Democrats Should Stand by their Principles Regardless of Vote Counts

[spanone]

talking iraq
talking homeland security
talking wiretapping
talking human rights
talking privacy
talking ethics

if we don't have the votes we can at least be the party of truth and principle

that's my opinion, oughta be yours.:+

[countingbluecars]

1. Amen! n/t

[Olney Blue]

2. Exactly.

[jgraz]

3. "that's my opinion, oughta be yours"

I like it. So much more diplomatic than my "if you don't agree with me, you're a fuckin idiot." :rofl:

[spanone]

16. agreed

[Vincardog]

4. Add DOING impeachment and I am in

[spanone]

17. talking impeachment

[papau]

18. Agree on impeachment - the only one that is doable - the others fail for lack of votes making the

idea a "gesture" that dies in the Senate - and on bills that must pass like military funding, the Democrats would look like idiots if they put up "voluntary timelines" with GOP help - and anything stonger will not get GOP help and they will again look like idiots - of course that's "in my opinion".

[LWolf]

5. I, for one, do.

Although it has been repeatedly suggested that those of us who stand by our principles, by Democratic principles, aren't "real" Democrats.

If we are not the party of truth and principle, then I don't want us in power. Simple as that. I don't need more lies, I don't need more corruption.

[Beelzebud]

6. That is what they should be doing. Unfortunately they're not.

[WillyT]

7. Maybe They Should Take A Vote On Whether They HAVE Any Principles ???

I'm sure it would be close.

:evilgrin:

[truedelphi]

13. Is a vote on that even needed??

The banking, I mean, Federal Reserve control over our money, is an outrage and any Congress critter worth their salt knows it.

Has that even been mentioned?? Anywhere but YOUTUBE videos, I mean?? (And with the Dept of justice recently saying that net neutrality is NOT good for us, those videos may soon be gone.")

[reprobate]

8. The problem is that the party, at least in the house, is controlled by conservatives.

Ever heard of 'Blue Dog' Democrats?

They are for the most part conservatives (some even switched from the repugs to run as Blue Dogs) who were recruited by Rahm Emmanual to run in the primaries. He supported them with DCCC money against the progressives who were running, which is directly against party rules.

I have to question why Pelosi appointed him to head the DCCC. After all, he was far from an unknown quantity. Add to this the "Impeachment is off the table", and to me it seems that the party that used to stand for the working people is now controlled by the corporate elite.

We have been the victims of a coup de rove. It sure looks like his handywork.

And that makes Pelosi a traitor to her party.

[truedelphi]

12. Hopefully everyone on DU has heard about the Blue Dog Democrats

But if Congress does not make the attempt to impeach, I can guarantee there will be NO results

But if impeachment *is* put on the table, then the education process will begin.

maybe the Blue Dogs will start to hear from the constituents that THEY want impeachment.

I'm old enough to remember the summer of 1974. Impeachment was beyond my wildest dreams.

But the fact that it was put on the table enabled those opposing Richard Nixon to educate those who supported him.

By Aug 14th, it was Barry Goldwater, hardly a Nixon basher, bringing Nixon the news that he would not be able to avoid casting a vote for impeachment.

Nixon ended up resigning.

[reprobate]

19. I'm sure you're right about DU members hearing of the Blue Dogs.

I've heard of them of course. The point I was making was how they got in power, which I didn't know about until a few days ago when a DU member posted that link.

Also, there has been so much speculation as to why Pelosi has been so weak as a House Speaker, the one person who really has the power to challenge a president that I wanted to suggest to all that she has NOT been weak, but she has led the blue dog agenda exactly as she planned.

My one hope for change - and it won't be until after the election - is that she, as well as the other blue dogs are challenged in the primary by progressives. Maybe then our government will reflect the politics of the people.

[truedelphi]

24. I am guilty of not reading your entire post

And I apologize. Thank you for bearing with me.

Also I did not know how Rahm gained the power that he had.

It does not surprise me at all about Pelosi - the idea I had of her in my mind circa 2005 and 2006 made me feel she was well inside the pocket of the elite.


I started to feel hopeful about her as I did get caught up (briefly - very briefly) in enthusiasm over her initial few days of reign as Madame Speaker.

But now I think that her true colors are showing.

[reprobate]

25. No apologies are necessary. And I understand the urge to enthusiasm after

the election. I was caught up in it myself.

I think the turning point in my judgment of our party's leadership came with the words "Impeachment is off the table."

What I felt then was betrayal, like a knife being plunged into my back by a trusted friend. At this point it's difficult to predict when or if I can see myself trusting the current leadership again.

It seems to me that the only future for the Democratic party is if progressives make a determined run to take over. I think that Cindy Sheehan could be a catalyst if and when she challenges Pelosi for her seat in that district. If she does she definitely will have my backing, both moral and financial. And I would hope organizations like MoveOn, etc. will support her.

It's really strange to think that the polls show that Americans are turning progressive en mass, while our party, supposedly the progressives, are becoming not just conservative, but positively Rovian.

Who'da thought it?

[superkia]

9. If a candidate isnt leading the polls or all over the media

people say they are unelectable and don't even try, they give in to the broken system we have and feel good about themselves?

I just had this interaction in a post that makes my point.



Fellow DUEr : Honestly?I really can't call any of them my candidate. They're all being spineless and talking way too much about nothing productive.

My response : Theres a guy named Kucinich talking out for the people!

Fellow DUer : And he, frankly, has as much chance of becoming president...

As I do.

If we could somehow get past this attitude towards freedom and choices, we may get somewhere?

