I believe the Democratic cave in has doomed our 2008 chances.

[sellitman]

How many on the left are holding back contributions until "Impeachment is on the table"?

How many true Liberals are waiting for the "Ralph Nader" like candidate to announce a Independent or Green run?

How many are pissed off enough to say "Screw them all"?

How many Independents who voted to end this war in 2006 are now as fed up with the Democrats as I am?

If you add all of the above together we could be screwed right out of the starting gate.

I plan to vote for the Democratic choice anyhow but now it will be holding my nose. I may be one of the few.

Thanks to all the elected Demo-rats who caved in.

Thanks Harry

Thanks for nothing.

[pnwmom]

1. I don't think there are that many idealists willing to throw away their votes

when it comes right down to it. We might be slow learners, but there are few of us who haven't figured out by now that another Republican presidency would be a disaster -- no matter what our disagreements may be with a particular Democrat.

And we have several candidates that could really energize the electorate. I'm much more worried about election fraud (as in Florida and Ohio) than anything else.

[Jade Fox]

2. Well, thanks. That made my day......(sarcasm)

This sort of defeatism is not very useful. It's typical of the wallowing in righteous hopelessness that drives me nuts about many on the Left.

Lots of people are going to vote in 2008. They will vote for who they feel is the best candidate. Americans of all political persuasions are very concerned about what is happening in our country, I predict very few will stay home in a snit.

[mike_c]

3. raises hand....

Me.

[rfranklin]

4. However, when Bush announces the "drawdown of troops in Iraq..."

it will be misinterpreted as a withdrawal by many Americans and the Republicans will say, "See, we stuck it out and succeeded..." And the Democrats will be standing there like idiots.

[davhill]

5. On the Other Hand

There are a lot on the religous right, who were active for Republicans in the past but who are disillusioned with their current Republican candidates too. 2008 may have a very low turnout for such a crucial election.

[INdemo]

6. When Democrats talk about the Democrats caving they are spinning the Republican

rhetoric for them.One reason why Republican propaganda works so well is because Democrats quickly pick up on it and repeat it over and over..
Karl Rove couldn't have come up with a better propaganda script for the media to follow because Democrats are giving them all the talking points they need.........
I dont look at this spending bill as Democrats caving ......for example in the House there were 194 Republicans and 86 Democrats that voted for this bill......A sure sign there would have been enough votes to over ride a veto right? Even if those 86 Democrats voted against this bill, the funding would be in a deadlock again.....The funding is for four months only so lets see what happens in Sept..with the current casualty rate the public majority wont settle any thing less than a troop withdrawal and by then further proof that this "surge" is a failure.
So for those Democrats that want to "bash" the Democrats, bash those Congressmen and Senators that voted for this bill and not the whole damn Majority......

[pocoloco]

15. And your real name is Chamberlain??

[doggyboy]

26. Mr Hofmann?

.

[Aviation Pro]

7. Sellitman....

...don't take this personally, but this is exactly what the Republicans want. They always label Democrats as whiny quitters and that's exactly what your message sends. Well, I'm not a quitter, never have been, never will be. Yes, it's frustrating not to get your way all the time and especially now when the message is so clear, but that is the way of politics. The salient fact of the matter is that we have been seduced by the aberration of the string of so-called victories by the Republican party between 1994 - 2006 and we are only beginning to right the ship. And while you're sitting in a corner pouting because of the apparent cave-in by the Democrats I guarantee that Senate Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi were having their way with Bush and Cheney behind closed doors. (Don't believe me? Ask yourself why we opened a dialogue with Iran right after the "cave-in").

It's time to stop the sniveling and the temper tantrums and act like the men and women that we are and the legacy we have to keep.

[ashling]

8. How many "true Liberals waiting for Nader like candidates

live in House or Senate districts that are Republican. What about brnging those districts into the Democratic camp so as to give the Democrats in Congress some assistance?

[MissWaverly]

9. I think you are wrong, the Dems had no choice

and before I am flamed for this, just remember who they are dealing with, even if they cut off every penny for Iraq tomorrow,
we are not dealing with a logical president who follows the rule of law. Remember after the majority in Congess passed McCain's
bill forbiding torture, he added a signing statement that he would torture. So he doesn't have to pull out the troops if they
are defunded, he can leave them there w/o supplies to be targeted by insurgents. Logic doesn't apply to Bushco.

