powerful Democrats cooperating with Bush* are being used to put down dissent within the party.

Democrats still faithful to America, the Constitution and the People must show the world that they'll no longer be part of the corruption strangling our government. The only way they can restore the faith and respect of the People is to stage a walkout and refuse to participate with the most secretive, anti-democratic government in American history.

[Stand and Fight]

1. Ha!

I wish that they would do something like that -- it would be equivalent to the shot heard around the world. It would be a historical precedent that we'd all remember for a long, long time. Especially if they stuck too it. However, both you and I and all the people here know they don't have the tenacity, the balls, for such a move. They're too scared of losing their damn political careers, so they'll nest on Capital Hill with the vultures... I mean, the Republicans. Where, I ask, have the brave eagles gone? Are they truly extinct?

[Q]

2. There seems to be no other way...

...to fight for justice and accountability in OUR government.

Impeachment is out of the question because the corrupt ones control every branch of government. Bush* has purged the government of anyone not willing to take a loyalty oath to him instead of the Constitution.

What other options are there?

[DeepGreen]

5. Unfortunately,, I agree with Stand and Fight

I just hope that before it gets too dark, they realize that being pacifists is not always the right road to take.

[Q]

6. Well....something has to be done to show THE PEOPLE...

...that the Democrats aren't participating with the Bush* Pirates. They need to show they're aware of the reality of the situation and not just hiding in the shadows waiting for a miracle to happen.

[menoz]

57. The Republicans would really love that "really"

if that happened , wouldn't it allow the republicans to pass issues without the opposition in the room to oppose? how would democrats feel if a 1-10 votes could have stopped unfavorible legislation from passing but didn't because the garunteed no votes weren't even in the room to vote?

dr. D. james kennedy (a minister) use to get asked by church goers (should we be envoled with the business of government with all of its corruption) to which he repllied hevens no leave it up to the devil and non-believers to do the right thing with the powers of government.

his point was you cant trust your opposition to use the power they control for your benifit.

lets applie that back to what is being proposed "a walk out"
if you dont like what republicans will vote for. why would you allow them to pass legislation (unopposed) ...

its the equivalent of standing out side of the room sniveling about how powerless you are while ignoring your power to vote. do this and the republicans will be happier than they were on Nov.3,2004 ..

there are many opportunities to stage a protest to make a point and build public support through controversial actions but honestly it does you no good to refuse your ability to oppose(vote) their agenda at the sametime (vote first then protest- dont do 1 or the other , do both )

[trogdor]

107. You're right.

Remember the "vote" on some veterans' thing they rigged to fail by one vote so they could talk shit about Kerry not being there? Now imagine that multiplied by...like...a whole lot. This is BAD.

Dick Gephardt used to do this once in a while to get people's attention. This is fine, up to a point. Eventually, the press stops paying attention, and the Republicans continue to do what the hell they want. That's fine, too. Just letting idiots like Hayworth of AZ talk does more good than ranting and raving on the Capitol steps. If people REALLY objected to this, you'd think they would take action on Election Day.

We can only do what we can do. Beyond that, it's up to the American people to wake the hell up and smell the coffee. When enough of them start bleeding from the anus, they will. When that happens, we have to be ready with a viable alternative from the snake oil they've been taking for so long.

Oh, and welcome to DU. One word of advice. If you're going to post while under the influence (I can relate), use your spell checker. It seems to matter more here than most places.

[Q]

90. The irony of all of this...

...is that...like Daschle...they may lose anyway. They'll sacrifice everything and in the end they'll lose everything...including the respect of the people.

[cali]

3. I've been thinking about this for a while

and I think they should stage a walkout. I'm undecided as to when they should do it. I don't think they should make it (at this time) much more than a symbolic walkout in order to draw attention to the problem A sustained walkout would, I'm afraid, kindle real outrage towards the dems and not the repubs.

[Q]

4. The duration of the walkout wouldn't matter as much...

...and the number participating. A mass walkout would bring attention back to where it belongs: on making government accountable to the people and the RULE OF LAW.

A 'sustained' walkout might be necessary if a shorter one doesn't work to bring the needed attention on the corruption. I wouldn't be concerned about 'outrage'. It's time to take a stand.

[AngryAmish]

79. If they refuse to attend they can be arrested

[Vickers]

7. That would really take some courage...

...so I don't see it happening.

[calimary]

43. I agree with both your statements.

They absolutely should show some guts for a change. And they very likely won't. It would take ALL OF THEM to make a statement. And we never see ALL OF THEM agreeing on the same stand, under any circumstances (except maybe approving National Peach Pit Spitting Day).

[mtnester]

8. They absolutely should - after all, their vote means crap right now

Why not have SOME type of impact...walk out with black armbands on.

[mikehiggins]

9. Obviously, it should be at the State of the Union address

and just as obviously, these Democrats don't have the balls to do it.

Just another good idea that founders on the shoals of cowardice.

[Selatius]

10. Why they won't walk out

Because they're either taking money from the same corporations that feed Republican politicians, or they're careerists more interested in their paycheck and pension plan than in standing up against the tyranny of corporatism in this country.

[Robeson]

39. You pretty much summed up my thoughts.

[noiretextatique]

50. unfortunately...this seems to be the truth eom

[bklyncowgirl]

11. A mass sit down arms folded at the SOTU on the Dem side

I'd also like to see a walkout over some important and popular issue of principle.

[blondeatlast]

17. SoU would be a horrible PR move; protocol exists for a reason.

I like the idea of them doing this but timing here is everything.

[welshTerrier2]

12. not yet ...

it's clear that democrats in Congress might as well not show up for work ... the republicans have made sure that the 55+ million of us who voted for Kerry will have no voice whatsoever ...

but it's too early for a walk-out ... the reason you stage a walk-out is to send a message to the American people ... Democrats need to lay the groundwork for that message long before any action is taken ...

Democrats need to start appearing everywhere in the media explaining how they are not bring allowed to bring up new legislation and how they are not being allowed to participate in the process ...

the first step here is education, not action ... but the time will come very soon when a walk-out will be necessary ... if we are not given a voice, there's no point indulging the charade that we are ...

[blondeatlast]

18. Where are the Democrats' PR people?

The Radical Rights seem to be everywhere on the talking head shows; we rarely see a Democrat and if we do, they are usually no names and dolts besides.

I'm a proud yellow-dog, dammit, and I want my party BACK.

[welshTerrier2]

22. a party adrift ...

i can't stand it anymore ... it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to remain a Democrat ...

right at the moment when bush is unleashing the full fury of his neo-con madness, the silence from the democrats is overwhelming ...

and the Democratic Party is underwhelming ...

hello ???? knock knock knock ... is there anybody home ????

hello democrats ???? hello ????

hmmmmmmm, guess not ..

