Everyone said the reason the Dems were elected last fall

[Generator]

was to end the war. That was the primary reason they got their jobs. Are their any LEADERS in the Democratic party? Is there anyone that can sit down with the "blue dogs" or Republicans in Democrat's clothing or whomever these people are and let them know this? Lean on them and advise-you got your job on this and you are going to lose it on this?

Why do we have no leaders? Why do we have no unity? Does the Democratic party have ANY core values? In the end, the Democrats are going to own this war if they don't find the way to start ending it now.

[Frogger]

1. it's depressing the

difference between what the Dem leaders say and what they do. Infuriating, even.

I think the problem is a 'broad tent' approach. If you depend on numerous groups with different ideas for support, then you have to give each of them a little something.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Democrats ARE the ones trying to end the war

in case you haven't noticed.

But they don't have absolute power.

[Generator]

3. Yeah I think I missed that!

They are really really trying their best, aren't they? So proud.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. They have the power to stop funding the war. They can fund just enough money to bring the troops

home and refuse to let any more $$$$$$ get to the floor for a vote. They have the power. They just won't use it.

[Generator]

9. Thank you

I keep thinking I've entered another universe. Where Code Pink and Move on are THE PROBLEM instead of the Dems uniting and not backing down and at least giving it EVERYTHING they have.If they failed giving it everything I don't think we would have a problem. But this lack of leadership- WHY can't someone tell me where our leaders are? I never seee answer for that.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. I Believe We Only Need 40 Folks In The Senate To Stop It

Since the funding needs to pass to be enacted, we can filibuster.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Most americans want what the Democrats are trying

timetables linked to funding.

The last poll I saw showed only 18% of Americans support cutting funding.

Convince more Americans that that's the way to do it.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. 49% Favor Funding ONLY With Withdrawal Of Most Troops By Next Spring

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343

Same poll also said that "just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President"

Marvelous.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Yes

and the Dems passed something like that, and it was vetoed. Go fight with Bush. It's his war.

[Zhade]

23. It doesn't even have to come to that - THEY CAN REFUSE TO ALLOW THE VOTE AT ALL.

They do NOT have to bring ANY war funding bills to the floor, despite what some liars here tell you.

[Zhade]

22. They're trying to end the war by bringing funding bills to a vote when they don't have to do so?

What color is the sky in your world?

[John Q. Citizen]

24. The Speaker has total and absolute power to schedule votes. In that area,

she has absolute power.

Read up on it.

[sandnsea]

39. They ignore those reports I guess

"At least 10 Senate Republicans have openly questioned the president's Iraq strategy, even as they remain reluctant to embrace Democratic legislation to change it. Republican war critics said they are detecting a shift -- albeit a slight one -- toward outright dissent..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202542_2.html?hpid=topnews

[Johonny]

47. Nor do they have an absolute majority.

I vote Democratic because I can think and want elected officials that also think for themselves. That means you have a party in which you can't generate a block vote very often, unlike the zombie REthugs. A large part of the Democratic party is trying to end the war and will continue to do so. Unless the Dems can convince the middle road Dems to demand a time table or even better get some republican support, the best congress can do is not put to vote any spending bill for the war. However this doesn't prevent Bush from simply continuing the war unfunded (and blaming the chaos that results on the Dems) or simply moving budget money around to cover war costs at the expense of other programs. End the end the war is Bushes' war and he's made it known it's his war. It's the central focus of his presidency, the only thing the republican candidates have to run on to replace him. There are certainly a few Democrats in the house and senate that are as guilty as the rethugs for this war. But the Democratic party as a whole well never "own" this war in the minds of anyone, but self hating liberals.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Who said that? Besides...

a vocal contingent here and a few bloggers, I know of few who claim that was their primary job when in office. Almost 500 of them were re-elected, apparently to do whatever it was they had been doing in the past.

This is a false call, and one of desparation, to end the war. There were a lot of other issues out there that people voted on, and the new Congress is actually doing quite a bit on them.

As my Congressman, a decent liberal Democrat, said-- "It's just not possible to legislate a quick end to this war."

[Generator]

6. It's repeated constantly over and over on every show on TV

From cable to non cable. It's on the radio. It's the papers. I guess you missed it. It's like appologists central around here. Try googling the four billion comments on it. It's not something I made up.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. It's only ever said

by disgruntled leftists and the far right, as a way to disparage democrats.

[Generator]

13. And what side would you be on?

Disguntled leftists? Who talks like that? I'm pretty sure Howard Dean or a few others-you know you enemy- said things like that-those people that are TOO FAR LEFT for the Democratic party.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. I'm a Democrat

have been for many decades. Never been anything else. Why do you ask?

