Coronation of King George: Shame on Republicans AND Democrats

[Q]

The Coronation of King Bush: brought to you by Republicans AND Democrats

01/20/05 - Business As Usual as America's new King is crowned and worshipped.

I blame Democrats as much as Republicans for the creation of the monster which is George Walker Bush. I blame my party for not standing up to the Bush Cabal when they had the opportunity and when it counted.

The Democratic Leadership has had many opportunities to stop George in his tracks. Loyal rank and file Democrats have been left to ponder why their party won't stand up for them, their nation and Constitution.

And now...on this day when America's Corporate Media celebrates the 2nd term of the great and powerful war president...Democrats are left to speculate why their party and nation has fallen so far that such a corrupt Executive Branch is allowed to plunder and pillage with impunity.

George Bush* and his criminal enterprise have much to answer for. It should be painfully clear by now that the Democratic party won't be the ones to make him accountable.

I feel so ashamed of my party and country right now. Bush has attained dictatorial powers because my party and too many Americans didn't stand up and be counted for what is right...for what is good about Democracy and America.

Shame on Bush and Cheney.

Shame on Republicans.

And shame on the Democratic party.

[Q]

1. Yes...we share the blame for the creation of the Bush Monster...

...along with the Republican party. Everyone on this planet knew what Bush was all about in 2000. And if they didn't know back then they certainly knew in 2004. Yet Bush still won because the Democratic party didn't confront his corruption, push for accountability and offer clear alternatives for a way out of the quagmire of his illegal wars and immoral leadership.

[Tinoire]

2. I share your shame and sense of outrage

I am embarrassed for my party. And I am embarrassed for its apologists.

I hope future history books record this shameful period honestly and make special mention of brave people like Barbara Boxer who refused to roll over and "play nice" as power became more and more consolidated in the hands of corporations & financiers.

[Q]

3. We seem to be quite alone in feeling this way...

...and it's BUSINESS AS USUAL for much of America, the Bush Gang and the Democratic party leadership.

It's just one big happy family in DC...as the US and the rest of the world suffers war, poverty and oppression.

Boxer is great. But like in the GOP...the Dem party also has operatives that will try to silence her by threatening to cut off funding and support if she steps on too many toes.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Why do I NEVER hear a condemnation of the Radical RW from you...

...without a gleeful condemnation of our own people as well? On the other hand, why do I often hear condemnations of Dems from you - without any attendant condemnation of the Radical RW?

Shame on Bush** and Cheney**.

Shame on RepubliCONs.

Shame on you.

NGU.

[Tinoire]

5. Some of us have been getting that out of the way 4 years ago...

Guess you're new to this... Well, better late than never as they say.

[Q]

13. No..shame on those who collaborate with the fascists...

...that have taken over our government.

I've been condemning the Right since the Nixon era. It wasn't until 2000 that I realized that the Democrats were actually cooperating and working with Bush. Without any sign of a serious fight...they have allowed him and his cronies to do great damage to this country and the world.

I'm getting sick and tired of apologists who want the Republicans held accountable and not the Democrats. Democratic leaders are not innocent bystanders in all of this. Bush couldn't have claimed so much unConstitutional power without their direct and indirect help.

I'm not ashamed to say so. It's too bad that so many Democrats have hidden their heads in the sand right along with the so-called leadership.

And in case you didn't notice...nearly my entire 'rant' was dedicated to trashing Bush and his new banana republic. That it has become a banana republic makes it all the more harmful when Democrats cooperate with them.

[CTLawGuy]

31. Wait a min...

if Q *liked* Bush, why would he be mad at the Democrats for cooperating with him?

Wouldn't that instead make him happy?

almost all of the condemnation of Democrats on this board is condemnation that is predicated on hatred of Bush or a specfic Bush policy.


i.e.

1. Statement "Kerry made me mad because he voted for the war"

Premise "The war is bad"
Premise "it is bad because it is based on RW thinking and inconsistent with Dem values".
Premise "helping the war to happen makes me mad."

2. Statement "I'm mad that Kerry conceded."

Premise "Bush wins the election if Kerry concedes"
Premise "If Bush wins the election, I am mad."


See how both statements rely on a hatred of Bush or Bush policy?

[Redleg]

6. As a Dem, I don't accept your blame.

Not that Dems are faultless but we didn't create this fucking monster Boosh.