[blondeatlast]

23. Don't I know it--the silence is deafening... and

DAMN SCARY.

I don't expect the leadership to act on every idea floated out there on boards like DU (God, NO!), but I wish they'd take a little peek once in a while.

[welshTerrier2]

30. if i were king of the forrrrrrrest ...

if i were a big shot in the democratic party, i'd get a couple of top level people over here in a hurry ...

there should be a forum called: talk directly to the democratic party ... they should monitor this forum and respond to ideas and questions ...

question one would be: will the democrats ever be a real opposition party ...

i really can't stand it anymore ... a bunch of democrats just voted to spend even more money on our ballooning deficits to help finance the neo-con agenda ... i took special note that Ms. Clinton was among those who did ...

and in four years, i can hear the drumbeat ... "you have to vote for Hillary ... voting Green is just a vote for the republicans" ... well, if any democrat wants my vote again, they can start representing me NOW ... don't come crawling around at election time explaining why you're better than the alternatives ...

if you ain't representing me, i ain't voting for you ....

[bush_is_wacko]

130. I hate to admit it, but you are absolutely correct.

I was going to give them some wiggle room for the holiday. BUT THEY DAMN WELL BETTER START REPRESENTING!!! I would never go Republican, but I can't believe how cowardly they seem. Are they working behind the scenes and don't want to draw attention? Have they got something we don't know about and want to make it look as if everything is normal? Hell it took too long to investigate Nixon! I don't want to wait another couple of years, the evidence is mounting and our leaders and MSM are silent! This many people can not be suffering from mass delusion!

[Q]

28. "If we are not given a voice"

Holy hell...if we're not given a voice? Isn't it clear by now that the opposite is happening? Republicans are going for the throat and they're not going to back down because some Democrat begs them to please 'give us a voice'. REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING A ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION.

That's the problem with the Democratic party of today: they seem to be WAITING for that speical moment in time to do something and that moment never seems to come.

By all means...they should wait until they're totally and completely neutered before speaking out. Sounds like something the DLC would approve. (No offense)

[welshTerrier2]

34. no offense taken but ...

i think you may have misread my post ...

i wrote:

the republicans have made sure that the 55+ million of us who voted for Kerry will have no voice whatsoever ...

and you wrote:

Isn't it clear by now that the opposite is happening? Republicans are going for the throat and they're not going to back down because some Democrat begs them to please 'give us a voice'.

i was not suggesting that we ask republicans to give us a voice ... that's clearly never going to happen ...

and i am not calling for delaying a response from the democrats until they're "totally and completely neutered". The most disastrous thing the democrats are doing right now is remaining silent while bush is actively destroying every aspect of our government. bush must be stopped and he must be stopped NOW ...

but that's not what i was focussing on in my post ... my post talked about the need for a strategic implementation of a walk-out. the purpose of a walk-out, at least to me, would be to send a loud and clear message to the American people. the point i raised in my original post was that we need to "lay the groundwork" for this walk-out if it is to have the maximum possible effect. we need to take a few weeks, or perhaps a few months, to begin the education process. it's not that i disagree with you that things have reached the critical stage NOW (or even months ago); it's that critical stage or not, we will not bring the majority of Americans with us if we do it without building an understanding of the issues the walk-out would be protesting ...

urgency more than justifies the motivation to act but a little patience and planning will help ensure a successful action ...

[robcon]

13. This is similar to the Repugs shutting down the govt. in the 90's.

A staged event like that would only be divisive and would lose a lot of voters, IMO.

[blondeatlast]

20. I think you are wrong, but it has to be very carefully managed.

We need to have an influx of Dems on the talking head fests first; lots of appearances on AAR/the Daily Show, etc--WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF AN IMMINENT WALKOUT.

Just a media blitz. Get Congressional Dems, not the sorry excuses we usually see, on the tube constantly. Frame it as "how will the Dems fight back?" with nary a word spoken.

It also needs to be done at the introduction of a RADICAL RW bill; say, the planned revocation of the tax deduction businesses get for providing health insurance to their employees.

It can work--but we don't have the luxury of thinking about '06 or '08 now. If the party is going to survive, it has to be done now--without thinking of the any elections.

[Q]

29. How many voters do you think are being lost because of INACTION?

The way I see it...many are ready to dump the Dem party in the harbor. They're talking about leaving because of the lack of opposition.

Divisive? What could be more divisive than the Bush* Republicans? And you don't see anyone jumping from their ship.

We take a stand now or sit back and watch the world burn for the next four years...or longer.

[blondeatlast]

44. Damn straight. I'm a 3rd generation yellow dog. My family has

contributed oodles of energy and $$$s since even before FDR.

If they want me back, I need some ACTION.

Hell, they have the same damn crap on the DNC homepage they've had for weeks.

[m berst]

52. I think you are correct

Many give far too much credit to the Republicans - thinking that their success is the result of meticulous planning and brilliant strategy. When you talk to their strategists, though, it is more like they are just throwing things out there to see what will work. If it doesn't work, they try something else. If they can get away with it, they continue doing it.

The Democratic party on the other hand is always hesitating, always urging caution, always negotiating and compromising and planning. Rank and file Democrats make the same error of trying to anticipate and manipulate events rather than establishing a broad framework of goals and then acting, acting, acting. Each act changes the political landscape and opens up new options.

The Republicans move forward audaciously, and only in retrospect does it seem to be carefully planned and organized. The Democrats are continually reacting and backpedaling.

The antidote to the weakness of the Democratic party is not more fine tuning of message and platform, it is action. Bold action. For action to occur, there needs to be a couple of agreed upon simple positions. The war in Iraq, the declining economy and the destruction of civil liberties were some examples of heaven sent opportunities for the party this last time around, and the party's failure to exploit those has to lead to a simple question - does the Democratic party no longer stand for what it once did - the have-nit's voice against the big money interests? If the party has abandoned its core mission, no amount of "framing" the message or finding the right candidate or campaign techniques and no amount of demographic analysis or organizational effort will make up for this moral, spiritual and political vacuum at the core of the party.

An illegal and disastrous war; the death of unionism and all protection for workers; destruction of the Constitution, from the separation of powers to the countermanding of the Bill of Rights; torture and illegal detention; death of the free press; escalating racism in attitudes and policies; how can this possibly be a time for caution and compromise? What could possibly be lost by taking bold action? If strong action and uncompromising stances are not appropriate now, when will they ever be?

