Anyone watching McLaughlin Grp? He called Dems pusillanimous--

[OrwellwasRight]

because they refuse to speak up about the war. He is dead on. Merriam says: "marked by contemptible timidity."

What are they so fucking afraid of?

Tim Russert showed a tape of MLK, Jr. earlier and he discussed having hope that he could change the culture in this country as regards to civil rights even though he knew he did not have the majority of the population with him.

So why are Pelosi, Reid, et al so FUCKING timid? Because they are afraid of the Republican "majority" (which we are not sure even exists as opposed to the "Diebold majority")?

What are we afraid of? Why can't we be opinion leaders instead of opinion followers? Every day I wake up mystified at where our MLK, Jrs., Eugene McCarthys, and Robert Kennedy Srs. have gone.

[acmavm]

1. Are they afraid? (Is the Pope Catholic as they say?). Afraid of looking

anti-home security, afraid of pissing off their corporate donors, afraid of their own shadows.

[OrwellwasRight]

3. But the only way to change the opinions they are afraid of is

to speak up and help shape public opinion. Do they think Al Franken can do it for them? He's great, but he simply can't. It is the job of the party be leaders and act as such!

And frankly, fuck the fear of corporate donors. We had lots of corp donations when we were in charge (pre-1994) because the simpering corps will give money to power regardless of what that power nominally stands for. If we want it, we will get that money back if we can get the majority back.

And our corp donations are so much lower than their high-water mark now that the Dem leadership has to understand that compromising its principles further is not worth the trade off. We need grass roots support, money, and activism.

Did Eugene McCarthy have the business community behind him? Did FDR?

Hey, DNC, as Spike Lee said, "WAKE UP!"

[Warren Stupidity]

2. McCarthy was ostracised and Kennedy was killed.

Antiwar Democrats in congress could be counted on one hand until very late in the game. Timidity runs on both sides of the aisle. How many Republicans are willing to go against their party leadership? The problem is that basically we don't have an opposition party we have two branches of the Corporate Kleptocracy Party acting like they represent different positions. Until we manage to clean the nest, until we get the corruption out of government, nothing much is going to change.

Dr. Dean's efforts to make the Democratic Party's funding base individual donations rather than institutional donations are one good way to get the job started.

[OrwellwasRight]

5. I agree that Dean is trying, but he does not seem to command

the opinions or even respect of the Congressional Dems. There has to be a unity of purpose there and it is simply missing. Remember how they distanced themselves from Dean's comments about the Republican party representing rich, white people?

And how are we going to "clean the nest" unless some Dems speak the fuck up?

In the 60s, many Dems did distance themselves from LBJ and criticize the war - and there have been other times in our history when members of both parties seemed to speak up without fear.

I do not believe that RFK was killed for his anti-war stance, and I think the ostracism of McCarthy was the beginning of the end for our party--we stopped taking the lead in standing for our principles in the 70s and we have moved toward the "Corporate Kleptocracy Party" since then (Carter's ineffective presidency is an example--though he may have been progressive in some or even many of his ideas, the Congress was not really backing him up).

So in essence, if the Dems are saying to themselves "well, I would be anti-war, but I am afraid I will get shot or I am afraid I will lose my seat," they are complete and total idiots. They WILL lose their seats one by one if the non-ideological voting sheeple become convinced they stand for nothing. And that is what many of them seem to stand for now.

[sallyseven]

30. Well then we should tell them to. Contribute to the DNC

when ever we get a note from Dean and make the demo's take notice.

[OrwellwasRight]

35. That sounds like an actual strategy.

Could work, and DUers should get down with the program.

[Sinewave58]

64. An old Republican President had some advise...

we should engage. TR, regardless of party affiliation, was okay with and when he said "walk softly and care a big stick" he was referring to more than foreign policy and military might.

Advise - lay low; be quite (walk softly) / raise lots of money and gather lots of volunteers (the big stick).

From Day 1, the lobbying scandal should have hit the Republicans square on the forehead like a ton of bricks and carried the news. But Rep. Pelosi, and others, decided that her ranting on the House Floor should carry the news, be above the fold, and all that jazz. Yikes! Could she just hold her tongue or even moderate her tongue until this Party has its ducks in a row and the '06 election sprint begins?

[OrwellwasRight]

68. Well one problem with that

is i think that is the approach lots of Dems used in 2004. We thought that people would be so fed up wit the lies and mistakes of the Bush Admin and its allies that people would just naturally turn to us and vote for us. The problem was that we didn't appear to present a real alternative to those outside our inner circle. To the masses, we didn't stand for much that was different or exciting, and so they voted for the Republicans they did not agree with, but who *appeared* to stand for something.

So, some of us (like me) are getting antsy that we just can't leave it up to people's natural inclinations to turn to us, we have to give them something to turn to. This view has been stated in more than one op-ed.

Anecdotal evidence that it is true: I went home for the holidays and asked a bunch of friends how they felt about the illegal wiretaps. Several people answered that it didn't affect them (we need to tell them that it does) or that both parties are doing it so why should they care (we do need to explain that this is not just business as usual).

