How many times are we going to be suckered?

[genius]

First, the Democrats couldn't stand up to the Republicans on bills and cabinet appointments because they had to save their big guns for the Supreme Court. Then,they couldn't stand up to torture-supporter Roberts because? And now they can't stand up to Bush worshiper Miers because? They have passed their last chance and they have shown that they are with Bush and against the American people. We need to do something about our Senate leaders. Perhaps, we need a lot of new faces running on behalf of our party in 2006.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. How many times must we hear the same whining?

How many times do we have to tell you the reasons for those decisions? Do you listen to them at all, or do you just prefer to pound your fist on the table?

[Dr Fate]

3. We dont reasons for why some DEMs give Bush everything he wants...

...we want them to stop and do what active Democrats want.

We dont need to listen to excuses, we need some Democrats to listen to the base. Which many did NOT do when it came to Iraq,Patriot Act, Confirming Rice, the DSM, fighting- or at least voting against Judges etc.

Can you give us a specific example of how giving Bush what he wants has helped the United States or Democratic strategy?

[TankLV]

5. You'll hear it an LIKE IT as long as these miserable excuses continue to

behave like the vacillating, whimpy, vichy dems who stand for nothing continue to behave like they do!

And yet we are scolded continually by the like of you to vote for and support these guys "just because" or for some elusive "tomorrow"?

Not gonna happen again.

Give us a reasons to vote FOR them next time around.

So far, I'm seeing plenty of reasons to withold my support and vote next time around.

[blondeatlast]

29. How many times will I click on a"genius" thread?

It's like a train wreck, I just can't look away somehow.

[Dr Fate]

2. I heard it had somthing to do with not having wet powder. n/t

n/t

[Armstead]

14. nt

nt

[Armstead]

15. Except the GOP keeps pissing in the powder, so it'll never be dry

:evilgrin:

[firefox]

4. NRA- Never Re-elect Anyone

We need to sweep Congress clean. In the 2004 did anyone, Dem or Repig, make the national spotlight for getting out of Iraq, get righteous about national health care, or even whisper about ending the fraud known as the War on Drugs?

The last election did not produce one mememorable call for a change of course, which is exactly what those above the USG wanted. Let me explain what a NRA policy for Congress means. It means that the overwhelming power of an incumbent has the slightest wind in his face and a challenger has a little wind at his back.

The power of the incumbent is going to produce victory in the House about 98% of the time. Good men do not even run knowing how hopeless it is. These are guys that would spend millions and devote time while on the public dollar to seeing that proper jerrymandering is the first priority. There is no limit to what they will do for the possession of their office.

NRA is a much needed wind for change. NRA means not even voting for an incumbent in the primaries and it will only strengthen debate that would never happen if incumbents run unopposed.

The problem is first that the fascists have the country and the second is that the machinery of politics is designed to see that it stays that way. Everything is about ensuring fascist control as the US war for global domination continues.

[TankLV]

6. Deleted - wrong reply.

[Dr Fate]

8. I want someone to give me a specific example of how this has helped DEMs

...No one can provide me with one single example of how going along with Bush has helped this country or Democrats- Rather than providing me with an example of how this "strategy" has worked, they just accuse us of whining or being Republican spies.

[rhett o rick]

7. We need to change out our Demo leaders wholesale and the hell

with the consequences. It can't be any worse. It appears that the Demo leaders are siding with the aristocratic class, not with the common people.

[Dr Fate]

9. We need DEMs who are not frightened of Sean Hannity & Wolf Blitzer. n/t

n/t

[rhett o rick]

10. Here, here ! nt

[jenmito]

11. How 'bout Wes Clark? n/t

[Dr Fate]

20. He often proves that those talking heads are paper tigers. n/t

n/t

[jenmito]

12. I am glad...

that so many conservatives don't like her. Have you read the thread on here last night about how the Freepers' heads were exploding over the choice of Miers? I hope she gets through. If she doesn't, Bush will go way further right and pick someone like J.R. Brown!

[MrBenchley]

13. Evidently some are suckered over and over into bashing Democrats

"We need to do something about our Senate leaders. Perhaps, we need a lot of new faces running on behalf of our party in 2006."
Yes, certainly pissing away all seniority on Senate committees and ettisoning popular incumbents will be productive...NOT.

[Dr Fate]

16. I'd rather them listen to the base more than to throw the baby out....

...with the bath water.

So I agree with you that "kicking out" senior DEMs should not be our focus.

I'd rather focus on ways to get them to side with the base instead of siding with Bush or going along with false media perceptions.

Doc

[MrBenchley]

21. How do you know they're not listening to the base?

You forget that the majority of Americans are in the middle. They DO have liberal tendencies....but it's hard to convince them from the fringe.

[Dr Fate]

22. The DEM base opposed going into Iraq. The middle was for it.

Part of what you say is true- but I think they still listen to the fuzzy middle more than the base on just about everything.

Sometimes it makes sense, but the middle changes it's mind all the time- they usually end up going our way just in time for elected Democrats who ignored the base to be labeled as "flip-floppers" when they realize their mistake...

The middle has Liberal tendencies- but they also love Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and Rocky Balboa- and the GOP strategists tap into this, while we view an aggressive fight as something that actually turns them off- I never bought that.

And I don't think aggressive opposition to the Iraq War or Bush in general is a "fringe" thing anymore.

It has been my perception that the top Democrats listen to us so they know what to say to get donations, more than they listen to us for actual ideas.

