Why Congress Has No Spine-by DemHillStaffer

[kpete]

Why Congress Has No Spine
by DemHillStaffer
Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 10:15:42 PM PDT
Perhaps the recurring theme in the Daily Kos community is that Democratic elected officials, particularly Members of Congress have no spine and won't fight for the things we believe in. Certainly many examples abound from the Bankruptcy Bill to the Energy Bill to funding for the war in Iraq. I hope this diary will shed some light on why things are this way and what needs to be done to change things.


And just to be pre-emptive: I am not a member of the DLC, I do not work for a member of the DLC (or one who acts like a member of the DLC) or of Democratic Leadership. I also don't work in the Senate, so I can't say anything of substance on Senate-only issues, like nominations. I am writing this diary to explain, not to excuse. Clearly, I too want to see things change. Finally, this is meant to explain the dynamics facing the average Democrat; a few well-know members are just suck-up to the Republicans because of who they are.

Anyway, here goes:

We need to look at 4 different aspects of congressional action because each has its own dynamics to see how this comes together in a pattern: the appropriations process, domestic legislation, foreign policy, and leadership.

............

Finally, and most importantly, all of these problems go away as soon as we win. We'd be able to write the bills, we'd have a party leader/leaders who can set the agenda, and we wouldn't rely on Republicans to do actual governing. Of course, given the criticality of winning, that means that decisions should be made with an eye on '06 and '08. We should be more understanding of efforts to choose fights that are politically popular and be quieter on politically unpopular fights. We should be more understanding of efforts to put the best candidates in the best races and with the best chances. And, we should understand that Democrats may not say or do everything we want because it may not be helpful to the cause of winning.

I look forward to your thoughts and critiques.

lots more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/19/01542/9703

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. It's our election system that needs to be changed

In order to get elected in this country, one must have lots of money. There is no other way. To have lots of money to run for office, one must kowtow to those who have huge amts of money. If there's no money to pay for publicity, the corporate media will not publicize the person running for office. So anyone running for office in the U.S. must kiss corporate arse. Our forefathers left us a system of election tailor-made for the rich and well-to-do.

Europeans are grateful not to have this corrupt U.S. system of election.

[blm]

2. The Staffer doesn't factor in most important ingredient - the MEDIA

doesn't show ONE SHRED OF HONESTY OR BALANCE in presenting the issues involved.

There is no megaphone for the Democrats or their positions on the issues.

The longer Democrats in Congress IGNORE the GOP control of broadcast media, the longer our issues will NOT BE HEARD by the majority of Americans.

Fer chrissakes, would Diebold be fully certified in California if we had a NEWSMEDIA that explained its corruption with any balance?

[Boredtodeath]

4. You didn't even go to the link

Because the staffer DOES include that old, tired excuse.

[blm]

6. I did go to the post at dkos... If they think media is not controlled by

corporate cronies of the GOP then I question the talent and brainpower of those making the perceptions - sounds like they are in a bubble of their own.

I trust FAIR and MediaMatters and my own ears over their sense of perception.

Nowhere does the staffer address the problem that Dems REALLY HAVE - NO way to tell the American people in any WIDESPREAD WAY what the issues are and what they mean for them.

[Boredtodeath]

8. If they acted like DEMOCRATS

and threw a public fit, the press would show up.

You'll note, they sure as hell showed up for every Newt Gingrich press conference when THEY were the minority.

Because the press could count on a show.

Because the republicans screeched, and shouted and made all manner of accusations they couldn't prove.

And our DEM leaders want to behave like John Kerry did during the last campaign - hiding their head in the sand while a bunch of lying, corrupt, paid shills called his combat experience into question.

[blm]

13. Bull - Kerry attacked the Swiftlies in a speech at Firefighters Convention

and newsmedia barely reported it and NO BROADCAST MEDIA showed the speech, except Cspan.

If media won't cover the defense, then the ignorant will never know it happened. The WILLFULLY ignorant is another story.

I suggest a check into the Research Forum for those who want to see the TRUTH about the campaign.

[Boredtodeath]

14. Go ahead. Try to re-write history.

But too many of us were there. We know the truth. We lived it.

[blm]

16. So, in YOUR mind, Kerry didn't attack the swifts at Firefighters Convo?

Nice to be able to draw your conclusions using YOUR OWN ILLUSIONS. Funny, that they coincide with what the CORPORATE MEDIA chose to cover.