You know that only saying about how those who don't speak up are assumed to consent. While it might not always be true, there is something to it.

Welcome to DU! Thanks for speaking up! :hi:

[Clark2008]

8. And Clark and Gore and Feingold are ignored.

They're both populists, but only political junkies hear from them.

We have leaders, but the media ignores them.

[OrwellwasRight]

11. I guess that's true.

I haven't read about Clark since 2004. What has he been doing and where has he been?

Gore and Feingold do get some coverage, though. I'd say Feingold is the closest thing to what I am looking for in an outspoken Congressional leader. But, his case makes the point: Reid and Pelosi basically leave him hanging on his own.

He doesn't seem to be leading, or even attempting to lead, a faction of his own that are all engaged in a group effort to speak up and get folks to tune in!

[janx]

56. Harry Reid is great. And he has been speaking out.

And he DOES respect Dean--very much. I'm with you on Feingold.

Give it some time. I'm willing to bet that this year's elections are going to be very interesting!

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. And the media's guest are ALWAYS Lieberman, DiFi, Biden, Zell Miller

Mark Warner, Hillary Clinton types. Sensible Center Dems ONLY allowed. I wonder how many propaganda networks will carry Gore's MAJOR SPEECH tomorrow? My guess...ZERO!

[OrwellwasRight]

16. Of the group you mention,

I haven't seen hide nor hair of Zell Miller since 2004 and I am actually pleased when Biden is on. I DO think he speaks truth to power -- at least about the war.

Certainly the press is MAJOR part of the problem, but the PARTY is as much to blame. Other than the CBC, there really isn't a group of Congressional Dems speaking out and supporting the truth spoken by others. It always this "all Dems speak for themselves" bullshit.

[bvar22]

44. Go here for Progressive Democrats "Speaking OUT!!!"

http://www.pdamerica.org/

They are THERE, and they ARE speaking out.
They don't get coverage from the Corporate Owned Media because they have pledged to Break Up the Big Media Monopolies, and reinstate a form of the fairness Doctrine.

The Talking Corpoheads want the civilians to believe that Hillary, Biden, and Lieberman represent The Left so there is no discussion of REAL Populist issues in the Media (and thus in America). The Corporate Owned Democrats play along so they can continue to pick up their check from Big Money.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[OrwellwasRight]

49. And is there going to be a fillibuster because the Dems are going to

take a stand against Alito?

[OrwellwasRight]

50. I wish the PDAs were the leadership,

but they aren't. And Pelosi and Reid have yet to back them up.

[MichiganVote]

4. Because they gave Bush/Rep's the keys to the Kingdom

when they voted for his bullshit after 9/11 and they don't want to dance on the head of the pin they created for themselves.

[OrwellwasRight]

7. I still don't see how that advances their interests. Nt.

[MichiganVote]

47. I think their strategy is bascially let the repub's hang themselves

Why do they have this strategy? Because they about all of them that count have served in Congress a long time, rocking the boat and going away with nothing for constituents is not their idea of a good time. Because they too make some coin with the present strategy. Because they are fat and lazy and have depended on loyal Dem. voters doing about nothing the last 20 years. Because they think they are doing the best thing in place of the right thing.

I'm sure the list is endless.

[sandnsea]

6. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Aargh. It's so damned obvious.

[OrwellwasRight]

9. But I don't see her as an opinion leader in Congress.

Not many other Dems use her as an example or tell their constituents to look up to her.

If she wants to be a middle of the road Republican-lite, I don't see how that excuses the others from taking a fucking stand.

[sandnsea]

17. Are you kidding???

She's running for President in 2008. She wants to brand the party to fit her mold, to make it easier for her to run. She has boat loads of money, not only for her own run, but to give to other PACs this fall. Not to mention media access. And the voice of Bill. Cross Hillary now and she wins the Presidency in 2008, your political career is over. Every time the party does some weird thing, it's the Hillary position that is winning out. Over and over. Nothing else makes any sense at all.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. No. I'm not kidding.

I live here in DC and I have never heard anyone in Congress say "well, Hillary says." or given a speech where they say "I agree with Senator Clinton" or "I advocate Senator Clinton's position."

Yes, she has a lot of money (God knows why) and she may win the nomination (condemning us to four more years of a Republican White House), but I don't think she commands the opinions or respect of Congressional Dems.

Nor can she be the only cause. Our party wasn't doing such a good job of speaking out and standing up for the needs of the working class even before she got elected.

[sandnsea]

22. Bill was President

Holy cow. You don't think his agenda had anything to do with the shift in economic policy? They still have enormous power. If you live there, I would think you would know that. Who do you think is influencing these views that don't mesh with the majority of the rank and file?

[OrwellwasRight]

28. Sure I think Bill got the party on the wrong track.

And it is still there. But no, I do not think that Hillary is the Engineer of the train.