[BlooInBloo]

10. It would be nice if Democrats, both professional and amateur, believed that....

... To fight the fights that are worth fighting; not just the ones you think you can win.

[checks-n-balances]

23. I'm sure that's what RANDALL MCMURPHY (Cukoo's Nest) believed

With thanks to a post by H2O Man yesterday (re: the Circuit City matter), here's a perfect example straight from the movie, "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest". Perhaps some of you will remember this scene:

In the movie, (a) message is delivered by Jack Nicholson’s expression – it is evident that he recognizes there are some issues worth fighting for, and others that distract us from what is important...

McMurphy’s response....does not mean he only engages in actions when he is certain that he will succeed. There is a great scene where he bets the others that he can pick up the stone sink, and toss it through the window, in order that he can escape. "At least I tried" he tells them.

Isn't that what Congressional Dems (and others of good conscience & decency) should be able to declare in the near future, regardless of expected outcome?!

"AT LEAST WE TRIED!"?

[Raster]

11. Impeachment will not be allowed to come to a floor vote because America would be able to see

...just who voted to impeach and who didn't. And believe me, it's not rethuglicans anyone's concerned about. Everyone knows there isn't a principled one in the bunch. No, what the Democrat High Command is concerned about is how many Dems would vote NOT TO IMPEACH. We, the citizens, assume incorrectly that our party would do the right thing and of course vote to bring the criminals to justice and end this insanity. And that would be an incorrect assumption. Over and over again, Representatives of our party have voted AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS of the American Citizen. Cases in point: FISA, the Bankruptcy Bill, the illegal Iraq war, the continued Iraq funding, the "New" Medicare Bill. Democrat members of Congress have done a fast tapdance to justify voting for each of these travesties, with varying degrees of success. But a vote on impeachment, well, that is yes or no. Non justifiable and nonspinable. Allowing a vote on impeachment would bring to fore just how corrupt and diseased the system truly is. A vote to impeach IS Pandora's box.

If democracy, as we think we know it, is to survive, it must evolve to meet the times. It is now time to begin discussion about a more representative form of democracy, perhaps a multiple party parliament and even more important, a citizen direct component. We need to begin questioning our current "democracy by proxy" form of government. It is painfully obvious Congress has a higher allegiance than to the American people. It is time to correct this abomination.

Wake up America!:kick:

[Vincardog]

20. That is exactly why WE have to FORCE the issue. After the crimes and corruption have a full and open

airing on national TV. After the facts are shown;
After the public is fully informed of the depth of the cancer infecting our government;
Then let the Senate vote on the record where they stand EVERY ONE OF THEM.

IF we do not have the votes to remove the Idiot bush at least we will have them on the record.

[Raster]

21. That has been my standing all along. I get physically ill when I hear the constant whine:

"we don't have the votes." Or "the American people don't support impeachment." To both I say BULLSHIT. First off, there are ridiculously few national pollsters asking the impeachment question. Contrast that to the Clinton lynching when there were multiple polls changing daily about impeachment. And second, and this is the most important, it will put the evidence on public display. Once the American people get an unadulterated, un-obscured look at the crimes of cheney*/bush*, there will be no question to impeach. No, the real reason Congress, and a Democratic majority Congress at that, are holding out on impeachment is that THEY DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD. And ultimately, once you start asking the tough questions, Congress is afraid the American public will see just how complicit Congress has been all along. It was one thing to blame the evils of cheney*/bush* on a Rethuglican-held Congress, they were a convenient fall guy. Evidently its quite another thing when you don't have the convenient fall guy. Ultimately, it's called responsibility. Responsibility AND OBLIGATION to the voters that put you there and responsibility to do the right thing. We are so fond of repeating stories and platitudes about the power of courage and the conviction to do what is right. Unfortunately Congress didn't read that story or get that memo.

Wake up America!:kick:

[warren pease]

22. My latest attempt at coercion...

Below is about half of a letter I recently mailed (the kind of mail that requires a stamp) to Pelosi's SF office. Incredibly, I've yet to get a response.


<snip>

Please be advised that if you and your colleagues continue to sanction this administration's illegalities in invading and occupying a sovereign country -- and justifying these actions with a collection of lies which have been completely discredited by responsible journalists and investigators world-wide -- you will be considered complicit in enabling these crimes against US and International law, and may be subject to indictment and prosecution as accessories after the fact to charges ranging from abetting and continuing to fund preemptive military attacks to sanctioning torture of "illegal combatants."

Please be advised that, since this country is afflicted with a two-party system which leaves no room for non-mainstream viewpoints in the political arena, the Democratic party is the only nominal opposition standing in the way of an imperial executive answerable to no one -- which most would agree is a fairly good description of a dictatorship.

Please be advised that you serve at the pleasure of the electorate, and those voters expect and demand that you abide by your campaign promises to end the Iraq occupation and shine a little light onto the actions of the principals who have instituted and profited from the systemic corruption that has characterized this administration since it usurped power in January 2001.

Please be advised that the people who elected you will not tolerate any policies of appeasement or accommodation that have the effect of helping this administration prolong its illegal war, while suffering no legal or political consequences for those actions.

</snip>


For all I care, they can drag her to The Hague along with the rest of these war criminals, where she can share their punishment. It's criminal negligence to allow this administration to continue to operate by refusing to abide by her Constitutional duties.


wp

[Frogger]

14. That's right.

What's the point of having the Presidency, and Congress, if they are afraid to install our positions? If they are afraid to own up to our positions? What's the difference between that and having a Repugnant government?

[Mnemosyne]

15. Yes. I believed it was what we were all about. n/t