If I were a Republican political strategist, I would be mystified and would wonder on a daily basis why on earth the Democrats don't fight back. I would credit the Democrats timidity and hesitation as being the main reason for the success of the Republican party. I would worry nor about what the Democrats might do, I would worry about it being too easy and think that perhaps I were missing something. "They can't be that weak and ineffective, can they? Why don't they fight back?"


on edit - fixed sentence structure

[juajen]

106. If we were winning right now, we would not be down on the party

Most of us agree that this election was stolen. So, our party is much more successful than everyone seems to be thinking on this thread. The problem is in the vote counters. I do think some action must be taken to shock the system and get some kind of action, so, I will throw this out there.

We declare to the dems in congress that we will not only NOT vote for them in the next election, but will vote republican until there is a paper trail and a set of consistent rules and regulations that govern voting in all states. Yes, this means most dems will lose, but what are we getting now if not total inaction. Since the whole country will know that this is a protest vote, perhaps they will look honestly at the system. Better still, maybe we should all vote green in protest. I know I would gag voting republican, so maybe this is a good alternative. If we sign petitions in great numbers to vow no vote from the progressive base until this is done, maybe we will get somewhere. We sure as Hell are getting nowhere now.

I love the idea of walking out on the SOTU address. I just wish I could believe they would actually do it. Maybe the above petition should request that walk out also. If enough of us joined together I think we could stick a pin in their asses and cause a reaction.

[PassingFair]

145. Did anyone catch this essay on BuzzFlash yesterday?

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

Really speaks to this issue.

[queeg]

146. 100% walkout as bush and his brownshirts enter

[MuseRider]

14. I have been thinking

this for a while and suggested it once. What is there left to do? Nothing had worked and with the way things are now nothing is going to work. I do not watch MSM anymore but from what I see here it might be the only way to get the microphone at least for a little while and get the word out. Shut her down. Make a loud noise. ANY press might be nice at this point to let the people who do not frequent sites like this one know that they are still there and still an opposition party. That of course depends on if they are an opposition party and I still think there are quite a few who are. If we have no voice why be there at all?

On Edit: I also think they need to let their constituancies know what the deal is. You have no representation even if I am there so I am walking out. Get these people fired up a little. We are but the vast majority seems to have voted then forgot about it.

[Q]

27. I believe it would be the only way to get past the media filter...

...that has seemingly forgotten about the Constitution and the people.

As expected...some have already said that the mean old Republicans would be 'outraged'. To that I say GOOD.

Those Democrats still free of the Bush* chains need to go enmass before the press and tell the people that they have been taken out of the picture and that a representative government no longer exists.

[MuseRider]

36. Exactly what I have been thinking

and I wondered why it has not happened yet. We know there are some who absolutely have the intestinal fortitude to do this so why have they not? This is what puzzles me the most. The Dems who have fought constantly against the Bush** regime have been silenced to the point that we can only assume they are doing something. The only recourse is to shut the fuckers down. That is the ONLY way they will be heard and I am guessing (I certainly don't know this) that there are quite a few conservatives in this country that would be sickened to know what has happened the the checks and balances. I mean really, even when one party has all the branches the opposition party is still able to do some moderation. This is a real crisis, has been for some time so why have they not done this? People would be sickened, I would hope, to find out that they are paying for their reps to sit quietly and do nothing and that is the only thing they are being allowed to do.

[bush_is_wacko]

131. email your thoughts to the DNC!

[e-mail]! They may be working on something that we don't know about, but they damn well better start SCREAMING in the MEDIA'S faces! Otherwise we might as well rename our country "America, the Movie." I feel like I'm in an Oliver Stone conspiracy movie more and more every day!

[NYCGirl]

15. Considering the way they've been voting lately, WOULD ANYONE NOTICE?

NT

[elehhhhna]

16. They could stand and turn their backs to him during the State O' The Union

[MuseRider]

19. That is something I would

love to see. They could prepare a statement of explanation and then just turn themselves around. Everytime I see them sitting there doing the polite thing, smiling and clapping and standing I think that it must just kill them to do it but apparently it only kills those of us who depend on them.

[tx_dem41]

21. There are better ways to accomplish goals...

Voting en bloc, voting on principles (e.g. not voting for the budget next week). I really like the idea of forming a shadow cabinet. That will be a good way of keeping individuals (and personalities) out front on specific issues.

[Q]

24. Obviously, voting 'en bloc' isn't working...

...or they would already be doing it. The point is that there are 'special interests' with the houses that are keeping our representatives from voting in favor of the people. Whether it's threats, intimidation or promises of cash...something is very wrong inside the legislature.

A mass walkout could be organized by those (hopefully hundreds) of senators and members of congress who are tired of the corruption, lies and fraud.

[tx_dem41]

26. Tell me how...

...a walkout doesn't get spun into 1)the Democratic reps being obstructionist, and/or 2) the Democratic reps running away from problems?

Whether you think the goal is noble (and I think most all of us do), think how it would be played out?

For an example of how to be an opposition party, look at what Sen. Conrad and his staff did last weekend. He participated, he didn't walk out.

[Q]

31. The idea of a walkout...

...is to give OUR represenatives a chance to speak their minds WITHOUT the corporate press getting ahold of it and spinning it to work for Lord Bush*.

I'm not so sure enough Americans understand what's going on in their nation's capital. There is a virtual dictatorship and the voice of the opposition party has been completely taken away. They've been taken out of the equation.

America has changed. And it doesn't help that you and others don't seem to understand the danger of a rogue US government. It's more than a fucking 'problem' when the opposition OWNS EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT and has boldly told the Democrats that they simply don't matter anymore. This is not only unethical...it's illegal.

[tx_dem41]

32. Sorry to keep answering with another question, but

How does walking out of the process, "give OUR represenatives a chance to speak their minds WITHOUT the corporate press getting ahold of it and spinning it to work for Lord Bush*"? We Texas Democrats tried that last year during the redistricting debacle. Guess what, it doesn't work.

And, by the way, ignoring your opposition is not "illegal". Its an arrogant way to govern, and we should be participating and pointing that out by going through every line in every bill. That's what we did last Saturday. We need to do it a lot more often.

[Q]

55. Because the MEDIA would have to cover such a unprecedented...

...happening LIVE. It's impossible to edit live television.

And actually...the Constitution forbids the kind of government the Bushie GOPers are attempting to set up. Have you read the lastest news? Just wondering.

[tx_dem41]

59. Assuming you are talking about the Hastert story.....

of course, I have read it. How does not sending bills to votes unless they have a "majority of the majority" conflict with the letter of the Constitution? I am not trolling here, I want to hear your explanation.

[The Flaming Red Head]

25. They walked out on US.

A more spineless group of people couldn't be found anywhere else on earth.

