How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months

[EV_Ares]

By Alexander Cockburn, The Nation. Posted August 10, 2007.

Thanks to the Dems' inaction on Iraq and compliance with Bush on the FISA bill, the Democratic-controlled Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The row over the US Attorneys and the conduct of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has always been something of a typhoon in a teaspoon. The Democrats love it, since they imagine it portrays them to the public as resolute guardians of the impartial administration of justice, a concept whose credibility most Americans sensibly deride. The Democrats now plan to track Gonzales's firing of the US Attorneys back to that comic opera villain of the Bush era, Karl Rove, another great provoker of dust storms.

The one Democrat acting on principle in the Gonzales affair has been Senator Russ Feingold. He at least tried to dig into the visit of chief White House counsel Gonzales, as he then was, to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to sign off on the illegal wiretaps. And how did the Democrat-controlled Congress deal with Feingold's efforts to nail Gonzales for his efforts to undermine the Constitution and for his prevarications under oath? It promptly legalized the eavesdropping.

((((entire article @ link below))))

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/cockburn

[Perry Logan]

1. Oh I dunno. At least our wounded vets are not lying around in their own urine.

From Bob Geiger:

"The low approval ratings of Congress are just a continuation of how the GOP, do-nothing Congresses tanked those numbers beginning back in 2002.

Republicans as a group currently have a lower approval rating than do Congressional Democrats, by a six-point margin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/destroying-the-gops-cong_b_58382.html

[paulk]

2. fuck Alexander Cockburn

he's nothing but a right wing waterboy.

[Gman]

4. All of these phucks that are slamming the Democrats

are carrying water for the right wing nutcases.

[JVS]

9. All of those Democrats who vote for war funding and against our rights...

and conduct their duties so poorly that such abominations even get to the floor are carrying water for the right wing nutcases.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. what you said.

al got it right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. Yes

You get it.

[EV_Ares]

5. Yeah, right, you might want to read who he is and I don't think he

nor The Nation has ever carrie water for the repukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Cockburn

[rodeodance]

10. Relationship with Christopher Hitchens. I knew he had a falling out a while

ago. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Cockburn#Relationship_with_Christopher_Hitchens


Relationship with Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is often mentioned in connection with Cockburn because of their shared origin in the British Isles, similar educational background, both being columnists at The Nation, and one-time friendship. Hitchens' move to the right on many issues has caused a bitter falling out between the two. Beyond issues such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the split also involves personal issues regarding writers such as Sidney Blumenthal and friends such as Edward Said.

In a Counterpunch article in August 2005, Cockburn wrote:

What a truly disgusting sack of shit Hitchens is. A guy who called Sid Blumenthal one of his best friends and then tried to have him thrown into prison for perjury; a guy who waited til his friend Edward Said was on his death bed before attacking him in the Atlantic Monthly; a guy who knows perfectly well the role Israel plays in US policy but who does not scruple to flail Cindy Sheehan as a LaRouchie and anti-Semite because, maybe, she dared mention the word Israel.<26>

Apparently soon after, Hitchens replied (quoted in the same Counterpunch article)

is welcome to describe me as a "sack of shit", as well as to smear excrement all over the walls of his nursery.

A little over a year later in September 2006, Hitchens wrote in a Slate.com piece (in response to an article by David Corn that criticized Hitchens' position on Iraq but praised his early career):

Incidentally, I begin to tire of this sickly idea that I used to be a great guy until I became fed up with excuses for dictators and psychopathic murderers (let alone for mediocre CIA fantasists). Alexander Cockburn is surely nearer the mark when he says that I was a complete shit and traitor all along.<27>

[EV_Ares]

12. We have to look at the history. I don't understand the relationship

of Hillary with Murdoch who even held a fundraiser for her at his home. However, there may be a reason, don't know but I certainly don't trust Murdoch.

[paulk]

29. I am completely aware of who he is

I used to subscribe to the Nation - I wouldn't wipe my ass with that rag these days. Why? Because they have completely marginalized, not only themselves, but the left in general by publishing idiots like Cockburn.

[EV_Ares]

40. Your opinion. I will keep subscribing. eom.

[rodeodance]

7. I see many DU threads with same words/tone and editorials posted with

same (dems caved-----in some form or another).

[leeroysphitz]

11. But don't you think the dems performance deserves any

scrutiny or criticism? Why confuse that with bashing?