Watch C-SPAN and tell me which Senators and Representatives are advocating a "follow Hillary" strategy.

I think that fear is influencing the views of the rank and file. Believe me when I say the halls of Congress are not filled with folks saying "let's vote like Hillary would."

[sandnsea]

32. Right

Because politics are oh so straight-forward with no behind the scenes dealings and power plays. Again, if not Hillary, then who??

[OrwellwasRight]

36. No one.

That's the point. Everyone marches to the beat of his or her own drummer; no one wants to follow any leader--and no one wants to lead. They don't want to put their opinions on the line and get the SBV treatment.

But real leaders are targets. They get insulted, they get criticized, they get lied about. And they stand up to it anyway. MLK was harassed, stalked, spied on before he was assassinated. Being a leader isn't easy. But it is necessary. Kerry, for instance, could have stood up to the SBV ads and fought back. Instead he waited week after week.

Well, folks, not Hillary and not any "bogeyman" can keep people from speaking up if that is what they want to do. And the Dems in Congress (Kucinich and CBC excepted) just don't seem to want to. Let's get it out in the open and have a real debate.

And PS you might be surprised how straight forward it actually is--Hillary is not running around bribing Brad Sherman with some dollars from her if he shuts up about the war. Really, she is more concerned about herself--she doesn't have a single concern about the future of the party.

[sandnsea]

41. Wow

Okay, suuuure.

Listen, there were power plays WITHIN the Kerry campaign, so don't tell me there aren't power plays within the party structure. You're playing one right now with your anti-Kerry SBV lies. Hillary is more concerned about herself?? Yes. And needs to mold the direction of the party so that she comes out the natural leader of it. And those who know that a message WILL be formed that they WILL have to campaign on, will consider the power structure, money, endorsements, and the rest in making their decisions on where to come down on various issues. To deny that is to just not be paying attention.

Nobody said anything about bribing anybody either, so don't run off hog wild with shit made up out of thin air.

Hillary, Kerry, Howard Dean, lefty activists, all pushing and pulling, trying to get the party behind their brand, their message. When Hillary is pushing the buttons, it is so obvious, we get milk toast.

[OrwellwasRight]

48. My anti-Kerry SBV lies?

I am promoting the SBV view? In which post was that? I'm saying he did not effectively defend himself. And the evidence that he did is where?

"Holy cow. You don't think his agenda had anything to do with the shift in economic policy? They still have enormous power. If you live there, I would think you would know that. Who do you think is influencing these views that don't mesh with the majority of the rank and file?"

And just how is she doing this? You say with "Because politics are oh so straight-forward with no behind the scenes dealings and power plays." Well, what do think that is but bribes? Don't imply shit and then when somebody reads what you implied claim to have nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry -- but I just can't take this "Hillary is secretly running the party" theory as helpful in in any way. It neither excuses the silence nor promotes a plan of action.

[sandnsea]

52. Alternate universes

Behind the scenes dealings means bribery!?!? :wow:

Do you really think NOBODY is attempting to gain the support they need for 2008??? Honestly?

The plan of action is being promoted. The Hillary plan. Has nothing to do with excuses. Unless we want to be railroaded with her brand of politics, we better start identifying it and fighting it whenever we see it.

[wiggs]

10. Not afraid. Not stupid. Complicit. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

14. But isn't that a hopeless conclusion?

If we believe that what are doing being Democrats or posting here on the DU? Are we wasting our time?

[ArbustoBuster]

26. Because our leaders aren't the Democratic Party. We are.

That's what I believe, at any rate.

[wiggs]

27. Not hopeless at all. Disappointing and frustrating, yes.

But we have to be realistic and elect different kinds of democrats. They aren't all corporatists to the same degree.

We have to be realistic so that we don't rely on help that won't come and can devise other strategies for changing a damaged democracy

The basis of democracy is a well informed public (Lincoln). GOP lies, goals, tricks, trends, and spin are discussed and analyzed here on DU and exposed in many ways to the entire world. DU is an important part of national discourse, I think....an otherwise severely dysfunctional discourse IMO.

Read the Chomsky post in today's GD: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x141802

If it's a waste of time, I'm wasting a LOT of time on DU exposing myself to a wide variety of different opinions, articles, links to other sites, reminding others of forgotten issues or scandals, sometimes making original connections between points made by others, asking questions. I read much more than I post and I'm more informed because of it...I'm a better voter, debater, and poster because of DU. Not a waste of time.

Before DU, I was relatively naive regarding politics and global political dynamics. Regretably, I am now a cynic and skeptical of the motivations of more institutions and some people. I regret that the times call for being skeptical and that understanding the truth means that people, including dem leaders, don't always have your best interests at heart and aren't coming from a moral perspective.

[shraby]

13. I think they have been compromised by

information found out through the spying that Bush has done.