[Carolina]

16. they did have a choice

"The 2006 midterm sweep was widely interpreted as an electoral mandate to end the war. Democrats were supposedly now in the driver’s seat on Iraq. So why do they keep steering right, as if November never happened? Despite Democratic control of both houses of Congress and polls that show widespread contempt (76 percent) for the war and Bush (63 percent), party leaders felt they had no choice but to give Bush exactly what he wanted: another $100 billion, no strings attached.

Even for the majority that believes invading Iraq was a mistake, there are several reasonable, even liberal, arguments for staying the course: preventing a bigger civil war, keeping the conflict from spreading into other Middle Eastern nations, honoring our commitment to rebuild a country we’ve destroyed ....

Logic, however, never entered the debate. Instead, an absurd rhetorical turd carried the day, among prowar Republicans and reluctant Democrats alike: supporting the troops requires funding the war.

“Like it or not, we ran out of options,” said David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House appropriations committee. “There has never been a chance of a snowball in Hades that Congress would cut off those funds to those troops in the field.”

Remember, this isn’t about war ... it’s about logic. Cutting off funding would do nothing to jeopardize U.S. troops fighting in Iraq ... It would, of course, endanger the war itself. Without Congressional appropriations, Bush would be forced to bring them home. Which would make them ... A lot safer.

...snip...

The troops don’t need or want the appropriation. They get a paycheck whether they’re stationed in Iraq or here in the States. The Congressional appropriation in question goes to weapons manufacturers, contracting firms such as Halliburton, and Iraqi tribal sheiks in the form of bribes. The troops don’t see a cent, much less their families.

What puts our troops in harm’s way is the war. No war, no worries. Sure, Iraq falls apart (faster). Sure, Iraqis die (faster). But lost in the malarkey is the brutal truth: Voting for more money for the war means more troops get killed and wounded. Again, there are valid arguments for subjecting them to these risks. But there is no logical basis for the claim that the money will make them safer.

Back among the chattering classes, the war=troops trope has outlived the funding battle."

from Mission Accomplished: Funding Battle Highlights American Embrace of Moronitude by Ted Rall

[MissWaverly]

17. we have to be realistic

look at Bush's bio, it shows a man who is inflexible, who drives his companies into the dirt, he always has others take the
consequences of his failures, there is not 1 whiff of him ever changing, including the TANG story, he stonewalled them, openly
flaunted every regulation and got away with it. I agree with any other president, this strategy would work. Any other man would
have seen 2006 as a repudiation, and worked out a solution along the lines of the Iraq Study Group. He continues to pretend
that 2006 election never happened.

[Carolina]

30. "He continues to pretend that 2006 election never happened ."

And so do the Dems 'cause I sure can't see any difference yet

1. speeches galore (words v actions, but it's actions that matter)
2. investigations that yield/reveal what we knew all along, but little else
3. subpoena threats that are thus far empty

:shrug::shrug:
:shrug::shrug:

[MissWaverly]

38. impeachment is the only avenue

Bush will never capitulate, he never compromises, expecting him to become reasonable and work with Congress will not work.
As he said to a Republican congressman, I want your vote, I don't want to discuss it.

[sellitman]

28. I don't buy it.

Didn't have a choice? That alone is caving into Republican Rhetoric, not this post.

Their rhetoric was anyone who would vote in the Withdraw time table would be labeled surrender monkey.


Their rhetoric was anyone who didn't vote for "The decider's bill" would leave our troops in harms way.

Both are patently false and yet these were the reasons given for the cave in.


Yes...It was a cave in. That is fact not spin.

[MissWaverly]

41. Bush is in the bubble, sealed off from the Congress

He is more isolated than Nixon, the only way we can really prevent further escalation and a possible Iran conflict is to impeach.
The Dems will not do this, they fear that it will hurt their plan of a real Dem majority in 08. They will not do anything
controversial after losing to Bush in 2004.

