Do you want to see Democrats elected?

[bryant69]

To Congress or the presidency?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[warren pease]

1. I like to vote...

...for DIFFERENT democrats, particularly House and Senate "leadership," who are about as adept at strategy as my cat's ass. They're either incompetent or they're complicit -- neither of which warrants a second chance at their current positions and should result in their removal by voters in the next primaries at which their jobs are at stake.

In fact, if they continue to refuse to uphold the Constitution and ignore their constituents in favor of some warped concept of political expediency, then they should be impeached right along with a half-dozen or so insane, blood-drenched imperialist war profiteers in the executive branch -- starting with Cheney -- who should be standing in the dock right this fucking minute facing a partisan inquisition from all House members who co-sponsored Kucinich's HR-333. Now THAT'S a proper tribute to 9/11.

Until the levers of party power are taken from these appalling excuses for political leadership, and until the DLC is just a cobweb-covered relic representing a particularly loathsome period during which the corporatist wing of the democratic party tried to win elections by claiming that it "doesn't suck quite as bad as the GOP" -- until these enemies of the moderate and progressive elements within the party are purged or sent across the aisle where they belong, the democratic party will continue to act as the less-powerful, kinder, gentler, less overtly insane faction of The Business Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America and run by the "have more" members of the GOP.

Blue dogs, my ass. They should be as rare as liberal Nazis, and yet they seem to wield inordinate influence over all party positions and floor votes. Can you imagine a speaker like Sam Rayburn taking shit from these reactionaries? He'd simply say, vote my way or you've seen the last federally funded road in your district. Can you imagine how LBJ would deal with these pissants? He just say, fine... and that huge contract for missile components will be going to another state instead of yours. Plus, I'll make sure all the DNC campaign money for your state goes to your primary challenger. Or you can just vote as I tell you and everything will turn out just fine.

That's what political leaders do to keep their members in line. No negotiating, no accepting turncoat behavior, no room for weaseling bullshit. Just crack the budgetary and pork barrel whip, threaten to throw money and support to their opponents, and it's amazing how quickly the "blue dogs" will get the point.

But that wouldn't be nice, and Ms. Nancy is nothing if not nice. And Harry Reid, despite his fondness for showboating pajama parties, hasn't even come close to holding Senate dems together on anything of substance.

These people either can't or won't do their jobs as the OPPOSITION party, which just happens to have a MAJORITY in both houses -- thin though it is in the Senate. They behave as if the big, bad GOP will beat them senseless if they dare act as though they're in control.

I tend to think it's the Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale. They've been abused so completely and embarrassed and humbled for so long that they've come to identify with their tormentors and agree with them that they're just pieces of shit unworthy of respect or obedience.

What the hell else could it be, unless, as stated earlier, they're completely incompetent, spend their time in way too many corporate pockets, or they're complicit in BushCo's plan to destroy what's left of the US, piece by Constitutional piece.

But actually, I just like to vote.


wp

[bryant69]

2. I think you tend to

minimize the difficulties inherent in impeachment - assuming that is what we are talking about.

Bryant

[warren pease]

21. Not just impeachment... funding the Iraq occupation, eliminating any conditions for funding...

All the stuff that tends to infuriate people about how this current crop of democrats diminish their own power as the majority party. I'm not minimizing anything; I understand it's "hard work" to oppose a dictatorial presidency. But if these lazy, inept fuckers can't handle the job, they need to get the hell out of the way and bring in people who aren't afraid of BushCo's revenge, rather than spending their dwindling political capital making excuses about how the majority party has its hands tied.

Re impeachment: I'm so god damned sick of hearing how impeachment hearings would get in the way of all the other wonderful stuff they're doing. Like they can't walk and chew gum at the same time? And they don't have the votes. Not now, they don't, and they never will unless they hold televised impeachment hearings during which that 92 percent for whom TV news is the primary or sole source of information will actually hear a little truth for a change -- which may just piss them off so much that they write, email and call their house and senate representatives and demand a guilty vote or their asses are out next election. And if enough of these people make those kinds of calls, suddenly the votes may just materialize. And maybe not, but if they don't try, failure is guaranteed.

And re the Iraq funding situation. First of all, Ms. Nancy should never have even let the last appropriations bill onto the floor for a vote once it had been stripped of all provisions that would have compelled BushCo to abide by a timeline for withdrawal. The bill they actually voted on contained some mealy mouthed language about pulling troops out by 2317 or so, but contained loopholes big enough for a B-52 to fly through, such as allowing troops to remain indefinitely if they were chasing suspected Al Qaeda members or engaged in training Iraqi troops to take over -- which is pretty much the job description of what they've been doing for at least a couple of years; that and getting blown to bits for some demented neo-con vision of "full-spectrum dominance."

And that's just the top-level stuff. Where's the enforcement mechanism to compel administration felons to honor subpoenas, testify under oath and actually remember what they've been up to for the past couple of weeks? Inherent contempt has been well-received here; on the other hand, I just attended a town hall meeting with my Congressional Rep (a dem) and took five minutes to explain inherent contempt to her -- how it works, who enforces it, the cell in the basement, etc. She had never heard of any of this stuff although, to her credit, she seemed quite interested.