[MODemocrat]

25. Certainly, they deserve scrutiny or criticism

But for crying out loud; why are they getting blamed for Bush's seven years of failures? It's pretty
pathetic when we can write all the failures of the democrats, and let Bush just float above it all.
We should be after that gang of thieves in the Bush Administration every day instead of beating up on
our own side. :think: :spank: :shrug: :dem:

[Solon]

27. They aren't, they are getting blamed from 8 months of failure...

The Democrats are the MAJORITY party in Congress, it doesn't matter how slim that majority is, its enough to at least act obstructionist to King George. Since they haven't even bothered to go even that far, they are failing. Also, I have yet to see the Democrats as being on "our" side, if by our, you mean the people of this country. They would sell out their own children, or other people's children to win votes, there is nothing honorable in that.

[tomp]

54. 86% of U.S. think dem congress sucks.

impeachment is off the table. rah! rah! go dems!

the dems (as a whole) require serious spanking.

impeach pelosi and reid!

[paulk]

57. no, 86% think CONGRESS sucks, not the "Dem" Congress

which is only about 4% higher than it usually is. Hey - I think Congress sucks, too - mostly because the Republicans are blocking everything the Dems try. Not everyone blames everything on the Dems, like you do, when it comes to rating Congress.

[tomp]

58. so, pre-2004 you thought congress sucked...

...and post-2004 you still think congress sucks. what's the point of having the majority in both houses if democratic effectiveness is going to decrease (as rated by polls)? what good are the dems doing?

[paulk]

61. of course I thought it sucked back then

and for the same reasons - too many Republicans and Republican obstructionism. Dole was a master of it.

We don't have enough of a majority in either branch of Congress to do much more than expose Bush Co. Real policy change is going to have to wait until we get a real majority - and the White House. If that happens - and the Dems continue to be ineffective - then I'll join you in trashing them. Of course, my definition of "ineffective" is bound to differ from yours.

Our system is set up to move slowly, and most of what progressives want is not going to happen in the time frame you'd like. Change needs to be pushed by the people - and it's more our jobs than the politician's to convince those people that liberal policies work better than conservative ones.

[tomp]

62. so we can't expect anything until we have a veto-proof majority?

or a majority of both houses plus a democratic president? you're absolutely right, it moves slowly. glacially, i'd say. i've been waiting since 1968 for some hint of progressive movement in the democratic party. i've seen the opposite. that's what i'd call ineffective. and that's why i'm so damned impatient and that's why i continually call for progressives to buck the system. i'm not playing by the old rules. the dems get zero breaks from me. i want it now, after forty years, after the absolute trashing of the constituion and the country by bush,inc. after the failure of the dems to appropriately oppose bush for six plus years (including the theft of 2 elections and an univestigated 9/11). nothing less than NOW will do. sorry if that offends you but that's my reality.

[paulk]

31. and I feel the same way about most of them

there has always been a faction of the left (way over represented here on DU) that sits above the fray and throws stones in every direction, with no thought toward real world solutions or understanding of the democratic process needed to reach those solutions.

Or with any real concern that those stones can cause real damage to people, on their own side, who are struggling to find those solutions.

[Marr]

16. Yes, clearly anyone who criticizes the party leadership is the enemy.

You're either with us or against us, right? We should all just pipe down and trust our leaders, right?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. IFF we had any leaders, I would trust them as far as they earned it.

Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanual, - they have failed to earn it.

[paulk]

34. it depends on what you mean by "criticism",

and I don't think the swill Cockburn and his kind spew falls under any definition of the word that I can accept.

Oh, and by the way - yes. I believe you are either "for us or against us". We are engaged in a war - a war with a pack of neocon fascists who would gladly throw this country over the cliff if it advanced their program. There are only two realistic sides in this war - Republicans and Democrats - and any attack - and Cockburn's article is an attack - on one side benefits the other.

[MODemocrat]

26. Ditto, with reference to Cockburn

The two faced jazzhonk; his opinion doesn't mean a thing!!:+ :+ :+ :+ :+

[scarletwoman]

33. Why? Are any of his facts wrong? "fuck Alexander Cockburn" isn't much of a rebuttal. (nt)

[paulk]

37. I find it sufficient

it shows my utter contempt for him.

The prism he views the world through is so distorted that there is no point in rebuttal based on "facts". His facts and my facts don't exist in the same reality.

