Dave Lindorff: Democrats are their own worst enemy

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24921

Democrats are their own worst enemy
Submitted by dlindorff on Fri, 2007-07-20 19:24. Impeachment

By Dave Lindorff

snip//

If the Democrats want to escape this trap of their own making, they are going to have to do something that has eluded Democrats for a generation—really back to the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. They are going to have to stand up and be leaders. (Okay, Johnson was a war criminal and should have been impeached for the Gulf of Tonkin fraud, but he did stand up and lead on Civil Rights legislation, Medicare and the so-called War on Poverty.)

What Democrats have to do is heed the advice of retired Gen. William Odom, and declare that “supporting the troops” means bringing them safely home, and no longer stranding them in a hopeless and pointless war in Iraq. It means declaring that Bush and Cheney lied the country into this war and that he has no right to be trusted on anything he says about it today. They need to say that they are through funding this disaster and that come October 1, there will be no more money appropriated for war in Iraq—only for removing the U.S. from that country. Completely.

Democrats, to succeed, need to speak forthrightly to the American people and say that while they may have been suckered and intimidated into supporting the war effort for more than five years, they recognize now that it has to stop, and they are going to do it—for the sake of the troops, for the sake of America, and for the sake of the long-suffering Iraqi people. They also need to declare that the so-called War on Terror, beyond being the failure that it has been called by the latest National Intelligence Estimate, is also a fraud—one that has been shamelessly and intentionally used to frighten Americans (and their elected representatives) into surrendering freedoms and powers to the executive branch.

If they do all this, they will find their support rising again from its current dismal 23 percent support level.

If they really want to be popular, they will follow this up with an aggressive campaign to impeach both the president and vice president for a string of abuses of power, lies, obstruction and violations of law.

Some people have claimed that impeachment would be divisive. What a joke! With the president’s popular support today at 27-29 percent (depending upon the poll), and with Cheney’s support down in single or low double digits, it should be clear to even the dumbest member of Congress that impeachment, if presented properly as a defense of Constitutional government and democratic freedom, would be greeted with cheers across the nation and on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

more...

[WilliamPitt]

1. Stand up and be leaders

That worked out pretty well for a couple of brothers and some civil rights activists.

Jack, Bobby, Martin, Medgar and Malcom. Bang bang bang bang bang.

There is a lack of dynamic leadership in the party. But there is something to be said for having living party elders to be inspired by, taught by, consult with, etc. The GOP had Nixon forever, Bennett, Goldwater, Atchison, Eisenhower, Ford and a crowd of others besides. That's a hell of an advantage; Nixon alone was an awesome political mechanic and a master strategist, no matter how much of a bastard he was.

The Dems lost all their wise old men before 1970. The absence has been notable.

[mzmolly]

2. Democrats have said supporting the troops means bringing them home.

I believe Reid himself, said this last week on the Senate floor? ;)

[babylonsister]

3. mzmolly, you waivering on impeachment again?

IIRC, you were gung-ho last week after the Moyers' program. Had time to rethink that?

[mzmolly]

4. I've always supported impeachment, but felt ending the war was to be the TOP priority.

I think that the woman in your sigline has waivered, she started out on an "end the war" crusade, and she's now on an "impeach" crusade. Don't confuse me with Cindy Sheehan please. Further she started out a Democrat and now she's a Libertarian.

I am an open minded person, I try to look at all sides of an issue. I'm not ashamed of that, should I be?

[babylonsister]

5. Oooh, touchy. Didn't mean to rile you, I just remembered our

conversing during that program. You can do whatever you want, as is your right, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just asking a question. Now I'm sorry I did.

[mzmolly]

6. Not riled at all, but I didn't see what your question had to do with the comment I made?

My problem has always been that we are close to ending the war, and some very vocal antiwar leaders are changing horses mid-race when we are close to that goal?

My priorities have always been and remain -

1. End the war
2. Educate the public - on Bush/Cheney's "crimes"
3. Impeach

IN THAT ORDER. What has changed for me is that, I no longer feel impeachment is an "option" I feel we must.

[madfloridian]

7. I believe in standing up, but I also believe in giving credit.

We have had to write Lindorff often for not getting the Democratic stuff correct. Dean even wrote him once to ask him to correct a mistake.

I believe there is a difference in standing up and being sensible about the goals.

AND I believe sometimes Cindy and Dave L. go after the wrong people. They don't seem to discriminate between the ones who care and have courage and the ones who don't.

I believe in impeachment, but I also believe our party leaders are in great danger right now, perhaps literally. The Supreme Court is set to let Bush win in showdown.

Impeachment will work, but it will take great courage....and they will not be able to telegraph their moves to us.

[mzmolly]

8. Nice post MF.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

9. Thanks, mzmolly...

:hi:

I have noticed too much of an anti-Democratic-Party tone here lately, rather weakly disguised as holding feet to the fire.

We can hold feet to the fire but still be supportive. I don't like some of the undertones at times.

[mzmolly]

10. Well said.

:toast: Fully agree!