What about all the wingnut judges that routinely pass scrutiny, even though that's the branch of government where BushCo will have its longest-lasting impact? Can't these idiots see that confirming 40-year-olds to lifetime appointments on the federal means that wingnut activism will prevail long after Cheney's defibrillator accompanies him to hell.

And so much more, but I've done my essay assignments for the day.

[LSK]

3. Another winner of a poll here

:sarcasm:

[bryant69]

4. What's wrong with it?

Or do you just find asking that question offensive?

Bryant

[LSK]

12. yes, I am so offended

Let me go cry in the corner.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LSK/83

[bryant69]

14. Do you think that some members of Democratic Underground are tired of

the Democratic Party?

Bryant

[LSK]

17. yes, but not too much today

I can see your point at other times, but why post it today?

:shrug:

[bryant69]

19. Maybe we've been reading different posts

But yesterday and today it seems like I've seen a lot of negativity and attacks on Democratic Leadership - particularly over the Code Pink outburst.

Could be that's just luck of the draw on my part.

Bryant

[LSK]

20. I guess

I wasn't on here yesterday and I knew there would be all kinds of uproar about the Code Pink outbursts.

Sometimes its just better to avoid trainwreck arguments.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

5. I voted "bullshit"... should be winning by a mile.

[bryant69]

6. Why? n/t

[redqueen]

10. It's very obvious why.

I'd like to see more Kucinich-like democrats elected. I wouldn't like to see more Feinstein-like democrats elected.

Your making this poll about "democrats" is just asinine, cause FUCKIN DUH. Unless you meant it to be troll bait.

[HughMoran]

7. I wonder if the two that voted no will be banned?

That is grounds for being banned here in case you didn't know...

[bryant69]

9. I wonder if they can unpack the poll to find out

I assumed they couldn't but I could be wrong. One advantage to a poll is to give people a chance to voice their opinions anonymously, without fear of being slammed into or worse.

Bryant

[HughMoran]

11. They can and have banned people based on poll voting

Just an FYI...

[mmonk]

8. Ah, an insinuation poll I see.

If you disagree with the leadership on many matters, you don't want democrats elected. Is that about right?

[bryant69]

13. Nope.

There's a difference between disagreeing with the leadership and not wanting Democrats elected. I see people almost everyday questioning the value of electing Democrats, and others disagreeing with the leadership and sometimes doing both. But they are distinct positions.

Bryant

[mmonk]

16. So you really think there are many here that want dems to lose?

[bryant69]

18. I think there are few that actively desire Democrats to lose

But I would expect there to be many of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether Democrats win.

But I Try to create symmetry between poll options.

Bryant

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. only Real Democrats, not fake ones!

[porphyrian]

22. I support actions, not associations.

I am a Democrat because what the party says it stands for most closely resembles my own values. However, the priority given those values by individual Democrats and/or the methods individual Democrats use to realize those values are not automatically acceptable simply by party affiliation. While I've never seen, and can't imagine, a republican I'd vote for, I would certainly entertain voting for a Bernie Sanders over certain conservatives who happen to be Democrats.

[tom_paine]

23. Yes, but if they win big in 2008 and then STILL FAIL to take substantive action

To restore the Constitution, Habeus Corpus, the Bull of Rights, etc.
To DeBushify/DeNazify the Executive Branch and actively re-recruit people who were forced out by Bushies abusing power
To take substantive legal action against at least one of the many felonies performed by the Bush Inner Circle in broad daylight.
To cancel most or all of Bush Imperial Orders issued between 2001 and 2008 (which he did for Clinton dso don't tell me it can't easily be done).
Get out of Iraq and put some serious effort into catching Bin Laden (I would start in DC and Crawford, Texas, personally, and I am only halfways joking when I say that).

If those things do not happen even after big Dem victories in 2008, which are no longer assured thanks to their craven strategy of puling pragmatism (and that, I believe is a charitable name for the display they've put on these last eight months), which may be during times of peace and prosperity, but not when the entire fabric of the nation is under threat.

But IF the Dems should somehow still win big in 2008, and they do not take substantive action on these fronts, my vote should you re-post this poll will not likely then be Choice #1.

[bryant69]

24. THe people who voted bullshit are, for the most part, people who think it doesnt matter

whether Democrats get elected or not but don't want to go on record saying that, even with the anonymity of a poll.

That's my theory, anyway.

Bryant

[redqueen]

25. Thanks for the accusation!

You're a really nice guy! Very reasonable!

I like you!

[bryant69]

28. Your welcome.

[redqueen]

29. You mean "You're"

:hi:

[Tesha]

26. No, we just think your baiting polls are bullshit. (NT)

[bryant69]

30. You choose not to vote because you don't like the answer

Is that called baiting?

Bryant

[Tesha]

31. I voted. I voted that your poll is bullshit.

My second choice (and if you've read anything I've been
saying here for the last few years, you'll know this is true)
would have been "some Democrats", but a non-bullshit
poll would have qualified that more. I want to see democratic
Democrats elected and DINO/DLC/Republican-lite Democrats
defeated.

Tesha

[redqueen]

32. I was wondering why it was assumed you hadn't voted...

weird.

[mudesi]

33. It's YOUR poll! Why put it in as a choice? (nm)

[TheUniverse]

27. I want to see this country improve and I don't care who does.

And right now, the democrats in congress are not doing enough.