[Tinoire]

11. Naw. We just rolled over when we saw it coming. n/t

[Redleg]

21. We? I don't do collective blame.

[Tinoire]

37. I'll refer you to posts 7 & 35

;)

I don't want any blame either but I'm afraid I have to accept it. It's my party and I allow them to get away with saying they represent me. I can't have it both ways... Either they represent me and I support them as a party or I jump ship and find a different party.

Until then, here we are, a match maintained in hell until I can find a way to throw them out of this burning bed.

[Q]

14. Sure we helped create the Monster Bush...

Our party helped him when we 'moved on' after the blatantly stolen 2000 election. We helped create him when our leadership agreed not to include the White House in 9-11 investigations. We helped when we voted for his ILLEGAL war and we continue to help by supporting it to this day.

The 'we' I'm talking about is the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.

[Redleg]

22. Okay- perhaps the Democratic Leadership but not us poor SOBs.

Now, if we let the Dem Leadership piss on us much more, then it will be partly our fault.

[cestpaspossible]

7. Bullshit - YOU ARE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

If you want to be.

If you don't get off your ass and do something, instead of blaming your allies, you've surrendered.

[Q]

15. Nah...the 'party' are those in leadership roles...

...who have betrayed those who trusted them by cooperating with the corrupt Bush WH.

And actually...it's people like YOU that I'm trying to convince to get off their asses and do something about THEIR party. Democrats have fallen for the same BS that Republicans feed their faithful.

GOOD GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT MAKING ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS ACCOUNTABLE...not just those in the opposition.

[cestpaspossible]

35. How do you think they get into leadership roles?

By blogging? By bitching? No, by participating in their county committee and eventually being elected to a leadership role.

<i>And actually...it's people like YOU that I'm trying to convince to get off their asses and do something about THEIR party. </i>

LOL, you know nothing about me. I'm not sitting on my ass, in fact I'm the only DFA participant in my county who actually bothered to go get appointed to the county central committee. There are plenty of precinct slots unfilled if more people wanted to get involved... but that is more work than just talking or blogging. Do I expect to be able to make overnight change? No, but at least I'm acting, not just complaining.

[GOPBasher]

8. Why did you say "my" party?

I've read a lot of your posts, and I have no idea why you'd call the Dems your party.

[Q]

16. Perhaps you simply have...

...no idea?

I guess I could call it 'my party' after voting a straight Dem ticket for 30 YEARS.

But I believe that I'm an American first...Democrat second.

Like Jon Stewart said of the pundit show 'Crossfire'...the Democratic party...through their neglect and cowardice...is hurting our country. No American should have to witness this crap and then be told to be silent.

[Q]

18. Well...I'd like an answer from you...

...are you an American first before the politics of winning?

Why must everything be viewed from the perspective of a political party? All Americans should be pissed at what's being done in their name...by both Republicans and Democrats.

[GOPBasher]

23. I often get pissed at Democrats.

In fact, right now, I'm withholding any money from them until they talk a lot more about electronic voting. I want them to insist that there is a method to audit and verify all voting machines, so the programmers can't cheat. Until they do that, I won't donate any money. So yes, I often hold my party accountable.

The main thing with me is, I hold individuals accountable for votes, not the whole party. For example, I was very upset with all the Dems who voted for the Iraq War, but I didn't hold that against the other half who didn't. To do so would be irrational. There are good Dems and bad Dems. I think Zell Miller is a piece of crap, for example, but I won't hold that against ALL Dem senators.

The only time I get pissed at the whole party is when no one at all is standing up for something. Example: I want verified voting to be a major part of their entire platform. They won't get my support unless that happens.

[Q]

26. Getting 'pissed' is no longer enough...

We saw Democrats 'getting pissed' at Gonzales and Rice...but voted for them anyway. We've seen this same scenario played out again and again...from the blatantly stolen 2000 election to the illegal, aggressive war on Iraq. It's not enough to say you're pissed about something and then not follow through with action.

Do you really think the Dem leadership cares if you 'withhold money' until they flap their lips about electronic voting? They don't get most of their money from people like YOU anymore...they get piles of cash from corporations that don't want them to do anything about electronic voting. You've been taken out of the equation.

Nothing will get better until we begin to make Republicans and Democrats equally accountable to the people they're suppose to serve.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Well said. The "opposition" party has become the collaborator party.

They've become good at whining, however, with bold talk of having "reservations" when they vote for the war and those who engineered it.

[msgadget]

10. C'mon, it's just a spectacle.

Four years is a long time and you've given up already.

[Q]

12. Given up? I've been at this since NIXON...

...so I'm not the one giving up. And we're talking about four MORE years of the most devastating policies in our history. (I live near the mountains and a once pristine environment is now a dirty haze. The pollution is so thick that I can barely see the mountain itself).