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Have you read this transcript of a conference call with Congressman Jim moran D-WA

Congress Woman Lynn Woosley (D-CA) and a number of peace activists?

It's long but essential reading (imho) for folks on both sides of this topic.

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516

I'd like to know what you think about it.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. sorry

that IS awfully long. I'm not going to read it all in order to post on a public messageboard.

My point remains that Democrats did NOT run on a platform of cutting funding for the war, nor do any sizeable number of Americans support such an approach.

I think the people who should be targeted by the "peace movement" are the Republicans who started this and continue it, along with the conservative Democrats. Pelosi is a long-standing liberal.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. It is long, but it has important insight for both sides of the debate over

the Dems.

I would hope you would (when you get the chance) read it because you want to be better informed.

I know it changed my views, a little, and I bet it would change yours a little also.

it certainly informed my views.

It made me more appreciative of the difficult position the Speaker is in. It also confirmed what I already thought, that the peace groups aren't just out shooting from the hip but are thoughtfully and seriously attempting to bring about peace.

[Generator]

16. Here's something that even says Democratic pary on it

of course it's from that wacky Howard Dean.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/04/dean_we_will_do.php


We have a new Congress in Washington. The American people have elected us to hold President Bush and the Republicans accountable for the incompetence in Iraq, the mismanagement at Walter Reed, the purging of Justice Department officials for partisan gain. We will do what the American people have asked us to do. We will bring our troops home.


And this from that (Pinko!) press in San Fran BEFORE we had the congress:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/05/MNG8NM6EFF1.DTL

I expect the Democrats to ride the national wave to a 30-plus seat pick-up. It could reach 40 seats," said Thomas Mann, a leading congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution.

"This election is a decisive negative referendum on President Bush and the Republican party, based largely on the war in Iraq, but also including perceptions of incompetence in the administration and corruption and self-serving behavior by Republicans in Congress."

~
It's bad enough when I get revisonist history from Fox news, now I'm getting it from DU.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Nothing in either quote

says that Democrats promised to stop funding. Sorry, but that's just not a popular position, either among the citizens or the congress.

People want timelines and an orderly withdrawal - and the Dems passed that and Bush vetoed it. Instead of fighting Pelosi, fight the republicans and the conservative Dems who refuse to override the veto.

I know it's an alien concept around here to actually blame Republicans for the war, but it's the right thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Your congressman is wrong.

It IS possible. Just refuse funding. You not only don't need a supermajority for that, you don't even need a majority at all.

Isn't there a significant disconnect when 60% of the public want the war to end, and only 20% of their elected representatives want the same thing?

WHO THE FUCK ELECTED THEM???

[mondo joe]

7. Which Dems in office ran on ending the war? Or impeaching *?

There should be ample records. Let me know.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. It's The "We Suck A Little Less, Who Else You Gonna Vote For Sucker!" Strategy

In the next election, the Dem plan to be the folks that did less than the Republicans to keep the war going. The "we suck less" policy always works, because the "Dems" are right - who else are we going to vote for? The Clintons crafted a brilliant strategy, particularly in these times when Republicans are really down.

[datavg]

11. I Think They Own It...

...already. They have owned it for over a year.

What may happen is the following scenario:

The surge starts getting positive media coverage and Bush begins downsizing the deployment in anticipation of the coming election year.

Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrats' nominee for 2008. This means conservative Republicans will crawl over five miles of broken glass to vote against her.

The elections come and go. Hillary fails to carry northern and central Florida and is beaten by Rudy Giuliani because of it.

In my opinion, the ONLY way to win this next time around is for Al Gore to jump in the race. If that doesn't happen, we're going to get another Republican president and we might even lose the House if the evangelicals are successful in driving their people to the polls.

This indifference to the idea of fifty state campaigns and inability to carry southern states is literally killing the party. One thousand people per day move to Florida. I talked to a guy in Austin today and he said they're putting up infrastructure and new schools and malls and office towers so fast the concrete companies can't keep up with the demand.

The Detroit News published an editorial several weeks ago advocating a Federal Right To Work law. I almost fell out of the chair...but their argument that the battle between business and organized labor in the United States is largely over makes sense. There are simply now too many places to run, the northern states' economies are suffering disproportionately because of it and something must be done before places like northern New York state, southern Michigan and northeast Ohio simply collapse.

I live in southern California and day after day I meet people from these economically disaffected regions of the country, most of whom have left because they absolutely could not support themselves back home. The problem has to be solved...and maybe the way to solve it is for the people who are holding those regions back, to simply step aside.