It's no different than trying to argue with the Rush Limbaughs of this world - it's an exercise in futility. It's much simpler to just say "fuck Rush Limbaugh".

IMHO.

[scarletwoman]

38. Well, then. Bully for you. (nt)

[EV_Ares]

41. I haven't seen any facts of yours or any kind of an intelligent

argument, just a lot of fucks, etc.

[paulk]

42. sorry to disappoint, but

that you even posted this garbage tells me all I need to know when it comes to winning your approval.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

45. I attack Mr. Cockburn, you attack me

whatever....

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[lfairban]

53. Brilliant! I love it!

I woke up this morning so mad at the Democrats I could spit tea.

I was about to start a Dem bashing thread. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

I wait in eager anticipation of the next DSCC phone call soliciting money. I'll tell them, I can't help you right now, could you call back in a couple of years?

[tomp]

55. that's it in a nutshell. nt

[paulk]

56. hey! I won the Dead Pool! Two days before going 6 ft under!

LOL!

[leftchick]

59. wow!

Just Wow! Excellent points and post!!

:applause:

[KharmaTrain]

3. So We Should Bring Back The Repugnicans?

Now there's no mention of the dozens of worthwhile and meaningful bills that the House passed out...18 currently sitting in the McConnell Cooler...being bottled up and threatened by boooshie vetoes. Of course obstructionism is of no consequence to this wingnut shill as he knows he can hide behind that stonewall and fire his little darts.

The problem isn't what the Democrats have done, it's that there aren't enough Democrats right now to get the job done. But that could and should be rememdied next year. Then this shill will be back with how repressive those same Democrats are.

Ya gotta love when a Repugnican projects being a Democrat...like they're having some out-of-body experience...which could be true since this is as close to reality they touch.

[MisterHowdy]

6. Democrats are still better than republicans.

Sometimes they seem like their just the lesser of two evils.
But a Democratic government would not have gotten the US in the mess its in today.

[EV_Ares]

14. Yes, you are absolutely correct. Overall they are much better but

to continue being better and to keep them in reality, it is good that they hear about those things we think they are weak on and simply keep them cocused and on the right track.

[Stuckinthebush]

8. A lot of truth here

Americans are saddened that Congress hasn't put a massive check on this crazy administration. They also see Pelosi and Reid as timid and tepid.

The new Dem congress could have done so much more for the country from the get go. They are still much much better than the GOP congress, but the reason the polls are so low for the Dems is that we are all very very disappointed.

Perhaps things will turn around.

[VP505]

13. Trouble is that

no matter how much good legislation the Dem's pass, or will pass it gets hidden in the background because what they are NOT doing getting all the attention. Like it or not allowing that FISA Bill to pass was not good for the country nor was it a smart thing for a so called opposition party to do. Pelosi taking impeachment off the table and refusing to allow discussion of it is hurting their credibility big time. Investigations that don't go anywhere, issuing subpoenas then extending the deadlines multiple times also makes them look weak. Allowing "I don't recall" and using the so called executive privilege claimed by the President to not truthfully answer questions makes the hearings meaningless, all of which add up to a poor opinion of the Dem's ability to govern effectively.

[book_worm]

15. I'm not a huge fan of Cockburn, but what he is saying here is true

Dems were put in to end the war and nothing, thus far, indicates that we are helping to put a break on the war. If September comes and the Dems, once again, give in on timelines--I think there will be a terrific uproar among the people of this country who, by and large, want to see some evidence that we are moving towards removing ourselves from Iraq.

[leftchick]

17. he makes some excellent points

thank you for this....

<snip>

So Obama is being flayed for his "inexperience," first and foremost by Hillary Clinton, who permits no table setting that does not include a couple of nuclear weapons next to the sugar bowl. To recoup, Obama has declared his readiness as Commander in Chief to order US forces to hotly pursue Osama into Pakistan, whatever the government of Pakistan might think of this onslaught on its sovereignty.

Has the left the capacity to influence the conduct of the Democrats? In terms of substantive achievement the answer thus far has been no. People didn't like it when I wrote here a month ago that the antiwar movement was at a low ebb. They invoke the polls showing that 70 percent of Americans want the troops to come home. This is presumptuous, like a barking dog claiming it made the moon go down. It didn't take an antiwar movement to make the people antiwar. People looked at the casualty figures and the newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a bust. Their attention is already shifting to the economic crisis: housing meltdown, car sales meltdown, credit crisis, threats from the Chinese to destroy the dollar. What war?