[mazzarro]

15. Yes Indeed Dems Are Pusillanimous - IMHO

The most annoying and depressing thing about it is that there is a significant portion of the progressive/liberal movement that will excuse this destructive characteristics of the party leadership regardless how bad it gets. I am not only referring to the DLC but also the rank-and-file. It is especially frustrating when people here in DU make excuses like "we have to be above board and not act like the rethugs", yet we are getting clobbered each day; or "we are reserving our fire for more important issues", yet that 'more important issue' never gets to come and we give in to the rethugs; or a leader gets exasperated enough and summons up the courage to speak out only to be left alone unsupported and even condemned by fellow democratic leaders; or we are constantly told that we need to be sensitive to the independents/moderates and that is the group our leaders are trying to attract by not being too rash, yet these independents/moderates are never offended by the most brazen and despicable acts of the rethugs - why; etc.
The only conclusion one is forced to draw is that the progressive/liberal movement is saddled with curse of ignominious leadership for the foreseeable future and we must accept this in order to being to overhaul the movement from the ground up immediately.

[OrwellwasRight]

18. "overhaul the movement from the ground up immediately"

I couldn't agree more.

I just don't know HOW. Is there a plan? A political sleeper cell? A commune I can join? What????

[mazzarro]

23. Take A Page From The RW-Falwell Conservatives

Take a long term view of where the party should be. Then make the effort to take over the democratic party at the local level, then state level, then national level. Meanwhile, we ought to plan on acquiring and/or creating our own powerful media outlets beside AAR and not wait for the MSM to do us favors. The truth is that as things now stand, we will be out in the political cold for a long time with the current leadership and policy advisers that are directing the party's fight against the rethugs.

[stevietheman]

29. Agreed. n/t

n/t

[seabeyond]

20. that is real good of you to jump right into their bullshit and continue

to spread it around for them. media has not, will not, put out dem position on war or anyone elses position. they will use a sound bite to crucify the dems. everytime the dem speaks out media helps to villify the dem. so as the media selfrighteously sits there and ridicules and makes dem insignificant,....... they will also ensure they shut the dems up, and present their message in lie

good job falling for their ever bashing of dem

[papau]

24. Very True - the beating Pelosi took for supporting Murtha has not ended

and in this thread she is scorned as not having "balls"

If the GOP is testing DU's Bandwagon effect dumps on our leaders, they should be quite pleased.

Meanwhile the game comes down to the filibuster - if that does not happen, the folks on the left will certainly move the volume up as to our leaders sucking.

[seabeyond]

25. i just read a thread, nyt has decided the dems have lost this battle

in glee and are weak. no, they are the minority. yet, here the media are presenting it as repugs being strong and capable and look they beat the dem. ever creating the weak dem. dems are in minority........ they arent weak, they cant win. now we can just make dem that much more weak, when that isnt the reality. losing voters because the image of weak dems that repug and media have created so well.

[OrwellwasRight]

34. The beating Pelosi took where?

DUers being frustrated is not enough.

And do you think they will really filibuster? I just don't see it coming. Again, too many are too afraid of "how it will look." If Gandhi had been afraid of how he would look, India would still be England's biggest fucking colony.

[papau]

63. If the count is 41-perhaps by counting the ME votes-they will fillibuster

Pelosi has been held up as a "loser" - by the print, talk, and TV guru's and that fact was noted by the ABCNote - all over her support for Murtha.

After all she is a girl with a high voice and looks really serious when she speaks - and we need a relaxed male as House leader - or at least that is what is being sold as they sell the GOP is correct and Murtha did not deserve his purple hearts because he was not even an officer.

[OrwellwasRight]

69. Well we can only keep our fingers

crossed, but I just don't know anyone here who sees a filibuster coming. I hope we are all wrong.

[OrwellwasRight]

31. Saying I can't complain about the ineffectiveness of my own party is

no more legitimate of an argument than Bush or Hannity or O'Reilly saying we can't criticize this country or the conduct of the war.

No, I'm not "falling for" anything, and I am not waiting for the MSM to solve our problems, I am saying we need to improve our actions so we can become more powerful, more effective, and start leading this country instead of letting be led in the direction of fascism. Nobody fought the Nazis by staying silent.

[seabeyond]

33. just to clarify in honesty. i said you cannot complain?

now i will og back and re read my message. but i dont think i have ever told a person they cant complain. after all i am complaining about your complaining. would make me a hypocrit. i am pretty damn sure i didnt tell you that you werent allowed to complain. will go back and check. why...... if i didnt say that would you start your post out with saying something i didnt say. probably when i go back to re read my post....... i would be complaining exactly about you saying htings that arent factual, not the discussing the issues with democratic party

lets see how close i am, wink

[OrwellwasRight]

37. No, you said "good job falling for their ever bashing of dem"

which I took to be some attempt to embarras me and shut me up because I have fallen into some "trap" the MSM laid out for me Like, "oh I am so stupid I fell for it. I better never say anything is wrong with my party or else I am helping the neoCons."

Well, my eyes are wide open. I am not falling for anything. I don't feel that working to improve the party and calling for better leaders is a trap. And I will keep speaking up. And that was my point.