It either HAPPENED or it DIDN'T - both can't be true. Why you base your conclusion on a lie that it didn't happen is what's wrong with too many on the left - you let corporate media off the hook whenever you perpetuate THEIR LIE.

I will take it you will not acknowledge the FACTS IN THE DU RESEARCH FORUM because you have decided to be WILLFULLY IGNORANT because it suits your purpose.

[fasttense]

18. Good point Bored. Where are our Democratic Leaders when we

have protests in DC???? Maybe we might get 3 and I'm being generous. Why aren't at least half of them there???? What is it with Democratic Leaders being afraid to look like an opposition party??? Seems they want their cake and eat it too. They want to be liberals but are afraid to stand up and be identified as a liberal. They want to win elections but are afraid of giving up their little earmarks in exchange for creating some hate and discontent among repukes.

[glitch]

7. Tired, old, yet still quite valid. nt

[Boredtodeath]

9. No it's not

You''ll note they are making all manner of accusations against Cynthia McKinney this weekend because she put on a show.

And no matter what they are saying, her words are being REPEATED.

Hey, what a concept........getting your message out.

[Boredtodeath]

3. This is the MOST telling statement by that staffer in a bubble

Every elected Democrat has to feel that there's a benefit to doing the right thing.

Of course the "benefit" might be standing up for what's right on PRINCIPLE.

Clearly this staffer is like all the legislators (except a very few) - in that protective bubble of DC where they just don't fucking get it.

[OzarkDem]

21. Yep

Moving legislation (or failing to do so) is a separate issue entirely.

Speaking out as a unified voice to call attention to the wrongdoings in the legislative process is completely different and the key thing that's lacking.

We know they have few tools to actually stop something in Congress, but it doesn't justify their shrugging and walking away.

They are the only visible shred of the Democratic Party left in the public eye. They owe it to their country to speak out on the corruption and hijacking of democracy that's going on.

If they don't who will?

[unblock]

5. except that why didn't the REPUBLICANS do this when THEY were out?

the minority party is usually in a great position to be philosophically pure and to attack, attack, attack, because they don't have the burden of actually governing. democrats should be 100% focused on raising hell, thinking up wedge issues to make the banana republicans uncomfortable, targetting vulnerable banana republicans in swing districts and states, doing in congress whatever needs to be done to make for great campaigns.

who gives a rat's ass if some of the banana republicans are actually quite nice in person???

[Boredtodeath]

10. Exactly! And, to this day.........

Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich wear their "nasty player" labels proudly.

[European Socialist]

11. careerism is no excuse--you go to Congress to lead--not CYA.

[Boredtodeath]

12. Thank you. Well said. n/t

.

[Greyhound]

15. Excellent piece. Overlooked, and understandably so, is the factor

of job security in DC. They (pols), and we, have forgotten that these people are sent to DC to represent us for a period of time as a service to their constituents and their country, not, as many now believe, to pursue a lifetime career. If the reps went into it with the idea of serving a term or three and then going home to their lives, rather than making a permanent move to the beltway, they would be free to take the stands that are necessary to our future survival.
Maybe we should adopt a Jeffersonian type of system and everything is wiped clean every 20 years or so.

[Boredtodeath]

17. But, but, but......that STAFFER would be looking for a job!

You know, if their "boss" didn't get re-elected to a lifetime job, they won't have one either.

Sorry, but the whole damned exchange over there comes off as one very long, very tired WHINE.

Short version:
It's tough selling our soul for a return trip to DC.

[Greyhound]

19. Yeah, well he/she could get a job as a bureaucrat. Nah, too much like

a J O B. I've had to deal with the staffers too many times to have any illusions about their agendas.
:rofl:

[OneBlueSky]

20. it's far worse that "no spine" . . . it's an outright betrayal . . .

of the nation, and of "we, the people" . . .

today, "we, the people" have no representation in Washington . . .

but the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the inurance companies, the credit card companies, and the "defense" contractors sure as hell do . . .

matter of fact, they own the place . . .

and it won't be long before they own us -- if they don't already . . .

[Mass]

22. Question: we should trust him because? Do we even know who this person is

He/she could be a Republican staffer, he/she could even be somebody who is not a staffer at all and is following a personnal agenda.

There is nothing in this piece that I could not have written myself and I can assure you I have ABSOLUTELY NO insider knowledge. So, even if the writer is who he/she says he/she is, it is a one person opinion, interesting to read, but not necessarily to take as Gospel or as something very insightful.

Except, of course, if all you want is to attack the Democrats.