<snip>

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush's police-state executive orders of July 17 -- the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them. And guess what? Just as their poll numbers are going down, Bush's are going up, by five points in Gallup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?

[madrchsod]

18. the reality is that the democrats did as well as they could

with the amount of votes they have. they at least took control of the committees that have exposed the corruption in the whitehouse and congress. they can not get an impeachment and they can not get a conviction because there are not enough republicans that will vote for these to actions and that is the reality of the impeachment/conviction question. we will see what happens when the iraqi question and other important issues come up in september

[OzarkDem]

24. Not really

As the majority in Congress they have a lot of tools at their disposal to delay or speed up legislation, reward members who vote with them and punish those who don't. They've used those tools sparingly, if at all.

The problem is they took control of Congress with an agenda that called for treading water and biding their time until 2008. Its not only a failed strategy, its in direct conflict with what they promised voters. They knew what they were faced with and decided not to fight or advance a strong agenda. That's a very bad idea and they're going to have to change it or risk looking dishonest and lazy ultimately paying the price in 2008.

[glitch]

30. When they do something about the corruption and the war they'll get their points back.

I just hope they don't wait too long. The longer they wait the more time they give bushcult to position another attack.

[wiggs]

68. Not even close.

One might argue that the dc dems have adopted a valid strategy to position dems for a successful 2008 (and one might be right about that), but I don't see how someone could say that dems "have done all they could" on any number of WH policies and issues, let alone the FISA one. There are exceptions, but the rule has generally been to show restraint, to pull punches, and to keep powder dry over the last 6 years.

When the next election is the focus of our representatives, you get what has happened to the GOP...gerrymandering, corruption, ruthless deception, and handling of issues to appeal to voting blocks. The focus is not on the issue but on the voting effects. We don't want to make the same mistake even if our approach is legal. Make the issues the focus and the rest will follow.

[Joey Liberal]

19. I have been disappointed in my Democratic Party

But they are still a lot better than the republifuckingNazis.

[mike_c]

22. I agree with Cockburn on most of his points-- it's bitter medicine...

...but the dem leadership seems more obsessed with holding onto power than with reversing the legacy of republican misdeeds.

[glitch]

32. Reversing the republican legacy of corruption would guarantee democratic power for decades.

Which is why some people think there is something else determining their cowardice, something more like threats against the country (for those with integrity) and blackmail (for those without).

[OzarkDem]

23. It hurts, but its true

Dem leaders in Congress need a drastic mid-course correction. They ran and won by saying they would make changes, get the US out of Iraq, work on health care, etc.

They've done precious little and have shown lack of leadership or strategy.

Their low approval ratings are a wake-up call and they had better listen.

[pingzing58]

28. Not all democrats from the House and Senate are Liberals and representative of their constituencies.

Making deals with and selling your soul to the devil comes part and parcel with becoming a seasoned (senior) congressional representative as Mrs. Pelosi has shown herself to be. But who are the other democrats who have thrown their votes in with the Repugs in support of the president while members of his own party are distancing themselves from him? Who are the congressmen and congresswomen who have betrayed their democratic constituencies and what is the point of their betrayal? I'd like to know.

[Buck Rabbit]

47. Well, I can answer a bit of your question.

There are approximately 72 Reps who are in the Blue Dog Caucus, The New Democrats (DLC) or both. This is about the same number that are in the Progressive Caucus. The Out of Iraq caucus is of about the same size, Most but not all of the Out of Iraq caucus are also members of the Progressive Caucus. I say approximately because the Party leaders often/usually drop out of sub caucuses. Last time I looked, Pilosi is no longer officially listed in the Progressive Caucus and Majority Leader Hoyer is not listed as a New Democrat
caucus member.

Not all of the Blue Dogs or New Dems betray their constituencies as many of them come from conservative districts. None the less they do tend to be largely conservative by DU standards, though centrist by national standards. The Blue Dogs and New Dems tend to place their loyalty to Hoyer over Pilosi. Hoyer won the post of Majority Leader over Pilosi's choice Jack Murtha 149-86 in a show at the beginning of the new congress that Pilosi would not be a speaker with dictatorial strongman powers in this divided caucus.