They don't represent US anymore.

[buddysmellgood]

33. Before they can walk out, they have to determine under what conditions

they would return. What do we want? We have to be clear or it looks like foot stomping.

[MuseRider]

37. Personally

I think foot stomping is called for at this point. Stomp those feet and get some damned press so they can let people know what is going on. I am behind foot stomping at this point. What conditions? How about the conditions they are having to work in? How about simply the fact that this government is being run by a few and everything they want is pretty much rubber stamped without thought, without oversight.

[buddysmellgood]

63. That's a start, but I'm saying that if they walk out, they should lay out

problems and then say, "We're not coming back until we have a pledge to correct x,y and z.

[MuseRider]

78. Oh yes

We agree.

[Q]

86. Agreed...there must be a stated purpose for the walkout...

...and they shouldn't be shy about saying it in front of the whole world.

Democrats must stop playing in the fantasy world created by the RWing media and get back to reality-based governance.

[sangh0]

35. Hand over the govt to the repukes?

Let's just say that amongst the many silly ideas I've seen on DU, this is the silliest

[Donna Zen]

41. They now own the government.

They got it by fighting and acting like the "oppostition." I may not agree with them about much if anything, but I've got to admit, I'm jealous of all of my republican neighbors who have a party that stands up for them.

[Q]

56. The 'repukes' have handed over the government to themselves...

...while the Dem party leaders were listening to the Grima Wormtongues of the party: the DLC.

[sangh0]

62. So you want to make it official?

Why? For your entertainment?

[Q]

64. Make what official? Do you mean that the Republicans don't know they...

...hold all the cards? Or that they're not aware they can kick Democrats in the face any time they want without consequence?

And stop being insulting. I don't find it 'entertaining' that 'our' party chooses to so willingly be punching bags for the GOPers.

I'm not surprised to hear such things from you...being among those who have encouraged the Bush* enablers to do nothing that would upset the impending corporate takeover of our government.

[sangh0]

65. Why won't you explain yourself?

I asked WHY you want the Dems to do that. Why won't you answer that? Could it be because it would achieve nothing?

[Q]

67. Do you mean achieve nothing as opposed to achieving nothing?

You already know the answer to the question...but can't help showing up on threads that challenge Democrats to break out and challenge this most corrupt government.

Is it that you're afraid to look behind the curtain? Afraid that too many Democrats are part of the problem...party to the corruption?

Why are you so resistant to the idea of having a real opposition party that upholds the law, honors the Consitution and represents the interests of the people?

We've listened to the Wormtongue advice of the Conservatives in the party for far too long. We're weary of a party that supports ILLEGAL wars and hides in the shadows as thousands of innocent men women and children die so they can look patriotic and tough on defense.

Or do you simply disagree that the Bush* admin. has committed crimes against the state and the people? Or perhaps you don't mind that Democrats in DC are treated like shit and left out of the legislative process?

It's time for the Demcratic party to act in the people's best interest. They can do that by showing us and the rest of the world that they're NOT in agreement with aggressive wars and stand apart from the greedy war profiteering bastards who rule this country with an iron fist.

[sangh0]

69. How would a walkout be in "the people's best interest"?

It's time for the Demcratic party to act in the people's best interest.

So tell us, O Brave Leader, how is it in the people's best interests for the Dems to stage a walkout and give the repukes the ability to pass whatever laws they want?

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. Well first, I'd like them to vote NAY for crappy bills!!!

I thought that the appropriations bill would have passed on GOP votes alone, with its fine print last minute attack on abortion rights and the addition of TWENTY THOUSAND more H-1B visas, but the fact of the matter is that it passed by 344 to 51, and 160 of those 344 votes were DEMOCRATS!!! We vote for them because, among other things, they're supposed to fight for OUR RIGHTS AND OUR JOBS. Why did so many just cave on this? Had those 160 voted NAY, that bill would not has passed and funding for programs would have stayed as is. The Federal Govt. would not have come to a grinding halt.

[Donna Zen]

40. We are the party

Many, perhaps most, of those in Washington are politicians who just want to keep getting elected and it hardly matters what letter follows their names. Period. I am a Democrat and I am more proud of that today than I was a year ago. We saw through the lying, the greed, and the corporate press. How we did that is a miracle to me. Dedicated to human rights, worker's rights, voting rights, and our Constitution, is a good thing.

The question posed by this thread would suppose that we have leadership; friends and fellow Democrats, we do not. They will find a million and one excuses to remain inactive and on their knees. "Don't want to be negative...the corporate press would take us to the woodshed...we'd offend the swing voters..." on and on it goes. Well hey, negative is what has negated their/our voices; the corporate press doesn't even allow them to speak uninterupted and bashes them no matter what they do; and the swing voters don't swing Democratic.

Them's the facts.

Someone has mentioned that we are losing more votes because of our spineless leadership. Oh so true. Do we really think the college kids will vote for Dems in the next round. My daughter is so disgusted witht the party, she said she will not fight for people who couldn't find the friggin' time or inclination to fight for her. Who wants to be identified with "weak and ineffective"?

Well, they--the so-called leaders--will not walk out; hell, their too busy praising bush and deciding how far right we should move. The party with the Jomentum!

[tx_dem41]

45. I need to pose this question...

How is giving up and handing the entire Congressional process over to the Republicans a sign of leadership? If we had done that last weekend, the Republican Appropriation's chairman would have access to our tax returns. Unlike most of the people on this thread, I choose to stay and fight.

[Donna Zen]

46. We control nada...

BTW, the bill did pass with a promise to change the clause. And, do we know that the Patriot Act does give them access anyway?

Democrats no longer have any say-so in any legislation.

Some parsed tiny clause, does not a party make. We and I mean "we" managed to give Democrats half of the national vote; but do they care? More people voted for Democratic Senators than voted for republicans. It happens everytime and yet we control nothing.

The republicans when in the wilderness had the friggin' Contract for America. A piece of elephant dung--true--but at least it was a statement to rally around.

We could rally...but to rally implies one must have a focus. What is the focus? Clean elections, getting the special interests out. transparent government, policies designed for people not the next election cycle, ending unfunded mandates, Patriot Law Follies, pork-barrel ending, food on the tables of America, a healthcare system that works, R & D that positively impact both the environment and the economy, on and on; on and on.

Sleeping through the demise of our democracy has its price: losing the base and the future base.

[tx_dem41]

47. Walkingout of the process is the same as....

...sleeping through the demise of democracy.

You seem quite upset at the Democratic Senators that voted last weekend with the Republicans. Do you know who they are? How many did you contact this week? Did you write letters to the editor of their homestate newspapers? Or are you walking out too?