[NavyDavy]

14. since we only had power since Jan 07 i don't see a year there

and the rest is concern troll crap

[blues90]

15. That's what I thought we voted for

If they intend to do something valid then at least they could give us a clue to what it is .

[Generator]

19. Oh wait here's another link

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#2006_election_as_referendum_on_Iraq_War

Polls showed that before the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they control of Congress”.<12> This view of the election as a referendum on the war was endorsed by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi who in the final days of the campaign said, “This election is about Iraq. If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on.”


So even Nancy knows it's all about Iraq. Maybe she could convince some of those that got elected about that. That's what leadership is.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Her, read this transcript of a conference call between Rep Woosley, Rep Moran

Medea Benjamin (Code Pink) Tim Carpenter (Progressive Democrats of America) Leslie Cagan, United For Peace and Justice and many other leaders of the peace movement. It offers a lot of insight into both congress' views as well as the views of leaders of the peace movement. Long but extremely interesting.


http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516

[onenote]

27. "everyone" said the reason Dems were elected was to end the war?

Okay, I'll bite. Show me the links.

The reason Democrats were elected varied from district to district and state to state. Mahoney won in Foley's district not because of the war, but because of Foley. Any number of other Democrats won because of repub corruption issues or dissatisfaction with the response to Katrina. Yes, Democrats opposed the way the war was being conducted. But someone like Webb won not because he advocated an immediate end to funding, but because he didn't advocate that position -- a position that would've been political suicide in Virginia.

Life may be simple when you think that the entire world views things in black and white exactly the way you do. But reality is a bit more complicated.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Well said.

[Generator]

34. I did post some links which you ignore

And of course it's not all black and white-unless you are in Iraq being blown up right now then it's pretty damn simple.

REFERENDUM on the WAR. They are on here. NY times, Washington Post, Howard Dean. Nancy Pelosi.

Of course it varies from district to district. Of course it varies from person to person-no shit sherlock. I'm not an idiot. But OVERALL, the stupid fucked up war base on lies, destroying the military-in Iraq topped the list. Because it's that BAD. Even beyond a Mark Foley or EVEN a Katrina-you know it's a WAR. And it's an unnecessary one, at that.

The bottom line is just like what Tom Paine posted.

They don't honestly care about their voters or their base. Then they play this GAME with lives about funding. If you do nothing in the end, you do nothing.

That's our Democrats-all talk-no action. I want to see every damn one of them but one or two holdouts-there are always those-don't count a Lieberman either VOTE in unison TO DO SOMETHING. Without leadership and unity they are a bunch of loners doing nothing.

My point on this was that I hear over and over they care most about being RE-ELECTED. And if they actually cared what the voters thought, they would do something concrete to end this war. I don't see them being re-elected again by most Democrats or any Republicans. They don't keep their word.

And again-where is the leadership???? No one answers that.

And you know what I don't get about people like you? There's no passion. It's like oh well the Democrats tried and that's good enough for me. You don't really seem to care if the war ends or not! I don't get that. I don't post the perfect post with the perfect links and perfect spelling at first because I'm upset. It hurts. Watch that documentary Alive Day and tell me how you feel.

[onenote]

35. the links that didn't support your assertion? I thought i was doing you a

favor by ignoring them.

Did you bother to read Howard Dean's remarks that you linked to? The one's that talked about the Democrats' plan for a "phased" redeployment of troops?

You are complaining about a lack of leadership because the Democrats are unable to do what they set out to do, and in fact passed legislation to do, because they can't overcome chimpy's veto. How that is a failure of leadership is less than clear. Your alternative, apparently, is for the Democrats to try to force a result that a majority of the electorate doesn't support, as much as you and I might wish they did. And I'm glad that they care about getting re-elected because if they aren't, then we go backwards not forwards. Again, I wish we could get more than we are currently able, but I'm able to distinguish between a Congress that wouldn't have even allowed a vote on a funding bill with timetables and one that passed it only to have it vetoed.

As for my supposed lack of passion -- apparently you've been spying on the wrong person. I have plenty of passion, but it doesn't blind me to reality. My passion leads me to work for and contribute heavily to the election of more Democrats. Yours apparently leads you to watch documentaries.

[Generator]

38. Yes, electing Democrats really helps doesn't it?

They can't overcome Chimpy's veto-they don't even try!!!!!!!!! Or not very hard. They are fucking worthless. And this is why Republicans don't trust them on national security. And as my husband yes said-they are rolling over for the most unpopular president ever-god forbid they had a real threat to challenge. Nor can they even do the barest mininium which Howard Dean suggested.