[sellitman]

44. The won't do anything to upset their corporate directors.

Just like the Repukes.

Cheney is really running the show anyway. Chimp boy is nothing but a cheap suit.

[MissWaverly]

47. No, I think they are driven by personal incentives

Bush wants the war going, so he can keep his mantle of unlimited power, with no regard to any constitutional directives, no
congress, just what he wants. Cheney profits from his Halliburton ties. Iraq is a very good deal for both of them. The
high price of oil makes their base happy.

[INdemo]

45. If the Democrats would have sent a spending bill back to * with a

withdrawal timetable then he could have added a signing statement ignoring the withdrawal date,and eventually this is probably what would have happen..does this set up a legal battle? Of course. With all the legal maneuvering it could have gone on until the end of this Presidents term....The battle between the Democrats and the President has just begun and the next round will go to the Democrats because if the casualty rate continues then Republicans will have no choice but to join the Democrats and include a withdrawal date because the majority of Americans wanting an end to the war will increase and the timing becomes more favorable for the Republicans. Now in September that leaves 1 year and what 3 months for * right?
So a withdrawal date is set right at the end of his term and the Republicans no doubt will go along with this because it then officially becomes the Democrats war..And it then becomes the problem of the next President..a Democrat.

[Doctor_J]

10. It will definitely hurt the turnout

Unless they can do SOMETHING to rally the masses before next November, we're in grave danger of losing the congress and the WH.

[Forkboy]

11. I doubt it will hurt them that much.

[Carolina]

12. you're not alone, we are doomed and

have been throwing away our votes since 2000. I spent the AM re-watching Fahrenheit 9/11 while cleaning my den and closet.

Everyone who thinks a Hillary or an Edwards or a Biden or a Dodd or even the newly Senatized Obama is gonna save us needs to re-watch this movie.

It's time for real change because, with few exceptions, the current Democrat-Repuke duopoly answers to one master: the corporation.

Starve the party. Work locally for your community. That's my new resolution

[pocoloco]

13. No backbone No bucks!

Dumb fucks!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

18. Makes you wonder. I am a Democrat and I don't quit or walk away

when I cannot get what I want. There are too many who pout and whine and cry when things do not go perfectly. None of us can have our own perfect little pure and pristine political party which only does as we want it to do and never makes a mistake. If anybody is not interested in making the Democratic Party better by working to make it better and prefers to quit or leave, please do. Whatever party or candidate you move to will not be perfect either. What then? Quit again and on to the next one?

[kestrel91316]

19. I think the OP has been given a task: sow the seeds of despair.

We have LOTS of people on DU who are no more Democrats than my sister's dog is.

[INdemo]

46. Finally ......Someone actually said it....

And I agree with you 1000%...

With all the "bashing" of the Democrats over this funding bill the obvious became more clear..There were a hell-of-a-lot of freepers on here and so called Democrats were jumping right in there and agreeing with their rhetoric...

[sellitman]

31. Where did you read I was quiting?

I even went so far as to say I'd still vote for the eventual nominee.

That and a rant about the vote which I HOPE we can overcome.

[elocs]

40. I didn't mean you, I was referring to much of the general attitude which posters are displaying. n/t

[Hersheygirl]

20. Absolutely not,

Many of you here at DU, do not really care for this person, and I can appreciate that perception. However, on this I will agree with him. I sm talking about James Carville.

Last night on C-Span, he was featured with Bill O'Liely during a discussion hosted by Leon Panetta(sorry, not sure of that spelling of last name)and Carville made the statement that "the only way the democrats can lose the 2008 presidential election is by talking their way out of it." I can only assume he meant by making stupid statements that can be attacked. He further went on saying that the American people have been so disillusioned by * and the republican party that they can no longer be trusted and the people want a change.

The way I see things shaping up, this war is going to get a lot worse, before it starts getting any better which will drive the voters further away from the republican party and when the voters go to the polls next November, the one thing that will be on their minds the most is what * and his party have done to this country. Funny thing was, there was no response from Mr. O'Liely and that said volumes to me. Hell we could put the democratic mascot up and we still would have a better chance of winning than any candidate the republicans put up especially from the group they have right now.