[Donna Zen]

49. Upset

Upset by what? Frustrated by a lack of representation would be closer to the mark.

Yes, I know who they are because they have been listed here and on other boards. And yes, I did do my share of letter writing. In my case, both of my Senators are republican.

If you misread my initial post, I am very proud of the Democratic party--that is, the membership. I think considering how willing we are to work and compromise, to give and to take, we deserve some leadership. Real leadership--not just the brand that confines its duties to sending out those e-mails for money.

Furthermore--I believe in what we stand for. If I am frustrated it is because the Democrats who have received our votes are so ashamed of us. Yes, I mean that. Since the election, we have been called "God-Haters." Has one, just one, refuted the morals charges we up on? I don't think so. That the underlying polling does not show an increase in pro-bush data, one would think some Democrat with a mic, might have said something.

The opposition leaders in the Ukraine have stood up for their people, and thereby encouraged the people to stand up for themselves.

Getting a democracy with all of its magnificent pillars of wisdom back will be difficult, if not impossible.

[tx_dem41]

51. I agree with everything you just said.

And I didn't mean "upset" to sound as trite as it did. BTW, I started one of those threads that listed those Senators that voted for the bill.

[Q]

53. You're not listening...

...or perhaps you haven't been watching the moves of the New Republicans? They have taken over the 'process' and state right out they don't plan on sharing power with Democrats.

That YOU choose to stay and fight means nothing. The power brokers in the Dem party have convinced enough Dems to vote along with the Bushie Republicans. The Republican majority leaders have taken the process out of the hands of their opposition so there is nothing to 'stay and fight for' except more of the same.

A walkout would break the 'spell' and shake the people out of their stupor. Many Democrats have lost hope because they think THEIR PARTY is part of the problem...participating with the Bush* corruption in order to keep their jobs. A party like this has no future unless and until they stand up and say NO MORE.

[tx_dem41]

58. I am listening

I just don't believe that a walkout would break the "spell". Whatever that means. 98% of the people don't pay attention because they are ignorant and lazy and choose to be that way. No walkout will change that. Calling Republicans on their hubris might because it makes good TV and radio. Daschle was afraid to do it. THAT has to change.

[Q]

60. Neither one of us could know what a walkout would accomplish..

...and what I mean by the 'spell' is the attitude Democrats have adopted suggesting that we must BECOME like Republicans in order to compete in elections.

A walkout (even a short one) would focus media attention on real problems and more importantly mobilize the Dem base to fight.

Many on the Left predicted that Bush* would continue to grab more and more power while Democrats became irrelevant IF they chose the easier path of going along to get along.

We either have a representative government and a Democratic Republic or we choose sit by and do nothing while Bush's* Banana Republic destroys everything we've fought so long to attain for all Americans.

If nothing else...a 'walkout' would show the Democratic rank and file that there is still some fight left in the party and that the people still mean something to them.

[sangh0]

66. HAHAHA!

A walkout (even a short one) would focus media attention on real problems and more importantly mobilize the Dem base to fight.

You mean 9/11 itself couldn't force the media to "focus on real problems", but a Dem walkout would?

LOL!!

[Voltaire]

70. I could care less what it would force the media to do

I am in favor of a walkout. Because those elected sons of bitches owe US...the rank and file Democrats something besides please to lets just go along to get along. Walk the fuck out. I don't give a damn what the GOP thinks about it or the Media thinks about it or what the mushy middle of my own party thinks about it.

WALK THE FUCK OUT ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

[sangh0]

72. You sell your principles for cheap

Because those elected sons of bitches owe US...the rank and file Democrats something besides please to lets just go along to get along

I want a whole lot more than a useless act that does no one any good.

Show me the children it feeds and provides health care for, and I'll agree.

Show the war that would be ended by a walkout, and I'll agree

Show me civil rights that will be protected after the walkout, and I'll agree.

Show me an angry dem who wants to satisfy their craving for useless symbology, and I shake my head at the utter futility of selling your principles for a useless display.

[Voltaire]

73. A USELESS ACT FOR A USELESS NATION

Come on...seriously....its the kind of thing that Americans eat up. Like basketball fights. Like reality shows. Let's give them a useless, futile act.

Because in this time in history you AIN'T GONNA GET the things you think that your politicians owe you. If they can't or won't give me Health Care or Jobs or what not because they have no fucking backbone, then at least give me some eye candy.

WALK THE FUCK OUT ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS!

[sangh0]

74. "give me some eye candy"

So that's the market rate for principles these days? Eye candy?

Forgive me, but I'm gonna hold out for more.

[Voltaire]

80. Christ...I have the principles of my own democratic socialist convictions

Which is more than I can say about those clowns that are supposed to represent me in Washington. When they stop worrying about their own careers and worrying about what Karl Rove and his band of 59 million blithering fucking idiots say about them I will be impressed in their ability to help legislate. Until then, however

WALK THE FUCK OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

Its the very least they can do since they will do nothing else.

[sangh0]

82. And you're willing to sell them for some eye candy

I bet those Dems you criticize demand a higher price

[Voltaire]

85. If they have demanded a higher price

I have not seen it. And neither have you.

[sangh0]

87. Not true

Donations are a matter of public record. So are govt contracts

[Q]

76. If the choice is between nothing and eye candy...

...give us the f**king eye candy. At least it will piss off the boy king and he'll break out in hives.

[sangh0]

83. You can choose to fight

but I'm not surprised you forgot about that one. You NEVER remember that YOU can fight.

[Voltaire]

89. Most Democrats I know personally are still fighting

In ways too many to mention and I am with them with money, with time, with research. They put the supposed "Fighter" and "Closer" from Boston to shame.

[Q]

92. We 'hire' others to represent us in congress and the senate...

...and after we vote for them we (should) expect certain things. Once we vote we're essentially out of the picture until the next election. But what happens when elected officials become corporate cronies and serve their will over that of the people. Does any citizen have any power to change things beyond their vote? And what if your vote isn't being counted or the opposition is found cheating? Isn't it the duty and responsibility of our representatives to investigate and make sure it doesn't happen again?

I still don't understand why you don't want Democrats to fight and be an opposition party. Instead of demanding that THEY do their jobs and represent the interests of the people..all you have to offer is a hollow argument about a citizen 'fighting' the tyranny of the Church/Corporate/State.

[sangh0]

97. No, YOU "hire" others to do your fighting for you

and then you pretend to be a fighter.

Does any citizen have any power to change things beyond their vote?

Ask Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi. IIRC, they couldn't vote when they started out, yet they both succeeded in changing things. But unlike you, they didn't "hire" fighters; They inspired them.