The ones giving up are those who think they have to compromise with the Bush fascists in order to 'get along'. It is they that have sold out us and our country.

[msgadget]

17. Good, I'm glad you haven't.

Your post was so pessimistic, I interpreted it as hopelessness. An,d yes it is tiring, I agree. Today marked the end of the bluster and promises (threats) for the coming term. Tomorrow the real heavy lifting begins.

[Q]

24. It is hopeless only if we continue to debate within the framework...

...constructed by those who think 'moderation' is a proper approach to confront what appears to be fascism replacing democracy.

Some in the party won't admit it in public or even to themselves...but many once faithful and loyal Democrats are seriously thinking about leaving a party they feel no longer represents their interests.

And many are beginning to ask: what is the end goal and reward for all of this 'heavy lifting' for a party that refuses to fight for them?

[msgadget]

28. You're preaching to the converted

except I'm beyond parties. Thankfully, there are many, many accessible grassroots opportunities and history has shown that an organized populace can move the political machine. Issue by issue we might even approach some minor bi-partisanship and if we could crack THAT we'd be invincible. I know, I know, highly unlikely but, if we ALL got together and acted in our best interests ...that'd be a lot of power.

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. Damn right

If the Dems fought half as hard as the repugs, things would be a lot better, both for the country and the party. This weak-kneed, spineless appeasement has cost us dearly. The more the Dems are assimilated by the repugs, the more they cease to be a meaningful opposition - and thus, relevant.

The repugs will not rest until the democratic party and its principles have been completely destroyed. And their multi-pronged tactics include penetrating the party with operatives intent on accomplishing their mission.

[Q]

20. And to watch that smirk on Bush's face as he prances...

...before adoring crowds is too much to handle...knowing that both Republicans and Democrats helped to install and keep him in power.

There is no way we're going to convince Republicans that their support for Bush is wrong and misguided. All we have left is to convince enough Democratic leaders to make a difference.

Democrats MUST stop treating Bush with kid gloves. They need to take off those gloves and get serious about putting our country back on the right track...even if it means impeaching the SOB.

[moggie12]

25. "Left-wing" bears some blame, too

I see our current sad state of affairs as partly a reaction to the excesses of the left in the 60's and 70's. What started as a peaceful protest against the Vietnam War somehow morphed into a violent, soldier-bashing, military-hating "counterculture" movement that became more identified with drugs, "free sex" and narcissism than with any important political issue. Hence, we got two terms of Nixon. Same thing with the "corporation-bashing" that often characterized left-wing rhetoric back then (and to a large extent still does now). Vilifying capitalism doesn't "resonate" with Americans. The "free-enterprise system", even with all it's faults, is better in most people's minds than socialism. DLC-types get listened to because they recognize the importance of the private sector in creating economic growth, jobs, etc.

Please note that I AM NOT excusing the centrist wing of the Party. I agree with you 100% that they have failed to stand up to Bush. I think, however, that a historical perspective sheds some light on why this has happened: In other words, there's a reason we have these Centrist Democrats now and it has something to do with the left wing seeming to go off the deep end back a few decades ago. I'm hopeful that people like Barbara Boxer are going to slap some sense into the Democratic Party. The centrist pendulum has swung way too far in my opinion, with many of these guys forgetting what the Party stands for: Fighting for the average working American, who has been royally screwed by Bush's economic policies. If the left gets "carried away" again, however, all is for naught.


edited to fix a typo

[robbedvoter]

27. Riight! War opposition led to stealing elections?

Wake up and smell the coup. Democracy is dead!

[moggie12]

30. Care to elaborate? I don't understand your point.

I was talking about why things got to be the way they are. Stealing elections is a separate subject, at least in my mind -- my point was to talk about how we got to be where we are. I think that many Americans, even though Bush is robbing them blind, nonetheless vote for him and Republicans because, for example, they like the "patriotic" rhetoric of the GOP.

[robbedvoter]

39. yeah, but NOT a majority. WE are the majority, and it would be nice

if more people knew it. It's my main beef with the way kerry folded - it made the steal look legit - and people like you think he actually won. Once you figure that part out, your blaming of the left loses all its hot air.

[Q]

29. Well...I knew it would get around to BLAMING THE RADICAL LEFT...

...and it's telling that you have used the same stereotypes that the Right has been using for decades to make the left a scapegoat.

