Is Campaign '06 over? You guys are scaring me

[sampsonblk]

In the last cycle, most of us campaigned for a reversal of this long national disaster. Many of us thought that if by some miracle we won the House and the Senate, Bush would be royally screwed. He'd have to end this war, or we'd end it by not giving him the money. He'd have to start fessing up to his crimes, or we'd investigate his misdeeds and outright lies.

Has everyone already given up on our supposed gains of 2006?

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. We didn't give up. The come-to-find-out -they-were-lying shitbags we elected gave up.

[pocoloco]

3. Kicked in the balls right off the bat!

"Impeachment off the table"

Dumb Fucks!

[Totally Committed]

7. I could not have said it better!

You get an A+ for going straight to the heart of the problem!

I can only echo your frustration, disappointment and disgust.

TC

[Clark2008]

12. That and the fact that we actually didn't win enough.

We have to keep the momentum going in 2008. While we keep focusing on the presidential election (which I think we've already lost, but I can be a pessimist), what we really need to be doing is focusing on gaining more seats in the House and Senate. That's where the rubber meets the road.

[pat_k]

16. The path to victory is impeachment. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2884515&mesg_id=2885628

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. We haven't given up. The "strategists" interpreted the data

from election returns--make that "mis"interpreted the data.

IB/C!!!

[sampsonblk]

6. We need to raise more noise or something

Everyone is campaigning for next time, but they haven't taken care of the business for this time... Is it just me???

[Totally Committed]

8. THEY. DON'T. GIVE. A. SH*T. ABOUT. US.

No amount of noise will "get their attention". Money -- big money -- in an outstretched hand is what motivates them. We are but the dirt under their feet.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

TC

[LibDemAlways]

22. You couldn't be more dead on. Back when

Gray Davis was running for Gov. of California, my brother was invited to attend a "Meet Gray Davis" event. He had no money to contribute, but he was invited as a favor by the host, a man he had settled an insurance claim for. (Brother works as an insurance adjustor.)

Anyhow, at the event, Gray Davis spotted him, figured he was a contributor, and walked over to introduce himself. Davis cut to the chase, asking him what he did for a living, trying to get a feel for what kind of $$ he could expect. My brother laughed and explained he was merely a guest of the host and would support Davis with his vote. With that Davis turned on his heels and walked away without another word.

"Dirt under their feet" says it all.

[pat_k]

17. Looks more like they willfully ignored the data. . .

Getting the "analysis" so horribly wrong seems almost impossible. Seems to me only willful ignorance can explain it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2884515&mesg_id=2884860

[AndyTiedye]

4. We Don't Have Control of the Senate. Joe Lieberman Does

[sampsonblk]

5. Do you think someone should campaign on this?

Now might be the time for some smart candidate to use this as an issue.

As in "If you think being held hostage by Joe Lieberman is a good idea, why not elect more of his friends?"

[Totally Committed]

9. And, whose fault is that?

The people of CT voted him out in the primary, but the Democratic Party "leadership" stepped up and backed his independent run.

So, people like me, who didn't even live in CT, sent the Lamont campaign money, and "campaigned" for him. But, again the Party stepped up for him -- even Barbara Boxer, arguably one of the most "liberal" Senators in the US, campaigned for him.

Harry Reid promised him if he was elected he would not lose his seniority or his committee assignments. He was allowed to smear those of us internet activists who still prevailed against him.

They brought him upon us. THEY DID. They and the CT REpublicans their efforts emboldened and abbetted.

They tied their own hands... and ours where Lieberman is concerned.

TC

[AndyTiedye]

23. The Democratic Leadership Was Being Blackmailed by Lieberman. They Still Are

So, people like me, who didn't even live in CT, sent the Lamont campaign money,

yeah, me too.

But, again the Party stepped up for him -- even Barbara Boxer, arguably one of the most "liberal" Senators in the US, campaigned for him.

That was in the primary, wasn't it? Not sure how much of that is the circle-the-wagons mentality when an incumbent faces a primary fight, and how much is about Israel.

Harry Reid promised him if he was elected he would not lose his seniority or his committee assignments.

He had no choice. Lieberman would have caucused with the Repiglickins.

[zanne]

11. Yup.

Unfortunately, there isn't alot we can get done if the senate won't go along, and we barely hold the majority. The Republicans got away with all that they did because they had rather overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate. Also, Cheney is a tie-breaker and the president is a Republican tyrant. I would like to see the Dems push harder, but there comes a point when all we'll be doing is pushing and losing.

[pat_k]

15. Nevertheless, they each have enormous power -- if they'd open a mouth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2884515&mesg_id=2884687

[Perry Logan]

10. Y'all sound like a bunch of Republicans.

:(

[zanne]

13. Perry Logan--I like your blog!

You're a little insane, y'know? (But in a good way). http://perrylogan.org/

[pat_k]

14. Nancy's "off the table" edict doomed them to impotent gesture. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2884515&mesg_id=2885628

[onenote]

18. It appears you weren't paying very close attention

If you thought that electing a bare Democratic majority in the Senate and a House majority that includes 30 plus moderate/conservative Blue Dog Democrats would result in an immediate end to the war you were fooling yourself. A significant number of the newly elected Democrats in 2006, as well as Democrats re-elected, were quite clear during the campaign that they would push to end the war, but were not endorsing immediate withdrawal. They did what they said they would do: passed a bill that would have established a timetable for withdrawal. It was vetoed. Not sure why you would think a one-vote Democratic majority in the Senate would "royally screw" chimpy on any issue where he can still count on unthinking support from repubs.

As for investigations -- they are ongoing. Far more so than anytime in the past 6 years.

The gains of 2006 were real. Sorry if they didn't meet your unrealistic (and unwarranted by the facts) expectations.

[sampsonblk]

19. I am looking for effort

I could accept a failed effort. I can't accept giving up the fight after 5 months, so we can prepare for 2008.

As for the numbers of investigations, its not about the number, its about the scope and quality.

Be ruder next time. Maybe it will make it seem like you have a valid point.

[onenote]

20. I apologize if I came across as rude

My frustration may have come across in a way that I did not intend. It seems like there are a number of posters (and your post was mild compared to some and thus probably didn't warrant the tone of my response) who bash Democrats as a group on the grounds that they have ignored the will of the "people" as if the "people" and the Democrats who represent them all speak with a single voice.

Personally, I think Demcorats in Congress have made an effort. They passed a bill setting a timetable for withdrawal -- something unimaginable a year ago. They tried, but failed in the veto override -- a predictable outcome given the size of the majority. They even tried brought a redeployment bill to a vote, which failed. Fifty-nine Democrat voted against that bill, which is a shame. But 169 Democrats (and only 2 repubs) voted for it, which is why I think that posts (again, not necessarily yours) that bash the Democrats in Congress as a group are neither reality based nor productive.

[sampsonblk]

21. Here, this mirrors what I am seeing

June 20, 2007
Congressional Job Approval Dips Again This Month - Gallup
Democrats, Republicans now almost equally likely to disapprove of Congress

...Republicans and Democrats vary little in their overall approval of Congress, with 29% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans saying they approve of the job Congress is doing. Independents' approval is at 19%...


http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937

Something is wrong. And its not just me. Those numbers are shocking. Even amid all the GOP scandals, the Repub congress had 50% support from their own party.