I still don't understand why you don't want Democrats to fight and be an opposition party

And I don't understand why YOU won't fight.

Instead of demanding that THEY do their jobs and represent the interests of the people..all you have to offer is a hollow argument about a citizen 'fighting' the tyranny of the Church/Corporate/State.

SO how's those "demands" going? You've been issuing demands for four years. How's that "non-hollow" argument working for you? What have you changed?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

132. Mass Dem protest on live TV for SOTU address. DO IT!! AAAGH!

The stakes are such that simply surviving murderous fascism is necessary, not appeasements and compromises.

There is a dark beast on the kill and it must be stopped AGAIN.

It is the psychology of fear and hate becoming violence in our Fallow Merkins and we must deal with it EFFECTIVELY.

Our country has intentionally been turned into a weaponized culture, a DEATH CULT and we must deprogram every one we can.

SHORT TERM:
1)GO FOR THE (FIGURATIVE) THROAT OF EVERY CELEBRITY FASCIST MESSENGER (POLITICIANS, MEDIA ETC.)WE CAN. PUT A FACE ON FASCISM AND STOP ITS ADVANCE!! ATTACKING THE MESSENGER WORKS.

2)EDUCATE OUR KIDS, SOLDIERS, AND COPS WHAT THE SCAM IS (BLOOD FOR OIL) SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FACE OUR OWN TURNED AGAINST US LIKE THE TIENANMIN SQUARE MASSACRE IN CHINA. WE MUST BE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE VISIBLY TO SHOW PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSENSUS AND SOLIDARITY WHICH ARE KEY TO POPULAR MOVEMENTS.

LONG TERM:
BRING URGENT AWARENESS OF FASCISM AND ECO-DISASTER TO THE THRESHOLD OF BEHAVIOUR CHANGE IN THE LESS EVOLVED AMONG US. "BLOOD FOR OIL" IN IRAQ IS THE CRIME WE BEGIN WITH AS CURRENT AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

1)PHOTOS OF WAR VICTIMS ON EVERY PUBLIC SURFACE TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE INAVOIDABLY HUMANIZED.

2)GROCERY AND HIGHWAY BLOGGING. BANNERS AND PAMPHLETS AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL.

3)KNOW YOUR FACTS AND GET ON TALK RADIO, ESPECIALLY NPR'S 'TALK OF THE NATION.'TELL EVERYONE YOU CAN OF THE CRIME OF "BLOOD FOR OIL."

4)PARENTS AT SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES LOOK OUT FOR NATIONALISM, MILITARISM, AND RELIGIOUS (IRRATIONAL) INDOCTRINATION IN CEREMONIES, PLEDGES, TEACHING.

5)AVOID TV. IT IS 100% CORPORATE PROPAGANDA AND HAS UNAVOIDABLE SUBLIMINAL POWER AND A PHYSICAL EFFECT ON YOUR BRAIN EVEN WHEN YOU FEEL IMMUNE TO THE BS AND SPIN.

EXAMPLE: SPORTS ARE USED AS MOCK-WARFARE TO SOCIALIZE HIERARCHY, BLIND OBEDIENCE, REGIONALISM, AND SUBLIMATION TO GROUP-THINK INTO BOYS AND YOUNG MEN WHO WILL BECOME THE NEXT SHIFT OF OCCUPIERS FOR EMIPIRE'S OIL.

IT ALSO DISTRACTS FROM UNDERSTANDING AND COPING WITH REAL LIFE AND DEATH MATTERS WHICH TAKES TIME TO LEARN AND FOLLOW DAILY.

[juajen]

109. I think you're wrong

Plenty of people heard that the dems had walked out in Texas. This was a state matter and it was all over the news. The clamor should be even louder when it is national dems that walk out. Yes, I think they should do it. I'm tired of the pantywaists.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT!

[Padraig18]

48. Won't happen.

:shrug:

[Individualist]

54. Definitely should, but won't n/t

[freedom for all]

61. Yes, they should..

But they can't even demand that the votes be counted..Our Dem leaders sound more and more like repubs.. Hard to believe a word they say..
All the votes will be counted.. Hmm.. If so not because of them.. Who will stand up for us as the repubs destroy our country & constitution.
We The People...........Our last chance...

[Cuban_Liberal]

68. It would hurt us FAR more than it would help.

We would look like the world's most-spoiled, ill-mannered brats to the American public.

[Voltaire]

71. So WHAT!!??

We spend too much time worrying about how folks think. We need to LEAD these dumbasses to where they need to be, not kiss their asses and coax them into it.

WALK THE FUCK OUT ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

[Cuban_Liberal]

77. "We spend too much time worrying about how folks think."

Ummm, 'folks'= voters, the last time I checked, and you bet your ASS I worry about what they think!

:wtf:

[Q]

81. But...what about the VOTERS who want a real, active opposition party?

Dont' they count? Or are you saying that most Democrats want a party that sits by as the opposition steamrolls them time after time? Do they want a party that refuses to hold Bush* & Co accountable?

I wouldn't be worried so much about offending voters. Many Democrats were voting Anyone But Bush* and they are looking for a reason to stick around in 2008. They're looking for LEADERSHIP. If they don't find it in the Dem party they'll look elsewhere.

[Voltaire]

84. When the majority of voters demonstrate a functioning brain

I will be glad to kow tow. Until then, however, they must be dragged to a position where they are actually educated enough to participate. Until they can demonstrate this. . .

WALK THE FUCK OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

It will be as entertaining as Survivor to them.

[trogdor]

108. Even better.

Fail to show up. Keep your intention not to show up secret until the last minute, and let the media pan over the acre or so of empty seats. If word gets out, the GOP will find people to fill those seats for you.

[Q]

75. The bottom line here...

...is whether the Democratic party is finally going to acknowledge what most Americans (and the rest of the world) already know or suspect. Republicans are walking all over Democrats and they're doing little or nothing about it. Repubicans are TAKING power not granted them by the Constitution. They're ignoring international laws, courts and committing war crimes. They're passing legislation in favor of the corporations that put them in office. 9-11 happened on Bush's* watch and now they're using the death of 3000 to advance their partisan agenda and wage illegal, aggressive wars. They're robbing the treasury to give tax cuts to their wealthy supporters. They run the most secretive government in our history and classifiy public documents that could incriminate them and expose their corrupt enterprise.

The world sees a 'spoiled', ill-mannered brat ruling over America as if he were king and above the law. My guess is that millions around the world are waiting for someone to oppose him.

[pig.]