And if you did not mean that by telling me what I was "falling for," was meant to make me feel intimidated or to insult me, well, then, my bad. Please disregard that post. But realize some people are going to take it that way.

[seabeyond]

38. because i think you fell for something, no where ....says shut up

that is totally your choice

[OrwellwasRight]

40. I fell for nothing

and I certainly won't fall for the trap of being complacent and not asking for better leadership. That is the true trap. If we fall for the line that we shouldn't analyze our own efforts and try to improve them, we have just done the Republicans work for them because we will allow our party's ineffectiveness to continue. And that would be the biggest failure of all.

[seabeyond]

45. not speaking out agaisnt the war is a lie.

we have senators and reps that have and are speaking out. i call it a lie to say they are not speaking out.

make a better party, i am all for that. again, i dont htink you saw anywhere in my post where we shouldnt work at being better, louder, more clear or more effective.

but to say to me dems dont speak out against the war, when that isnt a truth...... is not going ot fly. if you want to promote that nonsense i think you are doing damamge to dems eing productive. you are validating what media feeds to the nation to create dems as weak. they do not promote what the dems say against the war, they say dems say nothing

kerry did speeches during campaign that media would not put on tv. but media would come on tv and say kerry did not have a plan in his speech and he was boring. he was boring because he was laying out his plan on health care, education, iraq and small business, over and over and over. yet..... media convinced the american people and many dems that kerry didnt have a plan. that would mean 20 minutes of their time listening to huge subject, point blank plans that are dry...... for the future of our nation

then say no plan

then people on this board say no plan

when the people that actually listened to kerry said, he did to give a plan, those not in the know would jump up and down saying i was living in an illusion

[OrwellwasRight]

51. Show me where Pelosi and Reid backed up Murtha.

Show me where they support the CBC stands. Show me how they are willing to be controversial.

[seabeyond]

58. are you F*in serious. wow, you werent paying attention were you

you go find it. i saw it the first time

[OrwellwasRight]

59. Yeah, I was, and Nancy said

every Dem is entitled to his or her own opinion. That is not backing somenody up. But thanks for backing up your position. I'm thoroughly convinced.

[papau]

88. Did Nancy say she supports and agrees with Murtha - but then not "back him

up"????

Interesting....

[seabeyond]

96. i dont think that is factual

i saw her on an interview attacking the people that attacked murtha immediately after it happened. she was one of the driving forces going after the repugs attack on murtha. i am just not good at going thru old footage to look it up. but i think this person is dead wrong. she was very aggressive in her speech in that interview. and it was just a day or two after murtha's speech.

now i dont know what her position was on supporting the plan but it seems to me she did back it. there was also kerry's plan that had just come out a week prior to murtha. so i saw kerry pelosi and others supporting and defending murtha, but not all were supporting his plan, others were supporting kerry, which i think is allowable

[OrwellwasRight]

100. Pelosi's lack of leadership

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/15/PELOSI.TMP

"Pelosi, who said she wanted the decorated Marine veteran Murtha to be seen as the person out in front on the plan, refused to take a position on it for 14 days. She finally endorsed it, but she has not pressured other Democrats to do so."

I don't consider Pelosi's actions to exhibit leadership, backbone, or strong back-up of Murtha and othr outspoken Dems.

[meganmonkey]

21. They are afraid of being exposed for what they are

They are NOT doing their job and they know it. Aside from a very few exceptions, that is.

And as the Repukes facade is cracking, we are beginning to see that the Dems aren't able to fill in the gaps because they are beholden to corporate interests as much as the repukes are.

When the Repukes had their 'mandate', it was easier for the Dems to slide by. But now that the republican political capital has been spent, so to speak, the Dems need to come out a-blazing and they can't. They can't offend anyone, because they have spread themselves too thin between the rhetoric of supporting the people and the favors they owe the corporations and other special interests.

They are stuck. And they better find thaie principles soon. :(

[OrwellwasRight]

39. "And they better find their principles soon." WORD.

From your keyboard to their ears. Please.

[meganmonkey]

43. I'm glad you knew what I meant

now that I see my misspelling! And it's too late to edit :P

Peace!

[blossomstar]

46. True that. They are whats called btwn a rock and a hard place...

[MissWaverly]

42. the democrats are afraid of the Right Wing Media

that demonize everything they say or don't say or might have said. There has been
a lot of RW criticism of the democrats whining about losing in 2000 and 2004, there
has been no criticism by the dems about these stolen elections except by us. But
see there could be, so the best tactic is pre-emptive criticism. Look how
Delay says he's been railroaded by liberals, its all baloney.

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Agreed its baloney and the RW media attacks in an unjustified manner,

but I just don't see where fear is an excuse for lack of appropriate action. Doesn't leadership by definition attract criticism? Can't they take a risk and just respond to the lies? Again, look at leaders of the past -- if Thurgood Marshall and MLK, Jr. and Rosa Parks and Malcolm X had been afraid of being criticized, what would have become of the civil rights movement? You cannot progress by playing "not to lose," you have to play to win.