I was there in the 70s and there was nothing 'violent' or 'soldier-bashing' about the anti-Vietnam 'movement'. It was nothing more than Americans joining forces to protest the needless killing of so many US soldiers that had become little more than fodder for a war that never had to happen. (Sound familiar?)

I won't even address the BS rhetoric about a generation supposedly only interested in 'free sex' and drugs. This is propaganda founded in fastasy.

Heaven help us...as I read further into your diatribe I realize I've heard this so many times before...mostly from Neocons and Neodems ranting about the dangers of socialism to rationalize the excesses of unregulated capitalism and 'free trade' that makes wall street richer and the workers poorer.

And yes you are excusing the Centrists of the party. They have not only failed to 'stand up to Bush'...but have joined and voted with him on many policies harmful to our nation. Their very inaction and in many cases collaboration with the Bush corruption makes them no better in the eyes of democracy and a government that's supposed to serve the people and not itself.

You keep referring to the 'left wing' as though they are some kind of alien and not Americans like us.

It's disturbing that the centrists are still blaming the ills of the party and nation on a 'left wing' that hasn't had any kind of power in the Dem party for decades. Centrists just can't seem to accept responsibility for a party that has been in decline since they took control in the 80s.

I'm indeed sorry that you have fallen for the deception that the 60s and 70s have anything to do with today's New Democratic party. Americans...not the left wing of the Dem party...protested the Vietnam 'police action'. And don't forget that nearly every returning Vet joined in the protests because they knew that it was wrong and that THEIR government was lying to them.

There is simply no excuse for 'centrism' or 'moderation' when our country is under siege. There's nothing democratic or patriotic about a country under the iron fisted control of corporations, church and a pentagon sucking the lifeblood from our infrastructure.

You can continue to blame the state of the union on the 'excesses' of the 70s...or you can accept reality and face what we're confronted with right now. No one likes the fact that King George gets a second term. But Democrats did help to put him there. Denying that fact is saying that you accept the status quo.

[moggie12]

32. I DID NOT! (Sorry, couldn't resist that immature response)

I think I made clear that I agree with you 100% that some prominent Dem centrists are selling us out. I also DID NOT blame everything that's going wrong now on the "left wing".

I was asking you to take into account the impact of past history on current events. My father, a WWII vet, voted Democratic until the 70's. He had an intense negative reaction when the anti-war movement moved from peacefully speaking out against the war to taking more provocative actions (maybe flag-burning is thought of as a vibrant symbol of protest, but all it did back then was get all the WWII vets up in arms -- not a good PR move in my opinion).

I don't see how you can say there was nothing violent or soldier-bashing about those times. For a while there, there was nothing BUT violence and soldier-bashing ("baby-killer" is one phrase I particularly remember from that era). And I can't agree with your statement that "nearly every returning vet joined in the protests..." Many just went back to civilian life, doing their best to reconstruct their lives. And then there were the ones that apparently harbored deep resentments for years, like the Swift Boat guys, who lied and dissembled about Kerry all in some (never mind, too ugly to get into). And that drugs and free sex didn't become a big part of the counterculture movement??? Boy, where were you back then Q? You missed the fun part.

I firmly believe that some of the Party's centrists have become as bad as the Republicans. Dealing with them effectively, however, requires an understanding of how that movement came to be. How does that quote go? "Those who don;t understand history are doomed to repeat it?"

[Q]

34. You remember 'baby killer' from the media...

...not from actual events that were in any way widespread. The media simply repeated what was being said by those who didn't want any resistance to the Vietnam war. It later become an urban myth and is repeated to this day. I'm not saying there wasn't isolated incidences...but the majority of protestors simply wanted their soldier families to come home.

Yes...there was violence...but the violence came from cops and the guard...ordered by Nixon and others to put down the protests at any cost.

And of course many Vets went back to civilian life. But I have videos of protests in DC where thousands of Vets participated in the protests. There was even a 'ceremony' where Vets threw their medals and ribbons in a cage representing the 'garbage'.

It seems that moderates have joined with RWingers in painting the Vietnam protestors as a bunch of crazy, dope smoking hippies that had nothing better to do. And now they're doing the same thing to those with the courage to protest and reject the lies that took this nation to war in Iraq.

Activists and protestors are the conscience of America...and they usually represent the silent majority against the power of the rich, well-armed, warmongering minority.

[moggie12]

36. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

Whenever I see one of your posts, I always read them -- they are always well-reasoned and extremely well-written and, best of all, passionate (and that's what we could use, more passion). I rarely agree with all of what you say -- since I am a more moderate, centrist type of Democrat -- but I find myself agreeing with your basic point most times.