88. but it would make the news... n/t

[juajen]

110. Well, I'm not from Texas,

but their walkout sure played well around here, and I believe they did better than expected in Tx, even with vote skimming. The pugs think badly of us no matter what we do. Moderate conservatives might be very glad we're doing SOMETHING. Overall, I think it would be a plus.

[Tennessee Gal]

91. The American Corporate Media ................

Here is what Paul Craig Roberts (a conservative) said about the supposedly "liberal" media in his latest column! I love it! A conservative who understands the truth!

"There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration’s lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration’s changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.

Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Henthof and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don’t see the "liberal hate" in The Nation’s feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html

[Doohickie]

93. I might stir things up a bit...

[Mist]

94. A walkout is a bit childish

But the principle of abstaining from voting (where their votes wouldn't matter anyway) might focus attention on the Reputhug's agenda. Whatever is passed is completely the responsibility of Rethugs. THere's too few Democrats to form an actual opposition party anyway.

[Q]

95. No...a walkout would demonstrate principles...

...in that the Democrats could finally air their grievances and announce that they're unwilling to be silent as the Bushies destroy world peace and our country's infrastructure for the benefit of wealthy Bush* supporters.

I don't understand what you mean when you say there are too few Democrats to form an opposition party. Republicans have a slight majority in both houses and there are HUNDREDS of Democrats that could form an active opposition if they so desired.

Bush* was able to frame his Iraq invasion as having bipartisan support. Same goes for the Patriot Act and the trickle-down tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats must go on the record as opposing these awful policies or they'll have to accept the blame along with Bush* & Cheney.

[sangh0]

98. What principle?

Childish frustration is not a principle

[Q]

100. Childish frustration?

Certainly you wouldn't say that to my face? I get the feeling that your saying such things reflects the kind of shallow politics that seems to prevail among the so-called moderates. Those who would rather hide than fight. Run away than confront reality.

You can ridicule the idea of the Democratic leadership confronting the Bush* mafia head on and refusing to participate in their fraud...but I believe that history will show that our party had a chance to stand up to Bush* but in the end choice the cowards way out.

Another four years of Bush* enabling and appeasement will mean that Democrats should anticipate being in the minority for a very long time. They didn't learn a damn thing from the first four....to the detriment of everyone on this planet.

But I'm encouraged by the MAJORITY of posts on this thread. They want a party that will fight for them and everything that's good about this nation. I'm glad to see that the enablers are in the minority...where they belong.

[Mist]

101. Democrats COULD form an opposition

But there's so few of them who care to.

[Q]

96. I'm surprised that (too many) Democrats...

...accept the status quo of a complacent Democratic leadership. Don't rock the boat. Don't make the mean old republicans mad at us....just try to get along so they won't hurt us again.

At one time I thought for sure that four years of Bush* would make fighters out of Democrats again. But now it looks like I was wrong. Instead of getting pissed or getting even or simply doing their jobs...the Democratic leadership seems satisfied with being observers of history.

[sangh0]

99. I'm surprised you continue to "hire" Dems to fight for you

instead of doing your own fighting yourself

At one time I thought for sure that four years of Bush* would make fighters out of Democrats

Why? It hasn't made a fighter out of you. You're still looking for someone to outsource that job to.

[Q]

102. Mind if I call you gadfly?

You drone on and on as if you have something important to say. You call for people to 'fight'...know the Democratic leadership is shirking their duty as outlined in the Constitution. I won't even try to guess why you're apologizing for and excusing the utter failure of the 'leadership' to lead an opposition party.

It's clear that you either don't understand the reason for more than one party in a representative government...or you're intentionally being obtuse and trying to chill a discussion about the call for a true opposition party.

[Dr Fate]

115. He is making a logical error...

...you are correctly pointing out that it is the DEM LEADERSHIP who refuses to fight.

The good BASE of the party has been fighting and working like hell- but they marginalize us in favor of the fucking media and their erroneous perception that swing voters like pussys instead of fighters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. Tried to hire Muhammed Ali, but all we got was PeeWee Herman.

Can we get a refund?

[Dr Fate]

114. Q is RIGHT. And I HAVE been fighting my ass off for years.

I've organized, recruited, raised money, etc. All w/i the party too.

The folks on the ground are GOOD DEMS- but the leadership refuses to listen to us.

I've seen it first hand, over and over and over.

I would come back everyday when I worked for the DNC, telling them what the word on the street was. They IGNORED me and people like me.

They can get fucking swing voters to do their bidding for all I care.

I dont bust my ass for years just to be continuously marginalized.

I'm not even fucking LIBERAL- I'm a MODERATE. I just want to see my party FIGHT for a change- but they are too scared of the media and Rove.

FUCK THAT.

[Dr Fate]

113. Q- the DEMS of n the GROUND feel just like you & me.

The actual DEM foot soldiers doing the work KNOW these things.

Its the DEMS at the top that are the fucking pussys.

The DNC REFUSES to listen to its base & the people who do their work for them.

Let them get fucking "swing voters" to volunteer for them next time.

[IndyPriest]

118. New Dance - The Texas Walkout

The Texas Dems walked out during the redistricting debacle. Didn't stop it, but put a huge spotlight on it.

[Dr Fate]

134. I'll buy you a beer if DEMS have the guts & unity to to that.

Of course, I'm not too worried about losing that bet.

DEMS have neither courage or unity needed to stand up to the lying criminals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. What? Show some courage? It might upset the DLC.

Be an opposition party that actually stands for something and act on it?

Perish the thought! Don't you understand politics? Why, people might think that the Democratic Party actually stood for something other than pandering to the rightwing! They might not vote for us...just like they didn't in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

We have to win more of the Corporate(R) party to the Corporate(D) party.
Then we can have real compromise and bi-partisanship. Sort of like Time-Warner. Why, everybody knows that Warner is less corrupt than Time. If it was just Warner-Time, everthing would be hunky-dory..or is that dory-hunky?

[Dr Fate]

112. It would upset Matt Lauer & Tony Snow too.

We cant have the media being "mean to us", now can we. That would hurt our fee-wings.

[Butterflies]

105. They should, but they won't.

The Democrats in Washington have been cowed. I'm embarrassed for our party these days.

[Dr Fate]

111. They are too TERRIFIED about what Judy Woodruff would say...

...and Tom Delay, and Wolf Blitzer.

Democrats wont do anything that might cause Bill Frist, Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborugh to be "mean to them"- their emotions are too delicate for that kind of media theater.

This WOULD be one way for democrats to get get media attention- for them to get interviews on TV and start pointing out GOp crimes and lies-

Ah- but I guess its a better strategy to "play nice"- since that has worked oh so well for us.