[MissWaverly]

72. remember when 1 of the dems said Gitmo was like the Nazis

Well there is a general taking the 5th over Abu Ghraib and the treatment of the detainees
there but when 1 democrat criticize the torture of detainees at Gitmo; he is made
to apologize over his unjust criticism. If 100 detainees have died in US custody,
they died as a result of maltreatment, anything else is just baloney.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Agreed. You said it though: 1 Dem spoke out

and the rest let the media attack him so he apologized (aren't you referring to Durbin?). Well I remember going on to work and being so pissed that Durbin apologized (he shouldn't have) and that Reid was not defending him (he should have). Just like every single Dem should ahve defended Dean on the rich, white party remarks about the Repubs.

If another Dem repeated these inciteful and true comments and another and another, then just 1 wouldn't be hanging any more. Media attacks are much easier when we do not protect and defend each other. We are stronger when we work together.

[MissWaverly]

76. I believe the democrats are waiting for the ball to drop

they know that Iraq will be a fiasco, they waiting for Bush's popularity to drop like
a stone.

[OrwellwasRight]

79. But it already has.

The iron is hot, right now. Bush's popularity is not going to drop much more due to the war because, as they pointed on the McLaughlin Grp this AM, the media is bored with the story and just nopt really reporting anymore. If they aren't reporting it, how will it get people up in arms.

During Vietnam, it was on tv each night, every night; dead bodies, gun fire, etc.

But today, with out high tech gadgets and ADD, the war is more like out of sight, out of mind, to a lot of people.

What are they waiting for?

[MissWaverly]

81. they are waiting for the end

if Bush has canceled all aid for the reconstruction, he knows that we will have to leave
soon, I read on Daily KOS that our troops there are not getting enough to eat, they said they had 2 broken microwaves and their choice of 1 cold hot dog, or 1 cold 6 inch pizza per day. I think that we will shortly be coming to the end in Iraq when we are forced to retreat.

[otohara]

55. With Good Reason

My Gawd, I turned on the TV this AM and saw 60 seconds of Tweety - it was going to be a 30 minute bash the dems day - in the LA Times this asswipe who writes about the Pelosi townhall meeting says "dems trying desperatly to shed weak-keeded image sercurity...blah, blah, blah..."

The media is extremely anti-democrats even though the fuck-up's in the White House are responsible for every shitty thing that's happening. Who does the media blame, the powerless democrats.

[OrwellwasRight]

57. But shutting up won't fix that, will it? That's just fear. Nt.

[otohara]

60. Well It's Beyond Me Why

any Democrat would go on Fox News Channel, but they continue to do so. What a complete waste of time and energy. It's not much better over at the studios of NBC and CNN.

Dems sit quietly in the back ground and say nothing about the media, letting this idiotic perception that the media is liberal continue.

[OrwellwasRight]

62. I know. And it is not like help wasn't there before the 2004 elections.

The answers are not in Mary Beth Cahill's head.

Didn't any of them read Blinded by the Right or the Republican Noise Machine? Information is in there to help us fight back and yet they continued to follow the lead charted by the RW politicians and pundits and the so-called liberal media. George Lakoff is trying to tell us how to fight back and yet there is too much fear.

Yes there are a few great ones trying to be leaders, but it is like the party as a whole has forgotten how to cooperate, work together, and overcome obstacles. If we take stands we will piss some people off, but have so much to gain. I just can't take the slow bleeding of having a smaller and smaller representation in Congress election after election.

[OrwellwasRight]

73. " Dems sit quietly in the back ground and say nothing about the media"

Word. :thumbsup:

I say confront it head on. Letting the perception persist has not seemed to work for us so far.

[MissWaverly]

71. who is responsible for losing the war

and they keep with the mantra, the democrats are weak on national security, the only
reason for that is that they have dared to speak up on national security regarding
warrantless wiretapping.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. what are they afraid off?

What my lord has Echellon uncovered? Anthrax love letters, things like that... and if they all shake that fear en masse, it will no longer work

[IndyOp]

61. When Dems do speak out, the GOP media shouts them down -

Our MLK, Eugene McCarthys, and Robert Kennedy have been shouted down!

Dems (Reid) and progressives (Kucinich, McKinney, Boxer, Feingold) must continue to speak out, and *we* must help amplify their voices and shout the GOP media down!

It is fair criticizing them. Now what are *you* going to do to make it easier and more effective for them to speak out the way we want them to.

[marions ghost]

67. Yes!

well said.

"Some Dems ARE speaking out and we must AMPLIFY their voices. Yes--that is our role. This is a VITAL role in a society with a dominant corporate media that manipulates the public on a large scale.
:applause:

[OrwellwasRight]

70. Blog, ltte, e-mail them and ask them to filibuster, give $$, etc.

There is only so much i can do. Sure, if I could get on the Senate floor and do it myself, I would.