I come at politics from an extremely cynical, pragmatic perspective (worked in local govt for 15+ years and have tire tracks on my head from being rolled over while trying to do the "right thing"). Over the years I've gotten very interested in how politicians "sell themselves" by framing issues certain ways: Appealing to voters' worldviews, prejudices, etc. to convince voters they're "on their side".

That's why the DLC/Progressive debate is so interesting to me. I think that if the Progressive camp better understood why the DLC camp came into being and became so powerful, they would be better able to fight them and advance their cause. The Vietnam War protest backlash is one issue that, in my opinion, underlies the power shift. You and I obviously disagree as to how violent the Vietnam protest were back then, although we both seem to agree that they had a long-term effect on political discourse. Somewhere between your view that the most of it was an "urban myth" and the way the RW and media portray it, is an issue that needs to be better understood, particularly by today's Iraq/Bush protesters. I cringed yesterday when I saw a picture on DU of someone burning the flag at the Inaug protest. And where was the picture? On Free Republic's website!! Deja vu all over again. The RW latches on to this kind of visual "anti-Americanism" to manipulate mass opinion. Large numbers of protesters chanting, "Fu** Bush! Fu** Bush" does nothing to help the anti Iraq War cause -- it only alienates vast numbers of more moderate-temperament Americans. Worse, they took away from the impact of the protesters that were expressing their views in a more constructive, less obnoxious way. Some DUers apparently felt it was great that the curses could be heard at the grandstand. Not me. I don't recall the protests led by MLK involving hurling epithets and burning flags. He accomplished so much because he shamed America into looking at the truth by protesting in a non-violent, morally-based, courageous way, by his non-violence highlighting the violence of his opponents. In my opinion, some of what went on yesterday just repeats the mistakes made by Vietnam-era protesters. They are not going to be seen as the "conscience of America" if they take actions that only guarantee that most Americans dismiss them. It's a shame, too, because I bet the number of MLK-type protesters out there yesterday outnumbered those who thought cursing at Bush would somehow have a positive effect.

[Zhade]

40. There's a pretty simple answer...

think that if the Progressive camp better understood why the DLC camp came into being and became so powerful, they would be better able to fight them and advance their cause.

Huge multinational corporations more interested in boosting their stock price than delivering a good, honest product while being good corporate citizens purchased the power for DLCers. Just look at their corporate donors and how much they take in from said companies.

There is, in fact, an alternative, one which the DLC is desperate to avoid becoming commonplace - the type of approach that Dean (my second choice) took with getting average people like you and me involved both politically and financially.

Such a widespread grassroots (or netroots, as they call it) base of support doesn't square with the DLC approach. The Dems have a choice: stick with corporate funding and the required selling-out of citizens' rights and interests in favor of corporate "rights" and interests, or go to the base and work for the little guys and gals out there.

It is fundamentally impossible to do both as the situation is structured now. A senator cannot take money from Wal-Mart and advance workers' rights at home and abroad at the same time. Nor can Dems take money from NewsCorp and deliver a fair media marketplace for all political points of view.

This is the crux of the issue. I do not have a problem with Dems taking corporate money from responsible corporations that treat their workers well and are honest (for example, CostCo seems pretty decent). But that rare exception aside, one cannot serve two masters. Dems can either be for rapacious corporate interests, or ours. There is no real compromise possible.

[moggie12]

41. Very well said. That's my problem with DLC, too.

They've become hostage to special interests (the biggest problem I have with them is their selling-out in large measure to Wall Street, e.g., not cracking down hard enough on hedge funds, excessive dividend tax breaks that benefit the super-rich, etc). They're always cautioning Dems not to engage in "class warfare" -- why the heck are we Democrats if we're not going to do something about the rich people grabbing all the money??

Anyway, my point was we need to understand why they got powerful. Since I'm more centrist in my thinking, I think they initially raised valid concerns. Since then, however, they've lost their way, getting co-opted by the big money crowd.

[Zhade]

42. I think they played off of rightwing-hyped concerns.

That, plus their lenience on corporate mis- and malfeasance combined with their desire to stick it to liberals and people interested in things like social justice, made the DLC types very favorable to the corporate world.

See, here's the irritating thing: they, and their Republican counterparts, play people like you and me against each other to protect their own wealth and power. So you're a "centrist" - aside from the myths you've repeated about the left without realizing how exaggerated they are, you seem to get it. I get it, too. We have little disagreement here, even if I'm not a centrist and you are.