One thing they said that made my ears perk up was they didn't think any of the field of candidates that the republicans have right now will be their nominee. Gives you something to think about it, doesn't it.

The one thing they both agreed on is that Hillary will be the nominee. However, with that, you must consider the sources. I think it is way too early count anyone in or anyone out. Circumstances have a way of changing on a dime.

[pat_k]

24. Bush's war is so reviled by Republican AND Democratic candidates. . .

. . .that Anti-War sentiment will probably be a wash in the elections. When everyone is beating oup on Bush's war, it doesn't much matter which "side" is beating harder or started beating first.

The overwhelming Anti-Bush sentiment does nothing for the Democrats as long as they keep pretending "it's all about the war."

The war is a product of the madness of King George, but it is the MADNESS that must be stopped, and that means going directly after King George and his court. If the Dems don't actually DO SOMETHING about GWB, which is what America http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">elected them to do, they can kiss power goodbye. (And Impeachment is the ONLY "Something" that means anything.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1003456">Impeach to Win. Refuse, You Lose.

[Carolina]

33. touche, pat_k

I have been a Dem since 1960 but the go-along crew that comprises the DLC and the Washington power players in the Dem party are losing me. I'll support and work at the local level for someone I can believe in but the DNC, DCCC, DSCC can kiss my ass and I'll not give a penny until Dems stand up to King George!

[MissWaverly]

43. 2 encouraging signs

I read a post on the Christian Broadcasting Network, critical of Bush's immigration policy, saying that Bush GOP was contemptious of its base, which they feel are stupid, and the other was a post on the Fox Network saying that we had no business invading Iraq.
Hopeful signs that people are capable of looking at the facts regarding this administration's actions.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Naderites are not "true liberals".

They are only theoretical liberals. It is the political equivalent of fantasy football.

[sellitman]

32. Agreed.

Good analogy.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pat_k]

23. No. Refusing to impeach is dooming them.

The minute Nancy issued her "off the table" edict, she doomed the Democratic Congress to impotent gesture.

The "cave in" was inevitable. Until they impeach, the bushcheney steamroller will keep rolling over them. Every impotent act will confirm the public's perception that Democrats are wimps. And, as they did in 1988 after they refused to impeach Reagan and Bush I, they will watch, dumbfounded, as the White House they were so sure was theirs for the taking slips out of their hands.

Will they never learn? They still have time to redeem themselves. They've wasted 23 weeks since taking control, but they have 86 weeks between now and the inauguration of the next president.

For the sake of the nation, they'd better learn and learn quick. And we've got the clue-by-fours we need to teach them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1003456">Impeach to Win. Refuse, You Lose.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

25. We have to kick the corporate Dems, the Rahm Emanuels and the like...

The Harold Fords, the Bill Richardsons, the Ben Nelsons, all the free-trading warmongering right-wing Democrats, kick em out of office.

And to start looking at their platforms rather than platitudes.

And tell Joe Lieberman to fuck himself. He's hijacked the Senate.

[Carolina]

34. Exactly!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[polichick]

27. We've certainly lost momentum...

And the cave in will cost us many in the middle, who may see Dems as no better than Reps. If people on the far left drop out, we're in trouble.

[doggyboy]

29. I will give your concerns the consideration they're due

[marlakay]

35. I keep reading that most republicans are thinking of staying home

next pres election as most candidates don't fit what they believe and they know we need a few years of a dem pres to fix things. They won't vote for one, but will by staying home.

[bamacrat]

36. Not yet.

It will take alot to doom our chances after this joke of an administration, but we need to elect a worthy candidate not just the most popular.

[AtomicKitten]

37. I can't believe you called Dems "Demo-rats" and this thread wasn't locked.

n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

39. Oh, please,

like the alternative is so much better? My guess (hope) is that people will be voting "anybody but a Republican."

[Auntie Bush]

42. What an optimist you are! Did you ever try positive thinking? n/t

I think not!

[dfgrbac]

48. How many will see the light from one candidate?

How many Americans will watch the debate tonight and see the light of truth shining from former Senator Mike Gravel?

How many Democrats watching will completely change the complexion of their Party by voting for this man?