[pingzing58]

51. Thanks Buck Rabbit this info is very helpful.

[dysfunctional press]

35. this country is fucked, and we're going to get to watch first hand...

as it spins it's way down the corporate crapper.

at least it will be...interesting...to watch, if nothing else.

ralph nader was/is right about the two political parties being being two sides of the same coin.

[opihimoimoi]

36. WTF is this??? The DEMs will win in 08 as the GOP continue to screw up

reveal themselves as anti Masses...

The over view shows them Pubs as virtueless MFrs

[scarletwoman]

39. "dust storms", indeed. I absolutely agree. Great article -- k & r (nt)

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Buck Rabbit]

49. Aloha!

[mmonk]

46. This congress crushed my hopes.

Anyone who defends them doesn't have any idea how worthless their election has been so far. The constitution HAS LOST FURTHER GROUND TO THESE RIGHTWING RADICALS since January. If you had asked me if that was possible before they took office, I would have said no.

[derby378]

48. All I know is, if the Dems approve the occupation of Iraq again next month...

...I want to see a full-fledged revolt within the party itself. I want to see every last DINO war enabler met with a primary challenger. I want DINOs booed at the state and national conventions.

Apologies to the vegetarians among us, but it's "raw meat" time.

[Buck Rabbit]

50. I too am waiting for next month. I Nostrabunny predict the gloves will come off

Both intra-party and inter-party.

I expect a complete bullshit report on Iraq triumphing the glorious state of improved chaos in Iraq. A big group of GOPer's up for election in 2008 gave Bush until mid-September with the surge. The Democrats have felt that when the vulnerable GOPer's did their per-advertised September bailout that they would have the votes to force Bush's hand.

I think the GOPer's will waver due to the mixed review and the New York Times distortion of surge progress backing Petraus' expected Cheneyesque glowing report on progress.

Once the Democrat's don't get the defections they were counting on, the hope of a bipartisan draw down on the war will end. I expect it to get nasty in terms of fighting and a drop in the pretense of cooperation. Still the Dem majority in the Senate which is actually a minority with Johnson out and Lieberman camped out with the Repugs will make blocking everything about the best the Dems can actually accomplish.


edit: to fix the worse of my poor spelling

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. The FISA vote was enough for me

I have already started my revolt.

[LittleClarkie]

60. That's what happens when you don't have a filibuster/veto proof majority

The minority is able to obstruct and make you look like you aren't doing anything. It's a childish tactic, which is why we didn't do it, or only obstructed on issues we believed important. The Republicans are acting exactly the way they SAID we were acting, but really weren't.

Meanwhile, maybe we need to replace some of those Blue Dogs.

Never much liked Alexander Cockburn's style. He's too one-sided and subjective. His articles are always more editorial than actual objective reporting. I prefer more objectivity in my reporters, not an editorial writer in reporter's clothing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. What good does a filibuster/veto proof majority do

when 57 of them cave in to give bush just what he asked for?

I have the feeling that even if the Dems had 100% of the seats, they would STILL allow the administration to tell them how to vote.

[LittleClarkie]

67. So replace them with progressives if you can

too many blue dogs.

[icymist]

66. The problem that's with the Democratic base is....

They're voting along country lines. That is the old Confederacy.and IMO the Civil War has never been completed and what we are now experiencing is a product brought forth from that unfinished conflict. I wish I could explain this to you better. There was the first Civil War from 1860 through 1865. The Second Civil was fought during the early sixties with the Civil Rights marches. There is a third Civil War and it's being fought right now, in political divisions. The Blue and Grey are now the Red and Blue. We have a president and vice president, both from Texas , a duo to old Confederacy, claiming that their 'elite' are infallible. That is an elite of superior male ruling over the rest of the population. I see this happening through certain men having total control through their finances, gaining total Independence from any outside entity while employing corporations to enslave the general population. What do you see?

[snot]

69. I simply do not understand what most of the Dems think they're doing --

For me, the FISA debacle is the last straw. I cannot account for their actions without concluding they're either blind or complicit.

E.g., the whole "soft on terror" excuse -- this is b.s. I don't personally know anyone who's afraid of terrorists, despite this Admin's and the media's efforts; and to the extent anyone actually IS afraid, it only highlights the fact that the the second thing on Dems' agenda should have been media reform (the first should have been election reform). And we all know, getting them to focus on any of that has been like trying to kick molasses up a ladder.