[Q]

43. The thing about 'passion' is that it leads to action...

...and that leads one away from today's Democratic party.

I think the DLC / Progressive split has more to do with race and economics than the Vietnam or Iraq 'wars'. I'm not sure there's even more than a couple Vets, if any, in the DLC leadership structure.

The DLCers use WAR for the same reason the Neocons use it: to increase the profit margins of corporations that finance their campaigns. In another time and place they would have called it war profiteering. The DLC doesn't support the Iraq invasion and occupation because they really think Bush has liberated the Iraqis or will bring peace and freedom there. They support it because it's one of the biggest government cash cows in history. This war means literally billions of dollars flowing every EXCEPT to the Iraqis. Every large corporation and Friend of Bush has a contract or subcontract in Iraq. They know congress will keep the cash flowing because they have a majority of Americans fooled into believing that we can't leave Iraq. It's the oldest scam in the book of politics.

This is what happens when a government forsakes democracy for a one-party corporate state. The corporate state doesn't work for the people. It works for itself and the people come second...if at all.

The corporate state always uses dissent and protestors as scapegoats and to coverup their own actions. And since a corporate state always owns at least part of the media...they're able to portray a protest as 'violent' by magnifying the actions of a few individuals. That is...a few individuals burn a flag and the thousands at the rally are called flag burners.

I'm not sure how much you know about it...but the government has a history of infiltrating groups with operatives that are paid to make the whole 'movement' look extreme or radical. The operative(s) might be the ones breaking windows or burning flags. In the 60s, 70s and 80s...it was a 'unofficial' program in the FBI called COINTELPRO. Do some research on it and you'll find that through FOIA...documents were found proving this program not only existed...but that their intent was to discredit any and all anti-war or anti-government protests.

You really shouldn't blame protestors and dissent for the GOP and DLC turning to greed and abandoning the needs of the people. This is how they turn the people against each other and keep them divided...deflecting anger and discontent away from those responsible for unnecessary wars that use Americans as canon fodder.

[sunnystarr]

45. Unfortunately the reality now is that if one of our own (so to speak)

doesn't burn a flag, then an infiltrator will do it to denigrate the opposition. Actually this was done back in Nixon's Vietnam time. So if we don't give them the food for division and derision they'll create it.

edited for typo

[Zhade]

38. Decrying the abuses of corporations isn't "Vilifying capitalism".

That's such a straw man it's not even funny.

People like me have little problem with honest, regulated capitalism - it's when corporations pollute the environment (and make taxpayers pay for the cleanup), steal water for their bottling operations from local villagers (Coca-Cola in India), or rip off their stockholders to enrich themselves (Enron et al) that we start ripping corps and their apologists a new one.

Likewise, your comments on the left are pretty much straight from the Republican playbook. You should realize that such "left-wing rhetoric" was often 1) spoken by agent provocateurs and 2) myths that were propagated by the rightwing against their enemies (i.e., everyone who disagreed with them in any way).

Please stop spreading these myths. Dishonesty, even when unintentional, does not help anyone.

[tngledwebb]

33. They/we passed the Patriot Act, war on Iraq, the insane tax cut.

They/we did not ask for investigations of Enron, 9/11, WMD's, voting abuses. If they/we pass Rice then they/we are to blame.
Now, which theory explains this strange behavior best-
Impotence, ignorance, and incompotence or complicity and conspiracy?

[Q]

44. To be fair...

...many Democrats and others on the left just aren't THERE yet. I came to this board several years ago defending anything and everything Democratic. It was the natural thing to do at the time...after a decade of witch hunts against Clinton and then Gore.

But after four years of Bush and Democratic collaboration...I and many others became aware that Bush couldn't have become so powerful without the direct or indirect help of Democrats.

I know how the apologists think because I was once one of them. I could come up with all kinds of excuses for the party: they couldn't do anything because they were in the minority. They HAD TO go along with some Bush policies in order to stay in the game. They were giving Bush enough rope to hang himself.

But only so many excuses were available. After the Dems helped Bush/Cheney pass the Patriot Act and invade and occupy Iraq...I realized that they both wanted the same thing. Democrats were able to keep enough voters on board by pretending they were against the way George was handling the war...but it was obvious that they wanted the war as much as Bush. If it wasn't for the Anyone But Bush vote...no one against the invasion would have voted for Kerry.

The problem is that by 2008...the Democratic party and their DLC leadership won't be able to bring in the anti-Iraq war vote and they will lose again.