"They'll just shout me down" is just not an acceptable answer. They need to shout louder. I didn't see MLK give up when they hosed people, sent dogs on them and beat them with night sticks. "Never give up" is a much better slogan than is "the media will just crucify me' is an excuse.

Opposition from the media is a walk in the park by comparison to what some around the world have faced to advocate for their beliefs. The South African media were certainly not kind to the ANC, nor was the Defense Force--and that was certainly a lot scarier.

As FDR said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If we are afraid of a little media badmouthing, maybe we do not deserve to run the country.

[KnowerOfLogic]

65. They know that dem voters will vote for them no matter what, so their only

concern is not pissing off 'centrist/swing' voters. Consequently, the party stands for nothing; they are terrified of saying anything that may offend the mythical swing voter. Democratic politicians have learned that there is no accountability whatsoever for them from dem voters, and the attitude of most people here on DU testifies to that. Let a person here say that they will not vote for a dem candidate or are going to vote third party, and they will instantly be ripped a new one by 90% of this board, and will likely have their account terminated if the refuse to desist. In such an environment, why *should* democratic politicians stand up against bush, when they know that there is nothing to be lost by not doing so, and potentially a lot to be lost by doing so?

[OrwellwasRight]

77. While I think that is a good explanation of the current

state of affairs, I just think that won't work forever. It is a losing strategy.

In the current climate, Dems do not appeal all that well to centrists, so the party will shrink and shrink.

I think a better approach is to try to turn the dissatisfied non-voter into a voter. We already know (based on polls) those voters are more likely to vote Dem because we know they tend to be pro-choice, tired of the war, and for universal health care. We (Dems) are (or can be) those things, if we would stop being such chicken-shit complacent, unaccountable, worry-warts.

[marions ghost]

66. I'm not sure I believe

that the Dems are sold out to corporations quite as much as Repugs are. Congressionals with a shred of integrity left (and there appear to be a few) are walking a tightrope --if they stick their necks out too far they could be swiftboated --or anthraxed or disappeared. In the Brave New World that the Neo- Cons have built since Reagan, it is very dangerous to oppose the right wing juggernaut. They are extremely ruthless and will stop at nothing to get their way. It is apparent that the Neo-Cons are perfectly able to live with the idea that blowing people away (figuratively OR literally) can be justified. They demand mafia-style loyalty. And it is also obvious that under the B**h administration, Rethugs finally have the means to silence the media on any issue. Anyone who speaks truth is quickly contained and marginalized because of this. Under these conditions it's heroic for a decent person just to run for Congress. It's a rough job--this Congress is facing the greatest challenge to Democracy ever in this country.

So while it's easy to criticize the Dems for being 'weak' -- I think the problem is more that the Rethuglican Neo-Cons are TOO strong...and have in fact hijacked the country. Do we want the Dems to go for the jugular in the same way that the Neo-Cons do? I don't think so. But this "roll over and play nice like a moderate and everything will be OK" is also NOT working. That much I do agree with.

Whoever has guts and integrity in Congress (Dems or Repugs) is going to have to deal with the Culture of Corruption head on. The Dems nailed it with "Culture of Corruption." That gives me some hope that they will actually be the ones taking the lead in cleaning up the horrendous mess that the Republican party and their supporters (naive or sophisticated) have created.

[OrwellwasRight]

78. Who has been anthraxed and disappeared for speaking out?

I agree with your points, but I just think that this country is on the road to fascism and that is important enough to speak out even if you think you will likely be marginalized, mocked, ridiculed, whatever.

Yes, it takes guts, but I think that is what we need right now. We don't have time for collaboration. As I said on another thread last night; we need the French Resistance, not Vichy France. :-)

[Moochy]

74. Maybe when they catch the anthrax letter sender

The dems will regain some courage.

[OrwellwasRight]

83. I am clearly out of the loop on this anthrax letter talk.

What gives?

[populistdriven]

80. ECHELON

Bush knows everything

They have to be quiet

[OrwellwasRight]

84. Is that supposed to mean something?

If he knows it all anyway, then we are protecting anything by shutting up.

[struggle4progress]

82. Is McLaughlin taking a stand against the war?

[OrwellwasRight]

85. Not more than usual.

But he has criticized its conduct many times.

I watch him as often as possible and he has become more even handed in the past year or two. Sometimes he seems extremely fed up with Bushco -- and he does call both Dem and Repub political mistakes on the carpet pretty fairly (even if his guest list is always stacked 3 R-wingers to 1 moderate liberal).

I just happen to agree with this particular assessment.

[struggle4progress]

86. Is he criticizing Republicans for not opposing the war?

[OrwellwasRight]

87. The Republicans are the ones that wanted the war, weren't they?

They are supposed to be for it.

We are supposed to believe in human dignity, right?
We are supposed to be against wars or choice, are we not?
We are supposed to present an alternative to the Administration's misguided policies and ill-conceived plans, no?

Well, then let's get to it.

Or, let's waste time with rhetorical games.