[Ima]

116. We would be called 'cry babies'.

[The Flaming Red Head]

117. kick

[Q]

119. Democrats are going to wish they had done something like this...

...when they had the chance. Something dramatic to get the public's attention before Bush* declares martial law and the Bill of Rights is suspended.

It WILL happen now that the Bushies have been reassured that there will be no resistance or opposition from the Democrats.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

120. YES they absolutely NEED too..they MUST..what is to be lost?

[Nightwing]

121. Do what Gingrich did to Clinton

Shut down the government! Walk out on Bushco and show some spine.

[MrUnderhill]

122. How?

Shutting down the government would require blocking a budget package, right?

Wouldn't we need a majority to do that? You can't even filibuster that final budget bill.

[Q]

124. You don't need a majority to walk out...

...and in fact you don't even need every Democrat. Bush* Butt Kissers like Lieberman probably wouildn't join them anyway.

Republicans have already 'shut down' DC in the sense that they've blocked Democrats from participating in the legislative process. I just don't see that the Dems have much to lose at this point.

A 'walkout' is a protest...and is especially important when the other side owns the media.

[MrUnderhill]

125. A "protest" doesn't accomplish anything.

Except make reelection less likely.


What's wrong with voting AGAINST things?

Isn't it noble to act correctly - even in defeat?

You said "Republicans have already 'shut down' DC in the sense that they've blocked Democrats from participating in the legislative process" - Are we defining "participation" solely in terms of victory? Can we only "participate" if we win?

[Q]

126. No...I'm defining participation in terms of a two-party government...

...where both sides PARTICIPATE in drafting and writing laws and legislation. Some tend to forget that the kind of government set up by the Founders only works when both parties have a role.

Republicans know this because they used the CHECKS AND BALANCES AND OVERSIGHT built within the system to impeach Clinton and get part of their agenda drafted. They fillabustered and did everything to block and compromise with the Dem majority...things they now want to take away from the Dem minority.

A couple weeks after the election and you're already worried about reelection? It seems that the fascist, intimidation tactics used by the GOPers have worked to completed cow the opposition.

Democrats have taken the path of least resistance for too long. They've allowed a criminal enterprise to run our government without consequence. Perhaps...just perhaps the people would be MORE WILLING to vote for and respect a party that stood up for what was right instead of expedient?

[MrUnderhill]

128. What are they taking away?

Why can't we fillibuster legislation? Will they be able to pass a Social Security gutting over our protests?

I've read about the judicial filibuster changes, but that can't affect legislation. They can't change that unilaterally.

[Zhade]

135. "What's wrong with voting AGAINST things?"

Nothing. Can you tell me when they start doing so?

Patriot Act, IWR, NCLB... would have been AWESOME for them to have voted against those, for example.

(And YES, to the literalist nitpickers who seek only to tear down dissenters, I understand that some Dems voted against these things, so save your breath - you will be ignored as the disruptive assholes you are.)

[UpsideDownFlag]

123. do you really think lieberman and his ilk would walk out? nt

[Q]

127. No...the DLCers wouldn't walk out...

...because they're too busy sucking up to Bush* and polishing his boots. They are PART of the problem....but they represent a tiny minority of Democrats. Those who plan to walk out shouldn't even bother asking the Bush* enablers to join them.

[ColumbiaCowboy]

129. Hogwash

Moderate Democrats are NOT "sucking up to Bush."
And you're dead wrong in thinking that moderates are a "tiny minority." Not even close. There are lots, and lots, and lots of moderates in the Party, and your obviously implication that we're not REALLY Democrats isn't appreciated, it isn't good for the Party at all.
The walkout's a stupid idea. Puts the Party ahead of the nation, and I hope NONE of our representatives would make that mistake.

[Q]

133. Lots and lots of moderates? You've convinced me.

Of course moderates would think that a walkout is 'stupid'. Why? Because they're mostly supporting the Bush* agenda. His aggressive wars, his tax cuts for the rich, his privatization of government and social services.

Given that the 'others' control every aspect of our government and Bush* supporters own most of the media...what other means would you suggest for Democrats to protest this administration's attempt to create an unaccountable, secretive, totalitarian government?

The Bushies have put themselves above the law and the nation. No more appeasement.

[Mutley]

136. But wouldn't the republicans love that?

Then they would literally have the government all to themselves.

[Q]

138. What part of the government don't they have right now?

Besides...I'm not talking about a permanent walkout. The walkout would be framed around an event or issue...like when the GOPers shut them out of participating in government.

[Vidar]

137. Shut the government down like Newt did.

[MsConduct]

139. Talk about handing the government over on a silver platter! I say NO! n/

[Q]

140. Some would say that the Democratic leadership has already...

...handed over the government on a silver platter by not being a true opposition party.

Look...I hate to be the bearer of bad news...but the Republicans OWN our government. This is why they've become arrogant enough to proclaim that they have no intention of working with Democrats and plan to push Bush's* agenda without their input.

So then...just how would staging a walkout or protest 'hand over' something they already posess? How could it possibly hurt a party that lost two elections to the dumbest, most arrogant candidate in history?

The world..and more importantly Democrats...would gain a new respect for a leadership that many believe have lost faith in democracy.

[MsConduct]

141. Great points! I know that 'we the people' and the dems have no power...

I'm saying that walking out would be taken as a "we're giving up" type of move. I'd rather have them hang in, raise a stink, screw with their agenda and disrupt whatever 'the others' try to get done. Be pains in their asses and thorns in their sides. In other words, protesting would be the better way to go.

[Q]

142. I understand what you're saying...

...and at one time I would have agreed with you. But as you may have noticed...we're confronted with a 'rogue' government like this nation has never seen.

Democrats HAVE been raising a stink for four years...on the floor of the house and senate. But unless you have CSPAN tuned in at a certain time you would have missed it.

Check out the lastest news and see that Republicans are simply cutting Democrats out of the legislative process and telling them to shut up if they don't like it. And of course the Bush* Media isn't going to report the truth about what's going on in OUR government.

Dems need to pick an issue of import...(Iraq invasion?)...gather their resources, write some speeches and then WALK OUT OF CONGRESS and air their greivances directly before the American people and the world media.

[MsConduct]

147. Now I understand what you are saying. You are right. I guess....

the biggest b*tch I have is that I have yet to see Dem Representative or Senator with any huevos. I just can't conceive of them sprouting big brassy pairs of them in order to be able to walk out.

[bunny planet]

143. most def

[ecstatic]

144. umm... 4 years too damn late

Maybe if they had walked out when Dubya was first seated on the throne, we wouldn't be in this mess. That shameful scene displayed in "Fahrenheit 911," when not even one senator would sign the CBC's proposal, will be forever emblazoned in my memory.