Doc

[MrBenchley]

23. Again, how do you know the middle's not the base?

"The middle has Liberal tendencies- but they also love Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and Rocky Balboa- and the GOP strategists tap into this"
Yeah, they do....and the far left is no fucking help in countering that at all.

"we view an aggressive fight as something that actually turns them off"
And we'd be right. You'll notice Chimpy pretended to be horrified personally by the slime boatters. Aggression has to come from the outriders.

"I don't think aggressive opposition to the Iraq War or Bush in general is a "fringe" thing anymore."
But it was for most of the past four years.

[Dr Fate]

24. I'll bet some of them are active Democrats.

While some of them are those "swing voters" we hear so much about.

The far left cant do much to counter the "Clint Eastwood thing" that GOP strategists tap into- they dont have any influence on the Donna Brazille/Mary Beth Cahill type strategists, and they don't have access to the media shows like a Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards or Dean etc does. I'm a moderate like most of those I named on the issues, incidently. I'm not a pacifist, I just oppose wars based on lies- that is not radical or Liberal.

What would you like these far leftists you mentioned to do to counter GOP smears, lies & crimes?
.....

The Swiftboat Vets worked, it was one of the most successful smears of all time. Chimpy denied his connection to them to avoid questions about his own service. If our strategists had gone after his service first, swing voters would have seen Rove's tactic for what it was.

.....

I said: "I don't think aggressive opposition to the Iraq War or Bush in general is a "fringe" thing anymore."

You replied: But it was for most of the past four years.

I agree - my point is that the active base has been correct about a lot of things- that is why the top DEMs need to listen to us more often instead of setting themsleves up to be called "flip-floppers."

Doc

[MrBenchley]

25. And again, how many active Democrats are in the middle?

Most Democrats are moderates, not fringe leftists.

"The far left cant do much to counter the "Clint Eastwood thing" that GOP strategists tap into- "
Sure they do...who was it that let the loonies at ANSWER fuck up the anti-war rally two weekends ago. That wasn't mainstream Democrats, was it?

"If our strategists had gone after his service first, swing voters would have seen Rove's tactic for what it was."
So in other words, if we had been as scummy as the Republicans, we could have been as scummy as the Republicans.

"my point is that the active base has been correct about a lot of things"
But unless Democrats have a viable alternative to "stay the course," I think most Americans won't care.

[Dr Fate]

27. I agree with most of what you say.

Democrats are in the center by definition- opposing wars based on lies is not a "left" thing. 60% plus of Americans agree. I'm mostly talking about Swing voters- the "mushy middle"

I dont go to Anti-War rallies that ANSWER is involved in- they are NOT Democrats. I did help organize two protests in GA, but it was mostly Vets, Union Dudes, students and Carter/King-Wing Southern Baptists. The right wingers in town accused of us of being "far left"- but we were right- the WMDS was a lie.

I've never suggested being "scummy" like the Republicans- we dont have to lie about them- all we have to do is tell the truth. There is nothing scummy about truthfully exposing real GOP scandals & lies to counter the fake ones they always lob at us.

On your "stay the course," I think most Americans won't care" point:

Now you might be right on that- but 60% plus who are polled do not like this "course"- that indicates they do want Bush's course in Iraq changed...

And I agree that most of us Democrats are Moderates and not fringe- Bush and his policies drove this country so far right that even Moderates appear "far left" or "fringe" to those who do not understand how the political spectrum works. I remember when the media called those opposed to Bush "Ten Percenters!"

It looks like 60% plus of the public that swung so far right after 9/11 is coming back to the moderate position of oppsoing the course of this ill-fought and ill-concieved war.

The mushy swing voters in the middle and to the right are not as important to me as the good Moderates and Liberal Democrats who have been getting it right.

Going along with Bush on various issues is not "centrist"- it is far right.

If you want to continue our argument/discussion- I'll be here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=recent_posts

[OneBlueSky]

17. putting Roberts and Miers on the court is giving BushCo two seats . . .

on the court for the next 20 to 30 years . . . think about it . . .

[MrBenchley]

26. So tell us this...

Democrats block Miers, and end up with Janice Rogers Brown or Roy Moore...think that's a plus? I sure as shit don't.

[sendero]

28. I agree....

.... better a "possible" wingnut than a "guaranteed" one.

Granted, the likelihood that Miers is going to be horrible is pretty high, but looking at the universe of names that have been leaked as "under consideration", she is the best bet.

Some seem to think we can "demand" a moderate, I don't understand how they think we can actually do that.

[HereComesTrouble]

18. Well... truthfully, it's time the dems learn...

... to play dirty. Afterall, it's good enough for the republicans.

[Dr Fate]

19. We dont need to "play dirty"- all we need to do is tell the blunt truth.

We need to stop pretending that we can "work with" liars & criminals.

We need to stop the mindest of "We cant tell the truth about Bush, because if we do, the media will say we are crazy..." type stuff.

[kentuck]

30. Because you don't have the power...

or the votes. However, with this nominee, with the possibility that a few Repubs go with the Democrats, if they were unanimous, they could possibly defeat her. But if the Democrats attempt a filibuster, they need forty-one votes to keep the debate going. And even if they were successful at that, what is to keep the Repubs from going the "nuclear option" and voting with a simple majority? There is a difference between being "suckered" and getting the shit kicked out of you. You go to war with the Senators you have.