Let's also continue waiting for that magic moment when the MSM is not going to criticize us for taking a stand. That's been super effective for us so far.

[struggle4progress]

89. So Johnny McL mushmouthing "A few mistakes were made" ...

... while he pisses on Democrats for not opposing strongly enough a war he himself doesn't oppose -- without criticizing his own party's warmongers.

Maybe that oughta tell ya sumthin about what's goin on here ...

Hint: Yes, indeed, somebody IS playing "rhetorical games."

[OrwellwasRight]

93. I don't need to be told "sumthin" is going on, but thanks.

I have known for several years now that the Democrats as a group have lost their soul and their way. Clinton left the party rudderless and adrift, so to speak, with so many of the elected officials searching for some solid ground between the party of the working man we once were and the plutocratic third way Clinton forged.

I also happen to find the McLaughlin Group entertaining (and unlike some partisans I am not afraid to hear the other side) and so I found it interesting that he used a great word that fits exactly with the feelings that I already have about the Dems who refuse to openly oppose the war, those who will refuse to filibuster, and those who refuse to come out and say they support universal healthcare instead of some piece meal reform. Perhaps you should stop to realize that our party will continue to have problems regardless of whether McLaughlin tells Republicans to start acting like Democrats (which he will never do).

If you don't agree with my post, just say so. But to play some ridiculous game about "what else did McLaughlin say?" is rude and non-productive.

But, you know, thanks once again for confirming for me that too many DUers are more obsessed with their supposed intellectual superiority than with real discussion about how we can improve the party. Boy, do I feel put in my place. Um, NOT.

Try talking to your fellow Dems instead of merely using the board to pump your own ego.

[struggle4progress]

95. 1. I absolutely agree with you about Clinton. 2. I have enjoyed ..

.. McLaughlin too, from time to time, largely because of the fact that the discussions often manage to generate heat without warmth or light.

3. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I say I agree with Johnny McL: true to form, he's singing a slick little tune, which attempts to defuse criticism of the war by agreeing "mistakes were made" (without really attacking the enterprise or its major proponents) and taking the opportunity to call Democrats ugly names and to encourage infighting in the Party, while simultaneously daring Congressional Democrats to take a stand for which his rightwing brethren would promptly attack them as traitors.

4. You accuse me of playing rhetorical games: of course, it is McL who is playing such games, using broadcast media.

5. If you want to say that many Democrats need more spine, I'm happy to agree, but it's possible to change what many say, and it's happening: "Democrats as a group have lost their soul and their way" is unfair to the vast majority of Democratic activists I know -- and it's a rightwing talking point.

[OrwellwasRight]

98. 1) If Dems fear to be speak because they might be called names,

then that just proves my point that we really have lost our way. It is often risky to do what is right. What is our alternative? To wait till it is safe to speak up and the MSM will do along with us? That worked really well in Nazi Germany.

Running around in fear of the media is unproductive. Instead we could try something really fucking revolutionary (so revolutionary it is practiced on a daily basis on high school debate teams and in law firms across the country on a daily basis): anticipating the criticisms of the RW pundits and the MSM and having counterarguments ready. Wow, what a concept.

2) None of the points I made in any post on this thread or any other thread ever on the DU have criticized activists. I would think that when I name "Pelosi, Reid, et al." it is pretty clear who I am talking about. I wouldn't say "Dems as a party" because there are many in the party who have not lost their way (e.g.,the CBC, DK, "activists"), but as a group, the Congressional Dems are pretty fucking ineffective these days, IMO. Not all, but most. I am pleased to see a number of outspoken Dems, but too often, too many are sitting down and shutting up. Worse, those who do speak out are ineffectively supported by the leadership. And THAT needs to be called on the carpet and fixed. I am sick of people defending inaction because action might offend someone. Well I am fucking offended that G Dub is PRESIDENT.

And apparently a lot of folks here on DU agree with me (see link below to a post with a comparable message to mine that got 123 greatest votes).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=146711

3) And it is NOT a RW talking point that "Democratic activists" have lost their soul and their way. Instead, Man Coulter and her ilk say we are too loud; they don't criticize us for not protesting loudly enough (that would give credence to the notion that we have something to protest, and they don't really want to admit that).

[LittleClarkie]

90. Reid just said that the Republicans are like the mob.

I don't think he's afraid of shit. However, he's also not a loud mouth. He pipes up when he has something to say.

[leeroysphitz]

91. We really could do with some new, effective leadership...

Not trying to "bash" anyone but come on, facts is facts. Are we where we want to be? Do we feel the people in charge are really doing their best to get us there?

[TheCentepedeShoes]

92. If Boy King George heard

the word "pusillanimous" he'd need his Unka Dick to help him with his Funk and Wagnalls.

[OrwellwasRight]

94. True dat. nt.

[Nikki Stone 1]

97. The question should be: What does the RNC have on the Dems?

Obviously the screws are being put to the Dem leadership.

[Roho]

99. my first and third post are the same

ANTHRAX !!!