Yes, watching Documentaries indeed. About limbless veterans. It's not RELEVANT at all. Maybe if you know they had some passion they would do everything they could-but they don't-it's just a game to them. God you are heartless-you have to be-your lack of passion keeps endless war alive. You sound like a politiican!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2600146&page=1

Midterm Election: Referendum on War
In What Comes Down to a Referendum on Iraq, the Center Peels Away ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
Oct. 23, 2006


It's two weeks away, and the 2006 midterm elections look like a referendum on Iraq, a war in which President Bush and his party have lost not just the political center but significant chunks of their base.

An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

[onenote]

43. If you don't think electing more Democrats is a something to support, why are you here?

[bunkerbuster1]

41. I didn't see this when I posed my rant below...

but I've said something similar.

However, it doesn't absolve our elected REPRESENTATIVES for doing as their constituencies actually want them to do. Poll after poll after poll makes it clear that a rock-solid majority of Americans want us to end this military occupation, the sooner the better.

[BlooInBloo]

30. (shrug) And now we're learning that's it's a bit harder to stop a war than we thought.

[Javaman]

36. What? A politician lie to get elected? hard to believe...

hard to believe...

bait and switch apparently.

[mondo joe]

42. Which dems ran on ending the war by cutting funding? If you're going to

accuse people of lying you ought to back it up.

[Javaman]

46. Bwahahahahahahahaha...

back up that politicians lie????

bwahahahaha!!!!

:rofl:

okay okay...

wait...

bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

I can't sorry... :spray: :rofl:

[mondo joe]

48. Which dems ran on ending the war by cutting funding?

Any?

[Javaman]

50. boy are you teaching me a lesson....

:scared:

bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

:rofl:

yeah, I so think they are doing a fine fine job...

:bwahahahahahaha!!!!

:rofl:

stop it, please, you are cracking me up!!!

no more...bwahahahahahahaha!!!

:spray: :rofl:

[mondo joe]

51. Can't name any? Okay. NT

[Javaman]

53. Man, you should do stand up!!! LOLOLOL

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

You assume a lot!!! that's the best part about your act!!!

:spray: :rofl:

Please don't stop, you are killing me!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

37. I didn't say that.

I said investigate.

I said logs in the road of one-party rule.

I said a holding action until '08.

I said a step towards repairing SCOTUS.

Just FYI, in re: "Everyone said."

:)

[bunkerbuster1]

40. Not "everyone." Not hardly.

Sorry to break it to you, but I've heard DOZENS of times from right-wingers that the Dems won because the Republicans didn't stick to their "core values" (whatever that is--frying babies on a stick?)

When asked for specifics, I've heard RWers say it was stuff like Medicaid Plan B and other less-specific "spending" (without ever, EVER going into the Iraq sinkhole). I've heard them say that it was also mostly due to the sex scandals.

This is all a crock, of course, but keep in mind that the Blue Dogs aren't that far removed from the stupid Gooper mindset, and probably believe a lot of this crap.

Just wanted to point that out. Otherwise, I share your bewilderment over our "Democrats" who don't want to do as the public very clearly wants them to do. It's infuriating.

[LeftCoast]

44. Well, nobody but me speaks for my vote

And while ending the war was one reason I cast my vote for Democrats up and down the ballot, it was by no means the only reason.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. No, everyone did not say that

There was a lot of talk about 'changing the direction' of the war as well as ending it. And of course there was the 'culture of corruption' in Congress.

[Generator]

49. God you people are pedantic

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&resnum=0&q=election+referendum+on+Iraq+war&as_ldate=2006&as_hdate=2006&um=1&ie=UTF-8&scoring=t&sa=X&oi=archive&ct=title

Here's a few thousand links. (I'm not kidding on that) Many have our vaulted leaders speaking in them on just this thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/2006-11-08-cover-usat_x.htm

GOP coalition fractured by opposition to war

In the end, views on the Iraq war correlated most closely with how people voted; 36% called the issue "extremely important." Eight in 10 of those who opposed the war voted for Democrats; eight in 10 of those who supported the war voted for Republicans.


"There's no doubt that Iraq is a big piece of why people want change," says Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The economy is also there. How Congress works is there. But Iraq is your first piece of evidence in the case you make for change."

Be still my heart, Rahm!




I should have worded it differently I know. Conventional wisdom, most pundits on every cable channel and every newspaper in America, then? Whatever. Everyone is changing the subject.

How are they going to get re-elected if they don't do something when they said they would? That's what I want to know.

Also, where is the leadership? I know they tried once-well they better keep on trying-voters actually care.

[mondo joe]

52. WTF is a "vaulted leader"?

And you're still confusing getting our troops out of Iraq with ending funding immediately.